Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 6 (2020) 100152

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives

journal homepage: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/transportation-research-
interdisciplinary-perspectives

A comparative analysis of service quality among ECOWAS seaports

Daniel Sakyi
Department of Economics, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Private Mail Bag, Kumasi, Ghana

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Customers' expectations and perceptions about service quality continue to remain essential for the growth and
Received 10 December 2019 survival of firms. In the case of seaports, these expectations and perceptions cannot be overemphasized given
Received in revised form 4 June 2020 that, seaports are at the heart of international trade. Considering the role of trade in increasing economic and
Accepted 7 June 2020
social welfare outcomes of countries, improving trade facilitation through enhanced service quality at seaports
Available online 20 June 2020
remain very essential. Notwithstanding the above, it is startling to note that very little is known about service
JEL classification:
quality across Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) seaports. This study therefore provides
F10 comparative analyses of service quality at selected ECOWAS seaports using the gap score technique of the service
L25 quality (SERVQUAL) model. The study reveals that in general, all the selected seaports studied have poor service
M11 quality. This outcome calls for instituting effective measures towards enhancing service quality at ECOWAS
seaports.

1. Introduction Trade and Development ([UNCTAD], 2016, maritime transport is

According to the literature (see for example, Ismail et al., 2006;
Kolanović et al., 2011; Regasa, 2016; Esmer et al., 2016; Hemalatha et al.,
2018), there are potential benefits of improved service quality to firms
and the global economy at large. For instance, improved service quality is
important as it is likely to influence the choice of a firm by a customer. En-
hancing service quality is therefore very important in ensuring a sizeable
market share and granting firms competitive advantage given the intense
competition firms face in modern times. It becomes imperative therefore
for firms to know how customers value the services provided to enable
them focus on those ones that will help safeguard their growth and sustain-
ability (Suuroja, 2003; Ghotbabadi et al., 2012). No wonder service quality
remains an essential part of the agenda of profit-oriented firms. In assessing
the quality of services firms provide, customers' expectations and
perceptions1 regarding these services becomes extremely important. This
is so because customers' perception on service quality can influence their
demand for services provided by firms. Thus, when perception about ser-
vice quality is higher or equal to expectation, it can lead to increased de-
mand for services provided, and the likelihood of higher firm performance.
Regarding firms, seaports play a very important role in international
trade. This is so because according to the United Nations Conference on
E-mail address: dsakyi.cass@knust.edu.gh.
1
Customers' expectations are the perceived benefit or satisfaction a customer expects from a
firm whilst customers' perceptions are the actual benefit or satisfaction a customer derives
from the services provided by a firm (Parasuraman et al., 1988).
regarded as the backbone of international trade. It is therefore not sur-
prising that, about 80% of merchandise trade (in volume) in the world
is carried by ships (African Development Bank [AfDB], 2010). There-
fore, given that over 90% of Africa's exports and imports (in volume)
are done via the sea, improving the service quality of African seaports
remain germane (African Ports Evolution, 2016). More so, given the as-
sertion by Sakyi et al. (2017) that, international trade if effectively facil-
itated through improvement in transport and border efficiency is crucial
for economic and social welfare outcomes, improving the quality of sea-
port services remains very important to the African continent which has
been plagued with lower economic and social welfare outcomes. Not-
withstanding, poor nature and low levels of service quality in African
seaports contribute immensely towards rising traffic and congestion, de-
lays in transport, and cargo diversions (Chikere et al., 2014; AfDB's first
Transport Forum, 2015; Ojadi and Walters, 2015). These outcomes
which can be attributed to poor management, deficient physical infra-
structure, and weak regulatory systems, lead to the marginalization of
African seaports in the international market and affect their perfor-
mance (Abdourahamane, 2015).
However, irrespective of the above, globally, it is surprising to note that
very little (see for example, Ugboma et al., 2004; Ugboma et al., 2007;
Chang and Thai, 2016; Sayareh et al., 2016; Onyemechi et al., 2017) is
done regarding evaluating customers' expectations and perceptions about
the service quality provided by seaports. Precisely on Africa, to the best of
authors' knowledge, only Ugboma et al. (2004), Ugboma et al. (2007),
and Onyemechi et al. (2017) have conducted studies on service quality of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100152
2590-1982/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/
4.0/).
D. Sakyi
seaports.2 However, these studies are restricted to only two Nigerian sea-
ports. Again, whilst Ugboma et al. (2004) and Ugboma et al. (2007) use a
sample of 40 seaport users (customers) each, Onyemechi et al. (2017) use
a sample of 223 customers. It is important to note that no existing study
use a sample of more than 500 customers -an outcome which limits gener-
alization of findings.
The present study which focuses on selected seaports in Economic Com-
munity of West African States (ECOWAS) fills a major research gap by mak-
ing at least two important contributions. First, it provides a comparative
analysis of the expectations and perceptions of customers about the quality
of services provided by ECOWAS seaports. Second, it reveals the most im-
portant areas to focus on in the attempt to enhance service quality among
ECOWAS seaports. Last but not the least, it provides results that are more
general with wider applicability by using a larger sample which to the
best of authors' knowledge, no study has considered.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section covers both
theoretical and empirical literature on service quality. This is followed by the
methodology. The fourth section is devoted to the empirical results and dis-
cussion, whiles the final one covers the conclusion and policy suggestions.
2. Literature review
According to the literature, service quality may be seen from the per-
spective of both the firm and the customer (Kolanović et al., 2011). From
the firms' perspective, they are willing to provide services up to a certain
level of quality provided consumers are willing and able to pay the associ-
ated price. Therefore, the higher the willingness and ability on the part of
customers to pay a higher price, the better will be the quality of service
firms provide, all other things being equal. From the customers' perspective
however, service quality is seen as the judgement of consumers about the
performance of the services provided by the firm. Here, service quality is
measured using certain attributes (for example, whether facilities are up
to date and in line with services provided or how concerned, supportive
and reliable service providers are) that meet customers' requirements.
Therefore, if the services provided meet the expectations of customers,
then service quality would be rated as high and if otherwise, it is rated as
low (Zeithaml, 1988; Chang and Thai, 2016). These important distinctions
notwithstanding, in what follows we do not consider service quality from
the firms' perspective, since the main interest of this paper is about service
quality from the customers' perspective.
Service quality remain an important driver of firm performance since it
positively influences customer satisfaction (Chang and Thai, 2016). Thus, if
service quality is high (low), there is a higher likelihood that customers
would be satisfied (dissatisfied) with the service rendered. This outcome
is crucial because customers who are satisfied with service quality may
not only be willing to patronize again but may also influence others to do
so. As a result, enhanced service quality may increase the number of cus-
tomers who patronize the services provided by firms. Additionally, a
well-established strand of the literature on service quality has made clear
that customer satisfaction influence customer loyalty positively.3 The asso-
ciation between customer satisfaction and customer loyalty enable satisfied
customers stay longer and patronize the services provided by firms.
Given the relevance of service quality to firms' growth and sustainabil-
ity, several theoretical models have been developed to study service quality
of firms. According to Ghotbabadi et al. (2012), the Nordic model of
Gronroos (1984),4 SERVQUAL model of Parasuraman et al. (1988),
2
This notwithstanding, a study by Raballand et al. (2012) examine the efficiency of ports in
sub-Saharan Africa.
3
According to Ghotbabadi et al. (2012) the fact that customers are satisfied does not neces-
sarily make them loyal; however, loyal customers are certainly satisfied. However, the author
does not agree completely with Ghotbabadi et al. (2012) that loyal customers are certainly sat-
isfied as in some instances customers may not be satisfied but will still be patronizing services
of the same firm due to monopoly, family ties and other related issues.
4
The Nordic model, the first service quality model, has three dimensions namely, functional
quality which covers the process of delivering service, technical quality which covers what is
delivered, and image quality which covers the corporate image of the firm.
2
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 6 (2020) 100152
Multilevel model of Dabholkar et al. (1996)5 and Hierarchical model of
Brady and Cronin (2001)6 are the most useful in evaluating service quality
of firms. Among these, the SERVQUAL model of Parasuraman et al. (1988)
is the most popular (Chang and Thai, 2016). The SERVQUAL model, the
one we adopt in this paper, measures the difference between the actual
quality of the service received (perception) and customers' expectation of
service quality (expectation) using five main dimensions, namely, tangibil-
ity, responsiveness, assurance, reliability, and empathy. Tangibility relates
to the physical facilities, equipment, personnel, and communication mate-
rials of the firm. Responsiveness refers to the willingness of the employees
to help customers and to provide them prompt services. Assurance focuses
on the knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey
trust and confidence. Reliability pertains to the ability of the firm to per-
form the promised service dependably and accurately whereas empathy re-
lates to the provision of caring and individualized attention to customers.
Leaving aside theoretical reasoning, it is important to note that on the
empirical front, some studies have been carried out to examine service qual-
ity of seaports in both the developed and developing countries. In what fol-
lows, the main contribution of papers devoted to service quality of seaports
in the last two decades are reviewed.
Ha (2003) provide a comparative study of 15 major ports (Kobe, Sin-
gapore, Kaohsiung, Hong Kong, Osaka, Shanghai, Kwangyang, Busan in
Asian region, Rotterdam, Felixstowe, Hamburg, Valencia in Europe and
Seattle, Long Beach, New York in America). The study uses a sample of
157 individuals who are logistic managers and shipping operators
through personal interviews and administering of questionnaires. Re-
garding the analysis, the study employs analysis of variance and Duncan
test techniques. The results show that, service quality at Singapore Port
is better relative to Shanghai and Korean ports. In all, Northeast Asian
ports lags in terms of better service quality as compared to well-devel-
oped major ports in other continents.
Ugboma et al. (2004) evaluate the quality of services provided at Lagos
and Port Harcourt seaports in Nigeria. Using a sample of 40 port users, the
authors apply SERVQUAL model to the dataset. The five dimensions of ser-
vice quality: tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy
are employed. The results show that service at Port Harcourt Port has a
favourable influence on actual perceptions of quality received relative to
that of Lagos Port. Further, it is revealed that, the two ports have lower rat-
ings with respect to empathy dimension of service quality and higher rat-
ings regarding tangibility and responsiveness dimensions. The results also
reveal that in terms of service quality, Port Harcourt Port is better than
Lagos Port.
Similarly, Pantouvakis (2006) investigates service quality within the
Greek Coastal Shipping industry using a sample of 403 port users. The
study applies factor analysis and principal component analysis to the
dataset. The service quality dimensions considered are services, security
and safety, cleanliness, guidance communication, parking facilities and in-
formation. The results reveal that services and security and safety dimen-
sions are the first two important factors that affect port service quality in
Greek.
In a related study, Ugboma et al. (2007) examine service quality among
Port Harcourt and Lagos seaports in Nigeria. A sample of 40 registered li-
censed clearing agents are used and the customer satisfaction index and
SERVQUAL model are employed for the analysis. The study shows that
the services at Port of Port Harcourt are relatively better than that of Port
of Lagos. It is also revealed that among the service quality dimensions
used: tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, trustworthy and
empathy, tangibility is noted to be the least important determinant of qual-
ity of service at the two ports.
5
The Multilevel model, developed to evaluate service quality in retail shops, is a three-stage
model of service quality comprising primary dimensions, overall perceptions, and sub-
dimensions.
6
The Hierarchical model is explained by three primary dimensions: physical environment
quality (design, social factors, and ambient conditions), interaction quality (expertise, behav-
iour, and attitude) and outcome quality (tangibles, waiting time, and valence).
D. Sakyi
Also, Kolanović et al. (2011) examine the service quality of Rijeka port
in Croatia. The study uses a sample of 142 port users and applies the prin-
cipal component analysis technique to the dataset. Five service quality di-
mensions, namely, port information availability factor, port reliability
factor, port accessibility factor, port functionality factor and port flexibility
factor are considered. The results show that the most important dimension
that influences service quality is the port accessibility factor followed by
port reliability factor. The third important dimension is port functionality
factor whilst the fourth and fifth dimensions are port information availabil-
ity and port flexibility factors respectively.
Further, Lee and Hu (2012) analyze the service quality among five
major ports in Asia, namely, Singapore, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Busan, and
Kaohsiung. Using a sample of 25 port users, the study adopts importance-
performance analysis (IPA) to examine the quality of services provided by
these ports. The five dimensions of service quality: tangibility, reliability,
responsiveness, assurance, and empathy are employed. The results show
that, in relation to the five dimensions, Port of Singapore provides better
services relative to the other ports whilst Port of Kaohsiung is rated the
worst port in terms of quality of services provided. In addition, the study re-
veals that Port of Shanghai has a low satisfaction level in relation to respon-
