Ejsr 23 4 10

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/230554337
Efﬁciency of Middle Eastern and East African Seaports: Application of DEA Using
Window Analysis
Article in European Journal of Scientific Research · November 2008
CITATIONS READS
79 2,853
3 authors, including:
Ahmed Salem Al-Eraqi Ahamad Tajudin Khader

Aden University Universiti Sains Malaysia
7 PUBLICATIONS 206 CITATIONS 187 PUBLICATIONS 5,348 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
β-Hill climbing for optimization problems View project
Underwater Image Enhancement View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmed Salem Al-Eraqi on 21 May 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

European Journal of Scientific Research
ISSN 1450-216X Vol.23 No.4 (2008), pp.597-612
© EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2008
http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.htm
Efficiency of Middle Eastern and East African

Seaports: Application of DEA Using Window Analysis
Ahmed Salem Al-Eraqi

School of Computer Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia
11800 Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
E-mail: aleraqi@cs.usm.my
Adli Mustafa
School of Mathematical Sciences,Universiti Sains Malaysia
E-mail: adli@cs.usm.my
Ahamad Tajudin Khader

School of Computer Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia
E-mail: tajudin@cs.usm.my
Carlos Pestana Barros

Instituto de Economia and Gestao, Technical University of Lisbon
Rua Miguel Lupi, 20, 1249-078 Lisbon, Portugal
E-mail: cbarros@iseg.utl.pt
Abstract
The efficiency of 22 seaports in the Middle East and East African region were
evaluated. Two separate analyses were performed based on data collected for 6 years
(2000–2005), Standard Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) method was used in the first
analysis and DEA window analysis was used in second analysis. By using both methods,
better insight into the efficiency situation at hand is gathered; the advantages and
disadvantages of the methods are highlighted.
Keywords: Middle East and East African Seaports, Data Envelopment Analysis,
Windows Analysis, Seaports Efficiency, Performance Measurement of
Containers Ports, Transshipment.
1. Introduction
The maritime transport services have benefited the economy of many regions of the world because
more than 80 percent of the world trade volume is carried by ships. Maritime transport is thus an
efficiency facilitator of the world trade (Haralambides et al., 2001). This role has become more
apparent and crucial in today’s expanded and diversified world trade system. Maritime transport was,
and currently is, the backbone of development for many countries (Cullinane et al., 2002). The
598 Ahmed Salem Al-Eraqi, Adli Mustafa, Ahamad Tajudin Khader and Carlos Pestana Barros
advantage of maritime transport is the speed, comfort, safety, and the possibility and ability to handle
heavy traffic of goods and passengers at relatively low prices.
Seaports, serving as the interface between maritime and inland transportation, play a significant
role in the economic development of a region. Production capabilities and the performance
measurement of seaports have always been a major issue in seaport management. Besides functioning
as a powerful management tool for seaport operators, seaport performance measurement also functions
as an important input for regional and national seaport planning and operations. One of the important
aspects Constant of seaport performance measurement is the efficiency and for evaluation of efficiency
the popular method of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is used.
Previously, many studies dealing with seaports efficiency using DEA have been carried out;
however, most of these compare the efficiency of seaports in the European countries (Trujillo & Tovar,
2007; Barros, 2006; Barros & Manolis, 2004; Cullinane et al., 2006) with a few dealing with some
Asian countries and Australia (Cullinane et al., 2005; Lee, 2005 and Tongzon 2005 ). Nevertheless,
none of the studies conducted so far have focused on seaports in the Middle Eastern and East African
countries. This paper focuses on these regions which are strategically located in the middle of
international maritime trade route between the East and the West. The aim of this paper is to compare
two stages of analysis; the first stage uses cross-section method and the second panel data.
The present paper is organised as follows: Section 2 presents Port Characteristics and Section 3
the Literature Survey, while the Models are presented in Section 4. In Section 5, Data and Statistical
Analysis are presented Section 6 includes the Results and finally in Section 7 the Discussion is
presented.
2. Port Characteristics
Over the past few decades, seaport industry in many countries of the world has witnessed remarkable
development. This is obvious, particularly in the East African countries, such as Sudan, Eritrea,
Djibouti, Kenya, and Tanzania, and the Middle Eastern countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, Yemen,
Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and Iran. These countries possess seaports which are strategically
located in the international maritime trade route between the East and the West (Figure 1) and are
considered as middle distance seaports. Goods carried from Europe and Far East/Australia and vice
versa can be exchanged and transhipped to all countries in the Middle East, Red Sea, and East Africa.
Since the olden days, these seaports have provided services for the regional coasters and as time went
by, they have developed to be among the important maritime international trade centres in the region.
The geographically strategic location of some of these seaports, have also encouraged modern
container vessels to make short duration calls upon them (e.g. shipping lines operating along
Asia/Europe route, Asia/Mediterranean route and Asia/US East Coast route). These seaports and their
characteristics are displayed in Table 1.
Efficiency of Middle Eastern and East African Seaports: Application of
DEA Using Window Analysis 599
Table 1: Characteristics of seaports in Middle Eastern and East African regions
No. Port Berth Length Equipment Area M sq Ship Call Total Tons
1 Dubai Emirates (B) 5519 24 2209000 3916 12971235
2 Jeddah Saudi (B) 1330 26 50000 2049 12292704
3 Salalah Oman (B) 4296 14 341292 1506 1367404
4 Dammam Saudi (B) 1780 54 1032692 1653 19874564
5 Kuwait (B) 1750 23 538898 1636 3836840
6 Aden Yemen (B) 4875 176 1948610 6352 66541268
7 Mombasa Kenya (B) 4055 12 1586458 3148 16106155
8 Khor Fakkan Sharjah (B) 320 2 250567 398 1239645
9 Yanbu Saudi (M) 2004 34 843015 2463 14762086
10 Hodeidah (M) 1165 18 1321000 2042 8338290
11 Jubail Saudi (M) 8454 39 1843720 2782 16210109
12 Djibouti (M) 4800 9 1438800 1462 8556476
13 Dar es Salaam Tanzania (M) 1930 9 727000 1466 10720699
14 Sudan (M) 11200 114 2500000 4365 39245363
15 Mascut Oman (M) 2254 44 540253 2431 5102331
16 Asmara Eritrea (M) 1650 68 114117 1670 13916858
17 Khalid Sharjah (M) 2444 63 46864 1615 6232654
18 Bander Abbas Iran (M) 381 13 20000 195 334189
19 Mukalla Yemen (S) 385 6 400000 174 276681
20 Assab Eritrea (S) 1140 35 275319 819 535736
21 Tanga Tanzania (S) 1120 18 204057 1602 1509422
22 Mtwara Tanzania (S) 1795 20 151200 2165 6290892
B: Big port, M: Medium port and S: small port
Figure 1: Map of the region

3. Literature Survey
There is extensive literature on DEA, applied to a wide diversity of economic fields and in particular to
seaports transportation. Cullinane et al. (2005) used DEA to highlight the major objective of port
privatisation to improve the efficiency of this sector, with data of the container throughput as output
and area and length terminal, quay crane, yard crane, straddle as inputs. These authors concluded that
public and private/public ports perform better than public/private and private ports.
Barros (2006) evaluated the performance of Italian seaports for the 2002 -2003 period using
DEA with Charnes, Cooper and Rhodes (CCR) model and Banker, Charnes and Cooper (BCC) model,
to analyze 24 seaports. Barros (2006) used multiple efficiency models, such as DEA CCR, BCC, Cross
efficiency DEA and DEA Super efficiency for Italian seaports, whereas previously published articles
were limited to one or two analysis models. Because of this, the general conclusion emerged that the
Italian companies display relatively high management skills, with most of them being Variable Return
to Scale (VRS) efficient. Barros (2006) provides benchmarks to improve the functioning of the port in
terms of efficiency.
Cullinane et al. (2004) applied window analysis in order to evaluate the efficiency score of the
world’s major container ports over time by using panel data and cross-section data for 2003. They
concluded that the cross-section method is poor because it does not provide details of port
performance, whereas the panel data with window analysis reflect a variation of the absolute
performance of a port over time, and the relative performance of that port in comparison to the others
at the same time.
Barros & Manolis (2004) compared the efficiency of ports of two European countries, Greece
and Portugal. They took data from several ports of each of these countries during the 1998-2000
periods. Their paper is intended to evaluate the efficiency of major seaports in two small European
countries using the CCR and BCC models.
Wang & Cullinane (2006) focused on measuring the efficiency of container terminals in
Europe. They proposed DEA with CCR and BCC models to evaluate efficiency. They concluded that
management skills are crucial and emerge as a core in terms of business competence.
Cullinane et al. (2006) contribute richly to this research by supporting existing research which
leads to an estimates approach of relative efficiency in this active private sector of ports. Their study
focuses on a sample comprising 69 of Europe's container terminals with annual throughput of over
10,000 TEUs for the year 2002.
4. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)

