{"title":"Smart port vs. port integration to mitigate congestion: ESG performance and data validation","authors":"Baozhuang Niu, Jian Dong, Hongzhi Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.tre.2024.103741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In practice, ports compete on both service volume and service quality. The latter can be measured by the port congestion situation so the mitigation of congestion helps improve customers’ experience. We observe that smart ports are widely built and many local governments are promoting port integration to ease competition and reduce congestion. One immediate question is: Are the two strategies really effective that further enable the improvement of ESG (Environment, Social and Governance) performance? In this study, by taking the <em>do-nothing</em> strategy as the benchmark, we examine how <em>smart port</em> and <em>port integration</em> strategies work in port congestion reduction and ESG improvement. We reveal that the <em>smart port</em> strategy brings the Matthew effect that the large port obtains a larger market share and the smaller port worries about the win-lose situation. We also reveal that smart port can make each port and the entire port system more congested, resulting in the investment dilemma. Differently, the <em>port integration</em> strategy can effectively reduce congestion but hurt social welfare. We further discuss a mixed strategy where both strategies are implemented. Interestingly, under the mixed strategy, the risk of falling into the investment dilemma can be reduced and social welfare can be increased. We compare the ESG performances under three strategies and highlight that the mixed strategy achieves the highest system profit, the <em>smart port</em> strategy yields the highest social welfare, and the <em>port integration</em> strategy may outperform the other strategies in terms of environmental sustainability.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49418,"journal":{"name":"Transportation Research Part E-Logistics and Transportation Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transportation Research Part E-Logistics and Transportation Review","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554524003326","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In practice, ports compete on both service volume and service quality. The latter can be measured by the port congestion situation so the mitigation of congestion helps improve customers’ experience. We observe that smart ports are widely built and many local governments are promoting port integration to ease competition and reduce congestion. One immediate question is: Are the two strategies really effective that further enable the improvement of ESG (Environment, Social and Governance) performance? In this study, by taking the do-nothing strategy as the benchmark, we examine how smart port and port integration strategies work in port congestion reduction and ESG improvement. We reveal that the smart port strategy brings the Matthew effect that the large port obtains a larger market share and the smaller port worries about the win-lose situation. We also reveal that smart port can make each port and the entire port system more congested, resulting in the investment dilemma. Differently, the port integration strategy can effectively reduce congestion but hurt social welfare. We further discuss a mixed strategy where both strategies are implemented. Interestingly, under the mixed strategy, the risk of falling into the investment dilemma can be reduced and social welfare can be increased. We compare the ESG performances under three strategies and highlight that the mixed strategy achieves the highest system profit, the smart port strategy yields the highest social welfare, and the port integration strategy may outperform the other strategies in terms of environmental sustainability.
期刊介绍:
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review is a reputable journal that publishes high-quality articles covering a wide range of topics in the field of logistics and transportation research. The journal welcomes submissions on various subjects, including transport economics, transport infrastructure and investment appraisal, evaluation of public policies related to transportation, empirical and analytical studies of logistics management practices and performance, logistics and operations models, and logistics and supply chain management.
Part E aims to provide informative and well-researched articles that contribute to the understanding and advancement of the field. The content of the journal is complementary to other prestigious journals in transportation research, such as Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Part B: Methodological, Part C: Emerging Technologies, Part D: Transport and Environment, and Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. Together, these journals form a comprehensive and cohesive reference for current research in transportation science.