Journal of Korea Trade
Vol. 17, No. 4. November. 2013, 51-67
Measuring “Energy Use Efficiency”of Container
Hermouche Toufik Sabri
, Myung‐shin Ha
, Ga‐hyunKim
When planning energy use reduction policies, one of the crucial elements that might
provide a solid basis for the decision makers is an energy efficiency measurement.
In fact, decision makers are reluctant to act if there is no strong and accurate data
and results to support the policy position they may take. The purpose of this study
is to propose an alternative method to measure energy use efficiency (Energy Efficiency)
in the port industry, and more precisely, in the container terminals sector. The approach
is based on the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) introduced by Farrell in 1957. The
objective is to reduce the amount of energy inputs. As the first step, the input variables
are converted into their energy equivalents, then the energy efficiency is measured
as an overall indicator using a constant return to scale model, and decomposed into
technical and scale efficiencies in order to diagnose the origin of inefficiency in energy
use for each unit in the selected sample. This allows us to provide more accurate
results, and gives a more solid basis to decision makers in order to establish their
policies. As the final step, a DEA Super Efficiency analysis is performed to achieve
a full ranking in terms of energy efficiency for the units under study.
Keywords: Data Envelopment Analysis, energy efficiency, Container Terminals
Main Author: Department of International Commerce and Logistics, College of Business
Administration, PuKyong National University, Korea, hermouche_toufik@yahoo.fr
Corresponding Author: Department of International Commerce, College of Business
Administration, Professor, PuKyong National University, Korea, msha@pknu.ac.kr
Third Author: Department of International Commerce and Logistics, College of Business
Administration, PuKyong National University, Korea, oneina10000@hotmail.com
Journal of Korea Trade Vol. 17, No. 4, November. 2013
I. Introduction
In any economic sector, goods production and services delivery are functions of
many factors such as human labor, capital, infrastructure, and particularly technology
where energy has been used intensively, leading to a considerably decreasing amount
of natural resources and an increasing amount of contaminants.
To lower the environmental adverse effects that are related to technology, we need
to increase the energy use efficiency by developing scientific forecasts and analyses
of energy consumption to allow us to plan energy strategies and policies.
In the globalization era, two main factors have had a great effect on the port industry.
The first one is the continuous growth of international trade. In 2011, the seaborne
trade (the world’s throughput including containerized goods, liquid cargo, bulk cargo,
and general cargo, etc.) reached a record of 87 billion tons (UNCTAD, Review of
Maritime Transport 2012), resulting in an intensification of port activities. This refers
to the considerable increase in the number of ship’s calls. From 2009 to 2011 and
only considering the world’s containerized port traffic, the tonnage moved expanded
from 472,273,661 to 572,834,421 (TEU) representing an increase of 20.5% (UNCTAD,
Review of Maritime Transport 2012). The second factor is the containerization that
transformed ports into a highly mechanized sector by introducing a wide range of
machinery and equipment. These two factors dramatically increased the port’s energy
consumption in both electricity and fossil fuels, which is extremely critical for ports
given their considerable environmental impact that sometimes affects entire regions
(Button, 1993).
According to Shin and Cheong in their assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from the ports of Busan in South Korea in 2008, about 14.3% of the total
emissions were estimated to be directly generated by cargo handling activities (Shin
and Cheong, 2011). Merk, et al., concluded that 17% of NO
and 10% of SO
during the year of 2005 in the agglomeration of Le Havre in the north of France were
connected to maritime and inland river transportation, where a very large share of these
emissions (approximately 70% for CO
and NO
as well as 85% of SO
) are associated
with the energy‐related sectors in the port area (Merk, et al., 2011). Also based on
the 2001~2002 year, emissions inventories for both the Port of Los Angeles and Port
of Long Beach in the United States of America, the contribution of emissions by cargo
handling equipment was estimated to be 14% (San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action
Plan, November 2006). These three examples, from different regions in the world,
clearly illustrate the global effects that the ports’ cargo handling activities might have
on the environment.
In this study, we sought to bring a contribution to reduce the environmental adverse
effects of the port’s activities, through establishing effective environmental‐friendly
strategies for energy use by providing relevant recommendations following a thorough
analysis of energy use efficiency in container terminals.
Measuring “Energy Use Efficiency”of Container Terminals
Among the alternative approaches for measuring, and decomposing energy efficiency,
we list the non‐parametric estimation technique of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA).
