Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Research Methodology for Container Port Security

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Maritime Container Port Security

  • 524 Accesses

Abstract

The choice of research strategy and analysis is always determined by the research objectives as well as the relevant literature. It is important to use a suitable methodology by which the impacts of port security measures including the Container Security Initiative (CSI) on EU container seaport competition will be determined. In choosing the methodology for data collection, the available and applicable methods need to be considered first. Whether these techniques suit the research aim and objectives is another substantial consideration. The methodology for data collection and analysis will be discussed and presented in this chapter.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abdel-Fattah, N. (1997). Privatisation of the Road Freight Industry in Egypt and Hungary (PhD thesis). University of Plymouth, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acosta, M., Coronado, D., & Cerban, M. M. (2007). Port competitiveness in container traffic from an internal point of view: The experience of the Port of Algeciras Bay. Maritime Policy and Management, 34(5), 501–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akkermans, H. A., Bogerd, P., Yucesan, E., & van Wassenhove, L. N. (2003). The impact of ERP on supply chain management: Exploratory findings from a European Delphi study. European Journal of Operational Research, 146(2), 284–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aligica, P. D., & Herritt, R. (2009). Epistemology, social technology, and expert judgement: Olaf Helmer’s contribution to future research. Futures, 41(5), 253–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, N. H. (2006). The container security initiative costs, implications and relevance to developing countries. Public Administration and Development, 26(5), 439–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aronietis, R., Van de Voorde, E., & Vanelslander, T. (2010). Port Competitiveness Determinants of Selected European Ports in The Containerised Cargo Market. International Association of Maritime Economists Conference IAME (Vol. 10). Lisbon, Portugal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banomyong, R. (2005). The impact of port and trade security initiatives on maritime supply chain management. Maritime Policy and Management, 32(1), 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbour, R. (2007). Doing Focus Groups. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beech, B. F. (1997). Studying the future: A Delphi survey of how multi-disciplinary clinical staff view the likely development of two community mental health centres over the course of the next two years. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25, 331–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, A. C., & Chin, Y. Z. (2008). 100% Container Scanning: Security Policy Implications for Global Supply Chains (Master of Science Dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, B. (1995). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. London: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bichou, K. (2005). Maritime Security: Framework, Methods and Applications (Report to UNCTAD). Geneva: UNCTAD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bichou, K. (2008a). Security and Risk-Based Models in Shipping and Ports: Review and Critical Analysis, in ITF. Terrorism and International Transport: Towards Risk-based Security Policy. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bichou, K. (2008b). Security of ships and shipping operations. In Talley, W. (Ed.), Ship Piracy and Security (pp. 73–88). London: Informa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bichou, K. (2011). Assessing the impact of procedural security on container port efficiency. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 13(1), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, J., & Bland, G. (1988). Freight forwarders speak: The perception of route competition via seaports in the European Communities Research Project. Part 1. Maritime Policy and Management, 15(1), 35–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleicher, J. (2011). Scenario Methods as a Means for Enhancing Organisational Learning: A Delphi Study (Proquest, Umi Dissertation Publishing).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolger, F., Stranieri, A., Wright, G., & Yearwood, J. (2011). Does the Delphi process lead to increased accuracy in group-based judgmental forecasts or does it simply induce consensus amongst judgmental forecasters? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1671–1680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brett, V., & Roe, M. (2010). The potential for the clustering of the maritime transport sector in the Greater Dublin Region. Maritime Policy and Management, 37(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briouig, M. (2013). Risk Management in Liquefied Natural Gas Ports and Marine Terminals Supply Chains (PhD thesis). Plymouth University, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, M. (1985). An alternative theoretical approach to the evaluation of liner shipping—Part 2: Choice criteria. Maritime Policy and Management, 12(2), 145–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, S., Cantrill, J., & Roberts, D. (2000). Prescribing indicators for UK general practice: Delphi consultation study. British Medical Journal, 321, 425–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, S. M., Shield, T., Rogers, A., & Gask, L. (2004). How do stakeholder groups vary in a Delphi technique about primary mental health care and what factors influence their ratings? QualSaf Health Care, 13(6), 428–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CBP. (2006). Container Security Initiative: Strategic Plan 2006–2011. Available at http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/cargo_security/csi/csi_strategic_plan.ctt/csi_strategic_plan.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2013.

  • CBP. (2011). Container Security Initiatives in Summary. Available at https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/csi_brochure_2011_3.pdf. Accessed 7 August 2016.

  • CBP. (2014). CSI: Container Security Initiatives. Available at https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry/cargo-security/csi/csi-brief. Accessed 27 August 2016.

