ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Mar. Sci.
Sec. Marine Affairs and Policy
Volume 12 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fmars.2025.1656657
This article is part of the Research TopicSmartization and Resilience of Ports and ShippingView all articles
Evaluation of development performance of port cluster: The case of Yangtze River Delta port cluster
Provisionally accepted
- 1Shanghai Maritime University, pudong, China
- 2Tangshan Pilot Station, Tangshan, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Since the last round of government-led provincial port reforms, China's port clusters have developed rapidly. Despite being China's most significant port cluster, the Yangtze River Delta (YRD) port cluster faces certain constraints in its development process, which hinder it from fully realizing its potential. This paper aims to clarify the advantages and constraints of the Yangtze River Delta port cluster development through a comprehensive and systematic evaluation, which is crucial for optimizing the cluster's collective efficiency and effectiveness. By examining the current developmental status and leveraging theories of port competitiveness and system science, a comprehensive evaluation model and indicator system for the port cluster are developed. The evaluation model S = P × k quantifies port cluster performance, where S represents the comprehensive evaluation score, P denotes overall competitiveness (hard power), and k signifies the harmony coefficient (system coordination). Dimension partitioning follows three guiding principles: functional differentiation between quantitative competitiveness measures and qualitative system coordination metrics; hierarchical decomposition from macro-level cluster performance to micro-level operational indicators; and dynamic equilibrium consideration between intra-cluster competition and cooperation effects. The indicator system comprises three hierarchical levels: two Level-1 indicators -Overall competitiveness (incorporating four Level-2 indicators including economic scale) and System harmony (measured by two Level-2 indicators: the degree of cooperation and competition among constituent ports), along with ten Level-3 operational indicators (e.g., total cargo throughput). Employing a hybrid objective-subjective methodology, this paper determines the weights of these evaluation indicators using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Subsequently, the developmental level and overall performance of the Yangtze River Delta port cluster are assessed with the evaluation model. The evaluation results show a clear performance hierarchy: Shanghai port cluster leads (0.230), preceding Zhejiang (0.178) and Jiangsu (0.127), whereas Anhui (0.020) occupies the lowest position. These disparities emphasize how varying regional governance models and operational elements critically affect composite evaluation scores. In light of the evaluation outcomes and the actual development status, optimization strategies are proposed to address the existing problems in this large port cluster.
Keywords: Port cluster, Port performance, Comprehensive evaluation, port development, AHP, Overall competitiveness
Received: 30 Jun 2025; Accepted: 05 Aug 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Wang, Zhang and Lu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Jie Wang, Shanghai Maritime University, pudong, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.