Port connectivity and competition among container ports in Southeast Asia based on Social Network Analysis and TOPSIS

Figures & data

Table 1. Port call and performance statistics of regions in Southeast Asia.

Country	Port calls	Average time in port (days)	Average age of ships	Maximum carrying capacity of container ships (TEU)
1. Brunei Darussalam	207	0.49	17	2,806
2. Cambodia	158	0.89	12	2,339
3. Indonesia	13,747	1.09	14	13,100
4. Malaysia	14,974	0.76	13	21,413
5. Myanmar	355	2.77	19	2,190
6. The Philippines	4,027	0.87	15	20,776
7. Singapore	17,146	0.77	12	21,413
8. Thailand	7,874	0.79	12	14,052
9. Vietnam	4,391	0.97	13	16,020
Southeast Asia	62,879			21,413
World	454,016	0.70	13	21,413

Source: UNCTAD (2019)

Figure 1. Container throughput by region in 2008 and 2018.

Source: UNCTAD, 2008 and 2018

Table 2. The top ten shipping companies in 2019.

Shipping company	Capacity of fleets (TEU)	Container throughput share (%)	The number of routes operating in Southeast Asia
1. APM-Maersk	4,096,171	17.28%	113
2. Mediterranean Shg Co	3,736,363	15.76%	34
3. COSCO Group	2,912,382	12.29%	78
4. CMA CGM Group	2,650,040	11.18%	50
5. Hapag-Lloyd	1,711,944	7.22%	87
6. Ocean Network Express	1,589,719	6.71%	51
7. Evergreen Line	1,225,097	5.17%	32
8. Yang Ming Marine Transport Corp	591,334	2.50%	57
9. Hyundai M.M	478,457	2.02%	97
10. Pacific Int. Line (PIL)	347,902	1.47%	65
Total	19,339,409	81.60%	664
Global	23,700,662

Source: Alphaliner

Figure 2. Port competitiveness factors for TOPSIS analysis.

Table 3. Facilities of the top ten container ports in Southeast Asia.

No	Port	Berth length (m)	Number of cranes	Total area (km^2)	Depth (m)
1	Singapore	21,030	205	8,170	15.7
2	Port Klang	9,000	99	5,500	17.5
3	Tanjung Pelepas	5,040	58	1,800	19
4	Saigon Newport	7,690	65	6,000	15.8
5	Laem Chabang	3,650	56	1,610	16
6	Haiphong	2,697	12	1,100	9
7	Manila	7,780	35	2,310	14.5
8	Tanjung Priok	11,260	95	6,040	16
9	Bangkok	6,028	14	3,600	8.2
10	Tanjung Perak	10,067	23	5,450	13

Source: The websites of the respective port in Southeast Asia

Table 4. The connectivity index of the top ten container ports in Southeast Asia.

Port	Degree centrality		Closeness centrality		Betweenness centrality	Hub index	Authority index
	In-degree	Out-degree	In-closeness	Out-closeness
1. Singapore	0.323308	0.315789	0.505010	0.505754	0.508333	0.328545	0.328023
2. Port Klang	0.180451	0.180451	0.429385	0.442704	0.163373	0.241597	0.187557
3. Tanjung Pelepas	0.161654	0.157895	0.425842	0.417068	0.120214	0.216175	0.227173
4. Saigon Newport	0.116541	0.127820	0.401963	0.402445	0.033068	0.242495	0.238856
5. Laem Chabang	0.075188	0.078947	0.389819	0.384285	0.007250	0.183414	0.184215
6. Haiphong	0.063910	0.078947	0.385740	0.370272	0.017651	0.162429	0.160887
7. Manila	0.060150	0.067669	0.376730	0.372361	0.010787	0.145672	0.149935
8. Tanjung Priok	0.060150	0.048872	0.381182	0.382060	0.022697	0.104770	0.137012
9. Bangkok	0.037594	0.026316	0.365007	0.361154	0.001150	0.082845	0.092405
10. Tanjung Perak	0.022556	0.045113	0.365524	0.372361	0.008792	0.094388	0.067244

Figure 3. Degree centrality on binary ties of some container ports in Southeast Asia.

Figure 4. Categorisation of the top ten container ports in Southeast Asia based on connectivity.

Note* L: Laem Chabang; H: Haiphong; M: Manila; TPR: Tanjung Priok; B: Bangkok; TPE: Tanjung Perak.

Figure 5. Connectivity of Singapore, Port Klang, Tanjung Pelepas, and Saigon Newport.

Table 6. Competitiveness analysis results using the TOPSIS method.

Group	Port	Competitiveness factor scores			Competitiveness score	Ranking
		Throughput score (w1 = 0.3517)	Facility score (w2 = 0.3429)	Connectivity score (w3 = 0.3054)
1	Singapore	0.6140	0.9313	1.0000	1.0000	1
2	Port Klang	0.4399	0.4770	0.4819	0.4817	2
	Saigon Newport	0.4196	0.4005	0.3650	0.3828	3
	Tanjung Pelepas	0.4381	0.2674	0.4364	0.3533	5
3	Tanjung Priok	0.4003	0.5143	0.1253	0.3547	4
	Laem Chabang	0.4863	0.2129	0.2306	0.2453	6
	Tanjung Perak	0.3625	0.3435	0.0366	0.2330	7
	Manila	0.3988	0.2285	0.1649	0.1993	8
	Haiphong	0.4257	0.0174	0.1950	0.1440	9
	Bangkok	0.2904	0.1806	0.0425	0.1190	10

This group is from K-mean clustering using connectivity and competitiveness

Figure 6. Categorisation of major container ports in Southeast Asia based on connectivity, facilities, and competitiveness.

Note* L: Laem Chabang; H: Haiphong; M: Manila; TPR: Tanjung Priok; B: Bangkok; TPE: Tanjung Perak

Table

Port	Container throughput (10^3 TEU)											Growth rate of container throughput										CAGR*
	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
1. Singapore	29,918	25,867	28,431	29,938	31,649	32,579	33,869	30,922	30,904	33,667	36,599	−0.135	0.099	0.053	0.057	0.029	0.040	−0.087	−0.001	0.089	0.087	2.04%
2. Port Klang	7,974	7,310	8,872	9,604	10,001	10,350	10,946	11,890	13,170	11,978	12,316	−0.083	0.214	0.083	0.041	0.035	0.058	0.086	0.108	−0.091	0.028	4.44%
3. Tanjung Pelepas	5,594	6,016	6,536	7,541	7,719	7,628	8,524	9,120	8,029	8,261	8,960	0.075	0.086	0.154	0.024	−0.012	0.117	0.070	−0.120	0.029	0.085	4.82%
4. Laem Chabang	5,134	4,622	5,068	5,658	5,830	5,974	6,583	6,780	7,227	7,670	8,070	−0.100	0.096	0.116	0.030	0.025	0.102	0.030	0.066	0.061	0.052	4.63%
5. Saigon Newport	3,100	3,563	4,100	4,674	5,060	5,542	6,334	5,788	5,987	6,156	6,586	0.149	0.151	0.140	0.083	0.095	0.143	−0.086	0.034	0.028	0.070	7.83%
6. Tanjung Priok	3,984	3,805	4,715	5,620	6,214	6,590	5,900	5,201	5,515	6,090	7,800	−0.045	0.239	0.192	0.106	0.061	−0.105	−0.118	0.060	0.104	0.281	6.95%
7. Tanjung Perak	2,213	2,270	3,030	2,640	2,850	3,020	3,106	3,121	3,327	3,553	3,866	0.026	0.335	−0.129	0.080	0.060	0.028	0.005	0.066	0.068	0.088	5.74%
8. Manila	2,999	2,878	3,158	3,465	3,711	3,782	3,811	3,976	4,523	4,782	5,085	−0.040	0.097	0.097	0.071	0.019	0.008	0.043	0.138	0.057	0.063	5.42%
9. Bangkok	1,377	1,335	1,501	1,305	1,397	1,505	1,519	1,538	1,498	1,496	1,497	−0.031	0.124	−0.131	0.070	0.077	0.009	0.013	−0.026	−0.001	0.001	0.84%
10. Haiphong	808	816	954	1,019	964	1,040	1,003	1,020	1,087	1,110	1,154	0.010	0.169	0.068	−0.054	0.079	−0.036	0.017	0.066	0.021	0.040	3.63%

Source: UNCTAD Reviews of Maritime Transportation from 2008 to 2018 and the author’s calculations

CAGR*—Compound Annual Growth Rate

UNCTAD. 2019. Review of Maritime Transport 2019. United Nations Publications New York: United Nations, Geneva.

 Google Scholar