See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311367829

International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics

Article  in  International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics · January 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 233

2 authors:

Aminuddin Md Arof Rawindaran Nair

University of Kuala Lumpur Cardiff University
21 PUBLICATIONS   34 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   103 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Evaluation of green port factors and identification of the key determinants. A case study on ports in Manjung district. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Aminuddin Md Arof on 24 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 34(1) (2018) 033-042

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics

Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ajsl

Decision Making Model for Ro-Ro Short Sea Shipping Operations in Archipelagic
Southeast Asia*

Aminuddin Md AROFa
a
Associate Professor, Universiti Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, E-mail: aminuddin@unikl.edu.my

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history: This study aims to develop a decision-making model for determining the potential of interstate Ro-
Received 8 November 2017
Ro Short Sea Shipping (SSS) operations in Archipelagic Southeast Asia (ASEA). It is expected to
Received in revised form 10 March 2018
Accepted 15 March 2018 assist SSS authorities, private investors and financial institutions focus their limited resources on
several key factors that could ensure the success of their undertakings. This study will begin with
Keywords: identifying the relevant factors that have contributed towards successful SSS operations through a
Archipelagic Southeast Asia process of literature review. Subsequently, a Delphi survey was conducted with sub-regional
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) experts to identify any new determinants and assess their opinions on the relative importance of all
ASEAN
the determinants involved. Finally the weightages of the determinants were ascertained through the
Delphi
Ro-Ro Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Twenty expert respondents from Brunei Darussalam. Indonesia,
Short Sea Shipping (SSS) Malaysia and the Philippines were involved in the Delphi survey while 18 expert respondents
continue to participate in the AHP survey. This study concludes with the development of a decision-
making model that was tested on three interstate Ro-Ro SSS routes within the ASEA sub-region.

Copyright © 2018 The Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc. Production and hosting by
Elsevier B.V. T h i s i s a n o p e n a c c e s s a r t i c l e u n d e r t h e C C B Y - N C - N D l i c e n s e
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Located on the south-eastern end of the Asian continent, Southeast Asia
land mass geographically separates the Pacific and the Indian Oceans. It
borders China to the north, Australia to the south, the Pacific Island
Countries to the east, while India and Bangladesh are situated on its west.
The region could be further divided into two sub-regions namely,
mainland Southeast Asia and archipelagic Southeast Asia (ASEA). The
states of Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, Peninsular
Malaysia and Singapore formed mainland Southeast Asia. Although
Singapore is an island state, it is connected to Peninsular Malaysia by a
causeway and a bridge across the Johore Straits. Additionally, Indonesia,

* This study was supported by UniKL Short Term Research Grant.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2018.03.005
2092-5212/© 2018 The Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.
Peer review under responsibility of the Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc.
34 Decision Making Model for Ro-Ro Short Sea Shipping Operations in Archipelagic Southeast Asia
the Philippines, Brunei, East Timor together with the eastern states of
Malaysia that mostly lie on the eastern part of the region are categorised
as ASEA. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has characterised ASEA
as a unique sub-region with more than 24,000 islands and long distances
that demands a special approach to physical connectivity (ADB, 2010).
Due to the archipelagic nature of ASEA, it could be observed that its
intermodal transport system is primarily maritime-based to connect
between the main ports within the sub-region. It is supported by a land-
based transport system in the bigger islands such as Borneo, Java,
Sulawesi, Mindanao and Luzon.
The term Short Sea Shipping (SSS) can be described as a modern
equivalent of coastal shipping (Balduini, 1982) (Becker et al., 2004). The
term can be traced from Balduini (1982) that refers SSS as a maritime
transport between ports of a nation and between a country’s port and the
ports of adjacent countries. Musso, Paixao-Casaca and Lynce (2010), in
their review of SSS definitions propose four classification criteria for SSS
namely; (a) geographical based on route length; (b) supply approach,
based on type-size containers; (c) commercial criteria or demand
distinguishing between feeder traffic, intra-regional traffic and nature of
the load; and (d) legal approach, according to member ports of the same
state. In other literature, Kennedy (2008) broadly defines SSS as any
waterborne transportation of commercial cargo between domestic ports
over the US inland or coastal waterways system whilst Hennesey and
Yonge (2006) define it as “the shipping of cargo or goods for relatively
short distances or nearby coastal ports”. In Europe, the European Shortsea
Network (2014), defines SSS as the movement of cargo and passengers by
sea between ports situated in geographical Europe or between those ports
and ports situated in non- European countries having a coastline on the
enclosed seas bordering Europe. Transport Canada (2006) interprets SSS
as “a multi-modal concept involving the marine transportation of
passengers and goods that does not cross oceans and takes place within
and among Canada, the United States and Mexico”. In the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) context, the establishment of a
regional SSS has been divided into two components namely the
establishment of “an efficient and integrated inland waterways network”
and fostering “a competitive and efficient interstate shipping service in
ASEAN” (ASEAN, 2011). From the definitions of SSS highlighted in this
paragraph, it could be summarised that SSS is a domestic or interstate
shipping operation that moves cargo and/or passenger between ports over
a short distance that does not cross the ocean.
2. Aim
The aim of this study is to develop a decision-making model for
determining the potential of interstate Ro-Ro Short Sea Shipping (SSS)
operations in the ASEA sub-region, which is expected to assist SSS
authorities, private investors and financial institutions to focus their
limited resources on several key factors that could ensure the success of
their undertakings.
3. ASEAN Ro-Ro Concept
In support of the establishment of an integrated, efficient and
competitive maritime transport system, one of ASEAN key actions is to
establish efficient and reliable shipping routes through the newly
introduced ASEAN Nautical Highway (ANH) that involves the utilization
of Roll-on Roll-off (Ro-Ro) vessels as the main platforms (ASEAN,
2011). The idea for the development of the ANH arose after the ASEAN
authorities were convinced with the results of the initial impact
assessment of the Philippines Nautical Highway (also known as Ro-Ro
System) that demonstrated significant benefits in terms of reduction in
transport costs, the creation of new regional links and expansion of
regional markets (ASEAN, 2011). The shipping routes would connect the
mainland Southeast Asia and ASEA in support of other sub-regional
initiatives such as the Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East
ASEAN Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA) and Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand
Growth Triangle (IMT-GT) (ASEAN, 2011). ASEAN has designated 47
ports as the main ports in the trans-ASEAN transport network. Among the
ports that lie in the ASEA sub-region are Kuching, Bintulu, Kota
Kinabalu and Sandakan in Malaysia; Muara in Brunei; Subic Bay, Manila,
Batangas, Cebu, Cagayan de Oro, Davao, General Santos and Zamboanga
in the Phillippines; and Pontianak, Banjarmasin, Balikpapan, Makassar
and Bitung in Indonesia (ASEAN, 2011). Besides the main ports
identified for the trans-ASEAN network, other smaller ports such as
Labuan, Menumbok, Kudat and Brooke’s Point are also recognised as
nearby ports to be connected in support of the main ports (ASEAN, 2011).
The importance of the development of adequate infrastructure for Ro-Ro
operations and improved institutional arrangements, such as the integrated
CIQS facilities have been re-emphasized in MPAC 2025 by the leaders of
ASEAN to ensure the realization of the ANH (ASEAN, 2016).
Fig. 1. Map of Southeast Asia
Source: Aseanup (2018)
4. Literature Review
Thus far, most contemporary studies concerning SSS that could be
traced centred on the SSS operations in Europe and North America.
Among others, in order to embark on a successful SSS operation, Psaraftis
and Schinas (2000) recommend further cooperation among various
transportation modes, alliances among ports and the development of a
common system for freight transportation data. In evaluating the strengths
and weaknesses of SSS in Europe, Paixao and Marlow (2001) reveal that