  • Clayton, M. J. (1997). Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-making tasks in education. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 17(4), 373–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, J. C. (1994). Logistics Futures in Europe—A Delphi Study. Centre for Logistics and Transportation, Cranfield University, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottam, H. (2012). An Analysis of Eastern European Liner Shipping During the Period of Transition (PhD thesis). Plymouth University, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottam, H., & Roe, M. (2004). The impact of transitional changes on maritime transport in Central and Eastern Europe. Maritime Policy and Management, 31(4), 287–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottam, H., Roe, M., & Challacombe, J. (2004, January). Outsourcing of trucking activities by relief organisations. Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crisp, J., Pelletier, D., Duffield, C., Adams, A., & Nagy, S. (1997). The Delphi method? Nursing Research, 46(2), 116–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullinane, K., Song, D. W., & Gray, R. (2002). A stochastic frontier model of the efficiency of major container terminals in Asia: Assessing the influence of administrative and ownership structures. Transportation Research Part A, 36, 743–762.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullinane, K., Wang, T., Song, D., & Ji, P. (2005). The technical efficiency of container ports: Comparing data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier analysis. Transportation Research Part A, 40(4), 354–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalkey, N. C., Rourke, D. L., Lewis, R., & Snyder, D. (1972). Studies in the Quality of Life. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dallimore, C. (2008). Securing the Supply Chain: Does the Container Security Initiative Comply with WTO Law? (Dissertation). University of Muenster. Available at https://www.wwu-customs.de/fileadmin/downloads/pdfs/diss_dallimore.PDF. Accessed 30 January 2016.

  • Davidson, P., Merritt-Gray, M., Buchanan, J., & Noel, J. (1997). Voices from practice: Mental health nurses identify research priorities. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, XI(6), 340–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, J., & Bobeva, M. (2005). A generic toolkit for the successful management of Delphi studies. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methodology, 3(2), 103–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Langen, P. W. (2007). Port competition and selection in contestable hinterlands: The case of Austria. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 7(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Martino, M., & Morvillo, A. (2008). Activities, resources and inter-organisational relationships: Key factors in port competitiveness. Maritime Policy and Management, 35(6), 571–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Meyrick, J. (2003). The Delphi method and health research. Health Education, 103, 7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, S., & Stevens, H. (2007). Maritime security in the European Union-empirical findings on financial implications for port facilities. Maritime Policy and Management, 34(5), 458–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinwoodie, J., Tuck, S., & Rigot-Müller, P. (2013). Maritime oil freight flows to 2050: Delphi perceptions of maritime specialists. Energy Policy, 63(3), 553–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinwoodie, J., Landamore, M., & Rigot-Muller, P. (2014). Dry bulk shipping flows to 2050: Delphi perceptions of early career specialists. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 88, 64–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donner, M., & Kruk, C. (2009). Supply Chain Security Guide. The World Bank/DFID, 1, pp. 1–107. Available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPRAL/Resources/SCS_Guide_Final.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2016.

  • Elgarhy, A. M. (2016). An Analysis of Policy Making for Dry Port Location Capacity: A Case Study on Alexandria (PhD thesis). University of Plymouth, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flick, U. (2009). Managing Quality in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowles, J. (1978). Handbook of Futures Research. Westport, CO: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, E. G. (1992). Hierarchical logic in shipping policy and decision-making. Maritime Policy and Management, 19(3), 211–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geist, M. R. (2010). Using the Delphi method to engage stakeholders: A comparison of two studies. Evaluation and Programme Planning, 33(2), 147–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G. (2008). Analysing Qualitative Data (Qualitative Research Kit). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnatzy, T., Warth, J., der Gracht, Von, & Darkow, I.-L. (2011). Validating an innovative real-time Delphi approach—A methodological comparison between real-time and conventional Delphi studies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1681–1694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goluchowicz, K., & Blind, K. (2011). Identification of future fields of standardisation: An explorative application of the Delphi methodology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1526–1541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, C. M. (1987). The Delphi technique: A critique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 12, 729–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greatorex, J., & Dexter, T. (2000). An accessible analytical approach for investigating what happens between the rounds of a Delphi study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1016–1024.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, B., Jones, M., & Hughes, D. (1999). Applying the Delphi technique in a study of GPs information requirement. Health and Social Care in the Community, 7(3), 198–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grix, J. (2004). The Foundations of Research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosso, M., & Monteiro, F. (2008). Relevant Strategic Criteria When Choosing a Container Port—The Case of the Port of Genoa. European Transport Conference 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, U. G., & Clarke, R. E. (1996). Theory and applications of the Delphi technique: A bibliography (1975–1994). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 53(2), 185–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guy, E., & Urli, B. (2006). Port selection and multi criteria analysis: An application to Montreal-New York alternative. Maritime Economic and Logistics, 8(2), 169–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ha, M. S. (2003). A comparison of service quality at major container ports: Implications for Korean ports. Journal of Transport Geography, 11, 131–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haezendonck, E., & Notteboom, T. (2002). The competitive advantage of seaports. In M. Huybrechts, et al. (Eds.), Port Competitiveness: An Economic and Legal Analysis of the Factors Determining the Competitiveness of Seaports (pp. 67–87). De Boeck: Antwerp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanafin, S. (2004). Review of Literature on the Delphi Technique. Available at https://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/publications/Delphi_Technique_A_Literature_Review.pdf. Accessed 26 April 2018.

  • Hannes, K., & Lockwood, C. (2012). Synthesizing Qualitative Research: Choosing the Right Approach (Vol. 1). London: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasson, F., Keeney, S., & Mckenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 32(4), 1008–1015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, C. C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation, 12(10), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hussler, C., Muller, P., & Ronde, P. (2011). Is diversity in Delphi panellist groups useful? Evidence from a French forecasting exercise on the future of nuclear energy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1642–1653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iqbal, S., & Pipon-Young, L. (2009). The Delphi method. Psychologist, 22(7), 598–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam, D. M. Z., Dinwoodie, J., & Roe, M. (2006). Promoting development through multimodal freight transport in Bangladesh. Transport Reviews, 26(5), 571–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kapoor, P. (1987). A Systems Approach to Documentary Maritime Fraud (PhD thesis). University of Plymouth, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, S., Hasson, F., & Mckenna, H. P. (2001). A critical review of the Delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 38, 195–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kent, P., & Ashar, A. (2001). Port competition regulation: A tool for monitoring for anticompetitive behaviour. International Journal of Maritime Economics, 3, 27–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koch, C. (2002). Testimony Before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Available at http://www.house.gov/transportation/cgmt/03-13-02/koch.html. Accessed 13 March 2016.

  • Kumar, S., & Rajan, V. (2002). An analysis of intermodal transport carrier selection criteria for Pacific-Rim imports to New England. Journal of Transportation Management, 13(1), 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai, V. S., Wong, B. K., & Cheung, W. (2002). Group decision-making in a multiple criteria environment: A case using the AHP in software selection. European Journal of Operational Research, 137, 134–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landeta, J., Barrutia, J., & Lertxundi, A. (2011). Hybrid Delphi: Methodology to facilitate contribution from experts in professional contexts. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1629–1641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leachman, R. C. (2008). Port and modal allocation of waterborne containerized imports from Asia to the United States. Transportation Research Part E, 44(2), 313–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liimatainen, H., Kallionpää, E., Pöllänen, M., Stenholm, P., Tapio, P., & McKinnon, A. (2014). Decarbonizing road freight in the future—Detailed scenarios of the carbon emissions of Finnish road freight transport in 2030 using a Delphi method approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81(1), 177–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Limao, N., & Venables, A. J. (2001). Infrastructure, geographical disadvantage, transport costs and trade. The World Bank Economic Review, 15(3), 451–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (2002). The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Available at http://is.njit.edu/pubs/delphibook/delphibook.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2013.

  • Lirn, T. C., Thanopoulou, H. A., Beynon, M. J., & Beresford, A. K. C. (2004). An application of AHP on transhipment port selection: A global perspective. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 6(1), 70–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd’s List. (2014). Top 20 European Ports. Available at https://www.lloydslist.com/ll/incoming/article431990.ece. Accessed 25 May 2015.

  • Ludwig, B. (1997). Predicting the future: Have you considered using the Delphi methodology? Journal of Extension, 35(5), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machalaba, D. (2001, July 9). US Ports Are Losing the Battle to Keep Up with Overseas Trade. The Wall Street Journal. 2001. Available at http://www.nc.gsu.edu/_ecojxm/7030/notes/articles/w070901.htm. Accessed 2 December 2016.

  • Makukha, K., & Gray, R. (2004). Logistics partnerships between shippers and logistics service providers: The relevance of strategy. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 7(4), 361–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malchow, M., & Kanafani, A. (2001). A disaggregate analysis of factors influencing port selection. Maritime Policy and Management, 28(3), 265–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malchow, M. B., & Kanafani, A. (2004). A disaggregate analysis of port selection. Transportation Research Part E, 40, 317–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangan, J., Lalwani, C., & Gardner, B. (2002). Modelling port/ferry choice in RoRo freight transportation. International Journal of Transport Management, 1(1), 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martonosi, S. E., Ortiz, D. S., & Willis, H. H. (2005). Evaluating the viability of 100 percent container inspections at America’s ports, in Richardson, H. W., Gordon, P., & Moore, J. E. II (Eds.), The Economic Impacts of Terrorist Attacks. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, K. J., & Alamdari, F. (2007). EU network carriers, low cost carriers and consumer behaviour: A Delphi study of future trends. Journal of Air Transport Management, 13(5), 299–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenna, H. (1994). The Delphi technique: A worthwhile research approach for nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19, 1221–1225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meersman, H., Pauwels, T., Van de Voorde, E., & Vanelslander, T. (2008). The Relation Between Port Competition and Hinterland Connections: The Case of the ‘Iron Rhine’ and the ‘Betuweroute’, International Forum on Shipping, Ports and Airports (IFSPA 2008)—Trade-Based Global Supply Chain and Transport Logistics Hubs: Trends and Future Development, Hong Kong.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metaparti, P. (2010). Rhetoric, rationality and reality in post-9/11 maritime security. Maritime Policy and Management, 37(7), 723–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, G. (2001). The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: Results of a Delphi survey of tourism researchers. Tourism Management, 22, 351–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. R., & Daley, J. M. (1994). A framework for applying logistical segmentation. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management, 24(10), 13–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P. R., Daley, J. M., & Dalenberg, D. R. (1992). Port selection criteria: An application of a transportation research framework. Logistics and Transportation Review, 28, 237–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, M. D. (2008). Qualitative Research in Business and Management. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn & Baker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nir, A., Lin, K., & Liang, G. (2003). Port choice behaviour-from the perspective of the shipper. Maritime Policy and Management, 30(2), 165–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T. (2012). Dynamics in Port Competition in Europe: Implications for North Italian Ports. Workshop ‘I porti del Nord’-Milan, 18 April.

    Google Scholar 

  • Notteboom, T., & Yap, W. Y. (2012). Port competition and competitiveness, in Talley, W. (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Maritime Economics (pp. 549–570). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nowack, M., Endrikat, J., & Guenther, E. (2011). Review of Delphi-based scenario studies: Quality and design considerations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1603–1615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2003). Maritime Transport Committee Security in Maritime Transport: Risk Factors and Economic Impact. Available at https://www.oecd.org/newsroom/4375896.pdf.

  • Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42, 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parente, R., & Anderson-Parente, J. (2011). A case study of long-term Delphi accuracy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1705–1711.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parliament of Australia. (2003). The US Container Security Initiative and Its Implications for Australia. Available at http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0203/03cib27.

