See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265647028

The impact of port operations on efficient ship operation from both economic
and environmental perspectives

Article  in  Maritime Policy & Management · July 2014

DOI: 10.1080/03088839.2014.931607

CITATIONS READS

24 1,614

2 authors, including:

Daniel Moon
World Maritime University
12 PUBLICATIONS   90 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel Moon on 22 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Professor Daniel Seong Hyeok MOON]
On: 13 January 2015, At: 18:52
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Maritime Policy & Management: The

flagship journal of international
shipping and port research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmpm20

The impact of port operations

on efficient ship operation from
both economic and environmental
perspectives
a b
Daniel Seong-Hyeok Moon & Jong Kyun Woo
a
Shipping and Port Management, World Maritime University,
Malmo 20124, Sweden
Click for updates b
Department of International Logistics, Division of Port Logistics
System, Tong Myong University, Busan 608-711, Korea
Published online: 01 Aug 2014.

To cite this article: Daniel Seong-Hyeok Moon & Jong Kyun Woo (2014) The impact of port
operations on efficient ship operation from both economic and environmental perspectives,
Maritime Policy & Management: The flagship journal of international shipping and port research,
41:5, 444-461, DOI: 10.1080/03088839.2014.931607

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2014.931607

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
 systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Professor Daniel Seong Hyeok MOON] at 18:52 13 January 2015
 Maritime Policy & Management, 2014
Vol. 41, No. 5, 444–461, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2014.931607

The impact of port operations on efficient ship

operation from both economic and environmental
perspectives

DANIEL SEONG-HYEOK MOON†* and JONG KYUN WOO‡

†
Shipping and Port Management, World Maritime University, Malmo 20124,
Sweden
‡
Downloaded by [Professor Daniel Seong Hyeok MOON] at 18:52 13 January 2015

Department of International Logistics, Division of Port Logistics System,

Tong Myong University, Busan 608-711, Korea

Recently, shipping lines have focused on efficient ship operation, which relates to
energy efficiency issues in shipping and, particularly, to operational issues such that the
minimisation of fuel consumption and resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Efficient
ship operation in container lines is closely related to the ship’s time at sea and ship’s
time in port. Reduction in port time, thanks to high-quality port operations, allows
improvement in the operational efficiency of a liner service by reducing the fuel
consumption of a ship at sea and its resulting CO2 emissions. The main goal of this
article is to investigate how time in port affects efficient ship operation in terms of
operating costs, CO2 emissions and externalities. For this, as a methodology, a
simulation based upon system dynamics is introduced. Major finding is that less
time in port resulting from the improvement of port operations contributes to efficient
ship operation in terms of operating costs, amount of CO2 emissions and external
effects in the liner shipping industry. In particular, a sensitivity analysis on efficient
ship operation vis-à-vis the quality of port operation shows that bigger ships need to
select highly productive calling ports that provide less time in port.

1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Shipping lines have always pursued high efficiency in ship operation to strengthen their
competitiveness and maximise profits in competitive markets. To achieve this goal, during
the last couple of decades, shipping lines have focused on the improvement of operational
productivity to maximise transport capability with minimising input assets using various
operational strategies such as route optimisation, improvement of transport networks and
enlargement of ship size. This is because liner shipping is capital-intensive and sensitive
to changes in economic and market conditions. These strategies have enabled shipping
lines to not only minimise operating costs with less financial risks but also raise the
quality of service. Moreover, they led to the improvement of liner service as a more
competitive transport mode, i.e., a faster, systematic and economic transport mode, and
this has contributed to growth in international trade and the liner shipping industry
(OECD 2008).
However, in recent times, a strategic goal in terms of efficiency of ship operation has
been changed in liner shipping. Under the intensive pressure of high fuel prices and low
freight rates, shipping lines are focusing on more efficient ship operation to minimise
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: dm@wmu.se

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

 The impact of port operations on efficient ship operation 445

operating costs rather than improving operational productivity to survive in uncertain

markets. Moreover, better energy efficiency and effective emission control have been
emphasised as essential operational strategies in the shipping industry. This is because,
even though liner shipping is the most energy efficient transport mode in world trade, it is
one of the major contributors to a group of pollutants together with CO2 emissions. For
this reason, International Maritime Organization set a goal to reduce the amount of CO2
emissions by a maximum of 75% on existing and new ships through technical and
operational measures by 2050 (IMO 2009, 2010).
With the strategic goal of improving cost and energy efficiency, shipping lines adopted
slow steaming as their main operational strategy on major routes. In the case of the
Asia–Europe route, around 93% of liner services have already taken slow steaming, and
Downloaded by [Professor Daniel Seong Hyeok MOON] at 18:52 13 January 2015

average voyage speed was reduced to 15–18 knots in 2012 (Alphaliner 2011; Drewry 2012).
This is because, even if slow steaming has influence on productivity and service quality
negatively (Woo and Moon 2012), it is effective at reducing operating costs and the amount
of CO2 emissions on a loop at the same time (IMO 2009; Notteboom and Vernimmen 2008;
Cariou 2010; Ronen 2011; Cariou and Cheaitou 2012; Woo and Moon 2014). According to
Maersk Line, when voyage speed is reduced by 20%, fuel consumption and CO2 emissions
can be reduced by more than 40% and 20%, respectively.
Another significant factor that influences directly the efficiency of ship operation, with
particular emphasis on operating costs and amount of CO2 emissions is the ship’s time in
port. Under a fixed and tightly organised service schedule, changes to the ship’s time in
port lead to changes in the ship’s time at sea, affecting directly on voyage speed. For
example, if the ship is delayed in port, the shipping line is forced to make up for the lost
time by increasing speed at sea. However, increasing the time at sea through a reduction in
port time facilitates the shipping line to decelerate the ship’s voyage speed to below its
planned voyage speed. This has influence again on not only fuel consumption and the
operating costs but also the amount of CO2 emissions with external cost. In this sense,
from both economic and environmental perspectives, it is necessary to investigate the
impacts of port operation on the efficiency of ship operation in liner shipping.

