IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlogis/v4y2020i2p8-d345808.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New Seaport Development-Prospects and Challenges: Perspectives from Apapa and Calabar Seaports, Nigeria

Author

Listed:
  • Adepoju Olusegun Onifade

    (Department of Maritime Transport Studies, Maritime Academy of Nigeria, P.M.B 1089, Oron 523118, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria)

Abstract

Arising from the menace of city logistics problems in Lagos State with reference, in particular, to the Apapa and Tin Can Island seaport axis, the federal and state governments, in collaboration with private investors, seek to establish and/or develop some potential seaports to ease the burden of maritime logistics. Therefore, the objectives of this paper are to examine the prospects and challenges of the development of these proposed seaports and to analyze the efficiencies of the two selected seaports in order to determine the need for the required investment in seaport development. Descriptive analysis was used to examine the challenges of the selected seaports, while stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) was used to determine the efficiency of the selected seaports. The responses of the stakeholders and shipping companies to the various challenges were collected through a well-structured questionnaire, and the 2008–2017 cargo throughputs of the selected seaports were used as the secondary data for stochastic frontier analysis (SFA). It was discovered that the challenges associated with the Calabar Seaport were the draught level, cost of shipment, accessibility to industries, and condition of other modes of transport. From the stochastic frontier, the Lagos Apapa seaport is quite efficient, with an efficiency value of 0.9764921, while Calabar is slightly above average, with a mean efficiency value of 0.6086686. By implication, the congestion in the seaports in the Lagos seaport complex with the maximum level of efficiency creates the need for another seaport, which must be sited at a well-vetted location. In the case of the Calabar seaport, the efficiency level shows that the seaport is yet to be fully utilized. Hence, investment decisions regarding whether to build a new seaport or use dredging to upgrade the existing ones must be carefully analyzed, as the establishment of the proposed Ibom deep seaport may further affect the efficiency of the Calabar seaport(s). In conclusion, demand should be the driving force for port establishment: when a port cannot generate enough traffic, it may not yield returns on investment as expected.