  • Parsons, J., Dinwoodie, J., & Roe, M. (2011). Northern opportunities: A strategic review of Canada’s Arctic icebreaking services. Marine Policy, 35(4), 549–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piecyk, M. I., & McKinnon, A. (2009). Environmental Impact of Road Freight Transport in 2020: Full Report of a Delphi Survey. Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Hungler, B. P. (2001). Essentials of Nursing Research: Methods, Appraisal, and Utilization (5th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, C. (2003). The Delphi technique: Myths and realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41(4), 376–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (2011). The Delphi technique: Past, present and future prospects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(9), 1487–1490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G., Wright, G., & McColl, A. (2005). Judgment change during Delphi-like procedures: The role of majority influence, expertise and confidence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72, 377–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2007). Classroom interactions: Exploring the practices of high and low expectation teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 289–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sackman, H. (1975). Delphi Critique. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saldanha, J., & Gray, R. (2002). The potential for British coastal shipping in a multimodal chain. Maritime Policy and Management, 29(1), 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, R., Hoffmann, J., Micco, A., Pizzolitto, G., Sguti, M., & Wilmsmeier, G. (2003). Port efficiency and international trade: Port efficiency as a determinant of maritime transport costs. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 5, 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuckmann, S. W., Gnatzy, T., Darkow, I., & von der Gracht, H. A. (2012). Analysis of factors influencing the development of transport infrastructure until the year 2030—A Delphi based scenario study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(8), 1373–1387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1699–1710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey, S. B., & Sharples, A. (2003). The impact on work-related stress of mental health teams following team-based learning on clinical risk management. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 10(1), 73–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shintani, K., Imai, A., Nishimura, E., & Papadimitriou, S. (2007). The container shipping network design problem with empty container repositioning. Transportation Research Part E, 43(1), 39–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting Qualitative Research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sindi, S. H. O. (2016). Development of a Multi-Dimensional Matrix for Supply Chain Management (PhD thesis). Plymouth Uiversity, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slack, B. (1985). Containerisation inter-port competition and port selection. Maritime Policy and Management, 12(4), 293–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, D. W., & Yeo, K.-T. (2004). A competitive analysis of Chinese container ports using the analytic hierarchy process. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 6, 34–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sumsion, T. (1998). The Delphi technique: An adaptive research tool. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61(4), 153–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thai, V. V. (2007). Impacts of security improvements on service quality in maritime transport: An empirical study of Vietnam. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 9(4), 335–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiwari, P., Itoh, H., & Doi, M. (2003). Shippers’ port and carrier selection behaviour in China: A discrete choice analysis. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 5(1), 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tongzon, J. (1995). Determinants of port performance and efficiency. Transportation Research Part A, 29(3), 245–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tongzon, J. L. (2009). Port choice and freight forwarders. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 45(1), 186–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tongzon, J., & Heng, W. (2005). Port privatisation, efficiency and competitiveness: Some empirical evidence from container ports (terminals). Transportation Research Part A, 39(5), 405–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tongzon, J. L., & Sawant, L. (2007). Port choice in a competitive environment: From the shipping lines’ perspective. Applied Economics, 39, 477–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turoff, M., & Hiltz, S. R. (1996). Computer based Delphi processes. In M. Adler & E. Ziglio (Eds.), Gazing into the Oracle: The Delphi and Its Application to Social Policy and Public Health. London: Jessica Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzeng, G., Teng, M., Chen, J., & Opricovic, S. (2002). Multicriteria selection for a restaurant location in Taipei. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 21, 171–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ugboma, C., Ugboma, O., & Ogwude, I. C. (2006). An Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approach to port selection decisions—Empirical evidence from Nigerian ports. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 8(3), 251–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD. (2003, February 24–28). Report on the Expert Meeting on Efficient Transport and Trade Facilitation to Improve Participation by Developing Countries in International Trade: Problems and Potential for the Application of Current Trade Facilitation Measures by Developing Countries. Trade and Development Board. Commission on Enterprise, Business Facilitation and Development Seventh session, Geneva, pp. 2–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Zolingen, S. J., & Klaassen, C. A. (2003). Selection processes in a Delphi study about key qualifications in senior secondary vocational education. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70(4), 317–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veldman, S., & Buckmann, E. H. (2003). A model on container port competition: An application for the West European container hub-ports. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 5, 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von der Gracht, H. A. (2008). The Future of Logistics: Scenarios for 2025. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. C., Wang, Y., Zhang, K., Fang, J., Liu, W., Luo, S., et al. (2003). Reproductive health indicators for China’s rural areas. Social Science and Medicine, 57(2), 217–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, L. (2014). Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus: A Tool for Guiding Extension Programmes. Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, UF/IFAS Extension, AEC521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, J. (2011). Shaping the Future of Northeast Michigan: Utilising the Delphi Method to Inform Planning Scenario Construction. Milton Keynes, UK: Lightning Source UK Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, W. (1978). Delphi-Methode, Gestaltung und Potential für betriebliche Prognoseprozesse. Schriftenreihe Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Forschung und Entwicklung, München. p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wengraf, T. (2004). Qualitative Research Interviewing: Biographic Narrative and Semi-Structured Methods. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitman, N. (1990). The committee meeting alternative: Using The Delphi technique. Journal of Nursing Administration, 20(7), 30–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiegmans, B. W., Van Der Hoest, A., & Notteboom, T. E. (2008). Port and terminal selection by deep-sea container operators. Maritime Policy and Management, 35(6), 517–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P., & Webb, C. (1994). The Delphi technique: A methodological discussion. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19, 180–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yap, W., & Lam, J. (2006a). Competition dynamics between container ports in East Asia. Transportation Research Part A, 40(1), 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yap, W., & Lam, J. (2006b). A measurement and comparison of cost competitiveness of container ports in South East Asia. Transportation, 33, 641–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeo, G. T. (2007). Port Competitiveness in North East Asia: An Integrated Fuzzy Approach to Expert Evaluations (PhD thesis). Plymouth University, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yeo, G., Pak, J., & Yang, Z. (2013). Analysis of dynamic effects on seaports adopting port security policy. Transportation Research Part A, 49, 285–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeedick, D. (2011). The Modified Delphi Method to Analyse the Application of Instructional Design Theory to Online Graduate Education (Proquest, Umi Dissertation Publishing).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Logistics, Beijing WuZi University, Beijing, China

    Xufan Zhang

  2. Graduate School of Management, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK

    Michael Roe

Authors
  1. Xufan Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Roe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xufan Zhang .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Zhang, X., Roe, M. (2019). Research Methodology for Container Port Security. In: Maritime Container Port Security. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03825-0_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation