Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determining the influential factors of dry port operations: worldwide experiences and empirical evidence from Malaysia

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Maritime Economics & Logistics Aims and scope

Abstract

The introduction of dry ports to transport networks facilitates trade, allows containers to be distributed between transport modes and ensures optimal use of networks. However, dry ports face several challenges, which have a significant impact on their operations, often reducing the benefits from developing dry ports in national or regional freight transport systems. In this regard, this paper investigates the influential factors of dry port operations. We firstly identify five categories of influencing factors and their respective sub-factors. Subsequently, we conduct an empirical study through a web-based survey of Malaysian dry port stakeholders. Multiple regression is employed for data analysis. Findings suggest 12 factors of significant importance to Malaysian dry port operations, including the need for sufficient information sharing; accurate freight forecasting, customs clearance, value-added services, adequate highway infrastructure; existence of appropriate operational equipment and sufficient space for current and future container storage; implementation of public–private partnerships; impact of seaport and short sea shipping policy; road connectivity and the location itself of dry ports. The paper is expected to be of managerial value to dry port operators, when developing strategies to enhance operational efficiency.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Source Adapted from UNESCAP (2015)

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arvis, J.F., M.A. Mustara, L. Ojala, L. Shepperd, and D. Saslavsky. 2010. Connecting to compete-trade logistics in global economy report. The logistics performance index and its indicator. Washington D.C: World Bank and Turku School of Economics, Finland.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aversa, R., R.C. Botter, H. Haralambides, and H.T. Yoshizaki. 2005. A mixed integer programming model on the location of a hub port in the east coast of South America. Journal of Maritime Economics & Logistics 7: 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beresford, A.K.C., and R.C. Dubey. 1990. Handbook on the management and operation of dry ports. Geneva: United Nation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beresford, A.K.C., S. Petit, Q. XU, and S. Williams. 2012. A study of dry port development in China. Journal of Maritime Economic and Logistics 14: 73–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergqvist, R., J. Woxenius, and G. Falkemark. 2010. Establishing intermodal terminal. Transportation Research 3: 285–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bichou, K., and R. Gray. 2004. A logistics and supply chain management approach to port performance measurement. Journal of Maritime Policy and Management 31: 47–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, J., T. Kyu, V. Roso, and K. Tara. 2013. Critical evaluation of Mandalay dry port, Myanmar. 5th International Conference on Logistics and Transport 2013 (ICLT 2013) “Sustainable Supply Chain Management in Asia Pacific”, November 5–8, 2013. Doshisha University, Kyoto, Japan. 107–114.

  • Bowerman, B.L., and R.T. O’Connell. 1990. Linear statistical models: An applied approach, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, L., C. Miiler, O. Libby, and B. Ritchey. 2013. Observation on the potential for dry ports terminal developments in United States, England, 124–166, Ashgate.

  • Cetin, C. K. and A. G. Cerit. 2009. Organisational change of seaports: Impact on effectiveness. Annual conference of International Association of maritime economics (IAME), 24–26 June Copenhagen, Denmark.

  • Christiaanse, E., and K. Kumar. 2000. ICT enabled coordination dynamics supply webs. Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 30: 268–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. L., J. Jeevan and S. Cahoon. 2015. Hinterland connectivity of Malaysian container seaports: Challenges and solutions’. In proceedings of the global integration of economies and connectivity development in collaboration with Asian Logistics Round Table (ALRT), August 31–September 1, 2015, Soochow University Taipei, Taiwan.

  • Chuen, C., M.R. Karim, and S. Yusoff. 2014. Mode choice between private and public transport in Klang Valley, Malaysia. The Scientific World Journal. doi:10.1155/2014/394587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullinane, K.P., and G. Wilmsmeier. 2011. The contribution of the dry port concept to the extension of port life cycles, in handbook of terminal planning. New York: Operations Research Computer Science interfaces series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullinane, K., R. Bergqvist, and G. Wilmsmeier. 2012. The dry port concept: Theory and practice. Journal of Maritime Economics and Logistics 14: 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doust, K., and J. Black. 2009. A holistic assessment framework for urban development and transportation with innovative triple bottom line sustainability metrics—an International Perspective. MIT Journal of Planning 9: 10–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • DuBrin, A.J. 2003. Essentials of Management. Peterborough, Ontario: Thomson South-Western.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eric, L.M., P.S. Gabriel and J. Ricardo. 2013. Potential for logistics zones development: Chile as a case study England, 233–249. Farnham: Ashgate publishing company.

  • FDT. 2007. Feasibility study on the network operation of hinterland hubs (Dry Port Concept) to improve and modernize ports’ connections to the hinterland and to improve networking, 21–64. Netherlands: Integrating Logistics Center Networks in The Baltic Sea Region (INLOC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, J.D. 2010. The “close” dry port concept and the Canadian context. Journal of Maritime Economics & Logistics 10: 108–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnwa, P., A. Beresford, and S. Petit. 2009. Dry ports: A comparative study of the UK and Nigeria. United Nation: UNESCAP Transport and Communications Bulletin for Asia and the Pacific.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garver, M.S., Z. Williams, and G.S. Taylor. 2008. Employing latent class regression analysis to examine logistics theory: An application of truck driver retention. Journal of Business Logistics 29: 233–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gujar, G. and V.V Thai. 2013. Measurement of container security at dry ports. International Forum on Shipping, Ports and Airports (IFSPA) 2013: Trade, Supply Chain Activities and Transport: Contemporary Logistics and Maritime Issues.

  • Hanaoka, S., and M.B. Regmi. 2011. Promoting intermodal freight transport through the development of dry ports in Asia: An environmental perspective. Journal of International Association of Traffic and Safety Science 35: 16–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haralambides, H., and G. Gujar. 2012. On balancing supply chain efficiency and environmental impacts: An ECO-DEA model applied to the dry port sector of India. Maritime Economics and Logistics 14: 7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hesse, M., and J. Rodrigue. 2004. The transport geography of logistics and freight distribution. Journal of Transport Geography 12: 171–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horst, V.D., and W. Langen. 2008. Coordination in hinterland transport chains: A major challenges for seaport community. Journal of Maritime Economics and Logistics 10: 108–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horst, V.D., M. Larissa, and L.M. Langen. 2011. Coordination mechanisms in improving hinterland accessibility: Empirical analysis in the port of Rotterdam. Journal of Maritime Policy and Management 38: 415–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphries, A.M. 2004. Growth Triangle of South East Asia. In Indonesia—Malaysia—Singapore Growth Triangle, ed. A. Duffy. Australia: East Asia Analytical Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICT. (2015) Ipoh Cargo Terminal: Port and value added services. http://www.ictipoh.com.my/. Accessed 18 April 2015.

  • Iskandar, M. and S. Ibrahim. 2010. Supply chain management and E-commerce technology adoption among logistics service providers in Malaysia. Proceedings of World Academy of Science Engineering and Technology, Paris, France.

  • Jarzemskis, A., and V. Vailiauskas. 2007. Research on dry port concept as intermodal node. Journal of Transportation Economics 22: 207–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeevan, J., S.L. Chen, and E.S. Lee. 2015. The challenges of Malaysian dry ports development. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 31: 109–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karadas, M., H.M. Celik, U. Serpen, and M. Toksoy. 2015. Multiple regression analysis of performance parameters of a binary cycle geothermal power plant. Geothermics 54: 68–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klassen, A.C., J. Creswell, V.L. Plano Clark, K.C. Smith, and H.I. Meissner. 2012. Best practices in mixed methods for quality of life research. Quality of Life Research 21: 377–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langen, D., and L.M. Lugt. 2007. Government structure of port authorities in the Netherlands: devolution, port governance and port performance. Journal of Transportation Economics 17: 109–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mak, J., and B.K. Tai. 2010. Port development within the framework of Malaysia’s transport policy: Some considerations. Journal of Maritime Policy and Management 28: 199–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MOT. 2015. Ministry of Transportation, Malaysia. http://www.mot.gov.my/en/Statistics/Pages/Maritime.aspx. Accessed 5 May 2015.

  • Nazery, K. 2007. Port privatization in the context of a developing nation: The Malaysian experience.” Restructuring of Indian ports: reforms and challenges. Hyderabad, India The Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India.

  • NCIA. 2011. Northern Corridor Implementation Authority Putrajaya Malaysia: Prime Minister Department, Malaysia.

  • Ng, A.K., and G.C. Gujar. 2009. Government policy, efficiency and competitiveness: The case study of Ports in India. Journal of Transport Policy 16: 232–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, A.K.Y., and B. Cetin. 2012. Locational characteristics of dry ports in developing economies: Some lessons from Northern India. Journal of Regional Studies 46: 757–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, A.K.Y., F. Padilha, and A.A. Pallis. 2013. Institutions, bureaucratic and logistical roles of dry ports: The Brazilian case. Journal of Transport Geography 27: 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nulty, D.D. 2008. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: What can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 33: 301–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, D.V.H. 2014. The development of dry ports in Vietnam. Vietnam: International Cooperation Department.

