1、Transport Global Practice The Container Port Performance Index 2022A Comparable Assessment of Performance based on Vessel Time in PortPublic Disclosure AuthorizedPublic Disclosure AuthorizedPublic Disclosure AuthorizedPublic Disclosure Authorized 2023 International Bank for Reconstruction and Develo

2、pment/International Development Association or The World Bank1818 H Street NWWashington,DC 20433Telephone:202-473-1000Internet:www.worldbank.orgThis work is a product of the staff of The World Bank,together with external contributions from S&P Global Market Intelligence.The findings,interpretations,

3、and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank,its Board of Executive Directors,or the governments they represent.The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work.The boundaries,colors,denominations,and other information

4、shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.Nothing herein shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities o

5、f The World Bank,all of which are specifically reserved.Rights and PermissionsThis work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license(CC BY 3.0 IGO)http:/creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo.+Under the Creative Commons Attribution license,you are free to copy,distribute,tran

6、smit,and adapt this work,including for commercial purposes,under the following conditions:AttributionPlease cite the work as follows:The World Bank,2023.“The Container Port Performance Index 2022:A Comparable Assessment of Performance based on Vessel Time in Port(Fine).”World Bank,Washington,DC.Lice

7、nse:Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0 IGO.TranslationsIf you create a translation of this work,please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution:This translation was not created by The World Bank and should not be considered an official World Bank translation.The World Bank shall n

8、ot be liable for any content or error in this translation.AdaptationsIf you create an adaptation of this work,please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution:This is an adaptation of an original work by The World Bank.Views and opinions expressed in the adaptation are the sole respons

9、ibility of the author or authors of the adaptation and are not endorsed by The World Bank.Third-party contentThe World Bank does not necessarily own each component of the content contained within the work.The World Bank,therefore,does not warrant that the use of any third-party-owned individual comp

10、onent or part contained in the work will not infringe on the rights of those third parties.The risk of claims resulting from such infringement rests solely with you.If you wish to reuse a component of the work,it is your responsibility to determine whether permission is needed for that reuse and to

11、obtain permission from the copyright owner.Examples of components can include,but are not limited to,tables,figures,or images.All queries on rights and licenses should be addressed to World Bank Publications,The World Bank Group,1818 H Street NW,Washington,DC 20433,USA;fax:202-522-2625;e-mail:pubrig

12、htsworldbank.org.I|Table of ContentsTable of contents Acknowledgements.iiiAbbreviations and Acronyms.ivGlossary.vForeword.viExecutive summary.11.Introduction.82.The Approach and Methodology.12 Introduction.12 The Port Performance Program.13 The Automatic Identification System and Port Zoning.13 The

13、Anatomy of a Port Call.14 Overall Port Time Distribution.16 The Significance of Call Size.22 Construction of the CPPI.273.The Container Port Performance Index 2022.34 Introduction.34 The CPPI 2022.34 Ranking by Region.37 Ranking by Throughput.444.Conclusions and Next Steps.50Appendix A:The CPPI 2022

14、.51Appendix B:Constructing the CPPI.74 The Structure of the Data.74 Imputation of Missing Values.75 Why Is Matrix Factorization Useful?.76 The Statistical Methodology.76 The Administrative Approach.77 Aggregating all Ship Size Groups.79Table of Contents|IITables Table E.1.The CPPI 2022:Global Rankin

15、g of Container Ports.3Table 2.1 Average Arrival Time Development per Region and Ship Size,2021-2022.18Table 2.2 Top 20 Ports that Most Reduced Average Arrival Times,2021-2022.19 Table 2.3 Top 20 Ports that Increased Average Port Arrival Times,2021-2022.20 Table 2.4 Average Arrival Time Performance p

16、er Ship Size Range per Region.21 Table 2.5 Smaller Vessel Average Arrival Times.21 Table 2.6 Port Calls Distribution.28 Table 2.7 Ship Size Group Definitions.28 Table 2.8 Call Size Sensitivity.29 Table 2.9 Quantity of Ports Included per Ship Size Group.30 Table 2.10 Example of Imputing Missing Value

17、s.31 Table 2.11 An Example of Aggregated Rankings for Four Ports with Randomly Generated Administrative and Statistical Index Values.32 Table 3.1 The CPPI 2022.35 Table 3.2 The CPPI by Region:North America.37 Table 3.3 The CPPI by Region:Central America,South America,and the Caribbean Region.38 Tabl

18、e 3.4 The CPPI by Region:West,Central,and South Asia(Saudi Arabia to Bangladesh).39 Table 3.5 The CPPI by Region:East Asia(Myanmar to Japan).40 Table 3.6 The CPPI by Region:Oceania(Australia,New Zealand,and the Pacific Islands).41 Table 3.7 The CPPI by Region:Sub-Saharan Africa.42 Table 3.8 The CPPI

19、 by Region:Europe and North Africa.43 Table 3.9 The CPPI by Throughput:Large Ports(More than 4 million TEUs per Year).44 Table 3.10 The CPPI by Throughput:Medium Ports(between 0.5 million and 4 million TEUs per Year).45 Table 3.11 The CPPI by Throughput:Small Ports(Less than 0.5 million TEUs per Yea

20、r).48FiguresFigure 2.1 The Anatomy of a Port Call.15Figure 2.2 In-Port Time Consumption.16Figure 2.3 Global Average Arrival Time Development.17Figure 2.4 The Aggregated Correlation between Ship and Call Size.23Figure 2.5 Container Moves Performed per gross Crane Hour across Various Ship Sizes.24Figu

21、re 2.6 Gross Crane Productivity by Call Size.25Figure 2.7 Crane Productivity by Crane Intensity.25Figure 2.8 Call Size versus Crane Intensity.26Figure 2.9 Average Moves per Crane.26Figure 2.10 The Structure of the CPPI.27Figure 2.11 Percentage of Port Calls per Ship Size Group-2022.29III|Acknowledge

22、mentsAcknowledgements This technical report was prepared jointly by the teams from the Transport Global Practice of the Infrastructure Vice-Presidency at the World Bank and the Maritime,Trade and Supply Chain division of S&P Global Market Intelligence.The World Bank team was led by Richard Martin Hu

23、mphreys(Global Lead for Connectivity and Logistics and Lead Transport Economist,ITRGK),Grace Naa Merley Ashley(Transport Specialist,ITRGK),and Dominique Guillot(Associate Professor,University of Delaware),under the guidance of Binyam Reja(Global Practice Manager Transport,ITRGK)and Nicolas Peltier-T

24、hiberge(Global Practice Director Transport,ITRGK).The S&P Global Market Intelligence team was led by Turloch Mooney(Director,Global Intelligence&Analytics),Andy Lane(Partner,CTI Consultancy),and Michelle Wong(Senior Research Analyst,GTI Product Management),under the guidance of Jenny Paurys(Head of

25、Global Intelligence&Analytics)and Guy Sear(Managing Director,Global Risk&Maritime Global Intelligence&Analytics).The joint team would like to extend special thanks to the following experts for their comments on the draft of the technical report:Jan Hoffmann(Chief,Trade Logistics Branch,Division on T

26、echnology and Logistics,United Nations Conference on Trade and Development,Geneva),Gylfi Palsson(Lead Transport Specialist,ILTC1),and Ninan Biju Oommen(Senior Transport Specialist,IEAT1).Abbreviations and Acronyms|IVAbbreviations and AcronymsAIS Automatic Identification SystemCI Crane IntensityCOVID

27、-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019CPPI Container Port Performance IndexEEZ Exclusive Economic ZoneFA Factor AnalysisGCI Global Competitiveness IndexGCMPH Moves per Gross Crane HourGDP Gross Domestic ProductGRT Gross Registered TonnageITU International Telecommunication UnionLLDC Landlocked Developing Coun

28、tryLPI Logistics Performance IndexSIDS Small Island Developing StatesTEU Twenty-foot Equivalent UnitUNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and DevelopmentAll fast:The point when the vessel is fully secured at berth and all mooring lines are fastArrival time/hours:The total elapsed time between th

29、e vessels automatic identification system(AIS)recorded arrival at the actual port limit or anchorage(whichever recorded time is the earlier)and its all lines fast at the berthBerth hours:The time between all lines fast and all lines releasedBerth idle:The time spent on berth without ongoing cargo op

30、erations.The accumulated time between all fast to first move plus last move to all lines releasedCall size:The number of container moves per call,inclusive of discharge,load,and restowageCargo operations:When cargo is being exchanged,the time between first and last container movesCrane intensity(CI)

31、:The quantity of cranes deployed to a ships berth call.Calculated as total accumulated gross crane hours divided by operating(first to last move)hoursFactor analysis(FA):A statistical method used to describe variability among observed,correlated variables in terms of a potentially lower number of un

32、observed variables called factorsFinish:Total elapsed time between last container move and all lines releasedGross crane hours:Aggregated total working time for all cranes deployed to a vessel call without any deductions.Time includes breakdowns,inclement weather,vessel inspired delays,un/lashing,ga

33、ntry,boom down/up plus hatch cover and gear-box handling.Gross crane productivity(GCMPH):Call size or total moves divided by total gross crane hours.Hub port:A port which is called at by deep-sea mainline container ships and serves as a transshipment point for smaller outlying,or feeder,ports within

34、 its geographical region.Typically,more than 35 percent of its total throughput would be hub and spoke or relay transshipment container activity.Moves:Total container moves.Discharge+restowage moves+load.Excluding hatch covers,gearboxes,and other non-container related crane work.Breakbulk cargo lift

35、s are excluded,however empty platform(tweendeck or flat-rack)handling moves are included.Moves per crane:Total Moves for a call divided by the crane intensity.Port call:A call to a container port/terminal by a container vessel where at least one container was discharged or loaded.Port hours:The numb

36、er of hours a ship spends at/in port,from arrival at the port limits to sailing from the berth.Port limits:Either an anchorage zone or the location where pilot embarkation or disembarkation occurs and recorded as whichever activity is the earliest.Port to berth hours:The time from when a ship first

37、arrived at the port limits or anchorage zone(whichever activity occurs first)until it is all fast alongside the berth.Relay transhipment:Containers transhipped between ocean going container ships.Ship size:Nominal capacity in twenty foot equivalent units(“TEUs”).Start:The time elapsed from berthing(

38、all lines fast)to first container move.Steam in time:The time required to steam-in from the port limits and until all fast alongside the berth.Twenty foot equivalent unit or TEU:A standard metric for container throughput,and the physical capacity of a container terminal.A 20-foot container is equal

39、to 1 TEU,and a 40-foot or 45-foot container is equal to 2 TEUs.Regardless of container size(10 feet,15 feet,20 feet,30 feet,40 feet,or 45 feet),each is recorded as one move when being loaded or discharged from the vessel.Vessel capacity:Nominal capacity in twenty foot equivalent Units(“TEUs”).Waitin

40、g time:Total elapsed time from when vessel enters anchorage zone to when vessel departs anchorage zone(vessel speed must have dropped below 0.5 knots for at least 15 mins within the zone).V|GlossaryGlossaryForeword|VIForewordThe challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath on the sec

41、tor eased in 2022,an easing that has continued into early 2023.This has resulted in an improvement in both port congestion and a reduction in logistical disruption.The improvement in 2022 has had a positive impact on the performance and ranking of some ports;where the problem was systemic,as opposed

42、 to location specific,the inherent inefficiency remains.One of the silver linings of the pandemic was greater awareness and focus on the resilience and efficiency of the maritime gateways,where any friction will result in tangible impacts on consumer choice,price and ultimately economic development.

43、However,one of the major challenges to stimulating improvement in the efficiency of ports has been the lack of a reliable,consistent,and comparable basis on which to compare operational performance across different ports.While modern ports collect data for performance purposes,the Quality,consistenc

44、y,and availability of data,the definitions employed,and the capacity and willingness of the organizations to collect and transmit data to a collating body have all precluded the development of a robust comparable measure(s)to assess performance across ports and time.The introduction of new technolog

45、ies,increased digitalization,and the willingness on the part of industry stakeholders to work collectively toward systemwide improvements have now provided the opportunity to measure and compare container port performance in a robust and reliable manner.A partnership has resulted in this technical r

46、eport,which is the third iteration of the Container Port Performance Index(CPPI),produced by the Transport Global Practice of the World Bank in collaboration with the Global Intelligence&Analytics division of S&P Global Market Intelligence.The CPPI is intended,as in its earlier iterations,to serve a

47、s a reference point for improvement for key stakeholders in the global economy,including national governments,port authorities and operators,development agencies,supranational organizations,various maritime interests,and other public and private stakeholders in trade,logistics,and supply chain servi

48、ces.The performance of a port may be assessed based on a myriad of measurements,such as:terminal capacity or space utilization,cost,landside connectivity&services,or ship to shore interchange.The CPPI is based on available empirical objective data pertaining exclusively to time expended in a vessel

49、stay in a port and should be interpreted as an indicative measure of container port performance,but not a definitive one.Nicolas Peltier-Thiberge Global Practice Director Transport The World BankJenny PaurysHead of Global Intelligence&Analytics S&P Global Market Intelligence 1|Executive SummaryExecu

50、tive SummaryMaritime transport forms the foundation of global trade and the manufacturing supply chain.The maritime industry provides the most cost-effective,energy-efficient,and dependable mode of transportation for long distances.More than 80 percent of global merchandise trade(by volume)is transp

51、orted via sea routes.A considerable and increasing proportion of this volume,accounting for about 35 percent of total volumes and over 60 percent of commercial value,is carried in containers.The emergence of containerization brought about significant changes in how and where goods are manufactured a

52、nd processed,a trend that is likely to continue with digitalization.Container ports are critical nodes in global supply chains and essential to the growth strategies of many emerging economies.In numerous cases,the development of high-quality container port infrastructure operating efficiently has b

53、een a prerequisite for successful export-led growth strategies.Countries that follow such a strategy will have higher levels of economic growth than those that do not.Efficient,high quality port infrastructure can facilitate investment in production and distribution systems,engender expansion of man

54、ufacturing and logistics,create employment opportunities,and raise income levels.However,ports and terminals,especially container terminals,can cause shipment delays,disruptions in supply chain,additional expenses,and reduced competitiveness.The negative effect of poor performance in a port can exte

55、nd beyond the that ports hinterland to others as container shipping services follow a fixed schedule with specific berth windows at each port of call on the route.Therefore,poor performance at one port could disrupt the entire schedule.This,in turn,increases the cost of imports and exports,reduces t

56、he competitiveness of the country and its hinterland,and hinders economic growth and poverty reduction.The consequences are particularly significant for landlocked developing countries(LLDCs)and small island developing states(SIDS).Comparing operational performance across ports has been a major chal

57、lenge for improving global value chains due to the lack of a reliable,consistent,and comparable basis.Despite the data collected by modern ports for performance purposes,the quality,consistency,and availability of data,as well as the definitions used and the capacity and willingness of organizations

58、 to transmit data to a collating body,have hindered the development of a comparable measure(s)for assessing performance across ports and time.However,new technologies,increased digitalization,and industry interests willingness to work collectively toward systemwide improvements now provide an opport

59、unity to measure and compare container port performance in a robust and reliable manner.The World Banks Transport Global Practice and the Global Intelligence&Analytics division of S&P Global Market Intelligence have collaborated to produce the third edition of the Container Port Performance Index(CP

60、PI),presented in this technical paper.The aim of the CPPI is to pinpoint areas for enhancement that can ultimately benefit all parties involved,ranging from shipping lines to national governments and consumers.It is designed to act as a point of reference for important stakeholders in the global eco

61、nomy,including port authorities and operators,national governments,supranational organizations,development agencies,various maritime interests,and other public and private stakeholders in trade,logistics,and supply chain services.The development of the CPPI rests on total container ship in port time

62、 in the manner explained in subsequent sections of the report,and as in earlier Executive Summary|2iterations of the CPPI.This third iteration utilizes data for the full calendar year of 2022.One slight change in this iteration is that the CPPI 2022 only includes ports that had a minimum of 24 valid

63、 port calls within the 12-month period of the study,compared to 20 in earlier iterations.The number of ports included in the CPPI 2022 is 348.In earlier iterations of the CPPI,the calculation of the ranking of the index employed two different methodological approaches,an administrative,or technical,

64、approach,a pragmatic methodology reflecting expert knowledge and judgment;and a statistical approach,using factor analysis(FA).The rationale for using two approaches was to try and ensure that the ranking of container port performance reflects as closely as possible actual port performance,whilst al

65、so being statistically robust.And there has been a marked improvement in consistency between the rankings that result from the two approaches since the inaugural CPPI 2020,but some minor inconsistencies remained.Accordingly,for CPPI 2022,the same methodological approaches are used and then a rank ag

66、gregation method applied to combine the results from the two different approaches and return one aggregate ranking.The aggregation methodology and the resulting ranking is detailed in the report,while the statistical and administrative approaches and their respective rankings are detailed in Appendi

67、x A.Table E.1 presents the resulting CPPI 2022.The two top-ranked container ports in the CPPI 2022 are Yangshan Port(China)in first place,followed by the Port of Salalah(Oman)in second place.These two ports occupy the same positions in the rankings generated by both approaches.Port of Salalah was ra

68、nked second in both approaches in CPPI 2021.Yangshan Port ranked third and fourth in the statistical and administrative approaches,respectively,for CPPI 2021.Three ports in the Middle East are ranked in the top ten(Salalah,Kahlifa,Hamad),as are three of the large Chinese gateways(Yangshan,Ningbo and

69、 Guangzhou).Of the top 10 ranked ports,9 have either maintained or improved their position since CPPI 2021.The exception is Hamad Port,which moved down 5 and 3 places in the administrative and statistical rankings,respectively.Yokohama fell from 10th and 12th in CPPI 2021 to 15th place in CPPI 2022,

70、and Jeddah fell from 8th place in CPPI 2021 to 29th place in CPPI 2022.Port NameOverall RankingYangshan1Salalah2Khalifa Port3Tanger-Mediterranean4Cartagena(Colombia)5Tanjung Pelepas6Ningbo7Hamad Port8Guangzhou9Port Said10Hong Kong11Cai Mep12Shekou13Mawan14Yokohama15Algeciras16King Abdullah Port17Sin

71、gapore18Posorja19Tianjin20Buenaventura21Busan22Yeosu23Chiwan24Kaohsiung25Djibouti26Laem Chabang27Colombo28Jeddah29Pipavav30Dammam31Coronel32Xiamen33Barcelona34Callao35Port Klang36Incheon37Jebel Ali38Port NameOverall RankingFuzhou39Marsaxlokk40Yarimca41Dalian42Lazaro Cardenas43Wilmington(USA-N Caroli

72、na)44Kobe45Nagoya46Shimizu47Mundra48Sohar49Rio Grande(Brazil)50Piraeus51Port Of Virginia52Yantian53Tokyo54Altamira55Haifa56Ambarli57Jubail58Aqaba59Bremerhaven60Itapoa61Zeebrugge62Da Chan Bay Terminal One63Krishnapatnam64Zhoushan65Antwerp66Rio De Janeiro67Savona-Vado68Boston(USA)69Keelung70Santa Cruz

73、 De Tenerife71Paranagua72Khalifa Bin Salman73Siam Seaport74Diliskelesi75Balboa763|Executive SummaryTable E.1 The CPPI 2022:Global Ranking of Container PortsExecutive Summary|4Port NameOverall RankingShantou77Kattupalli78Kamarajar79Osaka80Colon81Jacksonville82Lianyungang83Karachi84Hazira85Jawaharlal

74、Nehru Port86Puerto Limon87Cochin88Port Everglades89Muhammad Bin Qasim90Johor91Penang92Aarhus93Puerto Cortes94Fort-De-France95Pointe-A-Pitre96Tanjung Perak97Philadelphia98Veracruz99Nemrut Bay100Paita101Yokkaichi102Limassol103Naha104Ensenada105Malaga106Cat Lai107Imbituba108Hakata109Chennai110Gemlik111

75、Mersin112New Orleans113Santos114Visakhapatnam115Pecem116Port NameOverall RankingDanang117Wilhelmshaven118Puerto Barrios119Salvador120Shuaiba121Gothenburg122Gioia Tauro123Saigon124Taichung125Port Akdeniz126Sharjah127Noumea128Puerto Quetzal129San Juan130Santa Marta131Tanjung Emas132Omaezaki133Gijon134

76、Batangas135Moji136Izmir137Vigo138Papeete139Haiphong140Lirquen141Shuwaikh142Cebu143Berbera144Port Tampa Bay145Quy Nhon146Puerto Bolivar(Ecuador)147Caucedo148Fredericia149Odessa150Helsingborg151Cadiz152Wellington153Nantes-St Nazaire154Chu Lai155Cagayan De Oro156Port NameOverall RankingAncona157Rio Hai

77、na158Casablanca159Bar160Ravenna161Puerto Progreso162Salerno163Barranquilla164Umm Qasr165Oslo166Gustavia167Borusan168Philipsburg169Vitoria170Qingdao171El Dekheila172Damietta173Buenos Aires174Leixoes175Brest176Latakia177Suape178Larvik179Burgas180Norrkoping181Sepetiba182Muuga-Port Of Tallinn183Bari184C

78、ivitavecchia185Sines186Copenhagen187Valparaiso188Conakry189Vila Do Conde190Bluff191Bell Bay192Subic Bay193Novorossiysk194Klaipeda195Dakar196Port NameOverall RankingMatadi197Catania198Palermo199Rauma200Heraklion201Kristiansand202Apra Harbor203Nelson204Tema205Bilbao206Trapani207Tomakomai208Mariel209Ra

79、des210Caldera(Costa Rica)211La Guaira212Bordeaux213Belawan214Shanghai215Lisbon216Miami217Marseille218Tripoli(Lebanon)219Helsinki220Mogadiscio221Kotka222Beira223Alicante224Gdynia225Freetown226Toamasina227Panjang228Nassau229Batumi230Riga231Point Lisas Ports232Saint John233Teesport234Southampton235Mana

80、us2365|Executive SummaryExecutive Summary|6Port NameOverall RankingArica237Mobile238Port Of Spain239Itajai240Varna241Hueneme242Bangkok243St Petersburg244Takoradi245Venice246Gavle247Maputo248Port Victoria249Timaru250Davao251Agadir252San Antonio253Durres254Puerto Cabello255Bejaia256San Vicente257Dubli

81、n258Corinto259Lagos(Nigeria)260London261Aden262Santo Tomas De Castilla263Felixstowe264Rotterdam265Kingston(Jamaica)266Mayotte267Alexandria(Egypt)268Sokhna269Naples270Monrovia271Mejillones272Melbourne273Lae274Owendo275Otago Harbour276Port NameOverall RankingAdelaide277Halifax278Seattle279Iskenderun28

82、0Tanjung Priok281Manzanillo(Mexico)282Guayaquil283Iquique284Tarragona285Antofagasta286Brisbane287Acajutla288Gdansk289Poti290Port Elizabeth291Montreal292Walvis Bay293Constantza294Douala295San Pedro(Cote Divoire)296Ashdod297Port Reunion298Port Botany299Baltimore(USA)300Valencia301Onne302Qasr Ahmed303M

83、ontevideo304Cristobal305New York&New Jersey306Chattogram307Tin Can Island308Livorno309Fremantle310Dunkirk311Dar Es Salaam312Lyttelton313Tacoma314Pointe-Noire315Genoa316Port NameOverall RankingFreeport(Bahamas)317Lome318Le Havre319Beirut320Thessaloniki321Napier322Auckland323Kribi Deep Sea Port324Taur

84、anga325Mombasa326Port Louis327Hamburg328Manila329Cotonou330Nouakchott331La Spezia332Source:Original table produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 data.There are 14 new entrants to the CPPI 2022,and several significant movers since the CPPI 2021.Over one hundred and ten ports improved their

85、rankings in CPPI 2022 compared to CPPI 2021,with some of the largest improvers increasing their ranking by more than 200 positions.Port NameOverall RankingAbidjan333Rijeka334Houston335Los Angeles336Luanda337Ngqura338Trieste339Charleston340Durban341Prince Rupert342Oakland343Cape Town344Koper345Long B

86、each346Vancouver(Canada)347Savannah3487|Executive Summary1.IntroductionSince the start of maritime trade,ports have played a central role in the economic and social development of countries.The innovation of containerization by Malcom McLean in 1958 changed the course of the shipping industry and en

87、gendered significant changes to where and how goods are manufactured.Container ports remain vital nodes in global supply chains and are crucial to the growth strategies of many emerging economies.The development of high-quality port infrastructure,operated efficiently,has often been a prerequisite f

88、or successful growth strategies,particularly those driven by exports.When done correctly,it can attract investment in production and distribution systems and eventually,support the growth of manufacturing and logistics,create employment,and increase income levels.In contrast,a poorly functioning or

89、inefficient port can hinder trade growth,with a profound impact on LLDCs and SIDS.The port,along with the access infrastructure(inland waterways,railways,roads)to the hinterland,is a vital link to the global marketplace and needs to operate efficiently.Efficient performance encompasses several facto

90、rs,such as the ports efficiency itself,the availability of sufficient draught,quay,and dock facilities,the quality of road and rail connections,the competitiveness of these services,and the effectiveness of the procedures utilized by public agencies for container clearance.Any inefficiencies or non-

91、tariff barriers among these actors will result in higher costs,reduced competitiveness,and lower trade volumes(Kathuria 2018).More specifically,the efficiency of port infrastructure has been identified as a key contributor to the overall port competitiveness and international trade costs.Micco et al

92、.(2003)identified a link between port efficiency and the cost of international trade.Clark,Dollar,and Micco(2004)found a reduction in country inefficiency,specifically transport cost,from the 25th to 75th percentile,resulting in an increase in bilateral trade of around 25 percent.Wilmsmeier,Hoffmann

93、,and Sanchez(2006)confirmed the impact of port performance 1 Introduction|89|Conclusions and Next Stepson international trade costs,finding that doubling port efficiency in a pair of ports had the same impact on trade costs as halving the physical distance between the ports.Hoffmann,Saeed,and Sdal(2

94、020)analyzed the short-and long-term impacts of liner shipping bilateral connectivity on South Africas trade flows,and showed that gross domestic product(GDP),the number of common direct connections,and the level of competition have a positive and significant effect on trade flows.However,ports and

95、terminals,particularly for containers,can often be the main sources of shipment delays,supply chain disruptions,additional costs,and reduced competitiveness.Poorly performing ports are characterized by limited spatial and operating efficiency,maritime and landside access,oversight,and coordination a

96、mong the public agencies involved,which lower predictability and reliability.The result is that instead of facilitating trade,the port increases the cost of imports and exports,reduces competitiveness,and inhibits economic growth and poverty reduction.The effect on national and regional economies ca

97、n be severe see inter alia World Bank(2013)and has driven numerous efforts to improve performance to strengthen competitiveness.Port performance is also a key consideration for container shipping lines that operate liner services on fixed schedules,based on agreed pro-forma berth windows.Delays at a

98、ny of the scheduled ports of call on the route served by the vessel would have to be made good before the vessel arrives at the next port of call,to avoid an adverse impact on the efficient operations of the service.As such,port efficiency and port turnaround time at all the ports of call are import

99、ant subjects for operators,and monitoring port performance has become an increasingly important undertaking in the competitive landscape.One of the major challenges to improving efficiency has been the lack of reliable measures to compare operational performance across different ports.The old manage

100、ment idiom,you cannot manage what you cannot measure,is reflective of the historical challenge of both managing and overseeing the sector.While modern ports collect data for performance purposes,it is difficult to benchmark the outcomes against leading ports or ports with similar profiles due to the

101、 lack of comparative data.Unsurprisingly,there is a long history of attempts to identify a comparative set of indicators to measure port or terminal performance.A brief review of the literature was provided in The Container Port Performance Index 2020:A Comparable Assessment of Container Port Perfor

102、mance(World Bank 2021),CPPI 2020,which illustrated the broad approaches identified and commented on the merits and demerits of each.The measures fell into three broad categories:Firstly,measures of operational and financial performance;secondly,measures of economic efficiency;and thirdly,measures th

103、at rely,predominately,on data from sources exogenous to the port.This review is not replicated in CPPI 2021,and interested readers are directed to CPPI 2020(World Bank 2021),or the extant literature.One of the general challenges of nearly all the approaches has been the quality,consistency,and avail

104、ability of data;the standardization of definitions employed;and the capacity and willingness of organizations to collect and transmit the data to a collating body.At a slightly higher level,there are several aggregate indicators that provide an indication of the comparative quality and performance o

105、f maritime gateways.The World Bank Logistics Performance Index(LPI)(Arvis et al.2018)and the World Economic Forums Global Competitiveness Index(GCI)4.0 both report on the perceived efficiency of seaport services and border clearance processes and indicate the extent to which inefficiencies at a nati

106、ons sea borders can impact international trade competitiveness.But the aggregate nature of the indicators,and the fact that they are perception based,means that they offer at best an indication of comparative performance and offer little to guide Conclusions and Next Steps|10spatial or operating per

107、formance improvements at the level of the individual port.The United Nations Conference on Trade and Developments(UNCTADs)Liner Shipping Connectivity Index(LSCI)provides an indicator of a ports position within the liner shipping network,which is partly a result of the ports performance,but does not

108、directly measure it.Like the CPPI,the LSCI is limited to container ports.Digitalization offers an opportunity to measure and compare container port performance in a robust and reliable manner.New technologies,increased digitalization and digitization,and growing willingness on the part of industry s

109、takeholders to work collectively toward system-wide improvements have created the capacity and opportunity to measure and compare container port performance.The data used to compile the CPPI 2022 is from S&Ps Global Port Performance Program,which commenced in 2009 to drive efficiency improvements in

110、 container port operations and supporting programs to optimize port calls.It includes 10 of the worlds largest liner shipping companies,which collectively operate close to 80 percent of the global container ship fleet capacity.The liner shipping companies provide the program with a series of operati

111、onal time stamps for each individual port call.The data are provided monthly and cover the full global networks of each liner shipping company and their subsidiaries.In 2022,performance time stamp data and other information for the 348 ports comprising the main index were captured for 156,813 port c

112、alls involving 243.9 million container moves.The nature,source,and scope of the data are discussed in the subsequent chapter.The aim of CPPI was to utilize the existing empirical data to establish an unbiased metric for comparing container port performance among different ports,over time.The perform

113、ance of container ports is most relevant in terms of customer experience,specifically the speed and efficiency with which customer assets are handled.In this third edition of CPPI,the focus remains exclusively on quayside performance,which reflects the experience of a container ship operator-the por

114、ts primary customer-and its fundamental value stream.The operational efficiency of how ports receive,and handle container ships is critically important in a carriers decision to choose a port over other options.This year,we have streamlined the computation of the CPPI using an additional method that

115、 aggregates the two methodologies used in the former editions.This will catalyze and stimulate improvements as the ranking is now more reliable,consistent,and comparable across different ports.The three methodologies employed in this study,and the justification for their use,are presented in the sub

116、sequent chapters.The results are presented in chapter 3,with further details provided in appendixes A and B.The purpose of the CPPI is to help identify opportunities to improve a terminal or a port that will ultimately benefit all public and private stakeholders.The CPPI is intended to serve as a be

117、nchmark for important stakeholders in the global economy,including national governments,port authorities and operators,development agencies,supranational organizations,various maritime interests,and other public and private stakeholders engaged in trade,logistics,and supply chain services.The joint

118、team from the World Bank and S&P Global Market Intelligence intends to enhance the methodology,scope,and data in future annual iterations,reflecting refinement,stakeholder feedback,and improvements in data scope and quality.11|Conclusions and Next StepsReferences Arvis,Jean-Franois,Lauri Ojala,Chris

119、tina Wiederer,Ben Shepherd,Anasuya Raj,Karlygash Dairabayeva,and Tuomas Kiiski.2018.Connecting to Compete 2018:Trade Logistics in the Global Economy.Washington DC:World Bank.https:/openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/29971/LPI2018.pdf.Clark,Ximena,David Dollar,and Alejandro Micco.2004

120、.“Port Efficiency,Maritime Transport Costs,and Bilateral Trade.”Journal of Development Economics 75(2):417450.https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2004.06.005.Hoffmann,Jan,Naima Saeed,and Sigbjrn Sdal.2020.“Liner Shipping Bilateral Connectivity and Its Impact on South Africas Bilateral Trade Flows.”Mari

121、time Economics&Logistics 2020,22(3):473499.DOI:10.1057/s41278-019-00124-8.Kathuria,Sanjay.2018.A Glass Half Full:The Promise of Regional Trade in South Asia.Washington DC:World Bank.https:/openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/30246.Levinson,Marc.2006.The Box:How the Shipping Container Made the W

122、orld Smaller and the World Economy Bigger.Princeton,New Jersey,United States:Princeton University Press.Micco,Alejandro,Ricardo J.Sanchez,Georgina Pizzolitto,Jan Hoffmann,Gordon Wilmsmeier,and Martin Sgut.2003.“Port Efficiency and International Trade:Port Efficiency as a Determinant of Maritime Tran

123、sport Costs.”Maritime Economics&Logistics,5(2):199218.DOI:10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100073.UNCTAD(United Nations Conference on Trade and Development).2021.Review of Maritime Transport 2021.Geneva:UNCTAD.https:/unctad.org/webflyer/review-maritime-transport-2021.Wilmsmeier,Gordon,Jan Hoffmann,and Ricardo

124、J.Sanchez.2006.“The Impact of Port Characteristics on International Maritime Trade Costs.”Research in Transportation Economics,16(1):117140.DOI:10.1016/S0739-8859(06)16006-0.World Bank.2013.“Opening the Gates:How the Port of Dar es Salaam Can Transform Tanzania.”Tanzania Economic Update 3,May 21,201

125、3.https:/www.worldbank.org/en/country/tanzania/publication/opening-the-gates-how-the-port-of-dar-es-salaam-can-transform-tanzania-backup#:text=US%241%2C759%20million%20%E2%80%93%20the%20total,port%20of%20Dar%20es%20Salaam.World Bank.2022.The Container Port Performance Index 2021:A Comparable Assessm

126、ent of Container Port Performance.Washington,DC:World Bank.2.The Approach and MethodologyIntroductionContainer(liner)shipping services are generally highly structured service rotations.They are typically set up with weekly departure frequencies,a fixed sequence of port calls,and standard pro forma d

127、ay and time-specific berthing windows.Once a service has been defined or adjusted,it will usually remain intact for many months,or even years.The berthing windows are pre-agreed with the terminal and port operators,usually based on a slightly higher than expected average quantity of container exchan

128、ge moves,and ideally modest buffers in the sea legs between ports.The clear advantages of this model are that shippers can make long-term supply decisions and ports and terminals schedule and balance their resources to meet expected demand.With a well-planned and well-executed pro forma schedule,the

129、y can achieve higher levels of reliability and predictability.This,in turn,can lead to more effective supply chain operations and planning as container ships spend around 15 percent to 20 percent of their total full rotation time in ports,with the balance being spent at sea.Reduced port time can all

130、ow ship operators to reduce vessel speed between port calls,thereby conserving fuel,reducing emissions,and lowering costs in the process.Conversely,for every unplanned additional hour in port or at anchorage,the ships need to increase speed to maintain the schedule,resulting in increased fuel consum

131、ption,costs,and emissions.In extreme cases,ships that fall many hours behind their pro forma schedule will start to arrive at ports outside of their agreed windows,causing berth availability challenges for ports and terminals,particularly those with high berth utilization rates.This,in turn,causes d

132、elay to shipments and disruption to supply chains.A service recovery can involve significantly higher sailing speeds,and therefore,higher fuel consumption,emissions,and costs,or the omission of a port or ports from the service rotation.2The Approach and Methodology|12Time is valuable for stakeholder

133、s,and so it is logical to measure port performance based on the total amount of time ships are required to spend in port.The CPPI 2022 has been developed based on the total port time in the manner explained in subsequent sections.This iteration has utilized data from the full calendar year of 2022 a

134、nd has employed the same two approaches as the earlier editions,an administrative approach and a statistical approach.The resulting ranking of container port performance reflects as closely as possible actual port performance,while being statistically robust.The approaches are discussed in this chap

135、ter,with further details on the statistical methodology provided in Appendix B.The results are presented in chapter 3,and in more details in Appendix A.The Port Performance ProgramThe data used to compile the CPPI is from S&P Globals Port Performance Program.The program was started in 2009 with the

136、goal of supporting efficiency improvements in container port operations and to support projects to optimize container port calls.The program includes 10 of the worlds largest liner shipping companies that collectively operate close to 80 percent of global fleet capacity.The liner shipping companies

137、provide the program with a series of data points comprising operational time stamps and other bits of information such as move counts for each individual port call undertaken globally.The data are provided monthly and cover the full global networks of each liner shipping company and their subsidiari

138、es.In 2022,performance time stamp data were captured for 157,704 port calls involving 243.9 million container moves at 765 container terminals in 434 ports worldwide.Following receipt from the shipping lines,the port call data undergo several validation and quality checks before mapping to historica

139、l AIS vessel movement data,which enables tracking and verification of the shipping line data.The geo-fencing of port and terminal zones within the AIS system supports the creation of several of the performance metrics tracked in the program.Most of the port performance metrics are constructed from t

140、he combined AIS and liner shipping data.The combination of empirical shipping line data and AIS movement data enables the construction of more accurate and granular metrics to measure container port performance.Many of the metrics consist of a time component cross-referenced with workload achieved i

141、n that time,either in the form of move counts or a specific task within the container port call process.Time stamps,definitions,and methods to calculate metrics are fully standardized in collaboration with the shipping line partners in the program.The Automatic Identification System and Port ZoningA

142、IS technology is used to track and monitor vessels in near real time.It sends information on a vessels movement,speed,direction,and other particulars via satellite and terrestrial stations.The systems function as a localized service,and indeed global tracking,was initially considered secondary.The A

143、IS primarily functions as a navigational safety aid,to ensure the safety and efficiency of navigation,safety of life at sea,and maritime environmental protection.1 AIS was designed for the avoidance of vessel collision,as outlined in the Safety of Life at Sea(SOLAS)Convention.2All ships of net tonna

144、ge of at least 300 gross register tonnage(GRT)performing international voyages,all cargo ships of at least 500 GRT not performing international voyages,and all passenger ships,regardless of size,should be equipped with AIS.This allows vessels to automatically transfer data and a plethora of navigati

145、onal and identification information to other nearby ships and relevant port authorities in the form of structured messages.3 The technical requirements for AIS are specified by the International Telecommunication Union(ITU)Recommendation ITU-R M.1371-5(02/2014).4 13|The Approach and MethodologyFor m

146、aritime domain awareness and safety purposes,the use of continuous 24/7,near-real-time online AIS data makes it possible to monitor areas,vessels,and routes;generate shore-based alerts;and provide useful positional and navigational information in general(IALA 2005).Satellite-based AIS receivers offe

147、r coverage outside the land-based antennas range by covering the whole globe from pole to pole.Satellite AIS coverage can extend to the entire exclusive economic zone(EEZ)or globally,including remote coastal areas(IALA 2016).In the case of ports5,the usage of zones helps in recording a vessels navig

148、ational status and positioning.AIS zones offer different indicators activated automatically by the vessels signal reporting its position.Every port has at least one zone created in a way that captures the arrivals and sailings of vessels at cargo-handling facilities but avoids spurious reports being

149、 recorded from passing traffic.Where a subject port is geographically spread out with terminals located remotely,it is likely that there will be more than one zone,with all zones linked by a standard port identification number.Ports that straddle a river or another similar body of water will often h

150、ave zones along opposing shorelines with a track separating them,thus avoiding the capture of AIS reports from traffic navigating through a fairway or channel.Once again,the individual zones will be linked to their common port using the ports unique identification number.Zones also cover anchorages

151、to record vessels arriving at a port but awaiting authority to enter,or vessels laid up awaiting orders.Additional zones cover the arrival of vessels at repair yards or those navigating locks.Anchorage zones may be created on an ad hoc basis.Not all ports have anchorage areas and among those that do

152、,not all are shown in nautical charts.Whenever possible,S&P Global uses its own tracking and observation tools to determine where vessels anchor and create zones accordingly.Each anchorage zone is linked to the relevant port using the subject ports unique identification number.AIS is generally relia

153、ble,but it also has limitations that can impact the transmission and quality of the data captured.Some factors that may affect the signal could be the AIS transponder being turned off deliberately,problematic reception,high traffic density areas,weather conditions,or anomalous positions.The Anatomy

154、of a Port CallEvery container ship port call can be broken down into six distinct steps.These individual steps are illustrated in Figure 2.1.Total port hours is defined as the total time elapsed between when a ship reaches a port(either port limits,pilot station,or anchorage zone,whichever event occ

155、urs first)to when it departs from the berth after having completed its cargo exchange.The time spent from berth departure(All Lines Up)to the departure from the port limits is excluded.This is because any port performance loss that pertains to departure delays,such as pilot or tug availability,readi

156、ness of the mooring gang,channel access and water depths,forecasting completion time,communication,and ship readiness will be incurred while the ship is still alongside the berth.Additional time resulting from these causes will,therefore,be captured during the period between 4.Last Lift and 5.All Li

157、nes Up(“berth departure).The Approach and Methodology|14Figure 2.1 The Anatomy of a Port CallSource:Original figure produced for this publicationShips may spend extra time in a port after the departure from a berth,but the time associated with these additional activities is excluded from the CPPI,as

158、 they are not influenced by the operational performance of the terminal or port.Ships may dwell within a ports limits for bunkering,repairs,or simply waiting in a safe area if they are unable to berth on arrival at their next port.Apart from bunkering being performed simultaneously with cargo operat

159、ions,these causes of additional port time are not necessarily reflective of poor performance and hence,are excluded from the CPPI.Although none of these factors necessarily indicate port inefficiency,they can contribute to additional time spent in the port.For instance,clearance authorities delays c

160、an result in delays in the first lift and idle time after cargo operations have concluded.However,the data available do not provide enough detail to identify the root causes of such delays.It is assumed that only a small percentage of ships idle at the berth after cargo operations due to factors unr

161、elated to port performance,and their inclusion does not significantly affect the CPPI rankings.The other four components of the port call can logically be grouped into two distinct blocks of time.The first comprises elapsed time between Arrival Port Limits and All Lines Fast(steps 1 and 2 in Figure

162、2.1);the second comprises time elapsed between All Lines Fast and All Lines Up(steps 2 to 5,also commonly referred to as berth time or berth hours).The logic behind this division is that while there will always need to be time consumed between steps 2 and 5,the bulk of time between steps 1 and 2,exc

163、luding actual sailing in time,is waiting time,which can be eliminated.15|The Approach and Methodology1 2 POINTS OF ACTIVITY 6 5 3 4 1231 12 24563 34 45 56 6Arrival Port Limits All Lines Fast First Lift Last Lift All Lines Up Exit Port Limits Steam out Arrival At Anchorage and Waiting Time at Anchora

164、ge(Berth,Channel,Pilot etc.)Steam in Time Port Limit to All Lines FastGangway down,authority clearence,abour available,position crenes,unlash,load approval,etc All cargo operations,driven by Crane Intesity and Gross Crane Performance Lashing and checks,authority clearence,crew onboard,engine ready,r

165、epairs completed,bunkers,channel clear,tugs&pilot Overall Port Time DistributionThe time stamps in the source data allow us to break down and summarize total port time into three categories:Arrival Time,Berth Idle,and Cargo Operations.Expressed as a percentage of total port hours recorded,the distri

166、bution of port time per ship size range and globally aggregated is shown in Figure 2.2.Figure 2.2 In-Port Time ConsumptionSource:Original figure produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 dataAs there is naturally some correlation between ship size and call size,a higher percentage of time is

167、required for cargo operations for the larger ships,and this will be explored in detail later in this report.What is interesting,and surprising at the same time is that only 60 percent of the total port time is attributable to cargo operations,meaning there is potentially a lot of wastage in terms of

168、 excess time in the system.The average duration of a port call in 2022 was 36.8 hours,which was a slight increase over the global average of 36.3 hours in 2021.About 10.8 percent(or 3.96 hours)was consumed at the berth immediately before and after cargo operations.Also known as the Start-Up and Fini

169、sh sub-processes of a port call,each activity does not necessarily need to take more than 30 minutes to complete safely.There are 33,787 examples of Start-Up recorded as 30 minutes or less and a further 29,367 actual cases of the Finish consuming 30 minutes or less.There were 12,784 port calls in 20

170、22 where both the Start-Up and Finish took 30 minutes or less.There is,therefore,an opportunity to eliminate almost three hours per call of port time globally simply through better planning,preparation,communication,and process streamlining.This time saved equates to more hours at sea,leading to slo

171、wer sailing speeds,lower GHG emissions,and cost savings for the ship operator,which would be significant for each port call.The Approach and Methodology|1636.832.331.526.120.929.711.510.910.69.67.710.751.756.857.964.371.459.60%20%40%60%80%100%13,500OverallIn the second half of 2020,there was a rebou

172、nd in the global sales of durable goods,most prominently in the US,and a sharp increase in the overall container volume demand.This coincided with continued COVID-19 restrictions and resulted in the emergence of severe port congestion.In 2021,this port congestion was still manifesting itself,reachin

173、g a peak in the third quarter of 2021 and the average arrival time per port call globally remained above 11 hours until the third quarter of 2022.The fourth quarter of 2022 saw reducing volumes and many ports were able to clear backlogs and reduce average arrival times to close to 10 hours per port

174、call.The expectation is that the average port arrival time globally in 2023 will continue to decline to levels prior to the start of 2021.(see Figure 2.3)Figure 2.3 Global Average Arrival Time DevelopmentSource:Original figure produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 dataAverage Arrival Hour

175、s9.369.9911.4811.2311.3311.0711.3510.199.51010.51111.5122021 Q12021 Q22021 Q 2021 Q42022 Q12022 Q 2022 Q 2022 Q4At a regional level and broken down by ship size groups,the change in average arrival time per region and per ship size group over the 2021-2022 period is illustrated in Table 2.1.The colu

176、mn All shows the aggregate change in quantity of hours from arrival at port limits or start of anchorage time,to berthing for cargo operations to commence for each region,across all ship size groups.17|The Approach and MethodologyTable 2.1 Average Arrival Time Development per Region and Ship Size,20

177、21-2022 The Approach and Methodology|18Change(Hr)Ship Size RangeRegion1 13,500AllAFR 5.0 (10.4)(3.7)(7.0)(8.8)(8.0)LAM 0.1 1.2 1.3 0.8 3.9 1.0 MED 0.8 1.3 1.5 1.4 5.2 1.5 MEI 8.1 (1.0)0.3 1.4 2.6 0.6 NAM 3.1 (0.8)11.2 6.5 10.8 6.0 NEA (1.4)(0.9)0.7 (1.2)(0.9)(0.7)NEU 0.2 (0.7)3.7 5.4 2.5 1.7 OCE 8.9

178、 1.2 2.9 (2.3)1.8 SEA 0.4 (1.5)(3.6)(2.5)0.3 (1.5)Global 1.1 (0.7)2.4 0.5 1.4 0.4 Source:Original table produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 data.At a global level,on average each port arrival increased by 0.4 hours,as illustrated in Figure 2.3 where there were two peak quarters in 2021

179、compared with three in 2022.The largest increase in average arrival time was witnessed in North America(USA and Canada)with an average increase in time of 6.0 hours over all vessel sizes.By contrast,performance improved in Africa(Sub-Sahara)with an average 8.0-hour reduction in arrival time across a

180、ll vessel sizes.Improvements in East Asia and Southeast Asia were also recorded.At the ship size level,ships within the 1,501 TEU-5,000 TEU range consumed less time entering ports in 2022 compared to 2021,but the opposite was true for ships in the 5,001 TEU-8,500 TEU range where an average additiona

181、l time per call of 2.4 hours was recorded.At a port level,the top 20 most improving or deteriorating average arrival time developments are reflected in the following tables.The numbers per port and ship size range are the actual average arrival hours recorded in 2022.The comparison with 2021 is made

182、 for the average arrival hours for all ship sizes combined.Table 2.2 Top 20 Ports that Most Reduced Average Arrival Times,2021-2022Ship Size RangePort1 13,500AllCalls2021FYCh HrsCh%Dar Es Salaam 42.3 104.7 104.3 151 239.6 (135.30)-56.5%Los Angeles 2.8 20.2 22.6 26.2 36.5 24.7 634 119.3 (94.55)-79.3%

183、Long Beach 21.3 117.2 13.3 17.7 18.1 27.0 282 119.3 (92.30)-77.4%Aden 15.2 13.1 13.8 26 60.6 (46.79)-77.2%Monrovia 6.7 7.2 7.0 26 53.4 (46.40)-87.0%Douala 35.6 38.2 37.9 189 77.1 (39.19)-50.9%Pointe-Noire 22.1 24.0 31.2 16.0 24.1 388 51.8 (27.70)-53.4%Tema 13.3 9.3 7.1 12.0 19.1 9.3 587 30.2 (20.91)

184、-69.3%Luanda 18.5 29.3 44.8 71.9 32.9 291 49.8 (16.97)-34.0%Lome 28.0 46.2 30.9 175 43.7 (12.85)-29.4%Lagos(Nigeria)3.2 4.7 7.0 4.7 192 16.9 (12.17)-72.0%Port Victoria 8.9 8.9 45 21.0 (12.08)-57.6%Yantian 38.5 10.1 11.5 14.4 10.3 11.8 2,954 21.5 (9.71)-45.2%Dakar 31.7 17.8 8.9 16.7 398 26.3 (9.64)-3

185、6.6%LAE 9.5 12.8 11.0 28 20.5 (9.44)-46.2%Chattogram 36.0 52.3 49.4 212 58.4 (8.95)-15.3%Shanghai 24.4 23.9 23.8 24.4 23.9 2,371 31.3 (7.46)-23.8%Haifa 9.6 6.4 5.3 2.8 12.0 7.7 734 14.7 (7.01)-47.6%Ngqura 37.2 21.7 18.4 12.9 2.9 18.2 213 25.0 (6.83)-27.3%Beirut 9.5 6.9 4.1 3.6 2.8 7.2 382 13.7 (6.53

186、)-47.5%Source:Original table produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 data.19|The Approach and MethodologyTable 2.3 Top 20 Ports that Most Increased Average Arrival Times,2021-2022Ship Size RangePort1 13,500AllCalls2021FYCh HrsCh%Prince Rupert124.6 95.0 8.3 2.1 65.6 90 13.4 52.17 389.1%Savan

187、nah 25.3 96.1 105.2 165.5 206.3 130.4 1,115 45.11 85.0352.9%Houston4.0 20.5 44.7 93.0 39.3 800 2.8 36.58 1327.3%Charleston5.6 21.9 35.3 54.2 58.1 37.3 1,161 6.9 30.38 437.3%Manila 76.8 58.2 62.3 59.0 612 30.1 28.98 96.4%Vancouver(Canada)35.3 66.1 64.2 124.2 60.7 318 41.6 19.10 45.9%New York&New Jers

188、ey 12.1 31.2 26.6 40.8 18.2 30.3 1,382 12.5 17.72 141.3%Poti 26.9 27.5 26.9 69 9.6 17.30 179.3%Cape Town60.0 111.7 48.3 74.9 185 57.7 17.16 29.7%La Spezia 16.4 31.9 15.7 14.9 44.8 31.1 159 14.6 16.53 113.4%San Pedro(Cote Divoire)43.1 43.1 54 27.4 15.69 57.2%Abidjan117.9 78.5 44.7 69.0 292 53.4 15.59

189、 29.2%Mersin 31.8 28.1 7.6 16.2 8.4 25.6 885 10.5 15.15 144.3%Mombasa 24.8 19.2 18.2 19.8 254 4.6 15.13 325.9%Qingdao 33.3 27.5 29.0 33.0 18.6 27.4 2,705 12.8 14.64 114.5%Trieste 16.8 18.6 32.2 22.8 37.4 22.9 353 8.6 14.31 166.6%Napier 61.9 26.5 35.4 31.1 144 17.1 14.07 82.4%Hamburg 12.0 16.7 26.1 2

190、7.2 35.7 22.8 1,670 10.5 12.32 117.0%Koper 15.5 18.1 77.0 20.1 39.0 21.1 462 8.8 12.30 139.6%Acajutla 53.7 18.3 19.1 43 8.2 10.92 133.7%Source:Original table produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 data.Both Los Angeles and Long Beach dramatically reduced their average arrival times.This mi

191、ght have been at the expense of six of the seven ports with the highest quantity of additional hours incurred and could potentially be the result of cargo and ship re-routings.The overall improvements and reductions in average arrival hours in African ports has been driven by Dar Es Salaam,Monrovia,

192、Douala,Pointe-Noire,Tema,Luanda,Lom,Lagos,Port Victoria,Dakar,and Ngqura.The increase is slightly offset by increased average arrival time in Cape Town,San Pedro,Abidjan,and Mombasa.In East Asia,improvements were seen in Yantian and Yangshan but countered by increased time in Manila and Qingdao.Ther

193、e are no European ports in the top 20 improvers.Poti,La Spezia,Mersin,Trieste,Hamburg,and Koper all experienced longer average arrival times.Waiting time,defined as the period between Arrival Port Limits or when the ship enters an anchorage zone,and All Lines Fast can generally be regarded as wasted

194、 time.As such,in the construction of the CPPI,one possibility was to apply a penalty to waiting time.The decision was taken not to do so,as the introduction of a penalty of this type would be a normative judgement inconsistent with the overall aim of the study to create bean objective quantitative i

195、ndex.The Approach and Methodology|20There was consideration as to whether to apply a discount to waiting time for the smallest segment of ships.Smaller ships generally suffer less priority than larger ones,and in some hub ports might be purposely idled at anchorage waiting to load cargo which is arr

196、iving from off-schedule ocean going ships.However,after reviewing average arrival time for the various ship size segments on a regional basis,the data did not support applying a discount to waiting time for the smallest segment of ships.(see Table 2.4).Table 2.4 Average Arrival Time Performance per

197、Ship Size Range per Region2022Ship Size RangeRegion13,500AverageAFR27.8 27.6 32.9 20.0 13.7 27.8 LAM8.0 7.3 8.7 7.7 10.5 7.7 MED9.7 8.3 7.1 7.3 11.1 8.7 MEI13.6 7.4 5.7 6.7 7.2 7.2 NAM9.2 17.3 31.7 43.7 54.2 30.8 NEA6.3 8.2 8.4 7.1 6.1 7.6 NEU8.8 8.0 13.5 15.0 16.9 11.7 OCE17.4 14.3 14.2 8.6 13.9 SE

198、A10.2 10.2 6.5 6.2 4.3 8.7 Average10.1 10.2 12.9 11.6 10.6 10.9 Source:Original table produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 data.Regions that host major hub ports,and where smaller sized ships expended more time to arrive than the average of all ships,are the Mediterranean,the Middle East

199、,India,and Southeast Asia.Further study reveals that the following hub ports in these regions did record significantly higher average arrival times for smaller ships versus the average for all vessel sizes.Table 2.5 Smaller Vessel Average Arrival TimesPortArrival Hours(ships 1,500 TEUAdditional Arri

200、val Hours(as a percentage)Original Overall RankOverall Rank after SimulationJeddah40.28.8+357.6%2827King Abdullah7.83.9+101.4%1616Khalifa Port9.35.5+68.6%34Singapore10.46.3+63.9%1920Marsaxlokk15.59.6+61.3%4243Tanger-Mediterranean9.76.3+54.4%56Source:Original table produced for this publication,based

201、 on CPPI 2022 data.21|The Approach and MethodologyTo test the significance of purposely delayed smaller feeder vessels on the overall ranking,we conducted a simulation within the overall CPPI model.For all ports(not only the focus ports),we reduced the quantity of arrival hours by 50 percent for all

202、 ship calls where the capacity of the ship is 1,500 TEU or less in size.The quantity of berth hours for all ships was maintained at 100 percent,as was the average arrival hours for all other ship size groups.Table 2.5 displays the original overall rank without any adjustment to feeder ship arrival h

203、ours.The last column presents what the overall rank would have been with 50 percent of arrival hours for ships of 1,500 TEU or less capacity eliminated.The conclusion from the simulation is that such an adjustment does not materially alter the overall CPPI 2022 rankings,and four of the six focus por

204、ts dropped in rankings during the simulation(Khalifa Port,Singapore,Marsaxlokk,and Tanger-Mediterranean),although only by one place.Since it is not possible to see from the data whether waiting time is voluntary or forced,it is difficult to find a suitable level at which to discount waiting time in

205、this scenario.The port calls of ships with less than 1,500 TEUs of capacity comprise just 10 percent of the total calls in the CPPI.Therefore,the disparity in waiting times between ships with less than 1,500 TEUs of nominal capacity and other segments,as simulated,has only a small impact to the over

206、all CPPI.To keep the data pure and avoid normative judgment that is inconsistent with an objective quantitative index,the rankings published in this iteration are not influenced by adjustments made to empirically recorded port hours.The Significance of Call SizeAs illustrated in Figure 2.2,over 60 p

207、ercent of a port call is consumed through cargo operations,for the handling of containers.In this aspect of the call,call size is of great significance.Call size is far less significant when it comes to arrival time,which is more likely to be influenced by ship size.There have been several earlier s

208、tudies,in which ships are grouped into size segments(ranges)based upon their size or capacity and port calls are ranked based on the time elapsed in port or on the berth.While these studies provide an indication,the optimum outcome requires the workload for each call to be taken into consideration.I

209、n this index,workload is represented by Call Size,defined as the total quantity of containers(regardless of size),which were physically discharged,loaded,or restowed during a port call.The Approach and Methodology|22Figure 2.4 The Aggregated Correlation between Ship and Call SizeAverage Call Size02,

210、0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,00014,00016,00018,00020,00005001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,00013,500Call SizeShip SizeShip Size Range(nominal TEU)Average Ship Size(TEU capacity)Source:Original figure produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 dataAlthough there will be some level of correlation

211、 between the ship and call size,it is not a perfect correlation.For example,an 18,000 TEU capacity ship calling at a port in Thailand or southern Vietnam might exchange 1,000-2,000 containers per call,but that same ship in Yangshan or Singapore might exchange more than 4,000 containers.Similarly,in

212、the Thai or southern Vietnamese ports,a 3,000 TEU(feeder ship)might exchange more than 3,000 containers,potentially twice that of an 18,000 TEU mainline ship at the same port.The 60 percent of a port call,during which containers are exchanged,is influenced by two sub-factors:1.The quantity of cranes

213、 deployed2.The speed at which the cranes,especially the long crane(the crane with the highest workload in terms of cycles),operate23|The Approach and MethodologyGross Cranne Moves per hr per Ship Size range21.323.023.624.323.719.520.521.522.523.524.513,500Ship Size RangeFigure 2.5 Container Moves Pe

214、rformed per gross Crane Hour across Various Ship SizesSource:Original figure produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 dataThe variation in containers handled per gross crane hour across all ship sizes is statistically minor.The global average for all ships is 23.5 moves per hour,so the small

215、est ships are 9.4 percent less efficient than the average,whereas ships in the 8,501 TEU-13,500 TEU range are 3.6 percent more efficient than the average.It is often implied that larger ships are more difficult to work,but the data says otherwise.On the larger ships,the crane operator has higher hoi

216、sts and longer trolley distances,which increases cycle time,but this is offset by more moves per bay and hatch,resulting in more containers handled per gantry or hatch-cover move.The smaller ships can often encounter list or trim issues,making it harder for the operator to hit the cell-guides and th

217、e hatch-cover and lashing systems.The Approach and Methodology|24Groos Crane Productivity23.322.422.222.923.523.924.424.324.223.221.021.522.022.523.023.524.024.525.0Call Size6,000Figure 2.6 Gross Crane Productivity by Call SizeFigure 2.7 Crane Productivity by Crane IntensitySource:Original figure pr

218、oduced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 dataSource:Original figure produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 dataMoves per Gross Crane Hour30.722.522.623.123.724.023.221.818.017.019.021.023.025.027.029.031.0123456789Rounded Crane Intensity25|The Approach and MethodologyA review of gros

219、s crane productivity versus call size and crane intensity reveals no strong increases or decreases through the ranges.Assessed on call size ranges,there is a-5.2 percent to 3.8 percent variation to the average.Meanwhile,an assessment of crane intensity reveals that the first and last segments have e

220、xtremely high and low performances,respectively,but in the mid-range,there is little difference in crane productivity across the seven ranges.This implies that crane speed(productivity)does not gradually increase(or decrease)as ship size,call size,or crane intensity increases.It is therefore statist

221、ically not a key determinant of operating hours.The far more significant influencer of operating time is the quantity of cranes deployed(crane intensity).Figure 2.8 Call Size versus Crane IntensityFigure 2.9 Average Moves per CraneCrane IntensityCall Size Range1.51.82.32.93.33.744.354.71.01.52.02.53

222、.03.54.04.55.05.56,000Source:Original figure produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 dataSource:Original figure produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 dataContainer Moves per Quay Crane1236,000Average26076897919601,69600800016001800Call Size Range

223、The Approach and Methodology|26As might be expected,the more container moves are to be handled,the more cranes must be deployed.However,crane intensity lags call size growth,which means that as the call size grows,each crane is required to handle more containers.Theoretically,if a call with 1,000 mo

224、ves was assigned 2 cranes,then one with 5,000 moves would require 10 cranes for a status quo,and that does not happen often,if at all.Since the exchange rate per crane does not increase progressively with ship size,call size,or crane intensity growth,the overall operating time increases.This makes c

225、all size differentiation the critical factor to consider when attempting port performance benchmarking and ranking.Construction of the CPPIMoving on to the construction of the CPPI,for a port to qualify for inclusion in the CPPI it must have registered at least 24 valid port calls where port hours c

226、an be calculated within the full calendar year.Of the 434 ports for which S&P Global received port call information,348 are included in the main index of CPPI 2022.There were 156,813 distinct port calls recorded in the data over the period at those 348 main ports.A further 86 ports registered less t

227、han 24 calls each,accumulatively accounting for 891 port calls(0.6 percent of the total),these ports are excluded from the CPPI 2022.The CPPI is based solely on the average port hours per port call,with port hours being the total time elapsed from when a ship first entered a port to when it departed

228、 from the berth.Due to the large volume of data,it was possible and prudent to break it down into ship size and call size groups or ranges.However,too much fragmentation would have diluted the data to the extent that more assumptions than actual empirical data would be present in the index.Therefore

229、,the data was grouped into five distinct ship sizes,and then within each ship size group by call size group,as reflected in Figure 2.10 below.Source:Original figure produced for this publicationFigure 2.10 The Structure of the CPPI6,000 moves2,501-3,000 moves501-1,000 moves3,001-4,000 moves 13,500 T

230、EU5,001-8,500 TEUContainer PortPerformance indexXShip size GroupsCall size Groups27|The Approach and MethodologyThe number of ship size groups was limited to five,and the number of call size groups to 10.That results in a 50(5 x 10)matrix for the qualifying ports for the main index of CPPI 2022.Howe

231、ver,there were insufficient port calls in the larger five call size groups for the less than 1,500 TEU ship size group and similarly for the two larger call size groups for the 1,501 TEU-5,000 TEU ship size group.In total,the data was distributed into 43 ship-call size groups.Table 2.6 Port Calls Di

232、stributionCall Size GroupShip Size Group60001 13,5000.2%0.9%4.6%7.1%8.7%9.6%9.5%18.8%26.5%14.1%Source:Original table produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 data.The five ship size groups were based on where they might be deployed and the similarities of ships within each group.Although a s

233、ixth group for ships more than 18,000 TEU or 24,000 TEU could have been added,it would have highly diluted the data in the two larger ship size groups.Table 2.7 Ship Size Group DefinitionsNominal TEU Capacity RangeDescriptionLess than 1,500Almost exclusively feeder vessels,often connecting small out

234、lying ports with regional hub ports.Some intra-regional services will also have ships in this size range.1,500 to 5,000A vast quantity of these classic Panamax ships are deployed on intra-regional trades.They are found on North-South trades to and from Africa,Latin America,and Oceania,as well as Tra

235、nsatlantic services.5,000 to 8,500Vessels within this size group are mainly deployed on the North-South trade lanes.Vessel cascading and improving port capabilities has seen them start to emerge as stock vessels for Africa,Latin America,and Oceania trades.There is some presence on Transatlantic and

236、AsiaMiddle East trades as well.8,500 to 13,500These Neo-Panamax vessels are largely deployed on East-West trades,particularly Trans-Pacific,both to North Americas west coast as well as via either the Panama or Suez Canals to North Americas east coast.They also feature on AsiaMiddle East trades,with

237、some deployed on AsiaMediterranean rotations.Greater than 13,500These ultra-large container ships(ULCS)are mainly deployed on AsiaEurope(serving both North Europe and the Mediterranean)and AsiaUnited States trades,especially on Trans-Pacific services calling at North Americas west coast ports.Source

238、:Original table produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 data.The application of ship size groups is less important than call size groups,particularly since the call data is already split into 10 call size groups.However,the objective of the CPPI is to highlight through comparison the perfor

239、mance gaps and opportunities to save fuel and reduce emissions.The analysis should,therefore,consider that the larger the ship,the more fuel it consumes,and the higher the potential to save fuel and reduce emissions.The Approach and Methodology|28Figure 2.11 Percentage of Port Calls per Ship Size Gr

240、oup-2022Source:Original figure produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 dataAlmost 50 percent of all ship port calls in 2022 were from the Panamax(1,501-5,000 TEU)size of ships.With just 10 percent of port calls made by ships more than 13,500 TEU,it was decided not to disaggregate these furt

241、her.As the main participants of the Port Performance Program are primarily deep-sea operators,there was a relatively small number of calls in the feeder segment(less than 1,500 TEU capacity).An attempt has been made to make the 10 call size groups as narrow as possible by grouping together calls in

242、instances where they are most likely to have received similar crane intensity provisions.The analysis then compares all qualifying ports on how close(or far)the individual call size is to the average call size within each call size group.Table 2.8 Call Size SensitivityCall Size SensitivityCall Size

243、Group6000Average179 381 736 1,234 1,732 2,228 2,735 3,445 4,785 8,061 Median188 386 730 1,226 1,725 2,222 2,727 3,420 4,638 7,065 Lower Range160 328 620 1,042 1,466 1,888 2,318 2,907 3,942 6,005 Upper Range216 443 839 1,410 1,984 2,555 3,136 3,933 5,334 8,125 Total Ports290338339289244265

244、Within Range2203252Percentage in Range75.9%94.1%89.7%96.9%100.0%100.0%100.0%99.4%98.3%80.0%Source:Original table produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 data10%46%17%17%10%1,5001,501-5,0005,001-8,5008,501-13,50013,50029|The Approach and MethodologyTo assess the sensiti

245、vity within each call size group across all 348 qualifying ports,the median call size between all ports within a call size group was taken and a tolerance range of 15 percent above and below the median created(see Table 2.8).In the six call size groups from the 1,0011,500 to 4,0016,000 moves groups,

246、more than 96.9 percent of ports have an average call size well within this tolerance range.Beyond the threshold of 6,000 moves per call,the call size has a much lower impact on crane intensity.This is because the number of cranes that can be deployed is limited by the overall number of cranes availa

247、ble or stowage splits.The quantity of ports with an average call size within the tolerance range in the three smallest call size groups is not as high as the quantity in the six call size groups from the 1,0011,500 to 4,0016,000 moves groups.However,for ports with an average call size above the tole

248、rance range,it would be possible to increase crane intensity to match the slightly higher call sizes,and,therefore,the conclusion is that objective comparisons can be made within all 10 call size groups.Imputing Missing Values:the Administrative ApproachThe handicap of missing values can be addresse

249、d in two different ways in the administrative approach and the statistical approach.The former involves assigning values to empty categories based on data that are available when a port has registered a data point within a specific ship size range.Table 2.9 Quantity of Ports Included per Ship Size G

250、roupShip Size RangeQuantity of Ports IncludedBase Call SizeLess than 1,500 TEUs2762515001,5005,000 TEUs3305011,0005,0008,500 TEUs2201,0011,5008,50013,500 TEUs1781,5012,000More than 13,500 TEUs1053,0014,000Source:Original table produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 dataFor each ship size g

251、roup,the call size group that has the largest quantity of data representation is selected(see Table 2.9)as the Base Call Size group.Ideally,this is a mid-range call size group because the lowest and highest groups can demonstrate some uniqueness.In cases where there is no actual data for the base ca

252、ll size group,the next highest group is examined to find an actual data set.If none is found,then the approach involves looking at the immediately lower call size band.At the end of this exercise,every port has a value assigned for the base call size group.Imputing vessel arrival values.Where a call

253、 size group does not have an arrival hours value,it is populated using the overall average arrival time for all vessels registered at that port across all call size groups within each specific ship size group.This is logical as call size is a less important determinant of waiting time than ship size

254、.Imputing berth hours.From the base call size group,moving left toward the lowest group and right toward the highest group,in groups where no value exists,a value is determined on a pro rata basis given the adjacent call size group value,actual data or imputed.The rationale is that if within one cal

255、l size group a port has either higher or lower berth hours than the average,the adjacent call size group too is likely to show similar trends.The Approach and Methodology|30Table 2.10 provides an example.In this case,port A had a higher quantity of hours in the base call size group than the group av

256、erage.It is assumed that would also have been the case had the port registered actual calls in the 5011,000 and 1,5012,000 call size groups.The opposite is true for port B,which achieved a lower quantity of hours in the base call size group.The calculation for port A in the 5011,000 call size group

257、is actual hours within the group 1,0011,500(12.0)multiplied by the group average factor(0.9)for a prorated quantity of average berth hours of(10.8).Table 2.10 Example of Imputing Missing ValuesPortCall Size Group5011,0001,0011,5001,5012,000Port A10.812.014.4Port B7.28.09.6Group Average9.010.012.0Fac

258、tor Multiplier0.9Base1.2Source:Original table produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 dataNote:The numbers in the green highlighted cells have been imputed by multiplying the base cells by the factor multiplier determined by the overall group average.The inherent risk with this approach is

259、that poor or good performance within just one group will cascade across all call size groups.It also assumes that a port can add cranes to larger call size groups,which might not be true in all cases.On the other hand,it would be illogical to assume that any port would simply achieve the average of

260、the entire group or that a port performing below average in one call size group would perform much better than average in others where it did not record any actual calls.Imputing Missing Values:the Statistical ApproachA more rigorous approach is used for the statistical approach through the use of a

261、 likelihood-based method to impute those missing values.With respect of the current data set,the expectation-maximization(EM)algorithm can be utilized to provide a maximum-likelihood estimator for each missing value.This approach relies on two critical assumptions:The first one is that the missing v

262、alues are random,that is,it is not due to some bias in the sample selection;and the second one is that the variables under consideration are all normally distributed.These assumptions are not considered unrealistic in the context of the data set.EM then computes the maximum likelihood estimator for

263、the mean and variance of the normal distribution given the observed data.Knowing the distribution that generates the missing data,one can then sample from it to impute the missing values.6Constructing the CPPI 2022 Index Using a Ranking Aggregation MethodThe CPPI has in previous iterations utilized

264、two distinct methodologies:the administrative,or technical approach that employs expert knowledge and judgment to produce a practical methodology,and a statistical approach that utilizes factor analysis(FA).CPPI 2022 goes a step further to aggregate the two rankings to produce one index that to pres

265、ent the performance of ports via both methodologies.31|The Approach and MethodologyBorda-type approach for index aggregationRank aggregation,that is the process of combining multiple rankings into a single ranking,is an important problem arising in many areas(Langville and Meyer 2012).For example,in

266、 a ranked voting system,citizens rank candidates in their order of preference and a single winner needs to be determined.Similarly,recommender systems and search engines can produce many different rankings of items that are likely to be of interest to a given user.Such rankings can naturally be aggr

267、egated to produce a more robust list of items(Pappa et al.2020).Many strategies were proposed in the literature to combine several rankings into one that is as consistent as possible with the individual rankings(Langville and Meyer 2012,Fagin et al.2003,Dwork et al.2001,Dwork et al.2012,Oliveira et

268、al.2020)and references therein.The Borda count(Langville and Meyer 2012,Chapter 14)provides a simple and effective approach for aggregating rankings,wherein each item to rank is given points according to the number of items it outranks in its segment.These points are added and then used to produce a

269、 new ranking.Our approach to combine the administrative and the statistical rankings is inspired by the Borda count,but also considers the index values for attributing the number of points.The process is as follows:First,each index is scaled to take values into the interval 0,1.This is accomplished

270、by applying the following linear transformation:where m is the minimum value of the index and M the maximum value.Observe that the port with the smallest index is always given a scaled value of 0 and the port with largest index a scaled value of 1.The other ports get a scaled value between 0 and 1.O

271、nce the indices are scaled,they are added to produce a combined index.Finally,a ranking is obtained by sorting the ports according to the combined index in decreasing order.Thus,the port with the largest combined index is ranked first and the port with the smallest combined index is ranked last.Tabl

272、e 2.11 An Example of Aggregated Rankings for Four Ports with Randomly Generated Administrative and Statistical Index ValuesPortsAdministrative IndexStatistical IndexScaled Administrative IndexScaled Statistical IndexCombined IndexFinal RankingPort 11.451.971.0001.0002.0001Port 21.261.210.6780.3921.0

273、703Port 31.231.310.6270.4721.0992Port 40.860.720.0000.0000.0004Source:Original table produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 data.For example,the scaled administrative index value of Port 2(x=1.26)is computed as follows:the minimum and maximum values of the administrative index are m=0.86 a

274、nd M=1.45.Thus,the scaled value is The Approach and Methodology|32References Langville,Amy N.,and Carl D.Meyer.Whos#1?:the Science of Rating and Ranking.Princeton University Press,2012.Fagin,Ronald,Ravi Kumar,and Dakshinamurthi Sivakumar.Comparing Top k lists.SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics 17,

275、no.1(2003):134-160.Dwork,Cynthia,Ravi Kumar,Moni Naor,and D.Sivakumar.Rank Aggregation Revisited.(2001):613-622.Dwork,Cynthia,Ravi Kumar,Moni Naor,and Dandapani Sivakumar.Rank Aggregation Methods for the Web.In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on World Wide Web,pp.613-622.2001.Ali,Al

276、nur,and Marina Meil.Experiments with Kemeny Ranking:What Works When?Mathematical Social Sciences 64,no.1(2012):28-40.Oliveira,Samuel EL,Victor Diniz,Anisio Lacerda,Luiz Merschmanm,and Gisele L.Pappa.Is Rank Aggregation Effective in Recommender Systems?An Experimental Analysis.ACM Transactions on Int

277、elligent Systems and Technology(TIST)11,no.2(2020):1-26.33|The Approach and Methodology33.The Container Port Performance Index 2022IntroductionThe rankings of container port performance,based on the ranking aggregation approach,are presented in this chapter.The following section presents the ranking

278、s for the top 100 best performing container ports,with the full rankings of all ports by both approaches presented in Appendix A.The subsequent sections present a summary by region and port throughput(large,medium,small),so ports in the same region,or with the same throughput within broad categories

279、,can be easily compared.The CPPI 2022Table 3.1 presents the rankings of container port performance in the CPPI 2022.It reflects the aggregation of the scores from the results from the administrative approach and the statistical approach in the manner described in the previous section.In the aggregat

280、e index,the two top-ranked container ports in the CPPI 2022 are Yangshan Port(China)in first place,followed by the Port of Salalah(Oman)in second place.These two ports occupy the same positions in the rankings generated by the constituent approaches.The Port of Salalah was ranked second in both appr

281、oaches in CPPI 2021,while the Yangshan Port ranked third and fourth in the statistical and administrative approaches,respectively,in CPPI 2021.The Container Port Performance Index 2022|34Port NameOverall RankingJeddah29Pipavav30Dammam31Coronel32Xiamen33Barcelona34Callao35Port Klang36Incheon37Jebel A

282、li38Fuzhou39Marsaxlokk40Yarimca41Dalian42Lazaro Cardenas43Wilmington(USA-N Carolina)44Kobe45Nagoya46Shimizu47Mundra48Sohar49Rio Grande(Brazil)50Piraeus51Port Of Virginia52Yantian53Tokyo54Altamira55Haifa56Port NameOverall RankingYangshan1Salalah2Khalifa Port3Tanger-Mediterranean4Cartagena(Colombia)5T

283、anjung Pelepas6Ningbo7Hamad Port8Guangzhou9Port Said10Hong Kong11Cai Mep12Shekou13Mawan14Yokohama15Algeciras16King Abdullah Port17Singapore18Posorja19Tianjin20Buenaventura21Busan22Yeosu23Chiwan24Kaohsiung25Djibouti26Laem Chabang27Colombo28Table 3.1 The CPPI 202235|The Container Port Performance Inde

284、x 2022Three ports in the Middle East have secured positions among the top 10 spots.Three of the large Chinese gatewaysShanghai(Yangshan),Ningbo,and the southern port of Guangzhoumaintained places in the top 10.Of the top 10 ranked ports,nine have either maintained or improved their position since CP

285、PI 2021.The exception is Hamad Port,which moved down five and three places(provide the rankings,sincetheyre specified for Yokohama and Jeddah)in the administrative and statistical rankings,respectively.Yokohama fell from the 10th and 12th ranks in CPPI 2021 to the 15th in CPPI 2022,and Jeddah fell f

286、rom the 8th(provide both administrative and statistical rankings)to 29th.There are 14 new entrants to the CPPI 2022,and several significant gainers in terms of ranking.Over 110 ports improved their rankings in CPPI 2022 over CPPI 2021,with some of the largest gainers moving up more than 200 position

287、s.In contrast,200 ports fell in the CPPI 2022 rankings,some falling nearly 260 positions,which is 40 positions fewer than the biggest fall in the previous CPPI edition.Port NameOverall RankingAmbarli57Jubail58Aqaba59Bremerhaven60Itapoa61Zeebrugge62Da Chan Bay Terminal One63Krishnapatnam64Zhoushan65A

288、ntwerp66Rio De Janeiro67Savona-Vado68Boston(USA)69Keelung70Santa Cruz De Tenerife71Paranagua72Khalifa Bin Salman73Siam Seaport74Diliskelesi75Balboa76Shantou77Kattupalli78Port NameOverall RankingKamarajar79Osaka80Colon81Jacksonville82Lianyungang83Karachi84Hazira85Jawaharlal Nehru Port86Puerto Limon87

289、Cochin88Port Everglades89Muhammad Bin Qasim90Johor91Penang92Aarhus93Puerto Cortes94Fort-De-France95Pointe-A-Pitre96Tanjung Perak97Philadelphia98Veracruz99Nemrut Bay100Source:Original table produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 dataThe CPPI 2022 shows reduced discrepancies between the two

290、approaches compared to its previous edition.In CPPI 2022,40 percent of all ports(140 ports)are ranked within three places or less from themselves in the dual rankings(a 2 percent improvement).In CPPI 2021,38 percent of all ports(139 ports)are ranked within three places or less from themselves in the

291、 dual rankings(a 20 percent improvement).In CPPI 2020,just under 18 percent of all ports(61 ports)were ranked within three places or less from themselves in the dual rankings.The reduction in discrepancies contributes significantly to having a well-balanced aggregated index.The Container Port Perfor

292、mance Index 2022|36Ranking by RegionThis section presents an overview of the outcomes from the CPPI 2022 report.The first edition of CPPI was modified based on requests for the presentation of results and rankings by region and throughput for an improved comparison of ports within the same region an

293、d those with similar throughput.The subsequent sections include a concise tabulation of the results and ranking(from Table 3.2)for the designated regions.North America(United States and Canada)Central America,South America,and the Caribbean Region West,Central,and South Asia(Saudi Arabia to Banglade

294、sh)East Asia(Myanmar to Japan)Oceania(Australia,New Zealand,and the Pacific Islands)Sub-Saharan Africa Europe and North AfricaTable 3.2 The CPPI by Region:North America Port NameRegionOverall RankingWilmington(USA-N Carolina)NAM44Port Of VirginiaNAM52Boston(USA)NAM69JacksonvilleNAM82Port EvergladesN

295、AM89PhiladelphiaNAM98New OrleansNAM113Port Tampa BayNAM145Apra HarborNAM203MiamiNAM217Saint JohnNAM233MobileNAM238HuenemeNAM242HalifaxNAM278SeattleNAM279MontrealNAM292Baltimore(USA)NAM300New York&New JerseyNAM30637|The Container Port Performance Index 2022Port NameRegionOverall RankingTacomaNAM314Ho

296、ustonNAM335Los AngelesNAM336CharlestonNAM340Prince RupertNAM342OaklandNAM343Long BeachNAM346Vancouver(Canada)NAM347SavannahNAM348Source:Original table produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 dataTable 3.3 The CPPI by Region:Central America,South America,and the Caribbean RegionPort NameRegi

297、onOverall RankingCartagena(Colombia)Lac5PosorjaLac19BuenaventuraLac21CoronelLac32CallaoLac35Lazaro CardenasLac43Rio Grande(Brazil)Lac50AltamiraLac55ItapoaLac61Rio De JaneiroLac67ParanaguaLac72BalboaLac76ColonLac81Puerto LimonLac87Puerto CortesLac94Fort-De-FranceLac95Pointe-A-PitreLac96VeracruzLac99P

298、aitaLac101EnsenadaLac105ImbitubaLac108SantosLac114PecemLac116Puerto BarriosLac119Port NameRegionOverall RankingSalvadorLac120Puerto QuetzalLac129San JuanLac130Santa MartaLac131LirquenLac141Puerto Bolivar(Ecuador)Lac147CaucedoLac148Rio HainaLac158Puerto ProgresoLac162BarranquillaLac164GustaviaLac167P

299、hilipsburgLac169VitoriaLac170Buenos AiresLac174SuapeLac178SepetibaLac182ValparaisoLac188Vila Do CondeLac190MarielLac209Caldera(Costa Rica)Lac211La GuairaLac212NassauLac229Point Lisas PortsLac232ManausLac236The Container Port Performance Index 2022|38Port NameRegionOverall RankingAricaLac237Port Of S

300、painLac239ItajaiLac240San AntonioLac253Puerto CabelloLac255San VicenteLac257CorintoLac259Santo Tomas De CastillaLac263Kingston(Jamaica)Lac266Port NameRegionOverall RankingMejillonesLac272Manzanillo(Mexico)Lac282GuayaquilLac283IquiqueLac284AntofagastaLac286AcajutlaLac288MontevideoLac304CristobalLac30

301、5Freeport(Bahamas)Lac317Source:Original table produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 dataTable 3.4 The CPPI by Region:West,Central,and South Asia(Saudi Arabia to Bangladesh)Port NameRegionOverall RankingSalalahWCSA2Khalifa PortWCSA3Hamad PortWCSA8King Abdullah PortWCSA17ColomboWCSA28Jeddah

302、WCSA29PipavavWCSA30DammamWCSA31Jebel AliWCSA38MundraWCSA48SoharWCSA49JubailWCSA58AqabaWCSA59KrishnapatnamWCSA64Khalifa Bin SalmanWCSA73KattupalliWCSA78KamarajarWCSA79KarachiWCSA84HaziraWCSA85Jawaharlal Nehru PortWCSA86CochinWCSA88Muhammad Bin QasimWCSA90ChennaiWCSA11039|The Container Port Performanc

303、e Index 2022Port NameRegionOverall RankingVisakhapatnamWCSA115ShuaibaWCSA121SharjahWCSA127ShuwaikhWCSA142Umm QasrWCSA165AdenWCSA262ChattogramWCSA307Source:Original table produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 dataPort NameRegionOverall RankingYangshanEAS1Tanjung PelepasEAS6NingboEAS7Guangz

304、houEAS9Hong KongEAS11Cai MepEAS12ShekouEAS13MawanEAS14YokohamaEAS15SingaporeEAS18TianjinEAS20BusanEAS22YeosuEAS23ChiwanEAS24KaohsiungEAS25Laem ChabangEAS27XiamenEAS33Port KlangEAS36IncheonEAS37FuzhouEAS39DalianEAS42KobeEAS45NagoyaEAS46ShimizuEAS47YantianEAS53TokyoEAS54Da Chan Bay Terminal OneEAS63Ta

305、ble 3.5 The CPPI by Region:East Asia(Myanmar to Japan)Port NameRegionOverall RankingZhoushanEAS65KeelungEAS70Siam SeaportEAS74ShantouEAS77OsakaEAS80LianyungangEAS83JohorEAS91PenangEAS92Tanjung PerakEAS97YokkaichiEAS102NahaEAS104Cat LaiEAS107HakataEAS109DanangEAS117SaigonEAS124TaichungEAS125Tanjung E

306、masEAS132OmaezakiEAS133BatangasEAS135MojiEAS136HaiphongEAS140CebuEAS143Quy NhonEAS146Chu LaiEAS155Cagayan De OroEAS156QingdaoEAS171Subic BayEAS193The Container Port Performance Index 2022|40Port NameRegionOverall RankingTomakomaiEAS208BelawanEAS214ShanghaiEAS215PanjangEAS228Source:Original table pro

307、duced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 dataTable 3.6 The CPPI by Region:Oceania(Australia,New Zealand,and the Pacific Islands)Port NameRegionOverall RankingNoumeaOCE128PapeeteOCE139WellingtonOCE153BluffOCE191Bell BayOCE192NelsonOCE204TimaruOCE250MelbourneOCE273LaeOCE274Otago HarbourOCE276Adel

308、aideOCE277BrisbaneOCE287Port BotanyOCE299FremantleOCE310LytteltonOCE313NapierOCE322AucklandOCE323TaurangaOCE325Source:Original table produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 dataPort NameRegionOverall RankingBangkokEAS243DavaoEAS251Tanjung PriokEAS281ManilaEAS32941|The Container Port Perform

309、ance Index 2022Table 3.7 The CPPI by Region:Sub-Saharan Africa Port NameRegionOverall RankingDjiboutiSSA26BerberaSSA144ConakrySSA189DakarSSA196MatadiSSA197TemaSSA205MogadiscioSSA221BeiraSSA223FreetownSSA226ToamasinaSSA227TakoradiSSA245MaputoSSA248Port VictoriaSSA249Lagos(Nigeria)SSA260MayotteSSA267M

310、onroviaSSA271OwendoSSA275Port ElizabethSSA291Walvis BaySSA293DoualaSSA295San Pedro(Cote Divoire)SSA296Port ReunionSSA298OnneSSA302Tin Can IslandSSA308Dar Es SalaamSSA312Pointe-NoireSSA315LomeSSA318Kribi Deep Sea PortSSA324MombasaSSA326Port LouisSSA327CotonouSSA330NouakchottSSA331AbidjanSSA333LuandaS

311、SA337NgquraSSA338DurbanSSA341Cape TownSSA344Source:Original table produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 dataThe Container Port Performance Index 2022|42Port NameRegionOverall RankingTanger-MediterraneanENA4Port SaidENA10AlgecirasENA16BarcelonaENA34MarsaxlokkENA40YarimcaENA41PiraeusENA51Ha

312、ifaENA56AmbarliENA57BremerhavenENA60ZeebruggeENA62AntwerpENA66Savona-VadoENA68Santa Cruz De TenerifeENA71DiliskelesiENA75AarhusENA93Nemrut BayENA100LimassolENA103MalagaENA106GemlikENA111MersinENA112WilhelmshavenENA118GothenburgENA122Gioia TauroENA123Port AkdenizENA126GijonENA134IzmirENA137VigoENA138

313、FredericiaENA149OdessaENA150HelsingborgENA151CadizENA152Nantes-St NazaireENA154AnconaENA157CasablancaENA159BarENA160RavennaENA161SalernoENA163OsloENA166Table 3.8 The CPPI by Region:Europe and North Africa Port NameRegionOverall RankingBorusanENA168El DekheilaENA172DamiettaENA173LeixoesENA175BrestENA

314、176LatakiaENA177LarvikENA179BurgasENA180NorrkopingENA181Muuga-Port Of TallinnENA183BariENA184CivitavecchiaENA185SinesENA186CopenhagenENA187NovorossiyskENA194KlaipedaENA195CataniaENA198PalermoENA199RaumaENA200HeraklionENA201KristiansandENA202BilbaoENA206TrapaniENA207RadesENA210BordeauxENA213LisbonENA

315、216MarseilleENA218Tripoli(Lebanon)ENA219HelsinkiENA220KotkaENA222AlicanteENA224GdyniaENA225BatumiENA230RigaENA231TeesportENA234SouthamptonENA235VarnaENA241St PetersburgENA244VeniceENA24643|The Container Port Performance Index 2022Port NameRegionOverall RankingGavleENA247AgadirENA252DurresENA254Bejai

316、aENA256DublinENA258LondonENA261FelixstoweENA264RotterdamENA265Alexandria(Egypt)ENA268SokhnaENA269NaplesENA270IskenderunENA280TarragonaENA285GdanskENA289PotiENA290Port NameRegionOverall RankingConstantzaENA294AshdodENA297ValenciaENA301Qasr AhmedENA303LivornoENA309DunkirkENA311GenoaENA316Le HavreENA31

317、9BeirutENA320ThessalonikiENA321HamburgENA328La SpeziaENA332RijekaENA334TriesteENA339KoperENA345Source:Original table produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 dataRanking by ThroughputThis section presents the CPPI 2022 by throughput.It offers a summary tabulation(from Table 3.9)by throughput

318、 using the following defined ranges:Large:more than 4 million TEUs per year Medium:between 0.5 million and 4 million TEUs per year Small:less than 0.5 million TEUs per yearTable 3.9 The CPPI by Throughput:Large Ports(More than 4 million TEUs per Year)Port NameRegionOverall RankingYangshanLarge1Salal

319、ahLarge2Khalifa PortLarge3Tanger-MediterraneanLarge4Tanjung PelepasLarge6NingboLarge7GuangzhouLarge9Hong KongLarge11Port NameRegionOverall RankingCai MepLarge12ShekouLarge13AlgecirasLarge16SingaporeLarge18TianjinLarge20BusanLarge22ChiwanLarge24KaohsiungLarge25The Container Port Performance Index 202

320、2|44Port NameRegionOverall RankingLaem ChabangLarge27ColomboLarge28JeddahLarge29XiamenLarge33Port KlangLarge36Jebel AliLarge38DalianLarge42MundraLarge48PiraeusLarge51YantianLarge53TokyoLarge54BremerhavenLarge60ZhoushanLarge65AntwerpLarge66ColonLarge81LianyungangLarge83Jawaharlal Nehru PortLarge86Por

321、t NameRegionOverall RankingTanjung PerakLarge97Cat LaiLarge107SantosLarge114SaigonLarge124QingdaoLarge171ShanghaiLarge215RotterdamLarge265Kingston(Jamaica)Large266Tanjung PriokLarge281ValenciaLarge301New York&New JerseyLarge306HamburgLarge328ManilaLarge329Los AngelesLarge336Long BeachLarge346Savanna

322、hLarge348Source:Original table produced for this publication,based on CPPI 2022 dataTable 3.10 The CPPI by Throughput:Medium Ports(between 0.5 million and 4 million TEUs per Year)Port NameRegionOverall RankingCartagena(Colombia)Medium5Hamad PortMedium8Port SaidMedium10MawanMedium14YokohamaMedium15Ki

323、ng Abdullah PortMedium17PosorjaMedium19BuenaventuraMedium21YeosuMedium23DjiboutiMedium26PipavavMedium30DammamMedium31BarcelonaMedium34CallaoMedium35IncheonMedium37FuzhouMedium39Port NameRegionOverall RankingMarsaxlokkMedium40Lazaro CardenasMedium43Wilmington(USA-N Carolina)Medium44KobeMedium45Nagoya

324、Medium46ShimizuMedium47SoharMedium49Rio Grande(Brazil)Medium50Port Of VirginiaMedium52AltamiraMedium55HaifaMedium56AmbarliMedium57JubailMedium58AqabaMedium59ZeebruggeMedium62Da Chan Bay Terminal OneMedium6345|The Container Port Performance Index 2022Port NameRegionOverall RankingKrishnapatnamMedium6

325、4Rio De JaneiroMedium67Savona-VadoMedium68Boston(USA)Medium69KeelungMedium70ParanaguaMedium72Siam SeaportMedium74DiliskelesiMedium75BalboaMedium76ShantouMedium77KattupalliMedium78OsakaMedium80JacksonvilleMedium82KarachiMedium84HaziraMedium85CochinMedium88Port EvergladesMedium89Muhammad Bin QasimMedi

326、um90JohorMedium91PenangMedium92AarhusMedium93VeracruzMedium99LimassolMedium103NahaMedium104HakataMedium109ChennaiMedium110GemlikMedium111MersinMedium112New OrleansMedium113DanangMedium117WilhelmshavenMedium118GothenburgMedium122Gioia TauroMedium123TaichungMedium125SharjahMedium127Santa MartaMedium13

327、1Tanjung EmasMedium132IzmirMedium137VigoMedium138Port NameRegionOverall RankingPapeeteMedium139HaiphongMedium140ShuwaikhMedium142CebuMedium143BerberaMedium144Puerto Bolivar(Ecuador)Medium147CaucedoMedium148OdessaMedium150WellingtonMedium153AnconaMedium157CasablancaMedium159Umm QasrMedium165OsloMediu

328、m166El DekheilaMedium172DamiettaMedium173Buenos AiresMedium174LeixoesMedium175LatakiaMedium177CivitavecchiaMedium185SinesMedium186ValparaisoMedium188ConakryMedium189Subic BayMedium193NovorossiyskMedium194KlaipedaMedium195DakarMedium196CataniaMedium198PalermoMedium199Apra HarborMedium203TemaMedium205

329、BilbaoMedium206RadesMedium210La GuairaMedium212BelawanMedium214MiamiMedium217MarseilleMedium218HelsinkiMedium220MogadiscioMedium221KotkaMedium222The Container Port Performance Index 2022|46Port NameRegionOverall RankingGdyniaMedium225FreetownMedium226ToamasinaMedium227PanjangMedium228BatumiMedium230

330、TeesportMedium234SouthamptonMedium235ManausMedium236MobileMedium238Port Of SpainMedium239ItajaiMedium240VarnaMedium241BangkokMedium243St PetersburgMedium244TakoradiMedium245VeniceMedium246GavleMedium247TimaruMedium250DavaoMedium251AgadirMedium252San AntonioMedium253DurresMedium254Puerto CabelloMediu

331、m255BejaiaMedium256DublinMedium258Lagos(Nigeria)Medium260LondonMedium261AdenMedium262Santo Tomas De CastillaMedium263FelixstoweMedium264Alexandria(Egypt)Medium268SokhnaMedium269NaplesMedium270MonroviaMedium271MelbourneMedium273OwendoMedium275Otago HarbourMedium276AdelaideMedium277HalifaxMedium278Por

332、t NameRegionOverall RankingSeattleMedium279IskenderunMedium280Manzanillo(Mexico)Medium282GuayaquilMedium283IquiqueMedium284BrisbaneMedium287AcajutlaMedium288GdanskMedium289PotiMedium290Port ElizabethMedium291MontrealMedium292ConstantzaMedium294DoualaMedium295San Pedro(Cote Divoire)Medium296AshdodMed

333、ium297Port ReunionMedium298Port BotanyMedium299Baltimore(USA)Medium300OnneMedium302Qasr AhmedMedium303MontevideoMedium304CristobalMedium305ChattogramMedium307Tin Can IslandMedium308LivornoMedium309FremantleMedium310Dar Es SalaamMedium312LytteltonMedium313TacomaMedium314Pointe-NoireMedium315GenoaMedium316Freeport(Bahamas)Medium317LomeMedium318Le HavreMedium319BeirutMedium320NapierMedium322AucklandM