siveness and assurance as compared to other ports; however, the
satisfaction in relation to tangibility is rated better.
Similarly, Yeo et al. (2015) investigate port service quality and cus-
tomer satisfaction of 28 Korean container ports. The study uses a sample
of 99 port users who are members of the Korean Port Logistics Association
and employs the partial least squares structural equation modelling tech-
nique for the analysis. The study shows that ports service quality has five-
dimensional construct comprising items related to management, resources,
process, outcome and reputation and social responsibility. The results re-
veal a positive relationship between customer satisfaction and all the fac-
tors except for resources.
Again, Thai (2016) examines the relationship between port service
quality and customer satisfaction at the Port of Singapore using a sample
of 175 port customers. The seaport users comprise shipping lines, cargo
owners, freight forwarders and logistics service providers. The study em-
ploys a confirmatory factor analysis and multiple regression techniques.
The study shows that seaports service quality has four dimensions and
they are outcome, management, process and reputation, and social respon-
sibility. The results from the analysis indicate a positive and significant re-
lationship between all the four-dimensional constructs of seaport service
quality and customer satisfaction. However, the factor with the greatest
magnitude of effect is outcomes-related seaport service quality factors.
Using a sample of 127 seaport users, Sayareh et al. (2016) evaluate ser-
vice quality at Shahid Rajaee Container Terminal in Bandar Abbas Port
(Iran) with nine terminals managed by different companies. The study em-
ploys the SERVQUAL model to assess service quality at the nine terminals.
The study considers all the five service quality dimensions, namely tangibil-
ity, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. The results reveal
that there are significant gaps between customers' expectations and percep-
tions in all the five dimensions of service quality with tangibility and empa-
thy dimensions having maximum and minimum gaps respectively. In
addition, the results show that the most important dimension that affect
service quality is tangibility.
In a related study, Chang and Thai (2016) examine the relationships be-
tween seaport service quality, seaport security quality, customer loyalty
and customer satisfaction at Port of Kaohsiung in Taiwan. The study uses
a sample of 104 managers of shipping companies and freight forwarders
and employs descriptive statistics, factor analysis and the least square re-
gression technique for the analyses. The descriptive analysis shows that
among the service quality attributes, speedy service and response to re-
quirements of customers, high level of operational efficiency and availabil-
ity of equipment and facilities are the most important factors that affect
service quality at Port of Kaohsiung. Regarding customer satisfaction and
loyalty, the important attributes are reputation of the seaport, reliability
of seaport services and overall service quality. Further, the results from
the least square regression reveal that seaport security quality has positive
3
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 6 (2020) 100152
impact on customer satisfaction and seaport service quality. The study
also indicates that seaport service quality significantly affects customer sat-
isfaction and loyalty positively. In addition, the study reveals that customer
satisfaction impacts positively on customer loyalty.
Onyemechi et al. (2017) examine the service quality of Nigerian sea-
ports in the Western and Eastern Port zones. The study uses a sample of
223 seaport users and the SERVQUAL model and factor analysis for the
analysis. The study also employs several attributes of the ports under the
main service quality dimensions, namely, tangibility, reliability, respon-
siveness, assurance, and empathy. The results from the factor analysis indi-
cate that having modern cargo handling equipment and good access to the
terminal are the significant attributes under tangibility dimension. Time ef-
ficiency, delivery on promise and standard cargo discharge procedure are
the significant attributes under the reliability dimension. With respect to
the responsiveness dimension, the study reveals responsive settlement of
claims and effective government/private agencies' corporation as the signif-
icant attributes that affect seaport service quality. The results further show
that well skilled workers, effective security at port, minimal cargo damage
and effective handling of complaints are the significant attributes under the
assurance dimension. Finally, the study shows that provision of value-
added service, attention to customers, provision of after delivery services
and prompt information of problems are the significant attributes under
empathy dimension that affect ports service quality.
As evident in the empirical review afore, though there exist significant
literature on the topic elsewhere, there are limited studies for the case of Af-
rican countries. Thus, aside the importance of service quality to firm growth
and sustainability, this study fills a major research gap by providing a com-
parative analysis of service quality at selected ECOWAS seaports.
3. Methodology
3.1. Data
The data for the study is obtained with the aid of a structured
questionnaire7 on customers' expectation and perception about service
quality at the selected seaports (mainly container terminals) in ECOWAS
countries. The selected seaports are Port of Apapa (Nigeria), Port of Banjul
(Gambia), Port of Takoradi (Ghana), Port of Tema (Ghana), Tin Can Island
Port (Nigeria), Port of Abidjan (Cote d'ivoire), Port of Cotonou (Benin) and
Port of Lome (Togo). The customers considered are shipping lines, freight
forwarders (agents), exporters and importers (shippers), and custom bro-
kers. The questionnaires are administered to the respondents; those who
can read and write fill the questionnaire by themselves and for those who
cannot, the questions are interpreted to them in the language they under-
stand. Their responses are then used to fill the questionnaire accordingly.
The questionnaire (see Appendix A2) has four sections. The first section
captures issues related to tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance,
and empathy. The second section captures questions on transparency indi-
cators whilst the third one captures issues pertaining to procedural and doc-
umentation requirements, cost to import/export and average shipping
time. The last section captures the challenges faced by seaport customers
when exporting and importing. The study involves the use of two-stage
sampling technique. In the first stage convenient sampling technique is
used to choose the selected seaports based on their importance and easy ac-
cessibility. Also, major business centres8 where customers are often located
are conveniently chosen. The second stage involves the use of simple ran-
dom sampling technique to select customers found at the selected seaports
and major business centres. The use of the simple random sampling tech-
nique ensures that every customer stands the chance of being a potential
7
Because the study focuses on both Anglophone and Francophone countries, the question-
naire is designed in English and French, However, since this manuscript is written in English,
only the English version of the questionnaire is attached (see Appendix A2).
8
For instance, in the case of Ghana, major business centers include Abossey Okine, Kumasi
Magazine, Tema Industrial Area, Free Zones Enclave, Spintex and North Industrial Area.
D. Sakyi
Table 1
Summary of data.
Name of seaport Country Number of respondents (Customers)
Port of Tema Ghana 422
Port of Takoradi Ghana 291
Port of Apapa Nigeria 429
Tin Can Island Port Nigeria 254
Port of Banjul Gambia 244
Port of Abidjan Cote d'ivoire 136
Port of Cotonou Benin 292
Port of Lome Togo 324
Total 2392
Source: Author.
participant of the study. Additional information on sampled customers are
summarised in Table 1.
3.2. Empirical strategy
The study adopts the Service Quality (SERVQUAL) model proposed by
Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988). SERVQUAL measures the difference be-
tween the actual quality of the service received (perception) and customers'
expectation of service quality (expectation) (Gronroos, 1982; Parasuraman
et al., 1988). Basically, it measures the perception of service quality under
the following dimensions (see Parasuraman et al., 1988): i) tangibles- this
considers the tangible aspect of the delivery of service which is known to
be tangible. This include items such as physical setup, communication ma-
terials and equipment, and the appearance of the staff among others, ii) re-
liability– this considers the extent to which service providers can be
reliable. That is, how the service providers are able to deliver on time and
as promised, iii) responsiveness- this measures how responsible service pro-
viders are and how willing they are to serve customers and to provide
prompt service, iv) assurance- this measures the extent to which customers
are assured that their needs would be met on time and exactly as promised
including the ability of the service providers to convey trust and confi-
dence, and v) empathy- this measures the way customers want service pro-
viders to feel and care for them among others. Moreover, given the possible
role of transparency (see for example, Douglas and Meijer, 2016; Joshi,
2013) in enhancing the image of a firm and hence service quality, it is in-
cluded as the sixth dimension. The transparency dimension relates to the
availability of information regarding how to acquire services or products
by customers, equity in relating to customers and bribery and corruption.
Thus, transparency is likely to enhance service quality/delivery of a firm
by reducing information asymmetry. Further, adding the transparency di-
mension is very relevant in the case of seaport activities in African countries
given that they are perceived not to be transparent.
The Likert-type scale (1- Strongly disagree; 2- Disagree; 3- Satisfactory;
4- Agree; and 5- Strongly agree are used for all the questions except ‘busy to
respond to customers’ request promptly’ under the responsiveness dimen-
sion and ‘deliberately extort money from customers' and ‘willing to give
extra money to influence seaports officials' under the transparency dimen-
sion in which the scale is reversed as 1- Strongly agree; 2- Agree; 3– Satis-
factory; 4- Disagree; 5- Strongly disagree; because the questions are
framed in the negative sense) is used to design the responses under
SERVQUAL instrument. By way of estimation and analysis, the gap score-
the difference between perception and expectation scores- is used. Cus-
tomers' expectations are the perceived benefit or satisfaction a customer ex-
pects from a firm at the highest level possible whilst customers' perceptions
are the actual benefit or satisfaction a customer derives from the services
provided by a firm. Service quality is considered low (high) if customers' ex-
pectations (perceptions) are greater than their perceptions (expectations) of
a service provided. Following this, the higher the score (more positive), the
higher the perceived service quality which implies a higher level of cus-
tomer satisfaction (Parasuraman et al., 1988).
Finally, the statistical appropriateness and efficiency of the results is de-
pendent crucially on the reliability of the instrument used for the data
4
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 6 (2020) 100152
collection. To this end, the study conducts a reliability test using the
Cronbach's alpha proposed by Cronbach (1951) which measures the inter-
nal consistency among items (questions) on the questionnaire. According to
Field (2009), a reliable instrument should have a high Cronbach's alpha
value of 0.7 and above. This is so because a higher alpha value implies
that same results can be obtained if the questionnaire is administered at a
different period.
4. Results and discussion
This section of the paper provides a comprehensive analysis of service
quality across the selected seaports mentioned in Section 3. Additionally,
reference is made to highlight on key challenges related to export and im-
port at these seaports. Lastly, tests related to reliability of results for policy
suggestions are briefly discussed.
4.1. Analyses of port user expectations and perceptions on service quality
Tables 2–4 report the expectation and perception scores of customers re-
garding services rendered at the selected seaports under the service quality
dimensions. Additionally, gap scores related to questions under these di-
mensions are presented. The expectation scores show how customers
want services to be provided whilst perception scores show how customers
perceive the actual quality of service. Hence the higher the expectation
(perception) score, the higher the expectation of customers (quality of ser-
vice received). The gap score is the difference between perception and ex-
pectation scores.
Regarding the tangibility dimension (Table 2), it is observed that, the
expectation scores are above the perception scores for all questions. There-
fore, we obtain negative average gap scores of −1.10 for Port of Tema,
−0.96 for Port of Takoradi, −1.78 for Port of Banjul, −1.88 for Tin Can
Island Port, −1.70 for Port of Apapa, −0.32 for Port of Abidjan, −0.95
for Port of Cotonou, and − 1.36 for Port of Lome. This outcome implies
that, Port of Abidjan ranks highest under the tangibility dimension,
followed by Port of Cotonou, Port of Takoradi, Port of Tema, Port of
Lome, Port of Apapa, Port of Banjul and Tin Can Island Port in that order.
Similar finding is revealed by Sayareh et al. (2016) in Iran where selected
ports are found to have negative gap scores for tangibility. This outcome
implies that, the expectations of seaport users regarding the usage of up-
to-date equipment, how visually appealing physical facilities are, the dress-
ing and neatness of port staff, and whether the appearance of physical facil-
ities are in line with the type of services provided, far exceed the current
ones available. This can be attributed to the resource constraints faced by
seaports in Africa, making it difficult to acquire adequate up-to-date equip-
ment among others. It is therefore not surprising that customers mention
few forklifts, front loaders, and other handling equipment as some of the
challenges they face (see Appendix A1). There is therefore the need for sea-
port authorities and governments to work towards enhancing these factors
since they directly affect the efficiency of services delivered.
Under the reliability dimension (Table 2), all expectation scores are
above the perception scores. This results in negative average gap scores of
−1.54 for Port of Tema, −1.69 for Port of Takoradi, −1.76 for Port of Ban-
jul, −2.09 for Tin Can Island Port, −2.05 for Port of Apapa, −0.83 for Port
of Abidjan, −1.12 for Port of Cotonou and − 1.77 for Port of Lome. Within
this context, Port of Abidjan ranks highest under the reliability dimension.
This is followed by Port of Cotonou, Port of Tema, Port of Takoradi, Port of
Banjul, Port of Lome, Port of Apapa and Tin Can Island Port in that order.
Thus, as regards honouring promises on time, providing dependable, fast,
and efficient services, and keeping records accurately, on average, the sea-
ports are providing services that do not meet the expectations of customers.
The inability to meet customers expectation under the reliability dimension
can be attributed to delay in examination and inspection of containers by
custom officers and other examining agencies at the seaports, tedious doc-
umentation, inadequate gangs and poor internet network system which are
reported by customers (see Appendix A1) as challenges they face.
D. Sakyi Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 6 (2020) 100152

Table 2
Service quality expectation and perception average scores for tangibility, reliability, and responsiveness.
Service quality questions Port of Tema Port of Takoradi Port of Banjul Tin Can Island Port Port of Apapa Port of Abidjan Port of Cotonou Port of Lome

Tangibility
Expectation scores 4.61 4.89 4.38 4.80 4.89 3.79 4.40 4.92
Perception scores 3.51 3.93 2.60 2.92 3.19 3.48 3.46 3.56
Gap scores −1.10 −0.96 −1.78 −1.88 −1.70 −0.32 −0.95 −1.36
Reliability
Expectation scores 4.59 4.84 4.42 4.80 4.92 3.98 4.41 4.91
Perception scores 3.05 3.15 2.66 2.71 2.87 3.15 3.29 3.14
Gap scores −1.54 −1.69 −1.76 −2.09 −2.05 −0.83 −1.12 −1.77
Responsiveness
Expectation scores 4.43 4.27 4.37 4.11 4.04 4.19 4.21 4.89
Perception scores 3.19 3.30 2.78 2.90 2.98 3.22 2.97 2.99
Gap scores −1.24 −0.97 −1.59 −1.21 −1.06 −0.96 −1.24 −1.90

Source: Authors.

Table 3
Service quality expectation and perception average scores for assurance, empathy, and transparency.
Service quality questions Port of Tema Port of Takoradi Port of Banjul Tin Can Island Port Port of Apapa Port of Abidjan Port of Cotonou Port of Lome

Assurance
Expectation scores 4.64 4.86 4.45 4.85 4.90 4.04 4.35 4.94
Perception scores 3.18 3.34 3.13 2.89 3.01 3.15 3.43 3.12
Gap scores −1.46 −1.52 −1.32 −1.96 −1.89 −0.88 −0.91 −1.82
Empathy
Expectation scores 4.64 4.89 4.38 4.85 4.90 3.82 4.12 4.48
Perception scores 3.04 3.08 2.80 2.78 2.93 3.29 3.26 3.34
Gap scores −1.60 −1.81 −1.58 −2.07 −1.97 −0.52 −0.86 −1.14
Transparency
Expectation scores 4.03 3.71 3.98 3.63 3.51 4.09 4.29 4.89
Perception scores 3.49 3.65 3.14 3.14 3.22 3.30 3.31 3.06
Gap scores −1.25 −1.17 −1.48 −1.62 −1.49 −0.79 −0.98 −1.83

Source: Author.

With regard to the responsiveness dimension (Table 2), since all the av-
erage perception scores are below the average expectation scores by cus-
tomers, it results in negative gap scores of −1.24 for Port of Tema,
−0.97 for Port of Takoradi, −1.59 for Port of Banjul, −1.21 for Tin Can
Island Port, −1.06 for Port of Apapa, −0.96 for Port of Abidjan, −1.24
for Port of Cotonou and − 1.90 for Port of Lome. In sum, Port of Abidjan
ranks highest under the responsiveness dimension followed by Port of
Takoradi, Port of Apapa, Tin Can Island Port, both Port of Tema and Port
of Cotonou, Port of Banjul, and Port of Lome in that order. Notwithstand-
ing, these negative gap scores imply that, on average, customers expecta-
tion concerning being informed on exactly when services will be
performed, receiving prompt services, receiving assistance from port staff
and prompt response to requests are not met by the seaports. This outcome
can be attributed to the challenges reported by customers with regard to
delay in inspection of goods, and inadequate clearing equipment among
others (see Appendix A1). Moreover, the low level of skills of staff regarding
customer care could be the reason customers' expectations on being in-
formed as to when services will be performed as well as receiving certain
assistance from seaport staff are not met.
The findings on reliability and responsiveness, therefore, send signals to
the concerned seaport authorities and other stakeholders on the need to de-
vote resources towards updating facilities whilst adopting the best available
technology, hiring more gangs and providing training to staff on customer
care in order to ensure prompt and efficient services as well as provide
other customer needs.
Further, under the assurance dimension (Table 3), similar results are ob-
tained leading to negative gap scores. For example, negative average gap
scores of −1.46 for Port of Tema, −1.52 for Port of Takoradi, −1.32 for
Port of Banjul, −1.96 for Tin Can Island Port, −1.89 for Port of Apapa,
−0.88 for Port of Abidjan, −0.91 for Port of Cotonou, and − 1.82 for
Port of Lome are reported. Thus, Port of Abidjan ranks highest under the as-
surance dimension, followed by Port of Cotonou, Port of Banjul, Port of
Tema, Port of Takoradi, Port of Lome, Port of Apapa and Tin Can Island
Port respectively. This finding connotes that, issues such as sympathizing
with and reassuring customers when problems arise, having trust in seaport
officials, feeling safe in dealing with seaports officials, politeness of seaport
officials are not up to customers' expectations. The issues of trust and safety
could be attributed to customers experiencing theft at seaports due to inad-
equate security (see Appendix A1) which normally leads to customers not
feeling safe or trusting seaport staff.
Similarly, under the empathy dimension (Table 3), negative average gap
scores are obtained for all the ports since all the average expectation scores
exceed the average perception scores. Specifically, negative gap scores of
−1.60 for Port of Tema, −1.81 for Port of Takoradi, −1.58 for Port of

Table 4
Average gap scores across service quality dimensions and seaports.
Service quality dimensions Port of Tema Port of Takoradi Port of Banjul Tin Can Island Port Port of Apapa Port of Abidjan Port of Cotonou Port of Lome Overall average

Tangibility −1.1 −0.96 −1.78 −1.88 −1.70 −0.32 −0.95 −1.36 −1.26
Reliability −1.54 −1.69 −1.76 −2.09 −2.05 −0.83 −1.12 −1.77 −1.61
Responsiveness −1.24 −0.97 −1.59 −1.21 −1.06 −0.96 −1.24 −1.90 −1.27
Assurance −1.46 −1.52 −1.32 −1.96 −1.89 −0.88 −0.91 −1.82 −1.47
Empathy −1.60 −1.81 −1.58 −2.07 −1.97 −0.52 −0.86 −1.14 −1.44
Transparency −0.54 −0.06 −0.84 −0.49 −0.29 −0.79 −0.98 −1.83 −0.73
Overall average −1.25 −1.17 −1.48 −1.62 −1.49 −0.72 −1.01 −1.64

Source: Author.

5
D. Sakyi
Banjul, −2.07 for Tin Can Island Port, −1.97 for Port of Apapa, −0.52 for
Port of Abidjan, −0.86 for Port of Cotonou and − 1.14 for Port of Lome
are obtained. Therefore, it can be said that in general, Port of Abidjan ranks
highest under the empathy dimension, followed by Port of Cotonou, Port of
Lome, Port of Banjul, Port of Tema, Port of Takoradi, Port of Apapa and Tin
Can Island Port in that order. The finding on empathy is similar to Ugboma
et al. (2004) who reveal Lagos and Port Harcourt seaports to have lower rat-
ings with respect to the empathy dimension of service quality. This outcome
on empathy implies that, seaports users' expectations as regards giving indi-
vidual or personal attention and knowing the needs of customers, having cus-
tomers' best interest at heart, and operating at hours convenient to customers
are not met. Moreover, giving less attention and not knowing the needs of
customers as well as not having customers' best interest at heart could be at-
tributed to poor customer care at the seaports. Additionally, customers expec-
tation regarding empathy are not met because some of the respondents
reported they are made to pay for overtime (demurrage) even if they did
not cause the delay (see Appendix A1).
With reference to the transparency dimension (Table 3), unsurprisingly,
all the average expectation scores exceed the average perception scores
leading to negative gap scores of −1.25 for Port of Tema, −1.17 for Port
of Takoradi, −1.48 for Port of Banjul, −1.62 for Tin Can Island Port,
−1.49 for Port of Apapa, −0.79 for Port of Abidjan, −0.98 for Port of Co-
tonou, and − 1.83 for Port of Lome. In all, Port of Abidjan ranks highest
under the transparency dimension, followed by Port of Cotonou, Port of
Takoradi, Port of Tema, Port of Banjul, Port of Apapa, Tin Can Island
Port, and Port of Lome in that order. The negative gap scores imply that cus-
tomers expect more on transparency with regard to custom procedures,
documentation, laws and processes, equity in customs law enforcement
and avoidance of deliberate extortion of money from the selected seaports
than what they are being currently offered. This is not surprising since some
customers stated the deliberate extortion of money at seaport as one of the
main challenges they face (see Appendix A1). Moreover, the non-transpar-
ent nature of trade related procedures could be attributed to the use of
agents (by especially importers and exporters) who normally stand in to
make sure goods are cleared and exported from the port. Also, exemptions
given to some high-ranking officials and businessmen, especially foreigners
at times, could be the main reason for not meeting customers' expectation
on equity in customs law enforcement. Further, the deliberate extortion
of money from customers could be due to inadequate security cameras at
seaports and not usually monitoring the records of security cameras at
these seaports in order to detect seaports staff who extort money from cus-
tomers and subsequently, deal with them appropriately.
In sum, whilst Port of Abidjan has the highest service quality in terms of
tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy dimensions,
Port of Takoradi performed best in terms of the transparency dimension.
These outcomes notwithstanding, aside the responsiveness and transpar-
ency dimensions where the least performers' position is taken by Port of
Lome, Tin Can Island Port is the least performer in the remaining ones.
The rating of Port of Lome regarding responsiveness is similar to results
of Lee and Hu (2012) that reported Port of Shanghai to have low satisfac-
tion level in relation to the responsiveness dimension of service quality.
4.2. Analysis of gap scores across service quality dimensions and seaports
Table 4 reports the average gap scores of each service quality dimension
and overall service quality for each seaport. Regarding the service quality di-
mensions, the gap scores are based on the averages of those obtained for ques-
tions under each service quality dimension whilst those of overall service
quality are the averages for each dimension. This is done to give a clearer pic-
ture on the quality of service rendered and ranking of the overall perfor-
mances of the selected seaports. As earlier indicated, all service quality
dimensions have negative gap scores for all seaports indicating that the se-
lected seaports render services below the quality expected by customers.
This outcome though similar to those of Sayareh et al. (2016) is not surprising
since customers' perception about services provided at these seaports are far
below their expectation. Specifically, with regard to the overall service
6
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 6 (2020) 100152
quality performance for each dimension, transparency has the highest service
quality (−0.73), followed by tangibility (−1.26), responsiveness (−1.27),
empathy (−1.44), assurance (−1.47), and reliability (−1.61) in that
order. The result clearly shows that whilst the selected seaports seem to be
doing well in transparency, tangibility, and responsiveness dimensions, they
lag in their performance in assurance, reliability, and empathy dimensions.
These outcome signals that ECOWAS seaport authorities need to work
extremely hard on assurance, reliability, and empathy dimensions of ser-
vice quality to reap the full benefits of trade on economic performance
and social welfare outcomes. Similarly, when overall service quality is con-
sidered for the various seaports, Port of Abidjan emerges as the best per-
former (−0.72), followed by Port of Cotonou (−1.01), Port of Takoradi
(−1.17), Port of Tema (−1.25), Port of Banjul (−1.48), Port of Apapa
(−1.49), Tin Can Island Port (−1.62) and Port of Lome (−1.64) respec-
tively. This means that services rendered at Port of Abidjan outperform
those of the other seaports with Port of Lome being the least performer.
This result is similar to that of Lee and Hu (2012) which ranked Port of Sin-
gapore as the best performer whilst Port of Kaohsiung is rated the worst in
terms of service quality, among the five seaports studied.
Further, regarding intra seaport performance among the various service
quality dimensions, the study finds that transparency (reliability) is the best
(worst) service quality dimension for Port of Tema whilst for Port of Takoradi,
transparency (empathy) is the best (worst) service quality dimension. Regard-
ing Port of Banjul, transparency (tangibility) is the best (worst) service quality
dimension whilst for Tin Can Island Port, transparency (reliability) is the best
(worst) service quality dimension. Concerning Port of Apapa, transparency
(reliability) is the best (worst) service quality dimension whilst for Port of Ab-
idjan, tangibility (responsiveness) is the best (worst) service quality dimen-
sion. As regards Port of Cotonou and Port of Lome, empathy
(responsiveness) is the best (worst) service quality dimension. Therefore, by
revealing the dimension each seaport performs better and worse, we signal
stakeholders on what factors to look up to in the quest to enhance service
quality at these seaports. The low service quality of empathy for Port of
Takoradi, reliability for Tin Can Island Port, Port of Tema and Port of
Apapa and responsiveness for Port of Abidjan, Port of Cotonou and Port of
Lome for instance, shows the need for authorities of these seaports to focus
on improving services related to questions under these dimensions.
4.3. Test of reliability
It is important to note that the statistical fit and adequacy of the results
presented in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 depend crucially on the internal consistency
and reliability of the instrument and variables employed. In Table 5, we
therefore present the reliability results of the instrument used by the study.
The reliability test results in Table 5 indicate that the instrument
employed for the study is highly reliable. The minimum (maximum)
Cronbach's alpha values for both expectation and perception is 0.83(0.84)
and the corresponding overall alpha value of 0.84 are far higher than the
proposed 0.70 by Field (2009). Regarding the reliability test for expecta-
tion, the minimum, maximum and the overall alpha values are 0.93, 0.94
and 0.93 respectively, and are higher than the benchmark value of 0.70.
With respect to perception, the minimum and maximum alpha values are
0.92 and 0.93 respectively with an overall alpha value of 0.93 which are
also higher than the proposed 0.70 alpha value. The outcome of the study
is therefore robust and reliable for effective policy suggestions.
5. Conclusions and policy suggestions
This study does a comparative analyses of service quality across selected
seaports-Port of Tema, Port of Takoradi, Port of Banjul, Tin Can Island Port,
Port of Apapa, Port of Abidjan, Port of Cotonou, and Port of Lome -in
ECOWAS countries. The study focuses on ECOWAS because it is one of
the poorest regions in the world with relatively lower economic growth.
Primary data in the form of administered questionnaires are used to sample
2392 users or customers of the selected seaports, whilst SERVQUAL model
using the gap score is the empirical estimation strategy. The study among
D. Sakyi
Table 5
Reliability test results.
Number of items Minimum alpha Maximum alpha Overall alpha
value value value
Both expectation and perception
56 0.83 0.84 0.84
Expectation
28 0.93 0.94 0.93
Perception
28 0.92 0.93 0.93
Source: Author.
others, contributes greatly to literature by being the first to the best of our
knowledge to provide a comparative analyses of service quality of selected
seaports in ECOWAS countries and hence revealing essential areas to focus
on in the attempt to enhance service quality among ECOWAS seaports and
Africa in general. The study reveals that, all the selected seaports have low
service quality in terms of tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance,
empathy, and transparency. Also, regarding the average gap score per ser-
vice quality dimension for all the selected seaports, transparency has the
highest service quality (least gap score) whiles reliability has the least ser-
vice quality (highest gap score).
Notwithstanding, among the selected seaports in terms of service qual-
ity, Port of Abidjan emerges as the best, followed by Port of Cotonou, Port
of Takoradi, Port of Tema, Port of Banjul, Port of Apapa, Tin Can Island Port
and Port of Lome respectively. It must however be stressed that, this rank-
ing of seaports is based on the expectations and perceptions of customers of
each seaport regarding the quality of the services rendered by the port. Fur-
ther, regarding intra port service quality among the various dimensions, the
study finds that reliability is the least service quality dimension for Port of
Tema, Tin Can Island Port and Port of Apapa. For Port of Takoradi, empathy
is the least service quality dimension whilst tangibility is the least service
quality dimension for Port of Banjul. Also, responsiveness is the least ser-
vice quality dimension for Port of Abidjan, Port of Cotonou, and Port of
Lome. The study therefore reveals which specific dimensions need rela-
tively more improvement for specific seaports and also calls for instituting
effective measures towards enhancing service quality at seaports in
ECOWAS countries and Africa to a larger extent in order to bolster eco-
nomic growth and development.
The study has some important policy implications for the selected sea-
ports. Regarding Port of Tema, the study reveals empathy and reliability
as the least rated dimensions. As a result, the study recommends that port
officials should channel efforts and resources towards these dimensions in
order to empathize and reassure customers better. Specifically, and with re-
spect to empathy dimension, port officials should give much attention to
customers' needs and requirements, have customers' best interest at heart
and operate at hours that is convenient for all customers. For reliability,
port officials should provide fast and efficient services as promised to port
users, be dependable, be concerned and supportive when a problem arise
during clearing of consignment and maintain proper records of port users'
documents. These are likely to improve the empathy and reliability dimen-
sions and ultimately service quality at the port.
For Port of Takoradi, empathy and reliability are the least rated service
quality dimensions. It is therefore recommended that, port officials should
give much attention to customers' needs and requirements, have customers'
best interest at heart and operate at hours that is convenient for all cus-
tomers. Again, much attention should be given to reliability related issues
such as honouring promises by the time given to customers and being con-
cerned, supportive and dependable. Ensuring these dimensions will go a
long way to enhance service quality at the Takoradi port.
Concerning port of Banjul, tangibility is rated the least dimension of ser-
vice quality and is followed by reliability. Hence, initiatives that will ensure
up-to-date equipment, ensuring physical facilities are appealing and in line
with services provided, keeping records accurately, providing fast and effi-
cient services as promised, being more concerned and supportive when
problems ensue as well as more dependable should be embarked upon.
7
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 6 (2020) 100152
Given that these factors are under dimensions (tangibility and reliability)
with least service qualities, paying much attention to them will improve
service quality at the port of Banjul.
Also, on Tin Can Island Port and Port of Apapa in Nigeria, it is recom-
mended that resources and efforts should be channelled towards rendering
fast and efficient services as promised, having customers' best interests at
heart and appropriate operating hours for all customers. Again, seaport of-
ficials should be concerned and supportive when problems arise and also
give much attention to customers. These are necessary because the study re-
veals reliability and empathy as the least rated service quality dimensions
of the two Nigerian ports.
For Port of Abidjan, responsiveness and assurance are the least service
quality dimensions. Therefore, authorities at Port of Abidjan should focus
on informing customers exactly when services will be performed, deliver-
ing prompt services or requests, willingness to help customers and showing
sympathy and reassuring when problems arise. Further, authorities should
work on enhancing trust and safety customers have in their transactions
with seaports officials, politeness in dealing with customers as well as giv-
ing adequate support to seaport officials by management. Doing so would
help enhance service quality at Port of Abidjan.
With regard to the Port of Cotonou, authorities should pay attention to
informing customers exactly when services will be performed, delivering
prompt services or requests as well as ensuring willingness to help cus-
tomers. Also honouring promises by the time given, ensuring that em-
ployees are concerned and supportive, provision of dependable, fast and
efficient services as promised and keeping records accurately should be
given utmost attention in order to enhance service quality. This is because
responsiveness and reliability are the least service quality dimensions found
at Port of Cotonou.
Concerning Port of Lome, since responsiveness and transparency are the
least service quality dimensions, channelling efforts and resources towards
informing customers exactly when services will be performed, delivering
prompt services or requests as well as ensuring willingness to help cus-
tomers should be the targets of port authorities. In addition, transparency
with regard to custom/trade procedures, documentation, laws and pro-
cesses, equity in customs law enforcement, avoiding deliberate extortion
or willful giving of money from/by customers and making trade related in-
formation readily available should be the focus of policy directions in order
to enhance service quality at Port of Lome.
In all, it is observed that among all the service quality dimensions, assur-
ance and reliability are rated least in all the selected seaports. It is therefore
incumbent on port authorities of the selected countries to take critical ac-
tion or implement urgent policies to address all issues pertaining to assur-
ance and reliability dimensions of service quality.
It is important to mention that the research was limited by a number of
factors. First, the study is limited by not getting enough data on equipment
such as cranes, fork lifters and front loaders, cargo dwell time, and turn-
around time to do additional quantitative analyses. Second, though adding
enough qualitative aspect could have enriched the findings of the study, we
are unable to do so due to how busy the respondents are. Third, the study
uses selected seaports in ECOWAS countries hence limiting the generaliza-
tion of results to seaports in other parts of the world. Given these limita-
tions, the study suggests the following for future research. Aside the need
for more qualitative analyses, future studies should focus on additional
quantitative analyses by considering equipment, turnaround time and
cargo dwell time among others, provided data would be available. To
make this possible, ECOWAS seaport officials are encouraged to pay more
attention to the collection and synchronization of secondary data. Finally,
future research could consider seaports in other African countries.
Funding
This work was supported by Volkswagen Foundation, Germany within
its Postdoctoral Fellowship Program in sub-Saharan Africa [Grant numbers:
89867 and 94665].
D. Sakyi Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 6 (2020) 100152