4.1. Standard DEA Models
The basic concept of efficiency measurement is the ratio of total outputs to total inputs. Charnes et al.
(1978) were the first to introduce the DEA as a multi-factor productivity analysis module for measuring
the relative efficiencies on making units (DMUs). This model can not support imperfectly competitive
markets. To overcome this limitation, Banker et al. (1984) described BCC model, this model estimates
its productivity level at the given scale of operation and identifies return to scale. The goal is to select a
set of inputs and outputs that are relevant to the evaluation of performance and for which a moderate
statistical relationship exists.
In DEA-CCR model all observed production combinations can be scaled up or down
proportionally, and in DEA-BCC model the variables allow return to scale and is graphically
represented by a piecewise linear convex frontier (Cullinane et al. 2006). The DEA is normally applied
to analyse the cross section data, where time is ignored and DMU are compared with the others at the
same period. In this paper, we propose the output-oriented DEA model to maximize the output while
the given current inputs remain the same. The mathematical expression of the DEA models as follow:
1) CCR Model (Charnes, Cooper and Rhodes) (1978).
Max φk
n
s.t. ∑λ j =1
j xij ≥ xik i=1, 2… m;
(1)
n
∑λ
j =1
j y rj ≤ φ k y rk r=1,2,…,s;
λj ≥ 0 ∀ j.
And 2) BCC Model, (Banker, Charnes and Cooper 1984) is defined by adding equations (2) to
expression (1) above.
n
∑λ
j =1
j =1 (2)
Where n is number of DMU, φk is the efficiency of the kth DMU, xij are i-th inputs of the j-th
DMU, yrj are the outputs of j-th DMU and λj is weight of j-th DMU. The DEA-technique requires a
large number of medium-sized linear programming problems to be solved. The two models, described
previously, the first is called CCR model (constant return to scale) which is a scale efficiency and
technical efficiency, and the second is called BCC model (variable return to scale) which is a pure
technical and scale efficiency (Fare et al. 1994). That output-oriented efficiency problem can be written
in the form of N linear programming system (Cullinane et al. 2004). The technical efficiencies derived
from the DEA-CCR and DEA-BCC models are frequently used to obtain a measure of scale for DMU,
given by SEk=UCCRk / UBCCk (William et al.2000), where UCCR_k and UBCC_k are the technical efficiency
measures for DMU k derived from applying the DEA-CCR and DEA-BCC models respectively. CCR
score is called technical efficiency (TE), BCC called pure technical efficiency (PTE), and scale
efficiency noted by (SE) with TE = PTE * SE, if SEk =1 then the score is efficiency (constant return to
scale) otherwise the score is inefficiency if SEk <1(Increasing or decreasing return to scale). The
constant return to scale means that the firm able to operate the inputs and outputs linearly without
increasing or decreasing. The increasing return to scale means that the firm operating at lower scale
sizes, while decreasing return to scale means that the firm operating at higher scale sizes.
4.2. Window Analysis

A DEA window analysis calculates the average efficiency of CCR and BCC models, and is useful for
detecting efficiency trends of unit over time (Charnes et al., 1994b). In such a circumstance, DEA
window analysis can be adopted to detect a trend of DMU over time (Asmild et al. 2004; Charnes et al.
1994b; Yue, 1992). The procedure is to consider each DMU is represented as if it were different DMU
in each period under analysis. There is no theory underpins the justification for the choice of window
size. The common notation is describing as follow:
n=Number of DMU
T=Number of periods
p= Altitude of window (p ≤ T) (Number of columns in window)
w= Number of windows (Number of rows for each firm)
where w=T-p+1 are number of analysis for each DMU and n x p will be the total number analysis for
all DMUs as mention above. The identification of performance trends in row window and the stability
is defined in column. The variation in row reflects both the absolute performance of a port over time
and the relative performance of that port in comparison to the others ports.
5. Data and Statistical Analysis

5.1. The input and output measures
The data were obtained from the annual statistics reports of ports authorities, by fax and E-mail and
through internet (using Google Earth and ports web site as Maritimechain.com and Ports Harbours
Marines Worldwide). The inputs remain unchanged within this time; by contrast, change occurred in
the cargo throughput and ship calls.
To estimate the efficiency of the ports under study, we used data for the years 2000-2005; the
ports considered in analysis are listed in Table 1 and the summary of their characteristics are described
in Table 2.
The output is measured by two indicators: 1) Ship calls, and 2) Throughput (movement of
general cargo dry and liquids and containers) load/unload, while the inputs are measured by the
indicators, such as berth length, storage area, and handling equipment.
Table 2: Summary statistics for years 2000-2005
Inputs Outputs
Berth Storage Handling Ship Calls
Throughput (Tons)
Length(m) Area(m2) Equipment (Units)
Mean 2938.500 37.318 835584.636 2086.606 12102800.015
Std. Error of Mean 232.772 3.446 66339.004 125.965 1539146.311
Median 1862.500 23.500 539575.500 1818.500 6831638.500
Mode 320.000 9.000 20000.000 1450.000 241950.000
Std. Deviation 2674.343 39.590 762177.126 1447.233 17683444.807
Variance 7152111.641 1567.364 580913971516.997 2094483.080 312704220232032.000
Skewness 1.664 2.233 0.764 1.308 3.929
Kurtosis 0.211 0.211 0.211 0.211 0.211
Range 2.404 4.956 -0.726 2.290 20.790
Minimum 0.419 0.419 0.419 0.419 0.419
Maximum 10880.000 174.000 2480000.000 7450.000 129429309.000
Sum 320.000 2.000 20000.000 124.000 63644.000
Count 22 22 22 22 22
5.2. Correlation and regression analysis

The analyses of inputs and outputs variables data show only those that are highly interrelated (refer to
Table 3).
Table 3: Correlation coefficients with inputs and outputs
Berth Length Handling Equipment Storage Area Ship Calls Throughput

Berth Length 1.000*
Handling Equipment 0.469 1.000*
Storage Area 0.812* 0.434 1.000*
Ship Calls 0.664* 0.762* 0.679* 1.000*
Throughput 0.561* 0.896* 0.663* 0.879* 1.000*
*Correlation coefficient values are significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
The multiple regressions are used to determine any relationship between the inputs and the
outputs. Table 4 shows the “R2” values as the proportion of variation in the dependent variable ship
calls and throughputs explained by the regression model are 0.801 and 0.907. The statistics and its
significant values are used to test the null hypothesis that the regression coefficient is zero that mean
there is a linear relationship between the dependent (ship calls and throughput) and independent (berth
length, equipment and area) variables.
Table 4: Regression results on inputs and output variables
Outputs
Inputs
Ship Calls Throughput
Berth Length -0.015 -1082.928
Handling Equipment 19.015 290517.165
Storage Area 0.001 9.391
Constant 592.118 -3403512.341
R2 0.801 0.907
The software Efficiency Measurement System version 1.3 from Holger Scheel was applied to
solve the DEA with two models on the return to scale of ports production function, called CCR model
(constant return to scale) and BCC model (variable return to scale).
6. Results
We first applied DEA to analyse the efficiency score of the ports, we computed efficiency using two
models: DEA-CCR and DEA-BCC. DEA is carried on 22 ports shown in Table 1. Table 5 represents the
efficiency estimates, the scale efficiency and scale type of each port. The score report shows that 7 and
9 ports out 22 are efficient under DEA-CCR and DEA-BCC models, respectively. The results of two
models show that the number of efficient ports in BCC is more than CCR with average values of 0.786
and 0.875, respectively.
The output oriented model was applied in this paper to select the ports in terms of berth length,
storage area and handling equipment. Theatrically, the output of technical efficiency is given by
TEk=1/Uk for k term of DMU (Uk is an inefficient score under CCR using output-oriented). The ports
under study must increase their product on an average of 1.272 times for the same inputs. The scale
properties of ports production show 7 ports constant return to scale, 8 increasing return to scale, 7
decreasing return to scale. Note that 7 ports, Khor Fakkan, Dubai, Kuwait, Mukalla, Hodeidah, Yanbu,
and Djibouti are efficient under CCR and BCC.
We next applied DEA window to analyse the efficiency score of the ports, with two models
DEA-CCR and DEA-BCC. The window analysis is used to examine the efficiency over time for the
period 2000-2005 (6 years x 22 ports = 110 observations), T=6, p=3 and w=4. DEA is carried on 22
ports shown in Table 1. As such, the length of the window used here is defined as three (Charnes et al.
1985). the scale efficiency of each port. Four separate windows are represented as separate rows in
Tables 6 and 7. Tables 6 and 7 represent the efficiency estimates, the average of DEA efficiency scores
and its standard deviation in the columns denoted ‘Mean’ and ‘S.D’.
The identification of performance trends in row window and the stability is defined in column
of each year that allows controlling both of them through the separate windows. The efficiency score
estimated shows that 16 and 17 ports are stable (have low standard deviation) under CCR and BCC,
respectively, on the other hand, 6 and 5 ports are unstable (have high standard deviation) under CCR
and BCC, respectively. The efficiency score mean value shows better under BCC than CCR, although
all the ports still inefficient and reflect a fluctuation in efficiency score. There is an improvement in the
efficiency for Khor Fakkan, Kuwait, and Djibouti ports with CCR, and Bander Abbas, Khor Fakkan,
Dubai, Kuwait, Mukalla, Mombasa and Djibouti ports with BCC. The variation haphazard
(increasing/decreasing or decreasing/increasing) in performance impacted the main efficiency over the
time period. In general, all the ports are stable. Table 8 shows the scale efficiency of all the ports over
the entire time periods of study.
The comparison between cross-section data and panel data in Tables 5 and in Tables 6, 7 shows
a similarity in average efficiency score for most of these ports.
7. Discussion
In this paper DEA cross-section data and window analysis are used to determine the relative efficiency
of 22 cargo ports in the Middle East and Africans countries. The results of cross-section provide
information for the overall time period. The panel data provide large details of performance analysis
over a period of time. The fluctuation of the efficiency score with window analysis, due to the
comparison between the big ports which have high production and small ports which have low
production. This study shows that small ports are efficient while big ports are inefficient. The
indicators of production scale in this study as shown in Table 6 and 7 are the main factors of efficiency
and inefficiency.
The inefficiency of ports may also have resulted for reasons, such as 3rd Gulf War and to other
reasons related to the security of ship companies particularly in this region during 2003-2004. We
conclude that for increasing port efficiency, ships arrival should be encouraged to increase the scale of
production; on the other hand, the inefficient ports with declining efficiency reduce their scale of
operation to be efficient. The comparison of the two methods shows biases in efficiency over the time
for Dubai, Mukalla, Hodeidah and Yanbu under CCR and Hodeidah, Yanbu under BBC, respectively.
This result provided with window analysis discusses the recent changes of performance and
stability of the port over time.
Table 5: The relative efficiency of seaports using DEA-CCR and DEA- BCC models in 2001
Country Port DEA - CCR DEA - BCC Scale Efficiency Return to scale
Bander Abbas Iran 0.803 1.000 0.803 Decreasing
Khor Fakkan Sharjah 1.000 1.000 1.000 Constant
Khalid Sharjah 0.834 0.848 0.983 Increasing
Salalah Oman 0.918 0.934 0.983 Increasing
Mascut Oman 0.683 0.726 0.941 Decreasing
Dubai Emirates 1.000 1.000 1.000 Constant
Kuwait 1.000 1.000 1.000 Constant
Mukalla Yemen 1.000 1.000 1.000 Constant
Aden Yemen 0.862 0.953 0.904 Decreasing
Hodeidah 1.000 1.000 1.000 Constant
Dammam Saudi 0.515 0.725 0.711 Decreasing
Jubail Saudi 0.708 0.735 0.964 Increasing
Yanbu Saudi 1.000 1.000 1.000 Constant
Jeddah Saudi 0.526 0.840 0.626 Decreasing
Sudan 0.683 0.862 0.792 Decreasing
Mombassa Kenya 0.876 0.985 0.889 Decreasing
Dar es Salaam Tanzania 0.841 0.870 0.966 Increasing
Tanga Tanzania 0.331 1.000 0.331 Increasing
Mtwara Tanzania 0.261 0.331 0.789 Increasing
Assab Eritrea 0.454 0.460 0.987 Increasing
Asmara Eritrea 0.989 0.989 1.000 Increasing
Djibouti 1.000 1.000 1.000 Constant
Average 0.786 0.875 0.894
Table 6: DEA-CCR window analysis for cargo port efficiency (100='efficient')
Efficiency Scores Summary Measures

Port 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mean S. D.
Bander 67.101 73.811 68.539 67.111 3.129
Abbas 71.300 66.207 64.423
66.882 65.080 66.345
62.831 64.052 68.768
Khor 90.640 97.756 100.000 97.306 3.224
Fakkan 97.756 100.000 97.516
Sharjah 100.000 97.516 100.000
93.498 92.995 100.000
Khalid 69.749 88.855 95.933 73.278 15.289
Sharjah 76.323 82.403 59.862
80.665 58.599 61.503
53.922 56.594 94.932
Salalah 26.373 29.326 44.516 60.020 26.954
Oman 29.326 44.516 96.202
51.151 90.736 60.580
84.196 63.741 99.573
Mascut 44.747 51.780 65.175 58.508 6.794
Oman 47.543 59.841 60.494
61.166 62.056 65.836
58.799 62.381 62.285
Dubai 53.026 63.466 67.141 76.959 15.334
63.466 67.141 73.917
74.111 82.503 100.000
84.964 100.000 93.775
Kuwait 83.692 88.705 100.000 91.801 9.364
72.271 83.293 100.000
83.293 100.000 93.758
100.000 96.596 100.000
Mukalla 100.000 67.376 63.905 78.634 11.265
Yemen 71.588 71.588 74.913
76.587 80.566 82.385
76.780 77.920 100.000
Aden 60.713 82.786 74.605 70.306 10.003
Yemen 81.824 73.739 51.281
84.716 65.301 66.361
63.829 65.036 73.488
Hodeidah 53.286 100.000 89.660 73.986 20.952
Yemen 100.000 89.660 45.157
100.000 52.105 52.449
66.915 66.945 71.653
Dammam 31.622 46.264 48.696 44.086 8.031
42.238 44.459 33.832
43.981 33.746 47.459
48.492 47.789 60.458
Table 6: Continued
Efficiency Scores Summary measures