  • Padilha, P., and A.K. Ng. 2012. The spatial evolution of dry ports in developing economies. The Brazilian experience. Journal of Maritime Economics and Logistics 14: 99–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paixao, A.C., and P.B. Marlow. 2003. Fourth generation ports: A question of agility? International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 33: 355–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panayides, P.M., and D.W. Song. 2009. Port integration in global supply chains: Measures and implications for maritime logistics. International Journal of Logistics Management 12: 133–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PWD. 2014 Public Work Department. Malaysian Highway Authority http://www.kkr.gov.my/ms/node/118. Accessed 16 September 2014.

  • Robles, L.T. 2013. The Brazilian seaport system: A post-1990 institutional and economic review. Journal of Transportation Business and Management 8: 17–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigue, J.P., C. Comtois, and B. Slack. 2006. The geography of transport systems. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigue, J.P., J. Debrie, A. Fremont, and E. Gouvernal. 2010. Functions and actors of inland ports: European and North American dynamics. Journal of Transport Geography 18: 519–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, A. and R. Roscelli. 2009. Development of dry ports. Transport and Communications Bulletin for Asia and the Pacific. New York: United Nation.

  • Roso, V. 2008. Factors influencing implementation of a dry port. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 38: 782–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roso, V. and K. Lumsden. 2009. The dry port concept: Moving seaport activities inland? Transport and Communications Bulletin for Asia and the Pacific. New York: United Nation.

  • Roso, V., and K. Lumsden. 2010. A review of dry ports. Journal of Maritime Economics and Logistics 12: 196–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roso, V., J. Woxenius, and K. Lumsden. 2009. The dry port concept: Connecting container seaports with the hinterland. Journal of Transport Geography 17: 338–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SAN Antonio PORT. 2014. Chilean port system. Dresdner Kleinwort Benson: South Andes Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shirley, C., and C. Winston. 2004. Firm inventory behavior and the returns from highway infrastructure investments. Journal of Urban Economics 55: 398–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SIP. (2015) Segamat Inland Port: Products and services. http://transportation.zibb.com/profile/segamat+inland+port+sdn+bhd/my/johor/segamat/85000/26338785. Accessed 18 April 2015.

  • Sukdanot, S., J. Rudjanakanoknad and W. Suksirivoraboot. 2013. Development of Thai International Ports inaccordance with ASEAN Economic Community Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 2013 Taipei.

  • Trainaviciute, L. 2009. The dry port: Concept and perspectives. In: Bentzen, K., Laugesen, & Caruso., A. (eds.). Denmark: Association of Danish Transport and Logistics Centres.

  • UNESCAP. 2006. Logistics sector developments: Planning models for enterprises and logistics clusters.. United Nation Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific New York: United Nation.

  • UNESCAP. 2008. Improvement of transport and logistics facilities to expand port hinterlands: policy guidelines. New York: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCAP. 2009. Review of Developments in Transport in Asia and the Pacific. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific: New York, United States.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCAP. 2010. The development of dry ports along the Asian Highway and Trans-Asian Railway networks. New York: United Nation Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCAP. 2015. Singapore-Kunming rail link, http://www.unescap.org/resources/session-1-operationalizing-international-railway-transport-corridors. Accessed 3 May 2015.

  • Valautham, A. 2007. Container Transportation by Railways. Transport and Communications Bulletin for Asia and the Pacific: The development of container landbridge train services between Malaysia and Thailand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenstra, A., R. Zuidwijk, and E. Van Asperen. 2012. The extended gate concept for container terminals: Expanding the notion of dry ports. Maritime Economics & Logistics 14: 14–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viser, J., R. Konings, B.J. Pielage, and B. Wiegmans. 2009. A new hinterland transport concept for the port Rotterdam: Organisational or technological challenges? Journal of Transportation Research 4: 201–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woxenius, J., and R. Bergqvist. 2010. Hinterland Transport by train: Comparing the Scandinavian conditions for maritime Containers and semi-trailers. Journal of Transport Geography 8: 125–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woxenius, J., V. Roso, and K. Lumsden. 2004. The dry port concept–connecting seaports with their hinterland by rail. ICLSP Conference Proceedings, 22–26 September 2004. Dalian: Department of Transportation and Logistics Chalmers University of Technology, 305–319.

  • Zou, Y. 2009. Discussion on dry ports development in China. Journal of Water Transportation Management 12: 18–24.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Maritime and Logistics Management, National Centre for Ports and Shipping, Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, 1 Maritime Way, Launceston, TAS, 7250, Australia

    Jagan Jeevan, Shu-Ling Chen & Stephen Cahoon

Authors
  1. Jagan Jeevan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shu-Ling Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen Cahoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jagan Jeevan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jeevan, J., Chen, SL. & Cahoon, S. Determining the influential factors of dry port operations: worldwide experiences and empirical evidence from Malaysia. Marit Econ Logist 20, 476–494 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-017-0063-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-017-0063-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation