Operational efficiency 3.5 4.1 3.6 0.686 0.804 0.706

Port costs 3.5 1.8 3.1 0.592 0.304 0.524

Service quality 2.7 4.2 3.6 0.376 0.584 0.501

Overall competitiveness 3.50(1) 3.325(3) 3.350(2) 3.785 (1) 3.279 (2) 3.218(3)

Source: Author

Note: *: The mean value of each dimension;

**: The average absolute value of each dimension reflecting the relative importance; and ( ) = ranking.

5. Implications and Conclusions

This paper proposed a structure of port competitiveness and evaluated hub ports seeking to achieve regional gateway status in NEA. Findings have both conceptual and substantive implications, because the critical factors identified differ from other studies (i.e. Tongzon, 2009; Yeo et al., 2008) and offer new knowledge about port competitiveness in a multipolar port system.

5. 1. Implications

Conceptually, the four factor model advances understanding of the structure of port competitiveness relating to competition between hub ports. Although the determinants of port competitiveness are familiar (Imai et al., 2013; Tongzon, 2009; Yeo et al., 2008), the four factor model invites future testing in the context of competition between hub ports striving for regional gateway status, and differences in the relative importance of factors which influence port competitiveness and improvement strategies. For example, physical and functional aspects of port availability explained more model variance than operational aspects such as operational efficiency, port costs and service quality, implying that enhancement of a port’s competitive position as a regional gateway depends most importantly on port availability. A focus on ports which are strong contenders for achieving regional gateway status in NEA enhances the external validity of findings, and could assist understanding of ports competing for regional gateway status in sophisticated hub-and-spoke networks worldwide. Moreover, because the determinants presented were assessed by various practitioners, empirical findings that port competitiveness for example depends on factors including hard, soft and supportive factors (Table 1) spanning port availability, operational efficiency, port costs, and service quality will assist future studies. As the first study of hub ports competing for regional gateway status in a multipolar port system, this work will also guide strategic management in relevant contexts.

New knowledge is offered for port operators seeking to develop strategies to achieve regional gateway status (i.e. Tongzon, 2009; Yeo et al., 2008). Findings that physical and functional aspects of port availability significantly determine port competitiveness as a regional gateway imply future strategic development of the port area into a multifunctional business centre, by securing appropriate physical capacities to accommodate increased ship sizes. Ports need to secure and improve appropriate physical capacities to be a central point for regional trade; intermediacy and connectivity to the import and export areas, market, and host city; persification of infrastructure in and around the port area; and centricity based on local cargo volumes and an attractive business environment in and around a port which improves a port’s functional availability to invite shipping lines and industry. By not restricting port activities to cargo handling or related services, ports can maintain stable and flexible functions. Services and facilities to improve a port’s availability as a central position for industries related to international trade might include a convention centre, financial complex or arbitration centre (Notteboom and Rodrigue, 2008). Superior functional availability as a central point of international shipping and trade can enhance port competitiveness, particularly where intra-regional trade is high. To improve port competitiveness as a regional gateway, strategies for future port development must supplement roles as a comprehensive logistics hub with plans to offer an attractive business environment for shipping lines and related industries.