This technique is especially powerful in evaluating the relative performance of different
Decision Making Units (DMUs) in transforming a given amount of inputs (Resources)
into Outputs (Goods or Services).
Initiated by Farrell in 1957 and developed by Charnes, et al. in 1978, DEA involves
the use of linear programming methods to construct a non‐parametric frontier. The best
practices located on the frontier form the benchmark against which the potential energy
saving for those that are not on the frontier can be calculated. Therefore, by comparing
the practice of different ports or terminals, we can identify the amount of energy savings
likely to be possible.
As stated by Zhou and Ang, and Zhou, et al., DEA has gained in popularity in
energy efficiency analysis (Zhou and Ang, 2008) and (Zhou, et al., 2008). Among
the reviewed literature, excluding port industry related research, various papers deal
with the topic of energy efficiency by using a DEA framework. Nassiri and Singh,
and Heidari, et al., determined the amount and efficiency of energy consumption for
paddy, and horticultural greenhouses production in Iran by using basic DEA methods
(Nassiri and Singh, 2009; Heidari, et al., 2012). Lee used the multiple linear regression
method and DEA to examine the efficiency of energy management in government
buildings in Taiwan (Lee, 2007). Onut and Soner used a DEA approach to assess energy
efficiency for the Antalya Region hotels in Turkey (Onut and Soner, 2005). Also Wu,
et al. used a DEA model with undesirable output to assess industrial energy efficiency
with CO₂emission in China (Wu et al., 2012).
In this study the energy efficiency (EE) of ten container terminals located in the
metropolitan city of Busan in Korea has been analyzed using a DEA approach. As
the first step, we assessed the technical EE of each unit in the data set by running
a CCR model. In a further step, the Technical EE was decomposed into Pure Technical
EE, and Scale EE, using a BCC model to determine the origin of the overall inefficiency
of each inefficient unit. As a final step, a full ranking of the container terminals in
terms of best practices in energy use, is provided by an additional analysis using the
DEA Super‐Efficiency model.
Ⅱ. Data and Methodology
1. Variables and Data selection
In this study, all data was collected during the month of August 2013, primarily
via direct interviews with container terminals’ managers and with e‐mails and telephone
calls when additional information was needed. The study covers 10 container terminals
(DMUs) located in the two ports of Busan Metropolitan city in the south of Korea.
Journal of Korea Trade Vol. 17, No. 4, November. 2013
Namely “Busan New Port” and “Busan North Port”, both under the jurisdiction of
the Busan Port Authority (BPA). Busan ports are the main gateway to the Korean
Peninsula and reputed to be among the 5 busiest ports in the world. Busan New Port
is a new Semi‐Automated Container Terminal and has been operational since 2005.
It includes five container terminal operators (Hanjin Shipping terminal, Hyundai
terminal, PNIT, BNCT, and PNC), while Busan North port contains the five other
terminals (Hutchison, Uam, Singamman, Shinsundae, Gamman). The sample represents
several homogeneous characteristics. All terminals are located in the same geographical
area, serving the same hinterland, using the same logistics infrastructure and inland
transportation, sharing the same cargo to handle, and dealing with the same regulations
and port authorities, which may enhance the reliability of our model.
As outputs we considered the annual container throughput for the year of 2012
as expressed in TEU, and the main consumer of energy in a container terminal; Ship
to Shore (STS) Cranes, and yard equipment that includes Transfer Cranes (T/C) and
yard vehicles. The major energy sources in a container terminal are electricity for cranes,
and diesel fuel for yard vehicles. For the same year, we selected the annual consumption
of electricity and diesel as energy inputs (for more details please refer to the Appendix).
In order to ensure a full homogeneity in our data set, we have to overcome two
main heterogeneity factors. The first one is that (as have been mentioned previously)
Busan New Port is a semi‐automated port, where terminals exclusively use Rail Mounted
Gantry (RMG) cranes operated by electric motors, while Busan North Port contains
conventional terminals that mostly use Rubber Tired Gantry (RTG) cranes operated
by internal combustion diesel engines
, which may be misleading in our general analysis
of energy use efficiency. To overcome this issue, we will convert inputs into a common
energy unit (the Joule) by multiplying the energy content of each variable
the annual consumed quantity, then use the sum of the total consumed quantities of
electricity and diesel as a common single input.
The second factor resides in the type of the quayside equipment used in each terminal.
If we assume that the yard equipment is almost similar in both ports though the STS
cranes may differ in size, capacity, and technology from one terminal to another, we
can also describe these things in terms of energy consumption, e.g., a crane equipped
by a Tandem‐Lift spreader will need more energy to be operated than a crane equipped
by a Twin‐Lift spreader because the Tandem‐Lift spreader is capable of handling four
TEUs in one lift, while a Twin‐Lift spreader can handle only a maximum of two TEUs
per lift. To partially overcome this issue, instead of considering each STS crane as
one single unit, we will use a representative of its TEU handling capacity per lift

Regardless of the energy efficiency use, the consumption of electricity per TEU will be
relatively higher for terminals in the New port. On the other hand, terminals in the North port
will represent a relatively higher consumption of diesel fuel per TEU
GJ/ liter of diesel, and 36*10
Measuring “Energy Use Efficiency”of Container Terminals
multiplied by the respective total number of cranes for each terminal to get the total
lifting capacity in one handling move per terminal. <Table 1> represents the summary
statistics for input and output variables.
<Table 1> Statistics for Input and Output Variables
Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Derivation
Total Energy Use "GJ" 76,970.33 368,021.02 189,517.90 94,407.60
Throughput "TEU" 506,526.00 3,353,330.00 1,590,764.20 861,409.52
STS Total Box/Lift "TEU" 10.00 68.00 30.80 17.62
Yard Equipment "Units" 42.00 204.00 108.70 49.21
To increase the validity of the proposed model, we examined the correlation between
input and output factors.
The results of the correlation matrix, shown in <Table 2>,
do not indicate any inappropriate variable among the data set that may affect the
robustness of our model.
<Table 2> Correlation among Input and Output Factors
Total Energy Use "GJ" Throughput "TEU" STS Total Box/Lift "TEU"
Throughput "TEU" 0.96
STS Total Box/Lift
0.87 0.91
Yard Equipment 0.91 0.94 0.91
2. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) Methods
DEA is a non‐parametric analytic method that measures the relative efficiency of
homogenous sets of organizations or Decision Making Units (DMUs) performing the
same tasks to transform resources (Inputs) into final products or services (Outputs),
i.e. efficiency is the ratio of the sum of weighted outputs to the sum of weighted
inputs as shown in Eq. (1).
The DMU is considered efficient when it achieves a score of 1 or mathematically
as (Cooper, Seiford and Tone, 2006):
Four TEUs per lift for tandem‐lift cranes, and two TEUs per lift for twin‐lift cranes
An increase in input should not result in a decrease in any output (Chien. et al., 2003).
Journal of Korea Trade Vol. 17, No. 4, November. 2013
Where ‘x’ and ‘y’ refer respectively to inputs and outputs, ‘v’ and ‘u’ are the
respective weights of inputs and outputs, ‘q’ is the number of inputs (q = 1, 2,…,
Q), ‘p’ represents the number of outputs (p =1, 2,…, P), and ‘j’ represent DMU.
In our case, the DMUs refer to container terminal operators, the inputs are the
electricity and diesel fuel consumed to perform the terminals’ operations, and as outputs,
the total annual container throughput and the amount of equipment operated within
each terminal has been considered.
In DEA, there are two methods to improve the efficiency of an inefficient DMU.
The first method is output oriented. It aims to increase the outputs level while holding
the inputs level constant. The second method is input oriented where the outputs level
is kept constant while decreasing the level of inputs. In our case, as we aim to decrease
the consumption of energy for each inefficient DMU, it is more appropriate to opt
for an input oriented method.
DEA has two basic models, the CCR model developed by Charnes, Cooper and
Rhodes in 1978, on the assumption of Constant Return to Scale (CRS), and the BCC
Model developed by Banker, Charnes and Cooper in 1984 that is based on a Variable
Return to Scale (VRS). Thus, the efficiency of DEA is defined according to 3 distinctive
forms: Overall Technical Efficiency (TE) under the CCR Model, which can be
decomposed into Pure Technical Efficiency (PTE), and Scale Efficiency (SE) under
the BCC Model (Cooper et al., 2006) as shown in Eq. (3)
This unique decomposition depicts the sources of the overall inefficiency whether
it is caused by inefficient operation (PTE) or by disadvantageous conditions displayed
by the scale efficiency (SE) or both.
1) Technical Efficiency
To assess the overall TE, Charnes et al. developed the CCR Model in 1978, Eq. (4).
Measuring “Energy Use Efficiency”of Container Terminals
Where `i is a vector of J elements representing the influence of each grower in
determining the technical efficiency of the DMU
under study and 0 is the technical
2) Pure Technical Efficiency
In 1984, Bankers et al. proposed the BCC Model based on VRS, Eq. (5).
The equation
i · 1
`i · 1 is a convexity constraint which specifies the VRS framework
(Mostafa, 2009,Heidari, et al., 2012). Without this convexity constraint, the BCC model
will be a CCR model (Heidari, et al., 2012) like in Eq. (4).
3) Scale Efficiency
Scale efficiency measures can be obtained for each terminal by conducting both
CCR and BCC DEA models, then decomposing the TE score obtained from the CCR
DEA into two components. One component is due to scale inefficiency, and the other
is due to Pure Technical inefficiency. If there is a diffrence in the CCR and BCC
scores for a particular terminal, this indicates that the firm has scale inefficiency
(Timothy, et al., 2005), Eq. (3)
Eq. (3) can be also defined by:
Journal of Korea Trade Vol. 17, No. 4, November. 2013
4) Super Efficiency
The CCR and BCC models dichotomize container ports into inefficient and efficient
units. However, it is not possible to differentiate between the efficient terminals, since
all efficient units receive the same efficiency score of one (1). For example in our
case, we can differentiate between the most inefficient terminals and the least inefficient
terminals according to their location from the efficiency frontier, but we cannot
differentiate between the most efficient terminals and the least efficient terminals, since
all of them are located on the efficient frontier
To overcome this limitation, Andersen and Petersen proposed the Super‐Efficiency
ranking method for only efficient DMUs. The Super‐Efficiency measures how much
inputs can be increased (or the outputs decreased) while not becoming inefficient (So,
et al., 2007).
The super‐efficiency model is identical to the DEA model previously described, but
a DMU under evaluation (k) is excluded from the reference set. The formulation for
the super‐efficient model follows Equation (4), but is evaluated without unit k (for
i=1,...,n, i ≠ k). For an efficient unit, its exclusion from the reference set will alter
the frontier and allow the unit to be located above the efficient frontier that is to be
Ⅲ. Results and Discussion
1. Results with CRS
As a first step, we used DEA with Constant Returns to Scale (CCR). The results
are as shown in <Figure1>.
<Figure 1> Efficiency Scores under CRS
Efficiency Graph √
Hyundai 83.9 % 84%
Hanjin Shipping 75.6 % 76%
PNIT 100 % 100% √
PNC 86 % 86%
BNCT 76.6 % 77%
SBTC 52.2 % 52%
KBCT 73.8 % 74%
DPCT 100 % 100% √
UTC 68.4 % 68%
Hutchison 100 % 100% √
√ : Efficient * : Weak Efficient
The efficient frontier is formed by all (efficient) units that have score 1.
Measuring “Energy Use Efficiency”of Container Terminals
The results show that the EE scores varied from 0.52 for the most inefficient to
1 for the most efficient
, with an overall average EE of 81.65%. Indicating that, on
the average, the terminals could minimize their energy consumption by 18.35% to be
100% efficient.
Among the ten terminals, only three are relatively efficient (PNIT, DPCT,
Hutchinson), while the seven other terminals are inefficient, with two terminals
representing scores above the average, and five terminals having scores below the
average. As a first deduction, we can conclude that in Busan’s ports, 70% of the
terminals represent waste in energy use. <Table3> shows the possible reduction in
energy consumption for each inefficient terminal.
In order to improve the practices in terms of energy use, for each inefficient terminal,
an efficient terminal or a set of efficient terminals (Benchmarks) with a corresponding
intensity (λ) are selected
, and used as efficiency improvement reference(s), as shown
in <Table4>.
<Table 3> Possible Reduction in Energy Consumption for Inefficient Units
Total Energy Use "GJ"
Hyundai 236951.88 to 198706.218
Hanjin Shipping 302380.77 to 228731.528
PNIT 134690.7 to 134690.7
PNC 368021.02 to 316567.149
BNCT 99351.45 to 76097.847
SBTC 167565.75 to 87490.607
KBCT 274827.93 to 202896.137
DPCT 105875.48 to 105875.48
UTC 76970.33 to 52668.798
Hutchison 128543.66 to 128543.66
<Table 4> Inefficient Terminals & Corresponding Benchmarks
PNIT DPCT Hutchison
Hyundai 0.108 0 1.433
Hanjin Shipping 0 0.201 1.614
PNIT 1 0 0
PNC 0 0.106 2.376
BNCT 0 0 0.592
SBTC 0 0.558 0.221
KBCT 0 1.151 0.63
DPCT 0 1 0
UTC 0 0.162 0.276
Hutchison 0 0 1
Score 1 means 100% efficient, and score 0.52 means efficient at 52% or a lack of 48%
in efficiency.
enchmarks are selected on the basis of their comparable inputs and outputs to the inefficient
Journal of Korea Trade Vol. 17, No. 4, November. 2013
To better illustrate our results, let’s expose for instance the case of the “UTC” terminal
from North Port that represents an inefficient score of 68.4% <Figure1>. To reach
a score of 100%
, this terminal should reduce its energy consumption by 31.6% which
corresponds to 24,301.532 GJ <Table 3>, while keeping operating the same amount
of equipment, and the same handling throughput. To find an appropriate improvement
pattern to that, UTC terminal has a reference composite DMUs formed by the two
efficient terminals, DPCT (0.162), and Hutchison (0.276)
. While the values between
brackets indicate the respective weights (λ) of each reference terminal, that show their
respective contribution amounts in evaluating the UTC terminal as inefficient <Table
4>, i.e., UTC Terminal’s decision makers may establish their energy consumption policy
based on the practices performed by the two Terminals, DPCT and Hutchison, that
are evaluated to be the most suitable references, in terms of energy use efficiency.
It allows reducing about 31.6% of its total energy use as compared to the consumption
of the year 2012, while using the same amount of inputs to produce the same amount
of outputs.
2. Results with VRS
As a second step, in order to identify whether the origin of the waste in energy
is due to the PTE (managerial deficit), SE (operating at an incorrect RTS), or both,
we used a BCC model to evaluate the PTE and SE of each terminal. The results are
as shown in <Table 5>.
<Table 5> Scores under the BCC Model
Hyundai 83.9 % 92.1 % 91 %
Hanjin Shipping 75.6 % 85 % 89 %
PNIT 100 % 100 % 100 %
PNC 86 % 100 % 86 %
BNCT 76.6 % 97.5 % 78.6 %
SBTC 52.2 % 58 % 90.1 %
KBCT 73.8 % 84.7 % 87.2 %
DPCT 100 % 100 % 100 %
UTC 68.4 % 100 % 68.4 %
Hutchison 100 % 100 % 100 %
The decomposition of the overall technical efficiency into its components, PTE and
SE, shows that the overall inefficient terminals also have Pure Technical Efficiency
100% is score 1 expressed in a percentage.
The UTC terminal is closer to the efficient frontier segment formed by these two terminals
on the efficient frontier.
Measuring “Energy Use Efficiency”of Container Terminals
representing a constant return to scale, and among the terminals estimated inefficient
under CCR model, two terminals have Pure Technical Efficiency (UTC, and PNC),
indicating that the origin of their energy waste is due to unfavorable returns to scale
conditions, and the other terminals represent both scale and Pure Technical inefficiencies.
But two of them (Hyundai, and BNCT) have their PTE score bigger than the SE score.
This suggests that their overall inefficiency is mostly due to operating at incorrect
scale, while the other three terminals (Hanjin Shipping, KBCT, and SBTC) have their
SE score bigger than their PTE score which indicates that the most dominant reason
for the overall inefficiency is probably due to managerial failure. For example, in their
initiatives to improve energy efficiency, decision makers of inefficient units that
represent a higher SE score than PTE score, should concentrate their efforts on
developing a better use of inputs to reduce their energy consumption. On the other
hand, for those representing a PTE score that is higher than their SE score, decision
makers should concentrate their actions on upgrading their inputs themselves to reach
an optimal return to scale and reduce their energy consumption.
To better illustrate our results under VRS, let’s expose, for instance, the case of
the “BNCT” terminal from the New Port, which represents both Pure Technical and
Scale inefficiencies with the respective scores of 97.5 %, and 78.6 %. Even though
the most dominant reason of its overall inefficiency is probably SE
, we cannot omit
the contribution of technical factors in the waste of energy especially when the difference
between the two scores is small.
As the first step, we checked the container yard side, where we could see that all
the terminals in the New Port use a similar mix of inputs in terms of technology, capacity,
and type of vehicles. Thus, we can assume that on the yard side, if there is any waste
in energy by BNCT, it is rather due to an inefficient management. Effectively if we
compare the consumption of diesel used for 2012 at the New Port, we can see that
the consumption of diesel by Liter/TEU at BNCT is evaluated at 163% more than the
average consumption made by its pair of terminals in the New Port <Table 6>.
<Table 6> NP Diesel Consumption in 2012
2012 Diesel use
2012 Throughput
Diesel Use
Hyundai 2,319,757 2,078,010 1.12
1.20 1
Hanjin Shipping 3,161,931 2,432,255 1.30
PNIT 1,353,687 1,220,000 1.11
PNC 4,260,000 3,353,330 1.27
BNCT 994,093 506,526 1.96 1.96 1.63
Because SE score is smaller than PTE score.
Journal of Korea Trade Vol. 17, No. 4, November. 2013
After adjusting its yard operation management and energy use policy, at the beginning
of 2013, BNCT could reduce its diesel fuel consumption by about 37% to an average
of 1.24Liter/TEU instead of an average consumption of 1.96 Liter/TEU in the year
of 2012 <Table 7>. It may confirm the assumption that, at the yard level, the failure
in energy use is mostly due to technical failure.
<Table 7> BNCT Average Diesel Consumption in 2012 & 2013
2012 Diesel
Diesel Use
2012 Diesel
Diesel Use
BNCT 994,093 506,526 222,441 179,920 1.96 1.24
At the quay side, managerial performance cannot have a big influence on the technical
performance of the STS cranes since all kinds of cranes are operated by the same
way within a limited amplitude of movement. Thus, we can suppose that energy waste
is caused by operating at an incorrect return to scale conditions, probably due to a
technological disadvantage.
In general for container terminals, most yards’ equipment represents big similarities,
but STS container cranes may vary in type (high/low profile), size (Panamax, Post
panamax, and Super‐Post panamax), Safe Working Load (SWL) capacity, volume of
TEUs handled per hour, type of trolleys and spreaders, etc. This variety in equipment
can affect the energy consumption for operating the STS crane. According to the
collected data, we can see that the average electricity amount consumed per TEU by
BNCT to operate its STS cranes is about 178% higher than its pair of terminals in
the New Port <Table 8>.
<Table 8> NP Electricity Consumption in 2012
use "Kwh"
Hyundai 40,882,580 2,078,010 19.67
18.75 1
HanjinShipping 50,003,899 2,432,255 20.56
PNIT 22,987,582 1,220,000 18.84
PNC 56,433,062 3,353,330 16.83
BNCT 16,911,124 506,526 33.39 33.39 1.78
Measuring “Energy Use Efficiency”of Container Terminals
After checking the type of STS cranes used in the New Port
, we found that all
terminals’ STS cranes represent big similarities in term of size (all of them are Super‐
Post Panamax) and type (all of them have high profile). However, a main difference
resides in the type of spreaders, where BNCT is the only terminal in New Port that
is equipped with Twin‐Lift spreaders for the integral of its cranes while all other
terminals use Tandem‐lift spreaders. In fact, operating a Twin‐Lift spreader consumes
less electricity per move than a Tandem‐Lift spreader (as mentioned previously).
Nevertheless, it always needs to make two times more moves to handle the same volume
of TEUs which may considerably affect the energy consumption, especially in time
of busy container traffic. Thus we can estimate that BNCT decision makers may be
able to reduce its energy consumption by upgrading the terminal’s quayside equipment
(e.g., equipping its STS cranes with Tandem‐Lift spreaders rather than Twin‐Lift
3. Ranking Analysis by Super‐Efficiency Model
In order to obtain a full ranking of the terminals in our sample, we applied the
DEA Super‐Efficiency model that allows the efficient units under evaluation to be
excluded from the reference set, and thus be able to get a score that is bigger than
(1). This method will allow us to rank the terminals in the sample under study from
the relatively most efficient to the relatively most inefficient, which allows a full
comparison of the performance of the terminals and identifies the terminal representing
the best practices among the selected sample. <Figure2> represents the result obtained
with the Super‐Efficiency model.
<Figure 2> Efficiency Scores by Super‐Efficiency
Efficiency Graph √
Hyundai 83.9 % 84%
Hanjin Shipping 75.6 % 76%
PNIT 122.7 % 123% √
PNC 86 % 86%
BNCT 76.6 % 77%
SBTC 52.2 % 52%
KBCT 73.8 % 74%
DPCT 106.7 % 107% √
UTC 68.4 % 68%
Hutchison 142.7 % 143% √
√ : Super‐Efficiency *: Weak Efficiency
The analysis was limited only to the New Port terminals because the terminals at the
North Port use a different type of T/C.
Journal of Korea Trade Vol. 17, No. 4, November. 2013
The result shows that the Super‐Efficiency scores of the terminals. Hutchison, DPCT
and PNIT, of which all efficiency indices are equal to 1 under CRS, are respectively
about 1.43, 1.07, and 1.23.
Therefore, the Hutchison terminal is evaluated to be the most efficient unit and
both the practice performed and the results obtained by the Hutchinson Terminal in
terms of energy use may be respectively used as a sound basis and realistic target
in establishing a comprehensive energy policy and issuing more rational regulations
by decision makers (e.g., Busan Port Authority) in the ports of Busan.
Ⅳ. Conclusion
Ports have always been considered as important logistics platforms for international
commerce, as they are the unique interface between sea and land transportation modes.
Merchandise trade and seaborne shipments continue to move in tandem (UNCTAD,
Review of Maritime Transport 2012) and any increase in the international commercial
exchanges will have a direct impact on the port industry through the intensification
of port commercial activities. As a consequence, a port’s energy consumption will
increase exponentially, because the port industry always reacted to the increase in the
international trade volume by increasing the amount of the port’s equipment or using
more advanced technologies that consume more energy, With respect to these
circumstances, in this study the degree of performance in terms of energy use efficiency
of ten terminals located in Busan’s ports in Korea had been investigated. Our approach
described an in‐depth application of input‐oriented Data Envelopment Analysis that not
only allows the determination of terminals representing bad practices and the origin
of their inefficiency, but also the way to improve their performance using the terminals
representing the best practices as references. It may be useful for the policy makers
to design their policies differently depending on the type of inefficiency that
characterizes each terminal. Also the super‐efficiency results allow the Port Authority
to establish a more realistic energy policy and effective regulation that permits terminal
operators to reach a maximal energy saving and emissions reduction for both ports,
at general level based on the practices and results of the best performing unit in the
The results also indicate that, in general for container terminals, there is no dominant
cause of inefficiency and the lack of energy performance can be driven either by
mismanagement of inputs (terminal’s layout, horizontal transport that connect the
terminal yard to the quay, stacking criteria, etc.) or by unfavorable scale conditions
mostly related to technological issues. It means that size of terminals doesn’t have
The Super‐Efficiency scores of the inefficient container terminals are the same as the
efficiency scores indicated in CCR model.
Measuring “Energy Use Efficiency”of Container Terminals
a big influence in term of energy efficiency.
Finally within the framework of our sample on an average, a policy designed in
order to induce Busan Port terminals to move towards less intensive‐energy terminals
will save up to 18% of energy, resulting not only in energy cost reduction, but also
in generating less emissions from the port sector, and consolidating sustainability by
using more environmentally friendly practices.
Ⅴ. Study limitation and Future research
The DEA method allows researchers the ability to distinguish the efficient units
from the inefficient ones. It also can designate a benchmark(s) for each inefficient
unit in order to get the best use of its inputs. Furthermore, it dichotomizes the technical
inefficiency into pure‐technical and scale inefficiencies, allowing us to determine
whether the lack in efficiency is due to managerial underperformance or related to
technological issues. It is the ultimate limit of the DEA method, i.e., DEA doesn’t
precisely indicate among the various factors affecting the PTE which one needs to
be focused on as waste generators, or which part of the inputs is representing a
technological disadvantage that might lead to scale inefficiency and need to be upgraded.
For the above mentioned reason, based on DEA results, future research using
regression analysis needs to be conducted to precisely determine the respective causes
of energy waste and to reach a more accurate analysis and provide substantial
recommendations for strategy planning in terms of energy use, for each inefficient
Button, K., (1993), Transport, the Environment and Economic Policy, Aldershot, Hants,
England and Brookfield, Vermont, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.
Cannon J. S., (2009), “Container Ports and Air Pollution”, Presented at the Green Port
2009 Conference.
Cannon J. S., (2008), U.S. Container Ports and Air Pollution: A Perfect Storm, An
Energy Futures, Inc. Study.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E., (1978), “Measuring the efficiency of decision
making units”. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 2, pp. 429–444.
Chen Fu Chien, Feng Yu Lo, and J. T. Lin, (2003), “Using DEA to Measure the Relative
Efficiency of the Service Center and Improve Operation Efficiency through
Reorganization”, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 366‐373.
Chiu, Y. and M.F. Wu, (2010), “Environmental Efficiency Evaluation in China:
Application of ‘Undesirable’ Data Envelopment Analysis”, Polish J. of Environ.
Journal of Korea Trade Vol. 17, No. 4, November. 2013
Study, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 1159‐1169.
