2018
DOI: 10.1504/ijstl.2018.088319
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using dry ports for port co-opetition: the case of Adriatic ports

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, despite their poorer centrality, a priori, Mediterranean ports are better located for reaching Asian destinations 20 . Acciaro et al (2017) and Kramberger et al (2018) pointed out that better hinterland transport services would enable them to capitalise on that advantage. Following these authors, the best strategy for southern ports to compete with the northern facilities should be based on cooperation 21 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, despite their poorer centrality, a priori, Mediterranean ports are better located for reaching Asian destinations 20 . Acciaro et al (2017) and Kramberger et al (2018) pointed out that better hinterland transport services would enable them to capitalise on that advantage. Following these authors, the best strategy for southern ports to compete with the northern facilities should be based on cooperation 21 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several authors use mathematical models of optimization, simulations, qualitative and quantitative analyses, multicriteria methods, among other strategies to obtain the DP implementation benefits. Among the most relevant problems approached in the literature are the DP location allocation (Wang et al , 2017; Komchornrit, 2017; Wei and Sheng, 2017; Nguyen and Notteboom, 2016; Chang et al , 2015); the network between DP, hinterland and seaport (Chen et al , 2018; Tsao and Linh, 2018; Kramberger et al , 2018; Wei et al , 2017); DP performance and optimization (Jeevan et al , 2017a; Haralambides and Gujar, 2012; Ng and Tongzon, 2010); evaluation of the transportation system (Qiu and Lam, 2018; Lättilä et al , 2013); analysis of the viability of the DP (Dadvar et al , 2011) and its environmental impact (Roso, 2007; Muravev and Rakhmangulov, 2016).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The framework aggregated four fundamental objectives as increase profitability and expand market share , both well-known objectives, which DPs work to reach, as mentioned by Nguyen and Notteboom (2016), Ka (2011) and Kramberger et al (2018); as well as meet customers' needs and fulfill the role as supply chain player as specific fundamental objectives of DPs in Pernambuco, which should be explored to achieve the best benefits of these logistic players in that region, since the reduction of transportation cost using railways is not possible. The experts also defined 23 objectives as means–end to reach the fundamental objectives; it means that the framework reflected the policy context, network infrastructure, competitive environment, operational issues and other characteristics of DPs in that region.…”
Section: Findings Of the Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Examples are in container terminal optimization (e.g., Ambrosino et al 2013; Gharehgozli et al 2016; Kaveshgar & Huynh, 2015), container logistics (e.g., Zhang et al 2018), environmental management in seaports (e.g. Aydogdu & Aksoy, 2015; Klopott, 2013), ICT (e.g., Airries, 2001; Keceli, 2011; Min et al 2017), hinterland chain planning (e.g., Ambrosino et al 2018; Lam & Gu, 2013), port‐centric logistics (e.g., Kramberger et al 2018; Wei et al 2018), and maritime logistics hub development (e.g., Lee et al 2018; Yang et al 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%