the weaknesses are mostly due to the lack of efficient port operations,
unreliable vessel schedules, excessive paperwork and high administrative
cost. In their study of the economics of SSS, Musso and Marchese (2002)
argue that in order to determine the competitiveness of SSS, both the
internal and external costs must be included. They also theorise that SSS
competitiveness depends directly on the sea-leg distances (Musso and
Marchese, 2002). Similarly, Medda and Trujillo (2010) argue that SSS is
competitive for a certain type of distance, product and with certain types
of ships. In their subsequent research, Paixao Casaca and Marlow (2005)
examine the competitiveness of SSS compared to other transport modes
 Decision Making Model for Ro-Ro Short Sea Shipping Operations in Archipelagic Southeast Asia
and reveal that the quality of service provided by SSS service providers in
Europe and the image of SSS relative to other modes of transport are still
poor. In another study of SSS and European Motorways of the Sea (MoS)
concept, Baindur and Viegas (2011) have identified the barriers to the
success of SSS and grouped them into regulatory, technical, commercial
and environmental.
In the Baltic, Tapaninem et al. (2012) conclude that the Ro-Ro and
passenger (Ropax) concept is the only economically profitable solution
along such route. Without such concept, higher prices of tickets would be
detrimental to the effort to capture higher cargo and passenger traffics.
Trujillo et al. (2011) argue that SSS acts both as a substitute and/or a
complement to other transport modes involving road or rail services.
Nevertheless, it is a competitor when providing alternative transport
services in the same point-to-point market already served by road
transport, conventional rail or even air transport services (Trujillo et al.,
2011). The main drawbacks of SSS as identified by Trujillo et al. (2011)
are related to the frequency of services, insufficient integration with other
transport modes, difficulty in meeting just-in-time requirements, and the
non-competitive process. They argue that SSS also suffers from a
perception problem and as a result, is very slow to gain acceptance from
shippers due to their unfamiliarity of the full range of available services.
For them, SSS is not always a viable option and the applicability of SSS is
considered on a case by case basis because each corridor has its own
peculiarities (Trujillo et al., 2011). In his study on SSS in the South Baltic
Sea, Wonexius (2012) argues that in designing or employing Ro-Ro SSS,
the decisions made must be subjected to trade-offs ranging from platform
with specialization versus flexibility to other technical and operational
trade-offs. These trade-offs would have implications for transport
accessibility, time and price.
In North America, Yonge and Henesey (2005) espouse that demand,
geographic location, infrastructure capability and intermodal connectors
are the four most important factors for Port Caneveral to operate a
successful SSS operation (Yonge and Henesey, 2005). Perakis and
Denesis (2008) in their examination of the prospects of SSS in the United
States conclude that in spite of the wide acceptance of SSS among
Table 1
Important determinants for a viable SSS operation through Literature Review (Source: Arof and Nair, 2017)
Authors A B C D E F G H
Factors
Harmonisation of admin * *
procedures among ports
* * * *
Promotion of
SSS
Regional agreements to relax * * * *
shipping restriction
Coordinated administrative/CIQS
formalities
Good intermodal links * * * * * *
Government assistance at initial * *
period
Good port access * * * *
35
stakeholders, the obstacles to its successful implementation are additional
handling costs, image problem, harbour maintenance tax and restriction
imposed by the U.S. Cabotage laws or the Jones Act. They also espouse
two types of SSS i.e. the utilization of Lift-on Lift-off (Lo-Lo) vessels or
container barges as a solution to terminal inefficiency problems and Ro-
Ro ships as an economical and reliable way for truck trailer transportation
in the United States’ east and west coasts, Gulf of Mexico and the Great
Lakes. This is due to the economies of scale and fuel efficiencies of Ro-
Ro (Perakis and Denisis, 2008). Similar domestic inhibitions to the
development of SSS involving the cabotage laws were also discussed by
Kennedy (2008).
The number of SSS studies in Southeast Asia is extremely limited and
difficult to trace over the open literature. A number of studies in the
Philippines identify both the costs and inefficiency of cargo handling
charges as a major factor in the high cost of inter-islands transportation
and recommend the use of Ro-Ro shipping to replace the earlier Lo-Lo
shipping (ADB, 2010). Subsequently, a Ro-Ro SSS feasibility study was
conducted on three routes namely, Dumai-Malacca, Belawan-Penang-
Phuket and Davao-General Santos-Bitung in 2012 (JICA, 2013). Due to
the differing conditions of ports, routes and local demands, the study
recommends the first two routes to embark on the Ro-Ro projects. As for
the third route, it needs intensive demand finding and boosting measures
due to the lack of existing traffic along the route (JICA, 2013). The survey
data were processed using a financial analysis involving three important
variables, namely demand forecast, operation plan and ship procurement
cost (JICA, 2013). Due to the limited study involving ports in Southeast
Asia in general and the ASEA sub-region in particular, this study is
expected to contribute to the dearth of literature on SSS in this region.
Although many studies have been done in Europe and North America,
earlier studies have demonstrated that determinants required for the
success of SSS operations identified may not be applicable to other
corridors (Trujillo et al., 2011). In summary, the important determinants
that could be gleaned from the literature are presented in Table 1.
I J K L M N O P Q R S T
* *
* * * * * * *
* *
* * *
* * * * * * * * * *
*
* * * * * *
36 Decision Making Model for Ro-Ro Short Sea Shipping Operations in Archipelagic Southeast Asia