1.2. Aim of study

A ship’s time in a calling port can be defined as the time duration between the ship’s arrival
at the buoy and the ship’s departure from the same buoy. It consists of waiting time,
manoeuvring time, berthing time, productive time and idle time, and changes to any factor
lead to a change in port time as shown in Figure 1. Among these, special emphasis must be
placed on ‘waiting time’ and ‘berthing time’, which are crucial criteria influencing port time
(Moon 2003). There are two practicable ways to cut down the ship’s time in port. One
possibility to consider is to ensure just-in-time arrival and departure, which can reduce
waiting time in port. This will definitely help shipping lines to get maximum notice of berth
availability and also to provide a planned service on time while maintaining the designed
voyage speed at sea. Reduction of gross berth time by improved cargo handling could be
another way to reduce the ship’s time in port. On the contrary, a delay or time loss in port can
be occurred due to varied causes such as lower terminal productivity than expected, bottle-
necks in access channels, transient or structural port congestion and unexpected accidents
such as a breakdown of terminal facilities or equipment, strikes and natural disasters
(Maloni and Jackson 2005; Notteboom 2006; Lun, Lai, and Edwin Cheng 2010).
 446 D. S.-H. Moon and J. K. Woo
Downloaded by [Professor Daniel Seong Hyeok MOON] at 18:52 13 January 2015

Figure 1. Breakdown of ship’s time in port.

Source: Reproduced by authors based on UNCTAD material.

Hence, the ship’s time in port is variable because it can be affected easily by various
factors in the process of port activities. For this reason, numerous studies define the ship’s
time in port as one of the key indicators to measure the efficiency of port operations,
especially in the port choice model (Branch 1986; Talley 1994; Preston and Kozan 2001;
Vis and de Koster 2003; Turner, Windle, and Dresner 2004; Wilson, Bisson, and Kobia
1986). Regarding this issue, Foster (1978) and Tongzon and Ganesalingam (1994) chose the
ship’s waiting time in ports as one of the basic factors to analyse the competitiveness of ports
themselves. Tongzon (1995) and Notteboom (2006) explained that a ship’s delay in port due
to inefficient port operations is one of major reasons for increased operating costs.
Moreover, Stopford (2009) defined the ship’s time in port as an unproductive day for the
ship, and he claimed it had a direct influence on the efficiency of ship operation together
with the ship’s time at sea and voyage speed. Therefore, a reduction in unproductive days
allows more time at sea, and it is helpful to improve the efficiency of ship operation.
Moreover, many scholars have selected port productivity as the main indicator that
reflects port efficiency to evaluate the relative competitiveness of ports (Sachish 1996;
Rapert and Wren 1998; Murphy, Daley, and Dalenberg 1992; Branch 1986; Chang 1978).
Inversely, improvement in the efficiency of port operations can increase the satisfaction of
customers, and it influences the increase in calls of liner service and port throughputs
including transhipment cargoes (Lun, Lai, and Edwin Cheng 2010; Tongzon 1995; Woo
2004). According to the research of Clark, Dollar, and Micco (2004), improvements in
port efficiency in North American container ports led to a reduction in shipping cost, and
Kontovas and Psaraftis (2011) argued that improvements in port efficiency influenced the
reduction of CO2 emissions positively. On the other hand, UNCTAD (1992) focused on
the reliability of port service and emphasised the importance of ‘on-time delivery’ in port.
This is because just-in-time arrival and departure not only provides a stable on-time
service but also minimises the risks during a voyage.
Few studies, however, have been done to identify the relationship between the ship’s
time in port and the efficiency of ship operation at sea from both economic and
 The impact of port operations on efficient ship operation 447

environmental perspectives. The main goal of this study is to investigate the operational
issues concerning how the ship’s time in port affects efficient ship operation in terms of
operating costs and the amount of CO2 emissions. For this purpose, as a methodology, a
simulation technique based on system dynamics (SD) is introduced to analyse the relation-
ship between the ship’s time in port and operating costs and the level of environmental
performance. Furthermore, a sensitive analysis was conducted to simulate the changes of
results by the changes of ship size and bunker fuel prices. This study is composed of six
sections. In Section 2, the concepts and definitions of the impact of port operation on the
efficiency of ship operation are discussed, and a simulation model is proposed in Section
3. Sections 4 and 5 present the main results of the simulation and sensitive analysis, and
the Section 6 summarises and concludes the article.
Downloaded by [Professor Daniel Seong Hyeok MOON] at 18:52 13 January 2015

2. Definition of the impact of port operations on efficient ship operation

2.1. The impact of port time on efficient ship operation
The ship’s time in port has a direct influence on the annual operating cost and the energy
efficiency of liner shipping as shown in Figure 2. Firstly, changes in the ship’s time in port
lead to changes in port cost and fuel consumption in port and affect annual operating cost
and energy efficiency. At the same time, the ship’s time at sea and voyage speed is also
mediated by changes in the ship’s time in port. The changed voyage speed influences
directly on fuel consumption at sea and the amount of CO2 emissions, and these have
impacts not only on annual operating cost but also on energy efficiency. Therefore, the
annual operating cost and the amount of CO2 emissions are changed dynamically by
changes in port time.

2.2. Definition of ship’s time at sea and in port

Total voyage time on a loop (T) is defined as the sum of the ship’s time at sea (VTsea) and
the ship’s time in ports (VTport), and it depends on annual target frequency as shown in
Equation (1) that excludes repair and maintenance times. Ship’s time in ports (VTport) is
the sum of the ship’s port time in all calling ports, and it can be derived by multiplying the
average port time in calling ports (ATport) by number of calling ports (NCport) as shown in
Equation (2). Ship’s time at sea (VTsea) is the sum of voyage time at sea between each
calling port on a loop, and, when total voyage time on a route (T) is fixed, it can be

Figure 2. The impacts of port time on operating costs and energy efficiency.
 448 D. S.-H. Moon and J. K. Woo

derived by total voyage time (T) minus ship’s time in port (VTport) as shown in Equation
(2). Moreover, when total voyage time (T) and voyage distance on a loop (Vdis) are fixed,
voyage speed (V) is affected directly by the changes of voyage time at sea (VTsea) and it
can be calculated by Equation (3). Hence, the changes of ship’s time in port (VTport) have
influence on ship’s time at sea (VTsea) and voyage speed (V) at the same time.

T ¼ VTsea þ VTport ¼ 365=ATF (1)

VTsea ¼ T  VTport ¼ T  ATport  NCport (2)
Downloaded by [Professor Daniel Seong Hyeok MOON] at 18:52 13 January 2015

V ¼ Vdis =ðVTsea  24Þ (3)

where
T: total voyage time per voyage (days)
VTsea: the ship’s time at sea (days)
VTport: the ship’s time in port (days)
ATF: annual target frequency (number of loops/year)
ATport: the average port time (days)
NCport: the number of calling ports (number)
Vdis: the voyage distance (nautical miles)
V: the voyage speed (knots)

2.3. Relationship between port time and fuel consumption

The changes of ship’s time in port (VTport) have influence on the fuel consumption at sea
(AFCsea) and in port (AFCport) when ship size, engine type and service schedule are fixed.
Annual fuel consumption at sea (AFCsea) is influenced directly by the changes of voyage
speed (V1 and V2) and ship’s time at sea as shown in Equation (4). Moreover, annual fuel
consumption in port (AFCport) is directly proportional to the ship’s time in port (VTport) as
shown in Equation (5). On the other hand, annual fuel cost (RFUCV) can be defined by
multiplying annual fuel consumption on a loop (AFC) by the fuel price per ton (FUp), and
it can be expressed by Equation (7). In this equation, annual fuel consumption on a loop
(AFC) is the sum of annual fuel consumption at sea (AFCsea) and in port (AFCport) as
shown in Equation (6).

  
AFCsea ¼ SFOCv  EP  ðV2 =V1 Þ3  24 103  VTsea  Nov  Nv (4)

AFCport ¼ SFOCaux  AUEP  VTport  Nov  Nv (5)

AFC ¼ AFCsea þ AFCport (6)

RFUCV ¼ AFC  FUp (7)

 The impact of port operations on efficient ship operation 449

where
AFC: annual fuel consumption on a loop (US$)
AFCsea: annual fuel consumption at sea (US$)
AFCport: annual fuel consumption in port (US$)
SFOCv: the specific fuel consumption at specific voyage speed V (g/kW h)
EP: the main engine power (kW)
V1: the designed voyage speed on a loop (knots)
V2: the changed voyage speed on a loop (knots)
Nov: the turnover ratio at specific voyage speed (numbers)
Nv: the number of vessel on a loop (numbers)
SFOCaux: the specific fuel consumption of auxiliary engine (g/kW h)
Downloaded by [Professor Daniel Seong Hyeok MOON] at 18:52 13 January 2015

AUEP: the auxiliary engine power (kW)

FUp: the bunker fuel prices per ton (US$)
RFUCv: annual bunker fuel cost (US$)

2.4. Relationship between voyage speed and CO2 emissions with external cost
Annual amount of CO2 emissions on a loop (AGHG) is the sum of the annual amount of
CO2 emissions that occurred at sea (AGHGsea) and in port (AGHGport) as shown in
Equation (8). In Equations (9) and (10), the annual amount of CO2 emissions at sea
(AGHGsea) and in port (AGHGport) are defined. Changes in annual amount of CO2
emissions (AGHG) lead to changes in external costs (REXv) on a loop. The annual
external cost on a loop (REXV) can be calculated by multiplying the annual amount of
CO2 emissions on a loop (AGHG) by the value of CO2 emissions per ton (VALGHG) as
shown in Equation (11).

AGHG ¼ AGHGsea þ AGHGport (8)

AGHGsea ¼ EFa  SFOCv  EP  ðV2 =V1 Þ3  24=103  VTsea  Nov  Nv (9)

AGHGport ¼ EFa  SFOCv  AUEP  24=103  VTport  Nov  Nv (10)


REXV ¼ ðAGHG  VALGHG Þ 103 (11)

where
AGHG: annual amount of CO2 emissions on a loop (ton)
AGHGsea: annual amount of CO2 emissions that occurred at sea (ton)
AGHGport: annual amount of CO2 emissions that occurred in port (ton)
EFa: the emission factor of CO2 (Kg emitted/tons of fuel)
REXV: the external cost on a loop (US$)
VALGHG: the value of CO2 emissions per ton (US$)

2.5. Annual operating cost

In this article, the annual operating cost is composed of five main costs, which are
capital cost, fixed costs, port cost, fuel cost and external cost. Changes in the ship’s time
 450 D. S.-H. Moon and J. K. Woo

in port have a direct influence on the port cost, fuel cost and external cost as shown in
Figure 2. Port cost consists of handling cost and dockage costs that are directly affected
by changes in the ship’s time in port. Moreover, bunker fuel cost and external cost are
sensitive to changes in voyage speed, which is dependent on the changes in the ship’s
time in port.

3. Simulation model
3.1. Assumptions and data
To achieve the aim of this article, a simulation model (Dynamic Liner Service Evaluation
Model (DLSEM) was developed based on the defined Equations (1)–(11) using a SD
Downloaded by [Professor Daniel Seong Hyeok MOON] at 18:52 13 January 2015

simulation modelling technique as shown in Figure 3. The main objective of this model is
to simulate the impact of changes in the ship’s time in port on efficiency of ship operation
by focusing on operating costs, amount of CO2 emissions and external costs. DLSEM
utilises the ship’s time in port as input data and simulates the changes of operating costs,
amount of CO2 emissions and external costs as output. A target service loop is designed
by taking into account Maersk’s Asia–North Europe (AE6) as shown in Table 1, and some
assumptions were made as follows:
● Liner service is provided based on a weekly service pattern.
● A ship calls at 10 ports and the average port time is 54.4 hours (berth productivity is
240 TEUs/hour and in-out time is 2 hours in each calling port).
● The basic service loop is organised by nine vessels of 8000 TEU class and voyage
distance on a loop is 21 897 miles.
● Annual target service frequency, i.e., turnover ratio, is higher than 5.8 times and
average voyage speed cannot be faster than designed voyage speed (25 knots).
● A designed voyage speed is decided at 22.7 knots based on Equations (1)–(3).

Figure 3. Dynamic Liner Service Evaluation Model (DLSEM).

 The impact of port operations on efficient ship operation 451

Table 1. Summary of basic service.

Voyage distance Mile 21 897

Average vessel size TEU 8000
Number of employed vessel No. 9.0
Voyage speed Knots 22.7
Number of calling ports No. 10
Frequency No. 5.8
Average port time Hours 54.40
Total voyage time Days 62.93
Voyage time at sea Days 40.26
Voyage time in port Days 22.67
Design transport capacity TEU 416 000
Annual transport demand TEU 353 600
Downloaded by [Professor Daniel Seong Hyeok MOON] at 18:52 13 January 2015

Moreover, to simulate the operating costs and amount of CO2 emissions, actual market
data that were published by major shipping lines and consulting companies are used. They
are explained in the following:
● The fixed costs and specifications of containerships that are considered are shown in
Tables 2 and 3 (Samsung Heavy Industry 2011; MAN Diesel & TURBO 2012).
● Port costs and canal transit charges are estimated using actual tariffs of calling ports
on this route: dockage cost = 200US$/m/hour and handling cost = 50US$/TEU
(Drewry 2012).
● The bunker fuel price is 650 US$/ton.
● The CO2 emission factor is 3130 kg/tons (IMO 2009).
● The imperfect combustion of bunker fuel and ship resistance in navigation is not
considered.

3.2. Scenario
Scenarios were established to investigate the potential impact of changes in port time on
operating costs and amount of CO2 emissions on a loop as shown in Table 4. In this
scenario, the ship’s time in port is changed within the range between 38.1 hours (−30% in

Table 2. Specification of container ships.

Type of containership 6000 8000 10 000 12 000 14 000

LOA m 304 323 364 393 408

LBP m 292 308 350 380 394
Breadth m 40 43 47 52 57
Depth m 24 25 30 32 33
Design deadweight ton 61 700 82 200 114 900 140 600 165 800
Designed voyage speed knots 25 25 25 25 25
Main engine size kW 57 100 68 500 74 000 82 100 89 700
Auxiliary engine size kW 12 900 12 000 12 000 14 000 16 000
At sea g/kW h 246 286 307 342 375
SFOC In port g/kW h 26 24 24 28 32

Source: MAN Diesel & TURBO (2012), Propulsion Trends in Container Vessels. MAN Diesel & Turbo.
Copenhagen, Denmark.
 452 D. S.-H. Moon and J. K. Woo

Table 3. Fixed costs in different types of container ships* (unit: million US$).

Type of containership 6000 8000 10 000 12 000 14 000

Annual ship running cost 9.61 10.80 11.99 13.17 14.36

Administration fee and container costs 3.28 3.68 4.09 4.49 4.89
Maintaining costs 3.93 4.42 4.90 5.39 5.87
Employ cost 2.62 2.95 3.27 3.59 3.92
Insurance cost 2.40 2.70 3.00 3.29 3.59
Sum 21.85 24.55 27.24 29.94 32.63
Daily cost 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.09

Note: *Fixed costs include the capital costs.

Source: Samsung Heavy Industry (2011), The Comparison of the Operating Costs at Different Types of
Downloaded by [Professor Daniel Seong Hyeok MOON] at 18:52 13 January 2015

Container Vessel, Sam-Sung Heavy Industry.

Table 4. Scenario for simulation.

Changed rate of −30% −25% −20% −15% −10% −5% 0 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
port time (%)
Average port 38.1 40.8 43.5 46.2 49 51.7 54.4 57.1 59.8 62.6 65.3 68 70.7
time (hours)

comparison with the designed port time) and 70.7 hours (+30%) based on the average port
time (54.4 hours). The changes in port time lead to changes in the ship’s time at sea; thus,
the shipping line has to control voyage speed to keep the berth window at the next port
calling and the announced service schedule (weekly service pattern). Moreover, the
changes in voyage speed have a direct influence on fuel consumption, fuel cost and
amount of CO2 emissions.

4. Result of simulation
4.1. Relationship between port time and fuel consumption
According to the result of the simulation, there is a trade-off between the ship’s time in
port and its time at sea as shown in Figure 4. When the ship’s time in port is reduced by
the improvement of port efficiency, the shipping line can secure longer ship time at sea
than designed. In other words, with the fixed service schedule, shipping lines can reduce
their voyage speed on a loop when port time is reduced. The impact of the changes in port
time on annual fuel consumption on a loop is shown in Figure 5, indicating that the ship’s
time in port is closely related to annual fuel consumption. According to the result, when
the ship’s time in port is reduced by 30%, annual fuel consumption can also be reduced by
36.8% (from 0.82 million tons to 0.61 million tons) by the deceleration of voyage speed,
whereas when it is increased by 30%, annual fuel consumption is also increased by 30.7%
(from 0.82 million tons to 1.18 million tons) by the acceleration of voyage speed.
Also, annual fuel cost on a loop changes in proportion to changes in annual fuel
consumption. When the ship’s time in port is reduced by 30%, annual fuel cost can be
reduced by 36.8% from the designed annual fuel cost (from 530.26 million US$ to 387.5
million US$). In the opposite situation, annual fuel cost increases until 765 million US$.
 The impact of port operations on efficient ship operation 453
Downloaded by [Professor Daniel Seong Hyeok MOON] at 18:52 13 January 2015

Figure 4. Relationship between voyage time in port and at sea.

Figure 5. The changes of annual fuel consumption on a loop.

4.2. Relationship between port time and amount of CO2 emissions

The amount of CO2 emissions and external cost on a loop is also greatly sensitive to
changes in a ship’s time in port as shown in Figure 6. As the ship’s time in port
decreases, annual amount of CO2 emissions can be reduced through the deceleration
of voyage speed at sea. When the ship’s time in port is reduced by 30%, annual amount
of CO2 emissions decreases by 36.8% (from 2.55 to 1.87 million tons). On the contrary,
when the ship’s time in port is increased by 30%, annual amount of CO2 emissions is
increased by 30.7% (from 2.55 million tons to 3.68 million tons). Thus, it can be defined
that the amount of greenhouse gas emissions on a loop is strongly related to the
efficiency of port operation.
 454 D. S.-H. Moon and J. K. Woo
Downloaded by [Professor Daniel Seong Hyeok MOON] at 18:52 13 January 2015

Figure 6. The changes of the amount of CO2 emissions on a loop.

4.3. Relationship between port time and port cost

Port cost on a loop is highly related to the ship’s time in port. When the ship’s time in port is
reduced by 30%, the annual port cost reduces by 28% (from 250.7 to 195.9 million US$),
whereas in the opposite situation, it increases by 17.9% (from 250.7 to 305.6 million US$) as
shown in Figure 7. Therefore, it can be said that there is a positive correlation between the ship’s
time in port and port costs. However, in the case of capital costs and fixed costs, with the fixed
schedule and organisation, these were not influenced by changes in the ship’s time in port.

4.4. Relationship between port time and annual operating cost

Figure 8 shows that changes in annual operating costs can be derived from previous
results. When the ship’s time in port is reduced by 30%, annual operating cost can be

Figure 7. The changes of annual port cost on a loop.

 The impact of port operations on efficient ship operation 455
Downloaded by [Professor Daniel Seong Hyeok MOON] at 18:52 13 January 2015

Figure 8. The changes of annual operating cost on a loop.

reduced by 20.8% (from 1229.6 to 1018.1 million US$). However, when ships are
delayed in calling ports by 30%, annual operating cost increases by 20.2% (to 1541.4
million US$). In this sense, there is a strong correlation between the efficiency of port
operation and efficient ship operation focusing on CO2 emissions and operating costs.

4.5. Cost efficiency and energy efficiency

Cost efficiency and energy efficiency are used to verify the relationship between the ship’s
time in port and the efficiency of ship operation. Both are useful for reflecting the
efficiency of ship operation and current strategic goal of shipping lines. Cost efficiency,
in this study, is defined as the ratio of annual operating cost to TEU-mile, and energy
efficiency is defined as the ratio of the amount of CO2 emissions to TEU-mile. According
to a previous result, both are closely related to the efficiency of port operation. As shown
in Figure 9, as the ship’s time in port reduces, cost efficiency and energy efficiency decline
in comparison with the designed efficiency. This means that the efficiency of port
operation has a strong influence on the efficiency of ship operation.

Figure 9. Cost efficiency and energy efficiency.

 456 D. S.-H. Moon and J. K. Woo
Downloaded by [Professor Daniel Seong Hyeok MOON] at 18:52 13 January 2015

Figure 10. The changes of the annual operating cost in each type of ship.

5. Sensitivity analysis
5.1. The impact of increase in ship size
An analysis was conducted to investigate how much previous results (i.e., the impact of
the changes in the ship’s time in port on the annual operating cost and amount of CO2
emissions) changes by variations in ship size within the range 8000 and 14 000 TEU. Ship
size is one of the main factors affecting both ship operation and port operation at the same
time. Shipping lines have been increasing ship size competitively to enjoy economies of
scale. In the case of Asia–North Europe route, an average vessel size was around 8300
TEU in 2012, and it is expected that it will be over 10 000 TEU in 2014 (Alphaliner
2011). Hence, from the viewpoint of shipping lines, it is needed to examine the relation-
ship between the enlargement of ship size and ship’s time in port.
According to the result of this analysis, an increase in ship size on a loop influences
directly the impact of the changes in port time on annual operating cost and amount of
CO2 emissions. Regarding annual operating cost, the bigger the employed vessel size on a
loop is, the higher the annual operating cost is. As shown in Figure 10, as the vessel size
on a loop increases, the operating cost curve shifts upwards. However, the change rate of
annual operating cost is different in each case. As shown in the right-side diagram in
Figure 10, as the employed vessel size on a loop increases, the operating cost becomes
more sensitive to changes in port time. According to the result of a simple regression
analysis in each ship size (dependent variable is annual operating cost and independent
variable is port time in each condition), as ship size increases, the slope of regressions
function is increased as shown in Table 5. Therefore, when port time is reduced, as the
employed vessel size increases, the more the annual operating cost can be reduced.

Table 5. Result of a regression analysis (port time and annual operating cost)*.

Type of ships Slope Intercept R2 P-value (slope) P-value (intercept)

8000 TEU 14.73011 389.98787 0.98878 1.2295E-08 4.45808E-12

10 000 TEU 16.91541 416.91485 0.98856 2.88284E-08 4.95686E-12
12 000 TEU 20.29707 449.05243 0.98787 1.19864E-07 6.83624E-12
14 000 TEU 23.63585 480.78252 0.98717 3.76735E-07 9.30184E-12

Note: *Dependent variable: annual operating cost in each type of ship/independent variable: port time in each
condition.
 The impact of port operations on efficient ship operation 457
Downloaded by [Professor Daniel Seong Hyeok MOON] at 18:52 13 January 2015

Figure 11. The changes of the amount of CO2 emissions in each type of ship.

However, in the opposite situation, shipping lines can suffer more losses. In this sense, it
can be mentioned that the larger the employed ship size on a loop is, the higher the
operating cost against changes in port time is based on the result of sensitivity analysis.
In case of a sensitivity analysis in terms of the amount of CO2 emissions, similar
results to the above analysis are derived. From the viewpoint of an absolute quantity,
when transport volume and service schedule are fixed, increase of ship size on a loop is
not helpful to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions. As shown in the left-side diagram in
Figure 11, the bigger the employed vessel size on a loop is, the more the amount of CO2
emissions is. However, as shown in the right-side diagram in Figure 11, as the employed
vessel size on a loop increases, the sensitivity of the amount of CO2 emissions against the
changes of port time increases too. Also, according to the result of regression analysis, as
ship size increases, the slope of regressions function is increased as shown in Table 6.
Therefore, the shorter the ship’s time in port is and the larger the employed ship size is,
the smaller the amount of CO2 emissions is. However, if the ship’s time in port is
increased, the increase of ship size becomes the cause of the increase of the amount of
CO2 emissions.

5.2. The impact of changes in bunker fuel price

Currently, bunker fuel price is one of the hot issues in the liner shipping industry. High
fuel prices have become a heavy burden on shipping lines. The average bunker fuel price
(IFO 380) was around 100 US$/ton in January 2002. However, it exceeded 650 US$/ton
in 2012. The proportion of fuel cost in total operating costs was around 13% in the 1970s
(Stopford 2009) but it reached around 75% in 2011 (Alphaliner 2011). Therefore, today,

Table 6. Result of a regression analysis (port time and annual amount of CO2 emissions)*.

Type of ships Slope Intercept R2 P-value (slope) P-value (intercept)

8000 TEU 0.05475 −0.34023 0.98132 0.02070 7.37648E-11

10 000 TEU 0.06323 −0.59453 0.98117 0.00186 7.71051E-11
12 000 TEU 0.07804 −0.84762 0.98111 0.00066 7.8317E-11
14 000 TEU 0.09338 −1.16417 0.98107 0.00022 7.92705E-11

Note: *Dependent variable: annual amount of CO2 emissions in each type of ship/independent variable: port time
in each condition.
 458 D. S.-H. Moon and J. K. Woo
Downloaded by [Professor Daniel Seong Hyeok MOON] at 18:52 13 January 2015

Figure 12. The changes of annual operating cost in each fuel price.

shipping lines are focusing on the reduction of fuel consumption using various strategies
including slow steaming. However, as discussed earlier, the ship’s time in port is also one
of the main factors that can influence sharply fuel consumption. For this reason, a
sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the impact of the changes in port time on
annual operating costs, when the bunker fuel price is changed within the range 450 and
850 US$/ton.
According to the results of the analysis, bunker fuel price has a decisive effect on the
impact of changes in port time on annual operating cost. As shown in Figure 12, bunker
fuel price leads directly to changes in annual operating cost on a loop. Moreover, as
shown in the right-side diagram in Figure 12, as the bunker fuel price increases, the
impact of changes in port time on annual operating cost becomes sensitive. This can also
be substantiated by the regression analysis. As shown in Table 7, the more bunker fuel
price is increased, the steeper the slope of the regression function. This means that when
the ship’s time in port is reduced, the higher the bunker fuel price the more annual
operating cost can be reduced. However, if the ship’s time in port is increased, as bunker
fuel price increases, shipping lines will be burdened with more operating costs. Therefore,
in the condition of high bunker fuel price, a reduction in a ship’s delay in port will be
playing a key role in decreasing shipping lines’ operating costs.

