항만개발우선순위 결정에 관한 연구 : 중심항만의 관점에서 = (A)study on deciding an optimal port development priority : from the hub port perspective

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Port competition among countries is getting fiercer than in the past because of technological evolution: the increasing size of containerships implies only a few calls in three or four harbours at each end of the trade the rest of the traffic being served by smaller feederships. It is therefore essential for big ports to be selected as one of these calls by the main shipping lines, consortia and alliances to avoid marginalisation. Hence the development of "hub and spoke" strategies similar to those existing in air transport.
There has been a severe port competition in Northeast Asia where there are many ports which would like to be playing a key role as a regional hub, including Shanghai, Busan, Kaohsiung, and some Japanese ports. These ports have been propelling a bold development project in order to get a pre-dominant status for a load centre in the region.
Korean government has been involved with port development policy and financing after the implementation of national economy development plan, largely as a result of the rapid growth in seaborne trade and port throughputs due mainly to the export-oriented industrialisation strategy. Successive Korean governments, therefore, have devoted substantial investment to seaport growth in order to meet increasing demands, because of their understanding of the critical role of seaports in the national economy.
The multi-port development policy in Korea, however, has made some major ports - mainly Busan - lag behind demand in capacity. This has weakened the competitive edge of Busan in Northeast Asia by preventing vessels from directly calling at ports with limited facilities.
Why, then, is it that the port planning and development process in Korea has not been successful? The main reason for this has been the confusion that exists throughout the hierarchical administrative system, especially in terms of investment planning. No matter how the port specialists concerned emphasise the importance of the intensified and proper development of seaports, if central government does not recognize this importance then it is unlikely that port investment will be made on a timely bases and in accordance with what is required.
This confusion has resulted from a lack of appreciation of the importance of a regional hub port to the national economy and of the critical issue of port capacity. The general policy of port development in Korea should be guided by the desire to equate the supply and demand of cargo handling facilities and services. Investment decision have underrated the impact of the seaport industry on the national economy from the macroeconomic viewpoint.
No comprehensive and reliable evaluation of proposed port developments by the intuitive opinion of port professionals have been undertaken, neither has their been accurate forecasting of the growth of economic activities due to port expansions which was sometimes manipulated by political factors.
Seaport developments in the present system are heavily dependent upon the recognition by the central government authorities of the critical role of port development in the national economy. There is the need, therefore, to make central government aware of the importance of the seaport industry. This can be done by applying AHP(Analytic Hierarchy Process) which is a method that can be used to establish measures in both the physical and social domains.
This thesis aims to: know how the port specialists think the priority of port development in Korea in relation to a national hub; examine the relevance of AHP technique as an efficient tool to the decision-making for port development.
After a brief look at changes in international trade and responses of shipping and ports particularly in Northeast Asia, this study begins with an overview of present port development process in Korea in order to identify some issues to be answered.
The most creative and influential part of decision making is the structuring of the decision as a hierarchy. To illustrate the ideas regarding a hub port development, 87 factors were identified to look for both from the previous studies and from brainstorming of port professionals. These factors were grouped into 4 levels by ‘KJ method’.
On the first (or top) level is the overall goal of ‘a hub port development’. On the second level are the 3 functions(‘Economic’, ‘Urban’, and ‘Terminal’) that contribute to the goal, and on the third level are the 6 criteria(‘Linkage’, ‘Throughput’, ‘Hinterland’, ‘Service’, ‘Facility’, and ‘Location’) that are to be compared in terms of the functions on the second level. On the fourth (or bottom) level are 6 candidate ports(‘Busan’, ‘Inchon’, ‘Pyongtack’, ‘Mokpo’, ‘Gwangyang’, and ‘Ulsan’) that are to be evaluated in terms of the criteria on the third level.
In relation to the role of major port in level 2, the questionnaire shows that port specialists consider the importance of 3 attributes as follows: 1. Economic function > 2. Terminal function > 3. Urban function. Further, in relation to the criteria for major port in level 3, the questionnaire indicates that port specialists consider the importance of 6 attributes as follows: 1. Throughput > 2. Service > 3. Hinterland > 4. Facility > 5. Location > 6. Linkage.
As far as the priority of port development is concerned, AHP analysis identifies the relative importance from 6 alternative ports as follows: 1. Busan > 2. Gwangyang > 3. Pyongtack > 4. Inchon > 5. Unsan > 6. Mokpo. This implies that Korean port professionals prefer Busan as a national hub port and it needs an intensive development from the viewpoint of a regional hub port in Northeast Asia.
In summary, the Korean central government has not appreciated the full extent of the impact of a regional hub port on the national economy. As a consequence port investment has not been given sufficient priority to Busan and its capacity has failed to keep pace with demand to become a load centre in the region. Further, multi-port development programmes propelled by Korean government have not been successful when considering the existing situation in relation to a regional hub port competition in Northeast Asia. It is suggested, therefore, that much attention should be made to develop one port, e.g. Busan, as a national hub.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 표 목 차 ⅳ
• 그림목차 ⅵ
• Abstract ⅶ
• 1. 서 론 1
• 1.1 연구의 목적 1
• 1.2 연구의 방법 및 구성 3
• 2. 국제무역 및 해운환경의 변화와 항만개발의 여건 변화 5
• 2.1 국제무역환경의 변화 5
• 2.2 국제해운환경의 변화 7
• 2.3 선박의 대형화와 중심항만 경쟁 9
• 2.4 동북아 주요 국가의 항만개발 현황 12
• 2.5 우리나라 항만개발 현황 16
• 2.6 컨테이너항만 개발관련 선행연구 19
• 2.7 문제의 제기 23
• 3. 항만의 평가속성 도출과 계층구축 26
• 3.1 세부평가속성요소의 도출 27
• 3.2 세부평가속성요소의 분류 및 대표속성 도출 29
• 3.2.1 방법론 : KJ법 29
• 3.2.2 KJ법에 의한 속성별 분류 및 대표속성 도출 32
• 3.3 대표속성의 개념 34
• 3.4 계층분석구조의 구축 35
• 3.5 설문조사 대상자의 선정과정과 응답결과 37
• 4. 실증 분석 40
• 4.1 AHP의 분석과정 40
• 4.1.1 AHP의 개요 40
• 4.1.2 AHP 기법의 수행과정 41
• 4.2 계층별 상대적 중요도 산출결과 46
• 4.2.1 항만의 역할 48
• 4.2.2 항만의 평가기준 49
• 4.2.3 항만의 대안 52
• 4.3 종합 중요도 산출 : 최종우선순위 도출 58
• 4.4 계층별 지표간 중요도와 민감도 분석 59
• 4.5 항만개발관련 정책에 대한 상대적 중요도 산출결과 64
• 4.5.1 항만개발계획 64
• 4.5.2 항만개발투자 65
• 5. 분석의 시사점과 정책적 의미 67
• 5.1 실증분석에 따른 시사점 67
• 5.2 우리나라 항만정책의 진단과 개선방안 76
• 5.2.1 항만개발정책 76
• 5.2.2 항만투자정책 78
• 5.2.3 양항정책 82
• 6. 요약 및 결론 87
• 참고문헌 91
• 부록: 설문지 99