Suggested Citation

  • Adepoju Olusegun Onifade, 2020. "New Seaport Development-Prospects and Challenges: Perspectives from Apapa and Calabar Seaports, Nigeria," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 4(2), pages 1-12, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlogis:v:4:y:2020:i:2:p:8-:d:345808
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6290/4/2/8/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6290/4/2/8/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. T. Heaver & H. Meersman & E. Van De Voorde, 2001. "Co-operation and competition in international container transport: strategies for ports," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(3), pages 293-305, July.
    2. Heaver, T. & Meersman, H. & van de Voorde, E., 2001. "Co-Operation and Competition in International Container Transport Strategies for Ports," Research Papers 24173, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Applied Economic Sciences.
    3. Francesco Parola & Marcello Risitano & Marco Ferretti & Eva Panetti, 2017. "The drivers of port competitiveness: a critical review," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 116-138, January.
    4. Theo Notteboom & Chris Coeck & Julien Van Den Broeck, 2000. "Measuring and Explaining the Relative Efficiency of Container Terminals by Means of Bayesian Stochastic Frontier Models," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 2(2), pages 83-106, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Onwo, Isioma Nwabunor & Sylvester Favor Udeorah, Ph.D & Ijeoma Emele Kalu, Ph.D, 2021. "Ease of Doing Business, Trade across Borders and Profitability of Small and Medium-Size Enterprises in Port Harcourt," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 5(1), pages 293-299, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. R. B. Castelein & H. Geerlings & J. H. R. Van Duin, 2019. "The ostensible tension between competition and cooperation in ports: a case study on intra-port competition and inter-organizational relations in the Rotterdam container handling sector," Journal of Shipping and Trade, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-25, December.
    2. David Jaffee, 2010. "Labor and the Geographic Reorganization of Container Shipping in the U.S," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(4), pages 520-539, December.
    3. Francesca Medda & Qianwen Liu, 2013. "Determinants and strategies for the development of container terminals," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 83-98, August.
    4. Castelein, R.B. & Geerlings, H. & van Duin, J.H.R., 2019. "Divergent effects of container port choice incentives on users' behavior," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 82-93.
    5. Yoon, Junghyun & Lee, Hee Yong & Dinwoodie, John, 2015. "Competitiveness of container terminal operating companies in South Korea and the industry–university–government network," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1-14.
    6. Cheng-Hsien Hsieh, 2014. "Disaster risk assessment of ports based on the perspective of vulnerability," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 74(2), pages 851-864, November.
    7. Álvarez-SanJaime, Óscar & Cantos-Sánchez, Pedro & Moner-Colonques, Rafael & Sempere-Monerris, José J., 2015. "The impact on port competition of the integration of port and inland transport services," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 291-302.
    8. Zheng, Shiyuan & Fu, Xiaowen & Jiang, Changmin & Ge, Ying-En, 2020. "Airline investments in exclusive airport facilities: Timing decisions under demand ambiguity," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 343-363.
    9. Gharehgozli, A.H. & Roy, D. & de Koster, M.B.M., 2014. "Sea Container Terminals," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2014-009-LIS, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    10. Ha, Min-Ho & Yang, Zaili & Lam, Jasmine Siu Lee, 2019. "Port performance in container transport logistics: A multi-stakeholder perspective," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 25-40.
    11. Jean Debrie, 2010. "Different tiers of government in port governance: some general remarks on the institutional geography of ports in Europe and Canada," Post-Print hal-00615146, HAL.
    12. Alessia Donato & David Carfì & Beatrice Blandina, 2018. "Coopetitive Games for Management of Marine Transportation Activity: A Study Case," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-17, December.
    13. Amir Gharehgozli & Nima Zaerpour & Rene Koster, 2020. "Container terminal layout design: transition and future," Maritime Economics & Logistics, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), vol. 22(4), pages 610-639, December.
    14. Giovanni Satta & Francesco Parola & Simone Caschili, 2014. "Dealing with uncertainty and volatility in the port industry network: social and instrumental antecedents of "clique" survival," Maritime Policy & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(7), pages 615-633, December.
    15. Bichou, K. & Gray, R., 2005. "A critical review of conventional terminology for classifying seaports," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 75-92, January.
    16. M. A. G. Aslaam Author_Email: & J. Jagan & M. Kasypi & A. H. Saharuddin, 2011. "Port Development: Competitive Factor In Value Chain," 2nd International Conference on Business and Economic Research (2nd ICBER 2011) Proceeding 2011-430, Conference Master Resources.
    17. MEERSMAN, Hilde & VAN DE VOORDE, Eddy, 2014. "Port capacity extension. A trade-off between public investment and shipping companies' time losses," Working Papers 2014009, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    18. Meersman, Hilde & Van de Voorde, Eddy & Vanelslander, Thierry, 2006. "Chapter 4 Fighting for Money, Investments and Capacity: Port Governance and Devolution in Belgium," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 85-107, January.
    19. Ji-Feng Ding, 2009. "Applying fuzzy quality function deployment (QFD) to identify solutions of service delivery system for port of Kaohsiung," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 553-570, July.
    20. Brinker, Janosch & Haasis, Hans-Dietrich, 2020. "The impact of an asymmetric allocation of power on the digitalization strategy of port logistics," Chapters from the Proceedings of the Hamburg International Conference of Logistics (HICL), in: Jahn, Carlos & Kersten, Wolfgang & Ringle, Christian M. (ed.), Data Science in Maritime and City Logistics: Data-driven Solutions for Logistics and Sustainability. Proceedings of the Hamburg International Conferen, volume 30, pages 457-484, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute of Business Logistics and General Management.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlogis:v:4:y:2020:i:2:p:8-:d:345808. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.