Cooper, W.W., Seiford, L.M., and Tone, K., (2006), Introduction to DEA and its uses
with DEA‐Solver software and references, New York: Springer.
Hart, S. (1995), “A Natural‐Resource‐based view of the firm”, Academy 01 Management
Review, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 986‐1014.
Hecht J., (1997), The Environmental Effects of Freight, Paris: Organization for Economic
Co‐operation and development.
Kang W.S. and Cheong J.P., (2011), “Estimating Transportation‐Related Greenhouse
Gas Emissions in the Port of Busan, S. Korea”, Asian Journal of Atmospheric
Environment, Vol. 5‐1, pp. 41‐46.
Lee, W.S. (2008), “Benchmarking the energy efficiency of government buildings with
data envelopment analysis”, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 40, pp. 891–895.
Lianga Q.M, Fana Y, and Wei Y.M, (2007), “Multi‐regional input–output model for
regional energy requirements and CO
emissions in China”, Energy Policy, Vol.
35, pp. 1685–1700.
Linares P., and X. Labandeira, (2010), “Energy Efficiency: Economics and Policy”,
Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 573–592.
Magali D. and M.W. Toffel, (2004), “Stakeholders and Environmental Management
Practices: An Institutional”, Business Strategy and the Environment, Bus. Strat.
Env. 13, pp. 209‐222.
Merk O., C. Ducruet, P. Dubarle, E. Haezendonck and M. Dooms, (2011), The
Competitiveness of Global Port‐Cities: The Case of the Seine Axis (Le Havre,
Rouen, Paris, Caen) – France, OECD Regional Development Working Papers.
Mohammad D.H., M. Omid and A. Mohammadi, (2012), “Measuring productive
efficiency of horticultural greenhouses in Iran: A data envelopment analysis
approach”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39, pp. 1040–1045.
Monjezi N., M. Javad Sheikhdavoodi and M. Taki, (2011), “Energy Use Pattern and
Optimization of Energy Consumption for Greenhouse Cucumber Production in Iran
Using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)”, Modern Applied Science, Vol. 5, No.
Nassiri, S.M. and Singh, S. (2009). “Study on energy use performance for paddy crop
using data envelopment analysis (DEA) technique”, Applied Energy, Vol. 86, No.
7‐8, pp. 1320‐1325.
Onut, S. and S. Soner, (2006), “Energy efficiency assessment for the Antalya Region
hotels in Turkey”, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 38, pp. 964–971.
Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA),
(2007), Port Safety and Health and Environmental Management Code (PSHEM
Patterson, M., (1996), “What is energy efficiency?”, Concepts, issues and
methodological indicators, Energy Policy, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 377‐390.
Porter, M.E., Van Der Linde C., (1995), “Green and Competitive: Ending the stalemate”,
Measuring “Energy Use Efficiency”of Container Terminals
Harvard Business Review.
So, S. H. and J.J. Kim, Geon Cho and Do Kwan Kim, (2007), “Efficiency Analysis
and Ranking of Major Container Ports in Northeast Asia: An Application of Data
Envelopment Analysis”, International Review of Business Research Papers, Vol.
3 No. 2, pp. 486 – 503.
The port of Long Beach and The port of Los Angeles, (2006),San Pedro Bay Ports
Clean Air Action Plan Overview.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), (2012), Review
of Maritime Transport.
Zhou P., B.W. Ang, and K.L. Poh, (2008), “A survey of data envelopment analysis
in energy and environmental studies”, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 189, pp. 1–18.
Zhou, P. and Ang, B.W., (2008), “Decomposition of aggregate CO
emissions: a
production theoretical approach”, Economics, Vol. 30, pp. 1054–1067.
<Appendix> Initial Terminals’ DATA for the year 2012
Nº T/C
Nº Yard
STS Total
Total Yard
Hyundai 2,078,010 2319757 40882580 11 38 97 44 135
2,432,255 3161931 50003899 12 42 109 48 151
PNIT 1,220,000 1342000 22987582 9 28 57 36 85
PNC 3353330 4260000 56433062 17 58 146 68 204
BNCT 506526 994093 16911124 8 38 36 16 74
SBTC 966341 3279082 11295910 7 21 40 14 61
KBCT 2230306 4410068 28932862 15 42 107 30 149
DPCT 1193690 1517623 13095408 7 19 42 14 61
UTC 568753 1479095 5480376 5 13 29 10 42
Hutchison 1358431 1810844 16240000 14 33 92 28 125