Port 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mean S. D.
Jubail 46.310 95.000 100.000 70.255 26.467
Saudi 95.000 100.000 39.770
100.000 39.770 55.600
39.770 55.600 76.246
Yanbu 80.026 94.000 100.000 76.030 22.618
94.000 100.000 47.190
100.000 47.448 56.096
45.630 85.462 62.511
Jeddah 29.590 29.714 32.182 38.176 10.843
29.136 31.075 39.391
31.075 39.121 38.889
45.708 45.489 66.746
Sudan 69.583 46.165 71.068 60.823 11.558
46.165 71.068 52.799
73.213 54.394 74.386
51.850 70.232 48.949
Mombasa 65.910 62.270 52.749 64.420 14.855
62.270 52.749 88.780
52.749 88.780 58.148
85.122 55.751 47.767
Dar es 67.154 89.369 73.981 81.497 7.529
Salaam 89.369 73.981 87.177
73.981 87.177 83.560
83.585 80.117 88.519
Tanga 30.364 30.529 28.714 30.969 4.581
30.529 28.714 35.150
28.784 35.235 25.310
33.553 24.101 40.641
Mtwara 20.946 18.390 12.194 19.037 6.227
18.359 12.174 13.941
14.449 16.527 27.565
20.200 33.116 20.585
Assab 33.147 35.249 38.134 39.958 4.673
35.249 38.134 44.538
39.294 45.894 40.806
42.600 37.877 48.570
Asmara 64.047 100.000 82.910 85.236 10.706
96.442 79.910 88.231
80.856 89.275 88.606
76.499 76.054 100.000
Djibouti 90.000 98.995 100.000 92.384 8.794
79.212 80.017 100.000
79.092 100.000 100.000
91.688 89.609 100.000
Table 7: DEA-BCC window analysis for cargo port efficiency (100='efficient')

Port 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mean S. D.
Bander 90.963 100.000 94.027 94.787 3.423
Abbas 100.000 93.489 91.288
Iran 95.482 92.910 94.715
91.367 93.205 100.000
Khor 90.640 97.756 100.000 97.306 3.224
Fakkan 97.756 100.000 97.516
Sharjah 100.000 97.516 100.000
93.498 92.995 100.000
Khalid 70.151 89.367 96.486 74.778 15.272
Sharjah 78.884 85.168 61.871
83.436 60.612 63.615
54.526 57.228 95.995
Salalah 31.556 35.089 50.860 62.962 25.870
Oman 32.295 49.408 100.000
51.281 94.244 62.024
84.566 64.217 100.000
Mascut 47.347 54.790 68.962 62.225 7.471
Oman 49.878 62.780 63.465
64.277 65.041 68.962
64.501 68.384 68.311
Dubai 78.977 94.527 100.000 92.987 6.857
Emirates 85.861 90.833 100.000
84.909 93.478 100.000
93.478 100.000 93.775
Kuwait 85.051 89.360 100.000 92.664 9.350
72.271 84.080 100.000
84.614 100.000 100.000
100.000 96.596 100.000
Mukalla 100.000 100.000 80.610 97.221 5.644
Yemen 100.000 95.562 100.000
93.352 99.591 100.000
98.563 98.969 100.000
Aden 73.885 100.000 90.982 79.388 13.115
Yemen 95.302 85.885 59.728
91.801 67.378 68.312
68.946 69.940 80.496
Hodeidah 53.286 100.000 89.660 74.267 20.853
Yemen 100.000 89.660 45.157
100.000 52.258 52.632
67.923 67.923 72.701
Dammam 50.800 72.533 76.347 66.394 10.270
Saudi 68.040 71.618 55.430
71.105 55.326 76.228
50.416 75.837 73.053
Table 7: Continued

Port 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Mean S. D.
Jubail 48.728 95.000 100.000 70.972 25.865
Saudi 95.000 100.000 41.032
100.000 40.996 57.314
40.229 56.242 77.127
Yanbu 80.026 94.000 100.000 76.909 22.806
Saudi 94.000 100.000 47.986
100.000 47.986 56.191
46.029 93.637 63.057
Jeddah 75.111 79.286 83.276 77.416 7.390
Saudi 70.984 76.238 97.236
70.329 72.351 75.872
72.024 75.529 80.760
Sudan 93.729 62.186 95.729 75.556 15.182
57.247 88.127 65.473
87.313 64.869 88.711
61.612 84.258 57.424
Mombasa 100.000 100.000 94.916 92.559 8.067
Kenya 85.214 86.237 100.000
80.427 100.000 95.947
100.000 88.092 79.873
Dar es 69.572 92.587 76.645 84.291 7.756
Salaam 92.444 76.527 90.177
Tanzania 76.527 90.177 86.436
86.298 82.717 91.392
Tanga 99.460 100.000 100.000 89.497 13.289
Tanzania 86.855 86.978 100.000
86.978 100.000 71.831
82.558 59.302 100.000
Mtwara 28.715 25.210 16.717 26.955 7.168
Tanzania 33.453 22.182 25.403
22.927 26.255 42.711
21.898 35.623 22.361
Assab 33.753 35.894 38.831 40.807 4.717
Eritrea 36.430 39.411 46.030
40.470 47.267 42.027
42.767 38.025 48.784
Asmara 64.054 100.000 82.918 86.905 11.213
Eritrea 100.000 82.893 91.512
84.008 92.757 92.062
76.540 76.112 100.000
Djibouti 90.000 98.995 100.000 92.417 8.791
79.212 80.017 100.000
79.092 100.000 100.000
92.045 89.640 100.000
Table 8: Score Efficiency (1='efficient')
Scores Efficiency (return to scale)

Port 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Bander Abbas 0.74 (Decreasing) 0.74 (Decreasing) 0.73 (Decreasing)
0.71 (Decreasing) 0.71 (Decreasing) 0.71 (Decreasing)
Khor 1.00(Constant) 1.00(Constant) 1.00(Constant)
Fakkan 1.00(Constant) 1.00(Constant) 1.00(Constant)
Sharjah 1.00(Constant) 1.00(Constant) 1.00(Constant)
1.00(Constant) 1.00(Constant) 1.00(Constant)
Khalid 0.99(Inc) 0.99(Increasing) 0.99(Increasing)
Sharjah 0.97(Increasing) 0.97(Increasing) 0.97(Increasing)
0.97(Increasing) 0.97(Increasing) 0.97(Increasing)
Salalah 0.84(Increasing) 0.84(Increasing) 0.88(Increasing)
Oman 0.91(Increasing) 0.90(Increasing) 0.96(Increasing)
1.00(Constant) 0.96(Increasing) 0.98(Increasing)
1.00(Constant) 0.99(Increasing) 1.00(Constant)
Mascut 0.95(Increasing) 0.95(Increasing) 0.95(Increasing)
Oman 0.95(Increasing) 0.95(Increasing) 0.95(Increasing)
Dubai 0.67(Decreasing) 0.67(Decreasing) 0.67(Decreasing)
0.74(Decreasing) 0.74(Decreasing) 0.74(Decreasing)
0.87(Increasing) 0.88(Decreasing) 1.00(Constant)
0.91(Decreasing) 1.00(Constant) 1.00(Constant)
Kuwait 0.98(Increasing) 0.99(Increasing) 1.00(Constant)
0.98(Increasing) 1.00(Constant) 0.94(Decreasing)
Mukalla 1.00(Constant) 0.67(Increasing) 0.79(Increasing)
Yemen 0.72(Increasing) 0.75(Increasing) 0.75(Increasing)
0.78(Increasing) 0.79(Increasing) 1.00(Constant)
Aden 0.82(Increasing) 0.83(Decreasing) 0.82(Decreasing)
0.86(Decreasing) 0.86(Decreasing) 0.86(Increasing)
0.92(Decreasing) 0.97(Increasing) 0.97(Increasing)
Hodeidah 1.00(Constant) 1.00(Constant) 1.00(Constant)
Dammam 0.62(Increasing) 0.64(Decreasing) 0.64(Decreasing)
0.62(Decreasing) 0.61(Increasing) 0.62(Decreasing)
0.96(Increasing) 0.63(Decreasing) 0.83(Increasing)
Table 8: Continued
Port 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Jubail 0.95 1.00(Constant) 1.00(Constant)
Saudi 1.00(Constant) 1.00(Constant) 0.97(Increasing)
1.00(Constant) 0.97(Decreasing) 0.97(Increasing)
Yanbu 1.00(Constant) 1.00(Constant) 1.00(Constant)
1.00(Constant) 1.00(Constant) 0.98(Increasing)
Jeddah 0.39(Dec) 0.37(Dec) 0.39(Dec)
Sudan 0.74(Decreasing) 0.74(Increasing) 0.74(Decreasing)
0.84(Decreasing) 0.84(Increasing) 0.84(Decreasing)
Mombasa 0.66(Decreasing) 0.62(Decreasing) 0.56(Decreasing)
Dar es 0.97(Increasing) 0.97(Increasing) 0.97(Increasing)
Salaam 0.97(Increasing) 0.97(Increasing) 0.97(Increasing)
Tanga 0.31(Decreasing) 0.31(Decreasing) 0.29(Decreasing)
Mtwara 0.73(Increasing) 0.73(Increasing) 0.73(Increasing)
Assab 0.98(Increasing) 0.98(Increasing) 0.98(Increasing)
Asmara 1.00(Constant) 1.00(Constant) 1.00(Constant)
Djibouti 1.00(Constant) 1.00(Constant) 1.00(Constant)
Acknowledgment
The authors are grateful to the ports authorities for providing data and information.
References
[1] Asmild, M., J.C. Paradi, V. Aggarwall and C. Schaffnit, 2004. “Combining DEA Window
Analysis with the Malmquist Index Approach in a Study of the Canadian Banking Industry”,
Journal of Productivity Analysis 21, pp. 67–89.
[2] Banker R. D., Charnes A. and Cooper W. W. (1984). Model for Estimating Technical and Scale
Efficiencies in Data Envelopment Analysis. Management Science 30(9):pp. 1078-1092.
[3] Barros, C.P., 2006. “A Benchmark Analysis of Italian Seaports using Data Envelopment
Analysis”, Maritime Economics & Logistics 8, pp. 347–365.
[4] Barros, C.P. and A. Manolis, 2004. “Efficiency in European Seaports with DEA: Evidence
from Greece and Portugal”, Maritime Economics & Logistics 6, pp. 122–140.
[5] Charnes, A., W.W. Cooper and E. Rhodes, 1978. “Measuring the Efficiency of Decision
Making Units” European Journal of Operational Research 2(6), pp. 429–444.
[6] Charnes, A., C.T. Clark, W.W. Cooper, and B. Golany, 1985. “A Developmental Study of Data
Envelopment Analysis in Measuring the Efficiency of Maintenance Units in the US Air Force”
Annals of Operations Research 2, pp. 95–112.
[7] Charnes, A., W.W. Cooper, A.Y. Lewin and L.M. Seiford, 1994a. Data Envelopment Analysis:
Theory, Methodology and Application. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[8] Charnes, A., W.W. Cooper and L.M., 1994b. “Extension to DEA Models” In A. Charnes, W.
W. Cooper, A. Y. Lewin, & L. M. Seiford (Eds.). Data Envelopment Analysis: Theory,
Methodology and Applications. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[9] Cullinane, K., D.W. Song and R. Gray, 2002. “A Stochastic Frontier Model of the Efficiency of
Major Container Terminals in Asia: Assessing the Influence of Administrative and Ownership
Structures” Transportation Research Part A 36, pp. 734–762.
[10] Cullinane, K., P. Ji and T. Wang, 2004. “An Application of DEA Windows Analysis to
Container Port Production” Review of Network Economics 3(2), pp. 184–206.
[11] Cullinane, K., D. Song and T. Wang, 2005. “The Application of Mathematical Programming
Approaches to Estimating Container Port Production Efficiency” Journal of Productivity
Analysis 24, pp. 73–92.
[12] Cullinane K., P. Ji and T. Wang, 2006. “The Efficiency of European Container Ports: A Cross-
sectional Data Envelopment Analysis” International Journal of Logistics: Research and
Applications 9(1), pp. 19–31.
[13] Fare R.S., Grosskopf S., Lovel C.A.K.. (1994). Production Frontiers. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
[14] Haralambides, H.E., A. Verbeke, E. Musso and M. Benacchio, 2001. “Port Financing and
Pricing in the European Union: Theory, Politics and Reality. International Journal of Maritime
Economics 3, pp. 368–386.
[15] Lee Chee Xui, 2005. “Malaysian Container Port Performance Measurement” M.Sc Thesis,
Malaysia University of Science and Technology.
[16] Mahadevan, R., 2002. “A DEA Approach to Understanding the Produc¬tivity Growth of
Malaysia’s Manufacturing Industries” Asia Pacific Journal of Management 19, pp. 587–600.
[17] Park, R.K. and P. De, 2004. “An Alternative Approach to Efficiency Measurement of Seaports”
Maritime Economics & Logistics 6, pp. 53–69.
[18] Rios, L.R. and A.C.G Maçada, 2006. “Analysing the Relative Efficiency of Container
Terminals of Mercosur using DEA” Maritime Economics & Logistics 8(4), pp. 331–346.
[19] Tongzon, J, 2005. “Port Privatization, Efficiency and Competitiveness: Some Empirical
Evidence from Container Ports (Terminals)” Transportation Research Part A – Policy and
Practice 39, pp. 405–424.
[20] Trujillo, L. and B. Tovar, 2007. “The European Port Industry: An Analysis of its Efficiency”
Maritime Economics and Logistics 9(2), pp. 148–171.
[21] Wang T., K. Cullinane, 2006. “The Efficiency of European Container Terminals and
Implications for Supply Chain Management” Maritime Economics & Logistics 8, pp. 82–99.
[22] William W. Cooper, Seiford L. M, Kaoru Tone (2002). DATA ENVELOPMENT ANALYSIS.
Kluwer Academic Publishers. New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow.
View publication stats

Ejsr 23 4 10

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ejsr 23 4 10

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Article in European Journal of Scientific Research · November 2008

Ahmed Salem Al-Eraqi Ahamad Tajudin Khader

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

β-Hill climbing for optimization problems View project

Underwater Image Enhancement View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Efficiency of Middle Eastern and East African

Ahmed Salem Al-Eraqi

Ahamad Tajudin Khader

Carlos Pestana Barros

Table 1: Characteristics of seaports in Middle Eastern and East African regions

Figure 1: Map of the region

4. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)

4.2. Window Analysis

5. Data and Statistical Analysis

Table 2: Summary statistics for years 2000-2005

5.2. Correlation and regression analysis

Table 3: Correlation coefficients with inputs and outputs

Berth Length Handling Equipment Storage Area Ship Calls Throughput

Table 4: Regression results on inputs and output variables

Table 6: DEA-CCR window analysis for cargo port efficiency (100='efficient')

Efficiency Scores Summary Measures

Efficiency Scores Summary measures

Table 7: DEA-BCC window analysis for cargo port efficiency (100='efficient')

Efficiency Scores Summary Measures

Efficiency Scores Summary Measures

Table 8: Score Efficiency (1='efficient')

Scores Efficiency (return to scale)

Port 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

View publication stats

You might also like