6. Conclusion
In this article, the impacts of changes in port time on the efficiency of ship operation were
analysed. In particular, the focus was on annual operating costs and amount of CO2

Table 7. Result of a regression analysis (port time and annual operating cost)*.

Fuel price/ton Slope Intercept R2 P-value (slope) P-value (intercept)

450 US$ 7.87168 −48.91485 0.98132 0.02070 7.37648E-11

550 US$ 9.62094 −59.78482 0.98132 0.02070 7.37648E-11
650 US$ 11.37021 −70.65478 0.98132 0.02070 7.37648E-11
750 US$ 13.11947 −81.52475 0.98132 0.02070 7.37648E-11
850 US$ 14.86873 −92.39472 0.98132 0.02070 7.37648E-11

Note: *Dependent variable: annual operating cost in each fuel price/independent variable: port time in each
condition.
 The impact of port operations on efficient ship operation 459

emissions along with consideration of ship size and bunker fuel price. A number of
implications were derived from these analyses.
Firstly, operating costs and amount of CO2 emissions are sensitive to changes in port
time. As port time reduces, operating costs and amount of CO2 emissions are reduced
sharply. This means that port time has a significant impact on the efficient ship
operation. A reduction in port time due, for example, to a reduction of waiting time
through just-in-time arrival and departure, to improvements of berth productivity and to
simplification of the administration process, lead not only to a reduction in operating costs
but also to an improvement in the level of environmental performance in the shipping
industry. In particular, this result tells us why port selection (or choice) is important for
shipping lines. In other words, when shipping lines establish and/or improve their service
Downloaded by [Professor Daniel Seong Hyeok MOON] at 18:52 13 January 2015

loop based on calling ports that have high productivity and efficiency, they can improve
operational efficiency while minimising their operating costs and CO2 emissions.
Secondly, as ship size increases, the impacts of changes in port time on operating
costs and CO2 emissions also increase. This implies that port time is more important
to shipping lines that, in particular, operate with bigger ships. Namely, the bigger ship
is more sensitive to unstable port operation and non-production times in port and this
will lead to an increase in operating costs and CO2 emissions at an accelerating
degree.
Thirdly, the higher the bunker fuel price is, the bigger is the impact of changes in port
time on operating costs. This result shows that port time is important to shipping lines that
are very much interested in reducing operating costs in the condition of high bunker fuel
prices. As bunker fuel price increases, shipping lines that call at high productivity ports
can reduce their operating cost more.
As discussed earlier, there is a strong correlation between the efficiency of port
operation and the efficiency of ship operation. A reduction in port time by the improve-
ment of efficiency in port operation facilitates an improvement in the operational effi-
ciency of ships through the reduction of operation costs and CO2 emissions. Hence, from
the viewpoint of shipping lines that have adopted slow steaming, the efficiency of port
operation is another main factor to affect their strategic goals. This is because high
operational efficiency in calling ports can create a synergy effect in connection with
slow steaming to reduce operating costs and CO2 emissions, whereas low operational
efficiency can cancel out the positive effects of slow steaming through an increase in
operating costs and CO2 emissions.
In summary, from the viewpoint of terminal operators, the results of this study imply
that they have to improve their operational efficiency because it leads not only to
strengthen their own competitiveness but also to contribute to the reduction of costs and
the amount of CO2 emissions in the liner shipping industry.
This article has the limitations of focusing only on the impacts of changes in port time
on the efficient ship operation. The proposed model does not include all variables that
might have been considered. Further research is needed to investigate the impacts of port’s
green policies such as speed limitations in port areas, the requirement to use low sulphur
fuels and cold-ironing on the liner shipping from both economic and environmental
perspectives. It is possible to extend the model provided by this study. Moreover, from
the environmental perspective, there is a necessity to reappraise the efficiency of port
operation and expand policy directions, especially in the Ship Energy Efficiency
Management Plan, to manage both sectors together, i.e., the efficiency of ship operation
 460 D. S.-H. Moon and J. K. Woo

and the efficiency of port operation, to improve environmental performance in the liner
shipping and port industries.

References
Alphaliner. 2011. Shipping and Shipbuilding Markets; Annual Review 2012. Paris: Barry Rogliano
Salles. http://www.alphaliner.com
Branch, A. E. 1986. Elements of Port Operation and Management. London: Chapman and Hall.
Cariou, P. 2010. “Is Slow Steaming a Sustainable Mean for Reducing Liner Shipping CO2
Emissions?” The 4th Euromed Management Forum 2010, Marseilles, France, September, 14.
Cariou, P., and A. Cheaitou. 2012. “The Effectiveness of a European Speed Limit Versus an
Downloaded by [Professor Daniel Seong Hyeok MOON] at 18:52 13 January 2015

International Bunker-Levy to Reduce CO2 Emissions from Container Shipping.”

Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 17: 116–123. doi:10.1016/j.
trd.2011.10.003.
Chang, S. 1978. “Production Function, Productivities, and Capacity Utilization of the Port of
Mobile.” Maritime Policy and Management 5 (4): 297–305. doi:10.1080/03088837800000020.
Clark, X., D. Dollar, and A. Micco. 2004. Port Efficiency, Maritime Transport Costs and Bilateral
Trade, Working Paper 10353. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Drewry. 2012. Container Market Annual Review and Forecast. London: Drewry Shipping
Consultants.
Foster, T. 1978. “What’s Important in a Port?” Distribution Worldwide 78: 33–36.
IMO. 2009. Second IMO GHG Study 2009. London: International Maritime Organization.
IMO. 2010. Mepc 60/4/35. London: International Maritime Organization.
Kontovas, C., and H. N. Psaraftis. 2011. “Reduction of Emissions along the Maritime Intermodal
Container Chain: Operational Models and Policies.” Maritime Policy and Management 38 (4):
451–469. doi:10.1080/03088839.2011.588262.
Lun, Y. H., K. H. Lai, and T. C. Edwin Cheng. 2010. Shipping and Logistics Management. London:
Springer-Verlag.
Maloni, M., and E. C. Jackson. 2005. “North American Container Port Capacity: A Literature
Review.” Transportation Journal 44 (2): 16–36.
MAN Diesel & TURBO. 2012. Propulsion Trends in Container Vessels. Copenhagen: MAN Diesel
& Turbo.
Moon, S. H. 2003. Modern Port Management. Busan: Dasom.
Murphy, P. R., J. M. Daley, and D. R. Dalenberg. 1992. “Port Selection Criteria: An Application of a
Transportation Research Framework.” Logistics & Transportation Review 28 (3): 237–255.
Notteboom, T. 2006. “The Time Factor in Liner Shipping Services.” Maritime Economics &
Logistics 8: 19–39. doi:10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100148.
Notteboom, T., and B. Vernimmen. 2008. “The Impact of Fuel Costs on Liner Service Design in
Container Shipping.” Proceedings of the 2008 International Association of Maritime Economists
(IAME) Conference, Dalian, April 2–4.
OECD. 2008. Empirical Evidence for Integration and Disintegration of Maritime Shipping; Port
and Logistics Activities. Discussion Paper No. 2009-1. Noisy-Le-Grand: OECD.
Preston, P., and E. Kozan. 2001. “An Approach to Determine Storage Locations of Containers at
Seaport Terminals.” Computers & Operations Research 28 (10): 983–995. doi:10.1016/S0305-
0548(00)00020-4.
Rapert, M. I., and B. M. Wren. 1998. “Service Quality as a Competitive Opportunity.” The Journal
of Services Marketing 12 (3): 223–235. doi:10.1108/08876049810219539.
Ronen, D. 2011. “The Effect of Oil Price on Containership Speed and Fleet Size.” Journal of the
Operational Research Society 62: 211–216. doi:10.1057/jors.2009.169.
Sachish, A. 1996. “Productivity Functions as a Managerial Tool in Israeli Ports.” Maritime Policy
and Management 23 (4): 341–369. doi:10.1080/03088839600000094.
Samsung Heavy Industry. 2011. The Comparison of the Operating Costs at Different Types of
Container Vessel. Seoul: Sam-Sung Heavy Industry.
Stopford, M. 2009. Maritime Economics. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
 The impact of port operations on efficient ship operation 461

Talley, W. K. 1994. “Performance Indicators and Port Performance Evaluation.” Logistics and
Transportation Review 30 (4): 339–352.
Tongzon, J. L. 1995. “Determinants of Port Performance and Efficiency.” Transportation Research
29A (3): 245–252.
Tongzon, J. L., and S. Ganesalingam. 1994. “An Evaluation of ASEAN Port Performance and
Efficiency.” Asian Economic Journal 8 (3): 317–330. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8381.1994.tb00020.x.
Turner, H., R. Windle, and M. Dresner. 2004. “North American Containerport Productivity:
1984–1997.” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 40 (4):
339–356. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2003.06.001.
UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development). 1992. “Strategic Planning for
Port Authorities.” In United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva: Trade and
Development Board.
Vis, I. F. A., and R. de Koster. 2003. “Transshipment of Containers at a Container Terminal: an
Downloaded by [Professor Daniel Seong Hyeok MOON] at 18:52 13 January 2015

Overview.” European Journal of Operational Research 147 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217

(02)00293-X.
Wilson, F. R., B. J. Bisson, and K. B. Kobia. 1986. “Factors that Determine Mode Choice in the
Transportation of General Freight.” Transportation Research Record 1061: 26–31.
Woo, J. K. 2004. A Study on the Evaluation of Competitiveness on Asian Container Ports. Seoul:
Korea Maritime Institute.
Woo, J. K., and D. S. H. Moon. 2012. “The Effects of Slow Steaming on the Liners’ Operating
Strategy in Liner Shipping.” Proceedings of the 2012 International Association of Maritime
Economists (IAME) Conference, Taipei, September 6–8.
Woo, J. K., and D. S. H. Moon. 2014. “The Effects of Slow Steaming on the Environmental
Performance in Liner Shipping.” Maritime Policy and Management 41 (2): 176–191.
doi:10.1080/03088839.2013.819131.

View publication stats