CRediT authorship contribution statement A.2. Questionnaires

Daniel Sakyi: Conceptualization, Methodology, Funding acquisition,

Project administration, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

Author declares no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

Author would like to thank all enumerators in the sampled countries

who aided in collection of data for this study, and Samuel Tawiah Baidoo
and Mustapha Immurana who worked as project research assistants. All re-
maining errors are those of the author.

Appendix A

A.1. Challenges involved in Import and Export at Selected ECOWAS Seaports

1. Poor internet and network system

2. High demurrage charges
3. Delay in clearing of containers at the port
4. Undue overtime charges
5. Processes towards container clearing is cumbersome due to too many paperwork at
the port
6. High tariff
7. Delay in examination and inspection of containers by custom officers/examining
agencies
8. High import duties
9. Congestion and inadequate infrastructure at the port
10. Inadequate handling equipment
11. Extortion of monies from port users before performing official duties
12. Delay in scanning of containers
13. Inadequate Port Security

Note: These challenges are derived from the responses seaport users provided to
questions pertaining to problems they face when exporting and importing.
Source: Author.

8
D. Sakyi Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 6 (2020) 100152

References

Abdourahamane, A.S., 2015. Port efficiency underlies African competitiveness. www.

porttechnology.org/news/portefficiencyunderlies_african_competitiveness, Accessed
date: 5 October 2017.
African Development Bank, 2010. African Development Report 2010. African Development
Bank.
African Development Bank's First Transport Forum, 2015. Port efficiency underlies African
competitiveness. www.porttechnology.org/news/port_efficiency_underlies_african_ com-
petitiveness (Accessed October 5, 2017).
African Ports Evolution, 2016. Port evolution. https://www.iru.org/what-we-do/networking/
events/african-ports-evolution-2016 (Accessed October, 15 2017).
Brady, M.K., Cronin, J.J., 2001. Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service
quality: a hierarchical approach. J. Mark. 65 (3), 34–49.
Chang, C.-H., Thai, V.V., 2016. Do port security quality and service quality influence customer
satisfaction and loyalty? Marit. Policy Manag. 43 (6), 720–736. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03088839.2016.1151086.
Chikere, C.A., Ibe, C.C., Stephens, M.S., Nze, O.N., Ukpere, W.I., 2014. Motivating factors for
cargo diversion from Nigerian ports to neighbouring ports. J. Econ. 5 (1), 77–86. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09765239.2014.11884986.
Cronbach, L.J., 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychomelrika 16
(1), 297–334.
Dabholkar, P.A., Thorp, D.I., Rentz, J.O., 1996. A measure of service quality for retail stores:
scale development and validation. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 24, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF02893933.
Douglas, S., Meijer, A., 2016. Transparency and public value-analyzing the transparency prac-
tices and value creation of public utilities. Int. J. Public Adm. 39 (12), 940–951. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2015.1064133.
Esmer, S., Nguyen, H.O., Bandara, Y.M., Yeni, K., 2016. Non-price competition in the port sec-
tor: a case study of ports in Turkey. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 32 (1), 3–11.
Field, A., 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage Publication Inc., London.
Ghotbabadi, A.R., Baharun, R., Feiz, S., 2012. A review of service quality models. 2nd Inter-
national Conference on Management, 11th–12th June 2012. Holiday Villa Beach Resort
& Spa. Langkawi Kedah, Malaysia.

9
D. Sakyi
Gronroos, C., 1982. A service quality model and its marketing implications. Eur. J. Mark. 18,
35–42. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004784.
Gronroos, C., 1984. A service quality model and its marketing implications. Eur. J. Mark. 18
(4), 36–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004784.
Ha, M.-S., 2003. A comparison of service quality at major container ports: implications for Ko-
rean ports. J. Transp. Geogr. 11, 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6923(02)
00069-8.
Hemalatha, S., Dumpala, L., Balakrishna, B., 2018. Service quality evaluation and ranking of
container terminal operators through hybrid multi-criteria decision-making methods.
Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 34 (2), 137–144.
Ismail, I., Haron, H., Ibrahim, D.N., Isa, S.M., 2006. Service quality, client satisfaction and loy-
alty towards audit firms. Manag. Audit. J. 21 (7), 738–756.
Joshi, A., 2013. Do they work? Assessing the impact of transparency and accountability initia-
tives in service delivery. Dev. Policy Rev. 31 (S1), s29–s48. https://doi.org/10.1111/
dpr.12018.
Kolanović, I., Dundović, C., Jugović, A., 2011. Customer-based port service quality model.
PROMET-ZAGREB 23 (6), 495–502. https://doi.org/10.7307/ptt.v23i6.184.
Lee, P.T., Hu, K.C., 2012. Evaluation of the service quality of container ports by importance-
performance analysis. Int. J. Shipp. Trans. Logist. 4 (3), 197–211. https://doi.org/
10.1504/IJSTL.2012.047479.
Ojadi, F.I., Walters, J., 2015. Critical factors that impact on the efficiency of the Lagos sea-
ports. J. Trans. Supp. Chain Manag. 9 (1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4102/jtscm.v9i1.180.
Onyemechi, C., Amanze, A.C., Igboanusi, C., Sule, A., 2017. Port service quality study of Ni-
gerian seaports. J. Shipp. Ocean Eng. 7, 59–64. https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5879/
2017.02.002.
Pantouvakis, A., 2006. Port-service quality dimensions and passenger profiles: an exploratory
examination and analysis. Marit. Econ. Logist. 8 (4), 402–418. https://doi.org/10.1057/
palgrave.mel.9100167.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1985. A conceptual model of service quality and
its implications for future research. J. Mark. 49 (4), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002224298504900403.
10
Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 6 (2020) 100152
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., 1988. SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for mea-
suring consumer perceptions of service quality. J. Retail. 64 (1), 12–40.
Raballand, G., Refas, S., Beuran, M., Isik, G., 2012. Why Does Cargo Spend Weeks in Sub-Sa-
haran African Ports? Lessons from Six Countries. The World Bank, Washington DC.
Regasa, Y., 2016. Dry Ports Service Quality in Ethiopia: The Case of Modjo and Kaliti Dry
Ports and Terminals A-Comparative Study. Doctoral dissertation. Addis Ababa University.
Sakyi, D., Villaverde, J., Maza, A., Bonuedi, I., 2017. The effects of trade and trade facilitation
on economic growth in Africa. Afr. Dev. Rev. 29 (2), 350–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1467-8268.12261.
Sayareh, J., Iranshahi, S., Golfakhrabadi, N., 2016. Service quality evaluation and ranking of
container terminal operators. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 32 (4), 203–212. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ajsl.2016.12.003.
Suuroja, M., 2003. Service Quality-Main Conceptualizations and Critique. Tartu University
Press https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.486947 Order No. 742.
Thai, V.V., 2016. The impact of port service quality on customer satisfaction: the case of Sin-
gapore. Marit. Econ. Logist. 18 (4), 458–475. https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2015.19.
Ugboma, C., Ibe, C., Ogwude, I.C., 2004. Service quality measurements in ports of a develop-
ing economy: Nigerian ports survey. Manag. Serv. Qual. 14 (6), 487–495. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09604520410569829.
Ugboma, C., Ogwude, I.C., Ugboma, O., Nnadi, K., 2007. Service quality and satisfaction mea-
surements in Nigerian ports: an exploration. Marit. Policy Manag. 34 (4), 331–346.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830701539073.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2016. Rev. Mar. Trans. 2016.
Yeo, G.T., Thai, V.V., Roh, S.Y., 2015. An analysis of port service quality and customer satis-
faction: the case of Korean container ports. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 31 (4), 437–447.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2016.01.002.
Zeithaml, V.A., 1988. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model
and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 52 (3), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002224298805200302.