Large payload or shipment * * * * * * * *

volume
Balance payload or shipment * * *
volume
Weather and meteorological * *
condition

Adequate port facilities & * * * * * * * * *

equipment

Suitable ship’s type relative to * * * * * * * * * *

payload, distance and speed

Port efficiency * * * * * * * * * * * * *

SSS service quality * * * * * * * *

Legend:
A. Baindur and Viegas (2011) K. Musso et al. (2010)
B. Baird (2007) L. Norojono and Lidasan (2005)
C. Becker et al. (2004) M. Paixao Casaca and Marlow (2007)(2005)(2001)
D. Brooks and Frost (2006) N. Perakis and Denisis (2008)
E. Chen and Lim (2012) O. Saldanha and Gray (2002)
F. Grosso et al. (2009) P. Suarez-Aleman et al. (2015)
G. Kruse et al. (2004) Q. Tapaninem et al. (2012)
H. Lombardo (2004) R. Trujillo et al. (2011)
I. Martinez-Lopez et al. (2015) S. Wonexius (2012)
J. Medda and Trujillo (2010) T. Yonge and Henesey (2005)

5. Research Methodology
The AHP is a type of multi-criteria analysis instrument normally used
for complicated and unstructured problem. The instrument that was
developed by Saaty in 1980 is an approach that uses a hierarchical model
having levels of goal, criteria, sub-criteria and alternatives (Saaty, 2008).
It has been described as an easy and useful methodology to enable a
pairwise comparison within the analyst area of expertise to be done
(Oguztimur, 2011). AHP uses the concept of paired comparison and
hierarchical structure or network analysis for the selection of the most
appropriate alternative among a set of feasible alternatives (Saaty, 1997).
The primary goal of an AHP is to select an alternative that best satisfies a
given set of criteria out of a set of alternatives or to determine the weight
of the criteria in any application using the decision maker’s or expert’s
experience or knowledge in a matrix of a pairwise comparison of
attributes (Saaty, 2008). In decision making, AHP emphasizes on the
requirements to (1) identify the problem to be addressed; (2) the purpose
or objective of the decision; (3) the criteria and sub-criteria to be analysed;
(4) the stakeholders and groups that will be affected by the decision
making; and (5) the alternative actions available (Saaty, 2008). AHP data
can be analysed using suitable software such as Expert Choice or through
matrices personally developed by using excel. The researcher has opted
for the second alternative.
The first step in the research design involves identifying the main
determinants for a viable SSS operation through the review of
contemporary literature. The literature review has an extensive list that
can be grouped into 14 factors as listed in Table 1 through the qualitative
content analysis process (Arof, Hanafiah and Ooi, 2016). However, as not
all the factors identified may be imperative for the success of interstate
Ro-Ro SSS in ASEA as in other areas, a Delphi technique is adopted to
allow stakeholders to determine the more important factors among the list
of 14 variables. They were also required to identify other important
factors that are not addressed by the literature but considered as
imperative by the stakeholders for the success of SSS operation in ASEA
sub-region. The Delphi is a method that requires knowledgeable and
expert contributors individually responding to questions and submitting
the result direct to the coordinator who would process the answers looking
for central tendencies and their rationales (Grisham, 2008). This technique
was first developed by the RAND corporation in the U.S in 1950s in order
to assess variables that are intangibles, or covered in an uncertainty by
drawing on the knowledge and abilities of a diverse group of experts
through a form of anonymous and iterative consultation (Grisham, 2008).
Four key features that need to be adhered in the Delphi procedure are
the anonymity of Delphi panels, iteration that allows panellists to refine
their views, controlled feedback and statistical aggregation of group
response that allows for quantitative analysis and interpretation of data
(Rowe and Wright, 1999). Due to the limited number of experts in
maritime transport within the ASEA sub-region, Delphi is found to be a
more appropriate technique compared to other techniques such as factor
analysis and brainstorming as there is no minimum limit on expert
numbers stipulated for Delphi technique.
 Decision Making Model for Ro-Ro Short Sea Shipping Operations in Archipelagic Southeast Asia 37

6. The Determinants for a Successful Ro-Ro SSS
At the end of the two round-Delphi survey, 10 out of 16 identified
determinants for the success of interstate Ro-Ro SSS operation in ASEA
have been identified as the key determinants and were rated as 6 and
above on a 7 point-Likert Scale by 20 expert respondents from four ASEA
countries (Arof and Nair, 2017). The key determinants are (1) government
assistance at initial period; (2) adequate port facilities and equipment; (3)
suitable ship’s type in relation to payload, distance and speed; (4) good
port access; (5) coordinated administrative and CIQS facilities; (6)
security perception and safety of surrounding waters; (7) good intermodal
link; (8) port efficiency; (9) regional agreements to relax shipping
restriction; and (10) SSS service quality (Arof and Nair, 2017). On the
contrary six other determinants that have been considered as important,
but not as critical as the other ten determinants are (1) harmonization of
administrative procedures among ports; (2) balance payload or shipment
volume; (3) large payload or shipment volume; (4) promotion of SSS; (5)
weather and meteorological conditions; and (6) efficient and transparent
government bureaucracy (Arof and Nair, 2017).
The ten key determinants selected by the Delphi expert respondents
were subsequently divided into three main clusters namely Regulatory,
Infrastructure and Commercial. Subsequently, 22 questionnaires were
disseminated to selected expert respondents for them to perform the
pairwise comparisons. Out of 22 questionnaires disseminated, only 19
questionnaires were completed and returned to the researcher. However,
from the 19 questionnaires received only 7 questionnaires have got all the
four matrices in compliance with the AHP Consistency Ratios (CR),
which was set at 0.2 and below. A CR of more than 0.2 demonstrates an
inconsistency in the judgments and has to be reviewed by the respondents.
As a result, 11 questionnaires that have 1 or 2 matrices with a CR of
above 0.2 were returned to the expert respondents for their earlier
judgments to be reviewed. One respondent who has all his 4 matrices of
judgments above 0.2 has not been requested to review his earlier
judgments due to his health condition. The statistics for the number of
questionnaires distributed, completed and accepted for aggregate analysis
are presented in Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2
AHP Questionnaire Distribution
Country Academia Maritime Transport Practitioners Others Total Respondents
Prof Assoc Senior Ship Port Govt
Prof Lecturer
Brunei 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Indonesia 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 5
Malaysia 2 0 0 3 2 3 0 10
Philippines 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 6
TOTAL 4 1 1 7 2 4 3 22

Table 3
AHP Questionnaire Returned to Researcher and accepted for Aggregate Analysis
Country Academia Maritime Transport Practitioners Others Total Respondents
Prof Assoc Senior Ship Port Govt
Prof Lecturer
Brunei 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Indonesia 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3
Malaysia 2 0 0 2 2 3 (2)* 0 9 (8)*
Philippines 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 6
TOTAL 4 0 1 5 2 4 3 19 (18)*
Note: * Figure in bracket indicates the number of questionnaires accepted for aggregate analysis

sub-determinants) as compared to other clusters/main determinants (Saaty,

7. The AHP Pairwise Comparisons
The overall result of the pairwise comparisons performed by 18 expert
respondents has been illustrated in Table 4 which displays the overall
internal and global priority weights or weightage of all the determinants
involved. The internal weightage is the weightage of a variable/sub-
determinant as compared to other variables/sub-determinants within the
same cluster. Similarly, internal ranking is the ranking of a variable/sub-
determinant as compared to other variables/sub-determinants within the
same cluster. On the contrary, global weightage and global ranking are the
weightage of the variable/sub-determinant as compared to other
variables/sub-determinants across all clusters. Among the clusters
involved, the Regulatory cluster received a higher weightage than the
Infrastructure and Commercial clusters, which is understandable and
typical in AHP when a cluster or main determinant has more variables (or
1994). The other two clusters with both having three variables under them,
received almost equal weightage. The top four attributes/variables are well
represented from all the clusters. The determinant with the highest global
weightage of 0.150 i.e. “Government assistance at the initial period” is
placed under the Regulatory cluster, followed by “Adequate port facilities
and equipment” that is placed under the Infrastructure cluster with a
global weightage of 0.136. The third highest on the global ranking is the
“Coordinated administrative and CIQS formalities”, that is placed under
the Regulatory cluster with a global weightage of 0.108, followed by
“Suitable ship’s type in relation to the payload, distance and speed”,
which belongs to the Commercial cluster with a global weightage of 0.103.
The four top determinants aggregated a total weightage of 0.497, which is
almost 50% of the total weightage, leaving 6 other determinants sharing
another 50% of the weightage.
38 Decision Making Model for Ro-Ro Short Sea Shipping Operations in Archipelagic Southeast Asia

This outcome is 80% similar to the outcome of the earlier Delphi
survey, where 20 expert respondents have determined an aggregate score
for the top five determinants on a 7-point Likert scale as follows:
a) Government assistance at initial period (Mean 6.4).
b) Adequate port facilities and equipment (Mean 6.4).
c) Suitable ship’s type in relation to the payload, distance and
speed (Mean 6.25).
d) Good port access (Mean 6.15).
e) Coordinated administrative and Customs, Immigration,
Quarantine and Security (CIQS) facilities (Mean 6.10).
The judgments through the AHP pairwise comparisons still decided to
retain the top two determinants as decided through the Delphi survey.
However, the “coordinated administrative and CIQS facilities” was
moved-up from fifth to third placing, whilst “suitable ship’s type in
relation to the payload, distance and speed” was placed one step lower
than the placing given after the Delphi aggregate result. However, the
“good port access” determinant was moved from fourth placing in the
Delphi survey to ninth placing in AHP aggregate pairwise comparisons.
The other determinants scored a weightage between 6.0 to 6.1 on the 7-
point Likert scale in the aggregate Delphi result. Therefore, it is not
surprising to see a slight re-arrangement in their AHP global rankings
considering the reduction in the number of expert respondents from 20 in
the Delphi survey to only 18 in the AHP pairwise comparisons.
In terms of validity of the AHP instrument, the required content
validity, criterion validity and construct validity have been achieved
(Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). As explained earlier, the content validity is
achieved through the pilot testing of the questionnaire by four colleagues
who have good knowledge in maritime transportation and logistics sectors
with a minimum of five years working experience in those sectors.
Similarly, criterion validity is achieved through the utilization of the AHP
fundamental scale of between 1 to 9, that has been simulated and proven
over and over again with its ability to differentiate between individual
judgments (Saaty, 2001)(Ishikawa & Labib, 2011). Finally, the construct
validity has been achieved through the convergence of the result that has
80% similarity among the top determinants with the Delphi technique.
Both techniques were administered on the same respondents except for the
number that was reduced from 20 to 18 due to the non-response of one
respondent, while the result of another respondent was not acceptable due
to high CR incurred in all the four matrices he administered. Similarly, all
nine out of 10 important determinants have been identified by earlier
literature as also important determinants for the success of SSS operations
in other regions as tabularised in Table 1. The only determinant that has
been shortlisted by the sub-regional expert respondents but not covered in

Table 4
Overall result of AHP pairwise comparisons
Internal Internal Global Global
Clusters Weightage CR Determinants
weightage ranking weightage ranking

Coordinated administrative and

0.252 2 0.108 3
CIQS formalities

Government assistance at initial

0.351 1 0.150 1
period
Regulatory 0.428 0.0
Regional agreements to relax
0.201 3 0.086 7
shipping restrictions

Security perception and safety of

0.196 4 0.084 8
surrounding waters

Adequate port facilities and

0.480 1 0.136 2
equipment
Physical and
administrative 0.284 0.0
Good intermodal links 0.240 3 0.068 10
infrastructure

Good port access 0.270 2 0.077 9

Port efficiency 0.332 2 0.096 5

SSS service quality 0.312 3 0.090 6

Commercial 0.288 0.003

Suitable ship’s type in relation to

0.356 1 0.103 4
payload, distance and speed

detail in the literature is “security perception and safety of surrounding
waters”.
As espoused by Sekaran and Bougie (2013), reliability indicates the
extent to which the instrument or measure is without bias and ensures
consistent measurement across time and across the various items. Hence,
in the AHP technique, reliability is ensured through the observance of
strict CR that should not be more than 0.2 for all individual judgments
across the four matrices. As a result, the response from one expert
respondent was rejected due to the preceding reason. Similarly, the
aggregate CR on all the four matrices were calculated with all matrices
achieving a CR of below 0.1. From the valid and reliable outcome of the
AHP survey involving 18 expert respondents from the four countries of
the ASEA sub-region, an AHP decision making model for a successful
interstate Ro-Ro SSS operation has been developed as per Figure 2.
 Decision Making Model for Ro-Ro Short Sea Shipping Operations in Archipelagic Southeast Asia
In summarizing the determinants at Figure 2, it should be noted that
the clusters were introduced since it was not advisable to perform direct
pairwise comparisons involving more than 7 variables (Saaty & Ozdemir,
2003). In fact, it has been highlighted in the literature that pairwise
comparisons involving five or more variables will be prone to
inconsistency in individual judgments (Bodin & Gass, 2003)(Kumar et al.,
2009)(Da Cruz et al., 2013). As a result, through the outcome of the
Delphi R1 survey all the 14 determinants identified through literature
review and 2 new determinants identified in this study have been placed
under 4 clusters. However, the weather and meteorological conditions
determinant that was placed under the Environmental cluster was among
the six determinants that were not considered as Very Important by 20
Delphi expert respondents. Hence, the 10 determinants were classified as
Very Important and classified as the key determinants are placed under 3
clusters to enable the achievement of a consistent AHP pairwise
comparison exercise. As the outcome of the top five determinants are
about 80% similar to the outcome of the Delphi survey that utilized a 7-
point Likert scale rating on individual variable, it is proven that the
inability to perform direct pairwise comparisons between the 10 Very
Important determinants did not have a significant effect on the expected
outcome. This is further demonstrated, when determinants under the three
clusters are selected as the top four determinants based on the aggregate
result.
The importance of the “government assistance at initial period”
determinant that was chosen by the expert respondents should not be
underestimated as developed economies, particularly Europe have
Fig. 2. AHP Decision Making Model for a successful interstate Ro-Ro SSS
As for the other determinants, all except for one determinant have
been well addressed in the literature as summarized in Table 1. Therefore,
39
continuously exercise various kinds of assistance and incentives through
the European Community and national governments particularly in the
initial period of operations since the early 1990s (Baindur & Viegas,
2011)(Trujillo et al., 2011)(Suarez-Aleman et al., 2015)(Arof, 2015).
However, the issues concerning this determinant that has been discussed
over the literature are mainly the adequacy of the fund and the
identification for more suitable types of assistance and incentives (Trujillo
et al., 2011)(Suarez-Aleman et al., 2015). As for the next important factor,
i.e. “adequate port facilities and equipment”, it is not surprising that it has
remained as among the top choice of the expert respondents from the
initial stage of this study. Although Ro-Ro vessels do not need extensive
port facilities such as expensive cargo handling gears, the importance of
having adequate and dedicated port infrastructure has been widely
emphasised in other studies to ensure the introduction of a reliable SSS
(Becker et al., 2004)(Paixao & Marlow, 2001)(Lombardo, 2004)(Medda
& Trujillo, 2010)(Musso & Marchese, 2002)(Norojono & Lidasan,
2005)(Suarez-Aleman et al., 2015)(Tapaninem et al., 2012). In fact, port
efficiency is more important in SSS than the deep-sea shipping to ensure
the reliability of the service, because the time at sea is too limited for the
SSS to catch up for the time loss in ports (Suarez-Aleman et al., 2014).
The importance of this determinant is further demonstrated, when the
launching of the third interstate BIMP-EAGA Ro-Ro route connecting
Kudat in Malaysia to Brooke’s Point in the Philippines was delayed due to
inadequate Ro-Ro infrastructure in Kudat (Borneo Post, 2015).
it is a demonstration of the convergence of findings between this study
and earlier studies. The determinant that was not well discussed in the
40 Decision Making Model for Ro-Ro Short Sea Shipping Operations in Archipelagic Southeast Asia

literature, “security perception and safety of surrounding waters” was Maritime Economy, 5, 97-110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enavi.2016.12.008.
included by the expert panels since the first round of the Delphi survey
due to the peculiarity of the waters in the ASEA sub-region particularly in AROF, A. M. & NAIR, R. (2017). The Indentification Of Key Success
the Sulu Sea. The Sulu Sea connects the Eastern part of Sabah in Malaysia Factors for Interstate Ro-Ro Short Sea Shipping In Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia-
and the Southern islands of Mindanao, Tawi-Tawi and its surrounding Philippines: A Delphi Approach, International Journal of Shipping and
islands in the Philippines, where terrorist activities such as kidnapping, Transport Logistics, 9 (3), 261-279.
robbery and murder take place from time to time. Unless this problem is http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJSTL.2017.10002950.
addressed by the relevant authorities from both countries, certain interstate
Ro-Ro SSS routes that have been designated by ASEAN may not be able ASEANUP (2018). Available at: http://aseanup.com/free-maps-asean-
to operate safely. southeast-asia (Retrieved: March 8th, 2018).

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK - ADB (2010). Bridges Across Oceans:

8. Conclusions
Initial Impact Assessment of the Philippines Nautical Highway System and
Lessons for Southeast Asia, ADB and Asia Foundation.
In ensuring the robustness of the AHP decision making model that has
been developed, a sensitivity analysis has been performed based on
ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS (2011). Master Plan
different scenarios or different views on the relative importance of the
on ASEAN Connectivity, Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.
criteria. The decision-making model was subsequently tested on three
interstate Ro-Ro SSS routes within the ASEA sub-region connecting ports
ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS (2016). Master Plan
in Brunei, Malaysia and the Philippines. Experts could easily provide their
on ASEAN Connectivity 2025, Jakarta: ASEAN Secretariat.
judgments on the three routes because there have been interstate Ro-Ro
operations along those routes, including one route where a trialled run was
BAINDUR, DEEPAK & VIEGAS, JOSE (2012). Success factor for
performed. Hence, the outcome of the judgements could be compared to
developing viable Motorways of the Sea projects in Europe, Logistics Research,
the real situation on the ground. In spite of the success, it has been argued
4, Springer, 137-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12159-012-0069-x.
in the literature that the applicability of SSS should be considered on a
case by case basis because each corridor has its own peculiarities.
BAIRD, ALFRED J. (2007). The economics of Motorways of the Sea,
Therefore, this decision-making model should be used to predict the
Maritime Policy & Management, 34 (4), 287-310.
potential of the interstate Ro-Ro SSS routes within ASEA sub-region only.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03088830701538976.
This is because the weightage of the determinants selected may not be
similar in other areas or corridors, although the same determinants may be
BALDUINI, G. (1982). Italy, in Short-sea Shipping in the economy of
involved. At the same time, there could be other determinants that may be
Inland Transport in Europe: A Report of Sixth Roundtable in Transport
considered as the key determinants in other corridors, but have not been
Economic, held in Gothernburg April 1st-2nd, Washington D.C.: OECD
considered as such within the ASEA sub-region. Since the ANH system
Publication and Information Centre, pp 37-65.
will also be extended to connect the ports in mainland Southeast Asia, it
will be desirable for a similar study to be performed in this sub-region.
BECKER, JFF, BURGESS, A & HENSTRA, D.A. (2004). No need for
Finally, as the expert respondents have identified government assistance
speed in Short Sea Shipping, Maritime Economics & Logistics, 6, Palgrave
during the initial period of operations as the most important determinant
Macmillan, 236-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100111.
for the success of Ro-Ro SSS in ASEA, a subsequent research to identify
the most suitable government assistance would be needed.
BODIN, LAWRENCE & GASS, SAUL I. (2003). On teaching the analytic
hierarchy process, Computers and Operations, Vol 30, 1487-1497.

Acknowledgement
The author would like to extend his appreciation to Universiti Kuala
Lumpur for the research grant provided under the Short-Term Research
Grant Scheme and the Malaysian Institute of Transport, Universiti
Teknologi Mara for providing a conducive environment to conduct this
research.
BORNEO POST (2015). Kudat-Palawan ferry service soon, Posted on Feb
5th at www.theborneopost.com (Retrieved: May 17th, 2015).
BROOKS, MARY R. & FROST, JAMES D. (2004). Short sea shipping: a
Canadian perspective, Maritime Policy & Management, 31 (4), 393-407.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0308883042000304881.

BROOKS, MARY R. & TRIFTS, VALERIE (2008). Short sea shipping in

References North America: understanding the requirements of Atlantic Canadian shippers,
Maritime Policy & Management, 35 (2), 145-158.
AROF, A. M. (2015). Determinants for a feasible Short Sea Shipping: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03088830801956805.
Lessons from Europe for ASEAN, Asian Social Science, 11 (15), 229-238.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n15p. CHEN, YENMING J. AND LIRN, TAIH-CHERNG (2012). Service
Preference in the Short Sea Shipping Market, a paper presented at the
AROF, A. M., MD HANAFIAH, R. & OOI, I. U. J. (2016). A Delphi Study International Conference on Logistics and Transport 2012, 22nd-23rd
on the potential Benefits and Obstacles of Interstate Short Sea Shipping in November, Chiangmai Thailand.
Archipelagic Southeast Asia, International Journal of E-Navigation and
 Decision Making Model for Ro-Ro Short Sea Shipping Operations in Archipelagic Southeast Asia
DA CRUZ, M. R. P., FERREIRA, J. J. & AZEVEDO, S. G. (2013B).
Logistics resources in seaport performance: multi criteria analysis, Maritime
Policy & Management, 40 (6), 588-613.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2013.777979.
EUROPEAN SHORT SEA NETWORK (2014). at
www.shortsea.info/definition.html (Retrieved: August 25th, 2014).
GRISHAM, T. (2009). The Delphi technique: a method for testing complex
and multifaceted topics, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,
Vol. 2, No. 1, 112–130.
GROSSO, M., LYNCE, A-R., SILLA, A. & VAGGELAS, G.K. (2009).
Short Sea Shipping, Intermodality and Parameters Influencing Pricing Policies
in the Mediterranean Region, A paper presented at Research and Logistics
Conference Feb 2009, Istanbul.
HENESEY, LAURENCE & YONGE, MARK (2006). Short Sea Shipping in
the United States: Identifying the Prospects and Opportunities; A white paper
presented at 2006 Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting,
Washington D.C. Jan 25th, 2006.
ISHIZAKA, ALESSIO & LABIB, ASHRAF (2011). Review of the main
developments in the analytic hierarchy process, Expert Systems with
Applications, 38 (11), 14336-14345.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.143.
JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY (JICA) (2013).
The Master Plan & Feasibility Study on the Establishment of an ASEAN RO-
RO Shipping Network and Short Sea Shipping, ASEAN/JICA.
KENNEDY, SEAN D. (2008), Short Sea Shipping in the United States –
The New Marine Highways, Tulane Maritime Law Journal Vol. 33, 203-227.
KRUSE, C. J., BIERLING, D. H. AND VAJDOS, C. V. (2004). Analysis of
Start-up Cross-Gulf Short Sea Shipping activities with Mexico since 1990:
Problems and Opportunities, A report for Southwest Region University
Transportation Centre, Texas.
KUMAR, SANJAY, PARASHAR, NEERAJ & HALEEM, ABID (2009).
Analytical Hierarchy Process Applied to Vendor Selection Problem: Small
Scale, Medium Scale and Large Scale Industries, Business Intelligence Journal,
2 (2), 355-362.
LOMBARDO, GARY A. (2010). Short Sea Shipping Part II,
http://www.wwship.com/Newtree.asp (Retrieved: Feb 27th, 2013).
MARTINEZ-LOPEZ, ALBA; KORONBAK, JACOB & JIANG, LIPING
(2015A). Cost and time models for the evaluation of intermodal chains by
using short sea shipping in the North Sea Region, International Journal of
Shipping and Transport Logistics, 7 (4), 494-520.
MARTINEZ-LOPEZ, ALBA; MUNIN-DOCE, ALICIA & GARCIA-
ALONSO, LORENA (2015B). A multi-criteria decision method for the
analysis of the Motorways of the Sea: the application to the case of France and
Spain on the Atlantic Coast, Maritime Policy & Management, 42 (6), 608-631.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2015.1039091.
41
MEDDA, FRANCESCA & TRUJILLO, LOURDES (2010). Short-sea
Shipping: An analysis of its determinant, Maritime Policy & Management, 37
(3), 285-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0308883100037006783.
MUSSO, E. & MARCHESE, U. (2002). Economics of Short Sea Shipping
in Grammenos, C. T. (Ed.), The Handbook of Maritime Economics & Business,
London: LLP, pp 280-304.
MUSSO, E., PAIXAO CASACA, A. C., & LYNCE, A. R. (2010).
Economics of Short Sea Shipping in Grammenos, C. T. (Ed.), The Handbook
of Maritime Economics & Business, 2nd Edition, London, Llyod’s List, pp
391-429.
NOROJONO, OLLY & LIDASAN, HUSSEIN, S. (2005). Policy Directions
for Harmonizing Subregional Cross Border Procedures: The Case of the
BIMP-EAGA, Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation
Studies, Vol. 5, EATS, pp 1728-1741.
OGUZTIMUR, SENAY (2011). Why Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process
Approach for Transport Problems?, European Regional Science
Association/IDEAS at http://www.screawu.ac (Retrieved: June 17th, 2013).
PAIXAO, A. C. & MARLOW, P. B. (2001). A Review of the European
Union Shipping Policy, Maritime Policy & Management, 28 (2), 187-198.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03088830118389.
PAIXAO CASACA, ANA C. & MARLOW, PETER B. (2005). The
Competitiveness of Short Sea Shipping in Multimodal Logistics Supply Chains:
Service Attributes, Maritime Policy & Management 32 (4), 363-382.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03088830500301469.
PAIXAO CASACA, ANA C. & MARLOW, PETER B. (2007). The Impact
of the Trans-European Transport Networks on the Development of Short Sea
Shipping, Maritime Economics and Logistics, 9, 302-323.
http://dx.doi.org/1479-2913-07.
PERAKIS, ANASTASSIOS N. & DENISIS, ATHANASIOS (2008), A
survey of short sea shipping and its prospects in the USA, Maritime Policy &
Management, 35 (6), 591-614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/030802469501.
PSARAFTIS, H. N. & SCHINAS, O. D. (2000), Concerted Actions of Short
Sea Shipping, Draft Minutes, Final Workshop, Brussels 30-31 March 2000.
PSARAFTIS, H. N. (2005). EU port policy: Where do we go from here,
Maritime Economics & Logistics, 7(1), 73-82.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100125.
ROWE, GENE & WRIGHT, GEORGE (1999). The Delphi technique as a
forecasting tool: issues and analysis, International Journal of Forecasting, 15,
353-375.
SAATY, THOMAS L. (1994). How to make a Decision: The Analytic
Hierarchy Process, Interfaces 24:6, 19-43.
SAATY, THOMAS L. (1997). Discussion: That is Not the Analytic
Hierarchy Process: What the AHP Is and What It is Not, Journal of Multi-
Criteria Decision Analysis Anal 6, 324-335.
42 Decision Making Model for Ro-Ro Short Sea Shipping Operations in Archipelagic Southeast Asia
SAATY, THOMAS L. (2001). Analytic Hierarchy Process, Encyclopedia of
Operations Research & Management Science, Springer Science & Business
Media B.V., pp 19-28.
SAATY, T. L. & OZDEMIR, M. S. (2003). Why the Magic Number Seven
Plus or Minus Two, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 38, 233-244.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0895-7177(03)00216-4.
SAATY, THOMAS L. (2008). Decision making with analytic hierarchy
process, International Journal of Services Sciences, 1 (1), 83-98.
SALDANHA, JOHN & GRAY, RICHARD (2002). The potential of British
coastal shipping in a multimodal chain, Maritime Policy & Management, 29
(1), 77-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03088830110067339.
SEKARAN, UMA & BOUGIE, ROGER (2013). Research Method for
Business, A Skill Building Approach, Fifth Edition, Chichester UK: John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
SUAREZ-ALEMAN, A., TRUJILLO, L. & CULLINANE, K. P. B. (2014).
Time at port in short sea shipping: When timing is crucial, Maritime
Economics & Logistics, 16 (4), 399-417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/mel.2014.5.
View publication stats
SUAREZ-ALEMAN, A., TRUJILLO, L. & MEDDA, F. (2015). Short sea
shipping as intermodal competitor: a theoretical analysis of European transport
policies, Maritime Policy & Management, 42 (4), 317-334.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2014.904947.
TAPANINEM, ULLA, SUNDBERG, PEKKA & POSTI, ANTTI (2012).
Short Sea Shipping in the Gulf of Finland – Case Helsinki-Talinn, a paper
presented at Short Sea Shipping 2012 Conference on April 2-3, 2012, Lisbon.
TRANSPORT CANADA (2006). Making Connection. Shortsea Shipping in
Canada, Department of Transport Canada.
TRUJILLO, L., MEDDA, F. & GONZALEZ, M. M. (2011). An analysis of
short sea shipping as an alternative to freight transport in Cullinane, K. (Ed.),
International handbook of Maritime Economics, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar,
pp 284-300.
WOXENIUS, JOHN (2012). Flexibility Vs. Specialisation in Ro-Ro
Shipping in the South Baltic Sea, Transport Vol 27(3), 250-262.
YONGE, MARK & HENESEY, LAWRENCE (2005). A Decision Tool for
Identifying the Prospects and Opportunities for Short Sea Shipping, A study
commissioned by the Canevaral Port Authority, USA.