# Port Economics, Management and Policy > A comprehensive analysis of the port industry > Generated by All in One SEO Pro v5.0.3, this is an llms-full.txt file, used by LLMs to index the site. ## Posts ### [Latest Posts](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/latest-posts/) **Published:** December 19, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/latest-posts/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/latest-posts/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/latest-posts/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/latest-posts/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Main Physical Elements of a Port (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-physical-elements-of-a-port-new-page/) **Published:** November 16, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_physical_elements3.png?resize=900%2C519&ssl=1 "Main Physical Elements of a Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Physical Elements of a PortA generic representation of the main physical elements of a contemporary port. Helpful when introducing port infrastructure to an audience. [Main Physical Elements of a Port \| Port Economics, Management and Policy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/main-physical-elements-port/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-physical-elements-of-a-port-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-physical-elements-of-a-port-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-physical-elements-of-a-port-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-physical-elements-of-a-port-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Global cruise passengers carried (update)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/global-cruise-passengers-carried-update/) **Published:** March 17, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** 2020 cruise passengers figures underline the sharp impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on cruises. The industry lost more than 20 million passengers between 2019 and 2020 (from 27.5 million to 7 million). Since then, the recovery has been impressive: 31.7 million passengers cruised in 2023, and forecasts estimate the reach of 40 million cruise passengers per year as early as 2028. > [Global Cruise Passengers Carried and Growth Rates, 1990-2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/global-cruise-passengers-carried-rates/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/global-cruise-passengers-carried-update/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/global-cruise-passengers-carried-update/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/global-cruise-passengers-carried-update/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/global-cruise-passengers-carried-update/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Maritime Zones and Legal Boundaries (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-zones-and-legal-boundaries-new-page/) **Published:** October 25, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/maritime_zones_legal.png?resize=900%2C512&ssl=1 "Maritime Zones and Legal Boundaries | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maritime Zones and Legal BoundariesMaritime zones and their jurisdiction are well covered in maritime law, particularly over the issue of territorial sea and exclusive economic zones. A new page provides a synthetic representation of the main maritime zones and their implications for ports. [Maritime Zones and Legal Boundaries \| Port Economics, Management and Policy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/maritime-zones-legal-boundaries/?w3tc_note=pgcache_purge_post) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-zones-and-legal-boundaries-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-zones-and-legal-boundaries-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-zones-and-legal-boundaries-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-zones-and-legal-boundaries-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Main sources of cyberattacks (new)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-sources-of-cyberattacks-new/) **Published:** December 17, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Added a page describing the main sources of cyberattacks, including those that can impact the maritime and port industry. Financial gain remains one of the core drivers, but activism may use cyberattacks to disrupt operations and damage the reputation of the organization. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cyberattacks_sources-1024x552.png?resize=900%2C485&ssl=1 "| Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Sources of CyberattacksMain Sources of Cyberattacks \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-sources-of-cyberattacks-new/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-sources-of-cyberattacks-new/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-sources-of-cyberattacks-new/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-sources-of-cyberattacks-new/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [New Chapter about Ports and the Circular Economy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/new-chapter-about-ports-and-the-circular-economy/) **Published:** December 19, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/circular_transition_phases_ports.png?resize=900%2C335&ssl=1 "Circular Economy Transition Phases for Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Circular Economy Transition Phases for PortsThe [Ports and the Circular Economy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-circular-economy/ "Chapter 2.7 – Ports and the Circular Economy") chapter is the latest addition to Port Economics, Management, and Policy. It is a collaboration between the main authors of the textbook: Theo Notteboom, Thanos Pallis, and Jean-Paul Rodrigue. The main issues covered include: - The potential and the role of ports in circular economy implementation. - The impacts of the circular economy on seaport ecosystems. - A critical synthesis of what already exists concerning the role of ports in a circular economy also provides new concepts and ideas. - A circularity strategy for ports. The chapter has been made possible with the support of Circular Flanders. Further information and background material on circularity in ports can be found in the Circular Ports section of the Circular Flanders website. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/new-chapter-about-ports-and-the-circular-economy/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/new-chapter-about-ports-and-the-circular-economy/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/new-chapter-about-ports-and-the-circular-economy/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/new-chapter-about-ports-and-the-circular-economy/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Amazon Inbound Cross Dock Facilities Network (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/amazon-inbound-cross-dock-facilities-network-new-page/) **Published:** October 13, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/amazon_idx.png?resize=900%2C560&ssl=1 "Amazon Inbound Cross Dock Facilities Network | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Amazon Inbound Cross Dock Facilities NetworkMajor online retailers, such as Amazon, have replicated and adapted the inbound cross-docking facilities developed by conventional retailers in the 1990s to transload containers into domestic loads. Such facilities have pronounced port-centric locations. In the United States, more than 61% of the footprint of the inbound cross-docking facilities developed by Amazon are on the East and West coasts, with a Pacific orientation. [Amazon Inbound Cross Dock Facilities Network \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-distribution-networks/amazon-inbound-cross-dock/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/amazon-inbound-cross-dock-facilities-network-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/amazon-inbound-cross-dock-facilities-network-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/amazon-inbound-cross-dock-facilities-network-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/amazon-inbound-cross-dock-facilities-network-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [American Foreign Trade by Maritime Containers, 2021](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/american-foreign-trade-by-maritime-containers-2021/) **Published:** September 28, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Considering the potential strike of dockworkers at US East and Gulf Coast ports, it is worth having a look at the composition of containerized imports and exports. They involve substantially different supply chains, implying that containerized imports (mainly retail goods) have little to do with the composition of exports (mainly commodities). ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/american_trade_containers.png?resize=900%2C419&ssl=1 "American Foreign Trade by Maritime Containers, 2024 (in TEUs) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")American Foreign Trade by Maritime Containers 2021 in TEUs[American Foreign Trade by Maritime Containers, 2021 \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/american-foreign-trade-maritime-containers/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/american-foreign-trade-by-maritime-containers-2021/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/american-foreign-trade-by-maritime-containers-2021/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/american-foreign-trade-by-maritime-containers-2021/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/american-foreign-trade-by-maritime-containers-2021/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Bunker Fuel Sales at the Port of Singapore (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/bunker-fuel-sales-at-the-port-of-singapore/) **Published:** September 28, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** An overview of bunker fuel sales in the world’s largest bunkering port, Singapore, indicates a substantial change in the market in 2020, when restrictions limiting the sulfur content of bunker fuels shifted from 3.5% to 0.5%. This global implementation has been phased in since 2010 and became active in 2020. This led to a switch to fuels such as Low Sulfur Fuel Oil, which now dominates. Alternative fuels, such as LNG, remain marginal but are growing. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/bunker_port_singapore.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Bunker Fuel Sales at the Port of Singapore, 2013-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Bunker Fuel Sales at the Port of Singapore 2013 2023[Bunker Fuel Sales at the Port of Singapore, 2013-2023 \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/ports-and-energy/bunker-fuel-sales-singapore/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/bunker-fuel-sales-at-the-port-of-singapore/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/bunker-fuel-sales-at-the-port-of-singapore/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/bunker-fuel-sales-at-the-port-of-singapore/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/bunker-fuel-sales-at-the-port-of-singapore/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Ship Capacity Measures (New page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ship-capacity-measures-new-page/) **Published:** September 20, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Added a new page explaining the basic ship capacity measures based on displacement (e.g. deadweight tonnage) and ship volume (e.g. gross and net tonnage). On occasion, these terms are confused with one another. An explanation is also provided for the unique TEU capacity measure for containerships. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ships_characteristics_capacity2.png?resize=900%2C454&ssl=1 "Ship Characteristics and Capacity Measures | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ship Characteristics and Capacity Measures[Ship Characteristics and Capacity Measures \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminals-and-terminal-operators/ship-characteristics-capacity-measures/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ship-capacity-measures-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ship-capacity-measures-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ship-capacity-measures-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ship-capacity-measures-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Chapter 2.6 – Ports and Energy Transition (new chapter)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chapter-2-6-ports-and-energy-transition-new-chapter/) **Published:** August 14, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** A [new draft chapter](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-energy-transition/ "Chapter 2.6 – Ports and Energy Transition") is now available. It covers the energy transition of ports, which have conventionally acted as energy transport, transformation, and generation platforms. With decarbonization, they are expected to play a greater role in future energy systems, but several challenges remain, including the electrification of port equipment and facilities. ![Ports as Energy Platforms](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ports_energy_platforms.png?resize=900%2C299&ssl=1 "Ports as Energy Platforms | Port Economics, Management and Policy")[Chapter 2.6 – Ports and Energy Transition \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-energy-transition/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chapter-2-6-ports-and-energy-transition-new-chapter/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chapter-2-6-ports-and-energy-transition-new-chapter/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chapter-2-6-ports-and-energy-transition-new-chapter/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chapter-2-6-ports-and-energy-transition-new-chapter/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Fundamental Characteristics of the Maritime Industry (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/fundamental-characteristics-of-the-maritime-industry-new-page/) **Published:** August 7, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Added a new page introducing the fundamental drivers of the maritime industry, simplified into six main categories. The maritime industry is mostly a tertiary sector built on the principle of derived demand. It is a capital-intensive industry relying on the interdependence of fixed and mobile assets for which the principle of economies of scale is more applicable than any other transport sector. Due to its diversity and complexity, it is a transaction-intensive industry. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/fundamentals_maritime_industry.png?resize=900%2C440&ssl=1 "Fundamental Characteristics of the Maritime Industry | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Fundamental Characteristics of the Maritime Industry[Fundamental Characteristics of the Maritime Industry \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/fundamentals-maritime-industry/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/fundamental-characteristics-of-the-maritime-industry-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/fundamental-characteristics-of-the-maritime-industry-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/fundamental-characteristics-of-the-maritime-industry-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/fundamental-characteristics-of-the-maritime-industry-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Elements of the Maritime Industry (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/elements-of-the-maritime-industry-new-page/) **Published:** August 2, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/elements_maritime_industry3.png?resize=900%2C449&ssl=1 "Elements of the Maritime Industry | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Elements of the Maritime IndustryAn attempt at enumerating the main elements composing the maritime industry. It includes the shipping industry, such as carriers and shipowners; the port industry, such as port authorities and terminal operators; the management and oversight of cargo and ships; and ancillary activities, such as finance, insurance, and bunkering. [Elements of the Maritime Industry \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/elements-maritime-industry/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/elements-of-the-maritime-industry-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/elements-of-the-maritime-industry-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/elements-of-the-maritime-industry-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/elements-of-the-maritime-industry-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Chapter about ports and green supply chains updated](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chapter-about-ports-and-green-supply-chains-updated/) **Published:** May 4, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** The chapter covers the underlying green supply chain strategies, often referred to as green logistics, in which ports act as nexuses. [Chapter 2.5 – Green Shipping, Ports and Supply Chain Management \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/green-supply-chain-management-ports/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chapter-about-ports-and-green-supply-chains-updated/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chapter-about-ports-and-green-supply-chains-updated/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chapter-about-ports-and-green-supply-chains-updated/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chapter-about-ports-and-green-supply-chains-updated/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Impacts of the Baltimore Bridge Collapse on Access to Its Main Port Terminal Facilities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/impacts-of-the-baltimore-bridge-collapse-on-access-to-its-main-port-terminal-facilities/) **Published:** March 28, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Baltimore.png?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Impacts of the Baltimore Bridge Collapse on Access to Its Main Port Terminal Facilities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Impacts of the Baltimore Bridge Collapse on Access to Its Main Port Terminal FacilitiesIn light of the Baltimore bridge collapse and the blockage of the port access channel, a new entry in Chapter 6.4 (Port Resilience) was written. It analyzes the impacts of the blockage on port supply chains. Since this is an unfolding event, the material will be revised as new information becomes available. [Impacts of the Baltimore Bridge Collapse on Access to Its Main Port Terminal Facilities \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-resilience/baltimore-bridge-collapse/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/impacts-of-the-baltimore-bridge-collapse-on-access-to-its-main-port-terminal-facilities/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/impacts-of-the-baltimore-bridge-collapse-on-access-to-its-main-port-terminal-facilities/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/impacts-of-the-baltimore-bridge-collapse-on-access-to-its-main-port-terminal-facilities/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/impacts-of-the-baltimore-bridge-collapse-on-access-to-its-main-port-terminal-facilities/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [The Digital Transformation of Ports (chapter update)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-digital-transformation-of-ports-chapter-update/) **Published:** March 23, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** The chapter covering digital transformation issues has been updated with recent trends and developments, including digitalization, digital ledgers, and cybersecurity. [Chapter 2.4 – The Digital Transformation of Ports \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/digital-transformation/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-digital-transformation-of-ports-chapter-update/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-digital-transformation-of-ports-chapter-update/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-digital-transformation-of-ports-chapter-update/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-digital-transformation-of-ports-chapter-update/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Inland Ports (chapter update)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/inland-ports-chapter-update/) **Published:** February 25, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/functions_inland_terminals2.png?resize=900%2C493&ssl=1 "Functions of Inland Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Functions of Inland TerminalsThe Port Economics, Management and Policy chapter covering inland ports has been reviewed. 1. A New Role for Inland Terminals. How inland terminals have played a growing role in hinterland transportation. 2. Driving Forces. The main factors behind the development of inland ports. 3. Functions within Transport Chains. The role they play is nodes within freight distribution systems. 4. The Regional Impacts of Inland Ports. The pronounced regionalism of inland ports. 5. Future Prospects. The main issues that may shape their development in the future. The chapter is fully available through this link: [Chapter 2.3 – Inland Ports / Dry Ports \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/inland-ports-chapter-update/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/inland-ports-chapter-update/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/inland-ports-chapter-update/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/inland-ports-chapter-update/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Port Hinterlands, Regionalization and Corridors (chapter update)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-hinterlands-regionalization-and-corridors-chapter-update/) **Published:** February 2, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/spatial_development_port_system3.png?resize=900%2C454&ssl=1 "The Spatial Development of a Port System | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Spatial Development of a Port SystemThe Port Economics, Management and Policy chapter covering port hinterlands has been reviewed. It focuses on the multiple aspects of the relationships ports have with their inland market areas, including: 1. The Hinterland Concept 2. The Hinterland and the Maritime-Land Interface 3. The Hinterland Focus of Market Players 4. Port Regionalization 5. Hinterland Accessibility 6. Transport Corridors 7. Cargo Bundling in Hinterland The full chapter is available through this link: [Chapter 2.2 – Port Hinterlands, Regionalization and Corridors \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-hinterlands-regionalization-and-corridors-chapter-update/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-hinterlands-regionalization-and-corridors-chapter-update/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-hinterlands-regionalization-and-corridors-chapter-update/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-hinterlands-regionalization-and-corridors-chapter-update/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Direct, Indirect and Induced Economic Effects of Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/direct-indirect-and-induced-economic-effects-of-ports/) **Published:** January 28, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_funnel_economic_development.png?resize=900%2C475&ssl=1 "The Port as a Funnel to Economic Development | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Port as a Funnel to Economic DevelopmentPorts can be catalysts for economic development through a series of effects. The direct benefits involve the revenues that accrue from port activity and arise from the various charges levied on ships and cargo for port use. The indirect benefits involve firms that import or export goods from the port, usually concerning its hinterland. The induced benefits to the economy include the benefits that filter through to the suppliers of input factors, such as income to labor directly employed in port-related activities and income to industries supplying the port with goods and services, creating indirect employment. A growing challenge, particularly with containerization, is that the indirect and induced benefits can take place in areas unrelated to a port. This is particularly the case for advanced services such as finance and insurance. Detailed explanation at the following link: [The Port as a Funnel to Economic Development \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7/port-and-economic-development/port-funnel-economic-development/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/direct-indirect-and-induced-economic-effects-of-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/direct-indirect-and-induced-economic-effects-of-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/direct-indirect-and-induced-economic-effects-of-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/direct-indirect-and-induced-economic-effects-of-ports/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [The Changing Geography of Seaports (update)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-changing-geography-of-seaports-update/) **Published:** January 21, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Maritime-Ranges-1.png?resize=900%2C328&ssl=1 "Major Maritime Ranges | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Major Maritime RangesPorts are embedded in their geography, with location factors impacted by technical constraints such as the nautical profile, port users, inland transport networks, and maritime shipping networks. This revised chapter extensively discusses these topics, which underlines that ports are contingent on geographical constraints and changing commercial and technical aspects of maritime shipping, including containerization, automation, and mega port facilities. In several cases, several port facilities have migrated to new sites. Available through the link below: [Chapter 2.1 – The Changing Geography of Seaports \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/changing-geography-of-seaports/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-changing-geography-of-seaports-update/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-changing-geography-of-seaports-update/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-changing-geography-of-seaports-update/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-changing-geography-of-seaports-update/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [The Seasonality of Container Port Activity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-seasonality-of-container-port-activity/) **Published:** January 20, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/monthly_container_traffic_share_ports2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Average Monthly Container Traffic Share, Selected Ports, 2005-2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Average Monthly Container Traffic Share Selected Ports 2005 2022The monthly distribution of the traffic of a sample of major container ports, which includes gateways and transshipment hubs, reveals noticeable fluctuations. January and February are the periods of lowest activity (8.0 and 7.3% of annual traffic activity, respectively), while August to October experience the highest throughput. In addition to the complexity of anticipating future traffic, port capacity planning also faces fluctuations associated with seasonal processes such as consumption and manufacturing cycles. Follow the link below for a more detailed overview: [Average Monthly Container Traffic Share, Selected Ports, 2005-2022 \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/changing-geography-of-seaports/average-monthly-container-traffic-share-selected-ports/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-seasonality-of-container-port-activity/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-seasonality-of-container-port-activity/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-seasonality-of-container-port-activity/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-seasonality-of-container-port-activity/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [The Red Sea Crisis and Shipping Routes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-red-sea-crisis-and-shipping-routes/) **Published:** January 19, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Global-Shipping-Alternatives-1.png?resize=900%2C457&ssl=1 "Routing Options between Shanghai, Rotterdam and New York | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Routing Options between Shanghai Rotterdam and New YorkComparing the deviations of shipping routes between three major container ports (Shanghai, Rotterdam, and New York), the main connecting alternatives are limited. The Cape of Good Hope deviation adds 7 to 10 days on Asia-Europe routes (Shanghai to Rotterdam) and about 5 days to connect Shanghai and New York through the Cape Route instead of the Suez Route (using 16 knots as the reference speed). Landbridge issues are also discussed. Follow the link for a more comprehensive discussion on the impacts on maritime supply chains and a high-quality version of the map. Follow this link for the full piece: [Routing Options between Shanghai, Rotterdam and New York \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/routing-options-shanghai-rotterdam/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-red-sea-crisis-and-shipping-routes/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-red-sea-crisis-and-shipping-routes/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-red-sea-crisis-and-shipping-routes/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-red-sea-crisis-and-shipping-routes/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [2022 TEU-to-GDP multiplier lowest recorded](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/2022-teu-to-gdp-multiplier-lowest-recorded/) **Published:** January 1, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/teu_gdp_multiplier.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "| Port Economics, Management and Policy")TEU to GDP Multiplier 1985 2022In line with a [prior post](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/world-container-throughput-1980-2022-update/) underlining that 2022 represented the lowest growth of global container throughput in 40 years, 2022 also represented a threshold where the TEU-to-GDP multiplier almost reached zero for the first time (at 0.13). In the 2000s, this multiplier was around 3.5. Even if on an annual basis there is noticeable volatility, there is a clear downward trend. [TEU to GDP Multiplier, 1985-2022 \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/teu-to-gdp-multiplier/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/2022-teu-to-gdp-multiplier-lowest-recorded/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/2022-teu-to-gdp-multiplier-lowest-recorded/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/2022-teu-to-gdp-multiplier-lowest-recorded/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/2022-teu-to-gdp-multiplier-lowest-recorded/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [World Container Throughput, 1980-2022 (update)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/world-container-throughput-1980-2022-update/) **Published:** December 23, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/world_container_port_throughput.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "World Container Throughput, 1980-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")World Container Throughput 1980 20222022 represented the year with the lowest positive global container throughput growth in more than 40 years, at around 0.4%. A series of counter-forces are at play, including changes in outsourcing locations and high inflation in major consumer markets. Has peak containerization been reached? > [World Container Throughput, 1980-2022](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/world-container-throughput/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/world-container-throughput-1980-2022-update/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/world-container-throughput-1980-2022-update/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/world-container-throughput-1980-2022-update/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/world-container-throughput-1980-2022-update/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Interoceanic Passages Chapter Updated](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/interoceanic-passages-chapter-updated/) **Published:** December 14, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/world_major_bottlenecks_connectivity2.png?resize=900%2C455&ssl=1 "Connectivity Pattern of the World’s Major Maritime Bottlenecks | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Connectivity Pattern of the Worlds Major Maritime BottlenecksThe chapter about the most important interoceanic passages has been updated. It mainly discusses economic and strategic issues, including a detailed analysis of each passage. [Chapter 1.6 – Interoceanic Passages \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/interoceanic-passages-chapter-updated/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/interoceanic-passages-chapter-updated/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/interoceanic-passages-chapter-updated/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/interoceanic-passages-chapter-updated/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [New Chapter on the Containerization of Commodities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/new-chapter-on-the-containerization-of-commodities/) **Published:** December 10, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/commodity_group_containerization.png?resize=900%2C480&ssl=1 "Commodity Group and Containerization Level | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Commodity Group and Containerization LevelA new chapter focuses on how containers have been used to transport commodities, cargoes that are not necessarily part of its conventional market. [Chapter 8.5 – Containers: The Containerization of Commodities \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/containerization-of-commodities/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/new-chapter-on-the-containerization-of-commodities/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/new-chapter-on-the-containerization-of-commodities/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/new-chapter-on-the-containerization-of-commodities/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/new-chapter-on-the-containerization-of-commodities/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Global cruise passengers, 1990-2021](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/global-cruise-passengers-1990-2021/) **Published:** May 4, 2022 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/global_cruise_passengers.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Global Cruise Passengers Carried and Growth Rates, 1990-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Cruise Passengers Carried and Growth Rates 1990 2021The cruise industry experienced a comeback in 2021, but figures are about half of what they were at their 2019 peak. For instance, Caribbean cruises were interrupted in March 2020, only to resume in June 2021. [Global Cruise Passengers Carried and Growth Rates, 1990-2021 \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/global-cruise-passengers-carried-rates/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/global-cruise-passengers-1990-2021/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/global-cruise-passengers-1990-2021/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/global-cruise-passengers-1990-2021/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/global-cruise-passengers-1990-2021/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Value of Containerized Trade (new)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/value-of-containerized-trade-new/) **Published:** January 1, 2022 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Added a new page providing an estimate of the value to containerized trade, which stands at around $54,000 per TEU. However, this figure must take account of the substantial variety of goods carried in containers by trade lanes and that 40-foot containers tend to carry more valuable goods on a per TEU basis than 20-foot containers. 20-foot containers tend to weight-out while 40-foot containers tend to cube-out. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/value_containerized_trade.png?resize=900%2C465&ssl=1 "Value of Containerized Trade, 2020 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Value of Containerized Trade 2020[Value of Containerized Trade, 2020 \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/value-containerized-trade/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/value-of-containerized-trade-new/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/value-of-containerized-trade-new/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/value-of-containerized-trade-new/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/value-of-containerized-trade-new/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [The concept of cyber-resilience (new)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-concept-of-cyber-resilience-new/) **Published:** December 15, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Added a new page discussing the main dimensions of cybersecurity and the concept of cyber-resilience; implementing strategies that maintain the integrity of the IT of an organization from possible disruptions. This is mainly based on a report released by IAPH. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cyber-resiliency_measures.png?resize=900%2C517&ssl=1 "Cyber-Resiliency Measures for Information Technologies | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cyber Resiliency Measures for Information Technologies[Cyber-Resiliency Measures for Information Technologies \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/digital-transformation/cyber-resiliency-measures/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-concept-of-cyber-resilience-new/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-concept-of-cyber-resilience-new/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-concept-of-cyber-resilience-new/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-concept-of-cyber-resilience-new/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Main Maritime Shipping Routes (update)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-maritime-shipping-routes-update/) **Published:** December 4, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Updated the main maritime shipping routes page to include the Spilhaus projection, which displays all the world’s oceans as a single continuous body of water. This page served as background information for an article in the Wall Street Journal last march to explain the Suez Canal blockage. <https://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-consider-alternative-routes-assess-costs-as-suez-canal-blockage-continues-11616693465> [Main Maritime Shipping Routes \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-maritime-shipping-routes/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-maritime-shipping-routes-update/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-maritime-shipping-routes-update/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-maritime-shipping-routes-update/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-maritime-shipping-routes-update/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Textbook final proofs under review](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/textbook-final-proofs-under-review/) **Published:** November 4, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** We have received this week the final proofs for “Port Economics, Management and Policy” for review. The textbook currently stands at 624 pages and will be available in January 2022. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/title_page_copyright.png?resize=900%2C615&ssl=1 "title_page_copyright | Port Economics, Management and Policy")### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/textbook-final-proofs-under-review/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/textbook-final-proofs-under-review/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/textbook-final-proofs-under-review/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/textbook-final-proofs-under-review/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [The hinterland of single and multiple ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-hinterland-of-single-and-multiple-ports/) **Published:** October 31, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Created a new page depicting the growing complexity of port hinterlands when multiple ports and when two or more maritime ranges are involved. [The Hinterland of Single and Multiple Ports \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/hinterland-single-multiple-ports/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-hinterland-of-single-and-multiple-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-hinterland-of-single-and-multiple-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-hinterland-of-single-and-multiple-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-hinterland-of-single-and-multiple-ports/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Risk of hurricanes for container ports (new)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/risk-of-hurricanes-for-container-ports-new/) **Published:** October 24, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Added a new page trying to map the high-risk areas of container port disruptions due to hurricane activity. Coastal China, South Korea and Japan, and the American Eastern Seaboard are the areas with the highest risk levels. [Risk of Hurricanes for Global Container Ports, 2019 \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-resilience/hurricanes-global-container-ports/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/risk-of-hurricanes-for-container-ports-new/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/risk-of-hurricanes-for-container-ports-new/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/risk-of-hurricanes-for-container-ports-new/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/risk-of-hurricanes-for-container-ports-new/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Maritime ranges and hinterland accessibility](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-ranges-and-hinterland-accessibility/) **Published:** October 20, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Created a map depicting the world’s main maritime ranges and the general level of accessibility of their hinterlands. [Maritime Ranges and Hinterland Accessibility \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/maritime-ranges-hinterland-accessibility/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-ranges-and-hinterland-accessibility/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-ranges-and-hinterland-accessibility/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-ranges-and-hinterland-accessibility/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-ranges-and-hinterland-accessibility/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Global Trade and Container Throughput (update)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/global-trade-and-container-throughput-update/) **Published:** September 26, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** The ongoing growth of international trade, both in absolute terms and in relation to global national income, a growth that appears to be leveling off. From 1980 to 2020 the value of exports has grown by a factor of 8.9 times if measured in current dollars, while GDP increased 7.4 times and the population increased 1.7 times. Container throughput grew in proportion with global trade, but at a much higher rate. [Global Trade and Container Throughput (1970=100) \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-trade-container-throughput/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/global-trade-and-container-throughput-update/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/global-trade-and-container-throughput-update/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/global-trade-and-container-throughput-update/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/global-trade-and-container-throughput-update/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Textbook available for pre-order](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/textbook-available-for-pre-order/) **Published:** September 9, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Port Economics, Management and Policy is now available for pre-order at Routledge. Publication is expected for January 2022. [Port Economics, Management and Policy – 1st Edition – Theo Notteboom (routledge.com)](https://www.routledge.com/Port-Economics-Management-and-Policy/Notteboom-Pallis-Rodrigue/p/book/9780367331559) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/textbook-available-for-pre-order/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/textbook-available-for-pre-order/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/textbook-available-for-pre-order/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/textbook-available-for-pre-order/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [The concept of terminalization](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-concept-of-terminalization/) **Published:** August 21, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Added a new page explaining the terminalization of supply chains where (container) terminals can play a dual role; being a constraint or a buffer. Considering terminals as a constraint is a conventional effect on flows where the goal is to mitigate the cause of these constraints. Further, terminals can act as a buffer, or storage unit, that can be used for distributional advantages. With well-managed terminalization, a terminal can be considered as a distribution center within a supply chain; an extended distribution center. [Bottleneck and Warehousing-Derived Terminalization \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/bottleneck-warehousing-terminalization/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-concept-of-terminalization/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-concept-of-terminalization/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-concept-of-terminalization/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-concept-of-terminalization/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Full draft version available](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/full-draft-version-available/) **Published:** May 10, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** A full draft version of Port Economics, Management & Policy is now available and provides a comprehensive overview of the port industry. Researchers and educators are encouraged to adopt the material for their courses and seminars. Routledge is expected to publish the 250,000 words textbook with 235 figures later this year. This project is the outcome of an extensive collaboration between Theo Notteboom, Thanos Pallis, and Jean-Paul Rodrigue, and took more than a year and a half to draft. [Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/full-draft-version-available/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/full-draft-version-available/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/full-draft-version-available/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/full-draft-version-available/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Container terminal design and equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminal-design-and-equipment/) **Published:** April 29, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** A draft version of the chapter is now available. It covers main equipment issues for maritime and yard operations. Main differences between conventional and automated terminals are also discussed. [Chapter 3.4 – Container Terminal Design and Equipment \| Port Economics, Management and Policy (porteconomicsmanagement.org)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/container-terminal-design-equipment/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminal-design-and-equipment/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminal-design-and-equipment/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminal-design-and-equipment/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminal-design-and-equipment/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Financialization and terminal funding](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/financialization-and-terminal-funding/) **Published:** April 19, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** A draft version of the chapter covering the financing of port terminals is now available. Particular issues include financialization (the role of large financial institutions), financial risks, and financing models. [Chapter 3.3 – Financialization and Terminal Funding \| Port Economics, Management and Policy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/financialization-and-terminal-funding/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/financialization-and-terminal-funding/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/financialization-and-terminal-funding/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/financialization-and-terminal-funding/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Terminal concessions and land leases](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/) **Published:** April 14, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** The chapter covering terminal concessions is available. It includes the various arrangements, including PPP, and the concession awarding procedure. [Chapter 3.2 – Terminal Concessions and Land Leases \| Port Economics, Management and Policy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Terminals and terminal operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/terminals-and-terminal-operators/) **Published:** April 8, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Chapter 3.1 covering port terminals and terminal operators is now available as a completed draft. It covers extensively the terminal operating business and is abundantly illustrated. [Chapter 3.1 – Terminals and Terminal Operators \| Port Economics, Management and Policy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminals-and-terminal-operators/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/terminals-and-terminal-operators/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/terminals-and-terminal-operators/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/terminals-and-terminal-operators/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/terminals-and-terminal-operators/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Port resilience primer](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-resilience-primer/) **Published:** March 29, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** In light of the recent blockage of the Suez Canal, it is worth underlining that a draft section about port resilience is available. It covers a whole array of natural and anthropogenic factors, adaptation mechanisms, and tools for managing risks. [Chapter 6.4 – Port Resilience \| Port Economics, Management and Policy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-resilience/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-resilience-primer/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-resilience-primer/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-resilience-primer/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-resilience-primer/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Green supply chain management in ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/green-supply-chain-management-in-ports/) **Published:** March 27, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** A completed draft version of the chapter covering ports and green supply chains is available. It covers issues related to green procurement, energy, and the circular economy as they relate to ports. [Chapter 2.5 – Green Supply Chain Management in Ports \| Port Economics, Management and Policy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/green-supply-chain-management-ports/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/green-supply-chain-management-in-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/green-supply-chain-management-in-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/green-supply-chain-management-in-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/green-supply-chain-management-in-ports/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [The connectivity of maritime bottlenecks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-connectivity-of-maritime-bottlenecks/) **Published:** March 27, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** In addition to supporting major maritime trade routes, maritime bottlenecks such as Panama and Suez are also involved in large transshipment volumes. Long-distance connectivity is also complemented by feeder network connectivity that is associated with many bottlenecks. [Connectivity Pattern of the World’s Major Maritime Bottlenecks \| Port Economics, Management and Policy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/connectivity-pattern-worlds-major-maritime-bottlenecks/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-connectivity-of-maritime-bottlenecks/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-connectivity-of-maritime-bottlenecks/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-connectivity-of-maritime-bottlenecks/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-connectivity-of-maritime-bottlenecks/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Cruise ports and the sustainability challenge](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-ports-and-the-sustainability-challenge/) **Published:** March 27, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** On cruise ports and the sustainability challenge [Chapter 8.1 Cruise Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/cruises-ports/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-ports-and-the-sustainability-challenge/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-ports-and-the-sustainability-challenge/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-ports-and-the-sustainability-challenge/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-ports-and-the-sustainability-challenge/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [A primer about the Suez Canal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/a-primer-about-the-suez-canal/) **Published:** March 24, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** To better understand the role of interoceanic canals in global trade and maritime shipping. [Chapter 1.6 – Interoceanic Passages \| Port Economics, Management and Policy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/a-primer-about-the-suez-canal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/a-primer-about-the-suez-canal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/a-primer-about-the-suez-canal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/a-primer-about-the-suez-canal/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Ports and cruise shipping (new)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ports-and-cruise-shipping-new/) **Published:** March 18, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** The draft version of a new chapter covering cruise shipping is now available. > [Chapter 1.5 – Ports and Cruise Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ports-and-cruise-shipping-new/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ports-and-cruise-shipping-new/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ports-and-cruise-shipping-new/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ports-and-cruise-shipping-new/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Maritime Transportation Networks and Vulnerabilities (new)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-transportation-networks-and-vulnerabilities-new/) **Published:** February 7, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Added a new page discussing the core vulnerabilities of maritime networks and the dominant risk factors: concentration, substitutability and dependence. > [Maritime Transportation Networks and Vulnerabilities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-resilience/maritime-transportation-networks-vulnerabilities/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-transportation-networks-and-vulnerabilities-new/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-transportation-networks-and-vulnerabilities-new/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-transportation-networks-and-vulnerabilities-new/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-transportation-networks-and-vulnerabilities-new/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Trends and containership deployment (new)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/trends-and-containership-deployment-new/) **Published:** January 26, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Three concurrent trends are observed in the deployment of containerships; technical, geographical, and operational. Thanks to @JanHoffmann\_gva @UNCTAD @MdsTransmodal for the data. > [Trends in Containership Deployment, 2006-2020](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-container-shipping/containership-deployment-trends/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/trends-and-containership-deployment-new/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/trends-and-containership-deployment-new/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/trends-and-containership-deployment-new/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/trends-and-containership-deployment-new/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Cruise terminals operated by GHP (new)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-terminals-operated-by-ghp-new/) **Published:** January 6, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Like in the container terminal industry, cruise ports are being the object of concessionning for private cruise terminal operators. GPH is currently the world’s largest, having a portfolio including the Mediterranean, the Caribbean, and Southeast Asian ports. > [Cruise Terminals Operated by GPH, 2020](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=6314) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-terminals-operated-by-ghp-new/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-terminals-operated-by-ghp-new/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-terminals-operated-by-ghp-new/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-terminals-operated-by-ghp-new/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [The Nicaragua Canal Project (new)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-nicaragua-canal-project-new/) **Published:** January 5, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** An overview of the Nicaragua Canal project and its main challenges. Over the last century, the megaproject has been brought forward on several occasions, the last time in 2013. > [The Nicaragua Canal Project](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=464) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-nicaragua-canal-project-new/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-nicaragua-canal-project-new/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-nicaragua-canal-project-new/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-nicaragua-canal-project-new/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Container yard configurations (new)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-yard-configurations-new/) **Published:** January 3, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Container yards rely on different stacking methods, broadly divided between linear and block configurations. Higher stacking densities are usually associated with more capital investments in equipment such as gantry cranes. > [The Configuration of Container Yards](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=6129) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-yard-configurations-new/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-yard-configurations-new/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-yard-configurations-new/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-yard-configurations-new/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Circular economy in ports and maritime shipping (new)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/circular-economy-in-ports-and-maritime-shipping-new/) **Published:** December 30, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Overview of the core circularity principles impacting ports and maritime shipping. Each sector has unique characteristics over which the circular economy can be applied. As capital-intensive assets ships and ports are conductive to circularity principles extending their life-cycle The container is an ideal circular good.. > [The Circular Economy in Ports and Maritime Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=5951) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/circular-economy-in-ports-and-maritime-shipping-new/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/circular-economy-in-ports-and-maritime-shipping-new/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/circular-economy-in-ports-and-maritime-shipping-new/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/circular-economy-in-ports-and-maritime-shipping-new/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Functional and spatial development of a port (update)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/functional-and-spatial-development-of-a-port-update/) **Published:** December 21, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** A temporal, spatial and functional typology of port development. > [Functional and Spatial Development of a Seaport](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=928) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/functional-and-spatial-development-of-a-port-update/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/functional-and-spatial-development-of-a-port-update/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/functional-and-spatial-development-of-a-port-update/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/functional-and-spatial-development-of-a-port-update/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Blockchains and intermodal transportation (update)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/blockchains-and-intermodal-transportation-update/) **Published:** December 28, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** An overview of an intermodal transport chain sequence and the associated information flows that can be embedded in a blockchain. > [Blockchains and Intermodal Transportation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1016) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/blockchains-and-intermodal-transportation-update/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/blockchains-and-intermodal-transportation-update/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/blockchains-and-intermodal-transportation-update/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/blockchains-and-intermodal-transportation-update/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Functions of Selected Inland Ports (new)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/functions-of-selected-inland-ports-new/) **Published:** December 26, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** An overview of how inland ports are inserted within hinterland freight distribution in Europe and North America. > [Functions of Selected Inland Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=5822) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/functions-of-selected-inland-ports-new/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/functions-of-selected-inland-ports-new/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/functions-of-selected-inland-ports-new/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/functions-of-selected-inland-ports-new/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Containership size effect on port and hinterland traffic (new)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/containership-size-effect-on-port-and-hinterland-traffic-new/) **Published:** December 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Economies of scale in containerships have substantial impacts on terminal and hinterland operations, even if port traffic does not change. > [Impacts of Containership Size on Port and Hinterland Traffic](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=5689) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/containership-size-effect-on-port-and-hinterland-traffic-new/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/containership-size-effect-on-port-and-hinterland-traffic-new/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/containership-size-effect-on-port-and-hinterland-traffic-new/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/containership-size-effect-on-port-and-hinterland-traffic-new/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [The components of the Panama Canal (update)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-components-of-the-panama-canal-update/) **Published:** December 20, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** The major components of the Panama Canal including locks and supporting infrastructure. Both the Atlantic and Caribbean sides have seen the development of transshipment facilities, making Panama the most important transshipment cluster of the Americas. > [Main Components of the Panama Canal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=379) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-components-of-the-panama-canal-update/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-components-of-the-panama-canal-update/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-components-of-the-panama-canal-update/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-components-of-the-panama-canal-update/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Container traffic around the Gibraltar cluster](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-traffic-around-the-gibraltar-cluster/) **Published:** December 18, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** As an intermediary location between the Mediterranean, the Atlantic, and West Africa, the Gibraltar cluster has experienced rapid growth of transshipment volumes, in part attributed to the ongoing massification of containerships along the Europe / Middle East / Asia routes. > [Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Gibraltar](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=501) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-traffic-around-the-gibraltar-cluster/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-traffic-around-the-gibraltar-cluster/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-traffic-around-the-gibraltar-cluster/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-traffic-around-the-gibraltar-cluster/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Private Caribbean islands owned by cruise lines (new)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/private-caribbean-islands-owned-by-cruise-lines-new/) **Published:** December 18, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Several major cruise lines have secured long term leases on islands and beaches, particularly in the Bahamas. The main rationale relates to revenue generation, the provision of a beach experience, flexibility in port calls, and exclusivity. > [Private Islands in the Caribbean Owned by Cruise Lines](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1681) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/private-caribbean-islands-owned-by-cruise-lines-new/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/private-caribbean-islands-owned-by-cruise-lines-new/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/private-caribbean-islands-owned-by-cruise-lines-new/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/private-caribbean-islands-owned-by-cruise-lines-new/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Container traffic around the Suez cluster](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-traffic-around-the-suez-cluster/) **Published:** December 18, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** The Suez Canal is a major interoceanic passage supporting the massive Europe / Middle East / Asia shipping routes. It has experienced significant growth in transshipment activities. > [Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Suez Canal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=372) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-traffic-around-the-suez-cluster/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-traffic-around-the-suez-cluster/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-traffic-around-the-suez-cluster/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-traffic-around-the-suez-cluster/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Container traffic around the Panama cluster](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-traffic-around-the-panama-cluster/) **Published:** December 18, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Major bottlenecks of global maritime shipping are convenient locations for transshipment. The Panama cluster is no exception with more than 12 million TEUs handled in 2018. > [Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Panama Canal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=446) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-traffic-around-the-panama-cluster/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-traffic-around-the-panama-cluster/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-traffic-around-the-panama-cluster/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-traffic-around-the-panama-cluster/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Container Terminal Footprints (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminal-footprints-new-page/) **Published:** December 17, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Added a page dealing with an analysis and classification of the main types of container terminal footprints. Although the ideal footprint is rectangular, significant variations are observed because of physical, technical, and regulatory constraints. Recent land reclamation mega-projects tend to create rectangular container terminal footprints. For comparison, the terminals are all displayed at the same scale. > [Terminal Footprint, Selected Container Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=5298) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminal-footprints-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminal-footprints-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminal-footprints-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminal-footprints-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Alliances in Container Shipping (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/alliances-in-container-shipping-new-page/) **Published:** December 16, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** A review of the major alliances in the container shipping industry for the last quarter century. Compiled by Dr. Theo Notteboom. > [Alliances in Container Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1758) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/alliances-in-container-shipping-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/alliances-in-container-shipping-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/alliances-in-container-shipping-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/alliances-in-container-shipping-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Ports and Container Shipping (Chapter 1.3)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ports-and-container-shipping-chapter-1-3/) **Published:** December 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** A draft version of the chapter about ports and container shipping is now available. It was authored by Dr. Theo Notteboom. > [Chapter 1.3 – Ports and Container Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1532) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ports-and-container-shipping-chapter-1-3/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ports-and-container-shipping-chapter-1-3/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ports-and-container-shipping-chapter-1-3/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ports-and-container-shipping-chapter-1-3/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Liner Shipping Connectivity Index, 2020 (update)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/liner-shipping-connectivity-index-2020-update/) **Published:** December 14, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Based on the index provided by UNCTAD, the map of the Liner Shipping Connectivity Index has been updated with 2020 figures. The index shows a high concentration in the distribution of port connectivity with a tier of highly connected ports. > [Country and Port Level Liner Shipping Connectivity Index](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1633) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/liner-shipping-connectivity-index-2020-update/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/liner-shipping-connectivity-index-2020-update/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/liner-shipping-connectivity-index-2020-update/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/liner-shipping-connectivity-index-2020-update/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Emission control areas (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/emission-control-areas-new-page/) **Published:** December 11, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** A review of emission control areas (ECA) and their impacts on shipping. About 17% of the global container port throughput is directly within and ECA. > [Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=5018) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/emission-control-areas-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/emission-control-areas-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/emission-control-areas-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/emission-control-areas-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Global merchandise exports and container throughput (update)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/global-merchandise-exports-and-container-throughput-update/) **Published:** December 8, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Updated the association between merchandise exports and container throughput with the latest data. The last few years have been particularly volatile from the historical linear progression. > [Global Merchandise Exports and Container Throughput, 1980-2019](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1732) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/global-merchandise-exports-and-container-throughput-update/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/global-merchandise-exports-and-container-throughput-update/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/global-merchandise-exports-and-container-throughput-update/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/global-merchandise-exports-and-container-throughput-update/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Port centrality and intermediacy (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-centrality-and-intermediacy-new-page/) **Published:** December 7, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** A review of the forms of intermediacy and centrality that a port can be a function of. > [Port Centrality and Intermediacy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4729) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-centrality-and-intermediacy-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-centrality-and-intermediacy-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-centrality-and-intermediacy-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-centrality-and-intermediacy-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Types of port terminals (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/types-of-port-terminals-new-page/) **Published:** December 6, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** A typology of the main port terminal facilities, mainly of function of cargo unitization and commodity type. > [Types of Port Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4617) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/types-of-port-terminals-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/types-of-port-terminals-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/types-of-port-terminals-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/types-of-port-terminals-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Main ports of the Roman Empire (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-ports-of-the-roman-empire-new-page/) **Published:** December 5, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** One of the world’s first comprehensive maritime shipping network composed of a system of port cities. Draft version and analysis remains to be further substantiated. > [Main Ports of the Roman Empire, c125 CE](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4595) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-ports-of-the-roman-empire-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-ports-of-the-roman-empire-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-ports-of-the-roman-empire-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-ports-of-the-roman-empire-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Container terminals controlled by holdings (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminals-controlled-by-holdings-new-page/) **Published:** December 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** The portfolio of container terminals controlled by terminal operators which are part of a portfolio of a financial actor such as a sovereign wealth fund. > [Container Terminals Controlled by Holdings, 2019](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4466) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminals-controlled-by-holdings-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminals-controlled-by-holdings-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminals-controlled-by-holdings-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminals-controlled-by-holdings-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Container terminals controlled by shipping lines (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminals-controlled-by-shipping-lines-new-page/) **Published:** December 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** The portfolio of container terminals controlled by terminal operators which are branch companies of shipping lines. > [Container Terminals Controlled by Shipping Lines, 2019](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4498) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminals-controlled-by-shipping-lines-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminals-controlled-by-shipping-lines-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminals-controlled-by-shipping-lines-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminals-controlled-by-shipping-lines-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Container terminals controlled by stevedores (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminals-controlled-by-stevedores-new-page/) **Published:** December 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** The portfolio of container terminals controlled by terminal operators having a stevedoring origin. > [Container Terminals Controlled by Stevedores, 2019](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4500) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminals-controlled-by-stevedores-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminals-controlled-by-stevedores-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminals-controlled-by-stevedores-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminals-controlled-by-stevedores-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Maritime capitals of the world (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-capitals-of-the-world-new-page/) **Published:** December 2, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** An overview of the hierarchy of the cities that command maritime power in terms of finance, shipping line ownership and logistics capabilities. > [World Maritime Capitals, 2017](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4239) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-capitals-of-the-world-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-capitals-of-the-world-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-capitals-of-the-world-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-capitals-of-the-world-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Major container port clusters (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/major-container-port-clusters-new-page/) **Published:** November 30, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** From a cluster perspective, the concentration of container port activities is impressive; Pareto’s Law at its finest. > [World’s Largest Container Port Clusters, 2016](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4005) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/major-container-port-clusters-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/major-container-port-clusters-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/major-container-port-clusters-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/major-container-port-clusters-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Earthquake risk for global container ports (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/earthquake-risk-for-global-container-ports-new-page/) **Published:** November 28, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Created a map ranking container port earthquake risk (#port #risk #trade). > [Risk of Earthquake for Global Container Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3840) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/earthquake-risk-for-global-container-ports-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/earthquake-risk-for-global-container-ports-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/earthquake-risk-for-global-container-ports-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/earthquake-risk-for-global-container-ports-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Inland terminal clusters in North America (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/inland-terminal-clusters-in-north-america-new-page/) **Published:** November 27, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Dry ports in North America tend to cluster around major distribution hubs. Lower tiered hubs tend to have just one intermodal terminal while high tiered hubs have many. > [Major Inland Terminal Clusters in North America](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=731) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/inland-terminal-clusters-in-north-america-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/inland-terminal-clusters-in-north-america-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/inland-terminal-clusters-in-north-america-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/inland-terminal-clusters-in-north-america-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [World's largest coastal cities (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/worlds-largest-coastal-cities-new-page/) **Published:** November 26, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** More than half of the world’s large cities and the urban population are less than 100 km from the coastline. > [World’s Largest Coastal Cities, 2015](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3760) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/worlds-largest-coastal-cities-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/worlds-largest-coastal-cities-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/worlds-largest-coastal-cities-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/worlds-largest-coastal-cities-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [The maritime / land interface (update)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-maritime-land-interface-update/) **Published:** November 19, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Overview of the key actors involved in the facilitation of the interactions between maritime and land transport systems. > [Elements of the Maritime / Land Interface](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3530) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-maritime-land-interface-update/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-maritime-land-interface-update/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-maritime-land-interface-update/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-maritime-land-interface-update/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Reefer slots by container port (update)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/reefer-slots-by-container-port-update/) **Published:** November 19, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Updated the map in the port cold chains page dealing with the number of reefer slots by container port. There are several patterns explaining this distribution. > [Number of Reefer Slots per Container Port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1231) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/reefer-slots-by-container-port-update/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/reefer-slots-by-container-port-update/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/reefer-slots-by-container-port-update/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/reefer-slots-by-container-port-update/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Port energy markets (new chapter)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-energy-markets-new-chapter/) **Published:** November 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Completed a draft version of the chapter discussing the insertion of ports into energy markets. This chapter was challenging to write and will need several reviewing iterations. > [Chapter 7.3 – Energy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2535) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-energy-markets-new-chapter/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-energy-markets-new-chapter/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-energy-markets-new-chapter/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-energy-markets-new-chapter/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Largest bunker fuel markets (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/largest-bunker-fuel-markets-new-page/) **Published:** November 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Added a page displaying the most important bunkering markets. Two geographical factors are at play: centrality and intermediacy. > [Largest Bunker Fuel Markets, 2015](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3328) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/largest-bunker-fuel-markets-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/largest-bunker-fuel-markets-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/largest-bunker-fuel-markets-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/largest-bunker-fuel-markets-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Shipping lanes and energy trades in the Middle East (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/shipping-lanes-and-energy-trades-in-the-middle-east-new-page/) **Published:** November 5, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Added a page presenting from a geographical perspective the concentration of gas and petroleum production in the Middle East. > [Shipping Lanes, Strategic Passages and Oil Production in the Middle East](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2996) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/shipping-lanes-and-energy-trades-in-the-middle-east-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/shipping-lanes-and-energy-trades-in-the-middle-east-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/shipping-lanes-and-energy-trades-in-the-middle-east-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/shipping-lanes-and-energy-trades-in-the-middle-east-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Emerging global maritime transport system (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/emerging-global-maritime-transport-system-new-page/) **Published:** November 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Discussion about the emerging structure of global maritime shipping. Based in prior work for the ITF. > [Emerging Global Maritime Freight Transport System](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2891) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/emerging-global-maritime-transport-system-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/emerging-global-maritime-transport-system-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/emerging-global-maritime-transport-system-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/emerging-global-maritime-transport-system-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Functional integration of maritime supply chains (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/functional-integration-of-maritime-supply-chains-new-page/) **Published:** November 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** The level of integration in maritime supply chains, the outcome of vertical and horizontal processes. > [Functional Integration of Maritime Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2876) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/functional-integration-of-maritime-supply-chains-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/functional-integration-of-maritime-supply-chains-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/functional-integration-of-maritime-supply-chains-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/functional-integration-of-maritime-supply-chains-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Harbor Types (New page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/harbor-types-new-page/) **Published:** October 30, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Added a new page covering the major harbor types; the physical setting of port facilities. > [Harbor Types](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2841) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/harbor-types-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/harbor-types-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/harbor-types-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/harbor-types-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Port sites](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-sites/) **Published:** October 29, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Added a new page representing an inventory of port sites among ports with the largest tonnage. 70% of sample are seaports. Mainland ports account for only 30% of the sample. > [Port Sites](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2814) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-sites/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-sites/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-sites/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-sites/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Port Dimensions (New page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-dimensions-new-page/) **Published:** October 25, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Added a page covering the four major dimension defining the role and function of a port. > [Port Dimensions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2769) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-dimensions-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-dimensions-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-dimensions-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-dimensions-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [The port of Portus, Ancient Rome (New page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-port-of-portus-ancient-rome-new-page/) **Published:** October 22, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Added a page proving an overview of the main port of the Roman Empire, *Portus*, from which the term port was derived. > [The Port of Portus, Ancient Rome](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2682) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-port-of-portus-ancient-rome-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-port-of-portus-ancient-rome-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-port-of-portus-ancient-rome-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-port-of-portus-ancient-rome-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Port-centric energy production (new page)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-centric-energy-production-new-page/) **Published:** October 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Added a new page presenting the two core locational options of upstream and downstream clusters. It is part of a section about port energy markets under development. > [Port-Centric Energy Production and Transformation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2666) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-centric-energy-production-new-page/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-centric-energy-production-new-page/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-centric-energy-production-new-page/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-centric-energy-production-new-page/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Ports and Shipping in the COVID-19 Pandemic (New Article)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ports-and-shipping-in-the-covid-19-pandemic-new-article/) **Published:** September 17, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** The editors (Notteboom, Pallis & Rodrigue) have published a brief for the 100th edition of Port Technology International It covers an assessment of the impacts of COVID-19 of shipping and ports. It can be accessed through this link: > [Form Download](https://www.porttechnology.org/form-download/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ports-and-shipping-in-the-covid-19-pandemic-new-article/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ports-and-shipping-in-the-covid-19-pandemic-new-article/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ports-and-shipping-in-the-covid-19-pandemic-new-article/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ports-and-shipping-in-the-covid-19-pandemic-new-article/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Chapter about the container market available](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chapter-about-the-container-market-available/) **Published:** August 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** The draft version of a new chapter covering the container market is now available. > [Chapter 7.4 – Containers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2346) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chapter-about-the-container-market-available/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chapter-about-the-container-market-available/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chapter-about-the-container-market-available/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chapter-about-the-container-market-available/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Maritime shipping and international trade chapter available](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade-chapter-available/) **Published:** July 27, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** A draft version of the chapter covering the relationships between maritime shipping and international trade is available. > [Chapter 1.1 – Maritime Shipping and International Trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=147) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade-chapter-available/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade-chapter-available/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade-chapter-available/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade-chapter-available/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Port clusters chapter available](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-clusters-chapter-available/) **Published:** July 25, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** A first draft version of the chapter covering port clusters is available, including port-centric logistics. > [Chapter 3.4 – Port Clusters](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=258) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-clusters-chapter-available/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-clusters-chapter-available/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-clusters-chapter-available/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-clusters-chapter-available/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Port Management, Governance and Leadership (new section)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-management-governance-and-leadership-new-section/) **Published:** July 16, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** A draft version of a new section about port management and leadership is now available. It was authored by Dr. Geraldine Knatz, former executive director of the Port of Los Angeles from 2006 to 2014. > [Chapter 3.3 – Port Management, Governance and Leadership](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2160) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-management-governance-and-leadership-new-section/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-management-governance-and-leadership-new-section/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-management-governance-and-leadership-new-section/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-management-governance-and-leadership-new-section/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [The port of Savannah logistics cluster section moved](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster-section-moved/) **Published:** March 7, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** The section covered port-centric logistics for the port of Savannah was moved from the Geography of Transport Systems to Port Economics, Management and Policy. > [The Port of Savannah Logistics Cluster](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2046) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster-section-moved/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster-section-moved/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster-section-moved/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster-section-moved/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Competition between the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach moved](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/competition-between-the-ports-of-los-angeles-and-long-beach-moved/) **Published:** March 6, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** The section about competition between the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach has been moved from the Geography of Transport Systems to the Port Economics, Management and Policy web site. This topic is authored by Dr. Geraldine Knatz, former executive director of the Port of Los Angeles. > [Competition between the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1949) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/competition-between-the-ports-of-los-angeles-and-long-beach-moved/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/competition-between-the-ports-of-los-angeles-and-long-beach-moved/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/competition-between-the-ports-of-los-angeles-and-long-beach-moved/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/competition-between-the-ports-of-los-angeles-and-long-beach-moved/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [The Emerging Role of Connectivity in Port Centric Logistics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-emerging-role-of-connectivity-in-port-centric-logistics/) **Published:** February 14, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** I wrote a short primer for Port Technology International for an ebook covering port-centric logistics. The piece, part of a compendium of 4 articles, can freely be retrieved here; https://www.porttechnology.org/news/free-e-book-port-centric-logistics-the-model-of-the-future/ ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-emerging-role-of-connectivity-in-port-centric-logistics/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-emerging-role-of-connectivity-in-port-centric-logistics/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-emerging-role-of-connectivity-in-port-centric-logistics/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-emerging-role-of-connectivity-in-port-centric-logistics/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Terminals and Terminal Operators chapter available](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/terminals-and-terminal-operators-chapter-available/) **Published:** January 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** A draft version of the chapter covering port terminals and terminal operators is now available. > [Chapter 2.2 – Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=252) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/terminals-and-terminal-operators-chapter-available/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/terminals-and-terminal-operators-chapter-available/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/terminals-and-terminal-operators-chapter-available/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/terminals-and-terminal-operators-chapter-available/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Port Automation section added](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-automation-section-added/) **Published:** January 6, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** The draft of a new section about port terminal automation has been added. It is still work in progress but provides an overview about how port automation is changing the maritime shipping industry. > [Chapter 2.5 – Digital Transformation and Automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=953) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-automation-section-added/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-automation-section-added/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-automation-section-added/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-automation-section-added/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Added chapter about the geography of seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/added-chapter-about-the-geography-of-seaports/) **Published:** January 13, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** > [Chapter 2.1 – The Changing Geography of Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=312) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/added-chapter-about-the-geography-of-seaports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/added-chapter-about-the-geography-of-seaports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/added-chapter-about-the-geography-of-seaports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/added-chapter-about-the-geography-of-seaports/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ### [Chapter about port cold chains added](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chapter-about-port-cold-chains-added/) **Published:** January 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Added a new chapter discussing the role of ports in cold chain logistics, particularly over the reefer trade. > [Chapter 7.5 – Port Cold Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1062) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chapter-about-port-cold-chains-added/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chapter-about-port-cold-chains-added/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chapter-about-port-cold-chains-added/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chapter-about-port-cold-chains-added/?share=reddit) - **Categories:** Uncategorized --- ## Pages ### [Port Economics, Management and Policy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/) **Published:** November 17, 2018 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Port Economics, Management, and Policy (PEMP) analyzes the **contemporary port industry and how ports are organized to serve the global economy and regional and local development needs.** It uses a conceptual background supported by extensive fieldwork and empirical observations, such as analyzing flows, ports, and the strategies and policies articulating their dynamics. The port industry is comprehensively investigated in this unique compilation: - **A multidisciplinary perspective** on the port industry relying on economics, geography, management science, and engineering. - **An abundance of graphic elements**, such as maps, figures, photos, and tables. - **Focus on the latest trends** impacting the industry, such as supply chain management, automation, digitalization, and sustainability. - **Multisector analysis**, including containers, bulk, break-bulk, and the cruise industry. ## TABLE OF CONTENTS #### [INTRODUCTION: A Multifaceted Approach to Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/ "Introduction – A Multifaceted Approach to the Seaport") - [Chapter 0.1 Defining Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/ "i.1 – Defining Seaports") - [Chapter 0.2 Seaports and the Blue Economy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/ "i.2 – Seaports: Economic Value") - [Chapter 0.3 Seaports: Social and Environmental Value](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/ "i.3 – Seaports: Social and Environmental Value") - [Chapter 0.4 Seaports: Demand and Supply Determinants](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/ "Chapter 0.4 – Seaports: Demand and Supply Determinants") - [Chapter 0.5 Emerging Issues in Ports and Maritime Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/emerging-issues-ports-maritime-shipping/ "Chapter 0.5 – Emerging Issues in Ports and Maritime Shipping") #### [I. PORTS & SHIPPING NETWORKS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ "I. PORTS AND MARITIME SHIPPING") - [Chapter 1.1 Ports, Maritime Shipping and International Trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/ "Chapter 1.1 – Maritime Shipping and International Trade") - [Chapter 1.2 Ports and Maritime Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/ "Chapter 1.2 – Ports and Maritime Supply Chains") - [Chapter 1.3 Interoceanic Passages](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/ "Chapter 1.3 – Interoceanic Passages") #### [II. PORTS & HINTERLAND NETWORKS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ "II. CONTEMPORARY PORTS") - [Chapter 2.1 Port Hinterlands, Regionalization and Corridors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/ "Chapter 2.1 – Port Hinterlands, Regionalization and Corridors") - [Chapter 2.2 Ports and Distribution Networks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/ "Chapter 2.2 – Ports and Distribution Networks") - [Chapter 2.3 Inland Ports / Dry Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/ "Chapter 2.3 – Inland Ports / Dry Ports") #### [III. PORTS IN TRANSITION](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ "III. PORT TERMINALS") - [Chapter 3.1 The Spatial Transition of Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/ "Chapter 3.1 – The Spatial Transition of Seaports") - [Chapter 3.2 The Digital Transformation of Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/ "Chapter 3.2 – Terminal Concessions and Land Leases") - [Chapter 3.3 Green Supply Chain Management in Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/ "Chapter 3.3 – Green Shipping, Ports and Supply Chain Management") - [Chapter 3.4 Ports and the Energy Transition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/ "Chapter 3.4 – Ports and Energy Transition") - [Chapter 3.5 Ports and the Circular Economy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/ "Chapter 3.5 – Ports and the Circular Economy") #### [IV. PORT TERMINALS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/ "IV. PORT TERMINALS") - [Chapter 4.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/ "Chapter 4.1 – Terminals and Terminal Operators") - [Chapter 4.2 Terminal Concessions and Land Leases](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/ "Chapter 4.2 – Terminal Concessions and Land Leases") - [Chapter 4.3 Financialization, Terminal Funding and Valuation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/ "Chapter 4.3 – Financialization and Terminal Funding") - [Chapter 4.4 Port Labor](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/ "Chapter 4.4 – Port Labor") - [Chapter 4.5 Port Terminal Construction](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/ "Chapter 4.5 – Port Terminal Construction") #### [V. BULK & BREAK BULK PORTS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ "V. BULK & BREAKBULK PORTS") - [Chapter 5.1 Break Bulk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/ "Chapter 5.1 – Break Bulk") - [Chapter 5.2 Roll-on/Roll-off (RoRo)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/ "Chapter 5.2 – Automotive and RORO Markets") - [Chapter 5.3 Ports and Energy Commodities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/ "Chapter 5.3 – Ports and Energy") - [Chapter 5.4 Dry and Liquid Bulk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/ "Chapter 5.4 – Bulk and Breakbulk Terminal Design and Equipment") #### [VI. CONTAINER PORTS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ "VI. CONTAINER PORTS") - [Chapter 6.1 Ports and Container Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/ "Chapter 6.1 – Ports and Container Shipping") - [Chapter 6.2 Containers: The Box and Chassis Markets](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/ "Chapter 6.2 – Containers: The Box and Chassis Markets") - [Chapter 6.3 Containers: The Containerization of Commodities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/ "Chapter 6.3 – Containers: The Containerization of Commodities") - [Chapter 6.4 Port Cold Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/ "Chapter 6.4 – Port Cold Chains") - [Chapter 6.5 Container Terminal Design and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/ "Chapter 6.5 – Container Terminal Design and Equipment") - [Chapter 6.6 Container Terminal Automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/ "Chapter 6.6 – Container Terminal Automation") #### [VII. PASSENGER PORTS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ "VII. PASSENGER PORTS") - [Chapter 7.1 Cruise Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/ "Chapter 7.1 – Ports and Cruise Shipping") - [Chapter 7.2 Cruise Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/ "Chapter 7.2 – Cruise Ports") - [Chapter 7.3 Tourist Harbors and Marinas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/ "Chapter 7.3 – Tourist Harbors and Marinas") - [Chapter 7.4 River Cruises and Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/river-cruises-and-ports/ "Chapter 7.4 – River Cruises and Ports") - [Chapter 7.5 Cruise Terminal Design and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/ "Chapter 7.4 – Cruise Terminal Design and Equipment") #### [VIII. PORT GOVERNANCE](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/ "VIII. PORT MARKETS") - [Chapter 8.1 Port Governance and Reform](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/ "Chapter 8.1 – Port Governance and Reform") - [Chapter 8.2 Port Authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/ "Chapter 8.2 – Port Authorities") - [Chapter 8.3 Port Coordination and Cooperation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/ "Chapter 8.3 – Port Coordination and Cooperation") - [Chapter 8.4 Port Clusters](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/ "Chapter 8.4 – Port Clusters") - [Chapter 8.5 Green Port Governance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/ "Chapter 8.5 – Green Port Governance") - [Chapter 8.6 Port Management, Governance and Leadership](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/ "Chapter 8.6 – Port Management, Governance and Leadership") #### [IX. PORT COMPETITION](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/ "IX. PORT COMPETITION") - [Chapter 9.1 Inter-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/ "Chapter 9.1 – Inter-Port Competition") - [Chapter 9.2 Intra-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/ "Chapter 9.2 – Intra-Port Competition") - [Chapter 9.3 Port Marketing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/ "Chapter 9.3 – Port Marketing") - [Chapter 9.4 Port Pricing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/ "Chapter 9.4 – Port Pricing") - [Chapter 9.5 Entry Barriers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/ "Chapter 9.5 – Entry Barriers in Seaports") #### [X. PORT PERFORMANCE](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/ "X. PORT PERFORMANCE") - [Chapter 10.1 Performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/ "Chapter 10.1 – Port Performance") - [Chapter 10.2 Efficiency](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/ "Chapter 10.2 – Port Efficiency") - [Chapter 10.3 Effectiveness](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/ "Chapter 10.3 – Port Effectiveness") - [Chapter 10.4 Resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/ "Chapter 10.4 – Port Resilience") #### [XI. PORT POLICIES & DEVELOPMENT](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ "XI. PORT POLICIES & DEVELOPMENT") - [Chapter 11.1 Ports, Policies and Geopolitics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/ "Chapter 11.1 – Ports, Policies, and Geopolitics") - [Chapter 11.2 Ports and Economic Development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/ "Chapter 11.2 – Ports and Economic Development") - [Chapter 11.3 Port Planning and Development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/ "Chapter 11.3 – Port Planning and Development") - [Chapter 11.4 Port Safety, Security, and Cybersecurity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/ "Chapter 11.4 – Safety, Security, and Cybersecurity") - [Chapter 11.5 Port-City Relationships](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/ "Chapter 11.5 – Port-City Relationships") - [Chapter 11.6 Representing Port Interests](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/ "Chapter 11.6 – Representing Port Interests") #### [XII. CASE STUDIES](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ "XII. CASE STUDIES") - [Optimal Ship Size: Container Ships and Cruise Vessels](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4854 "Optimal Ship Size") - [Competition between the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/ "Competition between the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach") - [Ports and the COVID-19 Pandemic](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-and-pandemic/ "Ports and the COVID-19 Pandemic") - [The Port of Savannah Logistics Cluster](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/ "The Port of Savannah Logistics Cluster") - [Nike European Logistics Campus in Belgium](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nike-european-logistics-center-belgium/ "Nike European Logistics Campus in Belgium") - [The Nicaragua Canal Project](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nicaragua-canal-project/ "The Nicaragua Canal Project") - [Tools for Managing Port Risk and Resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/tools-for-managing-port-risk-and-resilience/ "Tools for Managing Port Risk and Resilience") - [Port Charges as Tools for Geopolitical Objectives](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-charges-tools-geopolitical-objectives/) ## Endorsements > The new book by Theo Notteboom, Thanos Pallis and Jean-Paul Rodrigue, provides the most comprehensive analysis of the current functioning of seaports for academics and port professionals. This publication is particularly relevant from a pedagogic perspective for anybody giving the first steps in the port and maritime world, but also for experienced scholars. For AIVP, the work from these authors is very valuable, since it addresses all port key topics, from terminal design, to the governance models and the port-city relationship. A key reference for future researchers. > > Bruno Delsalle, General Manager, Association Internationale Villes Ports (AIVP) > One of the daily tasks of any Port Authority is to promote the port activity of all its stakeholders and to make known all the actors of the port-logistic chain and their great contribution to international foreign trade and job creation. This handbook touches on practically all aspects of our sector and is of great help to all of us involved in port promotion: a comprehensive and easy-to-use reference manual for any occasion. > > Francesca Antonelli Ibáñez, Marketing & Cruises Manager, Commercial & Business Development, Port Authority of Valencia > Ports are very diverse, they are complex entities combining different tasks and have different responsibilities. At the centre of the economy and society and as engines of growth they are constantly changing and aim at responding to today’s challenges of energy transition and digitalisation. Understanding this complexity is not easy. Explaining this complexity and considering all facets of this complex but fascinating port ecosystem in a comprehensive but clear way is even more difficult. This book sets the bar high but succeeds in its purpose and is a must read for anyone who wants to discover the fascinating world of ports! > > Isabelle Ryckbost, Secretary General, European Sea Ports Organisation. > With the ongoing global supply chain crisis, accelerated digitalization, and the historical challenge of decarbonizing maritime transport, seaports have come to the forefront of the public debate. “Port Economics, Management and Policy” could not be more timely. The three authors – leading scholars in their field – have produced a magnificent book on the organization of seaports, and how port operation and governance can – and must – contribute to regional, national, and global trade-driven development. > > Jan Hoffmann, Global Lead for Maritime Transport and Ports, World Bank > Port Economics, Management and Policy is a very insightful and valuable analysis of the different models of ports and how they are organized to serve the global economy, regional and local development needs. The book also provides an exhaustive overview of how port ecosystems are becoming logistic and industrial nodes in global supply chains and currently undergoing major transformations. A book to be read by all persons interested in ports and their future role > > Lamia Kerdjoudj-Belkaid, Secretary General, Federation of European Private Port Companies and Terminals > While the role of ports hasn’t changed significantly since the dawn of ocean-going trade, their impact and complexity parallel the expansion of globalization and technology. Port Economics, Management and Policy charts this evolution through a thorough, multidisciplinary and multisector review and analysis that deftly explains how supply chain management, automation, digitalization, and sustainability will shape ports of the future. > > Mark Szakonyi, Executive Editor of The Journal of Commerce > Comprehensive in its coverage and thorough in its approach, this multi-disciplinary book has something for every reader. It will be easily understood by those new to the industry or citizens of the local port community, and yet contains nuggets of insight for the most seasoned port professionals. This book will assist those in local government make sense of what ports can do beyond their role as facilitators of trade, exploring their contribution as critical economic, social and environmental tools of development. The authors have not shied away from tackling the emerging trends in this global industry and provide six case studies to enhance our understanding of ports in the 2020s. > > Mary R. Brooks, Professor Emerita, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada > I warmly recommend ‘Port Economics, Management and Policy” by Theo Notteboom, Thanos Pallis and Jean-Paul Rodrigue. Having personally worked with the authors over many years, I have come to know them as anything but ‘ivory tower’ academics. They combine solid theoretical knowledge with a thorough understanding of how the port and maritime industry works. That is what makes this textbook so unique and a must-have for every port executive. > > Patrick Verhoeven, Managing Director, International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH) > Working with Theo Notteboom, Thanos Pallis and Jean-Paul Rodrigue is a very enriching and valuable collaboration. Taking advantage of opportunities on both sides, a full and accessible chapter on the topic of circular economy and port ecosystems was swiftly integrated into the online version of the book. We welcome this approach as it provides both an international reference and continuous updates for the benefit of port professionals, researchers and students. I look forward to the ongoing process of deepening the complex topic of circular economy and port ecosystems. > > Walter Tempst, Facilitator Circular Economy, Circular Flanders / Circular Ports ## Usage Conditions - **DO NOT COPY, REDISTRIBUTE OR TRANSLATE THE CONTENTS OF THIS WEB SITE**. - **The content of this site can be freely used for personal or classroom use ONLY.** Although the material contained on this website is freely available, it is not in the public domain. Its contents, in whole or in part (including graphics and datasets), cannot be copied and published in ANY form (printed or electronic) without consent. - The material, such as maps and figures, can be freely used for **educational purposes,** such as classroom presentations, as long as it is not redistributed to the public. This **excludes** other forms of communication, such as conference presentations, business presentations, published reports, and papers. - **Backlink and guest post** requests are ignored. This website is an academic source of information, not a marketing tool. - Permission to use any graphic material herein in any form of publication, such as an article, a book, or a conference presentation, on any media **must be requested** prior to use. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Economics, Management and Policy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/) **Published:** November 17, 2018 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Port Economics, Management, and Policy (PEMP) analyzes the **contemporary port industry and how ports are organized to serve the global economy and regional and local development needs.** It uses a conceptual background supported by extensive fieldwork and empirical observations, such as analyzing flows, ports, and the strategies and policies articulating their dynamics. The port industry is comprehensively investigated in this unique compilation: - **A multidisciplinary perspective** on the port industry relying on economics, geography, management science, and engineering. - **An abundance of graphic elements**, such as maps, figures, photos, and tables. - **Focus on the latest trends** impacting the industry, such as supply chain management, automation, digitalization, and sustainability. - **Multisector analysis**, including containers, bulk, break-bulk, and the cruise industry. ## TABLE OF CONTENTS #### [INTRODUCTION: A Multifaceted Approach to Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/ "Introduction – A Multifaceted Approach to the Seaport") - [Chapter 0.1 Defining Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/ "i.1 – Defining Seaports") - [Chapter 0.2 Seaports and the Blue Economy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/ "i.2 – Seaports: Economic Value") - [Chapter 0.3 Seaports: Social and Environmental Value](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/ "i.3 – Seaports: Social and Environmental Value") - [Chapter 0.4 Seaports: Demand and Supply Determinants](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/ "Chapter 0.4 – Seaports: Demand and Supply Determinants") - [Chapter 0.5 Emerging Issues in Ports and Maritime Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/emerging-issues-ports-maritime-shipping/ "Chapter 0.5 – Emerging Issues in Ports and Maritime Shipping") #### [I. PORTS & SHIPPING NETWORKS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ "I. PORTS AND MARITIME SHIPPING") - [Chapter 1.1 Ports, Maritime Shipping and International Trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/ "Chapter 1.1 – Maritime Shipping and International Trade") - [Chapter 1.2 Ports and Maritime Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/ "Chapter 1.2 – Ports and Maritime Supply Chains") - [Chapter 1.3 Interoceanic Passages](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/ "Chapter 1.3 – Interoceanic Passages") #### [II. PORTS & HINTERLAND NETWORKS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ "II. CONTEMPORARY PORTS") - [Chapter 2.1 Port Hinterlands, Regionalization and Corridors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/ "Chapter 2.1 – Port Hinterlands, Regionalization and Corridors") - [Chapter 2.2 Ports and Distribution Networks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/ "Chapter 2.2 – Ports and Distribution Networks") - [Chapter 2.3 Inland Ports / Dry Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/ "Chapter 2.3 – Inland Ports / Dry Ports") #### [III. PORTS IN TRANSITION](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ "III. PORT TERMINALS") - [Chapter 3.1 The Spatial Transition of Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/ "Chapter 3.1 – The Spatial Transition of Seaports") - [Chapter 3.2 The Digital Transformation of Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/ "Chapter 3.2 – Terminal Concessions and Land Leases") - [Chapter 3.3 Green Supply Chain Management in Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/ "Chapter 3.3 – Green Shipping, Ports and Supply Chain Management") - [Chapter 3.4 Ports and the Energy Transition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/ "Chapter 3.4 – Ports and Energy Transition") - [Chapter 3.5 Ports and the Circular Economy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/ "Chapter 3.5 – Ports and the Circular Economy") #### [IV. PORT TERMINALS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/ "IV. PORT TERMINALS") - [Chapter 4.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/ "Chapter 4.1 – Terminals and Terminal Operators") - [Chapter 4.2 Terminal Concessions and Land Leases](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/ "Chapter 4.2 – Terminal Concessions and Land Leases") - [Chapter 4.3 Financialization, Terminal Funding and Valuation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/ "Chapter 4.3 – Financialization and Terminal Funding") - [Chapter 4.4 Port Labor](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/ "Chapter 4.4 – Port Labor") - [Chapter 4.5 Port Terminal Construction](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/ "Chapter 4.5 – Port Terminal Construction") #### [V. BULK & BREAK BULK PORTS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ "V. BULK & BREAKBULK PORTS") - [Chapter 5.1 Break Bulk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/ "Chapter 5.1 – Break Bulk") - [Chapter 5.2 Roll-on/Roll-off (RoRo)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/ "Chapter 5.2 – Automotive and RORO Markets") - [Chapter 5.3 Ports and Energy Commodities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/ "Chapter 5.3 – Ports and Energy") - [Chapter 5.4 Dry and Liquid Bulk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/ "Chapter 5.4 – Bulk and Breakbulk Terminal Design and Equipment") #### [VI. CONTAINER PORTS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ "VI. CONTAINER PORTS") - [Chapter 6.1 Ports and Container Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/ "Chapter 6.1 – Ports and Container Shipping") - [Chapter 6.2 Containers: The Box and Chassis Markets](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/ "Chapter 6.2 – Containers: The Box and Chassis Markets") - [Chapter 6.3 Containers: The Containerization of Commodities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/ "Chapter 6.3 – Containers: The Containerization of Commodities") - [Chapter 6.4 Port Cold Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/ "Chapter 6.4 – Port Cold Chains") - [Chapter 6.5 Container Terminal Design and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/ "Chapter 6.5 – Container Terminal Design and Equipment") - [Chapter 6.6 Container Terminal Automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/ "Chapter 6.6 – Container Terminal Automation") #### [VII. PASSENGER PORTS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ "VII. PASSENGER PORTS") - [Chapter 7.1 Cruise Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/ "Chapter 7.1 – Ports and Cruise Shipping") - [Chapter 7.2 Cruise Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/ "Chapter 7.2 – Cruise Ports") - [Chapter 7.3 Tourist Harbors and Marinas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/ "Chapter 7.3 – Tourist Harbors and Marinas") - [Chapter 7.4 River Cruises and Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/river-cruises-and-ports/ "Chapter 7.4 – River Cruises and Ports") - [Chapter 7.5 Cruise Terminal Design and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/ "Chapter 7.4 – Cruise Terminal Design and Equipment") #### [VIII. PORT GOVERNANCE](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/ "VIII. PORT MARKETS") - [Chapter 8.1 Port Governance and Reform](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/ "Chapter 8.1 – Port Governance and Reform") - [Chapter 8.2 Port Authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/ "Chapter 8.2 – Port Authorities") - [Chapter 8.3 Port Coordination and Cooperation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/ "Chapter 8.3 – Port Coordination and Cooperation") - [Chapter 8.4 Port Clusters](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/ "Chapter 8.4 – Port Clusters") - [Chapter 8.5 Green Port Governance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/ "Chapter 8.5 – Green Port Governance") - [Chapter 8.6 Port Management, Governance and Leadership](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/ "Chapter 8.6 – Port Management, Governance and Leadership") #### [IX. PORT COMPETITION](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/ "IX. PORT COMPETITION") - [Chapter 9.1 Inter-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/ "Chapter 9.1 – Inter-Port Competition") - [Chapter 9.2 Intra-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/ "Chapter 9.2 – Intra-Port Competition") - [Chapter 9.3 Port Marketing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/ "Chapter 9.3 – Port Marketing") - [Chapter 9.4 Port Pricing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/ "Chapter 9.4 – Port Pricing") - [Chapter 9.5 Entry Barriers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/ "Chapter 9.5 – Entry Barriers in Seaports") #### [X. PORT PERFORMANCE](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/ "X. PORT PERFORMANCE") - [Chapter 10.1 Performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/ "Chapter 10.1 – Port Performance") - [Chapter 10.2 Efficiency](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/ "Chapter 10.2 – Port Efficiency") - [Chapter 10.3 Effectiveness](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/ "Chapter 10.3 – Port Effectiveness") - [Chapter 10.4 Resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/ "Chapter 10.4 – Port Resilience") #### [XI. PORT POLICIES & DEVELOPMENT](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ "XI. PORT POLICIES & DEVELOPMENT") - [Chapter 11.1 Ports, Policies and Geopolitics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/ "Chapter 11.1 – Ports, Policies, and Geopolitics") - [Chapter 11.2 Ports and Economic Development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/ "Chapter 11.2 – Ports and Economic Development") - [Chapter 11.3 Port Planning and Development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/ "Chapter 11.3 – Port Planning and Development") - [Chapter 11.4 Port Safety, Security, and Cybersecurity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/ "Chapter 11.4 – Safety, Security, and Cybersecurity") - [Chapter 11.5 Port-City Relationships](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/ "Chapter 11.5 – Port-City Relationships") - [Chapter 11.6 Representing Port Interests](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/ "Chapter 11.6 – Representing Port Interests") #### [XII. CASE STUDIES](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ "XII. CASE STUDIES") - [Optimal Ship Size: Container Ships and Cruise Vessels](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4854 "Optimal Ship Size") - [Competition between the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/ "Competition between the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach") - [Ports and the COVID-19 Pandemic](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-and-pandemic/ "Ports and the COVID-19 Pandemic") - [The Port of Savannah Logistics Cluster](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/ "The Port of Savannah Logistics Cluster") - [Nike European Logistics Campus in Belgium](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nike-european-logistics-center-belgium/ "Nike European Logistics Campus in Belgium") - [The Nicaragua Canal Project](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nicaragua-canal-project/ "The Nicaragua Canal Project") - [Tools for Managing Port Risk and Resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/tools-for-managing-port-risk-and-resilience/ "Tools for Managing Port Risk and Resilience") - [Port Charges as Tools for Geopolitical Objectives](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-charges-tools-geopolitical-objectives/) ## Endorsements > The new book by Theo Notteboom, Thanos Pallis and Jean-Paul Rodrigue, provides the most comprehensive analysis of the current functioning of seaports for academics and port professionals. This publication is particularly relevant from a pedagogic perspective for anybody giving the first steps in the port and maritime world, but also for experienced scholars. For AIVP, the work from these authors is very valuable, since it addresses all port key topics, from terminal design, to the governance models and the port-city relationship. A key reference for future researchers. > > Bruno Delsalle, General Manager, Association Internationale Villes Ports (AIVP) > One of the daily tasks of any Port Authority is to promote the port activity of all its stakeholders and to make known all the actors of the port-logistic chain and their great contribution to international foreign trade and job creation. This handbook touches on practically all aspects of our sector and is of great help to all of us involved in port promotion: a comprehensive and easy-to-use reference manual for any occasion. > > Francesca Antonelli Ibáñez, Marketing & Cruises Manager, Commercial & Business Development, Port Authority of Valencia > Ports are very diverse, they are complex entities combining different tasks and have different responsibilities. At the centre of the economy and society and as engines of growth they are constantly changing and aim at responding to today’s challenges of energy transition and digitalisation. Understanding this complexity is not easy. Explaining this complexity and considering all facets of this complex but fascinating port ecosystem in a comprehensive but clear way is even more difficult. This book sets the bar high but succeeds in its purpose and is a must read for anyone who wants to discover the fascinating world of ports! > > Isabelle Ryckbost, Secretary General, European Sea Ports Organisation. > With the ongoing global supply chain crisis, accelerated digitalization, and the historical challenge of decarbonizing maritime transport, seaports have come to the forefront of the public debate. “Port Economics, Management and Policy” could not be more timely. The three authors – leading scholars in their field – have produced a magnificent book on the organization of seaports, and how port operation and governance can – and must – contribute to regional, national, and global trade-driven development. > > Jan Hoffmann, Global Lead for Maritime Transport and Ports, World Bank > Port Economics, Management and Policy is a very insightful and valuable analysis of the different models of ports and how they are organized to serve the global economy, regional and local development needs. The book also provides an exhaustive overview of how port ecosystems are becoming logistic and industrial nodes in global supply chains and currently undergoing major transformations. A book to be read by all persons interested in ports and their future role > > Lamia Kerdjoudj-Belkaid, Secretary General, Federation of European Private Port Companies and Terminals > While the role of ports hasn’t changed significantly since the dawn of ocean-going trade, their impact and complexity parallel the expansion of globalization and technology. Port Economics, Management and Policy charts this evolution through a thorough, multidisciplinary and multisector review and analysis that deftly explains how supply chain management, automation, digitalization, and sustainability will shape ports of the future. > > Mark Szakonyi, Executive Editor of The Journal of Commerce > Comprehensive in its coverage and thorough in its approach, this multi-disciplinary book has something for every reader. It will be easily understood by those new to the industry or citizens of the local port community, and yet contains nuggets of insight for the most seasoned port professionals. This book will assist those in local government make sense of what ports can do beyond their role as facilitators of trade, exploring their contribution as critical economic, social and environmental tools of development. The authors have not shied away from tackling the emerging trends in this global industry and provide six case studies to enhance our understanding of ports in the 2020s. > > Mary R. Brooks, Professor Emerita, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada > I warmly recommend ‘Port Economics, Management and Policy” by Theo Notteboom, Thanos Pallis and Jean-Paul Rodrigue. Having personally worked with the authors over many years, I have come to know them as anything but ‘ivory tower’ academics. They combine solid theoretical knowledge with a thorough understanding of how the port and maritime industry works. That is what makes this textbook so unique and a must-have for every port executive. > > Patrick Verhoeven, Managing Director, International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH) > Working with Theo Notteboom, Thanos Pallis and Jean-Paul Rodrigue is a very enriching and valuable collaboration. Taking advantage of opportunities on both sides, a full and accessible chapter on the topic of circular economy and port ecosystems was swiftly integrated into the online version of the book. We welcome this approach as it provides both an international reference and continuous updates for the benefit of port professionals, researchers and students. I look forward to the ongoing process of deepening the complex topic of circular economy and port ecosystems. > > Walter Tempst, Facilitator Circular Economy, Circular Flanders / Circular Ports ## Usage Conditions - **DO NOT COPY, REDISTRIBUTE OR TRANSLATE THE CONTENTS OF THIS WEB SITE**. - **The content of this site can be freely used for personal or classroom use ONLY.** Although the material contained on this website is freely available, it is not in the public domain. Its contents, in whole or in part (including graphics and datasets), cannot be copied and published in ANY form (printed or electronic) without consent. - The material, such as maps and figures, can be freely used for **educational purposes,** such as classroom presentations, as long as it is not redistributed to the public. This **excludes** other forms of communication, such as conference presentations, business presentations, published reports, and papers. - **Backlink and guest post** requests are ignored. This website is an academic source of information, not a marketing tool. - Permission to use any graphic material herein in any form of publication, such as an article, a book, or a conference presentation, on any media **must be requested** prior to use. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Economics, Management and Policy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/) **Published:** November 17, 2018 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Port Economics, Management, and Policy (PEMP) analyzes the **contemporary port industry and how ports are organized to serve the global economy and regional and local development needs.** It uses a conceptual background supported by extensive fieldwork and empirical observations, such as analyzing flows, ports, and the strategies and policies articulating their dynamics. The port industry is comprehensively investigated in this unique compilation: - **A multidisciplinary perspective** on the port industry relying on economics, geography, management science, and engineering. - **An abundance of graphic elements**, such as maps, figures, photos, and tables. - **Focus on the latest trends** impacting the industry, such as supply chain management, automation, digitalization, and sustainability. - **Multisector analysis**, including containers, bulk, break-bulk, and the cruise industry. ## TABLE OF CONTENTS #### [INTRODUCTION: A Multifaceted Approach to Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/ "Introduction – A Multifaceted Approach to the Seaport") - [Chapter 0.1 Defining Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/ "i.1 – Defining Seaports") - [Chapter 0.2 Seaports and the Blue Economy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/ "i.2 – Seaports: Economic Value") - [Chapter 0.3 Seaports: Social and Environmental Value](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/ "i.3 – Seaports: Social and Environmental Value") - [Chapter 0.4 Seaports: Demand and Supply Determinants](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/ "Chapter 0.4 – Seaports: Demand and Supply Determinants") - [Chapter 0.5 Emerging Issues in Ports and Maritime Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/emerging-issues-ports-maritime-shipping/ "Chapter 0.5 – Emerging Issues in Ports and Maritime Shipping") #### [I. PORTS & SHIPPING NETWORKS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ "I. PORTS AND MARITIME SHIPPING") - [Chapter 1.1 Ports, Maritime Shipping and International Trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/ "Chapter 1.1 – Maritime Shipping and International Trade") - [Chapter 1.2 Ports and Maritime Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/ "Chapter 1.2 – Ports and Maritime Supply Chains") - [Chapter 1.3 Interoceanic Passages](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/ "Chapter 1.3 – Interoceanic Passages") #### [II. PORTS & HINTERLAND NETWORKS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ "II. CONTEMPORARY PORTS") - [Chapter 2.1 Port Hinterlands, Regionalization and Corridors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/ "Chapter 2.1 – Port Hinterlands, Regionalization and Corridors") - [Chapter 2.2 Ports and Distribution Networks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/ "Chapter 2.2 – Ports and Distribution Networks") - [Chapter 2.3 Inland Ports / Dry Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/ "Chapter 2.3 – Inland Ports / Dry Ports") #### [III. PORTS IN TRANSITION](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ "III. PORT TERMINALS") - [Chapter 3.1 The Spatial Transition of Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/ "Chapter 3.1 – The Spatial Transition of Seaports") - [Chapter 3.2 The Digital Transformation of Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/ "Chapter 3.2 – Terminal Concessions and Land Leases") - [Chapter 3.3 Green Supply Chain Management in Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/ "Chapter 3.3 – Green Shipping, Ports and Supply Chain Management") - [Chapter 3.4 Ports and the Energy Transition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/ "Chapter 3.4 – Ports and Energy Transition") - [Chapter 3.5 Ports and the Circular Economy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/ "Chapter 3.5 – Ports and the Circular Economy") #### [IV. PORT TERMINALS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/ "IV. PORT TERMINALS") - [Chapter 4.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/ "Chapter 4.1 – Terminals and Terminal Operators") - [Chapter 4.2 Terminal Concessions and Land Leases](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/ "Chapter 4.2 – Terminal Concessions and Land Leases") - [Chapter 4.3 Financialization, Terminal Funding and Valuation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/ "Chapter 4.3 – Financialization and Terminal Funding") - [Chapter 4.4 Port Labor](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/ "Chapter 4.4 – Port Labor") - [Chapter 4.5 Port Terminal Construction](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/ "Chapter 4.5 – Port Terminal Construction") #### [V. BULK & BREAK BULK PORTS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ "V. BULK & BREAKBULK PORTS") - [Chapter 5.1 Break Bulk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/ "Chapter 5.1 – Break Bulk") - [Chapter 5.2 Roll-on/Roll-off (RoRo)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/ "Chapter 5.2 – Automotive and RORO Markets") - [Chapter 5.3 Ports and Energy Commodities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/ "Chapter 5.3 – Ports and Energy") - [Chapter 5.4 Dry and Liquid Bulk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/ "Chapter 5.4 – Bulk and Breakbulk Terminal Design and Equipment") #### [VI. CONTAINER PORTS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ "VI. CONTAINER PORTS") - [Chapter 6.1 Ports and Container Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/ "Chapter 6.1 – Ports and Container Shipping") - [Chapter 6.2 Containers: The Box and Chassis Markets](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/ "Chapter 6.2 – Containers: The Box and Chassis Markets") - [Chapter 6.3 Containers: The Containerization of Commodities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/ "Chapter 6.3 – Containers: The Containerization of Commodities") - [Chapter 6.4 Port Cold Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/ "Chapter 6.4 – Port Cold Chains") - [Chapter 6.5 Container Terminal Design and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/ "Chapter 6.5 – Container Terminal Design and Equipment") - [Chapter 6.6 Container Terminal Automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/ "Chapter 6.6 – Container Terminal Automation") #### [VII. PASSENGER PORTS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ "VII. PASSENGER PORTS") - [Chapter 7.1 Cruise Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/ "Chapter 7.1 – Ports and Cruise Shipping") - [Chapter 7.2 Cruise Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/ "Chapter 7.2 – Cruise Ports") - [Chapter 7.3 Tourist Harbors and Marinas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/ "Chapter 7.3 – Tourist Harbors and Marinas") - [Chapter 7.4 River Cruises and Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/river-cruises-and-ports/ "Chapter 7.4 – River Cruises and Ports") - [Chapter 7.5 Cruise Terminal Design and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/ "Chapter 7.4 – Cruise Terminal Design and Equipment") #### [VIII. PORT GOVERNANCE](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/ "VIII. PORT MARKETS") - [Chapter 8.1 Port Governance and Reform](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/ "Chapter 8.1 – Port Governance and Reform") - [Chapter 8.2 Port Authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/ "Chapter 8.2 – Port Authorities") - [Chapter 8.3 Port Coordination and Cooperation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/ "Chapter 8.3 – Port Coordination and Cooperation") - [Chapter 8.4 Port Clusters](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/ "Chapter 8.4 – Port Clusters") - [Chapter 8.5 Green Port Governance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/ "Chapter 8.5 – Green Port Governance") - [Chapter 8.6 Port Management, Governance and Leadership](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/ "Chapter 8.6 – Port Management, Governance and Leadership") #### [IX. PORT COMPETITION](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/ "IX. PORT COMPETITION") - [Chapter 9.1 Inter-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/ "Chapter 9.1 – Inter-Port Competition") - [Chapter 9.2 Intra-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/ "Chapter 9.2 – Intra-Port Competition") - [Chapter 9.3 Port Marketing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/ "Chapter 9.3 – Port Marketing") - [Chapter 9.4 Port Pricing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/ "Chapter 9.4 – Port Pricing") - [Chapter 9.5 Entry Barriers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/ "Chapter 9.5 – Entry Barriers in Seaports") #### [X. PORT PERFORMANCE](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/ "X. PORT PERFORMANCE") - [Chapter 10.1 Performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/ "Chapter 10.1 – Port Performance") - [Chapter 10.2 Efficiency](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/ "Chapter 10.2 – Port Efficiency") - [Chapter 10.3 Effectiveness](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/ "Chapter 10.3 – Port Effectiveness") - [Chapter 10.4 Resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/ "Chapter 10.4 – Port Resilience") #### [XI. PORT POLICIES & DEVELOPMENT](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ "XI. PORT POLICIES & DEVELOPMENT") - [Chapter 11.1 Ports, Policies and Geopolitics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/ "Chapter 11.1 – Ports, Policies, and Geopolitics") - [Chapter 11.2 Ports and Economic Development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/ "Chapter 11.2 – Ports and Economic Development") - [Chapter 11.3 Port Planning and Development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/ "Chapter 11.3 – Port Planning and Development") - [Chapter 11.4 Port Safety, Security, and Cybersecurity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/ "Chapter 11.4 – Safety, Security, and Cybersecurity") - [Chapter 11.5 Port-City Relationships](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/ "Chapter 11.5 – Port-City Relationships") - [Chapter 11.6 Representing Port Interests](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/ "Chapter 11.6 – Representing Port Interests") #### [XII. CASE STUDIES](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ "XII. CASE STUDIES") - [Optimal Ship Size: Container Ships and Cruise Vessels](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4854 "Optimal Ship Size") - [Competition between the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/ "Competition between the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach") - [Ports and the COVID-19 Pandemic](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-and-pandemic/ "Ports and the COVID-19 Pandemic") - [The Port of Savannah Logistics Cluster](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/ "The Port of Savannah Logistics Cluster") - [Nike European Logistics Campus in Belgium](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nike-european-logistics-center-belgium/ "Nike European Logistics Campus in Belgium") - [The Nicaragua Canal Project](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nicaragua-canal-project/ "The Nicaragua Canal Project") - [Tools for Managing Port Risk and Resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/tools-for-managing-port-risk-and-resilience/ "Tools for Managing Port Risk and Resilience") - [Port Charges as Tools for Geopolitical Objectives](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-charges-tools-geopolitical-objectives/) ## Endorsements > The new book by Theo Notteboom, Thanos Pallis and Jean-Paul Rodrigue, provides the most comprehensive analysis of the current functioning of seaports for academics and port professionals. This publication is particularly relevant from a pedagogic perspective for anybody giving the first steps in the port and maritime world, but also for experienced scholars. For AIVP, the work from these authors is very valuable, since it addresses all port key topics, from terminal design, to the governance models and the port-city relationship. A key reference for future researchers. > > Bruno Delsalle, General Manager, Association Internationale Villes Ports (AIVP) > One of the daily tasks of any Port Authority is to promote the port activity of all its stakeholders and to make known all the actors of the port-logistic chain and their great contribution to international foreign trade and job creation. This handbook touches on practically all aspects of our sector and is of great help to all of us involved in port promotion: a comprehensive and easy-to-use reference manual for any occasion. > > Francesca Antonelli Ibáñez, Marketing & Cruises Manager, Commercial & Business Development, Port Authority of Valencia > Ports are very diverse, they are complex entities combining different tasks and have different responsibilities. At the centre of the economy and society and as engines of growth they are constantly changing and aim at responding to today’s challenges of energy transition and digitalisation. Understanding this complexity is not easy. Explaining this complexity and considering all facets of this complex but fascinating port ecosystem in a comprehensive but clear way is even more difficult. This book sets the bar high but succeeds in its purpose and is a must read for anyone who wants to discover the fascinating world of ports! > > Isabelle Ryckbost, Secretary General, European Sea Ports Organisation. > With the ongoing global supply chain crisis, accelerated digitalization, and the historical challenge of decarbonizing maritime transport, seaports have come to the forefront of the public debate. “Port Economics, Management and Policy” could not be more timely. The three authors – leading scholars in their field – have produced a magnificent book on the organization of seaports, and how port operation and governance can – and must – contribute to regional, national, and global trade-driven development. > > Jan Hoffmann, Global Lead for Maritime Transport and Ports, World Bank > Port Economics, Management and Policy is a very insightful and valuable analysis of the different models of ports and how they are organized to serve the global economy, regional and local development needs. The book also provides an exhaustive overview of how port ecosystems are becoming logistic and industrial nodes in global supply chains and currently undergoing major transformations. A book to be read by all persons interested in ports and their future role > > Lamia Kerdjoudj-Belkaid, Secretary General, Federation of European Private Port Companies and Terminals > While the role of ports hasn’t changed significantly since the dawn of ocean-going trade, their impact and complexity parallel the expansion of globalization and technology. Port Economics, Management and Policy charts this evolution through a thorough, multidisciplinary and multisector review and analysis that deftly explains how supply chain management, automation, digitalization, and sustainability will shape ports of the future. > > Mark Szakonyi, Executive Editor of The Journal of Commerce > Comprehensive in its coverage and thorough in its approach, this multi-disciplinary book has something for every reader. It will be easily understood by those new to the industry or citizens of the local port community, and yet contains nuggets of insight for the most seasoned port professionals. This book will assist those in local government make sense of what ports can do beyond their role as facilitators of trade, exploring their contribution as critical economic, social and environmental tools of development. The authors have not shied away from tackling the emerging trends in this global industry and provide six case studies to enhance our understanding of ports in the 2020s. > > Mary R. Brooks, Professor Emerita, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada > I warmly recommend ‘Port Economics, Management and Policy” by Theo Notteboom, Thanos Pallis and Jean-Paul Rodrigue. Having personally worked with the authors over many years, I have come to know them as anything but ‘ivory tower’ academics. They combine solid theoretical knowledge with a thorough understanding of how the port and maritime industry works. That is what makes this textbook so unique and a must-have for every port executive. > > Patrick Verhoeven, Managing Director, International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH) > Working with Theo Notteboom, Thanos Pallis and Jean-Paul Rodrigue is a very enriching and valuable collaboration. Taking advantage of opportunities on both sides, a full and accessible chapter on the topic of circular economy and port ecosystems was swiftly integrated into the online version of the book. We welcome this approach as it provides both an international reference and continuous updates for the benefit of port professionals, researchers and students. I look forward to the ongoing process of deepening the complex topic of circular economy and port ecosystems. > > Walter Tempst, Facilitator Circular Economy, Circular Flanders / Circular Ports ## Usage Conditions - **DO NOT COPY, REDISTRIBUTE OR TRANSLATE THE CONTENTS OF THIS WEB SITE**. - **The content of this site can be freely used for personal or classroom use ONLY.** Although the material contained on this website is freely available, it is not in the public domain. Its contents, in whole or in part (including graphics and datasets), cannot be copied and published in ANY form (printed or electronic) without consent. - The material, such as maps and figures, can be freely used for **educational purposes,** such as classroom presentations, as long as it is not redistributed to the public. This **excludes** other forms of communication, such as conference presentations, business presentations, published reports, and papers. - **Backlink and guest post** requests are ignored. This website is an academic source of information, not a marketing tool. - Permission to use any graphic material herein in any form of publication, such as an article, a book, or a conference presentation, on any media **must be requested** prior to use. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Economics, Management and Policy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/) **Published:** November 17, 2018 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Port Economics, Management, and Policy (PEMP) analyzes the **contemporary port industry and how ports are organized to serve the global economy and regional and local development needs.** It uses a conceptual background supported by extensive fieldwork and empirical observations, such as analyzing flows, ports, and the strategies and policies articulating their dynamics. The port industry is comprehensively investigated in this unique compilation: - **A multidisciplinary perspective** on the port industry relying on economics, geography, management science, and engineering. - **An abundance of graphic elements**, such as maps, figures, photos, and tables. - **Focus on the latest trends** impacting the industry, such as supply chain management, automation, digitalization, and sustainability. - **Multisector analysis**, including containers, bulk, break-bulk, and the cruise industry. ## TABLE OF CONTENTS #### [INTRODUCTION: A Multifaceted Approach to Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/ "Introduction – A Multifaceted Approach to the Seaport") - [Chapter 0.1 Defining Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/ "i.1 – Defining Seaports") - [Chapter 0.2 Seaports and the Blue Economy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/ "i.2 – Seaports: Economic Value") - [Chapter 0.3 Seaports: Social and Environmental Value](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/ "i.3 – Seaports: Social and Environmental Value") - [Chapter 0.4 Seaports: Demand and Supply Determinants](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/ "Chapter 0.4 – Seaports: Demand and Supply Determinants") - [Chapter 0.5 Emerging Issues in Ports and Maritime Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/emerging-issues-ports-maritime-shipping/ "Chapter 0.5 – Emerging Issues in Ports and Maritime Shipping") #### [I. PORTS & SHIPPING NETWORKS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ "I. PORTS AND MARITIME SHIPPING") - [Chapter 1.1 Ports, Maritime Shipping and International Trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/ "Chapter 1.1 – Maritime Shipping and International Trade") - [Chapter 1.2 Ports and Maritime Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/ "Chapter 1.2 – Ports and Maritime Supply Chains") - [Chapter 1.3 Interoceanic Passages](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/ "Chapter 1.3 – Interoceanic Passages") #### [II. PORTS & HINTERLAND NETWORKS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ "II. CONTEMPORARY PORTS") - [Chapter 2.1 Port Hinterlands, Regionalization and Corridors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/ "Chapter 2.1 – Port Hinterlands, Regionalization and Corridors") - [Chapter 2.2 Ports and Distribution Networks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/ "Chapter 2.2 – Ports and Distribution Networks") - [Chapter 2.3 Inland Ports / Dry Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/ "Chapter 2.3 – Inland Ports / Dry Ports") #### [III. PORTS IN TRANSITION](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ "III. PORT TERMINALS") - [Chapter 3.1 The Spatial Transition of Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/ "Chapter 3.1 – The Spatial Transition of Seaports") - [Chapter 3.2 The Digital Transformation of Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/ "Chapter 3.2 – Terminal Concessions and Land Leases") - [Chapter 3.3 Green Supply Chain Management in Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/ "Chapter 3.3 – Green Shipping, Ports and Supply Chain Management") - [Chapter 3.4 Ports and the Energy Transition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/ "Chapter 3.4 – Ports and Energy Transition") - [Chapter 3.5 Ports and the Circular Economy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/ "Chapter 3.5 – Ports and the Circular Economy") #### [IV. PORT TERMINALS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/ "IV. PORT TERMINALS") - [Chapter 4.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/ "Chapter 4.1 – Terminals and Terminal Operators") - [Chapter 4.2 Terminal Concessions and Land Leases](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/ "Chapter 4.2 – Terminal Concessions and Land Leases") - [Chapter 4.3 Financialization, Terminal Funding and Valuation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/ "Chapter 4.3 – Financialization and Terminal Funding") - [Chapter 4.4 Port Labor](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/ "Chapter 4.4 – Port Labor") - [Chapter 4.5 Port Terminal Construction](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/ "Chapter 4.5 – Port Terminal Construction") #### [V. BULK & BREAK BULK PORTS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ "V. BULK & BREAKBULK PORTS") - [Chapter 5.1 Break Bulk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/ "Chapter 5.1 – Break Bulk") - [Chapter 5.2 Roll-on/Roll-off (RoRo)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/ "Chapter 5.2 – Automotive and RORO Markets") - [Chapter 5.3 Ports and Energy Commodities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/ "Chapter 5.3 – Ports and Energy") - [Chapter 5.4 Dry and Liquid Bulk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/ "Chapter 5.4 – Bulk and Breakbulk Terminal Design and Equipment") #### [VI. CONTAINER PORTS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ "VI. CONTAINER PORTS") - [Chapter 6.1 Ports and Container Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/ "Chapter 6.1 – Ports and Container Shipping") - [Chapter 6.2 Containers: The Box and Chassis Markets](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/ "Chapter 6.2 – Containers: The Box and Chassis Markets") - [Chapter 6.3 Containers: The Containerization of Commodities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/ "Chapter 6.3 – Containers: The Containerization of Commodities") - [Chapter 6.4 Port Cold Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/ "Chapter 6.4 – Port Cold Chains") - [Chapter 6.5 Container Terminal Design and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/ "Chapter 6.5 – Container Terminal Design and Equipment") - [Chapter 6.6 Container Terminal Automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/ "Chapter 6.6 – Container Terminal Automation") #### [VII. PASSENGER PORTS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ "VII. PASSENGER PORTS") - [Chapter 7.1 Cruise Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/ "Chapter 7.1 – Ports and Cruise Shipping") - [Chapter 7.2 Cruise Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/ "Chapter 7.2 – Cruise Ports") - [Chapter 7.3 Tourist Harbors and Marinas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/ "Chapter 7.3 – Tourist Harbors and Marinas") - [Chapter 7.4 River Cruises and Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/river-cruises-and-ports/ "Chapter 7.4 – River Cruises and Ports") - [Chapter 7.5 Cruise Terminal Design and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/ "Chapter 7.4 – Cruise Terminal Design and Equipment") #### [VIII. PORT GOVERNANCE](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/ "VIII. PORT MARKETS") - [Chapter 8.1 Port Governance and Reform](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/ "Chapter 8.1 – Port Governance and Reform") - [Chapter 8.2 Port Authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/ "Chapter 8.2 – Port Authorities") - [Chapter 8.3 Port Coordination and Cooperation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/ "Chapter 8.3 – Port Coordination and Cooperation") - [Chapter 8.4 Port Clusters](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/ "Chapter 8.4 – Port Clusters") - [Chapter 8.5 Green Port Governance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/ "Chapter 8.5 – Green Port Governance") - [Chapter 8.6 Port Management, Governance and Leadership](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/ "Chapter 8.6 – Port Management, Governance and Leadership") #### [IX. PORT COMPETITION](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/ "IX. PORT COMPETITION") - [Chapter 9.1 Inter-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/ "Chapter 9.1 – Inter-Port Competition") - [Chapter 9.2 Intra-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/ "Chapter 9.2 – Intra-Port Competition") - [Chapter 9.3 Port Marketing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/ "Chapter 9.3 – Port Marketing") - [Chapter 9.4 Port Pricing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/ "Chapter 9.4 – Port Pricing") - [Chapter 9.5 Entry Barriers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/ "Chapter 9.5 – Entry Barriers in Seaports") #### [X. PORT PERFORMANCE](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/ "X. PORT PERFORMANCE") - [Chapter 10.1 Performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/ "Chapter 10.1 – Port Performance") - [Chapter 10.2 Efficiency](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/ "Chapter 10.2 – Port Efficiency") - [Chapter 10.3 Effectiveness](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/ "Chapter 10.3 – Port Effectiveness") - [Chapter 10.4 Resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/ "Chapter 10.4 – Port Resilience") #### [XI. PORT POLICIES & DEVELOPMENT](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ "XI. PORT POLICIES & DEVELOPMENT") - [Chapter 11.1 Ports, Policies and Geopolitics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/ "Chapter 11.1 – Ports, Policies, and Geopolitics") - [Chapter 11.2 Ports and Economic Development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/ "Chapter 11.2 – Ports and Economic Development") - [Chapter 11.3 Port Planning and Development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/ "Chapter 11.3 – Port Planning and Development") - [Chapter 11.4 Port Safety, Security, and Cybersecurity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/ "Chapter 11.4 – Safety, Security, and Cybersecurity") - [Chapter 11.5 Port-City Relationships](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/ "Chapter 11.5 – Port-City Relationships") - [Chapter 11.6 Representing Port Interests](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/ "Chapter 11.6 – Representing Port Interests") #### [XII. CASE STUDIES](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ "XII. CASE STUDIES") - [Optimal Ship Size: Container Ships and Cruise Vessels](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4854 "Optimal Ship Size") - [Competition between the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/ "Competition between the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach") - [Ports and the COVID-19 Pandemic](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-and-pandemic/ "Ports and the COVID-19 Pandemic") - [The Port of Savannah Logistics Cluster](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/ "The Port of Savannah Logistics Cluster") - [Nike European Logistics Campus in Belgium](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nike-european-logistics-center-belgium/ "Nike European Logistics Campus in Belgium") - [The Nicaragua Canal Project](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nicaragua-canal-project/ "The Nicaragua Canal Project") - [Tools for Managing Port Risk and Resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/tools-for-managing-port-risk-and-resilience/ "Tools for Managing Port Risk and Resilience") - [Port Charges as Tools for Geopolitical Objectives](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-charges-tools-geopolitical-objectives/) ## Endorsements > The new book by Theo Notteboom, Thanos Pallis and Jean-Paul Rodrigue, provides the most comprehensive analysis of the current functioning of seaports for academics and port professionals. This publication is particularly relevant from a pedagogic perspective for anybody giving the first steps in the port and maritime world, but also for experienced scholars. For AIVP, the work from these authors is very valuable, since it addresses all port key topics, from terminal design, to the governance models and the port-city relationship. A key reference for future researchers. > > Bruno Delsalle, General Manager, Association Internationale Villes Ports (AIVP) > One of the daily tasks of any Port Authority is to promote the port activity of all its stakeholders and to make known all the actors of the port-logistic chain and their great contribution to international foreign trade and job creation. This handbook touches on practically all aspects of our sector and is of great help to all of us involved in port promotion: a comprehensive and easy-to-use reference manual for any occasion. > > Francesca Antonelli Ibáñez, Marketing & Cruises Manager, Commercial & Business Development, Port Authority of Valencia > Ports are very diverse, they are complex entities combining different tasks and have different responsibilities. At the centre of the economy and society and as engines of growth they are constantly changing and aim at responding to today’s challenges of energy transition and digitalisation. Understanding this complexity is not easy. Explaining this complexity and considering all facets of this complex but fascinating port ecosystem in a comprehensive but clear way is even more difficult. This book sets the bar high but succeeds in its purpose and is a must read for anyone who wants to discover the fascinating world of ports! > > Isabelle Ryckbost, Secretary General, European Sea Ports Organisation. > With the ongoing global supply chain crisis, accelerated digitalization, and the historical challenge of decarbonizing maritime transport, seaports have come to the forefront of the public debate. “Port Economics, Management and Policy” could not be more timely. The three authors – leading scholars in their field – have produced a magnificent book on the organization of seaports, and how port operation and governance can – and must – contribute to regional, national, and global trade-driven development. > > Jan Hoffmann, Global Lead for Maritime Transport and Ports, World Bank > Port Economics, Management and Policy is a very insightful and valuable analysis of the different models of ports and how they are organized to serve the global economy, regional and local development needs. The book also provides an exhaustive overview of how port ecosystems are becoming logistic and industrial nodes in global supply chains and currently undergoing major transformations. A book to be read by all persons interested in ports and their future role > > Lamia Kerdjoudj-Belkaid, Secretary General, Federation of European Private Port Companies and Terminals > While the role of ports hasn’t changed significantly since the dawn of ocean-going trade, their impact and complexity parallel the expansion of globalization and technology. Port Economics, Management and Policy charts this evolution through a thorough, multidisciplinary and multisector review and analysis that deftly explains how supply chain management, automation, digitalization, and sustainability will shape ports of the future. > > Mark Szakonyi, Executive Editor of The Journal of Commerce > Comprehensive in its coverage and thorough in its approach, this multi-disciplinary book has something for every reader. It will be easily understood by those new to the industry or citizens of the local port community, and yet contains nuggets of insight for the most seasoned port professionals. This book will assist those in local government make sense of what ports can do beyond their role as facilitators of trade, exploring their contribution as critical economic, social and environmental tools of development. The authors have not shied away from tackling the emerging trends in this global industry and provide six case studies to enhance our understanding of ports in the 2020s. > > Mary R. Brooks, Professor Emerita, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada > I warmly recommend ‘Port Economics, Management and Policy” by Theo Notteboom, Thanos Pallis and Jean-Paul Rodrigue. Having personally worked with the authors over many years, I have come to know them as anything but ‘ivory tower’ academics. They combine solid theoretical knowledge with a thorough understanding of how the port and maritime industry works. That is what makes this textbook so unique and a must-have for every port executive. > > Patrick Verhoeven, Managing Director, International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH) > Working with Theo Notteboom, Thanos Pallis and Jean-Paul Rodrigue is a very enriching and valuable collaboration. Taking advantage of opportunities on both sides, a full and accessible chapter on the topic of circular economy and port ecosystems was swiftly integrated into the online version of the book. We welcome this approach as it provides both an international reference and continuous updates for the benefit of port professionals, researchers and students. I look forward to the ongoing process of deepening the complex topic of circular economy and port ecosystems. > > Walter Tempst, Facilitator Circular Economy, Circular Flanders / Circular Ports ## Usage Conditions - **DO NOT COPY, REDISTRIBUTE OR TRANSLATE THE CONTENTS OF THIS WEB SITE**. - **The content of this site can be freely used for personal or classroom use ONLY.** Although the material contained on this website is freely available, it is not in the public domain. Its contents, in whole or in part (including graphics and datasets), cannot be copied and published in ANY form (printed or electronic) without consent. - The material, such as maps and figures, can be freely used for **educational purposes,** such as classroom presentations, as long as it is not redistributed to the public. This **excludes** other forms of communication, such as conference presentations, business presentations, published reports, and papers. - **Backlink and guest post** requests are ignored. This website is an academic source of information, not a marketing tool. - Permission to use any graphic material herein in any form of publication, such as an article, a book, or a conference presentation, on any media **must be requested** prior to use. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Main Components of the Panama Canal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-components-panama-canal/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Panama-Canal-1.png?resize=900%2C536&ssl=1 "Main Components of the Panama Canal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Components of the Panama Canal[PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Panama-Canal-1.pdf) The Panama Canal system is composed of two lock systems, the old locks (completed in 1914) and the expanded locks (completed in 2016 as an [expansion of the canal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=549) with two new locks). On the Atlantic side, the Gatun (1914) and Agua Clara (2016) locks link the Caribbean Sea and Lake Gatun. On the Pacific side, the Pedro Miguel and Miraflores Locks (1914) and the Cocoli Locks (2016) link Lake Gatun to the Pacific Ocean. The Culebra Cut ([Gaillard Cut](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=394)) represents the continental divide line and was the main capacity restriction of the canal system, as it could only transit one ship at a time before the expansion. After the 2016 expansion, the Culebra Cut could accommodate two ships simultaneously. To supply this lock system, a large amount of water is required, a need fulfilled by the artificially created Lake Gatun, which is controlled by the Gatun Dam and supplied by Lake Alajuela. The Panama Canal Railway runs parallel to the canal and is designed to handle the extra traffic generated by ships too large to use the facilities. It also moves containers between the Atlantic and Pacific terminals without the need to pay the canal toll. The Panama Canal is under the jurisdiction of the Panama Canal Authority, which controls an area formerly known as the Panama Canal Zone, an extraterritorial entity administered by the United States until its retrocession to Panama in 1999. Both the Pacific and Caribbean sides of the canal have seen the development of [significant port transshipment facilities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=428) since the 1990s, with Panama acting as a major transshipment hub in the region. Still, additional terminal facilities are planned by the Panama Canal Authority. The main container terminal facilities include: - On the **Atlantic side**, Manzanillo International Terminals (MIT) became the first concession in 1995 and is operated by SSA Marine. Colon Container Terminal was concessioned in 1997 and is operated by the Taiwanese consortium Evergreen. The Port of Colon was operated by Hutchison Port Holdings (HPH) under the Panama Ports Company (PPC; the concession also included the Port of Balboa on the Pacific Side) until 2026, when it was seized by the Government of Panama following a ruling declaring the concession unconstitutional. Operations were temporarily transferred to APMT and MSC. The Port of Colon has been a concession since 1997 and was renewed in 2021 for an additional 25 years. An agreement was reached in 2016 with a Chinese consortium to build the Panama Colon Container Port (PCCP), a post-Panamax facility with an expected capacity of 2.5 million TEU. However, the concession was revoked in 2021 after the consortium was found to be noncompliant with the contract terms. The project remains incomplete and delayed. - On the **Pacific side**, the Port of Balboa was operated by Hutchison Port Holdings (HPH) under the Panama Ports Company (PPC) and had been under concession from 1997 until 2026, when the PPC assets were seized by the Government of Panama. PSA Panama International Terminal was opened in 2011 and operated by PSA International (Port of Singapore Authority), adding 2 million TEU in capacity. In 2016, the Panama Canal Authority issued a request for proposals to global terminal operators for the Corozal Container Terminal project. The two phases of the project would add 5.3 million TEU of capacity. However, after pre-qualification, no bidder emerged to take over the project, and the project is on hold. All of the above confer on Panama the status of one of the most important container terminal clusters in the Americas. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-components-panama-canal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-components-panama-canal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-components-panama-canal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-components-panama-canal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Panama Canal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-ports-panama-canal/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/panama_canal_containers.png?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Panama Canal, 1995-2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Panama Canal 1995 2025Since the 1990s, the growth of transpacific trade has substantially impacted port dynamics around the Panama Canal. Most of the growth occurred within Panama and was driven by three vectors of maritime connectivity. The first is the connectivity provided by the Panama Canal, allowing the continuity of deep-sea maritime shipping services. The second and third vectors of connectivity relate to the transshipment functions performed on both the Pacific and Caribbean facades of the canal. In the 20th century, the Colon port cluster was the main center of activity, but primarily as a domestic port serving the Colon Free Trade Zone. However, in the early 2000s, the growth of transshipment cargoes enabled Balboa to become a new hub, growing on par with Colon and becoming one of the two most important transshipment hubs in the region. The expansion of the Panama Canal in 2016 enabled the Colon cluster to grow more quickly. Transshipment activity is not limited to Panama; neighboring ports also compete for the business. Cartagena became a major transshipment hub in the late 2000s, in part due to its access to the Caribbean and national markets. Other main ports, such as Buenaventura and Puerto Limón (Limon Moin), grew organically with the dynamism of their hinterlands but can offer transshipment opportunities. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-ports-panama-canal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-ports-panama-canal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-ports-panama-canal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-ports-panama-canal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Functional and Spatial Development of a Seaport](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/functional-spatial-development-seaport/) **Published:** January 5, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/functional_spatial_development_seaport.png?resize=900%2C364&ssl=1 "Functional and Spatial Development of a Seaport | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Functional and Spatial Development of a Seaport*Source: adapted from: UNCTAD (1999) The fourth generation port. UNCTAD Ports Newsletter, 19, pp. 9-12. Flynn, M., Lee, T., & Notteboom, T. (2011) “The next step on the port generations ladder: Customer-centric and community ports”. In Current Issues in Shipping, Ports and Logistics (Vol. 1–27, pp. 497–510).* The widely cited port-type generations of UNCTAD and later port-generation models examine port roles and functions, as well as institutional structures and operational and management practices. In 1994, the UNCTAD secretariat coined the term “third-generation port” (3GP) to describe a port that handles cargo and provides additional value-added services, such as warehousing, packaging, and distribution, thereby generating additional employment and revenue for the port community. In 1999, the fourth-generation port was proposed based on ship-to-shore interfaces, cargo-handling operations, a greater reliance on capital than labor, the development of containerization and logistics, and changes in port operators and administration, with vertical and horizontal integration strategies. Therefore, ports develop both functionally, in terms of the cargo they handle, and spatially, in terms of the extent of their infrastructure and position in shipping networks. Five major generations (or stages) can be identified, each corresponding to a specific era in the commercial geography of ports. Three main typological factors can articulate the temporal sequence of port development: - **External environment**. A series of external political, economic, and technological developments impacts the role and function of ports. While recent driving forces have focused on globalization, sustainability, and digitalization, the issues of automation, resilience, and digitalization have come to the forefront. - **Spatial organization**. The scale and scope of port activity have substantially expanded with the setting of port networks and port systems. - **Organization and strategy**. Port authorities have become complex entities that manage port network communities, with the goal of developing integrated transportation and logistics services for their hinterlands. The emergence of advanced port community systems has recently fostered the close integration between ports and their numerous operational stakeholders. A “**fifth-generation port**” (5GP) is emerging. It involves customer-centric community ports that increasingly examine market opportunities through the eyes of their customers and adapt to meet the ever-higher expectations of their host communities. The contemporary port is becoming a platform of platforms (trade, logistics, services, information technologies). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/functional-spatial-development-seaport/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/functional-spatial-development-seaport/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/functional-spatial-development-seaport/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/functional-spatial-development-seaport/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Forms of Port Terminal Privatization](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/forms-port-terminal-privatization/) **Published:** January 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/forms_termina_privatization.png?resize=900%2C534&ssl=1 "Forms of Port Terminal Privatization | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Forms of Port Terminal PrivatizationThere are several forms of port terminal privatization (not to be confused with port privatization). - **Sale**. The outright sale of a terminal facility to a private operator, which assumes all responsibilities of management, repair, and maintenance. The condition is that the facility retains its function and cannot be converted to other uses without the approval of the regulatory agency. - **Concession**. A long-term lease (20 to 30 years) by a government or port authority to a public or private operator for providing specific port services, such as terminal operations or nautical services (e.g., pilotage and towage). The concessionaire undertakes capital investment to provide and expand terminal infrastructure and superstructure. - **Capital lease** (finance lease). A long-term leasing agreement in which the lessee rents the terminal and its equipment for a defined period of time. The lessee is expected to provide maintenance but not to invest in infrastructure and superstructure. Can be suitable for acquiring capital-intensive equipment without upfront capital investment. - **Management contract**. The private operator manages the terminal equipment and labor on behalf of the owner, typically the port authority, which retains ownership of the assets and is responsible for their maintenance. - **Service contract**. A private operator performs specific operational tasks using equipment and labor provided by the owner, typically the port authority. In contrast, the port authority retains ownership of the facility and equipment. - **Equipment lease**. A private entity leases equipment to the terminal operator and provides maintenance services. This enables the operator to amortize the costs of new equipment but increases the cost of ownership. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/forms-port-terminal-privatization/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/forms-port-terminal-privatization/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/forms-port-terminal-privatization/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/forms-port-terminal-privatization/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 8.1 - Port Governance and Reform](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/) **Published:** December 18, 2019 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > Port governance refers to the adoption and enforcement of rules that govern conduct, authority, and institutional resources, enabling the development and management of port activities to benefit society and the economy. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Port Governance](#1_Port_Governance) - [2. Reforms in Port Governance](#2_Reforms_in_Port_Governance) - [3. Port Governance Models](#3_Port_Governance_Models) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Port Governance ## A. Defining port governance Governance principles are most important in the case of ports. Ports are critical infrastructure for an economy, contributing to the realization of trade and movement. Port governance issues have become central to the port policy agendas. Governments have revisited the objectives of ports and reformed existing structures and strategies to match the contemporary economic environment. At the same time, port management, operations, and development are capital-intensive, consume (public) scarce land, generate externalities (noise, emissions), and involve many **decision-makers and stakeholders** such as the port authority (or port management entity), terminal operators, rail operators, trucking companies, logistics providers, and port cities. Port governance concerns both the public and private sectors, but its application tends to differ depending on whether **public or private interests are at stake**. Its features are imposed by governments or adopted voluntarily by entities, groups, or associations. Its principles apply to relationships between businesses, public/private agencies, their stakeholders, organizations, and those who establish them to undertake activities on their behalf. Port governance concerns both the public and private sectors, but its application tends to differ depending on whether public or private interests are at stake. Its features are imposed by governments or adopted voluntarily by entities, groups, or associations. The **[trends in (global) trade and transport are vital for port governance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1905),** as they define the environment within which ports operate. Since the 1980s, port governance has become a central component of public policy. A changing economic environment, driven by the globalization of production and distribution, shifting cargo transportation forms, and technological breakthroughs, has ended a long period of stable, state-controlled (public) port governance models in most countries. As economic circumstances changed, changes were gradually made to port governance structures. Many governments undertook port reforms to adapt to a new context, resulting in changes to applicable governance structures. The objectives of port governance are determined within a specific economic context, where trends in global trade, the facilitation of this trade, transport organization, and related agreements and logistics inform the decisions of policymakers at the national, regional, or local port level. Additionally, the application of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), along with the resulting e-governance mechanisms, readjusts the operational and commercial relationships within the port community, increasingly informing port governance changes. In the absence of an optimal port governance structure, features applied to port governance models differ. The variety increases as decision-makers **adjust port governance and reevaluate the existing configurations** within broader perspectives that involve: - **Vision**. A **[multi-modal vision of ports and their governance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1890)** that considers the importance of logistics integration and inland freight distribution. This requires stakeholder management approaches as the scope of coordination beyond price between actors involved is essential, and opportunistic behavior could limit trust and infrastructure for solving collective action problems. Within a multi-modal perspective, port governance includes spatial-jurisdictional scales, stakeholder relations (internal, external, public policy, and community), and logistical capabilities. - **Engagement**. [A broader **stakeholder engagement**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1911) that aims to address a variety of economic, operational, social, and cultural variables linked with port management, operations, and development. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/transport_trade_port_governance.png?resize=900%2C293&ssl=1 "Transport, Trade and Port Governance | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Transport Trade and Port Governance![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_multi_modal.png?resize=900%2C590&ssl=1 "A Multi-Modal Port Governance Vision | Port Economics, Management and Policy")A Multi modal Vision of Port Governance![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/broader_port_governance.png?w=900&ssl=1 "A Broader View of Port Governance | Port Economics, Management and Policy")A Broader View of Port Governance## B. Port governance objectives Governments or other relevant policymakers impose port governance structures with particular policy objectives in mind. The **strategic objectives** that may drive the choice of port governance model involve maximizing: - Traffic throughput, which could be subject to the maximum allowed operating deficit. - Return on investment. - Profits for shareholders. - Economic development prospects at the local or national levels. The full range of objectives varies worldwide as ports are as interested in **economic development** as they are in serving **commercial and trading interests**. Most ports view their roles as complex, with multiple objectives and national, regional, and local impacts. They serve more than just their customers or their communities and are in the business of **balancing multiple roles and expectations**. Ports determine their objectives to cope with government regulators (or owners), customers, local community stakeholders, and managers (or shareholders). **Optimizing economic development** prospects is the objective most frequently chosen by major ports, a goal also commonly pursued by smaller ports with growth potential. The port is viewed as an economic catalyst and is expected to have a multiplying effect. Ports owned and managed by the government most commonly seek to enhance the contribution of the port and shipping-related activities to the economy (i.e., Hong Kong) or to advance and safeguard national strategic maritime interests (i.e., Singapore). Private ports focus on profit, sales, and development opportunities or on increasing financial value for their shareholders. Yet, even private ports consider the economic value they may generate for their local community. ## C. Port governance tasks Ports are multifaceted organizations that depend on numerous functions. Port governance involves decisions regarding the execution of several different tasks. These tasks are frequently interlinked and might be responsible for one or more public or private entities operating at the port or another level. Each is related to one of the main [port governance tasks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1997). ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_tasks.png?resize=900%2C719&ssl=1 "Port Governance Tasks | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance TasksThe main tasks include: - [Port policy formation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2021). - [Public authority functions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2031). - [Technical management of the port area](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2035). - [Market and price regulation (including competition)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2040). - [Management of concession agreements](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2078). - [Management of emerging issues](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2081). ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_policy_formulation.png?resize=900%2C526&ssl=1 "Port Governance Tasks: Port Policy Formulation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Tasks Port Policy Formation![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_public_authority.png?resize=900%2C377&ssl=1 "Port Governance Tasks: Public Authority Functions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Tasks Public Authority Functions![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_technical_management.png?resize=900%2C467&ssl=1 "Port Governance Tasks: Technical Management of Port Areas | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Tasks Technical Management of Port Areas![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_market_price.png?resize=900%2C568&ssl=1 "Port Governance Tasks: Market and Price Regulations | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Tasks Market and Price Regulations ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_management_concession.png?resize=900%2C533&ssl=1 "Port Governance Tasks: Management of Concession Agreements | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Tasks Management of Concession Agreements![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_emerging_issues.png?resize=900%2C358&ssl=1 "Port Governance Tasks: Management of Εmerging Ιssues | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Tasks Management of Εmerging Ιssues indicative## D. Realignment of port governance Once in place, a port governance model can be reevaluated. Governance models are revisited to address any misalignment in the framework or to adapt to changing economic or political circumstances. Another reason is to incorporate feedback from the port or its regulators as the reforms unfold in practice. Two key conclusions can be drawn from examining port governance models worldwide. First, combining inputs does not always result in a **fit of the objectives based on optimal performance**. Second, while governments may have had the best intentions in establishing a more commercialized footing for port operations, port governance reforms have **not always delivered the full benefits sought**. Correcting these mismatches requires that a port link its governance model to its performance. Port performance is the output of a governance configuration. Performance deficiencies are partially by-products of inconsistent governance frameworks, either due to their flaws or because frameworks appropriate to particular objectives have not been implemented as anticipated. This misallocation encourages a realignment of the components of governance models. Therefore, decision-makers must know how the models have failed to deliver if this was the conclusion drawn in a particular context. A prerequisite is developing indicators that detail the exact components of this performance, the agents involved in measuring these components, and, at a port level, prioritizing the performance components. Linking outcomes to objectives enables a **feedback mechanism** for the next cycle of port governance review. The process of evaluating port performance begins by understanding the objectives of both the port reform process and those set by the port authority. The full consideration of efficiency and effectiveness performance can be used to inform future port reform decisions. When all stakeholders are satisfied with the outcomes, there is little impetus to move further. If, on the other hand, some stakeholders are dissatisfied with the oyutcomes, governance objectives have not been met. This prompts changes to the imposed port governance model, as well as how the port authority configures itself in response to the imposed model (and accompanying regulations), or to the management team. Governments can also be tempted to intervene if they are not pleased with performance. Similarly, stakeholders can lobby governments if they are dissatisfied, and port users can choose not to use the facilities. # 2. Reforms in Port Governance ## A. Waves of port reforms Successive waves of port governance reforms, management, and organization have occurred worldwide since the 1990s. They have been the response to the globalization of production and consumption, the ongoing growth in maritime trade, and, more specifically, the booming demand for container transport and its supporting infrastructure provided by container ports and terminal operators. There has been a liberalization of economic systems, with a lesser role of the public sector in the operation of large transportation infrastructure, including terminals. These reforms have **increased the autonomy of port-level authorities** to act and introduced a more active role for private firms in providing port services. **The first wave of port reforms occurred in the 1990s and early 2000s,** when several national policies were implemented to expand the involvement of private actors in port operations and management. The core theme was the devolution of port management and operational responsibility and, to a lesser extent, the transfer of port assets from local public (decentralized) entities to private, commercially driven corporate port entities. The port is free to set its strategic objectives, be more responsive to market forces, and support national initiatives. Some of these port entities are listed on international stock markets. Typically, the public sector assumes a supervisory and monitoring role, distinct from the provision of services and port operations, beyond ownership of the port. In some cases, though (like the UK), there is no national agency monitoring ports. In the absence of consensus on the most appropriate governance model, implementing the planned reforms proved to be excessively challenging for many governments. **The second wave of port governance reforms is underway**. The restructuring of national port systems continues, as does the goal of identifying the most appropriate allocation of governance structures and management responsibilities, and this for two main reasons: - First, ports continue to **seek suitable models** for optimum performance outcomes, as well as ways to lower entry barriers to acquire the benefits of intra-port competition, reform port labor, and engage local stakeholders in efforts to improve port hinterland access. - Second, despite the best intentions, the first wave of reforms has **not always delivered the expected benefits**. Although port governance configurations are rarely in place for long enough to observe clear consequences or outcomes, decision-makers implement adjustments ranging from relatively simple fine-tuning to complete reversals of previous decisions. The **broader macroeconomic circumstances** informed these reforms. The global financial crisis of 2008-09 provided the impetus for many port reforms, particularly the transition towards full implementation of the landlord model, which aimed to devolve operational responsibility to the private sector and reduce costs. This was often done with the specific objectives of improving efficiency, increasing volumes, and enhancing profitability. Since the 2010s, legislative adjustments have been more complex. As reforms in several countries in [Europe](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/recent-post-governance-reforms-europe/ "Recent Port Governance Reforms: Europe") and [Asia](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/recent-post-governance-reforms-asia/ "Recent Post Governance Reforms: Asia") illustrate: - There is **no longer a single port reform theme**, such as the devolution of authority or the opening of the market to private terminal operators, that characterised the 1990s. For example, in the last decade, some countries pursued the merger of port authorities, reflecting a broader trend of consolidations (Belgium, Canada, China, France, the Netherlands, etc). Greece has transitioned from corporatizing the state-owned enterprises managing ports to their complete privatization, a direction also being considered in countries such as Brazil and Israel. By contrast, in [China](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/port-reform-integration-mainland-china/ "Port Reform and Integration in Mainland China") and South Korea, the national port systems still remain heavily dependent on government policies and action plans. Canada is exploring mechanisms to enhance transparency in the port sector. South Africa reconsiders the centralized model of port governance, which is currently the responsibility of a single national authority. Meanwhile, Colombia seeks to reassert national authority over its port system, which, following privatization in the early 1990s, has suffered from fragmented governance among numerous public institutions and private actors. - Ports, governments, and stakeholders have **moved away from a belief in a single port governance model**. Some commonalities exist in terms of both the issues that decision-makers have attempted to address and the observed reforms in anticipated response. The precise level of desired state intervention in the port sector remains a theme of utmost controversy and discussion in several countries. A number of contextual factors lead to further reconsiderations of port governance priorities. These factors include the rising international trade disputes that add to the observed volatility in international trade and cargo volumes in ports, the growing role of environmental and social considerations in shaping the behavior and strategies of port-related actors, the greater role attributed to setting and achieving sustainability goals including the energy transition and to rolling out initiatives in the field of corporate social responsibility (CSR), stakeholder relations management and green supply chain management. Along with the growing emancipation of individual citizens and stakeholders, these factors may lead to further reviews of port governance principles and details. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/major_european_port_governance_reforms.png?resize=900%2C446&ssl=1 "major_european_port_governance_reforms | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Recent Port Governance Reforms Europe![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/asia_port_governance_reforms.png?resize=900%2C450&ssl=1 "asia_port_governance_reforms | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Recent Port Governance Reforms Asia![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-China-Authorities.png?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Map-China-Authorities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Reform and Integration in Mainland China## B. Types of port reforms A **full spectrum** of port governance models, ranging from public to privately managed port activities, remains in place, even after the second wave of reforms since 2000. The [typology of the different paths](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/types-port-reforms/ "Types of Port Reforms") endorsed can be summarized as follows: - **Privatization**. The complete transfer of asset ownership (including land) to a privately-owned for-profit entity. The retained role of the government is to regulate the transferred entity. Very few countries, such as the UK and New Zealand, have applied a fully privatized port governance system, including the privatization of the port land. In other cases, privatization is commonly used as a term for the long-term transfer of management rights of ports to private entities, achieved by selling the (corporatized) public governing port authority to a private company. - **Commercialization**. Governments have withdrawn from operating infrastructure while retaining ownership, which typically leads to the **landlord model**. The most commonly endorsed port governance model worldwide is the concession of rights to manage and operate terminals or provide port services to third parties, which is a form of commercialization. - **Decentralization**. Decentralizing oversight responsibility from the national to the local level increases local responsiveness and flexibility and often accompanies commercialization. This reallocation of responsibility within the public sector sometimes includes transferring ownership to a local government entity. A few countries have chosen to either commercialize or decentralize their port infrastructure. However, most have moved towards more commercial approaches by adopting concessions. - **Corporatization**. A particular form of commercialization involves creating a separate legal corporate entity (often called a **port development and management company**) that assumes legal responsibility for providing the functions or services mandated by its charter or bylaws. The distinguishing feature of corporatization is the creation of a legal entity with shareholding. Corporatization has been a key governance model adopted in East Asia and Africa. Considerable debate exists about whether corporatization, either through the issuance of share capital or through the creation of purpose-driven state entities, has been particularly successful. The majority of the largest ports have implemented **commercialized or corporatized** governance structures. They have also endorsed ways to increase the participation of the private sector via the provision of public activities and [public-private partnerships](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/characteristics-types-public-private-partnerships/), including infrastructure development through build-operate-transfer schemes or the operation of terminal facilities through concession agreements. Mixed governance models incorporating contracted management are also present. Many ports remain government-owned and government-managed, although they may have been decentralized. A few ports are listed on stock exchanges. In Europe, this is the case of some ports in the UK and the two major Greek ports, Piraeus and Thessaloniki. In many cases, corporatization takes place when capital shares are issued. Still, the government remains the majority shareholder, and the issuance has not been accompanied by a public listing. ![Port Economics, Management and Policy diagram illustrating privatization, commercialization, decentralization, and corporatization processes.](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_port_reforms.png?resize=900%2C364&ssl=1 "Types of Port Reforms | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Port Reforms![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_public_private_partnerships.png?resize=900%2C390&ssl=1 "Main types of Public-Private Partnerships | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Types of Public Private Partnerships## C. Governance reform configuration The interactions between the responsible government department (ministry or other relevant policy actors), the entity responsible for managing and operating the port, and the private actors offering services are key to the governance model. This model is defined by the [configuration of three inputs](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1920): - **Strategy**. Objectives and decisions regarding its market scope and business plan were developed by the port authority (PA). - **Structure**. Implemented as a result of government regulations and policies, and the strategy selected by the PA. - **Contextual environment**. Composed of controllable and uncontrollable factors, such as public opinion. Establishing a port governance model is a process that evolves over time. Governments and other relevant policymakers typically establish governance structures with specific objectives in mind. As economic circumstances change, these objectives are set at the national, regional, or port level. The scope of governance is to adjust strategies and corporate goals in order to align with the **contextual economic environment**. Informed by the performance of a port or a port system and changes in the economic context, the responsible institutions initiate changes in the structures and strategies of the respective ports, aiming to generate a matching framework. In the absence of a better framework, these inputs produce an output (performance), the quality of which results from the consistency of the considered inputs. When considering the environment-structure-strategy triptych, [two configurations emerge](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2092): - **First Configuration**. Characterized by an environment of low uncertainty, low complexity, and dynamism. It is an efficiency-oriented strategy focusing on delivering essential services and a mechanistic structure of centralized decision-making characterized by procedural standardization. - **Second Configuration**. Characterized by a highly uncertain environment with an effectiveness-oriented strategy offering peripheral products and services in addition to essential services. It is an organic structure of decentralized decision-making. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_reform_process.png?resize=900%2C431&ssl=1 "The Port Governance Reform Process | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Configuring Port Governance Models The Process![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_frameworks.png?resize=900%2C380&ssl=1 "port_governance_frameworks | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Matching Frameworks Configuration# 3. Port Governance Models ## A. Public and private roles in port management There are [five main models](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/public-private-roles-port-management/ "Public and Private Roles in Port Management") based on the respective responsibilities of the public and private sectors in port management: - **[Public service ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/public-service-port/ "Public Service Port")**. The port authority of public service ports provides a comprehensive range of port-related services and owns all the necessary infrastructure. They are commonly a branch of a government ministry, and most of their employees are civil servants. Some ancillary services can be left to private companies. Due to related inefficiencies, the number of public service ports has declined. However, it remains dominant in smaller ports serving local markets. - **[Tool ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/public-tool-port/ "Public Tool Port")**. Like every aspect of a public service port, the tool port differs only in the private handling of its cargo operations, although the port authority still owns all or part of the terminal equipment. In several cases, a tool port is a transitional form between a public service port and a landlord port. - **[Landlord ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/landlord-port/ "Landlord Port")**. Represents the most common management model, in which infrastructure, particularly terminals, is leased to private operating companies, with the port authority retaining control of the land on which the port is developed, either by owning it or by retaining the rights to exclusive exploitation (as granted by the competent public authority). The most common form of lease is a concession agreement, in which a private company is granted a long-term lease in exchange for rent that is typically a function of the facility’s size and the investment required to build, renovate, or expand the terminal. Private port operators provide and maintain their superstructure, including buildings (e.g., offices, sheds, warehouses, container freight stations, workshops). Private terminal operators, on the other hand, employ dock labor. The private operator is also responsible for providing terminal equipment to maintain operating standards. Today, this is the dominant port model in larger and medium-sized ports. Still, it has a number of variants, depending upon the level of decentralization and autonomy of the port authority involved, the cultural disposition of the country considered, the division of infrastructure investments (such as quay walls, terminal surface, etc.) between the PA and the private terminal operators, or the level of involvement of the landlord in furthering and enhancing port activities. - **[Corporatized ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/corporatized-port/ "Corporatized Port")**. Concerns ports that have almost entirely been privatized, except that ownership remains public and often assumes a majority shareholding. The port authority essentially operates like a private enterprise and is commonly referred to as a port development and management company. This management model is unique because it is the only one in which ownership and control are separated, reducing the public-good pressures that landlord port authorities face and the shareholder-value pressures that private ports face. - **[Private service ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/private-service-port/ "Private Service Port")**. The outcome of the complete privatization of the port facility is that the facilities must retain their maritime role. The port authority is entirely privatized, with almost all port functions under private control, while the public sector retains standard regulatory oversight. Still, public entities can be shareholders and thus steer the port towards strategies deemed of public interest. These models are applied to ports with varying characteristics, including ownership of infrastructure, equipment, terminal operations, and models for the provision of port services. While service and tool ports primarily serve public interests, landlord ports aim to strike a balance between public and private interests. At the other end of the spectrum, private service ports are maximizing the interests of their shareholders. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/public_private_roles_management.png?resize=900%2C351&ssl=1 "Public and Private Roles in Port Management | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Public and Private Roles in Port Management![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/public_service_port.png?resize=900%2C615&ssl=1 "Public Service Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Public Service Port![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/public_tool_port.png?resize=900%2C615&ssl=1 "Public Tool Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Public Tool Port![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/landlord_port.png?resize=900%2C615&ssl=1 "Landlord Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Landlord Port![Corporatized Port](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/corporatized_port.png?resize=900%2C615&ssl=1 "Corporatized Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")![Shaded port categories on port authority performance meter, focusing on port management and policy aspects.](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/private_service_port.png?resize=900%2C615&ssl=1 "Private Service Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Private Service Port## B. Public ownership remains dominant Public ownership of ports remains a **dominant feature of port governance**, with few ports fully privatized, especially among the largest. There are five types of port governance associated with port ownership approaches, moving from the most centralized public ownership and management to the most private sector-oriented: - **Central government-owned** with central government management and control. - **Government-owned**, but management and control are **decentralized to a local government** body. - **Government-owned** (national, regional, or municipal) but managed and controlled by a **corporatized entity**. - **Government-owned** but managed by **a private sector entity** via a concession or lease arrangement, or owned and managed via a **public-private partnership** agreement. - **Wholly privately owned**, managed, and controlled. In some cases, government ownership means that there is no port authority but a **government department** responsible for port policy. In contrast, some countries have created a single port authority as the custodian of all major seaports (i.e., South Africa’s Transnet National Ports Authority or TNPA, one of the divisions of state-owned company Transnet) or several ports (i.e., Romania) with no port-level port authority. The presence of port authorities governing more than one port is a port governance approach that has been applied in recent times in several cases. A recent example is Italy, where the national government decided to merge the management entities of several ports in close proximity, forming what are now called Port System Authorities, which are responsible for governing multiple ports. A 2022 report of the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) revealed that half of European port authorities are responsible for more than one port. ## C. The extensive use of concessions Port governance models based on **concessions of rights** to operate and provide port services, with the public sector retaining ownership of the port and the landlord port authority role, are the most common practice worldwide. This trend has been accelerated by containerization and the development of container terminals. It has progressively expanded to other types of terminals, such as cruise ports. Still, the extent of concessions varies depending on the traffic type and remains common for container terminal management. This is perhaps because bulk terminals often serve captive users, and competition policy concerns are in play. Commonly, concessions are granted for **specific terminals**. Public port authorities (or occasionally other public agencies) typically develop a port master plan that details the layout of port development, including breakwaters and terminal areas, and invest in general port infrastructure, such as port real estate, access roads, and rail tracks. Port authorities grant private terminal operating companies concessions to operate a terminal, in return for which they receive a concession fee. The responsibility for investment differs between concessions. In some cases, the port authority invests in quays and terminal infrastructure, while in other cases, the private terminal operator is responsible for making these investments. The government typically determines the primary terminal characteristics, including size, location, waterside, and landside access. Terminal operation is usually undertaken only by terminal operating companies. A terminal operating company might be present when port authorities are involved in container terminal operations. In most cases, port authorities assume the role of overseers who initiate and monitor the operator. Port authorities no longer engage in developmental activities within their port boundaries, but instead focus on various coordination and cooperation activities. Contemporary port authorities face a dilemma, as the delivery of local benefits may not align with the objectives of those granted the terminal concession. This dilemma has become more acute for several reasons. First, the **consolidation of terminal operations** has continued. Second, several ports act as **transshipment hubs** serving destinations outside the economy that hosts the port. Thus, the immediate benefits for the local economy are neither visible nor of the expected magnitude. Third, the **financialization of terminal operations** continues even after the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, as financial infrastructure funds remain active in acquiring terminal operations. This focus on the business of terminal operations has led to **divergent directions**. One is that ownership by global financial interests has separated terminal operations from the community. They have focused their interests on delivering returns at a time when governments were seeking even greater social returns. These have boosted, rather than limited, the consolidation and dominance of a few private interests in terminal operations. ## D. Lessons from full port privatization Port reforms have been a response to a broader agenda of streamlining government as a means of dealing with deficits and the result of a shift in macroeconomic thinking toward **greater private sector involvement** in public goods delivery. The process gained momentum when the full impact of the UK decision in the 1980s to reform its public sector changed the way governments saw the way forward for the governance of most transport activities, including ports. The British experience has informed thinking in port privatization. Port devolution in the UK often involved outright sale, regulatory functions, listing on the stock exchange, deregulation of the port labor market, and transfers often at discounted prices. The outcome is that there is no port regulator. Privatization was used to unwind nationalizations that took place during World War II. That reform was as much about reversing public ownership as it was about selling companies that should not be publicly owned. What made the UK reform model unique was that the privatization of UK ports was comprehensive, encompassing the sale of port land. The British case was about selling ports (removing public ownership and accountability) rather than creating new and improved port infrastructure and facilities, which was the goal of most other countries. Only a few countries have gone so far as to change the ownership status of both the port authority and the port land from public to private. The UK continues to lead the world in the full privatization of the port sector. This has resulted from a tradition that began with Felixstowe in 1886 and was enhanced by port reforms initiated in the 1980s and 1990s. Still, no other UK ports have been sold since 1997, despite a voluntary privatization application made by the Port of Dover in 2012, which was rejected by the UK Secretary of State for Transport. The only recently implemented model approaching full privatization was adopted in Australia, in which long-term leaseholds over port assets (including land) are sold to the private sector, typically for 99 years. Full privatization is rarely endorsed, as experience suggests that it has not been without challenges. For example, UK ports have been sold at undervalued prices, resulting in less investment than would otherwise have occurred. Furthermore, when private interests responded to improved trade and financial institutions began to acquire infrastructure holdings, the loss of oversight and monitoring roles created discontent in the UK port industry and business. Other ex-post assessments of these reforms have questioned the effectiveness of the realized developments. Such criticism includes the relevant legislation that accompanied reforms and empirical evidence that corporatization does not a priori result in improved financial performance. As a result, few other governments have considered copying the UK model in its entirety. Another key problem in the case of private entities owning assets under full privatization is that, in several instances, the same private company serves as both the harbor authority and the port operator, as well as the owner of the land on which the port is located. This situation was also observed in Turkey, where control of operations and management was transferred to contractor companies, along with new capital assets that are expected to be transferred back to the government at the end of the concession contract. Similarly, in the mid-2010s, Greece endorsed the master concessions model, selling 67% of the shares of the port authorities in its major ports, Piraeus and Thessaloniki, to a third party; two more ports followed in the 2020s (Heraklion and Igoumenitsa). In these cases, however, the new capital is not expected to be transferred back to the state. ## E. Governance approaches across port sizes Port governance models and reforms are **not uniformly applied** to all ports. Different treatment for secondary or peripheral ports, which are generally of small sizes, is not uncommon. Successive reforms in Europe and the Americas have followed a distinctive approach for ports of national interest, as opposed to that applied to peripheral ports, which were granted a certain degree of autonomy within a public framework of management and operation. The reason is the very different conditions and challenges faced by these ports compared to major international ports. The former group prioritizes local and regional transportation of goods to/from the local community, as well as serving as axes of regional development and poles attracting investments that would boost the prospects of local economies. Besides, even in the smaller ports alone, the variety of public service obligations, geographical constraints, or economic development aspirations is remarkable. The size effect is an important factor in explaining the **heterogeneity of port organizations**. Port governance regimes comprising at least two tiers are common, particularly in nations where port operations are highly concentrated within just one or a few key ports. To give some examples, in the UK, where 20 ports account for 87% of total throughput, the UK Trust ports were allowed to privatize in 1991, yet all have remained in the public sector, except for one. In Sweden, Gothenburg dominates the national container handling market. Its privatization in 2010 represented one of the biggest ever in Sweden across all sectors. Still, numerous small ports remain public entities, while three significant container ports have been privatized through concession. In Greece, the privatized ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki account for virtually all of the national container throughput, with local and municipal ports remaining under strict public control. In Canada, the port reform process introduced a three-tier approach, with the largest strategic interest ports given greater autonomy (Canada Port Authority ports), second-tier local and regional ports divested to local interests, and remote ports retained by the federal government. It is not only the size of operations that limits the prospects of a port reform. It is also the structure of the regional and national market within which a port operates. While sufficient size is required to reap economies of scale, there may not be sufficient scale remaining within the system to ensure intra-port or inter-port competition, or both. These circumstances may compromise or limit the potential benefits that can be derived from port governance reforms. ## F. The role of the institutional setting **Institutional and cultural differences** across nations may result in varying treatment of ports. Institutional conditions limit the choices available for port governance, leading to diverse outcomes and development trajectories. Port governance structures follow a path influenced mainly by the characteristics of local/national institutional frameworks, as well as the **prevailing political traditions**. Path-dependent decisions preserve the system, resulting in implementation asymmetries, even when different governments seek the same generic port governance solution. For example, in the Netherlands, private law permits the differential treatment of corporatized (including non-profit) entities by the government, compared to the approach in France or Belgium. **Cultural traditions** might also result in different practices. The advanced tariff negotiation model with port user associations, as seen in the case of the largest European port, Rotterdam, is not common elsewhere. Additionally, while port governance frameworks are the subject of specific legislation that exclusively addresses the organization of the port sector, they are often shaped by policies and legislation that more directly relate to other sectors, such as **corporate governance and public management legislation**. Changes in dominant political tenets around the world are also significant. On occasion, confidence in public management has been eroded. Following the 2008 financial crisis, port reform was either explicitly instigated as part of a wider political strategy to help nations extricate themselves from economic decline, or imposed on governments as a condition of bailout packages. Cyprus, Greece, and Portugal are examples of countries where recent decisions on port governance have been externally imposed by international institutions that monitor adherence to imposed bailout conditions. The influence of national/local **political factors** is important. Port governance reforms are subject to drafting, approving, implementing, and fine-tuning, which involve different port communities and stakeholders reacting to national and global changes. The negotiating power held by stakeholders such as terminal operators, concessionaires, ship agents, freight forwarders, and unions is likely to result in the idiosyncratic nature of national reform patterns. The port reforms that eventually emerge may be different from what was originally intended. This outcome is inevitable within any long-term political process. A heavily politicized process not only delays reforms but also changes targets and models. For instance, Greece shifted from granting concessions on activities to selling master concessions. The introduction of policy and legislation enabling port reform and establishing a new port governance system is the outcome of a **lengthy process** that has extended the timeline beyond expectations. In some countries, such as the Netherlands, reforms have not been subject to delays. In France, it took three years to implement the transfer to the new port entities. The process has been prolonged in other countries (i.e., Brazil, Greece, Italy). The causes of delays during the implementation stage are systematically linked to the embeddedness of ports within specific institutional and economic domains. This embeddedness leads to institutional divergence between the objectives set at the governmental level and the interests and objectives at the regional/port level. In the absence of local acceptance and a bottom-up perspective on implementing port reform, the presence of multilevel organizations and associated interests and motivations may constitute a potential barrier to successfully implementing a new port governance framework. Consequently, there is still very **little evidence on best practices in port governance**. In general terms, the heterogeneity of models and the lack of consistency in the roles of public sector agents and stakeholders preclude a comparative analysis of the outcomes achieved by port reform in relation to the objectives that are set for the reform. The middle ground between centralized control and full privatization is extremely complex, and there are no clear and transparent models. In Europe, for example, each country has its own unique port governance. For many years, a European Union Common Port Policy failed to emerge. It was only in 2016 that a framework was adopted, and even then it is limited in application to only some port services within core European ports. As in other parts of the world, the endorsed port governance models are closely tied to national circumstances, traditions, and, frequently, the economic situation of the host country. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 3.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminals-and-terminal-operators/) - [Chapter 3.2 Terminal Concessions and Land Leases](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/) - [Chapter 4.2 Port Authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-authorities/) - [Chapter 4.3 Port Coordination and Cooperation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-cooperation-and-coordination/) - [Chapter 5.1 Inter-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/inter-port-competition/) - [Chapter 5.2 Intra-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/intra-port-competition/) --- ## References - Baltazar R and Brooks M.R. (2006). Port governance, devolution and the matching framework: a configuration theory approach, Research in Transportation Economics 17, 379-403. - Brooks, M.R., and Pallis, A.A. (2008). Assessing Port Governance Models: Process and Performance Components, Maritime Policy and Management, 35 (4), 411-432. - Brooks, M.R., and Pallis, A.A. (2012). Port Governance. In: Wayne T. Talley (ed.) Maritime Economics – A Blackwell Companion, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., pp. 491-516. - Brooks, M.R., Cullinane, K.P.B., and Pallis, A.A. (2017). Revisiting Port Governance and Port Reform: A Multi-country Examination. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 22, 1-10. - Ng K.Y.A., and Pallis A.A. (2010). Port governance reforms in diversified institutional frameworks: Generic Solutions, Implementation asymmetries. Environment and Planning A, 42(9), 2147 – 2167. - Notteboom, T. and Haralambides, H. (2019). Port management and governance in a post-COVID-19 era: quo vadis?. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 22(3), 329–352. - Notteboom, T. and Yang, Z. (2017), Port governance in China since 2004: institutional layering and the growing impact of broader policies, Research in Transportation Business and Management, 22, 184-200. - Pallis A.A. (2007). Whither Port Strategy? Theory and Practice in Conflict. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 21, 345-386. - Pallis, A.A. and Vaggelas G.K. (2017). Port governance: A Greek Prototype. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 22, 49-57. - Wilmsmeier G., Pallis A.A., Schorch S.L. and Trujillo D.L. (2024). Port governance and the implications of institutional fragmentation: Lessons from Colombia. Research in Transportation Business and Managemen*t*, 56, 101179. - World Bank (2025) Port Reform Toolkit. <http://hdl.handle.net/10986/43526> ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 11.1 - Ports, Policies, and Geopolitics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/) **Published:** November 24, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Athanasios Pallis, Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue and Dr. Theo Notteboom > The setting up, planning, development, and daily functions of ports are subject to public policies and can be part of a geopolitical agenda. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Multi-level Port Policy Making](#1_Multi-level_Port_Policy_Making) - [2. National Policies for Ports](#2_National_Policies_for_Ports) - [3. International Port Policies](#3_International_Port_Policies) - [4. Policy Issues](#4_Policy_Issues) - [5. Ports and Geopolitics](#5_Ports_and_Geopolitics) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Multi-level Port Policy Making Governments are usually responsible for establishing, developing, and operating ports to facilitate trade, transforming the seaside into facilities where goods are loaded and unloaded. This role encompasses not only **port ownership**, including the management of wharves and jetties, but also **regulatory functions**. Seaports are critical infrastructure allowing trade and the movement of goods and persons, with governance and regulation being a matter of public interest. Ports are multifaceted economic arenas that create [economic](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/),[ social, and environmental value](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/) at microeconomic (individual firms), meso (sectoral), and macro (economies) levels and are contributors to economic prosperity. Typically, the government or a specialized agent oversees a port and manages related politics to safeguard the public interest. Over the last three decades, [**port governance reforms**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-reform-and-governance/) have resulted in an increasing disassociation of public actors from the management and operation of ports in many countries. However, the public interest in organizing, planning, and regulating port activities remains. This takes shape either through public policies (de)regulating ports or through broader initiatives, such as transportation, competition, environmental, and economic policies that shape the port sector and related activities. **Intergovernmental organizations** devoted to maritime issues, such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and supranational institutions, such as the European Union (EU), develop initiatives that shape how ports are organized, developed, and managed. This is due to the international character of ports and their significance in facilitating global maritime trade and the associated supply chains. Along with the spatial and functional expansion of port services and the linked supply chains, trade expansion and globalization have reformed the scale of problems and their solutions, generating further interest in adopting related policies at a broader scale. As ports evolve into clusters (ecosystems) of economic activities, port authorities, service providers, entrepreneurs, and stakeholders have established associations to represent their interests and shape the content of port and port-related public policies. Port policies and related decision-making are evolving through interactions among public and private actors. These interactions happen at **multiple levels**. # 2. National Policies for Ports ## A. Themes for national port policies National-level authorities are involved in developing **national port policies** aiming to advance the establishment, planning, development, and organization of ports to ensure that the development of the industry serves the public interest. Such responsibilities often lie with regional authorities (e.g., municipal or state level) or city authorities. This depends on the traditions of each country as regards both the organization of ports and the formation of the policy. Federal states tend to delegate such control to the state or municipal level, while more centralized governments create national regulatory agencies having direct oversight. Government agencies develop initiatives to reach different **targets**: - **Economic contribution**. The contribution of ports to the local, regional, and national economy, as well as to social cohesion. - **Externalities**. The **minimization of any externalities** produced by ports, and environmental protection in line with the applicable legislation. - **Service level**. The uninterrupted availability and provision of **reliable and quality services** to ships, passengers, cargoes, the users of the port, and the general public without discrimination. - **Exemptions**. The presence of any **exemptions** foreseen within the applicable legislation. The **themes of the policy initiatives** developed by the competent national authorities include: - **Definition of the port system** detailing the ports and the related maritime and hinterland infrastructure and connections. - **Policy formulation**, including the definition of the role of the public and private sectors in port governance and operations, and the setting of priority targets. - **Legislation** encompassing the design of laws, regulations, and decrees, as well as the competition and monitoring of their implementation. - **International relations** with representation in international forums, negotiations, and agreements. - **Investment and financial affairs**, including assessment and potentially financial support for investment projects of national importance. An additional theme is **port** **planning**, with the competent authorities commonly responsible for: - **Designating port zones and establishing** priorities for the creation of new ports in areas under their jurisdiction. - **Defining property rights** for port land and areas of water where the port develops. - **Authorizing planning** and, in some cases, executing part of the planned infrastructure. Many port-related government decisions are contingent on the physical and human geography of the local area. The **ownership and property rights** of the port land and waterside areas are illustrative examples. To develop a port, [construction work](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-terminal-construction/) includes breakwaters, quays, piers, anchorage areas, customs, large storage areas, and warehouses. Waterfront real estate and water areas are often not privately owned. Some port facilities extend into the water, often substantially, such as for land reclamation. In most countries, jurisdiction over the waterfront and the water cannot be private. There is no legal recognition of exclusive ownership rights by any third party (public or private). Thus, the government controls ownership and the designation of areas for port development. Public authorities establish property rights, grant land concessions, and authorize port construction. Depending on the role of the state in the economy, public control may extend to the **construction of infrastructure**. Elsewhere, the role of public authorities also includes the daily management of the port and even operations. The latter is most common in smaller, secondary, or local ports. Alternatively, in a few cases, such as the UK, even the land on which the port is developed and operates is owned by the operating companies. These companies develop the port solely based on the priorities they set. Once the jurisdiction and title have been obtained, the placement and construction of ports are decided. Thus, approach channels, breakwaters, maneuvering areas for ships, harbor water areas, and transport links between the port and the hinterland transport network are among the works that are frequently monitored by a public authority. The **planning and execution** of these works are inherently industrial and commercial activities, and in many ports are detailed in the port-level master plans. Nonetheless, the authorization to undertake the works at particular sites is a governmental action, having regard, in particular, to their consequences for port use and its natural and human environment. While departments of transportation, or their equivalent, have the primary role in orchestrating these decisions, they rarely do so alone. The decisions require the **involvement of additional departments**, including finance, environment, spatial planning, civil works, tourism (for passenger/cruise ports), and naval authorities. Port planning requires that the port authority and competent national authorities coordinate all details and the overall investment context, any authorizations needed for investment plans for industrial and commercial port operations, and the potential inclusion of individual projects in national-level financing plans. The authorities responsible for finance draw on their financial capacities to support the decisions. The environmental dimension is increasingly present in all major transport projects, with authorization for any port project required before its commencement. Public authorities are also responsible for the **formulation of the port system**, as they define the [structures of port governance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-governance-reform-process/). In particular, public authorities: - Set the **conditions for private providers** via decisions expanding (limiting) existing entry barriers into operations. - **Regulate corporate and financial relations** between the public institutions and port administrations. - **Establish port authorities** and define whether they will be public, private, or hybrid (at the intersection between public and private) entities. - Create the **foundations of port functions and responsibilities** by defining the principles of port governance. **Public authorities monitor compliance** with port activities, which does not necessarily mean they play any part in performing them. The scope of monitoring is to ensure that activities are carried out in compliance with laws and regulations and contribute effectively to national port policy priorities. In many ports, the public sector maintains a role in providing some nautical services, either because this practice corresponds to the dominant philosophy regarding the role of the state in the economy or because such involvement is considered essential for safety or strategic reasons. A typical example is the provision of pilotage services and their pricing. Dredging and navigational aids, including **harbor master responsibilities,** are examples of port operations frequently undertaken by public authorities. ## B. Competition policies Competition is a significant issue monitored by public authorities. Government agencies are responsible for monitoring port operations to ensure they comply with current competition rules. In some countries (e.g., South Africa, Greece, Brazil), these responsibilities are assigned to **independent regulatory port authorities**. In others (e.g., Italy, Portugal), they are assigned to independent regulatory authorities for all transport modes. In many more cases, the designated national competition authorities address related questions, e.g., the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for both inter-port and intra-port competition, the Competition Bureau Canada, and the French Autorité de la concurrence. Given their international character, many competition-related issues – such as public financing, concessioning processes, and state aid – are increasingly on the agenda of international authorities, such as the European Commission. For an extended period, an active presence of national administrations, or their agents, in daily port activities has been based on the perception of ports and port services as public goods. With shifts in global maritime trade, this dimension has gradually declined. Following **[port governance reforms](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-reform-and-governance/)**, the presence of the state in port operations has been eliminated, and the rights to provide port services have been transferred to the private sector. However, in many parts of the world, particularly developing countries, full-service ports remain under public control, with government agents actively involved in daily operations. Despite the decision of governments to devolve port operations to third parties, ports remain a sector where **politics continues to have a significant impact**. The conditions for market access stand as a salient example, with national administrations actively setting entry rules. Government policies aimed at introducing private terminal operations in the container market have led to a concentration of ownership among a few major port holdings. While mergers and acquisitions are usually completed, there are cases in which they have triggered regulatory responses. Besides, creating opportunities for more competition through market entry by lowering the legislative and economic barriers is on the agenda of many national and supranational authorities. ## C. Port-related policies State-level authorities exercise control over some **broader issues** that affect port operations and developments, such as: - **National transport policy** concerning the construction and maintenance of transportation infrastructure. - **Location** of major industries, as part of industrial policies. - **Customs and immigration** processes. - **Safety** requirements and minimum conditions for workers. - **Environmental** and aesthetic factors. - **Security** and prevention of unlawful acts. In addition, **free trade zones** with distribution and warehousing activities, subject to separate taxation regimes, are subject to distinct policies and to their development within port zones or adjacent locations. Public authorities also develop policy and **financial initiatives** related to aspects of port investment and development plans. ## D. The Harbor Master Harbor Masters regulate vessel navigation in a port, with the primary consideration being the **safety of navigation**. Most regulatory requirements are set out in the form of port by-laws, general directions, and pilotage directions, as these clearly define the terms of safe navigation. A range of responsibilities is placed on those who perform the role of harbor master. Differing national traditions and structures account for the variations in job descriptions, which can even exist within a single country. Factors such as the size of the port, its specific function, and how the port is owned and administered also make a difference. There are two primary ways in which Harbor Masters may be appointed. They may be a port employee, or an external appointment, or, as in the USA, an officer of the US Coast Guard. The Harbor Master is the principal person who typically exercises **jurisdiction over the water area** of a port or port approach. To exercise this jurisdiction, authority is conferred by national law, regulations, or rules, and these duties encompass legal and operational responsibility for ensuring shipping movements are carried out safely. From initial information provided by the ship on draft, length overall, and displacement, the Harbor Master will allocate a suitable berth and apply any restrictions necessary for the safe passage of that particular vessel. Ships arriving at a port typically contact the port control or vessel traffic management system station to receive instructions on their arrival plan and stay in the port. This exchange usually involves confirmation of the time the pilot will board and the berth to which the vessel is proceeding. Harbor Masters use local knowledge to inform their decision-making regarding the manner and circumstances in which commercial vessels are permitted to enter and leave their ports. Geographical configurations of the port, prevailing weather conditions, port water depths, and the height and strength of the local tides are among the factors a Harbor Master considers when formulating an admission policy for commercial vessels entering and leaving the port. Harbor Masters specify their entry requirements in detail, including the safest approaches to the port, the pilot boarding ground, and the advance notifications to be given to the port before arrival. The arrival of a commercial vessel into a port is always a **planned event**, with notifications issued before arrival. # 3. International Port Policies Policies decided by policy actors go well beyond the boundaries of a single country. Ports serve international maritime transportation and are embedded in **global supply chains**. Thus, ports share several common concerns and challenges, and addressing them at the local level can be ineffective or distort competition. An indicative list of these concerns and challenges would include safety and security, labor issues, customs and operational standardization, and competition among the actors involved. International intergovernmental organizations (including United Nations agencies) intervene in areas within their competence. Their regulatory decision and other initiatives have the potential to be more effective than action taken at the national, regional, or local level. ## A. International organizations The **International Maritime Organization (IMO)** is an intergovernmental organization that, since 1948, has developed and adopted regulations, guidelines, codes of practice, and other initiatives that: - Set standards for the **safety and security** of vessels at sea and ports. - Protect the **environment** from shipping activities. - Establish a global provision for **search and rescue**. - Ensure that all seafarers are adequately **trained** and competent. - Define liability and ensure **compensation** is available when accidents happen. Applying **IMO conventions** is subject to ratification and implementation by as many countries as possible. This ratification depends on national technical capabilities and willingness to apply the conventions. The key conventions ratified by countries representing over 95% of the world’s tonnage already shape the framework within which ports, shipping, and maritime supply chains operate. They include: - The **International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships** (MARPOL), 1973, was modified by the Protocol of 1978 and by the Protocol of 1997. In 2025, the IMO approved draft amendments to MARPOL/Annex VI establishing a new **“Net-Zero Framework” (NZF)** combining mandatory emissions limits and a greenhouse gas pricing mechanism for ships, to be formally adopted (if no objections) in an extraordinary session in October 2025 and enter into force (via tacit acceptance) in 2027. Ports will be impacted because shipping emissions, fuel quality, and compliance mechanisms are tied to port–ship interactions (fuel bunkering, port fees, shore power, emissions monitoring). - The **International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea** (SOLAS) 1974, as amended. - The **International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers** (STCW) as amended, including the 1995 and 2010 Amendments. - The **FAL Convention (Facilitation of International Maritime Traffic)** requires the implementation of paperless exchange of data in ports via a Maritime Single Window (MSW). From January 2024, the MSW is mandatory in all ports subject to FAL obligations. - **Port State Control (PSC)**, the procedures of which are periodically revised (e.g., the responsible IMO sub-committee on Implementation of IMO Instruments agreed on the resolution “Procedures for PSC, 2025”, which updates and replaces the related 2023 procedures). These decisions impact how port authorities inspect, detain, or respond to non-compliant vessels, as well as how ports enforce IMO conventions (SOLAS, MARPOL, etc.) through port state control. The **International Labour Organization (ILO)** has advanced international port labor standards. ILO is the only tripartite UN agency that brings together governments, employers, and workers from 187 member states to set labor standards, develop policies, and devise programs that promote appropriate working conditions. Its port-related activities focus on safety and health, security, training, working conditions, gender issues, and the role of ports in the supply chain. Similar to IMO, the implementation of ILO decisions is subject to their ratification by the participating countries. Two other international organizations are developing initiatives of relevance. The **World Customs Organization** (**WCO**), established in 1952 as the Customs Co-operation Council (CCC), is an independent body whose mission is to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of customs procedures. Since 2004, WCO has developed in collaboration with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) a global **Container Control Programme (CCP)** to prevent the illicit flow of goods by pooling customs and other law enforcement bodies in coordinating and managing law enforcement responses at seaports in more than 20 countries worldwide. **International Organization for Standardization** (ISO) is an independent, non-governmental international organization with a membership of 166 national standards bodies. It develops voluntary, consensus-based, market-relevant international standards that support the development of a product, the management of a process, the delivery of a service, or the supply of materials. These standards relate to: - **Quality management** standards to work more efficiently and reduce product failures. - **Environmental management** standards to reduce environmental impacts, reduce waste, and be more sustainable. - **Health and safety** standards to reduce accidents in the workplace. - **Energy management** standards to cut energy consumption. - **IT security standards** to keep sensitive information secure. Ports have been certified with ISO 9001:2008 for the quality management of container, terminal, passenger, and cruise terminals. The same certification applies to specific services, including cargo loading and unloading, mooring, and fewer public procurement and port work cases. A growing number of port authorities and terminal operators have been certified under ISO 14001 for their environmental management systems. Following the pandemic and the rise in cyberattacks, ports and terminal operators have started adopting ISO 28000, which focuses on security and supply chain resilience (e.g., DP World, PSA), and ISO 27001, which emphasizes digitalization and cybersecurity (e.g., Singapore, Rotterdam). To manage the energy transition to shore power, hydrogen, LNG, etc., some ports have also adopted ISO 50001 (e.g., Piraeus was certified in 2023 and Antwerp-Bruges in 2024). However, the major contribution of standardization, with far-reaching implications for ports and beyond, has been the [**standardization of the containers that are transported**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/standardization-advances-containerisation/ "Main Physical Characteristics of ISO Containers"). Standardization enabled the expansion of the containerized seagoing transportation of goods. The usage of standardized containers resulted in a vast reduction in shipping costs. It enabled many previously isolated countries to enter global trade, selling their products on the world market and importing goods. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/iso_containers_specifications.png?resize=900%2C347&ssl=1 "Main Physical Characteristics of ISO Containers | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Standard sea container dimensions## B. Supranational port policies: European Union Economic and political integration in Europe, notably the setting up of a single European market in the 1990s, increased the interdependence of European ports that had historically developed in their own diverse ways, even when located in the same country. This interdependence intensified due to other factors, including economic globalization, containerization, the expansion of transshipment, logistics, and value-added facilities, technological advancements, and the integration of maritime trade in supply chains. The scale and scope of these developments gradually pushed the national boundaries of port policy-making. Since the early 1990s, the search for a long-term **European Port Policy** (EPP) has produced a mix of non-legislative and legislative measures. Both successes and failures mark this search, as does the associability of port community stakeholders seeking to influence the complex EU policy-making process. The cornerstone of these initiatives is a regulation on **market access to port services and the financial transparency of ports** (Regulation 2017/352). Adopted in 2017, it established entry rules for various port services (bunkering, cargo handling, dredging, mooring, passenger services, port reception facilities, pilotage, and towage) across 329 European ports. The regulation **lowers legislative entry barriers**, provides existing and potential port service providers with a **level playing field**, reduces **administrative burdens**, and enhances **transparency** in financial interactions. It established the freedom to provide services subject to minimum requirements, conditions for limiting the number of providers, public service obligations, and the presence of an internal operator. Financial transparency and autonomy in the use of public funds are enhanced by requirements such as separate port accounts, transparent and non-discriminatory port service charges, the autonomy of port managing bodies to set port infrastructure charges, and the obligation to inform users of the tariffs for port infrastructure charges. Reduction of legal uncertainties is also advanced through the application of broader rules (e.g., a concession directive) and the modernization of applicable state aid rules. The regulation is the outcome of a discussion that lasted 16 years, highlighting both the international dimension of port competition and the difficulties in advancing (de)regulatory measures applying to ports in multiple (in this case, 27) countries, as ports vying for traffic shares differ in many ways (markets, governance, geography, rules of entry for third parties). Beyond this rule, which targets enhancing EU port competitiveness, EU policies aim to **improve hinterland connections**. The strategic planning of the transport system on the continent involves developing public co-financing for an **integrated Trans-European Transport Network**, which includes a comprehensive list of 329 ports, with a sub-list of 104 core ports. The development of both comprehensive and core EU ports is considered vital to the competitiveness of the European economy, including improvements in port hinterland connections. European policies aimed at enhancing maritime safety, improving the relationship between ports and the environment, and ensuring **maritime security** are also in place. The list of emerging themes includes initiatives advancing **digitalization**. In all cases, when international rules are in place (e.g., safety and security), the emphasis is on their proper implementation rather than on new regional initiatives. The European Union has also endorsed initiatives to advance the **energy transition in seaports**. In the context of the “Fit for 55” initiative, designed to cut net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 (vs. 1990), the Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Regulation (AFIR), adopted in 2023, sets binding targets for the supply of shore-side electricity at TEN-T seaports. The regulation specifies that seaports should ensure the provision of a minimum shore-side electricity supply for seagoing container ships and seagoing passenger ships. The requirement is based on port activity levels and must be met by the end of 2029. Shore-side electricity, also known as on-shore power supply (OPS), avoids the use of auxiliary diesel generators for operations and other services while ships are at berth, thus reducing emissions and noise. In its current implementation, OPS is not designed to address the issue of high pollutant emissions during the cold start of ship engines in ports and their subsequent impact on local air quality. The AFIR regulation also sets targets for the supply of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in the TEN-T core seaports. This regulation aims to increase the uptake of low- and zero-carbon fuels in maritime transport by requiring a progressive reduction in the GHG intensity of the energy used on board ships. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/european_port_policy.png?resize=900%2C404&ssl=1 "European Port Policy and Port-related Initiatives | Port Economics, Management and Policy")European port policy and port related initiatives### C. Federal Port Policies: North America In the United States, the federal government is given exclusive jurisdiction over all navigable waterways. However, due to the nature of the federal system, there is **no national port authority** but a combination of state and municipal port authorities, making policy coordination complex. Early forms of port development and operation were mainly assumed by private companies, particularly railroads. This led to complaints about monopolistic behavior and unfair competitive practices. The public policy response was the establishment of public port authorities in the early part of the twentieth century, particularly as railways led to a gradual deterioration of port facilities due to a lack of investment. A salient example was the creation of the Port Authority of New York in 1921, which firmly placed port infrastructure development and operations in public hands. Established in 1950, the **Maritime Administration (MARAD)** is an agency of the US Department of Transportation responsible for the waterborne transportation system. MARAD supports the technical aspects of maritime transportation infrastructure, including ships and shipping, port and vessel operations, national security, environment, and safety. It also maintains a fleet of cargo ships in reserve to provide surge sea lift during national emergencies. In Canada, the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over all forms of navigation, forming a national port authority as early as 1868. Although the federal authority can be granted to private or local interests, the majority of large commercial ports remained under close federal jurisdiction. Port policy shifted in 1998 with the Canada Marine Act, which devolved governance responsibilities of a large number of small ports that had been managed by the Ministry of Transport. Under the Canada Port Authority, the largest seaports are granted a limited degree of autonomy in their development and management. From a policy perspective, American port authorities have more latitude than their Canadian counterparts. ### D. National perspectives: China The past 45 years have brought about significant changes to China’s economic, political, and social landscape. The economic policy changes introduced by Deng Xiaoping in 1978 were followed by a lengthy transition period toward a market-based economy. Chinese national reforms and the transfer of power from the central government to local governments impacted the governance of seaports. The period from 1979 to 1984 was characterized by a centrally planned economic system with strongly centralized decision-making. The combination of insufficient funds for port development and lagging efficiency improvements caused severe port capacity problems in the early 1980s. From 1984 to 2004, the government initiated a decentralization process, with ports ending up under the control of the central and local governments or the local government. The new governance system led to a gradual increase in foreign private investment in Chinese ports, particularly in the container business. The **Port Law of 2004** serves as the cornerstone, characterized by the corporatization of port authorities and the introduction of modern corporate governance principles into the seaport system. This has brought large-scale port cooperation and integration processes at the provincial level, resulting in large ‘port groups’ controlling more than one port. Policy formulation and strategic port planning remain under the responsibility of the central government and the respective provincial governments, so any plans by regional port groups must be approved by these higher authorities. Other policies are influencing Chinese ports: - The actions of the Chinese government in the area of **corporate governance** directly impact the functioning of the Chinese seaport system. For example, the fight against corruption has affected administrative processes, reporting practices, and the mobility of government officials, including in ports. - The Central Government initiated the **Go West policy** in 2000 to revitalize local economies and improve living standards in western China. This policy brought higher throughput perspectives for coastal ports and intensified competition among Chinese ports to serve the growing inland regions. - The **[Belt and Road Initiative](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/belt-and-road-initiative-bri/ "The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)")** (BRI) was launched in 2013 to foster economic cooperation from the Western Pacific to the Baltic Sea, breaking the connectivity bottleneck in Asia through infrastructure investments. Chinese seaports are actively developing strategies to capitalize on both maritime and rail-based opportunities brought by the initiative. Furthermore, some provincial port groups are investing in key BRI ports abroad. - The Chinese government initiated a policy in 2013 to develop pilot **free trade zones (FTZs)** in some coastal port cities. The first FTZ was launched in Shanghai in September 2013. Since 2015, the Chinese State Council has extended the initiative to many other cities. Many FTZs are located in seaport areas and have become a proving ground for the Chinese government to test new economic policies and governance reforms. The experiences gathered through the FTZ policy can serve as input to formulate further nationwide social, economic, and governance reforms. # 4. Policy Issues ## A. Emissions Control The need to control emissions has led to an IMO regulatory framework that restricts several fuel options. The IMO is spearheading sulfur emission restrictions in designated [Emission Control Areas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/emission-control-areas-maritime-shipping/ "Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping") (ECAs) for SOₓ, NOₓ, and particulate matter (PM), with ports in the respective regions applying stricter controls on ship emissions entering or affecting the port zone. For example, since 2010, in the Sulfur Emission Control Area (SECA) of the North and Baltic Seas, the sulfur mass fraction in a vessel’s bunker fuel must be less than 1%. This standard took effect in North America in 2012, with this limit decreasing to 0.5% after 2020. In 2025, the Mediterranean Sea also became an SECA. These rules triggered interest in alternative forms of powered vessels. There is considerable interest worldwide in ports using onshore power supplies (cold ironing) and other similar technologies and practices (such as LNG or diesel oil instead of heavy fuel oil or renewable energy sources) to reduce emissions. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Emission-Control-Areas.png?resize=900%2C450&ssl=1 "Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping## B. Port security As in maritime safety, some essential regulations regarding security in trade and transport have been established by the IMO. In 2002, a security-related amendment to the Convention on Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) was adopted, supplementing it with the **International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code**. The initiative changed the way ship and port security is considered. The ISPS Code has two parts. Part A is mandatory for all contracting countries, while Part B contains recommended actions adopted by a few countries. The ISPS Code established three security levels denoting the need for normal (Level 1), heightened (Level 2), and exceptional (Level 3) security measures. The implementation of the code’s requirements and the respective certification of vessels and shipping companies is the responsibility of the flag state. At the same time, national authorities are responsible for inspecting and certifying proper implementation. These provisions cover all types of ships with a gross registered tonnage (grt) of more than 500, mobile offshore drilling units, and port facilities serving ships engaged in international voyages. Concerning ports, the ISPS Code focuses on the locations of the ship/port interface. Ports must develop a Port Facility Security Plan (PFSP) that outlines the essential actions to prevent or respond to security incidents. They also have to designate a port facility security officer responsible for conducting regular drills, exercises, and seminars related to port facility security. In addition, Part A explicitly references identifying and estimating assets and infrastructures that require protection. The amended IAMO SOLAS Convention (Chapter XI-2) introduced a new technological security measure for ships. This is the **Automatic Identification System (AIS)**, which enables ships to transmit a unique identification signal for the shore operational centers to monitor routes. Ships are required to have on board a security alert system transmitting to a designated competent authority when activated in emergencies and a Continuous Synopsis Record (CSR) that contains details of the ship, including name, flag, port of registry, IMO number, and owner information. The **Code of Practice on security in ports** (latest edition: 2004) is another security-related initiative adopted by IMO jointly with ILO. It provides a guidance framework for developing an appropriate strategy for identifying security threats in ports. The main provisions are: - The development and implementation of a **port security policy statement**. - The identification and evaluation of **critical assets and infrastructures** that require protection. - The development of a **Port Security Plan**, compatible with the ISPS Code for a Port Facility Security Plan. - Training personnel in **security awareness**. The WCO Council has adopted the **SAFE Framework of Standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade**, an additional international instrument regularly updated to address developments in the global supply chain. The latest (2018) version of the framework focuses on strengthening cooperation between customs administrations through the exchange of information, mutual recognition of controls, mutual recognition of Authorized Economic Operators (AEOs), and mutual administrative assistance. In addition, it calls for enhanced cooperation between government agencies entrusted with regulatory authority over certain goods, such as weapons and hazardous materials, as well as entities responsible for postal matters. The framework also details certain minimum tangible benefits to AEOs. **International standardization** also plays a role in enhancing port security. ISO 28004-2:2014 identifies supply chain risk and threat scenarios, procedures for conducting risk and threat assessments, and evaluation criteria for measuring conformity and the effectiveness of security plans following standardized (ISO 28000 and ISO 28004) implementation guidelines. An output of this effort is a confidence rating system based on the quality of the security management plans and procedures implemented by the port to safeguard its security and continuity of cargo operations. The rating system is used to identify a measurable level of confidence (on a scale of 1 to 5) that the port security operations conform to standards for protecting the integrity of the supply chain. ## C. International policies for dock labor The ILO has been involved in the definition and organization of dock labor through two **international conventions**, which address the role of designated labor pools and the working practices that safeguard the safety and health of port workers. However, the agreed-upon and forwarded ratification by UN member countries of the ILO Convention C137 on the social repercussions of new methods of cargo handling in docks and the ILO Convention C152 on occupational safety and health in dock work has had limited adoption success. The two Conventions were adopted in 1973 and 1981, respectively. The products of international agreements involving both port employees and employers were designed to set the minimum standards for organizing the core elements of port labor. Only 25 signatory countries have ratified each convention. However, the rules included in these conventions have been incorporated into several **international standards** endorsed since then. In recent times, the ILO has produced relevant codes of practice on safety and health in ports that cover work aspects where goods or passengers are loaded onto or unloaded from ships. The 2016 revision of the non-binding Code of Practice on safety and health in ports represents the most recent major update to port occupational health. It aims to provide guidance to governments, employers, and workers on safe port operations, including hazard identification, training, mechanization, and ergonomics. Although not a decision in the sense of a binding convention, it is influential and often referenced in national port safety policy contexts. The ILO has also shifted its focus to dockworker training, with the objective of mobilizing governments, port authorities, port operators, and training institutes to establish effective and systematic port worker training schemes. These schemes aim to improve cargo-handling performance, working conditions, practices, safety, and the status and welfare of port workers. **Labor issues** have also been part of the European agenda. In recent years, there has been a sectoral social dialogue involving representatives of all different stakeholders, respecting national, regional, and company agreements and systems, on: - **Training and Qualifications**. Possible creation of European guidelines for the establishment of training requirements while ensuring greater flexibility and performance standards. - **Health and Safety**. Establish national health and safety requirements by proper enforcement where high standards exist, or raise good practices where standards do not exist. - **Gender Issues**. Ensure that there are no discriminatory recruitment practices in European ports. - **Innovation**. Establish a constructive dialogue between employers and employees to address the challenges posed by technological innovation. # 5. Ports and Geopolitics Ports have been linked to geopolitical considerations, as they serve as platforms that project commercial activities and military power. Many ports serve as bases for national navies and, as such, support **strategic interests**. From the 16th century, ports served as trade hubs within global trade networks, initially supporting colonial empires. Harbor sites were selected based on the protection they could offer and the access they could grant to the resources of a commercial hinterland. Many early port sites were fortified, underlining their contestability. By the late 19th century, maritime shipping routes were well established, with the control of key strategic locations and nearby ports (e.g., Hong Kong, Singapore, Colon, Gibraltar, Port Said). From the second half of the 20th century, commercial considerations prevailed in geopolitics. With port authorities adopting the landlord model, this opened the door for private terminal operators to set up a portfolio of privately operated terminals. The nature of investments in terminal operations, including the scale of foreign direct investments, the critical infrastructure nature of ports, and the presence of sovereign funds among companies operating port terminals, introduces a geopolitical dimension to port development that was not present before the reforms. In most cases, private terminal operators align with the **national geopolitics** of the ports they operate. There are occasions when this [alignment of foreign direct investments](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/geopolitics-foreign-direct-investments-ports/ "Geopolitics and Foreign Direct Investments in Ports") in ports can be subject to contention. In recent years, ports have been increasingly attracting interest as geopolitical levers, given their typical functionalities in stimulating national and regional industrial development, securing trade and energy needs, and supporting naval capabilities. This makes seaports important **focal points in geopolitical considerations**, potentially allowing them to act as geopolitical agents that can influence and shape geopolitical debates and actions. [Four geopolitical themes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/geopolitical-developments-dimensions-ports/ "Classification of the Core Competencies of Ports") directly or indirectly affect seaports. ### A. Geopolitics and trade Geopolitical tensions between major economies can lead to **trade decoupling and realignment**. This means countries may reduce their dependence on rival nations, fostering or strengthening new trade alliances. **Geopolitical events**, such as the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, can significantly impact port activity. Additionally, governments might aim for a gradual shift in bilateral trade preferences by prioritizing trade with countries that share similar norms, values, or political systems (trading with friends). Another concept is friendshoring, referring to relocating economic activity to nations with aligned norms and values. To achieve national objectives, governments may employ a wide range of policy instruments, including import tariffs, quotas, import licensing, stricter customs procedures, sanctions, trade defense measures, and favorable treatment of domestic businesses. The push for selective trade decoupling and realignment is evident in the geopolitics of **strategic autonomy**. In general terms, strategic autonomy policies aim to empower a nation or region to make independent decisions and act autonomously in key areas, thereby reducing excessive dependence on other countries. Strategic autonomy has a significant maritime dimension. For example, it encourages states to reduce their dependence on fleets owned or operated by rival nations, especially those that are geopolitically distant. To accomplish this, a government may adopt protectionist measures to further develop, strengthen, and safeguard its own national fleet and domestic shipbuilding or impose restrictions on domestic businesses regarding the use of certain foreign flags. ### B. Geopolitical aspects linked to investment and ownership in ports As geopolitical tensions rise, ownership and investment in port areas increasingly come with geopolitical strings attached, affecting a port authority’s ability to welcome specific investors or operators. The rapid increase of **Chinese investments** in the operation of container terminals and port management through the purchase of majority shares in corporatized port authorities in many different world regions, and the multinational character of the **[Belt and Road Initiative](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/belt-and-road-initiative-bri/ "The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)")** (BRI), have, in most cases, turned to a discussion, support, or opposition at the governmental level, rather than a decision taken at the port level. **State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs)** have increasingly joined local and international stevedoring companies, liner shipping companies, and financial institutions as global actors operating, constructing, and, when conditions allow, owning ports. As several countries strive to enhance their role in international trade or status as economic powers, this strategy underscores the growing importance of geopolitics in shaping the global port system. Collectively, these entities are estimated to account for approximately 35% to 40% of global port throughput. Several of them (i.e., COSCO (China); Port of Singapore Authority International (Singapore), DP World (Dubai), China Merchants Port (China) are among the largest terminal operators in the world. Other significant actors, including Abu Dhabi Ports (UAE) and Shanghai International Port Group (SIPG, China), maintain substantial global portfolios. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Chinese-Terminal-Investments.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Chinese-Financed Port Projects, 2000-25 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Chinese Financed Port Projects 2000 25BRI has [accelerated the internationalization of SOE involvement in ports or port terminals worldwide](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/chinese-financed-port-projects/ "Chinese-Financed Port Projects, 2000-2025"), triggering ‘global connectivity’ initiatives by other countries or trade blocs. The European Union (EU) has launched the Global Gateway initiative, and the US has introduced the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment. Both frameworks focus on partnerships to develop port and logistics infrastructure, mirroring, in part, the objectives of the BRI. Discussions of the potential risks or leverage associated with SOE foreign direct investment in strategic infrastructure, such as ports, have further contributed to politicization. In Europe, the acquisition by a foreign SOE of a minority stake in the smallest terminal at the Port of Hamburg sparked controversy before receiving German government approval in 2023. Similar cautionary measures are included in the EU discussions on closer coordination in screening inbound investments in critical infrastructures, including ports. In the United States, objections to foreign investments in Panama have been present for a decade, even those held by private firms with limited ties to a third state. The internationalization of terminal operations by operators associated with state interests, such as state enterprises or sovereign wealth funds, will continue to raise geopolitical concerns about ports as elements of national sovereignty. Additionally, there may be concerns that port finance could be utilized as a tool of economic diplomacy, fostering dependencies that can translate into political influence. Finally, government agencies may want to scrutinize foreign port technology and equipment to be deployed in their ports in relation to foreign geopolitical strategy. To eliminate such risks, a state might block the purchase and use of foreign port machinery and technology, thereby preventing foreign actors from developing the capability to collect and transfer sensitive data on shipments, trade routes, and even military logistics. Terminal operators are thus challenged to demonstrate that they deploy state-of-the-art port equipment and technology that, from a geopolitical perspective, does not pose a backdoor security vulnerability. ### C. Ports as nodes in geopolitically vulnerable corridors and networks Geopolitical tensions can make nations reluctant to use **critical maritime routes and chokepoints**. Seaports located near these strategic chokepoints, such as the Strait of Hormuz, the South China Sea, the Red Sea or Suez Canal area, and the ports at the entrances of the Panama Canal, are especially susceptible to such tensions. States are motivated to preserve or control critical maritime infrastructure, or at least to ensure access to it. Furthermore, many ports are assigned a more pronounced military role and become indispensable to national defense. Their infrastructure, location, and operational capacity can make them a cornerstone of a nation’s defense strategy. Ports near critical trade routes can serve as hubs for naval and other operations to secure international shipping lanes against threats such as piracy and terrorism. Port terminals might be asked to adopt a logistical role in facilitating (large-scale) military operations and exercises. The Red Sea crisis demonstrates that it is no longer unthinkable for a key maritime artery in the global shipping network to be severely disrupted or even cut off, despite international treaties guaranteeing free passage. In October 2023, a conflict between Israel and anti-Israel groups, such as Hamas (Gaza Strip) and Hezbollah (southern Lebanon), became regionalized. By late November, other Iranian proxy groups, particularly the Houthis movement in West Yemen, initiated attacks on ships transiting the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb from the Indian Ocean into the Red Sea using missiles, drones, and even attempts at boarding. By December 2023, major shipping lines had begun diverting their Asia-Europe traffic through the Cape of Good Hope route, which connects the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. By early 2024, the number of transits through Bab el-Mandeb dropped to half the previously observed volumes (-48%), and the number of transits through the Suez Canal dropped by 37%. The impact on [ports along the Asia-Europe route](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/impact-red-sea-crisis-port-arrivals/ "Impact of the Red Sea Crisis on Port Arrivals") was substantial, particularly along the Red Sea and the Mediterranean. In particular, most regional transshipment hubs experienced a notable decline in port calls as major shipping services were rerouted through the Cape of Good Hope. ### D. Ports as potential geopolitical and military targets Ports can become focal points or even outright targets in geopolitical contestation or conflict. Ports may be targeted in military, paramilitary, or terrorist operations due to their strategic importance. Cyberattacks, in particular, pose a significant threat to seaports worldwide, aiming to cause severe disruptions. Efforts to digitalize ports make such attacks easier to carry out. Today’s geopolitical and global security landscape has introduced new forms of potential sabotage affecting ports. Undersea data and power cables, energy pipelines, commercial port infrastructure, and superstructure have been added to the list of highly vulnerable sabotage targets. Foreign-supplied equipment in ports, such as cranes, surveillance cameras, or automated systems, could be sabotaged or remotely disabled during a geopolitical conflict. ![Map Maritime Routes Strategic Passages](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Passages-with-Shipping-Routes.png?resize=900%2C450&ssl=1 "Main Maritime Shipping Routes and Chokepoints | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Maritime Shipping Routes![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2021-05-05-at-12.53.59-PM.png?resize=659%2C599&ssl=1 "Foreign Direct Investments in Port of Piraeus | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Foreign Direct Investments in Port of Piraeus![Seaports and geopolitics in maritime networks, trade, defense, and conflicts.](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/geopolitical_developments_dimensions_ports.png?resize=900%2C455&ssl=1 "Classification of Geopolitical Developments and Dimensions Affecting Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Classification of Geopolitical Developments and Dimensions Affecting Ports![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/belt_and_road.png?resize=900%2C900&ssl=1 "The Belt and Road Initiative | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Belt and Road Initiative ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Russia-Port-Geopolitics.png?resize=900%2C716&ssl=1 "The Geostrategy of Russian and Ukrainian Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Geostrategy of Russian and Ukrainian Ports![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Red-Sea-Crisis-Ports.png?resize=900%2C346&ssl=1 "Impact of the Red Sea Crisis on Port Arrivals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Impact of the Red Sea Crisis on Port Arrivals# Related Topics - [Chapter 2.1 Port Hinterlands, Regionalization and Corridors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/ "Chapter 2.1 – Port Hinterlands, Regionalization and Corridors") - [Chapter 4.4 Port Labor](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/) - [Chapter 8.1 Port Governance and Reform](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=159) - [Chapter 11.6 Representing Port Interests](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/) ## References - Chlomoudis, C.I. and Pallis, A.A. (2002) European Port Policy: Towards a Long Term Strategy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. - de Lanken P. W. and Pallis, A.A. (2026). Do States develop geopolitical leverage through the international activities of State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in ports and maritime logistics? Journal of Transport Geography, Volume 136, October 2026, 104783. - Notteboom, T. and Yang, Z. (2017). Port governance in China since 2004: Institutional layering and the growing impact of broader policies. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 22, 184-200. - Notteboom, T., Haralambides, H., Cullinane, K. (2024). The Red Sea crisis: ramifications for vessel operations, shipping networks and maritime supply chains, Maritime Economics & Logistics, 26 (1), 1-20. - Notteboom, T., Haralambides, H. (2025). Seaports in a tense geopolitical environment: key agents or sitting ducks? Maritime Economics & Logistics, 27 (1), 1-24. - Pallis, A.A. (2006). EU Port Policy Developments: Implications for Port Governance. Research in Transportation Economics, 17, 161-176. - Pallis, A.A. (2006). Institutional dynamism in the EU Policy-making: The evolution of the EU Maritime Safety Policy. Journal of European Integration, 28(2), 137-157. - Pallis, T. and P. δe Langen. 2023. “Piraeus privatization revisited: Port policy, economic policy, or geopolitics?” Presented at the “Globalization, Shipping and Trade” workshop at Paris School of Economics, October 12. [https://www. porteconomics.eu/mdocs-posts/2023-10-pse-workshop-tp-pdl/](https://www.%20porteconomics.eu/mdocs-posts/2023-10-pse-workshop-tp-pdl/). - Pallis, A.A. and Vaggelas, G.K. (2008). EU Port and Shipping Security. In: Talley Wayne K. (ed) *Maritime Safety, Security and Piracy,* London: Informa, 327-357. - Pallis, A.A. and Verhoeven, P. (2009). Does the EU Port Policy strategy encompass proximity?. In Notteboom, T., de Langen, P.W., and Ducruet C.B. (eds.) Ports in Proximity: Essaye on competition and coordination among adjacent seaports. Aldershot: Ashgate, 99-112. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Sites](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/port-sites/) **Published:** October 27, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Port-Sites-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Port Sites | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Sites*Source: Expanded from the American Association of Port Authorities. Based on a sample of the world’s largest ports in terms of tonnage. N=156.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Port-Sites.pdf) Port sites have been the subject of geographical considerations, with a preference for sites combining a good maritime profile with inland accessibility. There is a vast array of port sites linked to specific nautical profiles, which are articulated around seaports and mainland ports: - **Seaports**. These ports have direct access to the sea and try to take advantage of a local geographical feature. This can involve (A) natural harbors or direct coastline, and (B) bays or protected locations. These sites are often associated with lateral expansion of port facilities, typically towards locations with a deeper nautical profile. - **Mainland Ports**. These ports are linked to a major river, which often serves a vast hinterland. There are ports in (C) an estuary, (D) a delta, and (E) along a river, often at the furthest point of inland navigation. These sites are associated with upstream expansion of port facilities and often require substantial dredging to maintain or improve their nautical profile. The above map provides a sample representative of the largest port facilities and their sites. The most common sites are those in bays or by the coastline (50%), followed by natural harbors (20%). This underlines the importance of maritime accessibility for the world’s largest ports. The remaining 30% involve ports located along river systems. Since the sample focuses on larger ports, mainland ports are underrepresented. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/port-sites/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/port-sites/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/port-sites/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/port-sites/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Main Physical Elements of a Port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/main-physical-elements-port/) **Published:** November 10, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_physical_elements3.png?resize=900%2C519&ssl=1 "Main Physical Elements of a Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Physical Elements of a PortSeveral fundamental physical elements constitute a port facility. They are divided into two main areas: the water and land areas. The **water areas** comprise: - **Harbor**. A protected area, either naturally or through the construction of structures such as breakwaters, where port activities occur. Depth and navigation are strictly controlled. The inner harbor usually refers to the port area the furthest away from the entrance channel, which has the oldest and most central port facilities. Ports are characterized by a [wide variety of harbors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/harbor-types/ "Harbor Types"). - **Anchorage areas**. A designated area where ships can anchor while waiting for an available berth. These areas are well-defined with buoys and with the ability to be serviced for stores and bunkering. Some anchorage areas can also be located within the harbor. - **Breakwaters**. Permanent structures extending into the sea to protect the harbor against tides, currents, waves, wind, and storm surges. - **Navigation channels**. Ship access channels dredged to allow ships to enter the harbor. They have a controlled depth, and movements are usually assisted by pilots and tug boats. Entrance channels (or outer access channels) are outside the harbor area. Approach channels (or inner channels) serve a similar role, referring to navigation that takes place within the harbor. - **Turning basin**. A circular area allowing vessels, typically assisted by tugboats, to turn around and maneuver into the harbor. By design, a turning basin should be twice the length of the largest permitted vessel to call at the port. - **Berthing basin** (or dock). A dredged area next to a berth that allows a ship to be moored according to stated specifications. It is important to ensure that ships with specific capacities and lengths can safely berth. Therefore, each berthing basin has a well-defined control depth that requires periodic maintenance. The **land areas** include: - **Berths**. Docking structures with defined length and lateral capacity to support berthing and mooring operations. - **Wharves**. One or more berths aligned parallel to the shore. Also called a quay. - **Piers**. Docking structures extending into the harbor that are extensions of the terminal facility. They are perpendicular to the shore. A pier can hold facilities such as storage sheds and warehouses. - **Jetties**. Narrow docking structures extending into the sea that serve the sole purpose of loading (or unloading) cargo into ships. They are not direct extensions of terminal facilities. - **Dry docks**. Basins that can be flooded and emptied, and mainly used for the construction, maintenance, and repair of ships. These physical elements are designed to support the core function of a port, which is the accommodation of seagoing vessels, as well as the handling of seaborne trade and passenger transportation. A port can be composed of a variety of terminals, including bulk, breakbulk, cruise, and container terminals, each connected to its own hinterland. Physical elements may not always be present, depending on the physical characteristics of the port site. For instance, some ports may not require breakwaters because they are already in protected areas or have low tides and currents. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/main-physical-elements-port/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/main-physical-elements-port/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/main-physical-elements-port/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/main-physical-elements-port/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 5.1 - Breakbulk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/) **Published:** February 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Theo Notteboom > Breakbulk remains an important cargo segment for seaports. Containerization has transformed many segments in the traditional break bulk market, which has become highly specialized with custom vessels, terminals, and warehousing facilities. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. The Origins of the Breakbulk Market](#1_The_Origins_of_the_Breakbulk_Market) - [2. The Breakbulk Fleet](#2_The_Breakbulk_Fleet) - [3. Major Breakbulk Market Segments](#3_Major_Breakbulk_Market_Segments) - [4. Breakbulk Terminals](#4_Breakbulk_Terminals) - [5. Generating Employment and Added-Value in Breakbulk Ports](#5_Generating_Employment_and_Added-Value_in_Breakbulk_Ports) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. The Origins of the Breakbulk Market ## A. Breakbulk cargo The classic definition of break bulk refers to goods that do not fit into a standard container. In reality, it is more complicated to propose a comprehensive definition of the modern break bulk sector. The sector moves cargo ranging from oversized items such as a 200-ton industrial boiler, large enough to occupy the entire deck of a heavy lift ship, to palletized cargo that cannot be transported in containers due to specific cargo-related attributes. The following break bulk definition can be used: > Break bulk is general cargo, loaded into a ship or transport mode as individual or bundled pieces, not stowed into a container, or not transported in ship-sized liquid or dry bulk loads. Conventional general cargo or breakbulk cargo encompasses a **myriad of different commodities**: - **Project cargo**. Power generation equipment, such as generators and turbines, as well as wind turbines, is included. Additionally, the oil and gas industry includes subsea systems, cables on reels, gas tanks, modules, petrochemical plants, mining equipment, building and construction equipment, brewery tanks, silos, and heavy machinery. - **Iron and steel products**. Including coils, plates, steel bars, slabs, plates, steel wire, pipes, and tubes. - **Forest products**. Including wood and paper products - **Parcels**. Such as malt, fertilizer, sugar, and rice. - **Reefer vessel trades**. Mostly concerned with fruits and meat. - **Break bulk shipments of smaller lots**. Big bags, skidded, and palletized cargoes. ## B. The pre-container era The **breakbulk sector has a long history** that is closely connected to maritime trade and the [forms](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/forms-cargo-transportation/ "Forms of Cargo Transportation") in which cargo could be transported. For centuries, goods have been shipped around the world and across oceans. All major empires and nations arose from the ability to explore the world and seek commercial opportunities not available locally, but the process was cumbersome. Barrels, sacks, and crates were used to haul the cargo along maritime trade routes. The amphora was an important load unit used across the Mediterranean in ancient times as it was designed to be carried on ships. Its narrow, rounded base prevented it from breaking under stress at sea. It could also be easily stacked vertically, and its twin handles enabled it to be dragged and, when stored, to create tie-down points. The entire process was risky due to accidents, cargo losses, and theft. Basic systems were in place to increase efficiency, including specialized lifting equipment, designated sacks for coffee beans, and pallets for storing large quantities of goods. However, the rise of railways in the 19th century, combined with significant technological advances such as steam power and, later, diesel power, highlighted the inadequacy of this system. It wasn’t until the 20th century that significant changes began to occur. Before World War II, all transport was done as [break bulk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/loading-break-bulk-cargo-port-new-orleans-early-20th-century/ "Loading Break-bulk Cargo, Port of New Orleans, early 20th Century") and could be described as general cargo. The term originates in the sentence “to break bulk,” a nautical term with its roots in shipping. It literally means “begin to unload cargo”. It was a tedious process of loading and unloading, packing and repacking, which could take days or even weeks. Shipping vessels carried a mix of cargo on board; often, shipments included bulk, liquid bulk, and general cargo, all on the same vessel, making it very difficult to estimate the actual general cargo capacity of the world fleet at that time. It also meant that ships had to spend a lot of time in port. **Port turnaround times were very long**, sometimes exceeding the time at sea. Long port times created a situation in which it was not efficient to exploit economies of scale. Ship sizes were determined by balancing the capacity, time, and cost required to handle cargo. After World War II, **specialized merchant vessels** emerged, designed for specific cargoes such as bales of wool, logs, and liquid bulk. Slowly but surely, economies of scale were becoming increasingly important to support growing trade. However, the bottleneck arising on the dockside undermined the benefits of these significant advancements. The cargo was bundled into pieces or units that dock workers could manipulate, a concept defined as the **[man load](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/man-load/ "The Man Load Concept")**, except for gases and some liquids that were transported in bulk. Examples of man load are bags of sugar, cotton bales, and drums of liquids. Dockworkers carried loads of 30 to 50 kg in and out of the vessels. In some cases, the single weight to be carried could reach up to 80 kg. The multi-deck Victory and Liberty vessels are textbook examples of applying the man load concept to vessels. Given the low mechanization level in the vessel loading and discharging process, a large workforce was hired daily to handle the tasks. Due to the time-consuming nature of all cargo operations, unloading, sorting, clearing, and repacking, had to be done on the dockside. This led to the establishment of covered sheds at ports specifically designed to carry out these activities. All this was about to change with the rise of the unit load in the 1950s and the end of conventional general cargo shipping. ## C. The shift to unit load Since the 1950s, ports have been facing a **[goods explosion model](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/goods-explosion-model/ "Goods Explosion Model")** characterized by a shift from man load to two separate functions: unit load and bulk cargoes. At one end of the spectrum, bulk commodities (powders, grains) were increasingly carried by specialized bulk vessels and handled at [specialized bulk terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/) equipped with grab cranes, stackers, reclaimers, conveyor belts, and bulldozers. On the other end of the spectrum, there was a clear trend toward consolidating general cargo into unit loads, such as pallets and containers. Cargo unitization went hand in hand with the development of specialized terminal equipment (e.g., specialized quay cranes, forklifts, terminal tractors, straddle carriers, reach stackers, RMGs, RTGs) and specialized ships (e.g., container ships and RORO ships). Forklifts, tractors, and other mechanical equipment have been around since the 1920s. General cargo was increasingly handled in container ships or RORO ships. These developments led to a significant increase in labor productivity and port efficiency. **Vessel turnaround time** for a given cargo capacity decreased significantly while far fewer workers were needed. Technology has introduced new skill requirements for the workforce. Until the late 1950s, dock work primarily involved unskilled labor requiring minimal training, except for operating mechanical devices, which accounted for approximately 10% of the work. Dockworkers were primarily responsible for handling various bags, crates, drums, and other manual loads. The goods explosion model increased the need for skilled dock workers who have the **qualifications and experience to operate a more specialized handling superstructure**. A whole new range of crane drivers, straddle carrier drivers, and other equipment drivers emerged. From an economic point of view, the system dramatically impacted the industry and port economics, even resulting in particular placements of industrial centers around ports and the rise of a specific and highly segmented modern break bulk sector. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/forms_cargo_transportation.png?resize=900%2C297&ssl=1 "Forms of Cargo Transportation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Forms of Cargo Transportation![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/new_orleans1920s1.jpg?resize=850%2C568&ssl=1 "Loading Break-bulk Cargo, Port of New Orleans, early 20th Century | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Loading Break bulk Cargo Port of New Orleans early 20th Century![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/man_load_concept3.png?resize=900%2C507&ssl=1 "The Man Load Concept | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Man load concept![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/goods_explosion_model2.png?resize=900%2C489&ssl=1 "The Goods Explosion Model | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Goods Explosion Model## D. The impact of containerization The current state of the break bulk market cannot be understood without knowing the impacts of containerization. The launching of the **first containership** in 1956 is often considered the beginning of containerization. In the early years of container shipping, vessel capacity remained very limited in scale and geographical deployment, and the ships used were converted general cargo ships or tankers. Shipping companies and other logistics players hesitated to embrace the new technology as it required significant capital investments in ships, terminals, and inland transport. The **first transatlantic container service**, launched in 1966 between the US East Coast and Northern Europe, marked the beginning of long-distance containerized trade. The first specialized cellular containerships were delivered in 1968, and containerization expanded over maritime and inland freight transport systems. Container shipping developed rapidly due to the **[adoption of standard container sizes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/standardization-advances-containerisation/ "Main Physical Characteristics of ISO Containers")** in the late 1960s and the awareness of industry players of the advantages and cost savings resulting from faster vessel turnaround times in ports, reduction in the level of damages and associated insurance fees, and integration with inland transport modes such as trucks, barges, and trains. Containerization set in motion a cascade of events that changed how transportation was conducted. The core advantage of the container is that it is handled uniformly, regardless of the transport mode used. This means that handling time and the number of handling moves are significantly reduced. Containers ultimately captured the majority of the non-specialized cargo. How maritime shipping was conducted also changed. The traditional tramp trade evolved toward a **liner system**, which has become the norm. Instead of ships moving from port to port searching for cargo, specific services were created that linked predetermined ports according to a schedule. Containerization also impacted [port competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/inter-port-competition/) since a larger overlap emerged between different hinterlands, such as a shift from captive to contestable or shared hinterlands. Initially, **substitution** was the main factor behind containerization, with the gradual capture of the break bulk cargo market. This process has been particularly visible in many ports, as illustrated by rising **containerization levels**, which is the ratio between the containerized throughput of the port and its total general cargo volumes. Many segments of the traditional pre-container break bulk market are already containerized, and many raw material and food commodity chains are still in the process of being containerized. [Some commodities are already fully containerized (e.g. coffee, tobacco)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/containerized-commodities/), while for others, containerization is still in its infancy. For instance, 95% of all European coffee imports are containerized, as coffee is a high-value commodity and its consumption is rather ubiquitous. The demand structure of coffee is thus well-suited for the benefits of containerization. Goods that can easily be stuffed into a container have been **massively containerized**, partly because of relatively stable and even declining container shipping costs, as well as the growing number and availability of containers in transport markets worldwide. However, temporal shortages of containers (as reported during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021) and specific container sizes can hamper further containerization in some markets. The unit load formula of containerization means that container ships typically carry a wide range of containerized cargoes, from low-value products (such as waste paper) to high-value consumer electronics. Many contemporary break bulk markets still rely on the massification of flows of similar products, such as a coaster filled with steel coils. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/iso_containers_specifications.png?resize=900%2C347&ssl=1 "Main Physical Characteristics of ISO Containers | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Physical Characteristics of ISO Containers![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/containerization-commodities.png?resize=900%2C541&ssl=1 "Containerized Commodities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Containerized commodities# 2. The Breakbulk Fleet The break bulk fleet is **relatively old** and has been **declining in total deadweight** compared to other main cargo groups. However, the multipurpose segment endures. Continuous replacement and innovation enable conventional carriers to capture a larger but more specialized market segment, namely project cargo. There is a considerable difference between the old vessels leaving the fleet, and the new specially built ships for break bulk or conventional cargo. A few of the main trends include increased lifting capacity, greater efficiency, and enhanced versatility, which enable the handling of a wider range of cargo types. Compared to the older, less sophisticated vessels, the new general cargo vessels have box-shaped holds, long and wide hatch covers, increased lifting capacity, and, if installed, flexible decks and open hatch options. Given the enormous variety that exists when dealing with break bulk cargo, shipments can occur in many different ways. ## A. Conventional liner type concepts These include a range of options such as: - Services of a **specific frequency** operated with **dedicated ships**. - Services offering sailings within a period deploying **trip charters**. - Services operated on **inducement** but still within a more or less defined trade lane. - A mixture of two or three of the above options. - **Parceling or tramping** where the ship is chartered on a trip basis once a specified cargo volume is available. ## B. Barge carriers In breakbulk shipping, a barge carrier system consists of a mothership (mainly a propelled floating dock) that carries [barges loaded with cargo](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-barge-carrier-concept/) over (long) deepsea distances. It services a very small market segment. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/800px-Lash_vessel.jpg?resize=800%2C600&ssl=1 "LASH Carrier in the Waalhaven, Rotterdam | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Barge Carrier Concept## C. Container ships Some types of breakbulk cargo are carried by **cellular container ships**, although this is the exception rather than the rule. The type of breakbulk cargo transported in container ships can roughly be divided into two parts: - The first type of cargo comprises **large, oversized heavylift items that do not fit in standard containers**. Instead, they are secured on special container equipment, such as flats and platforms, and then lifted on the ship using a gantry crane. Another solution includes specially constructed platforms or tops under the deck on which the cargo is lifted. Finally, the cargo can be placed on the hatch cover or tank top, a method only possible on container ships equipped with special “stoppers” in the cells so that the lowest tier is left free. - The second type is small cargo stowed in **containers**, conveniently becoming containerized cargo and no longer regarded as break bulk. ## D. Forest product carrier The forest products cargo segment encompasses a wide variety of wood and paper products, including raw materials, semi-finished products, and finished products. Examples include wood chips, wood panels, pulp, sawn timber, plywood, newsprint, paper reels, paper rolls, and paperboard. Nowadays, forest products are shipped in **specialized vessels** such as Open Hatch Gantry Crane vessels (OHGCs) or Totally Enclosed Forest Carriers (TEFCs), which protect against harsh weather conditions, or in more traditional RORO vessels using trailers. ## E. Heavylift and project carriers Operators in this market generally deploy purpose-built ships capable of carrying extremely heavy and large cargoes, such as power plants, factories, power plant equipment, or offshore oil and gas facilities. Loading and discharging the vessels is done through various methods, including **lift-on/lift-off** (LoLo) and **roll-on/roll-off** (RORO). The greatest demand for specialist heavylift shipping arises from a wide range of offshore and petrochemical industry projects, as well as mining activities, factories, and power plants. Heavy-lift vessels do not operate on fixed routes; instead, they are drawn to areas where significant investments in the oil and gas industry have been made. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Breakbulk-handling-gear-1.png?resize=900%2C490&ssl=1 "Examples of Breakbulk Handling Gear | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of breakbulk handling gear## F. Conventional reefer ships Conventional reefer ships primarily transport **high-value foodstuffs** that require refrigeration and controlled atmosphere to prevent spoilage. Examples of reefer cargoes include fresh and frozen fruit (e.g., bananas and other citrus fruits), vegetables, fish, meat, poultry, and dairy products. Reefer shipping is a prime example of a one-way and, for some products, seasonal business, with cargoes mainly exported from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere. Reefer ships with several decks tend to be divided into more spaces than conventional dry cargo ships. Different commodities can be separated and carried, if required, at different temperatures. Below decks, a reefer ship resembles a large modern warehouse, and cargo is usually carried and handled in palletized forms and moved on conveyors or by electric forklift trucks. Reefer ships can typically carry reefer containers on deck, with more modern vessels also able to accommodate other types of containers. As is the case for the forest products industry, the reefer shipping sector is increasingly under pressure from container shipping. The **specialist reefer ships**, which are generally operated as tramps rather than in the liner trades, see their cargo base shifting toward large container ships, which offer more slots for refrigerated boxes. This is very visible in the banana trade, where large producers are moving toward full containerization. Compared to conventional reefer ships, reefer containers offer the additional advantage of transporting temperature-sensitive non-food cargoes, such as electronic equipment, specialized chemicals, pharmaceuticals, or computer chips, thereby increasing the likelihood of a full backhaul. ## G. Roll-on/roll-off vessels Although mainly aimed at transporting wheeled cargo, certain RORO ships are also used to transport break bulk cargoes on deepsea trade lanes. A distinction can be made between [various RORO vessel types](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/#2_Types_of_RoRo_vessels), which are full RORO cargo vessels, general cargo ships with (auxiliary) RORO access, container vessels with RORO capacity (so-called **ConRo** vessels), hybrid cargo and passenger vessels (**RoPax** vessels), Pure Car Carriers (PCCs), and **Pure Car and Truck Carriers** (PCTCs). RORO cargo can be either wheeled by itself (i.e., cars, trucks, or rolling equipment) or mobilized (i.e., placed on a trailer-type unit and then towed on board). RORO thus provides the ability to carry an extensive range of cargo, such as cars (of all kinds), trucks and trailers, (agricultural) machinery, mining equipment, roadbuilding equipment, project cargo, forest products, iron and steel, coils, cables, oversized cargo, etc. The advantages of RORO vessels are that there is no need for dockside cargo handling equipment and that they enable fast turnaround times for certain cargo types. On the other hand, stowage productivity for RORO ships is relatively low, and extensive lashing and securing may be needed to avoid the sudden movement of cargo. A more detailed analysis of the RORO market is provided in a [separate chapter](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/). # 3. Major Breakbulk Market Segments ## A. Common market developments It may be erroneously assumed that breakbulk or conventional general cargo is a declining cargo segment destined to disappear as an outdated way of transporting goods. In reality, this is not the case. The break bulk sector has not disappeared but has **changed in nature**, becoming a [specialized sector](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/world-seaborne-trade-cargo-type/ "World Seaborne Trade by Cargo Type, 1970-2021") that handles goods that are too challenging to transport in containers or where containerization does not represent a valid and cost-efficient proposition. The break bulk sector is **very heterogeneous**. Still, some common developments are affecting the break bulk market: - **Environmental issues** have an ever-larger impact on break bulk shipping and ports. Shipping lines and terminal operators in the breakbulk market must demonstrate a high level of environmental performance to ensure a license to operate and attract trading partners and potential investors. Heavily polluting plants, transport, and cargo handling methods are being phased out and steadily replaced by new units and processes with less environmental impact. - Markets are characterized by **consolidation** on both the supply and demand sides. Mergers and acquisitions shape the contemporary business environment in the breakbulk market segments. The consolidation trend puts additional pressure on intermediary parties (such as cargo handling terminals), which now have to deal with large ship operators and shippers or consignees with strong bargaining power. Most sectors are highly susceptible to changes in business outlook or face increased competition and low margins, creating an additional incentive for value-added activities to raise margins and profitability. - **Logistics integration levels** in many of the breakbulk sectors are increasing. Large logistics operators have emerged with control over many segments of the break bulk supply chain. The integration strategies of the market players have created an environment in which ports are increasingly competing not as individual places that handle ships but within transport networks or supply chains. As the loyalty of port clients cannot be taken for granted, seaports are seeking to engage shippers and carriers that control massive cargo flows and are well-positioned to generate added value for the port region. Seaports are forced to develop a strong customer-oriented focus to secure their position as decoupling points in break bulk supply chains. - **Seaport competitiveness** in the various breakbulk markets depends not only on out-of-pocket cost considerations. Reliability, capacity considerations, proven expertise, quality of information services, and a commercial and customer-oriented approach characterized by a clear ability to think along with the customer (not only in the port but throughout the supply chains and networks) are becoming ever more important in competing effectively in the break bulk cargo handling markets. - Many of the break bulk sectors can obtain significant benefits from **clustering**, not only from an economic point of view with economies of scale and added scope, but also for environmental considerations. Closed production cycles are good examples of the concentration of industrial activities within ports, benefiting major seaports and allowing for increased use of intermodal options, such as barge and rail. ![World Seaborne Trade by Cargo Type, 1970-2018](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/seaborne_trade_cargo.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "World Seaborne Trade by Cargo Type, 1970-2021 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")World Seaborne Trade by Cargo Type 1970 2021## B. The steel market Steel manufacturing is a competitive global industry, with **consolidation** and **continuous improvements** in manufacturing operations contributing to increased productivity. Mergers and acquisitions have remained an important growth strategy due to the benefits of economies of scale. The steel industry operates in a highly competitive global environment, where **rigorous cost management** is imperative for maintaining and strengthening its competitiveness. Therefore, steelmaking processes have been developed and refined over the years. Steelmaking is capital-intensive and requires a long average plant life, making moves to new technologies possible only in a timeframe of several decades. Many of the world’s largest steel plants are located in or close to seaports. On the import side, steel plants generate large flows of **iron ore, pellets, coke coal, metal scrap, and steel slabs**. The outgoing cargo flows typically include **steel coils, steel booms, steel wires, and related products**. Steel trade occurs between the major producers and between countries with a strong steel-dependent manufacturing sector. Historically, the automotive and construction markets have been the most prominent drivers of steel consumption. The maritime shipment of finished steel products, such as coils and wires, remains among the most significant segments in the break bulk market. ## C. Fresh fruit The international shipment of fruit is another prominent reefer cargo market, although containerization has significantly reduced this market in the past few decades. In **reefer commodity trade**, a distinction is made between transporting **living and non-living cargo**. Bananas, exotics (pineapples, kiwifruit, avocados), deciduous (apples, grapes, pears), and citrus (oranges, lemons, limes, grapefruit, others) are a part of the living group. The non-living commodities are fish, seafood, and meat. The dairy (cheese/curd, butter) and other groups (tomatoes, frozen potatoes, stone fruit, berries, melons, frozen vegetables, fresh vegetables) include living and non-living commodities. Making the distinction between living and non-living cargo is vital for the transport mode because of the different temperature requirements and atmospheric control. Living commodities will be transported under refrigerated conditions with a limited shelf life. Non-living commodities can be frozen, thereby extending their shelf life. The fruit market is subject to very specific inputs and characteristics, the most important being **seasonality**. November to July corresponds to the peak season for fruit transport. Some specific fruits are transported throughout the year, such as bananas and frozen commodities. Moreover, the volume of these shipments is subject to political, climatic, and economic factors, creating uncertainty within the supply chain. One of the subsets of fruit transport is the market of **juice concentrates**, which are transported in bulk, break bulk, or containers. In some cases, distributors have their own cold storage facilities. Over the past few decades, supermarkets (the final destination in the chain) have exerted greater influence in the food supply chain, as their consolidation has increased their purchasing power. Since this benefits the demand side, the supply side is trying to counter this trend with its own consolidations. An increase in [value-added logistics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/handling-bananas/ "The Ripening of Bananas") surrounding cold storage can be observed. For instance, packing and washing are performed at the loading and discharging ports. Some major companies have their own warehouses, but for smaller producers, port-based activities are the only financially viable option. This means that the creation and finalization of the consumer product are shifting toward a different point in the supply chain. Initially, products were shipped ready for consumption. Now, the final steps often happen at the destination. [Ripening facilities for bananas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/break-bulk/the-ripening-of-bananas/ "The Ripening of Bananas") are a typical example. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Handling-equipment-banana-terminal.png?resize=900%2C485&ssl=1 "The Transport and Handling of Bananas | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Transport and Handling of Bananas![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/3421057b24ec44a0936636d3df322fe0.jpg?resize=720%2C364&ssl=1 "Ripening of Bananas | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ripening of bananasThe rise of reefer containers makes it increasingly feasible to transit a port without stripping the container and only discharging the cargo at the destination, such as an inland importer, retailer, or supermarket chain distribution center. Such **bypass operations** could affect the position of dedicated fruit terminals in seaports, particularly in terms of value-added creation at the port. At the same time, retailers are pushing for the perishables transport industry to adopt many of the disciplined supply chain processes common in the hard goods industry. There is a sense that logistics thinking in the container industry might be more aligned with this approach than traditional commodity-focused tramp reefer shipping. ## D. Forest products The forest products trade is subject to **predefined markets** since large extraction areas such as Canada and Scandinavia have been suppliers for centuries. Overall, the consumption of forest products is still on the rise despite the increased use of synthetic materials and the digitalization of the economy (electronic documentation). International climate change policies, as well as sustainable consumption and production policies, are affecting the forest products industry. The paper industry is driven by volume generation, also known as the **fill-the-mill concept**. Waves of consolidation attest to the need for scale increases. Over recent decades, mergers have occurred among both producers and buyers. Due to this consolidation trend, the power is shifting toward producers that are integrating into complete supply chains. A storage facility near the market is preferred, and integration also promotes logistical and transport concepts unique to the industry. A well-known example is the StoraEnso Cargo Unit (SECU), which is used for transporting materials between mills in Scandinavia and the main hub in Zeebrugge. Forwarders and terminal operators are increasingly working for producers rather than traders. The traditional approach was a collection of small independent traders who have now lost their importance. This incites a consolidation on both the supply and demand sides to deliver added value. Horizontal integration has become an incentive for vertical integration, where wood producers opt for an internal distribution system by **investing in terminals and derived activities**. The emergence of Just-in-Time (JIT) in the paper industry creates a need for a centralized supply. For maritime shipments of forest products, the number of ports of call is relatively low, which reduces the advantages of smaller ports when trade is drawn toward major, better-equipped load centers. Ports are also experiencing an impact concerning the shift of power toward suppliers. The actual trading is disappearing, and ports are becoming storage and distribution facilities. This is why ports have **focused on creating specialized terminals and equipment** to guarantee quality and speed during transport. This includes covered terminals, special hoisting equipment, and climate-controlled areas. ## E. Project cargo **Project cargo, heavy lifts, and machinery** are among the most important segments within breakbulk. As with most other segments, it is a collection of different load units with no common standard since their units are project-related. Project cargo consists, for instance, of knocked-down plants, new industrial manufacturing plants, power generation equipment, oil and gas industry equipment, diesel engines, mining equipment, and breweries. Among other trends impacting the sector, **shorter build times** are prevalent. This creates the need for reduced shipping times and a steady flow of components. Also, the risk of penalties is higher, and the chances of consolidating cargo are slimmer due to the multitude of smaller projects. The shift of assembly activities toward the port area places increased stress on the hinterland connections of ports. In the long run, the physical limitations of hinterland connections could endanger the competitive position of ports. Due to the complex handling activities involved, the need for added value is relatively high in the project cargo segment. **Cargo consolidation** is happening at ports and requires industrial packaging of goods. This creates a need for intermediaries that can provide transport solutions at sea and in the hinterland. Ultimately, this leads to the outsourcing of the logistical process. Industrial and engineering companies focus on their core activities but demand excellence and flexibility, which can only be delivered by a project-based, custom approach by the partners responsible for the logistical aspects. Overall, the project cargo sector is heavily reliant on a few key markets. **Energy plants** are on the rise as the search for sustainable energy intensifies. [Wind turbines](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wind-turbines-break-bulk/ "Wind Turbines as Break Bulk Cargo") are appearing all across the landscape, driving the demand for the industry. **Construction projects** are another cornerstone of the sector, with mega-projects in developing countries an important driver. Finally, **mining** is a relatively reliable business delivering cargo on a fairly constant basis. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/8c255509ff8cdc6e45c45660561588f52a7b7b03.jpeg?resize=900%2C506&ssl=1 "Wind Turbines as Breakbulk Cargo | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Wind turbines as break bulk cargoDuring an economic downturn, project movement slows due to a decline in capital investments. The project cargo market typically exhibits a **lagging effect** that can vary depending on the region, but may be as long as eight months or longer due to cycles. This makes it challenging to forecast demand for projects and, by extension, project cargo. Within the project cargo sector, a **wave of consolidation and cooperation** is taking place to offer a larger geographical scope and adjusted ship tonnage. Despite consolidation, the sector still has many smaller operators that have developed unique skills and equipment. Most ship operators follow a business model that runs on a combination of cargo. Essentially, almost anything up to and including containers, in some cases, can qualify as project cargo because a combination of cargo is necessary to make a successful voyage. This implies that ship operators typically do not build their business around heavy-lift cargo only. As a result, most vessels deployed in the heavy-lift market are multipurpose and suitable for carrying a wide range of cargoes, including dry cargo, forest products, steel, containers, and even bulk commodities. Next to the shipping lines, the **freight forwarding community** plays an essential role in the project cargo market. In many cases, they arrange ocean transportation, port clearance, and inland transportation. Ship operators typically do not compete directly with freight forwarders. However, on specific projects, ship operators might have quotes on cargoes that include services such as barging, rail, or trucking (heavy haul), documentation, and packing at the terminal for customers who want to consolidate their cargoes in a single location from multiple suppliers. These services can be provided either in-house or in collaboration with other freight forwarders through a one-stop shop approach. Activities can also include extensive engineering for special projects and lump-sum contracting of integrated projects. ## F. Coffee and cocoa Coffee and cocoa are products that are both traded in a similar fashion and primarily transported in containers. They are not in the confines of the pure breakbulk definition. However, the product is still handled in a very traditional way. Coffee is usually stowed in bags of 60kg inside containers, with container stowage in bulk mode as another option. The bag will remain a storage and transport unit for three reasons. First, the trade market requires this way of packaging as a **unit of measure**. Second, coffee is grown in areas that can be difficult to access and represents a unit that can be **handled manually**. Finally, bags increase the **durability** of the product. The coffee supply chain comprises growers, transporters, processors, traders, and consumers. Most steps in the coffee supply chain are governed by small corporations, particularly on the production side, with farmers and exporters. Traders are primarily grouped into large companies that sell coffee to consumers, which are, in most cases, major corporations in the food industry and specialized retailers. There are substantial shifts in coffee prices. If the harvest in certain parts of the world is below expectations, farmers in other geographical areas have the opportunity to keep their stocks and raise prices. However, there is a trend among final consumers, specifically large food corporations, to integrate along the supply chain. The coffee sector is one where trading remains an essential aspect of the market. Big trading consortia buy shares of the available stocks in warehouses worldwide and try to sell them to the highest bidder. The trader often participates in the transportation leg on its own account. Since the lowest transport cost is sought, this will influence how the cargo is transported. If breakbulk charter rates are below container rates, the coffee (or cacao) will be transported in break bulk ships. Major **coffee and cocoa producers** tend to be located around the equator. Often, harvests do not reach the levels predicted due to disruptions, particularly those related to weather. The major coffee exporters are Brazil, Colombia, Vietnam, and Ethiopia. Although each exporter tries to create a brand name for their coffee, the product is **interchangeable** for most segments of the mass market. The leading importers are the United States, Europe, and Japan, impacting the modes used in major coffee trades. The largest cocoa exporters are Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria, with the majority of trade flows between the African continent and Europe. ## G. The automotive and RORO market The roll-on/roll-off (RORO) shipping market specializes in transporting wheeled cargo, such as cars, trucks, trailers, and other heavy machinery, which are driven on and off the vessels using their own wheels. [Chapter 5.2](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/) provides a detailed discussion of the automotive and RORO market. # 4. Breakbulk Terminals The wide range of breakbulk cargoes implies that a variety of terminal types and handling equipment are available. Many breakbulk terminals are **highly specialized** to handle one specific type of breakbulk cargo and cannot be readily converted to other uses. Breakbulk cargo is handled by cranes on the quay, floating cranes, or the ship’s own cargo gear (deck cranes, derricks). On the docks, various types of **dockside cranes, level-luffing cranes, and mobile cranes** are used for moving and lifting packages. The lifting gear (lift-on/lift-off equipment) conducts all the vertical cargo movements. Attached to such lifting gear is a shackle that links the crane or derrick with the cargo-handling equipment being used. A hook is used for most lifts. There are numerous **[types of tools or loose gear ](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/handling-gear-breakbulk/ "Examples of handling gear used on breakbulk terminals")**that can be attached to the shipboard or shore-based lifting gear: - **Sling or strop** is probably the most common form of loose gear. Such equipment, generally made of rope, is ideal for hoisting strong packages, such as wooden cases or bagged cargo, which are not likely to sag or be damaged when raised. - **Snotters or canvas slings** are suitable for bagged cargo. - **Chain slings** are used for heavy, slender cargoes, such as timber or steel rails. - **Can or barrel hooks** are suitable for hoisting barrels or drums. - **Cargo nets** are suitable for mail bags and similar cargoes that are not liable to be crushed when hoisted. - **Heavy-lifting beams** are suitable for heavy and long articles such as locomotives, boilers, or railway passenger coaches. - **Cargo trays and pallets**, the latter being of wooden or steel construction, are ideal for moderate dimension cargoes, which can be conveniently stacked, such as cartons, bags, or small wooden crates or cases. **Forklift trucks** are frequently used at breakbulk terminals, providing a lifting capacity that ranges from 1 ton to 45 tons. This type of equipment can be mechanically or electrically operated and fitted in front with a platform in the shape of two prongs of a fork. **Clamps for reels and bales** are provided on some forklift trucks. In the case of palletized breakbulk cargo, **pallet jacks** are also used to lift and move pallets. The front wheels are mounted inside the ends of the forks, and as the hydraulic jack is raised, the forks are separated vertically from the front wheels, forcing the load upward until it clears the floor. The pallet is only lifted enough to clear the floor for subsequent travel. Many commodities, such as [coffee, cocoa, tobacco, and bananas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/containerized-commodities/ "From breakbulk to containerized commodities"), used to be transported and handled as breakbulk, but have **mostly been containerized**. Once the container has been discharged, it is transported to a specialized terminal in the port area or the hinterland. The container is stripped for storage, distribution, and value-added logistics activities (VALS) related to its contents. In some cases, a commodity is discharged at a terminal equipped to handle **both breakbulk and containerized cargo**. For example, this is the case at many [banana import terminals ](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/handling-bananas/ "The transport and handling of bananas")where [reefer container trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cold-chains/) meets traditional reefer vessels carrying palletized banana boxes in their holds. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Heavy-lift-cranes.png?resize=900%2C377&ssl=1 "Examples of Heavy Lift Cranes at Breakbulk Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of heavy lift cranes at breakbulk terminals![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Breakbulk-handling-gear-1.png?resize=900%2C490&ssl=1 "Examples of Breakbulk Handling Gear | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of breakbulk handling gear![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Handling-equipment-banana-terminal.png?resize=900%2C485&ssl=1 "The Transport and Handling of Bananas | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Handling equipment at a banana terminal![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/containerization-commodities.png?resize=900%2C541&ssl=1 "Containerized Commodities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Containerized commodities# 5. Generating Employment and Added-Value in Breakbulk Ports Break bulk cargo handling creates jobs at terminal and stevedoring companies in the form of dockworker and management positions. Dock labor needs are very dependent on the cargo flows handled in the port. Other cargo service-related jobs include cargo survey, land transport and storage, and port-related storage. Compared to the handling of commodities such as crude oil or major dry bulks, conventional general cargo is much more labor-intensive. It generates a [substantially higher added value per ton](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/intrinsic-cargo-handling-values/) and is the largest generator of dock-related jobs per volume unit, although a significant difference might exist among commodities and ports. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/rules_intrinsic_cargo_handling.png?resize=900%2C345&ssl=1 "Rules for Determining Intrinsic Cargo Handling Tons | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Rules for Determining the Intrinsic Cargo Handling Values The break bulk market segments, as important sources of employment in ports, impact port labor requirements. Large break bulk customers and large cargo handling companies can exert a significant impact on port labor. As these companies often develop a strong network focus through their presence in multiple ports, the experience they gain at different ports serves as the basis for explicit or implicit port labor benchmarking exercises, comparing turnaround times in each port, terminal productivity, flexibility in working practices, and cost profiles. Increased benchmarking at the company level on an international scale exposes well-established structures and practices in a specific port area to external impulses for change. Internationalization in the cargo handling industry also facilitates the transfer of new technologies to a wide range of ports. Creating a competitive advantage in terms of terminal productivity is no longer only a question of operating modern terminal equipment but increasingly a matter of ensuring that the most efficient human resource system is in place to operate the terminal equipment. Given the size of some of the break bulk customers, a loss or gain of a large customer can exert a major impact on the port and is directly reflected in the number of dockworkers required. Employment in ports is also affected by the combination of quay-related cargo-handling activities at terminals and a wide array of logistics activities at warehouses or near terminals. As such, a mix of pure stevedoring activities and logistics activities occurs, each requiring people with the necessary skills and know-how. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 3.5 – Bulk and Breakbulk Terminal Design and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/ "Chapter 3.5 – Bulk and Breakbulk Terminal Design and Equipment") - [Chapter 8.5 – Port Cold Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cold-chains/ "Chapter 8.5 – Port Cold Chains") --- ## References - Drewry, (2011). Multipurpose Shipping, Market review and forecast, Drewry House United Kingdom - Dynamar (2010). Breakbulk Operators, Fleets, Markets, Alkmaar - Haezendonck, E. and Moeremans, B. (2019). Measuring value tonnes based on direct value added: a new weighted analysis for the port of Antwerp. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 1-13. - Huybrechts, M., Meersman, H., Van De Voorde, E., Van Hooydonk, E., Verbeke, A., Winkelmans, W. (2001). Port competitiveness: an economic and legal analysis of the factors determining the competitiveness of seaports, Editions De Boeck - Rodrigue, J. P., & Notteboom, T. (2009). The geography of containerization: half a century of revolution, adaptation and diffusion. GeoJournal, 74(1), 1-5. - Rodrigue, J. P., & Notteboom, T. (2015). Looking inside the box: evidence from the containerization of commodities and the cold chain. Maritime Policy & Management, 42(3), 207-227. - Vigarié, A., (1999). From break-bulk to containers: the transformation of general cargo handling and trade, Geojournal 48, 3-7 - Vonck, I., Notteboom, T. (2012). An economic analysis of break bulk flows and activities in Belgian ports, JCBGAM: Wavre, 97 p. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 4.4 - Port Labor](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/) **Published:** September 29, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Theo Notteboom and Dr. Athanasios Pallis > Dockworkers are essential to terminal performance and overall port competitiveness. They are challenged by changing market requirements, which result in dock labor reform and adaptations in working practices. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Employment Effects of Cargo Handling](#1_Employment_Effects_of_Cargo_Handling) - [2. Dock Labor](#2_Dock_Labor) - [3. Meeting Market Requirements](#3_Meeting_Market_Requirements) - [4. Improving Port Work Conditions](#4_Improving_Port_Work_Conditions) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Employment Effects of Cargo Handling Cargo handling operations at terminals are at the core of port functions. This creates jobs for terminal and stevedoring companies, including dockworkers, management, and administrative positions. Dock labor needs are very dependent on the cargo flows handled in the port. Other **cargo service-related jobs** include cargo survey, land transport and storage, port-related storage, and conveyor/pipeline transfer between berths and storage facilities. Generally speaking, breakbulk handling typically has the highest dock labor intensity. This is also confirmed by analyzing the [intrinsic cargo handling tons](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/intrinsic-cargo-handling-values/ "Intrinsic Cargo Handling Values per Ton"). Many **service companies** involved in booking, consolidating, and tracking vessels and cargo, such as freight forwarders and ship agents, are located in the seaport area. The **consolidation of cargo** is a crucial port activity that generates added value and employment, and contributes to efficiency improvements in terms of loading rates and the balance between incoming and outgoing goods flows. Ports often serve as consolidation points for partial loads, such as **Less than Container Load (LCL) cargo and groupage** activities. However, disintermediation in supply chains and the increasing globalization of the maritime and port industry can imply that some ports face a relocation of decision-making power over cargo flows to inland centers or major maritime cities. When cargo control centers are established outside the port area, the role of local service providers is narrowed down to specific operational tasks or back-office functions. **Employment and added value per ton** increase when goods undergo logistics or industrial transformations in the port area. For example, the stuffing and stripping of containers are up to five times more labor-intensive than the loading or unloading of a vessel. **Storage, distribution, and other logistics activities** in industrial subcontracting or postponed manufacturing in the port area also boost employment levels for a given cargo throughput level. The gateway position of major seaports offers opportunities for the development of **value-added logistics (VAL)**. Many seaports have evolved from pure transshipment centers to key nodes within a logistics system. The rise of **port-based activities in the hinterland** can pressure logistics activities in ports and spread logistics job creation from the port to the wider hinterland. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/rules_intrinsic_cargo_handling.png?resize=900%2C345&ssl=1 "Rules for Determining Intrinsic Cargo Handling Tons | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Rules for Determining the Intrinsic Cargo Handling Values # 2. Dock Labor Port labor can be defined in different terms. Within a narrow definition, port labor refers to the loading or unloading of ships. Broadly defined, port labor encompasses **all forms of cargo handling within a port zone**, including the stuffing and stripping of containers, the loading and unloading of inland waterway vessels, trucks, and railway wagons, as well as the storage and semi-industrial processing of goods in warehouses and logistics areas. Ports terminals are not homogeneous, and neither is the workforce they employ. - **Container terminals** employ a comparatively capital-intensive, increasingly technical workforce: crane operators, yard-equipment operators, terminal-operating-system planners and, in automated terminals, remote control-room and maintenance staff. This is the segment most exposed to automation-driven occupational restructuring - **Bulk and breakbulk terminals** (dry bulk such as ores, grain and coal; liquid bulk; and non-containerised general cargo) typically remain more labour-intensive and less automated, with continued reliance on stevedoring gangs, warehouse labour and specialised handling for irregular or hazardous cargo. Staffing here is often organised through registered labour pools rather than direct terminal employment. - **Roll-on/roll-off (ro-ro) terminals**, handling vehicles, trailers and project cargo, depend heavily on driving and marshalling labour and, increasingly, on the “megaship” pressures. - **Passenger and ferry terminals** employ a workforce oriented toward passenger handling, security, hospitality and turnaround logistics rather than cargo handling, with different occupational health and scheduling profiles (shift patterns tied to sailing schedules rather than vessel arrival unpredictability). The term port/dock worker is a generic term that includes general workers (operatives) working on board ships and those on land, as well as specialized workers. Specialized workers are operators (or drivers) of various types of machinery such as forklifts, straddle carriers, reach stackers, bulldozers, bobcats, conveyor belts and cranes (also called winchmen); signalmen (hatchmen, hatch tenders, or deck hands); lashers; tallymen (also called tally clerks or checkers); (gang) foremen, chief tallymen and chief foremen (supervisors). Signalmen are stationed at the hatchway opening, give the necessary signals to the winchman, and supervise the raising and lowering of slingloads. Lashers are men who lash, unlash, secure, and release cargoes stowed on the ship’s hold or deck. Checkers or tallymen keep a tally of the quantity or weight of goods shipped or received and check for apparent damage and shortages. Foremen are responsible for the management and supervision of groups of workers, also referred to as gangs. Typically, one gang of workers is used per ship’s hatch or hold, or shoreside crane. In many ports, cargo handlers also employ mechanics (also called maintenance or repair men, including electricians) responsible for keeping equipment in running condition; these workers often have the same or similar status as port workers proper. Cargo handling companies also employ office staff involved in administration, sales, marketing, information technology, and legal matters. Port workers are employed by a variety of employers, including private terminal operators, public port authorities (especially those involved in crane operations), or companies controlled by a state-owned entity. Other port workers are self-employed and hired by ship owners or their agents. These workers may, at the same time, act as employers of other workers. Port workers include permanent employees employed under an employment contract for an indefinite or definite term, which is entirely governed by general labor law, as well as permanent workers registered as port workers under specific port labor arrangements. Many ports rely on **registered pool workers** hired daily (or for a shift or a half shift) and entitled to unemployment benefits while not working. Finally, many ports use various categories of more or less **irregularly employed** supplementary workers (occasional or auxiliary workers, including, in some ports, seasonal workers and/or temporary agency or interim workers). ## A. Market requirements Dock labor is a key **production factor for terminal operators**, next to terminal land and capital goods such as cranes, yard equipment, and terminal management system hardware and software. While the dock labor force typically represents a modest portion of total direct jobs in many ports, it is a key production factor for port terminals. Dock labor is part of the supply profile of the port or terminal. Dockworker relationships are listed as a separate criterion for port/terminal selection. However, dock labor performance also affects several other criteria. For example, impacts might be found concerning supply profile factors such as container handling rates, service reliability, vessel turnaround time, and berth availability. The market profile of the port can also be significantly influenced by the performance of dock labor. For instance, a dock worker strike negatively affects the reputation of a port. Furthermore, dock labor can affect inland transportation, particularly in ports where registered dock workers handle rail and barge cargo. **Large port customers and large cargo handling companies** can significantly impact dock labor arrangements as they strive to implement best practices across their terminal network. Shippers, third-party logistics service providers, and shipping lines pressure terminal operators to meet their market requirements. The requirements of these market actors incite terminal operators to **[maximize the performance of their dock workers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/impact-changing-market-requirements-on-dock-labour/ "The Impact of Changing Market Requirements on Dock Labor")**. This objective can be deconstructed into three underlying dimensions: labor productivity, cost efficiency, and more qualitative aspects of labor performance. These dimensions are part of the internal organization as they are largely under the control of dock labor management actors. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/changing_market_requirements_dock_labor.png?resize=900%2C378&ssl=1 "The Impact of Changing Market Requirements on Dock Labor | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The impact of changing market requirements on dock laborDock labor arrangements and systems should be designed so that dock workers meet the market needs. However, these internal dimensions related to the organization of dock work occur within a **broader set of legal and social conditions**, as well as the current and future **state of technology**. These more external dimensions form framework conditions for the development of dock labor systems. ## B. Productivity > Labor productivity is an economic interpretation of labor performance and can be defined as the total output divided by labor inputs. Labor productivity measures the extent to which human capital contributes value to the firm. The **dock labor input quantity** can typically be expressed in terms of the number of person-hours worked or the size of the dock workforce deployed to handle cargo. The output quantity can relate to the cargo volume handled per time unit (i.e., an hour, shift, week, month, or year) or the created value-added for the terminal operating company. In a supply chain context, the value-added of dock labor is the enhancement added to the supply chain by the workforce of the terminal operating company. From an accounting point of view, value-added is the sum of wages, amortizations of capital goods, and losses/profits. With the increasing importance of integrating ports and terminals into value-driven supply chains, ports and terminal operators have developed a greater interest in creating value-added services, in addition to the more traditional approach aimed at maximizing cargo tons handled. When using the output per person-hour or tons per gang shift, one should consider the **technology used** to handle the cargo and the nature of the cargo. **Benchmarking dock labor productivity** thus requires indicators that combine handling rates with the technology used, for instance, by looking at output per person-hour produced with a stock of fixed capital of a given technology and operational characteristics. The identification and use of relevant **measures and key performance indicators (KPIs) on labor productivity** also pose challenges in other industries where capital-intensive assets are used to produce outputs in the form of products or services. ## C. Cost efficiency Cost efficiency is the second dimension of labor performance. **Dock labor costs** typically account for between 40% and 75% of the total operating costs of general cargo terminals. In addition to a base wage, labor costs encompass bonuses and wage supplements, which are prevalent in the port industry. Even in the capital-intensive container-handling industry, the share of dock labor costs in total operating expenses can be as high as 50%. The handling of dry bulk (i.e., major bulks such as iron ore and coal) requires less dock labor due to the presence of conveyor belt systems throughout the bulk terminals. Therefore, the share of labor costs at dry bulk terminals typically ranges between 15% and 20% of total operating costs. **Cost recovery** is an important consideration for terminal operators in the context of labor cost efficiency. To reach cost recovery, terminal operators should design terminal pricing schemes that generate revenues above the total fixed and variable terminal operating costs related to capital, land, and labor (i.e., dock workers and white-collar workers involved in terminal management and administration). ## D. Qualitative aspects of labor performance The performance dimensions of labor productivity and cost efficiency are influenced by the more qualitative aspects of **labor flexibility and service reliability, quality, and dependability**. Low service reliability, quality, and dependability (i.e., the quality of being counted on or relied upon) among dock workers expose terminal operators and the wider maritime and logistics community to a range of **indirect and unanticipated costs**. This can negatively affect productivity and cost recovery targets: - **Service reliability**. Undermined when there is a **shortage of gangs or dock workers,** leading to substantial delays in vessel loading and discharging operations. Shortages can be caused by sudden non-anticipated peaks in demand or a (short-term) significant drop in the availability of dock workers (due to holiday periods, weekends). Structural long-term shortages are an incentive to enlarge the docker workforce. - **Service quality**. Partly reflected in **damage-free terminal operations**. Cargo damage incidents at the terminal can result in disruptions to normal operations and generate costs for the cargo owner. A high incidence of damage cases may indicate a lack of training or a low level of commitment among dockworkers. Lower service quality can also result from **operational inefficiencies** caused by a lack of communication between the vessel and the terminal, equipment breakdowns, or the late receipt of load plans. These will ultimately affect cost efficiency and labor productivity. - **Strikes**. Negatively affect service reliability, quality, and dependability. Short, isolated strikes and long, port-wide strikes by dockworkers can reduce labor productivity and impose costs on the port and logistics community, ultimately trickling down to the entire economic system. Strikes cause port deviation costs for ship-owners, time costs for ships in port, lost revenues for inland transport operators and other port-related companies, time costs and broader logistics costs for cargo owners, and potentially high costs to factories linked to major disruptions in the production line (stock-out). Strikes typically result from disputes over labor conditions and can have detrimental long-term effects on the port’s reputation. Labor disputes have been endemic in the history of the port industry. Most of the time, strikes resulted from disputes between labor unions (representing the interests of the dockworkers) and employer organizations concerning the terms and conditions for renewing collective bargaining agreements. - **Accidents and absenteeism**. Can confront a port or terminal with service reliability challenges, lower productivity, and additional costs. The reasons for absenteeism can be company-related (e.g., ineffective selection and placement procedures, excessive fatigue, ineffective use of skills, poor supervision, inadequate training, or promotion programs) or personal (e.g., dual occupation, alcoholism, or drug use). As in other industries, absenteeism is often related to job satisfaction and serves as an indicator of a worker’s responsibility in fulfilling their contractual obligations. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Proud-to-be-a-docker.png?resize=900%2C414&ssl=1 "Proud to be a docker | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Societal status of the dockworkerNext to service reliability, quality, and dependability concerns, there are the needs of terminal operators in terms of **labor flexibility,** which takes several forms: - **Flexibility in working hours.** A distinction should be made between passive and active flexibility. Passive flexibility implies that the employer establishes schedules that consider legal provisions, breaks, and holidays. Active flexibility gives employees much flexibility. A dock labor employment system with many casual workers typically generates a high degree of operational flexibility. The dockworkers have, within certain limits, freedom of choice for specific tasks. When the dock labor employment system does not impose a work obligation at specific times (for example, for weekend work or work on holidays), finding enough volunteers is often a matter of offering generous bonuses for performing such tasks. - **Flexibility in terms of total labor quantity**. This refers to the possibility of adjusting the workforce size to match the amount of work that needs to be done. This kind of flexibility is crucial for effective terminal operations that experience peaks in cargo-handling demand. Another flexibility is to recruit workers outside dockworker pools (for instance, through temporary labor offices) when shortages occur. - **Operational deployment of dock workers** or the extent to which dockworkers can be used for different tasks (multi-skilling or multi-tasking). When dockworkers are assigned to specific job categories, such flexibility is only guaranteed when a system of qualifications (based on certification or training) allows dockworkers’ mobility between categories. When dock workers strictly adhere to their specific **professional category**, the multi-skilled nature of the categories is typically low. This can lead to discrepancies whereby surplus dockers in one category cannot compensate for shortages in other (higher-ranked) categories. - **Flexibility in the assignment of gangs/teams, the size of the gangs, and the shift system in place**. In principle, employers benefit most when they have the broadest possible freedom to switch gangs between vessels during a shift, vary the size of the gangs to match the desired productivity per hour, and deploy every dock worker to work in the most appropriate shift. In practice, there are limits to such forms of flexibility. ## E. Legal and social conditions and state of technology The internal organization of dock labor takes place within a broader context that encompasses **legal and social conditions**, as well as the **state of technology**. The legal constraints are embedded in regulations, legislation, and industry-wide labor and safety regulations. Both **national governments and international/supranational organizations**, such as the International Labour Organization (ILO), have a role to play. For example, the Dock Work Convention (No. 137) of 1973 is a convention on the social repercussions of new cargo handling methods in docks. This convention places great importance on the relationship between workers and technology in ports, particularly in terms of efficiency and training. Article 6 stipulates that each member shall ensure that appropriate **safety, health, welfare, and vocational training provisions** apply to dockworkers. The 1979 ILO Occupational Safety and Health (Dock Work) Convention (No. 152) includes several mandatory training requirements. The ILO also issues recommendations that outline guidelines to inform national policy and action, often complementing corresponding conventions. The theme of **social conditions, including labor relations**, is complex, difficult to delineate, and challenging to measure. Dockworkers strongly prefer employment systems that combine job freedom with labor conditions found in permanent contracts (such as job security and guaranteed wages). The overall **state of technology** determines the extent to which terminal operators can deploy new technology to improve the three dimensions of dock labor performance. These new technologies can be applied in terminal management, terminal equipment and automation, performance measurement and management, and human resource management (e.g., electronic hiring systems for dock workers). # 3. Meeting Market Requirements ## A. Deployment of new technology The use of advanced terminal equipment and planning technology is one way for terminal operators to increase terminal performance and meet market requirements. Technological advances in cargo handling facilities have led to increases in labor productivity and quality improvements, but have also brought **new requirements in terms of the skills and qualifications** of the workforce. Technological innovations and developments in cargo handling increase labor productivity expressed in tons handled per docker per time unit. The [unloading of bananas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/handling-bananas/) is a good example. With the introduction of pallet cages and containerization, the number of banana boxes handled per minute per crane increased from 50 with a spiral unloader to 385 with pallet cages and 480 with containerized pallets. The willingness of stevedoring companies to invest in new cargo handling technology and [automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/terminal-automation/) is partly related to the **perceived labor productivity benefits and cost savings** at the level of dock labor. If a technical innovation would, in principle, reduce the workforce per gang (or, in the case of full automation, even eliminate the workforce), the terminal operator will benefit from labor cost savings only if the gangs are indeed reduced in size. If such a reduction in the workforce is not possible within the confines of the dock labor employment system, then the stevedoring company will be far less likely to introduce technological innovations. The deployment of new terminal technology, particularly automation, is highly context-specific, with the same technologies leading to different labor acceptance outcomes. In the context where labor or skilled labor is scarce, automation tends to be easier to deploy. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Handling-equipment-banana-terminal.png?resize=900%2C485&ssl=1 "The Transport and Handling of Bananas | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Handling equipment at a banana terminal![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_terminal_automation2.png?resize=900%2C534&ssl=1 "Port Terminal Automation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Freight Terminal Automation## B. The legal status of dockworkers **Dockworkers** can be civil servants in state-owned service ports, directly employed by a private terminal operating company, or employed through dock labor schemes. Quite a few dock labor employment systems require that **only registered dock workers perform dock work** in the port. This obligation can be imposed by national or regional legislation or result from collective bargaining agreements between port employers and trade unions. Though not ratified by many Member States, **Article 3 of ILO Convention 137** makes explicit reference to the registration of dockworkers: > “Registers shall be established and maintained for all occupational categories of dockworkers, in a manner to be determined by national law or practice” and “Registered dock workers shall have priority of engagement for dock work”. Where employers must use registered dock workers, the criteria for recognizing dockworkers and the entities involved in the recognition process may differ between ports. Port reform processes often envision loosened preferential relations between registered dockworkers and port employers, introducing competition among **registered dockwork services providers**. ## C. Open and autonomous labor pool systems A large variety of dock labor schemes can be observed among ports. Dock labor schemes are, in some cases, based on a centrally managed pool of registered dock workers. The use of registered dockers through such a pool can be mandatory or not. This obligation can be de facto or imposed by law. **Dock labor pool schemes** generally involve three elements: - The designation of an in-group of **officially registered** (in effect, licensed) dockworkers. - Registered workers are not permanently employed at a particular stevedoring enterprise. Still, they are hired through a **central pool or hiring hall**, which stevedores are obligated to use as their primary source of casual labor. - A system of **minimum pay guarantees or unemployment benefits** for registered dockworkers who are left idle by a shortage of ships to be worked during a particular day, week, or month. One of the primary incentives for establishing dock labor pools in select ports is to ensure flexibility in labor supply. Employers and employees then jointly determine the **size of the docker workforce** based on current and future needs. In an increasing number of ports, dock workers are **directly employed by terminal operators** rather than being contracted through pools. In some cases, such as in Germany and the Netherlands, employers can hire permanent company employees directly from the **external labor market**. Still, any additional (casual) labor must be hired from a regulated labor pool. There is a general trend toward **open and autonomous pool systems**, backed by temporary employment agencies. Over the last 50 years or so, the **collective bargaining process** in many ports has progressively been decentralized to the company level. # 4. Improving Port Work Conditions ## A. Increased training initiatives and modalities Labor performance is impacted by **training and experience levels**. A customized training plan can provide dock workers with a future career path based on experience and proven competence. Many ports rely on occupational categories for dock workers, combined with clear rules governing the flow from one category to a higher one. The regulation of the influx of new dockers is also relevant in this context. Key issues in this respect include the screening of potential candidates, training facilities, trial period modalities, and the characteristics of labor evaluation systems. Many ports have set up **dedicated training centers** for their dock workers. These training centers offer voluntary or obligatory professional training courses for newly registered dockers and special schooling for dockers willing to move to another job category. ## B. A push for continuous work Terminal operators are pushing for changes in labor arrangements in view of boosting labor productivity, cost efficiency, service quality, and labor flexibility: - **Continuous work**. The high time costs of vessels make high quay productivity and 24/7 operations indispensable. This implies that once loading and unloading operations begin, labor services should be offered as continuously as possible. - **Work scheduling**. There is a general tendency towards individual rather than collective breaks, flexible start times, and variable shift lengths. - **Extended work hours**. Dock labor schemes demonstrate various approaches to managing **overtime, night shifts, and weekend work**. For example, in some ports, weekend work is, to some extent, considered a normal shift. In contrast, dockers at other ports have the freedom to accept weekend shifts (voluntarily), with provisions for overtime pay if they do. - **Work shift transition**. Implementation of the so-called **hot seat change** or the seamless transition from one shift to another, resulting in continuous work on a ship, thereby reducing the idle time of the handling equipment. ## C. Composition of gangs or teams A competitive spirit between **dock worker gangs** and strong **social control within a gang** enhances labor performance per shift. Strong and highly motivated supervisors typically create an atmosphere of coherence and a focus on solid teamwork. High flexibility in the deployment of gangs (e.g., movement of a gang between vessels during a shift) also contributes to optimal use of available dock workers. Ports exhibit wide variation in how their dock labor employment systems address the composition and flexibility of gangs or teams of dockers. Systems are advocating for semi-autonomous and multi-skilled teams that work with a high degree of freedom in allocating tasks within specific shifts and over longer shift cycles. Other ports rely heavily on fixed gangs as the central entities responsible for achieving high productivity through experience, teamwork, and a spirit of competition among the gangs. ## D. Changes in hiring systems The provisions of local dock labor schemes guide the hiring methods. Even in ports with a pool of registered dock workers, **hiring systems can vary significantly** in terms of: - The **hiring moment**, such as hiring at fixed moments per weekday or continuously. - The **persons involved in the hiring process**, such as the foreman and company officials. - The **characteristics and governance** of the supervisory system. - The **interaction between the docker and the hiring entity**, such as physically in a hiring hall or by electronic systems. - The **control given to the docker**, such as matching voluntarily or controlled externally, with or without taking into account the preferences of the dockers. Technological advances in mobile communication have facilitated the **modernization of job assignment systems**, leading to the electronic dispatching of dockworkers in ports or terminals, which have a high demand for a flexible workforce. ## E. Specialization, categorization and qualification Dockers in ports are generally **not a homogeneous group**. Significant differences between their members can be related to the tasks carried out, the required skills, the hiring process, training arrangements, and career planning. One of the foundations for categorizing dockworkers is the division between permanent and non-permanent workers. Global terminal operators, particularly in the container business, are increasingly demanding direct employment for many of their workers, especially crane drivers and other operators of heavy yard equipment (the **regulars**). Casual workers are deployed during periods of peak demand. Even when a labor scheme is in place that includes a pool of registered casual workers, local port employers often hire a large proportion of dockers on an almost continual basis (the **quasi-permanent workers or semi-regulars**). Labor schemes often include a **continuity rule** whereby a docker hired on a particular day can be rehired for the next day(s) without having to be rehired each day at a central hiring place. The rule also gives new dockworkers the chance to become acquainted with the routines in a gang. Some labor systems rely on **job categories**, such as dockers, with varying degrees of labor mobility between categories. Other employment systems are based on **job qualifications,** allowing a (casual) docker to be deployed for any dock work, subject to them having the right qualifications. Dock labor employment systems show various types and degrees of **multi-skilling among dockers**. Multi-skilling programs can be organized at the company level, by the pool, or provided by the state. In some cases, multi-skilling arrangements enable the functional combination of several jobs to be performed within the same shift, thereby enhancing labor flexibility. There is a push for terminal operators to **move away from job categories and opt for job qualification systems**. ## F. Enhancing motivation and commitment Some intrinsic and extrinsic motivators that can be used in a dock labor context to promote motivation, a high labor spirit, and commitment: - **Extrinsic motivators** include wage levels and a performance-based bonus system to incite labor performance and job loyalty. For example, the most straightforward way to increase labor flexibility is to increase the remuneration of dockworkers through higher base wages or, more commonly, by installing bonus systems linked to flexible tasking and irregular working hours. - **Intrinsic motivators** encompass non-financial employment motivation and mental well-being, aiming to enhance job satisfaction. When the societal status of the profession and professional pride are low, the port might face difficulties in finding motivated dockworkers. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/docker-statues.png?resize=831%2C720&ssl=1 "Art dedicated to dock workers | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of art dedicated to dock workersIndustry relations between employers and employees also impact the motivation and commitment of workers. Consultation and social dialogue enhance employee-employer relationships. Labor unions are typically very visible at the dock labor front, although major differences in union power can be observed across seaports and countries. Most ports have a long tradition of social dialogue, via both formal and informal channels. In the event of disputes, a **dispute-resolution procedure** is put into place to resolve problems and prevent strikes. Through effective joint consultation bodies, social dialogue is considered the key to a sustainable relationship between employers and trade unions. A climate of constructive dialogue enhances social peace in ports. In 2005, the International Labour Organization published a **practical guide to social dialogue** in the process of structural adjustment and private sector participation in ports. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 3.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminals-and-terminal-operators/) - [Chapter 7.2 Ports and Economic Development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7/port-and-economic-development/) --- ## References - Dempster, J. (2010) The Rise and Fall of the UK Dock Labour Scheme, Biteback Publishers, London. - European Commission (2004). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Market Access to Port Services (COM/2004/0654 Final). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. - European Commission (2013). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Establishing a Framework on Market Access to Port Services and Financial Transparency of Ports (COM/2013/ 0296 Final). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission. - Frey, C. B., and Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?. Technological forecasting and social change, 114, 254-280. - Green, A. (2000) The work process, in: Davies, S. et al. (Eds.), Dock Workers. International Explorations in Comparative Labour History, 1790-1970, II, Aldershot, Ashgate - Ircha, M. C., and Garey, D. (1992). Labour/management relations in North American ports. Maritime Policy and Management, 19(2), 139-156. - McNamara, T.M. and Tarver, S. (1999) The strengths and weaknesses of dock labour reform – ten years on’, Economic Affairs, 19(2), 12–17. - Meletiou, M. (2006) ‘Improved port performance through training: the contribution of the International Labour Organization’, 22nd International Port Conference on “Human Resources and Sea Ports Performance”, Alexandria, Egypt, 12–14 March. - Mitroussi, K., and Notteboom, T. (2015). Getting the work done: motivation needs and processes for seafarers and dock workers. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 14(2), 247-265. - Notteboom, T. (2010). Dock labour and port-related employment in the European seaport system: key factors to port competitiveness and reform, report for European Seaports Organization (ESPO), ITMMA – University of Antwerp, Antwerp - Notteboom, T. (2018). The impact of changing market requirements on dock labour employment systems in northwest European seaports. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 10(4). - Notteboom, T., Parola, F., Satta, G., Torre, T. (2019), Skills and competences in maritime logistics: managerial and organizational emerging issues for human resources, Impresa e Progetto Electronic Journal of Management, no. 3, 2019, [https://doi.org/10.15167/1824-3576/IPEJM2019.3.1240](https://doi.org/10.15167/1824-3576/IPEJM2019.3.1230) - Notteboom, T., Vitellaro, F. (2019), The impact of innovation on dock labour: evidence from European ports, Impresa e Progetto Electronic Journal of Management, no. 3, 2019, <https://doi.org/10.15167/1824-3576/IPEJM2019.3.1230> - Satta, G., Maugeri, S., Panetti, E., and Ferretti, M. (2019). Port labour, competitiveness and drivers of change in the Mediterranean Sea: a conceptual framework. Production Planning and Control, 1-16. - Schröder-Hinrichs, J. U., Song, D. W., Fonseca, T., Lagdami, K., Shi, X., and Loer, K. (2018). Transport 2040: Automation, Technology, Employment-The Future of Work. - Turnbull, P. J., and Wass, V. J. (2007). Defending dock Workers—Globalization and labor relations in the world’s ports. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 46(3), 582-612. - Van Hooydonk, E. (2013). Port Labour in the EU: Labour Market Qualifications & Training Health & Safety-Volume I ‒ The EU Perspective. Study commissioned by the European Commission, Brussels. - Verhoeven, P. (2010) ‘Dock labour schemes in the context of EU law and policy’, in Dempster, J (Ed.): The Rise and Fall of the UK Dock Labour Scheme, Biteback Publishers, London. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/?share=reddit) - --- ### [GLOSSARY](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/glossary/) **Published:** January 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** **Automation** (Terminal). A full or partial substitution of terminal operations through the use of automated equipment and processes. **Automated Guided Vehicle (AGV)**. Cargo-handling equipment providing horizontal transport in automatic terminal environments. **Automated Stacking Crane (ASC)**. Cargo-handling equipment providing yard stacking function in automated terminal environments. **Berthing Proforma**. Contractually agreed berth windows and service level agreement, stipulating vessel types, agreed arrival and departure times based on agreed volumes (discharge and load). **Blank sailing**. When a shipping line cancels a scheduled port call or a shipping service, mainly due to a lack of demand or to maintain schedule integrity. **Blockchains**. Distributed electronic ledgers shared across a network of servers that record transactions in cryptographic units that are called blocks in a permanent and verifiable manner. They are often referred to as digital ledger technologies (DLT). **Breakbulk**: General cargo, loaded into a ship or transport mode as individual or bundled pieces, not stowed into a container, or not transported in ship-sized liquid or dry bulk loads. **Bulk**: **Cargo dues** (berthing dues or wharfage dues): Indivisible charges calculated on the basis of the goods unloaded or loaded by the vessel in port, expressed in tons. **Carrier**: The agent (company) moving passengers or freight. **Carrier haulage** (Line haulage): Inland movement of a container provided by a shipping line using a haulage contractor acting as a third party. The shipping line selects the carrier, which can be an independent carrier or a subsidiary of the shipping line. The shipping line is liable for any issues taking place during carrier haulage. **Cold chain**: The transportation of temperature-sensitive products along a supply chain through thermal and refrigerated packaging methods and the logistical planning to protect the integrity of these shipments. There are several means by which cold chain products can be transported, including refrigerated trucks and railcars, refrigerated cargo ships, reefers, and air cargo. **Concession**: A grant by a government or port authority to a (private) operator for providing specific port services, such as terminal operations or nautical services (e.g., pilotage and towage). **Container**. A large standard-size metal box into which cargo is packed for shipment aboard specially configured oceangoing containerships and designed to be moved with common handling equipment enabling high-speed intermodal transfers in economically large units between ships, railcars, truck chassis, and barges using a minimum of labor. The container, therefore, serves as the transfer unit rather than the cargo contained therein. **Container Handling Equipment (CHE)**. A generic term referring to all equipment types designed to handle and/or transport containers. **Corridor**: A linear orientation of transport routes and flows, connecting important locations that act as origins, destinations, or points of transshipment. **Corridor** (freight): A linear orientation of freight flows supported by an accumulation of transport infrastructures and activities servicing these flows. **Cruise**: At least one night on board a seagoing vessel having a capacity of at least 100 passengers, mainly focusing on leisure. Transportation (the cruise ship) is the core element of the experience rather than merely a conveyance. **Cruising**: The activity of a cruise taking place in a regional cruise market, which involves the deployment of a cruise ship along an itinerary composed of ports of call. **Demurrage**: The costs incurred when cargo remains at a terminal beyond a preset free time period are paid by the cargo consignee. Often related to containerized import flows and assessed by the day. **Detention**: The costs incurred when the carrier waits to pick up cargo. For container shipping, detention applies when a shipper takes more time than the preset free time to return an empty container to a depot or terminal. Often related to containerized export flows and assessed by the day. **Digitization**: The application of new technologies, including sensors, artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and predictive analytics, enables or facilitates changes in how ports operate**.** **Distribution center** (or fulfillment center): A facility that performs consolidation, warehousing, packaging, decomposition, and other functions linked with handling freight. Orders are received, processed, and filled. Their primary purpose is to provide value-added services for freight stored for relatively short periods (days or weeks). Goods stored in a distribution center have usually been sold and are in transit to their destination. They can also perform light manufacturing activities such as assembly and labeling. A distribution center tends to focus on customer demand. **Dredging** (capital): Dredging to deepen and widen existing rivers or nautical access routes or create a new port or terminal. **Dredging** (maintenance): Dredging is done to maintain an existing waterway or channel. **Dry port** (or inland port): A rail or barge terminal that is linked to a maritime terminal with regular inland transport services. **Efficiency**: The operational performance of ports and the maximization of the produced output with given resources, or the production of a given output with limited possible resources. **Financing**: The money lent is regarded as an investment and comes at an interest rate (e.g., commercial and investment banks, bond financing) or required rate of return for the investor. The capital is expected to be recovered. **Financialization**: The increasing role of financial motives, financial markets, financial actors, and financial institutions in port terminals, ranging from the provision of capital to involvement in terminal operations. **Foreland** (port): A maritime space with which a port performs commercial relationships. It includes overseas customers with whom the port undertakes commercial exchanges. **Fourth-Party Logistics Service Provider** (4PL): A supply chain integrator that assembles and manages the resources, capabilities, and technology of its organization with complementary service providers to deliver a comprehensive supply chain solution. The competence of 4PLs lies in selecting, linking, and bundling service providers and aligning the interests of all concerned in the supply chain. **Funding**: The provision of money at no interest for developing the port project (e.g. state grants, internal reserves). The capital is not necessarily expected to be recovered. **Gangway**: A walkway or bridge connecting the vessel to land. Because access varies widely from one port to another, a cruise ship gangway refers to the place on the ship where passengers enter and exit. **Gateway region**: A group of several ports in proximity that are directly competing for the same port calls and hinterland. It has a smaller geographical scale than a container port range. **Global Competitiveness Index** (GCI): A composite index of four groups of indicators: enabling environment (institutions, infrastructure, ICT adoption, and macro-economic stability), human capital (health, skills), markets (product market, labor market, financial system, market size), and innovation ecosystem (business dynamism, innovation capability). **Green Supply Chain Management** (GSCM): A business model that integrates environmental concerns into the inter-organizational practices of SCM. **Harbor**: A shelter for ships, either natural or artificial. **Hinterland** (port): Land area over which a port sells its services and interacts with its users. It is an area over which a port draws most of its business and regroups all customers directly bound to the port, as well as the land areas from which it draws and distributes traffic. **Home-port** (cruise): A cruise port used as the starting or ending point for a cruise itinerary, most commonly as part of a service loop. Passengers begin and end their cruise, and vessels take on supplies. **Hub port**. A port used by deep-sea mainline ships as a transshipment point for smaller feeder ports in its region. **Hybrid port** (cruise): A cruise port that hosts a blend of home-porting cruise activities and intermediate cruise calls. **Inter-Terminal Transfers (ITT)**. Container movements between terminals of the same port. Can be done by road or barge. **Land reclamation**: Based on hydraulic fill, a process in which sediment or rock excavated by dredgers from the seabed or other borrow areas is transported and placed in the designated reclamation area. **Liner Shipping Connectivity Index** (LSCI): Measures the level of integration into the existing liner shipping network, which can be calculated at the country and port level. LSCI can be considered a proxy for accessibility to global trade through its shipping network. **Logistics, Port centric**: Refers to the range of freight transportation and distribution activities that are directly related to port terminals. **Logistics Performance Index** (LPI): A composite of a country’s rating across seven criteria: customs clearance, logistics infrastructure, ease of international shipments, logistics competence/internal skillsets and service providers, tracking and tracing capabilities, domestic logistics costs, and timeliness/consistency. **Marine charges** (tonnage dues): Indivisible charges calculated on the basis of the ship’s tonnage. **Merchant haulage**: The movement of a container assumed by the merchant (the cargo owner or an agent acting on its behalf) using a contracted carrier. The merchant selects the carrier. The carrier is liable for any damage taking place during transport. **Minimum Efficient Scale** (MES): The smallest scale at which the output can be produced at a minimum average long-run cost (i.e., it is reached when marginal and average costs no longer decrease when capacity is expanded) under the assumption that the terminal is operating with a given technology. **Multiplier**: An index (ratio) that indicates the overall change in the level of activity that results from an initial change in activity. It effectively sums all successive rounds of re-spending, assuming that major factors such as input prices remain unchanged and that there are no resource limitations. **Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carriers** (NVOCC): A transport service provider that acts as an intermediate between shippers and carriers by leasing cargo capacity and selling it to its customers. **Port Authority**: A public or a private entity that, whether or not in conjunction with other activities, under national law or regulation, is empowered to carry out the (i) administration, (ii) development, (iii) management, and, occasionally, (iv) operation of the port land and infrastructure and (v) the coordination and control of port operation activities. **Port Call**. A call to a port/terminal by a vessel where cargo operations (loading or unloading) is performed. **Port Community Systems** (PCS): Information entity that makes available logistical information among the actors involved in port-related freight distribution, including freight forwarders that act as intermediaries for importers (consignees) or exporters (consignors), terminal operators that are the interface between the port foreland and hinterland, customs, ocean carriers, inland carriers, and the port authority itself. **Port competition**: Competition for trades, with terminals as the competing units, logistics, transport, and industrial enterprises as the chain managers of the respective trades and port authorities and port policymakers as co-developers of the broadly defined port complex. **Port governance**: The adoption and enforcement of rules governing conduct and the exercise of authority and institutional resources to develop and manage port activities for the benefit of society and the economy. **Port holding**: An entity, commonly private, that owns or leases port terminals in a variety of locations. It is also known as a port terminal operator. **Port of call** (cruise): A port visited as an intermediate stop en route to another destination: cruise vessels call for a few hours before continuing their itinerary. **Port regionalization**: The logistical integration between maritime and inland transport systems, particularly through the development of rail and barge corridors between a port and a network of inland load centers. **Quay wall**: A soil-retaining structure that provides a mooring place for ships, bearing capacity for crane loads, goods and storage, and sometimes a water-retaining function. **Range** (port): A group of ports situated along the same seashore and potentially sharing access to a hinterland. **Resilience**: The mechanism that allows transportation infrastructure to cope with and recover from disruptions while maintaining operations. **Seaport**: A logistic and industrial node in global supply chains with a strong maritime character and a functional and spatial clustering of activities that are directly or indirectly linked to seamless and sustainable transportation, transformation, and information processes within global supply chains. **Supply Chain Management** (SCM): The coordination and management of a complex network of activities involved in delivering a finished product to end-users or customers. It includes sourcing raw materials and parts, manufacturing and assembling products, storage, order entry and tracking, distribution through various channels, and finally, delivery to the customer. **Terminal Operating System (TOS)**. Specialized software designed to manage, plan, and optimize container terminal operations in real time. **Terminal Service Agreement** (TSA): Also known as a Marine Terminal Service Agreement. A contract between a terminal operator and a shipping line. The purpose is to set clear expectations regarding the level of service and costs associated with handling containers at a specific port or terminal. **Terminalization**: Terminals taking up a more active role in supply chains with operational considerations such as berthing windows, dwell time charges, and truck slots to increase throughput, optimize terminal capacity, and make the best use of available land. Also involves logistics players making best use of the free time available in seaport terminals and inland terminals, thereby optimizing the terminal buffer function. **Third-Party Logistics Provider** (3PL): An asset-based company that offers logistics and supply chain management services to its customers (manufacturers and retailers). It commonly owns assets such as distribution centers and transport modes. **Transit port** (cruise): see: port of call. **Transloading**: Transferring cargo from one load unit to another. The restricted definition of transloading involves moving an ISO container into a domestic intermodal rail container. A more comprehensive definition involves unloading freight from an ISO container and reloading it onto a trailer before final delivery to another destination. **Turnaround port** (cruise): see: home-port. **Value-added logistics services** (VALS): Activities integrating the production and distribution segments of a supply chain. They range from low-end activities that add little value to the goods, mostly transport and storage, to high-end activities such as postponed manufacturing, including systems assembly, testing, and software installation. **Warehouse**: A facility designed to store goods for extended periods. Goods stored in a warehouse have usually not yet been sold and are held in inventory until a buyer is found. A warehouse is driven by the supply of manufacturers and wholesalers. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/glossary/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/glossary/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/glossary/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/glossary/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 1.3 - Interoceanic Passages](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/) **Published:** December 27, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue and Dr. Theo Notteboom > Maritime transportation evolves over a global maritime space with its own constraints, such as the profile of continental masses and the detours and passages it creates. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Global Maritime Routes and Chokepoints](#1_Global_Maritime_Routes_and_Chokepoints) - [2. The Suez Canal](#2_The_Suez_Canal) - [3. The Panama Canal](#3_The_Panama_Canal) - [4. The Strait of Malacca](#4_The_Strait_of_Malacca) - [5. The Strait of Hormuz](#5_The_Strait_of_Hormuz) - [6. Other Important Passages](#6_Other_Important_Passages) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Global Maritime Routes and Chokepoints Maritime routes are corridors a few kilometers wide that connect economic regions and overcome land transport discontinuities. They are part of a continuum subject to [geostrategic considerations](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/geostrategy-maritime-shipping/ "The Geostrategy of Maritime Shipping"). Transoceanic maritime corridors are a function of **obligatory points of passage**, which are almost all strategic places, physical constraints such as coasts, winds, marine currents, depth, reefs, or ice, and political boundaries where sovereignty may impede circulation. When possible, interoceanic canals are built to improve the connectivity of shipping networks. International [maritime shipping routes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=325 "Main Maritime Shipping Routes") are forced to pass through **specific locations** corresponding to passages, capes, and straits. These routes are generally located between major markets such as Western Europe, North America, and East Asia, where an active system of commercial trade is in place. The importance of these large markets lies in their structuring effect on the trade in semi-finished and finished goods. Also, major routes involve flows of raw materials, namely minerals, grains, food products, and petroleum. The location of strategic oil and mineral resources shapes maritime routes for bulk commodities, which are the most widely transported. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/geostrategy_maritime_shipping.png?resize=900%2C381&ssl=1 "The Geostrategy of Maritime Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Geostrategy of Maritime Shipping![Map Maritime Routes Strategic Passages](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Passages-with-Shipping-Routes.png?resize=900%2C450&ssl=1 "Main Maritime Shipping Routes and Chokepoints | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Maritime Shipping Routes![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/world_major_bottlenecks_connectivity2.png?resize=900%2C455&ssl=1 "Connectivity Pattern of the World’s Major Maritime Bottlenecks | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Connectivity Pattern of the Worlds Major Maritime BottlenecksThe most important strategic maritime passages are known as chokepoints (or bottlenecks) due to the following: - **Capacity constraints**. Chokepoints tend to be [shallow and narrow](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=531), impairing navigation and imposing capacity limits on ships. For interoceanic canals, such as the Panama and Suez canals, the capacity must, in effect, be managed through appointment and pricing systems. - **Potential for disruptions or closure**. Disruption of trade flows through any of these routes could have a significant impact on the global economy. Many chokepoints are located near politically unstable countries, which increases the risk of compromising their access and use, such as through piracy. Closures are a rare instance that has only taken place in war situations, as one proponent prevented another from accessing and using the chokepoint (e.g., Gibraltar and Suez during World War II). Closure of a maritime chokepoint in the current global economy, even if temporary, would have significant economic consequences with the disruption of trade flows and even the partial interruption of some supply chains (e.g. oil). These potential risks and impacts are commonly used to justify the use of military naval assets to protect sea lanes, even if such benefits are difficult to demonstrate. Changes in the **technical and operational characteristics** of interoceanic canals and passages can [substantially impact](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=338) global trade patterns. The Panama Canal, the Suez Canal, the Strait of Malacca, and the Strait of Hormuz account for the world’s four most critical interoceanic passages. This is partly because of the chokepoints they create for global freight circulation and partly because of the economic activities and resources they grant more efficient access to. Their continuous availability for global maritime trade is challenging because their [disruptions can have significant impacts on global trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/daily-transits-selected-strategic-maritime-passages/ "Daily Transits at Selected Strategic Maritime Passages"). Yet, they have shaped global trade through [rings of circulation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=333) comprised of maritime and land corridors known as landbridges, notably in the Northern Hemisphere. They offer continuity in global trade and shipping connectivity, as well as competitive alternatives for some market segments, particularly time-sensitive cargo. From an access and navigation perspective, interoceanic passages are subject to two regimes: - **International Straits Regime**. Passages along the coastline of two or more countries, such as the Strait of Malacca, the Strait of Hormuz, the Strait of Gibraltar, or the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb, are considered international straits under the **UN Convention on the Law of the Sea** (UNCLOS, 1994). Under this regulatory setting, ships are allowed to transit without being subject to tolls, since such charges can be levied only when services such as pilotage, channel clearance, and navigation are provided. States along a passage cannot impair or suspend commercial shipping using it. - **Pre-UNCLOS treaties**. The second regime concerns interoceanic passages enclosed within the jurisdiction of a single country that are neither international straits nor subject to **specific international transit treaties**. These particularly concern the Panama Canal, the Suez Canal, the Oresund, and the Bosporus. The Strait of Tsugaru between the islands of Honshu and Hokkaido in Japan has been subject to a special amendment that establishes an international navigation corridor by restricting Japan’s territorial sea to 3 nautical miles instead of 12. These straits are allowed to charge tolls, but usually do not, with the exception of the Panama and Suez Canals, where substantial tolls are levied to cover maintenance, upgrades, and operations. In addition to the interoceanic canals, “[dry canals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=469)” have been constructed or are under consideration, particularly in Central America, due to the short interoceanic distances involved. They are called dry canals because they replicate the role of regular canals, implying that they are relatively short overland corridors of rail, road, and pipeline infrastructures connecting two ports where cargo is transshipped. Several dry canals started as portage routes and were either discontinued as they lost their capability to compete or, in contrast, complemented by a canal, such as the Panama Canal, which has road, rail, and pipeline complementarity to the canal’s traffic. The main disadvantages of dry canals are the load break at both ends, which adds costs and delays, and limited economies of scale on the overland route. Still, they represent routing options that can stimulate national imports and exports and the development of logistical activities. Such imprints on regional development are much less evident in passages since they are simply transit points. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/capacity_strategic_passages-scaled.png?resize=900%2C458&ssl=1 "Capacity of Key Strategic Passages | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Capacity of Key Strategic Passages![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/maritime_chokepoints.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Maritime Chokepoints: Capacity, Limitations and Threats | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maritime Chokepoints Capacity Limitations and Threats![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/impacts_interoceanic_passages.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Potential Impacts of Interoceanic Passages and Canals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Potential Impacts of Interoceanic Passages and Canals![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/daily_transits_strategic_passages2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Daily Transits at Selected Strategic Maritime Passages | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Daily Transits at Selected Strategic Maritime Passages![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Global-Rings-of-Circulation-Northern-Hemisphere.png?resize=900%2C704&ssl=1 "Circum-Hemispheric Rings of Circulation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Circum Hemispheric Rings of Circulation# 2. The Suez Canal The Suez Canal is an artificial waterway of about 190 km in length running across the Isthmus of Suez in northeastern Egypt, **connecting the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Suez**, an arm of the Red Sea. It is owned and operated by the Suez Canal Authority (SCA), a state-owned agency of the Egyptian Government. The Suez Canal has no locks because the Mediterranean Sea and the Gulf of Suez have roughly the same water level, making Suez the world’s longest canal without locks. It acts as a shortcut for ships between European and American ports and ports located in southern Asia, eastern Africa, and Oceania. Because of obvious geographical considerations, the maritime route from Europe to the Indian and Pacific oceans must round the Cape of Good Hope at the southernmost point of the African continent. There are [alternatives](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/routing-alternatives-pacific-atlantic/ "Main Routing Alternatives between the Pacific and Atlantic") to the Suez Canal, but they involve either very long detours (the Cape Route) or limited capacity (the Eurasian landbridge). For instance, using the Cape Route instead of the Suez Canal can add an extra week to the shipping time between Europe and Asia. The first canal between the Nile River Delta and the Red Sea was excavated around the 13th century BC. Its purpose was to expand trade between the Mediterranean and the Middle East, which became significant by 100 AD. During the next 1,000 years, the canal was neglected but occasionally modified by Egyptian and Roman rulers. Restoration efforts were abandoned in the 8th century AD as the Roman Empire collapsed and the Mediterranean trade dropped. Transshipping the goods across the Isthmus and to the Nile was judged more profitable than supporting the maintenance of a canal. This situation endured until the nineteenth century, when the maritime interests of European powers recognized the need to make the Mediterranean-Red Sea connection a reality once again. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Alternatives-Suez-Canal.png?resize=900%2C900&ssl=1 "Main Routing Alternatives between East Asia and Northern Europe | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Routing Alternatives between East Asia and Northern Europe![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/suezconstruc.jpg?resize=900%2C664&ssl=1 "Construction of the Suez Canal, 1869 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Construction of the Suez Canal 1869![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/39suez.jpg?resize=900%2C687&ssl=1 "Suez Canal, end of 19th Century | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Suez Canal end of 19th CenturyThe Suez Canal was [constructed between 1859 and 1869 by French and Egyptian interests](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=351), spearheaded by Ferdinand de Lesseps, and costing about 100 million dollars. The opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 brought forward a new era of European influence in Pacific Asia. The journey from Asia to Europe was considerably shortened, **saving 6,500 km from the circum-African route**. In 1874, [Great Britain bought the shares of the Suez Canal Company](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=354) and became its sole owner. According to the Convention of Constantinople, signed in 1888, the canal was to be open to vessels of all nations in times of peace or war. However, Great Britain claimed the need to control the area to maintain its maritime power and colonial interests (namely, in South Asia). In 1936, it acquired the right to maintain defense forces along the Suez Canal, which became strategically important during World War II in upholding Asia-Europe supply routes for the Allies. The second half of the 20th century witnessed renewed geopolitical instability in the region, marked by the end of colonialism and the rise of Middle Eastern nationalism. In 1954, Egypt and Great Britain signed an agreement that superseded the 1936 treaty, allowing for the gradual withdrawal of all British troops from the zone. All the British troops had left by June 1956, as Egypt had nationalized the canal. This triggered issues with Israel, as Israeli ships were not permitted to cross the canal. This threat was also extended to France and Britain, the former owners of the canal, because they refused to help finance the Aswan High Dam project, as initially promised. Israel, France, and Britain invaded Egypt in 1956, which responded by sinking ships in the canal, effectively closing the canal between 1956 and 1957. An agreement about the usage of the canal was then reached. However, geopolitical problems persisted as tensions between Israel and neighboring Arab nations increased in the 1960s. The Six-Day War between Israel and Egypt and the subsequent invasion of the Sinai Peninsula by Israel caused the **closure of the Suez Canal between 1967 and 1975**. The closure of the canal was so sudden and unexpected that several ships became stranded. The canal became the cease-fire line and saw hostilities again during the Yom Kippur War of 1973. The closure of the Suez Canal significantly destabilized international transportation and favored the development of ever-larger tankers to use the long circum-African route to compensate for the detour. The canal was finally reopened in 1975, following an agreement between Egypt and Israel that allowed Israeli ships to transit. Significant improvements were made between 1976 and 1980, mainly the widening of the canal to accommodate very large crude carriers (VLCCs) of about 200,000 tons, supporting petroleum trade between Europe and the Middle East. The current capacity of the canal at 240,000 tons means that ultra-large crude carriers (ULCCs; tankers exceeding 300,000 tons) cannot pass through the Canal when fully loaded. A common practice is to unload a share of Mediterranean-bound ships and use the Sumed pipeline to transit the overload. With [additional deepening and widening projects](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=544), the depth of the canal reached 22.5 meters in 2001 and 23.5 meters in 2008. In 2014, a new expansion project was completed, increasing the capacity to about 100 transits daily. The New Suez Canal was inaugurated in August 2015 at a cost of over 8 billion dollars, and the depth was expanded to 24 meters (78 feet). This expansion included a new 35 km section, enabling the canal to transit ships in both directions simultaneously. The expanded Suez Canal has draft limitations similar to those of the Strait of Malacca, which helped improve the continuity of maritime shipping on Asia – Europe trades. The canal has the capacity to accommodate up to 25,000 ships per year (about 78 per day) and roughly accounts for 15% of the global maritime trade and 30% of the container trade. [Transits and tonnage](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/tonnage-number-transits-suez-canal/ "Tonnage and Number of Transits, Suez Canal, 1976-2023") have steadily been increasing. A rail line also runs parallel to the canal. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/suez_canal_transits.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Tonnage and Number of Transits, Suez Canal, 1976-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Tonnage and Number of Transits Suez Canal 1976 2023![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/suez_canal_system2.png?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Suez Canal, 1995-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Suez Canal![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/117727771_ever-green1.jpg?resize=900%2C506&ssl=1 "Blockage of the Suez Canal, 2021 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Blockage of the Suez Canal 2021Before its expansion in 2015, the canal could only handle unidirectional traffic, with **crossings organized into convoys** of about 10 to 15 ships. Three convoys per day, two southbound and one northbound, were organized, with a transit time of about 17 hours. Following the 2015 expansion, two simultaneous convoys per day were organized, as a longer section of the canal became bi-directional. Missing a convoy can incur supplementary delays to the point that, on occasion, maritime shipping companies (particularly those handling containers) may skip a port call to ensure on-time arrival at the Suez Canal to be part of a daily convoy. The growing size of ships transiting the canal can involve risks, such as the [grounding of a 20,000 TEU containership in 2021](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-resilience/suez-canal-blockage-2021/ "Blockage of the Suez Canal, 2021"), which blocked the canal for six days. In mid-2021, the Suez Canal Authority announced plans to widen and deepen the Canal, which was completed in late 2024. A 30-kilometer stretch between the city of Suez, where the canal meets the Red Sea, and the Great Bitter Lake was widened by 40 meters and deepened from 20.4 meters to 22.3 meters. The plan also includes the construction of a 10-kilometer stretch of an additional shipping lane linked to the 2015 extension. Overall, the expansion enabled the canal to increase its capacity by approximately eight more ships per day, as well as to extend its length with bidirectional shipping lanes. The transit rates are established by the Suez Canal Authority and are calculated to keep the canal transit fees competitive for shippers. In fiscal year 2023, Egypt earned USD 9.4 billion in canal fees, making it the country’s third-largest revenue generator (foreign currency intakes) after tourism and remittances from expatriate workers. Container ships account for just under half of the Canal’s traffic and a slightly higher percentage of its net tonnage and revenues. The Far East – Europe trade constitutes about 75% of the traffic handled by Suez, underlining the critical importance of this trade relation, with any disruption having a direct impact on revenue. Since 2023, geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have led to what came to be labeled as the Red Sea Crisis, which resulted in attacks, particularly missile and drone strikes, on sea lanes transiting through the Strait of Bab el Mandeb on their way to the Suez Canal. Shipping lines [diverted most of their services to the Cape Route](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/routing-options-shanghai-rotterdam/ "Routing Options between Shanghai, Rotterdam and New York"), which led to a [65% decline in Suez Canal transits](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/daily-transits-selected-strategic-maritime-passages/ "Daily Transits at Selected Strategic Maritime Passages") by mid-2024. Furthermore, services to the North American East Coast from Asia, which transit through the Suez Canal, have increased to account for more than 15% of the traffic it handles. The canal area has also become a [major transshipment cluster](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=372). # 3. The Panama Canal The Panama Canal [joins the Atlantic and Pacific oceans](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=379) for 82 kilometers across the Isthmus of Panama, running from Cristobal on Limon Bay, an arm of the Caribbean Sea, to Balboa on the Gulf of Panama. It is owned and operated by the Panama Canal Authority, a government agency of Panama. Since its completion in 1914, more than 1.19 million [transits have occurred through the canal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=422), accounting for 15.92 billion tons of cargo (as of 2024). It involves two lock systems that can be used simultaneously. The **old locks**, completed in 1914, can handle ships with a draft of 12.2 meters (40 feet), a width of 32 meters (106 feet), and a length of 294 meters (965 feet). The **expanded locks**, completed in 2016, can handle ships with a draft of 15.2 meters (50 feet), a width of 49 meters (160 feet), and a length of 366 meters (1200 feet). The Panama Canal is synonymous with two **capacity standards** in maritime transport. The first is the **[Panamax standard](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2232)** related to the original locks, which equals 52,500 deadweight tons and a capacity of about 4,500 TEUs, depending on the load configuration (about 5,400 TEUs if most containers are empty). The second is the NeoPanamax (or New Panamax) standard, equaling 120,000 deadweight tons and a capacity of 12,500 to 16,000 TEU, depending on the load configuration. It relates to the new locks completed in 2016. The construction of the Panama Canal and subsequent expansions rank among the most significant engineering works of the 20th century. The canal replaces a long detour around South America, thus **improving global trade connectivity**. The Panama Canal is particularly important to the United States as it enables quicker linkage between the East and West coasts, saving about 13,000 km (from 21,000 km to 8,000 km) on a maritime journey. Still, this option accounts for a very small share of its current use. The Panama Canal is composed of three main elements; the [Gatun Locks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=386) (operational in 1914) and [Agua Clara Locks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=400) (operational in 2016), giving access to the Atlantic Ocean, the Culebra Cut ([Gaillard](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=394)) crossing the continental divide, and the Miraflores and Pedro Miguel Locks (1914) and Cocoli Locks (also part of the 2016 expansion) accessing the Pacific Ocean. The canal handles about 5% of global seaborne trade and about 12% of U.S. international seaborne trade. Besides, nearly 70% of Panama Canal traffic either originates in or is bound for the United States. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Panama-Canal-1.png?resize=900%2C536&ssl=1 "Main Components of the Panama Canal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Components of the Panama Canal![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/panama_canal_tonnage_transits.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Tonnage and Number of Transits, Panama Canal, 1915-2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Tonnage and Number of Transits Panama Canal 1915 2024![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/gatunlocks.jpg?resize=850%2C565&ssl=1 "Panama Canal: Gatun Locks | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Panama Canal Gatun Locks![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_7219-1-1024x768.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Containership Exiting the Gaillard Cut | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Containership Exiting the Gaillard Cut![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_1566-1-1024x768.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Panama Canal: Miraflores Locks | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Panama Canal Miraflores Locks![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2018-11-12-143431-1.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Containership Transiting Through the Agua Clara Locks, Panama | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Containeriship Transiting Through the Agua Clara Locks PanamaInterest in establishing a [short route between the Atlantic and Pacific](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=405) began with the exploration of Central America in the early 16th century. In 1534, the Spanish surveyed the Panama region to construct a canal, but the project never came to fruition due to acute technical constraints. Overland portage routes were used instead, initially as paths through the isthmus, but in 1855, the completion of the Panama Railway provided a faster and higher-capacity link. The United States became interested in building a canal when gold was discovered in California in 1848, which incited large westward population flows. A possible path through Nicaragua was also surveyed but discarded as an option. However, in 1878, the French Geographical Society of Paris signed a treaty with Colombia (then the owner of the Province of Panama) to construct a canal. From 1879 to 1899, the French Canal Company (Compagnie Universelle du Canal Interoceanique), under the initiative of Ferdinand de Lesseps (who was the key driver behind the construction of the Suez Canal in 1869), undertook construction after capitalizing on 1 billion francs from 800,000 private investors. However, the ambitious project failed mainly due to financial problems, tropical diseases (resulting in an estimated 25,000 worker deaths), and the technical difficulties of building a sea-level canal, which could not be realistically accomplished. The resulting financial collapse of the company was estimated to be the largest bankruptcy of the 19th century. The Spanish-American War of 1898 provided an incentive to build a canal due to the lengthy repositioning of American ships between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Only at the onset of the twentieth century would the Panama Canal project become a reality. As a province of Colombia, the United States was unsuccessful in securing a concession for a canal in the then Province of Panama. However, in 1903, the Panamanian Revolution, supported by the United States, resulted in the independence of Panama. That same year, the United States and the new state of Panama signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty. Under this treaty, the United States guaranteed Panama’s independence and secured a perpetual lease on a 16-km (10-mile) strip for the canal, over which the United States had complete sovereignty. Panama, in return, received monetary compensation of $10 million and inflation-indexed annual compensation. The Panama Canal was constructed between 1904 and 1914 by American engineers at a cost of $387 million (including $10 million in compensation to Panama and $40 million to purchase the previous project from the French Canal Company). In 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt, mainly credited for the achievement, placed the construction of the canal under the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Soo Locks linking Lake Huron to Lake Superior, which were the most heavily used in the world at the time, became the engineering template for Panama’s locks. The construction of the Gatun Dam enabled the creation of an artificial lake (Lake Gatun; the largest artificial lake in the world at that time), which reduced the need for excavation (higher water levels) and provided a large reservoir of water to supply the locks. A total of 70,000 people worked on the project, and about 5,600 died in the process, mainly because of tropical diseases. The work was completed in 1914 and involved excavating 143 million cubic meters of earth and sanitizing the entire canal area, which was infested with mosquitoes that spread yellow fever and malaria. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Interoceanic-Central-American-Canal-Routes-Considered.png?resize=900%2C475&ssl=1 "Interoceanic Central American Canal Routes Considered | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Interoceanic Central American Canal Routes Considered![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/806px-Mining_and_Scientific_Press_-_March_28_1885_-_Interoceanic_Ship_Railway_206.png?resize=806%2C1024&ssl=1 "The Tehuantepec Interoceanic Railway Project, 1884 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Tehuantepec Interoceanic Railway Project 1884Under the control of the United States until 1979, the Panama Canal Zone (a [15 km wide band](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-components-panama-canal/ "Main Components of the Panama Canal") encompassing the length of the canal) was considered sovereign territory under direct protection. The Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 (also called the Carter-Torrijos Treaty) entrusted its administration to the State of Panama. This treaty established a neutrality clause under which any user of the canal would be given the same toll, with no preference given to any state. In December 1999, the canal was formally reverted to Panama under the jurisdiction of the Panama Canal Authority, which is responsible for managing operations and infrastructure. The authority generates revenue by [collecting tolls](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/toll-revenue-panama-canal/ "Toll Revenue, Panama Canal, 2000-2024") from all ships crossing the canal and is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the facility. In the 1990s, the **Panama Canal Authority** implemented a privatization policy that began with the concession of its port terminal facilities. The first private project was Manzanillo International Terminals (MIT), which began operations in 1995. In 1999, Hutchison Port Holdings (HPH) was granted a 25-year concession for the operation of port terminals on both the Atlantic (Port of Cristobal) and Pacific (Port of Balboa) sides of the canal. The rail line between the Atlantic and Pacific sides was reopened in 2002 as a private concession to handle the growing containerized traffic. The Panama Canal Railway Company supports transshipment activities between the Atlantic and the Pacific sides through doublestack services, allowing for repositioning containers between the maritime facades without transiting through the canal. The railway has a capacity of about 500,000 containers per year, implying that it can support interoceanic container flows but cannot be a substitute for the substantial capacity of the canal, which can surpass 50 million TEU per year, depending on the configuration of the transits. The same rationale applies to oil circulation through the trans-Panama pipeline, which resumed operations in 2003. However, the additional capacity this pipeline conveys is only about 1 Mb/d. The introduction of super-tankers at the beginning of the 1950s forced the reconsideration of its strategic importance as economies of scale in petroleum shipping are limited by the size of the canal. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/toll_revenue_panama_canal2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Toll Revenue, Panama Canal, 2000-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Toll Revenue Panama Canal 2000 2024![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/container_cargo_market_share_us_east_coast.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Container Cargo Market Share Northeast Asia to the United States East Coast, 1999-2017 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Cargo Market Share Northeast Asia to the United States East Coast![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/container_traffic_panama_ports2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Container Traffic Handled at the Main Panamanian Ports, 1995-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Traffic Handled at the Main Panamanian Ports![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_7243.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Port of Balboa, Panama | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port of Balboa Panama![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/panama_canal_railway2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Container Traffic Handled by the Panama Canal Railway, 2001-2014 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Traffic Handled by the Panama Canal Railway![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_1560.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Double Stacked Containers Carried on the Panama Canal Railway | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Double Stacked Containers Carried on the Panama Canal RailwayThe continuous growth of global trade since the 1990s has placed additional pressure on the Panama Canal to handle a growing number of ships promptly and predictably. This raised concerns that the existing canal could reach capacity by the second decade of the 21st century. Because of these capacity limits, many shipping companies changed the configuration of their routes. This became increasingly apparent as a growing share of the global containership fleet **reached a size beyond the Panama Canal capacity**, which came to be known as “post-Panamax” containerships. Through economies of scale, they offer significant operational cost advantages that the old canal could not exploit. The increasing usage of those ships along the Pacific Asia-Suez Canal-Mediterranean routes and the development of the North American rail landbridge created substantial competition for the canal as an intermediate location in global maritime shipping. Thus, there is a [range of alternatives](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=452) to the [Panama Canal trade routes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=461), with the North American landbridges being the most salient. However, concerns about the reliability of the landbridge connection prompted the establishment of “all-water routes” directly linking Pacific Asia and the American East Coast, particularly in light of the booming China-United States trade relations. The Panamanian government decided to **expand the Panama Canal in 2006**. The expansion was a 5.4 billion US dollar project entirely funded by Panama. It involved building a new set of locks on both the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the canal, which would accommodate ships up to 14,000 TEU depending on their load configuration. The dredging of access channels and the widening of several sections of the existing canal were also required. This allows Aframax and Suezmax vessels to pass through the canal, thus permitting new opportunities for container shipping services, such as the potential re-emergence of round-the-world services. The new facilities came online in **July 2016**, after some delays since the expansion was initially expected to be completed in 2014. Essentially, a [new containership class](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2232) was created, adding to the existing Panamax ship class. It was dubbed **New-Panamax** (or **NeoPanamax**; NPX). The announcement of the expansion also induced the [upgrade of ports and related infrastructure](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=554) along the North American East Coast as larger containerships were expected to call. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/panama_canal_containers.png?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Panama Canal, 1995-2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Panama Canal![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Alternatives-Panama-Canal.png?resize=900%2C854&ssl=1 "Main Routing Alternatives between the Pacific and Atlantic | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Routing Alternatives between the Pacific and Atlantic![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Panama-Value-Proposition.png?resize=900%2C900&ssl=1 "Panama and the Regional Transshipment System | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Panama and the Regional Transshipment System![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/main_trade_routes_panama_canal.png?resize=900%2C450&ssl=1 "Main Trade Routes Using the Panama Canal, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Trade Routes Using the Panama Canal 2024![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/comparative_characteristics_panama_canal_expansion.png?resize=900%2C512&ssl=1 "Comparative Characteristics of the Panama Canal Expansion | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Comparative Characteristics of the Panama Canal Expansion![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Dry-Canals-Central-America.png?resize=900%2C475&ssl=1 "Dry Canal Projects in Central America | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Dry Canal Projects in Central AmericaThe new locks complement the existing lock systems, creating a **two-tier service**, one for the very large ships and the other for Panamax, or smaller ships. The outcome allows about 12 ships per day in the new lock system to be added to the existing capacity of about 45 ships per day in the old locks. However, the additional capacity is constrained because the new locks are unidirectional compared with the existing double locks. To contend with operating two sets of locks, the Panama Canal Authority has established a [toll structure](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-toll-structure/ "Panama Canal Toll Structure") that considers ship size and cargo type, with container ships having a separate toll system. About 14,000 ships transit the canal each year, with an average of 35 ships per day. There are two major components that contribute to the transit time of the Panama Canal. The canal transit time (CTT) is the average time it takes for a ship to cross the canal from its entry point in Balboa to its exit in Colon (or vice versa). The time spent in Panama Canal waters (PCWT) includes the transit time in addition to the time spent waiting for a transit slot to become available. However, the canal has the optimal capacity to handle 50 ships per day. Using the canal requires an average transit time of about 16.5 hours if the passage has been reserved in advance. With no reservations, the transit takes an average of 35 hours due to the additional time spent waiting for a transit slot. Containers, grains, and petroleum account for the dominant share of the cargo transited. Despite being over a century old, the Panama Canal remains a [critical bottleneck in global trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=446). The Panama Canal expansion took place in an environment of notable [commercial changes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=559), such as a revision of sourcing strategies and the possibility of building a competing canal in [Nicaragua](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=464). Further, the latest generation of containerships has reached sizes beyond the expanded locks. Within the foreseeable future, the expanded Panama Canal will still handle 95% of the global containership capacity, but this share is declining rapidly. As a global intermediary location, Panama is transitioning from being a transit point to a logistics hub and a trading platform for the Americas. The Panama Canal faces long-term **[water supply challenges](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/annual-precipitation-panama-canal-watershed/ "Annual Precipitation in the Panama Canal Watershed, 1950-2023")**, which remain a risk factor subject to weather cycles. Severe drought conditions in 2023 forced the Panama Canal to temporarily [reduce its operational draft from 50 to 44 feet](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-draft-limitation-containership-capacity/ "Effect of the Panama Canal Draft Limitation on Containership Capacity"). Due to a strong El Niño climate pattern (La Niña) that brings warmer water currents across the central Pacific, Central America received significantly less rainfall than usual. The resulting lower levels in Gatun Lake, the main reservoir feeding the locks, forced the Panama Canal Authority to curtail capacity in terms of the number of daily passages. These numbers decreased from 50 per day under normal and optimal circumstances to 32 per day by summer 2023, 24 per day by fall, and then to a low of 18 per day in early 2024. The situation returned to normalcy late in the summer. The same year, the government of Panama enacted the Panama Multimodal Dry Canal legislation, which established a customs distinction between goods in transit and those undergoing transshipment. The latter do not enter Panama even if they physically move overland (e.g., by rail or road) from one port on the Pacific side to another on the Atlantic side. The simplification facilitates overland movements, as they are much less subject to stringent cargo inspection and customs clearance procedures. The outcome is an integrated multimodal strategy for the Panama Canal and its associated dry canal. Even if this regulatory change was unrelated to the canal’s capacity issues, it took effect at a time when additional flexibility to use the overland route could help address the capacity shortage. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/panama_canal_tolls.png?resize=900%2C453&ssl=1 "Panama Canal Toll Structure | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Panama Canal Toll Structure![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Nicaragua-Canal.png?resize=900%2C600&ssl=1 "The Nicaragua Canal Project | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Nicaragua Canal Project![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/panama_role_global_transport.png?resize=900%2C345&ssl=1 "Panama’s Changing Role in the Global Transport System | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Panamas Changing Role in the Global Transport System![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/all_water_shipping_configuration_panama.png?resize=900%2C333&ssl=1 "Configuration of All-Water Routes Servicing the East Coast, Post Panama Canal Expansion | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Configuration of All Water Routes Servicing the East Coast Post Panama Canal Expansion![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/precipitation_panama_canal_watershed.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Annual Precipitation in the Panama Canal Watershed, 1950-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Annual Precipitation in the Panama Canal Watershed 1950 2023![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/panama_canal_draft_limitation2.png?resize=900%2C367&ssl=1 "Effect of the Panama Canal Draft Limitation on Containership Capacity | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Effect of the Panama Canal Draft Limitation on Containership Capacity# 4. The Strait of Malacca The Strait of Malacca is one of the **most important strategic passages in the world** because it supports the bulk of maritime trade between Europe and Pacific Asia, which accounts for 50,000 ships per year. About 30% of the world’s trade and 80% of Japan’s, South Korea’s, and Taiwan’s petroleum imports transited through the strait, which involved approximately 16 Mbd in 2016. It is the [main passage between the Pacific and the Indian oceans](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=478), with the Strait of Sunda (Indonesia) being the closest alternative. It measures about 800 km in length, has a width between 50 and 320 km (2.5 km at its narrowest point), and has a minimum channel depth of 23 meters (about 70 feet). It represents the longest strait in the world used for international navigation and can be transited in about 20 hours. Historically, the strait was an important passage between the Chinese and Indian worlds and was at times controlled by Javanese and Malaysian kingdoms. From the 14th century, the region came under the control of Arab merchants, who established several fortified trading towns, with Malacca as the most important commercial center in Southeast Asia. Again, control of the trade route shifted as the era of European expansion began in the 16th century. In 1511, Malacca fell to the Portuguese, which marked the beginning of European control over the Strait. In 1867, England took control of the passage with **Singapore** as the main harbor and other important centers, such as Malacca and Penang, forming the Straits Settlements. This control lasted until the Second World War and the independence of Malaysia in 1957. As the transpacific trade increased considerably after the Second World War, so did the importance of the passage. At the southern end of the Strait of Malacca, Singapore is one of the world’s most important ports and a major oil refining center. One of the main challenges facing the Strait of Malacca is that it requires dredging, as it is barely deep enough to accommodate ships with a deadweight tonnage above 300,000. Since the Strait is between Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore, an agreement about how the dredging costs should be shared and how fees for its usage should be levied is difficult to reach. Political stability and piracy are also major issues for the safety of maritime circulation, especially on the Indonesian side, where the province of Aceh has experienced political instability. The Strait of Malacca leads into the **South China Sea**, another crucial shipping lane and a region subject to contention, as oil and natural gas resources are present. The Spratly and Paracel islands are partly claimed by China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, and the Philippines. The region has proven oil reserves estimated at 7.0 Bb, with oil production accounting for 2.5 Mb/d. With the substantial economic growth in the region, large quantities of oil, liquefied natural gas, and other raw materials (iron ore, coal) are transiting toward East Asia. About 25% of the global shipping fleet transits through the region each year, underlining the importance of the South China Sea as an extension of the Malacca chokepoint. Still, the potential for disruptions of trade routes in the South China Sea must be considered, given the high level of reliance China has on such routes and its limited interest in seeing them compromised. For instance, 80% of China’s oil imports and 50% of its foreign trade transit through the Strait of Malacca, underlining that China is the stakeholder depending the most on reliable and secure navigation through the strait. Using the Kra Isthmus in Thailand as a shortcut between the Gulf of Thailand (Pacific Ocean) and the Andaman Sea (Indian Ocean) was considered as early as the 17th century. The **Kra Canal project** aims to build a 102 km-long canal along the narrowest segment of the Kra Isthmus. By avoiding a detour through the Strait of Malacca, the potential canal could reduce shipping distance by 1,200 km, corresponding to about two to three shipping days in each direction (these figures do not account for canal transit times). Although the project represents a shortcut, this benefit is relatively marginal, particularly for long-distance shipping routes. The importance of Singapore and Tanjung Pelepas as major transshipment hubs linking Asia-Oceania-Europe trade routes also undermines their viability. Shipping lines using the canal will need to consider the benefits of lower transit times versus the canal tolls. The canal would primarily benefit Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, and Vietnam, as they would experience significant reductions in shipping time and costs for their maritime trade. China is pursuing this project for both commercial and strategic reasons, as it will provide an alternative to using the Strait of Malacca. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Strategic-Passages-Southeast-Asia.png?resize=900%2C630&ssl=1 "Shipping Lanes and Strategic Passages in Pacific Asia | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Shipping Lanes and Strategic Passages in Pacific Asia![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/malacca_strait_system2.png?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Malacca, 1995-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Malacca# 5. The Strait of Hormuz The Strait of Hormuz forms a strategic link between the Persian Gulf, which is a maritime dead-end, the Gulf of Oman, and the Indian Ocean. It has a width of 48 to 80 km, but navigation is limited to two 3-km-wide channels, each used exclusively for traffic in one direction (inbound or outbound). With 34,000 transits per year, it is the most significant chokepoint in the [maritime circulation of oil](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/oil-transportation-and-major-chokepoints/ "Oil Transportation and Major Chokepoints"), with roughly 25% of the shipped oil and 20% of the natural gas (LNG) transiting. Circulation in and out of the Persian Gulf is highly constrained because the **sizable amount of tanker and containership traffic** makes navigation through the narrow channels difficult. Besides, islands essential to controlling the strait are contested by Iran and the United Arab Emirates. The strait is deep enough to accommodate all the existing tanker classes. The security of the strait has often been compromised, and its commercial usage has been contested. Between 1984 and 1987, a “Tanker War” took place between Iran and Iraq (in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988), where each belligerent began firing on tankers, even neutrals, bound for their respective ports. More than 400 ships were attacked, including 239 oil tankers, resulting in 55 ships being sunk or too damaged to be serviced. Shipping in the Persian Gulf dropped by 25%, prompting the United States to intervene to secure the oil shipping lanes. About 85% of all the petroleum exported from the Persian Gulf transits through the Strait of Hormuz and is bound for Asian markets. Its importance for global oil circulation cannot be overstated. For instance, 75% of all Japanese oil imports transit through the strait. Thus, there are [few alternatives](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/alternatives-routes-strait-hormuz/ "Alternatives to Oil and Container Routes of the Strait of Hormuz") to oil exports if the traffic of about 20 million barrels per day going through Hormuz is compromised. While the Persian Gulf has conventionally been centered on oil production and distribution, the [growth of container shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=495) has also expanded its commercial importance. For instance, in 2024, [Dubai](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3373) ranked the world’s 10th-largest container port, handling 15.5 million TEUs, and it can only be accessed through the Strait of Hormuz. It has become a major transshipment hub linking Asian, Middle Eastern, and East African trade routes. Consequently, disrupting the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz would impair global oil trade as well as commercial trade along the Europe-Asia routes. \[NOTE: this section will be updated when the Hormuz Crisis / Iran War has reached a more stable interpretation. Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA)\]. In late February 2026, Iran began interdicting the Strait of Hormuz through missiles, drones, and mines, which stranded close to 2,000 ships. Transits through the strait came to a virtual halt. Iran also claimed to establish the Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA) to impose tolls on ship transits, thereby effectively removing the freedom-of-navigation regime. This tolling system sets a precedent, as it represents the monetization of transit and the use of the Strait of Hormuz as a geopolitical lever. This could provide incentives to apply a similar regime to other strategic bottlenecks, such as Malacca and Gibraltar, or even the Danish Straits. Seeking alternatives to bypass Hormuz by the UAE and Saudi Arabia. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Oil-Movements2.png?resize=900%2C512&ssl=1 "Major Oil Flows and Chokepoints | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Major Oil Flows and Chokepoints![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/hormuz_system2.png?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Hormuz, 1995-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Hormuz![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Alternatives_Hormuz-1.png?resize=900%2C704&ssl=1 "Alternatives to Oil and Container Routes of the Strait of Hormuz | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Alternatives to Oil and Container Routes of the Strait of Hormuz# 6. Other Important Passages The **Strait of Bab el-Mandeb** controls access to the Suez Canal, a strategic link between the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea. It literally means the “Gate of Grief” because of the difficulties of its navigation. The strait is 48 to 80 km wide, but navigation is limited to two 3-km-wide channels for inbound and outbound traffic. The sizable amount of tanker traffic makes navigation difficult along the narrow channels. Closing this strait would have serious consequences, forcing a detour around the Cape of Good Hope and, in the process, demanding additional tanker space. Like the Strait of Malacca, Bab el-Mandeb is a crucial link in the Europe-Asia trade route. In the fall of 2023, a [major disruption of deepsea shipping services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/routing-options-shanghai-rotterdam/ "Routing Options between Shanghai and Rotterdam") took place as Iranian proxies, the Houthi Movement, began attacking transiting ships with missiles, drones, and boarding actions around the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb. The **[Oresund Strait](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=504)** is a 115 km passage between Denmark and Sweden, connecting the North Sea and the Baltic, a maritime dead end. It enables Russia, the Baltic States, Poland, and Germany to access international maritime shipping. The majority of Russian container trade transits through the strait. Although it was subject to tolls (Sound Dues) until 1857, the Copenhagen Convention made the strait and the international waterway free for transit passage. The **Strait of Gibraltar** is a peninsula between the Atlantic and Mediterranean oceans and represents an obligatory passage point between these two oceans. The strait is about 64 km long and varies in width from 13 to 39 km, organized as two one-way shipping lanes. About 300 vessels transit the strait each day. It has been under British control since its conquest from Spain in 1704 and its formal cession by the Treaty of Utrecht (1713). During the Second World War, Gibraltar blocked access to the Atlantic to the Italian and German fleets of the Mediterranean, which represented a major strategic military stronghold. The Strait has become an [important transshipment nexus](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=501) along major Europe-Mediterranean-Asia shipping routes. More recently, the growth of the trade using the Suez Canal to reach the North American East Coast has provided additional transshipment opportunities around the Strait, particularly at the Port of Algeciras on the Spanish side and the Port of Tanger Med on the Moroccan side. The Strait of [**Bosporus**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=509) has a length of 30 km and a width of only 1 km at its narrowest point, [linking the Black Sea to the Mediterranean](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=526). Its access has been the object of two conflicts, the Crimean War (1854) and the Battle of the Dardanelles (Gallipoli, 1915). Turkey fortified the passage after the Montreaux Convention in 1936, which recognized its control of the Bosporus but granted free passage to any commercial vessel without inspection in peacetime. With the Dardanelles passage, the Bosporus forms the only link between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Ocean. In the current context, the Bosporus represents a passage of growing strategic importance, notably since the fall of the Soviet Union. Ukraine has become a major exporter of grains (sunflower, corn, and wheat) and iron ore, relying on the Strait of Bosporus. Further, the Caspian Sea has vast oil reserves that must transit through the Black Sea and the Bosporus to reach external markets, namely around the Mediterranean. Although pipelines offer an alternative, the cost differentials are advantageous for maritime transportation. For instance, the cost of moving oil along the Baku – Ceyhan pipeline ranges from $1 to $2 per barrel, while shipping oil by tankers through the Black Sea costs $0.20 per barrel. About 50,000 ships, including 5,500 tankers, transit the passage each year, approaching capacity. Due to its sinuosity, the Bosporus is one of the most challenging passages to navigate, particularly for larger ships. Oil transiting through the Bosporus has grown substantially in recent years with the exploitation of oil fields around the Caspian Sea, and about 2.4 Mb/d were transited through the passage in 2016. The future growth of petroleum circulation through the Bosporus is thus highly problematic, notably with the risk of collisions and oil spills in Istanbul. In 2002, the Turkish government forbade large tankers from using the passage at night. In 2021, the Istanbul Canal project was announced, which would connect the Black Sea to the Sea of Marmara through a 45 km sea-level canal. The Ukraine War, which began in 2022, saw a significant reduction in traffic transiting through the Bosporus. The **Strait of Magellan**, separating mainland South America from Tierra del Fuego, was crossed in 1520 by the Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan. It has a length of 530 km and a width of 4 to 24 km. It provides a better-protected passage than Cape Horn and the Drake Passage, which is the body of water between South America and Antarctica. It was initially kept secret for over a century to ensure the supremacy of Portugal and Spain in the Asian spice and silk trade. With the construction of the Panama Canal in 1916 and later on, the setting up of the North American transcontinental bridge in the 1980s, this passage lost most of its strategic importance, a marginalization reinforced by limited economic activity at the southern tip of South America. Still, it offers an alternative in case of disruptions at the Panama Canal, but it involves a long detour. The **Cape of Good Hope** represents the extreme tip of Africa, separating the Atlantic and Indian oceans, and it offers no technical limitations of significance to maritime shipping. The early stages of the European maritime expansion in the fifteenth century were oriented towards exploring the west coast of the African continent. After its discovery by the Portuguese in 1488, the cape took the name Good Hope because it offered a maritime passage towards India and Asia, thus offering hope of a fortune for those who traversed it. Vasco da Gama circumnavigated the cape in 1497 and was the first European to reach India by sea. Afterward, the Cape of Good Hope became an important point of transit in Europe-Asia trade networks, including a coaling station, as steamship technology developed in the 19th century. The completion of the Suez Canal in 1869 undermined the strategic importance of the Cape Route, particularly following its widening in the 1970s, but the Cape Route remains an important passage. The growth of trade relations between Latin America and East, South, and Southeast Asia has stimulated the growing use of the Cape Route and South Africa as a transshipment hub. This underlines that the Cape Route is no longer focused on European trade, but more of a passage supporting south-to-south trade. Navigation across the Cape can be hazardous (it is also known as the “Cape of Storms”), particularly in winter, due to strong winds and sea currents between the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Global-Shipping-Alternatives-1.png?resize=900%2C457&ssl=1 "Routing Options between Shanghai, Rotterdam and New York | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Routing Options between Shanghai and Rotterdam![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/strait_gibraltar_system.png?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Gibraltar, 1995-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Gibraltar![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/oresund_system2.png?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Oresund, 1995-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Oresund![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Bosporus.png?resize=900%2C649&ssl=1 "The Dardanelles and Bosporus Passages | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Dardanelles and Bosporus Passages![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2013-05-09-08.03.01.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Bosporus at Istanbul | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Bosporus at Istanbul![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_0554.jpg?resize=768%2C1024&ssl=1 "The Corinthian Canal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Corinthian Canal--- # Related Topics - [Chapter 1.1 Maritime Shipping and International Trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=147) - [Chapter 1.3 Ports and Container Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1532) - [Chapter 2.1 The Changing Geography of Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=312) - [The Nicaragua Canal Project](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=464) --- ## References - Fletcher, M.A. (1958) “The Suez Canal and World Shipping, 1869-1914”, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 556-573. - Karabell, Z. (2003) Parting the Desert: The Creation of the Suez Canal, New York: Vintage Books. - Kiiski, T. (2017) “Commercial cargo shipping along the Northern Sea Route: Destination-oriented and globally marginal”, Baltic Transport Journal (1/2017), pp. 34-36. - McCullough, D. (1977) The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870-1914, New York: Simon & Schuster. - Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2011) “Challenges to and Challengers of the Suez Canal”, Port Technology International, No. 51, pp. 14-17. - US DOT – MARAD (2013) Panama Canal Expansion Study, Phase I Report: Developments in Trade and National and Global Economies. - Zumerchik, J. and S.L. Danver (2009) Seas and Waterways of the World: An Encyclopedia of History, Uses, and Issues, Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Alternatives to Oil and Container Routes of the Strait of Hormuz](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/alternatives-routes-strait-hormuz/) **Published:** July 28, 2026 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Alternatives_Hormuz-1.png?resize=900%2C704&ssl=1 "Alternatives to Oil and Container Routes of the Strait of Hormuz | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Alternatives to Oil and Container Routes of the Strait of Hormuz*Source: Author’s compilation.* The Strait of Hormuz is of strategic importance to the [global oil trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2535), particularly because there are limited alternatives. The Iran War in 2026 underlined the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz and the impact of its interdiction. This led to the consideration of alternatives to the oil and container routes through the Strait of Hormuz, many of which are already in place, cover about 9 mbd and 8.5 million TEUs. This represents a shortfall of 11 mbd from the 20 mbd handled before the war and a shortfall of 21.5 million TEUs from the 30 million TEUs handled by Persian Gulf container ports, particularly transshipment cargo in Jebel Ali. The main alternative corridors include: ### A. The UAE Alternative - A.1 Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline (ADCOP) (Habshan-Fujairah). Capacity of 2-3 mbd with plans to double capacity to 4 mbd in 2027. - A.2 Fujairah Landbridge. Using the port of Fujairah to ship containers. Currently of low capacity but could substantially increase. - A.3 Emeriti Canal. A highly complex and capital-intensive proposal trying to bypass the Strait of Hormuz through a canal going through the UAE and ending near Fujairah. Judged to be not commercially feasible. ### B. The Saudi Arabia Overland Alternative - B.1. East-West Crude Oil Pipeline (Abqaiq-Yanbu Pipeline). 7 mbd of capacity. The most significant alternative with plans to expand the capacity. - B.2. Saudi Arabian landbridge. Allows for the transfer of containers by truck between the port of Dammam on the Persian Gulf and the Port of Jeddah on the Red Sea. 1,300 km journey can be done in less than 24 hours. Could transfer about 5 million TEUs in both directions per year. Dammam would act as a feeder to Persian Gulf ports. Rail landbridge project between Jeddah and Dammam under development. ### C. The Oman Alternative - C.1. UAE landbridge. Connecting Dubai (Jebel Ali) to the Gulf of Oman (Khor Fakkan / Sohar), by-passing Hormuz. Dubai would lose its hub function (becoming a feeder to other Persian Gulf ports) but could be commercially serviced with a capacity of about 5 million TEUs per year. - C.2. UAE/Oman landbridge. Connecting Dubai to the major transshipment hub of Salalah by truck in about 24-36 hours. This could carry about 0.5 M TEU per year. - C.3. Proposed Gulf Super Express Pipeline (Iraq / Kuwait / UAE / Oman). 5 mbd to Duqm and 2 mbd bypass to Salalah. ### D. The Mediterranean Alternative - D.1 Kirkuk-Ceyhan Oil Pipeline. 250,000 bd as an outlet for Iraqi oil exports. Planned to be expanded to 700,000 bd. - D.2 Proposed Basra-Aqaba Pipeline. 1 mbd of capacity. D.1 and D.2 could allow Iraq to export 50% of its oil production through the Mediterranean. The Sumed pipeline, which roughly runs parallel to the Suez Canal, is also indirectly an outlet for the Persian Gulf but would depend on the capacity to ship Middle Eastern oil (mainly Saudi) to the Red Sea. There is also the possibility of using trucks to carry oil around the Strait of Hormuz, but such capacity is limited and would make little difference. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/alternatives-routes-strait-hormuz/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/alternatives-routes-strait-hormuz/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/alternatives-routes-strait-hormuz/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/alternatives-routes-strait-hormuz/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 3.4 - Ports and Energy Transition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/) **Published:** April 14, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dr. Theo Notteboom, and Dr. Athanasios Pallis > Ports are strategically important locations in the collection, storage, transformation, and distribution of energy. Many have undertaken a transition toward their electrification and the use of alternative energy sources. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Energy Efficiency in Transportation](#1_Energy_Efficiency_in_Transportation) - [2. Ports as Energy Platforms](#2_Ports_as_Energy_Platforms) - [3. The Decarbonization of Ports](#3_The_Decarbonization_of_Ports) - [4. Port Electrification](#4_Port_Electrification) - [5. Green Hydrogen and Seaports](#5_Green_Hydrogen_and_Seaports) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Energy Efficiency in Transportation The world’s energy needs **[continue to grow](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/world-energy-consumption/ "World Energy Consumption, 1965-2021")**, with a 30% rise in global energy demand expected from 2020 to 2040. The majority of the required energy has traditionally been derived from fossil fuels. However, a shift is gradually occurring, with a growing share of renewable energy sources. Still, higher energy efficiency and the growing use of less carbon-intensive energy sources worldwide are expected to mitigate energy-related carbon emissions. Changing toward a greener energy mix is of key interest and concern in the transportation sector. Efficiency gains from more **stringent energy performance standards** play a crucial role in shaping the evolution of energy demand. The **share of electricity** in global final energy consumption is approaching 20% and is set to rise further. Electricity is increasingly used in economies focused on lighter industrial sectors, services, and digital technologies. In advanced economies, electricity demand growth is modest, but the investment requirement is massive as electrical generation and distribution infrastructures are upgraded. A common issue with electrification, which has a significantly lower environmental footprint, is the generation of electricity. The usage of fossil fuels to generate electricity upstream in energy supply chains undermines their environmental benefits downstream. **Renewable energy** is expected to experience the fastest growth, while natural gas is anticipated to have the strongest growth among fossil fuels, with consumption projected to rise by 50% by 2040. Still, this growth accounts for only a small share, approximately 5%, of total energy consumption. Coal use has experienced strong growth in recent years, primarily driven by China and India. Still, consumption levels are expected to stabilize and decline, as is already the case in Europe and North America. Growth in oil demand is expected to peak by 2030, and a shift in the energy consumption balance is occurring between developing and advanced economies. By the mid-2030s, developing economies in Asia are expected to surpass Europe and the United States in oil consumption. International agreements concerning the environmental footprint of energy generation and consumption have been implemented with mitigated outcomes. For instance, the objectives of the Paris Agreement on climate change, which entered into force in November 2016, aim toward a vague goal of **transformative changes in the energy sector**. Countries are generally on track to achieve, and in some instances, even exceed many of the targets set in the Paris Agreement. Therefore, five-year review mechanisms built into the Paris Agreement underline the importance of reviewing pledged commitments. This should include actions such as: - The acceleration of the deployment of **renewables, nuclear power, and carbon capture and storage**. - Greater **electrification** and efficiency across all end uses. - **Clean energy research** and development efforts by the private and public sectors. By 2040, about 60% of all new power generation capacity is expected to be derived from **renewables**, with the majority of renewables-based generation being competitive without relying on subsidies. However, there is a risk that cost reductions for renewables could be insufficient to decarbonize electric power generation systems. Structural changes to the design and operation of the energy grid are necessary to ensure adequate incentives for investment and to facilitate a higher contribution from wind and solar power, which have specific operational considerations. The rise of **solar and wind power** places unprecedented importance on the flexible operation of power systems to secure sufficient energy during periods of peak demand. The cost of battery storage is declining rapidly, and batteries are increasingly competing with gas-fired peaking plants to manage short-term fluctuations in supply and demand. However, conventional power plants remain the primary source of system stability and flexibility, supported by new interconnections, storage, and demand-side response. The European Union aims to establish an “Energy Union” to address imbalances in demand and supply between different member states, replicating the existing electric grid exchange systems in North America that enable regional grids in Canada and the United States to trade surplus electricity. Despite expectations for increased use of renewables, fossil fuels, such as natural gas and oil, will continue to form the **backbone of the global energy system** for many decades to come. The **transition toward green energy sources is an overstatement,** as there is more green energy production, but fossil fuel production is growing at a similar pace, if not faster. Instead of replacing fossil fuels, renewables have simply added to the general energy supply system. Still and paradoxically, by 2040, oil demand is expected to decline to levels similar to those of the 1990s, while coal use is projected to return to levels last seen in the mid-1980s. Only natural gas will see an increase relative to the current consumption level. Based on the expected long-term increase in oil prices, the trend of exploring fossil energy sources will continue to move offshore to locations including deeper waters and harsher environments. More complex energy sources, such as tar sands, hydraulic fracturing (fracking), or methane hydrates, are also being explored. Energy production on offshore wind farms is expected to increase significantly, and other water-based energy production devices utilizing wave and tidal current energy are likely to have a broader market. These developments will lead to a massive increase in renewable energy, but the capabilities and market share of such systems remain uncertain. They will also result in a significant increase in the production and transport of fuels such as LNG, ammonia, shale gas, and hydrogen. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/world_energy_consumption.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "World Energy Consumption, 1965-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")World Energy Consumption 1965 2024# 2. Ports as Energy Platforms At the global level, approximately 40% of all cargo handled by ports is energy-related, which is transported in bulk. Conventionally, ports played a strategic role as **energy platforms**, particularly for fossil fuels, which substantially impacted their size and economic function. This process began with the coal trade and the transformation of shipping, driven by the introduction of the steam engine in the mid-19th century. The increasing use of coal by steamships made ports large consumption markets and attractive locations for coal transport and storage. It also helped establish a network of coaling stations along shipping lanes to refuel coal ships, as their range was limited by the coal stores they could carry. Furthermore, related activities, such as steelmaking, found port sites particularly suitable, leading to ports becoming important industrial complexes. Together, the increase in ship sizes resulting from steam engine designs and the growth of port-centric industrialization led to the **massification of port complexes**. By the early 20th century, the [switch to petroleum](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/marine-sales-international-marine-bunkers/ "Marine Sales of International Marine Bunkers, 1925-2000") allowed for even larger ship designs and the pressure for ports to expand with more piers, deeper drafts, and adjacent land. Other ports lost their prominence as coaling stations along shipping lanes as oil-powered ships had a longer range. The setting of petrochemical complexes led to several ports becoming major [energy platforms](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ports-energy-platforms/ "Ports as Energy Platforms") relying on three interrelated functions: - Ports can serve as **energy transport platforms**, acting as gateways for the exports or imports of energy products, including their temporary storage. This relies on the principle of economies of scale that ports offer to transport energy products, particularly in bulk. - Ports can be **energy transformation platforms**, serving as sites for the energy industry to carry out its activities. This relies on the principle of economies of agglomeration, where energy activities benefit from the adjacency or proximity of suppliers and users. - Ports can serve as **energy generation platforms** that can provide conventional and alternative energy sources to their users. This relies on the principle of economies of scope, benefiting from the diversity of the energy provision and user base. [Coal plants](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/coal-fired-gas-oil-fired-plants-seaport-areas/ "Examples of Coal-Powered Plants in Ports") (common) and [nuclear power plants](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/nuclear-power-plants-seaport-areas/ "Examples of Nuclear Power Plants in Seaport Areas") (less common) are types of energy generation facilities commonly found in ports. Depending on their position within energy supply chains, the [clustering of energy transformation activities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2666 "Port-Centric Energy Production and Transformation") can occur either upstream (near extraction sites) or downstream (near consumption markets) of the supply chain. Other ports benefit from their **intermediary location**, by acting as energy transformation platforms. One such is Singapore, one of the world’s largest petrochemical complexes. The relationships between ports and energy markets are undergoing a transition in their roles as providers, consumers, and energy processors. Even though ports and maritime shipping account for only about 3% to 5% of global carbon emissions, there is pressure to improve their environmental performance, primarily due to their high level of integration with energy supply chains. It is perceived that improvements in the energy performance of ports are contingent on improvements in the energy supply chains that support them. This is commonly articulated as the decarbonization of ports. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/bunker_transition.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Marine Sales of International Marine Bunkers, 1925-2000 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Marine Sales of International Marine Bunkers 1925 2000![Ports as Energy Platforms](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ports_energy_platforms.png?resize=900%2C299&ssl=1 "Ports as Energy Platforms | Port Economics, Management and Policy")![Examples of coal powered plants in ports](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Coal-plants.png?resize=900%2C440&ssl=1 "Examples of coal powered plants in ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of coal powered plants in ports![Examples of nuclear power plants in ports](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Nuclear-power-plants.png?resize=900%2C223&ssl=1 "Examples of nuclear power plants in ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of nuclear power plants in ports# 3. The Decarbonization of Ports The **decarbonization of ports** involves a series of [potential strategies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3394 "Port Energy Strategies") and a network of actors clustering around energy generation, electrification, and distribution: - **Operational improvements**. Improvement in operational efficiency represents a low-hanging fruit since it does not require substantial investments in equipment and infrastructure. For instance, improving the queuing system for port arrivals can reduce ship voyage emissions by 10% to 25%, depending on the ship type. Since ships can spend 4% to 6% of the annual operation time (15 to 22 days) waiting at anchor for a berth to be available, any reduction in this time reduces carbon emissions. - **Transformation of port-centric energy generation**. Ports have conventionally been highly involved in energy generation, with facilities such as coal and gas power plants. Since resources were brought in bulk by maritime shipping, ports were effective locations for energy generation systems built on the principle of economies of scale, including centralized distribution. Any future energy system relying on this principle will likely utilize port facilities. Still, ports are rarely involved in the energy generation business. They are convenient locations for energy generation facilities operated by third parties, particularly public or private energy companies. - **Ship energy supply systems**. The ongoing regulations toward low-carbon and low-sulfur bunkering involve a new energy transformation process and related port-centric activities. Still, alternative energy ships are more expensive than their fuel-oil counterparts, implying high conversion costs for shipping lines. The location of bunkering is likely to remain the same, but the transition can offer opportunities to ports able to provide lower-emission fuels first. Another transformation concerns cold ironing, which supplies docked ships with electrical power instead of on-board generation. Shore-generated power has a net cost advantage, as local grid electricity is typically cheaper. - **Electrification of port-centric activities**. These activities include terminal operations, bunkering, logistics, freight distribution, cold storage facilities, service vessels (e.g., tugboats), and supporting buildings. In addition to reducing carbon emissions, the electrification of port equipment lowers noise emissions and their negative community impacts. However, this requires a network of recharging stations that must be supplied by an energy production system and supported by an energy distribution grid. - **Electrification of port-centric industries**. Many heavy industries located within port facilities rely on fossil fuels as a primary energy source. The transition of port energy systems will be accompanied by a corresponding shift in the port industrial ecosystem. - **Offshore wind power generation**. Through the maritime interface, ports can access large coastal oceanic areas, offering wind generation opportunities. The port and its industries already generate existing demand for installed wind generation capabilities and can offer port authorities new revenue streams. The port can also serve as a platform for procuring, installing, and maintaining offshore wind power systems. This has enabled several ports, particularly small and medium-sized ones, to find new sources of activity. - **Integration of port energy systems**. Port clustering allows different energy systems (conventional and alternative) to operate independently, resulting in better integration between supply and demand. This allows for an energy trading system where energy surpluses could be traded between suppliers and users within the port community. A more efficient electric grid and energy storage capabilities have to be developed in tandem. - **Support of carbon capture logistics**. Represents a potential role for ports as elements of a supply chain aiming at capturing carbon dioxide and transporting it to underground storage sites. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_centric_energy.png?resize=900%2C697&ssl=1 "Port-Centric Energy Production and Transformation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Centric Energy Production and Transformation![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_energy_strategies.png?resize=900%2C331&ssl=1 "Port Energy Strategies | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Energy Strategies![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/map_bunker_sales.png?resize=900%2C391&ssl=1 "Largest Bunker Fuel Markets, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Largest Bunker Fuel Markets 2015![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Shore-Power-1.png?resize=900%2C450&ssl=1 "Ports with Cruise Berth with Shoreside Power, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ports with Cruise Berth with Shoreside Power 2023![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/175.jpg?resize=900%2C505&ssl=1 "On-Shore Power Supply at the Cruise Port of Vancouver | Port Economics, Management and Policy")On Shore Power Supply at the Cruise Port of VancouverOnce the energy transition of ports has matured, it is expected that ports will play a more strategic role within their respective regional energy systems, serving as platforms to generate and distribute energy. Ports face multiple challenges as key actors in the energy transition. They include securing funding, finding the right expertise to implement new technologies, adapting strategic planning for port land use, managing complex operations (such as energy generation and distribution), collaborating with stakeholders, and dealing with technical uncertainty. Applying a “one plan fits all” approach is contentious. Every port has its profile defining its jurisdiction, options, priorities, cost structure, and potential role. Concerning the latter, seaports often play a role in connecting multiple cargo flows and energy storage and distribution. In general, ports often face the challenge of balancing commercial, environmental, and economic objectives. At the same time, the energy transition presents opportunities for cost savings, securing market share, and attracting new cargo and industries. # 4. Port Electrification A fundamental element of the energy transition of ports concerns their electrification. Due to the nature of their equipment, port electrification is a [straightforward strategy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-electrification-end-uses/ "Port Electrification End Uses") that is less prone to risks than the energy transition of carriers. Equipment such as cranes, gantries, and conveyor belts has a high propensity to be electrified, and many, if not most, already are. Electrification can convey [several benefits and drawbacks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/benefits-drawbacks-port-electrification/ "Benefits and Drawbacks of Port Electrification"). The most notable expected benefit is an improvement in the energy and environmental performance of ports. Electrification is expected to result in lower operating costs if electricity costs are lower than those of other sources. It is also expected that electrification increases port resilience, particularly if the port can generate a share of its own electricity and operate independently of the local power grid. Still, these expected benefits have not been fully demonstrated. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_electrification_end_uses.png?resize=900%2C242&ssl=1 "Port Electrification End Uses | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Electrification End Uses![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/benefits_drawbacks_port_electrification.png?resize=900%2C566&ssl=1 "Benefits and Drawbacks of Port Electrification | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Benefits and Drawbacks of Port ElectrificationPort electrification is subject to several challenges. First, the potential for electrification is strongly dependent on **local factors**, including the cost of electricity and the capabilities of the local grid. The electrification of a terminal facility will likely **place a significant load on the local grid**, which may not be able to handle it without improvements in power distribution and generation capabilities. There is an inherent risk of being dependent on the capacity and reliability of the local electric grid, as the utility provider may be unable or unwilling to accommodate additional needs or may take an undue amount of time to do so. This can be particularly challenging in developing economies. The development of microgrids is a mitigation strategy that can involve two options: - **Independent microgrids**. The port or terminal facility, usually a critical piece of infrastructure (e.g., operations building, reefers), is serviced by a power grid that can operate independently of the local grid. It may have the option of being connected to the local grid, but it can operate independently. To function, these grids need power generation capabilities, such as a diesel generator, and power storage if the power source is photovoltaic or wind. - **Networked microgrids**. Consider the connection between several microgrids into a more complex power system. This complexity is based on redundancy if it involves the same power source, or on diversity if the power sources are different. Microgrids need to be resilient to events such as load surges, local power outages, and disruptions resulting from extreme weather events. Within the port, supplying electricity can come from: - **Combustion-based generation**. Power generation from fuel combustion, irrespective of the nature of this fuel. Diesel, gasoline, and natural gas are the most common fuels, and biofuels are also being implemented. If this power generation comes from fossil fuels, then electrification primarily displaces the source of pollutant emissions. - **Solar voltaic**. Low-intensity electric generation requires 5 to 10 acres of solar cells per megawatt of power. They can be suitable for small microgrids powering terminal lighting or telecommunications. Although ports and terminals have substantial surfaces, they can only be partially used for solar power generation, such as on the roofs of facilities, including warehouses. - **Hydrogen**. Can be used either as a combustion fuel or in fuel cells, which is the most common usage. Fuel cells are typically suited for small-scale applications, such as buildings and warehouses. Still, hydrogen energy systems have not been fully implemented and remain in an experimental stage. - **Wind**. Wind farms can generate around 30 megawatts of power from ten wind turbines, making wind energy suitable for electrification when combined with power storage to account for the notable variability in production. The matter remains the selection of sites for wind turbines, which can be located within the port facility (onshore) or offshore, where jurisdictional issues may arise. A drawback is that, by design, ports and terminals tend to be located in low-wind areas so that navigation is not impaired. - **Wave and tidal**. Since ports commonly face oceanic masses, there is a potential to capture wave and tidal energy. Still, such projects are capital-intensive and may impair navigation. - **Modular reactors**. Using small self-contained nuclear reactors to generate electricity. These are unlikely to be available for deployment in the near future. The energy transition of ports, including their further electrification, will likely result in a wide range of diverse functions and power systems, underscoring the enduring, unique role each port plays. Due to the unique composition of the wider port area and the supply chains it services, each port presents a [distinct energy landscape](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/ports-new-energy-landscape/ "Ports and the New Energy Landscape"). Therefore, there is no optimal form of energy transition, but a variety of [options and opportunities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/implications-energy-transition-port-infrastructure/ "Implications of Energy Transition for Ports") remain to be demonstrated and validated as commercially viable. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ports_energy_landscape.png?resize=900%2C334&ssl=1 "Ports in the New Energy Landscape | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ports in the New Energy Landscape![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/implications_energy_transition_ports.png?resize=900%2C402&ssl=1 "Implications of Energy Transition for Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Implications of Energy Transition for Ports# 5. Green Hydrogen and Seaports ## A. Green hydrogen as part of the green energy mix Since 2010, hydrogen (H2) has attracted renewed attention in the energy transition and decarbonization debate. Hydrogen is projected to meet up to 12% of global energy demand by 2050 (according to IRENA). The transition to hydrogen is not merely a fuel replacement, but a shift to a new system that will bring about political, technical, environmental, and economic disruptions. Currently, hydrogen is primarily used in the production of chemical products, including plastics and fertilizers. Most hydrogen production is achieved through the use of natural gas, known as grey hydrogen. It relies on a process of steam methane reforming, where natural gas is mixed with very hot steam and a catalyst. Blue hydrogen is also hydrogen produced from natural gas, but this process is made carbon-neutral by capturing and storing the CO2 emissions, also known as Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). Green hydrogen can be obtained via electrolysis, i.e., the use of (renewable) electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Green hydrogen has no carbon footprint, as the energy used to power electrolysis primarily comes from renewable sources such as wind, water, or solar. The use of green hydrogen as a raw material and fuel can thus reduce emissions in industry and contribute to achieving the 2050 climate targets. When produced at times and places where solar and wind energy resources are abundant, renewable hydrogen can also support the electricity sector, providing long-term and large-scale storage, as well as enhancing the flexibility of energy systems by balancing supply and demand. There has been strong **regulatory and political support** in recent years, with many countries having developed **hydrogen strategies**. The growing focus on hydrogen has also given impetus to the development of so-called **hydrogen valleys**. These are regional ecosystems that link hydrogen production, transportation, and various end-uses such as mobility or industrial feedstock. The valleys are considered important steps in enabling the development of a new ‘hydrogen economy’. The private sector has a strong policy-backed focus on technological innovations and the manufacturing of equipment, such as electrolyzers and fuel cells. ## B. Green Hydrogen and the Port Energy Landscape Green hydrogen is expected to assume a role in the **emerging new energy landscape** in ports. Ports can play a crucial role in the production and distribution of green hydrogen. They are important nodes, given existing and future local demand for hydrogen, the emerging offshore parks, and as junctions of transport nodes, some of which could shift to hydrogen or related fuels (e.g., vessels, barges, trucks). Additionally, the infrastructure and handling capabilities of seaports make them prime locations for the storage and distribution of hydrogen. Seaports can serve as hubs for the [import or export of green hydrogen to other countries](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/maritime-supply-chains-options-for-green-hydrogen/ "Hydrogen supply chains"), helping to drive the global transition to clean energy. Ports aiming to secure a strong position in green hydrogen must be active in all parts of the hydrogen value chain. A favorable location, a well-developed pipeline network, strong worldwide maritime connectivity, state-of-the-art terminal and logistics infrastructures, well-functioning and efficient industrial ecosystems, and a strong customer base are all **[important factors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/key-requirements-for-ports-to-serve-as-green-hydrogen-hubs/ "Key Requirements for Ports to Serve as Green Hydrogen Hubs")** enabling a seaport to take up an important, pioneering role in an emerging hydrogen economy, positioning itself as a hydrogen import, transit, and production hub. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ports_green_hydrogen_hubs.png?resize=900%2C428&ssl=1 "Maritime Supply Chains Options for Green Hydrogen | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maritime Supply Chains Options for Green Hydrogen![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ports_green_hydrogen_hubs-1.png?resize=900%2C469&ssl=1 "Key Requirements for Ports to Serve as Green Hydrogen Hubs | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Key Requirements for Ports to Serve as Green Hydrogen HubsSeveral seaports are intensifying their efforts to become **energy and feedstock hubs**, as well as significant producers of green hydrogen. Projects related to imports of renewable energy are taking shape. Extensive feasibility studies are conducted to analyze ideal sourcing regions, prepare seaports for the reception of future hydrogen carriers, and establish specific pilot projects within the context of a sustainable economy. Although several initiatives for hydrogen export and import facilities have been announced, we are still in the early stages of developing a global hydrogen carrier, shipping, and port network. Green hydrogen is likely to influence the **geography of energy trade**, regionalizing further energy relations, with the emergence of new centers of geopolitical influence around its production and use. Net energy importers, such as Chile, Morocco, and Namibia, are planning to emerge as green hydrogen exporters, while fossil fuel exporters, including Australia, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, are increasingly considering green hydrogen as a means to diversify their economies. The developments in the geography of energy trade will obviously impact origin-destination relations of cargo flows handled by seaports. Ports vying for a hub role in the global hydrogen network are urged to align their commercial and marketing efforts with future geographical shifts in energy flows and to partner with leading private companies and local, regional, and national governments in establishing closer relationships with existing and emerging countries in the hydrogen economy. Next to large to very large projects, the port industry is also involved in numerous smaller initiatives related to **the production and use of hydrogen**. For example, a number of logistics companies are planning to produce green hydrogen on their sites in port areas by using electricity provided by the solar panels on warehouses, or to use hydrogen-powered internal company transport or terminal equipment, linked to mobile hydrogen refueling stations. The focus on green hydrogen connects different parties and stimulates **cross-value chain collaboration** in and around seaports. Several seaports have formed partnerships focused on hydrogen, including Hydrogen Europe, the Clean Hydrogen Alliance, and the German H2Global Foundation. The International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH) joined the Global Ports Hydrogen Coalition in 2021. The coalition is part of the Hydrogen Initiative (H2I), which originated from the Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM), and is dedicated to supporting the scale-up of clean hydrogen in the global economy. The focus of port ecosystems regarding hydrogen is not only on green hydrogen but also on the decarbonization of **grey hydrogen**. **Blue hydrogen** relies strongly on CCUS (Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage). --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 2.7 Ports and the Circular Economy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-circular-economy/) - [Chapter 8.3 Ports and Energy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/ports-and-energy/ "Chapter 8.3 Ports and Energy") --- ## References - Howarth, R. W., Jacobson, M. Z., 2021. How green is blue hydrogen?. Energy Science & Engineering, 9(10), 1676-1687. - IRENA, 2022. Geopolitics of the energy transformation: The hydrogen factor. International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi - Lam, J.S.L. and Notteboom, T., 2014. The greening of ports: a comparison of port management tools used by leading ports in Asia and Europe. Transport Reviews, 34(2), 169-189. - Notteboom, T. and Haralambides, H., 2023. Seaports as green hydrogen hubs: advances, opportunities and challenges in Europe. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 25(1), 1-27. - Notteboom, T., Lugt, L.V.D., Saase, N.V., Sel, S. and Neyens, K., 2020. The Role of Seaports in Green Supply Chain Management: Initiatives, Attitudes, and Perspectives in Rotterdam, Antwerp, North Sea Port, and Zeebrugge. Sustainability, 12(4), 1688. - Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, 2022a. Global trade of hydrogen: what is the best way to transfer hydrogen over long distances?. OIES paper no. ET16, September 2022 - Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, 2022b. Cost-competitive green hydrogen: how to lower the cost of electrolysers. OIES paper no. EL47, January 2022 - Royal Haskoning, 2022. The new energy landscape: Impact on and implications for European ports. Study commissioned by ESPO and EFIP, 22 April 2022 - US Department of Energy, 2022. Carbon Capture, Transport, and Storage: Supply Chain Deep Dive Assessment. - US Department of Energy, 2024. Port Electrification Handbook, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. - World Bank (2026) Ports, Ships, and Fuels: Maritime Efficiency, Safety, and Sustainability in East Asia and the Pacific (English). Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Main Routing Alternatives between East Asia and Northern Europe](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-routing-alternatives-east-asia-northern-europe/) **Published:** December 27, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Alternatives-Suez-Canal.png?resize=900%2C900&ssl=1 "Main Routing Alternatives between East Asia and Northern Europe | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Routing Alternatives between East Asia and Northern Europe*Source: adapted from Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2011) “Emerging Global Networks in the Container Terminal Operating Industry”, in T. Notteboom (ed) Current Issues in Shipping, Ports and Logistics, Brussels: Academic & Scientific Publishers. pp. 243-270. ISBN 978-9-054878582.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Alternatives-Suez-Canal.pdf) Long-distance transportation seeks to minimize distances, but maritime shipping must follow specific routes constrained by strategic passages. Due to the world’s geography and dominant trade relations, there are two intercontinental connectivity challenges: linking Asia and Europe and linking the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. The focus is on routing alternatives between East Asia and Northern Europe, two of the world’s most significant markets. The selection of a specific route is commonly related to factors such as cost, speed, and reliability. The Suez route is the main commercial artery between Asia and Europe and transits through locations such as the Strait of Malacca, Bab el-Mandab, the Suez Canal, and the Strait of Gibraltar. It offers opportunities to pick up and drop cargo at major transshipment hubs such as Singapore, Colombo, Salalah, Suez, Gioia Tauro, and Algeciras. These hubs act as collecting points for their respective regional cargoes as well as connectors to north/south routes. Because of the level of trade and the draft of the Suez Canal, maritime shipping companies have been able to allocate their largest ships along this route, with services including container ships with a capacity above 10,000 TEU. The **Cape route** is a shipping alternative involving a long detour through the southern tip of Africa. Still, it represents an opportunity to handle African cargo as well as connect with routes bound for South America. Next to the Cape route, a number of other routing alternatives are being planned or are in operation to accommodate part of the trade volumes between Europe and Asia, but their market shares are expected to remain low compared to the Suez route, which offers substantial capacity, low costs, and reliability: - First, there is the **Northern Sea Route**, a set of all-water shipping lanes between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans along the Russian coast of Siberia and the Far East. Future polar ice cap reductions would open new possibilities for commercial shipping on this route. The route is still less favorable in cost terms due to the need for ice-classed ships and icebreaker assistance, non-regularity of the liner services, slower sailing speeds, navigation difficulties, and Russian transit fees. - Secondly, **North/South land corridors** could develop as landbridges from the Persian Gulf via Iran to Russia. However, geopolitical and infrastructure considerations forbid any serious consideration of this alternative in the medium term. - Third, the **east-west rail corridors**, a set of railway lines connecting East Asia and the western part of Russia with the Eastern part of Russia, are becoming more commercially interesting. One of the main arteries is the Trans-Siberian Railway, which connects St. Petersburg with the port of Vladivostok. Other primary rail connections are the Trans-Manchurian Railway, the Trans-Mongolian Railway, and the Baikal Amur Mainline (BAM – opened in 1991). The ‘Trans-Siberian in Seven Days’ program sets a target speed of 1,500 km daily by 2015 but faces different rail gauges between the Chinese, Russian, and Western European systems. In principle, rail land bridges offer lead-time advantages to shippers, but capacities remain low compared to container liner services. They offer a niche potential for time-sensitive cargo. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-routing-alternatives-east-asia-northern-europe/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-routing-alternatives-east-asia-northern-europe/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-routing-alternatives-east-asia-northern-europe/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-routing-alternatives-east-asia-northern-europe/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Circum-Hemispheric Rings of Circulation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/circum-hemispheric-rings-circulation/) **Published:** December 27, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Global-Rings-of-Circulation-Northern-Hemisphere.png?resize=900%2C704&ssl=1 "Circum-Hemispheric Rings of Circulation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Circum Hemispheric Rings of Circulation*Source: Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2009) “The Future of Containerization: Perspectives from Maritime and Inland Freight Distribution”, Geojournal, Vol. 74, No. 1, pp. 7-22. North Pole Orthographic Projection.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Global-Rings-of-Circulation-Northern-Hemisphere-1.pdf) The setting of a global “containerized highway” involving continuity between inland and maritime transport systems is expected as containerization continues to diffuse. For the northern hemisphere, where the bulk of economic activity occurs, this would involve three major rings of circulation: the equatorial, middle, and speculative Arctic rings. The shortest path to circumnavigate the world is the so-called circum-equatorial route, which uses the Panama Canal, the Strait of Gibraltar, the Suez Canal, and the Strait of Malacca. Two of these shortcuts are artificial, implying that significant additional detours were imposed before construction through the Cape of Good Hope (southern Africa) and the Strait of Magellan (southern America). In the age of globalization, this simple pattern remains a fundamental element shaping global maritime routes that are mostly composed of longitudinal and latitudinal connectors. The circum-equatorial route can be perceived as a conveyor belt where high-capacity and high-frequency containerships are assigned and can interface with the middle ring at specific high-throughput transshipment hubs. The widening of the Panama Canal will improve the operational efficiency of the system, placing it close to parity with the capacity of the Suez Canal. Under such circumstances, the setting up of true bi-directional and high-frequency [round-the-world services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3692 "AMAX Round-the-World Route, 2005-2007") could finally take place. The most important ring of circulation, the **middle ring**, comprises two large continental rail land bridges linked by transatlantic and transpacific connectors. The North American Landbridge is fully operational, while the other, the Eurasian Landbridge, is still a concept. The middle ring requires a full-fledged maritime-land interface with major gateways and corridors. The **Arctic Ring** is problematic as a full ring of circulation, but specific maritime bridges could be established (e.g. Narvik – Churchill) to complement the middle ring. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/circum-hemispheric-rings-circulation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/circum-hemispheric-rings-circulation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/circum-hemispheric-rings-circulation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/circum-hemispheric-rings-circulation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Main Routing Alternatives between the Pacific and Atlantic](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/routing-alternatives-pacific-atlantic/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Alternatives-Panama-Canal.png?resize=900%2C854&ssl=1 "Main Routing Alternatives between the Pacific and Atlantic | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Routing Alternatives between the Pacific and Atlantic[PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Alternatives-Panama-Canal.pdf) At the macro level, due to the world’s geography, there are two intercontinental connectivity alternatives: those linking [Asia and Europe](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=348 "Main Routing Alternatives between East Asia and Northern Europe") and those linking the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. The Panama Canal is obviously the shortest operational route between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. After close to one century of existence, the Panama Canal, which emerged as the [most suitable alternative](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=405 "Central American Interoceanic Canal Routes Considered") to build a transoceanic canal, is itself facing alternatives that are existing (currently competing) or potential (that could eventually compete), maritime or overland-based. The **maritime alternatives** are those involving a continuous maritime segment. The Magellan Route, which circumnavigates South America, imposes a substantial detour but offers the opportunity to pick up or drop off cargo along the way (e.g., Brazil, Argentina, Chile). The Northwest Passage, along with other [Arctic routes](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=412), is the shortest route between the North Pacific and the North Atlantic but remains hazardous to navigation and does not offer any significant opportunity to pick up or drop off cargo along the way. The Suez Canal is also an alternative to Panama, particularly in light of economic growth in South and Southeast Asia. Singapore, the world’s second-largest container port, is often considered the “line of indifference” between the use of Panama or Suez routes to reach the U.S. East Coast, so any cargo transiting through Singapore has the Suez option. The Cape Route through South Africa is also offering an alternative to the increasing trade relations between Brazil and Argentina with China. The **overland alternatives** are more numerous. The first and often less obvious alternative is the [Panama Canal Railway](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=433), which has experienced notable growth but not necessarily as a competing route. The growing role of Panama as a transshipment hub is supported by the complementarity the railway offers in quickly repositioning containers across the isthmus. The [North American landbridges](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=7251) composed of the Canadian, American, and Mexican landbridges are operational realities. Still, their role is not necessarily to offer an alternative to the Panama Canal but options to shippers servicing North American supply chains with a faster alternative. Their diversion effect remains limited, particularly since, in recent years, the Panama Route was able to gain some market share over the landbridge route. Other landbridges in Central or South America are simply projects of unknown market potential, such as the Central American Landbridge through Nicaragua. Since the 16th century, the [Nicaragua route](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/nicaragua-canal-project/ "The Nicaragua Canal Project") was considered an alternative, with interests coming and ebbing as the idea it represented to see if it could generate commercial interests. In 2013, the government of Nicaragua announced that a 50-year concession had been signed with a Hong Kong firm with the goal of developing a canal able to handle ships over 250,000 tons, but in 2019, the project was abandoned. It would require massive infrastructure and capital investments with dubious commercial potential. The last relevant overland alternative is the Colombian land bridge, which should be considered less as an alternative to the Panama Canal than as a Colombian national strategy to improve the accessibility of its hinterland to both the Atlantic and the Pacific. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/routing-alternatives-pacific-atlantic/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/routing-alternatives-pacific-atlantic/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/routing-alternatives-pacific-atlantic/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/routing-alternatives-pacific-atlantic/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 0.1 - Defining Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/) **Published:** November 10, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Theo Notteboom, Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > A seaport is a node in global supply chains with a strong maritime character and a functional and spatial clustering of port-related activities. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. What is a Seaport?](#1_What_is_a_Seaport) - [2. Typologies of Seaports](#2_Typologies_of_Seaports) - [3. Port Systems: Beyond Individual Seaports](#3_Port_Systems_Beyond_Individual_Seaports) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. What is a Seaport? The seaport has a long history going back to the early days of human endeavors. As soon as civilizations emerged across the world, maritime trade networks supported by ports emerged as well. Although maritime transport technology has evolved substantially, the role and function of ports remain relatively similar. Conventionally, a port is defined as a transit area, a gateway through which goods and people move from and to the sea. It is a place of contact between the land and maritime space, a node where ocean and inland transport systems interact, and a place of convergence for different transportation modes. Since maritime and inland transportation modes have different capacities, the port assumes the role of a point of **load break** where cargo is stored, consolidated, or deconsolidated. Even if the term port appears generic, it expresses a substantial diversity of sizes and functions. Ports also have a geographical diversity in terms of the sites being used for port activities, which can range from rivers and bays to offshore locations. They are **complex and multi-faceted** and can be approached primarily from a supply chain perspective, which leads to the following definition: > A **seaport** is a logistic and industrial node in global supply chains with a strong maritime character and a functional and spatial clustering of activities linked to transportation, transformation, and distribution. It acts as an interface between maritime and inland systems of circulation. A [modern seaport](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/defining-the-seaport/ "Defining the Seaport") is not regarded solely as a load breakpoint in various supply chains but should be considered a **value-adding transit point**. As nodes within transportation and logistics networks, ports have a location, whose relative importance can fluctuate given economic, technical, and political changes. This location tries to capitalize on the advantages of a port site characterized by fundamental physical features influencing the nautical profile, such as [tides](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/global-surfaces-lowest-astronomical-tide/ "Global Estimated Surfaces of Lowest Astronomical Tide"), water depth, access channels, and available land. The nautical profile coordinates the setting of the major [physical elements that constitute a port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/main-physical-elements-port/ "Main Physical Elements of a Port"), including navigation channels, turning basins, berthing basins, berths, piers, and jetties. The seaport is one element within the [maritime industry](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/elements-maritime-industry/ "Elements of the Maritime Industry"), which involves all the activities enabling and supporting maritime shipping. It includes the shipping industry, such as carriers and shipowners, the port industry, such as port authorities and terminal operators, the management and oversight of cargo and ancillary activities, such as finance, insurance, and bunkering. The industry relies on [fundamentals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/fundamentals-maritime-industry/ "Fundamental Characteristics of the Maritime Industry") linked to its derived demand, capital intensity, and economies of scale. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/defining-seaport.png?resize=900%2C487&ssl=1 "Defining the Seaport | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Defining the Seaport![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_physical_elements3.png?resize=900%2C519&ssl=1 "Main Physical Elements of a Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Physical Elements of a Port![- Dark blue areas indicating more than -4.0 meters of lowest astronomical tide globally](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Global-estimated-surfaces-of-Lowest-Astronomical-Tide-1.png?resize=900%2C455&ssl=1 "Global Estimated Surfaces of Lowest Astronomical Tide | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Estimated Surfaces of Lowest Astronomical Tide![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/elements_maritime_industry3.png?resize=900%2C449&ssl=1 "Elements of the Maritime Industry | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Elements of the Maritime Industry![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/fundamentals_maritime_industry.png?resize=900%2C440&ssl=1 "Fundamental Characteristics of the Maritime Industry | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Fundamental Characteristics of the Maritime Industry# 2. Typologies of Seaports An approach to understanding port diversity involves classifying ports into typologies to analyze their specific roles and functions. Conventionally, ports can be categorized based on a large [number of dimensions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2769 "Port Dimensions"), such as: - **Geographical context**. Refers to the main characteristics of the port site and situation. Coastal and inland geography conditions create a variety of locational settings for [port sites](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/port-sites/ "Port Sites") and their [harbors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/harbor-types/ "Harbor Types"), such as in a bay, along a coastline, on a river, or in an estuary. Many port sites have natural advantages, while others require improvement through dredging of the nautical access and land reclamation through landfills. Some are entirely artificial creations. Although a port site is fixed in space, its situation is relative to the main shipping lanes and hinterland, or its proximity to and interactions with cities or urban conurbations. - **Scale**. Refers to an assessment of port size in terms of its area, [annual cargo throughput](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=7783), the size of its hinterland, the number of shipping services it is connected to, or the number of customers. The scale of a port is commonly associated with its economic and commercial importance in the market it serves. Large ports tend to be diversified, while small ports are mainly specialized. - **Port functions**. Refers to the range of services offered by the port, such as cargo handling, logistics and distribution, industry, and maritime services. They are subject to competitive pressures, since the services offered by one port can be provided by another. The cargo handled, such as [containers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-container-shipping/worlds-major-container-ports/ "World’s Major Container Ports, 2016"), conventional general cargo, liquid bulk, dry bulk, or roll-on/roll-off cargo, relates to the level of specialization. This can range from single-use ports with a single function or cargo type to multi-use ports having a whole array of functions and cargoes. Some ports specialize in handling passenger traffic, namely cruise ships and ferries. Another specialization concerns port-centric industries such as steel, energy, automotive, or chemical plants. - **Governance and institutional settings**. Refers to the terms of land ownership and the roles of [institutional arrangements](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/main-port-governance-models/ "Main Port Governance Models") between the public and private sectors. Many ports are publicly owned but have terminals operated by private organizations, an arrangement known as the **landlord port model**. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_dimensions2.png?resize=900%2C357&ssl=1 "Port Dimensions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Dimensions![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Largest-Ports-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "World’s Largest Ports, 2016 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Largest Ports 2016![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Port-Sites-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Port Sites | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Sites![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Harbor-Types-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Harbor Types | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Harbor Types![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-TEU-Throughput-2022.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "World’s Major Container Ports, 2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Major Container Ports 2022Through the [generations of port development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=928), **port functions have evolved and expanded**, responding to technical, economic, and social developments. From the traffic being generated, functions such as trade, distribution, and industry have emerged in seaports, broadening and deepening their functions. In recent decades, the main driving forces include containerization, diversification of cargo types and equipment, intermodal transport, and information technologies. Port functions are extended to trade, logistics, and production centers with an extensive portfolio of operations, including production, trade, and service industries. Some seaports have evolved into industrial complexes, comprising a diverse range of industrial activities. Ports are also developing into major energy hubs for fossil fuels or adopting a leading role in the transition toward a less fossil-based, more circular economy. A recent trend also involves a specialization of some ports into cruise activities. Successive stages in port development, partly driven by different economic opportunities, have led to the establishment of a hierarchy of ports, ranging from small ports serving a niche market (often a single commodity) to large gateways serving a vast area encompassing a wide range of economic activities. As in most hierarchies, a small number of very large ports account for a significant share of the total traffic, while many small ports account for a limited amount of traffic. For instance, in 2022, the **20 largest container ports accounted for 45.9% of the total traffic**, reflecting a well-established hierarchy. This does not imply that small ports are of limited importance for the economies they serve. Small islands and nation-states have a high dependence on their ports to access global markets. Irrespective of its size, a port plays a crucial economic role. From a supply chain perspective, seaports are increasingly functioning not as individual places that handle ships but as **hubs within global supply chains and global transportation networks**. The contemporary port is characterized as a platform that commands freight flows and requires knowledge-intensive coordination activities. A seaport is not self-contained, as port activities contribute to industrial and logistics development in port areas and their hinterlands. Thus, ports act as **service centers and logistics platforms** for international trade and transport. In recent decades, ports have undergone a wave of reforms that reflect the increasing business and **market-oriented approach to port management**. From a governance and institutional perspective, many ports have become independent commercial organizations, aiming for profitability, cost recovery, and customer service. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/main_port_governance_models2.png?resize=900%2C512&ssl=1 "Main Port Governance Models | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Port Governance Models![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/functional_spatial_development_seaport.png?resize=900%2C364&ssl=1 "Functional and Spatial Development of a Seaport | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Stages in Port Development# 3. Port Systems: Beyond Individual Seaports Seaports are part of a system with specific **spatial and functional characteristics**, supporting global logistics and transport networks. > A **port system** can be defined as a system of two or more ports located in proximity within a given area. It can relate to a complete coastline, such as the West Coast of North America. This involves ports being part of a series of [maritime zones](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-zones-legal-boundaries/ "Maritime Zones and Legal Boundaries") in which states exercise a degree of sovereignty and jurisdiction, such as territorial waters and Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ). These zones interact with other nodes, such as overseas and neighboring seaports, intermodal terminals, and inland logistics platforms. Seaports are subject to [three types of functional interdependencies with other nodes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1501): - **Chain networks**. Ports are nodes in a sequence of flows, where the output of one node in the network is the input to another. Many trade segments, such as bulk, have simple chain networks composed of two port nodes; one for loading and the other for unloading. The relationship between container ports and inland load centers is more complex and involves several nodes. Rotterdam services a chain of inland terminals along the Rhine River, a role similarly assumed by Shanghai for inland terminals along the Yangtze River. Chain networks also apply to trans-ocean relations, including deepsea liner services such as the Rotterdam – Singapore chain supporting the Europe-Far East trade. - **Hierarchical networks**. Ports are nodes at different connectivity levels, implying that some locations can be reached indirectly rather than directly. An example is the hub-feeder port relations in container shipping, such as the South Korean container port Busan and smaller feeder ports in Northeast Asia. - **Transactional networks**. Ports are nodes in a system of commercial relations where they can be competitive or complementary. Ports compete to attract traffic, which can be a zero-sum game where the traffic handled at one port is at the expense of another. Further, ports can complement other ports, particularly when they are part of the same transport chain. They use advantages such as location, cost, and productivity to attract or retain shipping services and traffic. The above underlines that ports rarely operate in isolation from other ports but are part of complex networks of interactions. The port range is one of the largest consistent port systems. > A **port range** can be defined as a group of ports situated along the same seashore and potentially sharing access to a hinterland. There are many [maritime ranges](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1107 "Major Maritime Ranges") worldwide, each with its inherent geographical, economic, and functional characteristics. The Hamburg-Le Havre range in Europe is a typical example, which can be expanded to include the Gdansk-Le Havre range. An acute intra-range competition can be observed at the multi-port gateway level. > A **multi-port gateway region** refers to a group of ports in proximity competing for the same port calls and hinterland. It has a smaller geographical scale than a container port range. The locational relationship to nearby identical traffic hinterlands is one of the criteria that can be used to group adjacent ports into the same multi-port gateway region. The port-calling patterns in the maritime service networks and hinterland connectivity profile can also help group ports into a multi-port gateway region. Typical examples include the [Rhine-Scheldt Delta](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3472 "The Rhine-Scheldt Delta: Europe’s largest multi-port gateway region in throughput terms") (Belgium and the Netherlands), and the [Yangtze River Delta and Pearl River Delta in China](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3475). A port range can be home to several multi-port gateway regions. For example, the Gdansk-Le Havre range includes the multi-port gateway regions of the Gdansk Bay in Poland, North Germany, the Rhine-Scheldt Delta, and the Seine Estuary in France. **Inland nodes and feeder ports** are also considered part of the port system. They are competing to attract economic activities associated with seaports, which leads to functional changes in the port system. These nodes can also cooperate and coordinate their development by bundling transport flows and offering land for development. This provides economic activities, such as manufacturing and logistics, with a range of locational options for nodes that are most suitable for their operational and market access needs. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/maritime_zones_legal.png?resize=900%2C512&ssl=1 "Maritime Zones and Legal Boundaries | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maritime Zones and Legal Boundaries![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Fig_i_4.png?resize=900%2C840&ssl=1 "Functional Interdependencies of a Seaport | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Interdependencies with other nodes![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Maritime-Ranges-1.png?resize=900%2C328&ssl=1 "Major Maritime Ranges | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Major Maritime Ranges![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-European-Multi-Port-Gateways.png?resize=900%2C700&ssl=1 "The European Container Port System and its Multi-port Gateway Regions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The European Container Port System and its Multi port Gateway Regions![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-East-Asia-Multi-Port-Gateways.png?resize=900%2C700&ssl=1 "The East Asian Container Port System and its Multi-port Gateway Regions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The East Asian Container Port System and its Multi port Gateway Regions--- # Related Topics - [i.2 Seaports: Economic Value](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3140) - [i.3 Seaports: Social and Environmental Value](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3151) - [i.4 Seaports: Demand and Supply Determinants](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/) - [i.5 Emerging Issues in Ports and Maritime Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/i-4-emerging-issues-in-ports-and-maritime-shipping/) - [Chapter 1.1 – Maritime Shipping and International Trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=147 "Chapter 1.1 – Maritime Shipping and International Trade") ## References - Reference a. - Reference b. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Elasticity of Supply of Port Services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/elasticity-supply-port-services/) **Published:** August 26, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/elasticity_supply_port_services2.png?resize=900%2C615&ssl=1 "Elasticity of Supply of Port Services Over Time | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The **price elasticity of the supply of a port service** (ES) expresses the degree of responsiveness (sensitivity) of the quantity of a port service supplied to a change in its price within a specific market: ES=(Δpp)(Δqq)E\_S = \\left( \\frac{\\Delta p}{p} \\right) \\left( \\frac{\\Delta q}{q} \\right) ES=Δp⋅qΔq⋅pE\_S = \\frac{\\Delta p \\cdot q}{\\Delta q \\cdot p} Where: - ES = Price elasticity of supply of a port service - q = Quantity supplied - p = Price of the service - Δq = Change in the quantity of services supplied - Δp = Change in the price The elasticity of supply for a port service is always positive, as there is a positive percentage change in the quantity supplied for every percentage change in the price of the service offered: - **Relatively inelastic supply** (0 < ES < 1): a change in the price of the service results in a change in the quantity supplied in the same direction but by a proportionally smaller percentage. - **Relatively elastic supply** (1 < ES < ∞): a change in the price of the service results in a change in the quantity supplied in the same direction but by a proportionally greater percentage. - **Perfectly elastic supply** (ES = ∞): any change in price leads to an unlimited change in the quantity of the port service supplied. - **Perfectly inelastic supply** (ES = 0): a change in price results in no change at all in the quantity of the port service supplied. The price elasticity of the port service supply varies according to the time horizon under consideration. Based on the reference period, it is useful to distinguish between three different types of elasticity: - Instantaneous elasticity (perfectly inelastic) - Short-run elasticity (relatively inelastic) - Long-run elasticity (more elastic) For either technical and operational reasons (such as the absence of available alternatives for port users, the use of the service as part of a wider set of services or supply chains, or the existence of scheduled sailings and ship calls at the port), or due to institutional constraints (for example, the considerable time required to design, construct, and operate new port infrastructure), the instantaneous supply of port services tends to be **perfectly inelastic**. - The **instantaneous supply curve** of the port service is shown in Figure (Si): in the event of a possible price increase from P1 to P2, the quantity supplied remains unchanged. - In the **short run**, the supplied quantity of a port service may change. Over time, the service provider can implement organizational improvements and/or reallocate the use of production factors, thereby increasing the quantity supplied to take advantage of higher prices. The short-run supply curve of the port product (SΒSΒ’) thus tends to be **relatively inelastic**: in the case of a possible price increase from P1 to P2, the quantity supplied increases from Q1 to Q2. - In the **medium and especially the long run**, the supply of port services can adjust more significantly (SL). The port service providers may undertake investments to expand productive capacity (e.g., purchasing new equipment, constructing or upgrading infrastructure, or increasing the capacity of the port or its terminals). Consequently, the long-run supply elasticity of the port product tends to be **more elastic**. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/elasticity-supply-port-services/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/elasticity-supply-port-services/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/elasticity-supply-port-services/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/elasticity-supply-port-services/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Elasticity of Demand for Port Services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/elasticity-demand-port-services/) **Published:** August 24, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/elasticity_demand_port_services.png?resize=900%2C367&ssl=1 "Elasticity of Demand for Port Services | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Elasticity of Demand for Port Services## A. Price Elasticity of Demand for Port Service The **price elasticity** of demand for a port service describes how responsive (sensitive) demand is to a change in the service’s price within a specific market. ED=−Δq/qΔp/pED = -\\frac{\\Delta q / q}{\\Delta p / p} ED=−Δq⋅pΔp⋅qED = -\\frac{\\Delta q \\cdot p}{\\Delta p \\cdot q} Where: - ED = Price elasticity of demand. - q = Quantity of the service demanded. - p = Price of the service. - Δq = Change in the quantity of services demanded. - Δp = Change in the price of the service. The elasticity of demand for a port service is measured between two points on the demand curve (arc elasticity). It is always negative, as it represents the percentage change in the quantity of port services demanded in response to a positive price change. Often, the negative sign is omitted because of the well-established inverse relationship between price and quantity demanded. For instance, an elasticity of –0.4 for a cargo handling service indicates that a 10% increase in the price of the service would lead to a 4% reduction in its demand. The demand for a port service is **relatively elastic** when a change in price leads to a proportionally greater change in the quantity demanded in the opposite direction (1 < ED < ∞). For instance, if the price increases by 10%, the quantity demanded falls by more than 10%. Conversely, demand is **relatively inelastic** when a change in price results in a proportionally smaller change in the quantity demanded in the opposite direction (0 < ED < 1). For example, if the price increases by 10%, the quantity demanded will decrease by less than 10%. At the extremes, demand is **perfectly elastic** when any change in price results in an unlimited change in the quantity of the port service demanded (ED = ∞). In contrast, demand is **perfectly inelastic** when a change in price leads to no change whatsoever in the quantity of the port service demanded (ED = 0). The elasticity of demand for a port service is important for formulating short-term and long-term strategies for the port and/or the port service provider, adjusting port service pricing policies, determining priorities in serving port users, and designing overall port policy. The value of elasticity is shaped by a range of parameters, which can be grouped into two main categories. The first one is the **characteristics of the port service**. The impact of a price change on elasticity is greater (or smaller) depending on the extent to which the following factors are larger (or smaller): (a) the price of the service in relation to the total cost of the port product, (b) the cost of the service as a share of the total value of the transported good (a small share implying a limited effect), (c) the cost of the service as a percentage of the passenger’s total income, (d) the number of available substitutes (alternative transport modes), (e) the quality and price of alternative options, (f) the type of journey (in the case of passengers), (g) the contestability of the hinterland. By contrast, the demand for a port service is particularly inelastic when the hinterland served is extensive or fixed, or when, due to the integration of maritime transportation into broader multimodal transport networks, the service in question constitutes only one segment of the total set of services employed. The second group of parmeters relates to the **characteristics of the price change** The impact of a price variation on elasticity is greater (or smaller) when: (a) the magnitude of the price change is larger (or smaller), (b) cumulative price changes occur, since each successive change influences a different users base, and (c) users’ perceptions of what stands as a “normal” and/or “fair” price. The full effects of a price change in a port service often become evident only after a considerable period. Significant price changes tend to exhibit lower elasticity in the short term, as users continue to rely on essential services until viable alternatives emerge. Thus, a price increase may initially generate higher revenues, but these revenues gradually diminish, and, in the long run, the service provider may even experience a decline in total income. For this reason, it is useful to distinguish between **short-term elasticity** (i.e., less than two years) and **long-term elasticity** (i.e., more than ten years). A static approach to elasticity tends to underestimate both the revenue losses arising from price increases and the ability of users to adapt to changes over time. **Static elasticities**, therefore, often create a bias in favor of expanding infrastructure investments (e.g., increasing port capacity), since they undervalue the existence of alternative options available to users. Empirical studies in the major container ports of the Le Havre–Hamburg range in Northern Europe have recorded a significant variation in the elasticity of cargo volumes concerning a specific change in cargo-handling charges. For an accurate understanding of the impact of a significant change in the income of the economy served by a port, the analysis must also consider the **type of cargo handled**. Each cargo category has its own **income elasticity of demand**, and these differences can be decisive in shaping demand for port services related to the transportation of specific goods. Even within a single market segment—for example, containerized cargo—the content of the “box” determines the income elasticity of demand for container-handling services as well as for the complementary services offered at the port. The same applies to liquid bulk cargo: both the nature of the cargo and its destination determine the extent to which demand for the relevant port services will change. Like cargoes, **port users** do not constitute a homogeneous group. They include shipping companies, cargo owners, and a range of intermediaries who provide essential services for the completion of the maritime transport process and the delivery of cargo to its destination. Preferences and requirements vary among these groups. Consequently, their respective demand elasticities also differ. ## B. Cross-Elasticity of Demand for Port Services **Cross-elasticity** refers to the degree of responsiveness of demand for port service X to a change in the price of port service Y: EDXY=Δqx/qxΔpy/pyED\_{XY} = \\frac{\\Delta q\_x / q\_x}{\\Delta p\_y / p\_y} Where: - ΕDXY = Cross-elasticity of demand. - qx = Quantity demanded of port service X. - Δqx = Change in the quantity demanded of port service X. - py= Price of port service Y. - Δpy = Change in the price of port service Y. Cross-elasticity is determined by the relationship between the services in question—that is, whether they are **complementary**, **substitute**, or **independent of** each other: - **Complementary services**. Cross-elasticity is negative, since demand for both services decreases simultaneously (ΕDXY < 0). An example of complementary services in a port is towing and cargo handling. - **Substitute services**. Cross-elasticity is positive, since demand for service X increases when the price of service Y rises (ΕDXY > 0). Two terminals serving the same port market (e.g., general cargo) constitute an example of substitutes. However, due to the increasing specialization observed in maritime transport, the degree of substitutability between terminals varies—or may even be limited—depending on the case. - **Independent services**. Cross-elasticity is zero, since demand for service X does not change when the price of service Y increases (ΕDXY = 0). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/elasticity-demand-port-services/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/elasticity-demand-port-services/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/elasticity-demand-port-services/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/elasticity-demand-port-services/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Supply Function for a Port Service](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/supply-function-for-a-port-service/) **Published:** March 13, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/supply_port_services.png?resize=900%2C612&ssl=1 "Supply Function for Port Services | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Supply function for a port serviceA **supply function** represents the relationship between the price of a service and the quantity of the service that service providers are willing to supply during a specific time frame. This function reflects various economic and operational factors that influence the capacity to provide service and can be expressed as: λ=f(Pλ,\[Ps1..Psn\],\[Pc1..Pcn\],Po,Te,g)\_\\lambda = f\\left( P\_\\lambda, \\left\[ P\_{s1}..P\_{sn} \\right\], \\left\[ P\_{c1}..P\_{cn} \\right\], P\_o,T\_e, g \\right) Where: - Qλ = Supply of the port service λ - Pλ= Price of the port service λ - Pc1..Pcn = Price of the complementary services of the port - Ps1…Psn = The price of the substitute services of the service λ - Po = Price of the factors of production used to produce the service - Te = Technology - g = Objectives of the port service provider #### Objectives of the Service Provider The relationship between the price of transport services (**Pλ**) and the supply of port services depends significantly on the [**o**bjectives** of the service provide**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/supply-behavior-of-port-service-providers/)**r**. The supply response to price changes differs depending on whether the provider aims to **maximize profit** or operates under a **public service** framework: Cargo handling and related port services in **seaports serving international trade and broader hinterlands and forelands** fall in the first of these categories, irrespective of whether the port service provider is a private terminal operator or a publicly owned or hybrid entity. Exceptions in these cases are few. In secondary or smaller ports, the scale of provided services is determined differently. Typically, a government-owned port serving an island or remote community may continue to provide services even at a loss to promote local industries or connect remote regions with economic centers**.** An illustrative example is ports serving island communities. In absolute numbers, the ports of the second category outnumber those of the former. However, the vast majority of the world’s cargo throughput is handled by ports that offer a wide range of services. #### Price of the Production Factors The **price of the factors of production** (capital, labor, land, and technology) plays a crucial role in linking the supply function with the **production function** for port services. Changes in these input costs directly affect profitability and, in turn, the supply of transport services. When the price of any production factor increases, higher input costs reduce the expected profits from offering port services. To maintain profitability, service providers may reduce the quantity of services they offer. For each port service selling price, a rise in the production factor costs reduces supply, shifting the **supply curve to the left.** Conversely, decreasing factor prices lowers production costs, increases potential profits, and shifts the **supply curve to the right** (from *S1* to *S2*), leading to greater supply. The impact of each factor on supply depends on **how intensively the production factor is used** in the service production process. This intensity is measured by comparing the use of one factor to another: - **K/L Ratio (Capital-to-Labor Ratio)**: Measures the intensity of capital relative to labor. - **K/T Ratio (Capital-to-Technology Ratio)**: Measures the intensity of capital relative to technology. The more intensively a factor is used, the more sensitive the supply will be to changes in its price. For instance, if technology is the dominant input, the cost of technological improvements will have a greater impact. Modern port service providers tend to shift toward **capital-intensive** and **technology-intensive** operations. This transition affects the relative importance of each factor. Ports are adopting more automation, machinery, and digital technologies, increasing the use of capital and technology and thus the K/L and K/T ratios. As capital and technology use increase, there is a corresponding decrease in labor intensity, particularly for unskilled labor. For example, automated container-handling systems reduce the need for labor. Today’s high-capital ports are more sensitive to changes in capital costs (e.g., interest rates on loans for infrastructure) than to labor wages. In contrast, technological advances that reduce reliance on labor yet increase dependence on specialized technology affect the supply curve differently. #### Substitute and complementary services The **prices of substitute services** and **complementary services** are crucial factors for the levels of **supply of a port service**: - A **substitute service** is an alternative that can replace the port service in question. A cargo handling service at a neighboring port or a second service provider at an alternative terminal within the same port are such substitute services. If a competing service becomes more expensive (e.g., cargo handling at a nearby port becomes more expensive), the demand for similar services at the current port increases, prompting providers to expand their supply. If substitutes become cheaper (e.g., lower handling fees at another terminal), users may switch to those alternatives, decreasing service supply in the competing terminal. The absence of any alternative service is not uncommon in ports, due to either geographical characteristics or the selected port governance model. In these cases, supply levels are defined by market size and captive users’ needs. - The supply levels of a particular service at a port are also related to the price and quality of the **complementary** **services** offered in that port: a more expensive and lower-quality complementary service will lead to lower service levels, and vice versa. Increasing the price of a complement increases the total cost for customers, thus decreasing the supply of a service. Conversely, if complements become more affordable, the combined service package becomes more attractive, prompting an increase in supply. For example, if the cost of trucking services from the port drops, more users may choose to use the port’s cargo handling, increasing the supply of handling services. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/supply-function-for-a-port-service/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/supply-function-for-a-port-service/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/supply-function-for-a-port-service/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/supply-function-for-a-port-service/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Demand Function for Port Services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/demand-for-port-services/) **Published:** December 20, 2024 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/demand_port_services.png?resize=900%2C590&ssl=1 "Demand Function for Port Services | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Equilibrium of Demand and Supply of a Port ServiceThe quantity of the demand for a particular port service (e.g., cargo loading or unloading) is determined by a **demand function** that incorporates various microeconomic and macroeconomic factors, and can be expressed as: DA=f(PA,\[PS1..PSn\],\[PC1..PCn\],N,Y,Vt,S,QA,\[QS1..QSn\],\[QC1..QCn\],L,E,P,R,Te)D\_A= f\\left(P\_A, \\left\[ P\_{S1}..P\_{Sn} \\right\], \\left\[ P\_{C1}..P\_{Cn} \\right\], N, Y,V\_t,S,Q\_A, \\left\[ Q\_{S1}..Q\_{Sn} \\right\],\\left\[ Q\_{C1}..Q\_{Cn} \\right\], L, E, P, R, T\_e \\right) Where: - **DA** = Demand for port service A. - **PA** = Price of service A, with demand typically inversely related to price (price elasticity), which in turn is defined by several [pricing mechanisms](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/). - **Ps1….Ps​n** = Price of substitute services for service A. - **Pc1….Pcn** = Price of complementary services to service A. - **N** = Population of the market under consideration - **Υ** = The income level of the population, which influences their purchasing power and service demand. - **Vt​** = Volume of trade or level of economic activity; growth in trade and economic activity impacts service demand and port capacity requirements. - **S** = Seasonality - **QΑ**​ = Quality of port service A, reflecting various aspects - **Qs1….Qsn =** Quality of substitute services - **Qc1….Qcn** ​= Quality of complementary services associated with service A. - **L** = Location of the port - **E** = Economic environment - **P** = Political environment - **R** = Regulations - **Te** = Technological factors The figure depicts the **supply and demand equilibrium for port service**s (point 1, at a given price (P1), corresponding to the quantity (Q1) of port services demanded. The optimal balance between supply and demand for port services is achieved using the **Pareto criterion** (or Pareto optimum). This point reflects a state where the price or quantity of services improves one stakeholder’s position without worsening another’s, and the balance represents the optimal social welfare. In a typical case, a price increase implies a decrease in the quantity of port services demanded and vice versa. Hence, the slope of the curve with respect to price is negative. A **change in the quantity of port services demanded**, for example, due to a price change, implies a movement up along the given demand curve (D1). Conversely, a **change in one or more of the demand factors** for the use of a port and its services leads, over time, to a movement of the demand curve D1 to D2 and the formation of a new equilibrium point. Indicative examples of a move to a new demand curve include an increase in income or population of the economy served by the port. ## B. Substitute and Complementary Port Services The **port product** comprises various services offered to port users, which may function either as complementary or substitute services. The relationship between these services influences how they are used, impacting port operations and market dynamics. Two services are **substitute services** when an increase in the use of one leads to a decrease in the use of the other. This relationship is expressed as: DA′<DA⇒DB′>DBD\_{A’} < D\_A \\Rightarrow D\_{B’} > D\_B Where: - **DA**: Demand for service A. - **DB**: Demand for service B. An example of substitute services is the neighboring Ports: Two ports serving the same markets can compete, with users substituting one for the other based on factors like cost, efficiency, effectiveness, or location. Another example is the terminals within a Port: Two terminals offering similar services, such as container handling, may see shifts in demand if one terminal improves efficiency or lowers costs. As port services become more specialized, substitution potential must consider cross-elasticity (the responsiveness of demand for one service to changes in the characteristics of another). For example, a terminal specialized in container transshipment cannot be easily substituted by a port designed for mixed cargo with infrastructure and processes catering to regional or local inbound goods. Two services are **complementary** when an increase in the use of one leads to an increase in the use of the other. This relationship is expressed as: DA′>DA⇒DB′>DBD\_{A’} > D\_A \\Rightarrow D\_{B’} > D\_B An example of complementary port services is **nautical-technical services**: Towing, navigation, and pilotage services are necessary for a ship approaching a port. Increased demand for one of these services typically correlates with increased demand for the others, as they collectively support vessel operations. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/demand-for-port-services/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/demand-for-port-services/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/demand-for-port-services/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/demand-for-port-services/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 4.2 - Terminal Concessions and Land Leases](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/) **Published:** September 29, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Theo Notteboom, Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > Most port terminals are leased to terminal operators through concessions that involve a bidding process to secure terminal assets. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Private Involvement in Port Investment and Operation](#1_Private_Involvement_in_Port_Investment_and_Operation) - [2. Terminal Concessions and Service Agreements](#2_Terminal_Concessions_and_Service_Agreements) - [3. The Terminal Awarding Procedure](#3_The_Terminal_Awarding_Procedure) - [4. The Pre-bidding Phase](#4_The_Pre-bidding_Phase) - [5. The Pre-Qualification Phase](#5_The_Pre-Qualification_Phase) - [6. The Selection Phase](#6_The_Selection_Phase) - [7. Post-Bidding Phase](#7_Post-Bidding_Phase) - [8. The Greening of Terminal Concessions](#8_The_Greening_of_Terminal_Concessions) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Private Involvement in Port Investment and Operation Governments and public port authorities have withdrawn from port operations in many countries worldwide, resulting in a **process of port devolution**. The core driver is the assumption that enterprise-based port services and operations will enable greater flexibility and efficiency in the market through increased competition and a more effective response to customer demands. Ports, which have traditionally been run like government departments, are seeing private investment promoting greater competition and higher productivity. Eventually, lower costs are passed on to importers and exporters. Often, this involves **transferring the provision of services from public bodies to private enterprises**. Ports have become a business, attracting the attention of large investment groups and equity fund managers. Ports are inclined to develop [new governance structures](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=159), which should be tailored to the specific local conditions in terms of culture and commercial objectives, leading to several options. Four major types of **combinations of port/terminal ownership and port/terminal operations** can be distinguished: - Public ownership and participation in operations. - Public ownership and private participation in port/terminal construction, operations, and management. - Public ownership and private participation in superstructure installation (e.g., cranes) and operations. - Private ownership and operations. The most common model is **Public Ownership and Private Operations** (POPO), which typically involves some form of **Public-Private Partnership** (PPP) between the public sector, represented by a government agency, and the private sector to provide a specific public service. Such partnerships require that risks, responsibilities, and returns be shared between the public and private sectors. The use of PPP arrangements is widespread in the seaport industry to structure the responsibilities of terminal operators and port authorities concerning the construction, financing, and operations of the terminal facility. **[Commonly used arrangements](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/characteristics-types-public-private-partnerships/ "Main Types of Public-Private Partnerships")** include: - **Build-Lease-Operate (BLO)**. The government or port authority leases the construction and operation of the whole port or part of it to a private company through a long-term concession. The private company builds facilities, including berths and terminals. In turn, the port authority controls the rights throughout the concession period and receives an annual lease payment. - **Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT)**. The government or public authority grants a concession or franchise to a private company to finance, build, or modernize a specific port facility. The private company is entitled to operate the facilities and to obtain revenue from specified operations or the full port for a designated time period. The private sector takes all commercial risks during the concession. At the end of the concession period, the government retakes ownership of the improved assets. Arrangements between the government and the private operator are outlined in a concession contract, which may or may not include regulatory provisions. - **Rehabilitate-Operate-Transfer (ROT)**. The government or public authority grants a concession to a private company to finance and rehabilitate or modernize a specific terminal or an entire port. This company is entitled to operate and obtain revenue from the rehabilitated port for a specific period. The private company takes all commercial risks, and at the end of the concession period, the government retakes ownership of the improved asset. - **Build-Rehabilitate-Operate-Transfer (BROT)**. The government or public authority grants a concession to a private company to finance, build, and rehabilitate or modernize a specific terminal or an entire port. The private partner will build, operate, and obtain revenue from the rehabilitated port for a specific period. The private company assumes all commercial risks, and at the end of the concession period, the government regains ownership of the improved asset. BROT is a combination of the BOT and ROT mechanisms. - **Build-Operate-Share-Transfer (BOST)**. An arrangement similar to a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) model, where the government grants a concession or franchise to a private company to finance, build, or modernize a specific port or terminal for a designated time period. The revenue obtained from terminal operations is shared with a designated public authority throughout the concession period. The government or public authority should ensure a specific quantity of throughput to generate revenue. The commercial risks are shared between the government and the concessionaire. At the end of the concession period, the government retakes ownership of the improved asset. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_public_private_partnerships.png?resize=900%2C390&ssl=1 "Main types of Public-Private Partnerships | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main types of Public Private Partnerships PPPCritical success factors for a sound implementation of PPPs in the port context include the accuracy of the PPP contract, the ability to allocate and share the risk appropriately, the technical feasibility of the project, the commitment made by partners, the attractiveness of the financial package, a clear definition of responsibilities, the presence of a strong private consortium and a realistic cost/benefit assessment. # 2. Terminal Concessions and Service Agreements > A concession is a grant by a government or port authority to a (private) operator for providing specific port services, such as terminal operations or nautical services (e.g., pilotage and towage). In a terminal concession setting, a concession agreement is signed between, on the one hand, a private terminal operator and, on the other hand, a landlord port authority or a government agency empowered to do so. Concessions can take the form of a **long-term lease or an operating license.** Under the long-term lease system, a private company is allowed to operate a specified terminal for a defined time period. The government or a public authority holds the property rights of the facilities throughout the concession period and receives lease payments on the assets. The **concession or lease fees** paid by the private terminal operator are used to upgrade and expand the facility. The concessioning of land to private terminal operators is a cornerstone of the **[landlord port authority model](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=159#3_Public_and_Private_Roles_in_Port_Management).** Under this model, the landlord port authority is typically a separate entity established under public law by specific legislation. It can conclude contracts (including concession agreements), enforce standards, and make rules and regulations applicable within the port area. Private companies conduct port operations, particularly cargo handling. The landlord port is the dominant port model in large and medium-sized ports. Concession policy has become a **powerful governance tool for port managers** in the terminal operating business: - Through concession policy, port authorities or government agencies can retain some control over the **organization and structure of the supply side of the port market**. - Through concession policy, port managers can encourage port service providers to **optimize the use of scarce resources** such as land. > A **Terminal Service Agreement** (TSA), also known as a Marine Terminal Service Agreement, is a contract between a terminal operator and a shipping line. The purpose is to set clear expectations regarding the level of service and costs associated with handling containers at a specific port or terminal. A TSA is a separate contract from a terminal concession, which is a contract between a port authority and a terminal operator. Under the landlord port model, TSAs involve the terminal operator(s) and shipping lines, with the port authority overseeing the terms of the concession with the terminal operator(s), often acting as an arbitrator and enforcer. The main elements of a TSA include: - **Handling services**. Define the types of services to be provided, such as stevedoring and cargo handling, including operations from ship to yard and within the container yard. Can also include ship and cargo priority clauses. - **Tariffs and fees**. Define pricing for all services, typically segmented by container type, such as for full, empty, reefers, and hazardous containers, commonly set as a base rate. Can also specify any discount related to cargo volumes. - **Dwell Time and Demurrage**. Define the amount of free time (usually in days) containers are allowed at the terminal, and the penalties once the dwell time has been exceeded. - **Yard storage**. Define the amount of capacity dedicated to cargo brought by a carrier, including loaded containers, empties, and reefers (number of plugs). - **Liability**. Define responsibility and penalties for damages, losses, and delays during service. - **Key performance indicators**. Define the expected level of service the terminal operator will provide, such as the number of moves per hour for the cranes and the yard. - **Force majeure**. Define the circumstances under which the terminal operator or the carrier can receive dispositions for not meeting specific contractual terms. Common force majeure events include natural disasters, trade embargoes, and labor disputes. # 3. The Terminal Awarding Procedure The awarding practices in many ports around the world have undergone quite some changes in recent years. While there were often no formal conditions required, the awarding process nowadays typically consists of a thorough inquiry into the different candidates seeking to obtain a terminal. Terminals may be awarded by **several methods**, including: - **Direct appointment**. - **Private negotiation from a qualified pool**. - **Competitive bidding process**. National and supranational legislation, port privatization schemes, and legal disputes concerning irregularities in concession policy have led to **[competitive bidding being the most common procedure](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminals-concessions-transactions-per-type/)** for granting concessions. Potential candidates are invited by the managing body, or a call for tender is published. The call could involve a public tendering procedure or other types of tendering, such as an open assessment procedure with room for negotiations and the submission of improved proposals during the process. Any competitive bidding should comply with the principle of equality of opportunity, which states that every candidate should be treated and compared based on the merit of their value proposition. The **principle of transparency** should ensure that there is no favoritism in awarding the concession and that there is no substantial reduction in competition. In the case of an **open call for tender**, the terminal is typically awarded to the candidate with the most competitive offer, followed by one or more rounds of negotiation. In the remaining cases, the terminal is awarded based on the offers of the eligible candidates, without any negotiations or the possibility for candidates to submit revised proposals during the awarding process. Some ports use different types of tendering procedures depending on specific criteria. For example, a limited (light) version for smaller facilities and a full version for larger terminals. In cases where terminals are **directly appointed**, port management bodies do so mainly for strategic reasons, which may include creating [intra-port competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=226) or securing further expansion opportunities for efficient incumbent firms. Also, a terminal project can represent a marginal extension of an existing facility, such as the extension of an existing container terminal with one berth, which may not require a bidding process. A typical [terminal awarding procedure](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/phases-port-terminals-awarding-procedure/ "Terminal concessions: phases in the terminal awarding process") consists of **three phases**: - **Pre-bidding phase**. The awarding authority (typically a port authority or another managing body) makes the necessary preparations for award processing, taking into account prevailing regulatory conditions. The awarding authority has to decide on key issues related to the awarding procedure and make this information available to interested candidates. In this phase, the rules of the game are defined. - **Awarding phase**. Includes a selection phase and, if considered necessary, a pre-qualification phase. Candidates are screened, bids are evaluated, and the most appropriate candidate is selected. The challenge for the awarding authority lies in making the right choice given the parameters set up in the pre-bidding phase. - **Post-bidding phase**. A legally binding contractual agreement is signed with the selected candidate, with the performance of the operator monitored during the contract term. If necessary, corrective measures are taken, and disputes are settled. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/concessions_type_transaction.png?resize=900%2C421&ssl=1 "Container Terminals Concessions in Global Ports per Type of Transaction | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container terminals concessions Transactions per type![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/phases_terminal_awarding.png?resize=900%2C304&ssl=1 "Phases in Port Terminal Awarding Procedure | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Phases in Port Terminal Awarding Procedure![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/direct_competitive_terminal_awarding2.png?resize=900%2C403&ssl=1 "Direct and Competitive Types of Terminal Awarding Procedures | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Direct and Competitive Types of Terminal Awarding Procedures**Prequalification** is often, but not always, the first step in the awarding phase and involves selecting qualified companies from a pool of interested candidates. It is based on a set of conditions established by the awarding authority prior to the commencement of the awarding phase. Companies that meet these conditions are then allowed to participate in one or more selection rounds, during which the terminal concession is awarded. # 4. The Pre-bidding Phase Key decisions during the pre-bidding process include determining **what to award** and **under what conditions** the award will be made. The following **questions** need to be addressed during this phase: - Should the commodity to be handled be specified, or should bidders have the freedom to identify what cargoes they wish to handle? - What plots should be concessioned: one large plot or a number of smaller ones? - What are the key conditions of the concession, and how should these be determined (e.g. duration, fees, and fee structure; performance targets, bonuses, and penalties; final asset compensation, right-to-end)? - What should be the risk division between the port authority and the terminal operator? - What should be the investment division between the port authority and the terminal operator? - What should be the responsibility division (e.g., maintenance dredging)? ## A. Object of the concession Once the decision has been taken to concession the operation of a (future) terminal, the awarding authority will have to describe the **object of the concession**. The port site that will be given in concession should be carefully delimited to avoid any potential conflicts over land jurisdiction. Moreover, the technical and geological characteristics of the site, as well as the physical, operational, commercial, legal, and labor aspects of the proposed concession, must be analyzed and documented. Such information typically ends up in later documents related to the awarding procedure, such as public auctions, tender documents, or requests for proposals in a competitive bidding process. The purpose is to avoid information asymmetry in the awarding process. If the port authority does not conduct due diligence, candidates will need to verify the state of the premises and may also be required to perform surveys and field studies to prepare their bid. This incurs transaction costs and may reduce the number of bidders. In addition, any gaps left by the awarding authority during this stage provide the concession winner with opportunities for maneuvering during later stages and even after the process is finalized. ## B. Main use of the terminal An awarding authority may want to determine the **primary use of the terminal** during the pre-bidding phase. Alternatively, the awarding authority might decide to invite bids for a specific plot rather than specifying its intended use, as long as the proposed use falls within the functions permitted by the port authority. If the awarding authority clearly defines the use of the terminal (e.g. plot to be used for container handling only), then the port authority will, later on in the process, have an easier task in evaluating the technical and economic proposals of the candidates on an equal footing. ## C. Splitting and phasing of the terminal site The size of a terminal site to be concessioned is a complex issue, as the footprint must be sufficient to accommodate the expected activity levels. In the pre-bidding phase, the port authority will need to make key decisions regarding whether the development footprint should be [split and phased](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/options-splitting-phasing-terminal-site/ "Options Related to the Splitting and Phasing of a Terminal Site"). On the assumption that a port authority has 200 hectares of port land available for container terminal development: - **Splitting option**. This raises the question of whether the site should be concessioned as a single terminal or if the plot should be **split** into two or more sections to be concessioned separately. This option must take into consideration the expected market demand and the minimum optimal terminal size. - **Phasing**. The concession process can be **phased.** A port authority could decide to award the first section of 100 ha in year 1, 50 ha in year 3, and the remaining 50 ha in year 5. This option must consider the expected growth in demand and the financial and technical capabilities available for terminal construction. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/splitting_phasing_terminal.png?resize=900%2C459&ssl=1 "Splitting and Phasing of a Terminal Site | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Splitting and phasing of a terminalWhile the strategic options of **splitting and phasing** seem straightforward, implementing these solutions proves challenging, given their far-reaching impact on the competitive profile of the port. Two key challenges can be identified in this respect: - **How sections of the terminal plot are phased**. A port authority could organize a separate competitive bidding procedure or auction process for each phase. Alternatively, a port authority might consider a second terminal phase as a mere extension of the initial terminal phase and decide to award the second phase to the incumbent terminal operator by direct appointment, thereby avoiding a competitive bidding process. If the second phase of the terminal represents a marginal extension of the first phase, then a competitive bidding process or auction for the second phase does not make sense, at least when the incumbent terminal operator shows interest in operating the second phase. If the scale differences between the first terminal phase and subsequent terminal phases are small, then a direct appointment to an existing operator is a less obvious choice. - **Dynamics in intra-port competition**. If the port authority organizes a competitive bidding procedure for the new plot and makes the incumbent firm eligible to compete for the terminal concession, two possible outcomes arise. First, the **incumbent firm wins**. The incumbent strengthens its intra-port monopoly position and can extract monopoly rents if there is insufficient competitive pressure from competing ports. Eventually, the result is high revenues for the port authority but high costs for port users. Simultaneously, the scale of the facilities is likely to generate economies of scale and scope, creating the potential for lowering the handling costs per unit for the operator. Second, a **new entrant is granted the concession**, thereby introducing intra-port competition. Given the scale differences between the existing and new facilities, the entrant has a good starting position for outperforming the incumbent firm. The issues discussed above form the core of many legal disputes handled by competition authorities worldwide. They inevitably raise further questions about the need and impact of [intra-port competition and the Minimum Efficient Scale (MES)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=226) in terminal operations. MES is the smallest terminal provider scale at which output can be produced at a minimum average long-run cost, assuming the terminal is operating with a given technology. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/minimum_efficiency_scale.png?resize=900%2C444&ssl=1 "Minimum Efficient Scale and Long-Run Average Costs in Container Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Minimum Efficient Scale MES and Long Run Average Costs in Container Terminals ## D. The division of risks and investments The port authorities will need to determine the **division of risks and investments** associated with the concession object. The general principle is that risks should be allocated to the party that can best manage them. In the port industry, **commercial risks** can best be managed by private operators. For **port infrastructure**, this issue is more complex. In some cases, all risks are transferred to the private sector, and the awarding authority grants a concession to build and operate a terminal. The concessionaire must make all investments and consequently bears all the associated risks. This option is especially attractive when the terminal to be concessioned is not part of a larger port expansion project but will need to be built as a standalone facility. However, when a port authority develops a larger port expansion project with various sites to be concessioned, it is better placed to assume these risks. The awarding of a concession must **address both risk and reward factors** to avoid unrealistic terms that could result in institutional entry barriers and a limited number of bids, or even no bids at all. ## E. Duration of the concession period The port authority will need to determine the **duration, fees, and fee structure** before initiating the awarding process. In most cases, the term of the concession is determined by the port authority or government agency. In many parts of the world, legislators have established guidelines on concession durations to ensure free and fair competition in the port sector. There is hardly consensus on the concession duration. For instance, the European Commission has attempted to create relevant rules, but these rules have not been agreed upon by all stakeholders. In general, the duration of the concession will vary depending on the amount of the initial investment required, compliance with the port’s development policy and land lease, as well as other easement rights. A port authority may opt for **phased concession terms**, with a typical base duration of 15 years and consecutive renewals every five years, contingent upon defined criteria. The port authority will also have to develop its views on a possible prolongation of the concession beyond the official term before entering the granting procedure. The duration of the agreement is crucial to both terminal operators and port authorities. **Long-term agreements** enable private port operators to benefit from learning-by-doing processes and achieve a reasonable return on investment (ROI). Port authorities strive to strike a balance between a reasonable payback period for the investments made by terminal operators on the one hand and a maximum entry for potential newcomers on the other. As long-term agreements act as entry barriers, intra-port competition will only occur among the existing local port operators. ## F. Concession fees and fee structure The port authority will also have to decide the **fees and the fee structure** it will use throughout the awarding procedure. On the one hand, port users demand a transparent, uniform, and stable fee system. Such stability in the fee structure is important given the investment decisions of the terminal operator. On the other hand, port authorities are tempted to apply the market mechanism to set the fees for the use of valuable port land. The pricing system deployed by the managing body of the port for the use of the port land tends to vary widely among ports: - **Fixed annual rent**. For the terminal operator related to the terminal surface in use, such as a price per square meter per year. - **Lump sum**. To be paid annually, regardless of the financial results from operating activities, plus a variable payment that is a function of the percentage of total cash flow or the coefficient per ton handled. - **Royalty fee**. A fixed annual rent for the terminal area, plus a **percentage of the revenue generated**. - **Bonus system**. A fixed rent for the terminal surface in use is adjusted based on the annual throughput in relation to the guaranteed volume. ## G. Final asset compensation Port authorities can follow different paths when dealing with the terminal superstructure at the **end of the contract term**. Although the decision on what to do with the superstructure is often made at the end of the concession term, it is beneficial for port authorities to develop their views on this issue as early as the pre-bidding phase. **Common approaches** include the removal or destruction of the superstructure by the terminal operator at the end of the contract term or the transfer of the assets to the port managing body without any form of compensation. A port authority might opt for financial compensation to the terminal operator for the superstructure that was transferred at the end of the contract term. # 5. The Pre-Qualification Phase A port authority can decide to have a prequalification phase before entering the stage of competitive bidding or auctioning. The pre-qualification phase aims to **reduce the number of potential candidates** by developing criteria concerning company size, experience, and financial strength. ## A. Dealing with incumbent terminal operators An incumbent will generally have the edge over new entrants in additional bidding procedures. In the absence of competitors in a port, an incumbent firm that does not face tight price regulation, or any other barriers (regulatory or not), is likely to win a bidding procedure for an additional terminal. In that case, it would generate some market power, enabling the extraction of economic rents. Port authorities may decide that incumbent operators are not allowed to hold **more than one concession in the same port**. Whether they can do so depends on the legal framework in place: the exclusion of potential candidates might be considered anti-competitive by competition authorities. There are also cases where regulation gives an advantage to local or domestic players vis-à-vis foreign competitors. ## B. Experience and financial strength The **experience of the candidate** can be demonstrated by their management of facilities for similar cargo in the same or other ports. Thus, the candidate must provide evidence of their experience in activities related to the project by providing proof of specific antecedents in terminal operations**.** Defining relevant experience can take **different forms** depending on the geographical scope followed by the port authority, ranging from local to global experience. The terminal types considered range from multipurpose terminals to specialized terminals, such as container terminals. These requirements are often associated with a particular **minimum handled throughput** in these terminals, and are occasionally used as a means to minimize the number of bidders, due to a preference for global operators. Experience may also be combined with the **technical solvency of the bidder** in basic port handling services or the ability to fill capability gaps in logistics, thereby broadening the geographical markets served and expanding terminal networks. Creative port authorities can design the required experience so that certain terminal operators are well-positioned to enter the selection phase. The bidding process typically contains **thresholds on the financial strength of the bidders**. For example, it can be stipulated that a certain percentage of the bidder’s net worth should at least equal the estimated project cost. Apart from the financial track record, financial solvency may also be associated with the operator’s capacity to maintain a specific level of reserves that match a considerable percentage of the total assets and fixed assets throughout the concession’s lifetime. # 6. The Selection Phase Awarding authorities can choose from a variety of different setups, but selection generally takes place based on **negotiations or auction-like structures**, each having its pitfalls: - Many competitive selection procedures in seaports de facto use **auctions** because the terminal is assigned to the bidder with the **highest score** on a number of criteria, not necessarily in monetary terms. - **Negotiations with the highest bidder(s)** after the (de facto or formal) auction are not rare and might even result in the reversal of the initial decision. The selection is based on a **technical and financial proposal** or **a price bid**. Every qualified bidder will present only one offer without variants or alternatives. Based on the technical and financial proposal and or the price bid, a bidder is selected from among the previously qualified bidders. ## A. The technical and financial proposal One way to decide who will receive the concession is to base the decision primarily on the **technical and financial proposals submitted**. Although the required contents of such a technical proposal tend to differ significantly from case to case, it usually consists of the following: implementation details, financing details, a marketing plan, operational and management details, employment impact, an environmental plan, and an organizational plan. Terminal development will follow an **implementation plan** organized by stages, according to the expected growth in traffic. The implementation plan must support the results of a market study. The calculations of handling capacity must demonstrate that the installations offered have the necessary capacity to serve the projected throughput adequately. The investment timetable will need to include the anticipated costs of labor and equipment. Each bidder must present a complete list of fixed or mobile equipment that is expected to operate on the terminal, including a definition of the type, capacity, specifications, lifespan, and the date of entering operation. If the bidding procedure involves the development of a greenfield or brownfield terminal by the bidder, each bidder must present studies and preliminary sketches of the works, cost estimates for the construction, and an investment plan for all the works that the proposal entails. The **marketing plan** typically includes a market study that defines the demand for services at the terminal and justifies the projections about the magnitude and requirements of the installations, including projections of yearly throughput for a specified number of years. The candidate may need to specify the expected prices and maximum charges for any services offered to terminal users, as well as **operation costs** (including labor, equipment, fuels, and other inputs and supplies), maintenance and supervision, and administration. Each bidder typically has to present **environmental and territorial studies** on aspects such as the impact of terminal operations on the environment and mobility, as well as alternatives to eliminate, reduce, or mitigate selected adverse effects. Furthermore, each bidder typically has to quantify **staff requirements** for the concession and project their evolution in accordance with the cargo projections. In a well–prepared proposal, there should be a **continuous chain of arguments and propositions** that flow from the market demand and cargo projections to the physical layout, equipment purchases, manning levels, and operating assumptions. Considering the final selection, it is common to **rate various aspects of the technical and financial proposal** and sum the results in a weighted or unweighted score, based on each evaluation criterion related to the proposal elements. The weights and passing criteria are included in the bidding documents, if applicable. ## B. Price bid An alternative approach to awarding a concession involves placing a **strong emphasis on the price.** The available alternatives range from a fixed rent with minimal charges to a maximum rent, allowing the private operator to set their charges. Given a set level of investment and quality requirements, the winner is either: 1. The highest payer for the right to provide terminal services. 2. The bidder offering the lowest price to be paid by terminal users. In the first option, the port authority or government agency aims to **maximize revenue**. The payments are typically made annually. The second option focuses more on the interests of port users and prioritizes **price minimization** over revenue maximization. The concession fee under the first option is seldom renegotiated. In contrast, the fee under the second option is often renegotiated so that the concessionaire ends up with a larger share of the rent created by its efficiency gains. In some cases, particularly for new terminal developments in developing countries, bidders must quote the percentage of their revenue that will be **passed on to the government**. The competition is then based on bidding, and priority will be given to the party that offers the highest percentage of the government share. # 7. Post-Bidding Phase ## A. The concession agreement The post-bidding phase encompasses the **drafting and signing of the concession agreement**, as well as follow-up on the agreement, and the termination and renegotiation, if necessary, of the contract. The **design of the concession agreement** or contract, starting with the rights and obligations of the concessionaire, is a key element in any concession. One of the primary reasons for specific contractual arrangements in a concession agreement is the potential for **information asymmetries**, as described in the principal-agent theory. A port authority (the principal) bases its decisions on granting a concession on the available information. Although the information about the candidate might be very elaborate, such as financial status, performance in other ports, or client base, the port authority has no guarantee that the agent will meet its objectives in terms of cargo generation. As such, concession agreements often take the form of **performance-based contracts**, creating incentives for the agent (terminal operator) to act in the principal’s best interest. The specific design of the concession agreement, its regulatory framework, the tariff regime, and the process of awarding the concession reveal the **priorities of port authorities and government agencies**, and as such, play a crucial role in port governance. **Renegotiation**, whether due to contract incompleteness or opportunism, can undermine the benefits of a competitive allocation mechanism. Essentially, an auction winner will be the best negotiator, not necessarily the best infrastructure operator. Efforts should be made to restrict renegotiation to non-opportunistic situations, such as unexpected events outside the control of the parties. A concession agreement typically contains provisions to protect the terminal operator and port authority against arbitrary and early **cancellation**. However, it can also include provisions that enable the port authority to unilaterally end the concession if the terminal operator fails to meet specific preset performance indicators. ## B. Throughput guarantees The most common **performance clauses** in concession agreements relate to **cargo throughput**. The port authority or government agency can specify, up front, a **minimum throughput** that the concessionaire must guarantee, especially for existing berths or terminals. This should encourage the operator to market the port services, attract maritime trade, and optimize terminal and land usage. In cases where the terminal operator does not meet the objectives as set in the concession agreement, a penalty will be paid to the port authority (e.g. a fixed amount per ton or TEU short) or, in the most extreme case, the concession will be rescinded. In principle, **throughput guarantees** help secure a **reasonable level of land productivity**, reach high terminal utilization rates, and **lower the entry barriers to newcomers**. This is particularly the case if the port authority follows a retracting policy or reallocates certain parts of the terminal due to under-utilization. ## C. Effectiveness of sanctions in concession agreements Concession agreements can significantly impact **overall port performance**. A poorly designed lease contract can lead to situations where the port authority has no legal means to penalize inefficient companies or end the contract unilaterally. The resulting **underutilization of valuable land and infrastructure** hinders the port’s growth potential. Whatever the explicit objectives of the concession, each lease contract should contain a **clear list of penalties** that will be incurred if the rules are infringed. With the emergence of international terminal operators, some of them shipping line branches, port authorities are confronted with influential and footloose players. Fierce competition and the fear of traffic losses may lead port authorities to be less observant and strict in enforcing the concession agreement rules. In a well-tailored concession contract, sanctions are such that the parties fail to comply with rules only when non-compliance is overwhelmingly beneficial to them. Excessive penalties can introduce rigidity into the contract, making it inefficient; therefore, only **credible penalties should be included** in a concession agreement. Credible penalties are those that the port authority would have an interest in implementing if a violation were to occur. For instance, a penalty can be imposed on a terminal operator for failing to meet the minimum throughput requirement. Non-credible penalties are ineffective because their inclusion in the concession agreement undermines its reliability and legal certainty. They encourage the terminal operator to violate the rules or attempt to challenge any decision they dislike. In an environment with influential and footloose market players, this represents a highly undesirable position for a port authority. Threats of imposing **severe penalties**, such as **contract termination**, could be detrimental to the relationship between the port authority and terminal operator and may lack credibility. One possible solution could be to include a range of penalties in the concession agreement. For example, financial penalties can be incrementally imposed with the ultimate sanction of contract termination. A port authority might also consider **rewarding terminal operators** who perform above expectations. **Penalties and bonuses** should ideally reflect the economic costs and benefits of their behavior. For example, penalties may be related to the economic loss incurred due to not meeting the throughput levels specified in the concession agreement. The economic loss encompasses terminal-related elements, including terminal underutilization, as well as broader economic factors, such as missed added value and employment opportunities. # 8. The Greening of Terminal Concessions One emerging field of action for landlord port authorities relates to the inclusion of **[green factors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/greening-of-terminal-concessions/ "The Greening of Terminal Concessions")** when awarding terminals to private terminal operators. When deciding which site to award, port authorities could more explicitly consider the environmental quality of the port site. Brownfields might be more expensive to redevelop, but they often lead to higher spatial quality and regeneration of older port sites. Port authorities could also include more stringent construction guidelines for port infrastructure and superstructure. Such measures could include using a minimum percentage of green energy or installing cold ironing facilities. Environmental performance can constitute a new additional element in the **qualification phase** of a terminal awarding process. There is scope to more explicitly integrate environmental performance into the **selection process**, alongside more traditional criteria such as throughput expectations, financial performance, the price bid, and socio-economic impacts in terms of added value created and employment effects. Port authorities should also consider incorporating green elements into the **post-bidding phase**, such as including environmental clauses that extend beyond simply stipulating that the terminal operator must comply with local, national, and supranational environmental legislation. The main environmental clauses that can be part of a terminal concession include: - The compulsory use of some sort of environmental management reporting system. - Stipulations on emission levels. - Specific technical equipment to be used to limit emissions. - Causes of existing or future contamination of the terminal site. - Modal split targets. A small number of recent terminal contracts include **modal split specifications**, particularly for container terminals. This mostly takes the form of technical specifications and compulsory investments to be made by the terminal operator in hinterland transport infrastructure on the terminal site. In only a few cases, the modal split clauses explicitly impose a specific modal split on the terminal operator to be reached by a certain year (for example, 40% road, 40% barge and shortsea, and 20% rail by a specific date). The modal split target is often formulated as a **soft objective** (an intention). However, soft targets are best kept outside the contractual setting as they cannot be legally imposed on the terminal operator. The port authority can encourage terminal operators to reach soft targets through favorable pricing or awarding systems. Terminal operators confronted with **hard modal split** clauses will argue that the distribution of cargo over the various inland transport modes is largely affected by exogenous factors such as the supply chain practices of their customers, the pricing and quality of rail and barge services, and infrastructure policy (of the government) outside the port area. However, terminal operators can positively influence the modal split on their terminal through pricing (for instance, a dwell time fee system or pricing of moves to inland transport modes), actions to increase the transparency of information flows (which makes cargo bundling toward rail and barge easier) and extended gate solutions in the hinterland (for instance by setting up satellite terminals in the hinterland). ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/green_port_concessions.png?resize=900%2C461&ssl=1 "Green Port Concession Agreements and Processes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Green Port Concession Agreements and Processes--- # Related Topics - [Chapter 3.1 – Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminals-and-terminal-operators/) - [Chapter 4.1 Port Governance and Reform](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-reform-and-governance/) - [Chapter 5.1 – Inter-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/inter-port-competition/ "Chapter 5.1 – Inter-Port Competition") - [Chapter 5.2 – Intra-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=226) ## References - Defilippi, E., 2004, Intra-port competition, regulatory challenges and the concession of Callao Port. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 6, 279–311. - De Langen, P.W., Van Den Berg, R. and Willeumier, A., 2012. A new approach to granting terminal concessions: the case of the Rotterdam World Gateway terminal. Maritime Policy & Management, 39(1), pp.79-90. - Farrell S. (2012): The ownership and management structure of container terminal concessions, Maritime Policy & Management, 39 (1), 7-26. - Notteboom, T., 2007, Concession agreements as port governance tools. In: Brooks, M.R., Cullinane, K. (Eds.), Devolution, Port Governance and Performance, Elsevier, London, pp. 449-467. - Notteboom, T., Lam, J.S.L., 2018, The greening of terminal concessions in seaports, Sustainability, 10(9), 3318, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093318 - Notteboom, T., Verhoeven, P., 2010, The awarding of seaport terminals to private operators: European practices and policy implications, Trasporti Europei/European Transport, 45, 83-101 - Notteboom, T., Verhoeven, P., Fontanet, M., 2012, Current practices in European ports on the awarding of seaport terminals to private operators: Towards an industry good practice guide, Maritime Policy and Management, 39(1), 107–123 - Notteboom, T., Pallis, A. A., Farrell, S., 2012, Terminal concessions in seaports revisited, Maritime Policy and Management, 39(1), 1-5 - Pallis, A. A., Notteboom, T. E., & De Langen, P.W., 2008. Concession agreements and market entry in the container terminal industry. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 10(3), 209–228. - Pallis, A. A., Parola, F., Satta, G. & Notteboom T., (2018). Private Entry and Emerging Partnerships in Cruise Terminal Operations in the Mediterranean Sea, Maritime Economics and Logistics, 20(1), 1-28. - Theys, C., Notteboom, T., 2010, The economics behind terminal concession durations in seaports: theoretical considerations, applicable techniques and current practices, Journal of International Trade and Logistics, 8 (1), 13-40 - Theys, C., Notteboom, T., Pallis, A. A., De Langen, P., 2010, The economics behind the awarding of terminals in seaports: towards a research agenda, Research in Transportation Economics, 27(1), 37-50 - Turner, H. S., 2000, Evaluating seaport policy alternatives: a simulation study of terminal leasing policy and system performance. Maritime Policy and Management, 27, 283–301. - Van Niekerk, H. C. (2005). Port reform and concessioning in developing countries, Maritime Economics and Logistics, 7, 141–155. - Wang, G., Notteboom, T., Pallis, A. A., 2014, Incentives in Cruise Terminal Concession Contracts, Research in Transportation Business & Management, 13, 36-42. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 7.4 – River Cruises and Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/river-cruises-and-ports/) **Published:** September 4, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ### Authors: Dr. Theo Notteboom, Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > River cruises have emerged as a distinctive form of tourism that blends leisure with cultural and environmental engagement. Seaports located near river systems can adopt a role as home ports for river cruises. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. River Cruises as a Niche Segment in the Cruise Industry](#1_River_Cruises_as_a_Niche_Segment_in_the_Cruise_Industry) - [2. River Cruise Operators and Vessels](#2_River_Cruise_Operators_and_Vessels) - [3. River Cruise Itineraries and Home Ports](#3_River_Cruise_Itineraries_and_Home_Ports) - [4. Infrastructure and Superstructure in Major River Cruise Ports](#4_Infrastructure_and_Superstructure_in_Major_River_Cruise_Ports) # 1. River Cruises as a Niche Segment in the Cruise Industry As global tourism continues to expand, river cruising offers a model for travel that is both immersive and contextually rich. Unlike ocean cruises, which often prioritize luxury at sea and short visits to coastal destinations, river cruises enable passengers to **journey directly through landscapes** and spend a significant amount of time at each port of call. Therefore, **scenic sailing** is a key aspect of river cruises. By navigating major waterways, passengers gain access to cultural centers, historic landmarks, and natural wonders often inaccessible by other means of travel. River cruises can be found in a wide array of river systems in the world. Each river system reflects different historical/cultural and natural qualities. This allows for **themed cruises** along unique culinary, scenic, viticulture, and cultural experiences. Prominent examples are the Rhine River in Europe, the Yangtze River in China, and the Mississippi River in the United States: - **The Rhine basin**. Flows from the Swiss Alps through Germany and into the Netherlands, has long served as both a commercial artery and a cultural symbol of Europe. River cruises on the Rhine provide travelers with access to a landscape marked by medieval castles, terraced vineyards, and historic cities. The popularity of Rhine cruises stems from their ability to condense centuries of European history into a journey that can be completed within days, while also offering insight into the region’s viticulture, architecture, and folklore. A typical Rhine cruise covers 8 days in the Middle Rhine Valley, with stops in cities such as Cologne, Koblenz, and Strasbourg. Most Rhine cruises start or end their journey in the seaports of Amsterdam and Rotterdam in the Netherlands, and Antwerp in Belgium. Given draft and size limitations on the river and its tributary system, cruise operators on the Rhine deploy modern longships. - **Yangtze basin**. The upper navigation area of the Yangtze River in China forms the scenery for a vast river cruise market. Cruises along the river typically highlight the dramatic landscapes of the Three Gorges, including the Qutang, Wu, and Xiling gorges. The route combines unique natural scenery and rich historical sites. The completion of the Three Gorges dam increased the water level in the entire Three Gorges basin, allowing the introduction of much larger vessels. Tributaries of the Yangtze River also became accessible for river cruises, leading to a significant growth in cruise activity in the upper Yangtze region after the completion of the dam in 2009. The number of Yangtze River cruise passengers amounted to 1.37 million in 2023. - **Mississippi basin** and other US river basins. The Mississippi River symbolizes both the frontier spirit and the complexities of American cultural history. Modern cruises on the Mississippi often emphasize themes of music, literature, and regional cuisine, connecting travelers to the legacies of New Orleans, Memphis, and St. Louis. Similarly, cruises on the Columbia and Snake Rivers in the Pacific Northwest highlight a narrative of exploration, indigenous history, and environmental diversity. These river journeys situate tourism within broader narratives of American heritage and identity. A typical river cruise lasts nine days, with some longer cruises lasting up to two weeks. # 2. River Cruise Operators and Vessels River cruise operators around the world present diverse offerings tailored to different regions and traveler preferences. Each company crafts unique itineraries. For example, Viking offers an expansive global network, Uniworld positions as boutique elegance, and AmaWaterways offers an immersive wellness approach and traditional American paddle-wheel nostalgia. In China, operators such as Century Cruises and Changjiang Cruises offer cultural and picturesque voyages through the Yangtze’s iconic landscapes. The supply of river cruises is large in some river systems. For example, the Rhine basin is populated with a vast array of big and smaller cruise operators such as VIVA Cruises, A-ROSA, Saga Travel, CroisiEurope, Viking, AmaWaterways’ and Nicko Cruises, enabling travelers to choose from a spectrum of styles, durations, and onboard experiences. Most of these operators offer all-inclusive pricing covering excursions, entertainment, gratuities, beverages, and access to vineyards, castles, and cultural enrichment. Due to **navigation limitations** such as shallow draft and bridge clearance, river cruise ships are smaller, commonly with 200 guests or fewer. Since they are not designed to navigate the high seas with tidal and wind effects, they are lighter. Further, they do not need to carry lifeboats, granting additional space for cabins. Due to the scale issue, they have **fewer onboard entertainment and amenities**, which are often limited to a sun deck, a dining area, a lounge, and a fitness center. Still, unlike sea cruises, they have the opportunity to resupply along the route with local catering, products, and entertainers. River cruise vessels tend to be adapted to the characteristics of the river system in which they operate: - **Rhine basin**. A **longship** is a river cruise ship design introduced by Viking in 2012. The name is inspired by the historic longships of the Vikings, but these are modern passenger vessels built to navigate Europe’s rivers, including the Rhine, Danube, Seine, and others. This river cruise vessel type is low enough (consisting of only a few decks) to pass under bridges, slim enough to fit in locks, yet maximizing space for passenger comfort. A longship typically measures 135 meters in length and has a limited draft. A standard longship has a passenger capacity of approximately 190 guests, with around 95 staterooms. Most of these vessels also feature a sun deck with shaded seating and walking track, a lounge/bar, a restaurant, and a library. The longship fleet is increasingly moving towards environmentally friendly hybrid engines, solar panels, and on-shore power connections where available. Some river cruise vessels offer French balconies, floor-to-ceiling windows, and onboard wellness and enrichment programs. - **Yangtze basin**. Cruise vessels operating on the upper Yangtze are usually larger in size, as there are fewer draft and height limitations compared to the Rhine basin. Changjiang Cruises operates the vessel Yangtze 3, one of the largest and most luxurious ships on the Yangtze, launched in 2022. The vessel measures 149.9 meters in length, 23 meters in width, and has a draft of 3 meters. It offers 8 decks with extensive facilities, ranging from a pool to a theater. The passenger capacity is 600 guests across 250 cabins, with approximately 170 staff members, placing it in the category of a small ocean-going cruise ship. The vessel features rudder propellers driven by electric motors, with a streamlined hull design that minimizes noise and vibration. Another typical large Yangtze vessel is the luxury 5-star President No. 7 cruise ship (146.8 meters long and 20.2 meters wide), which features 230 rooms accommodating 460 guests. - **Mississippi basin**. Operators such as American Queen Voyages and American Cruise Lines deploy paddle-wheel steamboats on the Lower and Upper Mississippi itineraries with 4 to 6 decks accommodating 110 to 180 guests. These ships are designed to navigate shallow waters (2 meters deep), enabling access to destinations that conventional river ships cannot reach. Another fleet concerns riverboats of 5 decks and a capacity of 180 guests. Unlike cruise shipping, river cruises are particularly vulnerable to weather cycles such as droughts that can impair or restrict the navigational capabilities of rivers. This can affect water levels, and high water can also restrict navigation due to bridge clearance issues. # 3. River Cruise Itineraries and Home Ports Unlike oceanic cruises, river cruises have to deal with the unique characteristics and constraints of a [linear setting of the itinerary](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/types-river-cruise-itineraries/ "Types of River Cruise Itineraries"). - **Upstream and downstream cruises**. They are common in river cruises as the port of first embarkation will be different from the port where the cruise is completed. The cruiser is exposed to a constantly changing riverscape. This implies that travel arrangements involve an inbound flight to the port of embarkation and an outbound flight from the port of disembarkation. To avoid confusion, airfare is offered as a component of the cruise package. For the cruise line, an upstream cruise must be accompanied by a downstream cruise, which could imply a different sequence of ports of call. This allows for the full utilization of the ships, rather than an empty return voyage to the initial turn port. - **Return cruises**. They are less common, of longer duration, but offer the convenience of a single-turn port for the cruise line and a single point of embarkation for the cruisers (and the additional option of a drive to cruise). They are usually organized so that the upstream sequence of ports of call is different than the downstream sequence. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_river_cruise_itineraries.png?resize=900%2C507&ssl=1 "Types of River Cruise Itineraries | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of River Cruise ItinerariesA typical Yangtze cruise connects the major city of Chongqing to Yichang near the Three Gorges Dam. Tourists have the choice between a 3-night downstream cruise from Chongqing to Yichang or a 4-night upstream cruise from Yichang to Chongqing. In both cases, the vessel passes through the lock system of the Three Gorges Dam. Stops along the river include visits to the Three Gorges Dam, Fengdu Ghost City, White Emperor City, and other notable destinations. Some cruise operators offer extended upstream cruises between Shanghai and Wuhan, or between Shanghai and Chongqing (14 nights). Chongqing serves as the primary homeport for river cruises on the Yangtze River. Next to acting as home ports for multi-day Three Gorges cruises (542,300 passenger trips in the first half of 2025), it also serves as the embarkation point for the vast Chongqing two-river business, offering short boat tours on the Yangtze and Jialiang river sections in Chongqing. Upstream and downstream cruises are commonly found in the Mississippi basin. For example, American Queen Voyages offers nine-day Lower Mississippi cruises from New Orleans to Memphis, including stops in Natchez, Vicksburg, and along the Delta. American Cruise Lines focuses on eight-day Upper Mississippi itineraries from St. Louis to St. Paul, with stops in Hannibal, Dubuque, Red Wing. Major ports along the Mississippi (e.g., New Orleans, Memphis) provide specialized gangways, passenger terminals, and historic waterfront redevelopment to support steamboat-style cruises. Longer itineraries are also available, such as the “America’s Great River” cruise (15–17 days from New Orleans to St Paul). The port of New Orleans (NOLA) offers sailings on six homeported river vessels. A typical Rhine cruise connects the seaports of Amsterdam, Rotterdam, or Antwerp to Basel in Switzerland in an 8-day cruise through the Middle Rhine valley, with stops in cities such as Cologne, Koblenz, and Strasbourg. Upstream and downstream variants are available. The ports of Antwerp, Rotterdam, and Amsterdam stand out as crucial nodes for the embarkation and disembarkation of passengers: - **Amsterdam** has emerged as one of the most important home ports for river cruises in Europe. Most Rhine itineraries either begin or end in Amsterdam, with passengers attracted by the city’s cultural landmarks. Amsterdam hosts multiple docking facilities near the city center, and its international airport, Schiphol, ensures excellent air connectivity. Amsterdam had 1,950 river ship calls in 2024 compared to 2,300 ships in 2023. According to the European River Cruise Association, river cruise passengers make up only 2 percent of annual visitors to Amsterdam and generate approximately $257 million in direct spending. To address overall concerns about overtourism, officials in Amsterdam have developed plans to cap the number of river cruise calls per year. - **Rotterdam**, the largest port in Europe, is emerging as a significant player in the river cruise industry. Rotterdam serves as a logistical complement to Amsterdam. While Amsterdam is saturated with tourist arrivals, Rotterdam provides extra berthing capacity. Its integration into the Rhine’s extensive inland waterway system ensures that it remains a strategic embarkation and turnaround port for operators. About 1,000 river cruise ships docked in Rotterdam in 2025. - **Antwerp** functions as Belgium’s primary river cruise hub. In 2023, Antwerp hosted 815 river cruises with 123,644 passengers. Antwerp is especially significant for itineraries linking the Netherlands with Belgium, often marketed as “Tulip Time” or “Dutch & Belgian Waterways” cruises during the spring season. The city appeals to culturally motivated cruise passengers. The city’s connectivity by rail and road to Brussels and other European cities makes it a practical embarkation point. # 4. Infrastructure and Superstructure in Major River Cruise Ports River cruise ports are essential nodes that require both infrastructure and superstructure to support passenger traffic, vessel operations, and tourism activities. While facilities for ports of call can be rudimentary, they are much more complex for home ports. Many river cruise docks are located within walking distance of city centers, allowing passengers easy access to restaurants, shops, and hotels. The **quays, jetties, and mooring points** are engineered to accommodate the length and draft of modern river cruise ships. Bollards and fenders provide secure mooring even during fluctuating river levels. Shore power connections are increasingly installed in ports to reduce emissions when river cruise ships are docked. Freshwater supply points and wastewater reception facilities are standard in major ports. Some terminals have on-site storage for supplies, catering, and waste disposal, ensuring efficient vessel turnaround. **Proximity** to airports, railway stations, and highways is a key requirement in the homeports to enable seamless transfer of passengers. Mobility services, including shuttle buses, taxis, and sometimes bike rentals, are provided near terminals. In some larger ports, **modern river cruise terminals** are mimicking much larger cruise terminals. They include check-in counters, baggage handling areas, customs/security zones (for non-Schengen or international cruises), and waiting lounges. Unregulated berthing of river cruise vessels can result in overcrowding along the quays, posing risks to nautical safety and creating disturbances for nearby residents. Hence, busy river cruise ports have implemented **booking systems** for river cruises. These systems offer a streamlined process for river cruise companies to book berths, and to better regulate river cruise traffic along the city’s main docks. --- ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/river-cruises-and-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/river-cruises-and-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/river-cruises-and-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/river-cruises-and-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 6.1 - Ports and Container Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/) **Published:** February 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Theo Notteboom and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > Containerization significantly impacted shipping and ports, to form extensive shipping networks in which seaports play a pivotal role as high connectivity hubs. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. An Asset-Based Industry](#1_An_Asset-Based_Industry) - [2. Freight Rates and Surcharges](#2_Freight_Rates_and_Surcharges) - [3. Scale Enlargement in Vessel Size](#3_Scale_Enlargement_in_Vessel_Size) - [4. Horizontal Integration: Operational Agreements and M&A](#4_Horizontal_Integration_Operational_Agreements_and_M_A) - [5. Vertical Integration: Extending the Scope of Operations](#5_Vertical_Integration_Extending_the_Scope_of_Operations) - [6. Container Services and Networks](#6_Container_Services_and_Networks) - [7. The Connectivity of Container Ports in Maritime Networks](#7_The_Connectivity_of_Container_Ports_in_Maritime_Networks) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. An Asset-Based Industry The container shipping industry consists of **shipping companies** transporting containerized goods overseas via regular liner services, which is their core activity. Container liner services are focused explicitly on transporting a limited range of standardized load units, mainly the 20-foot dry cargo container, or TEU, and the 40-foot dry cargo container, or FEU. High-cube containers are similar in structure to standard containers, but one foot taller. In contrast to standard containers, which have a maximum height of 8’6″, high-cube containers are 9’6″ tall. For the most part, high-cube containers are 40 feet long but are sometimes made as 45-foot containers. Occasionally, slightly diverging container units are also loaded on container vessels, such as tank, open-top, and flat rack containers. The diversity in unit loads in the container shipping industry is low due to uniformity when stacking containers below and on the deck of specialized container vessels (cellular containerships), where each cell is designed to store a container. > A **liner service** is a fleet of ships, with common ownership or management, which provides a fixed service, at regular intervals, between designated ports, and offers transport to any goods in the hinterland served by those ports and ready for transit by their sailing dates. Container shipping is a **highly capital-intensive industry** where some assets are owned, others are leased, and where there exists a wide variability in cost bases. While it accounts for only about 16% of the volumes carried by maritime shipping, it contributes more than half of the value carried. Asset management is a key component of the operational and commercial success of container shipping lines since they are primarily asset-based. Common asset management decisions for shipping lines include equipment management to reduce downtime and operating costs, increase the useful service life and residual value of vessels, enhance equipment safety, mitigate potential liabilities, and optimize costs through improved capacity management. Container shipping lines are particularly challenged in developing an effective **[asset management program](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4688)** for the fleet they own or operate: - **Vessel lifecycle management**. Includes the procurement, acquisition, deployment, and disposal of container vessels. - **Fleet capacity management**. A complex issue given the inflexible nature of vessel capacity in the short run due to fixed timetables, the seasonality effects in the shipping business, and cargo imbalances on trade routes. Shipping lines seek gains in market share with capacity usually added as additional liner services (in large segments) to existing services. These liner services incur high fixed costs. **Adding capacity is not incremental**, as it is usually provided as full-fledged services. For example, 11 to 12 ships are needed to operate one regular liner service on the Europe-Far East trade. Each post-Panamax container vessel has a typical newbuilding price ranging from USD 120 to 170 million, depending on the unit capacity of the ship and the market situation in the shipbuilding industry at the time of the vessel order. On average, container shipping lines charter approximately half of their vessels from third-party shipowners. Ship chartering is a particularly common practice for mid-size containerships in the range of 1,000 to 3,000 TEU. Container shipping lines also face significant investments in their **container fleets** to support their operations and provide their customers with conveyances for their cargo. For example, a container carrier operating regular service on the Asia-Europe trade with ten vessels of 20,000 TEU requires a container fleet of at least 400,000 TEU to support the service. Container shipping lines and other transport operators typically own 55% to 60% of the total global container equipment assets, while the remainder is leased from specialized companies. Despite sustained growth brought by containerization, container carriers tend to underperform financially compared to other logistics sectors. Notable exceptions were the COVID-19 period and the Red Sea crisis, during which this industry faced a situation of undercapacity. The weaker performance is linked to the combination of capital-intensive operations and high risks associated with revenues. The significant asset investments and the fixed nature of the liner service schedules, even if cargo volumes are too low to fill the vessel, lie at the core of the risk profile in the container liner shipping industry. High commercial and operational risks are associated with [deploying a fixed fleet capacity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=7963) within a fixed schedule between a set of ports of call at both ends of a trade route. Unused capacity cannot be stored and represents missed revenue opportunities. Once large and expensive liner services are set up, the pressure is to fill the ships with cargo. When there is an oversupply of vessels in the market, the high fixed costs and product perishability give shipping lines an incentive to fill vessels at a marginal cost, often leading to downward freight rates in the market and direct operational losses on the trades considered. Since the 2008-09 financial crisis, the shipping industry has implemented strategies aimed at [increasing operating margins](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3066 "Average Operating Margins of Main Carriers by Quarter, 2008-2020"), mainly through alliances and capacity management, and by capitalizing on major disruptions such as COVID-19 and the Red Sea crisis. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/asset_management_domains_container_shipping.png?resize=900%2C341&ssl=1 "Asset Management Domains in Container Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Asset Management in Container Shipping![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/operating-margins-carrier-till-Q1-2026.png?resize=900%2C426&ssl=1 "Average Operating Margins of Main Carriers by Quarter, 2008-2026 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Average Operating Margins of Main Carriers by Quarter 2008 2025![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/trends_deployment_containerships.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Trends in Containership Deployment, 2006-2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Trends in Containership Deployment 2006 2025![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-TEU-Throughput-2022.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "World’s Major Container Ports, 2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Major Container Ports 2022# 2. Freight Rates and Surcharges The **revenue base** of container shipping lines consists of **freight rates** collected from the shippers or their representatives for the maritime transport of containerized cargo. It is mostly complemented by a set of **surcharges**. All-inclusive ocean freight rates have fluctuated significantly since 2009, as exemplified by the [Shanghai Containerized Freight Index](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/shanghai-containerized-freight-index-scfi-and-other-freight-rate-indices/) (SCFI) and other similar indices such as the World Container Index (WCI) or the China Containerized Freight Index (CCFI). Also, contract container freight rates are influenced by the balance of power between shippers and shipping lines in rate negotiations. Customers generating large cargo volumes tend to have better leverage. Freight rates can vary significantly depending on the **economic characteristics**, including cargo availability, imbalances, the competitive situation among shipping lines, and **technological characteristics** of the trade route concerned, such as maximum allowable vessel size. The existence of large **cargo imbalances** on a number of trade routes has a significant impact on pricing. Trade imbalances also affect the ability of shippers to access equipment. To ensure space, shippers may double-book their container loads, resulting in missed bookings for shipping lines. Container liner companies can react by imposing surcharges in the form of a ‘no-show’ fee. **Base freight rates or Freight All Kinds (FAK)** rates are applicable in most trades. These freight rates are lump sum spot rates for a container on a specific origin-destination pair, irrespective of its contents and irrespective of the quantity of cargo stuffed into the box by the shipper. In addition to these base freight rates, liner companies charge separately for various additional items through separate **surcharges**. Still, some (larger) customers receive all-in prices. The **most common surcharges** include: - Fuel surcharges, such as the Bunker Adjustment Factor or BAF. - Surcharges related to the exchange rate risk (Currency Adjustment Factor or CAF). - Terminal handling charges (THC). - War risk surcharges (e.g., Israel-Gaza conflict); ‘Red Sea Charge’, ‘contingency charge’, ‘operational recovery surcharge’ or ‘Transit Disruption Surcharge’ (Red Sea Crisis late 2023-early 2024). - Piracy surcharge, Gulf of Aden surcharge, etc. - Surcharge for dangerous goods. - Special equipment additional charges such as for open top and heavy containers. - Port congestion surcharges. Most carriers have developed a **broad array of possible mandatory and optional charges and surcharges**. In order to improve transparency and facilitate the ease of doing business, shipping lines have made efforts to simplify surcharge systems, as exemplified by the steps taken by Maersk Line in 2013. Despite these efforts, the [list of potential surcharges remains extensive](https://www.maersk.com/solutions/shipping/glossaries/surcharge-definition/). > **Fuel surcharges** aim to pass (part of) the fuel costs on to the customer through variable charges. Initially, **fuel surcharges or Bunker Adjustment Factor (BAF)** were a percentage of the base freight rate, levied only when the bunker price per ton exceeded a specific threshold value. In October 2008, following the European Commission’s lifting of the Block Exemption on anti-cartel rules for liner conferences, each shipping line was required to set its fuel surcharge formula. Fuel surcharges tend to fluctuate in response to changes in bunker prices and the shipping line’s pricing strategy. In the second half of 2018, container shipping lines began adjusting fuel surcharges on a trade-by-trade basis ahead of the IMO deadline for introducing low-sulfur fuel rules. As of 2020, a global sulfur cap of 0.5% was imposed on ship fuel. This resulted in **emergency fuel surcharges** to meet the IMO rules through the use of low-sulfur fuel or the installation of scrubbers on vessels. In late 2023, several carriers began implementing additional surcharges to cover the costs associated with the gradual inclusion of shipping in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), which began in January 2024. > **Currency Adjustment Factor** (**CAF**, also known as the Currency Adjustment Charge or Currency Surcharge) is typically a percentage of the basic freight rate applied to account for the volatility of currencies between the point of loading and unloading. When the USD started to become more volatile in the 1960s and 1970s, liner conferences introduced tariff surcharges to ensure they would continue to enjoy a relatively stable income in their own country’s currency. A similar situation arose after 2005, when the Bank of China decided to allow the renminbi to fluctuate in relation to other currencies, particularly the US dollar. CAF and BAF have been contested by some shippers on the grounds that the costs covered by these surcharges fall under the commercial risk of the entrepreneurial shipping line and should therefore be included in the freight rate. > **Terminal Handling Charges (THC)** are a tariff charged by the shipping line to the shipper and which (should) cover (part or all of) the terminal handling costs, which the shipping line pays to the terminal operator. **Terminal handling charges** vary per shipping line and per country and are a negotiable item for large customers. The party who pays the THC at the port of loading and/or the port of discharge depends on the **Incoterms** used. The Incoterms 2020 have been developed by the International Chamber of Commerce and are the world’s essential terms of trade for the sale of goods. They include EXW (Ex Works), FCA (Free Carrier), CPT (Carriage Paid To), CIP (Carriage and Insurance Paid To), DAP (Delivered at Place), DPU (Delivered at Place Unloaded), DDP (Delivered Duty Paid), FAS (Free Alongside Ship), FOB (Free On Board), CFR (Cost and Freight) and CIF (Cost Insurance and Freight). These terms all have exact meanings for the sale of goods worldwide. **THC for exports** are usually collected by shipping lines while releasing the Bill of Lading after completing export customs clearance procedures. Shipping lines usually collect the **import THC** at the time of issuing the delivery order to the consignee to take delivery of the goods. THC may recover a major share of actual costs in some ports of call. In other ports, the applicable THC are higher than the actual container handling rates charged by the terminal operators, and thus a revenue-making instrument for the carriers. **Shippers** might argue that THC are arbitrarily fixed and used as a revenue-making instrument, particularly when base freight rates are low. **Carriers** typically argue that THC are aimed at cost recovery and are not a profit center. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/SCFI-revised4.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Shanghai Containerized Freight Index | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Shanghai Containerized Freight Index comprehensive![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/conferences_versus_alliances.png?resize=900%2C387&ssl=1 "Conferences versus Alliances in Maritime Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Conferences versus Alliances in Maritime Shipping![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Surcharges-maersk.png?resize=900%2C800&ssl=1 "Reduction of number of surcharges by Maersk Line | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Reduction of number of surcharges by Maersk Line# 3. Scale Enlargement in Vessel Size The growing demand for maritime container transport has been met via **vessel upscaling**. The mid-1970s saw the introduction of ships with a capacity exceeding 2,000 TEU. The Panamax vessel, with a capacity of 4,000 to 5,000 TEU (the maximum dimensions for transit through the old Panama Canal locks), was introduced in the early 1990s. In 1988, APL was the first shipping line to deploy a post-Panamax vessel. In 1996, Maersk Line introduced the *Regina Maersk* with a nominal vessel capacity of about 7,400 TEU. Consecutive rounds of scale increase led to the introduction of the *Emma Maersk* in 2006, a containership that could hold more than 15,000 TEU and measured 397 m in length overall, with a beam of 56 m, and a commercial draft of 15.5 m. Since 2010, vessel capacity has been pushed **[beyond the 20,000 TEU mark](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3073 "The Largest Available Containership, 1970-2019 (in TEUs)")**. The introduction of ever-larger container vessels has resulted in an overall upscaling across the main east-west trade routes, with large vessels **cascading** to north-south routes. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/largest_containership.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "The Largest Available Containership, 1970-2024 (in TEUs) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Largest Available Containership 1970 2024![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Maximum-Containership-Size-Calling-per-Region-1.png?resize=900%2C401&ssl=1 "Maximum Containership Size Ccalling per Region (2006-2020) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maximum Containership size calling per region 2006 2020![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Max-TEU-2020.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Maximum Container Vessel Size calling Port, 2020 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maximum Container Vessel Size calling Port 2020Large vessels come with **[operational challenges](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3080 "The Disadvantages of Scale in Maritime Shipping")** related to port calls, terminal operations, and hinterland transport. Port and terminal-related factors are the main impediments to scale increases, such as terminal productivity, port congestion, nautical accessibility, berth length, and turning circles. Over the past decades, ports, terminals, and entire transport systems have been expanded and upgraded to accommodate increased ship size. Even large upstream seaports such as Antwerp and Hamburg adapted to the new imperatives brought by mega container vessels by expanding their terminal facilities. The revealed adaptive capacity of the port and terminal industry in terms of investments and productivity gains typically did not result in the penalization of larger vessels through port and terminal pricing. Simultaneously, advances in port productivity have resulted in disproportionately lower growth of port turnaround time as a function of vessel size. In other words, **port authorities, terminal operators, and other actors in the transport chain have fully or partially absorbed the potential diseconomies of scale** linked to larger vessels, thereby enabling shipping companies to pursue consecutive rounds of scale increases in vessel size. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/optimal_ship_size.png?resize=900%2C421&ssl=1 "The Optimal Size of a Container Ship | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The optimal size of a container ship![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/disadvantage_scale_shipping.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "The Disadvantages of Scale in Maritime Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Disadvantages of Scale in Maritime Shipping![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Container-vessels-over-20000-TEU.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Largest Container Vessels in 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of Largest Container Vessels While scale increases in vessel size have been a prominent theme since the mid-1990s, the vessel orderbook since 2024 shows that vessel operators are increasingly choosing **smaller more versatile ships**. The ageing profile of vessels of less than 7,500 TEU combined with geopolitical uncertainty is encouraging shipping lines to invest in new tonnage of various sizes. For example, the conflicts and disruptions in the Black Sea and the Middle East have underscored the advantages of operating vessels that can be quickly reassigned to different routes when conditions change. This implies carriers increasingly value **flexibility in vessel deployment.** In recent years, attention has been paid to **emission reductions and energy savings** associated with ship size. Scale increases in vessel size, combined with advances in ship technology and slow steaming, can decrease the annual CO2 emissions of the global containership fleet. Moreover, new ships offer meaningful efficiency and environmental gains over older tonnage of the same size. Container shipping is increasingly confronted with stronger environmental considerations and stricter regulatory frameworks on ship emissions and energy efficiency. These include MARPOL Annex VI (Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships) and MRV (Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification), the **[Emission Control Areas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=5018 "Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping")** (ECAs) with a sulfur cap of 0.1%, the global sulfur cap of 0.5% (applicable since 1st January 2020), and the **Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI)**, mandatory for new ships since 2013. More recent technical measures in force include the **Carbon Intensity Index (CII)**, an operational measure that also applies to existing ships, and the **Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI)**. EEXI is concerned with the design parameters of the vessels and measures their structural efficiency in terms of energy efficiency level per capacity mile. The CII links the CO2 emissions to the cargo carrying capacity over distance traveled, and rates the vessel on a scale of A to E. CII ratings will be recorded in a ship’s SEEMP (Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan). If the ship is rated as D or E for three consecutive years, its SEEMP will need to be reviewed and include corrective actions to improve the rating. Hence, emission control and energy efficiency have become the main concerns in newbuilding decision-making. Container carrier CMA CGM was the first to order [ULCSs with engines using LNG](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4703), which began operations in 2020. Several shipping lines have opted for dual-fuel ship orders able to sail on methanol, biofuels, or ammonia, with some of these vessels already operational. While these vessels may be methanol or ammonia-ready, in practice, only a very few vessels actually use these alternative fuels. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Emission-Control-Areas.png?resize=900%2C450&ssl=1 "Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/lng_jacques_saade.png?resize=900%2C441&ssl=1 "LNG-Powered Vessel Jacques Saade | Port Economics, Management and Policy")LNG powered container ship CMA CGM Jacques Saadé leaving the port of SingaporeThe focus of container carriers on larger vessels does not necessarily lead to a more stable market environment. Consecutive rounds of scale enlargements in vessel size have reduced container trade slot costs, but carriers have not always reaped the full benefits of economies of scale at sea. The volatility of business cycles has more than once resulted in unstable cargo demand for shipping lines. Adding post-Panamax capacity can give the early mover a **short-term competitive edge**, putting pressure on competing lines to upgrade their container fleets to avoid a unit cost disadvantage. A **boomerang effect** can result in overcapacity, impacting the margins of the industry, including those of the carrier that started the vessel scaling-up round. Vessel lay-ups, order cancellations, slow steaming, and service suspensions are the primary tools used by shipping lines in an attempt to absorb overcapacity when it occurs. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Supporting-videos-container-vessels.png?resize=900%2C157&ssl=1 "Supporting Videos - Container Vessels | Port Economics, Management and Policy")# 4. Horizontal Integration: Operational Agreements and M&A Shipping lines view cooperation as one of the most effective ways of coping with a trade environment characterized by intense pricing pressure. Trade agreements such as [liner conferences](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3102 "Conferences in liner shipping") were prevalent until the European Commission outlawed this type of cooperation in October 2008. Currently, the horizontal integration dynamics in the container shipping industry are based on mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and various forms of operational cooperation, ranging from **slot chartering** and **vessel sharing agreements** to strategic alliances. > A **slot chartering agreement** (SCA) is a contract between partners who buy and sell a defined allocation (space, weight) on a vessel, generally on a used or unused basis, at an agreed price and for a minimum defined time period. In some cases, shipping lines engage in a slot exchange agreement. > A **vessel sharing agreement** (VSA) involves a limited number of shipping companies agreeing to operate a liner service along a specified route using a specified number of vessels. The partners do not necessarily each have an equal number of vessels. The capacity that each partner gets may vary from port to port and could depend on the number of vessels operated by the different partners. A **vessel sharing agreement** for one regular liner service is slightly different from that of an alliance. A vessel sharing agreement is usually dedicated to a particular trade route with terms and conditions specific to that route. In contrast, **an alliance** is more global and could include many different trade routes, usually under the same terms. > An **alliance** is an operating agreement between two or more carriers about joint fleet capacity management on a number of trade routes (typically the major east-west trade routes). The alliance members retain their [commercial independence](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/carrier-competition-within-alliances/). The [first **alliances**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/alliances-container-shipping/ "Alliances in Container Shipping") among shipping lines date back to the mid-1990s, which coincided with the introduction of the first vessels above 6,000 TEU on the Europe-Far East trade route. In 1997, about 70% of the services on the main east-west trades were supplied by the four main strategic alliances. In 2022, three alliances were operational in the market: 2M, Ocean Alliance, and THE Alliance. This represented an evolution from just seven years earlier, when four alliances were still active: 2M, Ocean Three, CKYHE, and G6. By early 2025, the situation had changed again with the creation of the Gemini Cooperation between Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd, the termination of the 2M alliance, and the rebranding of THE Alliance as the Premier Alliance. Only the Ocean Alliance survived the recent reshuffling at the alliance front. Alliance partnerships evolved due to mergers and acquisitions. Alliances can also be affected by the **exit of carriers**. For example, Malaysian carrier MISC left the Grand Alliance in the late 2000s, and Hanjin became the first large carrier to go bankrupt due to weak market conditions. Thus, alliance formation is heavily affected by changing strategic, operational, and market conditions. The [main incentives for alliance formation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/incentives-carriers-alliances/ "Main Incentives for Carriers to be Involved in Alliances") relate to **achieving a critical mass** in terms of scale of operation, exploring new markets, enhancing global reach, improving fleet deployment, and mitigating risks associated with investments in large container vessels. Strategic alliances provide their members with easy access to additional services at relatively low costs, allowing them to share terminals and cooperate in various areas both at sea and ashore, thereby achieving cost savings. Alliances also come with some [impediments for members](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-impediments-for-carriers-to-be-involved-in-alliances/), particularly in terms of a loss of operational and strategic independence and regulatory headaches. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Alliances-situation-Q1-2025.png?resize=900%2C486&ssl=1 "Alliances in Container Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Alliances in container shipping![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Carrier-competition-within-alliances.png?resize=900%2C430&ssl=1 "Carrier Competition within Alliances | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Carrier competition within alliances![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/incentives_carriers_alliances.png?resize=900%2C418&ssl=1 "Main Incentives for Carriers to be Involved in Alliances | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Incentives for Carriers to be Involved in Alliances![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Impediments-alliances.png?resize=900%2C418&ssl=1 "Main Impediments for Carriers to be Involved in Alliances | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Impediments for Carriers to be Involved in Alliances![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/m_and_a_container_shipping.png?resize=900%2C316&ssl=1 "Mergers and Acquisitions in the Container Shipping Industry since 2014 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Mergers and Acquisitions in the Container Shipping Industry between 2014 and 2018![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Top-20-carriers-May-2025.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "World’s Largest Maritime Container Shipping Operators (May 28, 2025) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Largest Maritime Container Shipping Operators May 2025The shipping business has been subject to several [waves of **mergers and acquisitions (M&A)**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/mergers-acquisitions-container-shipping-industry/ "Mergers and Acquisitions in the Container Shipping Industry since 2014")**.** The number of acquisitions rose from three cases in 1993 to 13 in 1998 before peaking at 18 in 2006. The main M&A events included the merger between P&O Container Line and Nedlloyd in 1997, the merger between CMA and CGM in 1999, and the takeover by Maersk of Sea-Land in 1999 and P&O Nedlloyd in 2005. The economic crisis of late 2008 had an impact on the market structure. There was no major M&A activity in liner shipping between October 2008 and early 2014, but a new wave of acquisitions and mergers appeared inevitable in the medium term. The most recent wave in [carrier consolidation unfolded in the mid-2010s](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3602 "Mergers and Acquisitions in the Container Shipping Industry since 2014"). Shipping lines opt for mergers and acquisitions to obtain a **larger size, secure growth, and benefit from scale advantages**. Other motives include gaining instant access to markets and distribution networks, acquiring access to new technologies, or diversifying the asset base. Acquisitions often present pitfalls associated with the internationalization of the maritime industry, including cultural differences, overestimated synergies, and high expenses related to integrating departments. Still, acquisitions make sense in liner shipping, as the maritime industry is mature due to **relatively high entry barriers** resulting from the significant investment required and the development of a customer base. For example, through a series of major acquisitions (Sea-Land, P&O Nedlloyd, Safmarine, Hamburg-Sud), Maersk increased its market share substantially and made strategic adjustments to secure its competitive advantage on key trade routes. In contrast to Maersk Line, MSC reached the number one position in the world ranking of container lines based on organic or internal growth. The liner shipping industry has witnessed a trend of concentration in slot capacity control, primarily due to M&A activity. The [top 20 carriers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4848 "World’s Largest Maritime Container Shipping Operators, 2020") controlled 91.2% of the world’s container vessel capacity in 2025. This figure amounted to 89.7% in 2019, 83% in 2009, 56% in 1990, and only 26% in 1980. The consolidation trend has raised concerns about an overly concentrated market and the potential oligopolistic behavior of the large carriers and their alliances. Therefore, M&A activity and alliance formation in liner shipping are under scrutiny by competition authorities worldwide. Alliances and carrier consolidation have their full impact on inter-port competition, given the large container volumes and associated bargaining power. # 5. Vertical Integration: Extending the Scope of Operations In response to low margins in shipping and customer demand for door-to-door and one-stop shopping logistics services, shipping lines may **[expand their reach to other parts of the supply chain](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4714)**. Over the recent decades, the largest container lines have shown a keen interest in developing dedicated terminal capacity to control costs and operational performance, improve profitability, and as a measure to cope with poor vessel schedule integrity. For example, Maersk Line’s parent company, A.P. Moller-Maersk, operates numerous container terminals through its subsidiary, APM Terminals. CMA CGM, MSC, Evergreen, and COSCO are among the shipping lines that control terminal capacity worldwide, either fully or partially. Independent [global terminal operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=252#2_Global_Terminal_Operators) such as Hutchison Ports, PSA, and DP World are increasingly hedging risks by setting up dedicated terminal joint ventures in cooperation with shipping lines and forming strategic alliances. The above developments have given rise to growing complexity in terminal ownership structures and partnership arrangements. The scope of extension of several shipping lines goes **beyond terminal operations** to include inland transport and logistics. Many shipping lines are **developing door-to-door services** based on the principle of [carrier haulage](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2509#2_The_Hinterland_Focus_of_Market_Players) to get a stronger grip on the routing of inland container flows. Some shipping lines **enhance network integration** through structural or ad hoc coordination with independent inland transport operators and logistics service providers. They do not own inland transport equipment. Instead, they use the services of reliable, independent inland carriers on a (long-term) contract basis. Other shipping lines combine a strategy of selective investment in key supporting activities (e.g., agency services or distribution centers) with subcontracting of less critical services. With a few exceptions (e.g., CEVA Logistics as part of CMA CGM, Medlog as part of MSC, and Damco now fully integrated with Maersk Line), the management of pure logistics services is done by subsidiaries that share the same mother company as the shipping line but operate independently of liner shipping operations. Another group of shipping lines is increasingly active in managing hinterland flows. The focus is now on efficiently synchronizing inland distribution capacities with port capacities. COVID-19 has accelerated the logistics integration strategies of some major container carriers. High freight rates have resulted in [record profitability in container shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/average-operating-margins-carriers-quarter/). Helped by historically high operating margins, a number of carriers, such as [Maersk Line](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org//a-p-moller-maersk-transformation-from-a-diversified-conglomerate-to-a-focused-and-integrated-global-logistics-company/), CMA CGM, and MSC, embarked on a takeover spree in the air freight business, e-commerce, and last-mile logistics, digital platforms, and forwarding activities. Examples include the takeover by Maersk of Senator International (air freight forwarding) and e-commerce firms HUUB (fashion industry), B2C Europe Holding, Visible SCM (US), and Pilot Freight Services; or the takeover by CMA-CGM of Ingram Micro’s Commerce & Lifecycle Services (CLS) in November 2021 to boost its e-commerce expertise and the preliminary agreement to acquire a 51% stake in the Colis Privé Group (e-commerce services & last-mile logistics, February 2022). However, not all carriers are walking the path of logistics integration. For example, there is currently no indication from ONE, Evergreen, or Hapag-Lloyd of a large investment ramp-up in logistics companies. This can be partly explained by the presence of a logistics company in the shareholding of these carriers (e.g., the Kühne family as one of the main shareholders of Hapag-Lloyd while also being active in global 3PL company Kühne & Nagel) or by the fact that these carriers belong to larger conglomerates somewhat already active in the logistics sector (e.g. the Japanese NYK group as an active shareholder of carrier ONE while also having its own logistics division Yusen Logistics). The level of consolidation in liner shipping, combined with very high freight rates from late 2020 to 2022, provided new entrants, such as large e-commerce players and logistics service providers, with incentives to consider direct involvement in the container shipping industry. In other words, while some carriers are vertically integrating to offer global logistics solutions, other market players may enter the container shipping business, albeit on a small and somewhat fragmented scale. For example, in 2021-2022, faced with the challenge of keeping stores stocked amid a global supply chain crisis, e-commerce giants such as Amazon, as well as large retailers like Walmart and Costco, went so far as to charter their own container ships, typically calling at smaller container ports. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/vertical_integration_carriers.png?resize=900%2C395&ssl=1 "Vertical Integration for Selected Major Container Shipping Lines | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Vertical Integration for Selected Major Container Shipping Lines![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Maersk-transformation.png?resize=900%2C432&ssl=1 "The Strategic Transformation of Maersk | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Strategic Transformation of Maersk![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/typology_global_terminal_operators.png?resize=900%2C447&ssl=1 "Typology of Global Terminal Operators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Typology of Global Port Operators![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/shipping_lines_hinterland_push_strategy.png?resize=900%2C512&ssl=1 "The Evolving Role of Shipping Lines in the Hinterland | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The evolving role of shipping lines in the hinterlandShipping lines face important challenges in further improving inland logistics. Competition with the **merchant haulage** option remains fierce since they have a broader and more established market base on which to offer their services. The logistics requirements of customers (e.g. late bookings, peaks in equipment demand) typically lead to peak activity levels and high inland logistics costs. Given the mounting challenges in inland logistics, shipping lines that succeed in achieving better management of inland logistics can secure a significant cost advantage over their rivals. Many shipping lines are also heavily focusing on digital transformation. Through investments and initiatives in digital infrastructure and services, shipping lines are aiming for the creation of value-adding activities in the following areas: - **Optimizing operations**. Using real-time shipping network data can lead to bunker fuel cost savings. Other forms of operational optimization include automated vessel stowage planning, container repair planning, empty container repositioning, and predictive maintenance of vessels, containers, and other shipping assets. - **Optimizing decision-making**. The development of advanced commercial decision-making instruments by using data to target customers and optimize the cargo mix within restrictions (e.g. dangerous goods), generate transparency in the supply chains of the customers, and develop adaptive pricing mechanisms. - **Generating new revenue streams**. Examples include consultancy and advisory services related to logistics chains, as well as the aggregation and sale of trade data. Technology thus plays a particular role in the vertical integration process, namely in terms of IT (process control) and intermodal integration (control of the flows). Shipping lines are setting up cooperation schemes to support digital transformation. The **Digital Container Shipping Association** (DCSA), whose members are currently responsible for 70% of global container trade, is setting standards for the digitalization of container shipping to overcome the lack of a common foundation for technical interfaces and data. One concerns the setting and upgrade of electronic Bill of Lading standards (eBL). # 6. Container Services and Networks ## A. Container service network patterns When designing their networks, shipping lines must implicitly make a trade-off between **customer requirements** and **operational cost considerations**. The higher demand for service segmentation contributes to the growing complexity of the networks. Shippers demand direct services between their preferred ports of loading and discharge, while carriers prefer more indirect services to capture as much cargo as possible. The demand side thus exerts strong pressure on the service schedules, port rotations, and feeder connections. However, shipping lines have to design their liner services and networks to optimize ship utilization and benefit from scale economies in vessel size. Their objective is to optimize their shipping networks by rationalizing port coverage, shipping routes, and transit times, with a focus on [direct routes and strategic passages](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=325 "Main Maritime Shipping Routes"). Shipping lines have significantly increased **average vessel sizes deployed** on routes. They can direct flows along paths that are optimal for the system, with the lowest cost for the entire network achieved by **indirect routing via hubs** and the **consolidation of flows**. However, the more efficient the network is from the carrier’s point of view, the less convenient it may be for the shippers’ needs. **Bundling** is one of the key drivers of container service network dynamics and can occur at two levels: 1. Bundling within an individual liner service. 2. Bundling by combining two or more liner services. The objective of **bundling within an individual liner service**is to collect container cargo by [calling at various ports along the route](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3597 "Three Major Inter-Range Routes Serviced by Maersk"), rather than focusing on an end-to-end service. Such a line-bundling service is conceived as a set of x roundtrips of y vessels, each with a similar calling pattern in terms of the order of port calls and time intervals (frequency) between two consecutive port calls. By overlaying these x roundtrips, shipping lines can offer the desired calling frequency at each port of call along the loop. Line bundling operations can be symmetrical (same ports of call for both sailing directions) or asymmetrical (different ports of call on the way back). Most liner services are line bundling itineraries connecting two to five ports of call scheduled in each of the main markets. The trade between Europe and the Far East provides a good example. Most mainline operators and alliances running services from the Far East to Northern Europe adhere to line bundling itineraries, with direct calls scheduled in each of the main markets. Notwithstanding diversity in calling patterns on the observed routes, carriers select up to five regional ports of call per loop. Two extreme forms of line bundling are **[round-the-world services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3692 "AMAX Round-the-World Route, 2005-2007")** and **pendulum services**. ![Map Maritime Routes Strategic Passages](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Passages-with-Shipping-Routes.png?resize=900%2C450&ssl=1 "Main Maritime Shipping Routes and Chokepoints | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Maritime Shipping Routes![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Maersk-Shipping-Routes.png?resize=900%2C515&ssl=1 "Three Major Inter-Range Routes Serviced by Maersk | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Three Major Inter Range Routes Serviced by Maersk![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/inter_range_maritime_routes.png?resize=900%2C401&ssl=1 "Types of Inter-Range Maritime Routes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Inter Range Maritime Routes![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/AMAX-Round-the-World.png?resize=900%2C515&ssl=1 "AMAX Round the World | Port Economics, Management and Policy")AMAX Round the World Route 2005 2007The second possibility is **bundling container cargo by combining two or more liner services.** The [three main cargo bundling options](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1627) include a **hub-and-spoke network** (hub/feeder), **interlining/intersection,** and **relay**. The establishment of global networks has led to [the development of hub ports at the crossing points of trade lanes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1620). [Intermediate hubs](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1656) have emerged since the mid-1990s within many global port systems, including Freeport (Bahamas), Salalah (Oman), Tanjung Pelepas (Malaysia), Gioia Tauro, Algeciras, Taranto, Cagliari, Damietta, Tanger Med, and Malta in the Mediterranean, to name but a few. Hubs have a [range of common characteristics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1646) in terms of nautical accessibility, proximity to main shipping lanes, and ownership, in whole or in part, by carriers or multinational terminal operators. Transshipments are growing as a share of maritime containerized traffic. ![Selection Factors for a Transshipment Hub](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/selection_factors_transshipment_hub.png?resize=900%2C527&ssl=1 "Selection Factors for a Transshipment Hub | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Selection Factors for a Transshipment Hub![The Insertion and Location of Transshipment Hubs](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/insertion_location_transshipment_hubs.png?resize=900%2C562&ssl=1 "The Insertion and Location of Transshipment Hubs | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Insertion and Location of Transshipment Hubs![Levels of Transshipment Incidence](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/levels_transshipment_incidence.png?resize=900%2C587&ssl=1 "Levels of Transshipment Incidence | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Levels of Transshipment Incidence![World’s Main Intermediate Hubs and Markets, 2008-14](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/shipping_bottlenecks_intermediate_hubs.png?resize=900%2C509&ssl=1 "Major Shipping Bottlenecks and Intermediate Hubs, 2019 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Main Intermediate Hubs and MarketsMost intermediate hubs are located along the global beltway or equatorial round-the-world route (i.e., [the Caribbean](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1660), Southeast and East Asia, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean). These nodes multiply shipping options and improve connectivity within the network through their pivotal role in regional hub-and-spoke networks and cargo relay and interlining operations between the carriers’ east-west services and other inter- and intra-regional services. Container ports in Northern Europe, North America, and mainland China primarily serve as gateways to their respective hinterlands and do not account for significant transshipment volumes. Two developments undermine **the position of pure transshipment and interlining hubs**. First, the insertion of hubs often represents a temporary phase in connecting a region to global shipping networks. Hub-and-spoke networks allow considerable economies of scale in equipment. Still, the cost efficiency of larger ships may not be sufficient to offset the additional feeder costs and container lift charges involved. Once traffic volumes for the gateway ports are sufficient, hubs may be bypassed and become redundant. Second, transshipment cargo can easily be moved to new hub terminals that emerge along long-distance shipping lanes, implying a volatile market condition for transshipment hubs. Seaports that can combine a transshipment function with gateway cargo have a less vulnerable and, thus, more sustainable position in shipping networks. ![Transshipment Patterns](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/transshipment_patterns.png?resize=900%2C380&ssl=1 "Transshipment Patterns | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Transshipment Patterns![Container Port Traffic and Transshipment Traffic around the Caribbean Basin, 2015](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Caribbean-Transshipment-Triangle.png?resize=900%2C700&ssl=1 "Caribbean Transshipment Triangle | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Port Traffic and Transshipment Traffic around the Caribbean Basin 2015In channeling gateway and transshipment flows through their shipping networks, container carriers aim to **control key terminals in the network**. Decisions on the desired port hierarchy are guided by strategic, commercial, and operational considerations. Shipping lines rarely opt for the same port hierarchy because a terminal can be a regional hub for one shipping line and a secondary feeder port for another operator. Liner service configurations are often combined to form complex, **multi-layer networks**. The advantages of complex bundling include higher load factors, the use of larger vessels with higher TEU capacity, increased service frequencies, and a greater number of destinations served. Container service operators have to make a trade-off between frequency and volume on the trunk lines. Smaller vessels allow for meeting the shippers’ demand for high frequencies and lower transit times, while larger units allow operators to benefit from scale economies. The primary disadvantages of complex bundling networks include the requirement for additional container handling at intermediate terminals and longer transport times and distances. Both elements incur additional costs and could counterbalance the cost advantages linked to higher load factors or the use of larger unit capacities. Some containers in such a system undergo as many as four transhipments before reaching the final discharge port. The global container shipping grid enables shipping lines to adapt to changes in trade flows by combining a large number of potential routes into a network. Existing liner shipping networks exhibit substantial diversity in the types of liner services and considerable complexity in the way end-to-end services, line bundling services, and transshipment (including relay and interlining) operations are interconnected to form extensive shipping networks. Maersk Line, MSC, COSCO, and CMA-CGM operate truly global liner service networks, with a strong presence on secondary routes. This is particularly the case for Maersk Line, which has created a [balanced global coverage of liner services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3597 "Three Major Inter-Range Routes Serviced by Maersk"). The networks of CMA-CGM and MSC differ from the general scheme of traffic circulation through a network of specific hubs (many of these hubs are not among the world’s biggest container ports) and a more selective serving of secondary markets such as Africa (strong presence by MSC), the Caribbean and the East Mediterranean. Notwithstanding the demand-pull for global services, a large number of individual carriers remain regionally based. Asian carriers, such as the Japanese carrier ONE (Ocean Network Express) and the South Korean carrier HMM, primarily focus on intra-Asian trade, trans-Pacific trade, and the Europe–Far East route. This is partly due to their significant dependence on export flows generated by their respective Asian home bases. Evergreen and Cosco Shipping are among the exceptions that frequently operate on secondary routes, such as Africa and South America. Profound differences exist in service network design among shipping lines. Some carriers have clearly opted for truly global coverage. Others are somewhat stuck in a triad-based service network, forcing them to develop a strong focus on cost bases. [Alliance structures](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1758) (e.g., Premier Alliance, Ocean Alliance, and Gemini) provide members with access to additional loops or services at relatively low cost and allow them to share terminals. ## B. The design of container liner services Before an operator can begin designing regular container shipping services, the [targeted trade route(s)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1765) need to be analyzed. The analysis should include elements related to the **supply, demand,** and market profile of the trade route. On the **supply side**, key considerations include vessel capacity deployment and utilization, vessel size distribution, the configuration of existing liner services, the existing market structure, and the port call patterns of existing operators. On the **demand side**, container lines focus on the characteristics of the market to be served, the geographical cargo distribution, seasonality, and cargo imbalances. The interaction between demand and supply on the trade route considered for liner services results in seasonal fluctuations in freight rates and reflects its earning potential. The ultimate goal of market analysis is not only to estimate the potential cargo demand for a new liner service but also to estimate the volatility, geographical dispersion, and seasonality of such demand. These factors will eventually affect the earning potential of the new service. Once the market potential for new services has been determined, the service planners need to decide on several interrelated core **[design variables](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1765)** that mainly concern: - The liner service type. - The number and order of port calls, in combination with the actual port selection process. - The vessel speed. - The frequency. - The vessel size and fleet mix. - The array of **liner service types and bundling options** available to shipping lines (see the previous section). Limiting **the number of port calls** shortens round voyage time and increases the number of round trips per year, minimizing the number of vessels required for that specific liner service. However, fewer port calls mean poorer access to cargo catchment areas. Adding port calls can generate additional revenue if the additional costs from added calls are offset by revenue growth. The actual [selection of ports is a complex issue](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1765). Traffic flows through ports are a physical outcome of route and port selection by the relevant actors in the chain. Port choice has increasingly become a function of the overall network cost and performance. Human behavioral aspects might impede carriers from achieving an optimal network configuration. Incorrect or incomplete information results in bounded rationality in carriers’ network design, leading to sub-optimal decisions. Shippers sometimes impose bounded rational behavior on shipping lines, asking them to call at a specific port. The selection of the ports of call by a shipping line can also be influenced by market structures and the behavior of market players, including: - **Customer influence**. Important shippers or logistics service providers might impose a certain port of call on a shipping line, leading to bounded rationality in port choice. - **Collective action**. If a shipping line is part of a [strategic alliance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1758), the port choice is subject to **negotiations among the alliance members**. The collective choice can differ from the choice of an individual member. - **Existing presence**. A shipping line may have a **dedicated terminal facility** at a port in a multi-port gateway region and be encouraged to send more ships to that facility to optimize terminal use. - **Inertia**. Carriers may **stick to a specific port** because they assume that the decision-making efforts and costs associated with changes in the network design will not outweigh the costs of the current non-optimal solution. Next to the number of port calls, the **call order** is important. If the port of loading is the last port of call on the maritime line-bundling service and the port of discharge is the first port of call, then transit time is minimized. A port regularly acting as the last port of loading or first port of discharge in a liner service schedule, in principle, has a higher chance of achieving a higher deepsea call efficiency ratio (i.e. the ratio between the total TEU discharged and loaded in the port and the two-way vessel capacity) compared to rival ports which are in different segments of the loop. In practice, shipping lines’ decisions on the number and order of ports of call are influenced by many commercial and operational determinants, including the **cargo generating effect of the port** (i.e. the availability of export cargo), the distribution of container origins and destinations over the hinterland, the berth allocation profile of a port, the nautical access, the time constraints of the round voyages and so on. The choice of vessel speed is mainly affected by the technical specifications of the vessel deployed (i.e., the design speed), bunker fuel prices, environmental considerations (e.g., reduction of CO2 through slow steaming), and the capacity situation in the market (i.e., slow steaming can absorb some of the vessel overcapacity in the market). [Slow steaming and super slow steaming](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1769) have gradually become common in the container shipping market as a strategy to absorb excess capacity. The **number and order of port calls**, the total two-way **sailing distance,** and the **vessel speed** are the main determinants of the total vessel round-trip time. The theoretical round-trip time may not always be achieved in practice due to delays along the route and in ports, resulting in schedule reliability issues. Low schedule integrity can have many causes, ranging from weather conditions, delays in port access (pilotage, towage, locks, tides) to port terminal congestion, or even security considerations. To mitigate the risk of delays, a shipping line can incorporate time buffers into the liner service, which reduces schedule unreliability but increases the vessel’s round-trip time. When it comes to **service frequency**, carriers typically aim for a weekly service. The service frequency and the total vessel round-trip time determine the number of vessels required for the liner service. Carriers must secure enough vessels to ensure the desired frequency. Given the required number of vessels and the anticipated cargo volume for the liner service, the shipping line can determine the optimal vessel size and fleet mix. As economies of scale are more significant over longer distances, the largest vessels are typically deployed on long, cargo-intensive routes. Decisions on all the above key design variables will lead to a specific **slot capacity** offered by the new liner service. It should align with the actual demand to maximize average vessel utilization (given expected traffic imbalances, cargo dispersion patterns, and cargo seasonality and volatility). ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/maritime_deviation.png?resize=900%2C516&ssl=1 "Maritime Deviation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maritime Deviation![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Mediterranean-Intermediate-Hubs.png?resize=900%2C592&ssl=1 "Deviation from the Main Shipping Route of Mediterranean Container Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Deviation from the Main Shipping Route of Mediterranean Container Ports![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_terminal_selection-2.png?resize=900%2C524&ssl=1 "Port and Terminal Selection by Container Shipping Lines | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port and Terminal Selection by Container Shipping Lines# 7. The Connectivity of Container Ports in Maritime Networks The liner service networks of shipping lines revolve around a set of strategic hubs. Each hub has high connectivity (in terms of frequency and range of ports served) to secondary ports in the network and major inland markets. A few important points need to be made in this respect: - Container shipping lines have been actively securing **dedicated terminal capacity** in strategic locations within their liner service networks. A substantial number of container terminals worldwide feature a shipping line among their shareholders, mostly through their terminal sister companies. Examples include Terminal Link of CMA CGM (51% shareholding), Cosco Shipping Ports of the Cosco group (100%), TIL of MSC (60%), and APM Terminals of the AP Moller group (100%). - Shipping lines do not necessarily opt for the same hubs but have **similar transshipment areas** (e.g. Southeast Asia, the Middle East, or the Caribbean). - There is an **upper limit to the concentration of flows** in only a few hubs. For instance, Maersk Line did not opt for a single European turntable; instead, it chose several major hubs. The optimal number of hub ports in the network depends on various factors, including the cost trade-off between the hub-feeder option and the direct call option. Additionally, shipping lines may have commercial reasons for not bundling all their cargo at a single port, such as diversification and resilience strategies. The **maritime connectivity** of a container port can be measured in different ways: - **Connectivity**. UNCTAD publishes the **[Liner Shipping Connectivity Index (LSCI)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1633)** for countries and individual ports as an aggregation of five statistics: number of liner services calling, number of liner companies providing those services, number of ships in those services, combined container capacity of those ships (in TEUs), and capacity of the largest ship calling. - **Centrality**. The measurement of the **centrality** of ports in the network. The centrality of ports in the network can be approached at the local and global levels. **Degree centrality** is a local measure that counts for each port the number of connections to other ports. **Betweenness centrality** is a global measure that sums for each port the number of its positions on the shortest possible paths within the entire network. Degree centrality is a measure of connectivity, while betweenness centrality can be regarded as a measure of accessibility. Hub ports typically have a high degree of centrality and a high betweenness centrality due to their role as inter-regional pivots in the global network. Empirical work on the centrality of ports in the global container shipping network reveals that the Asia-Pacific network is centered on the Singapore-Busan axis and the Europe–Atlantic network, with the Le Havre-Hamburg range being a key component. Due to their limited hub and feeder activities, large North American and Japanese ports are underrepresented, despite their substantial traffic volume. Singapore is the most central port in the global system, primarily due to its position in the Strait of Malacca. The very high centrality of the Suez and Panama canals underlines the strong vulnerability of the global network. In East Asia and the Mediterranean, an increasing number of ports have high connectivity (for example, Port Klang, Xiamen, and Shenzhen in Asia; Marsaxlokk, Piraeus, and Tanger Med in the Mediterranean). ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-LSCI-2024.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Country and Port Level Liner Shipping Connectivity Index, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Country and Port Level Liner Shipping Connectivity Index![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Emerging-Global-Maritime-System-1.png?resize=900%2C491&ssl=1 "Emerging Global Maritime Transport System | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Emerging Global Maritime Transport SystemIn the future, shipping lines will continue to mix liner services to create a network that best fits carriers’ requirements. Increasing volumes would lead to increased **segmentation in liner service networks** and a **hierarchy in hubs**. Hub-and-spoke systems are just a part of the overall scene. There remains no “one size fits all” approach to the future design of liner service networks. The port hierarchy is determined by the decisions of individual container shipping lines (operating as independent carriers or in groupings), thereby guided by strategic, commercial, and operational considerations. The decisions regarding the hierarchy of the ports of call are rarely identical. Hence, a port may function as a regional hub for one liner operator and a feeder port for another. A major threat to the future of complex liner service networks lies in decreased **schedule reliability**. Low schedule integrity can have multiple causes, ranging from weather conditions to delays in accessing ports (such as pilotage, towage, locks, and tides), port terminal congestion, or even security considerations. Given the nature of many liner services (more than one port of call, weekly service, hub-and-spoke configurations), which are closely integrated, delays in one port **cascade throughout the whole liner service** and, therefore, also affect other ports of call (even those ports which initially had no delays). Moreover, vessel delays compound delays in inland freight distribution. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 1.1 Maritime Shipping and International Trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=147) - [Chapter 1.2 Ports and Maritime Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1530) - [Chapter 1.4 Ports and Distribution Networks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3020) - [Chapter 2.2 Port Hinterlands, Regionalization and Corridors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2509) - [Chapter 3.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=252) --- ## References - Brooks, M., 2000. Sea change in liner shipping: regulation and managerial decision-making in a global industry. Pergamon. - Cariou, P., 2001. Vertical integration within the logistic chain: does regulation play rational? The case for dedicated container terminals. Trasporti Europei, 7, 37-41. - Cariou, P., Parola, F., Notteboom, T., 2019. Towards low carbon global supply chains: A multi-trade analysis of CO2 emission reductions in container shipping. International Journal of Production Economics, 208, 17-28. - Crotti, D., Ferrari, C. and Tei, A., 2019. Merger waves and alliance stability in container shipping. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 1-27. - Cullinane, K., Khanna, M., 1999. Economies of scale in large container ships. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 33 (2), 185–208. - Cullinane K. and R. Bergqvist R (2014) “Emission control areas and their impact on maritime transport”. Transportation Research D, Vol. 28, pp. 1-5. - Ducruet, C., Notteboom, T., 2015, Developing Liner Service Networks in Container Shipping, in: Song, D.W., Panayides, P. (Eds.), Maritime Logistics: A guide to contemporary shipping and port management, Kogan Page, London, 125-146 - Ferrari, C., Parola, F., Tei, A., 2015. Determinants of slow steaming and implications on service patterns. Maritime Policy & Management, 42(7), 636-652. - Fusillo, M., 2002. Excess capacity and entry deterrence: the case of ocean liner shipping markets. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 5(2), 100-115 - Fusillo, M., 2006. Some notes on structure and stability in liner shipping. Maritime Policy and Management, 33(5), 463–475. - Ge, J., Wang, X., 2016. Techno-economic study of LNG diesel power (dual fuel) ship. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 16(2), 1-13. - Ge, J., Zhu, M., Sha, M., Notteboom, T., Shi, W., Wang, X., 2020. Towards 25,000 TEU vessels? A comparative economic analysis of ultra-large containership sizes under different market and operational conditions, Maritime Economics and Logistics, <https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-019-00136-4> - Haralambides, H., Cariou, P., Benacchio, M., 2002. Costs, benefits and pricing of dedicated container terminals. International Journal of Maritime Economics., 4 (1), 21–34. - International Transport Forum (2015). The impact of mega-ships: Case-specific policy analysis. ITG – OECD, Paris, [https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/15cspa\_mega-ships.pdf](https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/15cspa_mega-ships.pdf) - Jansson, J.O., Schneerson, D., 1982. The optimal ship size. Journal of Transport Economics & Policy, 16(3), 217-238. - Lam, J.S.L., Wong, H.N., 2018. Analysing business models of liner shipping companies. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 10(2), 237-256. - Levinson, M., 2006. The box: how the shipping container made the world smaller and the world economy bigger. Princeton University Press, Princeton - Lim, S.-M., 1998. Economies of scale in container shipping. Maritime Policy and Management, 25, 361-373. - Lloyd’s List, 2019. One hundred ports 2018: the definite ranking of the world’s largest container ports. [Online](https://lloydslist.maritimeintelligence.informa.com/one-hundred-container-ports-2018) - Malchow, U., 2017. Growth in containership sizes to be stopped?. Maritime Business Review, 2(3), 199-210. - Martin, S., Martin, J., Pettit, S., 2015. Container ship size and the implications on port call workload. International Journal of Shipping & Transport Logistics, 7(5), 553-569. - Meng, Q., Zhao, H., Wang, Y., 2019. Revenue management for container liner shipping services: Critical review and future research directions. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 128, 280-292. - Notteboom, T., 2004. Container shipping and ports: an overview. The Review of Network Economics, 3(2), 86-106. - Notteboom, T., 2006. The time factor in liner shipping services. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 8 (1), 19-39. - Notteboom, T., Cariou, P., 2013. Slow steaming in container liner shipping: is there any impact on fuel surcharge practices?. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 24(1), 73-86. - Notteboom, T., Vernimmen, B., 2009. The effect of high fuel costs on liner service configuration in container shipping. Journal of Transport Geography, 17 (5), 325–337. - Notteboom, T., Rodrigue, J.P., 2012. The corporate geography of global container terminal operators. Maritime Policy & Management, 39(3), 249-279. - Notteboom, T.E., Parola, F., Satta, G. and Pallis, A.A., 2017. The relationship between port choice and terminal involvement of alliance members in container shipping. Journal of Transport Geography, 64, 158-173. - Notteboom, T. (2016). The adaptive capacity of container ports in an era of mega vessels: The case of upstream seaports Antwerp and Hamburg. Journal of Transport Geography, 54, 295-309. - Notteboom, T.E., Satta, G., Parola, F., 2020,Brand strategies of container shipping lines following mergers and acquisitions: carriers’ visual identity options, Maritime Economics & Logistics, <https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00176-1> - Rodrigue, J.P., Notteboom, T., 2009. The geography of containerization: half a century of revolution, adaptation and diffusion. GeoJournal, 74(1), 1-5. - Rodrigue, J.-P., Notteboom, T., 2009. The future of containerization: perspectives from maritime and inland freight distribution. Geojournal, 74, 7-22. - Ryoo, D.K., Thanopoulou, H.A., 1999. Liner alliances in the globalization era: a strategic tool for Asian container carriers. Maritime Policy & Management, 26 (4), 349–367. - Slack, B., Comtois, C., McCalla, R., 2002. Strategic alliances in the container shipping industry: a global perspective. Maritime Policy & Management, 29 (1), 65–76. - Slack, B., Frémont, A., 2009. Fifty years of organisational change in container shipping: regional shift and the role of family firms. Geojournal, 74, 23-34. - Tran, N.K., Haasis, H.D., 2015. An empirical study of fleet expansion and growth of ship size in container liner shipping. International Journal of Production Economics, 159, 241-253. - UNCTAD, 2020. Review of Maritime Transport. UNCTAD, Geneva - Van den Berg, R. and De Langen, P.W., 2015. Towards an ‘inland terminal centred’ value proposition. Maritime Policy & Management, 42(5), 499-515. - Wang, S., Notteboom, T., 2014. The adoption of liquefied natural gas as a ship fuel: A systematic review of perspectives and challenges. Transport Reviews, 34(6), 749-774. - Yang, C.S., 2018. An analysis of institutional pressures, green supply chain management, and green performance in the container shipping context. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 61, 246-260. - Yip, T.L., Lun, Y.H.V., Lau, Y.Y., 2012. Scale diseconomies and efficiencies of liner shipping. Maritime Policy & Management, 39 (7), 673-683. - Yuen, K.F., Wang, X., Ma, F., Lee, G., Li, X., 2019. Critical success factors of supply chain integration in container shipping: an application of resource-based view theory. Maritime Policy & Management, 1-16. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/?share=reddit) - --- ### [CONTENTS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/) **Published:** December 17, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** > ***Important note**: The second edition was released in May 2026. Since the first edition, the online table of contents has undergone significant change with new chapters being added and existing chapters being revised/extended and reordered. To help trace the chapters of the first edition of the hardcopy version of the book (2022) in this online version, the original chapter numbers of the first edition have been added (e.g. ‘ex Chapter 4.2’).* #### [INTRODUCTION: A Multifaceted Approach to Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/) - [i.1 Defining Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/) - [i.2 Seaports and the Blue Economy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/) - [i.3 Seaports: Social and Environmental Value](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/) - [i.4 Emerging Issues in Ports and Maritime Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/i-4-emerging-issues-in-ports-and-maritime-shipping/) #### [I. PORTS & SHIPPING NETWORKS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/) - [Chapter 1.1 Maritime Shipping and International Trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/) - [Chapter 1.2 Ports and Maritime Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/) - [Chapter 1.3 Interoceanic Passages](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/) *(ex Chapter 1.6)* #### [II. PORTS & HINTERLAND NETWORKS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/) - [Chapter 2.1 Port Hinterlands, Regionalization and Corridors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/) *(ex Chapter 2.2)* - [Chapter 2.2 Ports and Distribution Networks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/) *(ex Chapter 1.4)* - [Chapter 2.3 Inland Ports / Dry Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/) #### [III. PORTS IN TRANSITION](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/) - [Chapter 3.1 The Spatial Transition of Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/) *(ex Chapter 2.1)* - [Chapter 3.2 The Digital Transformation of Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/) *(ex Chapter 2.4)* - [Chapter 3.3 Green Supply Chain Management in Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/) *(ex Chapter 2.5)* - [Chapter 3.4 Ports and the Energy Transition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/) \[New\] - [Chapter 3.5 Ports and the Circular Economy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/) \[New\] #### [IV. PORT TERMINALS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/) - [Chapter 4.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/) *(ex Chapter 3.1)* - [Chapter 4.2 Terminal Concessions and Land Leases](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/) *(ex Chapter 3.2)* - [Chapter 4.3 Financialization and Terminal Funding](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/) *(ex Chapter 3.3)* - [Chapter 4.4 Port Labor](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/) *(ex Chapter 3.7)* - [Chapter 4.5 Port Terminal Construction](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/) *(ex Chapter 3.9)* #### [V. BULK & BREAK BULK PORTS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/) - [Chapter 5.1 Break Bulk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/) *(ex Chapter 8.2)* - [Chapter 5.2 Roll-on/Roll-off (RoRo)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/) \[New\] - [Chapter 5.3 Ports and Energy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/) *(ex Chapter 8.3)* - [Chapter 5.4 Dry and Liquid Bulk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/) \[Under Construction\] #### [VI. CONTAINER PORTS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/) - [Chapter 6.1 Ports and Container Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/) *(ex Chapter 1.3)* - [Chapter 6.2 Containers: The Box and Chassis Markets](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/) *(ex Chapter 8.4)* - [Chapter 6.3 Containers: The Containerization of Commodities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/) \[New\] - [Chapter 6.4 Port Cold Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/) *(ex Chapter 8.5)* - [Chapter 6.5 Container Terminal Design and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/) *(ex Chapter 3.4)* - [Chapter 6.6 Container Terminal Automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/) *(ex Chapter 3.8)* #### [VII. PASSENGER PORTS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/) - [Chapter 7.1 Cruise Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/) *(ex Chapter 1.5)* - [Chapter 7.2 Cruise Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/) *(ex Chapter 8.1)* - [Chapter 7.3 Tourist Harbors and Marinas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/) \[Under Construction\] - [Chapter 7.4 Cruise Terminal Design and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/) *(ex Chapter 3.6)* #### [VIII. PORT GOVERNANCE](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/) - [Chapter 8.1 Port Governance and Reform](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/) *(ex Chapter 4.1)* - [Chapter 8.2 Port Authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/) *(ex Chapter 4.2)* - [Chapter 8.3 Port Coordination and Cooperation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/) *(ex Chapter 4.3)* - [Chapter 8.4 Port Clusters](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/) *(ex Chapter 4.4)* - [Chapter 8.5 Green Port Governance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/) *(ex Chapter 4.5)* - [Chapter 8.6 Port Management, Governance and Leadership](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/) *(ex Chapter 4.6)* #### [IX. PORT COMPETITION](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/) - [Chapter 9.1 Inter-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/) *(ex Chapter 5.1)* - [Chapter 9.2 Intra-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/) *(ex Chapter 5.2)* - [Chapter 9.3 Port Marketing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/) *(ex Chapter 5.3)* - [Chapter 9.4 Port Pricing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/) *(ex Chapter 5.4)* - [Chapter 9.5 Entry Barriers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/) *(ex Chapter 5.1)* #### [X. PORT PERFORMANCE](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/) - [Chapter 10.1 Performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/) *(ex Chapter 6.1)* - [Chapter 10.2 Efficiency](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/) *(ex Chapter 6.2)* - [Chapter 10.3 Effectiveness](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/) *(ex Chapter 6.3)* - [Chapter 10.4 Resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/) *(ex Chapter 6.4)* #### [XI. PORT POLICIES & DEVELOPMENT](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/) - [Chapter 11.1 Ports, Policies and Geopolitics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/) *(ex Chapter 7.1)* - [Chapter 11.2 Ports and Economic Development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/) *(ex Chapter 7.2)* - [Chapter 11.3 Port Planning and Development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/) *(ex Chapter 7.3)* - [Chapter 11.4 Safety, Security, and Cybersecurity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/) \[Under construction\] - [Chapter 11.5 Port-City Relationships](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/) *(ex Chapter 7.4)* - [Chapter 11.6 Representing Port Interests](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/) *(ex Chapter 7.5)* #### [XII. CASE STUDIES](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/) - [Optimal Ship Size: Container Ships and Cruise Vessels](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4854) - [Competition between the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/) - [Ports and the COVID-19 Pandemic](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-and-pandemic/) - [The Port of Savannah Logistics Cluster](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/) - [Nike European Logistics Campus in Belgium](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nike-european-logistics-center-belgium/) - [The Nicaragua Canal Project](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nicaragua-canal-project/) - [Tools for Managing Port Risk and Resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/tools-for-managing-port-risk-and-resilience/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/?share=reddit) - --- ### [World Energy Consumption, 1965-2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/world-energy-consumption/) **Published:** August 17, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/world_energy_consumption.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "World Energy Consumption, 1965-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")World Energy Consumption 1965 2024*Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy. World Bank for population data. In million tons of oil equivalent (MTOE).* Global energy consumption underscores the enduring prevalence of fossil fuels, with limited change as overall consumption increases while per capita energy intensity declines. As of 2023, coal, oil, and natural gas accounted for 82% of energy consumption, compared to 86% in 2000. Renewables (including hydroelectric) have increased from a negligible share to around 7.5% in 2024. At the global level, there is no apparent energy transition, as fossil fuel consumption has increased, while the growth of alternatives remains robust but comparatively small. This underscores that there is substantial room for decarbonization, but the transition is unlikely to occur in the short term without major disruptions to energy costs and availability. These figures show substantial geographical variation, as European countries have undergone a transition, with the share of fossil fuels declining in both absolute and relative terms. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/world-energy-consumption/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/world-energy-consumption/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/world-energy-consumption/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/world-energy-consumption/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Geostrategy of Maritime Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/geostrategy-maritime-shipping/) **Published:** February 25, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/geostrategy_maritime_shipping.png?resize=900%2C381&ssl=1 "The Geostrategy of Maritime Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Geostrategy of Maritime ShippingGeostrategy relates to the role of geography as a facilitator or constraint to maritime shipping, which is associated with the selection of specific routes and the conditions for their use. This mainly relates to the effects of physical and political geography: - **Physical geography**. The most fundamental factors concern the contour of oceanic masses, which impose a strictly defined domain of maritime circulation, underlining the importance of [chokepoints](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-maritime-shipping-routes/ "Main Maritime Shipping Routes and Chokepoints"). Bathymetry is also an important factor since it influences navigational capabilities, particularly port access. This has become even more complex with the growth in ship size, prompting ports and waterways managers to undertake capital-intensive drayage and harbor improvements to improve accessibility. Climate can have a determining effect, particularly during the winter, when ice can block whole areas to navigation or impair its use. Seasonal weather patterns, such as monsoons and hurricanes, disrupt navigation and port operations. - **Political geography**. Concerns the complex array of factors related to political decisions concerning whether ships are allowed to transit through an area under national jurisdiction. Although international conventions allow for free navigation for commercial purposes, access to ports is subject to the agreement of the concerned nations. Trade policy, including tariffs and quotas, indirectly influences shipping networks by facilitating or constraining trade. There is a wide range of international and national rules and regulations, particularly covering fuels, emissions, labor conditions, security and safety, and cabotage. An important agreement concerns [Exclusive Economic Zones](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/maritime-zones-legal-boundaries/ "Maritime Zones and Legal Boundaries") (EEZs), allowing nations to access marine resources within a 200-nautical-mile buffer without preventing the freedom of navigation. Geopolitical tensions, [piracy](https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter9/transport-safety-security/global-maritime-piracy/), and conflicts can be associated with embargoes, restrictions, and even the blockage of maritime shipping routes. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/geostrategy-maritime-shipping/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/geostrategy-maritime-shipping/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/geostrategy-maritime-shipping/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/geostrategy-maritime-shipping/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Conventional and Automated Container Terminal Configurations](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/conventional-automated-container-terminal-configurations/) **Published:** December 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/conventional_automated_container_terminal2.png?resize=900%2C381&ssl=1 "Conventional and Automated Container Terminal Configurations | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Conventional and Automated Container Terminal ConfigurationsContainer terminals have at least one berth that allows containerships to be served by **ship-to-shore (STS) cranes**, which pick up or drop off containers on the apron. In a conventional container yard relying on **rubber-tired gantry cranes (RTGs)**, stacks are oriented parallel to the berths to facilitate operations and better use the available footprint. If straddle carriers are used for stacking and horizontal transport, the stacks are oriented perpendicularly to the berths. A conventional terminal has three systems of intra-terminal circulation: - **A**. Apron to/from stacking piles, usually done by intra-terminal trucks (ITT) designed to move containers on chassis (or bomb carts) with high maneuverability (short turning radius) and 360° visibility from the cabin. - **B**. Stacking piles to/from drop/pick up area, usually done with ITT, to move containers on chassis. This is particularly prevalent for yards using straddle carriers. - **C**. Gate to drop/pick up area with standard trucks either bringing their own chassis, dropping a container/chassis pair, or picking a container/chassis pair. These flows are subject to clearance through the terminal gate to ensure that the valid container is being picked up or dropped off. In many RTG terminals, B and C movements are a single movement, as extra terminal trucks can go directly to the side of the RTG stacks for drop-off or pickup. In an automated terminal with **automated stacking cranes (ASCs)**, there is typically a separation between apron and gate activities, with the stacks oriented perpendicular to the berths. This involves two systems of intra-terminal circulation: - **A**. Apron to/from stacking piles, usually done by automated guided vehicles (AGV). - **C**. Gate to drop/pick up area with standard trucks. **Reefer stacks** are typically located either in the central area of the yard or near the gate for quick pickup and drop-off. **Empty stacks** are either located pier-side (for export repositioning) or at the back of the yard (for hinterland returns). For automated terminals, empties are also stored within the ASC stacks. Some container terminals also have **on-dock rail facilities** with multiple spurs, using RTGs, reach stackers, or wide-span gantry cranes. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/conventional-automated-container-terminal-configurations/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/conventional-automated-container-terminal-configurations/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/conventional-automated-container-terminal-configurations/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/conventional-automated-container-terminal-configurations/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 6.5 - Container Terminal Design and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/) **Published:** December 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dr. Theo Notteboom and Dr. Athanasios Pallis > A container terminal is a specialized terminal facility that handles the transshipment, storage, and temporary storage of containers between at least two transportation modes. They have a footprint that includes quays, yard areas, equipment such as cranes, and other support facilities, including administrative and maintenance buildings, as well as warehouses. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. The Design of Container Terminals](#1_The_Design_of_Container_Terminals) - [2. Container Terminal Equipment](#2_Container_Terminal_Equipment) - [3. Terminal Operations](#3_Terminal_Operations) - [4. Terminal Capacity Use and Optimization](#4_Terminal_Capacity_Use_and_Optimization) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. The Design of Container Terminals Once they began emerging in the 1960s, container terminals ushered in a new era in port development and terminal design. One of the first impacts concerned the **required footprint**, which expanded. A large container terminal occupies a substantial area, primarily due to storage requirements, even if this storage is short-term, usually three to five days. Where possible, early container terminals were created by converting existing general cargo terminals by tearing down on-dock warehouses to provide stacking yards. The outcome has been a wide variety of terminal configurations and a diversity between the available nautical profile and the yard footprint. The **container yard** is the terminal area directly supporting the storage and retrieval of containers. It includes the stacking areas for containers (including reefers), thoroughfares for circulation, and areas for storing chassis. Aprons, gates, on-dock rail facilities, buildings, warehouses, and equipment storage and maintenance areas are not considered to be part of a container yard. Many ports lacked sufficient space to accommodate the footprint required for container terminal operations, necessitating the establishment of new facilities and port areas. This gave opportunities to experiment with container terminal designs to improve its operations. The design and operations of container terminals take into consideration the following constraints: - **[Available land footprint](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/terminal-footprint-selected-container-ports/ "Terminal Footprint, Selected Container Ports")**. Determine terminal capacity, particularly the available yard storage. - **Nautical profile**. Command the maximum ship size and the number of ships that can be serviced at a given time. - **[Infrastructures and superstructures](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-terminal-infrastructure-investments/ "Port Terminal Infrastructure and Superstructure")**. The type of facilities and equipment, including capital requirements. - **Hinterland connectivity**. The available transport infrastructures supporting the connectivity of the terminal with its hinterland. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Container-Terminal-Layout.png?resize=900%2C460&ssl=1 "Terminal Footprint, Selected Container Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Terminal Footprint Selected Container Ports![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_terminal_infrastructure_investments.png?resize=900%2C391&ssl=1 "Port Terminal Infrastructure and Superstructure | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Terminal Infrastructure and Superstructure# 2. Container Terminal Equipment A container terminal relies on an array of **[intermodal equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/conventional-intermodal-port-terminal-equipment/ "Conventional Intermodal Port Terminal Equipment")** to perform its operations, including straddle carriers, gantry cranes, and portainers (ship-to-shore cranes). The choice of equipment and its mix is influenced by several factors, including capital investment, volume, [stacking density](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/stacking-density-container-yard-equipment/ "Stacking Density of Container Yard Equipment"), and productivity. - **Forklift**. It can be considered the most basic piece of intermodal equipment, but it has limitations and can handle only loaded 20-foot containers or empty containers of other dimensions. This is not a piece of equipment suitable for intermodal operations, but it can be occasionally used. - **Holster truck**. Designed to move containers loaded on **chassis** or **[bomb carts](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/bomb-carts-yusen-terminals/ "Bomb Carts, Yusen Terminals, Port of Los Angeles")** within terminals. A chassis is a trailer designed to carry a container securely with twist locks, allowing for road transportation outside the terminal. A bomb cart is a heavy trailer designed to hold containers with side guides, allowing for quick yard operations, but it cannot be used to carry containers outside the yard. Although it represents a low capital investment and can move containers at high speed, a holster truck is restricted to moving containers already loaded on chassis or bomb carts and therefore requires other handling equipment. - **Straddle carrier**. A flexible piece of equipment that can be used for all intermodal operations, such as loading/unloading railcars and trucks and stacking containers up to three in height, depending on whether the straddle carrier is a 3-high (one over two) or 4-high (one over three). Therefore, depending on the type of straddle carrier, the stacking density may vary between 500 and 700 TEU per hectare. Straddle carriers are often used to move containers from piers to stacks. - **Front-end loader**. A more restricted piece of equipment that can reach stacks of up to three full containers and can be used for double-stack intermodal rail operations. It is commonly used to manage empty stacks by reaching up to eight empty containers in height. - **Reach stacker** (also known as a side loader). A flexible piece of equipment performing intermodal operations for rail and trucks, as well as container stacking. Since reach stackers are limited to stacks of three full containers (four or five empty) in blocks of three wide, they can support a stacking density of 500 TEU per hectare. They are often used in intermodal rail terminals and maritime terminals for specialized moves (e.g. reefers). - **Rubber-tired gantry** (RTG). A mobile intermodal piece of equipment that can be relocated across the container yard. It is used for loading and unloading railcars from trucks in high-density terminals, as it can span up to four rail tracks or six containers. It is also used for stacking operations to manage densities of up to 1,000 TEU per hectare with stacks of up to five full containers (one over four) or six empty containers (one over five). It can service eight to nine trucks per hour, which involves 30 to 40 container movements since containers need to be reshuffled within their stacks. The RTG has higher acquisition costs but lower operational costs and fits well into regular container yard operations. - **Rail-mounted gantry** (RMG). A fixed piece of intermodal equipment that is widespan and can be used for intermodal operations over six to ten rail tracks, or eight to twelve containers. While they tend to be mostly used at port terminals for operations over large container stacks, new intermodal rail terminals are increasingly relying on RMGs to perform intermodal operations over a series of train tracks, often with some below-crane space for track-side stacking. Several RMG models can swivel, allowing for perpendicular crane side loading and unloading. An RMG used solely for stacking can accommodate densities above 1,000 TEU per hectare (four full or five empty containers). - [**Portainer** or **ship-to-shore crane**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4936) (STS). A gantry crane is strictly used to load and unload containerships and comes in different sizes based on the ship class they can accommodate. While a Panamax portainer can accommodate ships up to 13 containers in width, a Post-Panamax portainer reaches up to 16 containers alongside each other. The latest class of portainers is dubbed “Ultra Post-Panamax” and can handle the newest generation of containerships of 24,000 TEU by spanning up to 24 containers. The latest cranes can lift more than 150 tons at a time. Containers have to be brought to the portainer by holsters using chassis, bomb carts, or straddle carriers. Portainers are equipped with **spreaders** that have twist locks on each corner to secure the container during hoisting. [Spreader technology](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/spreader-technology-2/ "Spreader technology") has evolved, with many portainers now capable of performing twin and tandem lifting. Triple lifting and systems that can handle even more containers in one move are also being implemented. The ongoing [automation of intermodal terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=984 "Chapter 3.4 – Terminal Automation") is replacing manually operated conventional equipment with semi- or fully-automated improvements. This is particularly the case for portainers, gantries, and straddle carriers, which can be remotely controlled. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/conventional_intermodal_port_equipment.png?resize=900%2C488&ssl=1 "Conventional Intermodal Port Terminal Equipment | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Conventional Intermodal Port Terminal Equipment![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/stacking_dentiy_dynamic_capacity.png?resize=900%2C419&ssl=1 "Stacking Density of Container Yard Equipment and Annual Dynamic Container Yard Capacity | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Stacking Density of Container Yard Equipment![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2023-03-28-134043.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Bomb Carts, Yusen Terminals, Port of Los Angeles | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Bomb Carts Yusen Terminals Port of Los Angeles![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ship_to_shore_crane.png?resize=900%2C454&ssl=1 "Ship-to-Shore Container Cranes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ship to shore cranes![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Spreader-technology.png?resize=900%2C453&ssl=1 "Spreader-technology | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Spreader technology![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-10-18-13.53.03.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "Automated Guided Vehicles and Automated Stacking Cranes, Long Beach Container Terminal (LBCT) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Automated Guided Vehicles and Automated Stacking Cranes Long Beach Container Terminal LBCT# 3. Terminal Operations ## A. Maritime operations Handling [container movements](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/types-container-movements-terminal/ "Types of Container Movements at the Terminal") at a terminal involves three segments along a [continuum](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/the-port-performance-continuum/ "Port Performance: Τhe Efficiency Continuum"), which are **maritime operations**, **yard operations**, and **hinterland connectivity**. Concerning maritime operations, ship turnaround times are expected to be short, and the terminal must accommodate the schedule integrity of shipping lines. The **docking area** is a berth where a containership can dock with technical specifications such as length and [draft](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/terminal-depth-selected-ports/ "Terminal Depth at Selected Ports"). These specifications have been under pressure in recent decades as the size of containerships increased, demanding longer piers and [deeper drafts](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/depth-surface-distribution-sample-container-terminals/ "Depth and Surface Distribution of a Sample of Container Terminals"). A standard [post-Panamax containership](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2232) of 8,000 TEU requires about 325 meters of docking space as well as a draft of about 45 feet (13 meters). Ships of the Neo-Panamax class (12,500 TEU) require 370 meters and a draft of 50 feet (15.2 meters). Thus, a pier length of 400 meters is expected to be sufficient to accommodate most containerships. The largest container vessels have a length overall (LOA) of some 400 meters, requiring a berth length of 450 meters. Some terminals have separate facilities for handling barges (such as [Antwerp](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/modal-separation-space-europa-terminal-antwerp/ "Modal Separation in Space: Europa Terminal in Antwerp") and Rotterdam), although most barges can be handled alongside the deepsea quays. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_container_movements.png?resize=900%2C351&ssl=1 "Types of Container Movements at the Terminal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Container Movements at the Terminal![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_performance_continuum.png?resize=900%2C406&ssl=1 "Port Performance: The Efficiency Continuum | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Performance The Efficiency Continuum![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Port-Depth.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Terminal Depth at Selected Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Terminal Depth at Selected Ports![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/depth_surface_container_terminals.png?resize=900%2C373&ssl=1 "depth_surface_container_terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Depth and Surface Distribution of a Sample of Container Terminals**Container cranes** (STS) represent the interface between the containership and the dock. Cranes have technical specifications in terms of the number of movements per hour, maximum weight, and lateral coverage. A modern container crane can have a coverage of 18 to 24 containers wide, implying that it can service a containership with a width of 18 to 24 containers. A [gantry crane](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/portainers-ship-to-shore-container-cranes/ "Portainers or ship-to-shore (STS) container cranes") can perform about one movement (loading or unloading) every two minutes. The larger the number of cranes assigned to the transshipment process, the faster it can take place. However, significant portside capabilities must be present to accommodate this throughput. **Aprons (loading/unloading areas)** are directly adjacent to the piers and under the gantry cranes (portainers). They involve the interaction between the cranes and the storage areas, where containers are either brought in to be lifted onto the containership or unloaded to be immediately picked up and taken to the storage areas. This is mainly done with straddlers or holsters. In the case of straddle carriers, the containers are left on the ground, whereas with holsters, the containers are loaded onto or unloaded from a chassis or bomb cart. Straddle carriers are more common as they enable the movement of containers directly from the dockside to the stack (or vice versa). Still, terminal automation has seen the introduction of [automated holsters](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/automated-guided-vehicles-automated-stacking-cranes-long-beach-container-terminal/ "Automated Guided Vehicles and Automated Stacking Cranes") that carry containers from the dockside to stacking areas. **Floating container cranes** are occasionally used, particularly in situations where port capacity constraints are a concern and barges play a crucial role in hinterland transportation. A floating crane enables the direct transshipment of cargo from seagoing ships to barges or smaller inland or coastal vessels. This is particularly true for the Port of Hong Kong, which has relied on such cranes to handle operations within the harbor. The floating crane concept has been expanded to the **floating container port concept**, but has not taken a concrete form. Like floating cranes, the floating container port has the advantage of locational flexibility. However, it only allows ship-to-ship transshipment and has a fixed footprint. ## B. Yard and auxiliary operations **Container storage** represents a temporary buffer zone where containers are stored while the assigned containership is available for loading or while waiting to be picked up for inland distribution. The larger the containerships handled by a port, the larger the required container storage yard. Container storage can be arranged by shipbound (export) and landbound (import) stacks of containers. For shared terminal facilities, stacks can even be subdivided according to shippers. The stacking density of container storage varies depending on the selected equipment and the [yard configuration](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=6129 "The Configuration of Container Yards"). For **linear layout** configurations, containers are either stored on a chassis (rare for port terminals but more common for rail terminals) or on linear stacks of two or three containers in height that straddle carriers can circulate over. **Block layouts** are serviced by [rubber-tired gantry cranes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/rubber-tired-gantry-crane/ "Rubber-Tired Gantry Crane") or rail-mounted (wide span) gantry cranes, enabling a higher storage density of at least four containers across (seven or eight for a wide span crane, if not more) and five full containers in height. However, higher stacking densities are linked with additional repositioning and rehandling of containers, requiring effective yard management systems. Rows of containers can be parallel or perpendicular to piers, depending on the configuration and operational requirements. Most terminals have dedicated [reefers (refrigerated containers) storage areas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1246 "Stacked Reefer Storage, Maher Terminal, Newark") where they can be plugged in, representing, on average, about 5% of a terminal’s stacking area. Specific storage areas are also assigned to empties, which can be stacked up to seven or eight containers in height due to less stringent weight limitations. [Empty container stacks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/empty-containers-stacking-area-maher-terminal/ "Empty Containers Stacking Area, Maher Container Terminal, Newark") are easily distinguishable from loaded container stacks due to their different stacking configurations; empty stacks are higher and denser since each container cannot be differentiated from the others. They are usually stacked by container ownership, as they are fungible and made available to customers of shipping lines and container leasing companies. Terminals with a strong export orientation tend to have their empty stacks located near the terminal gate, as the first move is typically picking up an empty container to be transported to an inland distribution center for loading. Terminals with a strong import orientation tend to have their empty container stacks located near the pier, as the first move involves repositioning empty containers to be loaded onto a ship. For terminals facing capacity pressures, the tendency has been to have empty container depots outside terminal facilities. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/container_yard_configuration.png?resize=900%2C482&ssl=1 "container_yard_configuration | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Configuration of Container Yards![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_1874.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "rubber-tired-gantry | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Rubber Tired Gantry Crane![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_3861.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "IMG_3861 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Stacked Reefer Storage Maher Terminal Newark![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_3878.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "empty stacking | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Empty Containers Stacking Area Maher Container Terminal NewarkA series of on-site activities supports a container terminal. The management facility (administrative building) of the terminal often has a control tower to ensure a level of visibility of the terminal area. This is where many complex logistical functions are performed, such as assigning delivered containers to a storage space location, as well as determining the location and loading or unloading sequence of containers by straddlers and holsters. Additionally, the complex task of designing the loading and unloading sequence of a containership is performed. To do so, the container weight must be verified to ensure a safe load configuration aboard containerships, particularly those of very large size. Furthermore, the container weight must not exceed the operational requirements of the handling equipment and lashing systems aboard ships. With digitalization and automation, the administration building has become the information and telecommunication nexus of the terminal. **Repair and maintenance** areas are where the terminal’s heavy equipment is regularly maintained. **Chassis storage** areas are where empty chassis are stored while waiting to be allocated to a truck or a holster. In North American terminals, chassis storage can take a notable amount of space because chassis are owned by pools. In most parts of the world, trucking companies own the chassis and bring them to the terminal. The outcome is less space allocated for chassis storage. Usually, chassis are stored outside the terminal facility, as chassis storage is considered a poor use of valuable terminal real estate. The **[container freight station](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-freight-station-shenzhen-china/ "Container Freight Station, Shenzhen, China")** (CFS) can be an important auxiliary operation within the terminal. It allows for the consolidation or deconsolidation of containerized loads, with direct interaction with the container yard. Accessing empty containers and providing loaded containers are among the key benefits of having CFSs within or adjacent to a port terminal, which have become a common element of port logistics. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_3169.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Container Freight Station, Shenzhen, China | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Freight Station Shenzhen China## C. Hinterland connectivity Port terminals are **connected to their hinterlands** through inland transportation modes. The **gate** represents the terminal’s entry and exit point, handling up to 25 trucks at once for a large terminal facility. Truck drivers present proper documentation (Bills of Lading) for pick up or delivery. Most of the inspection is done remotely with cameras and intercom systems. An operator can remotely view the container identification number and verify if it matches the Bill of Lading. Modern management systems no longer require paperwork, as all documentation is stored in an electronic format that can be transmitted securely. With appointment systems, the priority is to verify the identity of the truck driver, the truck, the container, and the chassis, all of which are registered. For a delivery, the truck is assigned to a specific slot at the **truck drop/pickup area**, where the chassis holding the container will be left to be picked up by a holster, a straddle carrier, or a gantry crane for more recent terminal designs. For a pickup, the truck will be assigned to a slot in a waiting area while the container is being picked up from a storage area, loaded onto a chassis (if the truck does not bring its chassis), and brought to the designated slot. The truck will then exit the terminal, be inspected to ensure the correct container has been loaded, and proceed inland. If this is well-managed (such as by using an appointment system), the container will already be available for pickup (on a chassis in the truck drop/pickup area). However, pick-up delays can sometimes be considerable (hours) when a large containership has just delivered a significant batch of containers, and there is a “rush” to be the first to pick them up. Therefore, terminal operators have made substantial efforts in recent years to improve the throughput of terminal gates through better design and the application of [information technologies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/remote-verification-container-identification-port-terminal-gate/ "Remote Verification of Container Identification at a Port Terminal Gate"), including appointment systems. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2018-11-12-122358-1.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "Remote Verification of Container Identification at a Port Terminal Gate | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Remote Verification of Container Identification at a Port Terminal Gate![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_3876.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "on dock rail | Port Economics, Management and Policy")On Dock Rail Maher Terminal NewarkMany large container terminals have an adjacent rail terminal to which they are directly connected. **On-dock or near-dock rail terminals** enable the composition of large containerized unit trains that reach long-distance inland markets through inland ports. An important advantage of on-dock rail facilities compared with near-dock rail facilities is that the container does not have to clear the gate of the marine terminal. In [North America](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/on-dock-rail-maher-terminal-newark/ "On-Dock Rail, Maher Terminal, Newark"), since container unit trains can be very long (longer than the container port terminal facility), segments are assembled at the port on-dock rail facility and brought to a near-dock facility for full unit train assembly. Areas near container terminals tend to have a high concentration of activities related to freight distribution, including distribution centers, empty container storage depots, trucking companies, and large retailers. This is commonly associated with high congestion levels around the port terminal facilities. To address the issue, the design of several container terminals has been modified to include coordination between [on-dock rail facilities and satellite terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4531 "The Insertion of a Satellite Terminal in Port Operations") as well as container depots. The goal is to transfer a part of the footprint to another less constrained location. ## D. Conventional versus automated terminal configuration There are two major port container terminal configurations: **conventional and automated**. [Terminal automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4095 "Chapter 3.4 – Terminal Automation") is an ongoing process that has led to changes to terminal configuration and operations. Although the function of both [conventional and automated container terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4527 "Conventional and Automated Container Terminal Configurations") is the same (ship-to-shore transfer), their operational differences are notable. In a conventional terminal block, layouts are usually parallel to the pier when RTGs are used and perpendicular to the pier when stacking relies on widepan gantry cranes or straddle carriers. Containers are brought to a pickup/drop-off area, where they are moved to the stacking area by a holster truck or a straddle carrier. At many terminals, external trucks will drive directly to the loading areas next to the RTGs to drop off or pick up containers. Export containers will be brought to the quayside by another holster truck or straddle carrier when ready to be loaded onto a ship. The emerging automated container terminal paradigm relies on block layouts that are perpendicular to the piers. These stacking blocks are served by Automated Stacking Cranes (ASCs), enabling quick storage and retrieval. On the gate side, stacks are serviced by trucks, with containers picked up by an ASC. On the pier side, containers are retrieved by straddle carriers or Automated Guided Vehicles (AGV; for fully automated terminals) and brought to the end of a stack. The main differences between conventional and automated container terminal configurations are that the latter reduces horizontal ground movement and removes vehicles from the stacking areas, thereby enabling higher stacking density. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/conventional_automated_container_terminal2.png?resize=900%2C381&ssl=1 "Conventional and Automated Container Terminal Configurations | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Conventional and Emerging Container Terminal Configurations![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/insertion_satellite_terminal.png?resize=900%2C451&ssl=1 "insertion_satellite_terminal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Insertion of a Satellite Terminal in Port Operations# 4. Terminal Capacity Use and Optimization Terminal equipment is [combined](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/combinations-of-quay-and-yard-equipment/ "Quay and Yard Equipment Combinations") to form an integrated container terminal system. The total terminal capacity is determined by the interaction between three levels, which are the quay, the yard, and the gate system: - **Ship or quay-related operational challenges** include the berth allocation problem (BAP), the vessel stowage planning problem, and the quay crane assignment and scheduling problem (QCAP). In most cases, berth and quay crane planning are combined in the integrated berth allocation and quay crane assignment problem (BACAP). - The **yard allocation problem (YAP)** involves the design of the stacking area (in terms of stacking height and slot capacity) or the optimization of container storage and stacking operations as a function of container type (reefer, dry, liquid), container flow (import, export, transshipment, empties), and dwell time characteristics. Yard-related issues also involve intra-terminal transport, such as the movement between the quayside and the stacking area, as well as the intra-terminal reshuffling of containers. Here, the optimization of yard operations typically involves an integrated approach, such as simultaneously determining yard crane schedules and vehicle parking positions. - **Gate optimization** deals with the connectivity of terminals to landside transportation modes, such as rail transport, inland barges, and trucking. Typical operational challenges in this field include the truck gate process optimization problem, gate appointment systems, the equipment assignment problem, and the [modal separation on a terminal in space](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/modal-separation-space-europa-terminal-antwerp/) and time. The **optimal container terminal design is rectangular**, but the relationship between water, yard, and gate capacity varies according to the terminal function. Container yards, with aligned rectangular stacks, are the primary explanatory factor for the propensity of container terminals to be rectangular. Gateway terminals tend to be more square-shaped (more yard space), while transshipment hubs tend to be elongated rectangles (more berth space). Terminal optimization is about optimizing the quay, yard, and gate operations individually and **finding an optimal balance among the three capacity dimensions**. For example, terminal operators can find a better [balance between quay and yard capacity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4929) by focusing on **hardware** investments (infrastructure, equipment), **software** (optimizations using IT solutions), and **orgware** (for example, through pricing incentives). In the past decades, terminal operators have developed a more integrated view of container terminal optimization, often relying on simulation approaches to analyze terminal operations from a system-based perspective, combining BAP/QCAP/BACAP with YAP. Discrete-event simulation remains one of the most popular techniques in terminal operations modeling. Other techniques have been used, such as agent-based modeling, network-based modeling, simulation-based education, and web-based simulation. These optimization techniques are incorporated in terminal design applications and Terminal Operating Systems (TOS). Artificial Intelligence (AI) and advanced machine learning have also found their way to terminal optimization. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Quay-and-yard-equipment-combinations.png?resize=900%2C429&ssl=1 "Quay and Yard Equipment Combinations | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Quay and Yard Equipment Combinations![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/antwerp_psa_modal_separation.jpg?resize=900%2C521&ssl=1 "Modal Separation in Space: Europa Terminal in Antwerp | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Modal Separation in Space Europa Terminal in Antwerp![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/water_versus_yard_capacity.png?resize=900%2C497&ssl=1 "Balancing Water and Yard Capacity | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Balancing Water and Yard Capacity--- # Related Topics - [Chapter 3.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminals-and-terminal-operators/) - [Chapter 3.2 Terminal Concessions and Land Leases](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/) - [Chapter 3.7 Dock Labor](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/port-labor/) - [Chapter 3.8 Terminal Automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminal-automation/) - [Chapter 8.1 Cruise Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/cruises-ports/) - [Chapter 8.2 Break-Bulk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/break-bulk/ "Chapter 8.2 – Break Bulk") --- ## References - Bose, J.W. (ed) (2020) Handbook of Terminal Planning, Springer Cham, ISBN 978-3-030-39989-4. <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39990-0>. - Rodrigue, J-P (2025) “A Systemic Analysis of Container Terminal Layouts”, Journal of Shipping and Trade, Vol. 10, No. 4, <https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-025-00194-3>. - Van Koningsveld, M. (Ed.), (2023). “[Ports and Waterways – Navigating the changing world](https://books.open.tudelft.nl/home/catalog/book/204)”. Delft University of Technology, Hydraulic Engineering, Ports and Waterways, Delft, The Netherlands. - Vis, I.F.A. and R. de Koster (2003) “Transshipment of containers at a container terminal: An overview”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 147, No. 1, pp. 1-16. <https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00293-X>. - X. Li., Lu W., H. Lang., Z. Jin. and P. He (2025) “A critical literature review on layout designs and handling technology in traditional and automated container terminals”, Transport Economics and Management. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.team.2025.06.002>. - ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Supply Factors for Port Services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/supply-factors-port-services/) **Published:** January 28, 2026 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/supply_factors_port_services.png?resize=900%2C275&ssl=1 "Supply Factors for Port Services | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Supply Factors for Port ServicesThe supply of port services is impacted by four fundamental factors: - **Price of port services**. According to supply curve *S*, if the price of port services increases, the supply of port services will increase. Alternatively, if the price of port services declines, the supply of port services will decline. - **Price at substitute port**. If a port in the competitive hinterland offers a lower cost structure (*b*), then a share of the traffic will shift to this port, implying that the service supply of port (*a*) will be lower. At any given price, the supply is lower under the new supply curve *Sc*. A reverse shift occurs when a port competing for the same hinterland increases its price (*c*). The new supply curve becomes *Sb* as port (*a*) has to offer additional service supply to accommodate the demand. - **Price of production factors**. If one or all of the standard production factors, land, capital, or labor, increase, the supply curve shifts from *Sa* to *Sb*. For instance, producing the same port service supply at higher labor costs results in higher port service prices. - **Price of complementary port activities**. The full cost of using a port often includes complementary activities such as warehousing and inland transportation. Even if a port has a competitive price, if the price of all, or some of these complementary services increases, it can experience a decline in traffic. For any price, the supply drops with a shift of the supply curve from *Sa* to *Sc*. Alternatively, lower complementary services costs can improve competitiveness and attract traffic. Unlike changes in the demand, which can take place quickly, changes in the supply of port services usually take place in the long run. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/supply-factors-port-services/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/supply-factors-port-services/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/supply-factors-port-services/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/supply-factors-port-services/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 5.2 – Roll-on/Roll-off (RORO)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/) **Published:** April 12, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Theo Notteboom and Dr. Athanasios Pallis > Several ports develop terminals serving the Roll-On/Roll-Off (RORO) shipping market, which specializes in transporting wheeled cargo, such as cars, trucks, trailers, and other heavy machinery, that are driven on and off the vessels on their own wheels. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Types of RORO Vessels](#1_Types_of_RORO_Vessels) - [2. Key Segments of the RORO Market](#2_Key_Segments_of_the_RORO_Market) - [3. RORO Terminals](#3_RORO_Terminals) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Types of RORO Vessels The RORO vessels market offers reliable and cost-effective ways to haul wheeled cargo for various industries, ranging from automotive to construction, agriculture, or heavy equipment. The [global RORO vessels market is segmented](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/global-ro-ro-vessels-market-segments/) by ship type, capacity, fuel type, application, and region. RORO vessels are rectangular in shape and feature large open spaces and multiple decks, allowing vehicles and cargo on trailers to be easily rolled on and off the ship through [ramps at the stern, bow, or side](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/ramps-roro-vessels/). RORO shipping allows for quick loading and unloading due to the self-driven nature of the cargo, which reduces turnaround times. RORO vessels come in different functionalities, shapes, and sizes, including PCTC, ConRo, and RoPax vessels. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/roro_market_segments.png?resize=900%2C381&ssl=1 "Global RoRo Vessels Market Segments | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global RoRo Vessels Market Segments![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Ramp-configurations-roro-vessels.png?resize=900%2C663&ssl=1 "Ramp-configurations-roro-vessels | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ramp Configurations for RORO Vessels![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Grimaldi-vessel-Hamburg.jpg?resize=900%2C558&ssl=1 "Grimaldi ConRo Vessel in the Port of Hamburg | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Conro Vessel of Grimaldi Lines![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ps20050107_08_13.jpg?resize=900%2C373&ssl=1 "Mafi Trailer for RORO Cargo | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Mafi Trailer for RORO Cargo## A. **Pure Car and Truck Carrier (PCTC) and Pure Car Carrier (PCC)** > **Pure Car and Truck Carrier (PCTC)**. A specialized RORO vessel designed specifically to transport cars, trucks, vans, buses, and construction or agricultural machinery. They typically combine **fixed decks** for passenger vehicles and flat cargoes with **hoistable decks** strengthened for carrying heavy cargo. > > **Pure Car Carrier (PCC)**. A specialized RORO vessel primarily using fixed decks to park and transport cars. The capacity of PCTCs and PCCs is measured in **car equivalent units** (CEUs), which are equivalent to 10 square meters, helping to gauge the maximum number of standard-sized cars that can be carried. Before the advent of PCTCs and PCCs, conventional cranes were used to load and discharge new cars one at a time, proving to be time-consuming, labor-intensive, and prone to damage. The first dedicated car carriers emerged in the mid-1960s, using simple ramps to drive cars on and off the handful of levels of car decks. These early PCCs had a capacity of around 1,000 CEU. By the 1970s, PCCs with a capacity of approximately 2,000 CEU had entered the market, capable of loading 250 cars per hour. Since then, PCTCs and PCCs have grown in size to benefit the most from [economies of scale in ship size](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/optimal-ship-size-container-ships-cruise/). Accordingly, the fleet of RORO vessels is dominated by [Japanese and European carriers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/largest-roro-carriers/ "Largest RORO Carriers, 2024") that have deployed these ships to support their respective vehicle exports. Modern PCTCs and PCCs are often large, **box-like ships** with relatively flat sides, optimized for maximizing interior cargo space rather than hydrodynamic and aerodynamic performance. This design is distinctive in the shipping world and makes PCTCs easily recognizable as “floating boxes”. These vessels typically have multiple decks, sometimes as many as 12 to 14, which are stacked to fit as many vehicles as possible. Lashing points are provided on each deck for fastening vehicles. The decks are connected by ramps, allowing cars and trucks to be driven on and off the ship. Some decks may be adjustable in height to accommodate vehicles of different sizes and heights (i.e., hoistable decks). Capacities can range from less than 1,000 CEU for the smallest units to 10,800 CEU for the largest ships afloat. At the beginning of 2025, the median [load capacity of the global RORO fleet](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/roro-fleet-load-capacity/) was 6,200 CEU, with just less than 200 vessels having a carrying capacity of 7,000 CEU or more. A more intensive exploitation of economies of scale has been observed in recent years, leading, among other things, to an increase in the [capacity of the largest available RORO vessel](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/the-largest-available-roro-vessel-ceus/ "The Largest Available RORO Vessel, 1985-2025 (in CEUs)"). The [Aurora Class vessels](https://youtu.be/8CSf2AdSPJA?si=5yBBuzh4rUL__0Rn) of Höegh Autoliners were launched in 2024 with dimensions of 200 meters in length, a beam of 38 meters, and a capacity of 9,100 CEU. Chinese car maker BYD launched the *BYD Shenzhen* with a capacity of 9,200 CEU in early 2025. In May 2025, the Chinese car carrier *Anji Ansheng* set a new record of 9,500 CEU in terms of vessel capacity. In April 2026, Guangzhou Shipyard International in China delivered the *Glovis Leader* to Hyundai Merchant Marine (HMM). This newest record vessel has a capacity of 10,800 CEU with a length overall of 230m, a beam of 40m, and 14 decks. The **[length of the largest RORO vessels](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/large-roro-vessels-of-the-pctc-and-pcc-type/)** in operation for a long time was limited to 200m, with longer PCTCs entering the market. Wallenius Wilhelmsen has ships of 11,700 CEU on order, via newbuilds or upscaled existing orders, with deliveries starting in late 2027. These [‘Shaper+’ Class vessels](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/mega-car-carriers-the-shaper-class/) count 14 decks and measure 238 m in length overall (LOA) with a beam of 40 m. The ‘Shaper+’ class is an adaptation of the original ‘Shaper’ Class with a unit capacity of 9,300 CEU (12 decks; 228 m LOA and a beam of 38 m; first deliveries in 2026). ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/large-car-carriers.png?resize=900%2C519&ssl=1 "Large PCTC and PCC vessels | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Large PCTC and PCC vessels![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Shaperplus-Wallenius-1.png?resize=900%2C510&ssl=1 "Mega Car Carriers: The Shaper+ Class | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Mega Car Carriers The Shaper+ Class![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/RORO-Vessles-Load-Capacity.png?resize=900%2C423&ssl=1 "RORO Fleet Load Capacity | Port Economics, Management and Policy")RORO Fleet Vessels load capacity![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/largest_roro_vessel2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "The Largest available RORO Vessel, 1985-2026 (in CEUs) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Largest available RORO Vessel 1985 2026 in CEUsThe **scaling up of vessel size** goes hand in hand with the transition to more environmentally friendly ship designs and the use of greener bunkers such as LNG, methanol, and ammonia. The number of methanol-capable and ammonia-ready vessels is growing. RORO operators are also testing vessel designs equipped with various sorts of [steel sails](https://youtu.be/MEqL1LG9fFI?si=xeKgL2cwOXOH7SrZ) or rotor sails to reduce fuel consumption at sea. Other innovations in PCTC design include the use of a rounded bow shape to minimize wind resistance and reduce CO2 emissions (e.g., [FLEXIE series car carriers of MOL](https://youtu.be/6Q6Evo0xfJU?si=Sfiqv8WF8wVUGXKC)), and the fitting of high-efficiency solar panels on the roof (e.g., Drive Green Highway of K-Line, 200 meters long, 38 meters wide, 7,500 CEU). ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Supporting-videos-roro-vessels.png?resize=900%2C156&ssl=1 "Supporting Videos - RoRo Vessels | Port Economics, Management and Policy")![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/largest_roro_carriers.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Largest RORO Carriers, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Largest RORO Carriers 2024PCTCs and PCCs are commonly used by automotive manufacturers and shipping companies to move large quantities of vehicles across oceans and between major ports. PCTCs are integral to the [global automotive supply chain](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/largest-car-exporters-importers/ "Largest Car Exporters and Importers, 2022"), linking major vehicle manufacturing hubs in Japan, South Korea, Europe, China, and the United States to consumer markets worldwide. Global Shipping companies such as Wallenius Wilhelmsen, MOL, Höegh Autoliners, and NYK Line operate large PCTC fleets to support the global automotive industry. The nationality of the largest PCTC fleets tends to correspond to countries with substantial car exports, such as Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Further, some car manufacturers, such as the Chinese Build Your Dreams (BYD), are developing their own dedicated PCTC fleets. ## B. ConRo vessels **ConRo vessels** have mixed capabilities to carry both vehicles and containers, making them more versatile in cargo handling. ConRo ships are designed with container stacking on the upper decks (with or without cell guides), which are open and structured like traditional container ships. The lower decks often include ramps and are enclosed to protect the RORO cargo. ConRo vessels are typically deployed on routes where ports can handle both RORO and containerized cargo, often in regions such as the Caribbean, the Mediterranean, and parts of Europe. These vessels benefit shipping lines by reducing the need for separate RoRo and container vessels on specific routes, making operations more cost-effective. ## C. RoPax vessels **RoPax vessels** are hybrid ships that combine the features of RORO vessels with passenger (Pax) transportation capabilities. Essentially, these vessels are designed to carry both vehicles and passengers. Several RoPax vessels feature passenger facilities, including seating areas, cabins, dining areas, and amenities. Facilities can range from basic to luxurious, depending on the route and distance. Some RoPax vessels feature full-service amenities like restaurants, entertainment areas, and private cabins. For shorter routes, simpler accommodations are more common, focusing on seating and essential services for a comfortable trip. RoPax vessels are configured to balance passenger and cargo capacity, with a flexible allocation that allows the number of vehicles and passengers to be adjusted as needed. RoPax vessels are commonly used on shorter routes where passengers may travel with their own vehicles, such as across the English Channel, the Baltic Sea, or the Mediterranean. Routes in Japan, South Korea, and across the South China Sea also employ RoPax services to connect islands and coastal cities. Overall, RoPax vessels provide a critical link for both people and goods, especially in coastal areas and island regions where other forms of transportation may be limited. RoPax vessels, as well as PCTC and PCC vessels, tend to be top-heavy. Sloshing floodwater can destabilize the ship, thereby requiring watertight ramps and the compartmentalization of the hold with watertight steel doors. **Safety regulations** for the design and operation of RoPax vessels have been tightened after some **major ferry disasters**. In 1987, the Herald of Free Enterprise capsized off the coast of Zeebrugge (Belgium), killing 193 passengers and crew, and in 1994, the **Estonia** sank en route from Tallinn (Estonia) to Stockholm (Sweden), killing 852 people onboard. # 2. Key Segments of the RORO Market ## A. The shipment of new cars and vehicles The RORO market relies heavily on the **automotive industry**, with the shipment of new cars and vehicles constituting the most significant segment of the RORO market. The global deepsea seaborne car trade reached 23.7 million cars in 2023, with a [high concentration of RORO port activity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/number-port-calls-roro-ships/ "Number of Port Calls by RORO Ships, 2024"). **Chinese exports** are surging, involving more than 4 million cars in 2023, a development that is particularly affecting China-Europe volumes. In 2023 and 2024, European ports were overwhelmed with imported electric vehicles (EVs), particularly from China. This is partly because manufacturers shipped cars before the new EU import tariffs on Chinese EV manufacturers took effect in mid-2024. The EU applied additional duties of 17-38% from July 2024, in addition to an existing 10% tariff. Chinese vehicle exports to Europe reached 1.3 million in Q1 2024, a 33% increase year-on-year. This import surge transformed car terminals in major European car-handling ports, such as Zeebrugge and Bremerhaven, into vast car parks. This surge in the market is also evident in the leading ports handling cars in the Mediterranean, including Barcelona, Valencia, Koper, Vigo, Santander, and Piraeus. In response to growing demand, Barcelona proceeded in 2024 to concession a third car terminal. A new terminal was also concessioned in Vigo. Another emerging trend concerns **joint investments** by port authorities and carmakers to promote further rail transportation of cars (e.g., the case of Santander and Volkswagen) or companies involved in automotive logistics to strengthen their presence in port areas or terminal operations. Additionally, the terminals faced a shortage of truck drivers and transportation equipment. Increasing trade barriers also impact other markets. The US imposed a 100% tariff on Chinese EVs starting on the 1st of August 2024. To avoid tariffs, large Chinese car manufacturers such as BYD are considering setting up assembly plants in the EU’s Customs Union and Mexico. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/car_exporters_importers.png?resize=900%2C404&ssl=1 "Largest Car Exporters and Importers, 2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Largest Car Exporters and Importers 2022![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-RORO-Calls.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Number of Port Calls by RORO Ships, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Number of Port Calls by RORO Ships 2024To cope with the lack of RoRo capacity to transport vehicles, the **orderbook** reached a record level in 2023 with 80 vessels on order, representing a capacity of 677,000 CEU or 37% of the existing fleet capacity. Large Chinese car brands such as BYD are constructing their own PCC fleet. By 2028, Chinese companies are expected to control about 9% of the PCTC and PCC fleet. Despite the surge observed in recent years, RORO shipping activities and rates in this market segment remain volatile, influenced by fluctuations in fuel prices, geopolitical tensions, trade policies, and vehicle sales. The market also follows seasonal trends tied to vehicle production cycles, sales peaks, and the launch of new car models. The shipment of new cars is influenced by shifting consumer preferences, particularly the increasing demand for personal vehicles from a growing middle class in developing countries, as well as the rise of **EVs and hybrid-powered cars**. Notably, the Asia-Pacific region is experiencing a significant upward trend in car sales, driven by the expansion of the middle class and increasing urbanization. The Asia-Pacific region is expected to increasingly dominate the new car shipping market segment, with China, Japan, and South Korea being major contributors. The maritime transportation of new cars is becoming increasingly **segmented**, with [container shipping lines](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/) trying to capture a part of the market by offering containerized transport solutions for new cars. The list of PCTC operators includes very large companies such as Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK), MOL, Eukor Car Carriers, Cosco Shipping, and Wallenius Wilhelmsen, but also a broad array of smaller niche operators and manufacturer-linked operators (such as the Chinese EV producer BYD). Wallenius Wilhelmsen operates over 120 vessels and is the world’s largest deep-sea carrier. NYK is the second-largest deep-sea operator, and the other carrier operates more than 100 vessels. Grimaldi, a hybrid deep-sea and short-sea operator with ConRos and PCTCs, operates over 90 ships and has a different business model; this company serves the EU short-sea activity with its vessels calling at a significantly higher number of ports. MOL and Glovis are the fourth and fifth largest operators, respectively, with over 80 vessels each. Regarding the regional port markets, Grimaldi and Wallenius Wilhelmsen are the operators that dominate **European** port calls, with their vessels’ calls accounting for over 40% of the total deep-sea port calls. The total number of port calls made by all established and emerging operators in European ports within a month stands at approximately 400, with major ports including Antwerp-Zeebrugge, Livorno, Bremerhaven, Southampton, and Barcelona. In all these ports, the top-5 PCTC operators account for 60% or more of the traffic. However, newcomers and small to medium-sized operators are also emerging. On average, deep-sea RoRo vessels spend 1.5 days per call at berth in European ports. The major US ports are Baltimore, Brunswick, Jacksonville, Newark, and Tacoma. Wallenius Wilhelmsen and NYK are the top operators based on the total number of calls in US ports (approximately 40%). Yet, US ports have a more diversified portfolio of active operators than those in Europe. At the same time, deep-sea vessels calling at US ports spend, on average, less than one day at berth. The major ports in the Middle East include Jebel Ali, Ad Dammam, Mina Khalifa at Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, and Sohar, with the region presenting a wide variety of lengths of berthing times per deep-sea vessel call. Car manufacturers have developed **strategic partnerships with car carrier operators**, often extending to port terminal operations. For example, International Car Operators (ICO) is a 100% subsidiary of NYK, operating two large car/RORO terminals in the Belgian port of Zeebrugge and one mega terminal in Antwerp. Through ICO, NYK offers its vessels and the wider automotive industry a strong hub-and-spoke concept in relation to the European car market. **PCTC (Pure Car and Truck Carrier) and PCC (Pure Car Carrier) vessel types** are the workhorses in this market segment. While the deepsea RoRo market remains very important, the **intra-regional short-sea RoRo market** is expanding, particularly in Europe and Asia. ConRo vessels often serve these short-sea services. Vessel utilization rates are critical to profitability, as RoRo vessels must maximize their deck space by carrying the highest number of vehicles per trip. Special & heavy cargoes and/or bulk cargoes can constitute 30% of a typical PCTC load. Today, car carriers spend approximately 15% of their time in port and 17% idle. A reduction in port time in recent years suggests an improvement in the efficiency of loading and unloading operations. On average, a PCTC vessel makes 4.5 port calls within a month. With the rise in **EV production**, RORO carriers are adapting to transport these vehicles safely. EVs have unique handling requirements, particularly concerning battery safety and fire hazards. Moreover, electric cars are also heavier, calling for newbuilds that will be equipped with stronger car decks than previous generations of ships. While a gasoline vehicle can be transported with an almost empty tank, an electric vehicle is transported with its battery, which weighs the same regardless of the charge level. The increasing need for efficient new car transportation, coupled with the growing demand for EVs and their batteries, is fueling the demand for specialized car carriers. Like other shipping sectors, RORO operators face increasing pressure to **reduce emissions**. Compliance with International Maritime Oganization (IMO) and other regulations on sulfur emissions, CO₂ reduction, and the use of alternative fuels affects operating costs and fleet modernization. The RORO market has seen improvements in vessel design, fuel efficiency, and automation. The development of mega-RORO vessels allows for increased capacity and better economies of scale, while digital tracking systems improve logistics transparency. ## B. The shipment of second-hand cars and vehicles The **second-hand car shipping market** has experienced significant growth, driven by robust demand for pre-owned vehicles and increasing international trade. About a quarter of the global population lives in countries where at least half of the cars are imported used cars. The United States remains a major exporter, with popular destinations in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa. Ports in Texas, Florida, and California are hubs for exporting vehicles. **Japan** is known for exporting well-maintained used cars, especially to Africa, the Caribbean, and Southeast Asia, thanks to favorable Japanese regulations for exporting used vehicles and a high rate of car replacement. Thanks to the government policy launched in 2019, **China** is becoming a major exporter, allowing used car exports for the first time. In **Europe**, countries like Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium are significant exporters to Africa and Asia. These are large markets for used cars, especially for countries with limited access to new vehicles. The UAE often serves as a transshipment hub for vehicles headed to East Africa. **Second-hand car exports to Africa** have evolved strongly in recent years. While in the past, vast amounts of low-quality end-of-life vehicles moved to Africa, African markets have matured and are now demanding a younger middle segment and luxury second-hand cars. Western Europe, North America, and parts of Asia remain the **leading importers of luxury pre-owned vehicles**. OECD/ITF launched the [Used Vehicle Dashboard](https://www.itf-oecd.org/used-vehicles-dashboard), which allows users to explore statistics on the international import and export of used passenger cars. Most second-hand vehicles are shipped with **RORO and ConRo vessels**. RORO is efficient and cost-effective, especially for large volumes. Still, the **containerization of cars is on the rise,** primarily for high-value or sensitive vehicles. Although it is rare for used cars due to high costs, air freight is sometimes chosen for urgent deliveries, high-end vehicles, or specialty cars such as expensive vintage collector vehicles and high-performance cars. The second-hand shipping market increasingly relies on **digital platforms** for tracking and documentation. These digital solutions increase transparency, reducing the risk of fraud and streamlining customs clearance. Specialized companies offer insurance and financing for used vehicles that are shipped and facilitate the purchasing and shipping process for international buyers. Exchange rate changes and existing tariffs and regulations heavily impact the second-hand vehicle market. For example, implementing stricter emissions regulations in a country or region can significantly impact the exports of second-hand cars with higher emissions from that country or region. Many countries are **tightening emissions standards** and may restrict the import of older vehicles that don’t meet these standards, especially with the growing push for electric vehicles. Increased shipping costs and delays influence the final price and availability of used cars in many markets. For the foreseeable future, EV exports to emerging economies will remain marginal compared to those of petrol- and diesel-powered vehicles. In the longer term, the expected growing export of second-hand EVs will introduce new logistical needs, such as specialized handling and battery transport requirements. ## C. Accompanied and unaccompanied trailers The short-distance RORO, RoPax, and ConRo services market can involve accompanied transport, where truck-trailer combinations go onboard with drivers, or unaccompanied transport, where trailers make the crossing without drivers. In the latter case, the trailer is positioned onboard using a special tractor, which allows for more capacity but requires more handling at the terminals. It is also possible for a 40- or 45-foot container to be positioned on a chassis and then loaded onto a ferry, which allows ferries to support containerized trade. The vessel capacities for accompanied and unaccompanied transport are typically expressed in lane meters or truck units. The capacities tend to vary greatly. For example, in Europe, the large units deployed on the English Channel and parts of the Baltic can handle 120 trucks per voyage. In contrast, vessel capacities on services in smaller markets (e.g., the Irish islands) tend to be more limited. ## D. RORO niche markets In addition to the main segments discussed above, the RORO market encompasses several niche segments. One of the segments relates to **rail or train ferries** with ships designed to carry railway wagons as well as their cargo and passengers. The main cargo deck is equipped with railway tracks. The railway wagons access the vessel via bow or stern ramps. The world’s first train ferry service was launched in 1851, operating a short voyage of 9 km across the Firth of Forth in Scotland. It closed in 1887 after the opening of Bouch’s Tay Rail Bridge. Train ferries operate in a wide range of countries around the world. An example involves the [train ferry service crossing the Caspian Sea](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/train-ferries-on-the-caspian-sea-as-part-of-the-middle-corridor/), connecting ports in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to Baku in Azerbaijan. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Middle-Corridor.png?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Train Ferries on the Caspian Sea as Part of the Middle Corridor | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Train ferries on the Caspian Sea as part of the Middle Corridor# 3. RORO Terminals There are several types of RORO terminals, each focused on specific market segments. The operational characteristics of port services in serving the RORO maritime shipping segment depend on the submarkets considered: - **RORO and ferry RoPax services**. Typical of the end-to-end type with a port of call at either side of the route. The shipping services operate on a fixed schedule with medium to high frequency (sometimes multiple times a day). - **Unaccompanied RORO transport**. The market is based on end-to-end services with dedicated RORO freight vessels that often have reserved space for containers. - **Deepsea and shortsea car carrying trade**. A major submarket in the RORO market. Due to the nature of the industry and its operations, RORO activity at port terminals requires a **large amount of space**, primarily for parking. Facilitating vehicle transportation via RORO vessels, car terminals are integrated parts of the car trade and related automotive supply chains, and are typical examples of intermodal transportation. ## A. Ferry terminals Ferry terminals are equipped to handle **[RORO and RoPax vessels (ferries)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/calais-ferry-terminal/ "Calais Ferry Terminal")**, which operate on end-to-end type services with a port of call at either side of the route. Terminals used for ferry crossings are designed to facilitate the **fast turnaround of the vessel**. The apron is usually equipped with fixed ramps. Simultaneously, the yard features extensive **parking facilities** for trucks and cars waiting to board, as well as an administrative building that includes a ticketing office and, if applicable, a customs office. A notable example of a large ferry terminal complex is the [Calais Ferry Terminal ](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/calais-ferry-terminal/ "Calais Ferry Terminal")on the French side of the English Channel. The terminal specializes in cars, accompanied trucks, and passengers making the crossing to the UK. The **required shape of the quayside** of a RORO terminal depends on the type of ramp the visiting vessels have. In most cases, a straight quay wall is sufficient. However, when the vessel uses a **bow or stern ramp**, the quay wall might have a small outward extension to facilitate vessel handling. ## B. Terminals handling of cars and rolling materials There are terminals specialized in handling new (and second-hand) cars and rolling materials. They typically serve as transit points where cars are unloaded from ships, temporarily stored, and then distributed to dealerships or other destinations. The **deepsea and shortsea car carrying trade** is an [important segment in the RORO market](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/#3_Key_segments_of_the_Roro_market). On long-distance **intercontinental routes**, operators deploy [Pure Car and Truck Carriers (PCTC)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/#2_Types_of_RoRo_vessels). The number of ports of call is kept to a strict minimum, as shipping lines aim for a short port time and face limitations in the number of ports that have the infrastructure to accommodate large quantities of new cars. As a result, a significant part of the market is concentrated in large car-handling ports. Several large car ports have successfully combined deepsea services with intra-regional shortsea services. The resulting hub-and-spoke network configuration is combined with growing local clusters of automotive logistics companies. New car terminals usually cover **large surfaces,** as the yard space required per vessel is quite substantial. Trucks up to 16 tons require the equivalent of 26.5 square meters per vehicle, while bigger cars (SUVs) need 11 square meters per vehicle, and smaller cars require 7 square meters per vehicle. Trucks longer than 15 meters might need as much as 45 square meters per truck. The yard is designed as a **large parking area** with small distances kept between cars. The terminals have large, organized storage yards where vehicles are temporarily parked in rows, sorted by brand, model, destination, or other criteria. These yards are managed using advanced inventory systems, sometimes combined with GPS or RFID technology, to track the location of each vehicle. This ensures quick and efficient retrieval when it is time to load or deliver them. Specific **[parking configurations](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/storage-car-terminals/ "Storage Configurations at Car Terminals")** are deployed to maximize the productivity of terminal land without limiting access to the parked vehicles. A growing number of terminals are installing **[multilevel car parks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/multilevel-car-parks-at-antwerp-euroterminal-aet/)** to increase the capacity of the existing terminal area. These car parks typically have five to eight levels with an extensive internal ramp system to facilitate car movements. The next innovation wave involves the development of **multilevel automated parking facilities**. Under this setup, neither drivers nor dockworkers park vehicles manually. Upon arrival, each car is automatically assigned a storage location, after which robots and cranes move it vertically and horizontally within the rack. When a vehicle needs to be retrieved for pickup or shipment, the system brings it directly to the correct loading zone. The result is smarter, safer, and more efficient vehicle storage. An example can be found in Zeeebruges (Belgium) where terminal operator ICO is developing a 13-storey automated installation that can accommodate around 10,000 vehicles (completion is scheduled for the second half of 2027). Non-automated car terminals are a comparatively labor-intensive port operation, as the unloading and loading of a typical large PCTC requires up to 60 dockworkers in multiple shifts. Vans bring dock workers on board, after which they each pick a car to be driven down the ramp and parked in a designated spot in the yard. Under normal conditions, a 7,000 PCTC vessel takes two days to complete its operation. To minimize the risk of damage, the workforce is trained to handle the vehicles carefully, and the terminal design often includes protective measures, such as smooth and wide access lanes, and protocols to prevent stacking or overcrowding. The whole process is carefully coordinated to ensure fast turnaround and prevent damage. Any shortage of manpower can significantly delay car terminal operations. If the unloading of a car carrier is delayed, the ship must change its route (port), which generates problems for shore-based scheduling personnel. Car handling at ports during the pandemic provides an illustration. Port delays reached critical levels, with a 7,000 CEU PCTC taking 11 days to complete operations in Bremerhaven, Germany. Due to changes in other ship schedules, terminals were overloaded with previously unloaded, non-picked vessels, which delayed port operations as they required double-handling of cars. In addition to the shortage of semiconductors used in car production, car parts shipped by container ships were limited in 2022 due to port congestion, affecting car production and, consequently, the pickup of stored and scheduled-to-be-delivered vehicles. ## C. Inbound and Outbound Flows Car terminals depend on **finished vehicle logistics (FVL)** and relevant strategies. FVL is a complex chain, as every car production plant uses personalized logistics chains and provides all the necessary services expected by the automotive industry and the final consumer. In response, a car terminal works to secure different operational services. The terminal provides loading, discharging, and storage services. Moreover, the terminal is often requested to inspect vehicles at various stages, including pre-delivery inspections (PDI), maintenance, car customization, and damage control. In some cases, terminals and ports must be flexible in offering other services, such as disassembling and assembling operations or car postponement services. The FVL chain can be organized as a simple service for moving cars or a higher-value chain that performs additional services on the moving vehicles. The latter process requires extra knowledge and skills to ensure safety and security levels for cargo and logistics providers, with carmakers having special expectations for additional services to be provided as part of the car terminal activities. Car terminals for inbound or [outbound car flows](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/outbound_inbound_car_terminals.png) are almost always quite distinct. This is because they require different processes and different infrastructure exploitation. The requested services are organized in logistics nodes closer to the production point or the end consumer. More services related to car logistics and customization are often provided in inbound flows, where the node (terminal or dealer’s depot) is closer to the end consumers. Such a position typically requires different buffer strategies tailored to specific groups of customers. Consequently, terminal operators monitor and adapt their internal processes to meet the changing market and stakeholder expectations. After unloading, imported or exported vehicles undergo **customs checks**, ensuring they meet import/export regulations and comply with local standards. Each car is also checked for any **transport damage** or other issues, often by a team of quality inspectors. **Every vehicle is logged**, and its paperwork (Vehicle Identification Number, make, model, destination, etc.) is updated. This data is essential for tracking each car and managing inventory. Advanced **terminal operating systems (TOS)** assist the terminal manager in tracking individual vehicles during their arrival at, stay, and departure from the terminal. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-RORO-Calls.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Number of Port Calls by RORO Ships, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Number of Port Calls by RORO Ships 2024![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/outbound_inbound_car_terminals.png?resize=900%2C505&ssl=1 "Outbound and Inbound Traffic at Car Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Outbound and Inbound Traffic at Car Terminals![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/roro-barges.png?resize=900%2C198&ssl=1 "roro-barges | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Roro barges for the transport of new cars on rivers and canals![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/parking_configurations_car_terminal.png?resize=900%2C541&ssl=1 "Storage Configurations at Car Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Storage Configurations at Car Terminals![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/AET-multilevel-car-park.png?resize=900%2C396&ssl=1 "AET-Multilevel Car Park | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Multilevel car parksThe different activities taking place at the car terminal are linked with respective **pricing schemes**: - (Un)loading a vehicle. Vehicles are loaded onto and unloaded from ships, often using specialized equipment like a RORO ramp. Charges apply per vehicle, depending on the weight of the (un)loaded vessels, with charges commonly differing for vehicles of less than 3 tons and vehicles of more than 3 tons. Charges for (un)loading a transit vehicle also differ from vessels heading to the local markets, as the latter category follows different logistics chains. - (Un)loading transshipment vehicles. Vehicles are transferred from one mode of transport to another, such as from a ship to a truck or train. The charge depends on the number of vehicles to be (un)loaded/year. It also depends on the weight of the vehicle, with cars weighing less than 3 tons commonly charged differently from those weighing more than 3 tons. - Sorting per vehicle. - Shifting via dock, on the dock, or in the hold per vehicle. - (Un)lashing per vehicle. - Storage of vehicles. The charge applies per vehicle, depending on the number of storage days and the weight of the vehicle. - Storage of transshipment vehicles. The charge applies per vehicle, depending on the number of storage days and the weight of the vehicle. - (Un)loading of motorcycles. - Storage of motorcycles per day (vehicle / depending on days), with storage of transshipment motorcycles charged differently (vehicle / depending on days). Several **additional services** might also take place at car terminals, either by the terminal operator or third parties specialized in automotive logistics: - **Exterior vehicle services**. Paintwork, repairs, washing, and vehicle-specific processing. - **Interior vehicle services**. Including professional interior cleaning, fitting auxiliary heating, individual modifications, and installations. - **Technical services**. Include pre-delivery inspections (PDI), modifications, tires/wheels/rims, and further inspections. - **Customs clearance**. Handling all necessary customs documentation and procedures for vehicles entering or leaving the country. ## D. Added Value Functions Car terminals are usually equipped with one or more **Vehicle Processing Centers (VPCs)** or **PDI centers (Pre-Delivery Inspection)** where the cars are prepared to be dropped off at the dealers, or directly with the customer. The activities in these centers are performed at the request of the car manufacturer or importer. They can include car inspection, repair of transport damages, installing car options and accessories, dewaxing, cleaning, removing the transport wrap or foil, and software preparation or update. Occasionally, car terminal operators prepare rental or fleet cars for the B2B markets. When the vehicles are ready for distribution, they are loaded onto trucks, railcars, inland barges, or other ships for delivery to their final destinations, such as dealerships or other sales locations. While road haulage is by far the dominant mode of **inland transport** for car terminals, rail, and [barge](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/roro-barges-2/ "Roro Barges for New Car Transport"), particularly in the Rhine and Yangtze river basins, it plays an ever more important role in securing the inland access of the larger car ports. The terminals work closely with trucking, rail, inland shipping, and shortsea companies to schedule pickups and ensure efficient outbound logistics. Car terminal operators facilitate car storage and link the terminal with inland delivery zones. Still, carriers at sea represent the most critical part, with their shorter stays in the port significantly reducing transportation and terminal and port total costs for car trade. **Activities at berth** are perhaps the most important phase of the process. When car terminals serve transshipment operations, handling the vessels at berth is even more important: operational processes and the operational timetable of the entire terminal are connected with berth operational time windows. The terminal owners or the management are focused on fulfilling the carrier’s expectations of shorter waiting times for free berths, shorter stays, and higher productivity, with fewer damages to discharged or loaded cars. From an infrastructural point of view, the requirements for a car terminal are lower than those of other port terminals. Several car terminal operators are investing in **eco-friendly projects**, including onsite windmills that generate green electricity, large battery storage systems, onshore power supply (OPS), the use of electric or hybrid yard equipment, and alternative fuel testing. Many port terminals are implementing eco-friendly practices, such as low-emission vehicles for moving cars and recycling runoff water over the large parking surface. The terminals follow environmental, safety, and trade regulations, which vary depending on the country and type of cargo being handled. To cater to the increasing electrification of cars and the rise of fully electric vehicles, a number of larger terminals have invested in **[battery charging facilities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/large-car-terminal/ "A large car terminal: Bastenaken terminal Zeebrugge")** at the yard, often powered by green energy such as wind turbines. Car terminals are **high-security areas** with surveillance systems, fencing, and controlled access points to prevent theft or vandalism. Many car and truck terminals combine RORO activities with break bulk or container handling and storage. This is particularly the case when the terminal is visited by **ConRo ships**. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ICO-Zeebrugge.png?resize=578%2C344&ssl=1 "Large Car Terminal: Bastenaken Terminal Zeebrugge | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Large car terminal Bastenaken terminal Zeebrugge![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/vue-aerienne-port-car-ferry-calais.jpg?resize=900%2C598&ssl=1 "vue-aerienne-port-car-ferry-calais | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Calais Ferry Terminal![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Piraeus-car-terminal.png?resize=900%2C657&ssl=1 "Piraeus Car Terminal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Piraeus Car Terminal--- # Related Topics - - --- ## References - Beškovnik B. & Zanne M. (2018). Business process re-engineering of a maritime car terminal: changing from inbound to outbound intermodal node in Finished Vehicle Logistics (FVL). Polish Maritime Research 25(3), 54-61. - Chandra, S., Ghosh, D., Srivastava, S.K. (2016). Outbound logistics management practices in the automotive industry: an emerging economy perspective, Decision, 43(2), 145–165. - Dias, J.C.Q., Calado, J.M.F., Mendonça, M.C. (2010). The role of European «ro-ro» port terminals in the automotive supply chain management, Journal of Transport Geography, 18,(1), 116–124. - Fischer, T., Gehring, H.(2005). Planning of vehicle transhipment in a seaport automobile terminal using a multi-agent system, European Journal of Operational Research, 166, 726–740. - Mattfeld, D.C., Kopfer, H. (2003). Terminal operations management in vehicle transhipment, Transportation Research Part A, 37, 435–452. - Torbianelli V. A. (2000). When the road controls the sea: a case study of ro-ro transport in the Mediterranean, Maritime Policy Management, 27(4), 375–389. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Largest Available RORO Vessel, 1985-2026 (in CEUs)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/the-largest-available-roro-vessel-ceus/) **Published:** May 2, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/largest_roro_vessel2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "The Largest available RORO Vessel, 1985-2026 (in CEUs) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Largest available RORO Vessel 1985 2026 in CEUsLike [container shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/largest-available-containership-teus/ "The Largest Available Containership, 1970-2024 (in TEUs)"), economies of scale can be applied to RORO vessels, but this requires a corresponding capability of the market to generate demand. The growth of the RORO fleet is closely tied to the expansion of global vehicle trade, particularly in the automotive sector. Conventionally, the car industry was characterized by regional production clusters servicing national markets, with most vehicles shipped by land transportation (road and rail). There was an export market, but it was of limited size, as car consumption in developing economies was also limited. Ships around 3,000 CEUs were adequate to service such a demand level. The massive entry of Japan as a car exporter in the 1980s led to a push to increase RORO ship sizes to around 5,000 CEUs. Then, in the 1990s and 2000s, Korean and European car manufacturers expanded into global markets as RORO ships reached 8,000 CEUs. Electric vehicle exports from major Chinese manufacturers have driven the latest wave of RORO ships to exceed 9,000 CEUs. The *Anji Ansheng*, a 9,500 CEU vessel owned by SAIC Anji Logistics, a subsidiary of China’s giant car manufacturer SAIC, is the world’s largest car carrier in terms of capacity. The ship measures 228 meters in length and 37.8 meters in width, slightly longer than the 219-meter-long *BYD Shenzhen*, which, at 9,200 CEU, was the largest RORO carrier prior to its launch. Wallenius Wilhelmsen has ships of 11,700 CEU on order, via newbuilds or existing orders upscaled, with deliveries scheduled to start in late 2027. These ‘Shaper+’ Class vessels count 14 decks and measure 238 meters in length overall (LOA) with a beam of 40 meters. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/the-largest-available-roro-vessel-ceus/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/the-largest-available-roro-vessel-ceus/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/the-largest-available-roro-vessel-ceus/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/the-largest-available-roro-vessel-ceus/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Average Operating Margins of Main Carriers by Quarter, Q1 2008 to Q1 2026](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/average-operating-margins-carriers-quarter/) **Published:** November 9, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/operating-margins-carrier-till-Q1-2026.png?resize=900%2C426&ssl=1 "Average Operating Margins of Main Carriers by Quarter, 2008-2026 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Average Operating Margins of Main Carriers by Quarter 2008 2026*Source: own compilation based on Alphaliner data. Note Average of CMA CGM (incl APL to 2Q 2016), CSCL (to 1Q2016), COSCO (from 3Q 2018), Evergreen, Hanjin (to 3Q 2016), Hapag-Lloyd (incl CSAV to 2014), HMM, Maersk, ONE (from 2Q 2018, formerly K-Line, MOL and NYK), Wan Hai, Yang Ming and Zim.* The 2008-2009 financial crisis dramatically impacted **profitability in the liner shipping market**. Various analyses indicated an overall operating loss of more than USD 20 billion in 2009 (American Shipper). The industry average in terms of operating margin fluctuated between -17% and -19% in the first three quarters of 2009. The poor financial situation of many carriers led to an array of bailouts and debt restructuring programs. Many liner companies resorted to raising capital to strengthen balance sheets, seize opportunities, or survive. With the [outlawing of liner conferences](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3102) in Europe after October 2008, market-related information about capacity deployment, demand/supply dynamics, and pricing of liner services became scarcer. Therefore, there was **no longer a stabilizing mechanism** in terms of freight rates and joint capacity management. Existing [strategic alliances among shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1758) lines at that time (i.e. New World Alliance, Grand Alliance, and CKYH alliance) were not able to roll out effective capacity management programs to significantly reduce fleet capacity in line with the observed drops in demand. Container shipping entered a period of **depressed freight rates,** partly due to poor capacity management and the lack of industry-wide rationalization. [Major M&As ](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3602)only started in 2014, and the [bankruptcy of Hanjin](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-resilience/hanjin-shipping-bankruptcy/ "bankruptcy of Hanjin") took place in 2016. During the **COVID-19 pandemic**, carriers resorted to effective **capacity management**. Despite the pandemic, shipping lines and [their alliances (i.e. The Alliance, Ocean Alliance, and 2M)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1758) maintained network integrity and resorted to blank sailings to deal with declining demand in the first half of 2020. In April/May 2020, carriers were withdrawing up to 20% of their network capacity on the main trade lanes and idling more than 2.7 million TEU of fleet capacity, or more than 11% of the world container fleet. In the late Summer of 2020, shipping lines drastically reduced the number of blank sailings to accommodate the demand growth: the share of idle vessels in total fleet capacity decreased from 11.6% in May 2020 to only 1.8% in October 2020. All major carriers posted positive operating margins in 2020, in contrast to the 2008-09 financial crisis. In late 2020 and early 2021, the **strong demand peak** on the Europe-Far East and trans-Pacific trade routes resulted in **vessel capacity shortages** and **severe box availability issues**. The demand/supply imbalance resulted in port congestion, box rollings, ship deviations, and historically low schedule integrity. Combined, these factors led to sharp increases in container freight rates and further strengthened carriers’ financial performance. The average operating margin reached a record high of 57.4% in Q1 2022. Since the second half of 2022, the operating margins have declined to reach 8.9% in Q3 2023, supported by a ‘normalization’ of freight rates and signs of fleet overcapacity. By late 2023, the average operating margins entered negative territory (-3.8% in Q4 2023) for the first time since 2018. In early 2024, the situation improved significantly, partly due to the [**Red Sea Crisis**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-red-sea-crisis-and-shipping-routes/), which initially resulted in a surge in freight rates and growing demand on some key east-west trade routes. The peak was reached in Q4 2024, followed by a gradual decline of the average operating margin in liner shipping. --- ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/average-operating-margins-carriers-quarter/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/average-operating-margins-carriers-quarter/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/average-operating-margins-carriers-quarter/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/average-operating-margins-carriers-quarter/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Theo Notteboom - Short Bio](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/short-cv-theo-notteboom/) **Published:** December 5, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_20220919_183510.jpg?resize=225%2C300&ssl=1 "Theo Notteboom | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Theo Notteboom ORCID: <https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1203-2571> Theo Notteboom is Professor of maritime and port economics. He is Chair Professor ‘North Sea Port’ at the [Maritime Institute](https://www.law.ugent.be/maritimeinstitute/maritime-institute), Faculty of Law and Criminology, **Ghent University**; Professor at [Department of Transport and Regional Economics](https://www.uantwerpen.be/en/staff/theo-notteboom/), Faculty of Business and Economics, **University of Antwerp**; and Professor at Faculty of Sciences, **[Antwerp Maritime Academy](https://amacademy.be/en)**. He is co-founder and co-director of Porteconomics.eu. He is a member of the Risk and Resilience Committee of the International Association of Ports & Harbors (IAPH), where he co-authors the World Ports Tracker. He is Associate Editor of Maritime Economics & Logistics, Editor of Journal of Shipping and Trade, and a member of the editorial boards of eight other leading academic journals in the field. Furthermore, he held the MPA visiting professorship in port management at Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in Singapore, and is a visiting professor at various universities in Europe and Asia. He previously held a full-time position as a Full Professor and ‘SAFEA High-end Foreign Expert’ at Dalian Maritime University in China and Research Professor/Director of the Center for Eurasian Maritime and Inland Logistics (CEMIL) at Shanghai Maritime University. In the period 2006-2014, he was academic head and professor at the Institute of Transport and Maritime Management Antwerp (ITMMA) of the University of Antwerp (transformed into C-MAT in 2015). He was vice-president (2022-2024) and President (2010-2014) of the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME). Between 2009 and 2014, he was Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Belgian Institute of Transport Organizers (BITO), an institute of the Belgian Federal Government. He published over 190 papers in first-tier academic journals and another 400 publications in the form of reports and contributions to books, proceedings and specialized press. His work is widely cited (about 30,000 citations in Google Scholar and an H-index of 85). In the October 2025 edition of Elsevier’s science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators by John Ioannidis (Stanford University), he ranks no. 16 in the world in the primary research field of “Logistics and Transportation” (best-ranked Belgian scholar) and no. 1 in the world in the sub-field of maritime economics. In the 5th edition of [Research.com](https://research.com/scientists-rankings/business-and-management/be) ranking of the best scholars in the discipline of “Business and Management” (2026), he ranked no. 353 in the world and no. 1 in Belgium. He is the editor/author of twelve academic books. He was a speaker, moderator, or panellist at over 400 international academic and business conferences held across the world, many of them hosted by leading organizations. Throughout his career, he received 13 prestigious international awards for his research and achievements in the field. Theo Notteboom acts as a rapporteur/expert to leading organizations and corporations in the field and has been involved as promoter or co-promoter in more than 100 academic research programs and (boardroom) consultancy studies on the port and maritime industry and logistics topics commissioned by organizations and numerous private companies and government departments in Europe, Africa and Asia. **E-Mail: theo.notteboom@uantwerpen.be – [LinkedIn page](https://be.linkedin.com/in/theo-notteboom-0a2692b) – [Google scholar page](https://scholar.google.be/citations?user=3EHKJJsAAAAJ&hl=nl)** ## **Latest academic publications** (since 2020) - PARIDAENS, H., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2026, Startup Partnerships for Digital Transformation in Container Shipping and Logistics, Journal of Shipping and Trade, 11:25 (2026), <https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-026-00235-5> - PENG, Z., ZHAO, Y., NOTTEBOOM, T., ZHOU, J., 2026, Pathways to zero-carbon shipping: Life cycle assessment of energy transition system configurations for container ships, Ocean Engineering, 352(1), 124506, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2026.124506> - ZHAO, Y., WANG, Y., NOTTEBOOM, T., ZHOU, J., 2026, Onboard Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS) Supply Chain Optimization: An application to Vessels Active in the Offshore Wind Industry, Energy Conversion and Management, 348, Part A, 15 January 2026, 120640, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2025.120640> - DOPPEN, F., NOTTEBOOM, T., DE BIEVRE, D., 2025, In the Eye of a Geopolitical Storm: Responses of Port Management Bodies to Investment Screening in the EU, Journal of Shipping and Trade, 10:24, <https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-025-00213-3> - ALSALFITI, M., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2025, Evaluating customer satisfaction with clearing and forwarding agents: a SERVQUAL approach with application to Kuwait Shuwaikh port, Scientific Journal of Maritime Research (Pomorstvo), 39 (2), December 2025, 373-388, <https://doi.org/10.31217/p.39.2.13> - NOTTEBOOM, T., PALLIS, A., KNATZ, G., 2025, Stakeholders’ attitudes toward container terminal automation, Maritime Economics & Logistics, 27, 752–785, <https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-025-00322-7> - MORCHIO, G., NOTTEBOOM, T., SATTA, G., VOTTERO, B., 2025, Green Finance in Bulk Shipping, Maritime Policy and Management, 52(3), 335-360, <https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2024.2321854> - NOTTEBOOM, T., HARALAMBIDES, H., 2025, Seaports in a tense geopolitical environment: key agents or sitting ducks? Maritime Economics & Logistics, 27 (1), 1-24, <https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-025-00313-8> - ALSALFITI, M., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2025, The impact of port service quality on customer satisfaction: the case of clearing and forwarding agents in Kuwait Shuwaikh Port, Maritime Business Review, 10 (1), 76-103, <https://doi.org/10.1108/MABR-04-2024-0030> - MUNIM, Z.H., NOTTEBOOM, T., HARALAMBIDES, H., SCHOYEN, H., 2025, Key determinants for the commercial feasibility of maritime autonomous surface ships (MASS), Marine Policy, vol. 172, February 2025, 106482, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106482> - TRAN, N.K., HARALAMBIDES, H., NOTTEBOOM, T., CULLINANE, K., 2025, The costs of maritime supply chain disruptions: the case of the Suez Canal blockage by the ‘Ever Given’ megaship, International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 279, 109464, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2024.109464> - ZHAO, Y., PENG, Z., ZHOU, J., NOTTEBOOM, T., MA, Y., 2024, Towards green container liner shipping: joint optimization of heterogeneous fleet deployment, speed optimization, and fuel bunkering, International Transactions in Operational Research, <https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.13552> - YAP, W.Y., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2024, Renewable energy options for seaport cargo terminals with application to mega port Singapore, Maritime Business Review, 9 (4), 294-310, <https://doi.org/10.1108/MABR-12-2023-0083> - NOTTEBOOM, T., BAŞTUĞ, S., BITIKTAŞ, F., AKAN, E., YERCAN, F.A., 2024, Influencer marketing in B2B services: a holistic approach for the container shipping industry, Maritime Economics and Logistics, 26, 545–571, <https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-024-00303-2> - BAŞTUĞ, S., FIRAT AKGÜL, E., HARALAMBIDES, H., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2024, A Decision-Making Framework for the Funding of Shipping Decarbonization Initiatives in Non-EU Countries: insights from Türkiye, Journal of Shipping and Trade, 9 (12), <https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-024-00172-1> - YUAN, S., JIA, P., NOTTEBOOM, T., MA, Q., 2024, Emerging trends and developments in multimodal freight transportation: a scientometric analysis using CiteSpace, International Journal of Transport Economics, DOI: 10.19272/202306704005, issn print 0391-8440 · e-issn 1724-2185, Vol. L (3-4), [https://www.libraweb.net/articoli3.php?chiave=202306704&rivista=67&articolo=202306704005](https://www.libraweb.net/articoli3.php?chiave=202306704&rivista=67&articolo=202306704005) - ZHAO, Y., GE, R., ZHOU, J., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2024, Decarbonization Pathways for Bulk Vessels: Integrating Power Systems, Fuels, and Control Measures, Ocean Engineering, 300 (2024), 117488, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2024.117488> - NOTTEBOOM, T., HARALAMBIDES, H., CULLINANE, K., 2024, The Red Sea crisis: ramifications for vessel operations, shipping networks and maritime supply chains, Maritime Economics & Logistics, 26 (1), 1-20, <https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-024-00287-z> - PALLIS, A., KLADAKI, P., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2024, Port economics, management and policy studies (2009-2020): A bibliometric analysis, WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs (JOMA), 23(2), 217-255, <https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-023-00325-2> - KNATZ, G., NOTTEBOOM, T., PALLIS, A., 2024, Container Terminal Automation: Assessment of Drivers and Benefits, *Maritime Policy and Management*, 51(6), 1252-1276, <https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2023.2249460> - NOTTEBOOM, T., 2024, A market-based perspective on the future of strategic alliances in container shipping, in: KRUITHOF, M., ROGGE, J. (eds.), Over verzekerings- en vervoerrecht te land, ter zee en in de lucht: Liber Amicorum Kris Bernauw, Larcier Intersentia: Brussel, ISBN 978-94-000-1689-7, pp. 349-361 - NOTTEBOOM, T., 2024, L’intelligence portuaire et les ports intelligents, in: ALIX, Y., CARIOU, P., PAQUIN, J. (eds.), L’intelligence portuaire: opération – innovation – projection, Volume VIII, Collection Les Océanides – Fondation Séfacil, Editions Management & Société (EMS): Caen, pp. 9-12, ISBN : 978-2-37687-966-4, [https://www.sefacil.com/literaturesecond/ ](https://www.sefacil.com/literaturesecond/%20) - PALLIS, T., NOTTEBOOM, T., RODRIGUE, J.-P., 2024, Regional analysis of Liner Shipping Connectivity: What does the revised LSCI reveal?, Article No. 117, UNCTAD Transport and Trade Facilitation Newsletter N°101 – First Quarter 2024, <https://unctad.org/news/regional-analysis-liner-shipping-connectivity-what-does-revised-lsci-reveal> - CULLINANE, K., HARALAMBIDES, H., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2023, Short-term effects and longer-term impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the international shipping and port industries, *International Journal of Transport Economics*, l (1-2), 45-88, <https://doi.org/10.19272/202306702002> - NOTTEBOOM, T., SATTA, G., PERSICO, L., VOTTERO , B., ROSSI, A., 2023, Operational productivity and financial performance of pure transhipment hubs versus gateway terminals: an empirical investigation on Italian container ports, *Research in Transportation Business & Management*, 47, March 2023, 100967, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2023.100967> - MUNIM, Z.-H., CHOWDHURY, M.M.H., TUSHER, H.M., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2023, Towards a prioritization of alternative energy sources for sustainable shipping, *Marine Policy*, 152, June 2023, 105579, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105579> - NOTTEBOOM, T., HARALAMBIDES, H., 2023, Seaports as green hydrogen hubs: advances, opportunities and challenges in Europe, *Maritime Economics and Logistics*, 25, 1-27, <https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-023-00253-1> - CARIOU, P., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2023, Implications of COVID-19 on the US container port distribution system: import cargo routing by Walmart and Nike, *International Journal Of Logistics: Research and Applications*, 26(11), 1536-1555, <https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2022.2088708> - LEHMACHER, W., LIND, M., ALLWRIGHT, G., BENTHAM, J., CUMMINS, D., NOTTEBOOM, T., SVENDSEN, J.B., TIKKA, K., DE TREMERIE, L., 2023, Chapter 33: Highlights of the book – a menu of possible actions for decarbonization today and tomorrow, in: Lind, M., Lehmacher, W., Ward R. (eds.), *Maritime Decarbonization: Practical Tools, Case Studies and Decarbonization Enablers*, Springer, ISBN: 978-3-031-39935-0 (Hardcover), pp. 469–493, [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-39936-7\_33](https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-39936-7_33) ; <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39936-7> - NOTTEBOOM, T., 2023, Chapter 9: Port authority mergers in port systems: The path to “North Sea Port” and “Port of Antwerp-Bruges” in Flanders, in: DUCRUET, C., NOTTEBOOM, T. (eds.), *Port Systems in Global Competition: Spatial-Economic Perspectives on the Co-Development of Seaports*, Routledge Studies in Transport Analysis, Routledge, pp. 183-202, [https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003316657-13/port-authority-mergers-port-systems-theo-notteboom?context=ubx&refId=46566fba-96f9-41c8-af04-e8825608380f](https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003316657-13/port-authority-mergers-port-systems-theo-notteboom?context=ubx&refId=46566fba-96f9-41c8-af04-e8825608380f) - DUCRUET, C., NOTTEBOOM, T., Slack, B., 2023, Chapter 6: Port migration patterns in the global port system since the 1950s, in: DUCRUET, C., NOTTEBOOM, T. (eds.), *Port Systems in Global Competition: Spatial-Economic Perspectives on the Co-Development of Seaports*, Routledge Studies in Transport Analysis, Routledge, pp. 122-146, [https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003316657-9/port-migration-patterns-global-port-system-since-1950s-c%C3%A9sar-ducruet-theo-notteboom-brian-slack?context=ubx&refId=5f0ee795-bf6f-4555-967a-35cda9f7d2bb](https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003316657-9/port-migration-patterns-global-port-system-since-1950s-c%C3%A9sar-ducruet-theo-notteboom-brian-slack?context=ubx&refId=5f0ee795-bf6f-4555-967a-35cda9f7d2bb) - DUCRUET, C., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2023, Chapter 1: A systematic and critical review of port system research, in: DUCRUET, C., NOTTEBOOM, T. (eds.), *Port Systems in Global Competition: Spatial-Economic Perspectives on the Co-Development of Seaports*, Routledge Studies in Transport Analysis, Routledge, pp. 13-54, [https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003316657-3/systematic-critical-review-port-system-research-c%C3%A9sar-ducruet-theo-notteboom?context=ubx&refId=4e7750bb-0050-407b-b6f1-052cc06587bb](https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003316657-3/systematic-critical-review-port-system-research-c%C3%A9sar-ducruet-theo-notteboom?context=ubx&refId=4e7750bb-0050-407b-b6f1-052cc06587bb) - DUCRUET, C., NOTTEBOOM, T. (eds.), *Port Systems in Global Competition: Spatial-Economic Perspectives on the Co-Development of Seaports, Routledge Studies in Transport Analysis*, Routledge, DOI: 10.4324/9781003316657, ISBN: 978-1-032-32773-0 (hbk), <https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9781003316657/port-systems-global-competition-c%C3%A9sar-ducruet-theo-notteboom> - CULLINANE, K., HARALAMBIDES, H., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2023, Weathering the COVID-19 pandemic towards the ‘new normal’: potential longer-term impacts on port and shipping governance, performance and infrastructure geopolitics, in: VROOMANS, J., KUIPERS, B., VAN DUIN, R. (eds.), *Keeping the focus on sustainability: a challenge for governance*, Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, pp. 220-253 --- - JEEVAN, J., NOTTEBOOM, T., ROZAR, N., SALLEH, N.H.M., HANAFIAH, R., MENHAT, M.N.S., NGAH, A.H., HANAFIAH, R.M., ZAIDEEN, I.M.M., 2022, Integration of rail freight with dry ports: a route for seaport regionalization, *Research in Transportation Business & Management,* 45 (part C), December 2022, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2022.100910> - NOTTEBOOM, T., RODRIGUE, J.-P., 2022, Maritime container terminal infrastructure, network corporatization, and global terminal operators: Implications for international business policy, *Journal of International Business Policy*, [https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-022-00142-z ](https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-022-00142-z%20) - PARIDAENS, H., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2022, Logistics integration strategies in container shipping: a multiple case-study on Maersk Line, MSC and CMA CGM, *Research in Transportation Business & Management*, 45 (part C), December 2022, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2022.100868> - KNATZ, G., NOTTEBOOM, T., PALLIS, A., 2022, Container Terminal Automation: Revealing distinctive Terminal Characteristics and Operating Parameters, *Maritime Economics & Logistics*, 24, 537–565, <https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-022-00240-y> - YANG, D., LI, L., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2022, Chinese Investment in Overseas Container Terminals: The Role of Investor Attributes in Achieving a Higher Port Competitiveness, *Transport Policy*, 118, 112–122, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.01.024> - TUSHER, H.-M., MUNIM, Z.H., NOTTEBOOM, T., KIM, T.-E., NAZIR, S., 2022, Cyber Security Risk Assessment for Autonomous Shipping, *Maritime Economics and Logistics*, 24, 208–227, <https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-022-00214-0> - LANGENUS, M., DOOMS, M., HAEZENDONCK, E., NOTTEBOOM, T., VERBEKE, A., 2022, Modal shift ambitions of large North European ports: A contract-theory perspective on the role of port managing bodies, *Maritime Transport Research (MARTRANS)*, 3, 100049, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.martra.2021.100049> - LEE, T.-W., HU, Z., LEE, S., FENG, X., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2022, Strategic locations for logistics distribution centers along the Belt and Road: Explorative analysis and research agenda, *Transport Policy*, 116, 24-47 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.10.008> - MUNIM, Z.H., SAHA, R., SCHOYEN, H., NG, A.K.Y., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2022, An evaluation of autonomous ship alternatives for future container shipping in the Arctic routes, *Journal of Marine Science and Technology (JMST)*, 27 (1), 320-334 <https://doi.org/10.1007/s00773-021-00836-8> - DUCRUET, C., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2022, Revisiting port system delineation through an analysis of maritime interdependencies among seaports, *Geojournal*, 87, 1831–1859 <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10341-x> - NOTTEBOOM, T., SATTA, G., PAROLA, F., 2022, Brand strategies of container shipping lines following mergers and acquisitions: carriers’ visual identity options, *Maritime Economics & Logistics*, 24, 9–40, <https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00176-1> - DUCRUET, C., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2022, Chapter 8: Global Maritime Networks in Container Shipping: Liner Service Design, Network Configuration and Port Centrality, in: SONG, D.W., PANAYIDES, P. (eds.), Maritime Logistics: A guide to contemporary shipping and port management, Third Edition, Kogan Page, London, ISBN 978-1-78966-171-2, pp. 148-166 <https://www.koganpage.com/product/maritime-logistics-9781789661699#showKeyFeatures> --- - NOTTEBOOM T., PALLIS A.A., RODRIGUE J-P., 2021, Disruptions and Resilience in Container Shipping, Ports and Supply chains: The COVID-19 pandemic vs. the 2008-2009 Financial Crisis, *Maritime Economics and Logistics*, 23(2), 179–210 [http://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00180-5](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41278-020-00180-5). - PARIDAENS, H., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2021, National Integrated Maritime Policies (IMP): vision formulation, regional embeddedness and institutional attributes for effective policy integration, *Sustainability*, 13(17), 9557, <https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179557> - RODRIGUE, J.-P., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2021, Automation in Container Port Systems and Management, *TR News*, no. 334, July-August 2021, special issue on ‘Innovations on the Horizon’, publication of TRB (Transportation Research Board) – The National Academy of Sciences (US), 20-26 <https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews334.pdf> - SHA, M., NOTTEBOOM, T., ZHANG, T., ZHOU, X., QIN, T., 2021, Simulation Model to Determine Ratios between Quay, Yard and Intra-Terminal Transfer Equipment in an Integrated Container Handling System, *Journal of International Logistics and Trade*, 19(1), 1-18, <https://doi.org/10.24006/jilt.2021.19.1.001> - CZERMANSKI, E., CIRELLA, G.T., ONISZCZUK-JASTRZĄBEK, A., PAWLOWSKA, B., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2021, An energy consumption approach to estimate air emission reductions in container shipping, *Energies*, 14(2), 278, <https://doi.org/10.3390/en14020278> - FRASER, D., MPIKELELI, T., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2021. A valuation approach of port funding strategies with application to a container terminal concession in Sub Saharan Africa, *Maritime Business Review* (MABR), 6(2), 147-172, <https://doi.org/10.1108/MABR-12-2019-0057> - YANG, D., NOTTEBOOM, T., ZHOU, X., 2021, Spatial, temporal and institutional characteristics of entry strategies in inland container terminals: a comparison between Yangtze River and Rhine River, *Journal of Transport Geography*, 90, 102928, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102928> - PAROLA, F., SATTA, G., NOTTEBOOM, T., PERSICO, L., 2021, Revisiting traffic forecasting by port authorities in the context of port planning and development, *Maritime Economics & Logistics*, 23, 444–494, <https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00170-7> - GE, J., ZHU, M., SHA, M., NOTTEBOOM, T., SHI, W., WANG, X., 2021, Towards 25,000 TEU vessels? A comparative economic analysis of ultra-large containership sizes under different market and operational conditions, *Maritime Economics and Logistics*, 23, 587–614, <https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-019-00136-4> - NOTTEBOOM, T. 2021, Container (liner) shipping, in: VICKERMAN, R. (ed.), *Encyclopaedia of Transportation* (section on “Freight Transport and Logistics”), Volume 3, Elsevier, pp. 247-256. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102671-7.10254-4> --- - NOTTEBOOM, T., 2020, Roro shipping vs. trucking: revisiting the impact of low sulphur marine fuel use on the cost competitiveness of routing options in North Europe, *WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs*, 19, 399–426 <https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-020-00221-z> - YANG, Z., HE, Y., ZHU, H., NOTTEBOOM, T., 2020, China’s Investment in African Ports: Spatial Distribution, Entry Modes and Investor Profile, *Research in Transportation Business and Management*, 37, December 2020, 100571, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100571> - NOTTEBOOM, T., HARALAMBIDES, H., 2020, Port management and governance in a post COVID-19 era: quo vadis?, *Maritime Economics and Logistics*, 22, 329–352, <https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00162-7> - NOTTEBOOM, T., VAN DER LUGT, L., VAN SAASE, N., SEL, S., NEYENS, K., 2020, The role of seaports in Green Supply Chain Management: initiatives, attitudes and perspectives in Rotterdam, Antwerp, North Sea Port and Zeebrugge, *Sustainability*, vol. 12, 1688 <https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041688> - NOTTEBOOM, T., YANG, D., XU, H., 2020, Container barge network development in inland rivers: A comparison between the Yangtze River and the Rhine River, *Transportation Research part A: Policy and Practice*, 132, 587-605, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.10.014> - NOTTEBOOM, T., FRASER, D., 2020, The Development of the Container Port System in Southern Africa, in: OLUKOJU, A., CASTILLO HIDALGO, D. (eds.), *African Seaports and Maritime Economics in Historical Perspective*, Palgrave Studies in Maritime Economics, London, 978-3-030-41399-6, pp. 171-201, <https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783030413989> ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/short-cv-theo-notteboom/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/short-cv-theo-notteboom/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/short-cv-theo-notteboom/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/short-cv-theo-notteboom/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 2.1 - Port Hinterlands, Regionalization and Corridors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/) **Published:** September 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Theo Notteboom and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > Port hinterlands are strategic market areas to interact and compete. An important strategy has been the setting up of corridors and inland load centers. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. The Hinterland Concept](#1_The_Hinterland_Concept) - [2. The Hinterland and the Maritime-Land Interface](#2_The_Hinterland_and_the_Maritime-Land_Interface) - [3. The Hinterland Focus of Market Players](#3_The_Hinterland_Focus_of_Market_Players) - [4. Port Regionalization](#4_Port_Regionalization) - [5. Hinterland Accessibility](#5_Hinterland_Accessibility) - [6. Transport Corridors](#6_Transport_Corridors) - [7. Cargo Bundling in Hinterland Transport](#7_Cargo_Bundling_in_Hinterland_Transport) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. The Hinterland Concept The hinterland plays an important role in shaping the supply chain of shippers and logistics service providers. Land scarcity concerns, combined with transport reliability issues, have led seaports and hinterland corridors to take on a more active role in supply chains. Port hinterlands are **challenging to delimit** as they vary according to the type of commodities, such as bulk cargo versus containerized cargo, seasonality, business cycles, technological changes, changes in transport policy, and the cost structure of inland transportation modes. For example, a large part of the volumes in dry and liquid bulk products are relatively captive to the discharging port region, as customers are typically located in the port region or its vicinity, or directly co-located with a port terminal facility. These include steel plants, power generation plants, oil refineries, and chemical companies. The main rationale for this proximity was high inland transportation costs and the difficulties of handling large quantities of cargo. Before containerization, several ports developed expertise in handling specific cargo types, leading to the specialization of gateways by cargo base. > The port **hinterland** is a land area over which a port sells its services and interacts with its users. It is an area over which a port **draws most of its business** and regroups all the customers directly bound to the port and the land areas from which it draws and distributes traffic. The gateway function for major dry and liquid bulks of ports mainly involves **one direction for hinterland flows**, either incoming or outgoing, a **limited number of market players**, and a **limited number of destinations**. However, for containerized cargo, the hinterland profile involves numerous origins and destinations dispersed over a vast hinterland with more competitors, a large number of economic players, and bi-directional hinterland flows that are rarely balanced. Therefore, the captive nature of container cargo at ports is typically much smaller than that of bulk cargo. Moreover, market dynamics make it counterintuitive to assume a static concept of port hinterlands, taken for granted and stable over time. Before containerization, cargo was shipped from inland production centers to the nearest port, and shipping lines designed routes to serve all ports along a coastal range, resulting in **captive hinterlands and limited inter-port competition**. Containerization expanded the hinterland reach of ports and **intensified inter-port competition**. Expanding hinterland coverage and shifting from captive hinterlands to shared or contestable hinterlands have changed the perception of port markets from monopolistic or oligopolistic to competitive. Thus, port competitiveness is increasingly derived from its hinterland access and the opportunities it confers. Most ports act as **gateways to often extensive inland networks**. These gateways are nodal points where intercontinental transport flows are being transhipped onto continental areas and vice versa. Several factors have facilitated the rise of gateways that vie for contestable hinterlands. First, **containerization** and the deployment of ever-larger container vessels have gone hand in hand with a concentration of vessel calls in a limited number of load centers, especially on the main long-distance routes where [economies of scale](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=5689 "Impacts on Containership Size on Port and Hinterland Traffic") at sea are most apparent. Price-fixing systems that ensured the reduction of port calls had no negative price impacts on the customer base. For example, shipping lines put in place **port equalization systems** to compensate inland customers for the longer inland transport distances they might incur when sending or receiving cargo via container load centers. The **development of intermodal corridors** and inland terminals allowed deep hinterland penetration via shuttle trains and barges. The rise of intermodalism and associated transport corridors had a significant structuring effect on the hinterland reach of seaports. Not only has intermodalism given incentives for ports to expand their hinterland reach, but hinterlands have also become more [discontinuous](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3414 "Continuous and Discontinuous Port Hinterlands"), especially beyond the immediate hinterland of the port. Such a process can even lead to the formation of “islands” in the distant hinterland for which the load center achieves a comparative cost and service advantage vis-à-vis rival seaports. Conventional market perspectives based on distance decay are ill-fitted to address this new reality. High-volume intermodal corridors typically offer a more favorable relationship between transport price, lead time, and distance than conventional and continuous inland transport coverage. A port hinterland consists of **overlapping service areas of individual inland terminals** and the modal options available. The size of each inland service area depends on the service frequency and the tariffs of intermodal shuttle services by rail or barge, the extent to which the inland terminal acts as a gateway, and the efficiency and price of trucking. The more intermodality serves as a competitive tool for ports, the more they become dependent on the capacity and efficiency of intermodal carriers to offer services along intermodal corridors. Regarding organizational and operational factors, a volatile intermodal market is not conducive to creating a stable and sustainable hinterland competitive position for a port. Further, several areas are **landlocked**, implying that some hinterlands can only access their foreland indirectly. The outcome has been a series of [port hinterlands serviced by maritime ranges](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1107 "Major Maritime Ranges") that are a function of economic density, structure, and orientation of transportation networks, which can be contestable. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/containership_size_port_hinterland.png?resize=900%2C359&ssl=1 "Impacts on Containership Size on Port and Hinterland Traffic | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Impacts on Containership Size on Port and Hinterland Traffic![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/impact_20000_teu_call_inland.png?resize=900%2C489&ssl=1 "Impact of 20,000 TEU Vessel Call on Inland Transport | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Impact of 20000 TEU Vessel Call on Inland Transport![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/integration_continuous_discontinuous_hinterlands.png?w=900&ssl=1 "The Integration of Continuous and Discontinuous Port Hinterlands | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Continuous and Discontinuous Port Hinterlands![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Maritime-Ranges-1.png?resize=900%2C328&ssl=1 "Major Maritime Ranges | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Major Maritime Ranges![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Global-Hinterland.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Maritime Ranges and Hinterland Accessibility | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maritime Ranges and Hinterland AccessibilityHinterlands also have a directional component. **Inbound hinterland** traffic in North America and Europe tends to be consumption-based, except when commodities and parts are involved in manufacturing. In contrast, **outbound hinterland** traffic is an outcome of extraction or export-oriented manufacturing activities. The relative importance of forelands and hinterlands varies from a distance and cost perspective. When distance is considered in an international transport chain, the foreland is usually the most important, while the hinterland is where most transport costs are incurred. It is not uncommon for international shipping that the foreland accounts for 90% of the distance, and the hinterland, including port charges, accounts for 80% of the transport costs. The **rise of corridors** is a highly relevant development for any policy aimed at driving a modal shift from road haulage to inland navigation, rail, and shortsea shipping. Intermodal solutions based on barges or rail are competitive in several high-density traffic corridors and in specific niche markets. Still, they cannot serve as complete alternatives to road haulage. # 2. The Hinterland and the Maritime-Land Interface The maritime-land interface concerns the relationships between maritime and inland freight distribution, the **two domains of global freight circulation**. Maritime shipping is entirely dependent on the performance of inland freight distribution, as it ensures the continuity of supply chains. While economic activities, such as production and retailing, are built on the concept of interdependency, distribution is a derived outcome of this interdependency. The maritime-land interface is particularly important for the long-distance trade brought by economic globalization. Thus, the growing distances over which freight is being carried, in addition to a surge in freight volumes, have created multiplying effects on the ability of the maritime-land interface to deal with this new environment. Four major functional elements define the maritime-land interface: - **Foreland**. Conventionally, the foreland refers to a maritime space over which a port maintains commercial relationships, implying that **maritime shipping networks** are a common representation of the concept of the foreland. The network represents the level of service offered by maritime shipping companies in terms of port calls, capacity, and frequency, granting each port a [different connectivity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/country-port-level-liner-shipping-connectivity-index/ "Country and Port Level Liner Shipping Connectivity Index") (foreland). - **Port system**. The setup of intermodal infrastructures servicing port operations. The focus is on gateways granting access to large domains of inland freight circulation. - **Modes**. Each mode has technical constraints and is positioned to serve specific inland markets. They are structured as corridors that access the hinterland and as inland hubs that act as intermodal and transmodal centers. Inland modes represent one of the most difficult challenges in terms of reconciling the surge in containerized maritime volume and the capacity of inland transportation to accommodate these flows. There is a growing [asymmetry](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3487) between maritime transport and inland modes. - **Hinterland**. The hinterland is the inland area where a port maintains commercial relations. However, the emergence of supply chain management has placed the inland port at the core of hinterland transportation. Macroeconomic factors linked with economic globalization have become particularly important for explaining hinterland dynamics as greater trade volumes must be reconciled with hinterland capabilities. The maritime-land interface can also take many **transactional forms** related to freight and information exchange. There is a trend involving the growing level of [integration between maritime transport and inland freight transport systems](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3497) known as port regionalization. Until recently, these systems evolved separately, but the development of intermodal transportation and deregulation provided new opportunities, which significantly impacted maritime and inland logistics. One particular aspect concerns [high inland transport costs](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3216) since they account for between 40% and 80% of container shipping costs, depending on the transport chain. Under such circumstances, maritime actors such as terminal operators are more involved in inland transport systems as a cost control strategy. The maritime-land interface is increasingly blurred depending on the level of port competition, ranging from a [single port to multiple port ranges](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/hinterland-single-multiple-ports/ "The Hinterland of Single and Multiple Ports"). Corridors are becoming the main structure behind inland accessibility, through which port terminals gain access to inland distribution systems serviced by inland ports. Since transshipment is a fundamental component of intermodal transportation, the maritime-land interface relies on improving terminal activities along those corridors. Strategies increasingly rely on controlling distribution channels to ensure an unimpeded circulation of containerized freight through a sequence of intermodal and modal activities. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-LSCI-2024.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Country and Port Level Liner Shipping Connectivity Index, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Country and Port Level Liner Shipping Connectivity Index 2022![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/elements_maritime_land_interface.png?resize=900%2C552&ssl=1 "Elements of the Maritime / Land Interface | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Elements of the Maritime Land Interface![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/hinterland_single_multiple_ports2.png?resize=900%2C352&ssl=1 "The Hinterland of Single and Multiple Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Hinterland of Single and Multiple Ports# 3. The Hinterland Focus of Market Players The focus on the port hinterland is usually associated with changing market dynamics. When demand for cargo handling services grows rapidly, the focus shifts to expanding terminal capacity. However, when the demand stabilizes or declines, ports tend to focus on their hinterland to attract additional cargo. Hinterland connections are a key area for **competition and coordination** among market players involved in the [maritime-land interface](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3530 "Elements of the Maritime / Land Interface"). Many market players understand that landside operations are key to a successful integration along the supply chain. As a result, competition between ports and across the logistics sector is intensifying. As ports and logistics firms compete to protect and gain market share, finding cost savings and efficiency gains becomes even more important. **Shipping lines** are keen on developing **carrier haulage** volumes, where the sea carrier arranges the [hinterland transport of containerized cargo](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/carrier-merchant-haulage-hinterland/ "Carrier and Merchant Haulage in the Hinterland"). In the case of **merchant haulage**, the shipper or forwarder manages the inland segment. The deployment of larger vessels, operational cooperation among carriers, and the waves of mergers and acquisitions have resulted in lower costs at sea, shifting the cost burden of shipping lines to the landside. Therefore, several shipping lines extend their scope beyond terminal operations to include inland transport and logistics. Shipping lines and their alliances seek to increase the share of carrier haulage to streamline inland distribution systems. However, large shippers or their representatives, such as logistics service providers, dominate the inland market in most parts of the world. Still, several larger shipping lines are developing hubs in the hinterlands of key ports in their networks. Inland terminals and rail and barge services are combined to push import containers from the ocean terminal to an inland location, from which the final delivery will be initiated at a later stage. This [push strategy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3441 "The evolving role of shipping lines in the hinterland") is initiated by the shipping line and prioritized for the required delivery date to the port or inland port specified on the Bill of Lading (B/L). Export containers are pushed from an inland location to the ocean terminal, initiated by the shipping line, yet prioritized based on available inland transport capacity and the estimated time of arrival (ETA) of the deepsea vessel. Carriers are confronted with some **important barriers** to improving inland logistics. Landside operations are management-intensive and generally involve a high proportion of bought-in services. Moreover, inland movements generate under-remunerated activities such as repositioning empty units, fixed delivery hours, waiting for an available docking bay at a distribution center, network control, and tracking. Other barriers relate to volume and equipment imbalances, unforeseen delays in ports and the inland transport leg, and uncertainty in demand forecasts. Carriers have learned to lessen equipment surpluses and deficits through container cabotage, interline equipment interchanges, chassis pools, and master leases. Carriers have limited options to increase their income from inland logistics. If **carrier haulage** tariffs edge above the open market rates, **merchant haulage** options might become more attractive for cargo owners. If they generate sufficient volumes, cargo owners may prefer merchant haulage due to higher service expectations and greater flexibility. The risk of cost under-recovery on multiple moves is another challenge in inland logistics, particularly when several options are available if carrier haulage is selected. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/shipping_lines_hinterland_push_strategy.png?resize=900%2C512&ssl=1 "The Evolving Role of Shipping Lines in the Hinterland | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Evolving Role of Shipping Lines in the Hinterland![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/extended_gate_concept.png?resize=900%2C543&ssl=1 "The Extended Gate Concept | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Extended Gate Concept![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/carrier_merchant_haulage_hinterland.png?resize=900%2C462&ssl=1 "Carrier and Merchant Haulage in the Hinterland | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Carrier and Merchant Haulage in the Hinterland![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/bottleneck_warehousing_terminalization.png?resize=900%2C410&ssl=1 "Bottleneck and Warehousing-Derived Terminalization | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Bottleneck and Warehousing Derived Terminalization![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/terminalization_concept.png?resize=900%2C631&ssl=1 "The Terminalization Concept | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Terminalization Concept**Terminal operators** active in seaport areas are also increasing their influence throughout supply chains by **engaging in inland transport**. They do so mainly by incorporating inland terminals as **[extended gates](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/extended-gate-concept/ "The Extended Gate Concept")** to seaport terminals and introducing an integrated terminal operator haulage concept. The advantages of the extended gate system are substantial, as customers can have their containers available in proximity to their customer base. Simultaneously, the deep-sea terminal operator faces less pressure on its terminals due to shorter dwell times, which can guarantee better planning and utilization of the rail and barge shuttles. However, the success of both extended gates and terminal operator haulage largely depends on the **transparency of cargo information**. Unfortunately, terminal operators often lack information on the onward inland transport segment for containers discharged at the terminal. Close coordination with shipping lines, forwarders, and shippers is needed to maximize the possibilities for developing integrated bundling concepts for the hinterland. Further, market players are contending with the [terminalization of maritime supply chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/bottleneck-warehousing-terminalization/ "Bottleneck and Warehousing-Derived Terminalization"), where terminals can act as a constraint or a buffer in managing cargo flows. > **Terminalization** refers to terminals taking on a more active role in supply chains, considering operational aspects such as berthing windows, dwell time charges, and truck slots, to increase throughput, optimize terminal capacity, and utilize available land effectively. It also involves logistics players making the best use of the free time available in seaport terminals and inland terminals, thereby optimizing the terminal buffer function. Terminalization incites the setting of a [hierarchy of flows along a transport chain](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/terminalization-concept/ "The Terminalization Concept") where terminals act as important regulators, either as bottlenecks or buffers. # 4. Port Regionalization The focus on hinterland development has transformed the **relationships between the port and its surrounding regions** and its port system (or [maritime range](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1107)). A port system is defined as a group of ports sharing similar geographic characteristics, such as a coastline or a bay, and serving overlapping hinterland regions to some extent. Since the mid-19th century and up to the widespread adoption of containerization as the dominant form of freight distribution in the 1980s, the development of a port system evolved from an initial pattern of scattered, poorly connected ports along a coastline to a network consisting of corridors between gateway ports and major hinterland centers. By the 1980s, containerization had revolutionized maritime shipping and port terminal operations, supporting the substantial growth in international transoceanic trade. While traditionally, most ports had a reasonably clear and distinctive hinterland, containerization initiated a trend towards large overlapping or contestable hinterland regions. The competitive landscape became even more complex with extensive **container transshipment facilities** set up, in many cases, in locations with a limited or non-existent hinterland. In the early 1990s, the integration of transshipment hubs into maritime shipping networks led to a new paradigm in port evolution. Transshipment hubs tend to have greater depth in view of accommodating post-Panamax containership drafts, placing them at a technical advantage and inciting hub-feeder services and interlining/relay configurations between mainline vessels. As intermediary locations, they offer a compromise between economies of scale in vessels and terminals and the need to maximize connectivity in maritime networks. The hierarchization and complexification of maritime shipping networks correspond to the development of port hinterlands. The current [development phase](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3419) underlines that ports are expanding beyond their own facilities to accommodate additional traffic and the complexity of freight distribution, namely by improving hinterland transportation. This has come to be known as **port regionalization**. > [Port regionalization](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3577) refers to the logistical integration between maritime and inland transport systems, particularly through the development of rail and barge corridors connecting a port to a network of inland load centers. Port regionalization addresses two fundamental issues in port development: - **Local constraints**. Ports, especially large gateways, face a wide array of local constraints that impair their growth and efficiency. The lack of available land for expansion is among the most acute problems, an issue exacerbated by the deepwater requirements for handling larger ships. Increased port traffic may also lead to diseconomies as local road and rail systems are heavily burdened. Environmental constraints and local opposition to port development are also of significance. Port regionalization thus enables the avoidance of local constraints by partially externalizing them. - **Supply chain integration**. Global production and consumption have substantially changed distribution, with the emergence of logistics and manufacturing clusters as well as large consumer markets. No single port can efficiently service the distribution requirements of such a complex web of activities. For instance, globally integrated logistics zones have emerged near many load centers, but seeing logistics zones as functionally integrated entities may be misleading, as each activity has its own supply chain. Port regionalization enables the development of a distribution network that aligns more closely with fragmented production and consumption systems. Regionalization is a process that can take place both on the [foreland and the hinterland](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3487 "Foreland and Hinterland-Based Regionalization") with the goal of providing **continuity** between maritime and inland freight transport systems. Further, the concept of port regionalization can be extended to the passenger sector, particularly with the emergence of cruise ports that require expanded forms of connectivity with their source markets (**cruise port regionalization**). ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/spatial_development_port_system3.png?resize=900%2C454&ssl=1 "The Spatial Development of a Port System | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Spatial Development of a Port System![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/foreland_hinterland_regionalization.png?resize=900%2C580&ssl=1 "Foreland and Hinterland-Based Regionalization | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Foreland and Hinterland Based Regionalization![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_regionalization_freight_passengers.png?resize=900%2C413&ssl=1 "Port Regionalization for Freight and Passenger Functions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Regionalization for Freight and Passenger Functions# 5. Hinterland Accessibility ## A. Definition in a port context > Accessibility refers to the ease with which activities can be reached from a given port location using a particular transportation system. It measures the quality of access from a specific location to several other locations. For a port, hinterland accessibility is a [multidimensional concept](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/types-hinterland-accessibility/ "Types of Hinterland Accessibility") that includes: - **Relative accessibility**. Describes the relation or degree of connection between any two nodes in a transport system, such as a seaport and an inland location. It underlines how well connected a port can be to a specific destination, such as another port (through maritime services) or an inland destination (through a corridor). It is relevant in assessing land access on a specific origin-destination relation via a transport link or corridor. - **Integral accessibility**. Describes the relation or degree of interconnection between a given node, such as a port, and all other nodes within a spatial network. It is the combination of all relative accessibility relations that is relevant to determining the overall accessibility and connectivity of a port. - **Intrinsic accessibility**. The potential to connect to selected markets in the hinterland, which are judged to be essential for the port business. It is a function of the supply/capacity of the infrastructure and transport services. The intrinsic land accessibility to seaports is no longer only considered in terms of proximity but increasingly in terms of **lead time and reliability**. - **Revealed accessibility**. Reflects the demand side, such as the actual traffic flows on specific hinterland corridors, and involves distinguishing between the supply characteristics of the transport system and the actual use and levels of satisfaction. The concept of revealed accessibility is a particularly appropriate criterion for assessing the market’s valuation and satisfaction regarding the quality of land access to a seaport. It may be held that the proof of access lies in the use of services, not simply in the presence of opportunities. ## B. A multilayer approach to hinterland accessibility In general, [four interrelated layers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=925 "A Multi-Layer Approach to Port Dynamics") shape land access to seaports: - The **locational layer** (first level) relates to the geographical location of a gateway in relation to central places in the economic space. It forms a fundamental element for the intrinsic accessibility of a seaport. Therefore, the locational layer is mainly a relative concept to market demand. - The **infrastructural layer** (second level) involves providing basic infrastructure for both links and nodes in the transport system. It is a key factor in valorizing a location since it changes its locational characteristics, particularly its accessibility. - The **transport layer** (third level) involves the physical aspects linked to transport chains, such as transport services operating on links and corridors between the port and other nodes within the transport system, and the transshipment function in the nodes of the system. - The **logistical layer** (fourth level) involves organizing transport chains and their integration into the logistics chain. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_hinterland_accessibility.png?resize=900%2C405&ssl=1 "Types of Hinterland Accessibility | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Hinterland Accessibility![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/multi_layer_approach_port_dynamics.png?resize=900%2C571&ssl=1 "A Multi-Layer Approach to Port Dynamics | Port Economics, Management and Policy")A Multi Layer Approach to Port Dynamics![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/vertical_horizontal_integration_port2.png?resize=900%2C519&ssl=1 "Vertical and Horizontal Integration in Port Development | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Vertical and Horizontal Integration in Port DevelopmentEach layer **provides added value (valorizes)** to the upper layers, and there is a **demand pull exerted from the higher levels toward more basic layers**. In a demand-driven market environment, the infrastructural layer serves the transport and logistical layers. The first and second levels demand a more spatial approach, whereas the functional approach prevails for the upper levels. The more basic the layer, the lower its responsiveness or adaptability (expressed in time) to changes in market demand. For instance, the planning and construction of major rail infrastructures (at the infrastructural level) typically takes many years, excluding possible delays resulting from advocacy groups or legal complications with financial institutions or building contractors. The political aspect of providing basic land infrastructure further complicates and lengthens the decision-making process. The duration of planning and implementation of shuttle trains on specific railway corridors (transport layer) usually ranges from a few months to one year. At the logistical level, freight forwarders and multimodal transport operators (MTOs) can respond almost instantly to variations in the market by modifying the transport chain design, such as routing goods through the transport system. The **differences in responsiveness** between the layers lead to considerable **time lags** between proposed structural changes on the logistical and transport layers and the necessary infrastructural adaptations needed to meet these changes adequately. This observation partly explains the under-capacity (congestion) or over-capacity situations in the European hinterland network and port system. ## C. Stakeholders in hinterland accessibility Several stakeholders are involved in land access to seaports: - **Supranational, national, and regional authorities**. Through their infrastructure and transport policy, they significantly impact the intrinsic accessibility to seaports. The infrastructural investments in the links and nodes of a transport system shape the basic access profile of a seaport. Moreover, transport service operators must comply with the regulatory specifications issued by governments, such as technical specifications for transport modes and their operational conditions. - **Carriers** (shipping companies, road haulers, inland waterway companies, and rail companies). They have a significant impact on the second layer (transport) as they determine the frequency, reliability, and quality of services in specific origin-destination relations. These services try to match the logistical requirements of their customers. - **Stevedoring companies and terminal operators**. They provide physical transshipment and related activities in seaports and inland terminals, which contribute to the transition and integration of transport modes and networks. - **Logistics service providers** (freight forwarders and multimodal transport operators). The higher the efficiency in designing transport chains between origins and destinations, the higher the revealed accessibility for a given intrinsic accessibility. An optimal transport chain design combines quality, reliability, and lead time at the lowest possible costs. - **Port authorities**. Can enhance access in the foreland-hinterland continuum, which ranges from a reactive facilitator to a proactive accessibility manager. - **Shippers and cargo owners**. The trade relations of shippers and their network formations with other firms (particularly outsourcing) shape their demand for accessibility on the logistical and transport layers. Major freight forwarders, shipping lines, transport operators, terminal operators, integrators, and other logistic service providers are competing for a **level of control over door-to-door transport chains**. Through [vertical and horizontal integration](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=887 "Vertical and Horizontal Integration in Port Development") of activities, a large number of these players increasingly directly affect the transport and logistical layers of the accessibility profile of an individual seaport or port system. On the infrastructural layer, national and supranational public authorities may be facing severe **budget constraints**. Any lack of public funds for transport infrastructure puts more pressure on alternative financing via public-private partnerships (PPPs), especially in relation to safeguarding or improving the hinterland access to seaports. ## D. Centrality and hinterland accessibility The geographical location of a seaport constitutes the foundation for its competitiveness in terms of hinterland accessibility. The **centrality index** is an early example of how to assess the hinterland centrality of a port as a function of port-hinterland distance and population of the main economic regions in the hinterland. The assumption is that the further the nodes are apart, the less interaction there will be because time and cost are presumed to increase with distance (**distance-decay hypothesis**). Moreover, it is assumed that the more important a place is, measured in terms of population or economic output for central places and cargo volumes for gateways, the larger the attraction exerted toward other places (**scale hypothesis**). Any definition of the concept of centrality is relative in that a central location cannot exist other than by reference to other central areas, or a **core area**, which is a cluster of central areas representing a high concentration of economic activities in a comparatively small area. They require complex hinterland coordination mechanisms. For [Western Europe](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/european-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/ "The European Container Port System and its Multi-port Gateway Regions"), this core corresponds to the “blue banana” (southern England, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, the northeast of France, the Rhine axis, southern Germany, and northern Italy). For [North America](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/north-american-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/ "The North-American Container Port System and its Multi-Port Gateway Regions"), the most prevalent cores are the Eastern Seaboard, a conurbation extending from Boston to Washington, Southern California, and the Gulf Coast. In [East Asia](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/east-asian-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/ "The East Asian Container Port System and its Multi-port Gateway Regions"), the Pearl River Delta, the Yangtze River Delta, and Tokaido (Tokyo-Osaka) are prevalent core areas. The [clusters of container port activity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4005 "World’s Largest Container Port Clusters, 2016") reflect this centrality well. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-European-Multi-Port-Gateways.png?resize=900%2C700&ssl=1 "The European Container Port System and its Multi-port Gateway Regions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The European Container Port System and its Multi port Gateway Regions![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-East-Asia-Multi-Port-Gateways.png?resize=900%2C700&ssl=1 "The East Asian Container Port System and its Multi-port Gateway Regions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The East Asian Container Port System and its Multi port Gateway Regions![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-North-American-Multi-Port-Gateways.png?resize=900%2C700&ssl=1 "The North American Container Port System and its Multi-Port Gateway Regions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The North American Container Port System and its Multi Port Gateway Regions![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Container-Port-Clusters.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "World’s Largest Container Port Clusters, 2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Largest Container Port Clusters 2022The distance and scale hypotheses are applied in an **imperfect geographical space**: - **Customer valuation and satisfaction of the port hinterland** may differ from the basic intrinsic accessibility derived from scale and location. This is a consequence of the value the customer attaches to the attractiveness of the port in terms of other, more qualitative factors. - The **relationship between distance and transport price** is sometimes far from being straightforward and linear. In an optimal system, port hinterlands for a specific commodity are separated by lines of equal cargo carrying costs to and from the port. However, transport pricing and tariffs can lead to large discrepancies among transport modes for hinterland access to major ports. For example, the container tariff policy of railway companies might include high cross-border interconnection fees, giving rival ports situated in these countries an artificial competitive edge over foreign ports. - The **transshipment cost** (including intermediate terminal costs) and its share of the total direct costs for the inland segment of an intermodal transport chain partly determine the competitiveness of an inland transport mode or intermodal transport solution. - The **relation between distance and lead time** is sometimes far from straightforward. The lead time on a given origin-destination relation is a function of two factors. First, **travel time** on the transport links is affected by vehicle speed and delays/congestion on infrastructural networks and border crossings. Second, the **transit time at the terminals** is affected by terminal productivity and dwell time of the cargo at the terminal. The dwell time is typically lower for**carrier haulage** than for **merchant haulage**. # 6. Transport Corridors ## A. Definition and performance Port regionalization and hinterland transportation tend to be **coordinated along corridors**, which have become the focus of intense modal competition as freight movements have grown. Freight corridors are a particularly dominant convergence paradigm of urbanization, integrating global, regional, and local transportation and economic processes in the geography of distribution. > A **corridor** is a linear orientation of transport routes and flows, connecting important locations that act as origins, destinations, or points of transshipment. > A **freight corridor** is a linear orientation of freight flows supported by an accumulation of transport infrastructures and activities servicing these flows. A freight corridor is the primary paradigm of hinterland accessibility, as it serves as a major transportation axis that enables port terminals to access inland distribution systems. The formation of inland corridors has enabled seaports to access previously captive hinterlands of other ports. Hinterland corridors complement maritime corridors to form the main arteries of world trade. Corridors are created by **[economies of scale](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=5764 "A Spatial Model on Logistics Sites in the Port Hinterland")** when compound demand in clusters reaches a critical mass, cargo can be consolidated, allowing other modes of transport, and creating (multimodal) corridors. Corridors allow gateways to face less resistance in reaching the natural hinterland of other ports. The outcome has been a wide variety of modal split characteristics of each port hinterland with regional differences, such as between [Europe](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/modal-split-selected-ports-europe/ "Modal Split at Selected European Container Ports, 2007") and [North America](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/modal-split-selected-ports-north-america/ "Modal Split at Selected North American Container Ports, 2007"), attributable to hinterland size, market proximity, available modal options, and massification potential. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/modal_split_europe.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Modal Split at Selected European Container Ports, 2007 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Modal Split at Selected European Container Ports 2007![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/modal_split_north_america.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Modal Split at Selected North American Container Ports, 2007 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Modal Split at Selected North American Container Ports 2007![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/spatial_model_logistics_hinterland.png?resize=900%2C467&ssl=1 "A Spatial Model on Logistics Sites in the Port Hinterland | Port Economics, Management and Policy")A Spatial Model on Logistics Sites in the Port HinterlandThe proliferation of hinterland corridors brings about a change in the **relationship between gateways and their hinterland.** On the one hand, the inland penetration strategy is part of increasing the cargo base of maritime gateways. On the other hand, interior regions recognize that it is in their interest to establish efficient links to as many gateways as possible. This strategy not only prevents these regions from becoming dependent on a single gateway but also enhances the locational attributes of inland economic centers. Hence, linking to more gateways implies more routing options and flexibility for shippers and logistics service providers. The performance profile of each corridor, in terms of infrastructure provision (capacity), transport operations (price and quality of shuttle services), and associated logistical control, is a key competitiveness attribute among various multi-port gateway regions. **Corridor attractiveness** depends on the corridor’s inherent value proposition to stakeholders. Several factors impact corridor competitiveness, including distance from the gateway to markets, transit time, logistics performance, political stability, security issues, environmental conditions, and gateway-to-market costs. A corridor’s performance can be analyzed from three perspectives: - The **physical infrastructure**, such as the physical capacity of the links and nodes, including the level of utilization of the corridor. - The **quality of services** provided for the goods moving along the corridor, including time and cost dimensions linked to specific links and nodes. - The **movements of goods in the corridor** are disaggregated for transport services on the links and the processing services at the nodes. ## B. Rail corridors Corridors can offer cost and time-competitive options for the [continuity of maritime distribution](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=333 "Circum-Hemispheric Rings of Circulation"). In particular, long-distance rail corridors or **landbridges** can compete with maritime trade routes. This competition and complementarity take shape differently depending on the regional setting. **[Eurasian landbridges](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3544 "The Eurasian Landbridge")**, a set of railway lines connecting East Asia, Central Asia, Russia, and Europe, are becoming more commercially viable. While several segments of the Eurasian landbridge were set up in the late nineteenth century, significant landbridge traffic emerged only in the early 2000s. This was further reinforced by [China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=6189), seeking to develop long-distance commercial corridors between China, Central Asia, and Europe. The Eurasian landbridge is developing a niche for time-sensitive cargo, offering a complementary option for maritime shipping. In **North America**, longitudinal long-distance rail corridors, often taking the form of **[landbridges](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/north-american-landbridge/ "The North American Landbridge")** between coastal gateway ports, are serving a continental hinterland articulated by major transportation and industrial hubs such as Chicago and Kansas City. Double-stack trains have unit capacities of up to 400 TEU and a total length exceeding 2 km, enabling a large-scale inland rail freight distribution that is unique in the world, not only due to its size but also because of the direct link between two different coastlines. The major hinterlands in North America have changed with the decline of the industrial belt and the industrialization of the “sunbelt”, both of which have long-term impacts on inland freight flows. The setting up of NAFTA in the 1990s incited new gateways and corridors servicing the American market, namely through Canada (particularly Vancouver and Montreal) and Mexico, and a reorientation of traffic flows. One of the key advantages of North American rail is the almost **exclusive freight orientation of the network**, allowing the planning and operation of rail freight services without impediments from passenger services. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Global-Rings-of-Circulation-Northern-Hemisphere.png?resize=900%2C704&ssl=1 "Circum-Hemispheric Rings of Circulation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Circum Hemispheric Rings of Circulation![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-New-Silk-Road.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "The Eurasian Landbridges | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Eurasian Landbridge![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-NA-Landbridge-1.png?resize=900%2C666&ssl=1 "The North American Landbridge | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The North American Landbridge![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/belt_and_road.png?resize=900%2C900&ssl=1 "The Belt and Road Initiative | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Belt and Road Initiative ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2000px-Niederlande_und_Betuwe_4.svg_.png?resize=900%2C636&ssl=1 "The Betuweroute | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Betuweroute![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/RNE_Europe_map_2018_full.png?resize=900%2C613&ssl=1 "Rail Freight Corridors in Europe | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Rail Freight Corridors RFCS in EuropeIn **Europe,** the hinterland is not only intense along the coastline but also in the interior, notably along the Rhine river system and its tributary rivers (Main and Neckar), in Bavaria in the South of Germany, in the economics centers around Milan in Northern Italy, Madrid in central Spain and in major markets in Paris, the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds belt in the UK and the belt reaching from Austria to the growing production clusters in Hungary, the Czech Republic, and southern Poland. Moreover, many European economic centers are somewhat remote from the main shipping lanes, as is the case for the Baltic countries. Therefore, European gateways are not the only major markets but are often intermediary locations, even if many are important industrial centers. The hinterland is accessed from coastal gateways such as Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg, Bremerhaven, Le Havre, Barcelona, Marseille, and Felixstowe by medium-distance corridors involving a variety of combinations of road, barge (where available), and rail services. The development of **rail corridors in Europe** is enhanced by the EU policy on creating a **Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T)** and initiatives of rail operators, megacarriers, and other market players to extend their European transport networks. Major contestable hinterlands are increasingly being serviced not only by the ports of one region but by several gateway regions. The performance profile of each corridor in terms of infrastructure provision (capacity), transport operations (price and quality of shuttle services), and associated logistical control (management in a supply chain context) is a key attribute for port competition in Europe. With a few exceptions (such as the **[Betuweroute](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=5797 "The Betuweroute")** in the Netherlands), most long-distance and short-distance rail corridors in Europe have **mixed use by freight and passenger trains**. **RailNetEurope (RNE)**, which groups the rail infrastructure managers in Europe, has developed corridor management along a set of European **[rail freight corridors (RFCS)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=6207)** to plan international train paths and align corridor infrastructure capacity with market requirements. Therefore, the focus has been on stretching existing corridor capacity through advanced traffic management systems and implementing effective cargo bundling and coordination systems. While measures to optimize the use of existing capacity are effective, there are limits to capacity management, implying that new rail infrastructure might need to be developed to service the hinterland. ## C. Inland waterways as hinterland corridors Corridors are also found in the inland waterway infrastructure network. This network remains deeply influenced by geographical considerations, particularly in relation to the **orientation of waterways in relation to commercial flows**. Modifying and improving waterways is capital-intensive and is undertaken when scale advantages are realized. In **Europe**, the main axes include: - The Rhine and its tributary rivers (Main, Neckar, Mosel). Via the Elbe and the Oder, the industrial areas in Austria, Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic are within reach. - The river system in the Benelux countries and northern France includes major canals, such as the Albert Canal, which runs between Antwerp and Liège. - The Rhône-Saône basin mostly links the port of Marseille and the inland port of Lyon. - The Northern network around the Elbe, Weser, and associated canals. - The Rhine-Main-Danube linking the Alpine Region to the Black Sea. In Eastern Europe, ships can reach the Danube from the Rhine, opening up the larger industrial areas in Austria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria. Other European countries that boast inland shipping are Italy, Finland, Sweden, Russia, and Ukraine. However, these pertain to isolated national waterways networks, which (if they are not maritime) have no connection with the European network. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Rhine-Scheldt-Delta-Inland-Ports.png?resize=900%2C574&ssl=1 "Inland Ports and Logistics Zones Around the Rhine / Scheldt Delta | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Inland Ports and Logistics Zones Around the Rhine Scheldt Delta![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-US-Maritime-Routes.png?resize=900%2C573&ssl=1 "Designated US Marine Highways | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Designated US Marine Highways![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/yangtze_system2.png?resize=900%2C459&ssl=1 "The Yangtze River System | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Yangtze River SystemIn **North America**, several large river systems are present, but their latitudinal orientation does not match the general longitudinal orientation of commercial flows. Yet, waterway corridors have played an important role in North America’s commercial development, particularly: - The **St. Lawrence-Great Lakes system** connecting the Atlantic deep inside the North American hinterland. However, limited container flows are occurring, and access to the Great Lakes is restricted by locks, particularly the Welland Canal. Most of the system is impacted by winter seasonality and forced to close between December and March. This impediment undermines the competitiveness of this hinterland option, as alternatives must be found during winter. - The **Mississippi-Missouri system** connecting the Great Lakes and the American Midwest to the Gulf of Mexico. It is mainly used for ferrying agricultural resources, with most of the traffic downstream bound. Attempts have been made to improve the competitiveness of inland waterways, namely with the designation of “[marine highways](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=5787 "Designated US Marine Highways")” in a manner similar to the Interstate Highway system. In **East and Southeast Asia**, four major river systems are actively used for inland navigation. In Southeast Asia, the Mekong River connects six countries: Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Burma, and China. The Lower Mekong is navigable by ships of 3,000 DWT up to the border of Laos, where rapids and falls prevent further inland navigation. The Upper Mekong offers more sporadic conditions with several segments used by ships under 100 DWT, particularly for ferries, as bridges are scarce due to lower levels of economic development. China has **three major inland navigation systems**: the Yellow River in the north, the Yangtze River in the center, and the Pearl River in the south. The [Yangtze River](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/yangtze-river-system/ "The Yangtze River System") is the longest and busiest river in China, dominating its inland waterway sector and being the only river that connects the eastern, central, and western parts of the country. It thus plays an important role in supporting commercial activities in the central and western provinces. The total length of the Yangtze River is about 6,300 km, of which about 2,800 km is navigable for cargo vessels. It handles over two billion tons of freight annually, making it the world’s most significant river in terms of cargo volume. Since the turn of the century, when port decentralization started and China joined the WTO, freight volumes on the river have increased significantly. For container transport, the Yangtze River has witnessed a development pattern that initially moved downstream, but is now moving upstream. Containerization first occurred at the lower reach in the early 1990s. Manufacturing began along the Yangtze River Delta, the first region to be opened to foreign trade due to its high connectivity. The lower reach of the Yangtze River consistently accounted for the majority of the river’s total container traffic. However, its share decreased from 91% in 1996 to 67% in 2016 as economic development shifted upstream. # 7. Cargo Bundling in Hinterland Transport ## A. Cargo bundling options Bundling is one of the key driving forces behind the dynamics of inland container service networks. The bundling of cargo typically involves **several layers**, starting with the consolidation of parcels onto a pallet and continuing with the bundling of a large number of containers onto a corridor connecting the port to the hinterland. Three types of [bundling networks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/cargo-bundling-options-hinterland-transportation/ "Cargo Bundling Options in Hinterland Transportation") can be used as an alternative to direct point-to-point inland services. These bundling networks rely on en-route bundling in transfer/intermediate terminals. These types are often combined in rail transport and inland shipping to form multi-layered networks. The **advantages of cargo bundling** include higher load factors, larger transport units in terms of TEU capacity, higher frequencies, and more destinations served. The **main disadvantages** of complex bundling networks include the need for extra container handling at intermediate terminals, resulting in higher transit times, increased risk of damage, longer transport distances, and a higher dependency on service quality. These elements incur additional costs that could counterbalance the cost advantages of higher load factors or larger unit capacities. Longer transport distances combined with time lost at intermediate terminals usually result in a longer transport time than direct services. The attractiveness of direct services with a low frequency largely depends on the ability of the operator to coordinate departure and arrival times with deepsea operations and the normal working hours of firms. There are also some time constraints related to the infrastructure, such as slot availability for freight trains or lock operating schedules on canals. Complex bundling networks rely on the **speed and cost-effectiveness of the transfers at intermediate terminals**. Appropriate handling equipment needs to be in place, which is financially justified when there is sufficient traffic. For rail, container transfers between trains offer possibilities as an alternative to shunting container wagons. Lo-Lo (Lift-on, Lift-off) rail hub terminals (also known as thruports) can even outperform marshaling yards in terms of efficiency and speed. One way to **ensure higher cargo volumes** is by offering a broader range of services and modes, as well as integrating local traffic with transit traffic. Another way is by directing cargo from different ports to the same inland hub for consolidation. The duplication of hub terminals, each operated by other market players, is only feasible in places with sufficient cargo volumes. If an operator opts for a line bundling network, a decision must be made concerning the **number of intermediate stops**. Limiting the number of stops at intermediate terminals shortens round-trip times. It increases the number of round trips per year, maximizing revenue and minimizing the equipment required for that specific service. This is a combined result of several effects: - Lower total inland port time and charges on the round voyage. - A smaller number of units is needed to run a service. - A smaller total round trip length, with diversion distances to intermediate terminals avoided. More intermediate stops can lead to **lower pre- and endhaul costs** per truck. These costs are typically very high in intermodal transport. Moreover, having more calls per round trip might make it possible to realize a higher utilization rate for the transport equipment. Hence, the vicinity of an inland terminal could incite shippers to opt for intermodal transport. For container transport by barge, adding an extra intermediate terminal in a round trip might generate additional costs for more complex vessel stowage and restows. In rail transport, including an additional intermediate terminal leads to more complex shunting of wagon groups or container Lo-Lo operations. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cargo_bundling_options_hinterland.png?resize=900%2C598&ssl=1 "Cargo Bundling Options in Hinterland Transportation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cargo Bundling Options in Hinterland Transportation![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cargo_bundling_multiple_container_terminals.png?resize=900%2C407&ssl=1 "Cargo Bundling in Ports with Multiple Deepsea Container Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cargo Bundling in Ports with Multiple Deepsea Container Terminals## B. Cargo bundling in seaport areas Large seaports with several container terminals often face the challenge of **bundling cargo from different terminals** onto the same train or barge. Two [alternative systems](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=6296 "Cargo bundling in port areas") exist: - The conveyance (i.e. barge or combination train) **sequentially calls at various deepsea container terminals** in order to fill the available capacity. - All containers bound for a specific inland service are brought to one (or more) **dedicated rail or barge terminal** in the port area through a network of intra-port services by truck (mostly), barge, or rail. In the first option, barges and trains **consume additional time** while collecting cargo from the hinterland. For example, in the ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp, some inland barges might spend more than 48 hours in the port area collecting containers from different deepsea terminals. Utilizing a central loading/discharging point in the port area significantly reduces the port time for barge and train combinations. Still, it incurs **extra costs** related to the operation of inter-terminal container transfers and extra container handling. The desired configuration depends on the spatial layout of the port area, particularly inter-terminal distances, the operational characteristics of terminals, berths, and transport equipment, as well as modal options and the decision on who will bear the costs of inter-terminal transfers, typically the shipping line or the terminal operator. ## C. Specific considerations related to cargo bundling Cargo bundling typically requires **coordination among different supply chain actors** supported by **digital solutions** to increase the visibility and transparency of cargo bundling opportunities and overall performance metrics. There might also be tensions between the **expectations and objectives of different market actors**: - **Operators** typically aim to minimize the cost of their intermodal network operations. As such, transport operators are tempted to design only the bundling networks they find convenient. Still, at the same time, they have to provide the services their customers want in terms of frequency, direct accessibility, and connectivity. Moreover, operators must offer regular schedules with consistent service characteristics, as any change may conflict with existing terminal operations. - **Customer preferences** are driven by the minimization of generalized costs. These costs include all the costs of freight movements, loading and unloading, transfer, handling operations at groupage points, capital costs of the goods and depreciation during transport, costs related to damages, and inventory costs incurred by the consignee. Shippers also show a keen interest in the qualitative performance of the whole transport chain in terms of reliability, availability, and compatibility. Hence, inefficiencies at this level will generate indirect logistics costs, such as production delays caused by late deliveries. Transport operators must consider the broader logistics perspective of the shippers. The **tension between routing and demand** is another important aspect of cargo bundling. Network planners may direct flows along optimal paths for the system, with the lowest cost for the entire network being achieved by indirect routing via intermediate terminals and the consolidation of flows. However, a more efficient network from an operating standpoint may be less convenient for shippers and cargo owners. Time, cost, or reliability concerns could make an operator with indirect routes less competitive, thereby opening the possibilities for other operators to fill market gaps. The optimal service schedule is not only a function of operator-specific operational factors but also of shippers’ needs for transit time and other service elements, and their willingness to pay for better service. Thus, the spatial development of bundling networks largely depends on the balance of power between shippers and operators. **Cargo availability** has a significant impact on choices made in inland transport services. A port that only serves a dense local economic cluster will have fewer difficulties developing a regular inland service than a port handling containers for a large number of final destinations dispersed over a vast hinterland. A port with a large local cargo base will sooner or later be tempted to increase the inland penetration of its intermodal hinterland network to increase its capture area. From that moment on, the existing dense network of direct shuttles to nearby destinations might complement indirect inland services to more distant destinations built around one or more inland hubs. Extensive cargo concentration on a few trunk lines opens possibilities for economies of scale in inland shuttles by deploying longer trains or larger inland barges with higher frequencies. Ultimately, the choice of an optimal service configuration also depends on **network characteristics**. **River systems** typically have a **treelike structure** with limited or no lateral connections between the different branches. Vessel capacity that can be deployed is restricted and not homogeneous due to varying draft limitations and other physical conditions in various parts of the river system. Rail networks usually have some **lateral connections** and offer a more homogeneous profile in terms of train configurations. These differences between river systems and rail networks imply that the collection-distribution and hub-and-spoke network solutions are mainly found in rail container transport. In contrast, inland container barge services, such as those on the Yangtze and Rhine rivers, heavily rely on line-bundling solutions, calling at several inland terminals per navigation area, such as the upper, middle, or lower sections of the river system. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 1.4 Ports and Distribution Networks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3020) - [Chapter 2.3 Dry Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=629) - [Chapter 4.3 Port Coordination and Cooperation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4143) - [Chapter 4.4 Port Clusters](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=258) ## References - De Langen, P.W. and A. Chouly (2004) Hinterland access regimes in seaports, European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 4(4), pp. 361-380. - Ducruet, C. and S.W. Lee (2006) Frontline soldiers of globalization: port-city evolution and regional competition, GeoJournal, 67(2), pp. 107-22. - Fraser, D., Notteboom, T. (2014) A strategic appraisal of the attractiveness of seaport-based transport corridors: the Southern African case, Journal of Transport Geography, 36, 53–68. - Jung, P.H., and J-C Thill (2022) Sea-land interdependence and delimitation of port hinterland-foreland structures in the international transportation system, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 99. - Merk, O., Notteboom, T. (2015) Port hinterland connectivity, International Transport Forum (ITF) – OECD, Discussion Paper no. 2015-13, May 2015 - Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2005) Port Regionalization: Towards a New Phase in Port Development, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 297-313. - Notteboom, T. (2001) Spatial and functional integration of container port systems and hinterland networks in Europe, in: ECMT (ed.), Land access to sea ports, Economic Research Centre ECMT-OECD, Paris, ISBN 92-821-1359-0, pp. 5-55. - Notteboom, T. (2008) Bundling of freight flows and hinterland network development, in: Konings, R., Priemus, H., Nijkamp, P. (eds), The Future of Intermodal Freight Transport, Operations, Technology, Design and Implementation, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, pp. 66-88. - Notteboom, T. (2009) The relationship between seaports and the intermodal hinterland in light of global supply chains: European challenges, in: OECD/ITF (ed.), ‘Port Competition and Hinterland Connections’, Round Table no. 143, OECD – International Transport Forum (ITF): Paris, ISBN 978-92-821-0224-4, pp. 25-75. - Notteboom, T. (2017) Maritime gateways and barge connectivity: container barge transport on the Rhine, in: Banken, R., Wubs, B., The Rhine: A Transnational Economic History, series on European Economic and Social History, Nomos-Verlag, ISBN 978-3-8487-4204-2, pp. 311-334. - Notteboom, T., Yang, D., Xu, H. (2020) Container barge network development in inland rivers: A comparison between the Yangtze River and the Rhine River, Transportation Research part A: Policy and Practice, 132, pp. 587-605, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.10.014> - Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2007) Re-assessing Port-Hinterland Relationships in the Context of Global Supply Chains, in J. Wang et al. (eds) Inserting Port-Cities in Global Supply Chains, London: Ashgate. - Sargent, A.J. (1938) Seaports and Hinterlands, London: Adam and Charles Black. - Slack, B. (1999) Satellite terminals: a local solution to hub congestion?, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 7, pp. 241-246. - Weigend, G.G. (1958) Some elements in the study of port geography*.* Geographical Review, Vol. 48 (2), 185-200. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Elements of the Maritime Industry](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/elements-maritime-industry/) **Published:** August 2, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/elements_maritime_industry3.png?resize=900%2C449&ssl=1 "Elements of the Maritime Industry | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Elements of the Maritime IndustryThe maritime industry is composed of a wide range of activities, many of which are interrelated and interdependent. It can be divided into four major groups. ### Maritime Shipping The ocean side of the industry, with the main purpose of performing the transport function or extracting oceanic resources. It is the only segment of the industry with primary sector functions. - **Fishing and aquaculture**. One of the most ancient segments of the industry, supplying about 10% of the global protein input. Most commercial fishing takes place offshore and in designated high-productivity areas, such as the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. Still, the growth of aquaculture has transformed the industry, with the sector accounting for about 50% of total fishing output. - **Offshore energy and mining**. Activities related to the extraction of energy (oil and natural gas) and mineral resources from the ocean. The first offshore oil platforms were set in the early 20th century, but it was not until the 1970s that large offshore structures were built to drill on the continental shelf, such as in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and the North Sea. More recently, offshore wind farms have been deployed with ports serving as construction, assembly, and maintenance platforms for windmills. Mining the seabed is still in its infancy, but it represents substantial opportunities as the oceans may hold more than five times the amount of minerals as those available on land. - **Shipbuilding**. The industrial activities of making and assembling ship components. China, South Korea, and Japan are the major builders, using extensive shipyards to build large-scale ships. Specialized shipyards are also building LNG carriers, cruise ships, pleasure boats, and naval vessels. Shipbuilding is supported by a complex industrial ecosystem of manufacturers of engines, parts and components, and electrical systems. - **Ship scrapping (or ship breaking)**. Once ships have completed their commercial life, they can be scrapped and their metallic components recycled. The world’s largest ship scrapping yards are in India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, which use the beaching technique with ships propelled ashore to be dismantled. - **[Channels, canals, and maritime infrastructure](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/ "Chapter 1.6 – Interoceanic Passages")**. Built and dredged to improve navigation and connectivity, channels and canals are usually managed by an entity responsible for their construction, maintenance, and improvement. A channel (or waterway) usually follows a natural water body such as a river, while canals are artificially built entities, at times with locks. Tolls are commonly collected based on criteria such as tonnage, ship size, and ship class with the purpose of generating enough revenue to operate and maintain the infrastructure. The Suez and Panama canals are among the world’s most strategic canals, but other systems, such as the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Mittelland Canal in Germany, or the Houston Ship Channel, play strategic roles. Another important form of oceanic maritime infrastructure concerns the networks of pipelines (usually offshore to shore) and transoceanic telecommunication cables. - **Carriers and shipowners**. A carrier is a maritime company that transports cargo on behalf of its customers, either privately (for a single customer) or as a common carrier (for multiple customers on an open market). Carriers tend to own a large share of their fleet, but many lease ships from shipowners using the services of shipbrokers. A shipowner is an entity that purchases and manages ships to make them readily available for use on the leasing market. - **Repair and maintenance**. Ships and offshore facilities require regular maintenance and repairs, often in specialized facilities such as shipyards. - **Recreational and cruises**. With the growth in global standards of living, the recreational use of the oceans has increased, with pleasure boats such as yachts and cruise ships being the most salient examples. [Cruise companies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/ "Chapter 1.5 – Ports and Cruise Shipping") maintain a fleet of cruise ships allocated to itineraries on regional markets such as the Caribbean and the Mediterranean. ### Ports The land side of the industry allows the maritime realm to interact with the inland realm. - **[Construction and maintenance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/port-terminal-construction/ "Chapter 3.9 – Port Terminal Construction")**. Construction and engineering firms are involved in the construction, repair, and maintenance of port facilities. These activities are highly capital-intensive in terms of infrastructure and superstructure and are usually considered mega-projects that take several years to complete. - **Equipment manufacturers**. Ports and their terminals require a wide range of equipment, many of which are highly specialized for port use, such as cranes and cargo handling equipment (e.g., straddle carriers) designed to handle a single task. In this case, they are provided by specialized manufacturers catering to ports. Others are less specialized and more multipurpose, such as vehicles and forklifts. In this case, the equipment is provided as is or with small modifications to suit port operations. - **Port-centric industries**. Ports are important manufacturing complexes, particularly for activities with high material inputs such as shipyards, fish processing, petrochemicals, steelmaking, and automotive. These industries jointly benefit from the capacity to move and store heavy material inputs and outputs and the connectivity provided to global markets. - **Dredging**. A wide range of activities involving the removal of materials to prepare for a new facility through land reclamation and new access channels (**capital dredging**) and to maintain channels to a defined draft (**maintenance dredging**). Land reclamation allows additional land to be available, mainly for port development, but other facilities, such as airports and urban land, have also been developed. - **[Port authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-authorities/ "Chapter 4.2 – Port Authorities")**. Ports are generally publicly owned and subject to ownership and oversight by a managing agency. They are responsible for port land operation, lease, marketing, and development, but may elect to subcontract these services. Port authorities often lease terminals and real estate through concessions with defined terms and conditions. - **[Terminal operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminals-and-terminal-operators/ "Chapter 3.1 – Terminals and Terminal Operators")**. An entity that is responsible for the development, management, and operation of a port terminal. Port terminals have a wide range of functions and specialized terminal operators. Terminal operators can own the facility or lease it as a concession from a port authority. Some sell their services on an open market, while others are for the exclusive use of their owner. Terminal operators are usually part of a portfolio including operations in several ports along the same commodity, such as containers and cars. - **Inland carriers**. Rail, truck, and barge companies carrying cargo to and from ports. They are important actors in granting access to the hinterland and entering port facilities either through gates (trucks) or dedicated facilities (rail and barges). - **Warehousing and distribution**. A whole range of storage and distribution activities related to port traffic and support port-centric logistics. They can take the form of tanks (for liquids such as oil), silos (for grains and chemicals), piles (for minerals), stacks (for containers), open spaces (for cars), and covered facilities (for warehouses and distribution centers). They usually act as buffers between production and consumption. ### Management and Oversight Several service activities involve managing the cargo carried by shipping lines and handled by ports. These range from cargo owners directly involved in booking maritime transportation to freight forwarders doing so on behalf of their customers. - **Regulators**. The maritime industry is subject to international, national, and state regulatory oversight. Many are concerned about safety and security issues as well as standards. At the international level, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) aims to adopt internationally recognized standards and protocols. Still, it does not have formal regulatory power, which is to be enforced at the state level. - **Customs**. Maritime shipping is a highly globalized industry with large amounts of cross-border flows of cargo and passengers to a lesser extent. These flows are subject to the regulatory oversight of customs agencies, which monitor the enforcement of tariffs, duties, quotas, and sanctions. Customs officers conduct cargo inspections at ports of entry to ensure that cargo complies with these regulations. - **Cargo owners**. A wide range of activities, either on the production side (manufacturers) or on the distribution side (wholesalers and retailers), have a direct stake in the cargo transported by maritime shipping. As shippers, they determine the origin and destination of the cargo, underlining why maritime shipping and port operations are a derived demand. Some, particularly the largest, can directly arrange the transportation of their cargo (on an own-account basis), while others contract a third party to do so. - **Freight forwarders**. Actors organizing transportation between the cargo owner (or shipper) and the carrier. This includes consolidating shipments, negotiating rates with carriers, and making sure that documentation, such as bills of lading and customs declarations, is filled out. - **Third-party and fourth-party logistics service providers (3PL/4PL)**. They can perform freight forwarding services but tend to offer a more comprehensive range of services, including transportation, inventory management, storage, and distribution. While 3PLs own transportation and logistics assets such as ships and warehouses, 4PLs focus on logistical services, such as planning, procurement, and supply chains. Many carriers also offer 3PL and 4PL services. - **Shipbrokers and charterers**. A range of actors acting as intermediates between shipowners and charterers. They often specialize in specific shipping sectors, such as tankers, bulk carriers, or containers, and negotiate with charterers on behalf of their customers. A charterer tries to find specific shipping opportunities (from shipowners or shipbrokers) and routes to deliver cargo on behalf of their customers or on open markets. Large shipping lines have shipbroking and chartering services. - **Banking**. The maritime industry is transaction-intensive, commonly involving large sums, requiring banking to settle transactions and remit payments, particularly through letters of credit. The banking sector provides temporary loans and lines of credit to carriers. ### Ancillary The range of activities providing support services to maritime operations. - **Finance**. The purchase, construction, and lease of ships, infrastructure (terminals), and superstructures (equipment) require a large amount of capital. A segment of the financial industry has developed to provide investment capital, often invested over long-term horizons. Some retirement and sovereign wealth funds are also investors. - **Insurance**. The world’s oldest insurance products are related to the maritime sector (bottomry), particularly because of the unique set of risks involved. International law forbids any carrier from transporting cargo without the ship and its cargo being insured against known hazards that may damage or even destroy a ship and its cargo. A branch of the insurance industry has been developed to cover carriers, operators, and cargo owners against losses. Since the industry is intensive in transactions and has multiple stakeholders (carriers, terminal operators), it is important to identify who is liable if an incident happens. - **Ship classification and registry**. Ships are subject to rigorous technical and safety standards, and classification societies are responsible for certifying that new and existing ships meet these standards by issuing classification certificates. A ship can only be registered and insured if it has a valid certificate. A ship registry confirms its ownership and nationality and, therefore, its regulatory control (e.g. safety and labor conditions). About 70% of the world’s tonnage is registered in an open registry country, such as Panama and Liberia. - **Navies and coast guard**. A specialized segment of the maritime industry with the core purpose of protecting national interests concerning security and safety. Navies project national power into international waters. The coast guard is responsible for maritime border control, inspecting ships for compliance, and the search and rescue of endangered personnel and equipment. - **Bunkering and stores**. Maritime transport consumes large amounts of fuel, mainly Bunker C (marine fuel oil), and having sufficient fuel for a voyage is considered a fundamental element of seaworthiness. Bunkering can take place at a port (while the ship is docked handling cargo) or offshore (where the ship briefly stops). Due to its strategic location, Singapore is the most important bunkering station in the world. An expected energy transition will impact bunkering towards the use of other fuels such as LNG. Another component concerns the provision of supplies and equipment for ships (food, water, medical supplies, spare parts). In the cruise industry, stores, particularly food, are a substantial part of the operating costs since they are an important part of the cruise experience. - **Pilotage and tugs**. Most ports, navigation channels, and canals require pilots to ensure reliable and safe navigation. A pilot is a trained individual with extensive knowledge of local navigation who boards a ship when entering the area under pilotage jurisdiction to assist the captain. Tugs are designed to assist ships with complex maneuvers within harbors. They also follow ships in the harbor and access channels to intervene if there is a deviation. Some push or pull barges for river and coastal navigation. - **Industry and trade groups**. The maritime industry is represented by numerous international, national, and regional organizations regrouping interest groups such as port authorities, terminal operators, and carriers. Further, each cargo segment, such as bulk, petroleum, and refrigerated cargoes, also has representative interest groups. Some offer commercial opportunities for their members (networking between providers and buyers), while others are more actively involved in research, advocacy, and lobbying. - **Training and education**. Institutions and agencies responsible for providing training and education for the vast array of skills required in the maritime industry. In particular, maritime academies provide training and certification for ship personnel. It also includes academic and commercial research and consultants geared to provide information and advice about specific issues. Countries such as the Philippines are substantial providers of maritime personnel. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/elements-maritime-industry/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/elements-maritime-industry/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/elements-maritime-industry/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/elements-maritime-industry/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 8.3 - Port Coordination and Cooperation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/) **Published:** December 1, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Theo Notteboom > Ports can develop cooperation and coordination strategies, providing an integrated transportation service that benefits all actors involved in port supply chains. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Coordination of Port Activities](#1_Coordination_of_Port_Activities) - [2. Coordination in Container Terminal Operations](#2_Coordination_in_Container_Terminal_Operations) - [3. Cooperation between Ports](#3_Cooperation_between_Ports) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Coordination of Port Activities The purpose of [port coordination and cooperation strategies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3901) is for a port authority to formalize its expansion through a **more active landlord function**. The key drivers for setting up coordination mechanisms include capital investments to accommodate increased traffic, as well as the involvement of supply chain actors at the port and in the hinterland. Land scarcity, oligopoly in terminal operations, and the negative externalities of port development, such as environmental impacts, further stimulate port authorities to take on a more active role. Port authorities have developed **coordination** strategies to align various supply chain actors through integrated approaches, fostering **cooperation** with other port authorities. Globalization and the growing complexity of supply chains are encouraging [port authorities to undertake strategies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=8272) aiming at a better level of coordination of their hinterland that involve: - **Usage of incentives**. Coordinate the operations of freight actors to improve the utilization of transport chains and their underlying assets. It can involve using a preferential rate structure for customers who provide a minimum volume or meet a reliability level. Others will be encouraged to follow since the reward is lower-cost access to the infrastructure. - **Inter-firm alliances**. They concern two types of alliances. The first is **vertical integration** (along transport chains), where a maritime shipping company and a terminal operator can agree to coordinate their services. The second is **horizontal integration** (between competitors), where an equipment or container pool can be established to improve asset utilization. - **Organizational scope**. A vertical integration process where an actor decides to penetrate a new market to expand or add value to its activities. For instance, a maritime shipping company can be involved in port terminal operations. Additionally, a port authority could be involved in developing an inland port as a strategy to alleviate congestion and expand its market potential to the hinterland. - **Collective actions**. A series of strategies under the port authority leadership, such as setting up public-private partnerships to create a logistics zone. Each actor contributes to its realm of expertise. The development of [port community systems](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/digital-transformation/port-community-system/ "Port Community System") is also a collective action relying on information technologies. The development of [inland ports and logistical zones](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=629) is an emerging paradigm. Still, port authorities tend to be reluctant to undertake partnerships with inland ports, mostly out of concern for losing added-value activities and employment. Inland ports may also promote port competition by offering access to new freight corridors, thus challenging the fundamental hinterland of a port and its related cargo. However, coordination between port authorities and inland ports is increasing, particularly among the largest ports. The latter tend to have more congestion issues, as well as the volume, financial, and technical capability to undertake these initiatives. In Europe, the dominant strategy is the establishment of dedicated rail or barge services to the inland port. In North America, port authorities often establish logistical zones within their surrounding areas to better manage traffic. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_cooperation_coordination2.png?resize=900%2C558&ssl=1 "Port Cooperation and Coordination | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Cooperation and Coordination![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/vertical_horizontal_integration_port2.png?resize=900%2C519&ssl=1 "Vertical and Horizontal Integration in Port Development | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Vertical and Horizontal Integration in Port Development![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/coordination_mechanisms_seaports.png?resize=900%2C349&ssl=1 "Coordination Mechanisms and Arrangements in Seaports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Coordination Mechanisms in seaports![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_community_system2.png?resize=900%2C628&ssl=1 "Port Community System | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Community System# 2. Coordination in Container Terminal Operations Coordination also occurs **within port terminals**, as terminal operators attempt to improve productivity through coordination with terminal users. In the case of vessel operations, this coordination focuses on: - **Berthing and the start of work on vessel arrivals**. Terminal operators and carriers share information to coordinate berth allocation and work schedules. - **Planning for delays**. Terminal operators and carriers coordinate to protect schedule integrity by communicating with local shipping line agencies and ports along the liner call sequence to obtain real-time information regarding schedule delays. - **Planning maximum crane allocation** and adherence to berth windows, such as reaching agreements on available cranes, volume forecasts, allocations, and dock labor orders. - **Organization of bunker and store deliveries**. This coordination involves sharing information and plans for deliveries to ensure they do not conflict with terminal operations and are completed before or during port operations. - **Late ordering of services** (pilots, tugs, linesmen) by the carriers. **Terminal operators** also collaborate with shippers and other cargo interests, with a focus on: - The latest possible **delivery window** to receive cargoes. - **Load information** (volumes, weights, container numbers, destination). - **Documentation** (customs information, dangerous goods, incorrect weight, seal details). - **Stow plans** on what is received in the terminal or will be loaded/stowed/restowed (i.e. empties, cargoes with special needs). - **Last-minute and unplanned stows** or empty loads. - **Roll-over cargoes** from a vessel to the next vessels in the case of transshipment, with last-minute priorities set on major customers and provisions for specific loads, such as reefer, dry, and empty containers. - **Late provision of discharge information** and next modality information (e.g. latest possible connections to/from trucks, barges, rail, feeder, vessels). These approaches facilitate qualitative improvements concerning asset planning and utilization. Understanding the needs of shipping lines may result in improvements to the stowage layout, allowing prioritized vessels to match their needs and be ready for other discharge ports. Understanding the needs of shippers might increase **cargo discipline**, minimizing the potential for excessive dwell times and empty storage entitlements. In any case, even when terminal users share similar visions for operational standards (on-time performance, high data quality), terminal operators ensure adequate serviceable equipment levels with sufficient excess capacity for flexibility and appropriate labor levels to service demand peaks. # 3. Cooperation between Ports ## A. Emerging cooperation schemes Cooperation between port authorities governing different ports, as well as cooperation between terminal operators and between other service providers, does not exclude intense competitive behavior. Since the 1990s, **cooperation has become increasingly common**, aiming at more flexible traffic distribution patterns. An early example is the cooperation between Rotterdam and Baltic Region ports, which began in the early 1990s to strengthen their competitive positions. Cooperation expanded to a strategy including a broad spectrum of initiatives aiming to: - **Better use assets** in terms of efficiency, scale, and scope. - **Improve competencies**. - **Gain a positional advantage** by offsetting the undesirable effects of competition. All these societal gains were primarily achieved through **increased efficiencies**. As in other businesses, cooperation between ports can be multi- or single-function and may even take the form of coopetition, defined as cooperation with competitors to achieve benefits that cannot be achieved otherwise. Port cooperation is a strategy designed to **enhance port performance**. Due to port regionalization, imbalances in port capacity and the competition in broader geographical regions form the key drivers of cooperation between ports, especially between those in proximity. Port cooperation sustains existing maritime links or establishes new services integrated into door-to-door logistics chains. It is also perceived to lead to specialization in cargo or ship types, and organization and pooling of hinterland transport facilities, and, in many cases, to an improvement in output. For larger ports, cooperation might facilitate **landside coordination of hinterland connections** through neighboring load centers. The centrally located load center ports may face difficulties maintaining their competitive position. A key reason is the continuously changing port–hinterland relationship. The advent of port regionalization, where the performance of major seaports is interrelated with the development and performance of inland networks and value-added activities in the port hinterland, brings port development to a larger geographical scale beyond the port perimeter. Many load centers face local land scarcity and the infrastructure needed to make efficient inland connections, conditions exacerbated by diseconomies of scale (i.e. inland congestion), environmental constraints, and local opposition to port expansion. Competing services in terminal, rail, and barge operations present challenges in terms of providing effective regional operations and efficient infrastructure utilization. Coordination leads to the more effective bundling of container volumes towards the hinterland. This enables deeper hinterland penetration and promotes intermodal transportation through increased service frequency and improved utilization of shuttle trains and barges. For smaller ports on the periphery, the rationale for cooperation is to increase the centrality of those ports and the region in which they are located. This can be achieved by increasing the volume of specific hinterland and maritime transport services, as well as by improving the configuration and working environment for maritime operations and hinterland transport chains. ## B. Port networking Port networking for market segmentation and the coordination of functions can prevent port authorities from wasting scarce resources on inter-port competition. For a port range serving a limited overlapping hinterland, there are two reasons why ports might cooperate. First, there may be **substantial duplication in the services**, leading to over-competition. Second, there are **gaps** in the ability of the port range to serve the specific needs of shippers. In the latter case, developing a common regional public policy might be mutually beneficial, or a common marketing strategy could drive growth in total traffic for the port range. Alternatively, cooperation may involve an agreement to specialize in a service at one port while avoiding duplication of that service at another. Cooperation benefits lead to strategic alliances among ports, premised on the belief that seamless customer service does not require ownership of all assets and results from managerial values that accept cooperative behavior. In this context, in several parts of the world, including the European Union, public funding has made cooperative port development projects popular, leading to more permanent forms of association between ports. Cooperation takes several forms, with the [typology of port authority cooperation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=3789&action=edit) underlining that there is no optimal approach. Cooperation encompasses training, technical exchanges, port management assistance, information sharing on port development and environmental programs, promoting mutual logistics services, and articulating a common position at international forums. This occurs between ports in the same geographical region, aiming to promote joint development of infrastructure, regional marketing, and common approaches to environmental issues. Cooperation between larger and smaller ports is also frequent, as regional cooperation aims to enhance particular trade corridors. In the early 2000s, **strategic alliances between adjacent container ports** emerged as a countervailing option against the growing market power of shipping lines. Within an economic environment of seagoing trade, ports are “pawns in the game” of facilitating efficient and effective maritime flow. Cooperation between ports is gaining antitrust immunity in several countries, allowing it to be used not only to counterbalance carrier power but also to address the most pressing congestion problems facing ports. Since the early 2010s, the [collaboration between non-proximate ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/cooperation-between-non-proximate-ports/ "Cooperation between Non-proximate Ports") has expanded. Port authorities develop partnerships to establish a commercial representation abroad, transfer know-how, and occasionally invest abroad. The motives relate to diverse goals ranging from marketing the port worldwide to ‘promote and/or sell the port’ (the customers-seeking principle), to control international transport networks a port forms part of (the efficiency and effectiveness principle) or gain a competitive advantage via additional knowledge, cutting-edge technologies, or new business opportunities. There are at least two ways that port cooperation expands beyond adjacent ports. The first is **cooperation between the two ends of a logistics corridor** to optimize freight flows between the two regions. The second is **agreements to exchange information** on port activities, management, organization, and technology. Port authorities with autonomy and a more business-like structure move towards a more entrepreneurial role that, apart from business development, involves internationalization strategies and partnerships that develop informally, such as signing memorandums of understanding. At the same time, it is worth noting that the ongoing restructuring of liner shipping through alliance formation acts as an incentive for collaboration between both proximate and non-proximate port authorities. For instance, the port authorities of Savannah and Norfolk on the American East Coast recently requested permission from the Federal Maritime Commission to present a united front to newly formed liner shipping alliances on several vital issues. These port authorities are on the same coastline but 500 miles apart. As they do not directly compete on their captive local cargo markets, only on the longer-distance discretionary intermodal markets, they seek to collaborate on a range of topics such as coordinating vessel calls and berthing arrangements, marketing, procurement, and the efficient use of their facilities. There are also adjacent ports forming alliances, such as the ports of Seattle and Tacoma, which form the SeaTac Alliance, or neighboring terminals forming cooperation agreements. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_authorities_collaboration.png?resize=900%2C401&ssl=1 "Collaboration of Port Authorities: A Typology | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Typology of Port Authorities cooperation![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cooperation_non_proximate_ports.png?resize=900%2C414&ssl=1 "cooperation_non_proximate_ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cooperation between non proximate Ports## C. Merging of port authorities In some cases, cooperation between port authorities can reach an advanced stage, taking the form of **port authority mergers**. A port authority merger or full integration is the most far-reaching form of co-operation. Port authority mergers at the national or regional level can be found worldwide. In some cases, these involve mergers between **ports of similar sizes**, such as the Ningbo-Zhoushan port in China or Hamina-Kotka in Finland. In other cases, a larger port authority merges with smaller ones such as for Port Metro Vancouver in Canada (Vancouver and Fraser), Valenciaport in Spain (Valencia, Sagunto, and Gandia), the integration of the port of Dordrecht in the Rotterdam Port Authority (the Netherlands) and the 2021 merger between the ports of Antwerp and Zeebrugge (Belgium). There also exist particular cases of regional integration of port authorities at a regional level, such as the creation of [**port system authorities** in Italy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-cooperation-and-coordination/italian-port-system-authorities/ "Italian Port System Authorities") and the integration of [Chinese ports at the provincial level](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-cooperation-and-coordination/port-reform-integration-mainland-china/ "Port Reform and Integration in Mainland China"). **Cross-border mergers of port authorities** are rare. The formation of **Copenhagen Malmo Port** (CMP) was the first cross-border merger in Europe. One of the main drivers behind the merger between the Danish port of Copenhagen and the Swedish port of Malmo was realizing the fixed Oresund link between Denmark and Sweden, basically wiping out all short-distance ferry activity between both ports. Another cross-border merger is the creation of **North Sea Port** following the 2017 merger between Ghent Port Authority in Belgium and Zeeland Seaports (Terneuzen and Flushing) in the Netherlands. In addition to full port authority integration schemes, far-reaching port alliances are emerging. Examples include the **Northwest Seaport Alliance** between Seattle and Tacoma in the US, and the structural cooperation platform HAROPA in France, which involves the seaports of Le Havre and Rouen, as well as the inland port of Paris. The latter turned into a fully-fledged merger in mid-2021. Port authority mergers can result from a decision or policy imposed by the national, regional, or provincial government (**top-down,** such as in Italy or China) or be initiated by the port authorities themselves (bottom-up). Compulsory or voluntary top-down mergers are thus mainly driven by (national) policies. The core goal is to reduce the administrative burden and recurring jurisdictional overlap when port authorities are in proximity. The merged entity is expected to be more effective. Bottom-up mergers are more of a response to market pressure, inter-firm ties (such as global terminal networks of vertically integrated carriers), and common threats or market challenges. The Rhine-Scheldt Delta region serves as a notable example of **bottom-up mergers among port authorities**. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/RSD-cooperation.png?resize=900%2C573&ssl=1 "RSD-cooperation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Authority Mergers in the Rhine Scheldt Delta![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Italy-Port-Authorities-1.png?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Map-Italy-Port-Authorities-1 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Italian Port System Authorities![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-China-Authorities.png?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Map-China-Authorities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Reform and Integration in Mainland ChinaThe percentage of port authorities that are responsible for managing more than one port is increasing. This is evident in both commercial and cruise ports. The number of European port authorities that govern more than one port increased from 38% of the total in 2011 to 46% in 2016. In the second-largest cruise region in the world, the Mediterranean and its surrounding seas, the percentage of [Mediterranean cruise ports where the responsible authority governs more than one port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-cooperation-and-coordination/number-cruise-ports-managed-port-authority/) reaches almost 30% of the total. There are numerous possible **drivers for port authority mergers**, including: - To avoid **duplication of facilities and unnecessary competition**, a more comprehensive planning process is needed that rationalizes the use of assets of the merged authorities. Recognizing that land use planning and rationalization of existing terminals often become political in locally controlled ports, the merger of the cargo operations of the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma purposely avoided some of these challenges, focusing instead on challenges faced in governance. The creation of the Liaoning port group in Northeastern China provides another example. Dalian and Yingkou separately undertook strategies to maximize their competitive position against each other. These strategies included integrating terminals within their jurisdiction, developing relationships with inland ports, promoting port-related industries, and working with shipping companies on financing infrastructure. As these strategies did not reduce overcompetition between Dalian and Yingkou, a second round of integration was implemented by China Merchants Holding. Competition between Japanese and Korean ports for trans-Pacific cargo has prompted the Japanese government to form port alliances within key bays in Japan, such as Osaka Bay (comprising the Ports of Osaka and Kobe). - To respond to **mounting market and financial pressures and opportunities**. For example, consolidation among ocean carriers has put pressure on individual ports to invest in handling larger ships and remain competitive. Meanwhile, port sustainability and the energy transition present unique opportunities for merged ports. Corporatized port authorities might resort to mergers to improve their financial status. While port authority mergers have become a clear trend, **many attempts have failed**. For example, the adjacent ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach never succeeded in merging despite several attempts. This case highlights the importance of a transparent process that involves all stakeholders and economic studies that clearly demonstrate benefits to both parties. A failed merger is not necessarily a negative outcome, as it may prompt each port to behave more strategically, thereby enhancing their performance. Overall, there exist several **possible impediments to port authority mergers**: - **Administrative and cognitive borders** at the national, provincial, and even local level underline differences in port governance models in terms of socio-economic effects on decision-making (political and commercial), combined with top-down government interference. Cross-border mergers are challenging to match with national or regional port policy. - **Unfounded pressure on ports to specialize** their activities after a proposed merger. - No clear win-win situation with unclear or unfair **distribution of costs and benefits** of the proposed merger. - Inter-personal factors, such as the **lack of trust** between key decision-makers. - **Lack of decision-making power** of initiators. - **No clear business case** internally (profitability, development potential) or externally (towards port users and the broader port community). - **Belief in expanded cooperation and coordination** efforts to address the common issues instead of a merger. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Number-of-Ports-managed-per-Port-Authority-Europe.png?resize=774%2C391&ssl=1 "Number-of-Ports-managed-per-Port-Authority-Europe | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Number of Cruise Ports managed per Port Authority European Ports 2011 2016![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Number-of-Cruise-Ports-operated-by-PA-Med-1.png?resize=900%2C365&ssl=1 "Number-of-Cruise-Ports-operated-by-PA-Med-1 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Number of Cruise Ports Managed by a Port Authority The Meditteranean Sea 2015 --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 2.2 Port Hinterlands, Regionalization and Corridors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2509) - [Chapter 4.2 Port Authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=811) ## References - Brooks M.R., McCalla, R., Pallis A.A., and Van der Lugt L. (2010). Cooperation and Coordination in Strategic Port Management: The Case of Atlantic Canada’s Ports. Canadian Journal of Transportation, 4(1), 29-42. - De Langen, P. W., and Nijdam, M. H. (2009). A best practice in cross-border cooperation: Copenhagen Malmö Port. Notteboom, T., Ducruet, C., De Langen, P. (eds), Ports in proximity: competition and coordination among adjacent seaports, 163-188. - Dooms, M. van der Lugt, L., Parola, F., Satta G. and Song, D.-W. (2019). The internationalization of port managing bodies in concept and practice, Maritime Policy & Management, 46:5, 585-612, - Huo, W., Zhang, W. and Chen, P.S.L. (2018). Recent development of Chinese port cooperation strategies. Research in transportation business & management, 26, pp.67-75. - Knatz, G., (2018). Port mergers: Why not Los Angeles and Long Beach?. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 26, pp.26-33. - Notteboom, T. (2018). The regionalism of port co-operation schemes: an international comparison, The Jean Monnet Symposium on the future of the European port policy, Chios, 28-29 June 2018 - Notteboom, T., Knatz, G. and Parola, F. (2018). Port co-operation: types, drivers and impediments. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 26, 1-4. - Notteboom T., Ducruet, C. and De Langen P.W. (2009). Ports in Proximity: Competition and Coordination among Adjacent Seaports. Aldershot: Ashgate. - Notteboom, T., and Yang, Z. (2017). Port governance in China since 2004: Institutional layering and the growing impact of broader policies. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 22, 184-200. - Huo, W., Zhang, W. and Chen, P.S.L. (2018). Recent development of Chinese port cooperation strategies. Research in transportation business & management, 26, 67-75. - Notteboom, T., De Langen, P., Jacobs, W. (2013). Institutional plasticity and path dependence in seaports: interactions between institutions, port governance reform and port authority routines. Journal of Transport Geography, 27, 26–35. - Notteboom, T., and Yang, Z. (2017). Port governance in China since 2004: Institutional layering and the growing impact of broader policies. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 22, 184-200. - Pallis A.A. and Kladaki P. (2019). Inter–organisational relationships of European port management entities. Ιn: Panayides P.M. (ed): Routledge Handbook In Maritime Management, 283-298, London: Routledge. - Parola, F., Ferrari, C., Tei, A., Satta, G., and Musso, E. (2017). Dealing with multi-scalar embeddedness and institutional divergence: Evidence from the renovation of Italian port governance. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 22, 89-99. - Parola, F., Pallis, A.A., Risitano, M. and Ferretti, M. (2018). Marketing strategies of port authorities: A multi-dimensional theorisation, Transportation Research Policy and Practice Part A, 111, 199-212. - Van der Horst, M.R. and de Langen, P.W., (2008). Coordination in hinterland transport chains: a major challenge for the seaport community. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 10(1-2), pp.108-129. - Verhoeven, P. (2010). A Review of Port Authority Functions: Towards a Renaissance? Maritime Policy and Management, 37(3), 247-270. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Core Components of Terminal Construction Costs](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/core-components-terminal-construction-costs/) **Published:** May 31, 2026 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![Infographic showing project cost breakdown: Capital Expenditures (60%), Superstructures (25%), Soft Costs (15%).](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/components_terminal_construction_costs.png?resize=900%2C456&ssl=1 "Core Components of Terminal Construction Costs | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Core Components of Terminal Construction CostsPort terminal construction costs can be categorized into three types of expenditures: - **Capital expenditures** (Capex; around 60% of total costs) are divided into maritime infrastructure (30%) and yard civil works costs (30%). **Marine infrastructure** concerns work related to the nautical readiness of a terminal for the expected ship class. It can involve channel and berth dredging, land reclamation for terminal space, the construction or widening of a turning basin, and quay wall construction. **Yard civil works** include apron design to support the required cranes and cargo loads, the mooring system, and pavement for yards and roads. For instance, a 300 mm-thick reinforced concrete pavement is required to support the loads of container terminal operations. - **Superstructures** (around 25% of total costs) are divided into buildings and systems (15%) and equipment (10%). **Buildings and systems** include electrical and telecommunications wiring, buildings supporting terminal operations (offices, warehouses, repair shops), and terminal gates for trucks and rail. **Equipment** encompasses all terminal-handling equipment, notably ship-to-shore cranes, yard equipment, and intra-terminal vehicles. A ship-to-shore crane can easily reach $10 M. - **Soft costs** (around 15% of total costs) are divided into project management (5%) and contingencies (10%). **Project management** includes a series of tasks, such as master planning and the civil and marine engineering design of the terminal. It also concerns managerial tasks to ensure the completion and delivery of an operational terminal. **Contingencies** take account of unforeseen circumstances that can delay a construction project, adding to its costs. There are also potential fluctuations in the cost of key construction materials, including labor, that can add to construction costs. **Multiplier** effects can have a positive or negative impact on the construction cost structure. The **geotechnical conditions** of the terminal site, such as soil conditions, may require additional preparation to ensure stable foundations. **Procurement costs** can vary depending on the location of the terminal project in relation to construction materials that are heavy to transport, such as cement. Water availability can also be crucial. There is a wide range of **subsidies and mitigation strategies** that could affect construction costs. Funding opportunities from public agencies, such as infrastructure development programs, often target ports as strategic investments, with subsidies, preferential interest rates, or tax abatements. Compliance with regulations can add costs, particularly if they change since the project was designed. The cost structure of a port terminal is, therefore, far from being an exact science because of its engineering, economic, financial, and regulatory complexity, each potentially changing the cost structure of identical projects in different locations. Smaller terminals are in the $500 million price range, while terminals accommodating the largest classes of container ships can cost $1 billion. The world’s largest container terminal project, [Tuas Mega Port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/singapore-tuas-port-expansion-project/ "Singapore Tuas Port Expansion Project"), is estimated to cost $20 billion, with the first phase costing $2.5 billion and a capacity of 20 million TEUs. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/core-components-terminal-construction-costs/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/core-components-terminal-construction-costs/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/core-components-terminal-construction-costs/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/core-components-terminal-construction-costs/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 4.5 - Port Terminal Construction](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/) **Published:** January 19, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Theo Notteboom > Ship and terminal demand characteristics determine the requirements for terminal construction in terms of nautical access conditions, quay walls, and terminal layout and equipment. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Greenfield and Brownfield Sites](#1_Greenfield_and_Brownfield_Sites) - [2. Nautical Access to Terminals](#2_Nautical_Access_to_Terminals) - [3. Quay Wall Construction](#3_Quay_Wall_Construction) - [4. Mooring Systems](#4_Mooring_Systems) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Greenfield and Brownfield Sites Terminal construction techniques and procedures are influenced by the topological and technical characteristics of the site, such as its situation and geology, and the intended use of the facility. Each terminal is characterized by a [cost structure](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/core-components-terminal-construction-costs/ "Core Components of Terminal Construction Costs") related to its capital expenditures, superstructures, and management (soft) costs. It occurs under greenfield or brownfield conditions. > Construction of a terminal on a **greenfield site** mostly involves extending a port on a vacant site along a river, estuary, or coastline. Historically, the majority of port development projects were labeled greenfield, which often goes hand in hand with port migration. The vacant site might be located in a green zone, a wetland, or an agricultural area. Given existing spatial planning and environmental rules and regulations, obtaining permission for a greenfield development typically takes a considerable amount of time and requires an extensive project evaluation. For example, the Birds and Habitats Directive and the Water Directive of the European Commission impose complex regulatory conditions on greenfield development for ports. Such developments can involve small or large-scale land reclamation works along a coastline or riverside, or the construction of a dock on dry land connected to a river or an existing dock system. > Terminal development on a **brownfield site** involves reconverting an existing (mostly industrial) site for terminal use. Brownfield port construction typically involves large-scale cleanup operations to remove contaminated soil, as well as renovating and deepening the quay walls. It results in **rehabilitating and reusing** existing port real estate, thereby avoiding lengthy and complex port extension procedures. The redevelopment of port brownfields yields numerous environmental, social, and economic benefits. By cleaning up and repurposing these lands, communities can remove hazardous structures and prevent or mitigate contamination near waterways. Port redevelopment presents valuable opportunities for waterfront redevelopment, and it may catalyze revitalization in the broader community. Brownfield redevelopment frees space for various uses and creates more available property for sale or lease, providing ports with additional sources of revenue. Additionally, the redevelopment of previously used sites can help alleviate pressure on undeveloped wetlands and coastal areas, thereby protecting important coastal habitats. > **Land reclamation** is based on **hydraulic fill**, a process whereby sediment or rock excavated by dredgers from the seabed or other borrow areas is transported and placed into the designated reclamation area. Well-graded quartz sands are the preferred material for landfills. Before the hydraulic fill can commence, **extensive preparatory engineering studies** are conducted to collect bathymetrical (a measurement of the depth of bodies of water), topographical (physical features of the area), geological (soil and rock), and geotechnical data (bedrock, soil, and groundwater stability) on the reclamation site and the borrow areas. This step also includes examining the hydraulic, meteorological, and environmental conditions. Based on these studies, a **method and [the appropriate equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/dredging-activities-and-equipment/)** are chosen to obtain the desired mix of soil/sand and water to facilitate the dredging, transport, and placement of fill material, and to meet the load-bearing and stability requirements of the reclaimed site. The quality of the landfill will be determined by its stiffness, strength, density (liquefaction resistance), and drainage capacity. The nature of the fill will influence the type of equipment, the means of transport, the reclamation method, and the possible need for ground improvement. Commonly used ground improvement techniques include vertical drains and vibratory, dynamic, or explosive compaction, with or without admixtures. ![Infographic showing project cost breakdown: Capital Expenditures (60%), Superstructures (25%), Soft Costs (15%).](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/components_terminal_construction_costs.png?resize=900%2C456&ssl=1 "Core Components of Terminal Construction Costs | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Core Components of Terminal Construction Costs![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/be-deurganckdok_2.jpg?resize=900%2C888&ssl=1 "Construction of the Deurganckdock in Antwerp | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Construction of the Deurganckdock in Antwerp![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/51b43e56-19f7-11e9-8ff8-c80f5203e5c9_image_hires_112724.jpg?resize=900%2C600&ssl=1 "Rainbowing by Suction Hopper Dredgers in Land Reclamation Works, Sri Lanka | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Rainbowing by suction hopper dredgers in land reclamation works Sri Lanka![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Maasvlakte-2.jpg?resize=900%2C667&ssl=1 "Construction of Maasvlakte 2, Rotterdam, Circa 2011 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Construction of Maasvlakte 2 Rotterdam Circa 2011![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_terminal_infrastructure_investments.png?resize=900%2C391&ssl=1 "Port Terminal Infrastructure and Superstructure | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Terminal Infrastructure and Superstructure# 2. Nautical Access to Terminals Terminal construction often involves adapting the nautical access to guarantee a **minimum nautical draft** for seagoing vessels. These adaptations can deepen the **water depth** near the quay wall and require **capital dredging** along the nautical route (river or sea) from the main shipping lane to the terminal site. Further improvements to the nautical access to the terminal may be needed, such as widening the navigation channel to accommodate two-way vessel traffic, widening the breakwater entrance to the port terminal, or widening the turning basin for vessels. The [costs and efforts of dredging projects](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cubic-yards-dredged-us-army-corp-of-engineers-selected-port-districts/ "Cubic Yards Dredged by the US Army Corp of Engineers at Selected Port Districts") are closely related to the geographical, hydrological, and geological characteristics of the port site. Once the deepening or widening of the nautical access has been realized, **regular maintenance dredging** must ensure that nautical access conditions remain the same. > **Capital dredging** involves dredging to deepen and widen existing rivers or nautical access routes, or create a new port or terminal. > **Maintenance dredging** is done to maintain an existing waterway or channel. Since dredging is an ad hoc activity tied to temporary projects, it is often contracted out to specialized companies that move their equipment from one project to another. Dredging equipment operated solely by a port would likely remain idle for long periods of time. Therefore, land reclamation and dredging works are performed by **dredging companies** using [specialized equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/dredging-activities-and-equipment/ "Dredging activities and equipment") such as trailing suction hopper dredgers and cutter-head and bucket-wheel dredgers. Each type of equipment has distinct characteristics that determine its suitability for a particular type of soil, rock, or sediment in a specific setting, taking into account factors such as waves and swell, currents, and water temperature. Other factors that guide the selection of the right equipment include the location of the borrow or dumping area (distance and vessel traffic intensity at the location) and water depth. [Contaminated dredged material ](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/treatment-contaminated-dredged-material/ "Treatment of contaminated dredged material")can be treated in situ or ex-situ. Many dredging companies have developed into comprehensive organizations specialized in offshore, marine, civil, environmental, and project development. Some of the largest companies in this field include the Belgian companies DEME and Jan De Nul Group, the Dutch companies Van Oord and Boskalis, National Marine Dredging Company (UAE), Great Lakes Dredging & Dock Company (US), and Penta Ocean (Japan). Other dredging companies, such as China Communications Construction Company (CCCC), are part of large construction conglomerates. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/dredging_usace_port_districts.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Cubic Yards Dredged by the US Army Corp of Engineers at Selected Port Districts, 2014-2018 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cubic Yards Dredged by the US Army Corp of Engineers at Selected Port Districts 2014 2018![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Dredging-equipment-1.png?resize=900%2C487&ssl=1 "Main Types of Dredgers | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main types of dredgers![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Amoras.jpg?resize=450%2C299&ssl=1 "Treatment of Dredged Material: Amoras Project, Antwerp | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Treatment of dredged material Amoras project AntwerpWhen designing or upgrading **port approach channels and ship maneuvering and anchoring areas**, engineers have to consider a multitude of factors associated with the channels and the expected and future generations of ship dimensions and maneuvering characteristics, such as: - **Draught-related factors** include under-keel clearance (and related requirements), wave-induced motions, and squat (the hydrodynamic effect of a ship moving through shallow waters). - **Length-related factors** include the design of navigation channels, berths, and turning basins. - **Air draft** for vertical clearance under bridges and overhead electric cables. - **Wind effects** impacting navigation and the dispersion of dust, pollutants, and odors. - **Support craft** requirements, such as towage and tugs. - Existing and required **aids to navigation** onboard and as part of the Vessel Traffic Management System (VTMS) of the port or channel. - **Environmental factors**, including protected areas, water pollution, and the disposal of dredging materials. - **Safety risks** such as those related to navigation (collision risk) and access to port facilities by trucks and rail equipment. The World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC) has developed **design guidelines** for harbor approach channels. They relate to vertical (channel depth, air draught) and horizontal (channel width) dimensions. They also contain guidelines on squat and under-keel clearance in muddy channel beds, methods for predicting vertical ship motions due to waves, and tools for simulating ship maneuvering and capacity modeling. Although there is a wide variety of port sites and physical constraints, construction and engineering techniques have been standardized. In some ports, terminals can only be reached when seagoing vessels pass through a **lock or tide gate**. Locks are primarily found in coastal regions with a [high tidal range](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/global-surfaces-lowest-astronomical-tide/ "Global Estimated Surfaces of Lowest Astronomical Tide"), which is the difference in vertical height between the high tide and the low tide. The largest locks in seaports can be found in ports such as [Antwerp (Belgium)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/large-locks-port-antwerp/), with a tidal range on the River Scheldt of 3.85 meters at its mouth, increasing to 5.24 meters near the city, and [Amsterdam (the Netherlands)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/new-sea-lock-in-port-of-amsterdam/), with a tidal range of 1.5 to 1.6 meters. Some major canals, such as the [Panama Canal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-components-panama-canal/ "Main Components of the Panama Canal"), also feature lock systems that set ship size standards around which ships and port terminal characteristics are designed. ![- Dark blue areas indicating more than -4.0 meters of lowest astronomical tide globally](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Global-estimated-surfaces-of-Lowest-Astronomical-Tide-1.png?resize=900%2C455&ssl=1 "Global Estimated Surfaces of Lowest Astronomical Tide | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Estimated Surfaces of Lowest Astronomical Tide![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/How_Canal_and_River_Locks_Work_14121059490.jpg?resize=900%2C814&ssl=1 "Lock Operations | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Lock operations![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/antwerp_locks.png?resize=900%2C467&ssl=1 "Large Locks in the Port of Antwerp | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Locks in the Port of Antwerp![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Panama-Canal-1.png?resize=900%2C536&ssl=1 "Main Components of the Panama Canal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Lock systems along the Panama Canal![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Amsterdam-sealock.jpg?resize=724%2C483&ssl=1 "New Sea Lock in Amsterdam | Port Economics, Management and Policy")New sea lock in Amsterdam# 3. Quay Wall Construction > A **quay wall** is a soil retaining structure that provides a mooring place for ships, bearing capacity for crane loads, goods and storage, and sometimes a water-retaining function. The primary role of a **berthing structure** is to accommodate a specific vessel or a range of vessels, while also facilitating cargo handling operations. There is a wide variety of berth structures with different characteristics, each with specific engineering considerations. More specifically, the size and depth of the quay wall, the method and sequence of construction, the availability of construction materials, and the support of major construction plants, such as those involved in cement-making, can determine the selected type. This structure, along with the availability of construction equipment, can significantly influence the construction schedule, given factors such as weather-related downtime and contractor availability. **General parameters** that are considered when choosing an appropriate quay wall type include: - **Dredging and filling** in order to minimize the environmental impact of those operations. - **Access and safety** during all the stages of the construction and operation of the structure. - **Berth orientation**, berth geometry, and berth length. - **Required depth** alongside the berth. - **Seabed conditions**. - **Local construction materials**, methods of construction, and construction difficulties. - **General site considerations** include drainage and filtration, wave pressures on walls, scour protection, earthquake risk, paving, surface water drainage, and the likelihood of ice formation. Furthermore, the effects of marine propellers and bow thrusters, waves, and currents on the **stability of the seabed** and any underwater slopes near structures should also be considered. Where scour is considered likely, protection, such as a rubble anti-scour apron on the seabed (often composed of packed quarry stones), should be provided in front of the quay walls, particularly at berths where vessels will generally berth in the same position. The size of rock protection for the underwater slopes should not be less than that needed to resist the wash of propellers and bow thrusters. The possible **failure or malfunction of a quay wall** can be caused by the failure of the sheet pile wall, too much groundwater flow, insufficient soil stability, failure of the supporting points, or an accident such as a ship collision. Quay walls are typically equipped with quay wall **fenders**, ship mooring **bollards**, crane **rails**, cable **gutters,** and other technical features. ## A. Embedded retaining walls Embedded retaining walls comprise interlocking pile elements and include **sheet-pile walls** and **in-situ concrete pile walls**. The latter are embedded retaining walls of in-situ concrete bored piles usually built on the existing ground or an artificial embankment, using either a contiguous or a secant pile system. This type of wall is generally most suitable for cohesive soils and weak rock, as well as where heavy vertical loads are accommodated. They may also be built into granular soils when a casing or support fluid is used during the excavation process. However, environmental issues connected with the use of support fluids or the pumping of concrete in water-bearing soils need to be considered. A standard method is the diaphragm wall, which consists of an embedded retaining wall in the form of an in-situ concrete diaphragm wall. Diaphragm walls are used for high walls or where heavy vertical loads are imposed on the wall. **Sheet pile walls** are among the most commonly used types of quay walls in port construction. They are widely used in the construction of container and bulk terminals, as well as for seawalls and reclamation projects where filling is needed seaward of the existing shore, and for marinas and other structures where deep water is required directly adjacent to the shore. Different materials might be used for the sheep piles: - **Steel sheet piles** are the most widely used embedded retaining wall elements in quays. They are relatively light and easy to handle, can be supplied in long lengths, and can be extended and cut without undue difficulty. This type of pile can be driven to a considerable depth with low displacement in a wide range of ground conditions and into the weathered rock. With various forms of pre-treatment, steel sheet piles can also be installed in solid rock by pre-splitting the rock and then backfilling the trench with concrete. The primary disadvantage of steel sheet piles is corrosion, which should be taken into account in the design. Some types of floating fenders can cause abrasion of steel sheet piles or their protective coatings, which should be taken into account when selecting the type of fendering to be adopted. - **Concrete sheet piles** may be used to construct moderate-height walls where driving is not too hard. The required penetration might need to be achieved by pre-boring or jetting. In rock, the piles may be installed in a trench backfilled with concrete. The main advantage of properly designed concrete sheet piles is their durability. However, the weight of the sheet piles, the care required during handling, the difficulty of forming extensions, and the usually poor interlock at joints are all factors that, in many cases, will prevent their use. If there is a danger of losing material, the joints may be sealed by providing a filter behind the wall or grouting after driving. - **Timber and plastic sheet piles** can provide an economical wall for moderate heights of retained material, particularly when driving conditions are not too severe. Examples of suitable applications are bulkhead walls behind suspended decks and quays for small craft. Most timbers require protective treatment against rot and marine borers. Rubbing strips should be provided where abrasion is likely to occur. **Fill placed behind embedded retaining walls** should be granular material capable of free drainage. Where necessary, loss of material through joints in the wall should be prevented by providing a suitable filter behind the wall. **Combi walls** are retaining walls composed of primary and secondary elements. The primary elements usually are steel tubular piles or built-up boxes, spaced uniformly along the length of the wall. The secondary elements are generally steel sheet piles of various types installed in the spaces between the primary elements and connected to them by interlocks. ## B. Gravity walls Gravity walls are structures that use their own weight for support. They are usually built behind a **cofferdam** in the dry and constructed in situ. Still, most walls are constructed in water by a method used only in maritime works, in which large precast units are lifted or floated into position and installed on a prepared bed underwater. It is common to use rubble or a free-draining granular fill immediately behind a quay wall to minimize tidal lag effects and reduce earth pressures. Gravity structures are usually used where the seabed is of good quality. They may be used where the foundation near the dredged level is of rock, dense sand, or stiff clay. The **[main types](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/port-terminal-construction/typical-cross-section-quay-wall/ "Typical Cross-Sections of Quay Walls")** of gravity quay walls are: - **Concrete block walls** consisting of heavy precast mass concrete blocks. This type of construction is suitable where a rock foundation exists, since this form of gravity wall cannot easily accommodate differential settlement. Blocks are placed vertically on top of each other, and their shape creates a latching effect. - **L-walls** obtain their stability through their structural weight and soil weight that rests on the horizontal part of the L-shaped structure. L-walls can be built in situ in dry conditions (i.e. an excavated building pit, as was the case for the [Deurganckdock in the port of Antwerp](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/construction-deurganckdock/)) or prefabricated ex-situ and then brought to the waterside. - **Concrete caissons** are based on the caisson method. A pressurized chamber is created underneath the structure to keep the water out of this chamber. From this chamber, the soil under the structure can be removed. By carefully and evenly removing the soil from under the structure, it will submerge gradually until its final depth. During this process, verticality is continuously monitored, and the area where the soil is removed from under the structure is adjusted accordingly to maintain verticality. Concrete caissons consist of **open-topped cells prefabricated in the dry** (on land, in a dry dock, or a floating dock), usually floated to their final location and then sunk into position on the seabed. Concrete caissons can be built in a wide variety of shapes, including rectangular, circular, or cloverleaf. Caissons are usually limited to about 30 meters in width, which is the most significant plan dimension. They are usually designed so that, after sinking, the top is just above the low water level with due allowance for waves. The cells are typically filled with sand, and sometimes with concrete or gravel. The superstructure may consist of a solid in-situ concrete capping or a reinforced concrete edge retaining wall, which is backfilled and topped with concrete paving. Caissons, after filling, form self-stable structures that can be used to support heavy construction equipment. Large caissons typically require internal strengthening with walls. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cross_sections_gravity_walls.png?resize=900%2C334&ssl=1 "Typical Cross-Sections of Gravity Quay Walls | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cross Section Caisson Type Quay Wall![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Quay-wall-Caisson-Precast-Tema-Port.jpg?resize=900%2C432&ssl=1 "Caisson Construction of Tema Port, Ghana | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Caisson Construction of Tema Port Ghana![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/be-deurganckdok_2.jpg?resize=900%2C888&ssl=1 "Construction of the Deurganckdock in Antwerp | Port Economics, Management and Policy")L walls at Deurganckdock Antwerp Caisson installation at Tuas Port Phase 1, Singapore (source: MPA Singapore)## C. Suspended deck structures (piles) Suspended deck structures may be made of steel, concrete, timber, or a combination of more than one of these materials: - **Timber piles** are easy to handle and cut to length; they require only simple driving equipment, and their flexibility can be useful in energy‑absorbing structures. The length of timber piles is generally restricted, varying from 12 to 18 meters. Lengths up to 24 meters are sometimes available. Timber should generally be treated or cased with concrete muffs to prevent attack by marine borers. - **Precast reinforced concrete piles** may be driven in many ground types and may also be placed in pre‑bored holes in the seabed. If the piles are to be cast at a yard located some distance from the site, their maximum length might be limited to about 20 meters. If necessary, provision may be made for extending the piles using an interlocking joint. - **Steel piles** are relatively light and easy to handle and can be driven in most ground types, including many types of rock. External corrosion may be minimized through protective coatings, cathodic protection, or by allowing it in the design. **Suspended deck structures** will usually be the most suitable type in the following circumstances: - Ground consisting of **weak upper materials**. - Ground immediately below the seabed consisting of **suitable material for bearing piles**. - Non-availability of **suitable backfill** for use in a retaining wall-type quay. - **Great water depth** would make the construction of regular structures cost-prohibitive. - **Piers with limited commercial activity,** and when capital is scarce for more permanent structures. - Light recreational activities, such as **marinas**. With the rapid growth of port activities worldwide, including the emergence of global terminal operators, a wave of construction projects has taken place. The **standardization of terminal design**, particularly in the container sector, has been associated with **standard construction techniques and equipment** along with well-designed guidelines. # 4. Mooring Systems \[UNDER CONSTRUCTION\] Primary goal to hold a ship steady at berth for stable unloading and loading operations. Aim at reducing vessel motion at berth. Depend on the tide, wind and wave environment of the access channel and berths. Standard bollards. Mooring suction systems. Shore-tensioning systems. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 3.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminals-and-terminal-operators/) - [Chapter 3.2 Terminal Concessions and Land Leases](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/) - [Chapter 7.3 Port planning and development ](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7/port-planning-and-development/) --- ## References - de Gijt, J.G. and M.L. Broeken (eds) (2013). Quay Walls, 2nd Edition, CRC Press. - Center for Civil Engineering Research and Codes (CUR), 2002. Handbook Quay Walls, CUR-publication 211E, September 2005, Gouda, the Netherlands. - Gordijn, R., 2017. Amsterdam port: building the largest sea-lock, Port Technology International, issue 75, p. 36-38. - McBride, M., Boll, M. and Briggs, M., 2014. Harbour approach channels—Design guidelines. PIANC Report No. 121. - Van der Plas, R., 2013. Maasvlakte 2, providing ample space for the future, Port Technology International, issue 58, p. 20-22. - van’t Hoff, J. and van der Kolff, A.N. eds., 2012. Hydraulic fill manual: for dredging and reclamation works (Vol. 244). CRC Press. - Vandamme, M., Bernaers, G., Aerts, F., Construction of the Deurganckdok in the Port of Antwerp, Belgium. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Singapore Tuas Port Expansion Project](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/singapore-tuas-port-expansion-project/) **Published:** January 11, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-491-Tuas.png?resize=900%2C541&ssl=1 "Singapore Tuas Port Expansion Project | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Singapore Tuas Port Expansion ProjectSingapore is the world’s most important transshipment hub, connecting maritime routes between East Asia, Southeast Asia, Oceania, and South Asia. The oldest container terminal facilities in Singapore (Tanjong Pagar, Keppel, and Brani) are located near the central area. The Tanjong Pagar has been vacant since 2017. In 1993, the construction of the Pasir Panjang 1 project began and was completed in 2009. This was followed by the construction of Pasir Panjang 2. The Tuas port expansion project represents a unique case involving a gradual and complete relocation of Singapore’s container terminal facilities. Construction began in 2019, and reclamation works for the first phase were completed in November 2021. The first two berths of the first phase opened in late December 2021. The first phase entailed soil improvement for 414 ha of land, including 294 ha of newly reclaimed land. Construction of the first phase also included the fabrication and installation of 221 10-story tall [caissons](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/port-terminal-construction/typical-cross-section-quay-wall/) of 15,000 tons each to form 8.6 km of seawall. When all phases are completed in the 2040s, Tuas Port is expected to be capable of handling 65 million TEU on about 1,337 ha of land. Phase 2 of the mega port is underway, involving the construction of 9.1 km of caissons. It is expected that the Keppel and Brani facilities will be relocated to Tuas by 2027. By the 2040s, the remaining Pasir Panjang facilities will be consolidated at the Tuas complex, with the port reaching its capacity of 65 million TEU. The relocation of port operations to Tuas paves the way for the upcoming major city expansion to the south, also known as the Greater Southern Front development. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/singapore-tuas-port-expansion-project/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/singapore-tuas-port-expansion-project/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/singapore-tuas-port-expansion-project/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/singapore-tuas-port-expansion-project/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Terminal Infrastructure and Superstructure](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/port-terminal-infrastructure-investments/) **Published:** January 21, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_terminal_infrastructure_investments.png?resize=900%2C391&ssl=1 "Port Terminal Infrastructure and Superstructure | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Terminal Infrastructure InvestmentsPort terminals, including container terminals, are composed of integrated infrastructure and superstructure systems. The construction, maintenance, and upgrade of these elements require substantial capital investment. 1. Land reclamation works, including capital dredging and maintenance dredging of access channels and basins. 2. Quay-wall construction and maintenance. 3. Apron, mooring equipment and fenders. 4. Paving of the terminal, including yards and roads. 5. On-terminal rail facilities (yards and spurs) (optional). 6. Terminal handling equipment (ship-to-shore cranes, yard equipment, etc.). 7. Electric installations and wiring. 8. Telecommunication installations and wiring. 9. Warehouses and technical buildings. 10. Fencing and video surveillance (port security). 11. Truck gates and inspection. 12. Office buildings. 13. Environmental mitigation (noise and emission standards abatements). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/port-terminal-infrastructure-investments/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/port-terminal-infrastructure-investments/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/port-terminal-infrastructure-investments/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/port-terminal-infrastructure-investments/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Ship Characteristics and Capacity Measures](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/ship-characteristics-capacity-measures/) **Published:** September 16, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ships_characteristics_capacity2.png?resize=900%2C454&ssl=1 "Ship Characteristics and Capacity Measures | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ship Characteristics and Capacity MeasuresMeasuring the capacity of a ship is derived from the following methods: - **Displacement tonnage**. The total weight of a ship when fully loaded to the waterline (or baseline), which is the line of maximal safe loading. It is measured by using the corresponding weight of the water being displaced by the volume of the ship under the waterline in metric tons. - **Lightweight tonnage**. The total weight of a ship when empty and measured by using the weight of the water being displaced in metric tons. It includes the hull and all equipment (including the engine), but not the bunker and stores. - **Deadweight tonnage**. The maximum weight that a ship can carry (its carrying capacity), which represents the displacement tonnage minus the lightweight tonnage. It includes bunker, ballast, and stores. - **Gross tonnage**. The total volume of a ship converted into tonnage and measured as the volume of all enclosed spaces expressed in cubic meters. It includes the engine room and the space necessary for the ship’s operation (ballast, crew quarters, bridge). This figure is often used to calculate harbor fees and tolls for canal transits through the class that a ship’s gross tonnage belongs to. - **Net tonnage**. The volume available for cargo transport obtained by calculating the actual enclosed cargo space available converted into tons. Container ships have a unique capacity measure in terms of the number of twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU) boxes they can carry without exceeding the waterline or impairing visibility from the bridge. Containers can be carried above and below the main deck, so a containership can have its TEU capacity expressed accordingly. Two figures are commonly used: - **Slot capacity**. The total number of containers (TEU) that can be put in the carried slots if they have little or no cargo. This capacity feature is fixed and volumetric. - **Loadable capacity**. The total number of containers (TEU) that can be loaded on a ship, based on weight and stability limits. Loadable capacity is lower than slot capacity unless the containers are empty. This capacity feature varies depending on the cargo weight, its distribution within the cargo holds, and trade balance (repositioning empties). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/ship-characteristics-capacity-measures/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/ship-characteristics-capacity-measures/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/ship-characteristics-capacity-measures/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/ship-characteristics-capacity-measures/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Effect of the Panama Canal Draft Limitation on Containership Capacity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-draft-limitation-containership-capacity/) **Published:** June 8, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/panama_canal_draft_limitation2.png?resize=900%2C367&ssl=1 "Effect of the Panama Canal Draft Limitation on Containership Capacity | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Since the Panama Canal relies on freshwater from Lake Alajuela and Lake Gatun, regional rainfall is fundamental to planning its operations. About 200 million liters of water are needed to supply the new lock system with enough water for each ship to pass through. A lack of rainfall reduces these water reserves. Due to an intense drought in 2019, freshwater supplies fell to just 3 billion cubic meters, while 5.25 billion cubic meters were needed to operate the canal. 2023 was one of the driest periods on record since 1950, severely impacting canal operations. The Panama Canal Authority resorted to a series of water-saving measures to limit the drought’s impacts: - Cross-fillings, cross-spilling, and short chamber lockages in the Panama locks. - Maximize the use of tandem lockages. - Increased use of water-saving basins in the Neopanamax locks. - Minimized direction changes between northbound and southbound transits in the Gatun locks. - Suspension of hydroelectric power generation. The lower rainfall than expected over a long period also forced the Canal to impose restrictions on draft and the number of ships that could transit daily. On average, 38 ships transit the canal per day. However, in November 2023, transits went down to 24 per day, and at the same time, the Panama Canal Authority reduced the allowed draft from the 50-foot standard to around 44 feet. This reduction had a significant capacity impact on New Panamax containerships. While a regular New Panamax containership can carry a load of around 12,500 TEU at a draft of 50 feet, reducing this draft to 44 feet results in a 40% capacity reduction at around 7,500 TEU. This seriously undermined the commercial viability of this ship class, forcing shipping lines to impose transit surcharges. Additionally, a growth in landbridge road and rail traffic has been observed between the Panamanian container ports on the Pacific and Caribbean coasts, partially compensating for this. In March 2024, the number of allowed transits was increased to 27 per day as precipitation improved. By the summer of 2024, more abundant permitted rainfall allowed the canal to return to normal operating conditions. The Panama Canal Authority has responded through a series of initiatives: - Auctioning transit slots during capacity shortages provides a price discrimination mechanism. - A price structure based on the lock water consumption of individual ships during their transit. - Long-term slot allocation, allowing carriers to purchase canal transit slots up to a year in advance. New water sources need to be found so the Panama Canal has enough water supply to grow its future capacity. The water shortage issue fuelled a discussion on water use between different stakeholders in Panama (i.e., public utilities, water volumes for the Canal, industrial, and other uses). Water-saving measures at the Panama Canal (Source: Panama Canal Authority)### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-draft-limitation-containership-capacity/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-draft-limitation-containership-capacity/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-draft-limitation-containership-capacity/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-draft-limitation-containership-capacity/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 4.1 - Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/) **Published:** December 24, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Theo Notteboom, Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue and Dr. Athanasios Pallis > Ports are composed of specialized terminals designed to handle a specific cargo type. An increasing number of port terminals, serving either cargoes or passengers, are managed by operators maintaining an international portfolio. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Port Terminals](#1_Port_Terminals) - [2. Freight Terminal Operators](#2_Freight_Terminal_Operators) - [3. Cruise Terminal Operators](#3_Cruise_Terminal_Operators) - [4. The Strategies of Terminal Operators](#4_The_Strategies_of_Terminal_Operators) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Port Terminals Ports are primarily **multifunctional entities**, but this characteristic often results from the combined activities of several specialized terminals, each handling specific goods and commodities, such as containers, grain, oil, or iron ore. Thus, a port combines terminal facilities, each developed to fulfill a specific function and sometimes serving a single user, such as a petrochemical plant. The main [types of port terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4617 "Types of Port Terminals") include: - **Break-bulk**. Concerns cargo that is carried in drums, bags, pallets, or boxes. Also referred to as general-purpose facilities that combine open storage space and warehouses. Historically, most port terminals were built as multipurpose facilities, as most commercial cargo was carried in a break-bulk form. It was only in the late nineteenth century that ship specialization became dominant, enabling the development of single-purpose terminal facilities. - **Neo Bulk and RO-RO**. Neo bulk terminals handle large-sized unitized cargo, such as heavy equipment, project cargo, or lumber, with specialized equipment. RO-RO terminals handle vehicles, such as cars and trucks, that are rolled on and off a vehicle carrier. This requires ramps, but standard vehicle carriers commonly have their own ramps. The most significant footprint of a RO-RO terminal is the parking space allocated for storing vehicles. It also includes ferries that carry a combination of vehicles and passengers and, as such, require rather extensive parking spaces while vehicles are waiting to roll onto the ferry. - **Containers**. Terminal facilities are designed only to handle a single break-bulk standard transport unit, the container. Container terminals have come to dominate the port terminal landscape because of the wide variety of goods that can be carried in containers. Due to the storage requirement of containers, they are capital-intensive and require a large footprint. - **Liquid bulk**. Commodities transported in liquid form require specialized transshipment equipment and storage facilities. The most common type of liquid bulk terminal facility is designed to handle oil and petroleum products. - **Dry bulk**. Relates to cargo that is not packaged, is transported in large quantities, and is limited by ship size or existing demand. The main commodities involve coal, iron ore, and grain, which require specialized equipment and storage facilities. This specialization level implies that the terminal cannot handle bulk products other than those for which it was designed and equipped. Thus, a grain terminal cannot handle other commodities even if the pier can accommodate any ship class. - **Passengers**. Historically, passengers were handled at multipurpose facilities, as liner ships also carried freight. Ferry terminals are a specialized component in many ports that are part of a domestic ferry network, such as those found in Greece and Japan. The emergence of the cruise industry has been associated with the setting up of cruise passenger terminals, which can be extensive at home port facilities such as Miami, Barcelona, and Shanghai. Although terminals may share a related port site, they often have no particular commonality in terms of the supply chains they are servicing. There is a potential that a multi-terminal port may not be an integrated entity, with its presence being merely coincidental. Still, terminals share common maritime and inland infrastructure. Further, terminals are influenced by the [fundamental characteristics and capacity of ships](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ship-characteristics-capacity-measures/ "Ship Characteristics and Capacity Measures"), particularly their draft. There is a reciprocal relationship between port and terminal design and the characteristics of ships. A well-known standard, Panamax, has substantially influenced terminal design in the 20th century, as it provided a set of technical characteristics, particularly draft and length, around which infrastructure was built, exerting a **pull effect**. The growth of ship size began in the 1970s and became prevalent for container shipping in the early 2000s. This trend prompted consideration of **push factors** in terminal design and equipment for new terminals, as well as incentives for existing terminals to expand their technical capabilities through dredging and the acquisition of new equipment. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_port_terminals.png?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Types of Port Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Port Terminals![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ships_characteristics_capacity2.png?resize=900%2C454&ssl=1 "Ship Characteristics and Capacity Measures | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ship Characteristics and Capacity Measures![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/common_ship_hull_markings.png?resize=900%2C506&ssl=1 "Common Ship Hull Markings | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Common Ship Hull Markings![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/elements_maritime_land_interface.png?resize=900%2C552&ssl=1 "Elements of the Maritime / Land Interface | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Elements of the Maritime Land InterfaceOutside commercial issues related to cargo demand, port terminals rely on a **specific range of equipment**, which requires a specific footprint and configuration. Terminal equipment is highly commodity-specific, as some terminals can only handle one commodity or a limited range of cargo. For instance, an oil terminal can only handle bulk shipments of crude oil through specialized equipment, pipes, pumps, and storage facilities. This equipment cannot handle other forms of liquid cargo. Three [fundamental categories of port terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/types-port-terminals/ "Types of Port Terminals"), equipment, and design characteristics can be found: - **General cargo**. Unitized cargo that can be carried in batches and handled by three specialized terminal types with specific equipment and design considerations. Since break-bulk and container terminals handle unit cargoes, they are designed around the lift-on/lift-off principle, requiring cranes and storage areas (both covered and uncovered, depending on the cargo). Vehicle terminals, a type of neo-bulk terminal, operate on the roll-on/roll-off principle and are characterized by extensive parking areas. The design of general cargo terminals strikes a balance between average throughput and related storage requirements. - **Bulk cargo**. Loose cargo carried in loads that are limited only by demand, ship size, and storage capacity. This system is synchronized at the bulk terminal, which acts as a buffer between large suppliers and customers. Liquid bulk and dry bulk depend on different transshipment and storage techniques and are two distinct categories of bulk terminals with design considerations. Bulk terminals tend to specialize in handling a single commodity, such as coal, grain, iron ore, natural gas, or petroleum. Each of these commodities has unique equipment, storage, and design considerations. Some may need to be stored as outdoor stacks, while others require more complex storage, such as warehouses. - **Passengers**. Ferry and cruise terminals are a small segment of port terminals. Ferry terminals are mainly roll-on/roll-off facilities with direct connectivity to the road system. Larger facilities require significant parking areas, but the infrastructure and equipment are simple, consisting of mooring areas and ramps. Recently, the growth of the cruise industry has led to the emergence of specialized cruise terminals that include passenger handling facilities and parking areas, which bear several similarities to airport terminals. Cruise terminals might also be involved in freight activities related to the procurement of cruise ships, which may require separate terminal access and storage facilities, including cold storage. Each terminal acts as a key node in the [maritime-land interface](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/elements-maritime-land-interface/ "Elements of the Maritime / Land Interface"), allowing maritime and inland systems to interact. The balance between market demand, ship capacity, service frequency, and hinterland distribution requires a variety of footprints and design considerations. # 2. Freight Terminal Operators ## A. Private involvement in port terminal operations As late as the 1980s, **public ownership and operation** were the dominant models. While the forms of port governance differed significantly, ranging from municipally owned ports in Northern Europe and the United States to state-owned ports in France, Italy, and much of the developing world, public ownership was dominant, and publicly managed port operations were prevalent. The institutional entry barriers for port terminal operations were remarkably high and limited to specific services. This contrasted with the shipping industry, where private ownership was almost universal. Containerization particularly underlined how operationally deficient public port authorities were challenged to adapt to growing time and performance requirements imposed on intermodal transport chains. The changes, slow at first, came from two directions: - First, there was the belief that the transport industry as a whole should be **divested to the private sector to promote competition**. Ports were among the many sectors targeted by economic liberalization policies. - Second, a policy recommendation from the World Bank suggested that developing countries would benefit from **liberalizing their highly controlled port industries** by issuing concessions to organizations capable of modernizing their port operations and improving management. This allowed new entrants, both domestic and international, to emerge, some of which seized the opportunity to globalize. The World Bank created a Port Reform Toolkit to facilitate the required changes, which was thoroughly updated in 2025. These developments helped create what has become a global snowball of [port government reforms](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=159), commonly known as **port devolution**, as the public sector relinquished its role in a function it had formerly assumed. It made governments more open to considering reforming port governance and offering better [conditions to ensure privatization](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=774). The growing demand for public and private investment in ports, driven by the expansion of global trade and the limitations of governments in meeting these needs due to competing investment priorities, was a key factor. Thus, while few were willing to go as far as the UK in the total privatization of ports, many countries were willing to consider awarding concessions as an intermediate [form of privatization](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=787), leading to various forms of **public-private partnerships**. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/conditions_port_privatization2.png?resize=900%2C495&ssl=1 "Conditions for Port Privatization | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Conditions for Port Privatization![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/forms_termina_privatization.png?resize=900%2C533&ssl=1 "Forms of Port Terminal Privatization | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Forms of Port Terminal Privatization## B. Typology of port holdings Privatization has sparked a nearly global trend toward **awarding port operational concessions**, particularly for container terminals. The reasons container terminals were particularly prone to concessioning were related to the rapid growth of international trade, which required massive and rapid capital investments that most governments could not readily provide. If the opportunities to award operational concessions can be seen as an increase in demand, growth has also been significantly impacted by a rise in the number of companies seeking concessions, with many becoming large port holdings. > **Port holding**. An entity, commonly private, that owns or leases port terminals in several locations. It is also known as a port terminal operator. Transnational terminal holding companies are grouped into [three categories](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=863), with an increasing number of terminals owned by a more hybrid structure: - **[Pure stevedores](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4500 "Container Terminals Controlled by Stevedores, 2019")**. Port terminal operators that expanded into new markets to replicate their terminal operations expertise and diversify their revenue geographically, which is a form of **horizontal integration**. PSA International, with its headquarters in Singapore, is the largest global terminal operator originating from a stevedoring background, followed by Hutchison Ports, headquartered in Hong Kong. Stevedores account for about 50% of the hectares controlled by terminal operators worldwide. In recent years, many of these companies have expanded beyond terminal operations by investing in the provision of inland logistics services. Examples include DP World’s strategy to transition from a global terminal operator to a global logistics service provider, and PSA’s move into logistics through the creation of PSA Cargo Solutions and PSA BDP. The latter provides cargo solutions for global supply chains and was established following the acquisition of BDP International. - **[Maritime shipping companies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4498 "Container Terminals Controlled by Shipping Lines, 2019")**. Invested in port terminal facilities to help support their core maritime shipping business, which is a form of **vertical integration**. In many cases, hybrid structures are formed with separate business units or sister companies active in liner shipping or terminal operations. The terminal facilities can be operated on a single-user dedicated basis or be open to third-party shipping lines. APM Terminals, a Maersk Line sister company, is one of the largest global terminal operators from a maritime shipping background. Shipping lines account for about 31% of the hectares controlled by terminal operators worldwide. - **[Financial holdings](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4466 "Container Terminals Controlled by Holdings, 2019")**. Include various financial interests, ranging from investment banks and retirement funds to sovereign wealth funds, which are attracted to the port terminal sector as an asset class due to its revenue generation potential, thereby providing a form of **asset diversification**. The majority employ an indirect management approach, acquiring an asset stake and then leaving the existing operator to manage the operations. Others will directly manage the terminal assets through a parent company. The primary reason financial holding companies became interested in acquiring port terminal assets was that they were perceived to offer a [high-value proposition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=879) and a time horizon that matched their investment horizon. Holdings account for about 19% of the hectares controlled by terminal operators worldwide. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/typology_global_terminal_operators.png?resize=900%2C447&ssl=1 "Typology of Global Terminal Operators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Typology of Global Port Operators![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/value_proposition_equity_firms_terminals.png?resize=900%2C399&ssl=1 "Value Propositions behind the Interest of Equity Firms in Transport Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Value Propositions behind the Interest of Equity Firms in Transport TerminalsThe setting up of specialized terminal operating companies is not a recent phenomenon. Many ports in Europe and the United States had already been awarded to local cargo handling companies through concessions and lease agreements. Because they were relatively small and locally based, with only a few exceptions, they did not participate in the global growth of concession award opportunities. The exceptions were Stevedore Services of America (SSA), already active in several US West Coast Ports, which obtained concessions to operate facilities in Panama and several other smaller ports in Central America; Eurogate, a joint company formed by terminal handling companies from Bremen and Hamburg, and Contship Italia, which obtained concessions in Italy and Morocco. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Terminal-Surface-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Terminals of the World’s Major Terminal Operators, 2021 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminals of the Worlds Major Terminal Operators 2021![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Terminal-Ownership-Stevedores-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Terminals Controlled by Stevedores, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminals Controlled by Independent Stevedores 2024![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Terminal-Ownership-Shipping-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Terminals Controlled by Shipping Lines, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminals Controlled by Shipping Lines 2024![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Terminal-Ownership-Holdings-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Terminals Controlled by Holdings, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminals Controlled by Financial Holdings 2024Beyond the three main categories, other types of companies are also involved in container terminal operations: - **Freight transport companies**. They are involved in a wide range of freight services, such as shipping agents, freight forwarders, road and rail transport companies, and third-party logistics service providers. Examples include Bollore (France), Arkas (Turkey), Wilson (Brazil), Kuwait Gulf Link, Rennies (South Africa), Korea Express (South Korea), Nippon Express (Japan), Severstahltrans (Russia), and Kontena Nasional (Malaysia). - **Construction companies**. Primarily large engineering firms that have become involved in container terminal concessions through private finance initiatives or attempts to secure terminal construction contracts. Examples include Acciona (Spain), Gammon (India), Tribasa (Mexico), Tucumann (Brazil), Samsung Corporation, and Hyundai Development (South Korea). - **Equipment manufacturers**. Small specialist companies that have moved into concessions from their original base in equipment servicing. It is worth noting that none of the major manufacturers of container terminal equipment (quay cranes, RTGs) have been involved in bids for terminal concessions. Being involved in terminal operations could be perceived as an unfair competitive practice since they would be providing equipment to competing operators. Examples include Portek (Singapore), ABG Heavy Industries (India), and Mi-Jack (USA). - **Property developers**. These are companies based mainly in Hong Kong and Southeast Asia, which have diversified from commercial and residential developments into the provision of concessioned infrastructure. Examples include New World, Fairyoung, Henderson (HK), Metro Pacific Investments Corp, and Brisas del Pacifico (Colombia). - **Industrial conglomerates**. These are either diversified holding companies or large manufacturers (such as steel or automobile companies) regarded by their governments as national champions, possessing the management ability to develop strategic assets. A significant subset of this group comprises wealthy or well-connected individuals or families who have become involved due to their connections to governments. For example, the Motta and Heibron families in Manzanillo (Panama), the Suharto family in Indonesia, and Dato Ahmad Sebi at Westports in Port Klang. Other examples of industrial conglomerates include CITIC (China), Syanco (Saudi Arabia), FIAT, Mitsui, Tusdeer, CSN (Brazil), Razon Group (Philippines), Evyap Group (Turkey), and John Keells Holdings (Sri Lanka). Several companies operating container terminals are multifaceted, often belonging to **larger corporate entities** that encompass a wide range of economic activities. Their categorization depends on how far back one traces the chain of ownership. The farther back the beneficial ownership of a concession is traced, the more complex and fragmented the ownership structure becomes. Similarly, until its sale to institutional investors, Dradagos, the Spanish port and logistics services company, formed part of the ACS Group. ACS’s activities include construction, energy supply, environmental engineering, industrial services, and concessions in other modes of transport. Additionally, some corporate structures are intentionally opaque to minimize commercial risks, taxation, or exposure to public scrutiny. ## C. Global terminal operators Like many multinational corporations, global terminal operators are **market seekers that expand their business opportunities by entering** new markets. A terminal can grow organically, but this is a rather slow process. A much faster growth rate can be achieved by acquiring terminal facilities in new markets. From the 1990s, a few companies emerged as [major global terminal operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=778), controlling a multinational portfolio of terminal assets. They mainly originate from Asia, with five large companies dominating, three coming from a stevedore background, and two from a shipping line: - **[PSA International](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=848)** (PSA). The government-owned operator of the port of Singapore was formed in 1964 and is a subsidiary of Temasek Holdings, Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund. In 1997, PSA was corporatized and renamed PSA Corporation Limited. The company kept the name PSA, which is no longer an acronym. In 2003, PSA International Private Limited became the main holding company for the PSA Group. - **[Hutchison Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=843)** (HPH). Hong Kong-based firm that used to be part of a major conglomerate, Hutchison Whampoa. In 2006, PSA acquired a 20% stake in HPH, particularly to access strategic terminals in mainland China. In 2025, a consortium comprising BlackRock, Global Infrastructure Partners (GIP), and Terminal Investment Limited (TIL) acquired the remaining 80% stake in HPH. - **[DP World](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=852)** (DPW). Mainly part of a sovereign wealth fund created by the government of Dubai (Dubai World) to invest the wealth derived from the oil and gas trade. - **[APM Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=839)** (APM). The terminal operating subsidiary of the world’s largest shipping line, Maersk. - **China Shipping Ports**: Part of China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), a State-Owned Enterprise (SOE) founded in 1961, it has grown into one of the world’s largest cargo shipping, port, and logistics conglomerates, with a global portfolio of terminals and ports. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-APM-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Terminals Operated by APM, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminals Operated by APM 2024![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-HPH-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Terminals Operated by HPH, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminals Operated by HPH 2024![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-PSA-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Terminals Operated by PSA, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminals Operated by PSA 2024![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-DPW-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Terminals Operated by DPW, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminals Operated by DPW 2024The setting up of global terminal operators took place in three main waves: - **First wave**. Began in the 1990s and included companies like HPH, P&O Ports (Peninsular & Oriental Ports), and SSA, which expanded their operations on a geographical scale, thereby benefiting from the port privatization schemes in many regions across the world. HPH, which originated as a terminal operator in Hong Kong, first purchased Felixstowe in 1991, the largest UK container port. It developed a portfolio of over 50 terminals worldwide, including those in Rotterdam and Shanghai. - **Second wave**. As soon as the strategies of the pioneers proved successful, a second wave of companies emerged in the 2000s, seeking international expansion, including PSA, CSX World Terminals, and Eurogate. PSA has actively secured concessions in China and Europe, including Antwerp and Genoa. Like HPH, PSA originates from globally oriented ports offering limited local terminal expansion opportunities. Local operators were thus encouraged to manage the constrained assets efficiently and to look abroad for expansion opportunities. - **Third wave**. A new group of terminal operators emerged during the 2010s when major container carriers entered the terminal industry to support their core business. This also included financial holdings, such as DPW, which have grown through acquisitions, including P&O Ports and CSX World Terminals, as well as by securing concessions in new markets. Shipping lines have also participated in terminal concessions, but to a lesser extent. The most important is Maersk’s in-house terminal operating company, APM Terminals. Additionally, Evergreen, COSCO (via COSCO Shipping Ports), MSC (via its majority stake in TIL – Terminal Investment Limited), and CMA CGM (via its majority stake in Terminal Link) hold port terminal leases. A global pattern of concessions is evident between the dedicated terminal operating companies and the shipping lines. Many of the major global terminal operators are State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) that have joined local and international stevedoring companies, liner shipping companies, and financial institutions in operating, constructing, and, when conditions allow, owning ports in third countries, and today account for up to 35% to 40% of global throughput. The largest SOEs are COSCO (China), which is the largest terminal operator in TEU volume, PSA International (Singapore; 3rd largest), DP World (Dubai, 4th), China Merchants Port ( China), and Abu Dhabi Ports (UAE). Shanghai International Port Group (SIPG, China) and Hamburger Hafen und Logistik AG (HHLA, Germany) are also SOEs active internationally. A **concentration of ownership** among [five major port holdings](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=778 "Largest Global Container Terminal Operators by Equity-Based Throughput, 2017") has taken place. While mergers and acquisitions are usually completed, there are cases where they have triggered a regulatory response. For instance, in 2006, DPW acquired the terminal assets of P&O (Peninsular & Oriental Ports), further consolidating its global holdings. However, DPW was constrained to rescind the American assets of this transaction (terminals in Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans, New York, and Philadelphia) to the holding AIG (Ports America) due to political controversy, a Middle Eastern holding operating major American port terminals was perceived negatively in the post 9-11 context. In 2025, MSC and BlackRock acquired a substantial share of Hutchison Ports’ non-Chinese terminal portfolio. This portfolio includes terminal facilities in Panama, a region of high geopolitical sensitivity. The move prompted a response from the Chinese government, which advocated for COSCO’s participation in the transaction. Despite being global, large terminal operators have a [strong regional orientation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=796 "Regional Share in the Terminal Portfolio of the Largest Global Terminal Operators (Hectares, 2018)"), indicating their transnational nature. Global container terminal operators exhibit varying degrees of involvement in the primary cargo handling markets, characterized by complex and geographically diversified portfolios. The container terminal has become a fundamental node in global freight distribution, with the managerial and operational expertise offered by global holdings an important element in its performance in terms of capacity and reliability. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/gto_ebt.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Largest Global Container Terminal Operators by Equity-Based Throughput, 2018-24 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Largest Global Container Terminal Operators by Equity Based Throughput 2018 24![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/regional_hectares_gto.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Regional Share of Hectares in the Terminal Portfolio of the Largest Global Terminal Operator, 2021 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Regional Share in the Terminal Portfolio of the Largest Global Terminal Operators 2021# 3. Cruise Terminal Operators ## A. The emergence of cruise terminal operators The cruise industry has experienced [remarkable growth rates](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1397 "Global Cruise Passengers Carried, 1990-2019"), with only a temporary setback during the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the 1990s, the global growth rate of the cruise industry has remained resilient despite economic cycles of growth and recession, as well as other events disrupting cruise tourism, such as hurricanes. This growth is rapidly reshaping the cruise industry, with **private operators** entering the market. Liberalization and internationalization in the cruise terminal business have become a trend similar to what occurred in the container terminal sector. Ports started to see cruises as more than an ancillary activity of secondary importance. The presence of specialized cruise terminal operators has expanded. Along with service and other upgrades, the essential infrastructure for cruise terminal operations is also undergoing rapid changes. Specialized cruise terminals replace multipurpose or temporary docking facilities. Larger cruise ports have developed through a **terminalization strategy**, with the evolution of autonomously operating terminals of considerable size. The number of [terminals at Cruise Port Barcelona](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/terminalization-cruise-ports-barcelona/), the biggest port in Europe, and the [size of cruise terminals in North America](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/size-cruise-terminals-north-america/), where [the world’s largest cruise terminal (MSC Cruise Terminal Miami)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/worlds-largest-cruise-terminal-2025/), started operations in 2025, provide illustrative examples. New cruise terminals are built, and existing facilities are upsized and upgraded, imposing additional investments on the host port or terminal operator. Aiming to effectively respond to calls for upgrading cruise terminals, while safeguarding public spending, port authorities started to seek the active involvement of third parties to finance, construct, operate, and commercially develop cruise facilities. Port governance reforms have facilitated private entry in cruise terminals, with governments establishing a more commercialized environment for port operators. This development has resulted in new opportunities for several firms, such as [cruise lines and specialized cruise terminal operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/typology-strategies-cruise-terminal-operators/ "Cruise Terminal Operators: Typology and Drivers of Market Entry"), wishing to undertake new or additional investments in the cruise business, and sometimes to follow a path of internationalization. The **concessioning of cruise terminals** to third parties and the **development of new terminals** have become common practices. In some ports, cruise lines are directly involved in financing, building, and operating terminals. In other ports, local cruise terminal operators, which are often also port agents, are progressively joined by other companies that have developed interests in taking control of cruise ports and specialized purpose vehicles (SPVs) built by terminal operating companies. Eventually, international players emerged. As cruise activities in ports gain additional operational autonomy, public authorities are pursuing partnerships with third parties to finance and develop growth strategies. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/global_cruise_passengers.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Global Cruise Passengers Carried and Growth Rates, 1990-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Cruise Passengers Carried 1990 2024![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/terminalization_cruise_barcelona.png?resize=900%2C483&ssl=1 "The Terminalization of Cruise Ports: Port of Barcelona | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Terminalization of Cruise Ports Cruise Port Barcelona![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Size-of-Cruise-Terminals-in-North-America.png?resize=877%2C446&ssl=1 "Size of Cruise Terminals in North America | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Size of Cruise Terminals in North America![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_terminal_typology_drivers.png?resize=900%2C396&ssl=1 "Cruise Terminal Operators: Typology and Drivers of Market Entry | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Terminal Operators Typology and Drivers of Market Entry ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/royal_caribbean_galveston.jpg?resize=900%2C484&ssl=1 "Royal Caribbean Galveston Cruise Terminal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Royal Caribbean Galveston Cruise Terminal![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/MSC-Miami-Cruise-Terminal.jpg?resize=900%2C505&ssl=1 "MSC Miami Cruise Terminal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Largest Cruise Terminal 2025 MSC Miami Cruise Terminal## B. The internationalization of cruise terminal operators Since 2010, cruise terminal operators have started expanding overseas. > **International Cruise Terminal Operators (ICTOs)** holds a share in at least one cruise facility located in a foreign country. [Global Ports Holding](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=6314 "Cruise Terminals Operated by GPH, 2020") (GPH) is a major ICTO established in 2004 as a cruise terminal operator in Turkey, and as of 2025, it operated a diversified portfolio of 33 ports in 21 countries, servicing 22 million passengers annually. The group also offers commercial port operations specializing in container, bulk, and general cargo handling. Another ICTO, Creuers Del Port Barcelona S.A., was established by the Port of Barcelona and subsequently expanded its cruise terminal portfolio to Asia, specifically in Singapore. The internationalization of cruise terminals may create a diverse array of international actors managing global portfolios of facilities, similar to what has occurred with the rise of global container terminal operators. **Global Container Terminal Operators** (GTOs) have also assumed responsibilities for cruise terminal operations. This has been the outcome of the acquisition of majority stakes and ownership of entire ports. For instance, China Cosco Shipping became the owner of the master concession in Piraeus, and Terminal Link (CMA CGM) took over the concession in Thessaloniki, both ports and important container terminal facilities, as well as cruise ports. SSA Marine has developed an extensive portfolio in cruise terminal operations, which includes 25 cruise ports across North America and the Caribbean, including a joint venture in [Galveston](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/royal-caribbean-galveston-cruise-terminal/ "Royal Caribbean Galveston Cruise Terminal") with Royal Caribbean. Furthermore, in 2017, DP World was awarded the concession to operate the Port of Limassol, another significant cruise destination. This trend is emerging even though cruise terminal activities are not part of their core business, but a derived responsibility that may provide an incentive to acquire additional assets. Given the pivotal role of cruise terminals in the global tourism value chain, **entities responsible for port destination development**, such as Chambers of Commerce, and tourism-related firms, including shipping agencies and travel operators, have become involved. Cruise facilities operations are seen as a tool to promote local and regional businesses or to support tourism. In some cases, such entities establish hybrid companies responsible for the management and operation of cruise ports. For instance, CCI Nice Côte d’Azur is an entity that operates cruise terminals in several ports along the French Riviera. Several port companies are corporations with a public ownership background that paved the way for the launch of the cruise business and facilitated a higher private equity commitment. Some of them entered the market predominantly in search of economies of scope and new business opportunities. For this purpose, they often exploited formal and informal ties with local public entities and institutions, rejecting the option of seeking foreign investments. **Financial investors**, who are less directly involved, may be attracted to the high growth rates and profitability in the cruise business. Specialized financial institutions, such as banks, insurance companies, and private equity (PE) firms, are seeking investments that strike a balance between reasonable risk and return, while also considering their maturity. They may view cruise terminals as attractive assets for diversifying their business portfolios, contributing to a higher degree of financialization in the port sector. The attractive features of port terminals include their long-term economic viability, the monopolistic or oligopolistic nature of the industry, and the potential for partially transferring risk to host governments through public-private partnerships. An emerging trend has been the establishment of **dedicated facilities** where the cruise shipping company is directly involved in the development of the cruise terminal, as well as the co-location of amenities. Examples of this practice are the [private islands in the Caribbean](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1681 "Private Islands in the Caribbean Owned by Cruise Lines"), which are reserved exclusively for a cruise company. The most prominent include Labadee (Royal Caribbean) in Haiti, CocoCay (Royal Caribbean), Half Moon Cay (Holland America), Castaway Cay (Disney), Princess Cay (Princess Cruises), and Great Stirrup Cay (Norwegian Cruise Line) in the Bahamas. These private facilities are all within one cruise day from the home ports of Florida, offering the option of short 3-4 day cruises to a quiet and safe destination. They are all enclaves within their respective host countries. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-GPH-Cruise-Ports-Holding-1.png?resize=900%2C450&ssl=1 "Cruise Ports or Terminals Operated by Global Ports Holding (GPH) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Ports or Terminals operated by Global Ports Holding (GPH) ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/private_cruise_islands_caribbean.png?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Private Islands owned by Cruise Lines in the Caribbean | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of Private Cruise islands in the Caribbean owned by Cruise Lines# 4. The Strategies of Terminal Operators ## A. Container terminal operators The rapid expansion of container terminal operating companies is a strategy that reflects [two economic forces](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=887). First, the entry of former terminal operators into the global system represents a **horizontal integration process.** The companies, constrained by the growth limits of their own ports, seek to apply their expertise in new markets and seek new income sources. Second, the entry of shipping lines into terminal operations is an example of **vertical integration.** The companies aim to extend their control over other links in the transport chain. A third strategy is primarily followed by holdings with a strong financial orientation and **portfolio diversification**, which often feature terminal assets. Several [strategies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=895) explain the growth of global terminal operating companies and their diffusion as key stakeholders in port terminals: - **Profitability**. By modernizing port operations, primarily through improved equipment, information systems, and management, port holdings can enhance the profitability of their terminal assets. Due to their scale, management, and efficiency, global terminal operators tend to be more profitable than single-terminal operating firms. For instance, HPH achieved a 35% per year return on investment in the early 2000s. Port management was highly lucrative, prompting others to expand existing assets and attracting new players to enter the field. Since 2010, profit margins in terminal operations have become thinner, further underlining the advantage of efficient terminal operation practices. - **Financial assets**. Port holdings have the financial means to invest in infrastructure as they have a wide variety of assets and the capacity to borrow large quantities of capital. They can utilize the profits generated by their profitable terminals to invest in and subsidize the development of new terminals, thereby expanding their asset base and operating revenues. Most are listed on equity markets, allowing access to global capital, which supports the freight transport sector as a source of returns driven by traffic growth fundamentals. This financial advantage cannot be matched by port authorities, even those heavily subsidized by public funds. In other cases, terminals have become financial assets that can grow in value as the traffic they handle increases, generating additional revenue. Financial holdings, such as retirement funds, have considered transport and port terminal assets for their portfolio. - **Managerial expertise**. Port holdings excel in establishing procedures to handle complex tasks such as the loading and unloading sequence of containerships and all the intricacies of terminal operations. Many have accumulated substantial experience in terminal design and the management of containerized operations in a wide array of settings. Therefore, they can transfer managerial expertise to new terminals. Being private entities, they tend to offer better customer service and considerable flexibility in meeting the needs of their clients through service differentiation. This also includes the use of well-developed information systems and the capacity to quickly comply with legal procedures related to customs clearance and security. - **Gateway access**. From a geographical standpoint, most port holdings follow a strategy to establish privileged positions to access hinterlands. By doing so, they secure a market share and can guarantee a level of port and often inland transport services to their customers. It can also be viewed as a commercial strategy where a “stronghold” is established, limiting the presence of other competitors and creating a monopoly-like situation. Gateway access thus provides a more stable flow of containerized shipments, as gateways tend to remain as global connectors. The acquisition of a new port terminal is often accompanied by the development of related inland logistics activities by companies related to the port holding. - **Leverage**. A port holding can negotiate favorable conditions with maritime shippers and inland freight transport companies, specifically regarding rates, access, and the level of service. Some are subsidiaries of global maritime shipping lines. In contrast, others are directly controlled by them (such as Evergreen), allowing them to offer a comprehensive logistical solution for international freight transportation. They are also better placed to mitigate pressures from port authorities to increase rents and port fees. The “footloose” character of maritime shippers has long been recognized, with the balance of power more in their favor than in favor of the port authorities with whom they negotiate. - **Traffic capture**. Because of their privileged relationships with maritime shipping lines, port holdings can capture and maintain traffic for their terminals. The decision to invest is often influenced by the knowledge that the terminal will handle a relatively secure number of port calls. Consequently, the level of traffic and revenue can be secured more effectively. - **Global perspective**. Port holdings have a comprehensive view of the state of the industry and can interpret political and pricing signals to their advantage. They are thus well-positioned to influence the direction of the industry and anticipate developments and opportunities, offering global solutions to terminal requirements in ports around the world. Under such circumstances, they can allocate new investments or divest to capitalize on new growth opportunities and emerging markets. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/vertical_horizontal_integration_port2.png?resize=900%2C519&ssl=1 "Vertical and Horizontal Integration in Port Development | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Vertical and Horizontal Integration in Port Development![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/strategies_terminal_operators.png?resize=900%2C499&ssl=1 "The Strategies of Terminal Operators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Strategies of Port OperatorsThe growth of transnational terminal operating companies has resulted in a **concentration of ownership**. In 2021, the top seven global terminal operators accounted for 39.6% of global container port activity in terms of equity-based throughput. Perhaps most important is that they now dominate the world’s most important container ports and wield monopoly power in many smaller ports. There is strong evidence that performance has improved in most ports due to the concession of operations to global terminal operators. The question is whether to regulate the further concentration of power, leaving several maritime ranges with a limited number of terminal operators in a position to impose oligopolistic price settings. ## B. Cruise terminal operators The growing commitment of investors in funding and managing cruise ports has reached levels comparable to those experienced in cargo ports, particularly container terminals. In the long term, this may impact the **interactions between ports and cruise lines**, alter bargaining power relations between cruise lines and port authorities, and affect the structure of cruise itineraries, as well as development strategies, such as initiatives to address the existing seasonality of cruise activities or attract higher-spending cruisers. The leading actors involved in cruise terminal operations include: - **Cruise lines** that are expanding vertically into terminal operations to support their core activity. - **Pure cruise terminal operators** that are expanding horizontally in new markets. - **Third partie**s, such as Chambers of Commerce, shipping agencies, travel operators, and logistics companies, are entering into specific opportunities, including local economic development and simple diversification. **Cruise lines** capitalize on the opportunities presented and undertake aggressive growth strategies, frequently expanding into overseas locations. In the Mediterranean market alone, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines has emerged as the most active. The company operates cruise terminals in four countries: Italy (Civitavecchia, La Spezia, Naples, and Ravenna), Portugal (Lisbon), Spain (Barcelona), and Turkey (Kusadasi). Costa Crociere is present in France (Port of Marseille) and Spain (Port of Barcelona), and MSC Cruises operates cruise terminals both in France (Port of Marseille) and Italy (Port of Naples). Cruise lines prefer to focus their terminal investments in turnaround (home) ports with a high level of transport accessibility for tourists and cruisers. The key facilities are airports and high-speed rail stations from which most cruisers arrive. This has resulted in the “fly and cruise” model, where cruise passengers are directly picked up and checked in at the airport. In contrast, transit ports (ports of call) are selected for their touristic highlights and landmarks. The interest of international cruise lines in the financing, building, and terminal operations, which emerged in the early 2000s, is part of a **vertical integration strategy**. The primary drivers of their strategies include the need for cost control and improvement in service quality and reliability, the necessity to defend their core assets financially, and the pursuit of additional bargaining power in negotiations with local public authorities. Such vertical integration is also observed in other shipping sectors and serves as a means of achieving competitiveness along the supply chain. Pure **cruise terminal operators** are investors who pursue horizontal integration and internationalization strategies to reach economies of scope and geographic diversification. Similar drivers trigger the entry of real estate and infrastructure managers, who rely on technical and managerial competencies developed in their core business to generate cross-sectoral synergies. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 3.2 Terminal Concessions and Land Leases](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2601) - [Chapter 4.1 Port Governance and Reform](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=159) - [Chapter 5.2 Intra-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=226) - [Chapter 5.5. Entry Barriers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1348) - [Chapter 8.1 Cruise Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1386) ## References - Alderton, P. (2013). Port Management and Operations. Taylor & Francis. - Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2011) “Emerging Global Networks in the Container Terminal Operating Industry”, in T. Notteboom (ed) Current Issues in Shipping, Ports and Logistics, Brussels: Academic & Scientific Publishers. pp. 243-270. - Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2012) “The Corporate Geography of Global Container Terminal Operators”, *Maritime Policy and Management*, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 249-279. - Pallis A.A., K.P. Arapi, and A.A. Papachristou (2019). “Models of Cruise Ports Governance”, *Maritime Policy and Management*, 46(5), 630-651. - Pallis, A.A., F. Parola, G. Satta, and T. Notteboom (2018). “Private Entry and Emerging Partnerships in Cruise Terminal Operations in the Mediterranean Sea, *Maritime Economics and Logistics*, 20(1), pp. 1-28. - Parola, F.T., Notteboom, G. Satta and J-P Rodrigue (2015) “The Impact of Multiple-site Acquisitions on Corporate Growth Patterns of International Terminal Operators”, International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 621-635. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Largest Global Container Terminal Operators by Equity-Based Throughput, 2018-24](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/global-container-terminal-operators-equity-based-throughput/) **Published:** January 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/gto_ebt.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Largest Global Container Terminal Operators by Equity-Based Throughput, 2018-24 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Largest Global Container Terminal Operators by Equity Based Throughput 2024*Note: Figures include all terminals in which 10% plus shareholdings were held. Figures do not include operations at common-user terminals. Note: China Merchants Port acquired a 28% stake in SIPG in 2022. COSCO acquired a 15% stake in SIPG in 2021.* *Source: Drewry, Annual Review of Global Container Terminal Operators.* Since terminal operators have various stakes depending on the concerned terminal, **equity-based throughput** is commonly used to measure the respective amount of containerized traffic they handle. For instance, two terminal operators may have respective stakes in a terminal of 75% and 25%. If that terminal handles 100,000 TEU per year, then 75,000 TEU will be attributed to one terminal operator and 25,000 TEU to the other. By using such a measure, the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) is the world’s largest terminal operator, even if Hutchison Port Holdings (HPH), Dubai Ports World (DPW), and A.P. Moller Group (APM) have more terminals in their portfolio, respectively. Actually, PSA owns a 20% stake in HPH, which, from an equity-based throughput perspective, conveys traffic handled by another terminal operator. The five largest terminal operators are highly internationalized, with assets in several countries and regions worldwide. However, the seventh largest, Shanghai International Port Group (SIPG), is almost exclusively locally focused around the Shanghai area, where it handles substantial volumes. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/global-container-terminal-operators-equity-based-throughput/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/global-container-terminal-operators-equity-based-throughput/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/global-container-terminal-operators-equity-based-throughput/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/global-container-terminal-operators-equity-based-throughput/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 4.3 - Financialization, Terminal Funding and Valuation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/) **Published:** December 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Theo Notteboom, Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > Port terminals are capital-intensive assets that require investments for their construction, expansion, and maintenance. This capital needs to be provided by financial mechanisms on which the port terminal industry relies. Complex relationships have been established between port terminals and the finance industry. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. The Financialization of the Terminal Industry](#1_The_Financialization_of_the_Terminal_Industry) - [2. Risks and Terminal Investments](#2_Risks_and_Terminal_Investments) - [3. Funding and Financing of Terminal Development](#3_Funding_and_Financing_of_Terminal_Development) - [4. Terminal and Terminal Concession Valuation](#4_Terminal_and_Terminal_Concession_Valuation) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. The Financialization of the Terminal Industry Conventionally, terminal ownership and operation were mainly assumed by the **public sector through port authorities**. Accordingly, the provision of capital for port infrastructure projects fell into the responsibility of the public sector. However, productivity levels were generally low, and returns on public investments were limited. As privatization took shape in the 1990s, the dominant model shifted to [port authorities serving as landlords](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=829 "Emerging Paradigm in the Role of Port Authorities within their Port Regions"), and the terminal operating business underwent drastic changes. From a situation of fragmentation, the terminal and stevedoring industry expanded substantially with the emergence of [global terminal operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=252#2_Global_Terminal_Operators) controlling large multinational portfolios of terminal assets. In the early 2000s, the terminal operating business underwent a period of rapid global expansion, mirroring the rapid growth in traffic supported by the shipping industry. Some corporate terminal networks were driven by strong demand and new greenfield terminal developments, as well as a series of large-scale acquisitions and multiple entries to boost expansion strategies. This process was accelerated due to **port reforms** worldwide, primarily along the landlord model, and the evolving balance of power between shipping lines and terminal operators. Simultaneously, the port and maritime industries have been subjected to increased financialization, implying that financial institutions are playing a growing role. > Financialization refers to the growing role of financial motives, financial markets, financial actors, and financial institutions in port terminals, encompassing everything from capital provision to involvement in terminal operations. Financial holdings, including investment banks, pension funds, and sovereign wealth funds, entered the market by providing large capital pools that were previously unavailable in the industry. The port terminal sector was viewed as an attractive asset class with the potential to generate revenue. In more general terms, the [financial sector provided capital](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-maritime-industry-finance/ "Port and Maritime Industry Finance") for firms related to terminal operations and contributed to their remarkable expansion. An emerging class of terminal operators took the form of **[holdings](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4466 "Container Terminals Controlled by Holdings, 2019")** backed by large pools of capital, which they used to expand rapidly, particularly by acquiring terminal assets that became part of a portfolio of port terminals located in multiple markets. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/emerging_paradigm_port_authority.png?resize=900%2C440&ssl=1 "Emerging Paradigm in the Roles of Port Authorities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Emerging Paradigm in the Roles of Port Authorities![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Terminal-Surface-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Terminals of the World’s Major Terminal Operators, 2021 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminals of the Worlds Major Port Holdings 2019![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_maritime_industry_finance.png?resize=900%2C410&ssl=1 "Port and Maritime Industry Finance | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port and Maritime Industry Finance![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Terminal-Ownership-Holdings-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Terminals Controlled by Holdings, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminals Controlled by Holdings 2019When ports face terminal capacity constraints, financial holdings, independent terminal operators, and carrier-related terminal operators are willing to pay premium prices to acquire or develop terminal assets. The **unintended consequence of financialization** was that an increasing quantity of capital was chasing an asset class that could only be expanded at a slow pace, which resulted in **asset inflation** within the terminal industry during the 2000s. Financial bubbles have historically characterized sectoral investments, such as real estate, commodities, and high technology. The transportation industry experienced a similar process in the 2000s. The 2008-2009 financial crisis, which resulted from cross-sectoral asset inflation and subsequent defaults, led terminal operators and their financial partners to reassess risks and shift away from their previous **aggressive expansion strategies**. Following the financial crisis, **financial institutions** became more cautious and more demanding about terms and project characteristics. Terminal operators are also more likely to **sell stakes in terminal assets for financial relief** while keeping their role as operators. This commonly involves a financial holding seeking an opportunity to acquire terminal assets while leaving the existing terminal operator in charge of operations. # 2. Risks and Terminal Investments ## A. Port terminals as financial risk factors The terminal operating sector has its own set of **risk factors** to consider when making capital investments, some of which are related to the financial sector. At the same time, many are inherent to its business and operational conditions. The [overall risks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4297 "Risks Associated with Terminal Investments") are: - **Financial risks**. Capital and currency risks involve the risk of losing the **investment capital** through devaluation or default, particularly since a terminal requires a large capital investment. The amortization of this capital takes at least a decade. The higher the margin taken on the asset, the higher the risk of this asset becoming illiquid. Since terminals are used as collateral for capital investment, the capital risk is low if one expects the value of this asset to rise and a buyer to be found. However, recurring events such as the financial crisis of 2008-2009 underline that this is not always the case. Moreover, terminal operators generally face **currency risks** due to fluctuations in exchange rates, including in the case of major currencies. - **Market risks**. They include unforeseen changes in demand and supply. This risk is deeply embedded within the **regional economic and commercial geography** of the terminal portfolio as well as the **structure of maritime shipping networks**. Intermediate hub ports, with a strong focus on transshipment operations, are particularly contestable and among the riskiest terminal investment projects. With [increasing competition for port hinterlands](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2509), the contestability of gateway traffic is also more acute. Thus, market risks may equally be considered as **revenue or investment risks**. They compound capital risk in a terminal by affecting the length of amortization and the intervening changes in demand resulting from **traffic fluctuations and contestability**. Market risks are very explicit in **concession contracts**. For example, terminal operating companies often face high [throughput guarantees in concession agreements](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2601#7_Postbidding_phase). Additional internal micro-level market risks, such as **energy cost risks**, affect a terminal’s position. Energy is one of the main operating costs for shipping and terminal assets. Terminal operators have conventionally not applied energy cost hedging, compared to shipping lines that typically try to protect themselves through either hedging operations or bunker fuel surcharges. - **Political and regulatory risks**. Concerned with international trade and manufacturing issues. For terminals, these involve the risk of arbitrary changes in the commercial environment due to political expediency, favoritism toward a carrier or operator, and even confiscation (nationalization). Even if recent decades have seen an environment more open to trade and liberalization, countervailing forces such as protectionism can still emerge. Entering the market at a specific point in time means that longer-term regulatory changes are unforeseen, particularly since terminal concessions can last for over 20 years. Regulatory risks refer to unexpected changes in the competitive landscape, such as those caused by incumbents or shifts in competitors’ market strategies. They can also involve regulatory changes, planning conditions, or more expensive operational models. For terminal operators, the regulatory framework for [concession renewal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2601#7_Postbidding_phase) increases the risk associated with the committed investment during the early stages of operation. - **Market concentration and specialization risks**. They are common when a player focuses on a specific region or a type of service. Containerization and [economies of scale in mega-ships](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1532#1_The_container_shipping_industry) have increased specialization risks, as they rely on the availability of large freight volumes. In contrast, concentration reduces port of call options. With [better hinterland access](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2509), the traditional markets of many terminals are highly contestable. A concentration of a portfolio in a specific market may lead to high returns if economic prospects are better than expected, but to negative multiplying effects if economic conditions are even slightly lower than expected. - **Moral hazard risk**. Many port terminals are either public or have strong relationships with the public sector, as governments and sovereign wealth funds can be significant stakeholders. Several are perceived to be of**national strategic interest**. If they face financial difficulties, they have the opportunity to use their political embeddedness to access public capital or private capital guaranteed by the public sector. This can potentially lead to **misallocations** (being “too big to fail”), enabling lower-performing operators to remain in business who, otherwise, would have been forced to rationalize their assets. There is a **link between moral hazard risk and political risk**. Policymakers may have strategic reasons to protect a terminal operator from defaulting, such as maintaining operations at a port deemed crucial for a national economy. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/risks_terminal_investments.png?resize=900%2C576&ssl=1 "Risks Associated with Terminal Investments | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Risks Associated with Terminal Investments![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/terminal_risks_terminal_operator.png?resize=900%2C445&ssl=1 "Terminal and Port Related Risks for a Terminal Operator | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Variables defining TerminalPort related Risks for a Terminal Operator## B. Port-specific risks for terminal operators The **size of the infrastructure and superstructure** for terminal development adds to investment risks through a scale effect. To develop a terminal, an operator may need to invest in developing or improving the [infrastructure and the superstructure of a terminal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=7740), which is a capital-intensive endeavor. The larger these infrastructures, the higher the sunk costs in the facility. The risks associated with port or terminal investments vary depending on the nature of the market and the stage of the development of the port. While mature terminals with well-established markets can represent a lower risk, they may also be subject to lower growth potential and intense competitiveness. Alternatively, a new terminal facility in an uncertain market can represent a high risk, but it could also offer high growth and return potential. Public actors determine the terms of a concession, and terminal operators decide to bid and assume responsibilities for terminal operations for a period that typically exceeds two decades. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_terminal_infrastructure_investments.png?resize=900%2C391&ssl=1 "Port Terminal Infrastructure and Superstructure | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Terminal Infrastructure Investments![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/terminal_equity_stakes.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Distribution of Terminal Equity Stakes by Terminal Operators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Distribution of Terminal Equity Stakes by Terminal Operators![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_port_site_developments2.png?resize=900%2C457&ssl=1 "Types of Port Site Developments | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Port Site DevelopmentsThe **probability of occurrence of terminal-specific risks** relates to the [stage of development of the terminal site](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/types-port-site-developments/ "Types of Port Site Developments") to be operated by a private actor, which might invest in: 1. **Undeveloped site**. The operator must develop infrastructure and superstructure, including the terminal, road connectors, and utilities. Nautical access is usually provided by the port authority. 2. **Greenfield site**. Infrastructure, such as roads and utilities, is reaching the site boundary. The operator develops the terminal infrastructure and superstructure. 3. **Improved site**. A quay line and paved yard, but without buildings or handling equipment. 4. **Completed site**. A site with all civil works completed, but the operator supplies quay cranes and yard handling equipment. 5. **Fully developed site**. A site that includes quay cranes, but the operator supplies yard handling equipment. This condition is closely related to the technical, as well as the financial and market risks assumed, with the first option (1) being associated with the highest technical risk, and a declining risk as we head towards the last option (5), where technical risk transfer is the lowest. **Technical risks** ultimately result in delays and cost overruns or both, including: - The application of innovative techniques and technologies, particularly for terminal equipment, including automation. - Design changes, including terminal function. - Land acquisition and availability. - Delays in project approvals and permits (the outcome of “red tape”). - Changes in construction legislation (e.g. safety, techniques) and defects by the contractor (e.g. inadequate materials). - Archaeological findings. - Construction contract variations or default by one of the contractors. - Availability of finance (cash flow) and force majeure events, such as natural disasters. **Market risks** may depend on the size of the investment. Still, their level also reflects the uncertainty in predicted traffic volumes, transport demand, and the willingness of users to call a particular terminal and pay for services rendered. Demand predictions and forecasts are sensitive to uncertainties and strategic or optimism bias facilitated by less established markets. Due to underestimated traffic volumes, terminals in these markets are highly sensitive to fluctuations in income, industrial production, economic growth, and disruptions caused by economic shocks, such as the 2008-2009 financial crisis or the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020-2021. The probability of risk exposure depends on the nature of the market for the particular port or terminal and results from the presence of alternative conditions: 1. **No established regional trade** with projections based on unproven market expectations, such as those associated with a new free trade zone. 2. **Established regional trade** with substantial transshipment. 3. **Established hinterland general cargo trade** but with a low market penetration factor. 4. **Established regional and national trade** but open to competition from other terminal operators within the same or a nearby port. 5. **Established trade** and a need for facilities upgrade. The **probability of market risk**, in general, varies from the highest in the first case (1) to the lowest in the last case (5). Given the intervening changes in demand due to traffic fluctuations and contestability on the supply side (intermediate hubs are particularly contestable), market risk is directly linked to investment risk in a terminal, particularly due to the amortization period. In recent years, this risk has been mitigated by the surge in transshipment throughput, as maritime shipping companies have reorganized their networks to accommodate the growth in long-distance trade and achieve economies of scale. With emerging hinterland access regimes, such as corridors and inland ports, the contestability of gateway traffic is also more acute. An **environmental component of risks** is also present in all terminal investments, though not unique to the industry. Project design, environmental impact assessments, and respective approvals and permits are the norm and can create unexpected delays. The risk associated with prerequisites in securing the construction, maintenance, and expansion of a terminal is common in all transport projects. Addressing environmental risks might be costly and, perhaps more importantly, result in unnecessary delays, disrupting deployment plans, development costs, and the time horizon of investments. Additionally, growing environmental concerns increase the risks associated with new environmental legislation, which may impact the operation and maintenance of existing terminals. Environmental risks are related to the size of the terminal, with more complex operations being exposed to greater risks. ## C. Implications for concessions All risks are reasonably well understood by the industry and are embedded in their **business strategies**. As a risk minimization strategy, it has become common practice to launch large terminal projects in **phases** following developments in port services demand. These phases can be planned to accompany expected volume growth, and financial support can be secured accordingly. While capital could not have been readily secured for a large terminal capacity development project, such capital can be made available incrementally, based on the realized outcomes and rates of return from investments in prior phases. Global terminal operators follow a careful and selective approach when **bidding for new terminal concessions**, acquiring terminal assets, and selecting partnerships. They also hedge risks by opting for **more complex ownership and partnership structures** with shipping lines, financial holdings, and other organizations. It is common for [ownership levels to be distributed](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/distribution-terminal-equity-stakes-terminal-operators/ "Distribution of Terminal Equity Stakes by Terminal Operators") among international and national investors in any given project. # 3. Funding and Financing of Terminal Development **Terminal capacity investments** are very costly due to their **capital-intensive** nature. Due to the costs involved, port managers and terminal operators are typically inclined to first expand existing capacity through measures that lead to **better terminal planning and more optimized port operations**. It is easier to provide superstructures, such as improved equipment to enhance stacking density, than to expand the terminal footprint. It is only when capacity has been fully utilized that **additional capacity** should be made available. Such projects require substantial capital from various public and private sources through funding and financing mechanisms. > **Funding** entails the provision of capital at no interest for developing the port project (e.g. state grants, internal reserves). The capital is not necessarily expected to be recovered. > **Financing** implies that the capital lent is regarded as an investment and comes with an interest rate (e.g. commercial and investment banks, bond financing) or required rate of return for the investor. The capital is expected to be recovered. In practice, **matching demand and supply** is not easy, given the long lead times required to plan, construct, and start up new port and terminal infrastructure. Finding a suitable timing to initiate the planning and implementation phases of new port infrastructure is, therefore, a challenge prone to risks. There is always the imminent risk of creating overcapacity in cases where a port extension project does not induce growth in port demand. The timing of capacity expansion and a good assessment of future demand are crucial to positioning the port for sustained growth and securing suitable funding sources for capacity extensions. **Funding strategies for costly port investments** are primarily constrained by a port’s institutional position. For example, [pure public or tool ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=811) are limited to funding sources obtained from national funds. Developing countries face increased constraints on the level of public funding sources available to develop port infrastructure due to other national infrastructural and social priorities. In these circumstances, the port must compete in the political arena where political interest groups influence priorities to secure capital in competition with other projects. There are essentially **[five major sources of funding and finance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4339 "Sources of Funding and Finance for Port Terminals")** available for port terminal infrastructure development: - **Debt**. It can comprise conventional loans, debentures (loan certificates), bonds, and convertible preference shares. Interest payments, which represent the cost of debt, can be expensive, and defaulting on contractual repayment obligations may result in the forfeiture of assets, depending on the terms of the debt agreement. In general, banks or other lenders are susceptible to the project assets and their potential market value. In evaluating an investment project, they assess the extent to which the project assets remain within the operating authority or company. Banks and other lenders are also strict when it comes to **risk distribution**. They favor a setting where all risks associated with the port infrastructure project are assumed and passed on to the appropriate actor. For example, lenders may require that the risk be passed on to other project participants through contracts, such as construction, operation, and maintenance agreements. - **Shareholder funds**. Can take the form of ordinary shares or preference shares. They are similar to debt but with equity characteristics or shareholder reserves that are reinvested as retained earnings. A diverse shareholding dilutes ownership, relinquishing control to majority shareholders. The cost of a share is essentially measured as the required rate of return on the investment from shareholders. However, in the case of retained earnings, these funds are not a free source of finance, and the required rate of return is essentially the cost of equity, as the funds belong to equity investors, not the firm. - **New equity issues**. Can take the form of an initial public offering (IPO; the first issuance of shares on a stock exchange), a seasoned public offering (SPO), or a general public offering (GPO). Methods of issuing seasoned equity include the private placement of shares to a single or small group of investors, employee options, or a rights offering, which is the right to purchase shares at a price concession. A GPO is similar to an IPO but with generally lower underwriting costs. A notable feature of a GPO is that, generally, the market identifies it as a signal that management believes the firm is overvalued. The required rate of return is lower than the correct rate of return, implying a cheap source of funds or that the market has overestimated the firm’s future free cash flows. Risks associated with shares as a source of financial returns for shareholders stem from how share prices are affected (i.e., gains or losses) in the share trading market. - **Lease agreements**. They comprise pure operating leases, finance leases (in substance, a loan), or sale-and-leaseback agreements. Terminal operation concession agreements are long-term operational leases used extensively for private port participation. The government or a public authority holds the property rights of the facilities throughout the concession period and receives lease payments on the assets. The private partner bears the production and commercial risks, so it has an incentive to innovate, optimize, and improve its services. Terminal concession and lease-operate arrangements are common in landlord ports. The financial side of a concession agreement remains a balancing act. High concession fees, royalty payments, and revenue-sharing stipulations are detrimental to returns on investment. They could decrease the investment potential of the incumbent terminal operator and deter future investors. Low payments could negatively impact the revenue base of the public port authority, rendering it unable to support its landlord functions. Finance leases are becoming increasingly difficult to justify due to advancements in accounting practices and heightened vigilance against tax avoidance. Accounting treatment and favorable tax concessions are less evident when adopting international financial reporting standards. - **Mergers and acquisitions**. These comprise **horizontal integration mergers** with firms in the same line of business and **vertical integration mergers** with firms higher or lower in the value chain, such as between suppliers and customers. Additionally, there are conglomerate mergers, whereby a merger occurs with a completely unrelated firm to achieve diversification benefits, as well as management buyouts. This can also involve a **management buyout (MBO)**, which is an extreme form of divestiture. The overriding objective of a merger is to create synergy, where the sum of the merged firm is greater than the sum of the individual (firm) parts. Economic value is generated through efficiencies, increased expertise, and greater access to funding. Notably, mergers and acquisitions have come under increased scrutiny because of anti-competitive and antitrust legislation. > In an MBO, incumbent management acquires a significant, if not majority, equity stake in the company for which they work. This refers to a transaction whereby executive managers of a business individually or jointly with financing institutions (mostly private equity or venture capital firms) buy the business from the entity which currently owns it. Excluded from the above five sources of port terminal finance are **fiscal and government funds** associated with public policy and national commercial strategic objectives. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/funding_finance_port_terminals.png?resize=900%2C577&ssl=1 "Sources of Funding and Finance for Port Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Sources of Funding and Finance for Port Terminals![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/vertical_horizontal_integration_port2.png?resize=900%2C519&ssl=1 "Vertical and Horizontal Integration in Port Development | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Vertical and Horizontal Integration in Port Development![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Chinese-Terminal-Investments.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Chinese-Financed Port Projects, 2000-25 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Chinese Financed Port Projects 2000 25![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-GPH-Cruise-Ports-Holding-1.png?resize=900%2C450&ssl=1 "Cruise Ports or Terminals Operated by Global Ports Holding (GPH) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Ports or Terminals Operated by Global Ports Holding GPHIn recent decades, there has been a substantial expansion of terminal facilities that require the injection of capital from various public and private sources. The port terminal industry has undergone privatization and internationalization, establishing partnerships with financial institutions to meet this demand. As global trade matures, investment priorities are likely to shift toward upgrading existing facilities, particularly in areas such as automation and digitalization. # 4. Terminal and Terminal Concession Valuation Three main approaches to the **valuation of a terminal business or terminal concession** can be distinguished, including asset-based, income-based, and cash flow-based. **Asset-based valuations** estimate a business as being worth the value of its total net assets. The business’s future cash-generating potential is not taken into consideration. There are three common methods of applying the asset-based approach: - **Book value**. The value of a terminal or terminal business assets is calculated based on the historical (sunk) acquisition costs less the financial reporting determined asset depreciation guided by the asset’s useful life. It is relatively simple to calculate, but it relies on a correct reporting of historical sunk costs and arbitrary depreciation. - **Net realizable value of the assets less liabilities**. The value is the amount obtained should the terminal or terminal business assets be sold on the open market subsequent to the liabilities being settled. - **Replacement value.** The valuation is based on the cost to set up a terminal or terminal concession if it were to be started as a greenfield project. **Income-based methods** consider the earning capability/potential of an entity during valuation. The method of price-earnings (P/E) ratios relies on identifying listed companies in similar businesses to the company being valued (the target company) and then evaluating the relationship between the share price and earnings in order to determine the value of the company. The P/E ratio is calculated by dividing the price per share by the earnings per share and represents the number of years’ worth of earnings paid for in the share price. The fundamental disadvantage of this approach is that it relies on speculative external historical market information for listed companies/industries, which may not accurately represent the value of the unlisted entity being evaluated. The **cash flow-based valuation** approach typically relies on the **Discounted Cash Flow method (DCF)**. The DCF method essentially applies prospective data using a relatively large number of assumptions related to (for example) future revenue, operational capital, and funding costs, as well as general economic variables, in order to determine the value of a terminal or terminal operating company. The **DCF analysis** is a powerful tool used not only to value companies but also to price Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) and other financial assets. The method is widely used by professionals in investment banks, consultancies, and managers. The **free cash flow** is the amount of cash not required for operations or reinvestment. These free cash flows are then discounted using a discount rate that matches the flow’s risk. The discount rate is referred to as a Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC). There are two ways of using cash flows for the DCF valuation: - Use of the **free cash flow to the firm (FCFF)**, which is the cash flow that is available to service debt and equity holders. The FCFF is calculated by deducting operating expenses and taxes from earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT), resulting in the net operating profit after tax (NOPAT). This is then adjusted by adding back non-cash flow expenses and deducting capital expenditure (Capex) and the increase in net working capital (NWC). - Use of the **free cash flow to equity (FCFE)**, which is the cash flow that is available to the company’s equity holders only. Using the FCFF as a base will result in the value of the terminal or terminal concession, using the FCFE will give the equity value. In the case of a terminal acquisition, the acquirer typically assumes all debt and equity, making the FCFF approach more relevant than the equity method. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 3.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminals-and-terminal-operators/) - [Chapter 3.2 Terminal Concessions and Land Leases](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/) - [Chapter 5.1 Inter-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/inter-port-competition/) - [Chapter 5.2 Intra-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/intra-port-competition/) - [Chapter 5.5 Entry Barriers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/entry-barriers-in-seaports/) - [Chapter 7.3 Port Planning and Development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7/port-planning-and-development/) --- ## References - Brooks, M.R., Pallis, A.A. and Perkins, S. (2014), Port Investment and Container Shipping Markets, OECD-ITF Discussion Paper 2014-3, OECD: Paris. - Rodrigue, J-P, T. Notteboom and A. Pallis (2011). The Financialization of the Terminal and Port Industry: Revisiting Risk and Embeddedness, Maritime Policy and Management. Vol 38, No. 2, pp. 191-213. - Roumboutsos, A. and Pallis A.A. (2010). Risks in Port Concessions: A Contextual Analysis and Allocation Methodology. *12th World Conference on Transport Research (WCTR)*, Lisbon, Portugal, July. - Theys C., Notteboom T.E., Pallis A.A., de Langen P.W. (2010). The economics behind the awarding of terminals in seaports: A research agenda. Research in Transportation Economics, *27,* 10-18. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Largest Cruise Vessel in the World (2025): Icon of the Seas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/largest-cruise-vessel/) **Published:** January 14, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Icon-of-the-Seas.jpeg?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1 "The Largest Cruise Vessel in the World: Icon of the Seas, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Largest Cruise Vessel in the World Icon of the Seas 2025*Photo: Royal Caribbean* In 2024, the *Icon of Seas* was introduced as the world’s largest cruise ship, with a capacity of 5,610 passengers at double occupancy and 7,600 at full capacity, and a crew of 2,350. She has a gross registered tonnage of 248,663 and a length of 365 meters. It is not only the largest vessel in the world in terms of tonnage, but also t[he biggest vessel available in terms of passenger capacity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-admin/post.php?post=23939&action=edit). Royal Caribbean has a track record of building the largest cruise ships in the world. In terms of gross tons, in 2009, it was the Allure of the Seas. In 2015, it was Allure’s sister ship, the Harmony of the Seas. In 2020, it was the Symphony of the Seas, built in 2018. The Symphony of the Seas is part of the Oasis-class mega-vessels of Royal Caribbean’s fleet. It has a gross registered tonnage of 228,081, is 238 feet tall, and spans 1,188 feet. She hosts 5,518 guests at double occupancy in 2,759 staterooms, including 28 additional balcony rooms overlooking the ocean or the signature Boardwalk neighborhood. She has 16 passenger decks and 2,200 crew members. In 2022, the cruise line built the then-largest-ever ship, the Oasis-class *Wonder of the Seas*, with its maiden voyage. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/largest-cruise-vessel/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/largest-cruise-vessel/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/largest-cruise-vessel/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/largest-cruise-vessel/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chinese-Financed Port Projects, 2000-2025](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/chinese-financed-port-projects/) **Published:** April 26, 2026 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Chinese-Terminal-Investments.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Chinese-Financed Port Projects, 2000-25 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Chinese Financed Port Projects 2000 25*Source: AidData CPORTS Dataset.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Chinese-Terminal-Investments.pdf) Chinese investments in port projects since 2000 are geared to reinforce its global connectivity and access to strategic resources and markets. Totaling about 24 billion USD in the form of loans and grants from state institutions, these funds were allocated to about 168 ports for the construction of port infrastructure and the purchase of equipment such as cranes. Further, about one-third of these investments involve either port ownership or operation by a Chinese state enterprise. This geopolitical strategy can be framed in five main security objectives: - **Food security**. Provide access to key food sources, including fishing and grains. Ports such as Santos and Paranagua in Brazil provide access to substantial soybean supplies. - **Mineral security**. Several port investments are enabling access to strategic mineral resources, particularly copper (Lobito, Angola; Chancay, Peru) and iron (Morebaya, Guinea). China’s presence in West Africa is particularly significant. - **Energy security**. Access to petroleum and natural gas is one of China’s core strategic goals. Its most important investment (1.4 billion USD) was undertaken in the Port of Sabetta on the Russian Arctic as an LNG export platform. Ports such as Newcastle and Wiggins Island (Australia) are major coal exporters of strategic importance to supply Chinese power plants and steel mills. - **Economic security**. China’s commercial objectives include access to gateways to major markets and transshipment hubs for container shipping connectivity, such as Colombo (Sri Lanka), Piraeus (Greece), and Valencia (Spain). - **Military security**. The ability to maintain military ports of call, including Dolareh (Djibouti) and Ream (Cambodia), may allow China to expand its capability to project naval power near strategic chokepoints such as Malacca and Bab el-Mandeb. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/chinese-financed-port-projects/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/chinese-financed-port-projects/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/chinese-financed-port-projects/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/chinese-financed-port-projects/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Tanker Sizes and Classes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/tanker-size/) **Published:** September 25, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/tanker_sizes_classes.png?resize=900%2C573&ssl=1 "Tanker Sizes and Classes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Tanker Sizes and ClassesThere are different tanker sizes used for the international transportation of oil, from a modest coastal tanker to a VLCC or ULCC Supertanker. The common rule is that the volume that can be carried in a tanker increases as a function of the cube of its length. For instance, a ULCC is about twice the length of a coastal tanker (415 meters versus 205 meters) but can carry about 8 times the deadweight tonnage (400,000 dwt versus 50,000 dwt). The largest ship ever built was an oil tanker; the Knock Nevis was built in 1979 (launched as the Seawise Giant) with 565,000 dwt, a length of 458 meters, a beam of 69 meters, and a draught of 25 meters. The ship was so large that no port could accommodate it fully laden, so it was loaded and unloaded while anchored offshore. In 2004, the Knock Nevis was converted to a floating storage and mooring unit off the coast of Qatar until 2009, when it was scrapped. As of 2010, only 12 tankers above 320,000 dwt remained. Of these, only two “true” ULCCs of around 430,000 dwt remain in operation: the TI Europe and the TI Oceana, which were part of a group of four ships constructed between 2002 and 2003. The other two ships, TI Africa and TI Asia, were converted into floating storage and mooring units in 2010. Oil tankers have a commercial life expectancy of about 30 years. Because of their mass, tankers have large inertia, making them very difficult to steer. A loaded supertanker could take as much as 4 to 8 kilometers and 15 minutes to come to a full stop, and has a turning diameter of about 2 kilometers. Among the main tanker classes are: | **Class** | **Length** | **Beam** | **Draft** | **Overview** | |---|---|---|---|---| | **Coastal Tanker** | 205 m | 29 m | 16 m | Less than 50,000 dwt, mainly used for transportation of refined products (gasoline, gasoil). | | **Aframax** | 245 m | 34 m | 20 m | Approximately 80,000 dwt, which is the AFRA standard (Average Freight Rate Assessment). This standard was established to standardize contract terms with well-defined ship capacity. | | **Suezmax** | 285 m | 45 m | 23 m | Between 125,000 and 180,000 dwt, originally the maximum capacity of the Suez Canal. | | **VLCC** | 330 m | 55 m | 28 m | Very Large Crude Carrier. Up to around 320,000 dwt. Some can be accommodated by the expanded dimensions of the Suez Canal. The most common length is in the range of 300 to 330 meters. | | **ULCC** | 415 m | 63 m | 35 m | Ultra Large Crude Carrier. Capacity exceeding 320,000 dwt. The largest tankers ever built have a deadweight of over 550,000 dwt. Very few ships in this class. | ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/tanker-size/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/tanker-size/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/tanker-size/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/tanker-size/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Private Islands in the Caribbean Owned by Cruise Lines](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/private-islands-caribbean-owned-cruise-lines/) **Published:** February 8, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/private_cruise_islands_caribbean.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Private Islands owned by Cruise Lines in the Caribbean | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Private Cruise islands in the Caribbean*Note: Figures are estimated average number of visitors per year.* The acquisition of Great Stirrup Cay by Norwegian Cruises in 1977 marks the beginning of a trend in which large cruise lines secure private islands (or beaches) for their exclusive use. The acquisition typically takes the form of a long-term lease (up to 99 years, as permitted by international law) or an exclusive use agreement for a specific period. The presence of private islands (or beaches) for exclusive use by cruise lines has particularly taken place in the Caribbean for the following reasons: - **Revenue capture.** Private islands are part of the trend pursued by cruise lines to internalize their revenue sources. Since the cruise line owns all the amenities of the private island, it can capture all the revenues generated by these amenities (e.g., food, drinks, activities). They thus try to include their private island as a port of call in as many itineraries as possible. - **Alternative port call**. The majority of the private islands are located in the Bahamas, a night sailing away from the major Miami cruise hub (or other Floridian cruise ports), for which they can conveniently be used as the first or last port of call during a cruise and as an alternative if the itinerary needs to be modified (e.g. inclement weather). They can thus be easily included in cruise itineraries as a last-minute change in ports of call. They are flow management nodes. - **Exclusivity**. The cruise lines effectively market private islands as exclusive locations that their customers can access and are closed to the general public (or the local population). They are thus perceived as less crowded and safe locations, which appeals to many cruisers. - **Beach experience**. Many cruisers expect a beach experience, particularly since the Caribbean is renowned for its diverse range of beaches. However, many ports of call along Caribbean itineraries are cities and towns that do not have high-quality beaches in proximity or have beaches that require transportation (an excursion) for access. The private beach is advertised as part of the experience, allowing cruisers to disembark at the amenity with minimal effort. The amenity is also comprehensive, offering a wide array of services and entertainment options. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/private-islands-caribbean-owned-cruise-lines/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/private-islands-caribbean-owned-cruise-lines/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/private-islands-caribbean-owned-cruise-lines/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/private-islands-caribbean-owned-cruise-lines/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Oil Transportation and Major Chokepoints](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/oil-transportation-and-major-chokepoints/) **Published:** September 25, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Oil-Movements2.png?resize=900%2C512&ssl=1 "Major Oil Flows and Chokepoints | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Major Oil Flows and Chokepoints*Source: Adapted from The International Tankers Owners Pollution Federation Limited & Energy Information Administration, World Oil Transit Chokepoints.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Oil-Movements-1.pdf) The structure of the global oil shipping network is relatively simple. The bulk of the oil transported (60% to 70%) uses maritime transportation, which follows very specific routes and is constrained by [strategic passages](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-maritime-shipping-routes/ "Shipping Lanes and Strategic Passages in Pacific Asia") commonly referred to as chokepoints. The Persian Gulf is a major source of oil shipped by maritime transportation, only accessible through the Strait of Hormuz, which represents the world’s critical oil route with the equivalent of above 20 million barrels of oil transiting per day, which is about 25% of the global oil maritime trade. This route extends via maritime routes, reaching Europe through the Suez Canal, China, Japan, and South Korea through the Strait of Malacca, and North America via the Cape of Good Hope. Russian oil exports pass through the Strait of Oresund, mostly to European markets. Limited oil trade takes place across the Pacific since there are few significant producers. Most Mexican oil exports are bound for the United States, while Indonesia has ceased to be a significant oil exporter. Major continental movements not shown on the map involved the shipment of Russian and former Soviet Republics’ petroleum to Europe by pipeline, and the shipment of Alaskan and Canadian petroleum to the United States by pipeline. Other important oil shipments are from Africa to North America and Europe, from the North Sea to Europe, and from South America to North America. The geopolitical shift that began in 2023 with the Red Sea crisis has led to significant changes in the volumes of oil transiting several strategic passages. Between 2023 and 2024, the Suez Canal experienced a 44% decline in transit volumes, with a corresponding 52% decline at Bab el-Mandeb. Due to deviations, the Cape of Good Hope saw a 51.5% increase. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/oil-transportation-and-major-chokepoints/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/oil-transportation-and-major-chokepoints/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/oil-transportation-and-major-chokepoints/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/oil-transportation-and-major-chokepoints/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cruise Terminal Operators: Typology and Drivers of Market Entry](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/typology-strategies-cruise-terminal-operators/) **Published:** December 17, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_terminal_typology_drivers.png?resize=900%2C396&ssl=1 "Cruise Terminal Operators: Typology and Drivers of Market Entry | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Terminal Operators Typology and Drivers of Market Entry*Source: Adapted from Pallis A.A., Parola, F., Satta G. & Notteboom T. (2018). Private Entry and Emerging Partnerships in Cruise Terminal Operations in the Mediterranean Sea, Maritime Economics and Logistics, 20(1), 1-28.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/typology-strategies-cruise-terminal-operators/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/typology-strategies-cruise-terminal-operators/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/typology-strategies-cruise-terminal-operators/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/typology-strategies-cruise-terminal-operators/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Terminals Operated by DPW, 2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-operated-dpw/) **Published:** January 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-DPW-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Terminals Operated by DPW, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminals Operated by DPW 2024*Source: Adapted from Drewry Shipping Consultants.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-operated-dpw/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-operated-dpw/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-operated-dpw/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-operated-dpw/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Terminals Operated by PSA, 2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-operated-psa/) **Published:** January 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-PSA-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Terminals Operated by PSA, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminals Operated by PSA 2024*Source: Adapted from Drewry Shipping Consultants.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-operated-psa/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-operated-psa/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-operated-psa/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-operated-psa/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Terminals Operated by HPH, 2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-operated-hph/) **Published:** January 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-HPH-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Terminals Operated by HPH, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminals Operated by HPH 2024*Source: Adapted from Drewry Shipping Consultants.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-operated-hph/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-operated-hph/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-operated-hph/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-operated-hph/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Terminals Operated by APM, 2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-operated-apmt/) **Published:** January 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-APM-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Terminals Operated by APM, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminals Operated by APM 2024*Source: Adapted from Drewry Shipping Consultants.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-operated-apmt/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-operated-apmt/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-operated-apmt/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-operated-apmt/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Terminals Controlled by Holdings, 2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-controlled-holdings/) **Published:** December 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Terminal-Ownership-Holdings-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Terminals Controlled by Holdings, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminals Controlled by Holdings 2024**Source: Authors’ compilation based on data adapted from Drewry Shipping Consultants*.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Terminal-Ownership-Holdings.pdf) A category of terminal operators involves holdings that are supported by financial institutions such as sovereign wealth funds. Therefore, terminal assets are part of a portfolio of transport infrastructure, with port terminals representing an operating branch. [Dubai Ports World](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=852 "https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=852") is a salient example, as it is part of the Dubai World sovereign wealth fund, which is managed by the Government of Dubai. Holdings account for about 19% of the hectares controlled by terminal operators worldwide. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-controlled-holdings/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-controlled-holdings/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-controlled-holdings/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-controlled-holdings/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Terminals Controlled by Shipping Lines, 2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-controlled-shipping-lines/) **Published:** December 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Terminal-Ownership-Shipping-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Terminals Controlled by Shipping Lines, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminals Controlled by Shipping Lines 2024**Source: Authors’ compilation based on data adapted from Drewry Shipping Consultants*.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Terminal-Ownership-Shipping-1.pdf) A category of terminal operators concerns terminal operating branches of shipping lines. [APM Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=839 "Container Terminals Operated by APM, 2019") (Maersk) and Terminal Investment Limited (MSC) are salient examples of terminal operating companies directly linked with a shipping line. Shipping lines account for about 31% of the hectares controlled by terminal operators worldwide. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-controlled-shipping-lines/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-controlled-shipping-lines/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-controlled-shipping-lines/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-controlled-shipping-lines/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Terminals Controlled by Stevedores, 2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-controlled-by-stevedores/) **Published:** December 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Terminal-Ownership-Stevedores-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Terminals Controlled by Stevedores, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminals Controlled by Stevedores 2024*Source: Authors’ compilation based on data adapted from Drewry Shipping Consultants*. [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Terminal-Ownership-Stevedores-1.pdf) A category of terminal operators concerns stevedores that undertook internationalization strategies from their home ports. [PSA](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=848 "Container Terminals Operated by PSA, 2019") (Port of Singapore Authority) and [HPH](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=843 "Container Terminals Operated by HPH, 2019") (Hong Kong) are salient examples of stevedores that have exported their expertise in terminal management by acquiring an international portfolio of terminals. Stevedores account for about 50% of the hectares controlled by terminal operators worldwide. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-controlled-by-stevedores/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-controlled-by-stevedores/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-controlled-by-stevedores/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-controlled-by-stevedores/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Value Propositions behind the Interest of Equity Firms in Transport Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/value-propositions-interest-equity-firms-transport-terminals/) **Published:** January 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/value_proposition_equity_firms_terminals.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Value Propositions behind the Interest of Equity Firms in Transport Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Value Propositions behind the Interest of Equity Firms in Transport Terminals*Source: adapted from Rodrigue, J-P, T. Notteboom and A. Pallis (2010) “The Financialization of the Terminal and Port Industry: Rediscovering Risk”, International Association of Maritime Economists.* The rationale for the growing involvement of the financial sector in port terminals is mainly that terminals are increasingly capital-intensive because their assets have intrinsic and operational value. The substantial productivity gains brought by containerization have resulted in a much more capital-intensive industry that depends on financing not only for asset acquisition but also for operations. Since terminals occupy strategic waterfront locations, their value as real estate assets is expected to increase. In turn, there is the expectation that terminals are relatively liquid assets, implying they can be sold and a buyer readily found. However, such an expectation can change rapidly during recessions, when terminal assets can become illiquid. The amortization of investments tends to occur over longer time periods, implying a more direct involvement and oversight by financial firms. Terminals in landlord ports became particularly attractive investments because land lease arrangements in these ports allow investors to acquire exclusive user rights to prime port sites for the entire lease term, typically 25-40 years for larger terminals. With the growth of international trade, the volume handled by terminals grew accordingly, and with it, their revenue. This attracted the attention of financial firms, such as banks, insurance companies, and even pension funds, who saw transportation assets, such as port terminals, as an investment class within a diversified global portfolio, thereby permitting risk mitigation. Pension funds became interested in terminal assets because the time horizon of an investment, such as a concession agreement, corresponded to their long-term time horizon. This helped provide substantial capital to develop intermodal assets and increase their value. Scale factors were also important. Global financial firms were looking for opportunities large enough to accommodate the vast amounts of capital at their disposal, and terminals were an asset class that suited the scale of this allocation well. Therefore, both the capital time and scale prospects of the maritime industry were in synchronism with the prospects of the financial industry. With the growth of international trade, transactions between commercial actors became increasingly complex and reliant on financing. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/value-propositions-interest-equity-firms-transport-terminals/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/value-propositions-interest-equity-firms-transport-terminals/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/value-propositions-interest-equity-firms-transport-terminals/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/value-propositions-interest-equity-firms-transport-terminals/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 1.2 - Ports and Maritime Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/) **Published:** February 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Theo Notteboom and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue and Dr. Athanasios Pallis > Seaports serve as platforms within global supply chains and production networks, which are highly dynamic as they respond to changes in global trade patterns, consumer preferences, and advancements in supply chain management and information technology. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Growing Complexity in Supply Chain Management](#1_Growing_Complexity_in_Supply_Chain_Management) - [2. Improving Competitiveness](#2_Improving_Competitiveness) - [3. The Role of Third-Party Logistics Services](#3_The_Role_of_Third-Party_Logistics_Services) - [4. Functional Integration in the Logistics Industry](#4_Functional_Integration_in_the_Logistics_Industry) - [5. Information Technologies and Digital Transformation](#5_Information_Technologies_and_Digital_Transformation) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Growing Complexity in Supply Chain Management > **Supply Chain Management (SCM)** is the coordination and management of a complex network of activities delivering a finished product to end-users or customers. The process includes sourcing raw materials and parts, manufacturing and assembling products, storage, order entry and tracking, distribution through various channels, and final delivery to the customer. Ports serve as a **[nexus](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4909 "The Port as a Nexus in Global Supply Chains")** in supply chains as they support the interaction between global supply chains and regional production and consumption markets. Global supply chains have become increasingly complex, putting pressure on the logistics industry to simultaneously improve its costs, performance, and resilience to disruptions. Logistics services that still offer value may experience a debasement and become basic services, generating only a small margin. This is especially the case for added value based on physical assets such as terminals, conveyances, and storage. Within supply chains, corporations interact with external suppliers, internal departments, external distributors, and customers. The successful management of a supply chain is influenced by a range of factors, including customer expectations, globalization, technological innovations, government regulations, competition, and sustainability concerns. ## A. Customer expectations **SCM models evolve continuously** due to influences and factors such as globalization and expansion into new markets, mass customization in response to product and market segmentation, lean manufacturing practices, and associated shifts in costs. Customer service expectations are shifting towards a demand for higher flexibility, reliability, and precision. In many industries, product innovation has become a significant competitive factor. This has led companies to compete and become the first to launch new products and technologies. As a result, average product life cycles and supply chain cycles, such as lead time, have decreased. These expectations can be assessed through a series of indicators, such as the [Logistics Performance Index](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2789 "Logistic Performance Index, 2016") developed by the World Bank. The number of products to be shipped and the shipment frequency increase, whereas batch sizes are becoming smaller. There is a growing demand from customers for make-to-order or customized products to be quickly delivered, with high reliability, and at the lowest possible cost. While costs remain an important factor in customer satisfaction, factors related to reliability are becoming central. The focus is on supply chain excellence and efficient customer service. **Skills shortages** are a recurring concern in the logistics industry as the labor force is challenged to provide an increasing array of complex and diverse services. Logistics companies are trying to recruit sufficient talent to maintain a stable workforce and provide ongoing training to enhance productivity. Considering digitalization, including in logistics, the requirement for new skill sets will further intensify this shortage. Besides, the targeted labor force might be attracted to other, higher-profile sectors. The port and logistics sectors have difficulties competing for talent. ## B. Globalization One of the main driving forces behind change in the port industry stems from globalization and the structural shift from **supply-driven to demand-driven economies**. The supply-driven economy was based on economies of scale in production, standardization, and mass consumption of standard products. This approach was scrutinized as productivity increases linked to economies of scale met their structural limits, and diversified consumer preferences began to have an impact on consumption patterns. The outcome was a shift to a more demand-driven economic system, combined with global production networks on the supply side of the market. **Multinational enterprises (MNEs)** are the key drivers of globalization. A shift has taken place from capital-intensive activities, such as the ownership and management of a large number of manufacturing sites, distribution centers, and sales outlets, toward less capital-intensive activities focusing more on developing a strong brand. Branding is a key concept that emphasizes a strong focus on customers and product innovation, while production is outsourced to a network of suppliers. MNEs are increasingly developing long-term relationships with a limited number of logistics suppliers based on co-maker partnerships. As a result, a significant number of MNEs have adopted flexible, multi-firm organizational structures on a global scale. The largest MNEs manage extensive **networks of globally dispersed inputs** where global sourcing is a major driver. However, at the customer end of the value chain, very few multinational enterprises operate globally, in the sense of having broad and deep penetration in foreign markets worldwide. Instead, they are regionally based on breadth and depth of market coverage, with most of their sales situated within their home leg of the triad, namely in North America, the European Union, or Asia. The broad geographic distribution of sourcing and production (back end) versus the less broad geographic distribution of sales (customer end) is reflected in trade patterns, supply chain management needs, and shipping requirements. ## C. Technological innovation The **streamlining of supply chains through customization and standardization** uses advances in data analytics and visibility, which collect information about the effectiveness of processes. This leads to opportunities to improve supply chains by adopting standardized practices that are effective in other sectors and tailored to a new context, such as a specific product or market. This takes the form of **digitalization strategies** involving data-driven decision support systems. Greater attention is paid to more **local and sustainable supply networks** in which transport meets expectations regarding cost and environmental efficiency. There is constant pressure to transport goods at low costs and with minimal environmental impact. To this extent, shippers expect a level of synchronization between elements of the supply chain, in which operational efficiency is supported by achieving greater convergence between physical and digital processes. **Postponed and additive manufacturing** (3D printing) is challenging existing business practices, including the demand for transport and logistics services, by shifting key considerations concerning production and distribution costs and lead times. A more significant share of manufacturing is likely to be regional, in factories designed for a specific market base, supporting a new role for logistics service providers that will offer production services and integrate them with their transport, storage, and distribution services. ## D. Regulation and competition The **changing comparative advantages** in economies like China, which are hindered by a higher cost structure across several manufacturing sectors, are prompting many supply chains to implement a “China plus one” scenario. It is expected that China will transition from an export-oriented to a consumption-driven economy, which will have a major impact on global supply chains. Combined with manufacturing risks, such as time-to-market or responsiveness, import duties, the availability of a skilled labor force, energy costs, and automation, more sub-assembly and manufacturing will relocate to other regions. More **horizontal collaboration between transport companies and logistics service providers** is required to deal with the need for shorter, more sustainable, and cost-efficient supply chains. This entails its own complexities, mainly where it concerns mutual trust concerning data-sharing protocols and the protection of competitiveness and core competencies. **Consolidation in the logistics sector** leads to a smaller number of companies that are better equipped to deploy more efficient ICT systems. The data component leverages performant and proactive service providers to transform into companies with a new outlook on logistics services. Alongside an increasing number of traditional activities being outsourced, such as transportation, warehousing, and various types of value-added services, the presence of collaboration platforms encourages service providers to develop new types of logistics services. The **security of supply** is becoming increasingly important. In particular, the resilience of the supply chain is perceived as a crucial element in addressing recurring supply chain disruptions, which are caused by both natural and anthropogenic factors. Supply chains have a growing level of redundancy built in. The outcome is increased supply chain visibility and data sharing among supply chain stakeholders. ## E. Sustainability The systematic use of **greener alternatives for logistics** was developed in response to increasing environmental pressure, including more stringent regulations and shifts in consumer behavior. This impacts the way ports operate and how they are linked, which is associated with a re-engineering of supply chains. This results in the development of hubs and corridors along which new supply chain networks are developed. Corporations are adapting their business models to include sustainability criteria into their procurement and operations, which impacts the related supply chains through the setting up of Green Supply Chain Management strategies. > **Green Supply Chain Management** (GSCM) is a business model that integrates environmental concerns into the inter-organizational practices of SCM. GSCM has gained increased attention within the industry as a strategy for integrating environmentally sustainable choices into supply chain management practices. The growing visibility of GSCM goes hand in hand with public concerns about environmental issues, such as climate change, non-renewable resources, waste disposal, and the emission of pollutants by the logistics sector. Adding a green component to supply chain management involves understanding the complex relationships between the sector and the environment. The main idea behind GSCM is to reduce environmental impacts by focusing on a series of supply chain strategies known as the five ‘Rs’: Reduce, Re-use, Recycle, Remanufacture, and Reverse logistics. The fields of action in GSCM include product design, process design and engineering, procurement and purchasing, production, energy use and mix, and logistics (distribution and transportation). This perspective is commonly articulated around the concept of the **circular economy**. An essential part of the success of the circular economy hinges on how logistics will enable the transparency needed to set up efficient and integrated, fully circular supply chain networks. In addition to the physical aspect of integrating supply chain flows to maximize circular economy opportunities, the end-to-end integration of supply chain processes is also crucial. Thus, the circular economy presents new opportunities for shipping and logistics service providers, challenging them to collaborate with industry stakeholders. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_nexus_supply_chains.png?resize=900%2C397&ssl=1 "The Port as a Nexus in Global Supply Chains | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Port as a Nexus in Global Supply Chains![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-LPI-2023.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Logistic Performance Index, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Logistic Performance Index 2023![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/sustainability_dimensions_maritime_industry.png?resize=900%2C443&ssl=1 "Sustainability Dimensions in the Maritime Transport Industry | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Sustainability Dimensions in the Maritime Transport Industry# 2. Improving Competitiveness ## A. Operating margins and cost control The developments in supply chain management are taking place in a logistics market that usually involves low margins. It can be characterized as a buyers’ market, giving shippers and cargo owners an advantage over the sellers of logistical services in price negotiations. Logistics service providers are usually price takers. The logistics tendering practices of shippers add to the **pressure on operating margins**. The buyer’s market stems from the law of supply and demand where downward pressure on prices is associated with supply increases amid a constant demand. Competition in the marketplace exists between sellers (i.e., the logistics service providers), who often must engage in a price war to entice buyers (i.e., shippers) to use their services. The resulting [low margins](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3109 "Increasing margins through service customization and complexity") force market players such as logistics service providers, terminal operators, shipping lines, and land transport operators to focus on cost control. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/margins_service.png?resize=900%2C295&ssl=1 "Increasing Margins through Service Customization and Complexity | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Increasing margins through service customization and complexityAlthough logistics costs differ between corporations, they generally include transportation, labor, storage, inventory carrying, and administrative costs. Logistics costs largely depend on the nature of the goods, with bulky goods usually having a higher cost structure. The possibility of achieving a lower cost base can be negatively affected by a broad range of factors, such as the volatility of resource and fuel costs and delays caused by complex regulations governing international trade, weather circumstances, or technical problems. In general terms, cost control entails specific actions over a variety of operational fields: - **Optimal use of resources**. The underuse of key assets, such as conveyances (ships, vehicles) or warehousing facilities, directly affects the cost base and operating margins. By optimizing asset utilization, market players can enhance their business efficiency, as the same asset yields a higher return. - **Fleet size and service network size increase**. This approach conveys benefits from economies of scale and scope, particularly in the container shipping market. - **Consolidated shipments and cargo bundling**. These actions teduce the cost per unit transported since economies of scale are applied to the cargo unit. - **Single integrated platform**. An IT platform accessible to involved parties to avoid time-consuming and inefficient duplication of activities and processes across operations. - **Outsourcing versus vertical integration**. In some cases, cargo owners can save costs by outsourcing some of their supply chain operations. In other cases, extending the reach of activities through a vertical integration process can bring higher margins. Logistics service providers might use outsourcing to lower their cost base, particularly for functions that have limited margins that can be easily replicated. This outsourcing strategy is not without risk, as value-enhancing activities could be outsourced. - **Supply chain visibility**. This approach results in more efficient planning and lower operating costs by better managing mobile and fixed logistics assets. Although it is impossible to predict or prevent disruptions in the logistics process, proper supply chain visibility provides better insight into such issues. Using real-time dashboards that refresh data automatically provides supply chain managers and financial executives with the most current and relevant information. - **Labor inputs for logistics operations**. Labor Management Software systems combined with specific labor-related Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and incentive-based human resources practices help corporations efficiently manage and motivate personnel. - **Asset and process automation**. For some corporations, logistics costs can be reduced by automating assets such as equipment, vehicles, warehouse management systems, and yard operations. Regulating, automating, and optimizing manual processes offer opportunities to reduce staff requirements, centralize operations to lower-cost areas, and create a more proactive approach to ensuring customer satisfaction. - **Collaboration and partnership with suppliers**. Helps reduce costs by allowing partners to focus on their respective comparative advantages over processes and markets. Suppliers can sometimes absorb direct logistics costs. ## B. Cost leadership and differentiation strategies At a more strategic level, logistics companies are challenged to design **business models** that ensure their competitiveness and growth. In an efficiency-oriented market environment, customers may choose to purchase from one company rather than another because the service price is lower than that of competitors, or the customer perceives the service to provide better-added value or benefits. However, these are broad generalizations, as efficiency-oriented companies in the logistics, port, and maritime industries aim to achieve a competitive advantage by either cost leadership or differentiation. **Cost leadership** implies that market players try to achieve a competitive advantage by becoming low-cost logistics service providers. A **[differentiation strategy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3114 "Cost leadership and differentiation")** aims to provide specific services in market niches distinct from those offered by competitors, thereby offering greater value to customers. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cost_leadership_differentiation.png?resize=900%2C572&ssl=1 "Cost Leadership and Differentiation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cost Leadership and DifferentiationA corporation aiming to achieve a competitive advantage by reducing prices is likely to be followed by competitors, with the risk of lower margins across the industry and an inability to reinvest to develop services for the long term. Therefore, a low-cost or **cost leadership strategy** requires: 1. A **low-cost base** that competitors cannot effectively match. 2. A **market segment** in which low prices are important. Sustaining a low price advantage is challenging, and cost leadership is very difficult to achieve. Cost advantages typically stem from specific competencies driving down costs throughout the value chain, such as economies of scale and scope, market power, buying power, and gaining from operational experience (curve effects). It may be possible to substantially reduce operational costs by outsourcing provisioning or by carefully examining the missing capabilities and competencies in parts of the value chain. A large part of the logistics industry traditionally thrived on low-cost strategies. Conventional transport operators function as the last segment in outsourcing, delivering basic services (i.e. trucking) with little room for service differentiation. Low margins and fierce competition, combined with the high customer bargaining power, prevent these operators from increasing their revenue base. **Differentiation strategies** aim to achieve a higher market share than competitors (which yields cost benefits) by offering better products or services at the same price or enhanced margins by pricing slightly higher. Differentiation comes in many forms: 1. **Uniqueness or improvements in services**. Through R&D or by building on the innovative capabilities of the company. 2. **Marketing-based approaches**. To underline the value of services to the customer. 3. **Competency-based approaches**. This form attempts to establish differentiation based on its competencies, which are difficult for competitors to replicate. If the aim is sustainable differentiation, there is little point in striving to be different if others can imitate quickly. The most important resources and capabilities for a company are durable, difficult to identify and understand, imperfectly transferable, and not easily replicable. Resources for which a corporation possesses clear ownership and control (e.g., patents) are among the most valuable differentiation factors. Companies in the logistics industry can build a sustainable **competitive advantage** by leveraging their core competencies. The prime resources of the company consist of physical assets such as equipment and locations, human resources such as the workforce, management team, experience and training, and organizational resources associated with the corporate culture. These need to be transformed into capabilities, often through the diffusion of corporate knowledge across offices. In time, new core competencies emerge, representing the fundamental strengths of the corporation. While following a **differentiation strategy**, high margins might be achieved by offering tailor-made and highly complex services. However, this requires the corporation to understand what is valued by customers and to have a better sense of and response to customer needs. As customer needs change, a corporation following a differentiation strategy may need to review these strategies continuously. A clear sign of an effective differentiation strategy is the continuity of good profit margins and the difficulty competitors have in keeping up. A logistics company following a differentiation strategy might create an environment in which the **actual or perceived cost for a buyer of changing the source of supply of a service is high**. In these circumstances, the customer may depend on the supplier for specific services, or the benefits of switching to another supplier may not be worth the cost or risk. A port or maritime shipping company that offers unique and integrated tailor-made services to its customers has more chances of limiting the footloose behavior of that customer and, as such, increases customer loyalty. If a company succeeds in becoming an industry standard, other businesses typically have to conform to that standard to remain competitive. In following a differentiation strategy, corporations have to choose between a broad differentiation strategy across a **specific market or a focused strategy**. New ventures often start in a very focused market. Maintaining a highly focused strategy might not be feasible in the long run, as customers might not be willing to pay a higher price. Therefore, corporations might opt at a specific moment to lower the price while maintaining differentiating features (i.e., a move towards a “normal” differentiation strategy). A hybrid approach might be advantageous as an entry strategy in a market with established competitors. The aim is then to acquire a market share and establish a foothold from which to move further. A hybrid strategy is often of a temporary nature as many corporations shift to a follow-through strategy after some time to increase margins. # 3. The Role of Third-Party Logistics Services Innovative corporations are taking a broader view of the business segments they seek to control and manage. As the ambition of global corporations often exceeds their capability and resources, outsourcing of logistics functions can be an important strategic option. **Outsourcing** enables a producer to transform fixed costs into variable costs, freeing internal resources for investments in core activities. Four basic forms of outsourcing can be distinguished concerning supply chain management: - **Outsourcing of the production of components**. Large production units are replaced by a network of suppliers organized on a global or local scale (global sourcing and local sourcing). Global corporations increasingly develop long-term relationships with a limited number of suppliers on the basis of mutual trust (co-makership). - **Outsourcing of Value-Added Logistics (VAL)**. Implies that the production and distribution parts of a supply chain become truly integrated. For example, production companies in the high-tech industry are increasingly outsourcing logistics services for their products to distribution centers located near consumer markets. As such, a large part of the value creation in the supply chain is transferred to logistics service providers. VAL might even include secondary manufacturing activities, such as system assembly, testing, and software installation. - **Outsourcing of transportation, warehousing, and distribution**. Third-party transportation is already widespread, but warehousing and distribution activities have also become key outsourcing businesses. The observed outsourcing trend encourages logistics service providers to engage in supply chain management. - **Re-engineering of supply chain processes**. This includes customer order management, procurement, production planning, and distribution, typically resulting in collaborative networks with logistics partners to enhance performance. Increasing customer demands drive the **3PL (Third Party Logistics) **service industry**** forward. > A **3PL** is an asset-based company that offers logistics and supply chain management services to its customers (manufacturers and retailers). It commonly owns assets such as distribution centers and transport modes. The need for a wider array of global services, including integrated capabilities (design, build, and operate), triggered a shift from transportation-based 3PLs to warehousing and distribution providers. At the same time, this trend opened the market to innovative forms of non-asset-based logistics service providers, leading to the development of **4PL (Fourth Party Logistics)**. > A **4PL** is a supply chain integrator that assembles and manages organizational resources, capabilities, and technology with complementary service providers to deliver a comprehensive supply chain solution. The competence of 4PLs lies in selecting, linking, and bundling service providers and aligning concerned stakeholders in the supply chain. Whereas a 3PL service provider typically invests in warehouses and transport assets, a 4PL service provider restricts its scope to IT-based supply chain design. Consultants and IT firms help 3PLs and 4PLs expand into new markets and become full-service logistics providers. Notwithstanding the emergence of non-asset-based 4PLs, the role of 3PLs in logistics markets remains strong. Hence, asset-based [full-service providers increasingly develop their own IT control systems](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/layers-maritime-logistics-services/ "Layers to Maritime Logistics Services"). Moreover, many logistics users prefer to maintain control of their supply chain design in-house, rather than being dependent on 4PLs, primarily to maintain their added value. ![Layers to Maritime Logistics Services](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/layers_logistics_services2.png?resize=900%2C531&ssl=1 "Layers to Maritime Logistics Services | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Layers to Maritime Logistics Services# 4. Functional Integration in the Logistics Industry The logistics industry is subject to various forms of integration, aiming to improve its scale, scope, and market reach. Functional integration involves horizontal consolidation and vertical integration strategies, creating a logistics market consisting of a [wide variety of service providers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2876 "Functional Integration of Maritime Supply Chains") ranging from megacarriers to local niche operators. Not only does the geographic coverage of the players differ (from global to local), but major differences can also be observed in **focus** (generalist versus specialist), the **service offering** (from single service to one-stop-shop), and **asset orientation** (asset-based versus non-asset-based). ## A. Vertical integration Globalization and outsourcing open new windows of opportunity for shipping lines, forwarders, terminal operators, and other logistics service providers and transport operators. Manufacturers are seeking comprehensive global logistics solutions, rather than just shipping or forwarding. Global logistics is the dominant paradigm where most transport chains have responded by providing new value-added services in an integrated package through **vertical integration along supply chains**. The level of **vertical integration** has increased in the past decades. In a conventional situation, the majority of logistics activities were performed by different entities ranging from maritime shipping lines, shipping and customs agents, freight forwarders, and rail and trucking companies. Regulations often prevented multimodal ownership, leaving the system fragmented. With an increasing level of functional integration, many intermediate steps in the transport chain have been removed. Mergers and acquisitions among companies performing specific functions in the supply chains have permitted the emergence of large logistics operators that control many segments of the supply chain. The term megacarrier refers to a highly integrated logistics service provider, such as a 3PL or 4PL. These corporations can, in principle, meet the requirements of many shippers to have a single point of contact on a regional or even global level, known as a one-stop shop. Technology has also played a significant role in this process, specifically in IT (process control), intermodal integration, and synchromodality (flow control). Vertical integration increases competition between corporations with different core businesses. For example, a railway company getting involved in global logistics (e.g. DB Schenker) becomes a competitor of established logistics service providers. A shipping line entering the terminal operator business engages in a competitive relationship with independent terminal operators unless some form of partnership is formed. As such, vertical integration leads to overlaps in the **activity portfolio of corporations**, particularly when they share the ambition to become ‘one-stop shops’ in global logistics. While vertical integration serves as a business model in the logistics and transport market, external economic shocks and poor market conditions can swing the pendulum towards de-integration. For example, the financial and economic crisis of 2008-2009 forced several corporations to reassess their vertical integration strategies in order to secure sufficient liquidity for their core activities. In some cases, this led to divestment and a re-focus on core activities. ## B. Horizontal integration Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) shape the contemporary business environment, not only between different types of corporations (**vertical integration**) but also between corporations involved in the same type of activity or core business (**horizontal integration**). Several waves of horizontal integration activity have led to a high level of market consolidation in the logistics industry. Many of the [top 3PL companies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/largest-third-party-logistics/ "World’s Largest Third-Party Logistics Providers, 2019") were involved in large-scale M&A activities. M&A activity is driven not only by corporations seeking takeover candidates but also by the need to enhance competitiveness and long-term survival. In addition, corporations that have decided to divest aspects of their portfolio are, as a consequence, looking for buyers. The logistics challenges emerging from mergers and acquisitions include the proliferation of customer service policies across multiple, overlapping distribution networks and infrastructure overcapacity. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/functional_integration_supply_chains.png?resize=900%2C581&ssl=1 "Functional Integration of Maritime Supply Chains | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Functional Integration of Maritime Supply Chains![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/world_3PL.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "World’s Largest Third-Party Logistics Providers, 2019 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Largest Third Party Logistics Providers 2019![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/vertical_horizontal_integration_port2.png?resize=900%2C519&ssl=1 "Vertical and Horizontal Integration in Port Development | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Vertical and Horizontal Integration in Port Development## C. E-fulfilment and E-commerce The rise of 4PLs and related online players triggered a whole range of e-market business models with proper functionalities, often with mixed success. Acquiring critical mass seems to be the main obstacle. The e-business environment creates **new distribution requirements** in terms of e-fulfillment. The growth of e-fulfillment and e-commerce affected B2B (business-to-business) activity and boosted online transactions at the levels of B2C (business-to-consumer), C2B (consumer-to-business), and C2C (consumer-to-consumer). E-commerce increasingly shapes how people shop for goods. It has become an important tool for small and large businesses worldwide, not only for selling to customers but also for engaging them through efficient delivery services. Information system quality, service quality, and user satisfaction are key in this respect. E-commerce offers more opportunities to reach out to customers worldwide and cut down unnecessary intermediate links, reducing the cost price. The vast amount of customer-related data allows e-commerce firms to achieve a high degree of personalization and targeted marketing. Data integrity and (cyber)security are pressing issues for the e-commerce market. The growth of e-fulfillment and e-commerce activity has significant implications for supply chain management practices. Online markets and retailers have developed new strategies and distribution channels to fulfill orders and deliver products through specialized distribution centers and networks, which differ from traditional distribution channels and systems. Small companies usually control their logistics operation because they do not have the ability to hire a third party. Most large corporations hire a fulfillment service that takes care of their logistics requirements. However, since the 2010s, large e-commerce firms, such as [Amazon and Alibaba](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1787), have developed a keen interest in controlling e-commerce logistics. The volume they command is starting to have notable impacts on [port-centric logistics systems](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/amazon-inbound-cross-dock/ "Amazon Inbound Cross Dock Facilities Network") in a manner similar to the strategies pursued by major retailers. ![Amazon and Alibaba in logistics](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/largest_ecommerce_corporations.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Largest E-Commerce Corporations by Revenue, 2019 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Amazon and Alibaba in logistics ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/amazon_idx.png?resize=900%2C560&ssl=1 "Amazon Inbound Cross Dock Facilities Network | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Amazon Inbound Cross Dock Facilities Network# 5. Information Technologies and Digital Transformation Outsourcing logistics activities in a wide variety of economic sectors has led to a surge in 3PL and the creation of very large logistics groups. Supply chains need to be supported by a wide range of **advanced communication tools** and robust, reliable, and cost-effective transportation networks to be set up and operated by IT-supported logistics service providers. Competition between logistics service providers is no longer limited to services for cargo flows. Advanced services in managing information flows are key to gaining a competitive advantage. These advanced services are increasingly aimed at offering supply chain visibility to customers in terms of reliability through advanced tracking and tracing, environmental impact measurement (e.g. carbon footprint calculator), security risks, and related event management. In particular, modern IT systems are geared towards improving channel visibility in three core areas: - **Improved product flow visibility**. Achieved through real-time information presented based on user needs, with the ability to re-plan and re-direct product flows. - **Event management**. Forecasts events with real-time information and generates proactive notifications, including those related to delays. - **Performance management**. Supported by quantitative carrier and asset performance data, performance accountability, and continuous performance improvement opportunities. Supply chains are evolving towards an **open global logistics system** founded on physical, digital, and operational interconnectivity through encapsulation, interfaces, and protocol design. It aims to move, store, realize, supply, and use physical objects throughout the world in an economically, environmentally, socially efficient, and sustainable manner. It will require the standardization of internationally recognized consignment codes to facilitate communication throughout the physical chain. The various transport systems and IT platforms are beginning to integrate horizontally and vertically, forming an open IT infrastructure for the logistics sector. In other words, the globally independently developed logistics networks will have to be connected, enabling shippers to have an overall view. The streamlining of supply chains and the advances in data analytics put increasing pressure on **traditional freight forwarders**. New technology can place freight forwarders at risk of obsolescence, as forwarding can rapidly transition to a digital form, with online sales, instant orders, and automated processes. This is particularly the case for the spot business and basic port-to-port transport, which are entry points for e-forwarding. At the same time, shippers get better information using Big Data solutions and e-marketplaces. This will result in higher rate transparency and better visibility of liner service schedules, shipment service attributes, overall performances, and equipment availability. Intermediary forwarding agents are at the highest risk from new technology providers or business models unless they adapt, such as when offering supply chain visibility. Differentiation and cost optimization can be achieved through **improved online customer experience and automation**. Major freight forwarders and third-party logistics providers thus have the responsibility to develop innovative new booking and logistics platforms in order to mitigate potential threats coming from within or outside the logistics sector. New technology-driven companies, particularly those within the e-commerce space, are likely to enter or have already entered the transportation and logistics arena, giving them a competitive edge or a chance to bring new models to the market. Forwarders are challenged to opt for **collaborative technology-driven networks,** and freight forwarders need to recruit new talent outside of the logistics sector, including from IT-driven potential disruptors. Integrating new business approaches and models in the relatively conservative freight forwarding businesses requires new perspectives. The small and mid-size shipper, spot shipment, and LCL (less than container load) segments have digitalized extensively through web-based forwarding services (from instant quote and booking, up to payment) as well as **online sales platforms** that dynamically push public and customer-specific rates. These platforms may only target and penetrate specific markets where a certain degree of automation can be achieved. Customer profiling and market segmentation will be at the core of the business model of these online sales channels. Large shippers will have access to more procurement options, benchmarking, and insight capabilities. Large exporters and importers will continue to tender their sea freight (port-to-port or port-to-rail ramp) and land transport directly to their core carriers and through their forwarders for part of their volumes. This practice will be available to many at a lower transactional cost with more flexibility using tailored e-tools. **E-forwarding and spot procurement** will complement traditional contract-based procurement channels. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 1.3 Ports and Container Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1532) - [Chapter 1.4 Ports and Distribution Networks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3020) - [Chapter 2.4 Digital Transformation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=953) - [Chapter 2.5 Green Supply Chain Management in Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2500) - [Chapter 8.4 Containers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2346) --- ## References - Arvis, J-F, M.A. Mustra, L. Ojala, B. Shepherd and D. Saslavsky (2012) Connecting to Compete 2012 Trade Logistics in the Global Economy, Washington, DC: The World Bank. - Mangan, J., C. Lalwani, and A. Calatayud (2020) Global Logistics and Supply Chain Management, Fourth Edition, New York: Wiley. - Notteboom, T., Neyens, K. (2017) The future of port logistics: meeting the challenges of supply chain integration, ING Bank, 87 p. - Notteboom, T., Van der Lugt, L., Van Saase, N., Sel, S., Neyens, K. (2020) The role of seaports in Green Supply Chain Management: initiatives, attitudes and perspectives in Rotterdam, Antwerp, North Sea Port and Zeebrugge, Sustainability, 12, 1688 <https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041688> - Notteboom, T., Winkelmans, W. (2001) Structural changes in logistics: how will port authorities face the challenge ?, Maritime Policy and Management, 28 (1), 71-89 - Robinson, R. (2002) Ports as Elements in Value-Driven Chain Systems: The New Paradigm”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 241-255. - Verschuur, J., Koks, E.E. & Hall, J.W. (2022) “Ports’ criticality in international trade and global supply-chains” Nat Commun 13, 4351 (2022). <https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32070-0> - Sweeney, E. and Waters, D (2021). Global Logistics: New Directions in Supply Chain Management. 8th Edition, London: Kogan Page. - World Bank (2014) Connecting to Compete: Trade Logistics in the Global Economy, Washington, DC: The World Bank. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Potential Impacts of Interoceanic Passages and Canals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/potential-impacts-interoceanic-passages-canals/) **Published:** December 27, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/impacts_interoceanic_passages.png?resize=900%2C477&ssl=1 "Potential Impacts of Interoceanic Passages and Canals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Potential Impacts of Interoceanic Passages and CanalsThe setting or expansion of interoceanic passages and canals can have three types of interdependent impacts. - **Operational impacts**. Relate to the characteristics of the passage in terms of capacity, reliability, and transit time, all of which are linked to its usage costs. The first and most salient impact involves [reducing the aggregate shipping distance](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=1211), commonly the main rationale behind canal construction. Because of their technical characteristics, passages such as Panama and Suez define [ship classes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2569 "Tanker Sizes and Classes") and operational conditions for the global maritime transport system. Technical improvements (e.g., widening, dredging) usually result in lower unit costs for maritime shipping, particularly since better economies of scale can be achieved. However, these lower costs must be considered by the toll structure in place for the passage. - **Substitution impacts**. Relate to the impacts on existing trade flows, particularly due to the comparative operational improvements and lower transport costs along maritime routes. Cargo that is used to transit through specific routes (such as [landbridges](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=7244)) can be diverted to take advantage of the improved cost structure of the passage. This also results in changes to the configuration of maritime shipping networks, with greater convergence among these routes. The location of [transshipment hubs](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1620 "World’s Main Intermediate Hubs and Markets, 2008-14") along these routes may also change. - **Induced impacts**. Relate to the impacts on new economic and commercial opportunities. Improved operations and lower transport costs commonly result in expanded or new trade relations among regions experiencing the most significant cost reductions. This expanded trade results in higher utilization levels of the passage, inciting the setting of transshipment hubs nearby as well as logistics zones, providing added value to more complex and diversified trade. Commercial actors indirectly react to operational changes in interoceanic passages. Since these impacts affect only one element in all the considerations behind a commercial transaction (e.g., transport costs, sourcing strategies, resource costs, labor costs), it is difficult to extract the specific contribution of an improvement for maritime shipping and the logistics chains they service. Actors such as importers, exporters, manufacturers, and retailers make decisions based on a complex and multivariate set of factors. Maritime shipping companies accommodate the derived demand generated by these decisions. In the short term, the most powerful factor is usually the derived demand for economic activities on transportation. However, the induced impacts are starting to play a more significant role in the long term since they have retroactively impacted the derived demand. For instance, a maritime shipping company offering higher capacity and lower transport costs will likely trigger induced impacts. Only significant operational changes (lower costs and/or shorter routes) will have relatively immediate impacts. Marginal improvements usually pan themselves out over longer time periods and are difficult to notice. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/potential-impacts-interoceanic-passages-canals/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/potential-impacts-interoceanic-passages-canals/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/potential-impacts-interoceanic-passages-canals/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/potential-impacts-interoceanic-passages-canals/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 7.1 - Cruise Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/) **Published:** February 2, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > The global cruise industry, one of the most dynamic sectors of both seagoing transportation and tourism, offers a combination of local destinations accessible through the cruise port and onboard amenities offered by the cruise ships. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Evolution of Cruise Shipping](#1_Evolution_of_Cruise_Shipping) - [2. Growth Drivers](#2_Growth_Drivers) - [3. Vessels and Onboard Amenities](#3_Vessels_and_Onboard_Amenities) - [4. Scale and Market Segmentation](#4_Scale_and_Market_Segmentation) - [5. Globalization of Deployment Patterns](#5_Globalization_of_Deployment_Patterns) - [6. Diversification of Source Markets](#6_Diversification_of_Source_Markets) - [7. Market Concentration and Multi-brand Strategies](#7_Market_Concentration_and_Multi-brand_Strategies) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Evolution of Cruise Shipping > A cruise is an itinerary followed by a specialized ship for leisure purposes. A cruise includes at least one night on board a seagoing vessel having a capacity of at least 49 passengers. Transportation (the cruise ship) is the core element of the experience instead of a simple conveyance. Cruise shipping was first established to transport pleasure-seeking upper-class travelers on seagoing vessels, offering one or more ports of call in the United States and the Caribbean. From the mid-19th century, **liner services** supported long-distance passenger transportation between continents, particularly between [Europe and North America](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2135). The need to accommodate a large number of passengers of different socioeconomic statuses for at least a week led to the emergence of specific ship designs radically different from cargo ships, where speed and comfort (at least for the elite) were paramount. The concept of cruising emerged in the early 20th century, when a few custom-designed ships or converted cargo vessels began offering luxury cruises to individuals willing to pay the fare. Launched in 1900, the [S.S. Prinzessin Victoria Luise](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/the-first-ever-cruise-vessel-s-s-prinzessin-victoria-1900/), a HAPAG ship, is credited with having been the first purpose-built cruise ship. Seasonal itineraries were designed to keep the ships used, covering Norway and the Baltic in the summer and the Mediterranean and the Caribbean in the winter. The rapid growth of the modern cruise industry can be traced to the [demise of the ocean liner](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=1283) in the 1960s, as it was replaced by fast jet services, making liner services uncompetitive. For instance, the introduction of the Boeing 747 in 1970 offered a transatlantic service that could carry 400 passengers in about 8 hours, while it took liners about 4 days. Assuming two transatlantic trips per day, the same jet plane could carry 3,200 passengers, while a liner could carry 2,000 passengers during the same period. The last liners became the first cruise ships, following the complete demise of liner passenger services, as it was realized that air transport assumed long-distance travel. The availability of a fleet of liners whose utility was no longer commercially viable led to their reconversion into the first fleets of cruise ships. For example, one of the last purposefully designed liners, the SS France, served as a cruise ship (SS Norway) between 1980 and 2003. However, liners were not particularly suitable for the requirements of the emerging cruise industry. Since they were designed to operate on the North Atlantic for scheduled passenger services throughout the year, their outdoor amenities, such as boardwalks and swimming pools, were limited in scope. Additionally, they were built for speed (which was their trademark) with the related high fuel consumption levels. The modern cruise industry was, to a certain extent, pioneered in Greece by Epirotiki Lines in the mid-1950s. Its expansion strategy was constrained by demand limits in the East Mediterranean market, leading to the addition of Caribbean itineraries as an alternative. The founding of Norwegian Cruise Line (1966), Royal Caribbean International (1968), and Carnival Cruise Lines (1972), which have remained the largest cruise lines, along with the presence of a major passenger source market, led to a rapid focus on the United States and the Caribbean. This affluent market provided the foundation for the remarkable growth and expansion of the cruise industry. During the same period, refurbished liners offered cruises in Eastern Europe, the Black Sea, and the Baltic Sea [during the Soviet era](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruises-soviet-period/). In the 21st century, following uninterrupted growth and modernization, cruise shipping offers itineraries in a **global network of regional itineraries and local destinations** accessible through cruise ports, with their features and associated transportation and tourist services being as important as onboard amenities. The cruise industry combines maritime transportation, travel, and tourism services, offering leisure activities to passengers who pay for an itinerary and other onboard services. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ss_france1.jpg?resize=776%2C550&ssl=1 "One of the Last Liners, SS France (1969) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Cruise-Activities-in-Eastern-Europe-pre-1989.png?resize=382%2C442&ssl=1 "Cruise Lines offering Cruises in Eastern Europe in the Soviet Era (1945-1989) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")![Prinzessin Victoria](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Prinzessin-Victoria-Luise.jpg?resize=900%2C759&ssl=1 "The First Cruise Vessel: S.S. Prinzessin Victoria (1900) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Since the late 1970s, the **globalization of the cruise industry** has necessitated the expansion and significant adjustment to the approximately 600 ports. Its [global growth rate](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1397) has been enduring despite economic cycles of growth and recessions, and seemed unstoppable until the COVID-19 pandemic emerged as the first major setback in nearly half a century. Before that major event, cruise growth had recorded remarkable resilience, facing economic, social, political, or other crises that regularly challenge the shipping and tourism sectors. In 2000, 7.2 million people took a cruise. Only 3.8 million people had done so in 1990. In 2004, this number exceeded the 10 million passengers threshold. While the global financial crisis of 2008-2009 had a major impact on ocean-going cargo shipping, cruise shipping, and ports continued to experience steadily rising passenger numbers. Stagnation did not occur even when, in 2012, the Costa Concordia grounding generated negative public relations or through minor incidents on cruise ships operated by leading firms. Environmental and social challenges (i.e., emissions) seemingly could not undermine the operating context and growth prospects. However, after the financial crisis of 2008-09, growth rates were relatively lower than in the 1990s and the first half of the 2000s. In 2019, more than 28 million passengers cruised worldwide. In early 2020, some of the first cases of COVID-19 were reported on cruise ships in East Asia. Three cruise ship voyages generated more than 800 confirmed cases among passengers and crew. By March 2020, cruises were halted worldwide due to a public health crisis that imposed isolation and social distancing. The whole industry voluntarily suspended operations, with the timing and return conditions remaining questionable. Later in the same year, a second wave of the pandemic led to a further postponement of cruise calls in most world ports, indicating that 2020 was a lost year for the industry. Cruises began to restart in the summer of 2021, applying new protocols for responses to sanitary crises. By mid-2022, most cruise markets were back to regularly offered services. Following the restart, occupancy rates remained low, as did the average duration of cruises. However, this did not last long. By 2023, the number of single persons who cruise per year had already surpassed the pre-pandemic level, exceeding the 31 million threshold for the first time. In 2024, a record 34.6 million people boarded a cruise vessel, with the 40 million passenger threshold expected to be surpassed by 2027. The global growth in passenger volume is driven by strong double-digit growth in North America, a recovery of the Asian and Oceania markets, which were primarily affected by the pandemic and the slow reopening of the economy and relevant activities, and a dynamic South American market. On the other hand, the pace of growth in Europe has been comparatively slower. The Caribbean/Bahamas/Bermuda is the major destination region (14.98 million cruise passengers in 2024), and the Mediterranean is the second (5.77 million passengers). At the beginning of 2025, the cruise fleet consisted of over 450 vessels, sailing for 90 brands worldwide. The estimated sales revenue, based on the average revenue generated by cruisers for the major cruise lines in 2023, was approximately $2,202 per cruise passenger. The worldwide market share taken by the North American market was 56%, and that of the European market was 32%. Asia had a notably lower share than before the 2020 crisis. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/global_cruise_passengers.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Global Cruise Passengers Carried and Growth Rates, 1990-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Cruise Passengers Carried and Growth Rates 1990 2024![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Cruise_Mediterranean_Visits-1.png?resize=900%2C526&ssl=1 "Cruise Passengers Visits, Mediterranean, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Passengers Visits Mediterranean 2023Traditionally, cruise statistics (i.e. collected by cruise lines) have counted the number of **onboard guests**, measuring market size by the number of persons who decide to take a cruise each year. This can be misleading, as it underestimates the size of operations and the importance of the market for the port industry and the respective destinations. Each passenger embarks on a cruise to visit between 4.6 and 5.2 cruise ports. As a result, the total number of cruise passenger movements hosted is **remarkably higher than that of single passengers**. Driven by industry trends, a ship with a capacity of 4,000 passengers on an annualized 50-week deployment in a standard seven-day itinerary of six ports (one homeport, five transit ports) in the West Mediterranean market, and excluding any effect of inter-porting (i.e., the infrequent case of passengers boarding at an intermediary port), generates 1.4 million passenger movements per year. 40 million people taking a cruise generated more than 220 million passenger movements in cruise ports worldwide. Thus, **cruise passenger movements** are a key metric that matters most for cruise ports and are increasingly used in related industry reports. # 2. Growth Drivers Several trends shape the cruise market as drivers of growth: - **Expansion and capture of revenue streams**. This involves regular fleet renewal, offering **expanded onboard amenities** and shore-based excursions (shorex). The cruise ship has become an integral part of the cruise experience, as it also serves as a destination in its own right. - **Upscale of cruise ship size**. The principle of economies of scale and the development of a broader customer base have led to the deployment of larger cruise ships. While in the 1990s, cruise ships rarely exceeded 2,000 passengers, by the 2010s, ships of 6,000 passengers were being deployed. Additionally, larger ships can support a broader range of amenities and generate additional onboard revenue. - **Market segmentation**. Cruise lines offer different types of vessels associated with amenities offered onboard and ashore, with cruises targeting different (social and age) groups of potential cruisers. An emerging market is concerned with river cruises, which feature specially designed ships. - **Globalization of deployment patterns**. Sophisticated itinerary planning through the deployment of cruise vessels in multiple world markets. First, cruise lines offer itineraries where the whole is essentially greater than the sum of its parts. Specific regional and cultural experiences are being offered through a combination of sailing time and choice of ports of call. Second, they adapt to seasonal and fundamental changes in demand by repositioning their ships (seasonal) and changing the configuration of their port calls (fundamental). A core strategy of some cruise lines is not to offer fixed itineraries across seasons, but to regularly relocate their cruise vessels from one region to another for specific periods of the calendar year, which requires the repositioning of cruise ships. - **Internationalization and diversification**. The passenger source markets have expanded and diversified, appealing to travelers across all age groups. Cruise lines are developing strategies that lead to an expansion of their guest sources. This is also linked to expanding the population groups attracted by modern cruises, including an increasing **[interest of younger generations in cruising](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/generations-of-cruise-passengers/)**. - **Concentration** **and multi-brand strategies**. The industry has a high level of ownership and market concentration, with each conglomerate operating multiple brands to expand its target passenger groups. Carnival and Royal Caribbean, the two leading cruise conglomerations, account for 73% of the market. These six trends underline a unique foundation of the cruise industry. The industry operates through a sophisticated business model that typically involves constructing ships in countries that offer favorable export credit financing, recruiting crew members primarily from low-cost labor markets, and targeting passengers in the most profitable and stable regions. Simultaneously, cruise offerings are being upgraded and diversified to appeal to a broader range of consumer preferences. Whether travelers seek sun and relaxation, cultural exploration, adventure in remote wilderness areas, or to check items off a personal bucket list, the industry offers a wide array of options. These range from large to small ships and span multiple price points, often delivering experiences that offer value unmatched by land-based vacations. The **supply push strategy** of cruise operators aims to create demand by providing new capacity (ships) and attracting customers, referred to as guests, to fill them through itinerary planning, marketing, and discounting. This strategy has been successful, as it is associated with capacity occupancy in **[longer-duration cruises](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/average-cruise-duration/), [increased passenger spending](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/revenue-expenses-average-cruiser/),** and a growing **[interest among younger generations in cruising](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/generations-of-cruise-passengers/)**. The ability of cruise ship operators to successfully follow a supply push strategy makes the cruise industry quite different from other shipping markets, such as container shipping. This is counter to the tourism sector in general, which is highly demand-derived and sensitive to the general economic context. Hence, in most shipping markets, shipping activity is trade-derived activity, and demand is relatively inelastic in terms of price. Demand in the cruise business is created through **pricing**, **branding**, and **marketing**. Cruise operators are challenged to develop competitive cruise packages that offer a high-quality stay onboard, an array of shore-based activities providing access to diverse cultures and sites, and seamless transfers from the vessel. Most cruise lines have a logistics office responsible for supplying ships, particularly food, which is a core amenity. Variation in preferences is observed depending on the itinerary, the composition of passengers, including factors such as origin and age. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/average_cruise_duration.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Average Cruise Duration | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Average Cruise Duration days![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/average_cruise_passenger_generation.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Cruise Passenger Generation Groups | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Generation of Cruise Passengers![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Three-Pilars-of-Cruising.png?resize=900%2C533&ssl=1 "The Three Pilars of Cruising | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Three Pillars of CruisingCruise holidays, especially ocean cruises, consistently receive the highest satisfaction ratings compared to other vacation types, such as resort packages. In North America, cruise holidays represent the fastest-growing segment in the travel industry. Key drivers of customer satisfaction include the **ability to visit multiple destinations** and the **perceived value for money**. # 3. Vessels and Onboard Amenities The construction of cruise ships tends to occur in cycles, where several ships are ordered and enter the market within a short timeframe. Since the cruise industry is a relatively small segment of the tourism sector, it has so far been very successful at **finding customers** to fill a greater number of ever-larger ships. The cruise product has become diversified to attract new customers and cater to the diverse preferences of various customer groups. To fulfill the expectations of its guests, the cruise industry has innovated through the development of new destinations, unique ship designs, diverse onboard amenities, facilities, and services, as well as a wide range of shoreside activities. Most cruise ship operators specialize in specific cruise themes, and voyage lengths can vary to accommodate the changing vacation patterns of customers, thereby contributing to cruise market concentration. Cruise ships are among the **fastest ship classes navigating the oceans**, with an average speed between 20 and 25 knots (35 to 45 km per hour). The new, more innovative cruise ships make the companies even more profitable as passengers are usually willing to pay more for a cruise on the newest vessel, which tends to offer more spending opportunities onboard while operating more efficiently. Innovative cruise ships enable major improvements in services. For instance, they allow easy-to-use systems that expand guest choices and simplify schedules, as well as advanced technology that speeds up processes (i.e., boarding, luggage tracking, etc.) and improves experiences. The average ship of the late 20th century had eight guest decks, while recent vessels have 13, 14, or even 18 guest decks. This provides more opportunities to offer cabins with additional space and private verandas. Subsequently, the “one-class cruising” system, introduced in the late 1980s, where all passengers received the same quality of berthing and facilities, is now endorsed by almost all. Ships also changed their sailing technology by adding stabilizers, which are underwater wings attached to the hull, thereby reducing the effects of ocean motion. The market drivers of the cruise industry are similar to those that fostered the **growth of tourism** after World War II, particularly the rising affluence of the global population and the growing popularity of exotic and resort destinations. The general aging of the population is also a factor in favor of cruise shipping, as the primary market remains older adults, albeit cruise guests are getting significantly younger. In 1995, the average age of a cruiser was approximately 65 years, but by 2006, this figure had dropped to 45 years. What is novel about cruising is that the ship represents in itself a **destination**, essentially acting as a floating hotel (or a theme park) with all the related facilities (bars, restaurants, theaters, casinos, swimming pools). This has permitted cruise lines to develop a captive market within their ships as well as for shore-based activities, particularly for excursions or facilities entirely owned by subsidiaries of the cruise line. Some cruise operators go a long way in developing **new entertainment concepts** onboard their vessels, including surf pools, planetariums, on-deck LED movie screens, golf simulators, go-kart racing, water parks, roller coasters, demonstration kitchens, multi-room villas with private pools, in-suite Jacuzzis, ice-skating rinks, rock-climbing walls, and bungee trampolines. While ticket and onboard pricing have been on an upward trajectory, revenues have increased due to the presence of more items available on board for an extra charge, a richer mix of cabins on the newer ships, which include more staterooms with balconies and suites that people are willing to pay more for. The ship-within-a-ship concept, which features an exclusive area with suites and dedicated public areas, including restaurants, also commands higher rates. Moreover, an increasing number of passengers are paying for shore excursions, beverages, and specialty restaurant packages weeks or months in advance of their cruise, which translates into more onboard spending once they are on board. The concept is referred to as a “fresh wallet” with the initial spending seemingly forgotten, and passengers willing to spend again during their vacation. All these lead to increased economic returns via strong performance in both onboard and onshore revenues. [Onboard services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1476) account for between 20% and 30% of the total cruise line revenues. The average customer spends approximately $1,900 on their cruise, including both onboard and off-ship expenses for goods and services. The majority of these expenses are captured within the cruise ship as passengers spend, on average, $100 per port of call. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/revenue_expenses_cruiser.png?resize=900%2C419&ssl=1 "Revenues and Expenses per Average Cruiser, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Revenues and Expenses per average cruiser![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_newbuilts_europe_capacity.png?resize=900%2C844&ssl=1 "Ocean-going Cruise Vessels Newbuilds in European Yards by Capacity in Passengers, 2015-2018 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ocean going Cruise Vessels Newbuilds in European Yards by Capacity in Passengers 2015 2018# 4. Scale and Market Segmentation All leading cruise conglomerates, such as Carnival, Royal Caribbean Cruises Lines (RCCL), MSC Cruises, and Norwegian Cruise Line (NCL), have invested in ordering and operating cruise ships of larger capacity. The pursuit of economies of scale in the cruise industry has been highly successful, earning record profits for the cruise lines. By the mid-2000s, the average ship size exceeded 82,000 GT with a capacity of 2,000 passengers. By the early 2020s, the capacity of the 50 largest vessels in operation had exceeded 3,000 passengers, with the largest having a capacity of just over 6,000 passengers and a gross tonnage of 250,000 tons (GT). The average dimensions of a cruise ship are 200 meters in length and 26 meters in width. The standard deviation of ship dimensions is large, and average numbers must be treated cautiously. Nevertheless, these dimensions have little to do with the situation observed in the early 2000s, when cruise ships with a capacity above 2,000 passengers were rare. As the capital, operating, and voyage costs associated with the construction and operation of the largest cruise vessels suggest, the potential to further upscale cruise vessel size is not evident. The construction of higher-capacity cruise ships is the outcome of three drivers: - **Demand generation**. The link between vessel size and **new passenger demand creation** is evident, as bigger vessels enable the addition of a variety of onboard activities and services, thereby expanding the targeted social and age groups. - **Revenue capture**. Additional ticket purchases and the expansion and variation of the services and activities offered on vessels. - **Economies of scale**. Lowering average total costs by spreading fixed costs over several additional passengers. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_ships_scale_dimension.png?resize=900%2C301&ssl=1 "Scale and Dimension of Cruise Ships | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Scale and Dimension of Cruise Ships![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Evolution-of-Representative-Vessels-in-Cruise-Shipping-1.png?resize=900%2C298&ssl=1 "Evolution of Cruise Shipping: Representative Vessels | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Evolution of Cruise Shipping Representative Vessels![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Icon-of-the-Seas.jpeg?resize=768%2C432&ssl=1 "The Largest Cruise Vessel in the World: Icon of the Seas, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Largest Cruise Vessel in the World Icon of the Seas 2025![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Largest-Available-Cruise-Ships-1970-2025.png?resize=900%2C428&ssl=1 "The Largest Available Cruise Ships, 1970-2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Largest Available Cruise Ships 1970 2025The order book indicates that, by 2026, a total of 23 new cruise ships accommodating over 5,000 passengers will be in operation, while more than 50 ships are on order to be delivered by 2036. However, new builds do not aim to reach a new standard in size. As the capital, operating, and voyage costs associated with the construction and operation of the largest cruise vessels suggest, [the potential for further upscaling of cruise vessel size is not evident](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4854). The growth of cruising is closely tied to **market segmentation**. Different types of vessels, each associated with distinctive amenities onboard and ashore, define a variety of cruise types offered, targeting different (social and age) groups. In an attempt to further penetrate the market, cruise lines or specific brands of larger conglomerates are present in several market segments with two primary aims. The first is to expand the **social and age groups** of potential cruisers. The second goal is to **generate repeat cruisers** by incentivizing past guests to return for a new experience, cruising on a different type of vessel or with a different itinerary. There are four [cruise market segments](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-market-segments/ "Cruise Market Segments"): - **Contemporary cruises**. Popular amenity-packed for people seeking a variety of activities and value. These mainstream cruises compete with land-based vacations by offering a comprehensive and amenity-filled package, including accommodations, meals, and entertainment, in a casual environment, with newer (or extensively renovated) ships offering modern design and comforts. The biggest market segment (with a market share of approximately 74%), featuring the largest cruise vessels, has an average cruise length of seven days and appeals to cruisers of all ages and incomes. It also includes budget cruises with older vessels, a cruise market segment active in Europe and North America. - **Premium cruises**. More upscale and offering many amenities with an increased focus on refined service and more space. Priced inclusive of accommodations, meals, and entertainment, the value of premium cruises exceeds or rivals the best packages offered by upscale hotels and resorts. The second biggest cruise market (with a share of approximately 20%) attracts more experienced cruisers. - **[Luxury cruises](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/luxury-cruise-ships-capacity/)**. Defined by the highest quality and personalized service offered on luxury cruise ships and ashore to exotic as well as more exclusive ports. Expensive compared to the rest of the industry, luxury lines deliver value by offering more inclusive pricing than other cruise lines and opportunities to travel to exotic and less common destinations on medium-sized or small, spacious vessels. Its market share has more than tripled in size since 2010. Luxury cruise passengers exceeded the one million passenger threshold for the first time in 2023 and are expected to surpass 1.5 million by 2028. Based on the order book, the luxury segment of cruise shipping is expected to continue growing and exceed 40,000 lower berths by 2027. Today, its market share stands at approximately 3% to 4% of the cruise market. - **Specialty cruises**. Focus on a destination niche or a unique cruising style, including expedition and exploration style cruises, sailing ships, and a growing number of [river cruises](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/river-cruises-and-ports/ "Types of River Cruise Itineraries"). Expedition and exploration attract cruise travelers, especially younger travelers seeking extraordinary experiences. They offer long itineraries and visit some of the world’s most remote and unspoiled places (such as Antarctica and the Arctic) to offer a unique experience that guests find educational and adventurous. The first purpose-built exploration ship was built in the early 2010s. Today, approximately 40 ships are specifically designed for expedition and exploration cruises in various parts of the world, with a market share of around 3%. The global capacity for expedition and exploration cruise ships measured in lower berths is expected to grow by 150% from 2019 to 2029. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/segmentation_cruise_shipping.png?resize=900%2C428&ssl=1 "Segmentation of Cruise Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Market Segments![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Luxury-cruise-ships-capacity.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Luxury Cruise Ships Capacity, 2010-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Luxury cruise ships capacity 2010 2024Each cruise line classifies its vessels in [classes of cruise ships](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-shipping-representative-vessels/ "Evolution of Cruise Shipping: Representative Vessels") of similar size and experiences offered to its guests, such as [the classification used by Royal Caribbean International](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/gross-tonnage-ship-classes-royal-caribbean-cruises/ "Total Gross Tonnage by Ship Classes, Royal Caribbean Cruises") or [the classification used by Carnival Cruises](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/total-gross-tonnage-ship-classes-carnival/). All cruise ships in a particular class share amenities and styles, offering similar experiences. Still, newer ships within a class will likely have newer amenities and technologies. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/classification_cruise_ships_cruise_lines.png?resize=900%2C352&ssl=1 "Classification of Cruise Ships by Cruise Lines | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Classification of Cruise Ships by Cruise Lines![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Total-Gross-Tonnage-by-Ship-Classes-Carnival.png?resize=900%2C437&ssl=1 "Total Gross Tonnage by Ship Classes-Carnival | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Total Gross Tonnage by Ship Classes Carnival Cruises![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/tonnage_ship_classes_royal_caribbean.png?resize=900%2C437&ssl=1 "Total Gross Tonnage by Ship Classes, Royal Caribbean Cruises | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Total Gross Tonnage by Ship Classes Royal Caribbean Cruises# 5. Globalization of Deployment Patterns **Cruising is not a global activity** but a series of regional markets, some of which are interrelated through the repositioning of cruise ship assets between seasons. So, there is no global cruising, but rather a summation of regional approaches to cruising by the cruise industry. The deployment of cruise vessels across cruise regions reflects a combination of the **existing demand** and the willingness of cruise lines to **develop new markets**. Differences exist among markets and regions, the most obvious being the variance in profitability. Each market also has its own characteristics. As such, the cruise industry must address multiple considerations related to onboard amenities, itineraries, ports of call, and shore excursions. The Caribbean has been the dominant [deployment market](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1465) of the cruise industry since its inception, but the Mediterranean cruise market has grown substantially in recent years. The Caribbean and the Mediterranean are **complementary markets** because the Caribbean is predominantly serviced during the winter, while the Mediterranean experiences a summer peak season. A key factor behind the popularity of the Caribbean and Mediterranean is that the distances between port calls are relatively short, offering a wide variety of cultural experiences. Both markets offer a variety of cultures in close proximity. Furthermore, strong niche markets have developed, focusing on history (such as Hanseatic cities in northern Europe) or natural amenities (like Alaska). Before the pandemic, Asia had been the rising cruise market of the 21st century, with China standing at the epicenter of growth. The Asian market has recently regained momentum. In 2025, the **Caribbean**, including the Bahamas, hosted over 40% of the global cruise capacity, with Alaska hosting another 4,5%. The West Coast (Mexico), Bermuda, Canada-New England, and the Panama Canal were comparatively smaller markets. An additional element contributing to the growth of cruising in the region is the new destinations in the form of **[private islands or exclusive sections of islands](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/private-islands-caribbean-owned-cruise-lines/ "Private Islands in the Caribbean Owned by Cruise Lines")**, leased and developed by cruise lines. The opening of Cuba to American and international cruisers is the final milestone in developing the Caribbean market. While cruises to Cuba have been popular among international travelers for decades, Americans have been unable to call Cuba. Regulatory changes mean more cruise lines are willing to offer visits to Cuba. The demand for cruising to the island is now coupled with the decisions by European cruise lines (i.e., MSC and Celestyal) to deploy vessels in Cuba and by US-based cruise lines (i.e., RCCL and Norwegian Cruise Line) to include Cuba in their itineraries. Two distinctive markets exist in **Europe**, as vessels are deployed either in the Mediterranean and its adjacent seas or in the North European market. The former is the bigger region, hosting 16% of the deployed cruise fleet. Within the ongoing globalization of the cruise industry, this region of the world has grown the fastest during the first 15 years of the 21st century, emerging as the second most popular cruise destination. Yet, this is also the region where growth trends in several countries have been curtailed in recent years, due to geopolitical turmoil and tensions. The Mediterranean and its adjoining seas are operationally divided into four regional cruise markets. These are the West Med, the Adriatic Sea, the East Med, and the Black Sea. The North European market ranks as the third biggest cruise market globally, hosting approximately 10% of the deployed cruise vessel capacity. It is also divided into four different sub-markets: Atlantic Europe, the UK and Ireland, Iceland, Norway, and the Faroe Islands, and the Baltic Sea. The **Asian market**, particularly China, has experienced the most growth in recent years. In the 2010s, the number of ships deployed in Asia grew, operating days expanded, and passenger capacity almost tripled, reaching a double-digit share for the first time (10%) in 2019. Increased capacity deployment, combined with the opening of sales offices by many cruise lines in China, Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan, resulted in a growth of cruise passengers from 1.3 million in 2012 to almost 4 million in 2019. Beyond China, the destinations with the most significant growth in total port calls were Japan and Thailand, with port calls also growing in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the Philippines. The increase was mainly due to Chinese cruise passengers, which surpasses all Asian markets combined. Before the pandemic, Asia was rapidly progressing to become a region that nearly equals the Mediterranean in terms of passenger capacity deployment. With China being the origin and, for a long time, the epicenter of the pandemic, the Asian market lost considerable market share in the first half of the 2020s. Recovery, however, is progressing, and recent trends, along with an order book containing several new ships dedicated to the Asian market, indicate that Asia is once again becoming a region with increased capacity deployment. The type of vessels deployed and the length of the offered cruise reflect the particularities of the Asian cruise market. Large and mega-ship cruises in East Asia are seasonally operated, with mid-size and small ships being the most common, as short cruises dominate. The geographical features and cultural differences of the East Asian market imply that the short distances between ports of call and destinations available in the Caribbean, the Mediterranean, and the rest of the European market are absent. To combine destinations of interest, broader geographical distances require longer travel times, and a full day, or more, at sea might be an essential itinerary feature. Additionally, shorter vacations are more common, as people often have limited vacation entitlement. Regarding the cultural dimension, Asian cruises typically offer a range of onboard amenities. For example, casinos and extended luxury shopping are high on the agenda of East Asian cruisers, while they are less so for cruisers in other parts of the world. In the long term, **China remains a bullish market**. However, this is not without challenges, particularly for cruise port infrastructure development, which involves several financial and non-financial requirements. The former have met with success, as state and private investors in China (i.e., Shanghai), Hong Kong, and the broader region (Singapore, Busan, etc.) have developed **modern terminals** serving the needs of cruise lines. Issues such as terminal locations and development choices have been subject to social and political controversies. In contrast, some of the newly built cruise terminals are remarkably large in size and capacity, raising concerns that they stand as prestige investments with rather limited potential utilization. Supply concerns, a lack of destinations for short cruises, price wars, and geopolitical tensions, such as issues involving North Korea and Taiwan, undermine growth potential. That said, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, and the Philippines have seen the deployment of more cruise capacity, counterbalancing any downtrends. Other regions of the world continue to provide smaller yet important markets for cruise shipping. The overall changes in these markets are in response to market capacity and geopolitical events. **South America**, particularly Brazil, has been a stagnating market hampered by poor infrastructure and high port costs. The **Australian market** has been active since the early days of modern cruising, hosting over 1.3 million cruise passengers, a significant number considering the country’s total population of approximately 24 million. This has already given Australia the highest market penetration globally. Africa is slowly emerging as a significant player, with cruise lines exploring options in several parts of the continent and ports and destinations expressing interest in developing effective strategies to accommodate cruise calls. The cruise industry is also expanding to offer more options for passengers, particularly for niche markets that command higher prices. The Caribbean and the Mediterranean remain competitive mass markets. Cruises are set up for pristine markets in the Antarctic, the Canadian Arctic, and the South Pacific. In some cases, destinations may have more impact than itineraries, prompting cruise lines to offer longer shore stay options where the cruise ship can serve as a temporary hotel near central areas, particularly during major events such as the Rio Carnival, the Monaco Grand Prix, or the British Open. Cruise ships can also be used to evacuate stranded people after natural disasters. For instance, in 2017, cruise ships were used to evacuate people from the island and nearby islands after a major hurricane struck Puerto Rico. For short trips of less than 24 hours, a cruise ship can carry two to five times its design capacity, so a ship designed to carry 4,000 passengers could be used to evacuate 8,000 to 20,000 people. Cruise port regions, such as the Mediterranean, have their own internal dynamics. The volatility of the sub-market shares, particularly the West Med, the East Med, and the Adriatic, has characterized the growth of cruising in the region. Short-term volatility in traffic and shifting market shares generate concerns for the cruise lines. On the one hand, both these trends might be justified because cruise lines **continuously renew their itineraries**. On the other hand, these trends may occur because some ports have reached a stage where they need to invest in additional facilities and services to accommodate new types of vessels before gaining more calls. Beyond the presence of a port capable of hosting a cruise call efficiently and effectively, **factors affecting deployment patterns** include: - **Geographical distribution of passenger source markets**. Proximity is a strong attractor for the cruise hub port (homeport). - **Match brands and ships** to source market demographics. - **Connectivity** between air and landside transportation at homeports. - Opportunity to **balance marquee destinations** with lesser-known niches, develop new routes, and generate itineraries for new markets. - **Potential for shore expedition revenues** compared to onboard spending. - **Fuel procurement**, with decarbonization becoming a consideration. - **Labor (crew) availability and cost considerations**, such as sailing distances and docking fees. All these factors are examined by cruise lines in parallel with cruise time, speed, and distance to determine where and how to deploy cruise ships. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Deployed-cruise-vessels-2025.png?resize=900%2C457&ssl=1 "Deployment of the Global Cruise Fleet, 2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Deployment of the Global Cruise Fleet 2025![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/private_cruise_islands_caribbean.png?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Private Islands owned by Cruise Lines in the Caribbean | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of Private Cruise islands in the Caribbean owned by Cruise Lines![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/deployment_cruise_fleet_chart.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Deployment of the Global Cruise Fleet, 2008-23 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Deployment of the Global Cruise Fleet 2008 23# 6. Diversification of Source Markets With the cruise industry offering amenities that more people are interested in experiencing, a **major expansion and internationalization of passenger source markets** is underway, adding to the growth potential of the industry. Its highest [market penetration level](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1472) is in North America, with about 3% of the population taking a cruise each year, which includes people who may take more than one cruise. North America remains the [primary source market](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1472) in size, with more than half of the annual cruise passengers originating from this region. Growth has slowed in recent years, but the low cruise penetration levels in many local markets underline opportunities for expanding cruises in the region. Other markets are also emerging. Between 2000 and 2015, the number of Europeans taking a cruise doubled, incentivizing cruise lines to build more itineraries throughout the region, particularly in the Mediterranean Sea. Almost one in four European cruisers resides in the UK and Ireland. Cruise lines are expanding their target population, attracting young adults and families with children. While this used to be a “65 years and above” type of market, in 2018, the average age of cruisers was 46.7 years. Just 13% were over 70 years old, and the over-65 group accounted for 32% of all cruisers that year. The demographic profile of the average cruiser has undergone rapid changes. Countries with a **maritime tradition** tend to have a higher share of the population taking cruises. Penetration levels in Asia remain low (0.1% to 0.2%) as a cruise is generally not perceived as an accepted form of vacationing, but the situation is changing rapidly. Since the mid-2010s, the passenger source markets for cruise tourism have experienced another transformation. The absolute volume of cruise travelers sourced from Asia quadrupled to over 3 million passengers, accounting for approximately 15% of the global passenger volume. China accounts for two-thirds of the regional passengers, with other leading source markets including Taiwan, Japan, and Singapore. India and Hong Kong are the other two markets, with over 100,000 passengers annually. Demand for cruises outside conventional source markets has grown remarkably, yet the aggregate of cruise passengers in these regions has remained small. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_source_markets.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Cruise Passengers Source Markets, 2013-2018 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Source Markets 2013 18![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/asian_cruise_source_markets.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Asian Cruise Passengers Source Markets, 2015-2020 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Asian Cruise Passengers Source Markets 2015 2020Recent data indicate a sustained and growing interest in cruising among both the so-called “**repeaters**” (or “forever cruisers”) and the “potential new cruisers” group. Among international travelers, one in three has taken a cruise, and 82% of those who have cruised express a firm intention to cruise again, i.e., an increase compared to pre-pandemic levels. Additionally, two-thirds of global travelers are considering taking their first cruise, demonstrating a consistent upward trend in cruise interest that surpasses 2019 figures. There is also an increasing appeal of cruises among solo travellers, prompting cruise lines to introduce more single-occupancy cabins – in 2024, 12% of cruise travelers opted to sail solo, doubling from 6% in 2023 – and a growing preference for longer cruise durations, i.e., nearly half of cruise travellers intend to take a longer cruise in the future compared to the previous one. Simultaneously, cruises remain a preferred option for multi-generational travel, with 28% of passengers sailing with three to five generations of family members. [The younger generations are increasingly shaping the future of the cruise industry](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/generations-of-cruise-passengers/). Approximately 67% of cruise travelers belong to Generation X or younger cohorts, with Gen X and Millennials displaying the highest levels of enthusiasm for cruise holidays. Baby Boomers remain a vital demographic within the cruise market. As the wealthiest retiring generation in history, Boomers spend approximately $157 billion annually on travel. Nearly one-third of Baby Boomers cruise with friends and family, often spanning three to five generations. Their travel preferences vary widely, including solo voyages (6%), couples’ travel (63%), and extended family trips (31%). ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_pasenger_age_groups.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Cruise Passenger Age Groups | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Passenger Age Groups ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_passengers_age_group_2024.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Cruise Passenger Age Groups, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Passenger Age Groups 2024![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/repeat_cruisers.png?resize=900%2C756&ssl=1 "Repeat Cruisers: Taking More than One Cruise Per Year | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Repeaters Cruising more than one time per year![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/average_cruise_passenger_generation.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Cruise Passenger Generation Groups | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Generation of Cruise Passengers# 7. Market Concentration and Multi-brand Strategies The cruise industry has a very **high level of ownership concentration,** as the four largest cruise shipping companies account for 78.9% of the market (Carnival Lines, Royal Caribbean, MSC Cruises, and Norwegian Cruise Line). High levels of **[horizontal integration](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/market-share-main-cruise-lines/ "Market Share of Main Cruise Lines, 2020")** are also observable since most cruise companies have acquired parent companies but retained their individual names for product differentiation. Carnival Corporation controls almost one-third (32.8%) of the global cruise market with its ten different brands. In comparison, Royal Caribbean accounts for 26% of the global market, serviced under six different brands, including Celebrity Cruises, which caters to higher-end customers. The two MSC brands (MSC Cruises and Explora) account for 11.9% of the market, while Norwegian Cruise Line (NCL) Holdings owns three brands, representing 9.4% of the market. Approximately 85 additional cruise lines are currently in operation. The **four largest players** are active in every cruising area, aiming to capture market shares. The top two corporations consolidate different brands, seeking to cover a variety of market segments. Beyond different and potentially more effective corporate entities, this allows for differentiated services to be offered and the marketing of each brand as unique,attracting a larger share of the demand. At the same time, cruise lines act as pioneers. Carnival Corporation was the first cruise company to order a cruise ship built in China, dedicated to the Chinese market. Carnival was also the first company to deploy a cruise ship in Asia, aiming to capitalize on the potential of the Asian market, particularly the Chinese market. Like its cargo shipping counterparts, the cruise industry relies on the flag of convenience to gain financial advantages, primarily to secure more lenient labor regulations, as it extensively relies on labor. For instance, Carnival Cruises and Princess Cruises have all their ships registered in foreign countries (Panama, the Bahamas, and Bermuda). Both Carnival and Royal Caribbean have endorsed a multi-brand strategy. Each of them operates a number of brands, each associated with a specific image, the type of vessels it operates, and the amenities and types of cruise itineraries. The largest cruise lines, which are also **publicly traded** (Carnival, Royal Caribbean, and NCL), achieved solid earnings for many years until the COVID-19 pandemic. Carnival and Royal Caribbean have posted net earnings every single year since the companies went public in 1987 and 1993, respectively. NCL went public in 2008 and has posted net earnings since 2009. MSC, which is privately held, has released financial reports to its bondholders, showing earnings comparable to those of publicly traded companies. Another publicly traded cruise company, the Asian-controlled Genting, which had three brands (Star Cruises, Dream Cruises, which mainly operated in Asia-Pacific, and Crystal Cruises, which operated in the luxury market), had emerged in the pre-COVID period as the fifth player with a significant share of the world cruise fleet (3,6% in 2020). Due to the pandemic, it filed for bankruptcy in 2022, and many of its ships were sold or scrapped. As the cruise industry continues to grow, the first two of its brands have been revived and are now operational. In the 2010s, the [top 20 cruise brands](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/top-20-cruise-brands/ "Top-20 Cruise Brands"), measured in terms of total berth capacity, have continued to upgrade their fleets. The number of berths relates to the number of people who can sleep on board. A comparison of evolving berth capacities since 2014 highlights that the largest cruise brands continue to expand at a faster rate than the smaller lines. Thus, market concentration in the cruise supply is likely to persist and may even increase in the future. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/market_share_cruise_lines.png?resize=900%2C416&ssl=1 "Market Share of Main Cruise Lines, 2026 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Market Share of Main Cruise Lines 2026![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Top-20-Cruise-Brands-by-Berth-Capacity-2026-1.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Top 20 Cruise Brands by Berth Capacity, 2026 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Top 20 Cruise Brands by Berth Capacity 2026A continuous **reorganization** is observable (i.e., in the last decade, Royal Caribbean sold Azamara and Pullmantur, and acquired Silversea, while TUI Group took complete control of Hapag-Lloyd Cruises). Simultaneously, and despite the high levels of market concentration, **new entrants are expected**. Recent new entrants, such as Virgin Cruises, Aroya Cruises, and Mitsui Ocean, promise to offer a “new” product and further increase differentiation. The search for new practices is also evident in incumbents such as Royal Caribbean and Norwegian, which continue to introduce novel onboard amenities to expand the appeal of their cruises. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 4.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminals-and-terminal-operators/) - [Chapter 7.2 Cruise Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/cruises-ports/) - [Chapter 7.4 River Cruises and Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/river-cruises-and-ports/ "Chapter 7.4 – River Cruises and Ports") - [Chapter 7.5 Cruise Terminal Design and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/) ## References - Chaos, S.R., Pallis A.A., Marchán S.S., Roca D.P. and Conejo A.S.A. (2021). Economies of Scale in Cruise Shipping. Maritime Economics and Logistics*,* 23, 674-696. - Cruise Industry News (various issues). Annual Report. London: Cruise Industry News. - Cruise Lines Industry Association (CLIA) ( 2019). State of the Cruise Industry 2019. Washington DC: CLIA. - Cruise Lines Industry Association (CLIA) ( 2025). State of the Cruise Industry 2025. Washington DC: CLIA. - Cruise Market Watch (2025). www.cruisemarketwatch.com. - Dowling, R.K. and C. Weeden (2017). Cruise ship tourism. 2nd edition, Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI). - Gibson, P. and R. Parkman (2019) Cruise Operations Management: Hospitality Perspectives, 3rd ed. New York, New York: Routledge. - Gui, L. and A.P. Russo (2011). Cruise ports: a strategic nexus between regions and global lines, evidence from the Mediterranean, Maritime Policy & Management, Vol. 38 (1), pp. 129-150. - Lekakou, M., Pallis, A.A., and Vaggelas. G.K. (2009). Which homeport in Europe: The cruise industry’s selection criteria, Tourismos 4 (4), 215-240. - Notteboom T. E. and Pallis A.A. (2020). IAPH-WPSP Port Economic Impact Barometer Half Year Report: A survey-based analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on world ports in the period April to September 2020. IAPH: Antwerp. - Notteboom T. E. and Pallis A.A. (2024). IAPH World Ports Tracker. IAPH: Antwerp. - Pallis, A.A. (2015). Cruise shipping and Ports. Cruise Shipping and Urban Development State of the Art of the Industry and Cruise Ports. OECD-ITF Discussion Paper 2015-14, OECD: Paris. - Pallis, A.A., Parola, F., Satta, G. and Notteboom T. (2018). Private Entry and Emerging Partnerships in Cruise Terminal Operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 20(1), 1-28. - Pallis, A.A. and Papachristou A.A. (2021). Cruise industry. In: Vickerman, R. (eds.) International Encyclopaedia of Transportation, 5, pp. 593-599. London: Elsevier. - Pallis A.A. and Vaggelas G.K. (2018). Cruise Shipping and Green Ports: A Strategic Challenge. Ιn: Bergqvist R. and Monios J. (eds): Green Ports: Inland and Seaside Sustainable Transportation Strategies, 255-273, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. - Pallis A.A. and Vaggelas G.K. (2020). The changing geography of cruise shipping**.** In: Wilmsmeier G., Monios J., Browne M. & Woxenius J. (eds.) Geographies of waterborne transport: Transitions from transport to mobilities, 170-191. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. - Rodrigue, J-P and T. Notteboom (2013). The Geography of Cruises: Itineraries, not Destinations, Applied Geography, Vol. 38, pp. 31-42. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Terminal Automation: Hierarchy of Drivers and Achieved Benefits](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/container-terminal-automation-drivers-achieved-benefits/) **Published:** September 18, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/terminal_automation_hierachy.png?resize=900%2C404&ssl=1 "Container Terminal Automation: Hierarchy of Drivers and Achieved Benefits | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Source: *Knatz G., Notteboom T. & Pallis A.A. (2023). Container Terminal Automation: Assessment of Drivers and Benefits.Maritime Policy and Management, 51(6), 1252-1276.* A wide range of factors contribute to the decision to automate a terminal. In addition to purely economic and technical factors, institutional factors and dynamics in stakeholder relations also significantly impact terminal automation. The most important factor driving terminal managers who have proceeded with automation to make the decision to automate has been the anticipated improvement in safety. Other key drivers have included reducing per-container unit handling costs, stabilizing performance variability, and controlling labor costs. Slightly lower in the hierarchy of the drivers towards automation have been the capacity to sustain continuous 24/7 operations, the removal of human-induced disruptions (e.g., illness, labor disputes), improvements in the ability to accommodate larger vessels, the mitigation of emissions, and the acceleration of truck turnaround times. By comparison, motivations such as positioning the terminal as a technological showcase, serving as a test-bed for emerging technologies, or alleviating constraints linked to limited land availability have been relatively peripheral. Given that it remains a comparatively recent and still-diffusing phenomenon within the container port system, the impacts of automation are not yet fully understood. Empirical evidence from early adopters suggests that certain benefits have been systematically underestimated. These include the extent of labor cost reduction, the effective elimination of labor-related disruptions, environmental gains from lower emissions, and improvements in truck turnaround efficiency. However, in the case of the reduced labor cost, the difference between expectations and realized benefits is marginal. A high observed underestimation of the benefits of automation as a test-bed for new technologies reveals that the learning curve and innovation trajectory linked to an automated terminal project lead to a much stronger positive outcome than initially anticipated by the developer. Conversely, other expected outcomes have been overestimated, most notably the scale of reductions in unit handling costs, the decline in operational variability, the extent to which automation enables continuous operations, efficiency gains in managing mega-ships, and its contribution to meeting Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) set by ocean carriers. To date, the benefits that have most closely aligned with initial expectations are those related to enhanced safety (i.e., the factor that tops the hierarchy towards automation) and the ability to overcome spatial constraints for the expansion of operations (i.e., this has nevertheless not been a factor in the adoption of automation). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/container-terminal-automation-drivers-achieved-benefits/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/container-terminal-automation-drivers-achieved-benefits/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/container-terminal-automation-drivers-achieved-benefits/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/container-terminal-automation-drivers-achieved-benefits/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 6.6 - Container Terminal Automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/) **Published:** December 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Theo Notteboom, Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > Terminal automation is a full or partial substitution of terminal operations through the use of automated equipment and processes. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Automating Terminals](#1_Automating_Terminals) - [2. The Port Automation Drive](#2_The_Port_Automation_Drive) - [3. Automated Container Terminals](#3_Automated_Container_Terminals) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Automating Terminals With the emergence of containerization, mechanization has been an ongoing process for freight terminals as more efficient intermodal equipment has been developed. Still, all that equipment needed to be operated by trained labor, such as crane operators and drivers. Since the 1990s, there has been a **push toward automation** as the number of containers handled at ports surged. The growing ship sizes and limited footprint for expansion have encouraged several ports to improve their productivity, namely terminal throughput and ship turnaround time. Another important driver has been the large diffusion of information technologies, making it possible to integrate information and physical systems on which automation depends. Both port and intermodal rail terminals can be [automated according to similar principles and technologies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=963) since automation revolves around handling containers, which are standard load units. The container thus becomes the **unit around which physical and information handling systems are built and organized**. Automation can be comprehensive when involving several stages of terminal operations or specific when only one stage is involved at a time. Comprehensive automation is becoming standard for greenfield terminals (new projects), while existing terminals electively automate part of their operations, as comprehensive automation could be highly disruptive and costly. Automation involves three main dimensions: within the terminal (yard), its interface on the land and sea sides, and with the foreland and hinterland. ## A. Yard automation Within a freight terminal, several processes can be automated. Container yard management has been automated for decades, using terminal operating systems (TOS) to manage the stacking of inbound and outbound containers. Thus, **automated yard planning** allows for more effective positioning of containers and equipment to increase throughput with the same assets. Horizontal movement automation involves using [**Automated Guided Vehicles**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=984) (AGVs) such as straddle carriers (AutoStrads) or shuttles. These vehicles move containers back and forth between [**Automated Stacking Cranes**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=992) (ASCs), which are rail-mounted gantry cranes managing stacks of containers that are usually aligned perpendicular to the pier. The pier side of the stack is used for loading and unloading containers coming from the pier, while the gate side of the stack is used for pick-up or deliveries of containers to or from the terminal gate. Such movements are usually carried out using trucks and chassis. Yard automation requires container position determination systems that accurately determine the location of all containers within the terminal at any given time through the use of sensors. This enables their effective management, making them readily available for quick retrieval for loading onto a ship or for inland distribution. ## B. Terminal interface automation Automated mooring systems are able to quickly dock and undock a ship, improving ship turnaround time and safety by removing line handling. For instance, vacuum-based automated mooring systems can latch a ship in less than five minutes, while the conventional process can take 30 minutes. **Automated Ship-to-Shore Cranes** (ASSC) are automated versions of standard portainers that are [remotely controlled](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminal-automation/remotely-operated-crane-busan-container-terminal/ "Remotely Operated Crane, Busan Container Terminal (BCT)"). An operator can control several cranes instead of one. For intermodal terminals, Automated Intermodal Cranes are a modified version of ASCs and are typically wider, as they serve as loading, unloading, and stacking equipment. [**Automated gate systems**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=988) (AGSs) have received widespread diffusion because of the substantial benefits they provide for terminal access in terms of faster truck turnaround times and documentation processing. They need to have documentation electronically provided before picking up or dropping off at the terminal, which improves processing time and reduces the risk of errors with their associated delays. AGSs commonly rely on optical character recognition and radio frequency identification to quickly **capture data on inbound and outbound containers**. Photos of containers and equipment can also be automatically taken and stored. The above has substantially accelerated gate time, which is a common hurdle in terminal operation. Furthermore, truck drivers can utilize mobile technologies to schedule appointments for container pickup or drop-off, as well as to swap equipment, such as chassis. This is linked with demand planning and prediction, allowing for a better understanding of terminal gate access time and frequency distribution. ## C. Foreland and hinterland automation Foreland and hinterland automation relate to processes that are not directly linked with terminal automation but can support its benefits **upstream** (foreland) or **downstream** (hinterland) along the transport chain. Although automated ships are not to be envisioned within the foreseeable future, many aspects of ship operations have been automated (propulsion and power monitoring, ballast), reducing crew size substantially. The same issue applies to rail transportation (control systems, signaling, crossings). Automated trains are a distinct reality since they operate on their own guideways, and automated trains are already common in public transit systems. The introduction of automated trucks carrying containers between terminals and their hinterland is underway, particularly along selected high-volume corridors. Warehouses with automated storage and retrieval systems have also been introduced in recent years, which has improved distribution efficiency, particularly for e-commerce. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_terminal_automation2.png?resize=900%2C534&ssl=1 "Port Terminal Automation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Terminal Automation![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/forms_process_automation.png?resize=900%2C353&ssl=1 "Forms of Container Terminal Process Automation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Forms of Container Terminal Process Automation![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2022-11-03-151243.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Remotely Operated Crane, Busan Container Terminal (BCT) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Remotely Operated Crane Busan Container Terminal BCT![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-10-18-13.53.03.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "Automated Guided Vehicles and Automated Stacking Cranes, Long Beach Container Terminal (LBCT) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Automated Guided Vehicles and Automated Stacking Cranes Long Beach Container Terminal LBCT![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2018-11-12-122358-1.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "Remote Verification of Container Identification at a Port Terminal Gate | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Remote Verification of Container Identification at a Port Terminal Gate![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2018-11-12-123324-1.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "Control Station for Automated Stacking Cranes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Control Station for Automated Stacking CranesTerminal operations require equipment such as portainers, gantry cranes, straddle carriers, or reach stackers, all of which can be automated. Since terminal equipment requires maintenance, predictive maintenance technologies supported by sensors enable a better assessment of the wear and tear it faces, regardless of whether the equipment is automated. The equipment life cycle is improved through better maintenance, as well as a reduction in the frequency and duration of equipment downtime due to unanticipated failures. Like mechanization previously, automation is promoting a further standardization of terminals over three main dimensions: - **Footprint configuration**. The **configuration** of the terminal, including gates and yard areas, to make it suitable for automation. - **[Process automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/forms-container-terminal-process-automation/ "Forms of Container Terminal Process Automation")**. The automation of the **processes** behind the management of containers, vehicles, and equipment. - **Operational automation**. The automation of the **systems** controlling the equipment handling the physical flows of containers. # 2. The Port Automation Drive There is an increasing interest in automating container terminals to enhance **quayside and land productivity**. Port terminals are particularly prone to some form of automation, as it directly improves cost, efficiency, safety, and reliability performance indicators. In addition to purely economic and technical factors, institutional factors and dynamics in stakeholder relations also significantly impact the progress of terminal automation. At the top of the [hierarchy of factors driving the decision to automate](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/container-terminal-automation-drivers-achieved-benefits/) among terminal managers who have already proceeded with automation is the expected increase in safety. Three other primary factors driving the decision to automate the terminal were the reduction of unit costs of container handling, variability in performance, and labor costs. Slightly lower in importance as drivers toward automation have been factors such as the capacity to achieve 24/7 operation, the elimination of human factors that might interrupt operations (i.e., illness, risk of labor disruption), improving efficiency to handle larger vessels, reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and improving truck turnaround time. Automation as a test-bed for new technologies or as a showcase of the local community’s technological expertise, and overcoming hurdles due to limited land space, have been less critical drivers for terminal automation decisions. Terminal operators are trying to realize productivity leaps to deal with the scale increases in container vessel size and container volumes. Advances in port productivity have resulted in disproportionately lower growth of port turnaround times as a function of vessel size. Terminal operators have fully or partially absorbed the potential port-related diseconomies of scale linked to larger vessels. Therefore, shipping lines are encouraged to pursue consecutive rounds of scale increases in vessel size. Automation can be a strategy to deal with larger container ships and schedule reliability. Still, the impact of automation on productivity is not entirely clear. It does not necessarily and substantially increase performance indicators such as the number of moves per hour, which requires close coordination between terminal design, process maintenance, and labor. One of the core advantages of automation is **predictability** in operations with lower variations in terminal performance during the work cycle. Automation is often aimed at reducing generalized costs per unit handled in terminal operations. The expectations are that automation can reduce operating expenses by 25% to 50% and increase productivity by up to 30%, but these expectations remain unfulfilled. This is further underlined by handling standard container box sizes using conventional equipment, which is susceptible to automation. Terminals facing severe **land availability issues** show a higher willingness to consider automation. Still, automation takes place at different rates depending on the technology involved. The drive toward automation can partially be explained by a **cost/benefit perspective**, where the least costly and most beneficial forms of automation will be adopted first. Adoption is a risky proposition since it often involves untested systems with uncertain outcomes, but it can lead to substantial benefits if successful. The willingness of stevedoring companies to invest in new cargo-handling technology and automation is partly related to perceived labor-productivity benefits and cost savings for dock labor. Technological innovations and developments in cargo handling should increase labor productivity, measured as TEUs handled per dock worker per time unit, because fewer dock workers are typically needed. If a technical innovation allows a reduction in labor per gang (or, in the case of full automation, even eliminating labor), then the terminal operator will only benefit from the labor cost savings if the gangs are reduced in size. If such a reduction in labor is not possible within the terms of the dock labor employment system, then the stevedoring company will be far less eager to introduce technological innovations. The trade-offs that need to be made when introducing new automated cargo handling technology can lead to disputes between labor unions and the terminal operator. Automation usually involves **new terminal developments** since there is an opportunity to automate terminal-wide operations without disrupting existing operations. As automation is implemented, it creates further pressures on [other components of the terminal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/diffusion-port-terminal-automation-technologies/ "Diffusion of Key Port Terminal Automation Technologies") to improve productivity in order to keep pace. Eventually, the whole terminal can be automated. Further, effective automation technologies promote their adoption by other terminals needing to remain competitive and keep up with the most efficient operational practices. Once about 25% of the terminals have adopted a form of automation, a rapid diffusion is expected since the technology has proven to be effective from a cost and operational standpoint. By the time it reaches 50% of terminals, automation will enter a maturity phase with well-established equipment, standards, and modes of operation. It will cease to offer a competitive advantage and become a standard mode of terminal operation. The push toward automation appears to be an irrevocable trend, further increasing the **capital intensity of container terminals**. This is likely to consolidate the competitiveness of the largest terminals able to first invest in automation or afford existing solutions. If the cost of automation declines as expected, it will diffuse to smaller terminals, and the competitive advantage of automation will recede. Automation will become an industry standard for freight terminals. Still, automation creates an **asynchronism in terminal operations** since it may not be implemented at the same rate in terminals being reconverted. For instance, improving gate access may place pressure on yard operations (and vice versa), so careful consideration must be given to the impact of automation on the whole terminal operations. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/diffusion_port_automation_technologies2.png?resize=900%2C423&ssl=1 "Diffusion of Key Port Terminal Automation Technologies | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Diffusion of Key Port Terminal Automation Technologies![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Container-Terminal-Automation-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Automated Container Terminals, 2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Automated Container Terminals 2025![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/labor_requirement_conventional_automated.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Labor Requirement in Conventional versus Fully Automated Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Labor Requirement in Conventional versus Fully Automated Terminals![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cumulative_automated_terminals3.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Cumulative Number of Automated Terminals and Automated Surface | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cumulative Number of Automated Terminals and Automated SurfaceDespite the possible advantages of automation, only a [limited number of terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cumulative-number-automated-terminals-automated-surface/ "Cumulative Number of Automated Terminals and Automated Surface") are fully or partly automated. As of 2025, 76 major container terminals were fully or partially automated worldwide, representing about 8.3% of all terminals. Several terminal operators show **reluctance concerning automation** and adopt a wait-and-see approach. The main impediments to automation include: - **High and irreversible investment costs**. An automated terminal is more capital-intensive than a standard terminal. Automation equipment cannot be effectively provided in increments, but as a complete and integrated system. - **Availability of skills and trained personnel**. The new set of skills to operate, supervise, and maintain automated equipment requires additional training in the workforce and the recruitment of talent in a competitive market. - **Disruption to terminal operations during conversion**. As a terminal gets close to operational capacity, automation becomes an increasingly attractive option. However, converting a footprint to automation will be disruptive to operations, impacting terminal performance, revenue, and customer satisfaction. - **Existing labor contracts**. Most port workers, particularly longshoremen, see automation as a disruption and a threat to employment opportunities. A terminal setting up a conversion toward automation may face labor movements and protests that could disrupt its operations. While the risks of automation can be substantial, the rewards in terms of higher productivity and lower operational costs may not have been entirely evident in the recent context. Comparative metrics about the benefits of automation remain to be better assessed. # 3. Automated Container Terminals Automation takes place at different scales, paces, and locations, and there are various degrees of automation. In many ways, automation is present in a large number of terminals, depending on how it is defined and whether it focuses on infrastructure (e.g., stacking cranes) or information systems (e.g., yard management or port community systems). The most common definition classifies terminals as **fully or semi-automated**, but this definition is becoming partial. - **Semi-automated terminal**. Only involves the application of one form of automation, dominantly automated staking yards using ASCs. - **Fully automated terminal**. Stacking yard and horizontal transfers between the quay and the yard are automated. This implies that a container is handled automatically from the dockside to the pickup area. - **Completely automated terminal**. Automation occurs from the ship-to-shore crane (ASTSC) through horizontal movements, yard operations, and to the gate (and beyond). In this case, the terminal is a continuous sequence of automation processes. Such a definition does not consider softer forms of automation known as [process automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/forms-container-terminal-process-automation/ "Forms of Container Terminal Process Automation"), such as terminal [appointment systems](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/types-container-terminal-appointment-systems/ "Types of Container Terminal Truck Appointment Systems") and yard planning systems. Therefore, comparing terminals by their level of automation is not a straightforward endeavor. As a capital-intensive and complex process, automation is thus [more prevalent among large commercial gateways and transshipment hubs](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=979). An overview of existing terminal automation facilities underlines three main contexts in which automation is taking place: 1. When an existing terminal facility has a **footprint that is difficult to expand,** automation becomes a strategy to increase capacity and throughput, cope with higher operating costs, and remain competitive. 2. When a terminal acts as a **major transshipment hub**, automation becomes a strategy to increase transshipment throughput. The hub can perform its function more effectively over a 24-hour period, particularly in light of larger containerships. 3. When a **new terminal facility is developed** with the latest automation technology, automation becomes a strategy for attracting customers in a competitive environment while reducing the need to train the port terminal workforce. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_automated_terminals.png?resize=900%2C433&ssl=1 "Types of Automated Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Automated Terminals![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/impacts_container_terminal_automation.png?resize=900%2C294&ssl=1 "Potential Impacts of Container Terminal Automation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Potential Impacts of Container Terminal Automation![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/terminal_automation_hierachy.png?resize=900%2C404&ssl=1 "Container Terminal Automation: Hierarchy of Drivers and Achieved Benefits | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminal Automation Hierarcy of Drivers and Achieved Benefits![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/conventional_automated_container_terminal2.png?resize=900%2C381&ssl=1 "Conventional and Automated Container Terminal Configurations | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Conventional and Automated Container Terminal Configurations![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/container_terminal_appointment_systems2.png?resize=900%2C439&ssl=1 "Types of Container Terminal Truck Appointment Systems | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Container Terminal Truck Appointment Systems![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Automated-Terminals-USA.png?resize=900%2C635&ssl=1 "Automated Terminals in the United States | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Automated Terminals in the United StatesSince automation is a relatively recent process that is starting to diffuse through the container port system, its impacts are not yet well understood. Empirical evidence from early adopters suggests that [certain benefits of automation have been systematically underestimated, while others have been overestimated](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/container-terminal-automation-drivers-achieved-benefits/). To date, the benefits that have most closely aligned with initial expectations are those related to enhanced safety (i.e., the factor that tops the hierarchy towards automation) and the ability to overcome spatial constraints for the expansion of operations (i.e., this has nevertheless not been a factor in the adoption of automation). A positive impact of automation concerns safety since automated terminals are **less prone to accidents** with fewer (or no) workers directly present. Automated equipment also tends to be electrically powered, **reducing local environmental externalities** such as pollution and noise. Further, terminal automation can be effective in a context where labor is expensive or difficult to find and train, particularly when national populations are ageing. The [automation of container terminals may impact several aspects of maritime shipping, terminal operation, and logistics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/potential-impacts-container-terminal-automation/). Shipping networks, terminal operations, the footprint of containerization, and the interactions between key stakeholders such as shipping lines, cargo owners, and logistics service providers are all impacted. It also remains to be seen what the applicable limits of terminal automation are and at what level it does not generate significant additional value. A major challenge in automating an existing terminal facility is **how to phase the process with existing operations**. Removing old equipment and installing automated equipment requires a temporary loss of capacity and operational efficiency. The implementation period for an automated terminal is typically longer than for conventional terminals. Terminal operators have to invest large sums of money over an extended time period to achieve any ROI. The long implementation time is caused by extended terminal construction and testing periods. Converting an existing fully operational terminal to an automated facility can be complex. The operator will need to temporarily give up some of its terminal capacity and manage two operational systems (automated and non-automated) during the transition period. This may involve a decision to forgo revenue while automation is underway, but with the expected benefit of improved efficiency. Terminal automation represents an innovation trajectory whose advancement is closely shaped by the reactions of **diverse stakeholder groups**. The legitimacy and success of such technological transformations depend not only on the economic rationale for automation but also on the ability to address the interests and concerns of the stakeholders affected. These include governments, port authorities, dockworkers, supply chain actors (such as ocean carriers, logistics service providers, and shippers), and the communities of the port cities where automation projects are implemented. Over time, most stakeholder groups have demonstrated a gradual shift toward more positive attitudes. The notable exception has been dockworkers, who remain the most significant source of opposition, reflecting concerns over job security, skill redundancy, and loss of bargaining power. Automation has therefore frequently been at the center of labor disputes and collective bargaining agreements, particularly in Europe and on both coasts of the United States. In contrast, residents of port communities have tended to adopt a largely neutral stance, reflecting limited direct engagement with port operations. Within this landscape, the **effective management of stakeholder relations** becomes a critical factor in facilitating the adoption of terminal automation. By actively engaging with stakeholders, balancing competing interests, and addressing distributional concerns, terminal operators and port authorities can mitigate resistance, foster broader social acceptance, and facilitate the smoother integration of automation into the port system. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 3.2 The Digital Transformation of Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/) - [Chapter 4.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/) - [Chapter 4.5 Port Terminal Construction](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/) --- ## References - US GAO (2024) U.S. Ports Have Adopted Some Automation Technologies and Report Varied Effects, GAO-24-106498. - ITF (2021), “Container Port Automation: Impacts and Implications”, International Transport Forum Policy Papers, No. 96, OECD Publishing, Paris. - Knatz, G., T. Notteboom and A. Pallis (2022) “Container terminal automation: revealing distinctive terminal characteristics and operating parameters” Maritime Economics and Logistics 24, 537–565. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-022-00240-y - Knatz G., T. Notteboom and A. Pallis (2023). Container Terminal Automation: Assessment of Drivers and Benefits. *Maritime Policy and Management*. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2023.2249460. - Kon, W.K., Rahman, N.S.F.A., Hanafiah, R.M. and Hamid, S.A. (2020) “The global trends of automated container terminal: a systematic literature review”. Maritime Business Review. - Majoral, G., Reyes, A., and Saurí, S. (2023). Lessons from Reality on Automated Container Terminals: What Can Be Expected from Future Technological Developments? Transportation Research Record, 2678(2), 401-415. - Moody’s Investor Service (2019). Automated terminals offer competitive advantages, but implementation challenges may limit penetration, June 2019. - Notteboom T., Pallis A.A. and Knatz G., (2025). Stakeholders’ attitudes toward container terminal automation. Maritime Economics and Logistics. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-025-00322-7 - PEMA (2016), Container Terminal Automation, A PEMA Information Paper, Port Equipment Manufacturers Association. - Port Technology International (2018) Navis Survey: Terminal Automation ‘Critical’ to Survival. - United States Government Accountability Office (2024) Port Infrastructure: U.S. Ports Have Adopted Some Automation Technologies and Report Varied Effects, GAO-24-106498. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Ownership of European and American Port Authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/ownership-european-port-authorities/) **Published:** January 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ownership_european_american_port_authorities.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Ownership of European and American Port Authorities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ownership of European and American Port Authorities*Source: adapted from P. Verhoeven (2011) European Port Governance, European Seaports Organization (ESPO). American Association of Port Authorities.* The great majority of European and American port authorities are publicly owned, like in much of the rest of the world. In Europe, central (state/federal) governments and municipalities are the two main types of ownership. Private ownership is limited and can include industrial companies, transport companies (e.g., terminal operators), or financial holdings. In the United States, the federal government has no involvement in port ownership. It is at the state level (provincial in Europe) that ownership is the most common, either as a branch of the state government or through the setting of a port district. The port district is a specifically designed area by the state government, over which a port authority has jurisdiction. The level of municipal ownership is similar in other regions. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/ownership-european-port-authorities/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/ownership-european-port-authorities/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/ownership-european-port-authorities/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/ownership-european-port-authorities/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 8.2 - Port Authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/) **Published:** January 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > Port authorities are involved in port management and promotion. With the increasing presence of private operators, the role of port authorities has evolved. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. The Port Authority](#1_The_Port_Authority) - [2. Functions of Port Authorities](#2_Functions_of_Port_Authorities) - [3. Port Authority Responsibilities](#3_Port_Authority_Responsibilities) - [4. The Port Authority as a Cluster Manager](#4_The_Port_Authority_as_a_Cluster_Manager) - [5. Ownership of Port Authorities](#5_Ownership_of_Port_Authorities) - [6. The Role of Port Authorities in Cruise Ports Governance](#6_The_Role_of_Port_Authorities_in_Cruise_Ports_Governance) # 1. The Port Authority Any given seaport around the world is typically managed by a port authority. > A port authority is a public or private entity that, whether or not in conjunction with other activities, under national law or regulation, is empowered to administer, develop, manage, and, occasionally, operate port land and infrastructure, as well as coordinate and control port operation activities. It is also labelled as a port management entity. Historically, port authorities were governmental or quasi-governmental public institutions (Federal, State, Municipal, etc.) established through a **charter** that defines fundamental aspects related to their jurisdiction, power, and responsibilities: - **Purpose**. Defines the major mandate of the port authority, commonly related to the development and management of maritime commerce and infrastructures, and promoting economic development. - **Jurisdiction**. Usually defined by a port district, which includes the ownership of port land, where the port authority is able to implement strategies defined by its purpose. - **Authority**. Defines if the port authority is able to issue contracts, contract debt, apply for grants, and the regulatory bodies it is subject to. - **Organization**. Defines the governance and organizational structure of the port authority, including its board and officials (such as directors and commissioners) responsible for operations, policies, planning, and implementation. A port authority is established in order to address the following challenges: - **Management of property rights**. In waterfront areas, available real estate for port activities can be scarce and subject to competitive forces, necessitating the use of zoning laws to secure it. The strategic importance of port land necessitates its protection. - **Planning of port development**. The goal is to accommodate current and future traffic expectations by providing essential infrastructure to support cargo handling. - **Provision of public goods**. Includes harbor protection and navigation safety, which cannot be denied to port users who are consuming services that are unlikely to be provided by the market. - **Mitigation of positive and negative externalities**. Port activities generate externalities such as noise, dust, traffic congestion, and emissions, which must be mitigated to improve community relations and abide by environmental regulations. - **Monitoring of local monopolies**. Port services provision is subject to monopolies, which have the potential to generate economic rents and impair port competitiveness. These price-setting mechanisms must be monitored to ensure efficiency. The world’s first port authority, London, was established in 1908 by consolidating all the harbor facilities along the River Thames. The governance structure set by this first port authority became a standard, adapting to a diversity of political and jurisdictional contexts worldwide. In North America, the States of New York and New Jersey created the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1921. Over the decades, it has evolved into a port authority with a diversified portfolio that includes port terminals and supporting facilities, bridges, airports, and public transportation systems. As part of the [port policy formation tasks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2021), national or state legislation defines ownership, institutional structures, level of autonomy, level of strategic freedom, and, frequently, the composition of the governing body of a port authority. Within the given powers and strategic freedoms, port authorities define their goals and activities in order to **fulfill objectives set by their regulators**. Port authorities generally have specific strategic goals related to their responsibilities and functions. Given the differences in institutional structures (i.e. the norms and the rules of an economy) and market environment, the strategic goals may differ. The common strategic goal of port authorities is to promote **competitiveness**, but a number of other strategic goals are either explicitly or implicitly linked with this primary goal: - Contribute to local, regional, and national **economic growth**. - Create **employment** through direct and indirect impacts. - **Facilitate trade**. - Maximize **throughput volumes**. - Maximize the **added value** of the port as a whole or to specific customers. - Generate **income and profits**. - Integrate ports with their **foreland and hinterland**. - Promote more environmentally and energy-efficient processes through **sustainability** practices. The importance and priority of each of these goals depend on factors such as customer expectations, public policy, and the port charter. Still, generating economic growth and creating employment effects are among the most frequently stated goals. As entities, port authorities combine public and private goals and can be characterized as **hybrid or shared value organizations**. Fully public institutions or private port authorities are uncommon, but secondary ports generally have public port authorities. Similarly, the absence of a port authority is rare. There have been cases where ports, including their real estate, were fully privatized. Ports are managed by the private companies that have bought them (e.g. the UK), the centralized national management and regulatory functions (e.g. Colombia), or public institutions assigned to provide oversight (e.g. Hong Kong). ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_policy_formulation.png?resize=900%2C526&ssl=1 "Port Governance Tasks: Port Policy Formulation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Tasks Port Policy FormulationIn the 21st century, the role of port authorities is evolving, with their importance remaining high. Extensive [**port governance reforms**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=159), which devolve powers at the port level and rearrange public and private roles in port management, an expanding presence of private operators and owners, and a changing economic context and technological environment have altered port functions and the role of port authorities. This has led to the introduction of other, more generic terms to describe them, including the widespread use of the managing body of the port. # 2. Functions of Port Authorities The conventional roles of a port authority are those of a landlord, a regulator, and an operator of the port: - **Landlord**. A port authority manages the port assets under its jurisdiction. This commonly concerns the provision of infrastructure, such as piers and the dredging of waterways. This was commonly done with public funds that port authorities were able to levy. - **Regulator**. A port authority sets the planning framework, namely fees, subcontracting services, and safety, as well as the enforcement of national and port-related rules and regulations. - **Operator**. A port authority provides day-to-day services to ships (e.g. pilotage and towage) and merchandise (e.g. loading/unloading and warehousing). Traditionally, port authorities performed one or more of these functions, with the variance defined by local port development traditions. The determining variables were the **centralization level** of port governance-related decisions and the extent of private operations. Since the late 1990s, changes in the business and political environments within which ports operate have [transformed these functions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/recent-changes-port-authority-functions/ "Recent Changes in Port Authority Functions"): - **Devolution of governance**. Supported the notion that port authorities act as corporatized and/or commercialized entities that define autonomously at the local level the planning, development, and management of activities at the respective port(s) under their responsibility. - **Concessioning**. Reduced the role of the port authority as an operator since this role is increasingly assumed by specialized terminal operators renting terminal facilities over long periods of time (up to 30 years). The primary rationale behind this process was that port authorities consistently demonstrated poor performance levels in their terminal operations. As a result, port authorities must manage ports where operations are provided by multiple service providers, including global terminal operators with terminal assets in a wide range of markets. - **Cluster governance**. An emerging and extensive trend in which the port authority assumes leadership in activities that were conventionally outside its jurisdiction. These include various strategies to monitor and improve performance (such as stakeholder relations management, marketing strategies, and internationalization activities), setting up port community systems, promoting environmental and social initiatives, and being involved in training and education for port-related employment, as well as facilitating relations with its surrounding urban areas. This has also introduced further goals related to economic, social, and environmental sustainability, as well as the need to secure the social acceptance of port operators, a practice commonly referred to as securing the port’s license to operate. - **Port regionalization**. The port authority is spatially expanding its conventional jurisdiction by establishing transport corridors, inland terminals, and logistics zones. This can be done directly or in partnership with a terminal operator, a carrier, or a third-party logistics service provider. Along with new business-oriented approaches in public management, these changes progressively altered the strategic role of port authorities. This revision of the role of port authorities refers to two strategies. The first is the positioning of port authorities within the **[new institutional setting](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/emerging-paradigm-role-port-authorities-port-regions/ "Emerging Paradigm in the Role of Port Authorities within their Port Regions")** of port governance. The second relates to the functions and activities of management entities in modern ports aimed at **advancing their competitiveness**. In many cases, the involvement of port authorities in operations was either reduced or abandoned altogether. Port authorities began undertaking several additional functions. Like many organizations, ports now have environmental, social, and governance obligations, in addition to their responsibility for promoting trade. Environmental responsibilities (including mitigation measures) have led to greater coastal planning involvement, the management of inland traffic flows, and urban land-use planning. Social responsibilities increased concerns about the distribution of the costs and benefits of port development. The presence of multiple stakeholders leads to gradual changes in port governance arrangements and the way decisions are made. The strategic choices of port authorities do not imply that their centrality is challenged. On the contrary, it remains intact, despite the new governance settings being at the core of the landlord model. Port authorities are corporatized and assume responsibilities for commercial and financial affairs, investments in new development projects, mid-term business planning and implementation, and the autonomous setting of long-term objectives. There has been a significant increase in the functions that port authorities can be called upon to undertake, although not all of them undertake these tasks. When they do, they opt to act as: - **Conservators**. Focusing on the existing port ecosystems, the application and enforcement of rules and regulations, and maintaining overall functions. - **Facilitators**. Seek broader interaction between economic and societal interests within the port and beyond its perimeter, trying to engage in strategic regional partnerships. - **Entrepreneurs**. Combining the main features of the facilitator with a more outspoken commercial attitude, with the potential to advance the prospects of the port(s) they manage. This can involve the setting up of independent branches involved in the development of new lines of business, including energy generation, real estate (commercial and residential), and services. Τhe [facilitation of entrepreneurial roles](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-authority-marketing-strategies-stakeholder-types/ "Port Authority Marketing Strategies and Stakeholder Types") of port authorities is associated with the following: - Adopting a corporate culture based on **transparency, entrepreneurship, and accountability** that is free from political interference, and encouraging an entrepreneurial approach coupled with strict financial discipline and sound risk management. This has even led to the development of a function supporting new service development by private port companies and knowledge-based institutions in certain ports. - A strategy of increased **flexibility and adaptability**, moving beyond long-term infrastructure plans and endorsed by critical stakeholders. - A permanent and constructive **relationship with stakeholders**, including the business community, government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and local community interest groups, provides the social acceptability that port development companies need to get the permits necessary to operate and expand. - A **port development strategy** that is not confined to within the geographical boundaries of the port but builds partnerships and networks beyond the port boundaries to enhance port competitiveness. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/changes_port_authority_functions.png?resize=900%2C361&ssl=1 "changes_port_authority_functions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Recent Changes in Port Authority Functions![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/emerging_paradigm_port_authority.png?resize=900%2C440&ssl=1 "Emerging Paradigm in the Roles of Port Authorities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Emerging Paradigm in the Roles of Port Authorities![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/pa_marketing_strategies.png?resize=900%2C424&ssl=1 "Port Authority Marketing Strategies and Stakeholder Types | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Authority Marketing Strategies and Stakeholders# 3. Port Authority Responsibilities ## A. The port authority as a landlord The [**landlord port model** ](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/landlord-port/ "Landlord Port")involves private sector operations in the port area. The port authority manages public infrastructure and advances the prospects of the entire port cluster. Among its [many responsibilities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/activities-landlord-port-authorities/ "The Main Activities of Landlord Port Authorities"), the port authority serves as the curator and authorized manager of the port land and adjacent aquatic surfaces, which are leased to the private sector. The port authority acts as the landlord and is commonly the regulatory body responsible for the technical management of the port area and several public authority functions. In contrast, port operations (especially cargo handling) are carried out by private companies. Infrastructure is leased to private operating companies and industries, including refineries, tank terminals, and chemical plants. Private port operators provide and maintain their superstructure, including buildings (e.g., offices, sheds, warehouses, container freight stations, and workshops), as well as dock labor. This has become the dominant model in larger and medium-sized ports. As a landlord, the port authority must **optimize the use of its domain** (the total area, land, and aquatic, under the statutory responsibility of the port authority) by earmarking port areas for specific uses, awarding concessions and authorizations to a selected mix of companies, [monitoring and managing the implementation of concession agreements](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2078), and adopting an appropriate pricing system. A landlord port authority might opt to perform its role as the **conservator**, focusing on passive traffic, real estate, and area management. It can decide to be the **facilitator** who operates as an active broker, mediating business-to-business relations with other actors, including customers (users) and stakeholders. Within a regional approach, it develops strategic partnerships within or beyond the port perimeter. In the largest ports, a port authority might be the **entrepreneur** landlord who acts as the active developer. Simultaneously, it is directly involved in commercial business-to-business negotiations and investments beyond the port perimeter, collaborating with other port authorities as part of an internationalization strategy. The situation is far from being uniform. On the one hand, the port authority is a **concessionaire**, managing leased port areas. Often, leasing accounts for 50% of the total port revenue. In these instances, the port authority has fairly limited autonomy in setting concession prices, port operator authorization fees, wharfage charges, and other dues. At the same time, it is responsible for generating a fiscal surplus. On the other hand, many other port authorities are still described as landlords, but often provide services and engage in strategic activities that are not generally associated with this role. These port authorities operate with greater autonomy and a more business-like structure, encompassing a broader strategic scope and more business-oriented goals. The shift in focus from macro-level goals to firm-level goals underscores their entrepreneurial role. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/landlord_port.png?resize=900%2C615&ssl=1 "Landlord Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Landlord Port![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/activities_landlord_port_authorities.png?resize=900%2C362&ssl=1 "The Main Activities of Landlord Port Authorities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Main Activities of Landlord Port Authorities![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_technical_management.png?resize=900%2C467&ssl=1 "Port Governance Tasks: Technical Management of Port Areas | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Tasks Technical Management of Port Areas## B. The port authority as an operator In ports that continue to have a predominantly public character, known as **service ports**, the port authority acts as the operator, providing a comprehensive range of services necessary for the seaport system to function. The port owns, maintains, and operates every available asset (fixed and mobile), and cargo-handling activities are executed by labor employed directly by the port authority. They are under the direct jurisdiction of public agencies such as a ministry (transport or maritime), a Chair (or Director-General), and a Board of Directors, including civil servants appointed by and directly reporting to the public agency. Port authorities also retain **operating functions** in some ports where the private sector has assumed, via concessions, leases, or outright sales, responsibility for operating terminals. In these cases, the involvement of port authorities in operations involves maintaining a shareholding in private companies that provide services, as well as the provision of public or specialized services. Otherwise, port authorities do not act as operators. They are limited to either applying or monitoring the implementation of mechanistic or dynamic concession policies of terminals to third parties. ## C. The port authority as a regulator Port authorities are the **port level regulators**, undertaking and monitoring several [public authority governance functions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2031). Acting as conservators of a given port or port system, they are responsible for applying and enforcing regulations set by other policymakers, such as national administrators responsible for port policy established by international organizations, including the International Maritime Organization (IMO). These include regulations concerning operational safety, the implementation of local or international safety and security codes (e.g. the ISPS Code), and protocols and rules governing the provision of auxiliary services. Often, port authorities adopt port-specific rules to ensure the effective implementation of these regulations. In several cases, and for specific regulations like navigation, safety, and security, they are assisted by the Harbor Master or the Coast Guard. Port authorities also regulate revenue by having full or partial control over port tariffs. Beyond creating mechanisms that facilitate the implementation and monitoring of compliance, port authorities can develop their own rules. Environmental management is one such field where port authorities are increasingly active in developing initiatives to advance sustainability. The adoption of differential charging methods (i.e. offering lower charges to environmentally friendly ships) is an example of a method currently used to promote the sustainability of port operations. As part of their **internationalization strategies**, port authorities are seeking to capitalize on their regulatory expertise. They are shifting toward an entrepreneurial role, leveraging their expertise and tools available in other ports to generate financial revenues on a commercial basis. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_public_authority.png?resize=900%2C377&ssl=1 "Port Governance Tasks: Public Authority Functions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Tasks Public Authority Functions# 4. The Port Authority as a Cluster Manager ## A. Cluster leaders In a contemporary setting, port authorities are hybrid organizations that act and develop beyond the management of activities within their jurisdiction. Port management entities are increasingly acting as **community and port cluster managers**, engaging with stakeholders and investing in facilitating activities such as information technology, port promotion and marketing, and training and education initiatives. While cargo handling is the core of port activities, geographically concentrated and mutually related transport, logistics, production, and trade activities in the port zone and the surrounding areas, form a [port cluster](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=258#4_Port_Cluster_Governance) (ecosystem). These activities center on a **distinctive economic specialization** developed in each port, with all stakeholders benefiting from improvements in competitiveness. Port authorities are increasingly playing an active role in enhancing competitiveness by strengthening the cluster’s internal cohesion and generating agglomeration effects, as well as fostering competition with the hinterland. Port clusters comprise a substantial number of firms, and their evolution generates cluster externalities, including port marketing, labor inflow, education and training, and improved hinterland access. Some of these externalities might be addressed on an *ad hoc* basis, yet most require shared investments. This is because the threat of free-riding prevents cooperation among competing firms, and, as a consequence, insufficient investments with joint benefits are made. The need for collective action follows, with the port authority standing as the institutional arrangement to address these collective action problems. Within a port cluster, the port authorities act as the **leading firm and the broker**, who is trusted to resolve the emerging collective action problems. These initiatives would not be present otherwise, either because the scale of operations is small and natural internal monopolies exist in many seaports, or because firms operating within the cluster might not take specific actions that prioritize their own interests. The role of the port authority is to increase investments in collective action problems and secure capital. The port authority might advance public-private partnerships, joint responsibility, and joint funding with other stakeholders to achieve this goal. The trust stakeholders have in the port authority can lower transaction costs and enable cooperation, investments, and innovation. Ideally, for a port authority to effectively perform its cluster manager role, it should be self-sustaining and have the autonomy to set prices, make investment decisions, and prioritize maximizing the performance of the port cluster. While port authorities might seek to enhance the cluster’s competitiveness, the situation varies across ports. In some cases, the optimal amount of joint investment is substantial, while in other cases, private industries may invest relatively more, and the additional investment required is relatively limited. The better the cluster governance, the more competitive the port cluster is. ## B. Stakeholder relationships management Stakeholder relationship management practices are important in advancing the prospects of the port cluster. They cover monitoring critical topics, involving stakeholders, and implementing strategies. According to their priorities, port authorities proceed to **identify and classify various stakeholders**, **evaluate their potential influence** on port operations development and planning, **prioritize stakeholder relations**, and then **manage the ties** between the organization and the most influential stakeholders. A port stakeholders classification includes ten categories that refer to internal and external groups that are part of the broader port cluster. Community groups and civil society organizations are also included through their increasing attention to port activities, expansion patterns, and development plans. The main stakeholders include: 1. **Shareholders** include public or private organizations, firms holding an equity stake in the port authority, or those authorized to appoint directors and executives to the port authority board. 2. **Port services providers** such as pilots, mooring and towage operators, customs, and the Coast Guard. 3. **Concessionaires** such as terminal operators with concessions in the port areas, or other concessionaires related to warehouses, industrial areas, logistics platforms, malls, and commercial areas. 4. **Carriers** such as shipping lines and tramp operators. 5. **Employees and trade unions**, including those working at the executive and operational levels in the port authority and in public institutions, labor pools, and port-related firms such as forwarders, ship agents, and customs brokers. 6. **Port users** include freight forwarders, ship agents, brokers, road haulers, railway companies, and logistics providers. 7. **Passengers** include individuals using port facilities for commuting, travel (such as ferries), and tourism (including cruising and yachting). 8. The **financial community**, such as credit and financial institutions, provides financial resources to support port investments and development. 9. **Local community and societal interest groups,** such as people and organizations located in the vicinity of the port areas and affected by port operations and business. The category also includes individuals or groups defending specific, special, or environmental causes. 10. **Regulators**, including local, regional, national, and international institutions, are establishing the institutional and governance frameworks within which ports operate. To achieve their growth targets, port authorities interact with stakeholders and other ports, developing [coordination and cooperation strategies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4143). - First, the **growing complexity of supply chains** is prompting port authorities to adopt strategies aimed at enhancing the level of coordination within their hinterland. Port Authorities act as leaders in bringing together various supply chain actors to provide, through coordination strategies, an integrated transportation service beneficial to all actors, especially the port. - Second, ports develop **cooperation strategies with other ports**, which may be competing ports located in geographic proximity or ports located in different port regions. In the context of the latter strategy and within an entrepreneurial approach, port authorities of the largest ports are involved in i[nternationalization strategies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4143). # 5. Ownership of Port Authorities Seaports remain **predominantly under public ownership**, which is reflected in the ownership structure of port authorities. For most port authorities, particularly in North America and Europe, full ownership by the state or the municipality remains predominant. Only a few port authorities combine ownership across different government levels, such as state-municipal or province-municipal. Mixed public-private ownership is rare, with the public sector owning the majority of shares and limited private shareholder participation. Port authorities listed on the stock exchange remain an exception. Full private ownership, where one or more private parties own both the port authority and the land, is only found in the UK and New Zealand. Despite prevailing perceptions, successive port governance reforms in recent decades have **opened port services** to private actors; however, ownership of port authorities has not undergone substantial changes. In Europe, the financial and economic crises of the 2010s put pressure on national budgets, affecting port ownership and leading to the privatization of some port authorities. In 2016, the major Mediterranean port of Piraeus in Greece was acquired by China’s Cosco Group, which took a 67% stake in the shares of the listed Piraeus Port Authority. In 2018, the second largest port of Greece, Thessaloniki, was acquired by a consortium led by a German investment Fund (Deutsche Invest Equity Partners), Terminal Link (a company owned by CMA-CGM), and China Merchant Holdings International (International Terminal Operator), which also bought 67% of the listed Thessaloniki Port Authority. Two other Greek ports were sold in the 2020s to shipping interests, particularly the Grimaldi Group. Port authorities are also moving toward more **independent private management**. [European ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ownership-european-port-authorities/ "Ownership of European Port Authorities") offer several examples that illustrate this trend. The Port of Amsterdam was officially corporatized in 2013 as a limited liability company, with the City of Amsterdam as the main shareholder. Finnish ports have been limited liability companies since 2015, and as of 2016, the Port Authority of Antwerp, the second-largest port in Europe, became a public law corporation. According to a 2016 survey by the European Sea Ports Organisation, 51% of port authorities in Europe were already structured as independent commercial entities, while 44% remained independent public bodies with their own legal framework and varying degrees of functional and financial dependency on public oversight. While operating under different legal forms, these two main categories may share similarities, such as self-financing and commercial and entrepreneurial behavior aimed at increasing market share and attracting private investment. They may also share the same level of influence with public authorities through participation on the port’s governing board. At the same time, four out of five port authorities were fully or partially subject to commercial law and governed by specific laws and acts. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_cooperation_coordination2.png?resize=900%2C558&ssl=1 "Port Cooperation and Coordination | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Cooperation and Coordination![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ownership_european_american_port_authorities.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Ownership of European and American Port Authorities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ownership of European and American Port Authorities# 6. The Role of Port Authorities in Cruise Ports Governance Port authorities have assumed a different role within each of the cruise port governance models. They perform as either an entrepreneur, a facilitator, or a conservator. The role of the facilitator is characterized as either less or more active, depending on several port strategy and structure variables, including the role of the port management entities coexisting at the cruise port. [Four cruise port governance models](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/variance-port-authorities-cruise-ports/ "Variance of Port Authorities Role in Cruise Ports Governance") are present in the Mediterranean and its adjoining seas, the second major cruise market in the world. Each model assumes a different role in managing the entity of the cruise port. All models co-exist with a contextual environment of apparent complexity and dynamism. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_port_governance_models.png?resize=900%2C391&ssl=1 "Cruise Ports Governance Models | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Ports Governance ModelsThe port authority can be an **active leader and entrepreneur on various** fronts (model A). These are primarily large ports, in terms of passenger movements, without the presence of a cruise terminal operator. The port authority is responsible for planning, developing, and operating the cruise port. It is also the entity leading overall promotion and marketing efforts. These ports tend to target premium cruise lines more than those that belong to other groups. Their strategy typically includes receiving feedback from passengers, applying cancellation policies for cruise lines that fail to adhere to their scheduled times, and seeking public funding to develop infrastructure supporting cruise activities. Large marquee homeports can be marked by the presence of an active investor (model B). Commonly, an International Cruise Terminal Operator (ICTO) manages and operates the terminal. The port authority is closer to the role of the **facilitator** of the ICTO strategic actions. The operator also acts as an investor and develops the port, either alone or with the facilitation of the port authority. The latter is more likely to have made direct investments, while the operator decides autonomously on new investments in capital assets. Just like model A, these are ports receiving feedback from passengers as part of their strategy. At the same time, they tend to develop without establishing partnerships with other cruise ports, terminals, or cruise lines. The role of the port authority can also be that of a **facilitator, though less active** (model C). Ports in this group usually have the terminal operator leading marketing and promotional activities. There is no significant relationship of this model with particular port features (i.e., port type). Instead, both the port authority and the cruise terminal operator jointly advance port planning. The entities operating cruise terminals tend not to make direct investments, with such investments remaining a public sector responsibility. There are smaller cruise ports where the port authority maintains a **passive managerial role** (model D). This is the entity that, in practice, assumes the role of the conservator by taking responsibility for all marketing and promotional activities. It also tends to develop strategic partnerships with other cruise ports, terminals, or cruise lines. The strategy of these ports is also rather conservative. They usually do not apply berth allocation policies, nor do they receive feedback from passengers. These ports rarely target hosting the contemporary mass cruise market segment, and most of them do not have formal collaborations with those responsible for other transportation modes. Even if terminal operators are involved in port operations, they typically do not make autonomous decisions on new investments. --- ## Related Topics - [Chapter 4.1 Port Governance and Reform](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-reform-and-governance/) - [Chapter 4.3 Port Coordination and Cooperation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-cooperation-and-coordination/) - [Chapter 4.4 Port Clusters](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-clusters/) - [Chapter 4.5 Green Port Governance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/green-port-governance/) - [Chapter 8.1 Cruise Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/cruises-ports/) ## References - Brooks M.R., McCalla, R., Pallis A.A., and Van der Lugt L. (2010). Cooperation and Coordination in Strategic Port Management: The Case of Atlantic Canada’s Ports. Canadian Journal of Transportation, 4(1), 29-42. - Chlomoudis, C.I. & Pallis A.A. (2004). Port Governance and the Smart Port Authority: Key issues for the Reinforcement of Quality Services in European Ports. 10th World Conference on Transport Research, Istanbul, Turkey. - Dooms, M. van der Lugt, L., Parola, F., Satta G. and Song, D.-W. (2019) The internationalization of port managing bodies in concept and practice, Maritime Policy & Management, 46:5, 585-612. - European Sea Port Organisation (ESPO) (2016). Trends in EU port governance. Brussels: ESPO. - Notteboom T., Ducruet, C. and De Langen P.W. (2009). *Ports in Proximity: Competition and Coordination among Adjacent Seaports*. Aldershot: Ashgate. - Notteboom, T., de Langen, P., Jacobs, W. 2013. Institutional plasticity and path dependence in seaports: interactions between institutions, port governance reform and port authority routines. *Journal of Transport Geography*, 27, 26–35. - Pallis A.A.. Arapi K.P. and Papachristou A.A. (2019). Models of Cruise Ports Governance. Maritime Policy and Management, 46(5), 630-651. - Pallis A.A. and Kladaki P. (2019). Inter–organisational relationships of European port management entities. Ιn: Panayides P.M. (ed): Routledge Handbook In Maritime Management, 283-298, London: Routledge. - Parola, F., Pallis, A.A., Risitano, M. and Ferretti, M. (2018). Marketing strategies of port authorities: A multi-dimensional theorisation, Transportation Research Policy and Practice Part A, 111, 199-212. - Van der Horst, M.R. and de Langen, P.W., (2008). Coordination in hinterland transport chains: a major challenge for the seaport community. *Maritime Economics & Logistics,* 10(1-2), pp.108-129. - Verhoeven, P. (2010). A Review of Port Authority Functions: Towards a Renaissance? *Maritime Policy and Management*, 37(3), 247-270. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Main Activities of Landlord Port Authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/activities-landlord-port-authorities/) **Published:** January 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/activities_landlord_port_authorities.png?resize=900%2C362&ssl=1 "The Main Activities of Landlord Port Authorities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Main Activities of Landlord Port Authorities*Source: adapted from De Langen, P. (2008) Ensuring Hinterland Access: The Role of Port Authorities, JTRC Discussion Paper 2008-11.* A port authority is managing assets and relations. Its activities range from **operational** to **strategic** issues. Operational issues are obviously related to the day-to-day management of port activities such as vessel scheduling, pilotage, tugs, and security. In contrast, strategic issues pertain to infrastructure development, customer interactions, real estate management, and relations with regulatory and stakeholder agencies and organizations. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/activities-landlord-port-authorities/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/activities-landlord-port-authorities/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/activities-landlord-port-authorities/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/activities-landlord-port-authorities/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Forms of Container Terminal Process Automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/forms-container-terminal-process-automation/) **Published:** March 20, 2026 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/forms_process_automation.png?resize=900%2C353&ssl=1 "Forms of Container Terminal Process Automation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Forms of Process Automation*Source: Adapted from Kalmar SmartPort: The Path to Process Automation.* The two fundamental forms of container terminal automation involve process and operational automation. While operational automation focuses on the systems in place for the physical vertical and horizontal movements of containers, process automation is another layer that relies on “softer” forms of automation, leaning more on software than on equipment and infrastructure. It takes four major forms: - **Data capture and identification**. The series of tasks involved in capturing information from containers and vehicles for their identification and access. This can be done at the terminal gate for authorized entries and exits or in the yard for handling tasks such as container stacking or retrieval. Containers, vehicles, and equipment can also be visually inspected through cameras and drones to detect damage. - **Position detection and tracking**. A series of technologies available to assess the position of containers, vehicles, and equipment in real time for efficient terminal operations. They commonly fall under the umbrella of position detection systems (PDS) and real-time location systems (RTLS), relying on positional technologies such as DGPS (differential global positioning system) and RFID. - **Integration layer**. Rely on terminal operating systems (TOS) to provide real-time inventory updates about containers within yards and the allocation of workflows to dispatch labor and equipment. - **Visualization and decision support**. Provide real-time, comprehensive visualization of yard activities, often through [digital twin](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/digital-twin-pnit-busan-new-port/ "Digital Twin, PNIT, Busan New Port") representations. This enables equipment and vehicles to operate more seamlessly by providing yard navigation and operational assistance. While process automation can be implemented alongside operational automation, it can also be implemented separately in non-automated terminals to improve operational efficiency. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/forms-container-terminal-process-automation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/forms-container-terminal-process-automation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/forms-container-terminal-process-automation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/forms-container-terminal-process-automation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cumulative Number of Automated Terminals and Automated Surface](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/cumulative-number-automated-terminals-automated-surface/) **Published:** January 6, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cumulative_automated_terminals3.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Cumulative Number of Automated Terminals and Automated Surface | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cumulative Number of Automated Terminals and Automated Surface*Source: Adapted from Drewry Shipping Consultants and Port Equipment Manufacturers Association.* Container terminal automation follows a standard technological diffusion cycle that involves adoption, growth, peak growth, and maturity, which represents full adoption. Until the late 2000s, only a few terminals implemented [automation strategies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/types-automated-terminals/ "Types of Automated Terminals") because these strategies involved unproven technologies, high capital costs, and significant risk. Then, from the early 2010s, the number of automated terminals increased rapidly as equipment was standardized and automation costs declined. Since then, the number of automated terminals has steadily increased, but automation remains a capital-intensive endeavor. As of 2025, [77 terminals were automated](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/fully-semi-automated-container-terminals-total-hectares/ "Automated Container Terminals, 2025"), totaling more than 5,670 hectares of terminal surface, which still represents less than 10% of all main terminals. Although semi-automated terminals are the most common, their diffusion has slowed in recent years as the share of fully and completely automated terminals steadily increased. Since 2021, completely automated terminals have been the fastest-growing segment. The diffusion of container terminal automation is likely to continue over the next decade. It remains unclear whether it will encompass a large number of container terminals or remain a niche, circumstantial application. It is also expected that various forms of operational and process automation will be embedded in container terminals to the point that the distinction between automated and non-automated will be blurred. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/cumulative-number-automated-terminals-automated-surface/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/cumulative-number-automated-terminals-automated-surface/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/cumulative-number-automated-terminals-automated-surface/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/cumulative-number-automated-terminals-automated-surface/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Automated Container Terminals, 2025](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/fully-semi-automated-container-terminals-total-hectares/) **Published:** January 6, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Container-Terminal-Automation-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Automated Container Terminals, 2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Automated Container Terminals 2025[PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Container-Terminal-Automation-1.pdf) *Source: Data from Rodrigue, J-P (2025) “A Systemic Analysis of Container Terminal Layouts”, Journal of Shipping and Trade, Vol. 10, No. 4, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-025-00194-3.* An inventory of container terminal automation reveals a [rapidly evolving situation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/cumulative-number-automated-terminals-automated-surface/ "Cumulative Number of Automated Terminals and Automated Surface"). Although the information is likely incomplete, 76 container terminals worldwide were having a form of operational automation as of 2025. Considering that there are about 850 container terminals of relevant size and function, this represents 9.0% of all main container terminals but 14.7% of the total global footprint in terms of hectares. While the average container terminal size was 51.7 hectares, it was 74.7 hectares for automated terminals, underscoring the scale advantage of automation. Three distinct [categories of operational terminal automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/types-automated-terminals/ "Types of Automated Terminals") stand out: - **Semi-automated**. The most common form that involves automating the vertical movements in stacking yards, with 50 reported facilities. With a mean size of 61.1 hectares, these terminals are larger than the average container terminal. - **Fully automated**. Horizontal and vertical terminal movements are automated, which involves substantially larger terminals with a mean of 99.7 hectares. - **Completely automated**. In addition to automating horizontal and vertical movements, these terminals also have either remote-controlled or automated ship-to-shore cranes. These terminals are about the same average size (92.0 hectares) as those that are fully automated. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/fully-semi-automated-container-terminals-total-hectares/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/fully-semi-automated-container-terminals-total-hectares/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/fully-semi-automated-container-terminals-total-hectares/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/fully-semi-automated-container-terminals-total-hectares/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Terminal Automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/freight-terminal-automation/) **Published:** January 6, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_terminal_automation2.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Port Terminal Automation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Terminal AutomationFreight terminal automation involves a **physical** (equipment) and an **information** component: - **Process automation**. Mainly involves information-processing technologies that enable more efficient management of terminal operations and container flows. Terminal Operating Systems, optical character recognition, and RFID are examples of process automation. This can also involve automated gate systems that allow for the quick processing of truck entries and exits, including [appointment systems](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/types-container-terminal-appointment-systems/ "Types of Container Terminal Truck Appointment Systems"). - **Operational automation**. Mainly involves equipment technologies that physically handle containers either through horizontal intra-terminal movements or through vertical stacking movements. A variety of automation technologies are available for such a purpose, including automated guided vehicles (AGVs), automated straddle carriers (AutoStrads), and automated stacking cranes (ASCs). This can also include ship-to-shore cranes, either remotely controlled or automated. The above involves configuring freight terminals to accommodate automation, particularly the processes for handling containers using automated equipment. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/freight-terminal-automation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/freight-terminal-automation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/freight-terminal-automation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/freight-terminal-automation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 5.4 - Dry and Liquid Bulk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/) **Published:** January 19, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Theo Notteboom & Dr. Athanasios Pallis > Dry bulk and liquid bulk terminals offer a diverse range of terminal designs and functions, along with a broad selection of quay, yard, and warehousing equipment. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Bulk Market Segments and Vessels](#1_Bulk_Market_Segments_and_Vessels) - [2. Dry Bulk Terminals](#2_Dry_Bulk_Terminals) - [3. Liquid Bulk Terminals](#3_Liquid_Bulk_Terminals) - [4. Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) Terminals](#4_Liquified_Natural_Gas_LNG_Terminals) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Bulk Market Segments and Vessels The term bulk refers to commodities that are **transported in large quantities**. Three major components impact bulk markets: - **Supply characteristics**. Resources carried by bulk are extracted according to geographic (minerals and fossil fuels) and climatic conditions (agricultural goods and wood products). Some, such as coal, iron ore, and petroleum, have a high concentration level, while others, such as agricultural goods, are collected over extensive areas. In all cases, bulk commodities require substantial storage capacity. - **Demand characteristics**. Each bulk market has a demand-pull related to intermediary processing and manufacturing activities. The location of these facilities, typically adjacent to port sites, considers the demand for resources across an extensive market and a material index (ratio of inputs to outputs). The demand for bulk commodities is usually managed by large commodity traders and brokers who can consolidate purchases and distribute large quantities. - **Potential for economies of scale**. The economic rationale for using the largest ship size possible, considering the geographical distribution of supply and demand, is fundamental in the bulk market. This potential is limited by the characteristics of the waterways at the port of origin, in transit (e.g., Panama, Suez), and at the port of destination. The outcome is a wide [range of bulk ship classes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/bulk-ship-classes/ "Bulk Ship Classes") trying to reconcile supply, demand, and economies of scale. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/bulk_ship_classes.png?resize=900%2C399&ssl=1 "Bulk Ship Classes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Bulk Ship ClassesThere are **three main bulk markets**, each consisting of several sub-markets: - **Major dry bulk** commodities include iron ore, coal, and grains. They are **not homogeneous**, as several grades of coal are used for making steel (coking coal) and energy generation (steam coal). Each represents a different market, implying a segmentation of the bulk trades. - **Minor dry bulk** commodities include cargoes such as fertilizers, bulky agricultural products, cement, sand, petroleum coke, and metal scrap. While major bulks are often loaded in large bulk carriers (such as Capesize and Panamax vessels), minor bulks are usually transported by sea in **smaller and more versatile vessels** such as handymax ships and coasters. The term minor bulk is derived from the potential economies of scale that can be realized due to market size and demand patterns that are more dispersed than those for major bulk trades. - **Liquid bulk** includes products in liquid and gaseous forms, such as crude oil, oil products, LNG, and LPG. These products are shipped by oil tankers, chemical tankers, parcel tankers, and gas carriers. The **oil tanker fleet** consists of [various ship sizes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/tanker-size/ "Tanker Sizes and Classes") and has been particularly susceptible to economies of scale, considering the global demand for petroleum, one of the most extensively traded commodities. A common size is the Very Large Crude Carrier (VLCC), which is around 200,000 dwt. LNG carriers can be grouped into different sizes depending on the trade route concerned and service a market that has seen rapid growth. Chemical and parcel tankers are designed to carry an assortment of liquids, such as chemicals or different grades of a liquid, like petroleum, at one time. They usually have a capacity in the range of 25,000 to 80,000 dwt, although smaller units are used for coastal trade. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/tanker_sizes_classes.png?resize=900%2C573&ssl=1 "Tanker Sizes and Classes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Tanker Sizes and Classes![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/lng-ship-mesaimeer.jpg?resize=900%2C600&ssl=1 "Q-flex LNG Carrier "Mesaimeer" | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Q Flex LNG carrier Mesaimee# 2. Dry Bulk Terminals ## A. Major dry bulk terminals There is an important **directionality** to major bulk trade, implying that export bulk terminals (mainly for coal and iron ore) are designed rather differently from import bulk terminals: - **Export terminals**. Combine stacker reclaimer systems and ship loaders to connect the yard to the bulk carriers. Export terminals facilitate outgoing cargo flows and are strongly synchronized with the inland transport system (mostly rail-based) that connects the mining areas to the terminal. Export terminals try to limit stocks, but sometimes must keep a large (unsold) stock to support commodity trade pricing. In most cases, export terminals handle a limited number of material types due to their location in relation to mining areas or due to their ownership, as many export terminals are owned by traders or mining companies. The location of many export terminals is a compromise between hinterland and maritime accessibility. A notable example of a major dry bulk export terminal is Port Hedland in Australia, the world’s largest bulk export port, which primarily handles coal and iron ore. - **Import terminals**. Unloaders equipped with large grabs are used to discharge the commodities. Several types of quay cranes and grabs are available. The choice of crane type depends on the operational needs of the terminal operator, specifically the ship sizes to be served and the minimum cargo handling productivity required in tons per hour. Conveyor systems transport the discharged commodities along the quay and onto the yard. As import terminals usually handle multiple types and grades of major bulk materials, stockpiles of bulk materials are spread across the yard. The terminal surfaces of import terminals are quite large to avoid cross-contamination between stockpiles and comply with necessary certification requirements. Stacker reclaimers are used to transport the bulk products from the yard to the loading stations for seagoing vessels, inland barges, and railcars. Import terminals for handling major bulks rely heavily on rail and barge (where available) for hinterland transportation. They have to match services to both the waterside and landside modalities. The most advanced bulk terminals are equipped with automated railcar loading/unloading systems. Terminal planning is quite challenging as vessels usually arrive in a stochastic manner (randomly along a probability distribution), and the consignee selects landside services and inland modalities. A good example of a major import terminal for dry bulk is [EMO in Rotterdam](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/dry-bulk-terminal-rotterdam/ "Import-Oriented Dry Bulk Terminal: EMO Rotterdam"), one of the largest dry bulk terminals in Europe. Coal and iron ore terminals may offer additional services, such as washing and screening to separate the bulk material into different grades, blending silos, and compacting to prevent spontaneous combustion. Terminals **mitigate environmental effects** by investing in technology to save energy and reduce noise and dust emissions. **Dust control** is a key concern at dry bulk terminals. Whenever a transfer of coal or iron ore occurs, there is a potential for the lumps to break, resulting in dust that can be spread by crosswinds. Once the coal or iron ore is stockpiled, dust can still be a problem, particularly when vehicles and heavy equipment (cranes) drive over crushed lumps. Even if it arrives wet, wind across the stockpile can evaporate the moisture, and dust will be lifted. Several measures are taken to reduce dust emissions, such as: - **Dust covers**. Installed on grabs and conveyors. - **Fogging systems**. Releasing small droplets of water into the air, forcing dust to precipitate. - **Sprinkler systems**. Spray water on stockpiles to keep them damped down. This includes an adapted drainage system and, on occasion, a water recycling station. - **Stockpile design**. Optimized pile shapes avoiding steep slopes and pile orientation minimizing wind exposure. - **Protective layer**. Put over the stockpile, such as a skin formed by a water additive. - **Loading chutes with heavy-duty dust skirts**. Can be used in the case of loading operations in the vessel holds to prevent dust cloud formation arising from the product falling onto the peak of the product pile in the hold. The capacity of a dry bulk terminal to transload coal or iron ore is determined by many factors, such as the quay length, the yard dimensions, the quay and yard equipment, the stockpile patterns and heights, the storage time distribution of the bulk material, the number of types and/or grades handled, the terminal operating hours (waterside and landside), the arrival patterns, types and sizes of ships and land transport modes. The use of an existing terminal can be further optimized by improving berthing/unberthing procedures, optimizing vessel traffic rules, synchronizing vessel and landside operations, reducing downtime (caused by hatch changes, shift changes, or breakdowns), and installing provisions that allow all-weather operations. In some cases, dry bulk is not handled at terminals, but by using [offshore handling facilities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/offshore-dry-bulk-handling/). The offshore handling of dry bulk cargo ranges from simple floating cranes to sophisticated floating transfer stations with large offshore storage capabilities. **[Grain terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/grain-terminals-examples/ "Examples of Grain Terminals")** are designed to handle and store wheat, soy, and other grains and oilseeds. Their core purpose is to act as major collection and distribution points, as well as storage facilities, to address the seasonality of grain production, which contrasts with a more stable demand. There are many models of both discontinuous systems (such as those using grabs) and continuous ship unloaders (CSU), including pneumatic chains, screws, or twin-belt machines. Grain elevators stockpile or store grains using bucket elevators or pneumatic conveyors that scoop up grain from a lower level and deposit it in a silo or other storage facility. Large grain terminals can have dozens of large silos located next to each other. Many grain terminals offer additional services, such as cargo sieving to calibrate the grain, and fumigation. Several factors influence the performance of unloading systems, including ship type and size, type of product, number of product impurities, product density, adverse weather conditions, and downtime. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Equipment-bulk-terminal-cranes.png?resize=900%2C452&ssl=1 "Crane Technology at Bulk Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Crane technology on dry bulk terminals![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Equipment-bulk-terminal-1.png?resize=900%2C465&ssl=1 "Equipment at a Coal and Iron Ore Terminal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Equipment at a coaliron ore terminal![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/EMO-Rotterdam.png?resize=900%2C497&ssl=1 "EMO-Rotterdam | Port Economics, Management and Policy")EMO bulk terminal in Rotterdam![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/offshore-dry-bulk-handling.png?resize=900%2C333&ssl=1 "Offshore Dry Bulk Handling | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Offshore dry bulk handling![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Grain-terminals.png?resize=900%2C623&ssl=1 "Grain-terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of grain terminals## B. Minor dry bulk terminals Just like for major bulks, minor bulks are placed or poured into cargo holds. The terminal superstructure includes: - **Cranes and conveyors**. Portal quay cranes, jib cranes, mobile cranes, floating cranes, and loader/unloader systems are deployed to load and discharge minor bulks, combined with conveyor and elevator systems where required. The cranes are equipped with specialized grabs, mostly of the clamshell type. The grabs can be operated by ropes (single-rope, two-rope, or four-rope clamshell buckets), electro-hydraulically, or hydraulically using diesel power. - **Yard and warehouse vehicles**. The cargo handling operations are supported by different types of yard and warehouse vehicles, such as bobcats, tractors, trailers, forklifts, and front-end loading shovels (fitted with a pusher). - **Other equipment** at the yard and the covered storage facilities can include weighbridges, hoppers (where the product is loaded into trailers or trucks), blending silos, and bagging plant facilities. - **Minor bulk storage facilities** can be in the open air or covered in warehouses and are typically sectioned off into separate bays to enable various products or grades to be stored. Minor bulk terminals face a wide range of **operational risks**, including cross-contamination of cargo types, water ingress, and fire/ignition/explosion hazards. Handling bulk ships can be hazardous, with specific rules and regulations governing cargo movement and immersion. # 3. Liquid Bulk Terminals ## A. Loading and discharging operations Due to the nature of the commodities they handle, **liquid bulk terminals** are radically different from dry bulk terminals, as they are equipped to handle cargoes in liquid and gaseous forms, such as crude oil, oil products, LNG, and LPG. In addition, they require extensive tank storage facilities, commonly the most visible element of liquid bulk terminals. The **loading and unloading of tankers** needs special equipment, such as loading hoses or loading arms. These **loading arms** include safety accessories and are often geared with remotely operated quick couplers. Loading arms consist of a piping assembly with movable pipes. The flexibility is achieved by swiveling joints. Because of the high weight of the steel piping, the movable pipes are counterweight-balanced. The loading arms can have one or two liquid lines and, if needed, can be equipped with a vapor line. The loading arms can be installed on **jetties** or **regular quay walls**. Due to these characteristics, liquid bulk terminals tend to use jetties as berth areas, as limited activity outside of pumping occurs on the dock. ## B. Tank storage facilities The yard of a liquid bulk terminal typically features a combination of **tank storage facilities** and other technical installations, including pump stations. Many liquid bulk terminals are **directly connected by pipeline** to chemical or petrochemical production sites. The storage tanks rely on two storage methods: - **Fixed roof tanks**. They tend to be used for unrefined petroleum products (crude oil) and may require a heating system to keep the product viscous and easier to pump. - **Floating roof tanks**. The tank roof floats over the stored product and varies according to the quantity. They are used for more volatile products, such as gasoline. The capture and recovery of hydrocarbon vapor or volatile organic compounds (VOC) to reduce emissions is vital in modern oil and gas terminal handling and storage. The requirements for the **vapor recovery systems** depend on the type of product handled and stored. Vapor from the cargo tanks passes through a vapor head to a recovery unit. Sulfur components in the vapor are removed before entering the vapor recovery system. Thousands of terminal operators are active in the global commercial tank storage industry. With a combined total capacity of 223 million cubic meters in 2022, the [top ten actors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/tank-storage-capacity-number-terminals/ "Tank Storage Capacity and Number of Terminals") cover around 21% of the total capacity globally. However, there is enough room for other tank terminal players to operate a sustainable business in specific regions, countries, or ports. The largest tank storage farms in seaports offer millions of cubic meters of capacity. The specializations of terminals can significantly differ. Some terminals are focused on only one type of product (for example, LNG or crude oil). In contrast, other terminal operators offer tank storage services to a wide range of petroleum products, chemicals, vegetable oils, and biofuels. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/tank_storage_capacity.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Tank Storage Capacity and Number of Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Tank Storage Capacity and Number of Terminals## C. Functions Tank terminals typically support a combination of functions, with each function having its own commercial specifics: - **Logistical and hub functions**. They store the input or the production of petrochemical and industrial complexes. This involves storing a buffer stock to accommodate production cycles and seasonality. - **Trading platform**. The terminals act as locations for physical arbitrage, blending, contango storage, and optionality. Inventories are needed at various locations in the supply chain to balance global and regional variations in supply and demand. During periods of oversupply, tank terminal capacity is necessary to store the excess product and enable traders to hold onto these inventories. Such periods of oversupply and contango (i.e., when future commodity prices are higher than the spot price) can last several months (even years), therefore requiring a considerable amount of spare tank capacity. - **Strategic storage**. Involves maintaining inventory levels to deal with unforeseen events, such as supply disruptions, which improves economic resilience. Strategic storage requirements depend on oil products and chemical consumption levels. If consumption in a specific region is declining, less inventory is needed to balance variations in supply and demand. Still, strategic reserves at tank terminals are expensive to maintain as inventory is considered outside the market and usually takes the form of additional buffers blended with other functions. # 4. Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) Terminals Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminals are infrastructure nodes that perform a wide range of technical and logistical activities, designed to be autonomous in managing LNG cargo while ensuring efficiency, safety, and limited environmental impacts. In addition to their main function as import facilities, they fulfil other purposes, such as serving as multimodal facilities, providing services for the operation of maritime activities, including unloading, storage, reloading, and transport, serving as small-scale distribution facilities, and regasification. LNG terminals add more value than importing natural gas. They diversify the energy mix, strengthen energy security, and develop competitive gas markets. Countries without LNG terminals are relatively vulnerable to pipeline interruptions. In contrast, countries with multiple terminals operating gain greater flexibility and leverage in the global energy market. ## A. The Evolution of the LNG Market The development of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as an alternative energy source began in the mid-20th century, when the US commissioned several pilot liquefaction plants in the 1940s and 1950s. Initially, LNG was conceived as a form of energy storage. By liquefying natural gas, operators could store it for peak shaving, when it could be injected it into distribution pipelines during peak demand. It is only at a later time that the transport of natural gas as LNG could be undertaken. The beginning of international LNG trade is traced to 1959, when the first commercial cargo of LNG departed from Lake Charles, Louisiana, and arrived at Canvey Island, United Kingdom. The industry entered its next phase in the 1960s and 1970s, with large-scale liquefaction facilities emerging in Algeria and receiving terminals opening across Europe and Asia. Spain and Italy were among the European pioneers, commissioning regasification terminals in Barcelona and La Spezia in 1969. Growth slowed in the 1980s and 1990s due to low oil prices and the limited competitive advantage of LNG compared with pipeline gas supplied by Russia, Norway, and North Africa into Western Europe. However, rising environmental concerns and advances in cryogenic technology revived interest in LNG toward the end of the 1990s. In the 21st century, LNG has evolved into an essential component of global energy systems. More stringent environmental regulations and the need to diversify energy sources have positioned LNG as both a transitional fuel and a key resource for maritime transport. Energy security has further elevated its strategic value, as geopolitical developments (i.e. the war in Ukraine and the interruption of Russian pipeline flows) have forced many countries to rely on seaborne LNG imports at unprecedented volumes. **Liquefaction capacity** has expanded rapidly in Qatar, Nigeria, and Australia, while regasification infrastructure has expanded across Europe, North America, and Asia. Europe, traditionally dependent on Russian pipeline gas, increasingly views LNG terminals as strategic assets for enhancing energy resilience. **[Several European countries have invested heavily in LNG infrastructure](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/lng-terminals-in-europe-2023/)** to diversify supply routes, secure domestic supply, but also support re-export operations, and provide bunkering services for international shipping. Today, the **global LNG trade** exceeds 400 million tonnes (MT), connecting 20 exporting LNG countries with 51 importing countries. One-fourth of global LNG trade takes place on the largest route, the intra-Asia Pacific route. China is the largest LNG importer, followed by Japan and South Korea, and several medium-sized (i.e., Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia) or new (Vietnam, Philippines) LNG markets exist in the region. India has emerged as the fourth-largest LNG importer, with France in fifth place. The re-exported LNG trade is equivalent to 2% of the total LNG trade. Re-exports are loaded in approximately 25 markets, with Spain, China, and Indonesia taking the top three positions. Europe loads 40% of all re-exported volumes, followed by Asia Pacific at 30%. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Global-LNG-Trade-Exporting-Countries.png?resize=900%2C423&ssl=1 "Global LNG Trade: Exporting Countries (2023) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global LNG Trade Exporting Countries 2023![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/LNG-Terminals-in-Europe-2023-1.png?resize=900%2C423&ssl=1 "LNG Terminals in Europe (2023) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")LNG Terminals in Europe 2023![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/natural_gas_sport_prices_US_EU.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Natural Gas Spot Prices, United States and Europe (1997-2025) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Natural Gas Spot Prices United States and Europe 1997 2025The **dynamics** of these markets are affected by the availability of competing power sources, such as renewables, coal, and nuclear generation capacities. At the same time, temporary volatility arises from factors such as higher or lower-than-normal LNG inventories and weather conditions. Geopolitics have been among the most critical factors in LNG trade, particularly the [large spread between North American and European gas prices](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/natural-gas-spot-prices-united-states-europe/ "Natural Gas Spot Prices, United States and Europe (1997-2025)"), which has driven robust trade from the US to key European importers. In 2023, 10 of the exporting markets increased exports, while the other 10 reduced exports. The lack of supply growth has limited LNG trade growth, though warm northern hemisphere winters led to lower energy consumption and contributed to a slow demand recovery. ## B. LNG Terminals LNG terminals serve a dual function: they ensure the security of the domestic energy supply and help decarbonise the maritime industry by enabling the use of LNG-powered vessels. In recent years, the number of LNG terminals worldwide has multiplied. The **L**NG supply cha**in** involves different types of infrastructure to handle liquefied natural gas, each of them facilitating distinct functions:. - An **onshore LNG terminal** is a land-based facility used either for exporting or importing LN**G.** **Import terminals** receive LNG from carriers, store it in large cryogenic tanks, regasify it, and deliver it to pipelines**. Export terminals** perform the opposite function: they **l**iquefy natural gas and load it onto LNG carriers. Onshore terminals require substantial infrastructure **i**nvestments and lengthy construction times**,** but they typically offer greater capacity and long-term operational stability. - An **FSRU (Floating Storage and Regasification Unit)** is a floating LNG import terminal, usually a converted LNG carrier or a purpose-built vessel. It is moored at a port or offshore and performs three functions: **re**ceiving LNG from carriers, storing it, and converting it back into natural gas (regasification). The regasified gas is then sent to the national gas grid via pipelines. FSRUs are widely used because they can be deployed quickly and at a lower cost than onshore terminals, providing flexibility for countries that need to import LNG without building permanent infrastructure. From a geographical perspective, the **location of LNG terminals** is guided by three overlapping rationales. - **Proximity** to established anchorage routes and deep-water approaches used by LNG carriers reduces navigational risk and shortens vessel turnaround times. - **Integration** with high-capacity transmission infrastructure—specifically transmission pipelines, pressure-regulation stations, and compression nodes—helps mitigate send-out constraints and operational bottlenecks. - The ability to **support** layered functions such as reloading, small-scale distribution, and bunkering necessitates direct foreshore access, appropriate berthing configurations, designated safety zones, and alignment with local permitting and regulatory frameworks. As for the [services offered at LNG terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/services-provided-lng-import-terminals/), the basic one is unloading and storing LNG cargoes in insulated onshore tanks or floating storage units. LNG is stored in large, insulated cryogenic tanks at temperatures around –162°C. Vapour return lines prevent overpressure during loading and unloading. Specialized jetties accommodate LNG carriers with reinforced mooring systems. Loading arms and flexible cryogenic hoses connect ships to shore facilities. Storage enables greater operational flexibility in regasification times. It also creates arbitrage opportunities for the market. This preliminary process is followed by regasification, which converts the LNG back to its gaseous state for distribution through pipelines towards the domestic and regional markets. Public and private plants allow for matching seasonal demand peaks. LNG import terminals are evolving beyond traditional terminals, where LNG is unloaded, regasified, and injected into the national gas supply network. Mainly due to oversupply and low margins, many importing LNG terminals have adapted, or are adapting, their facilities to offer a range of services to customers, including: - **Ship reloading** – the transfer of LNG from the terminal into a vessel (including smaller ships); - **Transhipment** – the direct transfer of LNG from one vessel to another; - **Bunkering** – the loading of LNG onto bunkering ships for supply to LNG-fuelled ships; - **Truck loading** – the loading of LNG onto tank trucks, which transport LNG in smaller quantities; and - **Cooling down and gassing up service** – making use of LNG to cool down and gas up ships. - **Rail loading** (i.e., loading LNG onto railcars) is currently offered at a few terminals but is under consideration at several additional LNG import terminals. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Services-at-LNG-Terminals.png?resize=900%2C359&ssl=1 "Services at LNG Import Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Services provided at LNG import terminalsLNG facilities might support small-scale LNG distribution, loading LNG onto trucks or small vessels for delivery to industrial sites, ferries, and off-grid communities. This niche can be significant in countries with less developed pipeline networks, such as island nations (Malta, Cyprus) or smaller markets. Bunkering services have increased due to IMO discussions on sulphur caps and the broader decarbonisation agenda. Bunkering operations can be conducted via truck-to-ship, ship-to-ship (STS), or hybrid methods. Early adopters have used this practice to provide the infrastructure to attract cruise lines and overland businesses switching to low-emission fuels. For shipping firms, bunkering LNG helps reduce transit risks and ensures compliance with the IMO International Code of Safety for Ships Using Gases or Other Low-Flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code). Further, the flexibility offered by reloading and small-scale distribution presents buyers and shipowners with greater opportunities to optimise supply chains. Reloading and re-export of stored LNG implies cargoes transferred on board vessels for onward delivery to alternative markets. For example, Spanish terminals have regularly re-exported LNG to Asian markets when favourable price spreads warrant arbitrage. As LNG is flammable, LNG terminals exhibit strict safety and risk management protocols. Operations must comply with IMO, ISO, and EU safety frameworks. Emergency systems are in place to suppress fire and detect gas. Furthermore, emergency shutdown systems are mandatory. Terminal personnel undergo specialized training in cryogenic handling and emergency response. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 3.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminals-and-terminal-operators/) - [Chapter 3.2 Terminal Concessions and Land Leases](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/) - [Chapter 3.7 Dock Labor](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/port-labor/) - [Chapter 3.8 Terminal Automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminal-automation/) - [Chapter 8.1 Cruise Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/cruises-ports/) - [Chapter 8.2 Break-Bulk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/break-bulk/ "Chapter 8.2 – Break Bulk") ## References - GIIGNL (International Group of LNG Importers). Annual Report 2023 Edition. https://www.giignl.org/annual-report - International Gas Union (IGU) (2025): 2024 World Energy Report. - *Further Sources to be added* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Evolution of the Port of Rotterdam](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/evolution-port-rotterdam/) **Published:** January 5, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-47-Rotterdam-Harbor.png?resize=900%2C585&ssl=1 "Evolution of the Port of Rotterdam | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Evolution of the Port of RotterdamThe port of Rotterdam is 40 km long, 10 km wide, and accommodates 30,000 oceangoing ships and 130,000 river ships yearly. It has 2,000 hectares of basins for a total of 10,500 hectares, including warehousing and industrial areas. In 2022, the port handled 467 million tons of freight, including 14.4 million TEUs of container traffic. These figures make Rotterdam the fifth-largest bulk port in the world and the 10th-largest container port. Rotterdam provides a good example of the [morphological development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=916) of port terminal activities, with a clear downstream progression of expansion: - The port originated adjacent to the old city center. Since it began as a fishing port in the 15th century, Rotterdam has become a major commercial port in the 19th century, handling trade for the Dutch colonial empire. It became one of the first global ports, a tradition that endures today, with Rotterdam serving as the maritime gateway to continental Western Europe. With the growth of industrial activity in its hinterland, especially in the Ruhr (Germany) in the Nineteenth Century, the port began to expand downriver, with westward migration along the Rhine towards the North Sea. Bulk transshipment facilities were added in the 1920s, followed by petrochemical facilities in the 1930s. The port became one of Europe’s main oil transshipment and processing facilities; a role still assumed today, as Rotterdam is the world’s largest petrochemical complex. The importance of the port resulted in its destruction during World War II. - After 1945, there was some rebuilding of the larger older docks on the south bank of the river, but the major emphasis was on creating new facilities further downriver at Botlek. - By the 1950s, the port authority realized that these were inadequate to meet the demands of ever-larger oil tankers, and initially sought to build new terminals on the north bank of the river. The proposed sites were adjacent to urban development, with intense local opposition. The port authority then proposed development on reclaimed land south of the river, the Europoort complex. This was built in the 1960s and became the heart of Europe’s major oil-refining and petrochemical industries. In 1962, the port surpassed New York to become the largest in the world. - Containerization incited the conversion of several old sites in the Waalhaven and Botlek areas into container terminals in the 1970s. - The growth of container traffic, along with the continued expansion of bulk traffic, incited the port to consider expansion in the North Sea. This led to the construction of a new facility on reclaimed land at Maasvlakte in the 1980s. In turn, this process was reinforced by developing distribution facilities, making Rotterdam and the Netherlands the heart of European freight distribution. - Subsequent traffic growth in the 1990s resulted in the port authority proposing a new facility further out in the North Sea: [Maasvlatke II](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/changing-geography-of-seaports/rotterdam-maasvlatke-port-expansion-project/ "Rotterdam Maasvlakte Port Expansion Project"). After years of opposition from environmentalists, the project [began construction in 2008](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/port-terminal-construction/construction-maasvlakte-2-rotterdam/ "Construction of Maasvlakte 2, Rotterdam") and was made available in 2013. The first container terminal opened in 2015. By 2030, this phase is expected to be completed, leaving the Port of Rotterdam with few other options for growth beyond the reconversion of existing facilities. In form, therefore, the port has been squeezed like toothpaste between competing land uses, to the north largely by urban pressures, and to the south by agricultural land. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/evolution-port-rotterdam/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/evolution-port-rotterdam/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/evolution-port-rotterdam/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/evolution-port-rotterdam/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Spatial Development of the Port of Antwerp and Waterfront Redevelopment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/spatial-development-port-antwerp-waterfront-redevelopment/) **Published:** December 4, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/spatial_development_antwerp2.png?resize=900%2C585&ssl=1 "Spatial Development of the Port of Antwerp | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Spatial Development of the Port of AntwerpAntwerp is Europe’s second-largest port in terms of cargo throughput and Europe’s second-largest container port behind Rotterdam. The port is the European market leader in conventional general cargo, such as steel, fruit, and forest products. It has covered more than 6 million square meters of warehousing space in the port area. The port of Antwerp in Belgium is located on the river Scheldt, 90 km from its delta in the North Sea. In the past – and even nowadays – the river Scheldt has been the scene of religious and political conflicts. From the 16th to the 19th century, access to the river Scheldt was blocked. As the commercial attractiveness of the city of Antwerp was directly related to the success of the port, this historical fact was reflected in the prosperity of the city of Antwerp. From the 19th century, the river was reopened, and the Antwerp region was commercially revived again. The Antwerp port system consists of harbor docks separated from the river with locks. In ancient times, ships were moored in the city center. However, due to limited handling capacity at these berths, the port expanded northward downstream. Only some artifacts of this ancient port infrastructure in the south of the city are still visible. This area has now been reclaimed for other uses, such as housing and recreational activities. Parallel to the expansion of the city of Antwerp, the port boomed as well. The most significant expansion of the port of Antwerp took place after World War II, with the implementation of the **Ten-Year Plan 1956-1965**. Whereas the port of Antwerp occupied only 1,400 hectares of land just after World War II, this area increased to 10,633 hectares after the implementation of the Ten-Year Plan. Nowadays, the port occupies close to 14,000 hectares of land. Thanks to the Ten-Year Plan, not only maritime-related industries but also port-related industries (e.g., chemical and petrochemical industries) were accommodated in the port of Antwerp. These industries are primarily located on the right bank of the river Scheldt, situated in the center of the port area, squeezed by the river Scheldt and the dock system. With respect to environmental effects and safety, this location was seen as the most suitable for this type of industry. Although the port of Antwerp is a **[typical landlord port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=811#3_The_Port_Authority_as_a_Landlord)** using a system of **[land concessions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2601)**, some of the maritime-related industries that settled in Antwerp in the late 1950s and early 1960s (e.g., BAYER, BASF, and General Motors) managed to buy land at a fair price. This policy fits in the framework of creating a Maritime Industrial Development Area (MIDA) in the port of Antwerp. Besides attracting port-related industries, the port transformed from a transshipment port to a multifunctional logistics and distribution hub for containerized and non-containerized cargo. As a result of the port expansions, the **Antwerp city-port interface** changed dramatically. On the one hand, changes in the maritime industry affected the transport system and logistics. Increasing vessel sizes, containerization, and indirect transshipment led terminal operators to seek deeper (tidal) draft berths and larger terminals. On the other hand, the expansion of the city of Antwerp and the abandonment of port areas in the neighborhood of the city center have created problematic planning zones that are difficult to integrate into the urban design of the adjacent city center. In Antwerp, three ancient port areas can be distinguished: - **‘t Zuid (the South)** under redevelopment in the context of the Nieuw Zuid project. - **Kaaien or Quays** stretching about 4 km along the river next to the City center. These are under redevelopment. - **Eilandje**. The latter zone or ‘Little Island’, thanks to its name to the small islands formed by excavating the Willem dock, Bonaparte dock, ‘Kattendijk’ dock, ‘Hout’ dock, and ‘Asia’ dock. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Nieuw-zuid.jpg?resize=900%2C505&ssl=1 "Nieuw-zuid | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Antwerp New South Nieuw Zuid![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Antwerp-Docklands-Eilandje-1024x726.jpg?resize=900%2C638&ssl=1 "Antwerp-Docklands-Eilandje | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Antwerp Docklands Eilandje just north of the city center![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/MAS-museum.jpg?resize=900%2C600&ssl=1 "MAS-museum | Port Economics, Management and Policy")MAS museum located at a peninsula between Bonaparte dock and Willem Dock ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Kaaien-Antwerp.jpg?resize=800%2C450&ssl=1 "Kaaien-Antwerp | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Redeveloped part of old quays next to the city center![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Antwerp-havenhuis.jpg?resize=900%2C600&ssl=1 "Antwerp-havenhuis | Port Economics, Management and Policy")New headquarters of Antwerp Port Authority at northern tip of Kattendijkdock designed by Zaha HadidThe Eilandje (Little Island) became a part of the town in the North of Antwerp for the first time in the 16th century. However, to find out the true origin of the current Eilandje, one has to go back to Napoleon’s time. Napoleon had his heart set on the port for military reasons. He had a dock dugout, the Bonapartedock, early in the 19th century in the Antwerp port area with its already existing waterways, warehouses, enterprises, and breweries. A second dock – the Willemdock – followed several years later. After the fall of Napoleon, the constructed infrastructure continued to be used, and several trade establishments were added. This resulted in the port’s economic prime. The number of ships and their sizes increased, so a more northern dock, the Kattendijk dock, was dug. The city center grew around the docks, and not long after, port activities and city life began to blend. Due to the alternation of blocks and docks, it seemed as if the buildings were on ‘islands’. This explains the name Eilandje, which is still used today. Before the end of the 19th century, there was yet another expansion, even more towards the north. This resulted in the port and the city increasingly separating. Due to the internationalization and expansion of shipping in the 20th century, the hectic port life disappeared. People left, and the Eilandje was left behind desolate. It was the general urban plan of Antwerp in 1990 that gave the starting shot for a mental process in which the future development of the city took shape, later resulting in the ambitious ‘Stad aan de Stroom’ (City on the River) organization. The Oud Zuid, Nieuw Zuid, and Scheldekaaien (Scheldt quays) areas and the Eilandje were to give the river Scheldt a new ‘face’, in which it would act as a central part of the city: the city on the river. In close cooperation with the City and Port, the plan was further deepened, widened, and embedded in the total urban structure. The Board approved this Master plan on 20 March 2002. The main objective of the **Eilandje redevelopment project** is to improve the standard of living in this ancient port area. The functions for Eilandje are as follows: 60% housing, 30% business, and 10% cultural, commercial, and leisure activities. Several parties have joined forces to develop Eilandje. The City of Antwerp, the Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf (Antwerp Port Authority), and the Flemish Region (the government of Flanders) are working together. The city and the port of Antwerp covered a portion of the significant initial investment to increase the project’s financial attractiveness to potential investors. The investments were made in public services, road infrastructure, and outdoor areas. The further north, the more the districts shift from a compact urban structure to the vast expanse of the international port. The area features striking architecture and new landmarks, such as the MAS Museum and the new headquarters of the Antwerp Port Authority. The MAS museum on the Hanzestedenplaats was designed by Neutelings Riedijk Architects and is designed as a living museum, an urban foyer where inhabitants of Antwerp meet. The new Port House, designed by Zaha Hadid, is located at the northern tip of the Kattendijk dock (and thus in the most northern part of the Eilandje). The building complements the MAS museum, the landmark on the south side of the Eilandje. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/spatial-development-port-antwerp-waterfront-redevelopment/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/spatial-development-port-antwerp-waterfront-redevelopment/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/spatial-development-port-antwerp-waterfront-redevelopment/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/spatial-development-port-antwerp-waterfront-redevelopment/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 3.1 - The Spatial Transition of Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/) **Published:** December 25, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dr. Theo Notteboom and Dr. Athanasios Pallis > Ports are embedded in their geography, with their location impacted by technical constraints such as the nautical profile, port users, inland transport networks, and maritime shipping networks. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. The Geography of Ports](#1_The_Geography_of_Ports) - [2. The Evolution of Contemporary Ports](#2_The_Evolution_of_Contemporary_Ports) - [3. Port Migration](#3_Port_Migration) - [4. Maritime Regions](#4_Maritime_Regions) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. The Geography of Ports ## A. Geographical considerations Ports serve both oceanic and land-based interests by supporting global trade and articulating maritime shipping networks. Maritime shipping networks can be flexible, as ship assets can be repositioned; however, ports are fixed in space. The geography of the port is derived from its **site and situation**. While the site relates to the nautical profile and the physical characteristics of the harbor, the situation is derived from the port’s **[centrality](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4729 "Port Centrality and Intermediacy") to major hinterland markets** and its **[intermediacy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4729 "Port Centrality and Intermediacy") to main shipping lanes**. On the ocean side, it is beneficial for a port to be located near major maritime networks, allowing access to foreland (overseas) areas. On the landside, close proximity to hinterland areas is also beneficial. Three relative states of oceanic and land port location conditions apply. - First, when both **shipping lane proximity and hinterland location centrality** are well met, the port is likely to succeed in its mission to serve shippers’ needs, provided the necessary port infrastructure and effective management are in place. - Second, it may be that the **foreland and hinterland conditions at each location are not equal**, with one being superior to the other. In such cases, one condition may make up for a deficiency in the other. The lack of shipping lane proximity (foreland accessibility) may be offset by high hinterland centrality or access to a valuable resource. Alternatively, proximity to maritime networks may mitigate the limitations of a landlocked location and its limited market opportunities. In both cases, ports may be peripheral to shipping lanes and overseas or land markets. - Finally, in regard to relative location conditions, if ports **lack both intermediacy and centrality**, they are likely to offer a limited value proposition. The geography of ports takes shape at **different scales**, ranging from local ports and their terminals to the global maritime shipping system. Even though maritime shipping networks are global in scope, ports are deeply regional or local entities. They are the interface between global and regional processes, [taking advantage of sites](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2814 "Port Sites") suitable for maritime activities, which is a combination of the foreland (maritime side) and the hinterland (landside). These sites can be modified by adding infrastructures such as piers, docks, basins, and breakwaters, forming a harbor. Therefore, geography is at the core of the added value provided by maritime shipping, and ports are the **locations generating this value**. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_centrality_intermediacy.png?resize=900%2C725&ssl=1 "Port Centrality and Intermediacy | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Centrality and Intermediacy![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Port-Sites-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Port Sites | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Sites![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Harbor-Types-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Harbor Types | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Harbor Types## B. Historical considerations Throughout history, port cities have **consistently held an advantage** due to maritime transportation, which enabled long-distance trade, while inland transportation was expensive and of limited capacity. The location of port cities reflected the nautical advantages of the site, which were further enhanced by opportunities in the hinterland. Due to the uncertainties of sailing and the vulnerability of ships, a protected harbor and a promontory were important factors in port site selection. There is evidence that the port of Alexandria in Egypt was exporting grain to the Mediterranean by sea by 1900 BCE. One of the oldest systems of trading port cities was established from 1200 BCE onward by the Phoenicians (the ‘Sea People’) around the Mediterranean, including cities such as Byblos (likely one of the earliest inhabited human settlements), Haifa, Cadiz, Carthage, and Tyre. The provision of a **suitable harbor** became an early issue in port development. Ships spent a significant amount of time at harbors, implying the need for protection from physical risks, such as wind and tides, as well as security risks, including piracy. Ships carried valuable cargo, and port cities that could offer a harbor and protection were among the wealthiest. These requirements remained relatively unchanged through the ages, as port sites during the [Roman Empire](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4595 "Main Ports of the Roman Empire, c125 CE") were based on the same considerations as ports operated through the end of the Middle Ages. Ports along rivers and at the heads of river deltas faced an **enduring problem of siltation**, as pre-industrial societies were highly dependent on wood as a fuel and a source of construction materials. Since rivers were commercial arteries, the forested areas surrounding them were subject to deforestation, resulting in increased runoff and silt being carried downstream. Over the decades, ports such as [Portus](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2682 "The Port of Portus, Ancient Rome") (the main port servicing Rome by the second century) could cease to be commercially relevant as their harbor and access channels became clogged by accumulating sediments carried by rivers. Remedial work could be expensive, particularly when economic resources were scarce. Therefore, a port site could be abandoned in favor of a more suitable alternative for security and economic reasons, as well as due to specific environmental factors. Throughout history, port traffic has been associated with **urban development**. It has often been the key driver of the function and rank of a city within regional and even long-distance shipping networks. Ports provide access to markets and resources, which are crucial factors in sustaining urban growth. Cities gained prominence due to their ports, and at times, lost their prominence because of commercial and technological changes that undermined their ports. For instance, from the 10th to the 15th centuries, city-states such as Venice, [Genoa](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-genoa-late-15th-century/ "Port of Genoa, Late 15th Century"), and Pisa competed to project their respective maritime power over controlling trade routes with Central Asia and the Middle East. Later, the fall of the Byzantine Empire and the search for new maritime trade routes enabled seaports, such as Lisbon and Barcelona, to achieve primacy in the 17th century. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Roman-Empire-Ports-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Main Ports of the Roman Empire, c125 CE | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Ports of the Roman Empire c125 CE![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/portus_ancient_rome.png?resize=900%2C540&ssl=1 "The Port of Portus, Ancient Rome | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Port of Portus Ancient Rome![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Genova_1481_copy_1597.jpg?resize=900%2C493&ssl=1 "Port of Genoa, Late 15th Century | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port of Genoa Late 15th Century![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/new_orleans1920s1.jpg?resize=850%2C568&ssl=1 "Loading Break-bulk Cargo, Port of New Orleans, early 20th Century | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Loading Break bulk Cargo Port of New Orleans early 20th Century![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Steamship-Ports-1890-1925.png?resize=900%2C629&ssl=1 "Cargo Carried by Steamship by Port City, 1890-1925 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cargo Carried by Steamship by Port City 1890 1925Before the Industrial Revolution, the balance between maritime connectivity and hinterland accessibility remained relatively stable, indicating that ports remained the most connected and commercially active locations compared to their inland counterparts. The Industrial Revolution unleashed a series of changes for ports and maritime shipping. On the maritime side, with the introduction of steamships in the 19th century, capacity and steering limitations associated with sailships were removed, allowing for a change in network structure with more direct and quicker connections. The decline in cargo costs was linked to a surge in long-distance trade, particularly across the Atlantic. On the port side, the construction of dedicated facilities led to the **specialization of port functions** within the port area, including industrial and energy generation. The transfer of bulk cargo could be undertaken with new systems of cranes and conveyor belts, but break-bulk cargo still needed to be [handled manually](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=5664 "Loading Break-bulk Cargo, Port of New Orleans, early 20th Century"). This increased the demand for port labor, leading to the emergence of vast port-based communities adjacent to port sites. The outcome was a significant [rebalancing of the global port hierarchy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=5631 "Cargo Carried by Steamship by Port City, 1890-1925") in favor of emerging industrial countries, including the UK, the United States, Japan, and Germany. By the early 20th century, industrial and commercial ports in advanced economies became dominant. # 2. The Evolution of Contemporary Ports Ports are contingent on **geographical constraints**, and changes in commercial and technical aspects of maritime shipping are related to changes in port geography. At the regional level, transport terminal development aims to ensure that the supply of infrastructure meets and even anticipates transportation demand. However, the presence of infrastructure does not necessarily guarantee traffic, as maritime shipping lines can reallocate the sequence of the ports they service as business opportunities change. The growth in port traffic implies a need for more space and improved maritime profiles, such as depth and pier length. Therefore, as maritime traffic grows, port terminals and activities tend to [expand away from their original sites](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=916) towards locations offering better maritime and land access. Port sites are thus the object of a [**valorization**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=925) process through capital investments in infrastructures, the convergence of inland and maritime transport networks, as well as the complex management of the concerned supply chains. Port development can be perceived within a [sequential perspective](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=928), where each phase builds upon the previous, from port cities of the 19th century to the emerging port logistics network of the 21st century. The scale of port activities has increased, encompassing not only the volumes they handle but also the scope of activities involved, such as terminal operations, distribution, stakeholder management, and hinterland connectivity. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/evolution_port_anyport2.png?w=900&ssl=1 "The Evolution of a Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Evolution of a Port![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/multi_layer_approach_port_dynamics.png?resize=900%2C571&ssl=1 "A Multi-Layer Approach to Port Dynamics | Port Economics, Management and Policy")A Multi Layer Approach to Port Dynamics![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/functional_spatial_development_seaport.png?resize=900%2C364&ssl=1 "Functional and Spatial Development of a Seaport | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Stages in Port Development![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/antwerp_spatial_development.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Spatial Development of the Port of Antwerp | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Spatial development of the port of Antwerp Belgium## A. Conventional port sites Conventionally, port terminals were located close to city cores, as many were the initial rationale for the existence of the city; **most of the world’s major cities are port cities**. The proximity to downtown areas also ensured the availability of large pools of workers to perform the labor-intensive transshipment activities that characterized port operations. These activities tended to have low productivity, as a stevedoring team could handle 10-15 tons per day, while a berth could handle 150,000 tons per year. At their peak in the early 1950s, ports such as London and New York each employed more than 50,000 longshoremen. Over time, changes in ships and handling equipment gave rise to **new site requirements**. By the post-World War II period, a growing specialization of vessels emerged, especially the development of bulk carriers. These ships were the first to achieve significant economies of scale, and their size grew quickly. For example, the world’s largest oil tanker in 1947 was only 27,000 deadweight tons (dwt); by the mid-1970s, this figure had increased to over 500,000 dwt. Thus, there was a growing specialization in vessel size, utilizing semi-automated transshipment equipment, which resulted in new site requirements, particularly the need for increased dock space and deeper water depths. ## B. Containerization The introduction of container vessels in the 1960s meant larger cargo volumes per port call and shorter handling times per ton. Both factors made direct transshipment no longer feasible since it would require a large number of trucks, barges, and trains to be in place during the vessel’s short port stay. Due to congestion, capacity, and availability issues with inland transportation, containerization contributed to modal separation on terminals and the establishment of a significant buffer in the form of large stockpiling yards. Each transport mode was assigned a specific area on the terminal, ensuring that operations on vessels, barges, trucks, and trains did not interfere with one another. This [modal separation in space](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1172) necessitated the establishment of a system of indirect transshipment, whereby each transport mode operates according to its own schedule and operational throughput, resulting in modal separation in time. The containerization of cargo handling changed port storage requirements. Since the container serves as its own storage unit, port terminals function as temporary storage facilities. Greater vessel capacities have significantly increased the **space requirements** for port activities. Furthermore, growing ship sizes have imposed several new constraints on port sites, including deeper waterways, larger terminal spaces for both ship handling and warehousing, and more efficient inland road and rail access. Containerization has significantly reduced labor demand for port operations, further helping to decouple terminal operations from labor availability. For instance, the number of longshoremen jobs in the Port of New York and New Jersey declined from 35,000 in the 1960s to about 3,500 in the 1990s. Since then, the number has remained similar as the traffic handled by the port steadily grew. ![Modal and Temporal Separation at Freight Transport Terminals](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/modal_temporal_seperation_freight_terminals.png?resize=900%2C494&ssl=1 "Modal and Temporal Separation at Freight Transport Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Modal and Temporal Separation at Freight Transport Terminals![Modal Separation in Space: Europa Terminal in Antwerp](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/antwerp_psa_modal_separation.jpg?resize=900%2C521&ssl=1 "Modal Separation in Space: Europa Terminal in Antwerp | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Modal Separation in Space Europa Terminal in Antwerp## C. Mega port facilities Commercial opportunities and strategic locations within the maritime shipping network allowed for a select group of ports to develop extensive facilities and become **mega ports**. These represent ports with exceptional sites and situations. Only the most commercially important locations with high maritime and hinterland connectivity can generate traffic levels sufficient and stable enough to warrant unprecedented facilities and infrastructure. Many ports, such as Rotterdam and Antwerp, are larger in area than the cities they serve. The expansion of large Chinese ports, such as Shanghai, has necessitated the development of entirely new sites outside central areas. Modern port infrastructures are capital-intensive, and several port authorities struggle to meet the substantial investment requirements for large-scale infrastructure projects. Yet, the economic and strategic importance of mega ports is such that capital investment can be found from public and private sources. Over this, four recent megaprojects are particularly revealing due to their size and capital requirements: - **[Maasvlakte II (Rotterdam)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1080)**. For decades, the port of Rotterdam, Europe’s largest port, has [expanded downstream](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=938). The growth of container traffic, along with a continued expansion of bulk traffic, caused the port to consider expansion in the North Sea. This led to the construction of an entirely new facility on reclaimed land at Maasvlakte in the 1980s. However, subsequent traffic growth in the 1990s led the port authority to propose a new facility further out in the North Sea: Maasvlakte II. The project commenced construction in 2008 and began operations in 2013, with full completion anticipated by 2030. Once completed, this terminal complex would unlikely mark the end of the geographical expansion of Rotterdam, as discussions are ongoing regarding the realization of a third Maasvlakte primarily designed to accommodate energy-related and circular economy activities. Since the complex is close to the high seas, port navigation time is significantly reduced, resulting in faster port turnaround times. - **[Deurganck dock (Antwerp)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1086 "Antwerp Deurganckdock Port Expansion Project")**. Like Rotterdam, the expansion options of the port of Antwerp are limited. Because of significant tidal variations, in the range of 3 to 5 meters, the majority of the port facilities have been dredged behind river tide gates. With the right bank of the River Scheldt, where the bulk of the port’s facilities are located, reaching capacity, a new dock complex was built on the left bank. The Deurganck dock opened in 2005, adding about 9 million TEUs to the existing container handling capacity. Two large terminals are located alongside the dock: the Antwerp Gateway terminal operated by DP World and the MPET terminal (MSC and PSA). In 2016, the relocation of the MPET terminal (formerly known as the MSC Home Terminal) from its old location at the Delwaidock on the right bank (recently renamed Bevrijdingsdock) to its larger new location at the Deurganck dock presented a huge terminal relocation operation. The port of Antwerp is preparing to further expand its container-handling capacity by adding more than 7 million TEU through smaller extensions to existing facilities and the creation of a new L-shaped dock connected to the Deurganck dock. - **[Yangshan container port (Shanghai)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1089 "Shanghai Yangshan Port Expansion Project")**. This is a rare case where an entirely new facility has been built from scratch, located well outside the existing port facilities in the Changjiang Delta, at a facility situated in Hangzhou Bay, 35 km offshore. The first phase, which opened in 2005, was built for two purposes. The first objective was to overcome the physical limitations of the existing port facilities at the Waigaoqiao area, located at the mouth of the Yangtze River, which is too shallow to accommodate the latest generation of containerships. The second objective was to provide additional capacity to meet traffic growth expectations, as well as accommodate new terminal facilities if container growth continues. The fully completed port would have an expected capacity of 15 million TEUs. The world’s third-longest bridge, with a length of 32.5 km, was built to link the port to the mainland. In 2017, a fully automated terminal complex opened at Yangshan (phase 4). The complex is offshore, implying direct access compared with navigating the Changjiang to reach the conventional facilities of the port of Shanghai. - **[Tuas container port (Singapore)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1093 "Singapore Tuas Port Expansion Project")**. Singapore is the world’s most important transshipment hub, connecting maritime routes between East Asia, Southeast Asia, Oceania, and South Asia. The oldest container terminal facilities in Singapore (Tanjong Pagar, Keppel, and Brani) are located near the central area. The Tanjong Pagar has been vacant since 2017. In 1993, construction of the Pasir Panjang 1 project began and was completed in 2009. This was followed by the construction of Pasir Panjang 2. The Tuas port expansion project represents a unique case involving a gradual and complete relocation of Singapore’s container terminal facilities. Construction began in 2019, and reclamation works for the first phase were completed in November 2021. The first two berths of the first phase opened in late December 2021. The first phase involved soil improvement for 414 hectares of land, including 294 hectares of newly reclaimed land. Construction of the first phase also included the fabrication and installation of 221 10-storey tall [caissons](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/port-terminal-construction/typical-cross-section-quay-wall/) of 15,000 tons each to form 8.6 km of seawall. When all phases are completed in the 2040s, Tuas Port is expected to be capable of handling 65 million TEU on about 1,337 ha of land. Phase 2 of the mega port is underway, involving the construction of 9.1 km of caissons. It is expected that the Keppel and Brani facilities will be relocated to Tuas by 2027. By the 2040s, the remaining Pasir Panjang facilities will be consolidated at the Tuas complex, with the port reaching its capacity of 65 million TEU. The relocation of port operations to Tuas paves the way for the upcoming major expansion of the city to the south, also known as the Greater Southern Front development. ![Rotterdam Maasvlatke Port Expansion Project](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-48-Maasvlatke.png?resize=900%2C541&ssl=1 "Rotterdam Maasvlatke Port Expansion Project | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Rotterdam Maasvlakte Port Expansion Project![Evolution of the Port of Rotterdam](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-47-Rotterdam-Harbor.png?resize=900%2C585&ssl=1 "Evolution of the Port of Rotterdam | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Evolution of the Port of Rotterdam![Antwerp Deurganckdock Port Expansion Project](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-441-Deuganckdock.png?resize=900%2C541&ssl=1 "Antwerp Deurganckdock Port Expansion Project | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Antwerp Deurganckdock Port Expansion Project ![Shanghai Yangshan Port Expansion Project](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-410-Yangshan.png?resize=900%2C541&ssl=1 "Shanghai Yangshan Port Expansion Project | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Shanghai Yangshan Port Expansion Project![Singapore Tuas Port Expansion Project](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-491-Tuas.png?resize=900%2C541&ssl=1 "Singapore Tuas Port Expansion Project | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Singapore Tuas Port Expansion Project![Average Monthly Container Traffic Share, Selected Ports, 2005-2010](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/monthly_container_traffic_share_ports2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Average Monthly Container Traffic Share, Selected Ports, 2005-2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Average Monthly Container Traffic Share Selected Ports 2005 2022The success of [major container ports](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3373) is jointly the outcome of a shift to containerized shipping in emerging markets, the quality of their infrastructure and services, and an efficient interface with inland transport systems. Still, container traffic is subject to [fluctuations](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=944) mainly related to seasonal variations in demand that vary according to the markets. They remain bound to the economic structure and dynamism of the hinterland they serve. ## D. Ports on the periphery On the opposite side of the spectrum, ports on the periphery are characterized by a **limited domestic market** and a more **remote potential hinterland**, for which they may have to compete with other ports. These ports are a specific category that faces a unique competition challenge. It is almost impossible to change a port’s location relative to major shipping lanes. Ships are attracted to areas of cargo generation and consumption to serve their derived demand function. How they access those areas depends largely on great circle routes, weather patterns, and maritime chokepoints, such as major straits or canals that limit movement options. Thus, if a port lacks intermediacy, it has little chance to change that condition unless it can generate sufficient cargo to offset the additional shipping costs of the deviation. On the other hand, it is not as difficult to overcome a lack of centrality, as long as intermediacy is strong. For this to occur, the land transportation system must be extensive and focused on catering to shipping interests. Otherwise, no amount of advantageous ocean location will overcome the peripheral landside disadvantage. The last situation involving good intermediacy and poor centrality applies to those ports serving interior continental markets with competitive hinterlands. To improve their competitiveness, peripheral ports need to be **more proactive** than centrally located ports near maritime networks or large domestic markets. Proximity to a great circle route and having good facilities and good infrastructure connections are not sufficient. Advantages may be found in a better-performing inland transport network, a more customized client approach, a more flexible business environment, and greater reliability that comes from having some assets available. Competition may differ across these ports depending on whether they compete against a single, large competitor in the region or whether the competitive landscape lacks a dominant port player. ## E. Automation Another aspect of port development concerns the automation of port terminal operations, which have emerged in the 2010s. Although bulk and breakbulk terminals are **highly mechanized entities**, their equipment is conventionally operated manually by specialized labor. Therefore, it is possible to automate the main stages of port operations: ship-to-shore moves, shore-to-yard moves (lateral moves), stacking/storage yard moves, and hinterland distribution. The latter is often considered outside the scope of terminal automation concerns. The push for automation is particularly evident in container terminals, with a [growing number](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=979) being automated, either fully (for lateral moves and stacking operations) or partially (for stacking operations only). A notable advantage of automation is the ability to operate on multiple work shifts per day, which significantly reduces the number of accidents. Although a conventional container terminal can add additional work shifts if required, implementing this is easier in automated terminals, as fewer workers are involved. # 3. Port Migration As the geography of port traffic can change given shifting commercial trends, the location of port terminals can also be subject to [migration and relocation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/outcomes-port-terminal-migration-relocation/ "Outcomes of Port Terminal Migration and Relocation"). The primary difference between terminal migration and relocation is that **relocation** entails closing the old terminal facility once the terminal has relocated to a new site. In contrast, **migration** involves using a new terminal site in addition to the existing site. This typically implies a development from obsolete facilities near the urban core to peripheral locations with ample space and better nautical accessibility. These can be downstream on a river, laterally along a coastline, or outward into the sea through land reclamation. If a large share of its terminals migrates, then the port is said to have migrated, which may prompt changes in its governance structure, as the existing port authority may not have jurisdiction over the locations where the facilities have migrated. The main [drivers of port terminal migration and relocation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1144) involve: - **Draft limitations**. The push towards economies of scale has been a significant driver in maritime shipping, resulting in larger ships with more stringent technical requirements in terms of draft and pier length. While a draft of 10-12 meters was considered suitable for terminal operations in the 1990s (Panamax standard), 15 meters is now considered the standard. The existing terminal site may not be suitable, prompting a migration to a site with more favorable nautical attributes. - **Liner connectivity**. Locations involving lower port turnaround times offer better connectivity to liner shipping networks. A downstream terminal location likely implies less harbor navigation time and offers better connectivity to maritime shipping networks. - **Land availability**. Under the indirect transshipment system, the terminal stacking yard functions as a buffer and temporary storage area between deep-sea operations and land transport. Consequently, and despite higher turnover levels, the space consumed by container terminals increases substantially with traffic growth. In turn, these space requirements reshape the geography of ports and drive the migration of terminals to new peripheral sites. - **Inland connectivity**. The migration to a new terminal facility can lead to improved access to regional transportation networks, including highways and rail. Peripheral sites typically have less inland congestion, enabling improvements in the capacity and efficiency of hinterland logistics. - **Cost differences**. The high costs of production factors, such as land, labor, and capital, at an existing terminal site can lead to migration to peripheral sites where these costs are lower. Since ports are typically located near urban core areas, rent pressures are intense due to competing activities, such as commercial and residential uses. - **Regulations**. An existing terminal site may face increasing environmental regulations and other constraints, such as opening hours and circulation bans. These regulations negatively impact terminal operations and could be mitigated by migration to a new site. The [main impediments and delaying factors of port terminal migration and relocation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/impediments-and-delaying-factors-of-port-terminal-migration-and-relocation/) are: - **Land productivity leaps**. Improvements at the existing port facilities can mitigate congestion and create room for further growth, thereby reducing the need to seek new locations through port migration. This can involve equipment improvements or automation. - **Market connectivity**. Market players typically value certain supply chain-related characteristics of existing ports, such as proximity and better connectivity to inland markets via road, rail, or barge networks. - **Cluster and scale effects.** Large existing ports exhibit high cluster and scale effects in cargo generation, which may make it challenging for new ports to compete. This may prevent new ports from emerging as a result of port migration processes. - **Urban environment.** The proximity to urban areas provides existing urban ports with dynamic, tangible, and intangible advantages that cannot be found in non-urban environments (for example, superior infrastructure, knowledge, innovation, and decision-making capacities). While congestion and environmental challenges disproportionately affect more urban ports, they can also be a significant incentive for innovation that improves competitiveness. For example, environmental innovation can occur in ports under severe pressure to improve environmental performance from lead firms, local communities, organizations, and governments. - **Path dependence.** Retention mechanisms can reinforce the existing hierarchy in a port system, thus favoring established ports. One of these mechanisms is preferential attachment. Ports with many ties are more likely to receive new ties in the future. Preferential attachment can lead to self-reinforcing effects, whereby established seaports become even more dominant in a port system. - **Power, politics, and collective action**. Local political forces in existing ports and joint efforts of various actors in the respective port communities (in areas such as knowledge development, hinterland accessibility, and human resources) can prevent or delay port migration or relocation. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/outcomes_port_migration_relocation.png?resize=900%2C406&ssl=1 "Outcomes of Port Terminal Migration and Relocation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Outcomes of Port Terminal Migration and Relocation![Fully and Semi Automated Container Terminals, Total Hectares, 2019](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Container-Terminal-Automation-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Automated Container Terminals, 2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Automated Container Terminals Total Hectares 2025![Drivers of Port Terminal Migration and Relocation](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/drivers_port_terminal_migration2.png?resize=900%2C428&ssl=1 "Drivers of Port Terminal Migration and Relocation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Drivers of Port Terminal Migration and Relocation![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/impediments_delaying_port_terminal_migration.png?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Impediments and Delaying Factors of Port Terminal Migration and Relocation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Impediments of Port Terminal Migration and Relocation![Ports and Economic Location Factors](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ports_economic_location_factors.png?resize=900%2C510&ssl=1 "Ports and Economic Location Factors | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ports and Economic Location FactorsTherefore, the port and its geography continue to adapt to technological and economic changes, leading to a variety of [location factors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1642) and associated port functions such as manufacturing ports, industrial ports, gateway ports, and transshipment ports. # 4. Maritime Regions The geography of seaports is concerned with the **location of terminals** in relation to the technical characteristics of the site, the main users (importers and exporters), inland transport networks (road, rail, and barges), and maritime shipping networks. To understand this geography, maritime zones set the political context concerning jurisdiction, and the maritime range concept allows for a look at the largest scale of functional analysis of port systems. > A **[maritime zone](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/maritime-zones-legal-boundaries/ "Maritime Zones and Legal Boundaries")** is a politically defined and recognized area where a nation exercises a level of jurisdiction over the sea. The territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone are common maritime zones. > A **[maritime range](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1104)** is a bounded region where a set of ports are either in competition, complementary, share a common regulatory regime, or have some basic geographical commonality, such as contiguity, proximity, or being part of an archipelago. The world can be divided into [28 major ranges](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1107) in which ports have a higher level of internal commonality. They may compete over similar hinterlands or may be part of similar feeder services. Maritime ranges can extend across several countries if a common regulatory regime applies or if there is geographical homogeneity, such as in the case of the ranges of Europe. Implicitly, maritime shipping companies have range-based commercial strategies since their services link maritime ranges (deep-sea services) or connect the range with regional, feeder, or cabotage services. Although global terminal operators maintain a transnational portfolio of terminals, this transnational port geography has a high regional orientation, focusing on specific regions such as East Asia, Europe, or North America. Changing economic conditions affect the structure of shipping networks, as maritime ranges are linked to the commercial dynamics of their forelands and hinterlands. Containerization for the maritime shipping industry is illustrative of that process, as its dynamics have followed commercial changes. The [diffusion of container ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1119) initially took place within the core economies of North America, Western Europe, and Japan, which saw the first major container ports emerge in the 1970s. Then, in the 1980s, container ports developed in the Caribbean, the Mediterranean, and the developing economies of Asia (South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong) as transnationalism emerged. The 1990s saw Latin America, the Middle East, South Asia, and Southeast Asia become the main drivers of container port growth due to the setting of global supply chains and the growth of transshipment hubs. The late 1990s and early 2000s saw China dominating port growth as its economic development strategies based on exports became a major component of global manufacturing. Outsourcing and offshoring changed the profile of global maritime shipping with additional flows of parts and finished goods. By 2020, global container volumes experienced a temporary setback due to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this setback was followed by a surge in traffic during 2021. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/maritime_zones_legal.png?resize=900%2C512&ssl=1 "Maritime Zones and Legal Boundaries | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maritime Zones and Legal Boundaries![The Concept of Maritime Range](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/concept_maritime_range.png?resize=900%2C373&ssl=1 "The Concept of Maritime Range | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Concept of Maritime Range![Major Maritime Ranges](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Maritime-Ranges-1.png?resize=900%2C328&ssl=1 "Major Maritime Ranges | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Major Maritime Ranges![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-TEU-1970.png?resize=900%2C468&ssl=1 "The Dawn of Containerization: 1970 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Dawn of Containerization 1970![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-TEU-1995.png?resize=900%2C468&ssl=1 "Containerization Coming to Age: 1995 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Containerization Coming to Age 1995![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-TEU-2020.png?resize=900%2C468&ssl=1 "Peak Containerization: 2020 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Peak Containerization 2020The geography of ports considers their historical and locational evolution in response to economic, commercial, and technical changes. Many initial port sites are no longer suitable for the requirements of contemporary maritime shipping, and new sites have emerged to meet these needs. The process is likely to continue in the future, as site requirements become increasingly rigorous, considering the evolving technical characteristics of ships. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 2.2 Port Hinterlands, Regionalization and Corridors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2509) - [Chapter 3.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=252) - [Chapter 3.4 Terminal Automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4095) --- ## References - Bird J.H (1963) The major seaports of the United Kingdom, London: Hutchison. - Darwin, J. (2020) Unlocking the World: Port Cities and Globalization in the Age of Steam, 1830-1930 - Ducruet, C. (ed) (2016) Maritime networks: Spatial structures and time dynamics, London: Routledge. - Ducruet, C., Notteboom, T., Slack, B. (2023) Chapter 6: Port migration patterns in the global port system since the 1950s, in: Ducruet, C., Notteboom, T. (eds.), Port Systems in Global Competition: Spatial-Economic Perspectives on the Co-Development of Seaports, Routledge Studies in Transport Analysis, Routledge, 122-146, - Lee, P.T.W and K. Cullinane (eds) (2016) Dynamic shipping and port development in the globalized economy, London: Palgrave Macmillan. - Notteboom, T. (2016) The adaptive capacity of container ports in an era of mega vessels: the case of upstream seaports Antwerp and Hamburg, Journal of Transport Geography, 54, 295-309. - Notteboom, T., Rodrigue, J.P. (2005) Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port development. Maritime Policy & Management, 32(3), 297-313. - Paine, L.P. (2013) The Sea and Civilization: A Maritime History of the World, New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. - Rodrigue, J.P. (2020) “The geography of maritime ranges: interfacing global maritime shipping networks with Hinterlands”, GeoJournal, 1-14. - Wang, C. and Ducruet, C. (2012) New port development and global city making: emergence of the Shanghai–Yangshan multilayered gateway hub. Journal of Transport Geography, 25, 58-69. - Wilmsmeier, G., and Monios. J. (eds) (2020) Maritime Transport Geographies. New York: Edward Elgar. - Yap, W.Y. and Lam, J.S.L. (2013) 80 million-twenty-foot-equivalent-unit container port? Sustainability issues in port and coastal development. Ocean & Coastal Management, 71, 13-25. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Types of Automated Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/types-automated-terminals/) **Published:** March 10, 2026 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_automated_terminals.png?resize=900%2C433&ssl=1 "Types of Automated Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Automated TerminalsThe nature and level of container terminal automation can be confusing, as the term “automated terminal” can refer to several different aspects. The definition relies on **operational automation**, implying the physical systems in place for container handling within the terminal facility. From that perspective, three main levels of terminal automation can be considered: - **A. Semi-Automated Terminal**. A facility where vertical movements (stacking) have been automated using Automated Stacking Cranes (1). Therefore, only one form of automation has been implemented to improve yard operations. - **B. Fully Automated Terminal**. A facility where both the vertical and horizontal movements (pier to yard) have been automated. This can occur through a combination of Automated Stacking Cranes (1) and Automated Guided Vehicles (2) or through Automated Straddle Carriers (3). The latter technology allows vertical and horizontal movements simultaneously but requires more yard space due to lower stacking density. All yard activities are fully automated. - **C. Completely Automated Terminal**. A facility where both vertical and horizontal movements are automated in addition to remote-controlled (or automated) Ship-to-Shore Cranes (4). All terminal activities from the ship to the container pickup location are automated. The only non-automated aspect of terminal operations concerns trucks crossing the gate to pick up or drop off containers. There is also **process automation** across the full range of operations management, including labor and personnel, as well as yard optimization and gate access, all of which can be implemented separately. Terminal gate automation is a process automation that involves optical character recognition (for license plate, container, and chassis identification), automated terminal access control (with RFID and biometrics), and [appointment systems](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/types-container-terminal-appointment-systems/ "Types of Container Terminal Truck Appointment Systems"). Therefore, gate automation, as a form of process automation, is considered separately from operational automation, since it can be implemented independently. Still, it requires physical systems to be in place, but those are much less capital-intensive. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/types-automated-terminals/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/types-automated-terminals/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/types-automated-terminals/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/types-automated-terminals/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Modal Separation in Space: Europa Terminal in Antwerp](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/modal-separation-space-europa-terminal-antwerp/) **Published:** January 14, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/antwerp_psa_modal_separation.jpg?resize=900%2C521&ssl=1 "Modal Separation in Space: Europa Terminal in Antwerp | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Modal Separation in Space Europa Terminal in Antwerp*Source: Terminal photo from PSA Antwerp.* Europa Terminal at the Port of Antwerp is managed by the terminal operator PSA (Port of Singapore Authority) and is one of the seven major container terminal complexes in the port. It is a good example of the modal separation in space that characterizes modern container terminals and the large handhold required for various container terminal operations. While terminal space reserved for rail and truck operations is directly adjacent to the buffer (container storage) of deepsea services, locational constraints have placed the barge terminal in a nearby location behind the locks linking the port’s basin (upper part) to the river Scheldt (lower part). The issue is to effectively manage the different modal requirements for capacity and frequency across each component of the terminal to ensure an adequate level of service. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/modal-separation-space-europa-terminal-antwerp/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/modal-separation-space-europa-terminal-antwerp/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/modal-separation-space-europa-terminal-antwerp/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/modal-separation-space-europa-terminal-antwerp/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Evolution of a Port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/spatial-evolution-port/) **Published:** January 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/evolution_port_anyport2.png?w=900&ssl=1 "The Evolution of a Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Evolution of a Port*Anyport* describes how port infrastructure evolves in time and space. Examining the evolution of British ports, the five-stage model illustrates how facilities typically develop. Starting from the initial port site with small lateral quays adjacent to the city center, the setup of wharves is a product of evolving maritime technologies and improvements in cargo handling. The changing spatial relationships between the port and the urban core are underscored as docks are built farther from the central business district. In the final stages, increased specialization of cargo handling, growing ship sizes, and ever-increasing demands for space for cargo handling and storage result in port activities being located at sites far removed from the oldest facilities. Port infrastructures are thus constructed over several decades and, in some cases, centuries. Three major steps can be identified in the port development process, as identified by *Anyport*: - **Setting**. The initial setup of a port strongly depends on geographical considerations at the port site, such as the farthest inland point reached by sailing ships. A standard evolution of a port site starts from the original port, commonly a fishing port with trading and shipbuilding activities, which includes several quays (1). Before the Industrial Revolution, ports had relatively rudimentary terminal facilities. Port-related activities were mainly focused on warehousing and wholesaling, located on sites directly adjacent to the port. The port district was a key element of urban centrality with adjacent retailing, wholesaling, and financial activities. - **Expansion**. The Industrial Revolution triggered several changes that impacted port activities. Quays were expanded, and jetties were constructed to handle growing freight and passenger traffic (2). As the size of ships expanded, shipbuilding became an activity that required the construction of docks (3). Further, integrating rail lines with port terminals granted access to vast hinterlands with a proportionate growth in maritime traffic. Port-related activities also expanded to include industrial activities. This expansion mainly occurred downstream towards deeper draft areas. - **Specialization**. The next phase involved constructing specialized piers to handle bulk and breakbulk freight, such as containers, ores, grain, petroleum, and coal (4), which significantly expanded warehousing needs. Larger ships often required dredging or the construction of long jetties granting access to greater depths. This evolution implied a migration of their activities away from their original setup and an increase in handling capacities across several ports. In turn, original port sites, commonly located adjacent to downtown areas, became obsolete and were abandoned. Numerous reconversion opportunities for port facilities to other uses (waterfront parks, housing, and commercial developments) were created (5). Bird (1971) suggested that *Anyport* was intended not to display a pattern to which all ports must comply, but to provide a base for empirically comparing port development. The model has been tested in a variety of different conditions (Hoyle, 1967). While local conditions produce differences, there are sufficient similarities to make the *Anyport* concept a useful description of port morphological development. The emergence of new container terminals continues the trend toward specialization and the search for sites adjacent to deeper water. One of the features that *Anyport* highlights is the evolving relationships between ports and their host cities. The model describes the growing segregation from the rest of the urban milieu. Several geographers have explored this aspect, investigating the redevelopment of harbor land and the associated linkages. One of these urban linkages is the redevelopment of old port sites for other urban uses, such as Docklands in London and Harborfront in Baltimore. A more recent amendment to the Anyport model focuses on the development of container terminals. Five alternatives are presented in terms of the spatial changes a container terminal may experience: - **Closure**. A facility is abandoned due to inadequate site or operating conditions, implying that the terminal has lost its market relevance. The outcome is an abandoned brownfield site that can be subject to redevelopment. - **Expansion**. Operating conditions require the footprint of an existing site to be extended or modified. This mainly involves additional yard areas and the lengthening of berths. - **Addition**. New berths are constructed in response to demand for deeper water or improved operating facilities. - **Consolidation**. Several existing berths are combined to provide expanded facilities. - **Reconversion/Redevelopment**. The outcome of the functional reassessment of existing facilities that are repurposed, often to non-port uses. The *Anyport* model was further challenged by containerization, which incited the development of a network of satellite terminals and inland load centers connected to the port terminal facilities. The process is often labeled as [port regionalization](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3497 "The Spatial Development of a Port System"). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/spatial-evolution-port/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/spatial-evolution-port/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/spatial-evolution-port/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/spatial-evolution-port/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Automated Terminals in the United States](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/automated-terminals-united-states/) **Published:** October 4, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Automated-Terminals-USA.png?resize=900%2C635&ssl=1 "Automated Terminals in the United States | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Automated Terminals in the United StatesThere are **84 container terminals** in the United States, located in **30 container ports**. The first automated container terminal in the United States, Virginia International Gateway, was opened in 2007 as a greenfield project. Then, at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, TraPac Terminal (2014) and Long Beach Container Terminal (2016) were automated through a reconversion of their terminals. By 2025, there were three automated terminals on the West Coast and three automated terminals on the East Coast: - The terminals on the West Coast are fully automated, implying that ship-to-yard (with Automated Guided Vehicles or Automated Straddle Carriers) and yard operations (with Automated Stacking Cranes) are automated. - The terminals on the East Coast are partially (semi) automated, implying that only yard operations are automated with ASC. These automated terminals account for **7.1% of all container terminals**. Container terminal automation in the United States faces several challenges. The first concerns the **opposition of union labor to terminal automation** projects. Many port labor contracts, such as those for longshoremen, state that only union labor may perform certain functions. Further, contracts can stipulate a minimum number of workers a terminal must employ. Another concern is the lower productivity of American container terminals compared to many of their European and East Asian counterparts, a gap that automation could help address. One of the most important challenges concerns the **lack of footprint available for terminal expansion**, particularly at major gateways such as LA/LB and New York. As container volumes continue to grow at an average rate of 2% to 5% per year, several large terminal facilities will run out of footprint in the medium term. Densification remains one of the few alternatives that is associated with automation. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/automated-terminals-united-states/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/automated-terminals-united-states/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/automated-terminals-united-states/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/automated-terminals-united-states/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Main Maritime Shipping Routes and Chokepoints](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-maritime-shipping-routes/) **Published:** December 27, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![Map Maritime Routes Strategic Passages](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Passages-with-Shipping-Routes.png?resize=900%2C450&ssl=1 "Main Maritime Shipping Routes and Chokepoints | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Maritime Shipping Routes[PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Passages-with-Shipping-Routes.pdf) [PDF Map (Spilhaus Projection)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Passages-with-Shipping-Routes-Spilhaus-1.pdf) *Note: The terms bottleneck or choke point are also commonly used. The Spilhaus projection is centered on Antarctica and displays all the world’s oceans as a single continuous body of water.* There are potentially an infinite number of maritime shipping routes that can be used for maritime shipping, but the configuration of the global maritime shipping system is relatively simple. The central axis is a **circum-equatorial corridor** linking North America, Europe, and Pacific Asia through the Suez Canal, the Strait of Malacca, and the Panama Canal. These routes handle the bulk of traffic, but numerous other routes exist (particularly for coastal shipping), depending on the origin and destination of the maritime shipment. Transatlantic and transpacific traffic concerns a wide variety of ports, so there are numerous routes, most of which follow the great circle. Trans-Indian Ocean traffic is predominantly intermediary between Pacific Asia and Europe, implying a series of clearly defined routes between the Strait of Malacca and Bab el-Mandeb (often misspelled as Bal al-Mandab). Maritime routes are shaped by **obligatory points of passage**, which are strategic locations that act as chokepoints. Physical constraints (coasts, winds, marine currents, depth, reefs, ice) and political borders also play an essential role in shaping maritime routes. As a result, maritime routes try to follow the great circle distance. **Core routes** are those supporting the most important commercial shipping flows servicing major markets, and **secondary routes** are mostly connectors between smaller markets. Due to geography, geopolitics, and trade flows, specific locations play a strategic role in the global maritime network. They are labeled as **chokepoint**s and can be classified into two main categories: - **Primary chokepoints.** They are labeled as such because they offer limited, cost-effective maritime shipping alternatives that would seriously impair global trade if disrupted. The first type of chokepoints concerns connectors along major oceans and seas. Among them are the Panama Canal, the Suez Canal, and the Strait of Malacca, which are key chokepoints in global trade. The closure of these bottlenecks would force the diversion of maritime traffic over long distances with the associated loss of time and capacity. The [Suez Canal blockage](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-resilience/suez-canal-blockage-2021/ "Blockage of the Suez Canal, March 2021") of 2021 is such an example. The Suez Canal is also highly dependent on access to the Red Sea through the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb. A second type of chokepoint concerns those connecting to maritime dead ends with **substantial resource and commercial potential**, such as the Strait of Hormuz, which provides access to the Persian Gulf, and the Strait of Bosporus, which provides access to the Black Sea. The Strait of Oresund is also particularly important as it is the only access to the Baltic and Russia’s main ports. The closure of these bottlenecks would force the use of alternative overland routes that are unlikely to have the capacity to handle the volumes. - **Secondary chokepoints.** Support maritime routes that have alternatives but would still involve a notable detour. These include the Magellan Passage, the Strait of Dover, the Strait of Sunda, and the Strait of Taiwan. Not depicted are the chokepoints that grant access to major river systems for commercial navigation, each with a single point of access to the ocean. The most salient chokepoints are the Yangtse, the Rhine, the Mississippi, the Danube, and the St. Lawrence. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-maritime-shipping-routes/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-maritime-shipping-routes/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-maritime-shipping-routes/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-maritime-shipping-routes/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Main Ports of the Roman Empire, c125 CE](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/main-ports-roman-empire-c125-ce/) **Published:** December 5, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Roman-Empire-Ports-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Main Ports of the Roman Empire, c125 CE | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Ports of the Roman Empire c125 CE*Sources: Cities: Hanson, J. W. (2016). Cities Database (OXREP databases). Version 1.0. Ports: de Graauw, A. et al. 2014. “Geodatabase of Ancient Ports and Harbors,” DARMC Scholarly Data Series, Data Contribution Series # 2013-2 (version 1.1). DARMC, Center for Geographic Analysis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138. Roads: McCormick, M. et al. 2013 – Roman Road Network (version 2008)*. [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Roman-Empire-Ports-1.pdf) About 3,000 ports were identified throughout the Roman Empire, mostly around the Mediterranean (Mare Internum). However, many ports were only rudimentary harbors where ships could anchor. The above map depicts ports with a breakwater or a lighthouse, which represent the first comprehensive port infrastructure developments that improve the natural advantages of a site. Due to the high costs of such improvements, the amount of traffic must be sufficient to justify their construction, repair, and maintenance. The density of the ports is a function of the economic density of the Roman Empire, with clusters around the Aegean Sea (with the major city of Byzantium), the Roman coast (Western Italy, such as Ostia and [Portus](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2682 "The Port of Portus, Ancient Rome")), Southern Gaul, Northern Africa (around Carthago and Alexandria), and the Levant. This represented one of the first large-scale integrated maritime shipping networks. However, limited information is available about the cargo handled by ports of that era, but historical documents report active trade in grain, wine, olive oil, and minerals. The security of these trade routes also required a permanent navy. Unsurprisingly, the shape of the Roman Empire was influenced by the shape of the Mediterranean (Mare Internum), since maritime shipping was the only mode of transport in that era that enabled the long-distance trade in bulky, low-value commodities. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/main-ports-roman-empire-c125-ce/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/main-ports-roman-empire-c125-ce/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/main-ports-roman-empire-c125-ce/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/main-ports-roman-empire-c125-ce/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Centrality and Intermediacy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/port-centrality-intermediacy/) **Published:** December 7, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_centrality_intermediacy.png?resize=900%2C725&ssl=1 "Port Centrality and Intermediacy | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Centrality and IntermediacyPorts serve two functions related to their connectivity to the foreland and hinterland. **Centrality** refers to how a port is connected to its hinterland and to the economic density of its market. A port with high centrality has a dense, well-connected hinterland, whereas a port with low centrality has a low-density hinterland with limited connections. Centrality tends to be a more stable component of port geography, since economic conditions and the resource density of a hinterland change slowly. **Intermediacy** refers to how a port is connected to the global maritime shipping network, particularly in terms of its deviation from the main shipping lines. A port with a high deviation (low intermediacy) requires a substantial deviation. It commonly acts as a feeder, while a port with a low deviation (high intermediacy) does not require a deviation and can act as a hub (intermediary) port. Intermediacy can be an unstable component of port geography as shipping networks and trade flows can change. A **port nexus** is a location characterized by high centrality and intermediacy, and it is considered the best maritime location in the world. Ports such as Shanghai, Hong Kong, Busan, Tokyo, Los Angeles, New York, and Rotterdam have high maritime connectivity and substantial hinterlands. There are also **pure hub ports**, such as Panama, Freeport, Colombo, and Gioia Tauro, with high maritime connectivity but poor hinterlands. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/port-centrality-intermediacy/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/port-centrality-intermediacy/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/port-centrality-intermediacy/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/port-centrality-intermediacy/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cargo Carried by Steamship by Port City, 1890-1925](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/cargo-carried-steamship-port-city/) **Published:** December 21, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Steamship-Ports-1890-1925.png?resize=900%2C629&ssl=1 "Cargo Carried by Steamship by Port City, 1890-1925 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cargo Carried by Steamship by Port City 1890 1925*Source: Lloyd’s List. Adapted from Ducruet C. (2012) Ports et routes maritimes dans le monde (1890-1925), Mappemonde, 106. Notes: Ports having a traffic of more than 10,000 tons.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Steamship-Ports-1890-1925.pdf) The period between 1890 and 1925 underlines the dominance of the steamship as a support to global trade with its diffusion to ports across the world. 1890 marks a [threshold](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=1173), with steamship services becoming competitive for distances above 16,000 km. This placed Asia within reach of steamships, particularly after the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869. Still, steamship services exhibit a high concentration around industrialized clusters in both periods. While only two notable clusters were active around 1890, the North Sea and the American Northeast, by 1925, several additional clusters had emerged. One concerns the American West Coast, which expanded industrialization by opening the Panama Canal in 1914 and an oil extraction boom. Another involves Argentina, which at the time was experiencing a period of prosperity, including a phase of European immigration, and was among the world’s highest-GDP-per-capita countries. Buenos Aires rivaled other metropolises such as Paris, London, and New York. The activity in South Asia was linked with British colonial trade. This also included Australia, which was becoming an important exporter of agricultural goods. The rapid industrialization of Japan, a direct result of the Meiji Revolution, was also becoming apparent. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/cargo-carried-steamship-port-city/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/cargo-carried-steamship-port-city/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/cargo-carried-steamship-port-city/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/cargo-carried-steamship-port-city/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Hormuz](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-handled-ports-strait-of-hormuz/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/hormuz_system2.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Hormuz, 1995-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Hormuz 1995 2024The emergence of the Strait of Hormuz as a transshipment hub for container shipping is a recent phenomenon since the area was primarily focused on the oil and gas trade. Economic growth and diversification have been associated with rising cargo volumes in the Persian Gulf, contributing to its emergence as a major trade and logistics platform. This mainly took place since the early 2000s, with the rapid growth of trade between Europe and Asia. About 33 million TEUs are handled by ports around the Strait of Hormuz. Transshipment, which is almost entirely focused on Dubai, with Jebel Ali and Khor Fakkan as major facilities, is the result of massive investment in port infrastructure. Dubai has become a hub for [relay and interlining](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/insertion-location-transshipment-hubs/ "The Insertion and Location of Transshipment Hubs"), with feeder services in the Persian Gulf, South Asia, and East Africa. The port of Salalah in Oman is also a competing transshipment hub. Still, its growth is challenged, mainly due to the decisions of shipping lines to use other ports in light of the political instability in nearby Yemen. Other ports in the Persian Gulf, such as Dammam, which serves Saudi Arabia, and Shahid Rajaee, which serves Iran, are hinterland-based. The recent decline of Shahid Rajaee, which handles about 80% of Iran’s container trade, is linked to international trade sanctions imposed after 2011. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-handled-ports-strait-of-hormuz/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-handled-ports-strait-of-hormuz/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-handled-ports-strait-of-hormuz/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-handled-ports-strait-of-hormuz/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Insertion and Location of Transshipment Hubs](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/insertion-location-transshipment-hubs/) **Published:** February 7, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/insertion_location_transshipment_hubs.png?resize=900%2C562&ssl=1 "The Insertion and Location of Transshipment Hubs | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Insertion and Location of Transshipment HubsThe primary rationale for utilizing transshipment hubs is to enhance the overall efficiency and geographical reach of maritime container shipping networks. A transshipment alternative enables linking ports to the global maritime shipping system, considering existing ship assets, as direct services cannot be established between all ports. The **insertion** of a transshipment hub within existing networks takes three primary forms: - **Hub-and-spoke**. The purpose of the transshipment hub is to provide connectivity between short-distance feeder lines (and ports) and long-distance deep-sea lines, linking regional and global shipping networks. It acts as a point of consolidation of regional traffic where the transshipment hub relies on a central location commanding access to a region, such as for the [Caribbean](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3592) (e.g., Kingston) or the [Mediterranean](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2127) (e.g., Gioia Tauro). The ship capacity between the deep-sea and feeder services differs significantly since feeder ships tend to be of smaller capacity than those on deep-sea lines. - **Intersection** (interlining). The transshipment hub acts as a point of interchange between several long-distance shipping routes. Ship capacity between routes is relatively similar but can vary depending on the ranges being serviced. The most suitable locations tend to be bottlenecks, such as Singapore, Algeciras, or Tangier Med. - **Relay**. The transshipment hub serves as an interface between shipping routes within the same maritime range, yet servicing different port calls. Some regional services may call the same port, allowing for additional opportunities for relay forms of transshipment. Ship capacity can vary, as regional routes may be serviced by smaller vessels. While the hub-and-spoke function accounts for about 85% of all transshipment activities, the intersection and relay functions account for about 15%. Transshipment was initially developed to serve smaller ports with poor nautical access (sites unable to accommodate larger containerships) or limited infrastructure, leading to the establishment of hub-and-spoke networks. At a later stage, intersection and relay forms of transshipment were introduced, enabling different connectivity levels within global maritime shipping networks. Intermediate hubs tend to have three dominant **locations**: - **Funnel**. Locations such as strategic passages create a funnel effect on shipping lanes, making them attractive for transshipment due to network convergence. - **Corridor**. Strategic deep-sea shipping lanes provide an opportunity for a hub with low deviation to emerge along a continuous segment, provided a suitable site can be found. - **Cluster**. Transshipment hubs tend to cluster and compete with each other. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/insertion-location-transshipment-hubs/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/insertion-location-transshipment-hubs/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/insertion-location-transshipment-hubs/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/insertion-location-transshipment-hubs/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/emission-control-areas-maritime-shipping/) **Published:** December 11, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Emission-Control-Areas.png?resize=900%2C450&ssl=1 "Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping*Source: IMO and Flanders Marine Institute (VLIZ), Belgium; (2020). Emission Control Areas (ECAs) designated under regulation 13 of MARPOL Annex VI (NOx emission control).* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Emission-Control-Areas.pdf) The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) established a protocol titled “Prevention of air pollution from ships” that became effective in 2005. Under this protocol, member nations of the International Maritime Organization agree to abide by fuel emission standards that are (about three times) more stringent within selected emission control areas (ECA). Emissions are measured by the sulfur content of bunker fuel as a percentage of its mass (% m/m). While SOx standards were 4.5% m/m outside ECAs and 1.5% m/m inside ECAs in the early 2010s, by 2020, they reached 0.5% and 0.1%, respectively. Since May 2025, the Mediterranean Sea has joined the list of existing ECAs (i.e., the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, the North American ECA, and the United States Caribbean Sea ECA) for sulfur oxides (SOx) under MARPOL Annex VI Regulation 14. In March 2026, the Canadian Arctic and the Norwegian Sea were added. In the future, additional SOx ECAs may be designated, such as the North-East Atlantic Ocean ECA, which would connect the existing ECAs in the Baltic Sea and North Sea with the Mediterranean ECA ECA impacts maritime shipping in two dimensions related to **port access** and **shipping lanes**. About 23% of the global port container throughput is within one of the three ECAs. Even if this share is relatively small, the ports within ECAs serve the wealthiest markets of Europe and North America, such as the Hamburg-Le Havre range and the East and West coasts of the United States. Therefore, shipping lines calling at these ports must use lower-sulfur bunker fuel, impacting their service network with other ports that have less stringent emission standards. This substantially impacted bunker fuel sales, such as for [Singapore](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/ports-and-energy/bunker-fuel-sales-singapore/ "Bunker Fuel Sales at the Port of Singapore, 2013-2023"), the world’s largest. The second dimension is more limited, as the existing ECAs are not extensive enough to affect shipping lanes. Traffic through the English Channel or the North Sea is already bound for the Hamburg-Le Havre range of ports and thus subject to ECA regulations. Great circle distance traffic passing by the American West Coast ECA, such as Asia-South America lanes, can be avoided through a deviation. The impact of ECAs on shipping lanes has become significant since the Mediterranean became an ECA, as a large volume of shipping transits through the region. This may incentivize using the Cape Route, particularly since the Suez Route has become less reliable since 2023, due to the Red Sea crisis. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/emission-control-areas-maritime-shipping/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/emission-control-areas-maritime-shipping/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/emission-control-areas-maritime-shipping/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/emission-control-areas-maritime-shipping/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Carrier and Merchant Haulage in the Hinterland](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/carrier-merchant-haulage-hinterland/) **Published:** March 1, 2026 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/carrier_merchant_haulage_hinterland.png?resize=900%2C462&ssl=1 "Carrier and Merchant Haulage in the Hinterland | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Carrier and Merchant Haulage in the HinterlandHinterland transportation can be either organized by the maritime shipping line or by the cargo owner: - **Carrier haulage**. The shipping line is responsible for the inland movement of a container (or other cargoes) by booking an inland carrier as a third party. The cargo owner is issued a single contract covering the whole transportation sequence. The inland carrier could be independent and contracted by the shipping line, or a specialized subsidiary company. This implies that the shipping line is liable for any damage to the cargo during transport. - **Merchant haulage**. The cargo owner is responsible for the inland movement of a container (or other cargoes) through booking this segment with an inland carrier of its choice. The cargo owner (or its agent) is issued a contract for the maritime haulage and another for the inland haulage. The carrier is only liable for the damage to the cargo during the maritime transport segment, while the cargo owner (and its inland carrier) is liable for the inland segment. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/carrier-merchant-haulage-hinterland/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/carrier-merchant-haulage-hinterland/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/carrier-merchant-haulage-hinterland/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/carrier-merchant-haulage-hinterland/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Hinterland of Single and Multiple Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/hinterland-single-multiple-ports/) **Published:** October 31, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/hinterland_single_multiple_ports2.png?resize=900%2C352&ssl=1 "The Hinterland of Single and Multiple Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Hinterland of Single and Multiple PortsThe concept of hinterland can be influenced by the configuration of the maritime ranges, notably the number and distribution of ports. Three basic contexts can be considered: - **Single port (A)**. The main hinterland is captive, as there are no or limited options to use an alternative port. Such hinterlands are usually found in developing economies and tend to be associated with resources in delimited areas, such as mining and agricultural areas. Ports tend to be less specialized, with most activity focused on a limited number of commodities. The hinterland could also be protected by national boundaries that prevent alternative ports from competing. - **Multiple ports along a maritime range (B)**. The main hinterland of each port is expanded, with the competitive hinterland where they vie for market share. A competitive hinterland could even be an inland area connected to ports by corridors. Such markets tend to be more diversified, covering a wide range of economic sectors supported by containerization. - **Multiple ranges (C)**. For complex and developed hinterlands, competition can occur over multiple maritime ranges, such as in [North America](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/north-american-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/ "The North-American Container Port System and its Multi-Port Gateway Regions") and [Europe](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/european-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/ "The European Container Port System and its Multi-port Gateway Regions"). Shippers and cargo owners have several options, with ports seeking to gain an advantage by developing corridors that include inland ports. Such hinterlands characterize complex and integrated markets that can be accessed from several gateway regions. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/hinterland-single-multiple-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/hinterland-single-multiple-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/hinterland-single-multiple-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/hinterland-single-multiple-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Maritime Ranges and Hinterland Accessibility](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/maritime-ranges-hinterland-accessibility/) **Published:** October 19, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Global-Hinterland.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Maritime Ranges and Hinterland Accessibility | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maritime Ranges and Hinterland Accessibility*Source: Maritime ranges from Rodrigue, J-P (2020) “The Geography of Maritime Ranges: Interfacing Global Maritime Shipping Networks with Hinterlands”, Geojournal. Accessibility from Nelson, A. (2008) Estimated travel time to the nearest city of 50,000 or more people in 2000. Global Environment Monitoring Unit – Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, Ispra Italy.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Global-Hinterland.pdf) A [maritime range](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/changing-geography-of-seaports/concept-maritime-range/ "The Concept of Maritime Range") is a functional area in which ports can compete, be complementary, and share common regulations when the range extends across several countries. They share characteristics of their respective hinterlands, such as levels of development, economic density, and accessibility. Maritime shipping services are commonly established to connect maritime ranges, and occasionally, the maritime range marks the extent of regional feeder services, such as for the Caribbean and the Baltic. Some maritime ranges and their hinterland have high levels of accessibility, particularly when connected by high-capacity rail corridors such as the [East and West coasts of North America](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/north-american-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/ "The North-American Container Port System and its Multi-Port Gateway Regions"). Others are discontinuous and barely connected, such as the East and West coasts of Africa. In the former, an active contestable hinterland is in place, while in the latter, each port is likely to have a single monopolistic hinterland. Being a landlocked hinterland significantly affects economic opportunities. A hinterland (country) that lacks direct access to the ocean (its foreland) implies using ports in a third country via a land corridor and negotiating an access regime. This implies higher transport and import costs, which impact their economic competitiveness. If containerized imports are considered, landlocked countries have a cost structure that is about 85% higher than the world average. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/maritime-ranges-hinterland-accessibility/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/maritime-ranges-hinterland-accessibility/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/maritime-ranges-hinterland-accessibility/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/maritime-ranges-hinterland-accessibility/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Eurasian Landbridges](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/eurasian-landbridge/) **Published:** November 20, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-New-Silk-Road.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "The Eurasian Landbridges | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Eurasian Landbridges Northern Corridor and Central Corridor The Eurasian landbridges are a set of railway lines connecting Asia to Europe. The main arteries of the **Northern Corridor** are the Trans-Siberian Railway, the Trans-Manchurian Railway, the Trans-Mongolian Railway, and the Baikal Amur Mainline (BAM; opened in 1991). The Trans-Siberian Railway offers a transit time ranging from 12 to 18 days along a 10,000 km route. According to Russian railways, the Trans-Siberian Railway capacity amounted to 180 million tons in 2023 (1.5 times more than in 2018). Rail connections using the **Central Corridor** between China and Europe (via Kazakhstan and Russia) have seen strong development. Since 2013, Kazakhstan has become a key transit area with two important border crossings with China: the Alashankou/Dostyk crossing and the Khorgos/Altynkol crossing. At Khorgos Gateway, rail cargo is transferred between trains as the rail gauge in Kazakhstan, Russia, and other former Soviet states is wider than the Chinese and European rail gauge. The dry port Khorgos Gateway also includes a special economic zone. The same type of transit operations takes place in a number of terminals at the Belarusian-Polish border, with the Brest (BY)/Małaszewicze (PL) border crossing and Bruzgi (BY)/Kuźnica (PL) crossing being the most important nodes. Dozens of new regular rail services have been introduced since 2013. In 2019, 8,225 trains traveled between China and Europe compared to only 80 trains in 2013. The container volume reached 725,000 TEU in 2019. About 88% of the freight traffic on the Central Corridor is westbound. The container traffic is more balanced: only 5% more trains went from China to Europe than in the opposite direction in 2018. At present, container trains run between 50 cities in China and 40 cities in Europe. Among the main destinations in Europe are Duisburg, Hamburg, and Nuremberg in Germany and Łódź and Małaszewicze in Poland. Duisburg, Europe’s largest inland port, has become the most important rail hub for freight trains running between China and Europe, with intra-European connections to many other inland ports and seaports. The main Chinese rail centers for China-Europe services include Zhengzhou (Henan Province), Wuhan (Hubei), Hefei (Anhui), Chengdu (Sichuan), Urumqi (Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of China), Lanzhou (Gansu Province), Yiwu (Zhejiang), Chongqing, Tianjin (Jiangsu Province), Xian (Shaanxi), and Shenzhen (Guangdong). Other routes between China and Europe include: - The **Middle Corridor** from China to Turkey, also referred to as the Transport Corridor Europe – Caucasus – Asia (TRACECA), connects Eastern Europe, Black Sea, the Caucasus, the Caspian Sea, and Central Asia. From the Chinese perspective, this landbridge originates from Xi’an in the center of China and passes through Kazakhstan to reach a port near the Caspian Sea. Specially-equipped ships transport the wagon combinations across the Caspian Sea to the Port of Baku in Azerbaijan. From the Port of Baku, the containers travel to Georgia and Turkey using the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway. The trip typically takes about 12 days. - In 2014, the final link in the modern **North-South railway corridor** connected Iran, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan was officially inaugurated to conduct transit between the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. From Tehran, the line further connects to Turkey. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/eurasian-landbridge/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/eurasian-landbridge/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/eurasian-landbridge/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/eurasian-landbridge/?share=reddit) - --- ### [A Spatial Model on Logistics Sites in the Port Hinterland](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/spatial-model-logistics-sites-port-hinterland/) **Published:** December 25, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/spatial_model_logistics_hinterland.png?resize=900%2C467&ssl=1 "A Spatial Model on Logistics Sites in the Port Hinterland | Port Economics, Management and Policy")A Spatial Model on Logistics Sites in the Port Hinterland*Source: Adapted from Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2005) “Port Regionalization: Towards a New Phase in Port Development”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 297-313.* Developing inland terminals is insufficient to ensure efficient port regionalization and inland distribution. Infrastructures servicing freight are required inland, a function assumed by distribution centers where vast quantities of freight are processed. The setting up of this logistical system can take place in four phases. - **Phase 1**. Corridor development enhances the clustering of logistics sites both at its nodes and along the main corridors. Logistics poles exert a location pull on logistics sites by combining an intermodal orientation with cluster advantages underlined by conventional location theories (growth pole theory). - **Phase 2**. Marks the development of logistics poles where logistics companies are attracted by location factors, such as market proximity and the availability of intermodal transport and support facilities. - **Phase 3**. The geographical agglomeration of logistics activities creates economies of scale and scope, making a location more attractive and further promoting the agglomeration of related activities. Geographical differences in labor and land costs, land availability, congestion level, location relative to markets, labor productivity, and government policy are among the many factors determining agglomeration within logistics sites. - **Phase 4**. Regionalization of port activity and the formation of a regional load center network. A logistics pole performs well if an efficient regional load center network is in place to support cargo linkages in and between logistics zones. In the regionalization phase, the interaction between seaports and inland ports and terminals leads to the development of a large logistics pole consisting of several logistics zones. Scale effects ensure high productivity from intermodalism, and the synchronization of goods flows with the logistics of shippers. Seaports are the central nodes driving the dynamics in a large logistics pole, but they simultaneously rely on inland ports to remain competitive. The process is dynamic, as the imbalanced development of inland terminals and corridors may shift bottlenecks from the load-center ports to corridors and inland centers. Given this constraint, logistics service providers might consider relocating their logistics sites from saturated areas to new locations. Spatial relocation patterns may change the relative importance and internal spatial configuration of logistics poles. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/spatial-model-logistics-sites-port-hinterland/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/spatial-model-logistics-sites-port-hinterland/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/spatial-model-logistics-sites-port-hinterland/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/spatial-model-logistics-sites-port-hinterland/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The East Asian Container Port System and its Multi-port Gateway Regions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/east-asian-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/) **Published:** November 17, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-East-Asia-Multi-Port-Gateways.png?resize=900%2C700&ssl=1 "The East Asian Container Port System and its Multi-port Gateway Regions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The East Asian Container Port System and its Multi port Gateway RegionsEast Asia can be considered a continental and maritime space. The continental space is a continuous landmass, including China and the Koreas. China is composed of three major hinterlands with a cluster of container ports. In the South, the Pearl River Delta is a massive accumulation of manufacturing, logistics, and port facilities, with Hong Kong and Shenzhen dominating. In the center, the Yangtze River Delta, with the world’s largest container port, Shanghai, is another extensive manufacturing and consumption hinterland. In the north, the Yellow Sea has three major gateway regions, including the Shandong and Liaoning peninsulas and the Beijing-Tianjin corridor. The maritime space is composed of islands and archipelagos with a more limited hinterland, particularly in terms of distance. Singapore, with the Strait of Malacca, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Japan are all maritime countries that can have a substantial transshipment function or be feeders. For instance, a growing share of Japan’s containerized trade is transshipped through the port of Busan. The development of all these hinterlands has a strong port-centric focus since the export-oriented model relies on a high level of accessibility and connectivity to the global maritime shipping network. This connectivity is usually better developed than the hinterland connectivity. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/east-asian-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/east-asian-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/east-asian-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/east-asian-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The European Container Port System and its Multi-port Gateway Regions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/european-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/) **Published:** November 17, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-European-Multi-Port-Gateways.png?resize=900%2C700&ssl=1 "The European Container Port System and its Multi-port Gateway Regions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The European Container Port System and its Multi port Gateway Regions*Source: adapted from Rodrigue, J-P and T. Notteboom (2010) “Comparative North American and European Gateway Logistics: The Regionalism of Freight Distribution”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 497-507.* The European port system is composed of two major maritime facades, one on the Atlantic side and the other on the Mediterranean. In particular, the Northern Range covers Le Havre to Hamburg and accounts for a large share of port activity. The ability of the Northern Range to develop hinterland accessibility has allowed its ports to capture a large share of the European hinterland. The strong growth in Europe-Asia trade should have substantially benefited Mediterranean ports as gateways to the European hinterland. However, a large share of the traffic remains captured by Northern Range ports. Inland terminals can be incorporated as “extended gates” to seaport terminals and, as such, can help to reduce container dwell times at seaport terminals. Container terminal operator ECT in Rotterdam (part of Hutchison Ports) follows an active inland terminal network development strategy, acting as extended gates to its deep-sea terminals. Through ‘European Gateway Services’, ECT offers shipping lines, forwarders, transport companies, and shippers a variety of services to facilitate the optimal flow of containers between the deep-sea terminals in Rotterdam and the direct European hinterland. ECT bundles cargo, which allows for highly frequent inland barge and rail connections to various logistics hotspots in the European hinterland. The inland network includes the TCT Venlo rail and barge terminals (the Netherlands), DeCeTe terminal in Duisburg (Germany), TCT Belgium in Willebroek (Belgium), ACT in Amsterdam, MCT in Moerdijk, AVCT in Avelgem (Belgium), and LCT in Liège (Belgium). ECT is not the only deep-sea terminal operator developing an active extended gate policy. The door-to-door philosophy of other companies, such as APM Terminals, DP World, and Eurogate, has transformed these terminal operators into logistics organizations or organizers/operators of inland services. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/european-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/european-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/european-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/european-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/?share=reddit) - --- ### [World’s Largest Container Port Clusters, 2022](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/worlds-largest-container-port-clusters/) **Published:** November 30, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Container-Port-Clusters.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "World’s Largest Container Port Clusters, 2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Largest Container Port Clusters 2022*Note: The port density is calculated using the kernel density method that calculates the density of ports within a radius of 100km and weighted by their respective traffic in TEU.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Container-Port-Clusters.pdf) Container port activity exhibits a high level of clustering, with 60.4% of all activity accounted for by 21 distinct clusters. They are directly related to the concentration of global commercial activities. Clusters enable high levels of inter-port competition, as well as simultaneous complementarity of options to service hinterlands. The two most important container port clusters globally are the Yangtze River Delta (Central China) and the Pearl River Delta (Southern China), which jointly account for approximately 20.4% of all throughput. The importance of these port clusters stems from the clustering of manufacturing and logistics activities in their hinterland. Other clusters, such as the Strait of Malacca and the Dubai /Gulf, are primarily the result of shipping lines selecting transshipment hubs. Containerization has enabled the emergence of massive economies of scale and agglomeration that have become prevalent in port geography. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/worlds-largest-container-port-clusters/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/worlds-largest-container-port-clusters/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/worlds-largest-container-port-clusters/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/worlds-largest-container-port-clusters/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Types of Hinterland Accessibility](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/types-hinterland-accessibility/) **Published:** February 27, 2026 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_hinterland_accessibility.png?resize=900%2C405&ssl=1 "Types of Hinterland Accessibility | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Hinterland Accessibility - **Relative accessibility**. Describes the degree of connection between any two nodes in a transport system, such as a seaport and an inland location. For instance, it can refer to the relative accessibility between port A and inland location B through port P by links 1 and 2. - **Integral accessibility**. Describes the degree of interconnection between a given node, such as a port, and all other nodes within a spatial network. On the figure, the integral accessibility of node 1 is a function of its foreland and hinterland connectivity. - **Intrinsic accessibility**. The potential to connect to selected hinterland markets is a function of infrastructure and transport service capacity. On the figure, each hinterland corridor (connection) has a distinct capacity of 1, 2, or 3. - **Revealed accessibility**. Reflects demand, such as actual traffic flows on specific hinterland corridors. On the figure, each hinterland corridor has a realized flow of 1, 2, or 3, which represents its actual use. This use is not necessarily proportional to transport capacity. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/types-hinterland-accessibility/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/types-hinterland-accessibility/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/types-hinterland-accessibility/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/types-hinterland-accessibility/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Vertical and Horizontal Integration in Port Development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/vertical-horizontal-integration-port-development/) **Published:** January 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/vertical_horizontal_integration_port2.png?resize=900%2C519&ssl=1 "Vertical and Horizontal Integration in Port Development | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Vertical and Horizontal Integration in Port DevelopmentIn economic theory, **vertical integration** involves an entity, such as a manufacturer, attempting to acquire or control upstream or downstream activities at the stage in which it operates. Therefore, a manufacturer may attempt to acquire some of its suppliers, as well as the distributors or retailers it sells to. **Horizontal integration** involves acquiring entities that perform a similar function, either as part of a consolidation process or to gain market penetration. A port authority is a good example of a **vertically integrated structure** that provides a wide array of services connecting the foreland and the hinterland. Port regionalization emerges if inland facilities, such as inland (dry) ports and corridors, are developed. Port holdings attempt horizontal integration by acquiring stakes in port terminals in various markets. A maritime shipping company that ventures into managing port terminals undergoes a concomitant vertical and horizontal integration process as it expands geographically and transitions from maritime to inland services (e.g., Maersk – APM Terminals). In all cases, the outcome is a more integrated and efficient transport chain that includes maritime shipping, port terminal operations, inland access, and even freight distribution centers (as a 3PL service to customers). Port regionalization is emergent if inland facilities, such as inland (dry) ports and corridors, develop. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/vertical-horizontal-integration-port-development/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/vertical-horizontal-integration-port-development/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/vertical-horizontal-integration-port-development/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/vertical-horizontal-integration-port-development/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Spatial Development of a Port System](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/spatial-development-port-system/) **Published:** November 18, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/spatial_development_port_system3.png?resize=900%2C454&ssl=1 "The Spatial Development of a Port System | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Spatial Development of a Port System*Source: Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2005) “Port Regionalization: Towards a New Phase in Port Development”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 297-313. Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2010) “Foreland-Based Regionalization: Integrating Intermediate Hubs with Port Hinterlands”, Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 27, pp. 19-29.* A port system can go through a series of phases in its spatial development, which is concurrent with the development of urban systems. Its initial pattern involves scattered, poorly connected ports along the coastline (Phase 1; mid-19th century). As economic and infrastructure development takes place, a series of penetration lines (road and rail) is established to capture the resource and market opportunities of an emerging hinterland (Phase 2; late 19th century). This eventually led to an interconnected regional port system, with some ports gaining greater prominence with traffic concentration due to their better accessibility (Phase 3; early 20th century). The continuation of the process through network and infrastructure development results in centralization, with the leading network consisting of corridors between gateway ports and major hinterland centers (Phase 4; 1980s). Models of port system development did not explain the rise of new hub terminals and incorporate inland freight distribution centers and terminals as active nodes in shaping load center development. Two extensions to the model have been proposed: - The **first extension** (Phase 5; late 1980s – early 1990s) encompassed the explicit **integration of transshipment hubs**. They tend to have greater depth since they were built to accommodate large containership drafts, placing them at a technical advantage. Increasing volumes can lead to greater segmentation in liner service networks and a hierarchy of hubs (both ‘offshore’ and ‘mainland’). - The **second extension** (Phase 6; from the late 1990s) relates to incorporating inland freight distribution centers and terminals as active nodes in shaping load center development (inland ports). The **port regionalization** phase is characterized by strong functional interdependency and, in its hinterland, the joint development of a specific load center and (selected) multimodal logistics platforms, ultimately leading to the formation of a regional load center network. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/spatial-development-port-system/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/spatial-development-port-system/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/spatial-development-port-system/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/spatial-development-port-system/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Bottleneck and Warehousing-Derived Terminalization](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/bottleneck-warehousing-terminalization/) **Published:** August 21, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/bottleneck_warehousing_terminalization.png?resize=900%2C410&ssl=1 "Bottleneck and Warehousing-Derived Terminalization | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Bottleneck and Warehousing Derived Terminalization*Source: adapted from Rodrigue, J-P and T. Notteboom (2009) “The Terminalization of Supply Chains: Reassessing the Role of Terminals in Port / Hinterland Logistical Relationships”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 165-183.* Two types of terminalization can be identified: - **Bottleneck-derived terminalization**. It encompasses a conventional perspective on the role of terminals, in which terminals are the primary source of delay and capacity constraints for the supply chain. It does not necessarily mean that the terminal is running close to capacity, but rather that operational issues (storage space, port call frequency, gate access) are imposing a more rational use of the facilities, thereby maintaining the terminal’s performance and reliability. This is particularly important, as terminal operators must maintain a level of service to their users, especially maritime shipping lines. In this case, the supply chain adapts to changes in volume, frequency, and scheduling and may seek alternatives if performance and reliability are unsatisfactory. - **Warehousing-derived (buffer) terminalization**. It refers to the warehousing function, in whole or in part, being shifted to the terminal. The terminal becomes a buffer, like a distribution center, which makes it an active component of the supply chain, not a factor of delay, but a storage unit. It can provide the supply chain with greater flexibility by reducing warehousing costs and adapting to unforeseen events such as demand surges or delays. An inventory-in-transit strategy, coupled with an inventory-at-terminal strategy, can significantly reduce warehousing requirements at distribution centers and offer greater flexibility in selecting the final destination of an unbound shipment. Given the wide variety of supply chains, each with its own requirements for origins, destinations, frequency, reliability, and overall elasticity, buffer-derived terminalization can take many forms. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/bottleneck-warehousing-terminalization/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/bottleneck-warehousing-terminalization/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/bottleneck-warehousing-terminalization/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/bottleneck-warehousing-terminalization/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Elements of the Maritime / Land Interface](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/elements-maritime-land-interface/) **Published:** November 19, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/elements_maritime_land_interface.png?resize=900%2C552&ssl=1 "Elements of the Maritime / Land Interface | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Elements of the Maritime Land InterfaceThe maritime / land interface is a system of interaction between transportation systems and the actors managing and operating them. This continuum includes: - **Foreland**. A maritime space is a space in which a port performs commercial relationships through maritime shipping networks, which represent services offered by maritime shipping companies in terms of port calls, capacity, and frequency. - **Port system**. The setup of intermodal infrastructures servicing port operations organized as terminals. - **Hinterland**. The inland space where a port maintains commercial relations. Gateways grant access to inland corridors, where each mode has technical constraints and is positioned to serve specific inland markets. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/elements-maritime-land-interface/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/elements-maritime-land-interface/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/elements-maritime-land-interface/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/elements-maritime-land-interface/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Terminalization Concept](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/terminalization-concept/) **Published:** September 3, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/terminalization_concept.png?resize=900%2C631&ssl=1 "The Terminalization Concept | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Terminalization Concept*Source: adapted from Rodrigue, J-P and T. Notteboom (2009) “The Terminalization of Supply Chains: Reassessing the Role of Terminals in Port / Hinterland Logistical Relationships”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 165-183.* Terminalization is a suitable strategy for global supply chains, which have become prevalent in the consumption goods sector, including a wide variety of products, from apparel to electronics. It is composed of three segments. The **export-oriented gateway** within a manufacturing cluster often faces capacity constraints, limiting the use of its facilities. Containerized cargo flows reach the gateway directly from the supplier or via an intermediate export center in the port area, a logistics zone near the gateway, or a hinterland location connected to the gateway via a multimodal transport corridor. Mainly in Pacific Asia, export centers are often used as consolidation points and container stuffing locations for non-containerized cargo. Inland connections tend to be poor, and trade flows are imbalanced. Therefore, distribution centers cluster around nearby gateway facilities, facilitating rapid container turnover. Once assembled in container loads, the goal is to ensure that they are promptly shipped to the maritime segment. Distribution tends to be synchronized with terminal handling capacity and availability, implying that terminalization is mainly bottleneck-related at this stage. The **maritime segment** of the supply chain can be based on a gateway-to-gateway liner service configuration or, alternatively, might include an intermediate transshipment facility. If an intermediate hub is part of the sequence, there is an opportunity to use it as a buffer and consolidation center. Intermediate hubs typically have the advantage of being lower-cost locations, making them suitable as buffers within global supply chains. The structure of the hinterland markets partly determines the logistics attractiveness of ports heavily involved in cargo transshipment. If a port transships cargo to smaller ports with poorly developed hinterlands, the intermediate hub will be particularly attractive for locating logistics facilities targeted to those overseas areas. An intermediate hub can be intentionally used as a buffer at locations near large consumer markets, such as in the Caribbean or the Mediterranean. This allows using a low-cost storage point before entering areas with higher distribution costs. For instance, large gateways granting access to continental consumption markets (e.g., Northwest Europe, American West Coast) tend to be congested, an issue that has favored a set of inland access strategies, namely the development of inland terminals. Being less congested and closer to the distribution centers they serve, they have essentially become the buffer instead of the gateway. Seaports rely heavily on inland ports to preserve their attractiveness. **Regionalization** expands the hinterland reach of the port through a number of strategies linking it more closely to inland freight distribution centers. Regionalization extends the perspective of port development to a larger geographical scale, encompassing areas beyond the port perimeter. The port regionalization phase is characterized by strong functional interdependency and even joint development of a specific load center and (selected) multimodal logistics platforms in its hinterland, ultimately leading to the formation of a regional load center network. Consequently, the port system adapts to the imperatives of distribution systems, making regionalization a dimension of supply chain terminalization. The shortage of industrial premises, high land prices, congestion problems, the inland location of markets, and environmental restrictions are some factors against locating at a seaport. The availability of fast, efficient, and reliable intermodal connections is one of the most important prerequisites for the further development of inland terminals. Inland terminals increasingly act as **extended gates** of deepsea terminal facilities. The increasing differentiation of supply chains and related logistics networks is impacting the specific role of seaport and inland terminals. Terminal operators are trying to capture value and revenue. Where possible and desired, they are teaming up with shippers and logistics service providers to create value through developing concepts to streamline and synchronize supply chains. A concrete outcome of this development on the inland segment of the supply chain relates to the role of inland terminals as **extended distribution centers**. Terminalization is trickling down to inland locations, conferring the benefits of proximity to the distribution center (and final markets) and a higher likelihood that the consignment will be held at the terminal and made available “on-call”. The broadening of the distribution center functions to include a nearby inland terminal also makes it possible to arrange direct delivery of full container loads without physically passing the cargo through the distribution center. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/terminalization-concept/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/terminalization-concept/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/terminalization-concept/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/terminalization-concept/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 3.2 - The Digital Transformation of Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/) **Published:** January 5, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dr. Theo Notteboom & Dr. Athanasios Pallis > Digital transformation (or **digitalization**) is the integration of information technologies into business processes, changing how they operate and deliver value to their customers. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. The Digitalization of Ports](#1_The_Digitalization_of_Ports) - [2. ICT Innovations for Ports](#2_ICT_Innovations_for_Ports) - [3. Port Community Systems and Digital Ledger Technologies](#3_Port_Community_Systems_and_Digital_Ledger_Technologies) - [4. Digitalization in Cruise Ports](#4_Digitalization_in_Cruise_Ports) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. The Digitalization of Ports Like several sectors of the economy, the port and maritime industries have been impacted by digital transformation. Technology is used to enhance, and sometimes substantially improve, the performance and reach of organizations, including their **management, operations, and assets**. Information technologies, combined with leadership, can turn technology into new opportunities. Digital transformation entails a managerial and cultural shift that requires organizations to challenge their existing practices and integrate technology effectively. Still, digital transformation has been an ongoing process since the 1990s, with the widespread adoption of personal computers in organizations, a trend that was further accelerated by the advent of networking technologies in the early 2000s. By 2010, a critical mass of storage and processing capabilities embedded in ubiquitous and large-scale information networks allowed new [forms of digital transformation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=5859 "Digital Transformation and Expected Implications"), with the latest trend involving Artificial Intelligence. It relies on two [complementary processes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/digitization-and-digitalization/ "Digitization and Digitalization"): - **Digitization**. The transformation of documents, including contracts, bills of lading, and any relevant information, into a digital format. This allows for more effective analysis, storage, duplication, and transmission of information. - **Digitalization**. The transformation of business processes and operations through various forms of automation. It can range from managing customer orders to terminal automation. Digital transformation challenges organizations to adopt a set of key concepts that impact their **governance and organization**, including the strategies and business models that should be implemented. The outcome is a reduction in human involvement, often resulting in the replacement or reduction in the amount of labor. These corporate challenges can also be found in the logistics industry, shipping, and ports. For example, port and logistics companies adopt a customer-centric approach by adjusting their objectives to include key performance indicators and metrics that measure customer satisfaction, and, if necessary, overhauling business processes that are deemed less efficient. Service reliability in a digital era implies that a company can deliver a service efficiently, conveniently, and consistently, a concept closely tied to the ease of doing business. Furthermore, users and customers have expectations regarding the ability to track the location and conditions of cargo under their responsibility or ownership. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/digital_transportation_implications.png?resize=900%2C406&ssl=1 "Digital Transformation and Expected Implications | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Digital Transformation and Expected Implications![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/digitization_digitalization.png?resize=900%2C667&ssl=1 "Digitization and Digitalization | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Digitization and DigitalizationAnother key to competitiveness involves **cooperation between supply chain partners** and the use of digital and integrated data solutions. Horizontal collaboration between transport companies and logistics service providers underscores the need for shorter, more convenient, sustainable, and cost-efficient supply chains. This entails additional complexities, primarily in terms of mutual trust regarding data-sharing protocols and protecting respective competitiveness. Thus, cooperation is typically associated with new governance models to build trust among the parties involved and achieve a fair distribution of costs, efforts, revenues, and returns. However, there are several concerns to be addressed when developing cooperation initiatives and introducing performance measurement tools and systems across supply chains: - **Lack of trust**. Organizations are reluctant to share their internal data. Trust in data sharing, acquisition, and monitoring needs to be built, as most of the data can be perceived as market-sensitive and could have damaging impacts on a firm’s competitiveness if compromised. - **Lack of understanding**. Many managers focus on internal systems, so moving to an inter-organizational scale often demands the development of a deeper understanding of what matters when cooperating with other parties in the chain. - **Lack of control**. Managers and organizations are often focused on initiatives and measures they can fully control. Inter-organizational measures are challenging to manage and thus control. - **Different goals and objectives**. The cooperation between organizations might lead to a confrontation between different goals and differing views on achieving these goals. - **Information systems**. Information systems often have to be adapted to include non-traditional information relating to supply chain performance. Also, information exchanges between organizations might be complicated by a lack of standards (in terms of units to use, structure, and format) and harmonized protocols and procedures. - **Difficulty in linking to customer value**. Not all organizations see the corporate and stakeholder value of cooperating with other organizations. They may have difficulties identifying and measuring possible value. - **Deciding where to begin**. Organizations may face challenges when initiating the development of supply chain-wide practices and related performance metrics. Service providers in logistics, shipping, and ports improve supply chains with the support of increasingly performant IT systems. The data component leverages service providers to transform into organizations with a new outlook on logistics services. Next to an increasing number of traditional activities being outsourced, such as transport, warehousing, and various types of value-added services, the presence of collaborative platforms enables service providers to develop new types of logistics services, share assets and capabilities, and compete to attract and retain customers. Furthermore, logistics, shipping, and port companies are reassessing their labor strategies as the nature of tasks evolves with technological advancements. Service providers invest in **self-service systems** to replace operational staff internally and improve the ease of doing business. For example, advances have been made in cargo booking systems, cargo tracking systems, and invoicing, which have become paperless and are available online. The ultimate objective behind these digital systems is to have staff perform only tasks that the systems cannot handle, such as addressing exceptions. This implies that staff move into new managerial, commercial, and programming roles as basic logistics tasks are automated. **Data integrity and privacy** challenges and risks have soared with the rise of digitalization and technology. The logistics, shipping, and port industry is challenged to safeguard the data being communicated across players. In the past few years, several market players have been confronted with large-scale cyber-attacks. For example, in 2017, a ransomware cyber-attack infected Maersk Line and its terminal sister company, APM Terminals. In the same year, the “WannaCry” ransomware attack caused gridlock at FedEx. Such incidents with wide ramifications on supply chains have mobilized market players to increase cybersecurity efforts. Failure to protect data hampers the digital revolution, as this represents a risk not only for the end customers but also for the suppliers. Cybersecurity threats rank by far as the most critical risk factor perceived by ports. # 2. ICT Innovations for Ports ## A. Automation and innovation The port and logistics sector is implementing **technology and digital transformation strategies**. Some innovations are particularly relevant and will affect almost all aspects of the transportation process. There are [four categories of automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=5865 "Main Technologies and Focus on Digital Transformation in Logistics and Ports"): - **Transport automation** encompasses the use of robotics. The automation of container handling equipment can involve the use of remotely-operated ship-to-shore cranes, automated stacking cranes (ASCs) on the yard, and Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs) for ground transportation. Most container ports that have employed significant robotics-based automation within their terminals have also incorporated automation into process-based and decision-based elements of terminal operations. Automation also extends to transport vehicles as demonstrated by technological advances in the development of autonomous trucks, autonomous inland barges, and autonomous ships (also known as Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships or MASS), which operate with little or no human intervention. - **Process automation** involves the use of technology to automate processes external to cargo handling and transport. These include gate processes that utilize a combination of hardware and software to minimize human involvement through appointment systems, vehicle and container identification detection, radiation scanning, driver identification, and routing within the terminal or hinterland transport networks. It typically involves gate systems that utilize optical character recognition (OCR) and radio frequency identification (RFID) technology to automate the inspection, clearance, and tracking of people and equipment moving into, out of, and within a terminal, with supervision and exceptions managed from a control room. It also involves intelligent terminal operating systems (TOS) and infrastructure management systems to optimize planning, monitor asset and infrastructure utilization, and handle administrative tasks. - **Decision-making automation** involves utilizing technology to guide and optimize decisions related to stowage and yard planning, container positioning, and scheduling and routing of vehicles and equipment. Port community systems have emerged as a digitalization strategy by offering a common exchange platform for key port stakeholders. - **Process monitoring** involves applying digital technologies to commercial operations, planning, and support functions, with a focus on data aggregation, analytics, and network optimization. This ensures that operators and customers have real-time information about the assets and the cargo they manage. Technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), Big Data, and Artificial Intelligence (AI), along with their predictive capabilities, have enabled more efficient supply chains in one way or another. Automated warehousing, real-time tracking, and supply chain visibility, including transportation assets, have become widespread in the industry. **Digital ledger systems** were designed with the stated goal of adding a new layer of transparency and credence between supply chain players. These systems rely on digital ledgers that record transactions and their details in a network of computers, not a single central authority. This decentralisation promotes secure data storage, reducing fraud risks and enhancing reliability. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/technologies_digital_transformation_ports.png?resize=900%2C429&ssl=1 "Main Technologies and Focus on Digital Transformation in Logistics and Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Technologies and Focus on Digital Transformation in Logistics and Ports![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ai_terminal_operations2.png?resize=900%2C381&ssl=1 "Embedding AI in Port and Terminal Operations | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Embedding AI in Port and Terminal Operations![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2022-11-03-134021.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Digital Twin, PNIT, Busan New Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Digital Twin PNIT Busan New Port![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/geofencing_port_terminals.png?resize=900%2C598&ssl=1 "Geofencing at Port Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Geofencing at Port Terminals## B. Automation and robotics Automation can be implemented at the process, infrastructure, and mobile asset levels. **Process automation** can play a key role in the transformation of logistics service providers. For example, technological advances make it increasingly possible to dynamically integrate pricing, schedules, bookings, and shipment visibility with customers, carriers, and marketplaces in real time. This can create new opportunities for service providers, as these decision tools enable deeper integration with carriers, further facilitating shipment and asset allocation optimization. **Asset and infrastructure automation**, along with the use of robots, are not new to the logistics industry. For example, automated stacking systems in warehouses have been in place since the early 1990s. The world’s first container terminal using automated stacking cranes and automated guided vehicles (AGVs) became operational in Rotterdam in 1990. Driven by cost control (such as labor and land) and efficiency, automation in warehouses and terminals has progressed. The extent of automation ranges from remotely controlled operations under safe and efficient conditions to fully autonomous operations with limited oversight. Since the 2010s, automation has expanded beyond warehouses and terminals. When opting for automation in terminals or warehouses, market actors can fully control the working conditions for **automated vehicles or equipment**. Enclosed entities offer a controlled environment for automation that is less subject to random disruptions. However, outside these controlled environments, automated vehicles are subject to numerous influencing factors that cannot be controlled, such as weather, traffic conditions, and topological conditions (including turn priorities and one-way streets). Moreover, the use of automated vehicles in the public domain (sea, land, and air) requires legislative and regulatory actions. A broad range of autonomous or remotely-controlled vehicles is being developed, from small last-mile solutions (e.g. drones) to full-sized autonomous sea-going vessels. The development and implementation of these unmanned systems will entail unique threats and opportunities, which may lead to setbacks, unintended consequences, and new market opportunities. The development of **driverless trucks** is ongoing, and advanced levels of autonomous driving are emerging. Self-driving or autonomous trucks integrate self-driving technology into freight transport vehicles, aiming to operate with little to no human input. They utilise sensors, radars, LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), cameras, and machine learning tools to adapt to changing road conditions. These trucks are classified by levels of automation from Level 1 (basic driver assistance) to Level 5 (full automation). Currently, most operate at Levels 2 or 3, which require human oversight in complex situations. Efforts are underway to increase automation, especially in controlled environments such as highways. The immediate impact on logistics and port operations will most likely consist of increased efficiency due to assisted maneuvering, improved planning, and synchronized timing, allowing for enhanced terminal and truck operator efficiency. **Truck platooning** involves linking two or more vehicles (cars, vans, or trucks) in a convoy using connectivity technology and automated driving support systems. These vehicles automatically maintain a set distance from each other during part of the journey. Platooning operates at various automation levels: Level 1 has all vehicles manned, Level 3 has a manned leader with driverless followers, and Level 5 involves both being driverless. A **Remotely Operated Inland Vessel (ROIV)** uses cutting-edge technologies for remote control and monitoring, eliminating the need for an onboard crew while ensuring safety, efficiency, and sustainability. ROIVs are equipped with sensors, cameras, and radar, providing real-time views of their surroundings. Data is transmitted to a remote operations centre, where skilled operators manage navigation and cargo handling. The navigation system utilises GPS, LIDAR, and advanced radar to detect obstacles and adjust routes, while AI algorithms optimise these processes based on environmental conditions. Communication networks, including satellite links, long-range Wi-Fi, or 5G, are essential for maintaining constant control. ROIVs often employ electric or hybrid propulsion systems that reduce environmental impact, featuring technologies like battery-powered motors or hydrogen fuel cells to enhance energy efficiency and lower operational costs. The primary advantages of ROIVs include reduced human error, improved operational efficiency through continuous monitoring, and lower emissions, making them an eco-friendly option for inland logistics. Despite regulatory issues, communication reliability, and cybersecurity challenges, technological advancements pave the way for broader adoption, with most pilots taking place in Western Europe. **Drones** can operate autonomously and come in various forms, including multi-rotor, single-rotor, and fixed-wing models. Drones can carry payloads ranging from a few grams to several hundred kilograms, making them suitable for various applications, from parcel deliveries to medical and emergency supplies. Drones are already being used for security surveillance and inventory checks in warehouses and some ports. They could also have a role in monitoring other logistics operations, detecting problems requiring maintenance (e.g. cranes), and monitoring yards. The main barrier to using drones is regulatory, limiting drone operations outside controlled areas or near critical infrastructure, but that may be only a short-term obstacle. There are also some operational constraints to consider, such as limited battery life, range, and payload capacity. The first serious initiative for an **autonomous ship** was unveiled in 2014. These vessels are categorised by their Level of Autonomy (LoA) from 1 to 5, based on the degree of automation and the presence of operators on board, according to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). The main challenges of having Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) are regulatory, considering international maritime conventions have precise specifications on minimum crew requirements. Another challenge is safety concerns, especially weather, obstacles, and in-trip repair requirements. This includes the uncertainty about how such autonomous or remotely operated ships would cope with unforeseen or irregular events, including the risk of hacking. The primary advantages include reducing fuel consumption and, consequently, lowering emissions. Although safety is currently a concern, effectively overcoming the challenges would mean that maritime safety could be improved, as most shipping accidents result from human error, often related to fatigue. The debate focuses mainly on the **projected costs**. One concern is reduced operational costs, where the absence of a crew can be seen as a liability in the event of repairs or problem-solving, resulting in higher operating expenses. Another concern is the reduced construction costs associated with crewless ships, as they do not require crew facilities such as cabins and galleys. ## C. The Internet of Things (IoT) and big data analytics > The IoT refers to a wide and increasingly diverse range of physical objects (“things”) connected to a network and capable of sending and receiving data. This effectively means that all such items can be tracked, and any activity in which they are engaged or any circumstances to which they are exposed can be monitored and measured. The Internet of Things (IoT) is a development that is rapidly taking place across all industries and throughout society. Such a network of communicating units opens up an extensive array of possibilities for logistics. These sensor-driven items will enable all assets, including autonomous and robotized vehicles, equipment, port equipment, infrastructure, and the goods themselves, to become connected. This will result in the production and availability of massive amounts of data for analysis, colloquially known as **Big Data**. This offers a wide array of possibilities for logistics and port operators and stakeholders to optimize and automate processes, gathering ever more precise and real-time insights into their operations. One particular field of application concerns combining Automatic Identification System (AIS) data with **[geofencing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/geofencing-port-terminals/ "Geofencing at Port Terminals")**. Geofencing involves setting virtual geographical boundaries around facilities (or any feature such as a canal), which, when combined with the AIS data generated by a ship or RFID installed on containers, triggers a notification. So, a ship entering or exiting a geofenced port area triggers a notification that can be used by terminal operators and cargo owners to plan their operations and supply chains. Individual assets, such as containers, can also be tracked, including through the mobile device of a truck driver. This enables better visibility of maritime transport and supply chains, including support for port and supply chain security. To effectively and successfully implement applications built on the IoT, **robust communication systems** need to be in place. Ports, with containers and equipment interfering with signals, and warehouses with attenuated and scattered signals, are notoriously difficult environments. Although many ports and warehouses have network infrastructure available, it is often not well-suited to the IoT requirements of high bandwidth and secure protocols. The possibilities are vast, and the evolution of IoT and the use of big data create prospects for logistics to become a data-centric industry where information takes precedence in the value proposition of logistics services over the actual ability to move cargo. ## D. Simulation, virtual reality, and digital twins **Big data applications** enable logistics service providers and port operators to fully leverage the benefits of simulation software. Operations can be modeled to analyze operational flows, pinpoint potential bottlenecks, define enhancements, and simulate and assess various design and throughput scenarios. This can be done for existing or newly planned facilities and networks. An additional benefit is that such simulation software can also be used to train staff in a realistic environment, allowing for the simulation of a variety of events to be problem-solved. **Virtual reality** (VR), defined as expanding physical reality by adding layers of computer-generated information to the real environment, will further support such simulations. In a logistics environment, one can envision enhanced feeds from infrastructure, equipment, automated vehicles, and various drones. It is anticipated that VR will have a wide range of applications, spanning from operational support for executing specific processes to active safety or security interventions. VR enables the filtering of complex visual environments, highlighting important elements such as individual vehicles or containers. **Digital twins** solutions are making their way into the port and logistics industry. They are virtual models that replicate the conditions and behaviours of physical objects, assets, processes, facilities, or complete networks. By leveraging historical and real-time data alongside algorithms, they facilitate modelling, monitoring, simulation, and continuous optimization of the physical world. Their development is enabled by technologies such as IoT for data collection, cloud computing for processing and storage, and augmented/mixed/virtual reality for visualisations. The maturity levels of digital twins in a port and logistics context range from visualisation and diagnostic analysis to predictive and prescriptive analytics, ultimately culminating in fully autonomous decision-making systems. The generation of **[digital twins](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/digital-twin-pnit-busan-new-port/ "Digital Twin, PNIT, Busan New Port")** enables the creation of an exact virtual replica of the port facility, its vehicles, and ships, which can be utilized for operations, including ship berthing. # 3. Port Community Systems and Digital Ledger Technologies Automation relies on complex information systems supporting transactions and operations related to ports and maritime shipping. This strategy is often referred to as **digitalization**, for which port community systems and digital ledger technologies such as blockchains are salient examples. > **Port Community Systems** (PCS) are information platforms that make available logistical information to the actors involved in port-related freight distribution, including freight forwarders, terminal operators, customs, ocean carriers, inland carriers, and the port authority itself. > **Blockchains** are distributed electronic ledgers shared across a network of servers that record transactions in cryptographic units, called blocks, in a permanent and verifiable manner. They are often referred to as **digital ledger technologies** (DLT). The digital transformation of ports is integrated into information systems and ledger technologies, such as [blockchains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1016), that link together a wide variety of port and intermodal stakeholders, such as customs, freight forwarders, and carriers. The purpose of digitalization is not necessarily to create new information systems to manage freight activities but to effectively link existing databases and management systems through a portal, particularly through the conversion of different formats and the adoption of information exchange standards. While DLTs focus on **transactions and asset tracking**, PCSs focus on **stakeholder interactions**. PCSs facilitate the safe exchange of data and information among port-related operators, thereby speeding up and simplifying port, maritime, and multimodal operations. This integration supports the automation of relevant processes. Initially, PCS processes were standardized and automated at the single-node level. As development progresses, ports work to standardize and automate their processes further while integrating their operations with those of other ports. A PCS generates a positive environmental impact by minimising inefficiencies throughout the supply chain, such as reducing operational times, improving energy efficiency, and enhancing environmental performance. Portals are particularly suitable as an interface, as web access is nearly ubiquitous and supported by portable devices such as smartphones. The outcome is an improvement in transactional efficiency along the logistical chain and, correspondingly, the efficiency of the regional freight distribution system. Thus, there are opportunities to improve performance (in terms of costs and reliability) that users can utilize as marketing strategies. It is essential to emphasize that digitalization can take different forms for each port region, due to its varied physical, modal, jurisdictional, and operational characteristics. Conventionally, the transactional relations between these actors were very complex, with some being unilateral and proprietary. Digitalization is a sequential process. Depending on the current level of information technology usage, some steps may not be required, with the setup becoming a matter of portal development and data interoperability. Therefore, **freight digitalization** can be developed over three major phases: - **Development of key channels**. The first fundamental step in digitalization involves setting up channels with key port users, who exchange digital information they need for their operations. This includes cargo manifest, customs declaration, vessel call requests, and the reporting of dangerous goods. Carriers are the primary drivers in implementing digital ledger technologies, as they are the key support of the intermodal transport chain, which can be integrated as a channel. Still, DLTs are complex to implement. In 2018, Maersk, the world’s largest shipping line, initiated the development of a blockchain platform called TradeLens in collaboration with IBM. However, even if fully operational, the system was judged not to be commercially viable and was discontinued in early 2023. A collaborative framework that enables actors to **track and trade shipments**, **manage documentation** such as bills of lading, and ultimately **settle transactions** through letters of credit remains a challenge. - **Regional digital freight platforms**. Once key channels have been established, setting up an operational [port community system](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1011) becomes possible, particularly by focusing on maritime shipping and inland freight distribution information channels within an area where a port authority acts as a key driver. Additional actors are brought in, notably freight forwarders and inland transport firms, which creates a freight market. The purpose is to establish a continuous information chain within the port region, encompassing the majority of steps from ship access to the port facility, through to the delivery of a container at an inland freight distribution center. Among the world’s major ports, [different port community systems have been designed](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1048). - **Global digital freight systems**. Once digitalization has been established and effectively adopted by ports and cargo users, the next step is to leverage additional multiplying effects and quality improvements. This implies the further promotion of automation, such as the use of RFID, to facilitate the seamless movement of cargo and the complete digitalization of documents, ensuring that all transactions occur in a paperless environment. This also implies the diffusion of best practices with other ports (and inland ports), with their eventual integration into a wider system. This could eventually lead to a [comprehensive integration of information flows along supply chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1016) through widely available blockchains, from the factory door to the distribution center of an overseas consignee. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_community_system2.png?resize=900%2C628&ssl=1 "Port Community System | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Community System![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/selected_port_community_systems.png?resize=900%2C476&ssl=1 "Selected Port Community Systems | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Selected Port Community Systems![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/blockchains_intermodal_transport.png?resize=900%2C433&ssl=1 "Blockchains and Intermodal Transportation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Blockchains and Intermodal TransportationOne of the key challenges in digitalization is creating a **consensus among port users** who are traditionally disconnected and often compete for market share. Since many ports already have various IT strategies, digitalization does not mean using the same template; substantial efforts are needed to adapt to the cultural and operational realities of the locale. Developing web-based applications and wireless networks has made digitalization, such as PCS, an operational reality. The issue is to assess the extent to which digital transformations generate added value for the port community by improving supply chain productivity, efficiency, and reliability. As an asset-based industry, ports remain cautious about adopting technologies, including digital means. On the positive side, once a technology has demonstrated clear outcomes, its potential for adoption, diffusion, and scalability is high. # 4. Digitalization in Cruise Ports Digitalization is also transforming cruise ports. While digitalization in the maritime freight sector primarily focuses on operations and integration between stakeholders, digitalization in the cruise industry concentrates on enhancing **customer satisfaction**. The evolution of the **check-in processes** is an illustrative example. Guests complete their online check-in at home, which is verified by the cruise line. Passengers can then print their tickets or save them to their smartphones. Identification and ticket authentication occur at the port through check-in agents with scanning devices or self-service check-in kiosks. Cruisers receive their room key and RFID wristband and proceed to the cruise ship. The industry is considering online visa processing, but differing national regulations impede its development. Digitalization has multiple impacts on cruise terminal operations. Ports and cruise terminal operators, as well as other responsible stakeholders, may **redesign the terminal**, as the process provides them with more flexibility due to the reduced number of check-in desks. A further redesign is required to address security arrangements, potentially involving the addition of more X-ray machines and security lanes to prevent undue queue wait for guests. The technology used at the cruise terminal has also been upgraded, and high-speed broadband Wi-Fi is needed to support a large number of mobile devices. A further implication is reduced in-port shopping due to less pre-cruise shopping, resulting from expedited ship access. Combining this with the increased amenities and shopping facilities that cruise ships offer onboard, the importance of shopping malls as a cruise port selection criteria declines. **Ground handlers** who provide services at the cruise terminal are assigned reduced documentation checks, and pier staff are given a greater focus on customer service, guest flow planning, and manual check-in, which is required for guests who have forgotten their documentation. As a mitigation strategy for digital services, a backup plan is necessary in the event that the system goes down. For example, deployable check-in desks and staff on standby are crucial for addressing any unexpected events. **Cruise lines** can benefit from efficient port operations, which provide real-time digital updates for the boarding process and enhance guest comfort during check-in by reducing paperwork and shoreside staffing. **Cruise passengers** benefit from a seamless and more straightforward process, involving fewer documents, fewer queues, or even no queues, and a quicker journey to the cruise ship. Digitalization has led to several additional innovations, including the presence of holograms throughout the port, which direct guests to the terminal and the ship. Cruise line apps provide guests with information such as boarding procedures, onboard entertainment, luggage tracking, tour transfers, and last-minute shore excursion offers. Ground Handling Operation Support Systems have also been upgraded due to digitalization. For instance, innovative staffing systems facilitate scheduling, training needs, invoicing, and related operations. Another example is operation report applications, which provide reports generated after an operation and are then shared with all stakeholders to further improve future services for cruise passengers and shipping. Another issue concerns customs, as many cruises are international, with procedures more stringent at the final port of disembarkation (turn port). Like international arrivals for airports, cruise ports require a large number of cruisers (and some of the crew) to be processed quickly. The cruise lines must thus be able to match the disembarkation pace with that of customs over a few hours, which requires notification systems for passengers. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 4.5 Port Terminal Construction](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/) - [Chapter 6.6 Container Terminal Automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/) - [Chapter 11.4 Port Safety, Security, and Cybersecurity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/) - [Chapter 7.2 Cruise Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/) ## References - Fox C., S. Gailus, L. Liu and L. Ni (2018) The Future of Automated Ports, McKinsey & Company. - Lind, M., M. Michaelides, R. Ward, and R. Th. Watson (eds) (2020) Maritime Informatics, Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. - Munim, Z.H., O. Duru, and E. Hirata (2021) “Rise, Fall, and Recovery of Blockchains in the Maritime Technology Space”, Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 9, no. 3: 266. - Notteboom T. and Pallis A.A. (2025). IAPH World Ports Tracker 2025: Sustainability and Market trends. Antwerp: International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH) - Ollivier, P.R.G., S.P. Sahu and P. Saragiotis (2024) Port Community Systems: Lessons from Global Experience (English). Washington, D.C. : World Bank Group. - UNCTAD (2020) Digitalizing the Port Call Process, Transport and Trade Facilitation Series 13, UNCTAD/DTL/TLB/2019/2. - United States Government Accountability Office (2024) Port Infrastructure: U.S. Ports Have Adopted Some Automation Technologies and Report Varied Effects, GAO-24-106498. - World Bank (2020) “Accelerating Digitization: Critical Actions to Strengthen the Resilience of the Maritime Supply Chain”, World Bank, Washington, DC. - World Bank (2023) Port Community Systems: Lessons from Global Experience, World Bank, Washington, DC. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Embedding AI in Port and Terminal Operations](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/embedding-ai-port-operations/) **Published:** February 23, 2026 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ai_terminal_operations2.png?resize=900%2C381&ssl=1 "Embedding AI in Port and Terminal Operations | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Embedding AI in Port and Terminal OperationsThere are four main pillars for artificial intelligence (AI) that can be embedded in port and terminal operations. - **Predictive AI**. Focuses on analyzing trends and patterns that can be used to forecast or detect anomalies using a wide range of statistical methods. It tends to reshape organizational expertise and expand the capabilities to understand factors that influence current and future port and terminal operations. The challenge is that predictive AI may blur the process by which the results were achieved and undermine the cognitive abilities of the organization as the expertise is outsourced to an automated party. For the port and its terminals, it provides expanded **operations analytics**, which includes market conditions, equipment monitoring, and performance metrics. Dashboards are common in the port industry. - **Generative AI**. Often informed by predictive AI, generative AI is able to generate content, including reports, data, or documentation that allows the **planning of operations**. The work process becomes more focused on the curation and verification of the documentation, and less on its production. This can challenge the authorship of the documentation, including who it may be attributed to. - **Agentic AI**. Involves forms of reasoning and tasks that allow an AI to act on behalf of its issuer in decision-making. The challenge with automated decisions and actions is accountability: who actually has authority and sovereignty over them? Terminal operating systems are usually able to **support operations** and plan accordingly, including allocating resources such as equipment, yard storage, and inland transportation. - **Embodied AI**. Integration of AI with physical forms to perform the equivalent of physical labor or labor controlling physical flows. This allows tasks to be repeated safely and in compliance with established procedures. Automation allows for the **delivery of terminal operations**. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/embedding-ai-port-operations/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/embedding-ai-port-operations/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/embedding-ai-port-operations/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/embedding-ai-port-operations/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Integration of Continuous and Discontinuous Port Hinterlands](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/continuous-discontinuous-port-hinterlands/) **Published:** November 17, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/integration_continuous_discontinuous_hinterlands.png?w=900&ssl=1 "The Integration of Continuous and Discontinuous Port Hinterlands | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Integration of Continuous and Discontinuous Port Hinterlands*Source: adapted from Notteboom and Rodrigue (2005) and *adapted from Monios, J. and G. Wilmsmeier (2012) “Giving a direction to port regionalization”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 46(10), 1551-1561.** The **direct hinterland** of a seaport (or another terminal) tends to be continuous. More distant hinterland features tend to be discontinuous because hinterland density is lower and because transport corridors and inland terminals affect accessibility. The service areas of a container load center by rail and barge overlap those of individual inland terminals. The size of each inland service area depends on the service frequency and the rates of intermodal shuttle services by rail and/or barge, the extent to which the inland terminal acts as a gateway, and the efficiency and price of pre- and end-haul by truck. By developing strong functional links with particular inland terminals, a port might intrude into the natural hinterland of competing ports. “Islands” in the distant hinterland are created in which the load center achieves a comparative cost and service advantage in relation to rival seaports. This increases competition among ports of the same port system as the competitive margins of the hinterlands become increasingly blurred. Comprehensive port-inland integration is uncommon, and existing strategies focus on the **transportation function**. In contrast, the logistics and supply chain functions are more in the interest of regional and public development agencies. Port devolution and deregulation of port infrastructure and transport services have opened a wider range of options for cooperation and new scales for development. This new development offers an opportunity for policy implementation beyond the physical development of infrastructures and traditional port operations. Divergence can be identified between two broad conceptual categories of hinterland logistics. - **Outside-In (import logistics)**. A port-driven (port authority or terminal operator) form of hinterland logistics development. It seeks to alleviate terminal and gate congestion and serve the port (terminal) customers more effectively. This is conducive to the setting of satellite terminal facilities and inland ports. - **Inside-Out (export logistics)**. A public or private sector-driven form of hinterland logistics development. These actors are often not directly related to the port sector but seek logistics-oriented developments that enable them to improve their accessibility to global trade (exports). This is conducive to the setting of load centers that can be supported by public policy, including incentives and direct investments in infrastructure and operations. Still, facilities dealing jointly with inside-out and outside-in logistics can be established. The success or failure, and the source of, port/hinterland integration can commonly be attributed to institutional barriers that prevent the efficient and effective operation of an integrated port-inland system. These can relate to policies or regulations (either over-regulation of transport services or under-regulation of inland terminal planning regimes) or to operational aspects, such as consolidating market demand across political boundaries or finding space to marshal trains or transload cargo between two competing private rail networks. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/continuous-discontinuous-port-hinterlands/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/continuous-discontinuous-port-hinterlands/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/continuous-discontinuous-port-hinterlands/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/continuous-discontinuous-port-hinterlands/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Impact of 20,000 TEU Vessel Call on Inland Transport](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/400m-vessel-generates-30km-land-transport-vehicles-per-call/) **Published:** December 10, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/impact_20000_teu_call_inland.png?resize=900%2C489&ssl=1 "Impact of 20,000 TEU Vessel Call on Inland Transport | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Impact of a call of a 20000 TEU vessel on inland transportContainer ships of more than 20,000 TEU are operational on the Europe-Far East trade. A port call by such a mega vessel in Antwerp or Rotterdam, two of the largest container ports in Europe, has several implications. First, it typically results in an average call size of 8,000 TEU. Some 70% of that volume is **gateway cargo**, and the remaining 30% involves **[transshipment cargo](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1532#2_Container_Services_and_Networks)**. Antwerp and Rotterdam port authorities intend to evolve to an inland modal splitin container transport of 40/40/20: maximum 40% by truck, minimum 40% by barge, and minimum 20% by rail. In such a scenario, 1120 incoming and outgoing trucks, 14 average-sized container shuttle trains, and 12 average-sized barges are needed to ensure the inward and outward distribution of containers. Lining up all these transport vehicles would create an interrupted queue of 30km. As ship sizes increase, scale increases in land transportation are needed by deploying more and bigger barges and longer trains between seaports and inland distribution platforms. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/400m-vessel-generates-30km-land-transport-vehicles-per-call/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/400m-vessel-generates-30km-land-transport-vehicles-per-call/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/400m-vessel-generates-30km-land-transport-vehicles-per-call/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/400m-vessel-generates-30km-land-transport-vehicles-per-call/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Impacts of Containership Size on Port and Hinterland Traffic](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/impacts-containership-size-port-hinterland-traffic/) **Published:** December 23, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/containership_size_port_hinterland.png?resize=900%2C359&ssl=1 "Impacts on Containership Size on Port and Hinterland Traffic | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Impacts of Containership Size on Port and Hinterland TrafficTerminal operations and hinterland access are influenced by containership size since each port call is associated with larger volumes. While the duration of a port call does not change significantly with ship size (less than 24 hours), the volumes handled change radically, increasing the terminal and hinterland footprint. Assuming a 35% turnover per port call, a Panamax containership will generate about 1,700 TEU of port traffic per call, combining inbound and outbound flows. Imbalanced traffic creates directional sequences involving larger numbers of repositioned containers, as is the case for most ports. A typical Panamax containership call requires about 1.7 hectares of yard space, which assumes using standard rubber-tired gantry cranes that allow for a stacking density of 1,000 TEU per hectare. Larger ports tend to have higher stacking density with equipment such as rail-mounted gantry cranes (1,500-2000 TEU per hectare), requiring less yard space. Smaller ports have less equipment and lower stacking density levels (500 TEU per hectare or less). Assuming a 70/30 modal distribution between road and rail, 595 trucks and 1.27 trains (double-stacked 2,000 meters in length; North American standard) would be required to accommodate this volume. Single-stacked trains of 750 meters, common in Europe, can carry about 80 TEU, implying that 6.4 trains are required. Modal distribution varies significantly between ports, as North American ports tend to have a higher share of rail services than the global average. Some ports, such as in Northern Europe (Rhine-Scheldt Delta) and China, are also serviced with container barges, which results in variations in the modal composition and the related footprint. More TEU per port call may be required for ports that assume a transshipment function, but with fewer containers bound to the hinterland. Pure transshipment hubs have almost no hinterland traffic. The impacts of economies of scale are apparent, as even if a port were to handle a similar traffic level, the time compression of the volumes requires larger terminal yard space and more hinterland transport assets to be available. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/impacts-containership-size-port-hinterland-traffic/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/impacts-containership-size-port-hinterland-traffic/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/impacts-containership-size-port-hinterland-traffic/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/impacts-containership-size-port-hinterland-traffic/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Containerization Growth Factors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/containerization-growth-factors/) **Published:** November 2, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/containerization_growth_factors2.png?resize=900%2C432&ssl=1 "Containerization Growth Factors | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Containerization Growth FactorsSeveral factors can expand or restrict the derived demand for container shipping and ports: - **Derived**. Considers the core derived demand of transportation. Volume growth is primarily driven by economic growth, which increases consumption across all economic sectors. Outsourcing and offshoring, coupled with the complexity of supply chains (multiple actors involved in procurement), provide additional impetus. However, economic recessions have notable effects on demand, particularly when accompanied by trade protectionist measures, such as high tariffs. Automation in manufacturing may also become a factor, as it may involve assembly closer to final markets. - **Substitution**. When trades that conventionally involved bulk and breakbulk markets are containerized, volume increases accordingly. Comparatively low container shipping rates can also help attract cargo that is usually carried in bulk. Further, the development of new cargo niches, such as the cold chain and containerized commodities, can help expand the demand. Conversely, volume can decline if no further substitution opportunities remain and container shipping rates are high, thereby removing discretionary cargo that may involve commodities. - **Incidental**. Large trade imbalances incite the repositioning of empty containers, which become an incidental generator of growth. If trade measures, including high tariffs, are imposed, they could affect trade flows and reduce repositioning. Better capacity management can help mitigate container imbalances and empty repositioning, reducing volumes. - **Induced**. The organization of shipping networks often requires transit through transshipment hubs, which entails additional container handling. If networks are changed to include more direct services, then the volume of containers handled would decline accordingly. Quantifying the contribution, such as the multiplier effect, of each of these factors remains a challenge. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/containerization-growth-factors/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/containerization-growth-factors/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/containerization-growth-factors/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/containerization-growth-factors/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 1.1 - Ports, Maritime Shipping and International Trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/) **Published:** December 18, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dr. Theo Notteboom and Dr. Athanasios Pallis > The demand for port traffic is derived from global trade, which has undergone a wide range of economic, technological, and geopolitical developments. Shifts in global trade, production, maritime shipping, transport systems, and logistics are affecting port activity levels and operations. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Maritime Shipping as a Driver of Globalization](#1_Maritime_Shipping_as_a_Driver_of_Globalization) - [2. Ongoing Growth of International Trade](#2_Ongoing_Growth_of_International_Trade) - [3. The Shift in Global Trade Patterns](#3_The_Shift_in_Global_Trade_Patterns) - [4. Geopolitics and Trade](#4_Geopolitics_and_Trade) - [5. The Containerization of Trade](#5_The_Containerization_of_Trade) - [6. International Trade and Maritime Shipping Services](#6_International_Trade_and_Maritime_Shipping_Services) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Maritime Shipping as a Driver of Globalization Global **economic integration** is a key factor driving the increasing importance of international trade. Historically, trade was prevalent but set up under constraining conditions in terms of the technical means to support it. Trading over long distances remained slow and expensive, limiting its scale and scope. By the early 20th century, transport technologies such as steamships had become ubiquitous and efficient enough to support the emergence of a complex international trade system. Particularly, the steamship enabled economies of scale that could not have been achieved beforehand. However, it was not until the mid-20th century that the global regulatory regime became sufficiently open to allow for an expanded form of globalization. Global trade is impossible without transportation, making efficient transport a key trade facilitator. By definition, almost all the cargo carried by maritime shipping is considered to be international trade, but **active internal trade** is present in countries with long coastlines (e.g., the United States, Brazil, and China) or that are archipelagic (Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines). Transport costs (both freight and time costs) constitute a key component of **total trade costs**. These trade costs also include other costs incurred in delivering goods to final users beyond the marginal cost of producing the good itself, such as policy barriers, information costs, and legal and regulatory costs. Lower trade costs contribute to trade growth, as it has been underlined that for developing economies, a 10% reduction in transportation costs was associated with a 20% growth in international trade. Distance has become a factor that plays a lesser role in the intensity of maritime trade relations, making the capacity and direct connectivity of maritime shipping networks more relevant. International trade influences the structure of maritime shipping networks, which are organized according to a [hierarchy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-hierarchy-shipping-lanes/ "Global Hierarchy of Shipping Lanes") where the most important shipping routes are related to the most important trade relations. Since the end of World War II, ongoing trade liberalism has led to the gradual removal of political, regulatory, and cultural obstacles to trade. Integration processes occurred at both the regional and global levels. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the opening up of China in the 1990s represented landmark events that triggered the entry of nearly two billion consumers, as well as related labor and natural resources, into the global economy. Regional trading blocs have been formed with varying degrees of trade liberalization, including NAFTA (now known as the USMCA) in North America, the EU Single Market in Europe, ASEAN in Southeast Asia, Mercosur in South America, and ECOWAS in West Africa. A significant share of international trade occurs within economic blocs, particularly the European Union and the USMCA, which rely more on land transport modes such as road, inland waterways, and rail. The European Union and USMCA are considered the world’s most integrated trade agreements, with 61% and 51% of their respective trade concerning member nations. For ASEAN, 75% of its trade concerns nations outside the agreement, implying a greater relative share of maritime shipping. The **globalization of production** is a driver of the **globalization of trade,** as they are interrelated. The **scale**, **volume,** and **efficiency** of international trade have continued to improve. Global trade liberalization is supported by the ongoing evolution of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and initiatives by organizations such as UNCTAD and the World Bank. After World War II, a number of international corporations sought support from intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations for regulatory frameworks that enabled international operations. Multinational corporations assumed growing importance as investors and traders in such an environment. Inter-governmental organizations continue to play a crucial role in shaping the rules of the game in international competition and global trade. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/global_hierarchy_shipping_lanes.png?resize=900%2C480&ssl=1 "Global Hierarchy of Shipping Lanes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Hierarchy of Shipping Lanes![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/hierarchy_container_ports.png?resize=900%2C419&ssl=1 "Global Hierarchy of Container Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Hierarchy of Container Ports# 2. Ongoing Growth of International Trade World trade has experienced a [significant increase](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/merchandise-exports-world/ "Merchandise Exports, World and Selected Countries 1970-2024") since the 1950s, representing a growing share of global economic output. In 2007, the value of international trade surpassed 50% of the global GDP for the first time and has remained between 45% and 52% since then. This share was conventionally in the 20%-25% range during the first half of the 20th century. In the 19th century, this share was approximately 10%, reflecting a more stringent trading environment in which transport was limited and expensive. [Several factors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/growth-factors-international-trade/ "Growth Factors of International Trade") explained this growth: - **Income growth**. Linked with additional consumption of goods and services, some of which are trade-related (imports). - **Falling transport costs**. Allowing more options and opportunities for trade as the ratio between the value of goods and transport costs has become smaller. - **Trade liberalization**. The associated tariff-rate reductions facilitate trade, primarily through economic integration. Countries negotiate around trade agreements and common commercial policies. - **Increase in intermediate goods trade**. The setting of global supply chains involving outsourcing and offshoring. More parts are in circulation at various stages of production and assembly. Between 1958 and 1988, income growth accounted for 67% of the real growth in world trade, while tariff reductions accounted for approximately 26%, and reductions in transport costs for roughly 8%. However, developed and developing economies may exhibit distinct economic characteristics that play different roles in the growth of international trade. Low-income economies tend to rely heavily on the trade in resource and low-added-value goods; intermediate-income economies are oriented toward manufacturing; and high-income economies tend to be net importers of products and services. The ongoing growth of international trade also affected firms, many of which expanded into multinational corporations. The benefits that multinational corporations derive from trade are varied: - **Competition**. Seeking new resources, markets, and processes in international markets enhances corporate competitiveness. - **Economies of scale**. International markets allow firms to produce larger quantities of goods, thereby reducing unit costs. - **Innovation**. International markets incite the development of new products or the adaptation of existing products to different market characteristics. As international trade depends on the provision of [distribution and transactional services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1801), the demand for these services has increased substantially, leading to the growth of carriers, cargo owners, terminal operators, third-party logistics service providers (3PL), freight forwarders, and insurers. International transportation and **transaction service providers** form a complex ecosystem that aims to support international trade and extract added value. Transportation services providers, like manufacturing firms, have become large multinational corporations due to the extensive markets they cover. The [nature of the goods being traded](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1814) and the main traders involved influence the modes of transportation used for international trade. Maritime transportation dominates, accounting for approximately 80% of the volume and 70% of the value of international trade. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/merchandise_exports_world2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Merchandise Exports, World and Selected Countries 1970-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Merchandise Exports World and Selected Countries 1970 2024![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/growth_factors_trade2.png?resize=900%2C262&ssl=1 "Growth Factors of International Trade | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Growth Factors of International Trade![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/services_shipping_business.png?resize=900%2C473&ssl=1 "Services Supporting International Trade and the Shipping Business | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Services Supporting International Trade![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/most_traded_goods_lead_exporter.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "World’s Most Traded Goods and Lead Exporter, 2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Most Traded Goods and Lead Exporter 2022# 3. The Shift in Global Trade Patterns Since the 1980s, significant changes have been seen in international trade flows. A growing share of international trade occurs within regions (and particularly economic blocs), even if long-distance trade has increased in absolute numbers. Trade [predominantly takes place](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2297 "International Trade of Merchandises, 2003-2013") within Europe, North America, and East Asia, commonly referred to as the triad. Still, a [shift in trade relations](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1825) between the northern and southern hemispheres, particularly between developed and developing economies, has occurred with a growing participation of developing economies. The structure of global trade has become increasingly complex in its relationships and diversified in the types of goods being traded. The pattern of trade relations is mainly explained by the following factors: - **Geographical proximity**. The intensity of trade relations is commonly a function of proximity, unless notable advantages are available farther away. The European Union has significant trading linkages with adjacent areas in Eastern Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. North America also maintains important trade linkages with Latin America, notably with Mexico, through the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement). Shorter distances have a significant impact on the modes of transportation used for trade, with maritime shipping being less suitable for long-distance trade, except in cases of short-sea shipping. Still, a key advantage of maritime shipping is that it substantially mitigates the negative effects of long distances on trade, as the development of containerized shipping underscores. - **Resource availability**. The scarcity and availability of resources have shaped maritime networks since the Industrial Revolution and remain the [main component](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2339 "World Seaborne Trade by Cargo Type, 1970-2018"), ton-wise, of maritime shipping. The energy, mineral, and agricultural trades have distinct shipping networks and specialized port facilities designed to handle bulk cargoes, including petroleum, natural gas, coal, grains, alumina, and iron ore. - **Economic complexity**. The diversity of a nation’s economy is generally associated with a [more complex trade structure](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-competitiveness-index/ "Economic Complexity Index (ECI) – Trade, 2023") and more trade per capita. The ability to manufacture a wide range of products that are difficult to replicate confers an advantage on a nation, whereas economies that produce simpler, easier-to-replicate products are at a disadvantage. - **History and culture**. Long and enduring trade relations have emerged, while others have declined and disappeared due to historical factors. The trade networks established during the colonial era have endured in relations such as those between Europe and Africa or between the United States and Latin America. China has commercial historical ties with Central Asia and Southeast Asia, which have been recreated and expanded in recent decades through projects such as the [Belt and Road Initiative](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/belt-and-road-initiative-bri/ "The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)"). Irrespective of the political context, trade networks tend to endure because of the reciprocal systems of supply and demand on which they depend. - **Geopolitics**. Trade between nations and regions can be promoted or inhibited due to [political factors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/#4_Geopolitics_and_Trade) impacting exchange rates, tariffs, quotas, and embargoes. Trade has been a source of conflict and a tool to pressure antagonistic regimes or trade policies (e.g., tariffs) deemed nonreciprocal. The most fundamental aspect remains the ability of nations to use unencumbered international shipping lanes and strategic passages to access global markets. Another characteristic of the contemporary commercial setting concerns **[imbalances in trade flows](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2322 "World’s 20 Largest Exporters and Importers of Goods and Services, 2018")**. For instance, China exports more than it imports with partners such as the United States and the European Union. Trade imbalances directly reflect imbalances in shipping flows. For bulk trade, such as energy and minerals, it is common for a return trip to be empty. For containerized trade, the load factors of return trips are lower, and the share of empty containers is higher. The imbalanced trade structure is also reflected in the composition of container imports and exports, which differ substantially. Furthermore, trade imbalances necessitate the repositioning of empty containers, which account for approximately 20% of global container movements. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/trade_merchandises_structure.png?resize=900%2C500&ssl=1 "International Trade of Merchandises, 2003-2013 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")International Trade of Merchandises 2003 2013![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-ECI-Trade-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Economic Complexity Index (ECI) – Trade, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Economic Complexity Index ECI Trade 2023![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-New-Silk-Road.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "The Eurasian Landbridges | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Eurasian Landbridges![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/changes_global_trade_flows.png?resize=900%2C690&ssl=1 "Changes in Global Trade Flows | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Changes in Global Trade Flows![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/seaborne_trade_cargo.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "World Seaborne Trade by Cargo Type, 1970-2021 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")World Seaborne Trade by Cargo Type 1970 2021![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/american_trade_containers.png?w=900&ssl=1 "American Foreign Trade by Maritime Containers, 2024 (in TEUs) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")American Foreign Trade by Maritime Containers 2024Geographical and economic shifts in international trade are directly observable in the evolution of the level of [trade intensity by ocean](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/trade-intensity-ocean/ "Trade Intensity by Ocean, 1980-2020"), as trans-Pacific trade has grown faster than trans-Atlantic trade. The most significant intercontinental trade flows are between Asia and North America (especially the United States), Europe and North America, and Europe and Asia. The associated maritime routes are the most commercially used, with sizable trade going through chokepoints such as the Strait of Malacca (30% of global trade transiting), the Suez Canal (15%), the Strait of Gibraltar, and the Panama Canal (5%). These bottlenecks allow for a connection between major systems of maritime circulation, where transatlantic, transpacific, and Asia-Europe routes dominate. North-south flows complement these east-west routes, many of which interact at major transshipment hubs around Singapore, Dubai, the Strait of Gibraltar (Tanger Med, Algeciras), and the Caribbean (Panama, Cartagena, Kingston). The evolution of international trade shapes the structure of maritime shipping networks and port development, as shipping lines tend to organize their services to connect directly with the dominant trade flows. Meanwhile, less dominant trade flows are indirectly supported through transshipment hubs. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/largest_traders.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "World’s 20 Largest Exporters and Importers of Goods and Services, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds 20 Largest Exporters and Importers of Goods and Services 2024![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/trade_intensity_ocean2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Trade Intensity by Ocean, 1980-2020 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Trade Intensity by Ocean 1980 2020# 4. Geopolitics and Trade In recent years, geopolitical tensions and disruptions have been increasingly influencing the dynamics of global trade. **Geopolitics** refers to decisions shaped by geographic constraints, making the relationship between geographic space and political action a central theme in policy. Geopolitics assumes a distinction between domestic and foreign boundaries, adopting a broader understanding of what is considered inside and outside the nation-state. While classical geopolitics focused solely on the role of states, contemporary geopolitics encompasses a wide variety of geopolitical agents, including corporations and NGOs, when investigating practices that enable territorial control, trade, and the extraction of natural resources. The contemporary geopolitical landscape is increasingly intertwined with the challenges facing the model of **globalization** that drove the expansion of world trade in the 1990s and 2000s. Since the global financial crisis of 2008–09, the once-strong international consensus on the universal economic benefits of globalization has eroded, as the costs and benefits of global integration have diverged significantly across countries. In this shifting environment, many nations have started to prioritize national sovereignty over multilateralism, domestic interests over international cooperation, and local constituencies over global populations. As a result, a new pattern of global trade has emerged, one shaped by policy interventions and evolving business strategies. Increasingly, economies are turning toward **homeland production** (onshoring), **nearshoring** (relocating production to nearby rather than distant countries), and **friendshoring** (prioritizing trade with geopolitically aligned nations on a preferential basis). The associated geopolitical tensions between major economies can lead to a wide array of **[implications for international trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/trading-with-friends-friendshoring-and-ethical-sourcing/ "Geopolitics and the De-Risking Supply Chains")**: - **Trade decoupling and realignment**. This means countries may reduce their dependence on rival nations, fostering or strengthening new trade alliances. The forces toward trade decoupling and realignment are strongest in critical sectors, including energy, rare earth materials, and high-tech goods. - **Strategic autonomy**. It aims to enable a nation or region to make independent decisions and act autonomously in critical areas, thereby reducing dependence on other countries. These policies aim to safeguard sovereignty in an increasingly globalized and interdependent world while minimizing vulnerability to external pressures. Key economic components of these policies include diversifying trading partners, reducing reliance on single suppliers or nations for critical goods (e.g., rare earth minerals, food, energy, or medical supplies), and enhancing production in strategically vital sectors, such as semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, renewable energy technologies, agriculture, and military equipment. The pursuit of strategic autonomy necessitates policies that, to the extent possible, strike a balance between partnerships with global powers and the preservation of the ability to act independently. When designing such policies, policymakers must recognize that achieving full autonomy is extremely difficult (if not impossible) in a highly interconnected global economy characterized by tightly intertwined supply chains. For example, a complete economic decoupling from China is overly complex, given its dominance in many industrial sectors. - **Friendshoring and trading with aligned countries**. Decisions by multinational companies regarding production locations and sourcing strategies are increasingly influenced by geopolitical objectives and policies related to strategic autonomy and security, as well as ethical and sustainability considerations. As a result, companies may adopt concepts such as prioritizing trade with countries that share similar norms, values, or political systems. Another concept is friendshoring, referring to relocating economic activity to nations with aligned norms and values. A multipolar world is emerging in which nations compete in a **hierarchy** of economic, political, and military factors. The roles and functions of trading blocs are also being scrutinized, as exemplified by the European Union. [High tariffs](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/us-china-tariffs/ "US-China Tariffs, 2018-2025"), [trade wars](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/monthly-trade-china-united-states/ "Monthly Trade between China and the United States (1985-2025)"), weakening trade relations, geopolitical competition, and increasing defense spending have become the means by which power is explicitly projected. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/de_risking_supply_chains.png?resize=900%2C504&ssl=1 "De-Risking Supply Chains | Port Economics, Management and Policy")De Risking Supply Chains![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/US_China_tariffs.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "US-China Tariffs, 2018-2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")US China Tariffs 2018 2025![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/monthly_trade_China_US.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Monthly Trade between China and the United States (1985-2025) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Monthly Trade between China and the United States 1985 2025Despite the evolving geopolitical context, the continued expansion of **multinational corporations** and the resilience of established **post-Fordist production models**, which rely on diversified sources of raw materials and geographically dispersed production of intermediate goods, have mitigated the overall slowdown in globalization. Despite the rise of protectionist measures, including increased U.S. tariffs since 2018 (which intensified in recent years), the expected benefits of domestic production and nearshoring have remained limited. Similarly, anthropogenic crises, most notably the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, have not led to a significant relocation of production. Instead, they have prompted operational adjustments, including a 10% increase in inventory levels. Large-scale reshoring or nearshoring to Western economies has not materialized. Production remains concentrated in Asia or has been relocated within the region. Asian countries remain the world’s leading manufacturing hubs, steadily enhancing their **liner shipping connectivity** with global markets and improving **port productivity**. Moreover, demographic trends suggest the emergence of new dynamic regions that will shape the future of global supply chains, particularly in Africa and Asia. Taken together, these factors indicate that, although the architecture of global trade is in transition, international (and particularly maritime) trade will most likely continue to grow. The importance of geopolitical perspectives in understanding the evolution of ports serving international trade is further underscored by the expanding global presence of both private and state-owned port terminal operators, with the latter reversing the trend toward a ports and shipping industry dominated by private enterprises. The design, implementation, and outcomes of port development are influenced by and interact with geopolitical and economic factors. # 5. The Containerization of Trade ## A. The emergence of the container The container and the associated maritime and inland transport systems have proven instrumental in driving successive waves of globalization and growth in global trade since the 1970s. The launching of the first containership, the Ideal X, by Malcolm McLean in 1956, marked the beginning of containerization. The first transatlantic container service, launched in 1966 between the US East Coast and Northern Europe, marked the beginning of long-distance containerized trade. The first specialized cellular containerships were delivered in 1968, and containerization expanded over maritime and inland freight transport systems. Container shipping developed rapidly due to the adoption of **[standard container sizes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/standardization-advances-containerisation/ "Main Physical Characteristics of ISO Containers")** in the late 1960s. The cost savings resulting from faster vessel turnaround times in ports, the reduction in cargo damage levels and associated insurance fees, and the integration with inland transport modes such as trucks, barges, and trains have become acknowledged as clear advantages of containerization. The container offered a standard around which physical distribution systems could operate. Hence, emerging container shipping networks allowed changes in the economic and transport geography as they significantly reduced maritime costs between production and consumption centers worldwide. Container shipping has also become a **crucial driver** in reshaping global supply chains, enabling sourcing strategies of multinational enterprises and facilitating the development of global production networks. New supply chain practices increased the requirements for container shipping in terms of frequency, schedule reliability/integrity, global service coverage, rate setting, and environmental performance. The outcome has been an [ongoing increase in global container throughput](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2969 "World Container Throughput, 1980-2019"). The container has evolved from a transport unit to a unit within a supply or commodity chain. Containerization is inherently linked to the **transport of load units** (containers) across several transportation modes. It is more than a box, serving as a vector for production and distribution. Containerization has led to various changes in the geography of transport, trade, and distribution, particularly in how production and physical distribution interact. The container can be considered revolutionary, as new practices have emerged following its introduction. It has become a ubiquitous transport product that serves mobility requirements across almost all stages of supply and commodity chains and can be carried virtually everywhere with transport infrastructure. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/iso_containers_specifications.png?resize=900%2C347&ssl=1 "Main Physical Characteristics of ISO Containers | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Physical Characteristics of ISO Containers![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/world_container_port_throughput.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "World Container Throughput, 1980-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")World Container Throughput 1980 2024## B. Containerized trade networks Before containerization, many goods subject to trade had to be handled manually. Emerging [worldwide container shipping networks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1532) allowed changes in the economic and transport geography as they significantly shortened the maritime cost distances between production and consumption centers around the world. Container shipping also became an essential driver in reshaping global supply chain practices, enabling multinational corporations to leverage global sourcing strategies and develop logistics solutions, as well as global production networks. Containerization has been the most [dynamic physical component of globalization](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1723), outpacing the growth of the value of exports and the GDP. As globalization unfolded, each additional unit of GDP or export was associated with a higher level of container flows. This is often referred to as the [TEU-to-GDP multiplier](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/teu-to-gdp-multiplier/ "TEU to GDP Multiplier, 1985-2022"). The growth of container port throughput kept pace with the growth of exports until the 1980s. Afterward, a [divergence was noted](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1732), with container flows growing faster than trade flows. Containerization entered the acceleration phase of its diffusion cycle, serving as the fundamental support for export-oriented strategies pursued by Asian economies. The [composition of international trade goods carried in containers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1738) is impressive in its diversity. The 20 most important SITC (Standard International Trade Classification) categories accounted for 65% of the global containerized trade, underlining that the container has been used to carry any possible good that could be fitted in. More than 75% of container freight flows are related to consumer spending on retail goods. However, many of the most significant categories of containerized trade are the outcome of comparative advantage factors, namely labor, which can be temporary and subject to change. If these advantages were to shift because of technological changes (e.g. automation) or trade policy (e.g. tariffs), then a notable share of the containerized trade could be impacted. About one out of every ten containers handled worldwide is by ports in the **Yangtze River Delta**. In East Asia, export-oriented industrialization policies implemented in Hong Kong SAR, Taiwan, and South Korea sustained strong growth in container throughput in these economies from the 1980s. China developed similar strategies in the late 1980s, resulting in elevated growth first in the Pearl River Delta, then in the Yangtze Delta port system, and subsequently in the Bohai Bay region. In the 2010s, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Qingdao, and Ningbo joined Hong Kong, Busan, and Singapore as the world’s busiest container ports. The Rhine-Scheldt Delta (Belgium/the Netherlands) was the world’s leading container-handling region until the mid-1990s, when South China took the lead. While the dynamics of containerization and container flows are well understood, much less is known about the commodities being carried by containers. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/global_trade_container_throughput2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Global Trade and Container Throughput (1970=100) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Trade and Container Throughput 1970=100![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/teu_gdp_multiplier.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "TEU to GDP Multiplier, 1985-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")TEU to GDP Multiplier 1985 2024![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Container-Evolution-1980-2010.png?resize=900%2C446&ssl=1 "Evolution of Traffic Handled by Container Ports, 1980-2010 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Evolution of Traffic Handled by Container Ports 1980 2020![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/merchandise_exports_container_throughput2.png?resize=900%2C437&ssl=1 "Global Merchandise Exports and Container Throughput, 1980-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Merchandise Exports and Container Throughput 1980 2023## C. Containerized growth dynamics The conventional growth dynamics of containerization have mainly relied on an [array of drivers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2963 "Containerization Growth Factors"). Each explains a share of the derived demand effect of maritime shipping and ports, which includes: - **Derived growth**. Often labeled as organic growth, derived growth is an economic development outcome with greater quantities of containerized cargo being traded. Globalization also implies a growth in the average distance over which containerized freight is being carried. In both cases, greater containerized capacities are required, average voyage days per vessel increase, and the number of vessel roundtrips per year decreases. The dynamics based on derived demand may have reached maturity in containerization potential, as many global supply chains are now fully containerized. - **Substitution-based growth**. Initially, substitution was the primary factor behind containerization, as it gradually captured the breakbulk cargo market. This process has been particularly visible in many ports, as illustrated by rising containerization degrees (the ratio between the containerized throughput of the port and the total general cargo volumes). Since almost all break-bulk cargo that could be containerized has already been containerized, this substitution process is essentially near completion in developed economies. It is also rising rapidly in emerging economies and developing countries. This leaves the possibility of further containerization in niche markets, specifically commodities and temperature-sensitive cargo. - **Incidental growth**. Production and trade imbalances in the global economy are reflected in physical flows and transport rates, leading to specific container repositioning strategies. Containerized flows are rarely balanced, implying that empty containers must be repositioned to locations where export cargo is available. - **Induced growth**. The growth of deep-sea services and the use of larger containerships have led to the establishment of intermediary hubs that connect different circulation systems through transshipment. Intermediary hubs emerge in locations offering clear advantages over direct port calls at mainland ports. The setting up of intermediate hubs occurs around specific regions ideally suited for maritime hub-and-spoke distribution patterns. Transshipment has proven to be a major driver of global container port throughput, with substantially higher growth rates than observed for gateway traffic. The global transshipment rate has steadily increased from approximately 18% in 1990 to approximately 35% in 2018. In terms of the value of global trade carried in containers, maritime shipping accounts for 70% of the total trade, and 66% of this value is carried in containers, which in 2020 represented about [$54,000 per TEU](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/value-containerized-trade/ "Value of Containerized Trade, 2020") (Twenty-Foot Equivalent Unit). ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/global_containerized_trade_cargo.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Global Containerized Trade by Main Cargo Category | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Containerized Trade by Main Cargo Category in TEU![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/containerization_growth_factors2.png?resize=900%2C432&ssl=1 "Containerization Growth Factors | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Containerization Growth Factors![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/value_containerized_trade.png?resize=900%2C465&ssl=1 "Value of Containerized Trade, 2020 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Value of Containerized Trade 2020# 6. International Trade and Maritime Shipping Services International trade relies on maritime transportation for [approximately 80% of its volume](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/modal-shares-world-trade-volume-value/ "Modal Shares of World Trade by Volume and Value, 2008"), which involves several markets, including dry bulk, roll-on/roll-off, general cargo, and containers. ## A. Maritime services in dry bulk shipping The maritime transport of **major bulk commodities** such as iron ore and coal typically relies on end-to-end services between a port of loading (connected by rail to mines) and a port of discharge. Economies of scale in vessel size are significant in dry bulk shipping, so operators will try to maximize vessel size on the end-to-end tramp service. The nautical accessibility at the port of loading and the port of discharge, the charter price level, and the availability of vessel types all play a decisive role in determining the vessel size choice. Inland transport costs per ton-kilometer are typically 20 to 30 percent higher than sea transport costs per ton-kilometer. Consequently, market players make a trade-off between, on the one hand, the minimization of inland transport costs by routing the bulk flows via the ports that are closest to the final destination, and, on the other hand, maximizing the scale economies in vessel size by calling at the ports that offer the best nautical accessibility. This exercise, in some cases, leads to multiple calls whereby a large Capesize vessel will first call at a deepwater port to discharge part of the cargo and then proceed to the second port of call with less favorable nautical access to discharge the remainder (e.g., a call sequence starting in Dunkirk and ending in Antwerp). Another practice involves lightening deep-sea vessels on stream, whereby floating cranes discharge part of the load to barges, given the decreasing vessel draft. The vessels deployed in the **minor bulk segments** (grains, fertilizers, minerals) are generally much smaller, so vessel operators have a much wider range of potential ports of call at their disposal. The eventual call patterns will be determined by factors such as proximity to the market, the specificities of the distribution network (centralized or decentralized), the number of cargo batches on the vessel, and the need for dedicated terminal facilities (e.g. grain silos). ## B. Maritime services in the roll-on/roll-off market The operational characteristics of maritime services in the **RORO** segment depend on the submarkets considered: - Intra-regional **RORO and RoPax services** are typical of the end-to-end type with a port of call at either side of the route. The shipping services operate on a fixed schedule with medium to high frequency (sometimes multiple times a day). Ferry capacities tend to vary greatly depending on the cargo density of the route and the one-way distance. For example, in Europe, large units are deployed on the English Channel and parts of the Baltic (e.g. 120 trucks per voyage on the Dover-Calais link and several hundred passengers between Travemünde and Finland), and parts of the Mediterranean (e.g., between mainland destinations and major island destinations in Italy, Greece and Spain, or between France and Corsica). In contrast, vessel capacities on services in smaller markets (e.g. the Irish Isles) tend to be much smaller. Trucks using ferry services can have a long pre- and end haul by road. For instance, a truck may drive from Dortmund to Zeebrugge to catch a ferry to Hull and onward by road to the final destination of Manchester. - The market for **unaccompanied RORO transport** is based on end-to-end services with dedicated RORO freight vessels, which often have reserved space for containers. - The **deepsea and shortsea car carrying trade** is another submarket in the RORO market, a function of car exports and imports. On intercontinental routes, the operators deploy large Pure Car and Truck Carriers (PCTC), resulting in significant cost savings on the sea leg (economies of scale). ## C. Maritime services in the general cargo market The diversity in maritime service configurations is probably highest in the **conventional general cargo** market. In contrast to the bulk cargo market, where parcel sizes are usually large enough to fill an entire ship, the general cargo market deals with the shipment of consignments smaller than the size of a ship or its hold. Given the enormous variety of different cargoes involved, there are several ways in which breakbulk cargoes can be shipped. The most common is the conventional liner-type concept of “weekly fixed-day services”, characterizing the liner shipping industry, which is something the deepsea trade of conventional cargo has never really been able to achieve. Instead, the following service/schedule options can be distinguished in the case of breakbulk shipping (the typology is based on Dynamar): - Services of a specific frequency operated with dedicated ships. - Services offering sailings within a certain period, deploying trip charters. - Services operated on inducement but still within a more or less defined trade lane. - A mixture of two or three of the above options. - “Parcelling”, such as tramping, whereby a vessel is chartered (usually on a trip-out basis) once a specific cargo volume is available. The conventional general cargo market includes many specialized ships designed to carry specific cargo loads. For example, heavy-lift vessels do not operate on fixed routes, but in areas where large investments in the oil and gas industry are being made. Conventional reefer ships mainly carry high-value foodstuffs that require refrigeration and atmosphere control on an end-to-end service. Examples of reefer cargoes include fresh and frozen fruits (e.g. bananas, deciduous, and other citrus fruits), vegetables, fish, meat, poultry, and dairy products. Reefer shipping is a prime example of a one-way, commonly seasonal business with cargoes mainly exported from the southern hemisphere to the rest of the world. The conventional reefer shipping sector has been captured by container shipping. There is a shift in the types of services with fewer point-to-point and more loops and terminals, particularly at the destination ports. ## D. Maritime services in container shipping The most advanced structures in maritime services are found in **container shipping**. Shipping lines design the networks they find convenient to offer, but at the same time, they are bound to provide the services their customers want in terms of frequency, direct accessibility, and transit times. Over the last two decades, increased cargo availability has prompted carriers and alliances to reshape their liner shipping networks by introducing new types of liner services on the main east-west trade lanes. Observing recent developments in liner shipping, productivity has improved through the use of larger ships and the adoption of **new operational patterns and cooperation between shipping lines**. Since the 1990s, considerable attention has been devoted to larger, more fuel-efficient vessels, which have substantially reduced the cost per TEU of capacity. Adding post-Panamax capacity gave the early mover a short-term competitive edge, putting pressure on followers in the market to upgrade their container fleets and avoid a serious unit cost disadvantage. Operational cooperation agreements among container shipping lines, such as alliance structures, provide their members with easy access to additional loops or services with relatively low-cost implications and allow them to share terminals and cooperate in many areas at sea and ashore, thereby achieving cost savings in the end. Alliances and consolidation have created multi-string networks on the major trade routes, and both shippers and liners have adapted. The largest ships operate on multi-port itineraries, calling at a limited number of ports. The networks are based on traffic circulation through a network of specific hubs. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/global_trade_modal_share.png?resize=900%2C533&ssl=1 "Modal Shares of World Trade by Volume and Value, 2008 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Modal Shares of World Trade by Volume and Value 2008![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/car_exporters_importers.png?resize=900%2C404&ssl=1 "Largest Car Exporters and Importers, 2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Largest Car Exporters and Importers 2022![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Alliances-situation-Q1-2025.png?resize=900%2C486&ssl=1 "Alliances in Container Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Alliances in Container Shipping# Related Topics - [Chapter 1.2 Ports and Maritime Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1530) - [Chapter 1.3 Ports and Container Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1532) - [Chapter 2.2 Ports and Distribution Networks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/) - [Chapter 6.1 Ports and Container Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/) - [Chapter 6.2 Containers: The Box and Chassis Markets](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/) - [Chapter 6.3 Containers: The Containerization of Commodities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/) - [Chapter 11.1 Ports, Policies and Geopolitics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/) --- ## References - Breskin, I. (2019) The Business of Shipping, 9th Edition, Cornell Maritime Press. - Daniels, J.D., L.H. Radebaugh and D. Sullivan (2021) International Business: Environments and Operations, 17th Edition, New York: Prentice-Hall. - Dicken, P. (2015) Global Shift: Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy, 7th Edition, New York: The Guilford Press. - Fugazza, M., ND J. Hoffmann (2017) “Liner shipping connectivity as determinant of trade”, Journal of Shipping and Trade, 2(1), pp. 1-18. - Levinson, M. (2006) The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger, Princeton: Princeton University Press. - Levinson, M. (2020) Outside the Box: How Globalization Changed from Moving Stuff to Spreading Ideas, Princeton: Princeton University Press. - Notteboom, T. (2004). Container shipping and ports: an overview. Review of Network Economics, 3(2), 86–106. - Notteboom, T. and Haralambides, H. (2025) Seaports in a tense geopolitical environment: key agents or sitting ducks?. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 27(1), 1-24. - Pallis A.A. (2014). Container Terminals. In: Garrett M. (ed.) Encyclopaedia of Transportation: Social Science and Policy, London: Sage. - Pallis A.A. (2022). COVID-19 and maritime transport: Navigating the crisis and lessons learned. UNCTAD/TCS/DTL/INF/2022/1. Geneva: UNCTAD. - Piet, M. and K. Betz (2024) Flags of Convenience: Below the surface of the global shipping industry. <https://flags-of-convenience.info/> - Rodrigue, J-P (2013) “Transport and Globalization”, in J-P Rodrigue, T. Notteboom and J. Shaw (eds) The Sage Handbook of Transport Studies, London: Sage. - Rodrigue, J-P and T. Notteboom (2009) “The geography of containerization: half a century of revolution, adaptation and diffusion”, GeoJournal, Vol. 74(1), pp. 1-5. - UNCTAD (2024) Review of Maritime Transport, Geneva: UNCTAD. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Growth Factors of International Trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/growth-factors-international-trade/) **Published:** February 16, 2026 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/growth_factors_trade2.png?resize=900%2C262&ssl=1 "Growth Factors of International Trade | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Growth Factors of International TradeFour large trends have facilitated the growth of international trade: - **Income growth**. Economic development has generated income growth, leading the global population why expanded capabilities to consume goods and services. Because a share of goods and services is imported, this is also associated with greater trade. - **Transport costs**. Lower transportation costs, particularly those associated with the more extensive shipping networks enabled by containerization, have created greater opportunities for trade. This is evident in the low ratios of goods value to transport costs, implying that transportation is less important in the sourcing and procurement of a wide range of goods, parts, and materials. - **Economic integration**. The transactional facilitation, particularly the decline in tariffs, has provided a strong impetus to international trade. This particularly takes the form of trade agreements where a group of countries agrees to a common set of tariffs and rules governing their commerce. - **Supply chains**. Supply chains have become complex and extended in their geography, which has been facilitated by outsourcing and offshoring. This implies that, on average, more parts and components are carried across stages of the supply chain. These trends are not necessarily permanent, as economic and political conditions could change. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/growth-factors-international-trade/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/growth-factors-international-trade/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/growth-factors-international-trade/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/growth-factors-international-trade/?share=reddit) - --- ### [World Seaborne Trade by Cargo Type, 1970-2021](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/world-seaborne-trade-cargo-type/) **Published:** July 27, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/seaborne_trade_cargo.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "World Seaborne Trade by Cargo Type, 1970-2021 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")World Seaborne Trade by Cargo Type 1970 2021*Source: UNCTAD Review of Maritime Transport, various years. Major dry bulks are iron ore, grain, and coal.* Weight-wise, raw materials dominate maritime trade as they are ponderous and carried over long distances. Oil, iron ore, coal, and grain accounted for 29% of the ton-miles carried by maritime shipping, while other dry cargoes, which include containers, accounted for 43%. Oil flows are substantial, accounting for 21% of ton-miles in 2021, but this share is substantially lower than in 1970, when it accounted for 60% of global ton-miles. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/world-seaborne-trade-cargo-type/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/world-seaborne-trade-cargo-type/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/world-seaborne-trade-cargo-type/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/world-seaborne-trade-cargo-type/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 11.2 - Ports and Economic Development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/) **Published:** December 23, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue and Dr. Theo Notteboom > Ports are catalysts for economic development as they enable trade and support supply chains. Port investments have economic benefits that can be direct, indirect, or induced. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Direct, Indirect and Induced Benefits of Ports](#1_Direct_Indirect_and_Induced_Benefits_of_Ports) - [2. Assessing the Economic Benefits of Port Investments](#2_Assessing_the_Economic_Benefits_of_Port_Investments) - [3. Employment Effects of Ports](#3_Employment_Effects_of_Ports) - [4. Measuring Employment Effects](#4_Measuring_Employment_Effects) - [5. Global-Local Mismatch of the Economic Benefits of Ports](#5_Global-Local_Mismatch_of_the_Economic_Benefits_of_Ports) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Direct, Indirect and Induced Benefits of Ports Like other transport infrastructures, port infrastructure investments yield several economic benefits. The port is a **[value proposition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/port-value-proposition/ "The Port as a Value Proposition")**, with each having economic, social, and environmental value. Economic theory often refers to ports as important economic development factors, particularly from a historical standpoint, when they acted as promoters of commerce and the welfare of nations. It is not surprising that most of the world’s major cities are port cities, since ports are catalysts for urban economic development. The economy, the city, and the port often grow concomitantly. Still, as an economy and its complexity grow, the relationships between ports and economic development may become less significant, even as ports handle much more cargo. The paradoxical outcome is that most direct port activity now plays a smaller role in the regional economic framework, with the exception of very large ports dominating their region. The basic argument is that ports **expand the market opportunity** of both national and international firms by expanding the [port cargo base and hinterland](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/factors-expanding-port-cargo-base/ "Factors Expanding a Port’s Cargo Base"). By expanding the market areas of firms, ports increase competition, resulting in lower prices for port traffic users. These involve all economic activity sectors, including manufacturing firms, heavy industries, resource extraction industries, and retailers. Therefore, the economic benefits of ports depend on the nature of the hinterland they serve. They can be straightforward for hinterlands heavily dependent on resources, since the output is handled directly by the port, or more nuanced when the hinterland involves manufacturing firms producing intermediate goods. The increasing competitiveness brought by port investments can also be a double-edged sword for a national economy. It enables foreign firms to better access a national economy and compete with national firms, with some sectors being put out of business. However, the benefits of having better access to foreign markets and cheaper goods usually far exceed the risk of having inefficient national firms being undermined. Increasing competitiveness promotes positive economic benefits at the aggregate level, but these benefits are **not uniformly distributed among sectors and geography**. Ports can be considered [“funnels” for economic development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=202) since they act as catalysts and incite development in specific economic sectors and locations near ports or along corridors. The economic benefits of ports are commonly categorized as **direct**, **indirect**, and **induced**. Indirect and induced benefits are far from being clearly identifiable. It is challenging to prove that the economic activity and use of related resources would solely result from the port investment. When a port investment does lead to increased economic activity, the benefit is measured by the net value of the additional output. The direct benefits to the port are financial in nature and would be taken into account in any financial appraisal, as well as in economic appraisals. However, the financial benefits would be valued somewhat differently, with economic appraisals using a social discount rate and, for some inputs, possibly valuing them at shadow prices. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_value_proposition.png?resize=900%2C438&ssl=1 "The Port as a Value Proposition | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Port as a Value Proposition![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_cargo_base.png?resize=666%2C622&ssl=1 "port_cargo_base | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Factors Expanding a Ports Cargo Base![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_funnel_economic_development.png?resize=900%2C475&ssl=1 "The Port as a Funnel to Economic Development | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Port as a Funnel to Economic Development# 2. Assessing the Economic Benefits of Port Investments The economic benefits of ports are usually measured at an **aggregate level** by indicators such as value-added, employment, taxation revenue, and return on investment. These indicators are primordial for the decision to invest in port development and must be taken into consideration: - **Demand forecasts**. Trying to evaluate the expected traffic that the investment will support and facilitate, particularly if new investments relate to additional demand. - **Liner shipping strategies**. How shipping lines service markets and how the port fits within their service configuration in terms of ship capacity and frequency. While some ports are acting as load centers, others are transshipment hubs. The function of transshipment is often the outcome of the regional strategies of shipping lines. - **Hinterland transport capacity and accessibility**. Contingent on the cargo bound to and originating from the port. They define the existing and potential cargo base that could be handled by the port. - **Competition between terminals**. There may be competing terminals within the same port facility. Terminals in a monopolistic situation usually have more pricing power and can be linked with higher returns. - **Financing of investment**. Relates to the capital source and conditions. Large port infrastructure projects are usually financed by bonds issued by port authorities or by investments made by international financial institutions such as development banks, sovereign wealth funds, or pension funds. Assessing this information can involve different methodologies: - **Surveys**. Based on interviews, questionnaires, or microeconomic data on firms. They try to identify and quantify relationships among various port actors, often from a qualitative perspective, but often in terms of employment. These studies have underlined the important relationships between freight forwarders and agents. The economic benefits of ports are reflected in the complex system of transactions of the actors involved. - **Comparative analysis**. Infers economic benefits observed at a reference port, particularly its economic base. This approach seeks to infer the economic changes that have already occurred in a comparable port setting (similar traffic and traffic composition) to the port being investigated. Since local and regional economic conditions differ, such studies do not yield particularly accurate results. Still, they provide guidelines on what could happen to a port and its regional economy after an investment. - **Input-output analysis models**. Aim to identify inter-sectoral multipliers, such as those between port traffic and regional employment. They highlight the agglomerating effects of port activities, both around the port and within the port region. Such studies have highlighted low elasticity between port traffic and service-sector employment. **Input-output analysis** is one of the most commonly used techniques. I-O analysis is based on a set of tables that quantify the linkages and transactions between different sectors of the economy. The quantities of inputs and outputs for a given period are entered in an input-output matrix/table in order to analyze what happens across various sectors of an economy by performing a **multiplier analysis**. > A **multiplier** is an index (ratio) that indicates the overall change in activity level that results from an initial change in activity. It effectively sums all successive rounds of re-spending, assuming that major factors such as input prices remain unchanged and that there are no resource constraints. All sector-based multipliers (including direct, indirect, and induced effects) can be calculated when the matrix is complete and includes private consumption figures. The I-O technique can be used to prepare multipliers for a variety of impact measures, such as output, employment, and income. Multipliers can also be estimated for major components, such as by cargo type. Input-output analysis follows a top-down approach, building on comprehensive data for each sector. Data collection can also rely on a bottom-up approach, in which the overall impact numbers are computed from firm-level data. In the latter case, data collection can be based on the balance sheets or annual accounts of individual firms, or on surveys. The technique and results of an I-O analysis are relatively easy to understand, and the expertise required is readily available. However, the use of the technique also faces some issues: - **Complexity**. An economy is a complex system with a multiplicity of relationships between sectors. Some multipliers could be significant, while others could be limited and even have unintended effects. Multiplier effects and the related I-O tables can be challenging to quantify accurately. At the global level, [economic complexity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-competitiveness-index/ "Economic Complexity Index (ECI) – Trade, 2023") is directly related to the structure of the trade that ports handle. - **Costs**. Input-output base tables at the national and regional levels can be costly to generate and update. As the structure of a regional economy changes over time, using older I-O tables may yield inaccurate results. In many cases, new regional tables are generated using survey methods, or existing tables are updated by incorporating more recent data on regional production and employment. - **Supply constraints**. It does not incorporate any **constraints on the supply side**. For example, port development in a tight labor market can lead to crowding effects or to the shift of employees from one industry (e.g., the chemical industry) to the port sector. In such a case, the net employment effect on the regional economy remains the same (no net gain in total jobs). There are also **integrated modeling** techniques available to measure the economic impact of ports. These approaches combine input-output analysis and econometric techniques to analyze the response of an economy to external shocks over time. A very advanced technique is **computable general equilibrium** (CGE) modeling, which estimates the optimal mix of economic variables (e.g., consumption) in response to an external shock. Integrated and CGE modeling are more sophisticated than multiplier analysis, but their data requirements are very high, and so are the costs of performing the analysis. Port activities have multiplier effects within an economy that are much larger than the port itself. While the economic importance of ports grows, particularly for the sectors they connect to, their relative importance within the regions they serve often declines. This diminishes the total economic benefits of a regional economy as it grows and becomes more complex. The following are the most commonly observed economic benefits of ports for regional employment: - **Port throughput**. In general, it is positively associated with employment in port regions, suggesting that higher throughput is associated with higher employment levels. Employment impacts are more substantial in the industry than in the service sector. - **Employment impacts**. They vary by commodity sector. For instance, container and break bulk traffic usually have **twice the employment impact** of dry and liquid bulk traffic. - **Private ports**. They typically have more regional employment impacts than public ports, as they usually serve commercial supply chains. - **Direct port employment**. Commonly associated with **about three to four indirect jobs**, although such figures vary widely according to the surveys and the context. There is limited empirical evidence about job multiplier figures. However, the economic benefits per unit of port cargo handled, either in terms of employment or economic activity, usually **increase with economic growth**. The lower relative benefits of port investments are thus masked by economic growth, while the economic importance of ports is increasing. The economic benefits are less directly related to port activities but more related to the dynamics of the supply chains they support, which are derived and induced effects. This support becomes operational and functional, a benefit that is crucial to national competitiveness. Therefore, global trends underline a decline in the direct economic benefits of ports but a notable rise in their indirect and induced economic benefits. This trend is challenging because direct economic benefits are readily assessable, whereas indirect and induced effects are difficult to capture. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-ECI-Trade-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Economic Complexity Index (ECI) – Trade, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Economic Complexity Index ECI Trade 2023![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-TEU-Throughput-2022.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "World’s Major Container Ports, 2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Major Container Ports 2022# 3. Employment Effects of Ports Ports are important **job generators**. Shipping, cargo, and industrial activities and services in port areas generate direct employment effects. The logistics and industrial clusters in ports employ a vast labor force linked to cargo ship loading and unloading operations, ship operations and services (agencies, pilotage, towage, and bunkering), land transport, logistics activities, cargo services (freight forwarding and customs broking), industrial production facilities, and government agencies. The emergence of the cruise industry has also generated its own employment effects, such as in the hospitality and restaurant sectors. The skills of port-related employees and their interactions contribute to **seaport competitiveness**. Port activities are also responsible for a wide range of **indirect employment effects** through harbor linkages with other economic sectors and spatial interactions with large logistics and economic poles outside port areas. Job creation in ports is mirrored in employment levels in education and training, tourism, and even in more cultural segments of the economic spectrum, such as maritime museums. All the above activities provide people with wages, salaries, and other earnings, and they are significant sources of tax revenue for governments at different levels. The **employment effects of a port activity** usually extend beyond the initial round of employment generated by that activity. For example, stevedoring companies purchase a part of their inputs from local suppliers. Producing these inputs generates additional employment in the local economy. Suppliers, in turn, purchase goods and services from other local firms. There are further rounds of local re-spending, which generate additional employment. Similarly, households that earn income from stevedoring and related activities spend some of it on local goods and services. These purchases result in additional local jobs. Some of the household income from these additional jobs is, in turn, spent on local goods and services, thereby creating further jobs and income for local households. As a result of **successive rounds of re-spending** in the framework of local purchases, the overall impact on the economy exceeds the initial round of output, income, and employment generated by stevedoring. In essence, seaports create employment impacts in four ways: - **Direct employment**. Includes the jobs local firms provide to support services at the seaport. Seaports create direct port employment through a [range of activities in the port cluster](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=258#2_Activities_in_Port_Clusters). These jobs depend on seaport activity and would disappear if it ceased. Typical direct jobs include dockworkers, ship agents, pilots, tugboat operators, freight forwarders, employees of port authorities, ship chandlers, warehouse operators, terminal operators, and stevedores, as well as jobs with railroad, barging, and trucking companies. - **Indirect employment**. Ports also generate indirect jobs through local purchases by port-related companies that depend on seaport activity. Hence, port activities are responsible for a wide range of indirect employment effects through links with other economic sectors and spatial interactions with large logistics and economic poles outside port areas. - **Induced employment**. The employees of port-related companies spend part of their wages and salaries. Induced jobs are those created locally and throughout the wider national or supranational economy due to purchases of goods and services by those directly employed. Induced employment can include grocery stores, local construction industry (housing), retail stores, health care providers, local transportation services, local and state government agencies providing public services and education to those directly employed, and businesses providing professional and business services in support of those directly employed. - **Related employment**. The last group of employment effects consists of related jobs. Manufacturing and distribution firms in and outside the port partly rely on efficient cargo handling operations in seaports. For instance, the steel industry requires cost-efficient imports of iron ore and coal for blast furnaces and needs a port for exporting finished products such as steel blooms and coils. Manufacturers, retail outlets, and distribution centers handling imported containerized cargo rely on efficient port operations. The dependency of related jobs on the port is a function of the location. When industrial activities or distribution centers are located in the port or in close proximity, the low competitiveness of the seaport could lead to job losses. In such cases, it is difficult to make a clear distinction between direct and related jobs. When these activities are located in the more distant hinterland, inefficient operations at one port could lead to a **shift of the cargo flows to a competing port**. A shift of traffic between ports generally preserves employment levels in the related industrial companies and distribution centers in the more distant hinterland. The demand for the final product (e.g. steel products or consumer products) creates the demand for employment with these shippers/consignees that do not involve using a particular seaport or marine terminal. The extent of the employment effects of port activity depends on the **boundaries of the economy being analyzed**. The increasingly international nature of port and shipping activities, along with the characteristics of global production networks and supply chains, extends the employment effects of port activities **beyond the local port level** to a regional or even supranational level. A few examples underline this trend: - **Shipping lines**. While shipping lines operate globally, at the local scale, they generate employment through their liner shipping agencies in the ports of call. However, jobs related to ship management, container fleet management, and investment and commercial strategies are usually concentrated in global or regional headquarters. - **Global container terminal operators**. Operators such as PSA, Hutchison Ports, DP World, or APM Terminals generate many operational jobs at the local port level but centralize some activities, such as equipment purchases, at global or regional headquarters. Terminal operators might purchase terminal equipment not from local operators but from foreign suppliers in Europe (e.g. Kalmar, Gottwald) or overseas (e.g. Shanghai-based ZPMC). For a particular port activity, the flow-on employment effects on the national or international economy will generally be larger than those on the regional economy. # 4. Measuring Employment Effects The appropriate technique for analyzing the economic impact of specific port activity is determined by the characteristics of the activity, the region being analyzed, and the purpose of the analysis. The availability of data is also an important factor. Measuring the employment impacts of ports is not straightforward. There are **several methodological problems** when evaluating port impacts: - **Port employment dependency**. Identifying activities dependent on the port and evaluating their degree of dependency, such as the extent to which local bank employment is linked exclusively to the port. Measuring the degree of dependency is potentially subjective. A lack of precise data can lead to **overestimation of the degree of dependency** and the employment effects. - **Port employment intensity**. Determining the intensity of the employment impact of the port, such as how much of the consumption activities and multiplier effects can be attributed to the existence of the port. Also, estimation bias can occur when exact figures are unavailable. Many of the above problems are structured by the differentiation between **direct, indirect, induced, and related jobs**. However, there is no standard methodology for defining impact types, which makes port comparisons difficult. Benchmarking the employment impacts of ports is further complicated by the wide variety of methodologies used (mostly bottom-up approaches) and a general lack of recent, port-relevant economic input-output data at the macroeconomic scale. Despite the **lack of a uniform approach** to the issue, many port authorities and (national) government agencies produce figures on the economic impact of their respective ports, including the effects on employment. A few European examples are: - Every year, the **National Bank of Belgium** publishes figures on the economic impact of the ports of Antwerp, Ghent, Zeebrugge, Ostend, and, more recently, also for the ports of Brussels and Liège. The studies are part of the Working Papers series of the National Bank. - The Ministry of Transport, Public Works, and Water Management of the Netherlands regularly commissions a **‘Havenmonitor’ report** (Port Monitor). - In 2008, Oxford Economics was commissioned by the Chamber of Shipping, British Ports Association (BPA), and United Kingdom Major Ports Group (UKMPG) to prepare two economic impact studies on aspects of the UK maritime industry. One focuses on ports and the other on the UK shipping industry. These studies are entitled “The economic contribution of ports to the UK economy” and “The economic contribution of the UK shipping industry”. The employment effects are mainly expressed in **full-time equivalent** (FTEs), and a distinction is generally made between direct and indirect/induced effects. Employment impacts are often **disaggregated to the level of individual ports or port regions**, as well as to specific economic activities (e.g., cargo handling, industrial sector). However, the results are often not comparable across countries or even within the same country, as measurement methods vary widely. There are methodological differences, particularly in terms of the definition of the port area and the economic sectors, the terminology used, the level of aggregation of the data, the approach followed (i.e. top-down via an input-output table with sector data or bottom-up based on firm-level data), and the definitions and methods deployed to analyze indirect/induced employment effects. The observed methodological differences can lead to non-transparency and incorrect benchmarking. Stakeholders might still show some mistrust of the results, even if the methodology is made very transparent. The fact that methodologies differ further fuels criticism of employment studies for being overly optimistic about real job creation. Despite the lack of a standardized methodology, some **common conclusions** apply: - **Total employment effects of ports** (direct and indirect/induced). Significant and typically represent between 1% and 5% of the total employment in a country. - **Local employment effects of ports**. In many ports, local direct employment effects of port activity are stagnating or decreasing due to a combination of deindustrialization, containerization, and the increasing use of automated port handling systems and technology. As a result, the growth in direct FTEs in many (but not all) port areas is either negative or close to zero while throughput volumes increase. - **Outside port area employment**. An increasing number of jobs are being created outside the port area. A large variety can be observed in how these processes are materializing in specific individual ports. At one extreme, some ports have succeeded in attracting more businesses and, thus, more jobs in the port area in recent years. At the other extreme, some seaports have become merely transit centers servicing economic and logistics centers in the immediate or more distant hinterland. As employment effects increasingly extend beyond the local port level, ports might be confronted with lower direct employment but higher indirect and related jobs. Potential reasons for fewer direct jobs include productivity gains, outsourcing activities to companies outside the port, or the delocalization of activities to the hinterland. # 5. Global-Local Mismatch of the Economic Benefits of Ports With the setting up of global supply and transport chains, there has been a growing level of **mismatch between the benefits of port activities and their scale and scope**. While at the aggregate level, it is clear that port investments have economic benefits, the spatial and sectoral distribution of these benefits is far less evident. One particular mismatch concerns local (community) versus regional, national, or global benefits. The following points underline this mismatch: - **Labor**. Usually comes from the **local community,** and its benefits (mostly wages) are derived in the region, particularly indirect job multipliers. As port employment decreased due to mechanization, containerization, and automation (more recently), so did the local labor benefits. Yet, several port jobs are remunerated at much higher wages than those usually found in the manufacturing sector. The most important employment multiplier for ports is usually trucking. - **Capital**. Usually does not come from the community but is provided by national and international funding sources, such as investment banks, pension funds, manufacturers, shipping lines, and terminal operators. Thus, the return on this capital (e.g. loan or operational revenues) does not accumulate in the port region but among global financial centers. - **Firms**. They can be locally owned, but commercial trends have underlined **vertical and horizontal integration** in the port industry. For instance, terminal operations at one port are usually part of a portfolio of terminals located in different ports across the region or even the world. Thus, profits derived from terminal operations are not necessarily invested in the port where they were generated. - **Port land use**. Usually regulated by leasing and concession contracts, but land prices are often a tool for attracting investors and usually do not reflect real value. This underlines that the impacts of ports on real estate values are not necessarily fully accounted for. - **Local transport infrastructure**. Usually provided for free (or at a fee lower than real costs), particularly for roads. This represents a form of local or regional subsidy for globally-focused activities. - **Taxes and customs duties**. They are only partly allocated to the port region. They are usually a national source of income used to fund other social and infrastructure programs. - **Environmental externalities**. Externalities such as pollution, noise, and accidents are assumed by the community, while the generators of these externalities usually bear only a fraction of them. Therefore, port benefits are increasingly **distributed across actors** and concern geography that **transcends the local community** and, at times, the region. This trend skews the assessment of the benefits of port investments, where the local economic impacts can be much less significant than those at the regional or national levels. Conflicts or pressures can arise from local communities that may be disappointed if their expectations about the economic benefits of port activities are not met. At the same time, their perception of environmental externalities is present. Despite the complexity of assessing their economic impacts, ports remain fundamental to the economic well-being of the nations, regions, and localities in which they are embedded. --- # Related Topics - [i.2 Seaports: Economic Value](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/) - [Chapter 1.1 Ports, Maritime Shipping and International Trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/) - [Chapter 1.2 Ports and Maritime Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/) - [Chapter 2.1 Port Hinterlands, Regionalization and Corridors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/) - [Chapter 11.1 Ports, Policies and Geopolitics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/) --- ## References - Munim, Z.H., Schramm, HJ (2018) “The impacts of port infrastructure and logistics performance on economic growth: the mediating role of seaborne trade”. *J. shipp. trd.* **3**, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-018-0027-0 - Slack B., and E. Gouvernal (2015) “Container transshipment and logistics in the context of urban economic development”, Growth and Change, 47(3), pp. 406-415. - Notteboom, T. and W. Winkelmans (2003) “Dealing with stakeholders in the port planning process”, in Dullaert, W., B. Jourquin and J. Polak (eds), Across the border: building upon a quarter of century of transport research in the Benelux (Antwerp: De Boeck), pp. 249-265. - Rodrigue, J-P (2017) “Transport and Development”, in D. Richardson, N. Castree, M.F. Goodchild, A. Kobayashi, W. Liu, and R.A. Marston (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Geography, New York: John Wiley & Sons. - Rodrigue, J-P (2016) “The Role of Transport and Communication Infrastructure in Realising Development Outcomes”, in J. Grugel and D. Hammett (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of International Development. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 595-614. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Largest Bunker Fuel Markets, 2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/largest-bunker-fuel-markets/) **Published:** November 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/map_bunker_sales.png?resize=900%2C391&ssl=1 "Largest Bunker Fuel Markets, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Largest Bunker Fuel Markets 2024*Source: Ship & Bunker 2024.* The location of bunkering activity is highly conditioned by geography, with two patterns emerging: - **Major gateways (centrality)**. Ships calling at a major port gateway have an opportunity to refuel. Ports such as Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hong Kong, and Ningbo-Zhoushan are each major diversified commercial gateways experiencing a large number of ship calls. - **Intermediate locations (intermediacy)**. Locations in the vicinity of major bottlenecks in the global shipping network, such as the Strait of Malacca (Singapore), Ormuz (Fujairah), Gibraltar, and Panama, are active bunkering markets. The proximity effect allows ships passing by or calling at a transshipment hub to refuel. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/largest-bunker-fuel-markets/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/largest-bunker-fuel-markets/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/largest-bunker-fuel-markets/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/largest-bunker-fuel-markets/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 0.4 - Seaports: Demand and Supply Determinants](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/) **Published:** December 23, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Theo Notteboom, Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > Seaports facilitate local and international maritime trade through the structure and organization of transportation systems. The demand and supply at the port level are defined by several strategic and economic factors. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Demand for Ports and their Services](#1_Demand_for_Ports_and_their_Services) - [2. Factors Defining the Demand for Port Services](#2_Factors_Defining_the_Demand_for_Port_Services) - [3. Factors Defining the Supply of Port Services](#3_Factors_Defining_the_Supply_of_Port_Services) - [4. Balance between Supply and Demand for Port Services](#4_Balance_between_Supply_and_Demand_for_Port_Services) - [5. Elasticities of Demand and Supply for Port Services](#5_Elasticities_of_Demand_and_Supply_for_Port_Services) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Demand for Ports and their Services ## A. Derived demand The demand for port services is fundamentally a **derived demand**, a principle that applies to transportation in general. For freight, it arises from the need to transport goods by sea for consumption or processing at a location other than their point of production. For passengers, it represents their willingness to travel via a particular port to another destination. These factors collectively drive the demand for the services provided by the port. The demand for maritime transport and, by extension, **port usage** is closely tied to various factors, including the unequal distribution of natural resources, the seasonality of agricultural goods, the availability or scarcity of production factors, and the varying rates of economic development across regions. Additional influences include the physical characteristics of a location (e.g., soil structure and subsoil), prevailing consumption patterns, the evolution of political, economic and cultural relationships, and the geopolitical and military significance of maritime transport. Economic cycles within the global economy and the fluctuations in market prices affect the demand for maritime transport, with the degree of impact related to the elasticity of maritime trade in relation to changes in industrial production. The **distribution of the resources of an economy**, including the scarcity or abundance of available production factors and raw materials, significantly influences the scale of international trade. The **economic trajectory**, whether an economy is dynamic, growing, developing, or declining, and the characteristics of its key sectors, such as the size and needs of industrial production and the shifts in imports and exports, also contribute to the volumes of international and, thus, maritime trade. **Geographical factors**, such as a region’s terrain, subsoil characteristics, and hinterland structure, can either enable or limit the development of transport infrastructure and the use of specific transport modes. The **consumption patterns of an economy** and the evolution of social and cultural interactions between social groups determine communication and trade. The **balance between work and leisure** strongly influences the demand for passenger port services, as it determines the demand for port services for coastal shipping, cruise, and tourist ports. **Geopolitical relationships** play a critical role in shaping trade connections between countries and determining the structures of maritime and land transport corridors. Supporting **military sealift** is also a key factor in developing certain ports, as their strategic role in defense and security operations can drive infrastructure investments and influence their overall functionality. The **[demand for cargo-related port services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/demand-port-services/ "The Demand for Port Services")** is significantly shaped by the following factors: - Changes in the **Gross Domestic Product**. An important factor in freight generation relates to organic economic growth, as the larger a regional economy, the greater the supply and demand for cargo. - The **price elasticity** of demand for the specific goods being transported. Changes in the demand for cargo can be influenced by its price variation. A lower price could result in a surge in demand. - The **ratio of transport costs to the value of the goods** being shipped. High transport costs make it very likely that goods will use maritime transport, while low transport costs give goods more flexibility. - The availability of **alternative transportation modes**. In some markets, modal competition offers alternatives, particularly when rail and inland waterway networks are available. The demand for **passenger port services** is shaped by the following factors: - **Discretionary income** and leisure time. This is particularly important for the demand for cruises, as income growth is closely related to demand growth. - The **necessity or purpose** of the passenger’s journey. Ferry services are often based on the necessary connectivity they provide, such as commuting, while cruises are for leisure and, therefore, entirely discretionary. - The **ratio of transport costs to the perceived value of the journey**. High costs and limited utility will deter demand for ferries and cruises. - The **availability of alternative transportation modes**. Ferry services can compete with other modes, such as a longer road detour or even air transportation, for interisland services. - The ability of passengers to select **alternative destinations** if a similar utility is satisfied. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/table_demand_port_services.png?resize=900%2C338&ssl=1 "The Demand for Port Services | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Demand for Port Services## B. Ports as demand generators At the same time, ports can function as **demand generators** for their services. A port can establish a competitive advantage by offering adequate infrastructure, cost advantages, efficient management, effective service delivery, and integration into supply chains. This advantage attracts freight traffic and increases the volume it serves over time, suggesting a zero-sum game, since those volumes were handled at another port or at multiple ports in more complex and competitive markets. Three key factors are essential for generating demand for moving goods through a specific port: - The **range and quality of port and related services** play a crucial role in attracting users. - The **specialization of port services**, with modern production, distribution, and consumption networks, often necessitates specialized port services (such as transhipment) to facilitate specific ship calls or cargo types. - The integration of port services with broader **landside transport networks** and supply chain systems improves connectivity and enhances the port’s appeal for cargo movements. **Demand creation** is noticeable in ports handling international cargo traffic, especially containerized cargo. These ports often handle not only goods related to the local economy but also cargo such as unfinished or intermediate goods that require value-added services, including storage, transshipment, or assembly, which can be provided even at significant distances from the port itself. Therefore, the traffic handled by the port generates multiplier effects on additional traffic through added-value activities. An illustrative example is the Port of Piraeus in Greece, particularly its container terminals. Piraeus facilitates cargo destined for Budapest, Hungary, despite the 1,476 km distance. Once the cargo arrives at Piraeus, it is transferred onto commercial trains for onward transportation. Interestingly, alternative ports closer to Budapest, such as Rotterdam (1,409 km), Hamburg (1,100 km), Trieste (550 km), and Rijeka (505 km), offer shorter distances. This suggests that other criteria influence port selection beyond geographical proximity. Value-added services, logistical efficiency, and the ability to integrate into broader supply chains can be decisive factors for some users when choosing a port. # 2. Factors Defining the Demand for Port Services ## A. Internal and External Factors The organization of cargo ports and the volume and type of cargo that each port handles are shaped by a [set of demand-determining factors that are either internal or external](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/factors-determinng-the-demand-for-port-services/) to the development of maritime transport systems. Internal factors are under the control of the port authority or terminal operator, at least to some extent. This implies that there are options to influence the outcome. External factors are outside the control of the port and related to large economic, political, and technological trends. The dominant influence is exerted by **internal factors**. At the core of the internal factors is the flow of cargoes; the port’s operation and growth prospects are defined and depend on it. Other internal factors are decisive determinants in shaping the structures, growth rates, and prospects of cargo ports, with each factor influencing the others in succession: - **Trade patterns**. Fluctuations in trade volumes directly affect the cargo a port manages, shaping its operations and infrastructure. - **Production Process**. Many aspects of the manufacturing supply chains directly impact the demand for port services: 1. **Raw material sources**. The increased reliance on diverse sources of raw materials affects trade volumes and port operations. Ports may need to accommodate intermediate products for production practices and prepare goods for final consumption. 2. **Location of production**. The geographical focus of production significantly impacts port development. For example, China’s rapid economic and industrial growth has driven the expansion of containerized trade and transformed the approach to servicing international trade. 3. **Quantity of production**. High production volumes in an economy necessitate the development of ports or new facilities near production hubs to handle exports and raw material imports. 4. **Containerization**. The widespread adoption of containers has prompted significant investments in container terminals, requiring ports to reorganize and enhance infrastructure and services to support this mode of transport. - **Logistics**. The reaction of ports to the evolution of supply chains and developments regarding the provision of value-added services to transported goods. - **Transportation services**. Factors such as the services provided by shipping companies, the size and requirements of ships deployed, the chosen maritime corridors, and the range of services offered all influence how ports adapt to meet these criteria. Land-based transport systems **linked to ports** are equally critical, as their characteristics and efficiency impact a port’s ability to support broader trade and logistics networks. Four **external factors** play a critical role in shaping the context in which ports operate and develop: - **Technological Advancements**. Technological innovations are transforming the design and operation of ships and other transportation vessels, as well as the efficiency and range of services provided for transporting goods and passengers. This dynamic necessitates continuous adaptation by ports to maintain competitiveness and integrate modern solutions. - **Port Policy**. Port policy determines strategic planning and operational frameworks, formulated at local, national, regional (e.g., European Union), and international levels (e.g., International Maritime Organization). Key considerations include land use and development, ownership models (public, private, or mixed-use), governance structures (e.g., roles of operators and managers), and operational regulations (e.g., waste management, mitigation of external impacts). These policy decisions shape the long-term development of port systems and the prospects of individual ports. - **Cultural Perspectives on Economic Organization**. The prevailing approach to the roles of public and private sectors, economic regulation or deregulation, and market organization significantly influences port operations. These perspectives are shaped at multiple levels (national, local, and increasingly international), affecting how ports are structured and governed. - **Macroeconomic conditions.** The macroeconomic context drives the overall volume of trade in a region, affecting the prospects of its port**. Political stability** and favourable trade policies in the port’s location, or countries trading to or from it, can enhance its attractiveness. The same applies to the **international> regulatory environment** (i.e., regulations, including taxes, tariffs, and environmental compliance costs) and trade policies. These external factors, in combination with internal dynamics, define the strategic and operational environment for ports, influencing their capacity and need to adapt and thrive in a rapidly evolving maritime landscape. **Microeconomic perspectives** define the demand and supply of each port service at the port level. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/demand_determinants_port_services.png?resize=900%2C429&ssl=1 "Determinants of Demand for Port Services | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Determinants of Demand for Port Services## B. Microeconomic Perspectives of Demand for Port Services From a microeconomic perspective, the factors determining the demand for a particular port service (e.g., cargo loading or unloading) and thus its **[demand function](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/demand-for-port-services/)** typically include the following [demand factors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/demand-factors-port-services/ "Demand Factors for Port Services"): - **Price of the port service**. Demand typically is inversely related to price (price elasticity). As prices increase, the demanded quantity generally decreases. - **Prices of substitute services**. The availability and pricing of similar services at nearby ports or alternative modes of transportation. For instance, if a nearby port offers similar services at a lower price, demand at the given port may decrease. - **Prices of complementary services**. The pricing and quality of related services such as warehousing, customs clearance, and storage are complementary to cargo handling. - **Population and GDP (income) per capita of the hinterland market**. Linked with market size, purchasing power, and the demand for goods and services. - **Proximity to major markets or production centers**. The geographical location of the port in relation to significant markets, production centers, or trade routes affects its competitiveness and demand. - **Seasonal variations**. Demand for port services often fluctuates with seasonal trade cycles. For example, agricultural harvest seasons or holiday-related consumer goods spending can lead to higher demand for cargo handling. - **Port service quality**. Ports offering superior services may attract more clients, even at relatively higher prices. - **Technological advancements**. Innovations in port operations, such as automation, as well as in shipping and supply chains, can shift demand patterns, such as the emergence of mega-ships requiring larger and more specialized ports. Shipping companies, shippers, or other parties involved (e.g., freight forwarders, supply chain partners) will determine their short- and long-term preferences and contract agreements for using specific ports based on the relative importance they assign to these parameters. Port managers and policymakers consider the determinants of demand as the background for planning capacity, pricing strategies, and investments accordingly. Demand changes are **time sensitive**. Even if decided, such shifts from one port to another (or from one terminal to another) demand rearrangements of the supply chains used, and thus time to implement. Instant changes in the demand for one or more port services might be negligible. In the short run, organisational changes allow users to shift their demand elsewhere. In the long run, the rearrangements of the related maritime supply changes allow users to fully implement any decision to shift to other services if they so wish. Neglecting this mechanism, a port might make wrong management or planning decisions. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/demand_port_services.png?resize=900%2C590&ssl=1 "Demand Function for Port Services | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Equilibrium of Demand and Supply of Port Services![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/demand_factors_port_services2.png?resize=900%2C530&ssl=1 "Demand Factors for Port Services | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Demand Factors for Port Services## C. Complementarity of Services in Seaports The various services offered to port users function either as complementary or substitutes for each other. These interdependencies reflect the competitive and interconnected nature of port operations. They influence how these services are used, impacting port operations and market dynamics. A port service, such as cargo handling, is not offered as a standalone service but is bundled with other **complementary services**. The arrival of seagoing vessels in a port is associated with several services, including nautical-technical services (e.g., pilotage, towage, and mooring) and utilities (e.g., waste management, water, and electricity). Towing, navigation, and pilotage services are all necessary for most ships approaching a port. Increased demand for one of these services typically correlates with increased demand for the others, as they collectively support vessel operations. The cargo reaching a port will need temporary storage, and further services (i.e. customs clearance, inland transport) to be forwarded to the hinterland, as well as perhaps value-added services and logistics. The same applies to passenger ports, as passengers will seek ways to move from (to) the port to (from) their landside destination. Most of these services are interconnected. An example of **substitute services** is the neighboring ports. Two ports serving the same hinterland or foreland compete, with users substituting one for the other based on factors such as cost, efficiency, effectiveness, location, and so on. Another example is the terminals within a port. Two terminals offering similar services, such as container handling, may see shifts in demand if one terminal improves efficiency or lowers costs. As port services specialize, the importance of substitution potential, i.e., the responsiveness of demand for one service to changes in the characteristics of another, is shifting. For example, a terminal specialized in container transshipment cannot be easily substituted by a port designed for mixed cargo with infrastructure and processes catering to regional or local inbound goods. Independent services are rare for three reasons: operational linkages (e.g., cargo handling depends on complementary services such as storage and transportation); infrastructure sharing, with many services sharing physical assets (e.g., cranes, terminals); and customer needs, as shippers require seamless service bundles rather than isolated services. This interdependence means that changes in one service often affect the supply of others. The prices and quality of substitute and complementary services are crucial factors in determining the **levels of demand and supply for a port service**. Two services are **substitute services** when an increase in the use of one leads to a decrease in the use of the other. Conversely, two services are **complementary** when an increase in the use of one leads to an increase in the use of the other. ## D. Seasonal Demand for Port Services **Seasonality** is a defining characteristic of all maritime markets to varying degrees, leading to recurring fluctuations in the demand for port services. This seasonality is evident in different sectors of the maritime industry: - **Agricultural sector**. When harvesting occurs, the demand for transporting dry bulk goods, such as cereals, peaks in early autumn in the northern hemisphere. For the southern hemisphere, the situation is reversed, which creates a form of complementarity between ports in the northern and southern hemispheres. - **Energy sector**. In the **liquid bulk** market, petroleum shipments to the northern hemisphere increase before winter to meet heightened heating and energy needs. - **Manufacturing and retail sectors**. Demand for maritime container transportation rises during autumn, as large volumes of goods, including foodstuffs and apparel, are shipped from Far East countries to Europe and North America in preparation for seasonal consumption that peaks in November and December. Conversely, demand tends to decline in early February, especially around the Chinese New Year, when production slows, and the transfer of goods faces logistical constraints. These seasonal patterns require ports to adapt their operations and resource allocation to manage demand fluctuations effectively. Demand for **passenger services** is even more seasonal than for cargo transportation. Ferries show a wide variation in the number of calls, vessels, and passengers. Urban ferries have a stable demand linked with commuting, while ferries servicing resort islands have a limited demand during winter. In the case of **[cruise shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/)**, seasonality is one of the main characteristics of a market dictated by the weather conditions in the various destination cities. In the most important cruise market, the Caribbean, peak activity is usually between November and April. In the Mediterranean, the second most important cruise market, more than 85% of cruise calls occur from April to October, while cruises are extremely limited during the period from November to March. These seasonal patterns necessitate flexible scheduling, effective resource management, and strategic planning by port authorities to optimize operations and accommodate fluctuating passenger volumes. # 3. Factors Defining the Supply of Port Services From a general macroeconomic perspective, the **strategic objectives of the port**, and therefore those of the port service providers, define the overall focus and the level of port services supply. Ports might opt for any of the three available strategies. The first is to prioritize social and economic development, often accepting lower profitability in favor of regional growth. The second is to prioritize private interests, focusing primarily on profit generation and shareholder value. The third is to balance public and private interests, thereby achieving financial viability while maintaining public service commitments. The selected strategic objective affects planning and the types of port service providers active at a port. Port service providers, which may be the managing entity of the port, a terminal operator, or a hybrid entity, define the [quantity of the particular port service](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/supply-factors-port-services/ "Supply Factors for Port Services") (e.g., cargo loading or unloading) they offer by making a decision that reflects various economic and operational factors. These factors are: - The [objectives of the port service provider](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/supply-behavior-of-port-service-providers/ "Objectives and Supply Behavior of Port Service Providers"). - The price of the service. - The cost of the production factors used. - The price of the complementary services. - The price of the substitute services. The [**o**bjectives** of the service provider**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/supply-behavior-of-port-service-providers/) significantly define the relationship between the price of port services and the supply of port services. The supply of port services responds to price changes depending on whether the provider aims to maximize profit or operates under a public service framework. Cargo handling and related port services in seaports serving international trade and broader hinterlands and forelands fall into the first category, irrespective of whether the port service provider is a private terminal operator, a publicly owned entity, or a hybrid entity. Exceptions in these cases are few. The scale of services provided differs in secondary or smaller ports. Typically, a government-owned port serving an island or remote community may continue to provide services, even at a loss, to promote local industries or connect remote regions with economic centers. An illustrative example is ports serving island communities. In absolute numbers, the ports of the second category outnumber those of the former. However, the vast majority of the world’s cargo throughput is handled by a small number of ports that offer a wide range of services. The **price of production factors** (capital, labor, land, and technology) plays a crucial role in linking supply with the production of port services. Changes in these input costs directly affect profitability and, in turn, the supply of transport services. When the price of any production factor increases, higher input costs reduce the expected profits from offering port services. To maintain profitability, service providers may reduce the quantity of services they offer. The impact of each factor on supply depends on how intensively the production factor is used in the service production process. The more intensively a factor is used, the more sensitive the supply will be to changes in its price. For instance, if technology is the dominant input, the cost of technological improvements will have a more significant impact. Modern port service providers tend to shift toward **capital-intensive** and **technology-intensive** **operations**. This transition affects the relative importance of each factor. Ports are adopting greater automation, machinery, and digital technologies, thereby increasing capital and technology use. As capital and technology use increase, there is a corresponding decrease in labor intensity, particularly for unskilled labor. For example, automated container-handling systems reduce the need for labor. Today’s high-capital ports are more sensitive to changes in capital costs (e.g., interest rates on loans for infrastructure) than to labor wages. At the same time, technological advances reduce reliance on labor and increase dependence on specialized technology. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/supply_behavior_port_service.png?resize=900%2C413&ssl=1 "Objectives and Supply Behavior of Port Service Providers | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Objectives and Supply Behavior of Port Service Providers![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/supply_port_services.png?resize=900%2C612&ssl=1 "Supply Function for Port Services | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Supply Function for a port service![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/supply_factors_port_services.png?resize=900%2C275&ssl=1 "Supply Factors for Port Services | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Supply Factors for Port ServicesThe presence (or absence) and price changes of substitutes affect the supply levels of a port service provider. A substitute service is an alternative that can replace the port service in question. A cargo handling service at a neighboring port or a second service provider at an alternative terminal within the same port are such substitute services. If a competing service becomes more expensive (e.g., cargo handling at a nearby port becomes more expensive), the demand for similar services at the current port increases, prompting providers to expand their supply. If substitutes become cheaper (e.g., lower handling fees at another terminal), users may switch to those alternatives, thereby decreasing the service supply at the competing terminal. The absence of alternative services is not uncommon in the port industry, due to either geographical characteristics or the selected port governance model. In these cases, the supply levels are defined by the market size and the captive users’ needs. The supply levels of a particular service at a port are related to the price and quality of the complementary services offered in the given port: a more expensive and lower quality of a complementary service will lead to lower service levels and vice versa. Increasing the price of a complementary service increases the total cost for customers, thus decreasing the supply of a service. Conversely, if complements become more affordable, the combined service package becomes more attractive, prompting an increase in supply. For example, if the cost of trucking services from (to) the port drops, more users may choose to use the cargo handling service at the port, increasing the supply of handling services. Two categories of **exogenous factors** also contribute to determining the quantity of port service offered. First, the opportunities or limitations set by **social factors**, including the **legislation**, **rules**, and **operating norms of the economy** that hosts the port. Second, the **physical and geographical factors**, the limits and possibilities offered by geography, the morphology of the port and the area, weather conditions (strong wind, fog), etc. # 4. Balance between Supply and Demand for Port Services The optimal balance between supply and demand is achieved using the **Pareto criterion** (or Pareto optimum). This point reflects [a state in which the quantity of the port service offered and the price at which it is served improves one stakeholder’s position without worsening the position of any other](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/demand-for-port-services/). This balance represents the optimal social welfare. Beyond price, the optimal balance between **supply and demand for port service**s considers the following characteristics: - **Congestion**: Overuse of port and transport services can reduce efficiency and increase costs, affecting user satisfaction. - **Perceptions of economic organization**: Public vs. private provision of services and market regulation shape operational dynamics. - **[Efficiency](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/) (Productivity)**: The port’s ability to maximize output with minimal resource use ensures competitiveness and sustainability. - **[Effectiveness](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/) (User Satisfaction)**: Meeting user needs through high-quality, reliable, and responsive services is key to demand growth. - **Social impact**: The effect of port activities on local communities, such as employment and environmental factors, contributes to stakeholder perceptions and demand. - **Other Factors** include [technological advancements](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/), policy decisions, and global market dynamics affecting port operations. # 5. Elasticities of Demand and Supply for Port Services The varying **demand elasticities** for cargo and passenger services are of particular significance. The elasticity of demand for a port service to a specific factor describes how responsive (sensitive) demand is to a change in the particular determining factor within a specific market. Seaports handle a wide spectrum of commodities, each associated with distinct production characteristics, consumption patterns, trade structures, transportation and logistics processes, and service requirements. The implications of fluctuations in demand for specific cargo flows vary in each case. Port and terminal operators are therefore required to develop a deeper understanding of shifts in cargo flows and to systematically monitor the trends that influence the emergence and evolution of such flows within their facilities. From an operational standpoint, understanding **[demand elasticity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/elasticity-demand-port-services/)** is essential, as each commodity (e.g., coffee, cocoa, fruit, steel, coal, grains) is transported to its destination via different modalities, such as containerized shipments, bulk cargo, or bulk cargo in specialized packaging. Three critical types of price-related elasticities are: - The **[price elasticity of demand for a port service](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/elasticity-demand-port-services/)** represents the degree of responsiveness (or sensitivity) of the quantity of a port service demanded within a specific market. This effect is typically observed over a short period, as demand responds quickly to market changes. - **[Price elasticity of the supply of a port service](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/elasticity-supply-port-services/)** expresses the degree of responsiveness (sensitivity) of the quantity of a port service supplied to a change in its price within a specific market. This effect is typically observed over a longer time period as additional capacity, particularly infrastructure, is complex to implement. - **[Cross-elasticit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/elasticity-demand-port-services/)y** refers to the degree of responsiveness of demand for port service X to a change in the price of port service Y. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/elasticity_demand_port_services.png?resize=900%2C367&ssl=1 "Elasticity of Demand for Port Services | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Elasticity of Demand for Port Services![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/elasticity_supply_port_services2.png?resize=900%2C615&ssl=1 "Elasticity of Supply of Port Services Over Time | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Price Elacticity of Supply of Port Services# Related Topics - [Chapter 9.4 Port Pricing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/) - [Chapter 10.2 Efficiency](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/) - [Chapter 10.3 Effectiveness](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/) --- ## References - Talley, W.K. (2018). Port Economics. 2nd edition, New York: Routledge. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Largest Available Cruise Ship, 1970-2025](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/largest-available-cruiseshipn-pax/) **Published:** July 23, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Largest-Available-Cruise-Ships-1970-2025.png?resize=900%2C428&ssl=1 "The Largest Available Cruise Ships, 1970-2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Largest Available Cruise Ship 1970 2025*Note: Pure-built cruise ships (early years do not include reconverted liners); based on max capacity as stated by cruise lines.* In the early **1970s**, Cunard Line entered the cruise market as the growing popularity of international air travel rendered its traditional transatlantic passenger services increasingly unviable. At that time, its flagship vessels had a capacity of just over 800 passengers, all accommodated in a single class configuration. During the early **1980s**, several purpose-built cruise ships entered the market, signalling a shift toward modernisation in the industry. Notably, Carnival Cruise Line introduced its first newbuild, the *MS Tropicale*, in 1982, with a capacity of 1,231 passengers. That same year, Royal Caribbe**a**n launched the *Song of America*, which, with a maximum capacity of 1,575 passengers, was considered a bold investment at the time. Its commercial and operational success, however, marked a pivotal moment for Royal Caribbean, which at the time operated a modest fleet of just three ships. However, a significant turning point in modern cruising had occurred in 1980, when the transatlantic ocean liner [*SS France* was converted by Norwegian Cruise Line (NCL) into a full-time cruise ship](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/last-liners-ss-france-1969/) and relaunched as the *SS Norway*. With a post-conversion capacity of 2,044 passengers, the *SS Norway* became the first cruise vessel to exceed the 1,600-passenger threshold. Previously, cruise ships were typically smaller, converted liners that accommodated between 800 and 1,500 passengers. The **1990s** witnessed a rapid expansion in cruise ship size and capacity. In 1988, *Sovereign of the Seas*, introduced by Royal Caribbean, became the first cruise ship to exceed 2,000 passengers, with a capacity of 2,650. The Sovereign-class ships set new industry standards with features such as multi-deck atriums, expansive pool decks, and enhanced entertainment offerings. Subsequent vessels like *Carnival Fantasy* (1990) and *Carnival Destiny* (1996) maintained similar capacities (~2,600 passengers). Notably, *Carnival Destiny* became the first cruise ship to surpass 100,000 gross tons (GT), a milestone that defined the advent of the “mega-ship” era. Shortly after, the *Grand Princess* briefly held the title of the world’s largest cruise ship by gross tonnage at 109,000 GT. The early **2000s** were characterised by the industry’s strategic pursuit of **economies of scale**, with **Royal** Caribbean leading the movement toward ever-larger vessels. At the turn of the century, in 1999, *Voyager of the Seas* broke new ground by surpassing a maximum capacity of 4,000 guests and 3,000 in double occupancy. This trajectory continued with the Freedom-class vessels: in 2006, *Freedom of the Seas* became the first ship to exceed 4,500 passengers, followed by *Liberty of the Seas* in 2007, which came within 40 guests of the 5,000 mark. A further leap came in **2009** with the introduction of the Oasis-class. The inaugural ship, *Oasis of the Seas*, had a maximum capacity of 6,780 passengers (5,734 at double occupancy), setting a new benchmark for passenger capacity. It took over a decade for this record to be surpassed by the *Wonder of the Seas*, launched in 2022, which approached the 7,000-passenger mark. This milestone was finally surpassed in **2024** with the debut of the **Icon-class** flagship, *[Icon of the Seas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/largest-cruise-vessel/)*, which accommodates up to 7,600 passengers, making it the largest cruise ship in history. Since **2010**, orders for large cruise vessels have remained frequent. However, cruise lines appear to have shifted their focus away from record-breaking capacity increases. This shift likely reflects **diminishing returns in economies of scale**, as further increases in vessel size present operational and infrastructural limitations that increasingly shape strategic decision-making in the industry. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/largest-available-cruiseshipn-pax/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/largest-available-cruiseshipn-pax/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/largest-available-cruiseshipn-pax/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/largest-available-cruiseshipn-pax/?share=reddit) - --- ### [TEU to GDP Multiplier, 1985-2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/teu-to-gdp-multiplier/) **Published:** January 1, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/teu_gdp_multiplier.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "TEU to GDP Multiplier, 1985-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")TEU to GDP Multiplier 1985 2024*Source: World Bank for GDP growth (In Constant 2015 dollars). UNCTAD and own elaboration for container throughput growth.* The multiplier effect is usually defined by the relationship (ratio) between container growth rates (%) in terms of total volumes handled by ports over GDP growth rates (%) for the same year. It reflects fluctuations between growth that is more internally driven (lower ratio) and growth that relies more on trade (higher ratio). Recessions have no discernible impact on the multiplier as GDP growth slows down (or becomes negative on a few rare occasions), with container volumes. Five phases can be identified. - **Prior to 1990**. Although containerized trade began to pick up in the 1960s, the multiplier was in the range of 2 to 2.5 (for each percentage of GDP growth, there was an equivalent of 2% to 2.5% of container volume growth). Globalization and trade liberalization were ongoing but progressed at a comparatively slow pace in terms of their impact on container flows. - **1990 to 1999**. This marked a period of rapid containerization, with the multiplier surging around 4, particularly following the onset of offshoring to East Asia. The global container shipping network expanded rapidly through new services and port investments, in part driven by offshoring and industrialization in new areas. - **2000 to 2008**. The multiplier declined to approximately 3, corresponding to peak growth. This period was marked by the most substantial growth in Chinese container port volumes, and by the majority of ports worldwide. - **2009-2014**. The financial crisis of 2009 marked an inflection point, with the multiplier declining in the range of 2.8. Still, the multiplier effect remained strong, particularly since many export-oriented economies experienced strong growth in their containerized exports. - **2015-**. Since 2015, the multiplier has fallen below 1, underscoring that at this point, GDP growth has a much smaller multiplier on container shipping growth. Even the COVID-19 pandemic had little effect on this fundamental relationship. This may indicate peak containerization, as the conventional drivers of long-distance trade have receded. The TEU-to-GDP multiplier is an important ratio because it is widely used in port traffic forecasting, which is closely linked to national economic growth prospects. The current trend indicates that GDP growth has less impact, which can exaggerate anticipated future volumes and raise questions about its relevance. The ratio also must also account for the movement of empty containers and transshipment, which are driven by trade imbalances and shipping lines’ decisions regarding the organization of their service networks. Changes in trade imbalances and transshipment volumes can affect the ratio. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/teu-to-gdp-multiplier/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/teu-to-gdp-multiplier/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/teu-to-gdp-multiplier/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/teu-to-gdp-multiplier/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Value of Containerized Trade, 2020](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/value-containerized-trade/) **Published:** December 31, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/value_containerized_trade.png?resize=900%2C465&ssl=1 "Value of Containerized Trade, 2020 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Value of Containerized Trade 2020*Source: UNCTAD. Containerized trade in TEU from UNCTAD Review of Maritime Transport, 2021, Table 1.8.* About 70% of the value of international trade is carried by maritime transportation. Of this share, about two-thirds are carried by containers, particularly because most high-value commercial goods are containerized. This implies an average value of trade of about $54,500 per TEU or $109,000 per FEU. However, such figures must be taken with caution. First, 40-foot containers (two TEUs or one FEU), both in their standard and “high cube” form, are the most common containers, accounting for 68% of all TEUs, while 20-foot containers (one TEU) account for 26%. Second, there is a wide range of goods carried in containers, each with a [different commercial value](https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter5/intermodal-transportation-containerization/container-shipping-costs-value/). Third, 20-foot and 40-foot containers are generally used to carry different types of commercial cargo. 20-foot containers usually carry ponderous goods of lower value ([weighting out](https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter5/intermodal-transportation-containerization/container-weighting-cubing-out/)), while 40-foot containers carry higher volume and high-value goods ([cubing out](https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter5/intermodal-transportation-containerization/container-weighting-cubing-out/)). Furthermore, there is a separate class of high-cube forty-foot containers that tend to carry even more valuable cargo because of the greater available volume. Lastly, refrigerated containers (reefers) carry even more valuable cargo on a per-TEU basis. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/value-containerized-trade/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/value-containerized-trade/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/value-containerized-trade/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/value-containerized-trade/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Global Trade and Container Throughput (1970=100)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-trade-container-throughput/) **Published:** February 9, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/global_trade_container_throughput2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Global Trade and Container Throughput (1970=100) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Trade and Container Throughput 1970=100*Source: Population and GDP from World Bank, World Development Indicators. Exports from World Trade Organization. Container port throughput compiled from UNCTAD.* Containerization has been the most dynamic physical component of globalization, far outpacing the growth of exports and GDP in value. As globalization intensified from the 1970s, each additional individual, GDP, or export unit was associated with higher container flows. Between 1980 and 2024, global container throughput increased by a factor of 22 times, while exports and GDP increased by a factor of 11.9 and 9.7 times, respectively. Until 1980, container port throughput grew in line with export value; however, a divergence was observed thereafter. Containerization entered the acceleration phase of its diffusion cycle, serving as the fundamental support for export-oriented strategies mainly pursued by Asian economies. Therefore, a range of growth factors is at play in explaining the substantial growth of containerization, and, more interestingly, their contributions vary over time. While additional traffic resulting from organic growth is the most significant factor, imbalanced trade flows (empty containers) and the configuration of shipping networks that rely on transshipment hubs (double counting) have also contributed to increased containerized flows and port handlings. As economies of scale are applied to maritime shipping, transshipment becomes more salient. The share of transshipped containers increased from approximately 11% of all cargo handled by container ports in 1980 to approximately 30% in 2015, a notable factor in the growth of containerized traffic. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-trade-container-throughput/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-trade-container-throughput/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-trade-container-throughput/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-trade-container-throughput/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Main Physical Characteristics of ISO Containers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/standardization-advances-containerisation/) **Published:** May 1, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/iso_containers_specifications.png?resize=900%2C347&ssl=1 "Main Physical Characteristics of ISO Containers | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Physical Characteristics of ISO Containers*Source: adapted from Container Alliance.* The **standard 40-foot container** is the most commonly used for shipping goods in ocean freight, along with the **20-foot container**. The dimensions are usually measured using the imperial system (feet), and both the exterior and interior (usable) dimensions are specified. The standardization of cargo containers ensures containers can be stacked most efficiently, literally one on top of another. Although freight containers are manufactured worldwide, they are built to specific ISO specifications, allowing for interoperability across intermodal transportation systems. Many shippers prefer to use the largest load unit possible, the **40-foot high-cube container**, because it leverages economies of scale. However, weight restrictions can make the 20-foot a desirable option, particularly for transporting commodities. For instance, the weight restrictions on both the regular and the high-cube forty-footers are at around 30 short tons (or 28 metric tons), virtually the same as a 20-footer, so there are no gains in using a high-cube container for heavy goods. Payload weight decreases even further with 45- and 48-foot containers, underscoring their unique role in transporting bulky yet comparatively lightweight goods. Most containers are made from weathering steel (also known as Corten steel), which helps prevent rusting. They are water-resistant, protecting their contents from water intrusions. Standardization enabled the expansion of containerized seagoing cargo transport. The use of standardized containers led to a significant reduction in shipping costs. It allowed many countries that had been previously isolated from global trade to enter the global market and consume imported goods. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/standardization-advances-containerisation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/standardization-advances-containerisation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/standardization-advances-containerisation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/standardization-advances-containerisation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Risk of Hurricanes for Global Container Ports, 2022](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/hurricanes-global-container-ports/) **Published:** October 24, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Hurricane-Container-Ports-1.png?resize=900%2C471&ssl=1 "Risk of Hurricanes for Global Container Ports, 2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Risk of Hurricanes for Global Container Ports 2022*Note: High hurricane risk calculated from a point density analysis of the daily location of all hurricanes on a scale of 1 and above on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale observed between 1980 and 2020 (N=135,380). Area of tropical storm formation accounts for 95% of all tropical storms. Source: NOAA, International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship (IBTrACS). Gahtan, J., K. R. Knapp, C. J. Schreck, H. J. Diamond, J. P. Kossin, M. C. Kruk, 2024: International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship (IBTrACS) Project, Version 4r01. \[indicate subset used\]. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. doi:10.25921/82ty-9e16.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Hurricane-Container-Ports-1.pdf) Hurricanes pose a significant risk of disruption to maritime shipping and port operations. Their impacts on ports are subject to distinct geography with a concentration of risks. Tropical storms emerge in intertropical convergence zones just north of the equator for the Atlantic Ocean and on both sides of the equator for the Pacific Ocean. A tropical storm may develop into a hurricane (or typhoon in Asia) with sustained winds exceeding 100 km/h and can move beyond its formation area and make landfall. High winds with the associated precipitation and tidal effects can substantially disrupt and damage coastal activities, including ports and their terminals. Another important characteristic of hurricanes is their seasonality, with peak activity usually between June and October. The cycle is more pronounced in East Asia, with more frequent hurricanes and a broader seasonal distribution (typhoons can occur year-round). About 38% of all the global container port activity occurs in areas subject to high hurricane risk. Coastal China, South Korea, Japan, and the American Eastern Seaboard are the most potentially disrupted areas with high container port activity levels. In addition to disrupting and stopping port activity, hurricanes can damage port equipment and superstructures. Toppled containers can disrupt yard activities and flooded areas, which can damage cargo and equipment. Connections with the hinterland can also be damaged, such as with flooded road and rail connectors. On some acute occasions, port infrastructure, such as piers, can be damaged. A container port usually takes two to three days after a Category 1 hurricane to resume full operations. If a container port is a transshipment hub, hurricane-induced disruptions can be extensive for the schedule integrity of maritime shipping networks and may favor the use of alternative hubs. The Pearl River Delta is one of the world’s most prominent concentrations of manufacturing and container shipping and is located in a region of high typhoon risk. It accounted for approximately 20% of global container port activity. In 2018, Typhoon Mangkhut was particularly damaging, forcing the port of Hong Kong to close for two days. Most shipping lines bypassed port calls in southern China because accumulated port delays exceeded four days. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/hurricanes-global-container-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/hurricanes-global-container-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/hurricanes-global-container-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/hurricanes-global-container-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Trends in Containership Deployment, 2006-2025](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/containership-deployment-trends/) **Published:** January 26, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/trends_deployment_containerships.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Trends in Containership Deployment, 2006-2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Trends in Containership Deployment 2006 2025*Source: UNCTAD with data provided by MDS Transmodal. Note: 2006=100. Represents the average per port.* The deployment of containerships is following three separate trends: - **Technical**. Following the principle of economies of scale and ongoing demand from international trade, the deployed capacity has more than doubled between 2006 and 2025. This is particularly evident in the size of the largest container ship. - **Geographical**. The number of container ports being called to has slightly increased, implying that port forelands are well established, if not mature, in the majority of regions. There is also a general decline in direct connections, implying a shift towards well-established transshipment hubs with feeder services. - **Operational**. In direct response to technical trends, operational trends indicate a decline in weekly calls, the number of shipping services, and the number of shipping lines. This is illustrative of the segmentation of services between deepsea services and feeder services. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/containership-deployment-trends/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/containership-deployment-trends/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/containership-deployment-trends/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/containership-deployment-trends/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Trade Intensity by Ocean, 1980-2020](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/trade-intensity-ocean/) **Published:** February 10, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/trade_intensity_ocean2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Trade Intensity by Ocean, 1980-2020 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Trade Intensity by Ocean 1980 2020*Note: Measured by port TEU activity along oceanic ranges. The Indian Ocean includes the Persian Gulf.* Since the 1980s, a significant rebalancing of the intensity of trade by ocean has taken place, particularly over containerized trade. As international trade taking place over the Pacific Ocean increased, the Atlantic Ocean experienced a relative decline in its share. While the Atlantic accounted for 49% of global trade activity in 1980, this share decreased by more than half to 20% in 2020. The share of the Indian Ocean doubled to 12%, but this figure does not account for the substantial traffic transiting along the Asia / Mediterranean / European trade route. The share of the Mediterranean has declined slightly to around 8%. Still, the Mediterranean, like the Indian Ocean, is a significant transit point along major Asia/Europe trade routes. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/trade-intensity-ocean/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/trade-intensity-ocean/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/trade-intensity-ocean/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/trade-intensity-ocean/?share=reddit) - --- ### [American Foreign Trade by Maritime Containers, 2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/american-foreign-trade-maritime-containers/) **Published:** February 9, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/american_trade_containers.png?w=900&ssl=1 "American Foreign Trade by Maritime Containers, 2024 (in TEUs) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")American Foreign Trade by Maritime Containers 2024 in TEUs*Source: adapted from Journal of Commerce.* American containerized trade is characterized by an asymmetry between the nature of its imports and exports. North American retailers account for a substantial share of containerized imports, mostly involving finished consumption goods bound to major inland freight distribution centers. The largest importers, such as Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Target, Costco, Ikea, and Lowe’s, are all mass (Big Box) retailers relying on high volume and low margin goods, which are predominantly produced in China. The online e-commerce giant Amazon is also among the top importers. It is worth mentioning that about 60% of all Chinese trade surplus with the United States is the outcome of American firms operating in China through direct ownership, parent companies, joint ventures, and Original Equipment Manufacturing (OEM) agreements, and importing this manufacturing output to the United States. Exporters show a completely different profile. A major category of containerized export concerns recycled goods with exporters such as America Chung Nam, Ralison International, WM Recycle America, or Potential Industries. Other major exporters include diversified resource-based (Koch Industries), forest and paper products (e.g., International Paper, International Forest Products), agribusiness (e.g., Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland), or plastics, resins, and chemicals (e.g., Shintech, Dow, DuPont). Yet, a significant containerized trade imbalance remains. The trade asymmetry being depicted is reflected in the relative value of imports and exports. While the average value of American imports is about $4.75 per kilogram, the value of exports stands at $2.50 per kilogram. This has also had significant impacts on North American logistics. The import-driven segment involves a series of stages to reach a multitude of outlets with a freight density correlated with population density. Since the retail trade is essentially unidirectional, many retail goods are transloaded at gateways into domestic containers, while the maritime (ISO) containers are re-exported empty. The export-driven segment relies on the massification of shipments at major gateways and inland ports. Because many resources (plastics, chemicals, forest products, food) are produced and extracted inland at locations that rarely coincide with significant population centers, reconciling containerized import and export logistics is challenging. While millions of TEUs will leave American ports empty, many inland locations are facing container shortages. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that China is increasingly regulating the imports of waste materials. In 2018, China began imposing bans on imports of solid waste, including paper, plastic, and steel, which accounted for the largest share of containerized exports from the United States to China. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/american-foreign-trade-maritime-containers/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/american-foreign-trade-maritime-containers/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/american-foreign-trade-maritime-containers/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/american-foreign-trade-maritime-containers/?share=reddit) - --- ### [World’s 20 Largest Exporters and Importers of Merchandise, 2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/worlds-largest-exporters-importers-goods-services/) **Published:** July 27, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/largest_traders.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "World’s 20 Largest Exporters and Importers of Goods and Services, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds 20 Largest Exporters and Importers of Goods and Services 2024*Source: WTO.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/worlds-largest-exporters-importers-goods-services/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/worlds-largest-exporters-importers-goods-services/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/worlds-largest-exporters-importers-goods-services/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/worlds-largest-exporters-importers-goods-services/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Merchandise Exports, World and Selected Countries 1970-2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/merchandise-exports-world/) **Published:** February 8, 2026 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/merchandise_exports_world2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Merchandise Exports, World and Selected Countries 1970-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Merchandise Exports World and Selected Countries 1970 2024*Source: World Bank.* From the perspective of export value, international trade has experienced substantial growth since the 1970s, accelerating during the 2000s. This is largely attributable to China’s accession to the WTO agreements in late 2001 and the subsequent expansion of Chinese exports. The growth in China’s share of global merchandise exports closely matches the growth in global exports, indicating that China has been a core driver. This is also associated with the growth in maritime shipping, as manufacturers in East Asia (Japan, South Korea, and China) relied on long-distance shipping networks. The expectation is that a phase of maturity in global trade will eventually be reached, mostly associated with a slowdown and possibly a reversal in outsourcing and offshore. The financial crisis of 2008-2009 was the first contemporary challenge to the global economy, with a significant decline of nearly 25% in global merchandise trade over one year. Another readjustment occurred in 2015-16 with a slowdown in the Chinese economy and a decline in commodity prices, such as petroleum, on global markets. The COVID-19 pandemic was another challenge that led to a substantial decline in 2020, followed by a surge in 2021-22. Although the share of the United States, Germany, and Japan has steadily declined, their exports have increased in absolute numbers. This trend should also affect ownership of commercial fleets, but pronounced differences are observed. It is reasonable to expect that a nation’s share of global exports should be similar to its share of the global fleet. China accounted for approximately 16% of global tonnage, which is comparable to its share of global exports. This share is 12% for Japan, which corresponds to its global share at the peak of its influence in the 1980s and 1990s, implying it made decisions to maintain its prominence in shipping to support national interests, including the offshoring of its manufacturing capabilities. Germany accounts for 3% of global tonnage but 8% of global containership capacity, consistent with its commercial importance as an exporter. The United States is an outlier, accounting for 2.5% of the global commercial fleet and 8% of global exports; in the 1970s, this share was on par with its exports at 12%, but it has since declined rapidly. India is an emerging exporter, accounting for 1.8% of global exports and approximately 1% of the global commercial fleet, implying a lag between its export and shipping capabilities. When countries intervene in the shipping market, they typically do so through state enterprises, as in China and India. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/merchandise-exports-world/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/merchandise-exports-world/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/merchandise-exports-world/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/merchandise-exports-world/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Global Hierarchy of Shipping Lanes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-hierarchy-shipping-lanes/) **Published:** April 3, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/global_hierarchy_shipping_lanes.png?resize=900%2C480&ssl=1 "Global Hierarchy of Shipping Lanes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Hierarchy of Shipping Lanes*Note: The hierarchy is a function of the amount of trade, the maximum ship size allocated, and the general strategic importance of the route. Mainly reflects container shipping.* Shipping lanes reflect the importance of international trade in a hierarchical fashion, with the most important lanes (high tier) associated with a combined flow of international trade relations and the less important lanes (low tier) supporting more regional flows. - **Tier 1**. The Asia-Europe route is the most important intercontinental trade route in the world, going through strategic locations such as the Strait of Malacca and the Suez Canal. Through its numerous transshipment hubs (e.g., Singapore, Colombo, Dubai, Suez, Algeciras/Tanger Med), it consolidates and deconsolidates the trade flows of several regions in between (e.g., Southeast Asia, South Asia, Middle East), an attribute that no other trade lanes can perform at such a scale. - **Tier 2**. Composed of several major oceanic connections, particularly the transpacific and the transatlantic, which are inter-range services with limited intermediary locations. It also includes routes between Asia, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean. - **Tier 3**. Important inter-range routes, such as the Panama route linking East Asia with the US East Coast (and also other hubs in the Caribbean), the East Asia-Africa (South)-South America route, which is the main south-south connector, and connectors between Europe, the Middle East, and South Asia. - **Tier 4**. This mainly includes North-South connectors along the east and west coasts of the Americas and Africa, as well as the connectors between Australia and Southeast Asia. In particular, the connectors between East and Southeast Asia account for a substantial amount of traffic. - **Tier 5**. Composed of feeder markets serviced from major transshipment hubs connected to higher-tier networks. This includes the Caribbean, the Mediterranean, the Baltic, the Indonesian and Philippine archipelagos, and Japan. These markets can involve substantial aggregate volumes, but ships tend to be much smaller, in part due to the size of the ports. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-hierarchy-shipping-lanes/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-hierarchy-shipping-lanes/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-hierarchy-shipping-lanes/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-hierarchy-shipping-lanes/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Performance: Τhe Efficiency Continuum](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/the-port-performance-continuum/) **Published:** January 11, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_performance_continuum.png?resize=900%2C406&ssl=1 "Port Performance: The Efficiency Continuum | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Performance The Efficiency ContinuumThe efficiency of a port is part of a continuum that includes maritime, terminal, and hinterland operations. These dimensions are interrelated, as inefficiencies in one dimension are likely to affect the others. For instance, issues in terminal operations are most likely to negatively impact both maritime and hinterland operations, resulting in delays. - **Maritime operations**. What happens at the port foreland can impact its performance, mainly because of ship delays. The efficiency of maritime access is a component of port performance, which includes **average anchorage time** (M1), where ships are waiting for an available berthing slot. Long waiting times at anchorage can be the outcome of a lack of berthing slots able to accommodate specific ship classes (e.g., draft and cargo type) as well as terminal productivity issues. Depending on their site and configuration, ports can have complex in-port navigation requiring pilotage and tugs through access channels and turn basins. The [average ship turnaround time](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/distribution-average-berth-hours/ "Distribution of Average Berth-Hours, 2023") (or ship dwell time; M2) represents the time it takes to service the ship once it has docked. Enhancing such a system is clearly to the benefit of maritime shipping companies. - **Terminal operations**. Represent the most common performance indicator that is used to assess port efficiency. In container terminal operations, this typically involves several key processes. Crane performance (T1) is a common bottleneck in terms of the average number of crane movements per hour. For maritime shipping companies, this is a crucial factor since it is related to the amount of time their ships will spend at the port. The manner in which cargo (containers) is brought back and forth to the storage yard is also a component of port performance and is often related to the number of movements per crane hour. Many container terminals use holsters or straddle carriers for such operations. Container storage yard operations involve stacking and related stacking density, an important variable determining terminal capacity. The average yard dwell time (T2) for inbound, outbound, and transshipment cargo is a common indicator of terminal performance. When trucks enter the terminal to pick up or drop off cargo, space and equipment are required. This is often a critical bottleneck for trucking companies, as it determines the time they spend at the terminal, which is reflected in the average truck turnaround time (T3). Gate performance concerns the efficiency of tasks related to document processing and security inspections so that a truck is admitted and cleared to pick up or drop off cargo at the facility. Gates used above their capacity are characterized by long truck lines waiting to be processed and enter the terminal to handle cargo they are already chartered to transport. Therefore, the average gate waiting time (T4) can be used as a performance indicator. For terminals having on-dock rail facilities, the performance of the rail loading/unloading equipment can also be an important component of the terminal’s performance. - **Hinterland operations**. The efficiency of transport operations beyond the terminal is usually not considered a port performance indicator. It involves all the transport and distribution activities servicing the port’s customers, such as an inland port. However, for practical purposes, it generally focuses on inland operations adjacent to the port area (often labeled as the back of the port). The key factor in hinterland operations is the capacity of the local road network in areas adjacent to the port. Congestion and bottlenecks at street intersections impair port performance in many of the supply chain management strategies of its customers. Some ports have near-dock rail yards that must be serviced through their gates. In many gateway ports, transloading activities that transfer the contents of maritime containers into domestic truckloads (or domestic containers), or vice versa, are an element of the performance of hinterland operations. Port authorities have an oversight, either directly or indirectly, of port efficiency. While terminal operations are usually concessioned to private operators, port authorities typically exercise direct oversight of maritime operations and several elements of hinterland operations, such as local roads directly connected to port terminals, some of which are on port-owned land. Although cities are not directly involved in port operations and commonly have limited, if any, jurisdiction on port land, they commonly provide and maintain crucial road infrastructure connecting the port with its hinterland. They also bear many of the externalities of port operations, namely local congestion. Therefore, the port authority and the city are important stakeholders in the port performance continuum. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/the-port-performance-continuum/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/the-port-performance-continuum/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/the-port-performance-continuum/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/the-port-performance-continuum/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Seasonality of Cruise Port Activities in the Mediterranean Sea](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/seasonality-cruise-port-activities-mediterranean-sea-2019/) **Published:** February 12, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/seasonality_cruise_activity_mediterranean.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Seasonality of Cruise Ports Activities in the Mediterranean and its Adjoining Seas, 2019 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Seasonality of Cruise Ports Activities in the Mediterranean and its adjoining seas 2019Source: *MedCruise (2020). MedCruise Statistics 2019. MedCruise: Tenerife.* Seasonal variations in cruise activity do not limit the development of a cruise region. The Mediterranean and its adjoining seas have evolved into a highly dynamic cruise region with a highly seasonal pattern of cruise activity. Each month of the May-October period sees traffic shares of 10-12% in a most balanced way. In total, 75% of the cruise passenger movements that take place annually in this cruise region happen during these six months. The share of total passenger movements registered during the three winter months (January, February, and December) is only 7% of the total annual movements. This has triggered discussions among stakeholders on how to achieve year-round activities. Detailing the total number of cruise calls per month reveals that winter activities are associated with single-call operations of a different size than in the rest of the year. In the Mediterranean example, fewer than 850 calls out of an annual total exceeding 12,500 occur from December to February. Yet, in these months, each call is associated, on average, with more passengers; January has the highest passenger rate per call (2,314 pax), followed by February (2,153 pax) and December (2,095 pax). Cruise lines develop fewer itineraries as vessels are repositioned, leading to cruises with substantially higher utilization. From a port and destination perspective, respective operational adjustments are essential. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/seasonality-cruise-port-activities-mediterranean-sea-2019/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/seasonality-cruise-port-activities-mediterranean-sea-2019/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/seasonality-cruise-port-activities-mediterranean-sea-2019/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/seasonality-cruise-port-activities-mediterranean-sea-2019/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Objectives and Supply Behavior of Port Service Providers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/supply-behavior-of-port-service-providers/) **Published:** March 13, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/supply_behavior_port_service.png?resize=900%2C413&ssl=1 "Objectives and Supply Behavior of Port Service Providers | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Supply behaviour of port service providersFrom a general macroeconomic perspective, the **strategic objectives of the port**, and therefore those of the port service providers (which might be the managing entity of the port, a terminal operator, or a hybrid entity), define the overall focus, and thus the level of port services supply. Ports might opt for any of the three available strategies. The first is prioritizing social and economic development, often accepting lower profitability for regional growth. The second one is to prioritize private interests, focusing primarily on profit generation and delivering value to shareholders. The third one is to balance public and private Interests, thus aiming to achieve financial viability while maintaining public service commitments. The selected strategic objective affects planning and the types of entities that offer port services. For example, according to a recent survey by the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO), 63% of European ports focus on balancing public and private interests, 28% on public interests, and 9% on private interests. At the microeconomic level, the relationship between the price of transport services and the supply of port services depends significantly on the objectives of the service provider. The supply response to the price of port services depends on whether the provider aims to **maximize profit** or operates under a **public service** framework: - **Profit-maximizing providers**. When the primary goal of the service provider is to **maximize profits**, the supply of port services is directly responsive to changes in price. Price increases make providing the service more profitable, encouraging providers to expand their supply. This reflects the classic upward-sloping supply curve. Respectively, as lower prices reduce profitability, providers will likely cut back on the quantity they are willing to offer. This behavior aligns with standard economic theory, in which firms adjust their output in response to price signals to optimize revenue. - **Public Service-Oriented Providers**. In cases where port services are provided under a **public service regime** or are considered **essential for social welfare**, the relationship between price and supply is less direct. The supply of services remains stable despite fluctuations in service provider activity. Service providers may maintain or even increase their supply, irrespective of profit margins, if the service is considered vital for public benefit (e.g., supporting regional development, ensuring social cohesion, or maintaining essential trade routes). In this case, non-profit motivations are significant. Supply decisions may prioritize accessibility, economic stability, or long-term strategic objectives over immediate financial returns. Cargo handling and related port services in **seaports serving international trade and broader hinterlands and forelands** fall into the first of these categories, irrespective of whether the port service provider is a private terminal operator, a publicly owned entity, or a hybrid entity. Exceptions in these cases are few. In secondary or smaller ports, the scale of provided services is determined differently. Typically, a government-owned port serving an island or remote community may continue to provide services, even at a loss, to promote local industries or connect remote regions with economic centers**.** An illustrative example is ports serving island communities. In absolute numbers, the ports of the second category outnumber those of the former. However, the vast majority of the world’s cargo throughput is handled by ports that offer a wide range of services. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/supply-behavior-of-port-service-providers/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/supply-behavior-of-port-service-providers/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/supply-behavior-of-port-service-providers/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/supply-behavior-of-port-service-providers/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Demand Factors for Port Services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/demand-factors-port-services/) **Published:** January 26, 2026 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/demand_factors_port_services2.png?resize=900%2C530&ssl=1 "Demand Factors for Port Services | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Demand Factors for Port ServicesThe demand for port services is affected by eight fundamental factors: - **Price of port service**. According to a demand curve *D*, an increase in the price of a port service leads to a decline in demand at the given port, while a decline in the price leads to an increase in demand. This assumes that the port is in a competitive hinterland market, as ports in a captive hinterland are much less prone to this mechanism. - **Price of substitute port**. If a port in the competitive hinterland offers a lower cost structure, then a share of the traffic will shift to this port. For any given price, the demand is lower (the new demand curve is *Db*). A reverse shift occurs when the port competing for the same hinterland increases its prices (the new demand curve is *Dc*). - **Price of complementary port activities**. The full cost of using a port often includes complementary activities such as warehousing. Even if a port has a competitive price, if the price of all, or some of these complementary services increases, it can experience a decline in traffic. For any price demand lowers (shift of the demand curve from *Da* to *Dc*). Alternatively, lower complementary services can improve competitiveness and attract traffic. - **Hinterland market size**. Growth in absolute GDP or GDP per capita in the port hinterland is associated with a shift in the demand curve, from *Da* to *Db* and the related volume (from *a* to *b*), with port price remaining constant. - **Market proximity**. Due to changes in trade lanes and shipping services (and connectivity), a port can experience a decrease in market proximity (situation), shifting from a demand curve *Da* to *Dc* and a decline in traffic from *a* to *c*. On the other hand, a port can see an improvement in its situation, shifting to a demand curve *Db*, with an increase in traffic from *a* to *c*. - **Seasonality**. Many ports experience seasonal variations in their traffic, even if their prices remain constant. This implies an annual shift from demand curve *Da* (low season) to demand curve *Db* (high season). - **Service quality**. If a port can offer high service quality, it may shift from demand curve *Da* to *Db*, with the price increasing from *a* to *b* without affecting traffic. Alternatively, it might opt to maintain prices at the initial level, and capture further traffic (from *a* to *c*). - **Technological improvements**. Various technological and managerial improvements, either single or cumulative, may allow a port to lower its price and handle higher traffic. Demand changes are **time sensitive**. It is critical to distinguish between instant, short-run, and long-run shifts in demand for port services. Such shifts demand reorganization of service supply and thus take time to implement. Instant changes in the demand for one or more port services might be negligible. In the short run, organisational changes allow users to shift their demand elsewhere. In the long run, the rearrangements of the related maritime supply changes allow users to fully implement any decision to shift to other services if they so wish. Neglecting this mechanism can lead to inaccurate management or planning decisions. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/demand-factors-port-services/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/demand-factors-port-services/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/demand-factors-port-services/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/demand-factors-port-services/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Factors Determining the Demand for Port Services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/factors-determinng-the-demand-for-port-services/) **Published:** December 20, 2024 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/demand_determinants_port_services.png?resize=900%2C429&ssl=1 "Determinants of Demand for Port Services | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Determinants of Demand for Port ServicesThe organization of cargo ports and the volume and type of cargo they handle are shaped by a set of demand factors that are either internal or external to the development of maritime transport systems. Internal factors exert the dominant influence. The flow of the transported goods is at the core of the internal factors; the port’s operation and growth prospects are defined and depend on it. Four other internal factors are decisive determinants in shaping the structures. Growth rates and prospects of cargo ports, with each factor influencing the others in succession: - **Trade volume and type**. Fluctuations in trade volumes directly affect the cargo a port handles, shaping its operations and infrastructure. - **Structures of the production-transport-consumption process**. The first important dimension is the l**ocation of production**. The geographical focus of production significantly impacts port development. For example, the rapid economic and industrial growth of China since the 1990s has driven the expansion of containerized trade and transformed international trade patterns. The second important dimension is the **quantity of production**. High production volumes necessitate the development of ports or new facilities near production hubs to handle exports and raw material imports. The third one is the **raw material resources**. The increased reliance on diverse sources of raw materials affects trade volumes and port operations. Ports may need to accommodate intermediate products for production practices and distribute goods for final consumption. All these affect the fourth parameter, **containerization**. The widespread adoption of containers has prompted significant investments in container terminals, requiring ports to reorganize and enhance infrastructure and services to support intermodalism. - **Logistics services**. The reaction of ports to the evolution of supply chains and developments regarding the provision of value-added services to the transported goods. - **Maritime shipping and transport services**. Factors such as the services provided by shipping companies, the size, and requirements of ships deployed, the maritime corridors, and the range of offered services influence how ports adapt to meet these criteria. Land-based transport systems **linked to ports** are equally critical, as their characteristics and efficiency impact a port’s ability to support broader trade and logistics networks. Four **external factors** play a critical role in shaping the context in which ports operate and develop: - **Technological advancements**. Technological innovations are transforming the design and operation of ships and other transportation vessels, as well as the efficiency and range of services provided for transporting goods and passengers. This dynamic necessitates continuous adaptation by ports to maintain competitiveness and integrate modern solutions. - **Port policy**. Formulated at local, national, regional (e.g., European Union), and international levels (e.g., International Maritime Organization), port policy determines strategic planning and operational frameworks. Key considerations include land use and development, ownership models (public, private, or mixed-use), governance structures (e.g., roles of operators and managers), and operational regulations (e.g., waste management, mitigation of external impacts). These policy decisions shape the long-term development of port systems and the prospects of individual ports. - **Cultural perspectives on economic organization**. The roles of public and private sectors, economic regulation or deregulation, and market organization, significantly influence port operations. These perspectives are shaped at multiple levels (national, local, and increasingly international), affecting how ports are structured and governed. - **Macroeconomic conditions**. The macroeconomic context drives overall trade volume in a region, shaping the prospects of its ports. Economic cycles are associated with temporal differences in growth rates, which can occasionally be negative. **Political stability** and favourable trade policies in the port’s location, or countries trading to or from it, can enhance its attractiveness. The same applies to the **international** r**egulatory environment** (i.e., regulations, including taxes, tariffs, and environmental compliance costs) and trade policies. policies These external factors, combined with internal dynamics, define the strategic and operational environment for ports, influencing their capacity and need to adapt to a rapidly evolving maritime landscape. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/factors-determinng-the-demand-for-port-services/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/factors-determinng-the-demand-for-port-services/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/factors-determinng-the-demand-for-port-services/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/factors-determinng-the-demand-for-port-services/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 0.3 - Seaports: Social and Environmental Value](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/) **Published:** November 10, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Theo Notteboom, Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > Seaports often suffer from a negative public image, mainly due to their environmental impacts and the disconnection between cities and their activities. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. The Public Image of Ports](#1_The_Public_Image_of_Ports) - [2. The Port-City Interface](#2_The_Port-City_Interface) - [3. The Greening of Ports](#3_The_Greening_of_Ports) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. The Public Image of Ports The general public often considers port areas desolate, dangerous, dirty, and unattractive, characterized by buildings with low aesthetics and large machinery emitting noise and air pollutants. People might feel **disconnected** from ports, particularly in those areas where the port has moved away from the city. In short, ports cannot take broad public support for granted. This aspect of port competitiveness will undoubtedly become more important in the future as resources such as land are becoming increasingly scarce and broader social and environmental functions are challenging the economic function of seaports. Nowadays, port managers and government bodies are trying to ensure that new port developments are socially broadly based. **Conflicts of interest among different stakeholders** may overshadow the community of interests. Major socio-economic conflicts related to port development and operations can arise when community groups perceive a clear imbalance between the benefits and costs to the local community of larger ports. Public support for ports becomes particularly bleak when a large part of the population is unaware of how the port is organized and operated, and of the extent to which it contributes to the local economy. The concerns solely focus on potential negative effects for the local community, such as road congestion, intrusions on the landscape, noise and air pollution, and the use of scarce land. The potential erosion of public support for seaports is a real concern to port managers. Next to pure economic effects, ports increasingly need to be guided by **social and environmental considerations**. Public policymakers and port managing bodies are challenged to design effective port-related policies in the fields of urban planning and expansion, safety, security, and sustainability. The economic value of a port now tends to be taken as given by some stakeholders, so the argument concentrates on environmental issues and social issues. Ports must demonstrate a high level of environmental value to ensure community support. However, environmental aspects also play an increasing role in attracting trading partners and potential investors. A port with a strong environmental record and high community support is likely to be favored. From an environmental perspective, port planning and management should ensure sustainable development. The environmental sustainability of port projects and activities has become as important as economic and financial viability. Measuring the **social value of ports** is an extremely difficult exercise. Many ports directly support a wide variety of community events and projects through sponsorship in an effort to attract community support. However, it is the indirect social contributions that most benefit local communities. For example, ports might invest in training and education programs. Such forms of social commitment are an important part of the success of ports, linking commercial responsibility to social acceptability and accountability. Ports are challenged to improve their public image, which can be done by combining several approaches: - **External communications policies and public events and festivities** in and around port areas, such as open Port Days. - Convince the general public of the **importance of ports** by presenting figures on employment effects and added value. - Adopt a **green port management strategy** that focuses on mitigating externalities such as energy consumption, the emissions of pollutants, and waste disposal. - **Stakeholder relations management**, such as the development of good relations with all parties concerned, particularly with respect to port expansion plans or redevelopment/regeneration plans focusing on older port areas (i.e. waterfront redevelopment). Reinforcing the public image of ports also involves attracting a new generation to work in ports. Ports have to offer attractive careers by offering good working conditions and the potential for career advancement, as well as by stimulating a sense of pride about the port. # 2. The Port-City Interface The port-city interface is a core theme in discussing the public image of ports and the balance between economic, social, and environmental aspects. Ports and cities worldwide have developed extensive **initiatives to (re)establish mutual links**. The redevelopment of older abandoned port areas, also called [waterfront redevelopment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1493&preview=true&_thumbnail_id=1494), is one of the focus areas. A waterfront redevelopment program that respects the maritime heritage of the port and re-establishes the link between the city and the port can revive the public acceptance of ports. It can also bring new jobs to derelict port areas. In many ports, public and private investments have been channeled to revitalize older port areas encompassing housing, hotels, maritime heritage projects, sports, recreation, tourism, and local commerce. Residential, recreational, commercial, retail, service, and tourist facilities are mixed to create **multifunctional areas** with a broad range of employment opportunities. At first glance, redeveloped docklands worldwide look very much the same. However, the objectives, approach, and focus of waterfront projects can **differ considerably**. For example, in the pioneering London Docklands scheme, the focus was on providing office accommodation. In Barcelona (Spain), the waterfront conversion project contributed to an unprecedented investment, tourism, employment, and population boom with a clear emphasis on creating leisure and shopping facilities and rearranging traffic flows. Similar redevelopment initiatives have been taken in other port cities as well, turning port areas into very attractive places for living, working, and recreation. Many [waterfront projects](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1493) bring in a **clear cultural component** through museums (e.g. the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, ‘Museum aan de Stroom’ in Antwerp), opera houses, and concert halls (e.g. Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg), and conference centers (e.g. Dalian International Conference Center in Dalian, China). The establishment of port museums often enhances the link with the maritime heritage. The new urban waterfront also provides many **service jobs** linked to bars, restaurants, convenience stores, and the usual range of services expected by the new waterfront residents. Hotels have become a prominent feature of urban waterfronts all over the world. These hotels are usually accompanied by a cluster of restaurants that look out over the water and often specialize in seafood. Increased visitor expenditure through multipliers can create **new investment and employment opportunities**. Waterfronts are also **recreation areas** with facilities for yachting harbors and marinas, watersport areas, and theme parks. Many ports provide jobs for people working in marinas, sailing schools, yacht and boat repair and maintenance yards, and similar waterfront operations. A number of ports have become turntables in the **cruise industry**, with most cruise terminals located close to the city center. Cruise vessels near the city generally reinforce the maritime link between cities and ports and are visible signs of the city’s attractiveness to tourists. Expenditure by passengers from visiting cruise ships may significantly impact the regional economy. This is most likely to occur where the port has relatively frequent visits from cruise ships and the regional economy is limited and not diversified. Cruise passengers may also spend time in the metropolitan area before or after their voyages, generating additional economic impacts through visitor expenditures. Cruise vessels calling at a port also generate jobs at the level of pilotage, tugs, provisions, fuel, crew shore leave, passenger services, inspections, immigration, hotels, restaurants, local attractions, and other visitor activities in the port area. Further employment is provided by inland transportation involving cruise passengers, including air, private car, bus, transit, taxi, and parking. Some ports (e.g. Rotterdam, Amsterdam, and Antwerp in Europe, or Chongqing, Yichang and Shanghai in China) are regular ports of call for river cruises on major rivers (respectively the Rhine and Yangtze). ![Examples of Waterfront Redevelopment Projects in Europe](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/waterfront-redevelopment.png?resize=900%2C658&ssl=1 "Examples of Waterfront Redevelopment Projects in Europe | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of Waterfront Redevelopment Projects in Europe# 3. The Greening of Ports Ports, as nodes in extensive global transport networks and intersections of supply chains covering a multitude of commodities and cargo types, create environmental impacts through their various functions. Historically, ports have been associated with industrial activities that have had notable environmental impacts, making them subject to regulation. From an environmental perspective, port planning and management increasingly align with sustainable development initiatives. The environmental sustainability of port infrastructure projects and operations has become a factor that contends with economic and financial viability. As clusters of economic actors and activities, ports have adopted an environmental role and function, thus contributing to the greening of supply chains. Terminal activities are one source of the environmental impact of seaports, which can be summarized in several categories, namely: - Pollution related to **port construction and maintenance**. - **Air emissions** related to ship operations and terminal handling equipment (such as cranes and yard equipment). - **Noise** associated with cargo handling operations. - The environmental effects and potential **congestion** associated with landside operations of barges, rail, and trucks. Environmental impacts occur at all **terminal life cycle stages**, such as planning, terminal construction, terminal operation, terminal expansion, or terminal closure and repurposing. Regarding landside operations connecting inland transport, environmental impacts caused by intermodal connections and congestion lead to adverse environmental effects. These effects vary depending on modal composition and shippers’ associated cost and transit time requirements. Other port functions generate environmental impacts, such as industrial and manufacturing activities, as well as warehousing and distribution activities. Port-related externalities impacted marine ecosystems and the urban environment. The development of a low-carbon economy is considered to be a strategy to mitigate environmental issues. ![Examples of windfarms and gas terninals in ports](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Windfarms.png?resize=900%2C372&ssl=1 "Examples of Windfarms and Gas Terminals in Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of windfarms and gas terminals in portsThe greening of ports is attracting growing attention. In business practice, this is reflected in the numerous **green initiatives** undertaken by individual ports and the coordinated actions of the broader port community. Yet, there is no universal definition of what constitutes a **green port**, or low-carbon port, which was a concept proposed at the United Nations Climate Change conference in 2009. In simple terms, it is a port that seeks to minimize its environmental impact. The green port concept is a combination of port development strategies, better resource utilization, and environmental protection, aiming to enhance the protection and promotion of the marine ecological environment, with low energy consumption, minimal pollution, and reduced waste streams. In a broader sense, the green port concept, or the sustainable and climate-friendly development of the port’s infrastructure, entails responsible behavior from all stakeholders involved in port management and operations. Therefore, each port must assess which measures align with its profile and capabilities. Large ports have resources to implement comprehensive initiatives, such as the electrification of their equipment and providing shore power. Medium-sized ports could focus more on their level of energy efficiency, some electrification, and better waste management. Small ports tend to prioritize equipment efficiency. --- # Related Topics - [i.1 Defining Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3157) - [i.2 Seaports: Economic Value](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3140) - [i.4 Emerging Issues in Ports and Maritime Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/i-4-emerging-issues-in-ports-and-maritime-shipping/) - [Chapter 2.5 Green Supply Chain Management in Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2500) - [Chapter 7.4 Port-City Relationships](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3673) --- ## References - Reference a. - Reference b. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Main East and Gulf Coasts Port Infrastructure Developments Associated with the Expansion of the Panama Canal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/east-gulf-coasts-port-infrastructure-developments-expansion-panama-canal/) **Published:** December 29, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** | **Port** | **Channel Clearance** | **Recent Port Developments** | **Recent Intermodal Projects** | |---|---|---|---| | Montreal | Dredging to keep the navigation channel at 11.3 meters | Termont Terminal (Viau) opened in 2016. Contrecoeur port project (first phase to be completed in 2024) | | | Quebec | | Quebec Container terminal project Laurentia (new post-Panamax terminal). HPH committed in 2019 to terminal development. Project suspended after environmental review. | Connectors with CN intermodal network | | Halifax | | Expansion / relocation project to Dartmouth. No specific timeline. | | | Nova Scotia | | Two mega transshipment port projects proposed; Melford and Sydney. No specific timeline. | | | Boston | Plans to dredge the channel depth from 40 to 48 feet under study (no specific timeline). | | | | New York | Harbor channels dredged to 50 feet (completed in 2014). Clearance improvement of the Bayonne Bridge (completed in 2019). | Expansion of Global Terminal completed in 2014. Delivery of 5 super-post Panamax cranes in 2015. | ExpressRail improvements (South Hudson Intermodal Facility). Crescent Corridor (CSX). | | Philadelphia | Dredging of the Delaware River channel from 40 to 45 feet (completed in 2019). | Development of South Terminal, a new container terminal (no specific timeline) | | | Baltimore | No plans (currently at 50 feet since 2012). Plans to dredge several berths to 50 feet (no timeline specified). | 4 super-post Panamax cranes installed in 2013 at Seagirt Marine Terminal. | National Gateway Project (CSX). | | Hampton Roads | Authorization to dredge from the current draft of 50 feet to 55 feet (no specific timeline). | Virginia International Gateway expansion, doubling capacity (completed in 2019). Craney Island Eastward Expansion project (first phase to open by 2025). | National Gateway Project (CSX). Heartland Corridor (NS). | | Wilmington, NC | Plans to dredge the port channel from 42 to 44 feet (to start in 2020). | | National Gateway Project (CSX). | | Charleston | Dredging the port channel from 45 to 52 feet (Started in 2018 and completed in 2022). | | South Carolina Inland Port (NS) (opened in 2013). Palmetto Railways Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF). | | Savannah | Dredging the port channel from 42 to 47 feet (completed in 2022). | Construction of a new terminal gate (completed in 2016). 8 super-post Panamax cranes to be purchased. | | | Jacksonville | Plans to dredge from the current draft of 40 feet to 47 feet (stated in 2018). | New container facility at Dames Point opened in 2009. | Dames Point Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (CSX) (completed in 2015). | | Everglades | Plans to dredge from the current draft of 42 feet to 48 feet. (expected to begin in 2019). | Plans to purchase 5 post Panamax cranes between 2019 and 2034. | Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (CSX) (completed in 2014). | | Miami | Harbor channel dredged from 42 to 50 feet (completed in 2014). | 7 super-post Panamax cranes installed in 2013. | PortMiami tunnel (completed in 2014). PortMiami-Florida East Coast (FEC) Railway connection (completed in 2014). | | Mobile | Plans to dredge harbor channel from 45 to 50 feet (no timeline specified). | | Intermodal rail terminal adjacent to port planned (no specific timeline). | | Gulfport | Dredging to maintain to a draft of 36 feet. | Expansion of the container terminal facility completed in 2018 | Inland Port Facility | | New Orleans | Plans to dredge harbor channel from 45 to 50 feet (no timeline specified). | New Louisiana International Gulf Transfer Terminal (no specific timeline). | Crescent Corridor (CSX). | | Houston | Plans to dredge access channels to main container terminals from 40 to 45 feet (completed in 2016). Further widening started in 2019. | Bayport and Barbour Cuts terminal improvements. | Broadway Second Main Track project (completed in 2019) | *Source: Web Sites and press releases of port authorities. Infrastructure projects were retained on the ground of their potential relation with the Panama Canal expansion. Rodrigue, J-P and T. Notteboom (2015) “The Legacy and Future of the Panama Canal: From Point of Transit to Transshipment Hub”, TR News 296.* When the expansion of the Panama Canal was announced in 2007, decision-makers at most American East and Gulf Coast ports started to consider their readiness to accommodate the expected larger ships. Many concluded that their current infrastructure capacity and performance would place them at a competitive disadvantage and that the West Coast could regain some of the market shares they had lost because they could benefit from economies of scale. These assessments spurred the design, planning, and implementation of a variety of projects to improve port infrastructure, which fall into three main categories; channel clearance, port infrastructure, and hinterland access. #### Channel Clearance Channel and harbor clearance mostly involves dredging projects to accommodate larger ships with wider and deeper channels. Wherever possible, dredging aims to reach a reference depth of 50 feet (15.2 meters), matching the draft of NeoPanamax ships. Dredging is the infrastructure project most directly associated with the canal expansion because most East and Gulf Coast ports are Panamax ports and can accommodate drafts of approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters; Figure 14), allowing them to receive post-Panamax ships under specific conditions such as partially loaded ships or during high tide. There is thus an ongoing effort to dredge several key East and Gulf Coast ports to Post-Panamax standards and preferably to meet the NeoPanamax standard of about 48 feet (14.6 meters). Further, a new generation of wide bottom post-Panamax containerships is being introduced. They have fewer draft restrictions but are wider and thus require cranes that have a wider span. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for dredging port access channels. As a result, ports have engaged in intense competition and lobbying to secure funding for dredging projects. Several of the largest port authorities were able to secure sufficient funding, but many have had to raise additional sums through local state support (most port authorities are owned by state governments). Nevertheless, many of the dredging projects have been delayed or with no specific timeline, reflecting the uncertainty of public funding and what economic benefits can be expected from committing to costly dredging projects. #### Port Developments The expected growth in cargo to be handled, as well as in container volumes per port call, has incited terminal improvement projects, including the purchase of new yard equipment, expansion of storage space, investment in information technologies, and improvements in gate operations. Several ports are pushing for full and partial automation as a strategy to handle the activity surges that are associated with larger containerships. Some piers were expanded and strengthened to accommodate the longer ships. Nevertheless, attributing port infrastructure projects to the Panama Canal expansion is not always straightforward. Many of the projects may be standard improvements or planned maintenance that would have occurred without the expansion. #### Intermodal Developments The North American rail transport system has a high level of geographical specialization, with large rail carriers (Class 1) servicing substantial regional markets. Each carrier has its own facilities and, thus its own markets along the segments it controls. Infrastructure improvements for hinterland access include better road and rail connections, as well as new or improved intermodal yards. The two Class 1 rail operators on the East Coast have launched the most salient rail corridor initiatives—the CSX National Gateway Project and Norfolk Southern’s Heartland Corridor project are direct improvements to the hinterland access of the East and Gulf Coast ports, offering more efficient double-stacking services and intermodal yards. These projects, however, represent market-servicing strategies that are justifiable without the Panama Canal expansion. Nevertheless, the expansion has provided a context for presenting and justifying many of these infrastructure projects. A particular driver has been the setting on inland terminal facilities (inland ports) connected to a port terminal through a rail corridor. The expectations are that the expansion of the Panama Canal and its associated shipping cost reductions would increase the hinterland of East Coast ports. The first direct effect is it allows the East Coast rail system (NS and CSX) to increase competitiveness along their networks. In this context, the demarcation line between hinterlands would approximately range north-south from Chicago to New Orleans, which corresponds to their network ownership. However, limited evidence is available so far concerning the impact of the expansion of the market areas of railways, mostly because their rate structure is confidential. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/east-gulf-coasts-port-infrastructure-developments-expansion-panama-canal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/east-gulf-coasts-port-infrastructure-developments-expansion-panama-canal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/east-gulf-coasts-port-infrastructure-developments-expansion-panama-canal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/east-gulf-coasts-port-infrastructure-developments-expansion-panama-canal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Port as a Value Proposition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/port-value-proposition/) **Published:** December 23, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_value_proposition.png?resize=900%2C438&ssl=1 "The Port as a Value Proposition | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Port as a Value Proposition*Source: adapted from Notteboom, T. and W. Winkelmans (2003) “Dealing with stakeholders in the port planning process”, in Dullaert, W., B. Jourquin and J. Polak (eds), Across the border: building upon a quarter of a century of transport research in the Benelux (Antwerp: De Boeck), pp. 249-265.* A port generally offers a value proposition to its region by conferring economic and social benefits. The value proposition of a port for its main stakeholders (**stakeholder value**) is a combination of its economic, social, and environmental value. The economic value is often expressed as the direct and indirect economic benefits of ports, including employment and support for economic activities. This focuses on the competitiveness of the port in attracting and retaining traffic, which implies a **commercial port**. The economic value of a port can be accounted for with monetary values, including the value of the cargo handled, the operating revenue, and the port-related transactions of connected activities. Social value is complex to assess, as it extends beyond the provision of employment and encompasses forms of community support that link commercial responsibility (to shareholders) to social acceptability and accountability. A **social port** is viewed as a generator of employment and a source of public-sector tax revenue. Although direct employment and taxation revenue can be accounted for, other social impact aspects, such as community relations, are much more subjective. Since the port is at the interface between land and maritime ecosystems, it is perceived to have an environmental value. Many port-related activities and developments have significant environmental impacts, such as dredging (and the disposal of dredging materials), the loss of coastal and wetlands ecosystems, air and water pollution, congestion on local roads, loss of seafront space, and light and noise externalities, as well as involvement in potential conflicts with commercial fishing and recreational uses. Under such circumstances, the port is a **natural park** aiming at mitigating environmental issues. While several environmental externalities can be accounted for, such as noise levels, air quality, and emissions of pollutants, their value is subjective. While the economic value of a port is usually well recognized, its social value can be mitigated, and its environmental value is subject to controversy. Ports are facing increasing pressure to demonstrate their value proposition beyond the economic value of a commercial port by incorporating environmental performance to ensure community support. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/port-value-proposition/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/port-value-proposition/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/port-value-proposition/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/port-value-proposition/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Global Hierarchy of Container Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/global-hierarchy-container-ports/) **Published:** January 9, 2026 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/hierarchy_container_ports.png?resize=900%2C419&ssl=1 "Global Hierarchy of Container Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Hierarchy of Container Ports*Source: UNCTAD.* The hierarchy of ports is often measured by the amount of traffic they respectively handle, with larger ports expected to rank higher, which is also referred to as a rank-size distribution. Still, the ordering of the ports also reveals another dimension of this hierarchy: the level of concentration. A hierarchy is usually not uniformly distributed; as ports grow more important, the benefits are commonly not linear. They accrue to a small number of ports that gain primacy since site, situation, and economic opportunities are not uniform. For instance, the top 10 container ports accounted for 32.8% of the global container throughput in 2023, underlining a high level of concentration. Together, the top 50 container ports account for 64.8% of global throughput. A similar pattern applies to the [liner shipping connectivity index](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/country-port-level-liner-shipping-connectivity-index/ "Country and Port Level Liner Shipping Connectivity Index") (LSCI), but with a lower level of concentration. While the top 10 container ports account for close to one-third of the throughput, they account for less than 15% of the connectivity. This implies that connectivity has a non-linear relation with throughput, with increasing marginal benefits. Still, the top 50 ports account for 48.2% of the total connectivity. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/global-hierarchy-container-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/global-hierarchy-container-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/global-hierarchy-container-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/global-hierarchy-container-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [World’s Largest Coastal Cities, 2025](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/worlds-largest-coastal-cities/) **Published:** November 26, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Largest-Cities-Coastal2.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "World’s Largest Coastal Cities, 2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Largest Coastal Cities 2025*Source: United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects 2018.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Largest-Cities-Coastal-1.pdf) The geography of cities underlines a strong propensity to locate along the coastline, a pattern associated with several factors. Many coastal areas, particularly deltas, are alluvial plains suitable for agriculture and, therefore, for population concentrations. Coastal access is associated with access to trade networks, which historically played an important role, as maritime transportation was the least expensive for trade over long distances. The growth of transoceanic trade from the 16th century allowed for the setting up of colonial gateways along the coastline of the Americas, Africa, and Oceania. It stimulated a rebalancing from the hinterland to the coast, a process that expanded in the 20th century with the surge in international trade and containerization. Of the 513 cities with populations above 1 million in 2025, 271 (52.8%) were located within 100 km of a coastline. This accounts for 58.5% of the global urban population. This pattern is representative of a high level of concentration of urban activities. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/worlds-largest-coastal-cities/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/worlds-largest-coastal-cities/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/worlds-largest-coastal-cities/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/worlds-largest-coastal-cities/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 0.2 - Seaports and the Blue Economy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/) **Published:** November 10, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Theo Notteboom, Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > Seaports play a strategic role in supporting the blue economy as they can serve economic catalysts, generate added value and cluster supporting economic activities. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Ports as Economic Catalysts](#1_Ports_as_Economic_Catalysts) - [2. Ports and Economic Change](#2_Ports_and_Economic_Change) - [3. Ports as Generators of Added Value and Employment](#3_Ports_as_Generators_of_Added_Value_and_Employment) - [4. The Strategic Value of Ports](#4_The_Strategic_Value_of_Ports) - [5. From Cargo Handling to Clusters in Global Supply Chains](#5_From_Cargo_Handling_to_Clusters_in_Global_Supply_Chains) # 1. Ports as Economic Catalysts For centuries, the oceans have been used for fishing, transport, and trade, but this use remained relatively marginal compared to the bulk of human activities. With globalization, economic growth, and technological innovation, the usage of the oceans for economic purposes has increased substantially, driven by the development of a global [maritime industry](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/elements-maritime-industry/ "Elements of the Maritime Industry"). The term **ocean economy** is often used to characterize the wide range of activities related to the exploitation of maritime resources (such as food and energy) or the use of the ocean for transport and commercial purposes. The general purpose is to use maritime resources to add value. The term **[blue economy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/the-blue-economy/ "The Blue Economy")** is becoming more common as it expands the concept of the sustainable use of the oceans and the increasing role of information technologies, for which ports play the following roles: - **Harvesting of living resources**. Fishing ports are important nodes in the collection of ocean living resources, including adjacent processing facilities (storage, freezing, canneries). This has further been expanded with the development of aquaculture, requiring servicing ports to act as input providers (feed and equipment). - **Extraction of non-living resources**. Conventionally, ports acted as resource and energy transformation platforms. For instance, the world’s largest petrochemical hubs are all port complexes (e.g. Singapore, Ulsan, Houston, Rotterdam). Similar observations apply to mineral and coal complexes. The development of renewable energy has led to new opportunities for ports, serving as procurement and maintenance platforms, particularly for offshore wind farms. - **Maritime trade and commerce**. The core value of ports in the blue economy is supporting trade flows and an ecosystem of related activities (warehousing, manufacturing, and distribution) for which container ports are salient. The recreational function of ports is also significant, with harbors being subject to redevelopment (housing, commercial, museums), or acting as marinas and ports of call for cruises. As they can represent a substantial economic investment, ports are expected to provide enough value to justify these investments. Ports are viewed as **economic catalysts for the regions they serve,** with two distinct approaches that can be followed for this evaluation: 1. The first is to measure the **economic significance of ports** via distinct economic and financial parameters. 2. The second approach is of a more qualitative nature and tries to evaluate the **significance and value of seaports for the economic development and performance of their market**. These strategic aspects are difficult to quantify but deserve attention. An extensive range of [potential indicators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2734) exists to measure the economic contribution of ports. Some are expressed in absolute figures, while others are expressed in relative terms. The most significant **economic indicators** (the port as a factor of added value and growth) include: - **Gross value-added**. Provides an insight into the contribution of port activity to the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) or GRP (Gross Regional Product) in a given time period (often annually). This added value can be complex to evaluate, as ports directly impact activities connected to them, and without them, the port could not function effectively. There is also a range of indirect impacts on the entire ecosystem of economic activities that may interact with those directly related to the port. As international trade grew, the indirect impacts of ports on national and regional economies became increasingly important. - **Employment**. Mainly expressed in full-time equivalents (FTEs) and provides insight into how port activities contribute to employment creation. In most cases, a snapshot is taken once a year to provide the total employment or port activities. As with added value, a wide range of employment is indirectly related to port activities. - **Trade volumes and values**. Provide insight into the importance of ports in international trade. Traffic direction can also be considered since several ports dominate export platforms while others focus on imports. In these cases, the same volume and trade composition can support different economic structures. The most significant **financial indicators** (the port as a source of revenue and investment) include: - **Fiscal revenue**. Indicates how port activities contribute to the taxation income within their jurisdictions, ranging from national to municipal governments. This is particularly relevant to justify the public expenses supporting port activities, particularly infrastructure. - **Investments**. Done by the public and private sectors in port activities over a given period. Port superstructure and infrastructure are capital-intensive and require constant maintenance. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/elements_maritime_industry3.png?resize=900%2C449&ssl=1 "Elements of the Maritime Industry | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Elements of the Maritime Industry![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/blue_economy2.png?resize=900%2C517&ssl=1 "The Blue Economy | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Blue Economy![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/economic_significance_ports.png?resize=900%2C417&ssl=1 "The Economic Significance of Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Economic Significance of Ports# 2. Ports and Economic Change A port generally offers a [value proposition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=194) to its region since it confers **economic and social benefits**, but it is also subject to environmental constraints. Significant increases in port throughput, particularly in the containerized sector, have put pressure on developing new port infrastructures in existing facilities, and on entirely new developments when additional capacity cannot be developed on existing sites or when new commercial opportunities emerge. Ports are capital-intensive infrastructures that are associated with a wide array of economic impacts. This is particularly apparent because port development and world trade are closely interrelated. There are numerous expectations in the public sector, which often provide substantial capital investments (through the port authority or general funds), to see concrete and measurable economic impacts and benefits resulting from these investments. However, the existing literature on the formal impacts of ports on regional development is relatively scarce. Evidence is usually related to a single port over a narrow range of impacts, making general assessments difficult to achieve. Still, there is evidence that for each dollar of cargo handled by a port, three to five dollars of additional manufacturing output are generated, implying an **economic multiplier effect** ranging from 3 to 5. Economic impacts concern the wide range of changes brought by **infrastructure investment projects**, while economic benefits tend to be directly measurable in monetary terms. However, many of these impacts can only be observed after the investments have been made and the benefits measured. An ex-ante (forecasting) exercise is hazardous and commonly leads to inaccurate assessments. Port forecast models are rarely accurate. The bottom line is that estimation of the economic impacts of port investments is an inexact field, which focuses on the effectiveness of transport infrastructure as a catalyst for indirect and induced benefits. Further, these investments are contingent on the [scale and scope of changes they generate](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=928 "Functional and Spatial Development of a Seaport"). Among the most relevant changes that have impacted ports and maritime transport are: - **Economic changes**. Seaborne trade has increased substantially, in part because of the massive redistribution of manufacturing to low-cost locations (outsourcing) and in part because of ongoing economic growth. This underlines the growing importance of logistics for organizing the resulting complex distribution system. The [global evolution of container ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1119 "Evolution of Traffic Handled by Container Ports, 1980-2010"), particularly their differential growth rates, is indicative of the driving force of offshoring and regional economic development. - **Technical changes**. The growth in ship size to better achieve economies of scale has been a prevalent technical change, particularly since the 1990s, when post-Panamax containerships were first deployed at a large scale. A growing level of ship specialization (containerships, bulk carriers, car carriers, and even cruise ships) requires dedicated port terminal facilities. A more recent trend concerns automation, which has been putting pressure on ports to upgrade and improve their facilities. - **Organizational changes**. The maritime and port industry is increasingly controlled by large shipping companies and terminal operators that have engaged in strategic alliances as well as mergers and acquisitions. Their goal is to provide a level of vertical and horizontal integration that improves the performance of the port transport chain. A number of ports have been able to set up inland terminals. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_value_proposition.png?resize=900%2C438&ssl=1 "The Port as a Value Proposition | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Port as a Value Proposition![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/functional_spatial_development_seaport.png?resize=900%2C364&ssl=1 "Functional and Spatial Development of a Seaport | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Functional and Spatial Development of a Seaport![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Container-Evolution-1980-2010.png?resize=900%2C446&ssl=1 "Evolution of Traffic Handled by Container Ports, 1980-2010 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Evolution of Traffic Handled by Container Ports 1970 2020These changes have involved port developments that are more **capital-intensive** while relying on **less labor** and consuming **more land**. Ports have felt the imperatives of maritime shipping companies as they increasingly compete to attract traffic, particularly since hinterlands tend to be more contested. The industry expects lower tariffs and lower port times in the context of a highly competitive environment and low profit margins. Ports acting in a monopolistic fashion find themselves with less leverage, negatively impacting their activity and regional economies. The spatial framework of the port is also changing. Many port areas have seen the **relocation of port industries to new sites**, either within the region or to another country altogether. These changes have been associated with a dislocation of the relationships of many ports with their localities and regions. While the port remains a strategic infrastructure, its economic benefits are less directly apparent within the community, with weaker but more complex relations at the regional versus global levels. Furthermore, ports serve various economic functions, including gateways and transshipment hubs, each with distinct locational characteristics. The impacts of port infrastructure investments are expected to influence port throughput and local economic development positively. However, evidence from around the world indicates that this influence is weak, with elasticity levels between throughput and employment typically less than 0.05 jobs per 100 tons. This implies that growth in traffic volumes is not associated with significant direct gains in employment. This elasticity is among the weakest in the transport sector, particularly compared to airports, which are the infrastructure with the highest elasticity. Still, the employment impacts of ports are positive and are usually higher for the service sector than for the industrial sector. Empirical evidence underlines that port infrastructure investment projects foster economic development and are important when a port is nearing its operational capacity. Under such circumstances, the lack of investments will lead to additional externalities, namely congestion, which will undermine the competitiveness of a whole region, if not a nation. # 3. Ports as Generators of Added Value and Employment The first approach asserts that ports contribute to the **generation of socio-economic benefits and wealth**, particularly direct and indirect added value and employment. The external spill-over effects of ports can be substantial. Simultaneously, the economic effects of seaport activities are no longer limited to the local environment. They are increasingly spread over a much wider geographical area and among a large number of international players. In other words, the economic benefits of port activities are expanding from the local port system toward a much larger economic system. The geographical dispersion of economic effects is apparent when a port has limited local added-value activities linked to transit cargo with a limited local industrial and logistics cluster. In that case, the employment effect is limited to cargo flows transiting the port, mainly in cargo handling, ship services, and inland transport operations. The changing distribution of benefits is also illustrated by the **development of logistics zones** in the vicinity of seaports (port-centric) or inland locations along the main corridors towards the hinterland. This trend has been supported by growing containerization and intermodal transport systems. In many cases, these logistics sites and zones generate considerable economic benefits by providing low-end and high-end value-added logistics services (VALS) to cargo and using ports only as points of transit. Low-end activities may involve storage, packaging, labeling, handling, and transportation, while high-end activities may involve customization, customs and trade documentation, and quality control. However, it is unlikely that these sites and zones would have developed if it were not for seaports. Policymakers and public authorities typically approach the macroeconomic impacts of ports from a national or regional **competitiveness perspective**. The impacts of ports on competitiveness are twofold. First, it allows **access** to markets and resources that would otherwise not be readily available. Second, the performance of ports influences the **cost structure and availability** of goods. Most available reports and figures on the economic impact of seaports focus on national or regional effects. Ports impact the broader economic landscape and international trade and are part of national economic development strategies. While the regional effects of port-related benefits can be substantial, including in more distant hinterlands, policymakers focus on maximizing economic benefits for the local or regional communities under their jurisdiction. The main port development objective is to provide infrastructure for the local, regional, or national interest at the lowest combined cost to the port and its users. From a macroeconomic perspective, seaports are typically important **generators of employment**. The employment effects of a port activity usually extend beyond the initial round of employment generated by that activity. The extent of the employment effects of ports is affected by the composition of the economy that is being analyzed. The international nature of port and shipping activities and the characteristics of global supply chains make the employment effects of port activities typically extend beyond the local level to a regional or even supranational level. For instance, shipping lines operate on a global scale with related employment effects, such as for ship crews. On a local scale, they might generate employment via their liner shipping agencies in the ports of call. Employment related to ship management, container fleet management, and investment and commercial strategies is usually concentrated in global or regional headquarters. The same applies to global container terminal operators such as PSA (headquartered in Singapore), Hutchison Ports (Hong Kong), DP World (Dubai), or APM Terminals (The Hague). While these companies generate many operational jobs at the local port level, they keep some activities centralized in global or regional headquarters, such as equipment purchases and research and development. Terminal operators might purchase terminal equipment from foreign suppliers, such as Kalmar (headquartered in Helsinki) or ZPMC (headquartered in Shanghai). For a particular port activity, the flow-on employment effects on the national or international economy will generally be larger than those on the regional economy. # 4. The Strategic Value of Ports By providing cost-efficient, reliable, and frequent connections to overseas and inland markets, seaports play an essential role in **facilitating trade and increasing the competitiveness** of the markets they serve. This strategic value manifests itself in different ways: - The **proximity of efficient seaports** can be an important factor in the location decisions of firms. - The **availability of a competitive seaport system** can reduce the total logistics costs for firms located in the region. - **Seaports can substantially contribute to the international competitiveness of firms**, mainly through existing innovation and advanced business networks and management. A variety of indicators compare countries across economic performance criteria. Among the most influential: - The **[Economic Complexity Index](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2799)** (ECI) of the Observatory of Economic Complexity underlines the diversity and complexity of national exports. It is a strong indicator of the range of cargoes that a port system will handle. Complex economic systems have a strong container trade segment, while simple economic systems tend to rely on bulk. - There are also assessments focusing on logistics performance, such as the **[Logistics Performance Index](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2789)** (LPI) released by the World Bank, where the availability of efficient seaports supports a higher score. - The **[Liner Shipping Connectivity Index](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1633)** (LSCI) released by UNCTAD incorporates many port-related characteristics related to the connectivity of port systems, such as the number of shipping lines offering services to the national port system and the largest ship sizes. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-ECI-Trade-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Economic Complexity Index (ECI) – Trade, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Economic Complexity Index ECI Trade 2023![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-LPI-2023.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Logistic Performance Index, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Logistic Performance Index 2023![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-LSCI-2024.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Country and Port Level Liner Shipping Connectivity Index, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Country and Port Level Liner Shipping Connectivity Index**Good infrastructure** and **high accessibility or connectivity** are increasingly becoming basic requirements for competitiveness. For high-income economies, innovation and advanced production factors become essential to remain competitive. This also alters the strategic role of seaports. Instead of just ensuring connectivity to overseas and inland markets, seaports also play a role as innovation centers. A port is no longer a quayside area where cargo is simply shifted from land to sea. It has become a vital link in global supply chains and international transport networks. By striving for competitiveness and efficiency improvements, seaports can become drivers of innovation. This sense of innovation is strengthened by port cluster management that enhances knowledge exchanges among organizations within and outside the cluster. Through clustering, a knowledge spill-over is created, increasing innovation and added value. Ports can be sources of **innovation, productivity enhancements, and strategic cooperation** through the presence of large multinational firms, leading firms, and clusters of related and supporting industries. Ports can also enhance specialization, innovation, and productivity improvements through cooperation with other logistics hubs in the region. This is especially relevant in the context of the challenges posed by major transitions in the field of [digitalization](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/), [energy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/), [sustainability](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/), and [safety and security](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/). Finally, ports can help support the diffusion of competencies and the further gathering of knowledge in port management and logistics. Next to pure economic arguments, these more strategic aspects should be considered when evaluating port development plans. The importance of a port to a regional, national, or supranational economy is greater than shown by measures of direct and indirect value-added and employment. For example, a 2015 study estimated the strategic value of the seaport system in Belgium at € 45 billion, or 60% more than reported in the annual port economic impact studies by the National Bank of Belgium. # 5. From Cargo Handling to Clusters in Global Supply Chains Seaports can also be analyzed using a microeconomic approach in terms of activities they perform, with the related revenue and added value. Port operations are usually oriented towards the [two traditional components](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2749 "Transport and Cargo Handling Functions of a Port") of ships and cargo. - **Services to ships** include those performed at the sea or waterways side (dredging, pilotage, mooring/unmooring) and the ship/shore interface (berthing, repair and maintenance, supply, and bunkering). - **Services to cargo** can be divided into those performed at the ship/shore interface (stowing, loading, discharging) and those entirely performed in land-side areas such as consolidation, storage, and distribution. Services to passengers are a more marginal function taking place in ports supporting ferry operations and, more recently, in ports hosting cruises. Key in this approach are the concepts of **efficiency**, **performance**, and **sustainability** at the operational level, such as for a firm or a terminal. It underlines that corporations and their terminals are the relevant units of analysis when analyzing or assessing port competition. While transit, transport, and cargo handling are the rationale for ports, seaport functions have evolved and become **diverse in scope and nature**. The complexity of seaports goes beyond the loading and discharging of vessels along the quay. Fundamental economic and technological change processes have broadened and deepened seaport functions, adding to their traditional role of transhipping and storing goods. After the Second World War, the industrial function of ports grew rapidly. Some seaports have grown out to become **industrial complexes** comprising a large number of related industrial activities, the so-called maritime industrial development areas (MIDA). More recently, the **logistical function of seaports** has received attention. The increasing importance of integrating ports and terminals in value-driven supply chains has increased the focus on creating added value linked to cargo passing through the port. The gateway position of major seaports offers opportunities to enhance VALS by integrating the production and distribution chain. By offering VALS, ports aim to attract a large portion of the value-added creation within product chains. Modern seaports have evolved from pure cargo handling centers to a function in a logistics system. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/transport_cargo_handling_ports.png?resize=900%2C512&ssl=1 "Transport and Cargo Handling Functions of a Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Transport and Cargo Handling Functions of a Port![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_cluster_activities.png?resize=900%2C392&ssl=1 "Ports as Clusters of Economic Activity | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ports as Clusters of Economic ActivityThe competitiveness of ports can be better understood by following a supply chain approach. Ports compete not as individual places that handle ships but as crucial links within global supply chains. Port and route selection criteria are related to the entire network in which the port is just one node. The selected ports help **minimize the sum of sea, port, and inland costs**, including inventory and quality considerations of shippers. Port choice becomes more of a function of the overall network cost and performance. With the cooperation of various service providers, a well-coordinated logistics and distribution function at seaports facilitates the integration of ports into advanced logistical and distributional networks through a new range of high-quality, value-adding services. At the intermediate level, ports are often considered **clusters (or ecosystems) of firms and economic activities**. They typically consist of geographically concentrated and mutually related firms centered around transport, trade, and industrial production. Port clusters (ecosystems) exhibit strong scale and scope advantages linked to physical cargo flows. The concentration of activities opens more opportunities for bundling cargo flows via intermodal transport (shortsea, barge, or rail) and achieving higher connectivity to the foreland via frequent transport services. Port clusters (ecosystems) can be home to [a wide range of activities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=258) leading to their functional specialization and identity, such as petrochemical clusters. While industrial activities in ports are often associated with negative effects in terms of emissions and noise pollution, port clusters (ecosystems) can exert strong environmental advantages. For example, “**ecologies of scale**” are achieved in the petrochemical industry by utilizing waste materials such as sulfur or by-products like heat. These forms of industrial symbiosis would be difficult to achieve if the concerned plants were spatially scattered. Ecologies of scale advantages are increasingly being acknowledged in environmental policy. Successful port clusters might also face some challenges, mainly in terms of accessibility (congestion) and higher land costs. --- ## Related Topics - [i.1 Defining Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3157) - [i.3 Seaports: Social and Environmental Value](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3151) - [i.4 Emerging Issues in Ports and Maritime Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/i-4-emerging-issues-in-ports-and-maritime-shipping/) - [Chapter 1.1 Maritime Shipping and International Trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=147) - [Chapter 2.1 The Changing Geography of Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=312) - [Chapter 7.2 Ports and Economic Development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7/port-and-economic-development/) --- ## References - European Commission (2025). The EU Blue Economy Report. 2025. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Economic Complexity Index (ECI) – Trade, 2023](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-competitiveness-index/) **Published:** October 27, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-ECI-Trade-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Economic Complexity Index (ECI) – Trade, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Economic Complexity Index ECI Trade 2023*Source: Observatory of Economic Complexity.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-ECI-Trade-1.pdf) The Economic Complexity Index (ECI) – Trade measures the complexity (or sophistication) of a nation’s export structure. It is estimated from the standard deviation of the global average of trade diversity (number of different product classes) and ubiquity (number of other countries exporting the same product class). A high ECI indicates that a nation’s export structure is complex and diverse. The port system supporting such a structure involves multifunctional ports with a proponderance of container shipping. A low ECI indicates a limited variety of exports, often concerning raw materials, that are handled in bulk by monofunctional ports that are dominated by unidirectional (exports) flows. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-competitiveness-index/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-competitiveness-index/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-competitiveness-index/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-competitiveness-index/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 11.4 - Port Safety, Security, and Cybersecurity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/) **Published:** July 26, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Theo Notteboom, Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > Ports have to play a more active role in increasing security, tackling crime and cybersecurity. These developments tie in with the primary functioning of ports as international hubs for the flow of goods and information. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Typology of Crime Affecting Ports](#1_Typology_of_Crime_Affecting_Ports) - [2. Tackling Security in Ports](#2_Tackling_Security_in_Ports) - [3. Ports and Military Defense](#3_Ports_and_Military_Defense) - [4. Cybersecurity and Ports](#4_Cybersecurity_and_Ports) - [5. Safety Issues at Ports](#5_Safety_Issues_at_Ports) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Typology of Crime Affecting Ports Ports are potential targets for crime because of their **strategic role** in international trade and logistics. Organized crime has increasingly integrated maritime domains, including ports, into its strategic operations. Illicit cargo, including drugs, typically enters ports concealed within contaminated containers or is transported via merchant vessels operating in seaports. With the globalization of markets and the growing maritime dimension of international trade, drug trafficking has undergone a process whereby maritime routes have become central to its logistics. Illicit trade via ports poses significant threats to the **safety, security, and quality of life** in port areas and adjacent urban environments. Ports serve as transshipment zones where goods are temporarily stored and redirected from maritime to land-based routes. The vast scale of containerized trade offers substantial concealment opportunities, thereby facilitating the undetected movement of any illicit trade. Sophisticated cartels employ economic and strategic intelligence capabilities to conduct real-time risk assessments related to specific maritime routes, vessels, containers, and port sequences. The expanding popularity of recreational cruising and yachting presents additional maritime avenues for discreet intercontinental trafficking. Smaller marinas, dispersed along coastlines, can function as operational nodes for semi-sophisticated networks involved in narcotics distribution. In such scenarios, recreational vessels serve as inconspicuous containers, while boaters may be co-opted as unintentional facilitators or willing participants in illegal activities. In this context, ports are **points of convergence for strategic interests and focal points of tensions.** Infiltration in the port economy is achieved by gaining access to information on containers, ships, vulnerable personnel, and physical assets. The high number of small companies, unskilled labor, and low technological development all facilitate such access. Small-scale infiltration occurs within specific groups of dockers for a particular job. Higher infiltration occurs with port-facility managers. The first group of criminal activities in ports focuses on **the trafficking of illicit or counterfeit goods**. This includes: - **Illicit goods**. Ports can be used to export or import goods deemed illicit by global or national organizations (e.g., customs). This may include stolen goods, such as cars, as well as embargoed goods that, under normal circumstances, would be part of regular trade networks. This is particularly the case for commodities, such as oil or grains, that may be embargoed due to a conflict or geopolitical tensions, and for which ports can serve as illicit distribution platforms. - **Drug trafficking**. Ports are major entry and exit points for illegal drugs, often hidden within shipping containers or other bulk cargo. Drug cartels may bribe or intimidate port officials, customs agents, dock workers, or security personnel to help drugs pass through undetected, or to facilitate the collection of drugs in port areas. - **Trafficking of counterfeit goods**. Ports are common entry points for smuggling counterfeit goods, including fake luxury items, pharmaceuticals, electronics, and industrial products. These goods infringe on intellectual property rights, allowing organized crime groups to profit from pirated or cloned products. Counterfeit goods, particularly in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, toys, and automotive parts, pose significant risks to consumer safety and health. - **Arms trafficking**. Ports can be used as entry points for illegal weapons and ammunition, often concealed within regular shipments. This includes firearms, explosives, and military-grade weaponry. The traffickers might rely on forged shipping documents to obscure the contents of containers. Smuggled weapons typically end up in the hands of terrorist organizations or organized crime groups. When regional conflicts arise (e.g., the Ukraine War), the parties involved often try to get access to as many weapon supplies as possible, leading to trafficking. - **Illegal wildlife and fish trafficking**. Ports could be used for trafficking endangered wildlife and illegal animal products, like ivory or exotic pets. Ports might also be confronted with the illegal fishing industry, where illegally caught fish are brought ashore using forged documentation to disguise their origin. - **Waste trafficking**. Hazardous waste, such as toxic materials, is often illegally exported to countries with looser environmental regulations, with organized crime groups exploiting ports to circumvent laws. Next to cargo trafficking, ports might be used for **human trafficking and smuggling**, especially of undocumented migrants, often in dangerous conditions. Human traffickers sometimes bribe or coerce dockworkers and other port workers to allow unauthorized individuals onto vessels or cargo areas. Ports might also see the trafficking of individuals for forced labor or sexual exploitation, often involving vulnerable populations and linked to forced labor in the fishing and cargo shipping industries. Ports are also vulnerable to **cargo theft**. Criminal networks often target high-value cargo such as electronics, luxury goods, pharmaceuticals, cars, and consumer products. Cargo theft often involves inside knowledge, with criminals bribing or collaborating with port workers or truck drivers. In extreme cases, criminals may hijack trucks or other transport modes as they leave ports, or even intercept entire containers before they reach their final destination. Port operations can be affected by **sabotage** that disrupts logistics and causes economic harm. Sabotage can come from military opponents, paramilitary organizations, or terrorist groups. They may also use ports to smuggle weapons, explosives, chemical agents, or other dangerous materials. At the corporate level, port activities could be deployed in **Trade-Based Money Laundering (TBML) schemes**, where companies use ports to launder money by manipulating shipping documents, invoices, and the valuation of goods. Criminals might even set up shell companies in or outside port areas to create fake cargo shipments, which can facilitate the movement of illicit funds. Corporations may also underreport the value of goods to evade customs duties and taxes, causing significant revenue losses for governments. By misclassifying cargo or relying on forged documents and permits, corporations can exploit lower tax rates or circumvent import restrictions. With the increasing digitalization and heightened security situation worldwide, the risk of cyberattacks is also on the rise. These can involve cyberattacks on port infrastructure, data theft and manipulation, as well as phishing and fraud schemes. Actors in the port ecosystem must, therefore, increasingly invest in cybersecurity to protect their systems and data against attacks that can disrupt operations. **Criminal governance** of port activities is a different type of criminal activity in ports. It can influence public administration decisions regarding spatial planning, secure advantages from regional companies through work assignments, disbursements, labor, or extortion, and fraudulently obtain public funding contributions and financial facilities, or procure unjust benefits for selected stakeholders. Targeting either illicit trade or capturing the governance of ports via various tactics, [organized crime groups pose a significant threat to port performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/impact-of-organised-crime-on-port-performance/) by exerting disruptive influence across policy, economic, and operational domains. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/organized_crime_port_performance.png?resize=900%2C451&ssl=1 "The Impact of Organized Crime on Port Performance | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The impact of Organized Crime on port performance# 2. Tackling Security in Ports There is a strong culture of security in ports that originates from the need to protect against cargo theft. Most ports have their own police and security forces. However, after the events of September 11, 2001, this culture expanded substantially to include the physical protection of terminal facilities against unauthorized entry and intentional damage, particularly in the United States. In the 2010s, this culture expanded again to include cybersecurity concerns. The above highlights that ports are continually adapting to evolving security concerns and shifting threats. Organized crime has **negative impacts on ports and their surroundings**. Criminal activities can lead to **disruptions in global supply chains**, resulting in significant financial losses for port companies and related industries. Theft and fraud can result in the loss of goods, which entails direct and indirect costs. Frequently occurring criminal activities can **undermine the trust** of trading partners and investors in the port and its surrounding economic ecosystem, leading to less investment and trade. The presence of **organized crime and criminal networks** can lead to an increased **sense of insecurity** within surrounding communities. This can affect the quality of life and the well-being of the local population. **Tackling organized crime** is important not only from a social perspective but also from a commercial perspective. Continuous investments in advanced **remote sensing technologies**, including CCTV, motion sensors, container scanning technologies, drones (both flying and submersible), biometric access control, and automated monitoring, aid in crime detection. The **smart fencing and** [**geofencing**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/geofencing-port-terminals/ "Geofencing at Port Terminals") in port areas and terminals also help deter criminals. Fighting crime also involves advanced data analysis and risk profiling to identify unusual patterns, red flags, or high-risk shipments. Another action field involves training port staff to recognize and report suspicious activities, along with measures to prevent bribery and corruption. In an effort to increase cybersecurity, port communities can rely on cybersecurity protocols to protect against cyberattacks, data theft, and system manipulation. Security measures such as surveillance, training, and assessments can be costly, especially for smaller ports, terminal operators, and shipping companies. Effectively combating crime requires **cooperation between various stakeholders**, including port authorities, the police, customs, the Coast Guard, municipalities, and carriers. The importance of an integrated approach, in which all parties involved work together, cannot be emphasized enough to guarantee a safe and secure port environment. A vast **regulatory framework** has been developed to improve security and fight crime in and around ports. One of the best-known examples is the **International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code** implemented by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 2004 as part of the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention. The ISPS Code establishes mandatory requirements for both ships and port facilities to detect and prevent security incidents. The ISPS Code is divided into two main parts: Part A (mandatory requirements) and Part B (recommended guidelines). A Ship Security Plan (SSP) and a Port Facility Security Plan (PFSP) are developed based on security assessments and outline specific security measures, protocols, and responses. These plans must be regularly tested, reviewed, and updated as security threats evolve. Ships must carry an **International Ship Security Certificate (ISSC)**, confirming compliance with the ISPS Code requirements. Port facilities undergo periodic inspections by national authorities to ensure compliance with relevant regulations. The ISPS Code comes with specific security profiles such as the Ship Security Officer (SSO), who is responsible for implementing the security plan on board the vessel, the Port Facility Security Officer (PFSO), who oversees the security plan for the port facility, and the Company Security Officer (CSO) who coordinates security between ships and port facilities, ensuring consistent implementation of security policies. The ISPS Code imposes enhanced surveillance, including monitoring restricted areas, cargo handling, and passenger embarkation to prevent unauthorized access. Ships and port facilities may use security cameras, motion sensors, and alarm systems to monitor and detect potential threats. There are also provisions for strict access control measures to prevent **unauthorized access** to ships, port facilities, and restricted areas. Crew members, port staff, and visitors must carry identification or passes. The ISPS Code mandates detailed record-keeping of security incidents, assessments, and training exercises. Regional initiatives also exist. In response to the growing threat of drug trafficking and criminal infiltration in European ports, the European Commission launched the European Ports Alliance in 2024**.** This partnership brings together national authorities and private-sector stakeholders to combat systemic vulnerabilities, such as corruption and the infiltration of organized crime groups, by promoting a shared, coordinated response across the EU. The emphasis is on harmonized practices and on dedicating resources to coordination. In contrast, private-sector actors are encouraged to participate in data-sharing initiatives actively. Participants include public actors, such as national customs and law enforcement agencies, the European Commission, Europol, Eurojust, port authorities, and private actors, including terminal operators, shipping companies, agents, freight forwarders, and other logistics chain actors. Key priorities include improving the implementation of international and EU-level security standards, deploying innovative tools to detect illicit trade, and strengthening operational cooperation between law enforcement bodies, customs agencies, and private operators within port areas. The plan is to broaden the scope, through awareness-raising and capacity-building efforts, harmonization of background checks for port personnel across Europe, the creation of secure communication channels between public and private actors, the stronger upstream cooperation with Latin American partners to disrupt supply chains at their origin, and the continued innovation focus, with emphasis on predictive analytics and cargo risk profiling. # 3. Ports and Military Defense Some regions around the world are regularly confronted with **security issues due to military conflicts and security risks**. This is leading to renewed attention for investments in defense and increased attention to the role of seaports in national security. Many ports are being assigned a more pronounced military role and have become key to defense. Their infrastructure, location, and operational capacity can provide a solid foundation for national or regional defense strategies, especially in times of conflict or geopolitical tension. The important role of ports in military logistics simultaneously increases the threat of undermining the existing infrastructure and superstructure through cyberattacks, physical sabotage, and attacks by air, water, or land. Seaports can play a **critical role in military defense**, with their strategic value seen in several main areas: - **Naval bases**. A significant number of ports around the world are **locations for naval bases**. These can be found near critical military locations in the international maritime network (e.g., Djibouti, near the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden) or at domestic ports (e.g., San Diego and Norfolk, which serve as homeports for the US naval fleet on the US West Coast and US East Coast, respectively). Ports in the Persian Gulf and South China Sea have become focal points for naval operations due to their proximity to areas of strategic interest. The presence of a strong naval force at a strategic port can act as a deterrent to adversaries. Simply stationing advanced warships at a port in a geopolitically tense region can send a message of military readiness. Many of these ports also serve as **command hubs** where defense operations can be coordinated, managed, and monitored using advanced communication and surveillance systems. Some ports may house **electronic warfare capabilities** that can intercept and jam enemy communications, providing a layer of defense against cyber and physical threats. - **Reserve fleets**. Ports can be used to hold **reserve fleets and sealift capabilities** that can be activated to support national defense and the deployment of troops, materiel, and relief. For instance, the United States, through its Department of Transportation, maintains a ready reserve force of about 50 cargo vessels. - **Construction and repair**. Ports equipped with dry docks and maintenance facilities can play a role in **constructing, repairing, and overhauling military vessels**, which is crucial for maintaining an operational fleet. - **Military logistics**. Port terminals across the world are increasingly being called upon to play a **logistical role in facilitating (large-scale) military operations and exercises**. Ports enable joint training and multinational exercises, showcasing allied strength and enhancing interoperability among friendly forces. Large seaports are capable of handling heavy military equipment (like tanks, helicopters, and missiles) and can facilitate the movement of troops during deployment or redeployment. Ports are vital for logistical support, enabling navies and other military forces to replenish essential supplies, including fuel, ammunition, food, and medical supplies. - **Coastal defense**. Ports might house **coastal defense batteries, anti-aircraft systems, and other fortifications** that can protect against attacks. In some cases, mines or other defensive measures can be deployed in harbor approaches to deter hostile ships. Some strategic ports are equipped with systems to detect and counteract submarine and missile threats. - **Trade routes**. Ports can also play a role in **protecting critical trade routes** by serving as hubs for naval and other operations aimed at securing international shipping lanes against threats such as piracy and terrorism. The role of ports in military defense is supported by specific **policy actions**. For example, in response to the Ukrainian War (2022), the European Union committed to reinforcing the military transport infrastructure needed to move troops and materiel. Ports will play a key role in creating **defense corridors,** primarily linking deep-water North Sea ports to Europe’s eastern borders. # 4. Cybersecurity and Ports ## A. Cybersecurity The diffusion of information technologies for communication, managerial, and operational considerations has been enduring across the maritime industry. The benefits of digitalization are far-reaching, but characteristics inherent to information technologies, such as digital network access and connectivity, have opened the door to a new range of vulnerabilities and risks. The growing level of digitization and reliance on information systems opens opportunities for cyber-related disruptions at ports since the maritime industry has its [unique vulnerabilities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/vulnerabilities-maritime-industry-cybersecurity/ "Vulnerabilities of the Maritime Industry to Cybersecurity"). **Cybersecurity** has wide ramifications on supply chains and has mobilized market players to increase protective and mitigating measures. > **Cybersecurity** is the protection of information technology systems (hardware and software) and their infrastructure from unauthorized access, misuse, and damage. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/vulnerabilities_maritime_cybersecurity.png?resize=900%2C282&ssl=1 "Vulnerabilities of the Maritime Industry to Cybersecurity | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Vulnerabilities of the Maritime Industry to Cybersecurity![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_community_system2.png?resize=900%2C628&ssl=1 "Port Community System | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Community System**Data integrity and privacy** challenges and risks have soared with the rise of digitalization, the amount of information processed and stored, and interconnected information networks. The logistics, shipping, and port industry faces the challenge of safeguarding data communicated across players, as data sharing is at the core of digitalization. Failure to protect data hampers the digital revolution, as it represents a risk not only for end customers but also for suppliers. Cybersecurity threats rank by far as the most critical risk factor perceived by ports. There are three main dimensions of data cybersecurity: - **Confidentiality**. Information technologies, including the data they contain, should be accessible only to authorized personnel. There are different layers of confidentiality, ranging from public access (such as a corporate informational web page) to restricted information (such as financial accounts) available only to key employees in upper management. - **Integrity**. The information stored and distributed through information systems must be protected from any unauthorized modification or deletion. This implies that data version monitoring and backup systems allow the information to be restored. - **Availability**. The information must be made available to its users at the moment they need to access it. Telecommunication systems, such as Wi-Fi, can be compromised and disrupted, impairing operations. Network redundancy allows for mitigating potential disruptions. ## B. Cyber resilience in ports If information confidentiality, integrity, and availability are secured against cyberattacks, a level of **[cyber resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cyber-resiliency-measures/ "Cyber-Resiliency Measures for Information Technologies")** can be achieved. Ports and the maritime industry are being increasingly targeted, with cyberattack growth rates in triple digits since 2017. The causes of [cybersecurity breaches](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/most-common-causes-of-cyberattacks/ "Most Common Causes of Cyberattacks") can be intentional or unintentional, such as an employee error (losing a laptop or a storage device during travel or commuting, which can be retrieved by others). The setting of [port community systems](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/port-community-system/ "Port Community System") has greatly improved the transactional environment, but has also opened cybersecurity risks for the platform. The consequences are multidimensional, ranging from data theft to operational disruptions that impact carriers and cargo owners. The cyber resilience of a number of ports is perceived to be in question for three main reasons: - **Labor and skill issues**. The port and maritime industries are competing for IT talent with other industries. Since this sector is less well-known than other high-visibility sectors, such as finance, recruitment is more challenging. Further, as port terminals are transitioning to digital technologies, the operational and managerial workforce needs to be trained with new sets of skills. - **Software development**. Several information technologies in the port and maritime sector rely on software and technologies that can be considered “legacy” and not designed in circumstances where cybersecurity is an issue. Some terminals use in-house software that is particularly prone to vulnerabilities. Further, software development can be undertaken by third parties, which can be subject to risks such as backdoors. - **Terminal infrastructure**. A port terminal, particularly a container terminal, is composed of a multiplicity of information technologies, automated assets, and telecommunication networks that each represent a potential point of entry for a cyberattack. Terminal infrastructure, including ship-to-shore cranes (STS), gantries, and even trucks, relies on software to operate. Commonly, terminal equipment is manufactured by a foreign entity for the terminal operator, and the software component is also part of the equipment. So, the purchase and installation of terminal equipment can represent a cybersecurity risk. For instance, 80% of the STS in American ports are manufactured by the Chinese conglomerate ZPMC (Zhenhua Heavy Industries), which may pose a cybersecurity risk due to potential backdoors. ## C. Cyber attacks in ports In recent years, several market players have been confronted with [large-scale cyberattacks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/port-cyberattacks/ "Port Cyberattacks, 2011-2023"). Notable events include: - In 2017, a [ransomware cyber-attack infected Maersk Line](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/petya-ransomware-cyber-attack-maersk/ "Petya Ransomware Cyber-Attack on Maersk") and its sister terminal company, APM Terminals. Due to a software upgrade hack in its Odessa (Ukraine) offices, ransomware spread across APMT’s global network, shutting down the booking systems of 17 major container terminals. This remains the most damaging cyberattack in the industry. - In the same year, the “WannaCry” ransomware attack caused gridlock at FedEx, a major logistics services provider, as the contents of thousands of its networked computers were encrypted. - In 2020, the Port of Shahid Rajaee (Iran) was the victim of a cyberattack that resulted in the shutdown of the computer infrastructure controlling cargo, vessels, and vehicle movements in the port. This cyber-attack was part of the cyberwarfare between Iran and Israel. - In 2021, a cyberattack on the systems of Transnet (the port authority of South Africa) led to serious disruptions at the ports of Durban and Cape Town. The terminal operating system went down, forcing the use of paper-based processes to track ships and cargo clearance. This particularly impacted container activities at the port of Durban, which accounts for 60% of the national volume. - In 2023, a ransomware attack at the Port of Lisbon took down its website and network, resulting in the theft of financial information as well as contracts, bills of lading, and logs for ships calling the port. The dominant rationale for cyberattacks in the maritime sector is **financial extortion**, supporting illicit trade, or stealing valuable commercial information. This underlines that the port and shipping industry is capital-intensive and that successful cybersecurity breaches have the potential to be highly lucrative. For instance, the average ransom payment for a successful cyberattack in the industry was estimated to be three million dollars. Still, large ports and shipping conglomerates have substantial cybersecurity capabilities, but there is a multiplicity of smaller shipping lines and ports where such capabilities are much more limited. Also, each cyberattack represents an opportunity to test the effectiveness of the port’s response and to improve its capabilities. ## D. Mitigation strategies Similar to cybersecurity issues in large organizations, mitigation strategies for ports involve **monitoring devices**, including those associated with terminal equipment, for intrusions and reconfiguration attempts. The number of attempts is becoming staggering as some networks can experience millions of firewall events per day, which can result in a security event if an exploit has been targeted. Alone, the Port of Los Angeles reported being subject to 60 million cyberattack events per month in 2023, up from 7 million per month in 2014. These include: - **E-mails remain the most common vector of a cyberattack** due to their wide use and diffusion within organizations. Such attacks are aimed at installing malware within the compromised network or stealing login credentials by fooling the recipient into a fake login page. Thus, a salient strategy remains a constant and improved **monitoring of phishing attempts**. - **Denial of service attacks** (DDoS) are common attempts to disrupt networks to extract a ransom or to undermine operations. Networks can be hardened with real-time firewall rules that block IP addresses associated with suspicious activity. - There are also attempts at **typosquatting**, which mimic the names of websites and fool users into believing they are using the genuine site and providing, for instance, login credentials and private information. This can be mitigated with firewall rules and rapid take-down notices for typosquatting sites. - **Brute force attacks** are also commonly used to break in using combinations of well-known passwords across multiple accounts. This can be mitigated by well-established complex password policies with periodic changes. Despite the impressive growth in cyberattack attempts in the port sector, the number of successful breaches does not show consistent growth. The [2017 cyberattack on Maersk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/petya-ransomware-cyber-attack-maersk/ "Petya Ransomware Cyber-Attack on Maersk") represented a pivotal moment and a wake-up call for the port and maritime industry. Still, cyberattacks with various levels of effectiveness regularly occur as a complex interplay between hackers and port cybersecurity actors, who are constantly looking for exploits and mitigating responses. Cybersecurity issues have become **central to the resilience of contemporary ports** as they represent an entirely new set of risks with no precedent. This may require changes in the governance structure with clear roles and a chain of authority concerning cybersecurity. An outcome has been the creation of the chief cybersecurity officer (CCO) or **chief information security officer** (CISO), often as an extension of the IT department. This office, commonly reporting directly to the CEO or the Board, is responsible for implementing cyber resilience strategies and overseeing the digital transformation of the port and its facilities. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cyber-resiliency_measures.png?resize=900%2C517&ssl=1 "Cyber-Resiliency Measures for Information Technologies | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cyber Resiliency Measures for Information Technologies![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/causes_cyberattacks.png?resize=900%2C423&ssl=1 "Most Common Causes of Cyberattacks | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Most Common Causes of Cyberattacks![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Cyberattacks-Ports-1.png?resize=900%2C480&ssl=1 "Port Cyberattacks, 2011-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Cyberattacks 2011 2023![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/maersk_petya.png?resize=900%2C496&ssl=1 "Petya Ransomware Cyber-Attack on Maersk | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Petya Ransomware Cyber Attack on Maersk# 5. Safety Issues at Ports Since their inception, ports have been hazardous work environments, as cargoes were handled by longshoremen labor. With the Industrial Revolution unfolding in the 19th century, the size of ports increased substantially, including the number of people working in ports. Ports also became important industrial complexes with an indirect array of safety incidents and accidents. The gradual mechanization of ports, particularly with the onset of containerization, reduced the direct exposure of labor to hazardous cargo handling and, correspondingly, the proportion of deaths and injuries. Still, heavy equipment at ports created new types of risk and hazards due to their size and weight, including larger ships. The most common safety issues at ports include: - **Harbor and dock navigation**. Ports are constrained sites for ship navigation (harbors, entrance channels), which must be well-coordinated. Occasionally, collisions between ships can occur, posing a risk of blocking access. Docking accidents have also occurred when ships collide with piers, damaging infrastructure and equipment (toppling cranes). Another risk concerns harbor crossing bridges, with the [2024 Baltimore Francis Scott Key Bridge collision](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/baltimore-bridge-collapse/ "Impacts of the Baltimore Bridge Collapse on Access to Its Main Port Terminal Facilities, 2024") of a large container ship being one of the most salient examples. - **Hazardous materials**. Substances such as flammable liquids, corrosive chemicals, and explosives can be stored on a ship, at a port facility, or manufactured nearby. The 1917 explosion in the Port of Halifax, when a ship carrying explosives bound for France exploded in the harbor, resulted in more than 1,700 fatalities and 9,000 injuries. This represented one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history. In 2015, a fire in a mining explosives storage facility within the [port of Tianjin](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/site-2015-tianjin-port-explosions/ "Site of the 2015 Tianjin Port Explosions") resulted in a massive explosion within the port yards. A similar event occurred at the [port of Beirut](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/site-2020-beirut-port-explosion/ "Site of the 2020 Beirut Port Explosion") in 2020 when 2,700 tons of ammonium nitrate stored on a pier exploded, damaging multiple buildings in the central area of the city. - **Cargo handling**. The transshipment of large quantities of cargo at port terminals is prone to accidents, even though the likelihood of such events is declining due to better equipment and operations. Cargo can be improperly stored, latched, or handled, which could cause it to tip or fall, leading to injuries and damage to infrastructure and equipment. Stacked containers, particularly empty boxes, are prone to falling due to high wind conditions and overstracking. Mobile equipment, such as cranes, trucks, straddle carriers, reach stackers, and forklifts can collide with cargo and other mobile equipment. Over time, ports have developed a **culture of safety**, part of a broader framework encompassing national rules and regulations governing working conditions, as well as international agreements that impact life at sea and, consequently, at ports. For instance, the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) establishes a series of standards that shipbuilding, cargo handling, and navigation must adhere to, which directly impact port safety. The complex process of ship inspections and issuance of seaworthiness certificates often takes place at ports and dry docks. Further, port authorities and coast guards are responsible for ensuring that ships entering their facilities abide by international maritime safety conventions and can delay or refuse entry if a ship is found to be in violation. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Baltimore.png?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Impacts of the Baltimore Bridge Collapse on Access to Its Main Port Terminal Facilities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Impacts of the Baltimore Bridge Collapse on Access to Its Main Port Terminal Facilities![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/tinajin_port_explosions_2015.png?resize=900%2C725&ssl=1 "Site of the 2015 Tianjin Port Explosions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Site of the 2015 Tianjin Port Explosions![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/beirut_port_explosion_2020.png?resize=900%2C613&ssl=1 "Site of the 2020 Beirut Port Explosion | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Site of the 2020 Beirut Port Explosion--- # Related Topics - [Chapter 3.2 The Digital Transformation of Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/) - [](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/)[Chapter 10.2 Efficiency](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/) (governance and transparency issues) ## References - Bueger, C., T. Edmunds, J. Stockbruegger (2024) Securing the Seas: A Roadmap for Enhancing UN Maritime Security Governance, Geneva, Switzerland: UNIDIR. - Notteboom T. and Pallis A.A. (2025). IAPH World Ports Tracker 2025: Sustainability and Market trends. Antwerp: International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH). - Senarak, C. (2024) “Port cyberattacks from 2011 to 2023: a literature review and discussion of selected cases” Marit Econ Logist 26, 105-130. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-023-00276-8 ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 11.3 - Port Planning and Development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/) **Published:** November 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Theo Notteboom > Port planning is a process that defines the future direction of port development, including its services and facilities. It involves data collection and forecasting, stakeholder relations management, and the evaluation of port development plans and projects. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Strategic Port Planning in Its Context](#1_Strategic_Port_Planning_in_Its_Context) - [2. The Strategic Port Planning Process](#2_The_Strategic_Port_Planning_Process) - [3. Traffic Forecasting as part of Port Planning and Development](#3_Traffic_Forecasting_as_part_of_Port_Planning_and_Development) - [4. Stakeholder Involvement in Port Planning and Development](#4_Stakeholder_Involvement_in_Port_Planning_and_Development) - [5. Adaptive Port Planning](#5_Adaptive_Port_Planning) - [6. Port Infrastructure Project Evaluation](#6_Port_Infrastructure_Project_Evaluation) # 1. Strategic Port Planning in Its Context ## A. Types of port planning Port planning is not a single monolithic process, but rather a series of propositions and endeavors adapting to market and technological changes. It can involve the port as a whole, such as master plans, or a part of it, such as a terminal. Three different types of port planning by port authorities can be distinguished: - **Short-term planning**. Involves the current allocation of resources and services. The resulting decisions aim to solve practical problems related to efficient cargo handling, vessel turnaround, and the utilization of port facilities. Within short-term planning, a distinction can be made between operational and tactical planning. The former usually refers to a one-year time horizon. The latter refers to a planning horizon of one to three years. An important feature of short-term planning is that the time span is too short to allow major changes in the supply of port services, such as through infrastructure investments to increase port capacity. - **Medium-term planning**. Involves both financial and strategic planning, often reported through **business plans**. The budgeting for the annual allocation of resources to specific activities is part of the financial planning process. Strategic plans, which are usually prepared every three to five years, aim to allocate port resources to different activities and meet specific marketing and financial objecti­ves. This assumes a competitive environ­ment in which resource allocation affects the structure and level of demand. - **Long-term planning**. Demands a more fundamental and visionary approach, often embodied in the development of port master plans or strategic port plans. The output is a physical plan (including capital budgeting) for the future development of port infrastructure and other capabilities and capacities with a ten to thirty-year planning horizon. Port management faces the challenge of maintaining consistency across various port planning types. Some ports are required to adhere to strict national guidelines and regulations for preparing port plans, while others enjoy greater flexibility in their planning processes. ## B. Approaches to the port planning process Three basic approaches can be distinguished to structure the port planning process: - **Top-down planning**. The government or port authority sets the strategic intent and prepares the plan, occasionally in consultation with stakeholders. The main problem with this approach is that the port industry might feel neglected while having a clearer view of its resources and capabilities, as well as more information about the external environment. - **Bottom-up planning**. The port community provides inputs to the strategic plan. The government or port authority uses these inputs to create a strategic plan, but does not critically assess the views and expectations of the port community. Such a perspective can be valuable if the government or port authority wishes to pursue a microeconomic approach to port planning. However, local rationality and opportunism might severely influence such an approach. - **Goals-down, plans-up planning**. The government or port authority sets the strategic intent and asks the wider port community to propose ideas and plans that comply with this intent. In most cases, the government or port authority will aim to achieve a structured confrontation by institutionalizing the strategic port planning process. This approach typically envisions a balance between macroeconomic objectives and microeconomic goals. In formulating and implementing a strategy, ports must be able to admit that certain activities could be performed more effectively by other economic actors or in another location, such as an inland location. An effective resource-based strategy need not be limited to the geographical boundaries of the port, but should involve strategic port-network planning. ## C. Strategic port planning in a changing market environment One of the most important differences between strategic port planning and other types of port planning is its emphasis on **evaluating environmental changes** and assessing the risks and uncertainties they entail. Ports are affected by larger uncertainties and risks than before. These trends, along with the expansion of the private sector’s role in port activities, have forced ports to become more market-oriented and to revise their strategic planning processes. This shift can be illustrated by applying the Corporate Strategy Matrix to the port sector by using the **[Port Strategy Matrix](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-port-strategy-matrix/ "The Port Strategy Matrix")**. The ever-changing, highly disruptive market environment in seaports calls for a **shift in port strategy formulation and planning**. Port management bodies are challenged to go beyond business-as-usual and the extrapolation of existing megatrends in strategy formulation, by focusing much more strongly on identifying **inflection points** and **weak signals**. > While **megatrends** are large-scale political, economic, social, technological, ecological or regulatory movements, **inflection points** are moments when trends shift, for instance turning sharply upwards or downwards. **Weak signals** are advanced signs of future trends. This shift in planning approaches forces ports to reassess the role of [traditional forecasting and scenario analysis in port planning processes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/#3_Traffic_Forecasting_as_part_of_Port_Planning_and_Development). It also underscores the need for a stronger focus on digital transformation and data analytics to continuously measure and identify inflection points and weak signals. Overall, port-related planning and strategy are already undergoing or should undergo a **[transition to a new type of paradigm](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/dynamics-in-port-related-planning-and-strategy/)** characterized by: - A [**multi-stakeholder**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/#4_Stakeholder_Involvement_in_Port_Planning_and_Development) and **multi-dimensional** vision of the port ecosystem. - A focus on [energy transition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/), [circularity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/), [digital data flows](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/), and sustainability, next to cargo flows and logistics, and industrial activities linked to these. - The setting of multi-dimensional objectives (economic, ecological, and social) and [key performance indicators (KPIs)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/) is crucial, which not only relates to the competitive position of the port, but also to its capability of forging partnerships and stimulating [cooperation between supply chain actors and among ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/). - [Dynamic and flexible port planning approaches](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/dynamics-port-planning-strategy/ "Dynamics in Port-Related Planning and Strategy") are strongly tied to broader risk and resilience management. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_strategy_matrix.png?resize=900%2C379&ssl=1 "The Port Strategy Matrix | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The port strategy matrix![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_related_planning_strategy.png?resize=900%2C381&ssl=1 "Changes in Port-related Planning and Strategy | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Dynamics in port related planning and strategy## D. Data collection in port planning The strategic planning process demands comprehensive data on **internal resources and capabilities** and the **external competitive environment** of the port. In collecting the necessary data, a port should consider not only the need for **quantitative data** but also the importance of valuable **qualitative elements**. A unilateral focus on quantitative data can lead to a narrow analysis of the past and current situation, with too much emphasis on marginal developments. For example, a database can track fluctuations in the global steel trade. Still, it is more important for a port to understand the general trend and why it exists, including the qualitative elements of its evolution. Moreover, some resources, such as people-based skills, are qualitative elements indispensable in building core competencies and, thus, extremely important in the strategic planning process. There are different ways to collect the necessary qualitative and quantitative information. For the **internal appraisal of resources and capabilities**, a port can get information from the port management. A key problem in appraising capabilities is maintaining objectivity, since the people who know most about the port may also be the ones whose opinions are most likely to be biased. Therefore, it is helpful to check the informati­on gained against evidence from **outside the organization**. In this respect, customer and competitor surveys can provide additional, less biased information on the strengths and weaknesses of the port in question. For the **external appraisal of the competitive environment**, a port can rely on a multitude of official statistics (e.g., government trade statistics), press reports, and sector studies. More specific information can be obtained through customer surveys, port publications (statistics, master plans), or the reports of independent experts (consultants, universities, market researchers). Further, several trade organizations and consulting firms publish extensive datasets and indexes of the market conditions in the port and shipping industries. However, a challenge remains in the reliability and comparability of the information obtained. For example, as the procedure for collecting and presenting port statistics has not been harmonized globally, it remains risky to perform port comparisons based on official port statistics. Observing the external environment should also include changes in technology (port, shipping, and industry), regulations, and public policies (including trade policy, shipping, and port policy). In performing an external appraisal, the tools used for competitor analysis should focus on the existing resources of the present competing ports, as well as potential future resources and future competitors. Regarding customers, special attention should be given to the strategies developed by those clients who determine cargo routing. If data models are used to assess the internal and external environment of a port, the analyst should keep in mind the **assumptions** that form the basis for the analysis. A **sensitivity analysis** of the results can offer more insight into the value and reliability of the outcomes. Moreover, models must be continuously appraised as to their suitability for the assigned task. # 2. The Strategic Port Planning Process A typical strategic port planning process consists of **[five different building blocks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-strategic-port-planning-process/ "The Strategic Port Planning Process")** or phases in the development. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/process_strategic_port_planning2.png?resize=900%2C478&ssl=1 "The Strategic Port Planning Process | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The strategic port planning process## A. Formulate a vision Strategic port planning should identify strategies and formulate objectives that will provide the port with a competitive advantage to achieve its vision when translated into programs and activities. Thus, strategic planning should focus on what can be done differently to achieve a goal or vision. Thus, the starting point in the strategic port planning process is **formulating a vision statement** for the port. A vision reflects the long-term objective of a port and, by definition, is very ambitious. It concerns the future the organization seeks to create. The vision typically expresses an aspiration that will enthuse, gain commitment, and stretch performance. It is often expressed in one powerful sentence. In general, a vision must be valid over long periods. In formulating its vision, a port should try to **go beyond the extrapolation** of the current status and role of the port. The entire port sector must embrace the ambition outlined in the vision. To gain the personal effort and commitment of individuals within the sector, they must resonate with the vision statement. Without a clear vision and specific objectives linked to it, the port struggles to develop a dynamic strategy. Instead of fostering innovation, ad hoc planning often leads to only marginal or incremental adjustments to the current situation, hindering sustainable competitive advantage. Unfortunately, future port strategies often rely on existing strategies without considering the intended direction. Vision formulation is one way in which ports typically define their **purpose**. In addition to a vision, the formulation of **purpose** also involves a mission statement, values, and objectives. - **Mission statement**. Provides clarity for employees and stakeholders about its fundamental purpose. It communicates two key aspects: the identity of the port and its core functions. This statement reflects the essential characteristics or “DNA” of the port. - **Values**. Express the foundational principles that guide a port’s strategy and dictate how it operates. - **Objectives**. Specific statements outlining the desired outcomes to be achieved to realize the vision. There is a wide variety of potential objectives, including financial targets, market positioning, value-added creation, macroeconomic impacts, and sustainability outcomes. Typically, the mix of objectives follows a **triple bottom line approach**, emphasizing not only economic goals but also environmental and social objectives that relate to the port’s corporate responsibility to the broader community. ## B. Assess the gap between abilities and ambitions The vision defined in step A may lead to identifying a difference between what the port can do (abilities) and what the port should do (ambitions). In order to get a complete picture of this gap, a port should assess its **port-specific resources and competencies** and perform an internal appraisal of its **organizational strengths and weaknes­­­­­­­ses**. Further, a port ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­should assess its **competitive environment** by conducting an external appraisal of **opportunities and threats** in the market. Such an external appraisal may involve several layers: - **Analysis of the macro-environment**. One useful approach is the **PESTEL analysis**, which examines macro-environmental factors across six key categories: Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Ecological, and Legal. Specifically, the macro-environmental factors that are likely to have a significant impact on the port as a whole or individual sectors and markets. When analyzing the macro-environment, it is essential to focus on both the **market environment**, which includes suppliers, port users, and competitors, and the **non-market environment**, which encompasses non-governmental organizations, politicians, government departments, regulators, political activists, campaign groups, and the media. In the non-market environment, ports must work to build their reputation, establish connections, exert influence, and secure legitimacy. - **Analysis of the port industry**. This analysis can be effectively conducted using **Porter’s Five Forces Framework**. This well-known method helps evaluate the attractiveness of an industry by examining five competitive forces: the level of competitive rivalry, the power of buyers (port users), the power of suppliers, the threat of substitutes, and the threat of new entrants. When the forces are strong, the industry is generally considered less attractive. - **Analysis of competitors in the market environment**. This analysis focuses on competing ports and other locations such as trade centers, industrial clusters, and logistics parks or dry ports in the hinterland. Benchmarking techniques are often used to evaluate the port’s position in relation to these potential or existing competitors. Ports operating in highly competitive, volatile markets often develop formal port planning processes that involve greater data collection and analysis. These planning exercises focus on directing change rather than responding to it. This involves a proactive rather than a reactive or defensive attitude toward changes in the external environment. ## C. Create resources to fill the gap A port can **narrow the gap** between resources and the ambitions outlined in the strategic intent by creating new resources. The former concerns what a port can do, linked to strengths and weaknesses, while the latter concerns what it should do, linked to opportunities and threats. Port management should integrate the development of new resources into its strategic planning. Each port is a collecti­on of **physical and intangible assets and capabilities**: - **Human resources**. This includes all employees, managers, and executives who work for the port, as well as the added value they obtain through our interactions with relevant stakeholders. By using their skills, knowledge, and expertise, they help shape the value proposition of the port and are crucial for realizing the ambitions within the port strategy. - **Land**. A spatial development of the port area that is based on a smart, sustainable, and customer-oriented design and management of the port area. - **Infrastructure**. Customer-oriented infrastructure inside and outside the port. - **Technological resources**. These include the technologies and systems managed by the port authority or in consultation with other parties to streamline nautical and logistical operations and to create a safe and sustainable port environment. - **Organizational structure, culture, and processes**. Help to move to a customer-oriented and sustainable nautical, logistical, infrastructural, and spatial development of the port area, and where necessary, also beyond the port boundaries. The organizational structure can also facilitate effective environmental management, for example, in the area of undermining crime and guaranteeing safety. - **Financial resources**. The financial backbone of many [(landlord) port authorities ](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/)depends heavily on port fees and concession fees. Together with access to credit, they largely determine the current and future investment capacity. Targeted investments in digital transformation, energy transition, and the circular economy open the door to new sources of income that may be less dependent on the volume of ships and the flow of goods in and out of the port area. These assets and capabilities determine the effectiveness of a port. To remain competitive, port management must identify, cultivate, and leverage its core competencies. Core competencies are the collective learning within the organization, particularly in how to coordinate diverse skills and integrate multiple streams of technology. The managerial ability to consolidate capabilities and skills into competencies that empower the port sector to adapt quickly to changing opportunities is the real source of competitive advantage. A more detailed discussion on **ports and competitive advantage** was presented in [Chapter 9.1](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/#3_Port_Competitive_Advantages). ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ports_competitive_advantage.png?resize=900%2C308&ssl=1 "Sustainable Competitive Advantage of Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Sustainable Competitive Advantage of Ports## D. Strategy formulation and implementation After identifying core competencies and resources needed to fill the gap between its abilities (what is the port able to do?) and ambitions (what should the port do?), the next step is to determine **strategies to develop a sustainable competitive advantage** and **societal added value**. The most important resources and capabilities of a port are durable, difficult to identify and understand, imperfectly transferable, not easily replicated, and clearly owned and controlled. **Strategy formulati­on** should design a strategy that makes the most effective use of these core resources and capabilities. The **strategy map** is a crucial component of the port planning process. It involves outlining **objectives**, detailing how these objectives will lead to measurable results, and communicating the strategy to both [internal and external stakeholders](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/#6_Stakeholder_Involvement_in_Port_Planning_and_Development). In addition to using **Key Performance Indicators** (KPIs), ports can also adopt the more comprehensive **Objectives and Key Results** (OKR) approach to enhance the strategy map. In contrast to the vision statement, the **objectives** must be dynamic and permit changing external and internal factors. They must also be specific in terms of time span and figures and refer to defined departments or units of the organization. The ability of a port authority to design and select strategies can be enhanced by improving communication within the port organization, with the port industry, and with relevant public authorities. Once the strategy map has the full support of the entire port organization, the actual strategy implementation can include the following **basic actions**: - **Reallocation of resources** (labor skills, technological equipment). - **Reorganization of management** or port services provided. - **Investments** in new and existing physical (e.g. terminal) or non-physical (e.g. education) assets. - Implementation of **efficiency-oriented measures** to lower port user costs or port operating costs. - Implementation of **measures to improve the sustainability** of the port and the supply chains. - **Change in the institutional setting and governance** of the port. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/kpi_okr_ports.png?resize=900%2C408&ssl=1 "Key Performance Indicators (KPI) vs Objectives and Key Results (OKR) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")OKRs versus KPIs as part of the Strategy Map## E. Evaluate the effectiveness of chosen strategies Strategy evaluation should primarily be concerned with whether the port is on the right track for closing the gap between abilities and ambitions and is achieving this at the desired rate. This evaluation must consider not only whether the strategy has been appropriately implemented but also whether it is effective in achieving the objectives and targets. Primarily, it should monitor the process of building a competitive advantage. As the dashed lines in the figure indicate, the strategic evaluation also involves a **constant adaptation of the objectives and strategies** in order to respond adequately to relevant changes in the resources and capabilities of the port (internal appraisal) and its competitive environment (external appraisal). # 3. Traffic Forecasting as part of Port Planning and Development ## A. Rationale behind traffic forecasting Master plans and port infrastructure projects usually require **long-term forecasts**. As the design and construction of port infrastructure can take up to five years or more, and the infrastructure may last 50 to 100 years, public decision-makers and port authorities are required to present long-term traffic forecasts. Poor demand forecasts and estimates of future financial flows (revenues and costs) can lead to poor decisions on port investments, the wrong timing of such investments, and an overall misallocation of resources, causing both public and private economic and financial losses. Thus, high-quality port traffic forecasts are needed to help **optimize and rationalize investment decisions** regarding the [balance between port demand and capacity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-demand-and-capacity-utilisation/) and their [timing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-timing-of-port-capacity-extensions/). ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_demand_capacity_utilization.png?resize=900%2C378&ssl=1 "Port Demand and Capacity Utilization | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Demand and Capacity Utilisation![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/timing_port_capacity_expansion.png?resize=900%2C432&ssl=1 "The Timing of Port Capacity Extension | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Timing of Port Capacity ExtensionPort managers are increasingly expected to rely on forecasts and other statistical or quantitative techniques to support and **justify the entire decision-making process** related to port planning and development. They must disclose accurate information about the assumptions underlying their strategic planning, thereby strengthening the reliability of their development plans. In a port planning context, the port authority must define the long-term direction of port development, including, among other things, the future port size (land and water areas), the portfolio of commodities to be served, and the related destination uses of various facilities. The port authority must plan its investments in line with demand expectations and forecasts, while also complementing private-sector investments in their business plans. ## B. Forecasting methods The port environment exhibits a **high level of uncertainty**. Cargo flows exhibit variability and seasonality due to economic cycles (peaks and downturns), seasonal fluctuations, time variations, and various economic, social, and political shocks and crises. The demand for port services is also affected by the evolutionary trajectories of other infrastructures connected to the port. The port choices made by market players, such as shippers, shipping lines, and related carrier alliances, can also generate traffic volatility proportional to their size. Traffic volumes originate from the service patterns of shipping lines, which depend on several underlying macro and microeconomic variables. These variables are often characterized by causal relationships, which raise technical concerns about selecting the most suitable statistical methods for predicting future traffic flows. A number of factors may affect **selecting the appropriate method**, such as the context of the forecast, the relevance and availability of historical data, the desired degree of accuracy, and the time period to be forecast. Qualitative and quantitative techniques are two basic forecasting methods, with the latter being more reliable and accurate. **Quantitative estimation techniques** are based on historical data series that establish trends and causal relations between the objective variable to be forecast and other covariates. These trends and relations are subsequently used in models, such as causal and econometric models, to predict future developments. Quantitative methods include a wide range of techniques: - **Time series analysis**. In time series models, the expected future value of a variable, such as traffic, is obtained by extrapolating or deducing it from the historical pattern of the variables. Scholars also distinguish between parametric forecasting models, which assume a model structure described by well-defined mathematical expressions, and non-parametric ones, which are not based on any definite functional form of the variables. The most used are moving average and exponential smoothing, the ARIMA (autoregressive integrated moving average) approach, and considering or excluding seasonality (SARIMA, X13-ARIMA-SEATS), as well as additional implementations and generalizations (e.g. ARCH and GARCH models). These methods enable the depiction of the main properties of the time series, the identification of the underlying data-generating process, and the estimation of future trends. To go beyond the linearity assumption of the data-generating process, Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and smoothing spline models are also available. - **Causal relationships and time series analysis**. These models assume that a causal relationship can be established between the factor to be forecast and one or more variables. Causal models aim to capture this relationship through mathematical expressions, which serve as the starting point for scenario-based forecasting. Building further on the regression model approach, a large set of econometric models has been implemented (e.g., OLS, GLM, multilevel, or hierarchical modeling), supported by longitudinal time-series data. When data are scarce or ambiguous, **qualitative forecasting techniques** are preferred. They typically rely on expert human judgments and opinions combined with incomplete and non-numerical data. Qualitative forecasting techniques, also known as technological or engineering methods, include explorative and normative techniques. In exploratory methods, future developments are evaluated based on empirical data from the past, supplemented with expert information on expected traffic flows. Normative techniques start from future objectives and assess whether these objectives can be met, taking into account current resources, capacity, structural limitations, and technologies. Among the techniques, expert opinions are used in the Delphi Method, Panel Consensus Forecast, and Visionary Forecast. Market Research Forecast and Historical Analogy Forecast are based on expert opinions, general trends, and economic knowledge. In general, qualitative methods are not reliable and accurate, but they are useful for drawing approximate scenarios in high-variability contexts. As these qualitative methods involve applying specific procedures, they do not simply reflect the subjective judgments of individuals or organizations deemed experts. In some circumstances, qualitative forecasts do not provide port managers and decision-makers with sufficient data and information to address the challenges impacting port planning and development. In these cases, **hybrid techniques** might be preferred. In the hybrid case, expert information and judgment are used to complement the outputs of the traffic forecasting models. This might be particularly relevant when considering the exposure of the port industry to economic or social shocks, as demonstrated by the COVID-19 pandemic. It may be beneficial to combine econometric models with expert judgments and specific commodity insights to provide a robust empirical foundation for informed strategic decisions. Given the wide range of port activities and cargo flows, there is a need for a **commodity-wise traffic forecasting approach**, with disaggregated forecasts at the level of commodity types. For a multipurpose port, there are forecasts for containers, RORO, and bulk (e.g. minerals, energy). Each coherent commodity group has distinct throughput drivers and terminal requirements. For example, inbound, outbound, and sea-sea transshipment flows in the container market may require different model specifications. The longer the time horizon of predictions, the lower the expected accuracy of forecasts. The purpose of port-related forecasting in such circumstances is to **build scenarios** that help port managers and decision-makers identify significant opportunities and threats going forward and address related uncertainties. Uncertainty is tentatively captured using sensitivity analyses and scenario building. ## C. Challenges and pitfalls in traffic forecasting Traffic forecasting comes with a number of challenges and pitfalls: - **Lack of know-how**. The forecasting exercise requires a solid understanding of the port ecosystem and the key variables driving change, significant technical capabilities in data gathering and analysis, and a healthy dose of caution to avoid bias. While port authorities typically present long-term traffic forecasts in the context of port master plans or port infrastructure projects, they may not always have the capabilities, know-how, and resources to conduct traffic forecasting. Thus, they might have to resort to experts to support these types of exercises. - **Stakeholder perceptions**. Despite advances in forecasting techniques, the relevance and validity of traffic forecasts are under scrutiny by port stakeholders, including market players, government agencies, and community groups. Port authorities are typically challenged to reassess the role and necessity of forecasting exercises in port planning and development processes. Choosing and applying appropriate forecasting methods, interpreting forecasting outputs, and communicating traffic forecasts with stakeholders are also challenges. - **Complexity**. Traffic forecasts are highly complex exercises, as they should account for uncertainties and the interdependencies among factors that can influence future traffic flows. When engaging in traffic forecasting, port managers or the experts they engage often assume that, when predicting future values, uncertainties can be addressed through sensitivity analyses or by considering different plausible scenarios. Traffic forecasts in the context of port planning and development are inherently dependent on these assumptions and scenarios. - **Ad hoc decision-making**. A number of ports, particularly medium-sized and minor ports, continue to operate informally or in a fragmented manner. Development in these ports often lacks a common backbone, leading to the evaluation of ad hoc opportunities or to political and market pressure. In these cases, port planning activity is not formalized into a comprehensive planning document with a long-term focus and reliable traffic forecasts. - **Keep it simple**. Ports might avoid using cutting-edge forecasting methods, even though they could yield better results. They might be wary of using complex methods, which gives the forecasting exercise a high “black box” image for stakeholders. Furthermore, sophisticated and complex statistical methods do not necessarily perform better than simpler ones and may convey a sense of false precision, as it is not because they provide precise results that those results are accurate. A lack of reliable data sources or inaccuracies in data collection, for example, can lead to poor quality forecasts, notwithstanding the sophistication of the forecasting methodology. - **The life expectancy of forecasts**. As it may take many years to complete a master plan or implement a port infrastructure project, some initial assumptions and forecasts might already be outdated by the time the plan is presented. This can undermine the validity of master plans and open a window of opportunity for decision-makers to justify their actions related to certain port investments on grounds other than those provided by the master plan. # 4. Stakeholder Involvement in Port Planning and Development ## A. Who are the stakeholders? A large number of actors have interests in the port sector through relationships, whether transactional or by proximity. As a result, (strategic) port planning and development are usually performed in an environment where a multitude of **interacting** and sometimes **conflicting** interests are involved. This complexi­ty can create challenges in developing a mission statement, formulating the objectives and strategies for a port, and advancing port development projects. > **Stakeholders** are any individuals or groups with an interest in or affected by a project. A narrow view only recognizes stakeholders whose relationship is primarily of an economic/contractual kind. > > **Stakeholder relations management** (SRM) aims to balance various groups and take due note of their rights. In a landlord port, there are [internal stakeholders, economic or contractual external stakeholders, community stakeholders, and public policy stakeholders](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-planning-and-development/stakeholder-groups/ "Stakeholder Groups"). ### Economic/contractual external stakeholders Inter-organizational relationships among economic/contractual external stakeholders are characterized by two forms of interaction: physical (related to the physical transfer of cargo) and incorporeal. The latter type of interaction consists of contractual, supervisory, or information-based exchanges. The interactions between port authorities and first-order port players are primarily of an intangible nature. For instance, port companies involved in physical operations are linked to the port authority via concession agreements. Different port companies and supporting industries invest directly in the port area, generating value-added and employment. Some of these companies are mainly involved in transport operations linked to cargo flows, such as terminal operators and stevedoring companies, including the carrier/terminal operator in the case of dedicated terminals. Others offer only logistical services, such as freight forwarding and shipping agencies. Industrial companies in the port area, such as power plants, chemical companies, and assembly plants, as well as supporting industries like ship repair and inspection services, and port labor pools, also belong to the group of first-order economic stakeholders. Branch organizations and regional associations for specific industries represent a large number of these in situ economic stakeholders. Both the regional associations for specific industries and the existing umbrella associations for the port cluster play an important role in its governance. They can have a significant impact on the competitiveness of the cluster. Other economic stakeholder groups include port customers, trading companies, and importers/exporters. These are less directly involved than the in situ economic groups, as they generally do not invest directly in the port. Nevertheless, they closely monitor port activity because it can influence their business results. Moreover, they exert strong demand-pull forces on port service suppliers, thereby dictating the market requirements the port community must meet. Influential market players are increasingly stepping to the fore as direct interlocutors at the operational level of port activity and in strategic matters related to port planning and policy. ### Internal stakeholders They are part of the comprehensive port authority organization. Apart from achieving port authority objectives, top management may also have personal goals, such as salary, prestige, and power. The employees are interested in their wages, working conditions, and personal development. The public, semi-public, or private shareholders pursue goals such as return on investment, shareholder/stakeholder value, and welfare creation. Identifying the actual shareholders of a port authority is not always easy. A large number of landlord port authorities are of the (semi-)public kind, with strong links to a municipality, city, region, or province. The true de facto shareholders of a public port authority are the taxpayers on the relevant geographical level. As such, the general public has a dual role to play, and in many cases, the (local) public is, at the same time, an external stakeholder and an indirect shareholder. ### Public policy stakeholders Public policy stakeholders include government departments responsible for transport and economic affairs at the local, regional, national, and supranational levels. Hence, the scarcity of resources, such as land and natural resources, has increased the involvement of environmental departments and spatial planning authorities in decision-making processes (particularly in port expansion plans). The potential **overlap in jurisdiction** between the various geographical levels in public policymaking is another issue that needs careful deliberation. A vague demarcation of jurisdiction or poor coordination between the various levels can negatively impact port development processes, particularly when a court contests the validity of earlier (political) decisions due to procedural errors in public policymaking. Public policy stakeholders typically follow a political management system based on the **principle of distributional equity**. The organizational structure in a political system is often based on administrative heritage and structural shocks caused by influential individuals or pressure groups. Port authorities partly rely on political organizations for their survival, as ports are often considered strategic assets in community welfare creation and appropriate tools for achieving higher distributional equity. The challenge for technocratic port organizations is to work constructively with political managers by forming alliances with effective operating organizations. ### Community stakeholders Community stakeholders include community groups or civil society organizations, the general public, the press, and other non-market players. They are concerned about the port’s evolution, primarily regarding its expansion programs, for well-being reasons. They pay close attention to obtaining and disseminating information about port activity trends and development plans. Environmental considerations are a prominent aspect in the relationships between these groups and port authorities. Some community groups might argue that there is a clear imbalance between the benefits and costs of having larger and larger ports for the local community. This viewpoint is a breeding ground for major socio-economic confrontations related to port development. Local pressure groups often defend their interests so fiercely that the well-being of a few people becomes an even greater driving force than that of the greater community. For instance, the omnipresence of the NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) syndrome can seriously complicate the development of new hinterland infrastructures, even if these infrastructures are expected to have a positive impact on the modal shift from road to environmentally friendly transport modes. In view of developing sustainable stakeholder relations, port managers and government bodies have to spend considerable time ensuring that new port developments are socially inclusive. Ports cannot and must not take broad public support for development plans for granted. This aspect of port competitiveness will undoubtedly become more important in the near future, as resources such as land are becoming scarcer and broader social and environmental functions increasingly challenge the economic function of seaports. As the maritime and port industry becomes increasingly international, more effort will be devoted to integrating ports into local communities. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_stakeholder_groups.png?resize=900%2C376&ssl=1 "Stakeholder Groups in a Port Context | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Stakeholder groups in a port context--- ## B. Key principles of effective stakeholder relations management (SRM) As port management involves complex decisions and regularly involves many stakeholders, achieving a balance among their interests is becoming an important task for port managers. Many port managers are well aware that socially responsible behavior can be the basis for a competitive edge in both market and public policy relationships. Stakeholder relations management (SRM) has close ties with sustainable management. **Sustainable port development** is not possible without a well-balanced and integrated stakeholder approach. SRM applied to port planning and port infrastructure project evaluation requires simultaneous attention to the **legitimate interests of all appropriate stakeholders**, both in the establishment of procedures and general policies and in case-by-case decision making. However, this principle does not imply that all stakeholders should be equally involved in all processes and decisions. Formal processes that describe how and when consultation with stakeholders should occur might be available. One of the key applications of SRM in ports is measuring the influence of various stakeholders on port operations and performance, and then effectively managing the linkages between these relationships. Port authorities and/or government departments have to decide on the **role assigned to each stakeholder in the decision-making process**. They could try to discriminate between stakeholders with genuine, legitimate interests in the process and those who merely claim such interests. This exercise can be very difficult because the simple act of classifying a group as not relevant to a specific process can, in itself, become a significant source of conflict. For instance, an actor or group with no direct, legitimate interest can still have considerable political influence, and an actor with the capacity to mobilize the media can influence the political level. To avoid such situations, one can adopt a maximum approach, inviting both legitimate and non-legitimate groups to participate in the process. In many cases, the active role of the latter groups is limited to information exchange, for example, through (passive) public hearings. [Stakeholders can be classified](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/stakeholders-involvement/ "A classification of stakeholders based on their involvement in and impact on a process/decision") based on their **involvement in the process, as well as their potential impact**. Designing and implementing stakeholder participation throughout the trajectory of port planning or project evaluation is one of the key actions in SRM: - **Involve all stakeholders right from the start**. This approach has the advantage that no stakeholder will feel excluded or neglected. However, a slow start due to long pre-negotiation rounds in the early phases of the project is a significant disadvantage. Some stakeholders may see this as an opportunity to prevent a project they oppose. - **Draw up detailed plans in-house**. Stakeholders will only be involved in the process once these plans have gained maturity. The strength of this approach lies in its ability to confront stakeholders with concrete development plans, thereby reducing the room for unrealistic alternatives. However, some stakeholders might not feel at ease, as a top-down approach might give the impression that decisions have already been taken, reducing stakeholder participation to a formality or a diversion. An effective SRM strategy is not possible without suitable **port governance structures**. In fact, stakeholder relationship management partly deals with corporate governance questions, mainly the processes of stakeholder input and participation. The corporate governance framework should recognize the rights of stakeholders and encourage their active cooperation and participation in creating wealth. As effective and efficient governance does not arise automatically, port authorities should develop organizational processes and entrepreneurial cultures that enhance stakeholder satisfaction. Port managers have an obligation to deal openly and honestly with the various stakeholders, thereby avoiding self-serving actions as much as possible. In modern port policy and the concomitant decision-making processes, one should emphasize interdependence among the various stakeholders. Positive and mutually supportive [stakeholder relationships](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/stakeholder-participation-in-port-development-decision-making/ "Stakeholder participation in port development decision-making") will encourage **trust** and stimulate **collaborative efforts,** leading to relational wealth, that is, organizational assets arising from familiarity and teamwork. Conflict and suspicion among stakeholders will **stimulate formal bargaining**, resulting in time delays and increased costs. Formal bargaining often appears when stakeholders demand **compensation for incurred risks or damage**. Compensation claims are often subject to highly politicized negotiation rounds, characterized by a lack of trust and an absence of solid arrangements among the stakeholders. Under these circumstances, port authorities and or government departments might be tempted to use compensations as a tool to neutralize (at least temporarily) some community groups. In contrast, community groups might use the negotiation rounds as a tool to consolidate their position as legitimate interlocutors in port development debates. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/stakeholders_impact_involvement.png?resize=900%2C410&ssl=1 "Classification of Stakeholders Based on Impact and Involvement | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Classification of stakeholders based on impact and involvement![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/stakeholder_participation_port_development.png?resize=900%2C286&ssl=1 "Stakeholder Participation in Port Development Decision Making | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Stakeholder Participation in Port Development Decision Making![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_value_proposition.png?resize=900%2C438&ssl=1 "The Port as a Value Proposition | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Port as a Value Proposition## C. SRM and the port objective challenge Port managers should acknowledge and, whenever possible, actively monitor the concerns of all legitimate stakeholders. They should take the interests of specific stakeholders appropriately into account in decision-making and operations. However, conflicts of interest among different stakeholders may overshadow the community of interests. Some parties foster the **economic value of ports**. Others are more directed towards the maximization of the **social value** or the **environmental value** of ports. For port managers, there is no alternative but to balance points that satisfy the prevailing market while minimizing adverse effects on the community and the environment. - **Economic value**. Port managers quantify the direct and indirect economic benefits of their activities, but they may encounter significant obstacles when communicating their economic value to other stakeholders. A part of the population might be unaware of how the port is organized and operated, as well as how the port contributes to the local economy. The local community might wonder whether it is getting a fair return on the scarce local resources ports use. - **Social value**. Measuring social benefits is a challenging exercise. Many ports directly support a wide variety of community events and projects through sponsorship to attract community support. However, it is the indirect social contributions that most benefit local communities. For example, ports might invest in training and education programs. Such forms of social commitment are an important part of the success of ports, linking commercial responsibility to social acceptability and accountability. - **Environmental Value**. The economic value of a port development project is now often taken for granted, so the argument focuses on environmental criteria. These include dredging and dredge disposal, loss of wetlands, air emissions, water pollution, congestion, loss of open space, light and noise externalities, potential conflicts with commercial fishing, and recreational uses of area waters. Ports must demonstrate a high level of environmental performance to secure community support. However, environmental factors also play an increasingly important role in attracting trading partners and potential investors. A port with a strong environmental record and high community support is likely to be favored. # 5. Adaptive Port Planning Port planning, design, and evaluation might not take uncertainty fully into account, which could result in plans and designs for port infrastructures that prove **inadequate under fast-changing requirements**. Port infrastructure may face a shortened economic lifetime, which can impair the returns on investment. Accounting for uncertainty within the planning process should become inherent in all port-related investments. The **[Adaptive Port Planning](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/adaptive-port-planning/ "Differences between traditional and adaptive port master planning") (APP)** framework addresses uncertainty from a different angle. Instead of creating a static port plan, this approach allows for changes, learning, and adaptation to the constantly shifting environment. These approaches were first created and implemented in the airport industry to cope with changing traffic conditions, as airlines can quickly reorganize their networks and bring substantial new traffic to an airport terminal. The APP method combines two frameworks, namely Assumption-Based Planning and Adaptive Policymaking. The strength of combining these two methods lies in its focus on formulating strategies and actions to minimize the risk of catastrophic plan failure, rather than treating uncertainty as a function of possible futures and their respective probabilities. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/adpative_port_planning.png?resize=900%2C388&ssl=1 "The Adaptive Port Planning Approach | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Adaptive port planning vs traditional port planningThere are six basic steps in the Adaptive Port Planning process. ### Step 1a: Define the problem The first step involves studying the objectives of the organization and the needs of the stakeholders in order to formulate the goals of the port project or overall plan. This allows for defining success in terms of the specification of desired outcomes to determine when the plan needs to be changed. This step also involves identifying various constraints or boundary conditions, the available choices, and the underlying assumptions. There are three major criteria to use when evaluating the success of a project or plan, which are time, money, and quality. The overall success of a port project or comprehensive port plan is measured by meeting a predefined financial criterion, such as minimizing lifecycle costs or maximizing revenues. Even so, criteria related to system effectiveness, such as technical performance, availability, and reliability, are specified and need to be met. ### Step 1b: Define strategy and formulate alternatives The planning time horizon (short, middle, or long) determines the choice of strategy. This includes selecting a forecasting method, planning techniques, tools, and a financial evaluation method. Once the project objective is defined, various alternatives can be formulated. In the case of port projects, these can relate to the various port layouts, infrastructure designs, or the complete master plan. Scenarios play an essential role in this step. The alternatives are defined based on numerous assumptions. ### Step 2: Identify load-bearing and vulnerable assumptions underlying each alternative plan In this step, the crucial load-bearing and vulnerable assumptions are identified. This requires an assessment of the consequences of failures. Identification of vulnerable assumptions involves thinking about the future and looking for plausible developments that could occur in the lifetime of the plan in question that could cause it to fail. If development is favorable to the plan, it is called an opportunity. Otherwise, the development is called a vulnerability. These vulnerabilities and opportunities are dealt with in subsequent steps. ### Step 3: Increase the flexibility and robustness of each alternative This step involves determining the actions to be taken in response to the vulnerabilities and opportunities identified in the previous step. This involves either taking action early or preparing actions in advance for future implementation. The framework identifies multiple reactions to two alternatives, namely shaping, mitigating, hedging, or seizing: - A **shaping action** either reduces or changes the vulnerability. - A **mitigating action** is taken to reduce the adverse effects. - A **hedging action** spreads or reduces the risk of highly uncertain adverse effects of a plan in the current planning cycle. Hedging actions are effective only if a vulnerability appears in the future. Therefore, it is important to establish their cost-effectiveness, especially if they entail high investments. - A **seizing action** allows seizing an opportunity. ### Step 4: Evaluate and select an alternative After identifying and incorporating each alternative, they need to be subjected to a thorough comparison. Cost is an important criterion in port projects and plans, and economic analysis is always carried out. Often, a cost-benefit analysis is conducted, which includes the future revenues an alternative can generate, as well as its direct and indirect effects. The latter may be monetized or assessed qualitatively. Tools such as a Balanced Scorecard can add strategic non-financial performance measures to traditional financial metrics to give managers and executives a more balanced view of organizational performance, thus supporting decision making. The selection from alternatives is generally based on many criteria combined with other considerations that are often political or strategic. ### Step 5: Set up a monitoring system for alternative Even the best plans can fail. Therefore, there is still a need to monitor the performance of the selected alternative and take action if some of the assumptions are failing. This requires identifying key values. This information should be tracked to determine whether the plan is on course to achieve success. The boundaries of these values (**triggers**) are specified, beyond which actions should be taken to ensure that a plan keeps moving the system in the right direction and at a proper speed. ### Step 6: Contingency planning for selected alternatives (trigger reaction) In this final step, the plan, based on the selected alternative, is further enhanced by including adaptive elements. Contingency plans are alternative plans that can be used if the baseline plans fail. The measures to address the uncertainties in step three become a part of the project’s scope. The eventual costs resulting from the risks taken are not included in the project appraisal, except in the contingency budget or the uncertainty reserve of a project. For example, extra container throughput in the event that a new shipping company decides to use a port is not included in the demand forecasts. However, as a contingency measure, land reserves can be used to capitalize on this opportunity. Next, the selected plan or design can go to the **implementation phase** once the basic plan and additional actions are agreed upon. The assumptions or the vulnerabilities may have changed since the project began. Therefore, APP is an **iterative and continuous process.** After implementing the initial mitigating, hedging, seizing, and shaping actions to make the plan robust, the adaptive planning process is suspended until a **trigger event** occurs. **Implementation is challenging** as it requires a change in perspective among stakeholders closely involved in the planning process. For example, environmental and community groups might have some reservations when APP is used to develop a new port area, as the new port land is not clearly assigned to a specific port activity (container terminal, industry) upfront. Another difficulty lies in identifying required actions linked to specific triggers or performance indicators. These actions need to be identified and evaluated for their feasibility, acceptability, and potential impact. # 6. Port Infrastructure Project Evaluation ## A. Procedures and guidelines Port infrastructure projects are under scrutiny due to government budget constraints, increased competition for land, environmental awareness, and the need for integrated transport systems. These considerations are also reflected in appraisal and evaluation procedures for port infrastructure projects. Governments must ensure that public funds are allocated to activities that deliver the most significant benefits to society and are spent as efficiently as possible. **Guidelines and tools** have been deployed to encourage a more thorough, long-term, and analytically robust approach to the appraisal and evaluation of port infrastructure projects. The **formal frameworks** typically refer to internal arrangements and working procedures. Decision-making frameworks for large infrastructure projects, such as major port developments, are typically complex due to the procedural aspects and appraisal and evaluation tools used. The **procedural aspects of the decision-making** on large port infrastructure projects should be designed in such a way that: - The procedure can be finalized within an acceptable timeframe. - The process involves relevant stakeholders throughout. - The quality of the project appraisal results can be guaranteed. The **time factor** plays an important role in any infrastructure project appraisal. First, there is the timing of the trajectory from the conception of a project to the final decision-making. The whole procedure should be finalized within an acceptable timeframe. Guidelines on project appraisal may generally include clear stipulations on the timing of completing the project evaluation studies. Deadlines are often put forward for formal steps in the decision-making process. There is tension between the long-term focus on infrastructure planning/realization and the short-term fluctuations in business cycles and markets. Markets change almost overnight, so companies typically use a short planning horizon of a few years. The shorter business and economic cycles make it increasingly challenging to maintain a long-term focus in the context of port projects. Long time series about (cargo) flows are at the core of any port infrastructure appraisal, but the uncertainty of long-term developments becomes more apparent. **Scenario building and risk analysis** have therefore become important considerations in port infrastructure appraisal. **Iterative processes** are gaining ground, as they are generally considered the way forward for providing a reasonable understanding of whether the project proposal is likely to remain good value for money in the light of changing circumstances. Iterations in a project evaluation procedure often involve a step-wise approach. The detail and accuracy of the data provided increase as the evaluation progresses from the initial steps of identifying and appraising the project alternatives to the final steps in the procedure. Given rising budget constraints, alternative procurement strategies are increasingly being considered, including the role of the private sector in financing the project (public-private partnerships). This trend poses significant challenges to port project appraisal procedures, as potential partnering arrangements and their implications for cost and benefit sharing should be identified early in the process. Interest in stakeholder approaches to strategic management is growing. The dynamics of investments in port infrastructure do not occur in a vacuum but are shaped by the strategic and operational decisions of the stakeholders involved. Consultation is important. The days when governments or port authorities could unilaterally decide on large port infrastructure projects without stakeholder involvement are long gone. At present, a significant share of the financial and human resources allocated to a project appraisal procedure is dedicated to stakeholder consultation. At the appraisal level, there is a greater emphasis on assessing the **differential impacts of port projects on the various stakeholders**, where these are likely to be significant. In other words, project evaluation techniques are geared toward making the distribution of costs and benefits among the relevant groups/stakeholders in society more transparent. Port authorities, government departments, and agencies are establishing formal evaluation or assessment units and formalizing access to internal and external auditors. There is a trend to include systematic **optimism bias** in project evaluation, which has played a major role in underestimating construction costs or overrating the indirect benefits of a port project. Dealing with optimism is gradually internalized in the evaluation process, for example through an explicit adjustment procedure to redress systematic optimism. Sensitivity analyses are now broadly used to test assumptions about operating costs and expected benefits. Project proposals are typically reviewed multiple times to assess the impact of risks, uncertainties, and inherent biases. ## B. Evaluation methods In many cases, the **Social Cost-Benefit Analysis** (SCBA) is integral to decision-making. It can be combined with other methods, including multi-criteria analysis, quantitative impact analysis, and qualitative impact analysis. These methods are typically deployed to evaluate effects that cannot be expressed in monetary values. An **economic impact study** or **economic effects analysis** can be used as well. In some cases, **input-output analyses**, which form the basis of economic impact studies, are being used to assess indirect economic effects. As such, the economic impact study, when used, is one of the quantitative impact analysis methods that can be used in combination with the SCBA. A considerable stream of literature has developed on **identifying, managing, and realizing costs and benefits**. This increased focus on methodologies to estimate the effects of port infrastructure projects has led to a multiplication of the effects considered in an SCBA. **Direct and external project effects** commonly considered in an SCBA include construction costs, maintenance and management costs, different types of logistics and transport benefits (time savings, vehicle/vessel costs, benefits for goods transportation), and the project’s impact on mobility and connectivity. The picture is less straightforward in the case of other external effects, such as noise pollution, air pollution, and visual intrusion. These latter effects can be included in SCBAs and quantified using a set of valuation techniques. In other cases, separate **quantitative or qualitative analyses** are used to assess these effects without monetary valuation. Valuation techniques for visual intrusion, vibrations, and community severance have proven less robust and less widely accepted than those for evaluating noise and air pollution. Port project appraisal and evaluation procedures and guidelines place greater emphasis on quality management. Quality tests can take various forms, ranging from assessing compliance with project appraisal guidelines to evaluating the basic scenarios and forecasts used. An external expert commission often screens interim and final project evaluation studies, with members typically consisting of central planning authorities and academics. --- ## Related Topics - [Chapter 9.1 – Inter-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/ "Chapter 9.1 – Inter-Port Competition") ## References - Coeck, C., Notteboom, T., Verbeke, A., Winkelmans, W., 1996. A resource-based perspective on strategic port planning, Proceedings of the 11th International Harbour Congress, Antwerp, 29-40. - Coto-Millán, P., J. Baños-Pino, and J. V. Castro. 2005. Determinants of the demand for maritime imports and exports. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 41(4), 357–372. - de Langen, P. W., J. Van Meijeren, and L. A. Tavasszy. 2012. Combining models and commodity chain research for making long-term projections of port throughput: An application to the Hamburg-Le Havre range. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 12(3), 310–331. - Notteboom, T., Parola, F., Satta, G., Penco, L., 2015. Disclosure as a tool in Stakeholder Relations Management: A longitudinal study on the port of Rotterdam, International Journal of Logistics Research and Application (IJLRA), 18(3), 228-250 - Notteboom, T., Winkelmans, W., 2003. Dealing with stakeholders in the port planning process, in: Dullaert, W., Jourquin, B., Polak, J., Across the border: building upon a quarter of a century of transport research in the Benelux, De Boeck, Antwerp, 249-265 - Parola, F., Satta, G., Notteboom, T., Persico, L., 2020, Revisiting traffic forecasting by port authorities in the context of port planning and development, *Maritime Economics & Logistics*, online first, <https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00170-7> - Peng, W. Y., and C. W. Chu., 2009. A comparison of univariate methods for forecasting container throughput volumes. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 50(7), 1045–1057. - Taneja, P., 2013. The Flexible Port, Volumes 2013-2016 of TRAIL thesis series, ISSN 1566-0788 - Taneja, P., W. E. Walker, H. Ligteringen, M. Van Schuylenburg, and R. Van Der Plas. 2010. Implications of an uncertain future for port planning. Maritime Policy & Management, 37(3), 221–245. - Van Dorsser, J. C. M., M. Wolters, and G. P. Van Wee. 2012. A Very Long Term Forecast of the Port Throughput in the Le Havre-Hamburg Range up to 2100. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 12(1), 88-110. - Vitsounis T.K. and Pallis A.A. (2012). Port Value Chains and the role of interdependencies, in: Song, D.W. and Panayides P.M. (eds), Maritime Logistics: Contemporary Issues, Bigley: Emerald, 155-172. - Winkelmans, W., Notteboom, T. 2002. Dealing with uncertainty in port capacity planning, Port Technology International, edition 16, Summer 2002, 187-189. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Ports and Economic Location Factors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/ports-and-economic-location-factors/) **Published:** February 7, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ports_economic_location_factors.png?resize=900%2C510&ssl=1 "Ports and Economic Location Factors | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ports and Economic Location FactorsAccording to conventional location theory, manufacturing activities are influenced in their locational choices by three main categories of factors having different considerations (**pull effect**) for ports: - The first is the **material inputs** of manufacturing, such as energy, raw materials, and land. Since many of these factors involve ponderous resources such as coal, iron ore, grain, and petroleum, they are associated with **industrial ports** where activities are directly adjacent to port terminals. - The second concerns the non**-material manufacturing inputs**, such as labor and regulations, which are associated with manufacturing cluster ports. - The third involves the **outputs** of manufacturing, such as its markets and customers, which are associated with **gateway or transshipment ports**. This is the factor that depends most on the shipping network effect and market accessibility. With several aspects of manufacturing becoming less dependent on basic input costs, the value of manufacturing is more related to how a location can provide access to a wide pool of suppliers and customers. Areas having access to global and regional distribution systems thus convey an important advantage. Manufacturing has become more dependent on logistical capabilities and the flexibility they confer. Since logistics is a highly transport-intensive activity, areas near port terminal facilities offer an attractive proposition. Through its connectivity to global markets, raw materials, and parts, the port can maximize opportunities for manufacturing and appears to be the most stable location in a context where input costs and sourcing strategies could fluctuate. The higher the connectivity a port can offer, the better its value in the emerging manufacturing landscape. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/ports-and-economic-location-factors/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/ports-and-economic-location-factors/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/ports-and-economic-location-factors/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/ports-and-economic-location-factors/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Evolution of Traffic Handled by Container Ports, 1970-2020](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/evolution-traffic-handled-container-ports/) **Published:** January 12, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-TEU-1970.png?resize=900%2C468&ssl=1 "The Dawn of Containerization: 1970 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Dawn of Containerization 1970![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-TEU-1995.png?resize=900%2C468&ssl=1 "Containerization Coming to Age: 1995 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Containerization Coming to Age 1995![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-TEU-2020.png?resize=900%2C468&ssl=1 "Peak Containerization: 2020 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Peak Containerization 2020*Source: Adapted from Guerrero, D. and J-P Rodrigue (2014) “The Waves of Containerization: Shifts in Global Maritime Transportation”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 35, pp. 151-164.* [PDF Map 1970](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-TEU-1970.pdf) [PDF Map 1995](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-TEU-1995.pdf) [PDF Map 2020](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-TEU-2020.pdf) The geographical diffusion of container port growth took place in five major waves (phases) ## Early trade substitution The first containerized services were established by Sea-Land in the late 1950s and early 1960s, linking ports in North America and the Caribbean. By the 1970s, regular transatlantic (Northern range of Western Europe and American East Coast) and transpacific services (Japan, Australia to a lesser extent, and American West Coast) were established through ports that were the first to adopt containerization and are thus considered to be the pioneers (e.g., New York, Yokohama, Oakland, and Hamburg). They are almost all part of the economic triad that led to globalization: North America, Western Europe, Japan, and Australia. These ports accounted for the dominant share (about 80%) of the global throughput in 1970, but this share fell rapidly afterward. Few of these ports retained their primacy, partly because the rationale behind their emergence played out to a much lesser extent, or because limited room was available for terminal expansion. A port site may be suitable for a specific volume, but there may be limited opportunities for port expansion once that volume is reached. For instance, the initial primacy of Oakland was overtaken by the ports of Los Angeles / Long Beach, covering a wider regional market and having more room for expansion and better inland connections. The exception is Australia, where Sydney and Brisbane remained dominant gateways. The first wave underscores that several pioneers were able to capitalize on the opportunities of containerization. Still, due to market or technical reasons, they were unable to keep this initial advantage because of factors entirely outside their control, such as a shift in trade patterns. ## Adoption of containerization The second wave represents an expansion of containerization within the triad and its regional trade partners. It takes place in two phases, with the first occurring in the mid-1970s and accounting for a larger share of the world’s throughput. While many of these ports were operational in the early 1970s, their market share increased, and several became the world’s dominant container ports, only to be overtaken by Chinese ports in the 2000s. This shift took place not because of a lack of growth but because of differential growth rates. Salient examples include Rotterdam, Tokyo, and Hong Kong. In the late 1970s, growth mostly occurred in ports adjacent to the triad, such as in the Caribbean, Latin America, the Mediterranean, and emerging East Asian tigers (Thailand, Taiwan, and Hong Kong). From a pattern dominated by the triad, containerization undertook the initial phase of its global diffusion by embedding itself in commercial relations through a substitution effect of conventional break bulk trades. More intermediary locations in the Middle East (and India, to a lesser extent) were also involved since the growth of containerized shipping between Asia and Europe presented opportunities to add port calls along pendulum routes. This wave (and the first wave as well) is dominantly bound to the dynamics spearheaded by North America, Western Europe, and Japan. ## Setting of global supply chains The third wave concerns the largest number of ports. It captures the massive diffusion of containerization, particularly the incorporation of East and Southeast Asia (without China) in global trade relations through the beginning of offshoring as well as the emergence of early transshipment hubs. As the number of container ports increased, the network strategy to serve them favored shifting from point-to-point services along pendulum routes to hub-and-spoke services. Indeed, several ports that emerged during this wave became major transshipment hubs through intermediary locations along major shipping corridors such as Singapore, Colombo, and Dubai. Many of these ports are small market-oriented city-states located on the edge of much larger countries (e. g., Indonesia \[Singapore\], India \[Colombo\], Iran \[Dubai\]), not well open to global trade. During that period (the mid-1980s), it was difficult to get transport documentation that encompassed all the steps through to the final destination country, so containers were consigned to these hub ports, at which local freight forwarders and banks with good contacts in the destination country took the responsibility of the final leg of the journey. ## China and transshipment hubs From the mid-1990s, the container became the standard means for global freight distribution, particularly with the massive entry of Chinese ports into global shipping networks and the emergence of post-Panamax ships. Furthermore, this wave also represents the increasing regionalization of East Asian countries, with the resulting trade growth one of the drivers of the growth of East Asian ports. Several ports in this wave are new transshipment hubs that have been inserted to accommodate the growing network complexity and better link regional ports to deep-sea services (e.g., Salalah, Gioia Tauro, Colon, Freeport). New gateways are also emerging to accommodate growth in emerging economies (e.g., Vietnam, Mexico, India, Brazil). The latter stage of that wave concerns China’s gateway ports that provide additional export capabilities (some spillover effect) for massive manufacturing clusters (e.g., Ningbo, Guangzhou). For the rest of the world, they are mostly concerned about additional transshipment hubs being set by global terminal operators (e.g., Tanjung Pelepas). ## Peak growth The fifth wave concerns ports that have emerged recently (late 2000s) and is linked to peak growth in global container shipping. It is particularly one involving niche ports that fill a specific role, such as a new gateway to address congestion along a route (e.g., Yingkou or Taicang), or a new transshipment hub inserted into maritime shipping networks (e.g., Tangier Med, Caucedo). In recent years, Prince Rupert in Canada has been the only port of significance that has emerged on the North American west coast, capitalizing on short transpacific transit times and a direct rail connection to the heartland (Chicago). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/evolution-traffic-handled-container-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/evolution-traffic-handled-container-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/evolution-traffic-handled-container-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/evolution-traffic-handled-container-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Blue Economy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/the-blue-economy/) **Published:** March 20, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/blue_economy2.png?resize=900%2C517&ssl=1 "The Blue Economy | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Blue EconomyThe blue economy encompasses all economic activities based on or related to the ocean, seas, and coasts. This includes a wide variety of economic sectors, such as fisheries and aquaculture, coastal tourism, shipping, ports, and marine renewable energy. Three types of oceanic regions help articulate the ocean economy, with **coastal areas** representing the most extensively used because of their adjacency and ease of access. In recent years, [Exclusive Economic Zones](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3962) (EEZ) have been formalized for the purpose of sovereign ownership of energy and mineral resources, as well as fishing rights. The **deepsea** (or high seas) is usually composed of international waters, with navigation being its most prevalent use. The extraction of resources on the high seas is subject to international regulations commonly managed by the United Nations. There are three groups of activities related to the ocean economy: - **Harvesting of living resources**. The most conventional use of ocean resources concerns fisheries, which account for about 15% of the world’s protein intake, with aquaculture accounting for about 20% of all the fish harvested. A growing share of seafood comes from aquaculture since conventional fish sources are challenged by overfishing, and the global population requires additional protein sources. With scientific advances, marine biotechnology enables a more extensive usage of aquatic resources by the pharmaceutical and chemical industries. - **Extraction of non-living resources**. The use of the oceans to extract energy and mineral resources is relatively recent. Seabed mining is an emerging technology enabling the extraction of minerals from nodules. Although this activity can occur at almost any depth, the mineral rights are only available within an EEZ. The International Seabed Authority manages mineral rights in the high seas, but no significant commercial ventures have yet been realized. Oil and gas are extracted from offshore platforms, mostly on the continental shelf within EEZs. The use of the oceans as a source of renewable energy is also beginning, particularly with offshore wind farms and tidal energy. In many areas, the scarcity of freshwater supply has incited the construction of desalination plants, which account for a growing share of the world’s freshwater production. - **Maritime trade and commerce**. With globalization, international trade and maritime shipping have experienced substantial growth. This went on par with the expansion of port facilities and their associated logistical activities. The use of the oceans for touristic and recreational purposes is expanding, particularly in tropical and subtropical regions. The ongoing development of coastal resorts occupies a significant amount of coastal real estate captured by large hotel chains. Cruise shipping is also expanding with larger ships servicing more itineraries, creating an entirely new dimension to the ocean economy. Over the centuries, human coastal settlements have emerged to take advantage of the commercial opportunities offered by maritime shipping. Many of the world’s most important cities are port cities. The process now continues, in part driven by the economic and aesthetic amenities offered by coastal areas. The blue economy creates a substantial number of jobs and economic opportunities worldwide. For example, data released in Europe at the beginning of the 2020s show that the EU blue economy employs over 3.6 million people, has a turnover exceeding €620 billion, and accounts for €171 billion in Gross Value Added (GVA). Offshore wind energy, shipbuilding and repair, maritime transport, marine living resources, and port activities demonstrate the most significant increase in nominal GVA. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/the-blue-economy/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/the-blue-economy/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/the-blue-economy/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/the-blue-economy/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Cost Components and Total Port Pricing per TEU (USD), 2012](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/port-cost-components-teu/) **Published:** January 26, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_cost_components.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Port Cost Components and Total Port Pricing per TEU (USD), 2012 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Cost Components and Total Port Pricing per TEU USD 2012*Source: Ports Regulator of South Africa Container Port Tariff Comparator Study (2012).* There are four main port cost components dealing with the harbor side and the land side of port operations: - **Terminal Handling Charges** (THC). The fee collected by terminal operators from shipping lines, who in turn recover from shippers the terminal costs (loading or unloading) and other related costs borne by the shipping lines at the port of shipment or destination. The shippers at the origin port of shipment are responsible for paying the THC to the terminal operator at the loading port. The consignees are responsible for paying the freight rate and the THC (or equivalent) to the terminal operator at the destination port. Terminal handling charges for exports are usually collected by shipping lines upon release of the Bill of Lading after completing export customs clearance procedures. Shipping lines collect the import terminal handling charges when issuing the delivery order to the consignee to take delivery of goods. - **Cargo Dues** (also known as Wharfage). The fee levied by the port authority on users (exporters, importers, or shipping lines) for the provision and maintenance of harbor infrastructure supporting cargo movements, such as quays, access roads, railway lines, lighting, and bulk services (outside terminal boundaries). This fee is generally fixed and published as an official tariff. - **Port Dues**. A charge levied by the port on all entering ships and is generally calculated on the gross registered tonnage of the ship based on its tonnage certificate. It reflects the provision and maintenance of harbor infrastructures such as entrance channels, breakwaters, turning basins, maintenance dredging, and navigational aids inside port limits. - **Marine Service Costs**. Costs paid by the shipping line for compulsory marine services such as pilotage, berthing, and tug assistance. Usually incurred when entering and leaving the port, and based on vessel size. Such costs can also be included in the port dues. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/port-cost-components-teu/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/port-cost-components-teu/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/port-cost-components-teu/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/port-cost-components-teu/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 6.4 - Port Cold Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/) **Published:** January 7, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue and Dr. Theo Notteboom > Cold chain technology has enabled ports to play an active role within these supply chains, particularly with the use of refrigerated containers (reefers). CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Cold Chain Logistics](#1_Cold_Chain_Logistics) - [2. Refrigerated Containers](#2_Refrigerated_Containers) - [3. Reefer Terminal Facilities](#3_Reefer_Terminal_Facilities) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Cold Chain Logistics Developments in reefer transportation and logistics have facilitated the growth in the **global demand for cold chain products**. Although the reefer is a homogeneous transportation product, the markets it services are highly heterogeneous, ranging from agricultural goods to pharmaceuticals and chemicals, and even fresh flowers. > The **cold chain** involves the transportation of temperature-sensitive products along a supply chain through thermal and refrigerated packaging methods and logistical planning to protect the integrity of these shipments. There are several means by which cold chain products can be transported, including refrigerated trucks and railcars, refrigerated cargo ships, reefers, and air cargo. While global supply chains are relatively modern developments in the transportation industry, the refrigerated movement of temperature-sensitive goods dates back to 1797, when British fishermen used natural ice and salt to preserve their fish stockpiles while at sea. By the 19th century, an **ice trade** had emerged, allowing for rudimentary forms of refrigeration. During the winter in the northeast United States and Norway, ice was cut from freshwater ponds into large blocks and hauled into icehouses for storage. Then, ice blocks were distributed to local or regional markets through wagons, rail, and barges. This allowed food distribution from rural areas to urban consumer markets, including fruits, vegetables, and dairy products, which could be effectively stored using ice-refrigerated wagons and storage facilities. Since wood chips were used as a form of insulation during storage and transport, the ice trade benefited from the availability of this by-product in wood extraction regions of New England. By the mid-19th century, an active international ice trade had emerged, with ice being shipped from New England to the Caribbean, Latin America, and even India. With the growing ice trade, ports established their first cold storage facilities and initiated the development of cold chains. By the early 20th century, the invention of refrigeration allowed for local, year-round production of ice. This marked the downfall of the conventional ice trade with the construction of the first refrigerated ships in the 1880s, which featured a refrigerated section of the cargo hold. At that time, France began receiving large shipments of frozen meat and mutton carcasses from South America. At the same time, Great Britain imported frozen beef from Australia and pork, as well as other meats, from New Zealand. This process was incited by a shortage of meat production in Europe and substantial surpluses in developing countries. By 1910, 600,000 tons of frozen meat were being brought into Great Britain alone. In addition to frozen meat and fish, refrigeration enabled the establishment of tropical fruit trades that required specialized reefer ships designed for that purpose. The first reefer ship for the **[banana trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1203)** was introduced in 1902 by the United Fruit Company to carry tropical fruits from Central America to the United States. This enabled the banana to transition from being an exotic fruit with a limited market due to its rapid ripening to one of the world’s most widely consumed fruits and the fifth most traded agricultural commodity. A whole range of [handling procedures](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/handling-bananas/ "The Transport and Handling of Bananas") and equipment has been developed, making the banana a core driver of cold chain logistics. Its impacts on the reefer industry were monumental and incited the construction of cold storage facilities near ports. Banana trading multinationals were initially **fully vertically integrated** as they owned plantations, port terminals, reefer ships, ripening centers, and cold storage facilities. An important dimension of the banana trade concerns its containerization. In the past, tropical fruits were predominantly transported in specifically designed reefer ships. The last quarter of a century has seen rapid containerization of the banana trade, which now accounts for [20% of all maritime reefer usage](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1182). For instance, about 60% of all bananas [imported into the United States](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1199) are carried in refrigerated containers. In some markets, such as the Caribbean, the diffusion of container shipping services was accelerated by the potential offered by reefer trades. Accordingly, specialized reefer ships were gradually being phased out to be replaced by specialized containerships, most of which had their own cranes, designed to carry refrigerated containers. Large fruit companies, such as Dole, Chiquita, and Del Monte, are transitioning toward reefer-only operations, which necessitates the creation of large reefer terminals capable of handling such volumes. Additionally, conventional container shipping lines offer reefer capacity on their ships, capturing a growing share of the banana trade. Globalization and more reliable cold chains can significantly impact supply chains by [expanding available options](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1190) in terms of locations and processes. This results in an increase in the quantity and quality of products available on markets as well as lower costs. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/4a10816v.jpg?resize=900%2C722&ssl=1 "Unloading a Banana Ship, New Orleans, 1903 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Unloading a Banana Ship New Orleans 1903![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-US-Banana-Ports.png?resize=900%2C650&ssl=1 "Map US Banana Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main American Banana Import Ports 2011![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Handling-equipment-banana-terminal.png?resize=900%2C485&ssl=1 "The Transport and Handling of Bananas | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Handling Equipment at a Banana Terminal![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cold_chain_flexibility.png?resize=900%2C590&ssl=1 "Containerization, Cold Chains and the Flexibility of Supply Chains | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Containerization Cold Chains and the Flexibility of Supply Chains# 2. Refrigerated Containers ## A. The reefer market Refrigerated containers (**reefers**) account for a growing share of the [refrigerated cargo](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1182) transported around the world. While in 1980, 33% of the refrigerated transport capacity in maritime shipping was containerized, this share [rapidly climbed](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1186) to 82% in 2017. Two major factors account for the growth in the transportation of refrigerated containers: - The rise in **global incomes**, particularly in developing economies, is accompanied by a nutritional transition. This drives the consumption of imported fresh food. - The growing **availability of refrigerated containers and equipment and cold chain techniques** allows for the transport of temperature-sensitive goods under better conditions and over longer distances. The structure of global maritime shipping is thus adapting to service the reefer trade, implying a **shift away from specialized ports** or specialized terminals within ports to standard container terminals. The reefer has become a common temperature-controlled transport unit used to ensure load integrity, as it can accommodate a wide range of temperature settings and a wide range of temperature-sensitive products. It is also a versatile unit able to carry around 20 to 25 tons of refrigerated or temperature-sensitive cargo. It is fully compatible with the global intermodal transport system, ensuring high accessibility to markets worldwide. A wide [variety of cargoes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1182 "Seaborne Reefer Trade, 2008") can be carried in reefers. On occasion, a reefer is used to carry a regular container cargo load if repositioned or if there is a shortage of standard containers. By 2023, approximately 4 million TEU of reefers were in use, accounting for around 5% of the global ISO container capacity. To compare, a regular 40-foot container costs around $5,000, while a reefer of the same size costs in the range of $30,000. The cost difference is attributed to the insulation and the refrigeration unit that maintains a constant temperature. This implies that a reefer has less volume than a regular container of the same size. While a regular 40-foot high-cube container can accommodate a volume of 76 cubic meters, a reefer of the same size handles 67 cubic meters (12% less). This shortcoming is compensated for by the heavier loads typically carried in reefers. From a manufacturing standpoint, all the world’s reefers are made in China. In 2015, MCI, a subsidiary of Maersk, commenced operations at a new reefer manufacturing plant in San Antonio, Chile. The main locational rationale was that manufacturing reefers next to major export areas of refrigerated cargoes (fruits such as oranges and grapes) would provide a free first move. However, the plant was closed in 2018, primarily due to high production costs. The higher costs of the reefer, including its energy consumption and the additional equipment and monitoring required, result in higher shipping rates. The rates vary according to the value of the temperature-sensitive cargo being carried, as well as whether it is frozen (lower rate) or fresh (higher rate). A reefer must be used four to six times per year as a revenue-generating movement to be profitable. Due to the specific trades they service, reefers are often repositioned empty or used as regular containers with their power supply turned off. As such, they are labeled as non-operating reefers. The reefer trade is a **full container load** (FCL) and **point-to-point** only. Unlike the regular container trade, there is no consolidation or deconsolidation function performed in reefer transportation, as this would increase the risk of damaging the cargo being carried. Deconsolidation usually occurs either when the contents of reefers are transloaded into domestic reefers or at the distribution center when orders are assembled for customers (particularly for [groceries](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=6671)). Under specific circumstances, reefers can even be used as [refrigerated storage units](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=6714). ![Seaborne Reefer Trade, 2008](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/seaborne_reefer_trade.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "seaborne_reefer_trade | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Seaborne Reefer Trade 2008![Share of Refrigerated Transport Capacity in Maritime Shipping, 1980-2017](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/refrigirated_maritime_capacity.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "refrigirated_maritime_capacity | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Share of Refrigerated Transport Capacity in Maritime Shipping 1980 2017## B. Technical considerations Reefer operations are subject to several crucial technical considerations. Proper **air circulation** must be ensured, which means that reefers have gratings on the floor and that a clearance of approximately 15 cm must be maintained between the cargo and the ceiling. Cold air coming out of the refrigeration unit flows through the bottom part of the reefer, and as it warms up, it climbs toward the ceiling to flow back to the refrigeration unit, usually 0.5 °C to 3 °C warmer. The heat can be the outcome of ambient temperature permeating into the reefer (this is particularly the case when the ambient temperature is high), as well as the cooling of the cargo if it was loaded in at a warmer temperature than is maintained in the reefer. All reefers are **painted white** to increase the albedo (share of the incident light being reflected; high albedo implies less solar energy absorbed by the surface). For instance, a low albedo container can have its internal temperature increase to 50 °C when the external temperature reaches 25 °C on a sunny day. In comparison, a high albedo container experiences an internal temperature increase of only 38 °C under the same conditions. The refrigeration unit of a reefer requires an **electric power source** during transportation and at a container yard. For the road transport of a reefer, either a clip-on generator (called a Genset; it attaches to the upper front end of a reefer) or an underslung generator (which attaches under a container chassis) is used. For modes such as maritime and rail that can carry multiple containers, the capacity of the power system determines the number of reefers that can be carried. Regular containerships have 10% to 20% of their slots adapted to carry reefers. Some ships have up to 25% of their slots dedicated to servicing routes with a higher intensity of refrigerated cargo (e.g., Latin American exports). Onboard ship generators directly provide the power. For rail movements, diesel generators are used to provide power to about eight reefer containers. These Genset units have the same dimensions as a 40-foot container and can use the same intermodal equipment as intermodal containers. A common loadout for unit trains is to have two stacked Genset units to power a group of 16 reefers. Clip-on generators are commonly used for smaller reefer loads or shorter distances. It is essential to note that the refrigeration units are designed to **maintain the temperature** within a specified range, rather than to cool it down. This means that the shipment must be brought to the required temperature before being loaded into a reefer, which requires specialized warehousing and loading/unloading facilities. Another technical consideration concerns **monitoring the condition** of reefers and their cargoes. A variety of sensors are included in the new generation of smart reefers monitoring temperature and humidity conditions and using the cooling plant more efficiently. This enables the improvement of the reliability of temperature control and extends the autonomy of the reefer. Still, vessel crews and terminal personnel must physically monitor reefer conditions, which is time-consuming and prone to errors. An emerging trend and standard involves equipping reefers with remote management systems to monitor the temperature and humidity. These units are equipped with a GPS and a wireless communication device on the reefer controller unit to provide regular updates to a ship’s onboard information systems, enabling assessment of any issues that may occur along the cold chain. Thus, the reefer becomes a component of the Internet of Things (IoT), allowing it to be queried and monitored at any given time and location. **Humidity** can become an issue for refrigerated and standard containers during transport time, as their cargo can be damaged by condensation. The most common forms of moisture damage include corrosion, caking of powders, peeling of labels, mold growth, microorganism contamination, warping of cardboard, and deterioration of packaging materials. Containers are waterproof, but not hermetic, allowing for exchanges between their cargo hold and the ambient air. The main source of humidity is related to stuffing the container in a humid environment and carrying goods with high moisture content. Humidity levels of around 40% can favor corrosion on containers, impacting their durability and maintenance. Humidity levels in the range of 60% to 70% can incite the growth of molds and microorganisms on agricultural commodities, fabrics, and leather. High humidity levels can also weaken and damage cardboard packaging, potentially leading to damage to the cargo content, such as electronics. Estimates place that about 10% of the cargo carried in containers receives a level of humidity damage. If the ambient temperature drops by a factor of 5 °C over a short period (e.g., a cold front or significant differences between day and night temperatures), humidity inside the container can condense on the container’s interior and its cargo. With the repetition of this cycle, the risk and extent of damage increase. Using desiccants to absorb extra humidity inside containers is a common mitigation strategy. # 3. Reefer Terminal Facilities The growth in cold chain logistics has increasingly required transport terminals such as ports to dedicate a part of their [storage yards to reefers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1210). This accounts for between **1% and 5% of the total terminal capacity** but can be higher for transshipment hubs or terminals in areas with an important reefer trade, such as the [Philadelphia region](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1221) and Antwerp. Around the world, large numbers of reefer slots are observed in three primary contexts: - **Commercial gateways** where the reefer trade involves imports of food products for the domestic market. The level of reefer activity is usually related to market size and the level of economic development. This primarily characterizes European, Chinese, and North American ports, which have extensive and complex food distribution systems. - **Transshipment hubs** connecting regional reefer trades such as Singapore, Dubai, Busan, and Algeciras. The purpose of these hubs is to transfer reefers between maritime shipping routes quickly. This takes place at transshipment hubs that have the best connectivity and performance levels. - **Reefer export platforms** related to fruit and vegetable trades, such as from South Africa, Brazil, Ecuador, Chile, and [Costa Rica](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1214). The high involvement of a port’s hinterland in trades related to perishables is associated with a higher than average number of reefer plugs. ![Reefer Rack Storage, Porte Oceane Terminal, Le Havre](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_5894.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "IMG_5894 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Reefer Rack Storage Porte Oceane Terminal Le Havre![Packer Avenue Marine Terminal, Philadelphia](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-06-04-10.10.30.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "2019-06-04 10.10.30 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Packer Avenue Marine Terminal Philadelphia![Number of Reefer Slots per Container Port](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Reefer-Slots.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Number of Reefer Slots per Container Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Number of Reefer Slots per Container Port![Reefer Slots Available at North American Ports](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-US-Reefer-Slots.png?resize=900%2C650&ssl=1 "Map US Reefer Slots | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Reefer Slots Available at North American Ports![The Limon Moin Container Terminal, Costa Rica](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Moin-primary-3.jpg?resize=900%2C588&ssl=1 "The Limon Moin Container Terminal, Costa Rica | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Limon Moin Container Terminal Costa Rica![Reefer Power Outlet](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-06-04-12.45.23.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "2019-06-04 12.45.23 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Reefer Power OutletDue to the nature of their cargo, **reefers impose particular requirements on port infrastructure**, namely in terms of storage space, energy supply, and handling processes. Reefer storage requirements involve having an adjacent power outlet, known as a [reefer plug](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1234). The task is labor-intensive, as each container must be manually plugged and unplugged. The temperature has to be regularly monitored, as it is the responsibility of the terminal operator to ensure that reefers keep their temperature within preset ranges. With information technology, monitoring reefers in a terminal is being automated, with essential information, such as temperature and its fluctuations, humidity, and refrigeration unit power usage, being collected and stored. Any unusual event, such as a rise in internal temperature, can be flagged for immediate intervention. In a terminal, **reefer stacking areas** usually rely on three approaches: - **[Wheeled storage](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1241)**. A conventional method involves placing reefers on chassis that are then moved to a parking area, where each parking slot has an electric reefer plug. This tends to be associated with lower operating expenses but consumes more space. Only regular trucks are required for terminal operations. - **[Stacked storage](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1246)**. Using yard equipment such as reachstackers to stack reefers up to three in height. It allows for higher densities but requires more equipment and labor. - **[Rack storage](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1210)**. An emerging method taking place at high-throughput terminals where land can be scarce. The reefers are stored and stacked into rack systems that can hold between 20 and 30 reefers. Reefer racks have a common power supply, and each reefer can be accessed and monitored through platforms. Such a storage system has higher capital costs but requires a reduced terminal footprint; four to six times less storage space than wheeled storage. Even if reefers involve higher terminal costs, they are **highly profitable** due to the high value of transported commodities. Depending on the intensity of reefer use, reefer activities can account for between 20% and 35% of the total energy consumption of a container terminal. Under specific circumstances, reefers can even be used as [refrigerated storage units](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1251) when there is not enough refrigerated warehousing capacity or when the reefer only stays for a short duration. As global incomes continue to improve, the demand for goods such as fresh meat, fruits, and vegetables is expected to rise, along with the demand for reefers and port facilities to handle them. ![Wheeled Reefer Storage](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-06-04-12.35.26.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "2019-06-04 12.35.26 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Wheeled Reefer Storage![Stacked Reefer Storage, Maher Terminal, Newark](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_3861.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "IMG_3861 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Stacked Reefer Storage Maher Terminal Newark![Reefers Used for Temporary Cold Chain Storage](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2016-10-04-12.48.41.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "2016-10-04 12.48.41 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Reefers Used for Temporary Cold Chain Storage--- # Related Topics - [Chapter 8.4 Containers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2346) - [The Cold Chain and its Logistics](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=6585) --- ## References - Arduino, G., Carrillo Murillo, D. and F. Parola (2015) “Refrigerated container versus bulk: evidence from the banana cold chain”, Maritime Policy and Management, 42(3), pp. 228–245. - Behdani, B., Y. Fan and Bloemhof, J. (2019) “Cool chain and temperature-controlled transport: An overview of concepts, challenges, and technologies”. In R. Accorsi & R. Manzini (eds), Sustainable Food Supply Chains, Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, pp. 167–183. - Lennersfors, T.T. and P. Birch (2019) Snow in the Tropics: A History of the Independent Reefer Operators, Leiden: Brill Publishers. - Rodrigue, J-P and Notteboom, T. (2015) “Looking inside the box: evidence from the containerization of commodities and the cold chain”, Maritime Policy & Management, 42(3), pp. 207–227. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 6.3 - Containers: The Containerization of Commodities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/) **Published:** November 25, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue and Dr. Theo Notteboom > Containers can carry commodities such as coffee, coal or grain that used to be carried in bulk or breakbulk. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. New Growth Dynamics for Containerization](#1_New_Growth_Dynamics_for_Containerization) - [2. Potential Markets](#2_Potential_Markets) - [3. Commodities in Containers](#3_Commodities_in_Containers) - [4. Transloading and Terminal Issues](#4_Transloading_and_Terminal_Issues) - [5. Containerized Commodity Chains](#5_Containerized_Commodity_Chains) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. New Growth Dynamics for Containerization The concept of the container as a transport unit can be expanded to consider the container as a unit within a supply or commodity chain. Containerized freight is commonly characterized by the movement of manufactured goods and parts from manufacturing facilities to retail outlets, with various intermediary activities, including terminals and distribution centers. This process has substantially benefited from containerization in terms of cargo mobility, spatial flexibility, and distribution efficiency. The outcome has been the emergence of global production and distribution networks. Containerization has mainly been investigated from the **principle of flow**, particularly in light of maritime and inland logistics developments. Issues such as shipping networks, service configurations, and the setting up and operation of maritime terminals and inland ports have received attention to explain the structure of **global supply chains**. Paradoxically, the conceptualization and invention of the container are primarily the outcome of Malcolm McClean’s attempt to find an alternative to loading cotton bales, a significant agricultural commodity. The conventional [growth dynamics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/containerization-growth-factors/ "Containerization Growth Factors") of containerization have mainly relied on an array of factors, including the **derived volume** linked with outsourcing and offshoring, the **substitution of breakbulk traffic** into containerized traffic, the requirement to **reposition empty containers**, and **transshipment** taking place at intermediary hubs. Still, the dynamics based on derived demand may have reached maturity in terms of their containerization potential, as many global supply chains are now fully containerized. For the conventional containerized market, this implies that changes are derived primarily from the ebb and flow of commercial activity, rather than from the geographical and functional diffusion of the container. As the derived growth function of containerization becomes less dynamic, an increasing share of the growth will develop niche markets and opportunities that were initially bypassed. It is thus important to consider **commodity chains** as a component of containerization. > **Commodity**. Resources that can be consumed with no qualitative differentiation. They can be accumulated for a period of time (some are perishable while others can be stored for centuries), exchanged as part of transactions, or purchased on specific markets (such as futures market). Some commodities, except for the title, are fixed, implying they cannot be transferred. This includes land, mining, logging, and fishing rights. The value of a fixed commodity is derived from the utility and the potential extraction rate. Bulk commodities can be transferred, including grains, metals, livestock, oil, cotton, coffee, sugar, and cocoa. Their value is derived from utility, supply, and demand (market price). [![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/containerization_growth_factors2.png?resize=900%2C432&ssl=1 "Containerization Growth Factors | Port Economics, Management and Policy")](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/containerization-growth-factors/containerization_growth_factors/)Containerization Growth Factors![Bulk and Containerized Commodity Chains](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/bulk_containerized_commodity_chains2.png?resize=900%2C734&ssl=1 "Bulk and Containerized Commodity Chains | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Bulk and Containerized Commodity Chains[![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/containerized_agricultural_trade_usa.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Monthly Containerized Agricultural Trade, United States, 2016-2021 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/containerized_agricultural_trade_usa/)Monthly Containerized Agricultural Trade United States 2016 2021Commodities, such as grains, chemicals, and wood products, are among an extensive array of goods traded in the global economy and represent a **niche market** for containerization. It can thus be argued that a subsequent phase in the geographical and functional diffusion of containerization will involve commodities, representing a notable market opportunity. Both bulk and containerized transport systems have a role to play, implying that the containerization of commodity chains is more likely to be based on [complementarity rather than competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/bulk-and-containerized-commodity-chains/ "Bulk and Containerized Commodity Chains"), as each transport system has its advantages. It is clear that for several commodities, such as grain, iron ore, and coal, containerization will, at best, perform a niche role in the total volume handled. Both will benefit, as containerization offers speed and flexibility, while bulk offers the lowest possible transport cost and economies of scale. Because of vested interests, in terms of accumulated infrastructure investment and long-standing practices, many opportunities could be captured by commodity producers, large and small alike, over niche markets (high-quality grains, organics, etc.). For instance, the share of US [containerized waterborne agricultural exports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/containerized-agricultural-trade-usa/ "Monthly Containerized Agricultural Trade, United States, 2016-2021") is 25% by volume and nearly 55% by value, which has steadily increased. # 2. Potential Markets The degree of market penetration of containerization remains to be assessed, and there is a wide variety of levels at which the container can be embedded within various commodity chains. Some commodities are already [**fully containerized**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/commodity-group-and-containerization-level/ "Commodity Group and Containerization Level"), while containerization is still in its infancy for others. For instance, 95% of all European coffee imports are containerized, as [coffee](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/container-coffee-stuffing-station-port-of-cartagena/ "Container Coffee Stuffing Station, Port of Cartagena") is a high-value commodity with widespread consumption at the mass market level. The demand structure of coffee is thus well-suited for the benefits of containerization. Many segments of raw materials and food commodity chains are being containerized, which is starting to account for a notable share of international trade. This process is supported by [several factors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/growth-factors-containerization-commodities/ "Growth Factors behind the Containerization of Commodities"): - **Availability of containers**. The growing availability of containers in transport markets around the world, making them a rather ubiquitous transport product. Yet, this ubiquity is challenged by container shortages and specific container sizes in some markets. - **Economies of scale in [bulk shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/bulk-ship-classes/ "Bulk Ship Classes")**. The minimum load unit is large and less accessible to smaller commodity exporters. The container load unit is offering an alternative for these exporters. - **Commodity prices**. From a value proposition standpoint, a general rise in commodity prices and growing demand in new markets have made many commodities more prone to be containerized. However, when commodity prices drop, the container is a less attractive proposition. - **Bulk shipping rates**. Fluctuations and increases in bulk shipping rates have prompted the search for alternatives to bulk shipping whenever possible. Volatility also makes long-term planning for bulk shipping complex and subject to risks. - **Container shipping rates**. Relatively stable and [declining container shipping costs](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/commodity-index-baltic-dry-index-container-shipping-rates/ "Commodity Index, Baltic Dry Index and Container Shipping Rates, 2000-2022"), particularly in light of rising commodity prices, have rendered the container even more attractive, as shippers can be confident about the stability of container shipping rates. - **Specialization and integrity**. A propensity toward demand diversification and product specialization allows specific goods to be carried in containers that maintain their cargo integrity. - **Trade imbalances**. Global trade imbalances are translated into imbalanced container shipping rates, which represent a notable export subsidy for return (backhaul) cargo. For markets having notable imbalances, such as China (exports) and the United States (imports), incentives are acute. - [**Empty container repositioning**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/geographical-levels-empty-container-repositioning/ "Geographical Levels of Empty Container Repositioning"). Created opportunities by making pools of empty containers available that can be filled with commodities for backhaul flows. - **Value chains**. A trend to move processing close to production, particularly for agricultural sectors in developing economies focusing on global market exports. Unlike unprocessed raw materials or agricultural goods, processed goods are more suitable for containerization. For instance, processed cocoa and cashew nuts are highly suitable for containerization. [![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/factors_containerization_commodities.png?resize=900%2C484&ssl=1 "Growth Factors behind the Containerization of Commodities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/containerization-of-commodities/growth-factors-containerization-commodities/factors_containerization_commodities/)Growth Factors behind the Containerization of Commodities[![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/commodity_group_containerization.png?resize=900%2C480&ssl=1 "Commodity Group and Containerization Level | Port Economics, Management and Policy")](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/commodity_group_containerization/)Commodity Group and Containerization Level[![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/DSC_4208-1024x680.jpg?resize=900%2C598&ssl=1 "Container Coffee Stuffing Station, Port of Cartagena | Port Economics, Management and Policy")](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/containerization-of-commodities/container-coffee-stuffing-station-port-of-cartagena/dsc_4208-jpg/)Container Coffee Stuffing Station Port of Cartagena[![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/commodity_bdi_scfi.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Commodity Index, Baltic Dry Index and Container Shipping Rates, 2000-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/containerization-of-commodities/commodity-index-baltic-dry-index-container-shipping-rates/commodity_index_bdi_scfi/)Commodity Index Baltic Dry Index and Container Shipping Rates 2000 2022[![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/geographical_empty_repositioning.png?resize=900%2C469&ssl=1 "Geographical Levels of Empty Container Repositioning | Port Economics, Management and Policy")](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/containers-and-ports/geographical-levels-empty-container-repositioning/geographical_empty_repositioning/)Geographical Levels of Empty Container RepositioningContainerization has benefited substantially from **economies of scale**, particularly for maritime shipping. The container confers few differences in scale economies for a producer, as each container is a unique transport unit, and since containerized shipping networks are fairly ubiquitous. Thus, entry barriers are relatively small, as each container is an independent load unit that can accommodate lower volumes without significant drawbacks, provided other containerized volumes are present. Economies of scale are significant for terminal operators and maritime shipping, but less so for importers and exporters. For instance, agricultural producers can expand their markets by shipping small agricultural commodity loads through regular containerized supply chains. Thus, containerization can provide the double benefit of permitting the development of global niche markets, where numerous small exporters can compete and offer new economic development opportunities in commodity sectors that could not previously access foreign markets. Yet, more attention should be placed on analyzing the potential for containerizing commodity markets, particularly the time and flexibility benefits. Policy can also be an inhibiting factor. For instance, in 2005 the United States Department of Agriculture started waiving the mandatory inspection of high-quality specialty grain exports, which was imposing undue additional costs for small exporters. This policy was beneficial for exporting identity-preserved grains in containers bound for international markets, particularly in Europe and Japan. Containerization may also have an impact on the commodity markets themselves. Due to the large volumes concerned, commodities are commonly traded on markets, with large brokers securing an output through various contractual forms. **Commodity futures** are legally binding agreements, made at a futures exchange, to buy or sell a commodity or financial instrument at some point in the future. **Futures contracts** are standardized according to the quality, quantity, delivery time, and location of each commodity. The only variable is price, which is discovered on a trading floor as traders get more accurate information about future market conditions as they unfold. **Forward contracts** are cash contracts in which a seller agrees to deliver a specific commodity to a buyer sometime in the future. Forward contracts, in contrast to futures contracts, are privately negotiated. On the opposite end of the spectrum, **spot trading** is a transaction where delivery occurs within a short lag between the transaction and its delivery. This also requires standards about the quality of the commodities being traded, which are common requirements for the majority of commodity exchanges. According to these definitions, the function of distribution could play a significant role in setting futures or forward contracts. With the containerization of some commodity markets, a contract could involve allocating empty containers through a leasing agreement to provide the fulfillment capacity at a specified point in time. It would require the setting of container storage facilities near terminals (particularly rail) that would be able to release containers accordingly. This could reduce the expected time frame of a futures contract, making it closer to a spot market contract. Containerization is thus likely to accelerate the resolution of commodity market contracts. A higher level of integration between commodity markets and freight distribution is expected. # 3. Commodities in Containers Due to the nature of the freight it handles, the containerization of commodities creates a unique set of challenges. There are several issues related to loading and unloading commodities from containers. The first and most fundamental requirement is the locational and load unit availability of containers; they must be available in sufficient quantities and be of a suitable load unit. The load unit is secondary for light commodities, and the twenty-foot container is the most suitable for ponderous commodities. This is important because the twenty-foot container still accounts for [more than 27% of the world’s container fleet](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/composition-global-fleet-containers/ "Composition of the Global Fleet of Containers, 2012"). For hinterland transportation, the availability of containers can be an issue as maritime shipping companies own the majority of the global container assets and prefer these containers to be within the maritime system, where they generate income for the carriers as opposed to the hinterland, where they generate income for truck, rail, and barge companies. Another issue involves **container preparation**. Containers are well adapted to handle packaged freight directly (“floor loaded”) or on pallets. This is another matter for commodities, particularly bulk. Some, like grains, would require a container to be thoroughly cleaned before being loaded to avoid any form of shipment contamination. In many cases, container liners will be used to protect the products being carried. The most common liners are made of polyethylene to protect common dry bulk products such as chemicals and minerals. For commodities requiring air circulation, such as coffee or cacao, polypropylene liners are used. Another form of lining concerns thermal protection, shielding goods against temperature spikes that could cause degradation or damage. It is often necessary to clean containers once unloaded to reuse them for other purposes without contaminating other shipments. The usage of dedicated containers is also a possibility, as it would reduce preparation costs. Still, it would likely imply empty movements and high repositioning costs, which tend to defeat the purpose of containerization (a ubiquitous load and transport unit). Neverthelessl, specialized containers exist for liquids and [refrigerated cargo](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/reefer-rack-storage-porte-oceane-terminal-le-havre/ "Reefer Rack Storage, Porte Oceane Terminal, Le Havre"). ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/composition_fleet_containers.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "composition_global_container_fleet | The Geography of Transport Systems  | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Composition of the Global Fleet of Containers 2012![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_5894.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "IMG_5894 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Reefer Rack Storage Porte Oceane Terminal Le HavreThe next issue concerns container loading, unloading, and transloading. Containers carrying manufactured goods are dominantly loaded horizontally, either manually or with forklifts. Loading a container horizontally with bulk cargo is a complex process that often requires a panel to block the back door and secure the loose cargo. Alternatively, containers can be flipped vertically for loading or unloading, requiring specialized handling equipment. Still, this is an attractive option in situations where the volume is sufficient and constant. The usage of different modes to reach the load center (such as rail hopper cars) or the switch from domestic (53-footers) to maritime (40-footers) containers requires a transloading operation, which represents additional costs. Some commodity chains, such as those involving specialty crops, also benefit from maintaining the **chain of integrity** from origin to destination. It guarantees the quality of the shipment and ensures product differentiation, which requires the **source loading** of containers. Containerization supports a greater variety of products within the commodity sector, which is less feasible with bulk transportation. **Weight** is also a major issue, as container loads are much lighter for conventional (mainly retail) freight than commodities. The shipping industry has adapted to this characteristic and prefers using larger containers (40-footers, high-cube when possible) as they offer more volume for the same handling costs. Retail goods tend to have a higher volume-to-mass ratio than commodities, meaning they are cubing out the container. Shipping commodities such as grain tends to rely on 20-footers (one TEU) because they can handle each load of around 26 to 28 tons, meaning the container gets weighed out. In contrast, a 40-footer, due to structural integrity issues, has a loading capacity of approximately 30 tons; however, this load occupies twice the shipping volume. Consequently, the commodity sector primarily relies on a standard load unit (20 footers), which differs from many containerized supply chains, such as retail, which typically use 40 footers, particularly the high-cube variety. This results in a problem of **load unit mismatch** between inbound and outbound logistics. **Weight distribution** is also a related problem, as containerships are designed to accommodate a specific weight load and distribution. Figures of 10 to 14 tons per loaded TEU are common in operational considerations when allocating containers on a containership. In North America, export containers are twice as heavy as import containers due to the higher proportion of commodities in exports. If a ship is presented with a significant container volume exceeding 20 tons per TEU, adjustments to this load distribution must be made. Under normal circumstances, with an equilibrium between inbound and outbound traffic, a containership presented with a full load of heavy containers could only be filled at 75% of its capacity. This can be mitigated by considering the current trade imbalances in North America, with many containers leaving West Coast ports empty. A scenario implying a full distribution of containers loaded with commodities and empties is thus applicable. # 4. Transloading and Terminal Issues Most regions extracting commodities tend to be located inland. In contrast, manufacturing and consumption tend to take place in coastal regions. The containerization of commodities relies on a close interaction between gateway ports and inland terminals. A fair amount of containerized freight is [transloaded](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-transloading/ "Container Transloading") once it reaches a gateway. This amounts to about 20 to 25% of all containers for the North American West Coast. Maritime shipping companies are reluctant to have their containers moving inland as they prefer to keep them within their networks. Thus, a preference at major import gateways to transload maritime containers (mainly 40 footers) into domestic containers (mainly 53 footers) in addition to the significant unit advantage it confers as the contents of three maritime containers are transshipped into two domestic containers. However, domestic containers are not well adapted for shipping commodities (less structural integrity) and cannot be forwarded to export markets. This dynamic has incited the development of container stuffing facilities in the vicinity of major gateway ports. Commodities are brought to the facility (or the terminal) through regular bulk transportation (e.g. [trucking](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/bagged-coal-cartagena-transloaded-containers/ "Bagged Coal Entering the Port of Cartagena to be Transloaded into Containers"), hopper railcars) and [stuffed](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-coal-stuffing-station/ "Container Coal Stuffing Station, Port of Cartagena") into empty maritime container pools made available by import transloading activities. Transloading also results in fewer maritime containers available inland to be used for exports; the benefits of transloading for importers may impair inland exporters. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/container_transloading.png?resize=900%2C537&ssl=1 "Container Transloading | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Transloading![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_1293-1024x768.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Bagged Coal Entering the Port of Cartagena to be Transloaded into Containers | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Bagged Coal Entering the Port of Cartagena to be Transloaded into Containers![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_1322-1024x768.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Container Coal Stuffing Station, Port of Cartagena | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Coal Stuffing Station Port of CartagenaBulk and containers rely on very different terminal characteristics and dynamics. Many bulk terminals were built to handle specific commodities and cannot readily be converted to other uses. Bulk commodities can be stored at port terminals in a relatively compact manner, such as grain in grain elevators or coal and iron ore in simple large piles. The same volume of containerized commodities can consume as much as four times the terminal space. Still, this could be mitigated if the loading process occurs inland at a load center or a satellite terminal. Additionally, the intermodal velocity of containerized freight tends to reduce its spatial imprint since a container spends much less time at a terminal. A container port experiencing a growing role as a platform to export containerized commodities is expected to see a notable increase in the demand for storage space and pressures on dwell time. Since containerized commodities tend to be heavier than regular container loads, they may require adaptations in terminal management and operations (stacking and equipment usage). With large volumes, terminals could start having dedicated sections for containerized commodities, as they already have to accommodate reefers. # 5. Containerized Commodity Chains Limited evidence underlines that the containerization of commodities competes with existing bulk commodity chains. The process is more one of an emerging complementary between bulk and containerized commodity chains within global freight distribution, each having its own [characteristics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/comparison-bulk-containerized-commodity-transportation/ "Comparison Between Bulk and Containerized Commodity Transportation"): - **Bulk commodity chains**. These chains are commonly based on the specialization of terminals, often by specific commodities, since each requires specialized handling and storage facilities. There is also the issue of empty backhauls, as modes carrying commodities do so in only one direction, with backhaul cargo opportunities almost non-existent. For instance, a crude oil tanker returns empty after unloading its cargo. Thus, from a transportation perspective, this distribution system is prone to inefficiencies and has a usage level that is 50% lower in reality, due to the seasonality of some commodity markets, notably agricultural production. - **Containerized commodity chains**. They are increasingly used, and it is becoming a matter of embedding commodity flows within the containerized freight distribution system. This would mainly concern niche markets where product separation (e.g. different grades of grain), smaller batches, delivery time, and accessibility are more important. Like its bulk counterpart, the containerized commodity chain faces the empty movement challenge. However, considering the current international trade structure, higher integration of commodities in containerized freight distribution would positively mitigate imbalances. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/comparison_bulk_containerized_commodity2.png?resize=900%2C461&ssl=1 "Comparison Between Bulk and Containerized Commodity Transportation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Comparison Between Bulk and Containerized Commodity TransportationThe transport of commodities is already characterized by substantial investment in bulk handling equipment for modes and terminals. Thus, there is a significant amount of accumulated inertia in existing **distribution channels**, making stakeholders, such as freight forwarders, reluctant to change their practices. In light of these powerful stakeholders, how containerized commodity chains can take shape remains to be seen. The most likely processes involve capturing niche markets, accommodating seasonal and regional demand surges, servicing new or expanding markets where bulk infrastructures are not adequate, or accommodating low-volume situations where economies of scale are difficult to achieve. Many commodities, such as agricultural products, exhibit **seasonal patterns**. This implies that for a region, there will be a surge in demand at specific times of the year, while demand would be considerably less at other times. Additionally, seasonality has a geographical component, as harvesting times vary between different regions of the world, which implies temporal and geographical fluctuations in the repositioning of empty containers. Seasonality is also linked to commodity price fluctuations, implying that as one approaches the delivery time of a futures contract, the market price tends to better reflect the real physical relationship between supply and demand. It is common in the agricultural sector for commodity prices to drop during the harvest season, as real output is finally known and uncertainties are removed. If the output is higher than expected, then prices drop, making containerization a less appealing alternative. The future development of containerized niche markets relies on supply chain integration, as containerized commodity movements are particularly suitable where there is a significant backhaul movement of empty containers. Since the inbound flows relate to a very different supply chain (mostly retail), effective use of backhaul containerized assets requires a concerted effort between major commodity producers, rail operators, container owners (shipping and container leasing companies), and terminal operators. In this regard, inland ports have a crucial role to play by serving as platforms where inbound and outbound flows can be reconciled more effectively. Still, the **availability of containers inland** remains a salient challenge for commodity exporters. A mitigating strategy would be for commodity exporters or inland ports to acquire their own containers, thereby having pools at their disposal for exports. An issue is that it would shift the backhaul problem to the importer, as containers will have to wait to get import cargo bound to the region where the container pool is located. Integrating commodity trades within containerized distribution systems involves new challenges as their dynamics differ. Still, there is **substantial potential for growth** in the usage of containers to carry various commodities on global markets. With the continuing growth of the global population, the agricultural sector and its commodity chains have much to gain from the velocity, ubiquity, and flexibility of containerized freight distribution. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 1.2 Ports and Maritime Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1530) - [Chapter 1.3 Ports and Container Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1532) - [Chapter 8.4 Containers: The Box and Chassis Markets](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/containers-and-ports/) - [Chapter 8.5 Port Cold Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cold-chains/) --- ## References - Rodrigue, J-P and T. Notteboom (2015) “Looking Inside the Box: Evidence from the Containerization of Commodities and the Cold Chain”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 207-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2014.932925. - USDA (2022) U.S. Waterborne Containerized Agricultural Trade. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 6.2 - Containers: The Box and Chassis Markets](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/) **Published:** August 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ### Authors: Dr. Theo Notteboom and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > The provision and management of containers are assumed by shipping lines and container leasing companies, with the repositioning of empty containers primarily resulting from trade flow imbalances. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. The Box Market](#1_The_Box_Market) - [2. The Chassis Market](#2_The_Chassis_Market) - [3. Empty Container Flows](#3_Empty_Container_Flows) - [4. Repositioning Scales and Strategies](#4_Repositioning_Scales_and_Strategies) - [5. The Digitalization of Containers](#5_The_Digitalization_of_Containers) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) - [References](#References) # 1. The Box Market Containerization allows for cargo distribution in a **unitized form**, permitting intermodal transport through a combination of rail, road, canal, and maritime transport. The container changed the face and pace of globalization, with the box recognized as the “humble hero” and one of the most influential inventions of the twentieth century. The principles behind containerization are simple. Transporting cargo into load units (e.g., boxes or bags) to shift it around more efficiently as a unit has always been considered advisable, but there were limited technical capabilities in place. Shipping containers became possible following the standardization of container dimensions in the mid-1960s. Created in 1961, the ISO Technical Committee on Freight Containers (ISO/TC 104) has standardized almost every aspect of containers, from their overall dimensions to how they can be stacked, to the twist locks that securely fasten them to ship decks or truck chassis, to the terminology used to describe them. The growth in global trade and freight distribution has led to the **ongoing demand for new containers**. The container manufacturing market is **highly volatile**. Each year, approximately 1.5 to 2.5 million TEU worth of containers are manufactured, with the vast majority produced in China, which takes advantage of its containerized export surplus. The global inventory of containers was estimated to be around 45 to 50 million TEU as of 2025. This implies approximately three TEU of containers for every TEU of maritime containership capacity. Even if containers are standard load units, they can be segmented into three main markets: - **Dry containers**. The most important market where standard containers are used to carry general cargo that does not require any particular condition outside of being protected from the weather. - **Refrigerated containers (reefers)**. A niche market that utilizes specially insulated containers to transport temperature-sensitive goods by keeping the temperature constant, such as below freezing (See this section focusing on [reefers and the cold chain](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-cold-chains/ "Chapter 8.5 – Port Cold Chains")). - **Tank containers**. A niche market using specially designed containers to carry food-grade liquids (wine, vegetable oil, juice) or chemicals. China accounts for approximately **90% to 95% of the global container production**, which is largely due to several factors, including its export-oriented economy and lower labor costs. Top container manufacturers include China International Marine Container Group (CIMC; the world’s largest shipping container manufacturer with an annual capacity of 2 million containers), Singamas Container Holdings, CXIC Group Containers (CXIC), China Eastern Containers (CEC), and China COSCO Shipping. Considering that China has a positive trade balance, particularly in the manufacturing sector, which heavily relies on containerization, it is a logical strategy to manufacture containers at that location. This enables **free movement**, as once produced, a new container is immediately moved to a nearby export activity (factory or distribution center), then loaded and brought to a container port. Therefore, a long-distance empty repositioning is not required for the newly manufactured container. Every container utilization strategy must thus take into account production and location costs. As container availability has become of strategic importance to trade, several governments, such as the Ministry of Ports, Shipping, and Waterways in India, have initiated steps to increase the domestic production of containers, thereby reducing their dependence on Chinese manufacturers. The majority of containers are owned by either **maritime shipping companies or container leasing companies**. With the beginning of containerization in the 1970s, a container leasing industry emerged to offer flexibility in managing containerized assets, enabling shipping companies to cope with temporal and geographical fluctuations in demand. Following a period of growth correlated with the ebbs and flows of global trade, the leasing industry underwent a period of consolidation in the 1990s, similar to the container shipping industry. Container ownership is now roughly divided equally between [container leasing and maritime shipping companies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2349 "Composition of the Global Fleet of Containers, 2012"), with the share of shipping lines reaching 59.8% in 2008 but declining to 48% in 2021. This ownership of containers by shipping lines can be explained by the following: - Containers allow for clear **brand recognition**, particularly for shipping lines. - Containers are an asset that maritime shipping companies make available to service their customers. Providing containers helps increase the **utilization rate of containerships**. This is particularly relevant in periods of disruptions when customers can have preferential access to scarce container capacity. - A growing level of **intermodal integration and control** in which maritime shippers interact with port terminal operators (some directly operate port terminals such as APM), as well as with inland transport systems such as railways and inland ports. In this context, controlling container assets enables a more efficient use of the transport chain. - The rising cost of new containers, the repositioning of empties, and low freight rates along several trade routes have made the **container leasing business less profitable**. Ocean carriers also have a greater ability to reposition empty containers since they control a fleet and can reposition their empty containers when capacity is available. It is also not uncommon for a whole containership to be chartered to reposition empties. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/iso_containers_specifications.png?resize=900%2C347&ssl=1 "Main Physical Characteristics of ISO Containers | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Physical Characteristics of ISO Containers![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/composition_fleet_containers.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Composition of the Global Fleet of Containers, 2012 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Composition of the Global Fleet of Containers 2012![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/container_life_span.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Container Usage during its Life-Span | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Usage during its Life SpanAt the beginning of the 2020s, about 60% of the equipment available for lease was controlled by five leasing companies with fleets exceeding 1 million TEU. If the 13 largest leasing companies are considered, they account for 90% of the global container leasing market and control the equivalent of 10.7 million TEU. Shipping and leasing companies often have contradictory strategies for using their container assets. From the perspective of shipping companies, their containers are secondary assets that enable more efficient utilization of their ships through a higher level of cargo control. Consequently, they maximize their ship usage, which is their primary asset, and a container is a tool for this purpose. For leasing companies, containers are their main assets, and the goal is to amortize their investments through leasing arrangements. These arrangements fall into three major categories, differing in terms of lease length and responsibility for repositioning empty containers. In the past, maritime shippers relied extensively on leasing. Still, recent trends underscore their more active role in managing container assets, particularly because a container spends a large share of its lifespan idle or being repositioned. With the horizontal integration of carriers and terminal operators, container ownership and leasing are perceived from a **supply chain resilience perspective**. # 2. The Chassis Market **Chassis fleets** are also an important element of the container market as they are necessary to carry containers by road and sometimes within terminals. Chassis are designed to be **interoperable** as they are designed to carry any ISO container. However, some chassis may be restricted to specific container lengths, such as 20 feet. Some chassis are adjustable to carry containers between 20 and 40 feet in length, while others can be adjusted to handle less common container sizes, such as 53 feet (domestic containers). Even if containers are international transport units, either owned by ocean carriers or leased by container leasing companies, their transport between international markets relies on separate regional chassis provision segments. The ownership of containers and chassis is usually separate, as each carrier within an intermodal transportation chain controls its equipment and relies on different chassis provision markets. In addition to its [transport function](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chassis-operations/ "Chassis Operations"), a chassis can also be used to store containers at terminals and distribution centers. - **Transport units**. Chassis are used to move containers from container yards to distribution centers and to carry moves such as empty container repositioning. - **Storage units**. Chassis can be used at terminals and distribution centers to store containers for a period of time. At terminals, chassis are used for storage, which is called wheeled operations. A common [chassis provision business model](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/types-chassis-pools/ "Major Types of Chassis Pools") is for the motor carriers or logistics service providers to own the chassis they use, which is particularly the case in [Europe](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/20-foot-containers-chassis-belgium/ "20-Foot Containers on Chassis, Belgium") and Asia. Near major intermodal terminals, chassis pools support drayage operations by allowing motor carriers to access and return equipment, which is a business model prevalent in [North America](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/on-terminal-chassis-pool-port-los-angeles/ "On Terminal Chassis Pool, Port of Los Angeles"). The provision of chassis is also related to the transportation [contract between the carrier and the cargo owner](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/carrier-merchant-haulage/ "Carrier Haulage vs Merchant Haulage"). Under a **carrier haulage** contract, the carrier assumes responsibility for arranging all segments of the transport chain, including the provision of a motor carrier and chassis. Under a **merchant haulage** contract, the cargo owner, or its representative, is responsible for arranging transportation by the motor carrier, which can provide the chassis. The chassis market is **a derived demand of a derived demand**. It exists to support container movements, which support trade and commercial flows. The demand for chassis depends on the demand for container shipping, which, in turn, depends on the demand for goods shipped across long distances, especially by sea. Therefore, the chassis market is prone to lag effects and adjustments, as chassis providers seek to match chassis fleets, commonly organized into regional pools, with regional container movements. The [chassis market](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-and-chassis-markets/ "The Container and the Chassis Markets") can be considered from a supply and demand perspective: - **Chassis supply**. The provision of chassis to a regional drayage market. Chassis are either owned by carriers (motor carriers, ocean carriers, rail carriers) or organized as pools by Intermodal Equipment Providers (IEP), which lease chassis through daily (spot) rates or through long-term contracts. - **Chassis demand**. The use of chassis for drayage by motor carriers or terminal operations at port and rail terminals. For motor carriers, demand is delimited by a regional area representing the usual distance the containers are carried from intermodal terminals to cargo owners. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/container_chassis_markets.png?resize=900%2C451&ssl=1 "The Container and the Chassis Markets | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Container and the Chassis Markets![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/chassis_operations.png?resize=900%2C384&ssl=1 "Chassis Operations | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Chassis Operations![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_chassis_pools.png?resize=900%2C323&ssl=1 "Major Types of Chassis Pools | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Major Types of Chassis Pools![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMGP5857-1024x768.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "20-Foot Containers on Chassis, Belgium | Port Economics, Management and Policy")20 Foot Containers on Chassis Belgium![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2023-03-28-131119.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "On Terminal Chassis Pool, Port of Los Angeles | Port Economics, Management and Policy")On Terminal Chassis Pool Port of Los Angeles![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/carrier_merchant_haulage.png?resize=900%2C431&ssl=1 "Carrier Haulage vs Merchant Haulage | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Carrier Haulage vs Merchant Haulage# 3. Empty Container Flows A container is both a transport and a production unit that moves as part of an [export, import, or repositioning flow](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2376 "Types of Container Flows"). Once a container has been unloaded, another transport leg must be found, as **moving an empty container is almost as costly as moving a full container**. Irrespective of whether it is loaded, a container consumes the same amount of space and, therefore, requires the same transport capacity. Shipping companies need containers to maintain their operations and level of service along the port network they call. Containers arriving in a market as imports must eventually leave, either empty or full. The longer the delay, the higher the cost. In an ideal situation, an inbound container would find an outbound load nearby once it has been unloaded. **Repositioning** thus begins after a container has been unloaded and involves costs that the shippers must assume. This cost is thus reflected in the costs paid by producers and consumers. Also, empty containers represent development opportunities for export markets as every disequilibrium tends to impose a readjustment of transport rates and can act as an indirect export subsidy. Firms taking advantage of this may reduce, likely temporarily, their transport costs. An increasing number of containers are **repositioned empty** because cargo cannot be found for a return leg. The outcome has been an increase in repositioning costs as shippers attempt to manage the utilization levels of their containerized assets. The positioning of empty containers is one of the most complex problems concerning global freight distribution. A highlighted issue is that, under normal circumstances, empties account for about 10% of existing container assets and 20% of global port handling. The major causes of this problem include: - **Trade imbalances**. They are probably the most important source of the [accumulation of empty containers](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2724) in the global economy. A region that imports more than it exports will face the systematic accumulation of empty containers. In contrast, a region that exports more than it imports will face a shortage of containers. If this situation endures, a repositioning of large amounts of containers will be required between the two trade partners, involving higher transportation costs and tying up existing distribution capacities. - **Repositioning costs**. They include a combination of inland transport and international transport costs. If they are low enough, a trade imbalance could persist without significant impact, as containers are repositioned with minimal burden on the shipping industry. Repositioning costs can also decrease if imbalances are severe, as carriers (and possibly terminal operators) may offer discounts for flows in the reverse direction of dominant flows. However, if costs are high, particularly for repositioning containers inland, container shortages may appear in export markets. - **Revenue generation**. Shipowners allocate their containers to maximize their revenue, not necessarily the economic opportunities of their customers. Given trade imbalances and the higher container rates they impose on the inbound trip for transpacific pendulum routes, shipowners often opt to reposition their containers back to Asian export markets instead of waiting for the availability of an export load. For instance, while a container may spend three to four weeks in the hinterland being loaded and returned to the port, earning an income of approximately $800, the same time can be used to reposition the container across the Pacific, generating a return income of $3,000. The latter figure could be much higher during peak demand. - **Manufacturing and leasing costs**. If the cost of manufacturing new containers or leasing existing units is cheaper than repositioning them, which is possible over long distances, an accumulation can happen. Conversely, higher manufacturing or leasing costs may favor the repositioning of empty containers. Such a condition tends to be temporary as leasing costs and imbalances are correlated. - **Usage preferences**. A large number of shipping lines use containers to brand the company name and offer readily available capacity to their customers. This, combined with the reluctance of shipping lines and leasing companies to share market information on container positions and quantities for competitive reasons, makes it challenging to establish container pools or introduce the ‘grey box’ concept. Still, as demonstrated by the North American rail system (TTX rail equipment pool), it is possible for transport companies to distinctly separate container assets from modal assets, allowing for improved efficiency (such as the turnover rate). - **Slow steaming**. Excess capacity and high bunker fuel prices can incite maritime shipping companies to reduce the operational speed of their containerships from 21 knots to 19 knots, a practice known as slow steaming. The resulting longer transoceanic journeys tie more container inventory in transit, promote transloading in the proximity of port terminals, and reduce the availability of containers inland. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_container_flows.png?resize=900%2C563&ssl=1 "Types of Container Flows | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Container Flows![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cargo_rotation.png?resize=895%2C554&ssl=1 "Inland Cargo Rotation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cargo Rotation# 4. Repositioning Scales and Strategies Container repositioning can occur at [three major scales](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=8436), depending on the nature of the container flow imbalances. Each of these scales involves specific repositioning strategies: - **Local (empty interchange)**. Occurs regularly as containers are reshuffled between locations where they are emptied and those where they are filled. They are of short duration with limited use of storage facilities since containers are simply in a queue at the consignee or the consigner, especially if the same freight distributor manages them. The availability of chassis may exacerbate this problem. - **Regional (intermodal repositioning)**. Involves industrial and consumption regions with imbalances, often the outcome of economic specialization. For instance, a metropolitan area having a marked service function may be a net importer of containers. In contrast, a nearby area may have a manufacturing specialization, indicating its status as a net exporter. The matter then becomes repositioning the surplus containers from one part of the region to another. Due to the scale and scope of repositioning, this may involve a longer time period and often requires specialized storage facilities. This scale offers freight forwarders opportunities to establish strategies such as dedicated empty container flows and [storage depots](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=9492) (or inland ports) at suitable locations. However, locating empty depots near port facilities consumes valuable real estate. - **International (overseas repositioning)**. Results from systematic macroeconomic imbalances between trade partners, as exemplified by China and the United States. Such a repositioning scale is the most costly and time-consuming, as it ties up substantial storage capacity in proportion to the trade imbalance. Significant inland freight distribution capacities are also wasted, as long-distance trade, especially for manufactured goods, tends to involve a wide array of destinations within a national economy. This is paradoxical as maritime container shipping capacity will be readily available for global repositioning. Still, high inland freight transport costs could limit the number of empty containers reaching the vicinity of a container port. It may even lead to an oversupply of containers, as the trade partner with a net deficit of containers (the exporter) may find it more convenient to manufacture new containers than to reposition existing units, which disrupts the container leasing market. ![Geographical Levels of Empty Container Repositioning](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/geographical_empty_repositioning.png?resize=900%2C469&ssl=1 "Geographical Levels of Empty Container Repositioning | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Geographical Levels of Empty Container Repositioning![Inland Containerized Flows and Inland Ports](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/inland_containerized_flows.png?resize=900%2C607&ssl=1 "Inland Containerized Flows and Inland Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Inland Containerized Flows and Inland Ports**Empty container repositioning** costs are multiple and include handling and transshipping at the terminal, chassis location for drayage, empty warehousing while waiting to be repositioned, inland repositioning by rail or trucking toward a maritime terminal, and maritime repositioning. An empty container takes the same amount of space in a truck, railcar, or containership slot as a full container. Repositioning accounts for 15% of the operational costs of container assets. To cover these costs, shipping companies charge higher freight rates on the inbound leg and lower rates on the backhaul. These freight rate practices are thus an important factor in the shipping costs toward developing countries in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean. The outcome is higher costs for imported goods, which is economically damaging for low-income countries. Within large commercial gateways, containerized distribution, and empty repositioning are facing numerous challenges: - Transport companies must cope with **access and storing charges** at terminals as well as wear and tear on equipment. - Truck drivers are **losing hours waiting to access** terminal gates and distribution centers to return empty containers and chassis. - Terminal operators **lose productivity** because of congestion and face pressures from localities to reduce the number of idle trucks at their gates. The primary reason behind repositioning a container is to secure cargo, ensuring the **continuity of paid movements**. A container is an asset whose usage level is linked with profit, and it must continuously be in circulation. Its velocity involves higher turnover rates, and three main options are available to promote this velocity: - If there are few opportunities to load empty containers on the backhaul trip, an **efficient repositioning system** must be in place to ensure the overall productivity of the distribution system. [Transloading](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-transloading/ "Container Transloading") is part of such a strategy as it frees maritime containers by moving loads into domestic containers so that there are fewer risks of shipping companies imposing surcharges because of imbalanced containerized flows. The decision to opt for and the location of transloading are the outcome of a tradeoff between its [advantages and disadvantages](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/advantages-disadvantages-container-transloading/ "Advantages and Disadvantages of Container Transloading"). [North America](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/transloading-major-north-american-container-ports/ "Transloading at Major North American Container Ports") is a salient example of a complex container transloading system. - Enhance the **efficiency of existing cargo rotation** by establishing a more seamless connection between import and export activities through synchronized flows. Instead of returning directly to the rail or maritime terminal, an empty container can be brought immediately to an export location to be loaded. However, an asymmetry between import and export-based logistics makes this a difficult proposition. - Develop an **export market** by taking advantage of filling empty containers with new cargo, notably commodities. This can imply various strategies, such as substituting bulk shipments for containers or establishing consolidation centers, which enable the regrouping of small cargo batches into container loads. This particularly benefits small companies, enabling them to access new global markets. The case of the United States is particularly telling. Half of every 100 containers entering the country will be repositioned empty to foreign markets. Of the 50 remaining, most return empty to port terminals awaiting export cargo to become available. The empty container is picked up from the port terminal and taken to a distribution center, where it is returned to the terminal once loaded. Only 5 of the 50 containers will be loaded with export cargo shortly after being unloaded of import cargo, without coming back empty first to the maritime terminal. Cargo rotation appears to be a simple repositioning strategy, but it requires fairly complex coordination. It can take place if import and export activities are located nearby, thus enabling quick rotation. Otherwise, an intermediary stage implying the usage of an empty container depot is required. Thus, cargo rotation is an operational process for repositioning that can be supported by empty container depots, which are physical infrastructures. Those two elements require a management system that enables actors involved in supply chains to interact and combine their mobility needs with the availability of containers. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/container_transloading.png?resize=900%2C537&ssl=1 "Container Transloading | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Transloading![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/advantages_disadvantages_container_transloading2.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Advantages and Disadvantages of Container Transloading | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Advantages and Disadvantages of Container Transloading![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/transloading_north_american_ports.png?resize=900%2C457&ssl=1 "Transloading at Major North American Container Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Transloading at Major North American Container Ports![Asymmetries between Import and Export-Based Containerized Logistics](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/asymmetires_container_logistics.png?resize=900%2C690&ssl=1 "Asymmetries between Import and Export-Based Containerized Logistics | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Asymmetries between Import and Export Based Containerized Logistics![Container Repositioning using an Empty Container Depot](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/container_empty_depot.png?resize=900%2C468&ssl=1 "Container Repositioning using an Empty Container Depot | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Repositioning using an Empty Container Depot# 5. The Digitalization of Containers Like other elements of the transport sector, containers are being transformed by information technologies. The container is the object of digitalization and the diffusion of **smart containers** that allow for additional information to be made available to carriers, terminal operators, and cargo owners. This information is related to the identification of the container, its location, and its physical characteristics. In particular: - The **locational coordinates** of the container can be used to calculate the estimated time of arrival along the transport chain. - **Temperature, humidity, and air pressure** information are particularly relevant for reefers and cold chain logistics. - **Geofencing** information can trigger notifications when a container has entered an area (e.g. a terminal) and assess any locational security breach. - **Shock detection** assesses whether the container was subjected to stress levels exceeding a defined threshold, particularly if the cargo carried is fragile. - Information about the container **doors and locks** may include details of whether the doors were opened during transit. The goal is to provide a better level of control over the transport chain, which leads to derived benefits for supply chain management. It also enables a clearer identification of liability in the event of theft, damage, or a breach in container integrity. Concepts have been brought forward to help connect the various commercial needs (imports and exports) with the availability of containers, such as **freight exchange platforms** and the **virtual container yard**. These systems imply an online market where information about container availability is displayed without needing the container to be in a physical storage depot. The container can be in circulation or at a distribution center, but the important point is that its availability, both geographically and temporarily, for a new load is known. The main goals of a platform are: - Display **status information** about containers, such as their characteristics, location, and availability. - Enhance **information exchange** among stakeholders involved in supply chain management, including trucking companies, shipping companies, distribution centers, and equipment leasing companies. - **Transfer the container lease** and the related documentation without returning the container to the depot or terminal. - Assist actors in supply chain management with their decision-making process regarding the **use of container assets**, specifically returns and exchanges. Therefore, platforms are clearinghouses where detailed information is made available to the involved actors. Small and medium-sized firms are the most likely to use the platform as they generally have less logistical expertise and available resources to manage containerized assets. Large logistics firms and maritime shipping companies are less likely to adopt such a system, as they already possess substantial expertise and their management systems. Thus, repositioning strategies are crucial in managing containerized assets, but achieving effectiveness can be challenging. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 1.2 Ports and Maritime Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1530) - [Chapter 1.3 Ports and Container Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1532) - [Chapter 8.5 Containers: The Containerization of Commodities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/containers-and-ports/) - [Chapter 8.6 Port Cold Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cold-chains/) --- # References - Boile, M., S. Theofanis, M. Golias and N. Mittal (2006) Empty Marine Container Management: Addressing Locally a Global Problem. TRB Annual Meeting, Washington, DC. Paper # 06-2147. - CPCS Transcom, InterPro Advisory, Prime Focus and J-P Rodrigue (2012) Guidebook for Assessing Evolving International Container Chassis Supply Models, Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Freight Research Program, Report No. 20. - National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2024) Intermodal Chassis Provisioning and Supply Chain Efficiency: Equipment Availability, Choice, and Quality. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27806. - UN/CEFACT (2019) Smart Containers: Real-time Smart Container data for supply chain excellence. - U.S. Government Accountability Office (2021) Commercial Shipping: Information on How Intermodal Chassis Are Made Available and the Federal Government’s Oversight Role. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 5.3 - Ports and Energy Commodities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/) **Published:** September 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > The global economy rests on the consumption of large energy supplies that need to be provided, transformed, and transported. Ports have been important complexes supplying and distributing energy. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. The Origin of Energy Markets](#1_The_Origin_of_Energy_Markets) - [2. Main Port Energy Markets](#2_Main_Port_Energy_Markets) - [3. The Maritime Shipping of Energy](#3_The_Maritime_Shipping_of_Energy) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. The Origin of Energy Markets Historically, there was **no energy market** in maritime shipping. Energy in pre-industrial societies faced limited demand, was produced locally, and was not traded. Limited economic benefits could result from trading bulky and low-energy content commodities such as firewood. Maritime shipping was a breakbulk endeavor that was not able to support bulk trades effectively. A notable exception was the fuel trade associated with oil lamps relying on animal fats and olive oil, which could be carried over long distances. The extensive trade network of olive oil carried in amphoras during the time of the Roman Empire can be considered one of the early forms of maritime shipping energy trade. It was not until the Industrial Revolution that **energy began to be extensively traded**. The rapid growth in energy consumption and a fundamental shift in energy supply systems with the introduction of coal incited the setting up of new supply routes. Coal became a convenient fuel because it could release about four times more energy than a similar mass of wood, did not decay, and could be easily handled and stored. Further, it could be distilled into fuels such as kerosene. The shift from biological to mineral energy supply entailed changes in the location of energy production and consumption, as well as the associated trade flows. Early coal trades were a **significant driver in the development of transport infrastructure** and the classification of shipping. In the late 18th century, the onset of the Industrial Revolution led to the construction of a series of canals in Europe and the United States, with coal shipping serving as the primary driving force behind this development. The Bridgewater Canal was the first notable infrastructure explicitly built to carry energy, in response to the imperatives of the Industrial Revolution, which began in Britain during that time. The no-locks canal linked the coal mines of Worsley to Manchester, 16 km away. Upon its completion in 1761, the cost of coal in Manchester was more than halved, favoring its broader use in burgeoning industrial activities. This sparked a wave of canal infrastructure investments in Europe and North America. The first energy trades were conducted over short distances and primarily involved barges loaded and unloaded using rudimentary equipment. As the coal demand increased for industrial use, transportation fuel, and power generation, specialized bulk carriers for solids and liquids were required. Collier ships were designed to carry coal either to supply factories or to supply navy fleets. In the 19th century, the development of steamships and railways created a self-reinforcing cycle for both the supply and the demand for coal. For long-distance navigation, the transition towards coal-powered steamships favored the setting up of **coaling stations** such as Aden and Cape Town, where ships could be refueled using locally extracted coal. This created the need for local energy supply systems. In 1912, the British Admiralty decided to convert its fleet of warships from coal to oil propulsion due to the speed and range advantages that oil engines offered. Coal-powered ships required a network of coaling stations, which limited their operational flexibility due to the need to secure adequate coal supplies at strategic locations. Further, coaling was a cumbersome and labor-intensive process, taking at least a day to fill a ship’s coal hold. Since Britain had no oil resources, it nationalized the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and committed itself to protect this resource in Persia (Iran after 1934), where most supplies came from. The setting up of the petroleum trade required the design of a new ship class by the late 19th century, the oil tanker. Since the first oil tanker began shipping oil in the Caspian Sea in 1878, the capacity of the world’s maritime tanker fleet has grown substantially. From that point, petroleum energy markets expanded to include a network of pipelines, storage facilities, port facilities, tanker ships, and refineries. The growing energy demand expanded ports in industrial areas and favored the setting up of new specialized ports near energy extraction areas (coal fields and oil fields). # 2. Main Port Energy Markets Contemporary energy markets supply two complementary transportation systems; **fueling ships** (also called bunkering) and **fueling industrial demand** (plus power generation). The first important characteristic of energy markets is the concentration of production, accompanied by more geographically dispersed consumption. This concentration of production is a direct result of economies of scale characterizing the energy sector, more so than in many manufacturing sectors. For energy extraction, processing, and transportation, substantial benefits are realized when additional volumes are handled. Energy represents a [significant share of the global shipping market](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2339 "World Seaborne Trade by Cargo Type, 1970-2018") and accounts for large port volumes. ## A. Coal Coal is a convenient fuel that is easily combustible, easy to store, and transport. It remains an **inexpensive and widely available resource** that is technically simpler to use but is associated with carbon emissions and pollutants such as sulfur dioxide. Since the Industrial Revolution, coal has been the preferred fuel, supporting the massive development of energy and industrial systems. Still, its consumption is declining, particularly in advanced economies that are transitioning to more advanced fuel sources, such as natural gas and alternative energy sources (solar, wind). Coal serves two major markets, with **thermal coal** accounting for 90% of demand. It is used mainly in power stations to produce high-pressure steam, which then drives turbines to generate electricity. It is also used to fire cement and lime kilns, supporting the construction industry. This implies that the location of large coal electric plants is associated with transportation capabilities, particularly port infrastructure. Until the middle of the 20th century, coal was also used in steam engines, with an active steam coal market, which is no longer present. The second coal market is **coking coal** (10% of demand), a specific type of metallurgical coal derived from bituminous coal, used as a source of carbon for converting metal ores into metal. Cooking coal enables blast furnaces to remove oxygen from the ore by forcing it to combine with the carbon in the coal. The coal industry and its market are facing several challenges and redevelopments. Coal is **becoming less competitive** in relation to other energy sources, and its production is declining. The industry is subject to a string of environmental regulations and negative public opinion, which is creating pressure to transition away from coal. The efficiency of coal power plants is improving, with reduced emissions of ashes and sulfur, as well as efforts to capture carbon. Clean Coal technologies have been proposed, emitting fewer ashes while releasing the same amount of CO2. Since the 1990s, technology has allowed a reduction of coal-related emissions by a factor of 90%. In many areas of North America and Europe, environmental issues associated with coal, such as acid rain, have become less significant environmental concerns. The coal market is subject to comparative prices concerning other energy markets, which can create regional discrepancies. For instance, the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident prompted Japan to reinvest in coal-based power generation to address the lack of alternatives in electric power generation. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, Germany drastically reduced its reliance on Russian gas, partly by switching to coal-fired power plants. Germany gradually reduced its coal dependency once new gas deals were made with other countries and new infrastructure for maritime LNG shipments was put in place. ## B. Petroleum Petroleum is the **foremost transportation fuel**. Transportation relies almost entirely on refined petroleum products, including gasoline for automobiles, diesel for trucks, inland barges, non-electric locomotives, bunker fuel for maritime shipping, and Jet-A fuel for air transportation. While the use of petroleum for other economic sectors, such as industry and electricity generation, has remained relatively stable, the growth in oil demand is primarily attributed to the increase in transportation demand. The share of transportation in total oil consumption has increased, accounting for more than 55% of the oil used, with a share exceeding 70% in advanced economies, such as the United States. Other important uses for petroleum include lubricants, plastics, and fertilizers. The demand for oil has helped shape port development in areas near oil resources, at times introducing entirely new ports and the associated infrastructures. This notably occurred in developing economies in the Middle East, including Dammam, Kuwait, Doha, Abu Dhabi, and Dubai. There are limited options for substitution in the medium term, except for the emergence of electric vehicles and a shift in maritime shipping toward lower-sulfur bunker fuels, including natural gas. The largest oil consumers remain in the world’s industrialized economies, including the United States, Western Europe, China, and Japan, which collectively account for about 70% of global crude oil imports. Massive port-centric petrochemical complexes, such as those in Houston, Rotterdam, Singapore, and Ulsan, have been developed to supply these markets. Still, the share of developing economies is increasing as their transportation systems modernize. Since oil consumption and production are characterized by acute differences in the geography of supply and demand, international oil transportation is necessary to compensate for these imbalances. The market is divided across crude and refined product tankers, mainly depending on whether oil refining occurs near the source or near the markets. ## C. Natural gas Natural gas is composed primarily of fossil methane and other light hydrocarbons. It is a mixture of 50% to 90% by volume of methane, propane, and butane and is characterized as “dry” or “wet” based on its methane content and as “sweet” or “sour” based on its sulfur content. Natural gas is usually found in association with oil, implying a [correspondence between oil and gas fields](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2653 "Global Natural Gas Market") and the opportunity to combine extraction. The global production of natural gas has been increasing, resulting in it becoming increasingly cost-competitive with petroleum. Natural gas is considered the cleanest fossil fuel to use, particularly for energy generation, and has become a key fuel in electric power plants. Gas turbine technology allows natural gas to produce electricity more cheaply than coal, implying that the global electric generation market relying on fossil fuels is shifting toward natural gas supply chains. Furthermore, natural gas is becoming increasingly competitive in relation to low-sulfur bunker fuels, particularly in light of ongoing regulations in maritime shipping regarding the sulfur content of bunker fuels. A major challenge concerns the [distribution of natural gas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/global-natural-gas-market/ "Global Natural Gas Market"), which relies on more complex technologies such as pipelines and their liquefaction. The growth of global demand has created a need to move natural gas over long distances. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is an ideal form to transport natural gas, but it requires complex technical tasks. Once natural gas is extracted, it is brought by pipeline to a liquefaction plant in the vicinity of a port terminal. Through a cryogenic process, natural gas is cooled down to -160 °C, resulting in a volume compression by a factor of 610 times. The LNG product can then be shipped by a fleet of specialized LNG carriers. At the destination port, LNG is stored and regasified for distribution through pipelines. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/world_energy_consumption.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "World Energy Consumption, 1965-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")World Energy Consumption 1965 2021![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/seaborne_trade_cargo.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "World Seaborne Trade by Cargo Type, 1970-2021 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")World Seaborne Trade by Cargo Type 1970 2018![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Coal-Market.png?resize=900%2C693&ssl=1 "Map Coal Market | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Coal Market![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Petroleum-Market.png?resize=900%2C700&ssl=1 "Map Petroleum Market | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Oil Market![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Gas-Market.png?resize=900%2C697&ssl=1 "Map Gas Market | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Natural Gas Market## D. Bunker fuel Bunkering is an important energy market for maritime shipping as it involves refueling ships at selected locations. While bunkering can occur at port docks, the most common process involves a bunkering ship docking alongside the ship to be refueled. Due to the characteristics of the global shipping network, bunkering tends to occur at **major commercial gateways or intermediary locations** where refueling represents an opportunity with minimal disruptions to the path and schedule of a ship. Bunker fuels are the lower cuts from the vacuum distillation tower (higher grade fuels, such as gasoline, are higher cuts), meaning that they are heavy, low-quality fuels of high viscosity requiring preheating to be used for combustion. The most common bunker fuels on the market include: - **Marine Gasoil (MGO)**. A blend of distillates, similar to diesel, but with a higher density, and does not require heating for storage because of good viscosity at normal temperatures. It is primarily used by smaller vessels, including ferries, fishing boats, and tugs. Its sulfur content is less than 1.5%. Low Sulfur Marine Gasoil (LSMGO) has a sulfur content of less than 0.1%, making it suitable for use in the most stringent [emission control areas (ECAs)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/emission-control-areas-maritime-shipping/ "Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping"). - **Marine Fuel Oil (MFO)**. Fuel of high density and viscosity, which is the most used bunker fuel, particularly because of its low cost. It is also known as Heavy Fuel Oil or Bunker C, with a sulfur content above 3.5%. Its high viscosity requires preheating before use by the engine, as it would otherwise be in a solid state at lower temperatures. **Low Sulfur Marine Fuel Oil** (LSFO) has a sulfur content of less than 1%. However, since regulations in emission control areas now allow sulfur content of less than 0.5%, it has been replaced by **Ultra-Low Sulfur Fuel Oil (ULSFO)**. - **Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)**. Natural gas in a liquid form due to low temperatures (less than -160 °C), mainly composed of methane and traces of other hydrocarbons (e.g., propane and butane). While some ships, particularly cruise ships, have been converted to LNG, it still accounts for a marginal but growing market share. The bunker fuel market is undergoing significant changes as international regulations, supported by the IMO, impose **restrictions on the sulfur content of bunker fuels**, reducing it from 3.5% to 0.5%. This global implementation has been phased since 2010 and became active in 2020. Existing regulations have pushed a shift to the use of low-sulfur fuels, such as LNG, low-sulfur fuel oil (LSFO, maximum 0.5% sulfur), ultra-low-sulfur fuel oil (ULSFO, maximum 0.1%), and low-sulfur marine gas oil (LSMGO). Alternatively, shipowners can opt to install emission control devices such as scrubbers and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems. In the medium term, alternative ship fuels such as hydrogen, ammonia, and biofuels are being considered. This has also created a divergence in the shipping industry, with liners, particularly container shipping, more willing to invest in alternative fuel ships. Since liner shipping is based on regular itineraries, bunkering with alternative fuels remains much easier than tramp shipping. The latter is much more reluctant to switch to alternative fuels since the itinerary is irregular and constantly changing. In this circumstance, finding a bunkering port would present a challenge. [Singapore](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/bunker-fuel-sales-singapore/ "Bunker Fuel Sales at the Port of Singapore, 2013-2023") remains the most important bunkering market globally, handling around 50 million tons of bunker fuel annually. This dominance is related to the intensity of the maritime traffic forced to transit through the Strait of Malacca and the important role Singapore played as a major oil refining center. The bunker refueling market has a [high level of concentration](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3328 "Largest Bunker Fuel Markets, 2015"), with six countries accounting for 60% of global bunker fuel sales. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Emission-Control-Areas.png?resize=900%2C450&ssl=1 "Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/bunker_port_singapore.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Bunker Fuel Sales at the Port of Singapore, 2013-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Bunker Fuel Sales at the Port of Singapore 2013 2023![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/map_bunker_sales.png?resize=900%2C391&ssl=1 "Largest Bunker Fuel Markets, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Largest Bunker Fuel Markets 2024# 3. The Maritime Shipping of Energy The energy transportation market is fragmented, but the dominant modes of energy transportation are complementary, notably when the origins or destinations are landlocked or when land routes can reduce distances. Like other forms of transportation, energy transportation often involves a sequence of modes, with maritime transport and pipelines being the most commonly used for large volumes. Such volumes underline the need for economies of scale and the importance of load breakpoints in energy transport chains. The transportation of energy is the activity **most prone to economies of scale** in the transportation industry, due to the relatively low value-to-mass ratio of fuels and high demand. Therefore, locations adjacent to harbors are typically the primary locations for energy storage and processing activities, such as oil refineries, which enable them to access global markets either as an input (through crude oil imports) or as an output (refined oil products). In 2023, about 2.1 billion tons of crude oil were shipped by maritime transportation, accounting for roughly **46% of all the petroleum produced**. The remaining 54% is either using pipelines (predominantly), trains, or trucks. The maritime circulation of petroleum follows a set of [maritime routes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2542 "Oil Transportation and Major Chokepoints") between regions where it has been extracted and regions where it will be refined and consumed. More than 5.7 million tons of oil are shipped each day by tankers. About half the petroleum shipped is loaded in the Middle East and then shipped to Japan, the United States, and Europe. Tankers bound for Japan use the Strait of Malacca, while tankers bound for Europe and the United States either use the Suez Canal or the Cape of Good Hope, depending on the tanker’s size and specific destination. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Oil-Movements2.png?resize=900%2C512&ssl=1 "Major Oil Flows and Chokepoints | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Major Oil Flows and Chokepoints![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Petroleum-Middle-East-1024x598.png?resize=900%2C526&ssl=1 "Shipping Lanes, Strategic Passages and Oil Production in the Middle East | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Shipping Lanes Strategic Passages and Oil Production in the Middle East![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/tanker_sizes_classes.png?resize=900%2C573&ssl=1 "Tanker Sizes and Classes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Tanker Sizes and Classes![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/lng-ship-mesaimeer.jpg?resize=900%2C600&ssl=1 "Q-flex LNG Carrier "Mesaimeer" | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Q flex LNG Carrier MesaimeerThe world tanker fleet capacity (excluding tankers owned or chartered on a long-term basis for military use by governments) was about 665 million deadweight tons in 2024, representing about 28% of the world’s shipping tonnage. There are roughly 12,400 tankers available in the international oil transportation market. The cost of hiring a tanker is known as the charter rate. It varies according to the size and characteristics of the tanker, its origin, destination, and the availability of ships. However, larger ships are preferred due to the economies of scale they confer. About 810 VLCCs (Very Large Crude Carriers) account for a third of the oil being carried. Transportation costs account for a small percentage of the total cost of gasoline at the pump. For instance, oil carried from the Middle East to the United States accounts for about one cent per liter at the pump. Transportation costs have conventionally accounted for between 5% and 10% of the added oil value, depending on the market being serviced. The growth in oil prices since 2000 has made transport costs a significantly lower component of the total costs, sometimes lower than 5%. Thus, oil demand is not directly related (inelastic) to its transport costs, but rather a factor of effective tanker capacity. Due to distance and port access constraints, tanker flows have a **high concentration level**, with different tanker sizes used for different routes. Larger tanker ships have required the setting up of offshore terminals and even the usage of tanker ships for storage. Tanker ships can also be used as semi-permanent storage tanks. Thus, there is a specialization in maritime oil transportation in terms of ship size, varying according to market. VLCCs are used primarily from the Middle East in high volumes (more than 2 million barrels per ship) and over long distances (Europe and Pacific Asia). Shorter journeys are generally serviced by smaller tanker ships, such as those from Latin America (Venezuela and Mexico) to the United States. Transport capacity has a significant impact on market selection. For instance, three-quarters of American oil imports come from the Atlantic Basin (including Western Africa), with journeys of less than 20 days. Most Asian oil imports originate from the Middle East, which is a three-week journey, with the halfway location of Singapore being one of the world’s largest refining centers. Due to [environmental](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2082) and [security](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=6395) considerations, single-hulled tankers have been gradually phased out to be replaced by double-hulled tankers. The **LNG industry** was initially developed as a niche. It is a highly structured business characterized by **dedicated long-term contracts and regionally** based trade flows, with shipping tied to special projects for the life of the contract. Due to the large capital requirements of LNG projects and the high risks involved, the leading market participants in the LNG shipping segment were traditionally limited to the so-called super majors, namely major oil companies. After the 1990s, gas buyers sought greater flexibility in their supplies and began to move upstream, engaging in activities such as shipping. Gas sellers also began to move along the chain, becoming minority owners in shipping and occasionally in regasification plants. As a result, LNG shipping came under the control of different parties. In line with the global trend towards the privatization of energy markets, the transformations taking place in the LNG market are heavily influenced by deregulation and liberalization in both the upstream and downstream gas markets. Nowadays, some **independent shipowners** are starting midstream activities to integrate their LNG value chain by either cooperating with upstream gas suppliers in liquefaction projects or investing with downstream buyers in import terminals. They can also take the role of refrigeration terminals by converting ships to floating gas production or regasification units. Additionally, one of the most noticeable changes in the market structure, which has both contributed to and benefited from a short-term marketplace, has been the emergence of companies that invest throughout the LNG supply chain. These actors have a portfolio of liquefaction interests, which they use to supply a portfolio of import terminals using vessels they control specifically for this purpose. This group mainly includes a number of international oil majors (e.g., Shell, BP, ExxonMobil), utility companies (e.g., Suez de GDF, ENI), private companies (e.g., Mitsui), and quasi-government companies (e.g., Sonatrach, Qatar Petroleum, and Statoil). Shipowners can be classified into **four categories**: - **LNG integrated projects**. Suppliers, including national oil companies and their partners. - **Gas buyers**. Like Japan and Korea, which are dependent on LNG imports. They own and operate some shipping capacities to diversify gas suppliers and secure market demand. - **International oil majors**. Portfolio players use their vessels to sail between liquefaction and regasification plants where they have commercial interests. - **Independent ship owners**. Secured long-term contracts from LNG integrated suppliers or buyers. With the growth of the LNG trade, additional **LNG projects** are launched with shipping capacity tied in, and new tankers are then ordered accordingly. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 1.6 Interoceanic Passages](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/) - [Chapter 2.6 Ports and Energy Transition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-energy-transition/ "Chapter 2.6 Ports and Energy Transition") - [Chapter 3.5 Bulk and Breakbulk Terminal Design and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/) ## References - DNV-GL (2020). Ports: Green gateways to Europe. - International Transportation Forum (2020). Navigating Towards Cleaner Maritime Shipping: Lessons From the Nordic Region. Paris: OECD. - Poulsen R.T., S. Ponte, H. Sornn-Friese (2018) “Environmental upgrading in global value chains: The potential and limitations of ports in the greening of maritime transport”, Geoforum, Volume 89, Pages 83-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.01.011. - Wang, S., Notteboom, T. (2014). Shipowners’ structure and fleet distribution in the LNG shipping market, International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 6 (5), 488-512. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 5.3 - Ports and Energy Commodities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/) **Published:** September 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > The global economy rests on the consumption of large energy supplies that need to be provided, transformed, and transported. Ports have been important complexes supplying and distributing energy. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. The Origin of Energy Markets](#1_The_Origin_of_Energy_Markets) - [2. Main Port Energy Markets](#2_Main_Port_Energy_Markets) - [3. The Maritime Shipping of Energy](#3_The_Maritime_Shipping_of_Energy) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. The Origin of Energy Markets Historically, there was **no energy market** in maritime shipping. Energy in pre-industrial societies faced limited demand, was produced locally, and was not traded. Limited economic benefits could result from trading bulky and low-energy content commodities such as firewood. Maritime shipping was a breakbulk endeavor that was not able to support bulk trades effectively. A notable exception was the fuel trade associated with oil lamps relying on animal fats and olive oil, which could be carried over long distances. The extensive trade network of olive oil carried in amphoras during the time of the Roman Empire can be considered one of the early forms of maritime shipping energy trade. It was not until the Industrial Revolution that **energy began to be extensively traded**. The rapid growth in energy consumption and a fundamental shift in energy supply systems with the introduction of coal incited the setting up of new supply routes. Coal became a convenient fuel because it could release about four times more energy than a similar mass of wood, did not decay, and could be easily handled and stored. Further, it could be distilled into fuels such as kerosene. The shift from biological to mineral energy supply entailed changes in the location of energy production and consumption, as well as the associated trade flows. Early coal trades were a **significant driver in the development of transport infrastructure** and the classification of shipping. In the late 18th century, the onset of the Industrial Revolution led to the construction of a series of canals in Europe and the United States, with coal shipping serving as the primary driving force behind this development. The Bridgewater Canal was the first notable infrastructure explicitly built to carry energy, in response to the imperatives of the Industrial Revolution, which began in Britain during that time. The no-locks canal linked the coal mines of Worsley to Manchester, 16 km away. Upon its completion in 1761, the cost of coal in Manchester was more than halved, favoring its broader use in burgeoning industrial activities. This sparked a wave of canal infrastructure investments in Europe and North America. The first energy trades were conducted over short distances and primarily involved barges loaded and unloaded using rudimentary equipment. As the coal demand increased for industrial use, transportation fuel, and power generation, specialized bulk carriers for solids and liquids were required. Collier ships were designed to carry coal either to supply factories or to supply navy fleets. In the 19th century, the development of steamships and railways created a self-reinforcing cycle for both the supply and the demand for coal. For long-distance navigation, the transition towards coal-powered steamships favored the setting up of **coaling stations** such as Aden and Cape Town, where ships could be refueled using locally extracted coal. This created the need for local energy supply systems. In 1912, the British Admiralty decided to convert its fleet of warships from coal to oil propulsion due to the speed and range advantages that oil engines offered. Coal-powered ships required a network of coaling stations, which limited their operational flexibility due to the need to secure adequate coal supplies at strategic locations. Further, coaling was a cumbersome and labor-intensive process, taking at least a day to fill a ship’s coal hold. Since Britain had no oil resources, it nationalized the Anglo-Persian Oil Company and committed itself to protect this resource in Persia (Iran after 1934), where most supplies came from. The setting up of the petroleum trade required the design of a new ship class by the late 19th century, the oil tanker. Since the first oil tanker began shipping oil in the Caspian Sea in 1878, the capacity of the world’s maritime tanker fleet has grown substantially. From that point, petroleum energy markets expanded to include a network of pipelines, storage facilities, port facilities, tanker ships, and refineries. The growing energy demand expanded ports in industrial areas and favored the setting up of new specialized ports near energy extraction areas (coal fields and oil fields). # 2. Main Port Energy Markets Contemporary energy markets supply two complementary transportation systems; **fueling ships** (also called bunkering) and **fueling industrial demand** (plus power generation). The first important characteristic of energy markets is the concentration of production, accompanied by more geographically dispersed consumption. This concentration of production is a direct result of economies of scale characterizing the energy sector, more so than in many manufacturing sectors. For energy extraction, processing, and transportation, substantial benefits are realized when additional volumes are handled. Energy represents a [significant share of the global shipping market](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2339 "World Seaborne Trade by Cargo Type, 1970-2018") and accounts for large port volumes. ## A. Coal Coal is a convenient fuel that is easily combustible, easy to store, and transport. It remains an **inexpensive and widely available resource** that is technically simpler to use but is associated with carbon emissions and pollutants such as sulfur dioxide. Since the Industrial Revolution, coal has been the preferred fuel, supporting the massive development of energy and industrial systems. Still, its consumption is declining, particularly in advanced economies that are transitioning to more advanced fuel sources, such as natural gas and alternative energy sources (solar, wind). Coal serves two major markets, with **thermal coal** accounting for 90% of demand. It is used mainly in power stations to produce high-pressure steam, which then drives turbines to generate electricity. It is also used to fire cement and lime kilns, supporting the construction industry. This implies that the location of large coal electric plants is associated with transportation capabilities, particularly port infrastructure. Until the middle of the 20th century, coal was also used in steam engines, with an active steam coal market, which is no longer present. The second coal market is **coking coal** (10% of demand), a specific type of metallurgical coal derived from bituminous coal, used as a source of carbon for converting metal ores into metal. Cooking coal enables blast furnaces to remove oxygen from the ore by forcing it to combine with the carbon in the coal. The coal industry and its market are facing several challenges and redevelopments. Coal is **becoming less competitive** in relation to other energy sources, and its production is declining. The industry is subject to a string of environmental regulations and negative public opinion, which is creating pressure to transition away from coal. The efficiency of coal power plants is improving, with reduced emissions of ashes and sulfur, as well as efforts to capture carbon. Clean Coal technologies have been proposed, emitting fewer ashes while releasing the same amount of CO2. Since the 1990s, technology has allowed a reduction of coal-related emissions by a factor of 90%. In many areas of North America and Europe, environmental issues associated with coal, such as acid rain, have become less significant environmental concerns. The coal market is subject to comparative prices concerning other energy markets, which can create regional discrepancies. For instance, the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident prompted Japan to reinvest in coal-based power generation to address the lack of alternatives in electric power generation. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, Germany drastically reduced its reliance on Russian gas, partly by switching to coal-fired power plants. Germany gradually reduced its coal dependency once new gas deals were made with other countries and new infrastructure for maritime LNG shipments was put in place. ## B. Petroleum Petroleum is the **foremost transportation fuel**. Transportation relies almost entirely on refined petroleum products, including gasoline for automobiles, diesel for trucks, inland barges, non-electric locomotives, bunker fuel for maritime shipping, and Jet-A fuel for air transportation. While the use of petroleum for other economic sectors, such as industry and electricity generation, has remained relatively stable, the growth in oil demand is primarily attributed to the increase in transportation demand. The share of transportation in total oil consumption has increased, accounting for more than 55% of the oil used, with a share exceeding 70% in advanced economies, such as the United States. Other important uses for petroleum include lubricants, plastics, and fertilizers. The demand for oil has helped shape port development in areas near oil resources, at times introducing entirely new ports and the associated infrastructures. This notably occurred in developing economies in the Middle East, including Dammam, Kuwait, Doha, Abu Dhabi, and Dubai. There are limited options for substitution in the medium term, except for the emergence of electric vehicles and a shift in maritime shipping toward lower-sulfur bunker fuels, including natural gas. The largest oil consumers remain in the world’s industrialized economies, including the United States, Western Europe, China, and Japan, which collectively account for about 70% of global crude oil imports. Massive port-centric petrochemical complexes, such as those in Houston, Rotterdam, Singapore, and Ulsan, have been developed to supply these markets. Still, the share of developing economies is increasing as their transportation systems modernize. Since oil consumption and production are characterized by acute differences in the geography of supply and demand, international oil transportation is necessary to compensate for these imbalances. The market is divided across crude and refined product tankers, mainly depending on whether oil refining occurs near the source or near the markets. ## C. Natural gas Natural gas is composed primarily of fossil methane and other light hydrocarbons. It is a mixture of 50% to 90% by volume of methane, propane, and butane and is characterized as “dry” or “wet” based on its methane content and as “sweet” or “sour” based on its sulfur content. Natural gas is usually found in association with oil, implying a [correspondence between oil and gas fields](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2653 "Global Natural Gas Market") and the opportunity to combine extraction. The global production of natural gas has been increasing, resulting in it becoming increasingly cost-competitive with petroleum. Natural gas is considered the cleanest fossil fuel to use, particularly for energy generation, and has become a key fuel in electric power plants. Gas turbine technology allows natural gas to produce electricity more cheaply than coal, implying that the global electric generation market relying on fossil fuels is shifting toward natural gas supply chains. Furthermore, natural gas is becoming increasingly competitive in relation to low-sulfur bunker fuels, particularly in light of ongoing regulations in maritime shipping regarding the sulfur content of bunker fuels. A major challenge concerns the [distribution of natural gas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/global-natural-gas-market/ "Global Natural Gas Market"), which relies on more complex technologies such as pipelines and their liquefaction. The growth of global demand has created a need to move natural gas over long distances. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is an ideal form to transport natural gas, but it requires complex technical tasks. Once natural gas is extracted, it is brought by pipeline to a liquefaction plant in the vicinity of a port terminal. Through a cryogenic process, natural gas is cooled down to -160 °C, resulting in a volume compression by a factor of 610 times. The LNG product can then be shipped by a fleet of specialized LNG carriers. At the destination port, LNG is stored and regasified for distribution through pipelines. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/world_energy_consumption.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "World Energy Consumption, 1965-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")World Energy Consumption 1965 2021![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/seaborne_trade_cargo.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "World Seaborne Trade by Cargo Type, 1970-2021 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")World Seaborne Trade by Cargo Type 1970 2018![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Coal-Market.png?resize=900%2C693&ssl=1 "Map Coal Market | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Coal Market![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Petroleum-Market.png?resize=900%2C700&ssl=1 "Map Petroleum Market | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Oil Market![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Gas-Market.png?resize=900%2C697&ssl=1 "Map Gas Market | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Natural Gas Market## D. Bunker fuel Bunkering is an important energy market for maritime shipping as it involves refueling ships at selected locations. While bunkering can occur at port docks, the most common process involves a bunkering ship docking alongside the ship to be refueled. Due to the characteristics of the global shipping network, bunkering tends to occur at **major commercial gateways or intermediary locations** where refueling represents an opportunity with minimal disruptions to the path and schedule of a ship. Bunker fuels are the lower cuts from the vacuum distillation tower (higher grade fuels, such as gasoline, are higher cuts), meaning that they are heavy, low-quality fuels of high viscosity requiring preheating to be used for combustion. The most common bunker fuels on the market include: - **Marine Gasoil (MGO)**. A blend of distillates, similar to diesel, but with a higher density, and does not require heating for storage because of good viscosity at normal temperatures. It is primarily used by smaller vessels, including ferries, fishing boats, and tugs. Its sulfur content is less than 1.5%. Low Sulfur Marine Gasoil (LSMGO) has a sulfur content of less than 0.1%, making it suitable for use in the most stringent [emission control areas (ECAs)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/emission-control-areas-maritime-shipping/ "Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping"). - **Marine Fuel Oil (MFO)**. Fuel of high density and viscosity, which is the most used bunker fuel, particularly because of its low cost. It is also known as Heavy Fuel Oil or Bunker C, with a sulfur content above 3.5%. Its high viscosity requires preheating before use by the engine, as it would otherwise be in a solid state at lower temperatures. **Low Sulfur Marine Fuel Oil** (LSFO) has a sulfur content of less than 1%. However, since regulations in emission control areas now allow sulfur content of less than 0.5%, it has been replaced by **Ultra-Low Sulfur Fuel Oil (ULSFO)**. - **Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)**. Natural gas in a liquid form due to low temperatures (less than -160 °C), mainly composed of methane and traces of other hydrocarbons (e.g., propane and butane). While some ships, particularly cruise ships, have been converted to LNG, it still accounts for a marginal but growing market share. The bunker fuel market is undergoing significant changes as international regulations, supported by the IMO, impose **restrictions on the sulfur content of bunker fuels**, reducing it from 3.5% to 0.5%. This global implementation has been phased since 2010 and became active in 2020. Existing regulations have pushed a shift to the use of low-sulfur fuels, such as LNG, low-sulfur fuel oil (LSFO, maximum 0.5% sulfur), ultra-low-sulfur fuel oil (ULSFO, maximum 0.1%), and low-sulfur marine gas oil (LSMGO). Alternatively, shipowners can opt to install emission control devices such as scrubbers and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems. In the medium term, alternative ship fuels such as hydrogen, ammonia, and biofuels are being considered. This has also created a divergence in the shipping industry, with liners, particularly container shipping, more willing to invest in alternative fuel ships. Since liner shipping is based on regular itineraries, bunkering with alternative fuels remains much easier than tramp shipping. The latter is much more reluctant to switch to alternative fuels since the itinerary is irregular and constantly changing. In this circumstance, finding a bunkering port would present a challenge. [Singapore](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/bunker-fuel-sales-singapore/ "Bunker Fuel Sales at the Port of Singapore, 2013-2023") remains the most important bunkering market globally, handling around 50 million tons of bunker fuel annually. This dominance is related to the intensity of the maritime traffic forced to transit through the Strait of Malacca and the important role Singapore played as a major oil refining center. The bunker refueling market has a [high level of concentration](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3328 "Largest Bunker Fuel Markets, 2015"), with six countries accounting for 60% of global bunker fuel sales. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Emission-Control-Areas.png?resize=900%2C450&ssl=1 "Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/bunker_port_singapore.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Bunker Fuel Sales at the Port of Singapore, 2013-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Bunker Fuel Sales at the Port of Singapore 2013 2023![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/map_bunker_sales.png?resize=900%2C391&ssl=1 "Largest Bunker Fuel Markets, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Largest Bunker Fuel Markets 2024# 3. The Maritime Shipping of Energy The energy transportation market is fragmented, but the dominant modes of energy transportation are complementary, notably when the origins or destinations are landlocked or when land routes can reduce distances. Like other forms of transportation, energy transportation often involves a sequence of modes, with maritime transport and pipelines being the most commonly used for large volumes. Such volumes underline the need for economies of scale and the importance of load breakpoints in energy transport chains. The transportation of energy is the activity **most prone to economies of scale** in the transportation industry, due to the relatively low value-to-mass ratio of fuels and high demand. Therefore, locations adjacent to harbors are typically the primary locations for energy storage and processing activities, such as oil refineries, which enable them to access global markets either as an input (through crude oil imports) or as an output (refined oil products). In 2023, about 2.1 billion tons of crude oil were shipped by maritime transportation, accounting for roughly **46% of all the petroleum produced**. The remaining 54% is either using pipelines (predominantly), trains, or trucks. The maritime circulation of petroleum follows a set of [maritime routes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2542 "Oil Transportation and Major Chokepoints") between regions where it has been extracted and regions where it will be refined and consumed. More than 5.7 million tons of oil are shipped each day by tankers. About half the petroleum shipped is loaded in the Middle East and then shipped to Japan, the United States, and Europe. Tankers bound for Japan use the Strait of Malacca, while tankers bound for Europe and the United States either use the Suez Canal or the Cape of Good Hope, depending on the tanker’s size and specific destination. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Oil-Movements2.png?resize=900%2C512&ssl=1 "Major Oil Flows and Chokepoints | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Major Oil Flows and Chokepoints![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Petroleum-Middle-East-1024x598.png?resize=900%2C526&ssl=1 "Shipping Lanes, Strategic Passages and Oil Production in the Middle East | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Shipping Lanes Strategic Passages and Oil Production in the Middle East![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/tanker_sizes_classes.png?resize=900%2C573&ssl=1 "Tanker Sizes and Classes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Tanker Sizes and Classes![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/lng-ship-mesaimeer.jpg?resize=900%2C600&ssl=1 "Q-flex LNG Carrier "Mesaimeer" | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Q flex LNG Carrier MesaimeerThe world tanker fleet capacity (excluding tankers owned or chartered on a long-term basis for military use by governments) was about 665 million deadweight tons in 2024, representing about 28% of the world’s shipping tonnage. There are roughly 12,400 tankers available in the international oil transportation market. The cost of hiring a tanker is known as the charter rate. It varies according to the size and characteristics of the tanker, its origin, destination, and the availability of ships. However, larger ships are preferred due to the economies of scale they confer. About 810 VLCCs (Very Large Crude Carriers) account for a third of the oil being carried. Transportation costs account for a small percentage of the total cost of gasoline at the pump. For instance, oil carried from the Middle East to the United States accounts for about one cent per liter at the pump. Transportation costs have conventionally accounted for between 5% and 10% of the added oil value, depending on the market being serviced. The growth in oil prices since 2000 has made transport costs a significantly lower component of the total costs, sometimes lower than 5%. Thus, oil demand is not directly related (inelastic) to its transport costs, but rather a factor of effective tanker capacity. Due to distance and port access constraints, tanker flows have a **high concentration level**, with different tanker sizes used for different routes. Larger tanker ships have required the setting up of offshore terminals and even the usage of tanker ships for storage. Tanker ships can also be used as semi-permanent storage tanks. Thus, there is a specialization in maritime oil transportation in terms of ship size, varying according to market. VLCCs are used primarily from the Middle East in high volumes (more than 2 million barrels per ship) and over long distances (Europe and Pacific Asia). Shorter journeys are generally serviced by smaller tanker ships, such as those from Latin America (Venezuela and Mexico) to the United States. Transport capacity has a significant impact on market selection. For instance, three-quarters of American oil imports come from the Atlantic Basin (including Western Africa), with journeys of less than 20 days. Most Asian oil imports originate from the Middle East, which is a three-week journey, with the halfway location of Singapore being one of the world’s largest refining centers. Due to [environmental](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2082) and [security](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=6395) considerations, single-hulled tankers have been gradually phased out to be replaced by double-hulled tankers. The **LNG industry** was initially developed as a niche. It is a highly structured business characterized by **dedicated long-term contracts and regionally** based trade flows, with shipping tied to special projects for the life of the contract. Due to the large capital requirements of LNG projects and the high risks involved, the leading market participants in the LNG shipping segment were traditionally limited to the so-called super majors, namely major oil companies. After the 1990s, gas buyers sought greater flexibility in their supplies and began to move upstream, engaging in activities such as shipping. Gas sellers also began to move along the chain, becoming minority owners in shipping and occasionally in regasification plants. As a result, LNG shipping came under the control of different parties. In line with the global trend towards the privatization of energy markets, the transformations taking place in the LNG market are heavily influenced by deregulation and liberalization in both the upstream and downstream gas markets. Nowadays, some **independent shipowners** are starting midstream activities to integrate their LNG value chain by either cooperating with upstream gas suppliers in liquefaction projects or investing with downstream buyers in import terminals. They can also take the role of refrigeration terminals by converting ships to floating gas production or regasification units. Additionally, one of the most noticeable changes in the market structure, which has both contributed to and benefited from a short-term marketplace, has been the emergence of companies that invest throughout the LNG supply chain. These actors have a portfolio of liquefaction interests, which they use to supply a portfolio of import terminals using vessels they control specifically for this purpose. This group mainly includes a number of international oil majors (e.g., Shell, BP, ExxonMobil), utility companies (e.g., Suez de GDF, ENI), private companies (e.g., Mitsui), and quasi-government companies (e.g., Sonatrach, Qatar Petroleum, and Statoil). Shipowners can be classified into **four categories**: - **LNG integrated projects**. Suppliers, including national oil companies and their partners. - **Gas buyers**. Like Japan and Korea, which are dependent on LNG imports. They own and operate some shipping capacities to diversify gas suppliers and secure market demand. - **International oil majors**. Portfolio players use their vessels to sail between liquefaction and regasification plants where they have commercial interests. - **Independent ship owners**. Secured long-term contracts from LNG integrated suppliers or buyers. With the growth of the LNG trade, additional **LNG projects** are launched with shipping capacity tied in, and new tankers are then ordered accordingly. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 1.6 Interoceanic Passages](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/) - [Chapter 2.6 Ports and Energy Transition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-energy-transition/ "Chapter 2.6 Ports and Energy Transition") - [Chapter 3.5 Bulk and Breakbulk Terminal Design and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/) ## References - DNV-GL (2020). Ports: Green gateways to Europe. - International Transportation Forum (2020). Navigating Towards Cleaner Maritime Shipping: Lessons From the Nordic Region. Paris: OECD. - Poulsen R.T., S. Ponte, H. Sornn-Friese (2018) “Environmental upgrading in global value chains: The potential and limitations of ports in the greening of maritime transport”, Geoforum, Volume 89, Pages 83-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.01.011. - Wang, S., Notteboom, T. (2014). Shipowners’ structure and fleet distribution in the LNG shipping market, International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 6 (5), 488-512. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Global RORO Vessels Market Segments](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/global-ro-ro-vessels-market-segments/) **Published:** December 4, 2024 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/roro_market_segments.png?resize=900%2C381&ssl=1 "Global RoRo Vessels Market Segments | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global RoRo vessels market segments*Source: Based on Skyquest (2022). Global Ro-Ro vessels market. Massachusetts, US.* The global RORO vessel market is segmented into various dimensions, including type, capacity, fuel type, application, and region. The market can be mainly divided into ferries, cargo ships, and barges, with their capacity divided into small, medium, and large RORO vessels. Recently, Pure Carriers, specifically designed to transport passenger vehicles and known as PCC vessels, have registered a 3% to 4% annual growth in the global Ro/Ro vessels market. These vessels have multiple decks to accommodate large numbers of vehicles and are equipped with specialized ramps and doors for easy loading and unloading. The growth of Pure Car and Truck Carriers (PCTC) has been around 2% to 3% during the past few years. PCTCs are designed to transport passenger vehicles and commercial vehicles, including trucks, buses, and other wheeled cargo. These vessels are versatile and can accommodate a mix of different types of vehicles. The market is segmented into conventional, hybrid, and others based on fuel type. While investing in LNG-powered ships has been seen as an option to replace fossil fuels, wind-powered RORO vessels that utilize wind energy as their primary power source to significantly reduce emissions are in development. Moreover, advances in technology, such as the development of highly rapid RORO vessels that are self-driven by autonomous systems and eco-friendly, also add to the growth of this market. These ships serve as a focal point for the efficient transportation of goods worldwide and within the RORO vessels market, given their reliability as a convenient operating mode. Recent investments and corporate activities in the shipping sector suggest that sustainability and efficiency are well on their way to growing within the RORO vessels market. The market can also be segmented by application into automobile manufacturers, construction and mining companies, and logistics providers. Finally, the geographical dimension is important, and the market is segmented based on region: North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East & Africa. The Asia Pacific region has emerged as a dominant market for RORO vessels, with a CAGR of around 5-6% during the past few years. The area is witnessing rapid industrialization and urbanization, driving the demand for the transportation of goods and vehicles. Countries such as China, Japan, South Korea, and India are major contributors to the growth of the RORO vessels market in Asia Pacific. The North American RORO vessels market has grown steadily, with a 3-4% CAGR during the past few years. The United States and Canada are the major contributors to the market, driven by the growth of the automotive and commercial vehicle industries, as well as the need for efficient transportation of goods to support trade activities. Estimates suggest that the total global RORO vessels market size was USD 25 billion in 2022, with a forecasted growth to approximately USD 39-40 billion by 2031, at a CAGR of 5.2% during the forecast period (2024-2031). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/global-ro-ro-vessels-market-segments/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/global-ro-ro-vessels-market-segments/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/global-ro-ro-vessels-market-segments/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/global-ro-ro-vessels-market-segments/?share=reddit) - --- ### [World's Largest Cruise Terminal (2025)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/worlds-largest-cruise-terminal-2025/) **Published:** December 28, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/MSC-Miami-Cruise-Terminal.jpg?resize=900%2C505&ssl=1 "MSC Miami Cruise Terminal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Largest Cruise Terminal 2025 MSC Miami Cruise Terminal *Photo Credit: MSC.* Located at the world’s largest cruise port (PortMiami), the **MSC Miami Cruise Terminal** is the largest single cruise terminal constructed to date. Operating since April 2025, the facility comprises approximately 492,000 square feet (45,700 m²) of terminal space. The terminal currently has two vessel berths, with infrastructure in place to expand to three berths by 2029. It spans four levels and is the first terminal in the world to welcome three cruise ships simultaneously. The landside transportation system is designed for high-volume passenger throughput and includes a multi-level circulation layout supported by an integrated 1.3-million-square-foot parking structure offering over 2,400 parking spots. Collectively, these systems enable the terminal to process up to 36,000 passenger movements per day, encompassing embarkation, disembarkation, and turnaround operations. Advanced technology systems are deployed across key operational areas: - **Baggage Handling Systems:** A purpose-built luggage handling system, including 42 luggage screening machines, has been designed specifically for the terminal and associated vessel operations. The system supports **s**imultaneous baggage sorting for up to three ships, utilizing innovative luggage tags, real-time data tracking, and automated routing. Designated luggage drop-off locations within the parking structure allow passengers to bypass curbside processing, reducing congestion and improving operational continuity. - **Parking and Access Control:** The parking facility operates via a digital platform that supports mobile web payments, digital ticketing, and real-time user support, enabling efficient vehicle flow and reduced dwell times. - **Biometric Identification and Passenger Processing:** The terminal features the **i**ndustry’s first fully end-to-end embarkation process enabled by biometric facial recognition technology. This includes advanced mobile check-in with digital identity creation through facial image acquisition and automatic passport data capture. 18 self-service facial biometric checkpoints replace manual document verification and improve security and passenger flow efficiency, as they verify passports and identification and facilitate rapid terminal entry and seamless embarkation and disembarkation via 22 E-gates. From an**environmental and energy perspective**, the terminal is equipped with shore power (cold ironing) capability, allowing berthed cruise ships to connect to the local electrical grid and reduce emissions while in port. The facility has LEED certification**,** reflecting compliance with recognized standards for sustainable design, construction, and operation. The terminal incorporates a permanent **art in public places program**, developed in partnership with the Miami-Dade County Department of Cultural Affairs. This program delivers the first immersive art installations at PortMiami, integrating commissioned artworks and interactive, site-specific installations throughout the terminal, enriching the experience for passengers and visitors alike. The biggest cruise terminal in Europe is Terminal D, Barcelona (maximum daily capacity 12.000 passenger movements), and in Asia, it is Wusongkou, Shanghai (20.000 passenger movements). Marina Bay Cruise Centre, Singapore (11.000) and T3, Port Canaveral (US) (14.000) complete the list of the biggest cruise terminals in the mid-2020s. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/worlds-largest-cruise-terminal-2025/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/worlds-largest-cruise-terminal-2025/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/worlds-largest-cruise-terminal-2025/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/worlds-largest-cruise-terminal-2025/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Largest Cruise Ports by Passengers, 2023](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/most-active-cruise-ports-passenger-visits/) **Published:** February 5, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/largest_cruise_ports2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Largest Cruise Ports by Passengers, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Largest Cruise Ports by Passengers 2023*Source: adapted from Cruise Market Watch.* The [Caribbean](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1555) and the [Mediterranean](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1563) dominate the list of the largest cruise ports. The two largest are turn ports in southern Florida, which is the world’s biggest cruise market. Nassau (Bahamas) is commonly a port of call for most cruises departing from the major turn ports of Florida (Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Port Canaveral). Cozumel is a marquee (must-see) port for most Western Caribbean cruises. Freeport (Bahamas), George Town (Cayman Islands), St. Thomas, Philipsburg (Sint Maarten), and Montego Bay (Jamaica) are also marquee Caribbean ports that most itineraries call. PortMiami hosts t[he world’s largest single cruise terminal constructed to date, the MSC Miami Cruise Terminal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/worlds-largest-cruise-terminal-2025/) The major Mediterranean cruise ports are turn ports, such as Civitavecchia (Rome) and Barcelona, followed by marquee ports, such as Palma de Mallorca, Marseille, and Venice. The Asian market has shown growth, with Shanghai and Singapore the main turn ports. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/most-active-cruise-ports-passenger-visits/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/most-active-cruise-ports-passenger-visits/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/most-active-cruise-ports-passenger-visits/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/most-active-cruise-ports-passenger-visits/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 7.2 - Cruise Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/) **Published:** February 2, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ### Authors: Dr. Athanasios Pallis, Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, and Dr. Theo Notteboom > Ports and destinations have developed an interest in hosting cruise activities. Cruise ports and terminals are transforming, aiming to achieve growth. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. An Expanding Cruise Port System](#1_An_Expanding_Cruise_Port_System) - [2. Typologies of Cruise Ports](#2_Typologies_of_Cruise_Ports) - [3. The Competitiveness of Cruise Ports](#3_The_Competitiveness_of_Cruise_Ports) - [4. Home Ports](#4_Home_Ports) - [5. Cruise Supply Chains](#5_Cruise_Supply_Chains) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. An Expanding Cruise Port System With the [growth in cruise shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ports-and-cruise-shipping/) and businesses, [cruise ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/most-active-cruise-ports-passenger-visits/ "Largest Cruise Ports by Passengers, 2023") are gaining importance. The port is vital for assuring schedule reliability and allowing continuous passenger (dis)embarkation and transfer to onward journeys and day excursions. This highlights the **considerable financial contribution** of cruising to port cities or nearby touristic destinations. Once cruise lines express an interest in a destination, taking into account economic and geopolitical conditions, its viability relies on the port and shore characteristics. The presence of sufficient port-specific and port-related infrastructure, the absence of intense use that might lead to congestion and disruption, and the modernization of infrastructure to provide efficient and effective port services are crucial parameters that allow the use of a port as part of an itinerary. Ports also realize the opportunity to provide services to an industry that offers local economies more than returns to the port itself. With the **direct and indirect impacts** of many cruise-related activities, including passenger and crew spending, on port cities and nearby tourist destinations, interest in increasing the number of cruise passengers has been supported by broader communities and decision-makers. Admittedly, passenger and crew spending contributes significantly to the cruise hosting economies. Cruise line expenditures on goods and services supporting their operations, as well as the numerous indirect and induced effects, provide additional motivation for hosting cruise activities. The rising importance of port-city integration coincides with the growth of the industry. Cruise activities are part of the agendas promoted by port authorities and other port-managing organizations to link their port with visible benefits for the local economy. These factors contribute to the use of various cruise itineraries and the reduction in the high concentration level of the [global cruise port system](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1590), which has been observed in the past. In the 20th century, the global cruise port system was characterized by a high level of regional concentration and clustering of port visits. However, in the 21st century, this concentration has diminished rapidly, as global itinerary building in cruise lines and a growing interest in advancing cruise activities by many cruise ports have increased the number of ports hosting notable levels of cruise activities. **New cruising clusters** are emerging to serve a latent demand from a growing middle and upper class in Asia, the Middle East, and South America. Still, this growth has been volatile compared with the stability and organic growth of the Caribbean and the Mediterranean. The cruise industry is being globalized with new itineraries and cruise regions becoming increasingly popular, such as Iceland, the Galapagos, and Antarctica. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/global_cruise_passengers.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Global Cruise Passengers Carried and Growth Rates, 1990-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Cruise Passengers Carried and Growth Rates 1990 2024![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/largest_cruise_ports2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Largest Cruise Ports by Passengers, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Most Active Cruise Ports by Passenger Visits 2023![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Cruise-Ports-World-1.png?resize=900%2C456&ssl=1 "The Global Cruise Port System, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Global Cruise Port System 2023# 2. Typologies of Cruise Ports Ports offering services to cruise lines vary in many respects, as the aim of cruise shipping differs from that of cargo shipping. Cruise lines focus on **providing amenities to cruise passengers**, rather than just transportation services. The presence of these two elements, transport and tourism, results in multiple criteria for a [typology of cruise ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/typology-cruise-ports/ "Typology of Cruise Ports"). The first group of criteria is similar to those observed in cargo port markets. The second group reflects the peculiarities of the cruise market, including the catalytic influence of the tourism element. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/typology_cruise_ports.png?resize=900%2C397&ssl=1 "Typology of Cruise Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Typology of Cruise Ports## A. The port element Depending on their **role in cruise itineraries**, cruise ports fall into the following categories: - **Home ports** (turn ports or hub ports). The ports where passengers begin or end their cruises. Most commonly, they are both the starting and ending points of a designed itinerary. It is also at home ports that cruise ships are resupplied, refueled, and waste is disposed of. Approximately 80% of all cruises end up returning to their port of origin, meaning they are typically set up as loops. There are a growing number of homeports where passengers can begin or end their journey, underlining the expansion and diversification of the cruise industry. - **Ports of call** (transit ports). Intermediate stops en route to another destination. Cruise vessels call for a few hours before continuing their itinerary, offering their guests the opportunity to visit the port city and nearby tourist attractions. The cruise ship acts as a staging point. - **Hybrid ports** blend the two categories as they are the starting and ending points for some cruise itineraries, but also act as intermediate points for other cruise itineraries. Within the Spanish market, which is the largest in Europe, Barcelona serves as a homeport. Seville, Valencia, Palma, and Gran Canaria play dual roles. There are even some ports, like Malaga, which can primarily serve as a port of call but have also been used as a homeport. The **state of cruise port development** provides a second typology criterion. The siting and setup of cruise port facilities are subject to constraints that are not typically found in cargo port activities. Cruise lines expect specific levels of service and space, as more than ten square feet is required to serve each passenger, with check-in time under 15 minutes and disembarkation time under 20 minutes. Architects and builders are developing specialized terminals with many aesthetic characteristics. This represents a significant transformation, as most cruise terminals were reconversions of port facilities previously used for cargo operations, particularly if those sites were located adjacent to downtown areas. However, the move from multi-purpose terminals or temporary docking facilities towards specialized cruise terminals is not universal. Sometimes, scarce port land only allows for one pier to be dedicated to cruising. Alternatively, cruise lines can develop their own ports of call, such as [private islands in the Caribbean](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/private-islands-caribbean-owned-cruise-lines/ "Private Islands in the Caribbean Owned by Cruise Lines"). The terminalization of cruise ports implies the development of advanced, autonomously operating cruise terminals of considerable size (e.g., the Port of Barcelona), accompanied by the presence of cruise terminal operators that assume responsibility for operating, and in some cases, constructing and developing these terminals. The uninterrupted growth of cruising has created a window of opportunity for several firms, including cruise lines and specialized cruise terminal operators such as [Global Ports Holding](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/cruise-terminals-operated-gph/ "Cruise Terminals Operated by Global Ports Holding (GPH), 2023"), which wish to undertake new or additional investments in the cruise business and sometimes pursue a path of internationalization. The leasing of cruise terminals to third parties and the development of new terminals have become common. In some ports, cruise lines are directly involved in the financing, building, and operations of terminals). In other ports, local cruise terminal operators (frequently being port agents) are joined by other companies that have developed interests in taking control over cruise ports and specialized purpose vehicles (SPVs) built by terminal operating companies. This led to the emergence of international operators. As cruise activities in ports gain operational autonomy, public authorities are pursuing various partnerships with third parties, aiming to finance and develop growth strategies. **Cruise port governance** has, in many cases, been revisited, with more actors involved than just the managing entity of the port. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/private_cruise_islands_caribbean.png?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Private Islands owned by Cruise Lines in the Caribbean | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of Private Cruise islands in the Caribbean owned by Cruise Lines![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/terminalization_cruise_barcelona.png?resize=900%2C483&ssl=1 "The Terminalization of Cruise Ports: Port of Barcelona | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Terminals at Cruise Port Barcelona![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-GPH-Cruise-Ports-Holding-1.png?resize=900%2C450&ssl=1 "Cruise Ports or Terminals Operated by Global Ports Holding (GPH) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Ports or Terminals Operated by Global Ports Holding GPH![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/MSC-Miami-Cruise-Terminal.jpg?resize=900%2C505&ssl=1 "MSC Miami Cruise Terminal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Wolrds Largest Cruise Terminal 2025 MSC Miami Cruise TerminalTwo additional classifications of cruise ports are based on the transportation element of cruising, facilitating a better understanding of the heterogeneity within the cruise port industry. The first is the size of the cruise ports. With many ports becoming very large entities handling more than one million passenger movements per year, cruise ports can be classified as being of significant size, or very large, large, medium, or even small, depending on the number of calls and passenger movements per year. The other criterion is the seasonality of cruise activities (i.e., Low, average, high, very high), which refers to the extent to which cruise activities in a region and cruise vessels call at a particular port during just a few months of the year. ## B. The tourism element Cruise ports also fall into [three main categories](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1695) depending on their role in tourism within their regions. They can be a **destination port** where few, if any, excursions occur outside the port area and the touristic attractions of the linked port city. They can also serve as a **gateway port**, primarily acting as a point of embarkation, or a **balanced port** that offers a combination of port area amenities and inland excursions. Each of these categories implies different development strategies to service the market. A different classification results from the level of **tourist attractiveness** of each cruise port and its linked port-city and destination. Some of the ports are **marquee ports** that, due to exceptional touristic attractions, are essential destinations for cruises in the region. Others are **discovery ports**, commonly seen as having the potential to attract the interest of prospective cruisers. **Accessibility** stands as another relevant classification of cruise ports. The dominant means of reaching the port, such as flight-to, drive-to, or rail-to cruise ports, influences the type of operations and infrastructure the port needs to provide. For instance, drive-to ports require substantial availability of parking lots in proximity to the terminals. ## C. Cruise port services The [services offered to cruise lines at a cruise port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/expected-cruise-ports-services-facilities/ "Expected Cruise Ports Services & Facilities") differ depending on the **function of the port** along an itinerary. The services expected to be on offer at a transit port are a subset of those available at home ports. Generic facilities expected by all cruise ports include entrance and berthing facilities. The second group of services is offered to cruise vessels and cruise lines, and the third group of services is provided to cruise passengers. A home port is expected to provide additional services that assist cruise passengers and their activities. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_port_facilities_services.png?resize=900%2C453&ssl=1 "Expected Cruise Ports Services and Facilities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Expected Cruise Ports Services and Facilities![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/categories_cruise_port_fees.png?resize=900%2C515&ssl=1 "Categories of Cruise Ports Fees | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Categories of Cruise Ports Fees# 3. The Competitiveness of Cruise Ports Cruise ports serve a **derived demand**, such as the wish of cruisers to visit a specific destination. Nonetheless, the **competitiveness** of the infrastructure and services offered at a cruise port can also affect the decisions of cruise lines to include more calls at this port in their itineraries. Seeking to develop a new itinerary, cruise lines can add new cruise ports and aim to attract both existing cruisers and new customers. This search is associated with destination features, including tourist attractions, potential shore excursions, and security considerations. However, facilities such as berths, land infrastructure, logistics, maritime services (including pilots and tugs), and landside operations (including security, passenger, and luggage handling) all affect the growth of cruising in a given port. Additionally, cruise ports do not necessarily have a monopoly on the amenities offered and access to inland tourist attractions. Substitution for a third port remains a possibility. It is less costly for ports to [develop a cruise terminal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/) than it is to develop other port facilities, such as container terminals. Superstructures and processes are less demanding in terms of sophistication. However, the quality of port facilities (infrastructure), the efficiency of services and operations, and the levels of port fees (costs) can explain only part of the attractiveness of a cruise port. With cruise passenger satisfaction being the foundation of cruise shipping, a cruise port relies on additional factors to become a port of call and host cruise passenger movements. First, the extent to which the port is geographically well-positioned in cruise itineraries, which involves the distance between cruise ports. The **location of the destination** remains fundamental. Ports located in must-see destinations must still be part of an appealing itinerary to be considered a popular cruise destination. A second factor is the tourist attractiveness of the destination. This is primarily determined by the characteristics of the area (climate, socio-cultural factors, and natural factors), with the port industry and stakeholders having only a secondary influence. The third factor is the accessibility of the destination. Port proximity to an airport with airlifts to source markets, a train station with good connections, and highways supporting the increasingly popular **drive-and-cruise** concept might determine the potential to host home port traffic. Assuming that a port has taken all necessary steps to enhance security levels, the next factor is the quality of port services and the services offered. Port fees also serve as a key success factor. The last two factors are generally the most easily adaptable compared to other success factors. Nevertheless, a cruise port has a limited location, tourist attractiveness, and accessibility are not likely to match performance by making changes in facilities, services, or fees. ## A. Port choice and itineraries Cruise ports aim to be part of various cruise itineraries, as cruise lines sell itineraries, not destinations. Itinerary building involves the decisions of cruise lines regarding the departing and returning homeports, the ports of call to be included in a cruise program, the selection of days/time of the respective calls, and the choice of the cruise vessel to be deployed. This is the outcome of several commercial considerations: - **Potential revenue generation and costs**. Including shore excursion revenues, shipboard revenue, port costs, and fuel costs (with consideration for the impact of local fuel-related regulations). - **Operational considerations**. Involve geographic location (including competing and complementary ports on the itinerary), the distance between ports of call (cruise ships can cover up to 280 nautical miles per night), infrastructure, the levels of safety and security at the ports of the region, the days of the week a cruise might call, and the possibility of evening and overnight calls. - **Brand positioning** (exotic ports of call for premium services). - **Guest interest and satisfaction** (customer-oriented industry). - **Marketability** (with itineraries being as strong as the weakest port). - **Economic trends and market research**. Include evaluating changes in disposable incomes and the demographics of the customer base. Once the above criteria have generated a shortlist of alternative options, attention will be directed to the cruise ports that should be included. Cruise lines are interested in selecting ports that: - Are not congested. - Provide quality port facilities. - Apply transparent berthing policies and other facilities. - Have the potential to attract cruisers from diversified passenger source markets. Geographical proximity and connectivity to other cruise ports are vital. **Synchronizing a cruise port location** with the time and speed preferences of cruise lines, particularly the possibility of being included in itineraries involving several ports, is vital. This formula is the outcome of the fact that ships ideally travel at 18 knots for 14 hours. This means that the maximum overnight travel distance is 250 nautical miles, whereas, with a speed of 20 knots, the maximum overnight travel distance increases to 280 nautical miles. Ports are carefully considered with a view to maximizing the commercial potential and utilization of onboard assets. Ships constantly move between ports of call, and shore leaves are of short duration, averaging 4.3 hours in the Caribbean, even if a cruise ship stays at a port for 10 to 12 hours. A standard cruise itinerary is a loop that begins and ends at a home port, typically lasting seven days with 3 to 5 ports of call, depending on their proximity to each other. Cruises of 10 to 21 days are also offered, but they tend to have lower profit margins as customers tend to spend less as the cruise progresses. The distribution of cruises by the number of days duration reveals the characteristics of cruise itineraries. The share of cruises lasting seven days is dominant (47%), with other prevalent durations ranging from 3 to 5 days. This illustrates a scheduling issue for cruise shipping lines as they maximize their asset utilization through a continuous turn of cruise ships. For instance, a ship typically finishes a weekly cruise early in the morning and begins a new one on the same evening. Within the 8- to 12-hour window between the end of the inbound cruise and the beginning of the outbound cruise, passengers must check out and disembark. Rooms and facilities are cleaned, waste is discarded, stores are replenished, the ship is refueled, basic maintenance is performed, and outbound cruise passengers must check in and embark. The design variables of itineraries within this time frame mainly concern the number and order of port calls, the synchronization with the (international) air transfers at the turn ports, vessel speed, and vessel size. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/drivers_cruise_deployment.png?resize=891%2C823&ssl=1 "Interlinked Drivers of Cruise Ships Deployment | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Interlinked Drivers of Cruise Ships Deployment![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/average_cruise_duration.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Average Cruise Duration | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Average Cruise DurationSince the cruise industry appears to be fundamentally driven by supply rather than demand, **supply saturation** often constrains future developments and imposes limitations on an industry that continued to grow rapidly, despite the significant hiatus of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-21). While large hub ports can accommodate additional port calls, the smaller, “exotic” or “must-see” (marquee) ports that cruisers seek to visit present challenges for additional capacity. Berth availability and the ability of small communities to accommodate large, short-term tourist influxes have become a salient issue. However, the massification of cruise ships is creating a scale and scope challenge for several cruise ports, which face the dilemma of generating tourism income while mitigating the environmental and social disruptions associated with large cruise ships. This leads to further market segmentation between large ports visited by mega-ships and smaller ports, which are served by smaller ships offering a specialized cruise experience. This is likely to incite further **involvement of the cruise industry in terminal operations**, a trend that has already started taking place. The next step involves developing new cruise terminals that are **co-located** with service amenities, such as hotels, attractions, condominiums, and shopping malls. Paradoxically, a similar trend has been observed in container shipping over recent decades, as several shipping lines have become, through their parent companies, terminal operators. Regardless of the ownership structure, the emergence of transnational cruise terminal operators may further transform the industry in the coming years. While a further fragmentation of itineraries is likely to occur, closer integration between the cruise port and the cruise shipping industry is expected. ## B. Infrastructure upgrade The availability of **adequate port infrastructure** and the efficient and secure organization of cruise hosting operations remain among the conditions for generating interest in cruise lines, including ports in cruise itineraries. Cruise ports require docks that can efficiently accommodate the new generation of cruise ships. Requiring new infrastructure poses significant challenges, especially for ports that face land scarcity or the need for regular dredging of their harbors and channels. The optimal design and planning of cruise ports and their terminals underline long-term arrangements between ports and cruise lines. When securing the long-term commitment of one or more cruise lines, the cruise port is incentivized to provide adjustments to its operations. Such long-term commitments are defined through negotiations between ports and cruise lines, particularly when a cruise line develops a dedicated facility. Once the port infrastructure is in place, and the port is operational, the managing entity of the cruise port needs to develop a strategy for growing homeporting activities and the desired cruise market segments. Competition for both transit and home port cruise businesses is intensifying, with ports and destinations evaluating the benefits of each option to direct their efforts toward the most lucrative business opportunities. The most significant **challenges** in the search for competitiveness are: - Developing **relationships with cruise lines**, with the aim of securing a long-term engagement. - The accommodation of calls by **larger cruise ships**. - The evolution of **relationships with people and businesses around the ports** offering improved services to the passengers and cruise ships calling at the port. - The potential to overcome the **seasonality** of hosting cruise activities via year-round cruising. A common denominator in these efforts is the need to enhance the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of the cruise activities attracted. ## C. Relationships with cruise lines Improving relationships with cruise lines is a major challenge for cruise ports. The most important issue to be addressed is offering attractive **shore excursions**. Ports and cruise lines need to align their priorities. Subsequently, they coordinate their efforts and engage service providers, authorities, and stakeholders in organizing transportation infrastructures and tourist services ashore to increase the options available to cruise passengers. The potential for multiple shore excursions incites itinerary planners to include the port in the offered cruise programs. The **long-term engagement of cruise lines** in using a cruise port is a strong indication of its prospects as a destination. To expand its presence in the cruise market, a port may need to adapt to organizational structures, operational procedures, governance regimes, or strategies. The presence of cruise lines for more than a few calls and the commitment to a multi-year presence appear crucial. The **availability of landside transportation** is another issue creating controversy between ports and cruise lines, with ports and destinations having to collaborate to resolve any bottlenecks. The demand for port services does not depend on port operations. Cruisers are primarily interested in agile transportation to port cities or tourist destinations. Less discussed are unexpected call cancellations by cruise lines, which are high on the agenda for cruise ports. Perhaps contrary to what may be expected, other arrangements appear to be more challenging than tariffs. Two significant challenges to be jointly addressed by ports and cruise lines include cooperation between ports and cruise lines when scheduling itineraries and **allocating berths.** **Berth allocation** is a long-term planning issue for ports, with vital implications. The practice refers to the planning of which cruise vessels will visit the given port on a specific day for a particular time span. Ports need to arrange the slot to be reserved for a particular vessel call **two years in advance**. The reason is that the cruise line needs to define its cruise itineraries and then inform travel agents who will need to sell the cruise to potential customers. For several reasons, such planning does not always happen. Given the limitations imposed by the geographical distances between ports included in an itinerary and the lengths of cruises, having several operators berthing for the same timeframe is not uncommon. The problem of berth allocation is even more critical in smaller, secondary cruise ports. In small, picturesque destinations, cruise calls can lead to relatively unpleasant situations, such as crowded locations on certain days or hours, or even the disruption of other tourist activities. In larger ports, this might take the form of congestion at the arrival of larger ships, on which thousands of people are cruising. The arrival of two average-sized cruise vessels at a given port means more than 6,000 passengers disembarking at the same time. Yet, in some cases, congestion in small and medium destinations is produced simply because of a small additional number of calls. Without effective planning, these destinations may be subject to the pressure and the negative effect of **too many passengers who can barely be accommodated**, which does not allow for a positive experience. In several cases, the presence of cruises is marked by seasonality, reducing the problem that smaller tourist destinations face. However, while the debate on how best to apply berth allocation is at the top of the agenda between key stakeholders, this debate remains inconclusive in many respects. Technical issues related to its application (time scale, details of the berthing allocation) and also the need for all ports included in an itinerary to synchronize with the system, the diverging needs of each cruise line, the treatment of double bookings, and cancellations of booked cruise berths, are all vital. ## D. Scale of cruise port calls The early goal of the cruise industry was to develop a **mass market**, as cruising was previously an activity reserved for the elite. A way to achieve this was through economies of scale, as larger ships could accommodate more customers at a lower cost and create additional opportunities for onboard revenue sources. The first dedicated cruise ships emerged in the 1970s, capable of carrying approximately 1,000 passengers. By the 1980s, economies of scale were further expanded with cruise ships that could carry more than 2,000 passengers. In the 2020s, the biggest cruise ships have a capacity of over 6,600 passengers, with the capacity of each of the 50 biggest cruise vessels in operation exceeding 3,000 passengers. Trends in cruise ship orders suggest a clear stabilization in maximum vessel size, underlining that [there are limits to economies of scale](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4854) in cruise shipping. Cruise ships tend to have a low draft since they do not carry cargo; they have **more volume than weight**. This confers the advantage of accessing a **large number of ports** and, therefore, multiple itinerary options since the setting up of a pure cruise port rests on criteria that are different from commercial ports. For instance, Oasis-class ships have a draft of 31 feet, a capacity of about 6,600 passengers, and a crew of 2,200. Comparatively, a containership of 2,500 TEU requires a draft of 33 feet, while a containership of 8,400 TEU requires a draft of 46 feet. Draft issues that have constrained container ports are a relatively minor constraint for cruise shipping. Additionally, cruise ships can anchor and use tendering services, which opens a wide array of ports of call. Cruise ports tend to be located close to either city centers (cultural and commercial amenities) or natural amenities (e.g., a protected beach). ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_ships_scale_dimension.png?resize=900%2C301&ssl=1 "Scale and Dimension of Cruise Ships | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Ships Scale of Dimensions and CapacityThe growth in cruise ship size imposes physical restrictions on destination ports. Ports must ensure sufficient draft and berthing lengths, and cruise terminals must handle large volumes of passengers efficiently. To receive a mega cruise ship, a cruise terminal must have at least 10 meters of draft, 425 meters of berth length, and a navigation channel 132 meters wide, assuming good weather and other navigational conditions. Limits might also relate to landside operations, such as space for the apron area, the ground transportation area, road accessibility and connectivity, the capacity of destinations to handle more cruisers, and social acceptance. Physical limitations, including berth lengths and drafts, have historically limited cruise development. Many ports do not meet these requirements and would require major upgrades to host mega cruises. ## E. Seasonality of cruise activities Despite the remarkable growth of cruise activities, the seasonality of many cruise itineraries implies that a number of cruise ports are used during the peak season but may receive limited, if any, cruise ship calls outside the main season. Many consider a 40-week cruise season to be the maximum yearly duration. Still, it is uncommon and limited to large home ports, such as Miami, or major destinations like Cozumel. One implication is that the majority of cruise terminals remain unused for extended periods. Those responsible for developing cruise ports may also be more reluctant to allocate additional resources, such as port real estate, to the cruise industry. The reason is that this is an activity marked by seasonality, when other factors, such as port land scarcity and the request for more space by cargo port activities, add pressure to allocate available port land to cargo. Societal pressures for year-round utilization from the port city and related destinations that benefit from cruise tourism, put pressure on ports to develop conditions for expanding the cruise season. Cruise lines set itineraries to maximize customer satisfaction (and revenues) but must consider the seasonality of the demand. The planning of vessel deployment targets maximum capacity utilization combined with the maximization of earnings per passenger and minimizing expenses, mostly through lower fuel consumption. Seasonality is a fundamental market characteristic and implies that ports host cruise vessel calls deployed as part of [three different types of itineraries](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1548): - **Perennial**. Serving a region throughout the year due to the resilient demand (with high/low periods) and stable weather conditions. The Caribbean and, to a lesser extent, the Mediterranean and its adjoining seas are such markets. Perennial markets can have a seasonality, implying that although they are serviced throughout the year, there are periods of lower demand, such as during the summer for the Caribbean, particularly during the peak hurricane season in September. - **Seasonal**. Serving periodical market potential in periods with good weather conditions, with the Baltic, Norway, Alaska, and New England as typical examples. Ideally, cruise lines would prefer to service only perennial markets since this would represent a near-optimal use of ship assets. However, like the tourism industry in general, seasonality is a significant component of cruise demand, meaning that some markets are serviced for only a few months, primarily during the summer. - **Repositioning**. Moving cruise ships between perennial or seasonal markets. This practice mainly takes place between the Caribbean and the Mediterranean and between Alaska and Hawaii. The expansion of cruise markets has led to the repositioning of cruises to additional markets, such as between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. The repositioning strategies of cruise lines involve scheduling cruise itineraries based on the [coupling of cruise markets](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/coupling-cruise-markets/) and deploying a cruise vessel in both markets for specific periods. This coupling is based on the proximity of markets, cost issues, and the sourcing of passenger patterns. For instance, North Asia and Southeast Asia are two such markets, with their coupling based on the same sourcing of passengers, the demand for the same product, warm alternative weather, and low-cost repositioning. The coupling of North Asia and Australia provides a warm alternative, robust yields, and low-cost repositioning. An Australia/Pacific-Alaska coupling is justified on the grounds of the same sourcing of passengers, the same product offered in both markets, and warm alternative weather for cruise passengers at different times of the year. Finally, the coupling of the Mediterranean market and the North American/Caribbean markets is based on the same sourcing of passengers, the offering of the same product, the warm alternative, and the low-cost repositioning of the vessels. For cruise ports, this coupling of markets implies cruise calls by deployed ships and cruise passenger hosting in parts of the year only. Some cruise regions are less affected by seasonality, with the Caribbean one of the few perennial markets. The number of monthly passengers is relatively stable throughout the year in markets serviced by North American cruise ports. However, a closer look reveals specific seasonality patterns. The Caribbean market and its sub-regions account for more than 90% of passengers during the high winter season and approximately 55% of passengers during the low summer season. The seasonality of Alaska, Bermuda, Canada, and New England is also evident, with cruise lines attempting to optimize the utilization of their assets year-round by repositioning to capitalize on seasonal opportunities. An unexpected pattern is the lack of seasonality in the Bahamas, primarily due to the leading cruise lines building private ports reserved exclusively for their use. Seasonality does not restrict the development of a cruise region, such as [the Mediterranean and its adjoining seas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/seasonality-cruise-port-activities-mediterranean-sea-2019/). Between May and October, each month accounted for 10% to 12% of the traffic. In total, 75% of the cruise passenger movements that occur annually in this cruise region happen during these six months. Total passenger movements registered during the three winter months (December, January, and February) stand at only 7% of the total annual movements. This has incited discussions on achieving year-round, but with limited outcomes. Winter activities are linked with single-call operations of a different size than in the rest of the year. In the Mediterranean, 7% of calls occur from December to February. However, for these months, each call is associated, on average, with more passengers. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_cruise_itineraries-scaled.png?resize=900%2C325&ssl=1 "Types of Cruise Itineraries | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Cruise Itineraries![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/deployment_cruise_coupling.png?resize=900%2C346&ssl=1 "Deployment of Cruise Vessels: Coupling of Markets | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Deployment of Cruise Vessels Coupling of Markets![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/monthly_cruise_passengers.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Share of Monthly Cruise Passengers by Region of Destination, 2012 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Share of Monthly Cruise Passengers by Region of Destination 2012![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/seasonality_cruise_activity_mediterranean.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Seasonality of Cruise Ports Activities in the Mediterranean and its Adjoining Seas, 2019 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Seasonality of Cruise Ports Activities in the Mediterranean and its adjoining seas 2019Due to seasonality, cruise terminals can represent **underutilized assets prone to risk**. For many ports, the cruise terminal remains a temporary facility with berth(s) supporting other uses when cruise ships are not calling. An approach is to use a cruise terminal as a multi-purpose facility, often built for another rationale that can include an adjacent hotel, convention center, events hall, or any other revenue-generating infrastructure that would gain by being on the waterfront. ## F. Cruise ports: competition and co-opetition The growth of the cruise industry has fostered increasingly c**omplex relationships among cruise ports**, shaped by the fact that cruising is organized around itineraries rather than single destinations. This structural feature creates a distinctive pattern of interaction between ports, characterized by a simultaneous dynamic of competition and cooperation. Ports located in the same region compete to be included in itineraries designed by cruise lines, but not all pursue the same markets. The segmentation of the industry into contemporary, premium, and luxury cruises has led ports to differentiate their strategies, either by choice or due to constraints related to capacity and destination appeal. **Competition** tends to be most intense among ports within the same segment, particularly in the contemporary and luxury categories. Cruise lines typically seek to assemble itineraries that combine ports of varying sizes and offerings, thereby enhancing passenger choice and experience. For example, competition develops between marquee ports to be part of as many itineraries as possible or between different destination ports. There is also competition between small ports or between ports enabling drive-to-cruise. The growing number of ports entering the market has intensified these rivalries. The overall expansion of the cruise market has also supported a diversification of port activities and opportunities. The competition is more intense between cruise ports of the same category. Cruise lines are interested in creating itineraries that include ports of different sizes. Competition is even more intense between home ports, as in this case, the geographical location of rivals plays a comparatively limited role. Instead, the determining factors include the quality of port facilities and destination attributes, as well as the robustness of the supplier network supporting homeporting activities (e.g., airport and airport connections, bunkering, provisioning, logistics). Marquee home ports are therefore distinguished less by their geographical location than by their ability to be part of attractive itineraries in partnership with surrounding ports of call. In this context, cruise ports engage in cooperative practices, giving rise to what has been described as **co-opetition**—a hybrid relationship in which competitors collaborate to generate mutual benefits. This approach is particularly relevant in the cruise industry, where itinerary construction depends on the collective attractiveness of a set of ports rather than on individual destinations in isolation. Cooperative strategies include regional marketing alliances, joint promotion of cruise destinations, and the synchronization of berth availability to facilitate itinerary planning. Knowledge sharing on cruise port management and development has also emerged as a critical form of collaboration, reflecting the industry’s rapid growth and the common challenges ports face. Ultimately, co-opetition enables ports to strengthen their individual market positions while collectively enhancing the appeal of cruise regions. Marquee ports frequently partner with nearby ports of call to create more compelling itinerary-building alternatives, while boutique destinations cooperate to attract vessel deployment to their region. By balancing competition with cooperation, cruise ports collectively sustain the growth of the industry while advancing their own strategic interests. # 4. Home Ports A cruise port is, in principle, interested in being a homeport for one or more cruise lines, as the total impacts on the port city are generally regarded as more significant. This is due to three reasons: - The tendency of cruise lines to **purchase goods and services** from port suppliers. - Passengers are likely to **stay longer in the city** and overnight at local hotels. - The **spending of crew members**. A cruise passenger spends six to seven times more at a home port than at a port of call. Furthermore, the modernization and upgrade of cruise vessels has led to a significant decline in the average expenditures per cruise passenger ashore and an increase in the share of onboard expenditures. Still, homeporting continues to have a major impact on the selected port and the associated city and tourist destination. In the late 2020s, research at the most important cruise port in Europe revealed the [benefits of homeporting in Barcelona](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/benefits-homeporting-barcelona/), Spain. There was an average of €202 spent per cruise passenger hosted, with an overnight stay in a hotel, compared to a respective €57 average expenditure of cruise passengers without an overnight stay. Comparatively, a holiday tourist would spend an average of €156 in the city with an overnight stay in a hotel. Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) estimates passenger spending before boarding a cruise at $376 for a home port and $101 for a port of call. ## A. Home port selection Cruise lines use sophisticated selection criteria to select a homeport. At the same time, cruise ports and related decision-makers assess their potential and develop governance, management, and operational strategies that align with the expectations of cruise lines. For most users, a cruise involves two travel segments, the first being air travel to the home port airport (with a return trip), and the second is the cruise itself. Therefore, it is essential that a **well-connected airport with significant airlift capacity** services the home port, representing a touristic destination. This is the case for Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and San Juan, which have well-connected airports and act as home ports for Caribbean itineraries. Barcelona and Civitavecchia (near Rome) are major home ports for the Mediterranean that are also well serviced by air transportation. Poorly connected airports are commonly associated with higher airfares, which impair the competitiveness of the city for mass tourism. Several customer benefits are associated with having more cruise embarkation points available, including drive-to convenience (particularly in North America) and reduced airport hassles. The availability of more drive-to-ports also increases the likelihood of cruising, which is why cruise lines will call ports along the American Gulf Coast and Eastern Seaboard, such as New York, Tampa, Galveston, Baltimore, and New Orleans. The growing importance of home-port connectivity to source markets is associated with forms of **[cruise port regionalization](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/port-regionalization-for-freight-and-passenger-functions/ "Port Regionalization for Freight and Passenger Functions")**. Changes in existing homeporting choices are becoming increasingly common, even in established and comparatively stable cruise markets. The increasing scale of cruise vessels, the larger scale of port operations to serve more visitors per call, and the provision of new cruise products, underscored by market segmentation, are all conditions resulting in the replanning of existing itineraries or the scheduling of new ones. Local socioeconomic characteristics, particularly growing public opposition, may also contribute to reforming itineraries. A notable example is the changes in the Adriatic Sea resulting from new regulations affecting the major homeport of Venice. In emerging cruise regions, such as Australia, South America, and the Far East, planning new itineraries is even more common. Knowing the [criteria and requirements](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-home-port-selection-criteria/ "Cruise Home-port selection criteria") for being selected by cruise lines is essential for both existing and aspiring home ports. In particular, as few parameters may be taken for granted, the geographical location appears to be of limited importance, as vessels deployed in a region have the option to select from many departure options. Cruise ships may prioritize the attractiveness of destinations or the need to access suitable port infrastructure, superstructures, supplies, and services to facilitate the ship and its passengers. The deployment of ever-larger cruise ships generates further incentives for homeporting, at least in destinations that have yet to reach their carrying capacity. ## B. Home port infrastructure A potential home port might decide to invest in increasing cruise traffic and the related added-value supply chains. Favoring cruising and fulfilling a social function **may harm cargo activities** as homeporting demands space within the port zone. The docking or anchorage facilities are usually limited, and the coexistence of the two industries becomes complicated by individual requirements. A cruise development strategy also requires substantial capital to **finance infrastructure improvements**, as cruise operators demand better facilities to cope with increasing ship sizes and passenger volumes. These also put pressure on adjusting operations and strategies. However, although generally described as a placeless business, the offering of cruises relies heavily on local attractions. Cruise lines, ports, and cities are highly interrelated, and collaborations need to be established, such as joint ventures where cruise lines invest in ships, while destinations invest in port facilities and tourism attractions. Further strategies are needed to eliminate the challenges associated with using public space in port cities that host substantial numbers of homeporting cruise activities. The development of transport and tourism capacities is also critical. These concerns need to be addressed when there is a better understanding of the exact implications of the ever-increasing size and capacity of cruise vessels and their impact on the resulting scale of operations. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_regionalization_freight_passengers.png?resize=900%2C413&ssl=1 "Port Regionalization for Freight and Passenger Functions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Regionalization for Freight and Passenger Functions![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Benefits-of-Homeporting-Barcelon.png?resize=900%2C438&ssl=1 "Benefits of Home Porting: Port of Barcelona | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Benefits of home porting Port of Barcelona![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_homeporting_criteria.png?resize=900%2C407&ssl=1 "Cruise Home Port Selection Criteria | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Top 10 most significant criteria of home port selection by cruise lines![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Shore-Power-1.png?resize=900%2C450&ssl=1 "Ports with Cruise Berth with Shoreside Power, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ports with cruise berth with Shoreside Power ## C. Regional variations Variation exists between regions as regards the **embarkation preferences of passengers**. In the US, driving distance from home, parking, and customs and immigration procedures are at the top of the list, along with convenient airlifts into the port city, cruise terminal facilities, and options for pre- and post-stays, as well as interest in the surrounding port area. However, while driving up to four hours is acceptable in the US, in Europe, the respective limit is lowered, to a maximum of two hours. On the other hand, Europe has shorter train access to ports. Major markets, such as the UK and Germany, have taken advantage of convenient train-to-cruise patterns with travel times of less than three hours, including Southampton and Kiel. Home ports tend to be linked with specific **source markets**. This is due to proximity, access options, and, not least, the preferences of cruise passengers for visits to specific destinations. In Europe, where multiple home ports exist, Americans frequently use Southampton and Dover in the UK, Barcelona in Spain, and Venice and Civitavecchia in Italy. British passengers depart from the UK (Southampton; Dover), Spain (Malaga, Mallorca), and Malta. Germans depart from Hamburg and Kiel, while other nationalities (including Italians, Spaniards, French, Scandinavians) take advantage of the presence of home ports in their countries. Each cruising area has its home ports, with the balance of traffic between homeporting and transit passenger movements varying from port to port. The **biggest home ports** in terms of size are located in the USA, the primary source market for cruise passengers. The biggest of all is Miami, with passengers moving in and out of a cruise trip, standing at 50% of the total movements. From Miami (southern Florida), proximity favors [Caribbean ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-passengers-visits-caribbean/ "Cruise Passengers Visits, Caribbean, 2023"), with the frequency of visits declining further into the Southern Caribbean. A 50:50 ratio of transit to home port passenger movements is observed in two other major home ports, Port Everglades and Port Canaveral. For home ports such as New York and Galveston, passengers beginning or returning from a cruise account for the entirety of cruise activities. In the [Mediterranean](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-passengers-visits-mediterranean/ "Cruise Passengers Movements in Mediterranean Cruise Ports, 2019"), the leading home port of Venice has the highest level of homeporting (87%). For Barcelona and Savona, the share of homeporting movements is lower, whereas the share is lower than 40% for the Balearic Islands and Civitavecchia. Three of the five major home ports (Venice, Civitavecchia, and Savona) are located in Italy, which is strategically positioned at the center of the Mediterranean Sea, allowing for the development of cruise itineraries to both the West and East Mediterranean. It is a major source market for cruise passengers and is well-connected to other major source markets, like Germany and France. Regarding the rest of northern Europe, the major homeport are Southampton, UK, and Hamburg, Germany. The proximity to cruise source markets plays a vital role in the rise of these home ports, as the UK is the largest source market in Europe, followed by Germany in second place. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Cruise_Caribbean_Visits.png?resize=900%2C678&ssl=1 "Cruise Passengers Visits, Caribbean, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Passengers Visits Caribbean 2023![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Cruise_Mediterranean_Visits-1.png?resize=900%2C526&ssl=1 "Cruise Passengers Visits, Mediterranean, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Passengers Visits Mediterranean 2023# 5. Cruise Supply Chains **Supplying cruise ships** is another important element of the economic footprint of cruising. It relates to both the direct supply of goods and services through local companies and the infrastructure required to support the logistics of non-local supply, usually by container. The dramatic changes in the onboard cruise product, along with the growing size and design of cruise ships, have contributed to changes in its **supply chains and logistics**. The latter has been facilitated by technological advancements and re-engineering procurement processes. For instance, prior to the 2000s, the supply chain requirements for most US-based cruise lines were centered around Miami and the Caribbean. However, the cruise industry now operates in several regions of the world. This, combined with the development of logistics and supporting IT management systems, has transformed the landscape of cruise line supply. As a result, in several (major) ports and destinations, the increase in passenger traffic has been associated with a corresponding increase in logistics volume in general. This new environment creates opportunities for the **consolidation and globalization of supplies**. It also impacts the local and regional supply bases, as improvements in the speed and fluidity of logistics operations require the coordination of several suppliers. Simultaneously, the major cruise lines have also developed their supply chain infrastructure and support to have strategic control points within major cruise destination hubs. Venice and Barcelona are two such hubs in the Mediterranean. However, there is an increasing requirement for cruise lines to offer more local, regional, and specialized products as part of the onboard guest experience. Therefore, local procurement remains a countervailing force to standard procurement. There is also an increased focus on the real cost of supplying goods to the ship, rather than just the commodity cost itself. Increasingly, there is also a focus on the environmental costs associated with ship supply. [Onboard consumption patterns](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/food-alcohol-provisioning-passengers-cruise/ "Food and Alcohol Provisioning for a 2,000 Passenger 7-Day Cruise") are reflective of several factors related to the day of the week, seasonality, as well as culture (consumer preferences) and the demographic composition. For short-duration cruises (2-3 days), conferences and conventions are more prevalent and related to higher consumption per passenger, particularly food and beverages. Cruises with more children are related to the consumption of different food items than cruises with mainly adults. Regarding cultural preferences, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean cruisers have a propensity to extensively use onboard restoration and retail services (souvenirs, luxury goods). In contrast, European and North American cruisers tend to spend less on retail, but more at onboard bars. Preferences can become subtle, such as wine choice that varies between Europeans and North Americans. --- ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2012-06-16-10.11.24.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Cruise Ship at the Port of Vancouver | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Ship at the Port of Vancouver![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_3861-1.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Cruise Ships at the Port of Barcelona | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Ships at the Port of Barcelona![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2012-06-16-10.28.54.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "2012-06-16 10.28.54 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Ship Store Loading and Cold Ironing![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_0509.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "IMG_0509 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Large Ships in Small Places Chios Greece![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/food_alcohol_provisioning_cruise.png?resize=900%2C432&ssl=1 "Food and Alcohol Provisioning for a 2,000 Passenger 7-Day Cruise | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Food and Alcohol Provisioning for a 2000 Passenger 7 Day Cruise![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/goods_consumed_3000_cruise_ship.jpg?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Some Goods Consumed on Board a 3,000 Pax Cruise Ship per Week | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Some Goods Consumed on Board a 3000 Pax Cruise Ship per Week--- # Related Topics - [Chapter 7.1 Cruise Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/) - [Chapter 7.4 Cruise Terminal Design and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/) - [Chapter 4.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=252) - [Chapter 10.3 Effectiveness](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-effectiveness/) - [Chapter 11.5 Port-City Relationships](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7/port-city-relationships/) --- ## References - Cruise Lines Industry Association (CLIA) (2025). 2024 State of the Industry. Washington DC: CLIA. - Cruise Market Watch (2024). www.cruisemarketwatch.com. - Dowling, R.K. and Weeden, C. (eds) (2017). Cruise ship tourism. 2nd edition, Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI). - Gui, L. and Russo, A.P. (2011). Cruise ports: a strategic nexus between regions and global lines, evidence from the Mediterranean. Maritime Policy & Management, 38, 2, 129-150. - Lekakou M.B., Pallis A.A. and Vaggelas, G.K. (2009). Which Homeport in Europe: The Cruise industry’s selection criteria, Tourismos , 4(4), 215-240. - Notteboom T. E. and A. A. Pallis (2020). IAPH-WPSP Port Economic Impact Barometer Half Year Report: A survey-based analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on world ports in the period April to September 2020. IAPH: Antwerp. - Pallis, A.A., F. Parola, G. Satta, and T. Notteboom (2018). Private Entry and Emerging Partnerships in Cruise Terminal Operations in the Meditteranean Sea. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 20(1), 1-28. - Pallis, A.A. (2015). Cruise Shipping and Urban Development. OECD-ITF Discussion Paper 2015-14, OECD: Paris. - Pallis A.A. and Vaggelas G.K. (2018). “Cruise Shipping and Green Ports: A Strategic Challenge”. Ιn: Bergqvist R. and Monios J. (eds): Green Ports: Inland and Seaside Sustainable Transportation Strategies, 255-273, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. - Pallis, A.A.**,** Rodrigue, J.-P., & Notteboom, T.E. (2014). Cruises and cruise ports: Structures and strategies. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 13, 1-5. - Pallis A.A. and Papachristou A.A. (2021). European Cruise ports: Challenges since the pre-pandemic era. Transport Reviews, 41(3), 352-373. - Pallis A.A. and Vaggelas G.K. (2020). “The changing geography of cruise shipping”. In: Wilmsmeier G., Monios J., Browne M. & Woxenius J. (eds.) Geographies of waterborne transport: Transitions from transport to mobilities, 170-191. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. - Papachristou A.A. Pallis A.A. and Vaggelas G.K. (2020). Cruise home-port selection criteria. Research in Transportation Business and Management, Online First. - Rodrigue, J-P and Notteboom, T. (2013). The Geography of Cruises: Itineraries, not Destinations, Applied Geography, 38, 31-42. - Rodrigue, J-P and Wang, G.W.Y. (2020). Cruise shipping supply chains and the impacts of disruptions: The case of the Caribbean. Research in Transportation Business and Management. - Wang, G.W.Y., Notteboom, T.E. & Pallis A.A., (2014). Incentives in cruise terminal concession contracts. International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME) Conference, 2014, Norfolk, US. - Weaver, A (2005). The Mcdonaldization thesis and cruise, Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 346-366. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Dimensions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/port-dimensions/) **Published:** October 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_dimensions2.png?resize=900%2C357&ssl=1 "Port Dimensions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port DimensionsFour main interelated dimensions help define the role and function of a port: - **Geography**. A port is a site with convenient harbor characteristics (such as a protected bay) that supports a more effective interface between the maritime and land domains than other locations. Although the location of a port does not change, the site can be improved through dredging and land reclamation, which requires substantial capital investments. This allows the port to expand its surface and the amount of traffic it can handle. The situation of a port can also change, as it depends on the market it serves and includes manufacturing and consumption areas. - **Scale**. Refers to the scale of the activities performed at the port and also the scale of its market coverage. A port has scale characteristics, including the types of traffic it can handle and the throughput. This is contingent upon the infrastructure (berths) and the superstructure (cranes and yard equipment) linking the port foreland (the ports it is connected to) and the port hinterland (inland market area). With capital investments and management, the operational efficiency of a port can be improved with changes to land, equipment, and management. - **Function**. A port adds value to transport and supply chains through its cargo handling. Historically, heavy industrial activities such as steel mills and petrochemical plants had a propensity to be located within or nearby ports. This process is still ongoing and is being complemented by a large array of freight distribution activities. There is a diversity of port functions associated with specialization forms, such as ports involved in minerals, energy, and containers. Large ports tend to be polyfunctional, while smaller ports tend to be monofunctional. - **Governance**. A port is a well-defined administrative unit that involves land ownership and jurisdiction (what a port can legally do). The port authority is a common administrative framework for a port, and in many cases, terminal management and operations are leased to private companies. Port authorities usually have the right to spearhead port development projects and secure funding. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/port-dimensions/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/port-dimensions/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/port-dimensions/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/port-dimensions/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 9.5 - Entry Barriers in Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/) **Published:** January 26, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Athanasios Pallis > Entry barriers involve economic, regulatory, and locational impediments in seaports for a new actor. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Entry Barriers in Seaports](#1_Entry_Barriers_in_Seaports) - [2. Economic Entry Barriers](#2_Economic_Entry_Barriers) - [3. Regulatory, Institutional and Geographical Entry Barriers](#3_Regulatory_Institutional_and_Geographical_Entry_Barriers) - [4. Policies to Reduce Entry Barriers](#4_Policies_to_Reduce_Entry_Barriers) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Entry Barriers in Seaports Although the port industry has become a more open market, entry barriers for those wishing to provide port services remain substantial. A barrier to entry is anything that prevents an entrepreneur from **creating a new firm in a specific market** within a reasonable amount of time. In contrast, a long-run barrier to entry is a cost that must be incurred by a new entrant that incumbents do not, or have not had to, bear*.* In some cases, port reforms have introduced a few private port operators, yet they have failed to lower the entry barriers for more firms interested in providing port services. Barriers to entry in seaports are classified into [three categories](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/entry-barriers-seaports/ "Entry Barriers in Seaports"): - **Economic entry barriers** include the need for long-term, capital-intensive, and fixed investments. - **Regulatory and institutional entry barriers**, such as the requirement for permits, exist for new firms seeking to operate in a particular port. - **Locational** (geographical) entry barriers, such as the lack of space at a site in the port for an entrant. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/entry_barriers_seaports.png?resize=900%2C413&ssl=1 "Entry Barriers in Seaports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Entry Barriers in Seaports# 2. **Economic Entry Barriers** The first type of economic entry barrier in seaports is the **absolute cost advantage** that an existing port service provider may enjoy. This advantage might be the result of one or more of the following factors: - **The scale of operations is not big enough to allow the presence of additional service providers**. This issue is particularly relevant when the Minimum Efficient Scale (MES) for providing a port service is large compared to a specific market size, which is frequently the case with seaports. In such conditions, potential new entrants face a competitive disadvantage resulting from a smaller scale or the need to create a capacity similar to that of the incumbent firm. This option would be unlikely if it were to result in excess capacity, the prospect of a price war, and losses for both the incumbent and the entrant. - **The existing service provider (incumbent) enjoys a better location in the port**. When the incumbent is well-positioned, for instance, regarding access to hinterland transport modes such as rail, road, and inland waterways, or at a site with good maritime accessibility, the entry of competitors into less attractive sites is less likely to occur. - **Incumbents benefit from accumulated public investments**. In most seaports, public port authorities have invested in infrastructure, including rail terminals and quays. In some cases, they have also invested in the superstructure. Furthermore, the opportunity costs of the land are not always factored into the price paid by port service providers to the landlord for the land. Thus, existing leaseholders may benefit from accumulated public investments. Incumbents have a long-term cost advantage if such benefits from public investments are no longer available for entrants, for example, because of changing policy guidelines. Consequently, new entrants face costs that incumbents have not had to bear. If such subsidies are not available for new entrants, this becomes a barrier to entry. The incumbent has had lower initial investments, which can result in a higher profit margin. Specialized equipment and high capital requirements alone are **not an entry barrier**. Entrants are, in many cases, multinationals (such as global terminal operators), while others are affiliated with large state-owned conglomerates or may even be groups of investors with access to capital markets. ## A. Minimum Efficient Scale of port services > The **Minimum Efficient Scale (MES)** for providing a port service depends on the cost curves for this provision. MES is the smallest scale at which the output can be produced at a minimum average long-run cost under the assumption that the terminal is operating with a given technology. It is reached when marginal and average costs no longer decrease when capacity is expanded. For port services such as a container terminal or an iron ore terminal, the MES is quite large. In a small market relative to the MES, economies of scale are only fully realized with one supplier of port services. A second, smaller competitor may have a structural cost disadvantage that prevents it from achieving profitability. It may exit, leaving the market to one operator with sufficient scale. The large size of the MES might explain the relatively **high concentration of most port services**. The MES in a port market might be reduced by a public authority, mainly the port authority, which owns assets and leases them to private firms. In such an arrangement, the public authority can secure scale economies, such as equipment purchasing, maintenance, port planning, and terminal layout, and let relatively small firms provide port services. Policy options also include tender procedures to ensure that the economic rent accrues to a public organization, as well as tariff monitoring and benchmarking of port service providers. Furthermore, access to port services can be regulated based on the regulation of essential services. Port services and port facilities can be termed essential if they are necessary components of transport chains and economically viable alternatives (outside the port or other ports) are not available. Such essential facilities include towage, pilotage, mooring, stevedoring, and shore handling, and are [strategies to introduce port competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1326). ![Strategies to inroduce intra-port competition and prevent rent extraction](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/intra_port_competition_strategies.png?resize=900%2C401&ssl=1 "intra_port_competition_strategies | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Strategies to inroduce intra port competition and prevent rent extraction## B. Switching costs The second type of economic entry barrier is **the magnitude of switching costs**. These are the costs associated with the decision of a port user to switch from the incumbent port service provider to a new entrant. They can come in several forms and often determine the capability of new entrants to start operations in a port: - Switching from one port facility to another may require **investments by port users**. In some cases, such costs are insignificant; for example, shipping lines can easily switch containers from one transshipment facility to a competing facility. In other cases, switching costs may be substantial. For instance, port users (shipping lines, forwarders, or shippers) may have long-term contracts with rail or barge companies or may be invested in dedicated transport equipment. Other port users may have invested in facilities at the site of the port service providers, such as car manufacturers that conduct pre-delivery inspections and small repair activities at the terminal operator’s site. Such port users cannot easily switch to another port service provider. For most bulk transport flows, switching is prohibitive because of the specific investments made to create an efficient overall transport chain (including hinterland transport). This also explains why cargo owners frequently invest in terminal facilities: to avoid being exposed to independent terminal operators with dominant market positions. - Switching costs may also be high due to the **bundling of services** by the incumbent port service provider. For instance, a terminal-operating company may also provide pilotage, towage, and hinterland transport services. Such an arrangement creates a barrier to entry in each of the separate markets, especially when some of the bundled services are natural monopolies. The bundling of port services is partly due to the geographical and functional integration of ports in wider regions and networks. With the rapid restructuring of supply chains in which ports are embedded, ports are now integral elements in value-driven chain systems, rather than simply places with particular functions. In the emerging flow-based system, the various supply phases are closely synchronized, and the various transport services are frequently bundled. ## C. Sunk costs Sunk costs, such as networking, marketing, and advertising expenses, cannot be recovered once a firm decides to exit the market; thus, they might stand as the third type of economic barrier to entry. Sunk costs encompass essential investments in **embeddedness within specific networks**, which facilitate integration in maritime transportation and supply chains. The quest for **long-term relationships** with partners to reduce uncertainty and improve coordination leads port authorities to implement strategies that strengthen partnerships with other players by offering incumbent firms the conditions to develop successful strategies. Embeddedness in such a strategic network enhances the competitive position of a firm. For new firms entering the market, inclusion in such networks may require significant resources and be costly to achieve, given the importance of reputation, trust, and experience. Should a firm decide to leave the market, the investments required for inclusion in strategic networks cannot be recovered. # 3. Regulatory, Institutional and Geographical Entry Barriers Regulatory and institutional entry barriers can make entry into a market costly, time-consuming, or nearly impossible. In a substantial number of ports, policy-makers or port authorities **effectively limit the number of terminal-operating companies**, towage companies, and other port service providers. Sometimes these limits are set by explicit entry criteria that effectively limit the number of competitors. In other cases, the port authority or another relevant policymaker decides on an entry based on their interpretation of the rules, such as those regarding compliance with local, national, and international environmental requirements and the port’s development policy. In some cases, not only do port authorities grant authorizations, but they also **provide port services**. This provision presents fundamental obstacles to market openness. Furthermore, in a situation where the state, in one of its various forms (national, regional, or local), owns a port service provider, this operator enjoys an implicit state guarantee: the state would not allow a state-owned operator to go bankrupt. This situation acts as a deterrent to new entry, as the state-owned operator can potentially engage in predatory pricing, where set prices are below cost, to drive competitors out of the market. Provisions in leases, concessions, and other operating agreements, particularly those involving long-term investments by private operators, often provide these operators with some degree of protection against new entrants. For example, a terminal operator granted a concession to operate a container-handling facility may have **exclusive rights** to handle containers in the port during the term of the concession. Furthermore, long-term concessions, although they provide benefits in the short term that are often passed on to users, can also create opportunities for rent-seeking. The existence of regulatory entry barriers can be understood, at least in part, with insights from **public choice theories**. They are the result of lobbying efforts by incumbent firms to persuade policymakers to deter further entry, secure profits, or extract rents. These explanations highlight the adverse welfare effects of entry barriers, which are often associated with higher levels of informal economies rather than improved quality of goods and services. These public-choice theories suggest that the emergence of legal and institutional entry barriers to serve the interests of incumbent firms, public port authorities, or state agencies may not be ruled out in advance. Ports are traditionally strong, locally oriented communities with close relationships between the port authority and port service providers. In such an environment, entry barriers may develop to serve the interests of the incumbent port community. An alternative explanation, along the same lines, is that legal and institutional entry barriers result from the lobbying of interest groups. Specifically, a public port authority may create entry barriers to **collect economic rents**. In many ports, port authorities provide additional services, including pilotage, towage, and port labor. Entry barriers for such services increase the market power of the port authority in these markets. **Physical barriers** that constrain port capacity can limit entry, particularly for firms requiring land in the port. In many ports, there is simply no space for additional berths, warehouses, and other facilities. The lack of suitable locations and environmental regulations constrains expansion, protecting incumbents from new entrants. Such entry barriers are particularly relevant if alternative ports are imperfect substitutes, if there are differences in hinterland infrastructure or nautical access, including deviation from main routes. Such a deficiency is common in many ports and for various commodities. Greenfield port development (building port infrastructure in a completely new location) is not usually a viable strategy for entry. Significant investments are often required for dredging, quay construction, access roads, and port superstructure. In most existing ports, public authorities have contributed a large share of these investments without direct cost recovery. Thus, private greenfield port development is unlikely to emerge. This supposition further strengthens the case for low entry barriers in existing port complexes. # 4. Policies to Reduce Entry Barriers Lowering entry barriers is desirable from a public-interest point of view: - First, it enhances **market contestability**. The relevant issue is how accessible (contestable) a market is for entrants. If entry to (and eventually exit from) the market by new competitors is easy, the market is contestable. Such contestability puts pressure on incumbent firms not to charge excessive prices. This contestability is particularly relevant given the increased market concentration resulting from economies of scale in modern cargo handling technologies, the rise of global players in the terminal handling industry, and horizontal and vertical integration in the shipping industry through the investments of shipping lines in dedicated terminals. Often, just the **threat of entry** (potential entry) is enough to persuade incumbents not to abuse their dominant market position. The possibility of entry introduces an element of competition. Although there may not be many operators in the market, it is competitive, with prices not far from social opportunity costs. - Second, lower entry barriers increase the **level of intra-port competition**. As the abuse of market power is curtailed, and port service providers have incentives to specialize and differentiate their services from those of competitors in the same port, real intra-port competition is more beneficial for port users (and thus consumers) than contestable markets with only one incumbent. However, owing to the large minimum efficient size of many port services, such intra-port competition is not always viable. - Third, lower entry barriers allow for the **faster implementation of new technologies and business models**. Even when intra-port competition is established, the entry of additional competitors can be a significant driver of innovation. New firms often generate business dynamism and economic growth, particularly when exogenous changes in demand challenge the current activities of incumbent firms. New firms are often considered particularly innovative. There is evidence that the process of entry (and exit) plays a part in reallocating resources from low to high-productivity units. Firm entry plays a crucial role in creative destruction as a mechanism that facilitates the reallocation of resources from less to more productive units, as in a Schumpeterian model with entrepreneurial learning under uncertainty. When incumbents fail to exploit exogenous shifts in costs or demand (perhaps because the required innovations would displace rents), entry is a crucial determinant of industry performance. **[Policies to reduce entry barriers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/policy-options-reduce-entry-barriers-seaports/ "Policy Options to Reduce Entry Barriers in Seaports")** concentrate on creating conditions that allow entry without hindering the survival and growth of profitable firms. Some of the potential policy options to reduce entry barriers may not be applicable or necessary in all seaports, but they may well be helpful in some. While some of these options require national policy initiatives, port authorities can implement others: - **Structural cost advantages** held by the incumbent can be prevented by using effective pricing mechanisms, such as tender procedures, to grant the right to provide a service or a terminal concession. In such procedures, all costs (dis)advantages are internalized in the price. - Another policy capable of reducing entry barriers is to **split a terminal into parts**, forming separate concessions. The existence of different market segments increases the viability of intra-port rivalry. Dividing facilities to accommodate various port service providers may be difficult. Much depends on the geographical layout of the port, the available traffic, and the minimum capacity additions, taking into account the lumpiness of port investments. - In the long term, many physical/locational entry barriers can be overcome by **building in adjacent locations** or extending out into the sea. Furthermore, new concepts and technologies can be introduced to limit the need for space in the port. For example, an inland container depot can help create additional space for terminals in the port. - In most cases, having a public agency, the port authority, which invests in **port-specific and site-specific assets** and leases these assets to the private sector, is a policy option to reduce entry barriers related to switching costs and sunk investments. A further role for the port authority in reducing entry barriers is that of a smart coordinator, enabling networks of stakeholders. Such a coordinator can help overcome decisional and operational fragmentation. The port authority acts as a **cluster manager** by coordinating the integrated port services provided by various actors. Such an active port authority can increase opportunities for small and medium-sized companies to enter the market. - Policy reforms that promote **transparent concession procedures**, forbid exclusive contracts, and ensure the absence of discrimination are also relevant to reducing entry barriers. Reducing the (maximum) duration of authorizations and concessions also lowers entry barriers and rent-seeking opportunities. Concessions and authorizations must be sufficiently long to enable companies to recover their fixed investments and earn a normal return on their investments. However, excessively long durations limit opportunities for entry and reduce the dynamism in the sector. In many European countries, durations of concessions of 50 years for limited investments, 75 years for significant investments in movable assets, or 99 years for immovable assets are common practice. - The stability of the regulatory regime and the presence of **dispute resolution mechanisms** can further reduce entry barriers. By reducing uncertainty and transaction costs, lower entry barriers ensue. - Additional regulations, such as **antitrust policies and merger regulations**, can be targeted to prevent incumbents from benefiting from high entry barriers. Most countries, economic zones (such as the USMCA), and supranational entities (like the European Union) have developed a general legal framework to ensure low entry barriers. Such regulation is not industry-specific; rather, it applies across the board. In most countries, competition regulations protect entrants from predatory pricing by incumbents, such as exclusive contracts with suppliers. Mergers and acquisitions are also subject to regulatory oversight. These are relevant in the container-handling market, given its substantial consolidation. The question arises whether operators have established a dominant position, limiting the potential of market competition and discouraging newcomers. The general competition law can and often does go hand in hand with industry-specific regulations. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/policy_reduce_entry_barriers_seaports.png?resize=900%2C414&ssl=1 "Policy Options to Reduce Entry Barriers in Seaports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Policy Options to Reduce Entry Barriers in Seaports--- # Related Topics - [Chapter 6.1 Ports and Container Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/) - [Chapter 4.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/) - [Chapter 4.2 Terminal Concessions and Land Leases](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/) - [Chapter 9.1 Inter-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/) - [Chapter 9.2 Intra-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/) - [Chapter 9.4 Port Pricing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/) --- ## References - de Langen P.W. and Pallis Α.Α. (2007). Entry Barriers in Seaports, *Maritime Policy and Management*, 34(5), 427-440. - Kaselimi, E.N., Notteboom, T.E., Pallis, A.A. and Farrell, S., (2011). Minimum Efficient Scale (MES) and preferred scale of container terminals. Research in Transportation Economics, 32(1), 71-80. - Notteboom, T. E., (2002). Consolidation and Contestability in the European Container Handling Industry. *Maritime Policy and Management*, 29(3), 257-269. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 9.4 - Port Pricing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/) **Published:** September 29, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Theo Notteboom and Dr. Athanasios Pallis > Port pricing concerns the variety of charges and fees that ports and terminals levy on their users. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Port Pricing Strategies](#1_Port_Pricing_Strategies) - [2. Pricing and Asset Utilization](#2_Pricing_and_Asset_Utilization) - [3. Pricing and Customer Management](#3_Pricing_and_Customer_Management) - [4. Price Incentives for Port Customers](#4_Price_Incentives_for_Port_Customers) - [5. Port Pricing by Port Authorities](#5_Port_Pricing_by_Port_Authorities) - [6. Structures of Port Charges](#6_Structures_of_Port_Charges) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Port Pricing Strategies Pricing is a crucial aspect that guides the **interactions between economic actors** in the port industry. The port authority, typically a public entity, as well as other public bodies (such as state or municipally operated departments or enterprises), and private companies are the three primary economic actors that offer services and facilities in a port. Therefore, they are responsible for setting the pricing structure for the port users. The services that these actors offer include: - **Infrastructural services related** to the use of docks, quays, locks, port sites, anchorage, and concessions. - **Services to vessels and cargo** such as terminal operations, warehousing and distribution activities, mooring, lashing and securing, surveillance, tallying/marking/weighing, inland transport operations, forwarding and supply chain management, shipping agency activities, ship and cargo surveying, customs, sanitary services, veterinary inspection, waste disposal, bunkering, and water supply. - **Nautical services** such as pilotage, towage, and vessel traffic management. The basic principle is that port users pay a price or tariff for the services offered to them and the facilities they use. The difference between price (charged to users) and cost (for providing the service) has a substantial impact on the profitability of both the service providers and the users. It is one of the four **Ps of marketing**: Product, Price, Promotion, and Place. Pricing strategies can contribute to achieving a **sustainable competitive advantage.** However, developing an **optimal pricing strategy** is a complex process. This is not only a strategy for setting prices and effectively implementing pricing policies, but also a means to achieve this goal. It includes the measurement and enforcement of prices so that they are consistently applied and levied. Port actors engaging in port pricing need to be aware of some critical foundations: - **Formal contractual relationships between port actors**. Not all port actors have direct contractual relationships that involve the charging of prices or tariffs. For example, container shipping lines pay terminal operators for container handling at their terminals. The pricing strategy of the terminal operator is thus focused on shipping lines. Cargo owners or their representatives (such as freight forwarders or 3PLs) do not pay the container terminal operator for container handling. Instead, the shipping line recovers the paid terminal handling costs from them through the freight rate and relevant surcharges, particularly [Terminal Handling Charges](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-container-shipping/#2_Freight_Rates_and_Surcharges) (THC). Understanding the contractual relationships between port-related actors is a prerequisite for developing effective pricing strategies. - **The interaction between the pricing strategies of different actors**. The pricing strategies of different port-related actors have a mutual influence. The pricing system used and the level of fees set by one actor can affect the competitiveness of other actors and the entire port. For example, a port authority that levies high land fees to terminal concessionaires might force the latter to charge higher cargo handling fees to the shipping lines, negatively affecting the port’s attractiveness and the competitiveness of local firms. - **Cost structure**. Relates to the cost share of each element contributing to the provision of a port service, such as energy and labor. A **cost center** involves a series of activities that do not generate revenue but are essential to support management and operations. For management, it is an accounting principle used to analyze port costs and is indispensable when building up a pricing system. For operations, it can involve essential training and maintenance activities. - **The created benefits and added value**. If a port is operating economically, then revenue flows will equal or exceed cost flows (cost recovery principle). Pricing systems are designed to transfer the advantages gained by the recipients of the benefits, wholly or in part, to the service providers in the form of a revenue flow. It is useful to use revenue centers, such as accounting principles, which allow the grouping of all revenues of the same nature. If a port actor attempts to charge its customers more than the benefits they are offered, the relationship is unsustainable. However, certain **indirect benefits of port services** cannot be readily quantified and expressed as a financial flow, which complicates the setting of fair price levels. - **The elasticity of market segments and port users**. Not all port actors react in the same way to price changes. Some port users are relatively **captive** to the port, with the pricing system depicting monopolistic behavior. This is either because of a lack of alternative ports or because a decision to use another port would entail high switching costs. Other users are comparatively footloose and very sensitive to price and tariff changes. Furthermore, with ports embedded in supply chains, some port users attach greater value to the available capacity, reliability, and overall quality of the port services than to the price. Port service and facilities providers should understand their customer base and determine the role port-related prices play in influencing the behavior of current and potential users. - **Measure and analyze**. Port actors should measure and analyze how specific pricing schemes affect the revenue/cost variation by product, customer, segment, channel, and geography. Such exercises help users understand how different prices affect different segments and develop customized key performance indicators (KPIs) to inform effective pricing decisions. Data-driven technology supports pricing analytics. - **Balance between standard pricing/tariffs and individualized pricing**. Despite observed differences in price elasticity, it is often not advisable to design customized prices for each port user or cargo flow. Port actors typically try to balance tailored approaches to specific users and market segments with simple, standardized pricing or tariff structures. Simple pricing structures rely on a limited number of charges and the use of a limited number of variables as the basis for each charge. - **Balance between penalties and incentives**. Pricing can be used to influence the behavior of port users. Pricing can act as a penalty for customers who do not perform well or fail to follow the rules. Examples include fines imposed on shipping lines that fail to comply with waste disposal rules, as well as penalties for terminal operators who do not meet the pre-set throughput guarantees outlined in the concession agreement. **Incentive pricing** offers a bonus or benefit to users who meet specific performance or compliance thresholds. The endorsement of price differentiation practices based on the environmental performance of port users and specific services is part of this approach (a good example is the [Environmental Ship Index (ESI)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/green-port-dues-environmental-ship-index/) program). Port-related actors can also apply a system whereby the collected penalties from underperformers are used to reward those who comply. # 2. Pricing and Asset Utilization There is a relationship between pricing and the **utilization level of resources or assets** such as land, facilities, or equipment. Prices should ensure that port land and facilities are used most efficiently. When land or specific port facilities are in short supply, prices are likely to increase so that only those users who utilize the asset efficiently have a net benefit sufficient to make such a use worthwhile. When a port has ample space available, there is an incentive to lower prices to attract additional business. The dwell time charges used by container terminal operators provide a good example: > **Dwell time charges** are applied by terminal operators when containers are stored at the terminal. Container terminal operators typically provide a free time period for containers stacked in the yard, such as for the first five days. Once a container remains longer than the free time, the cargo owner must pay a daily dwell time charge. Such pricing schemes give an incentive to some cargo owners to pick up their containers on time. They also enable the terminal operator to optimize land productivity, such as the number of TEUs per hectare per year. Terminal operators facing land availability issues or high-throughput guarantees are more likely to impose short free time periods and high dwell-time charges. In practice, port-related prices may not change significantly in the event of capacity shortages. Still, the behavior of port users changes as a consequence of an increase in **indirect costs** caused by additional time costs for cargo and vessels or additional charges imposed by other actors in the supply chain. For example, a container shipping line may impose a congestion surcharge on cargo owners when calling at a congested port. The objective of ensuring the most economical utilization of assets cannot always be achieved solely through port charges. The pricing system can only influence asset utilization as long as the demand for the services of those assets is elastic. When demand for a service is inelastic in relation to the price, other measures, generally more authoritative than pricing, have to be found and implemented. # 3. Pricing and Customer Management Many port-related pricing studies take an economic rather than a marketing and relationship management perspective. The **pricing strategy** appears to be dealt with single-handedly. It is not necessarily based on market research, linked to the different requirements of major market segments, or integrated with other strategic marketing decisions. For example, pricing methods used by port authorities often appear to be driven more by administrative considerations than by commercial considerations, despite many port authorities increasingly acting as commercial ventures. Three pricing strategies can be used in a marketing context, depending on the customer segment and type of relationship required: - **Satisfaction-based pricing.** Useful for risk-averse customers as they assist in reducing their aversion by providing more certainty in pricing structures. This can be achieved by offering **service guarantees**, utilizing benefit-driven pricing where customers are charged only for the services they use, and flat-rate pricing, which reduces uncertainty. - **Efficiency pricing**. Appeals to customers requiring the lowest available prices. The strategy requires an internal focus on streamlining operations to enable **cost reductions,** which are then passed on to customers. - **Relationship pricing**. Encourages the customer to develop long-term relationships with the port. Ports should not use this strategy with all customers, but only with those that are either profitable in the long term or have a clear growth potential. Two methods are available to achieve a relationship pricing strategy. The first is by using **long-term contracts** to encourage customers to move beyond a transactional approach. The second approach is to adopt **price bundling**, where multiple services are combined and offered at a single price. Price bundling is also an effective means of making comparisons between services provided by ports more difficult. # 4. Price Incentives for Port Customers Price incentives are designed to promote specific customer behaviors in a direction perceived as beneficial to the service provider. Four categories can be distinguished: - **Volume incentives**. Discounts or different pricing are offered to a customer if a defined volume threshold is met. - **Service incentives**. Discounts or different pricing are offered to a customer if its shipping services call the port within the expected timeframe. - **Utilization incentives**. Discounts or different pricing are offered to a customer if cargo, such as containers, remains at the port for less than a specified amount of time. - **Gain-sharing incentives**. Discounts or different pricing are offered to customers who contribute to improvements in the efficiency or productivity of the port. Incentives could be granted in an effort to attract activity to the port and should preferably meet several criteria: - **Effective.** They should make a tangible or perceptible difference. - No effect on the **general price levels**. - **Sustainable and defendable**, and **not easy to copy** by competitors. To illustrate the above, the following sections will apply the four types of pricing incentives to the pricing strategies of a **container terminal operator** for services delivered to container shipping lines. The target audience of these types of incentives depends on the focus of the container terminal: - When **transshipment volumes are high** and carrier haulage is substantial, the relative focus will be on the shipping lines because they dominate the container flows. - When the **deepsea carrier decides on feeder routes**, the incentives will be towards the deepsea lines. Where the feeder operator is the leading party, these lines will be discounted. - Granting discounts to shippers and forwarders creates **direct commercial relations with the customers** of the line and the decision-makers in merchant haulage markets or markets where merchant-inspired carrier haulage is involved. - Where **competitors can easily copy discounts**, the terminal should ensure that additional logistic added-value is created through aligned connections, warehousing, distribution, or other logistic activities. ## A. Volume incentives A container terminal operator can implement **volume incentives for shipping lines**. The growth of deepsea volume is discounted by some percentage. Ideally, the customer share is taken as a measure, possibly in conjunction with volume growth objectives, although measuring this ratio is complex. Volume incentives can also relate to service strings or loops. The terminal operator can also use a discount sum or a discounted rate per container when a line or alliance introduces a new liner service or considers moving a liner service from one port or terminal to another. These volume incentives do not alter the rate structure and rate level of the already existing volumes. The average rate level only decreases when the liner service calls at the terminal. The withdrawal of a string will automatically lead to higher revenues per box. To attract cargo-specific volumes, a per-container amount or a special dwell time arrangement can be developed to bring in a specific shipper in partnership with its preferred shipping line. A terminal operator can develop volume incentives for **specific market segments.** Some examples of **rate incentives for feeder traffic** include: - **Start-up incentives**. Fixed sum or an amount per container, and possibly limited to a pre-defined utilization percentage of the capacity of the targeted service. - A **specific discount** can be applied for a particular feeder route that the terminal wants to promote. - A **separate rate** for handling full or empty containers from a container feeder vessel. - A **rebate** for each container handled from a container feeder vessel. - Rebates in **volume brackets** such as from 0 to 29,999 moves, 30,000 to 39,999 moves, etc. ## B. Service incentives A container terminal operator can rely on **service incentives for shipping lines**. The most common service incentive is a **penalty for under-performance** and a **bonus for over-performance**. The rate incentive can be structured as a discount (a certain percentage of the handling fee) or as an amount per hour above the agreed-upon or contractual berthing time. Bonuses tend to be unsustainable because they often lead to overperformance, which in turn develops into new, perceived service standards. **Penalty systems** are also challenging to implement because underperformance is often the result of both sub-optimal input and process quality of the shipping line and terminal. **Specific incentives** can be generated for input variables of the shipping lines where they actually influence or even determine the service level: - Incentives to avoid **late arrivals on the landside** and vessels arriving out of the schedule window. - Incentives to **avoid additional administrative handling** due to changes in container weights or calling vessels. ## C. Utilization incentives In a container terminal context, **utilization incentives** are designed to promote terminal utilization or reduce capacity demand peaks. A good example is **dwell time incentives**. A conventional way of applying dwell time incentives is allowing for a free number of storage days, after which a certain amount per TEU per day is charged. More sophisticated schemes differentiate by the direction of the container flow, such as for import, export, or transshipment containers. **Progressive rate levels** are applicable after the free period, in successive periods, with increasing storage rates applied. Other incentives to reduce peak capacity requirements include: - **Pre-notification** bonuses for truckers. - Bonuses for arrival **outside peak periods**. - **Gang waiting hours charges** when vessels arrive out of the scheduled window. Utilization incentives can aim at avoiding terminal congestion. There are essentially two types of congestion: - Congestion caused by **cycles/seasonality** in the traffic volumes. During peak periods, a terminal operator may consider implementing **peak season surcharges**, similar to those applied by shipping lines to their customers during peak seasons. - **Structural congestion** caused by chronic underinvestment by the terminal operator. For this type of congestion, shipping lines are reluctant to pay more, as the supply of capacity lags behind demand. Shipping lines will then start to consider imposing congestion surcharges and not peak season surcharges on their customers. This is a situation that should be avoided at all costs. ## D. Gain-sharing incentives A **gain-sharing program** consists of a documented and agreed-upon project plan to reduce costs at the terminal or shipping line, with the assistance of both parties. Examples include: - Reducing the workforce required at terminals through a change in schedule windows. - Improving schedule window reliability. - Improving cargo distribution over the vessel, allowing for higher berth performances. - Arranging additional equipment to improve flexibility. In the gain-sharing program, the **financial effects** should be determined. Cost reductions should be shared between the terminal and the line. This can be a simple 50/50 on cost reductions related to the actual cost of the improvement. Gain-sharing requires **mutual trust** in the calculations and discussions used to establish and measure cost reductions. # 5. Port Pricing by Port Authorities ## A. General considerations Landlord port authorities provide infrastructural and other services mainly to three groups of port users: the cargo owner, the shipowner/operator, and the concessionaires (if applicable). The typical revenues of a landlord port authority are directly linked to the benefits created for cargo owners, shipowners, and concessionaires, such as **cargo dues, marine charges, and concession fees**. The cargo dues and marine charges combined form the **port dues**. In setting the prices for the port dues and land fees, port authorities might follow different objectives: - **Macro-economic objectives**, such as supporting regional economic development or maximizing port employment. - **Logistics objectives**, such as inserting the port into supply chains and generating added value. - **Port-centric objectives**, such as ensuring high utilization of port resources and assets. - **Financial objectives**, such as building up financial reserves for future investments and/or cushioning the port against unexpected falls in revenue or rises in costs. - **Sustainability objectives** such as supporting green supply chain management and energy transition. There are some general factors to consider when designing and implementing pricing systems: - **Durability**. The pricing structure (number of charges, type of charges, charging base) of a port should be **designed to last for many years**, although each port charge level may be modified as conditions change. It is a complex procedure for a port to change its pricing structure, and too frequent changes may cause confusion for port users. Simple pricing systems may hinder the achievement of pricing objectives. - **Reliability**. The pricing system should ideally be inexpensive **to build and operate**. The charging base should also rely on measures or data that can be accurately determined and easily provided by the customers. For example, the traditional charging units for ships (as a basis for marine charges) are the gross tonnage (GT) or net tonnage (NT) of the vessels, as this information is readily available and supported by official ship measurement documentation. - **Clarity**. Pricing systems should be understandable and ideally comparable between ports. In practice, there is still considerable diversity in the various pricing systems and bases for calculating port charges worldwide, which hampers comparisons and benchmarking. In some parts of the world, supranational institutions or national authorities have endorsed strict rules or general guiding principles for pricing by port authorities. These include common methods of calculating charges, with tariff levels left to the discretion of the local port authorities. - **Consistency**. Port authorities should **clearly explain each charge**, specifying which services are included and which are excluded. Many port authorities have developed **tariff books** with a view to providing (public) access to the pricing system used and its components. ## B. Port dues Shipowners or operators must pay port dues when calling at a port and remaining in the port. There are different types of [port dues](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-cost-components-teu/ "Port Cost Components and Total Port Pricing per TEU (USD), 2012"), including **marine charges** and **cargo dues**. > **Tonnage dues or marine charges** are indivisible charges calculated on the basis of the ship’s tonnage. The **basis for calculating marine charges** can be the gross tonnage (GT) or net tonnage (NT) of the vessel. However, it is also possible to use other ship measurements, such as the deadweight tonnage (DWT). In order to determine the marine charges, the ship operator, the shipowner, the charterer, the master, or the authorized representative must submit the vessel’s **international tonnage certificate** when the vessel calls the port for the first time or when changes in the ship’s measurement occur. Payment of the marine charges entitles the vessel to remain at the port for an **uninterrupted period** from the day of arrival. Upon expiry of that period, additional marine charges will be due. The time a vessel spends in a dry dock is usually excluded from the official port time. The marine charges to be paid per GT or NT can vary, and discounts might apply: - **Ship type and size**. The charges may vary depending on the **ship type** and, occasionally, also on the **ship size**. For example, several ports apply lower marine charges per capacity unit for container feeder vessels compared to mainline container vessels. The tariff setting for specific ship types and sizes is influenced by the **level of competition** exerted by competing ports for accommodating the same vessel class. - **Liner and non-liner services**. It is quite common to have different marine charges for **liner ships**, vessels operating in regular liner shipping services, and vessels operating in **non-liner trade**, such as tramps. - **Frequency**. Discounts might apply to shipping lines that exceed a certain **threshold** in terms of the number of vessel calls (**frequency-based discount**), or the ship-related cargo volume handled in the port (**traffic-based discount**) per time period (**seasonality discount**). - **Environmental compliance**. Many ports have developed voluntary programs to promote green shipping. Within the framework of such programs, the port authority typically grants a discount on marine charges to ships that meet specific **minimum environmental standards**. A good example of such a voluntary program is the [Environmental Ship Index](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/green-port-dues-environmental-ship-index/ "Green Port Dues: The Environmental Ship Index (ESI)") (ESI). - **Non-terminal use**. Reduced marine charges or discounts might apply to sea-going vessels entering the port for a short period solely for **non-terminal uses** such as bunkering, repair, or certification purposes, sea-going vessels entering the port because of perils at sea, or vessels entering the port exclusively for transit purposes when a ship passes through a port to reach another port upstream. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_cost_components.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Port Cost Components and Total Port Pricing per TEU (USD), 2012 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Cost Components and Total Port Pricing per TEU USD 2012![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ESI-logo.png?resize=900%2C434&ssl=1 "The Environmental Ship Index program | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Environmental Ship Index programThe port authority might decide to **exempt some vessel types from paying marine charges**. Training ships, naval ships, and sea-going vessels that remain inactive at the roadstead, as well as sea-going vessels that call into port solely for tank cleaning and/or degassing purposes, typically fall into this category. Additionally, sea-going vessels involved in operations on behalf of the port city or other local or national government agencies also fall under this category. > **Cargo dues, berthing dues, or wharfage dues** are indivisible charges calculated based on the goods unloaded or loaded by the vessel in port, expressed in tons. The **calculation of the cargo dues** is based on the number of loaded or unloaded tons as reported on the manifest and registry. Port authorities usually charge a different tariff depending on the type of cargo. For example, separate cargo dues per ton might be applicable for containers, non-containerized general cargo, and bulk cargo. The **total port costs** for the port user are **not limited to the port dues** collected by the port authority. Other major cost factors linked to a port call include: - **Costs associated with ship cargo handling at a terminal**. The terminal operator collects these cargo handling fees, tariffs, or costs. - **Costs for marine and nautical services**. Paid by the shipping line for compulsory services such as pilotage, navigation aids (lighthouse dues), berthing, and towage (tug assistance). These costs are usually incurred when entering and leaving the port and are based on vessel size. Depending on the port, these types of services are offered by the central or local government, the port authority, and one or more private companies. - **Waste reception charges**. Most ports also have separate charges for waste reception at port reception facilities. These can be fixed, floating, or mobile facilities that receive waste or cargo residues, such as remnants of cargo materials on board in cargo holds or tanks. Shipping wastes include oily waste, such as sludge, bilge water, and used engine oil, as well as non-oily waste, including garbage like food waste from the crew, domestic waste, and maintenance waste from the engine room. **Regulations are in place** to deal with waste reception in ports. For example, in accordance with Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities, all vessels calling at a port of the European Union should deliver their waste to a port reception facility before leaving the port (unless there is sufficient storage capacity onboard) and have to pay a waste fee. ## C. Port concessions/land fees The port authority or government can set the **fees and the fee structure** for port land [concessioned or leased to terminal operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/) and other companies active in the port area. On the one hand, port users demand a transparent, uniform, and stable fee system. Such stability of the fee structure is essential in view of the investment decisions of the terminal operator. On the other hand, port authorities are tempted to apply the market mechanism in setting the fees for the use of valuable port land. The pricing system deployed by the managing body of the port for the use of port land tends to vary widely among ports. The options available include: - **Fixed rent**. The managing body of the port imposes a **fixed annual rent** on the operator for the land surface in use, such as per square meter per year. This rent is typically determined based on the used footprint, infrastructure investments made by the port authority, the site’s location, and the activities performed on-site. - **Lump sum**. To be paid annually regardless of the financial results from the operating activity, plus a variable payment. - **Royalty fee**. A fixed rent per year on the land area plus a **percentage of the revenue earned**. - **Incentives and penalties**. A fixed rent for the land surface in use adjusted for an **incentive and penalty system**, depending on an annual throughput or activity in relation to the guaranteed volume/activity. Concession fees can change based on a substantiated review and are typically adjusted annually in line with inflation. Payments are due in advance on a monthly, quarterly, or annual basis. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/concession_fees_pa_to.png?resize=900%2C359&ssl=1 "Concession Fees and Financial Flows of Port Authorities and Terminal Operators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Concession fees as part of the financial flows of port authority and terminal operator# 6. Structures of Port Charges ## A. Charges at container terminals Several different tariffs apply at each container terminal. **[Terminal handling rates](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminal-cargo-handling-charges/ "Container Terminal Cargo Handling Charges")** for the ship-to-shore works include different charges for: - **Unloading a container** involves discharging it from the vessel, moving it from the wharf to the container yard, and subsequently loading it onto a chassis. - **Uploading a container**, such as lifting a container from a chassis to the container yard and subsequently moving the container to the wharf and loading onto the vessel. Depending on the port, the loading/uploading charge might differ between **import and export containers**. The charges vary by container size, with 20-foot containers charged differently from 40-foot containers or high-cube 40-foot containers. They also vary depending on whether the container is fully loaded or empty. Different charges apply to **transshipment services**, including a cargo handling fee for the discharge of the transshipment container from the inbound vessel, the movement of the container from the wharf to the container yard, the movement of the transshipment container from the container yard to the wharf, and loading onto the outbound vessel. A surcharge is imposed for handling containers, including those containing hazardous materials that require additional safety measures. Further surcharges apply in the case of specific containers containing cargoes that require extra care, such as those classified as IMO containers, including those with mass explosion hazards, explosives with projection hazards, or radioactive substances, which necessitate the use of qualified personnel for handling. Additional charges also apply: - When an **empty or fully loaded container** is received from the chassis and is not shipped, but subsequently delivered back to the chassis. - For **late container arrivals**. - For the movement of a container from the container yard for **inspections**, such as by customs, or for health or agricultural reasons. - When an empty or fully loaded container is received, but subsequently shipped via another vessel. - For any additional container movements not specified above, extra movement charges will be applied. Onboard shifting of containers also incurs additional charges. They include distinctive categories for: - **Hatch cover handling**, including opening and closing hatches, lifting hatch covers, and lids. - **Container shifts**, such as landing and subsequently reshipping a container on the same vessel, and shifting of containers from one location on the vessel to another. Beyond terminal cargo handling fees, a container terminal user pays charges for **[acquiring storage rights](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminal-cargo-storage-handling-charges/ "Container Terminal Cargo Storage Handling Charges")** within the port terminal area. The user is also charged for landside operations. Both fully loaded containers and empties are entitled to a certain number of days of free storage at the container yard, calculated from the date the containers are stacked in the yard to the date they are removed. The size of the container and its direction, whether it is imported or exported, imply different charges. Thereafter, stacked containers carry a storage charge, which increases as the containers remain in the yard. Surcharges for storage services apply in cases of specialized container handling, such as refrigerated containers. All transshipment containers also have a certain number of days of free storage (**free dwell time**), which are calculated from the date the containers are stacked in the yard to the date they are loaded. After that day, storage charges are similar to the charges for fully loaded containers. A different charge applies to landslide operations. These include dues for vehicles arriving at the terminal for picking or delivering containers and surcharges applying for landslide operations. These charges depend on the length of the vehicle stay and commonly differ between weekdays and weekends. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cargo_handling_charges.png?resize=900%2C514&ssl=1 "Container Terminal: Cargo Handling Charges | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminal Cargo Handling Charges![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cargo_storage_charges.png?resize=900%2C379&ssl=1 "Container Terminal: Cargo Storage Handling Charges | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminal Cargo Storage Handling ChargesIn addition, container terminal users pay port dues for maritime services, as well as potentially for the use of other utilities, which are defined by the managing body. ## B. Charges at cruise terminals A variety of fees are charged regularly in cruise ports. In addition to the different [tariffs applied at cruise terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/categories-fees-cruise-terminal/) for either maritime or land-side services, fees can be levied for waste disposal and supplies. [Port fees increase with ship size](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-dues-size-cruise-vessel/) and vary depending on the type of call. The fees for a transit cruise call are approximately half those for a turnaround call, regardless of ship size. A **cruise passenger fee** is imposed on both transit and homeport passengers, but it is higher for the latter. Passenger (dis)embarkation is also subject to additional fees, such as the passenger security fee, required to comply with the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code. This charge is usually a fixed rate per cruise passenger embarking, disembarking, or transiting through the cruise port. Apart from the charges mentioned above, there are also charges based on providing specific port services, such as bunkering, supplying water and electricity to the cruise ship, and providing supplies to the cruise ship. When levied, the compulsory fees include passenger fees, port dues, mooring and unmooring fees, dockage/anchorage fees, navigation dues, tender fees, and passenger luggage storage fees. Additional fees may apply in certain ports, including Chamber of Shipping/Commerce fees, gangway fees, immigration fees, navigation dues, passenger luggage storage fees, shuttle bus services, tenders, and crew fees, as well as customs clearance and sanitary dues. Ports typically apply discount policies for cruise ships and passengers as a promotional tool for attracting cruise traffic. These discounts are based on the number of passengers per year or the number of cruise ship calls. The **ratio of cost components** of port fees differs for transit and turnaround calls. The main difference is that fees for passenger luggage handling are only levied for turnaround calls. This also creates differences in the ratio of other cost components between transit and turnaround calls since passenger fees need to be paid twice for turnaround calls. For transit calls, passenger fees are, on average, substantially higher in large ports than in small ports. This difference decreases with an increase in ship size. Also, for turnaround calls, passenger fees are, on average, substantially higher in large ports than in small ports. However, for small and medium-sized ships, passenger fees are similar or higher in smaller ports. A **pilotage fee** is frequently compulsory and increases slightly with ship size, as do fees levied for the maintenance of navigation aids (lighthouse dues). Similarly, a fee for **tug/towage** is compulsory in many ports and increases slightly with ship size, except for the largest ships. In some ports, the fee for tug/towage is fixed and independent of the ship size. Therefore, these cost components have a relatively greater share of the total port fees for smaller ships than for larger ships. This also involves variable cost components (such as passenger fees), which have a relatively smaller share of total port fees for smaller ships than for larger ships. There are differences in port fees applied in cruise ports between weekdays and weekends. Some ports charge higher costs on weekends for components that involve overtime labor. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_fees_cruise_terminal.png?resize=900%2C396&ssl=1 "Categories of Fees at Cruise Port Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Categories of Tariffs at Cruise Port Terminals![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_port_dues.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Distribution of Port Dues per Size of Cruise Vessel | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Distribution of Port Dues per Size of Cruise Vessel# Related Topics - [Chapter 9.1 Inter-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/) - [Chapter 9.2 Intra-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/) - [Chapter 4.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/) - [Chapter 10.1 Performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/) - [Chapter 8.2 Port Authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/) --- ## References - Acciaro, M., 2013. A critical review of port pricing literature: What role for academic research?. *The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics*, 29(2), 207-228. - Berry, L. L. and Yadav, M. S. 1996, Capture and communicate value in the pricing of services, *Sloan Management Review*, 37 (4), 41-51. - Pallis T. (2023). Port Economy: economics, management and organisation of commercial ports. (in: Greek) Athens: Papazisis. - Perez-Labajos, C. and Garcia, J. E. 2000, Efficient port pricing: A new methodology applied to Spanish commercial ports, *International Journal of Maritime Economics*, 2 (2), 141-160. - Uyttendaele, P., 2012, Public Private Partnerships in Ports: Pitfalls and Challenges, *ESPO Annual Conference*, Sopot, 10-11 May 2012 - Van Den Berg, R., De Langen, P.W. and Van Zuijlen, P.C., 2017. Revisiting port pricing; a proposal for seven port pricing principles. *WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs*, 1-18. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 9.3 - Port Marketing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/) **Published:** November 30, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Theo Notteboom > Marketing is a core function in seaport management, impacting cash flow, profits, traffic, market share, and the overall image of a port. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Ports and Their Customers](#1_Ports_and_Their_Customers) - [2. Marketing Objectives and Actions](#2_Marketing_Objectives_and_Actions) - [3. Increasing Customer Loyalty](#3_Increasing_Customer_Loyalty) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Ports and Their Customers Marketing and customer **relationship management** are among the functions of port authorities that are gaining momentum and are commonly outside their conventional landlord role. The various forms of communication, trade and business development, local community liaison, and customer relationship management are major components of the overall marketing effort. Port authorities are increasingly taking the lead in promoting and marketing the ports under their management, as it leads to additional value creation and business opportunities. Marketing is the process of defining, developing, communicating, and delivering **value to stakeholders** depending on distinctive competencies and available services. By adopting a market-driven approach, a port authority offers tailored marketing solutions to each stakeholder in the port community and beyond. Marketing strategies developed by port authorities deal with networks of stakeholders, which are part of [three core groups](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-authority-marketing-strategies-stakeholder-types/ "Port Authority Marketing Strategies and Stakeholder Types"): 1. **Business-related stakeholders** include shipping lines, shippers, terminal operators, logistics and forwarding companies, and transport service providers. These are market players who affect (and are affected by) the strategies of port authorities to pursue their marketing objectives. 2. **Institutional stakeholders** interact with port authorities on matters related to policy issues, regulations, legislative interventions, and public interests. 3. **Societal groups and local communities** are seeking sustainable port growth that generates minimal externalities. Each stakeholder represents a **target for marketing activities**, whereas groups of these stakeholders (portfolios of marketing actions) aim towards specific marketing objectives. A successful marketing strategy focuses on identifying the key business relationships through which a port can deliver value to (internal and external) stakeholders, based on its distinctive competencies. When such marketing actions are not practical, ports may face a form of penalty, such as losing a customer or a conflict with the community. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/pa_marketing_strategies.png?resize=900%2C424&ssl=1 "Port Authority Marketing Strategies and Stakeholder Types | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Authority Marketing Strategies and Stakeholder TypesThe potential value for stakeholders generated through marketing efforts develops in line with the main functions that a given port authority undertakes, such as landlord, regulator, operator, or community/cluster manager. Following the evaluation of internal strengths, competitors, the business ecosystem, and the community, the endorsed marketing strategies are associated with a **portfolio of actions** based on the capabilities of the port authority. Port authorities define value propositions through actions that might relate to one or more marketing processes, aiming to: - **Define value**. Identifying the needs and positioning the offers. - **Provide value**. Product and service development, defining prices, selecting and choosing distribution channels. - **Communicate value**. Salesforce messages, promotion, advertising, public relations, and media planning. Port authorities deal with a **multitude of public and private stakeholders**, frequently dispersed across a wide geographic area, who exercise a multidirectional influence on their actions. The borderless and global nature of modern supply chains and port cluster evolution has implications for port marketing strategies: - **Bundling of services**. It is rare for actors to operate or develop independently within the port cluster. Irrespective of size, bundling operations and clustering activities that face related issues can benefit from a collective action, which is essential for addressing market niche-specific issues. - **Multiple jurisdictions**. Although port authorities are physically bound by **their territorial jurisdiction**, they deal with players in distant and multiple locations. They want to influence their behavior and generate business opportunities. This occurs regardless of any physically limited extension of port operations or the intrinsic normative limitations of port authorities. - **Multiple decision-making**. The complex geography of the decision-making chains of stakeholders, such as multinational corporations, may involve interactions with port authorities through **multiple decision-making units** based in geographically distant locations. The existence of multi-layered decisional units (local offices, national branches, regional and global headquarters) complicates marketing interactions, given diverse representatives within the same multinational corporation. - **Diversity of stakeholders**. Marketing refers to actors with **diverse cultural backgrounds** as well as economic and institutional environments. Port authorities interact with actors with diverse legal natures (public bodies, public companies, private companies, individual citizens, trade associations), interests (private vs. public), geographic location, and strategic ambitions (local, national, international). Such diversity may generate problems of market adaptation and complicate the dialogue with stakeholders. Thus, marketing efforts developed by port authorities are increasingly complex and require the commitment of specialized and highly qualified managers. # 2. Marketing Objectives and Actions ## A. A spectrum of marketing strategies Ports pursue a **[spectrum of marketing objectives](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/objectives-port-authorities-marketing-strategies/ "Objectives of Port Authorities Marketing Strategies")** that encompasses [five mainstream categories of objectives](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-marketing-objective-attracting-investments/ "Marketing Objectives of Port Authorities"): 1. **Secure additional investments**. 2. **Enhance additional demand**. 3. **Explore non-core business opportunities**. 4. **Build community relations**. 5. **Enhance institutional dialogue**. The first three refer to **business-to-business relations**. Another objective resides in **business-to-community relationships**. The fifth refers to the port’s **relations with institutions and regulators**. These marketing objectives are mutually linked, whereas marketing actions are often required to support each other for achieving objectives that, despite appearances, are not stand-alone. With marketing objectives closely interconnected, the interactions developed between port authorities and major stakeholders may have further implications compared to what their geographic and functional positioning might suggest. A port authority may generate **cross-fertilization effects** that materialize due to the synergies and economies of scope in committing resources and capabilities to marketing actions. At the same time, any given stakeholder might be involved as a co-creator in marketing actions. The port authority might select from multiple combinations of stakeholders and marketing actions, emphasizing the particularity of their value proposition and market image. With port marketing efforts targeting different market segments and combinations of stakeholders, the marketing actions to be used are complex. The port authority can potentially select any combination as an objective and then serve it through suitable marketing actions, committing core resources, skills, competencies, and physical and financial resources, as well as time constraints. With marketing objectives inextricably linked and marketing actions often supporting one another, cross-fertilization effects can be generated through synergies and economies of scope by committing resources and capabilities to marketing actions. ## B. Business-to-business relations A key marketing objective is to **secure suitable financial resources** (1) to enhance port competitiveness in a rapidly changing environment. The demand for upgraded and modernized infrastructures and services, as well as the provision of fast and reliable operational performances, is considerable. This is especially true as economies of scale in different port markets, such as the gigantism of container and cruise vessels, result in various dimensions of port operations, leading to more advanced forms of supply chains and logistics. Yet, the mobilization of third parties to invest should not be taken for granted. Marketing strategies are focused on attracting key stakeholders, including investors, logistics firms, and industrial companies, which bring financial, technical, and human resources, as well as potential organizational and managerial capabilities, to ensure high-quality service. A second primary marketing objective for port authorities is to **enhance additional demand** (2) for the port. This demand is driven by improved cargo and passenger volumes, facilitated by superior hinterland and maritime connectivity. Given the increasing importance of terminals, with their own dynamics, different settings existing within each port. In the case of a landlord framework, port authorities do not have a direct contractual relationship with ocean carriers; they do not undertake stevedoring or other handling operations. Thus, marketing is somewhat mediated by other business players, such as terminal operators and freight forwarders. Nonetheless, their role in attracting demand is relevant, as port authorities often interact with carriers and other stakeholders that affect cargo routing or the deployment of cruise vessels. The intervention of port authorities aims to trace cargo flows along logistics chains and to undertake multifaceted marketing actions. Primarily, port authorities act as the orchestrator that, through marketing, generates knowledge about the presence of conditions that secure an active business environment, with the availability of services, high levels of efficiency, and lower costs compared to competitors. Given the above, port authority marketing actions are successful if the marketing activities of terminal operators or shipping lines are aligned with each other for **value co-creation**. A port authority can allocate resources to marketing, but if terminal operators or shipping lines do not perform well, its actions will not yield the expected outcome. This means that the port authority is very dependent on the performance and marketing activities of its customers. For this reason, the selection of reliable terminal operators as concessionaires constitutes a relevant pre-condition for attracting demand. The objectives of marketing activities by port authorities include **capturing new business opportunities** (3) in areas beyond their core objectives, which are the handling and serving of cargoes/passengers in the port and adjacent areas. The reference encompasses not only logistics and supply chain integration but also activities such as ship repair or hotel management. Such initiatives are strategically related to the more traditional port authority marketing objectives (secure investment and demand). Still, they take place through comparatively uncommon strategies that leverage the resources and capabilities accumulated in mainstream activities. ## C. Develop community relations Business-to-business (B2B) marketing coexists with business-to-community (B2C) objectives, as environmental complexity and spatial issues, such as the proximity of port activities to urban activities, incentivize ports to establish trustworthy relationships with their local stakeholders. Building **solid community liaisons** (4) is increasingly necessary for internationalized ports, where the disconnection between global (business-driven) ambitions and local interests becomes critical. Port authorities promote the related port by effectively communicating with the main local community stakeholders. Such promotional activities aim to raise awareness among the population about the beneficial presence of the port, projecting an appropriate image. Marketing activities aim to build consensus and trust among citizens and local economic clusters regarding port planning, thereby securing the satisfactory coexistence and coherent co-development of urban and port areas. ## D. Enhance institutional dialogue Good relationships with public administrations are a fundamental building block for business marketing that, among other benefits, enhances **government liaisons** (5). These activities stand at the intersection between marketing activities and lobbying. To maintain the pace of port and business development, port authorities must efficiently deal with political and administrative counterparts at various levels to secure funding, influence policy, and avoid regulatory intervention. Generating balance within a given institutional architecture involves tuning the decisions of public administrators to the evolving needs of private firms. In this regard, vertical and horizontal coordination with public organizations enables effective handling of key issues such as port planning and development, port reform and regulatory implementation, the execution of administrative and business decisions, and the implementation of political actions. Vertical coordination refers to effective institutional dialogue and distribution of competencies between port authorities and public actors. Horizontal coordination, on the other hand, requires a sound and integrated dialogue among port authorities regarding the prioritization of investments and the avoidance of overcapacity concerns in port planning. These dialogues generate lobbying effects, exert political pressure to secure additional funding, mitigate conflicts with the local community, and expedite the approval of key projects. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_authority_marketing_strategy.png?resize=900%2C404&ssl=1 "Objectives of Port Authorities Marketing Strategies | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Marketing Objectives![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_marketing_objectives.png?resize=900%2C415&ssl=1 "Marketing Objectives of Port Authorities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Marketing Objectives of Port Authorities![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/taxonomy_strategic_marketing.png?resize=900%2C431&ssl=1 "A Taxonomy of Strategic Marketing Positioning by Port Authorities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")A Taxonomy of Strategic Marketing Positioning by Port Authorities# 3. Increasing Customer Loyalty Despite the best intentions and efforts when developing relationships, customers may experience dissatisfaction with port services and even defect to other competing ports. The main reasons behind this change in port choice are related to inadequate service or the impression of not being treated fairly. **Retaining or reclaiming customers** can be accomplished through a number of **complementary strategies**. ## A. Communication with customers Occasionally, surveying customers is essential, preferably through direct verbal communication, to gauge satisfaction levels about the port and determine how the port’s service compares to that of the competition. This form of **market research** should be approached systematically and regularly to gain a deeper understanding of changes in customer satisfaction levels. Issues to discuss include the degree of satisfaction with the services provided, perceptions of value for money, port efficiency, feedback on the available information provided by the port, particularly through its website, potential port growth as well as changes to customer needs and requirements, feedback on customer service, and in general, the day-to-day issues creating operational challenges. To further assist with customer communications, some ports have developed a **visitation program** for the chief executive, board members, and senior managers to meet and gather information with current and prospective customers locally, nationally, and internationally, with the objective of gaining a better understanding of customer requirements. The formation of **port user groups** is another effective means of communicating with a broad range of customers. These groups serve as consultative and information-sharing mechanisms to provide feedback and maintain communication between the port and its various stakeholders, including stevedoring companies, tenants, shipping companies, shipping agents, and community groups. Matters discussed at these meetings may include operational and policy issues, infrastructure developments, strategy, and environmental management. Customer contact personnel are often the first to hear about customer concerns and are better positioned to identify customer needs and issues. They are not only physically or virtually close but may have developed a personal bond with the customer. Recognizing that **front-line employees** consistently interact with customers and significantly impact customer satisfaction levels underscores the importance of hiring customer-focused staff and providing them with at least basic training in customer service and marketing. ## B. Service failure recovery The true test of commitment to customer satisfaction is how the port responds when mistakes are made or when poor customer service occurs. A complaint may arise if the business fails to fulfill the promises made in its marketing communications. Labor strikes in ports or severe delays due to operational issues are typical events triggering poor customer service. When assessing poor performance, the reality is conditioned by customer perception. Three major **types of service failures** exist: - **Failures of the core business** have occurred because there have been inadequate responses to errors in the service delivery system. - **Poor or no responses to customer needs and requests**. - **Unsatisfactory employee behavior** includes being abusive, having poor attitudes, exhibiting discriminatory behavior, and failing to consider cultural norms. A **recovery from poor service delivery** can even convert frustrated customers into loyal ones. Companies should invest in implementing problem-solving and follow-up service recovery strategies, as both significantly enhance their corporate image. However, the opportunity for service recovery is sometimes missed because employees are not empowered or have insufficient training to address the error promptly and appropriately. ## C. Identify potential defectors Ports can detect potential defectors early in the process with a series of events that are indicative: - Slower returns of customer approval requests. - Access to upper-level management decreases. - The flow of customer data slows down. - Plans for future work become progressively shorter-term. - One or more of the products or services are discontinued. - The volume of business (in terms of TEUs, cargo tonnage, or passenger numbers) is gradually decreasing. Effective [inter-port competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2588) creates opportunities for customers to switch to other ports. In many cases, a triggering event causes a customer to leave, often coinciding with a window of opportunity created in a rival port. When competition levels are low and no alternative ports are available, the customer becomes **captive,** making defection very difficult. In the port industry, port executives should invest in research to understand the **real reasons why their customers leave or stay**. Infrastructure, capacity, price, changing needs, and customer service levels are common reasons. ## D. Complaint management and positive communication Loyal customers tend to be more forgiving of mistakes. Therefore, the port can occasionally make a mistake without losing customers. Receiving customer complaints can be **considered positively** because they provide an opportunity to address a problem, solve it, and retain customers. Essentially, a customer who complains indicates to the service business that they wish to remain a customer and are willing to give it a second chance. Therefore, ports should have a clear and well-framed structure for lodging complaints. Complaints can be addressed by providing customer feedback surveys and speaking directly with customers to address any concerns they may have. Asking for feedback from the customers is itself a **loyalty-generating process**. Furthermore, good complaint management can only be achieved if the service provider uses a **formal system** to monitor, process, and follow up on customer complaints. This assumes, for instance, a corporate environment in which employees are encouraged to report customer complaints, rather than one in which employees hide complaints because they fear penalization from senior management. A benefit of retaining highly satisfied customers loyal to the business is that they spread **positive word-of-mouth communication** (WOM). This factor, along with a critical reputation in the port industry, is a key source of information for new clients. **Social media** and new communication tools have increased reliance on online information seeking, leading to the growing importance of electronic word-of-mouth or **eWOM**. If many customers spread positive word-of-mouth communication, the promotion costs to attract new customers are lowered. Customers believe word-of-mouth communication to be less biased and more credible than traditional marketing communications. However, concerns have been raised about the reliability of eWOM due to potential manipulation, disinformation by competitors, and the use of fake online reviews. Negative eWOM can lead to what is referred to as online viral moments, which can seriously undermine a port’s reputation. ## E. Usage of exit barriers One way to give the port authority a chance to respond is to make it difficult for the customer to leave. Erecting a simple **barrier to departure** allows a port manager to identify the issue and rectify it before the customer leaves. However, trying to lock customers in does not guarantee port loyalty. A similar outcome can be achieved by utilizing **service guarantees and customer service charters** to mitigate the challenges of service recovery. Although this may represent a potential cost to the port, service guarantees may increase customer loyalty. Port authorities confronted with a highly competitive market environment may use [concession agreements](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2601) as a way to secure long-term commitment from terminal operators or consortia between terminal operators and shipping lines. The granting of **dedicated terminals** combined with favorable port dues and strict throughput guarantees can also reduce the risk of defection. ## F. Customer differentiation Customers **do not have an equal value** to the port business. Ports become increasingly dependent on external coordination and control by actors who extract a large share of the economic rent produced by ports and are often motivated by creating shareholder value. Given the increasingly **footloose** character of its traffic, it might be inappropriate for a port to try to keep traffic at any cost. If powerful actors in a specific logistics chain exert significant pressure on a port due to economic rents generated elsewhere in the chain, it may be relevant for the port to opt out of this chain. Due to changes in the competitive environment, current positioning, and desired target markets, customers should be assessed to ensure they match the stated objectives and value proposition. **Segmentation analysis** can help distinguish between customers and ensure the port can serve them efficiently, effectively, and, importantly, profitably, thereby creating mutual value. Port managers can attribute a **[risk profile to each customer](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/port-marketing/risk-profile-port-customers-2/ "Risk Profile of Port Customers")**. Certain customers can be very valuable for the port as a whole. Losing them could trigger effects on other customers due to vertical linkages between companies. A feeder company might stop calling because a deepsea vessel is changing its port of call, or due to leader-follower dynamics, where if a leading company leaves a port, some followers in the market may do the same. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_customers_risk_profile.png?resize=900%2C441&ssl=1 "Risk Profile of Port Customers | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Risk profile of port customersA **pricing strategy** tailored to the individual needs of the customer is a key factor in developing relationships and fostering loyalty, serving as a form of customer differentiation. This implies the economic perspective on port pricing should be complemented by elements from marketing and relationship management linked to the different requirements of each major segment. [Chapter 9.4](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2604) elaborates further on port pricing principles and strategies. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 8.2 – Port Authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=811) - [Chapter 8.4 Port Clusters](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/) - [Chapter 4.4 – Port Clusters](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8-2/port-clusters/ "Chapter 4.4 – Port Clusters")[Chapter 9.4 Port Pricing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/) ## References - Cahoon, S. (2007) Marketing communications for seaports: a matter of survival and growth. *Maritime Policy & Management*, 34(2), 151-168. - Cahoon, S. and Notteboom, T. (2008) Port marketing tools in a logistics-restructured market environment: the quest for port loyalty. *Proceedings of the* *International Association of Maritime Economists Annual Conference*, Dalian, China, 2-4 April. - ESPO (2022) *Trends in EU Ports Governance 2022*. Brussels: ESPO. - Laxe, F.G. (2010) Port Marketing Strategies and the Challenges of Maritime Globalization. In: Coto-Millán, P., Pesquera, M., Castanedo, J. (eds) Essays on Port Economics. Contributions to Economics. Physica, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2425-4\_2 - MedCruise (2016) *Ports Together.* Piraeus, Greece. - Parola, F., Pallis, A.A., Risitano, M. & Ferretti, M. (2018) “Marketing strategies of port authorities: A multi-dimensional theorisation”, Transportation Research Policy and Practice Part A, 111, 199-212. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 9.2 - Intra-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/) **Published:** December 23, 2019 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Thanos Pallis > Intra-port competition refers to the presence of two or more firms competing to provide the same services in the same port complex. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Intra-Port Competition](#1_Intra-Port_Competition) - [2. Effects on Rent-Seeking Behavior](#2_Effects_on_Rent-Seeking_Behavior) - [3. Specialization, Flexible adaptation and Innovation](#3_Specialization_Flexible_adaptation_and_Innovation) - [4. Conditions and Effects of Intra-Port Competition](#4_Conditions_and_Effects_of_Intra-Port_Competition) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Intra-Port Competition Intra-port competition can be beneficial for the competitiveness of ports, local and national economies, consumers, and exporting industries. Its presence is conditional and may occur [over terminals or through the provision of services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/dimensions-intra-port-competition/ "Dimensions of Intra-Port Competition"). This is most commonly observed in terminal operations, where a terminal operator has jurisdiction over an entire terminal area, from the berth to the gate, and competes with other terminal operators responsible for other terminals. Competing port terminals strive to attract and retain ship terminal calls for port-bound cargo, both on the foreland and in the hinterland. This is particularly the case for [large container port complexes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/intra-port-competition-busan-new-port/ "Intra-Port Competition in Busan New Port") having multiple terminals under concession from terminal operators. Intra-port competition may also be observed in the provision of other services, either on the landside (such as warehousing, logistics, and value-added services) or on the maritime side (including pilotage, towage, mooring, and bunkering) of the port. A variation is **intra-terminal competition,** which occurs when entities compete to provide the same services to a specific terminal. Intra-terminal competition exists in the largest ports that support an ecosystem of service firms. Together, these two types of competition form an inclusive definition of intra-port competition as the competition between two or more similar production units that provide competing services within the same port complex. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/dimensions_intra_port_competition.png?resize=900%2C580&ssl=1 "Dimensions of Intra-Port Competition | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Dimensions of Intra Port Competition![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Busan-New-Port-1.png?resize=900%2C541&ssl=1 "Intra-Port Competition in Busan New Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Intra Port Competition in Busan New PortIntra-port competition can be beneficial for the competitiveness of ports, for local and national economies, and for consumers and exporting industries. Particularly: - It prevents the potential of monopolistic excess **rent-seeking** by port service providers who enjoy excess market power. - It serves as an engine of **innovation and specialization**, enabling the achievement of economies of scope and flexible, multi-service organization structures that are essential in modern seaports. These positive effects inform policy initiatives at local, national, or supranational levels, aiming to lower market **entry barriers** and create conditions that enable intra-port competition in the provision of port services. However, in most market segments and ports, market concentration remains remarkably high and is rising, partly due to the emergence of **global terminal operators**. # 2. Effects on Rent-Seeking Behavior Intra-port competition suppresses monopolistic market power and, thus, economic rent-seeking by port service providers. **Economic rents** in seaports consist of the savings on the generalized transport cost that using a port offers over the next best available routing. Their level is related to the price difference compared to a second-best port. It may accrue to a variety of actors, including the port owner, port service providers, labor (with high wages or a minimum workforce), governments (local or national), and users of (trans)port services. In the worst case, a port user has no alternative and is forced to accept the fare structure dictated by the port. The actual benefits of intra-port competition are positively related to when a port faces **imperfect or limited inter-port competition**, with substantial economic rent. Monopolistic power enables service providers to discriminate based on demand elasticity, resulting in abnormal pricing and rigid operational conditions for port users. When intra-port competition exists for all port services, including competitive hinterland transport markets, all port charges are based on cost recovery and provided efficiently. A similar case is when port service providers are constantly under threat from potential new entrants. Existing providers lack market power as long as there are low barriers to entry. Even if there is only one service provider, the threat of potential entrants as soon as profit opportunities arise suppresses excessive prices. This is known as the principle of contestability. In port ranges with acute inter-port competition, such as the dense European market, economic rents are improbable. Increased competition prevents intra-port monopolists from earning any unwarranted profits, even if high barriers to entry exist in the port. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/market_power_port_service_providers.png?resize=900%2C405&ssl=1 "Conditions Supporting Market Power of Port Service Providers | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Conditions resulting in excess market power of port service providers## A. Captive and contestable hinterlands Intra-port competition is most important for port services that are a necessary part of the overall port product. In other words, the service cannot be purchased in another port. This is not the case for certain port services, such as bunkering or ship supplies, as competition for these services is often acute. Then, the level of economic rent depends on the competitive advantage of a port for serving a particular hinterland. Thus, the distinction between captive and contestable hinterlands is useful. - **Captive hinterlands** refer to all areas where a port has a competitive advantage due to low generalized transport costs to those regions and handles the vast majority of cargo. For most ports, captive hinterlands are less prevalent. - **Contestable hinterlands** comprise all regions where no single port has a clear cost advantage over competing ports. If the vast majority of cargo originates from or is destined for a contestable hinterland, economic rents are small or non-existent. A similar distinction applies in relation to **primary hinterlands**, the area where the port is well-established, and **secondary hinterlands**, characterized by rivalry among ports. If parts of the hinterland are captive and markets are not contestable, opportunities for rent extraction by the port service provider exist when any of the following three conditions are met: - **The share of the port services in total port costs is not substantial**. The overall port product consists of various services, such as terminal handling, towage, pilotage, and ship handling. Port service providers that are of relatively minor importance for the overall costs will hardly lose business when they raise prices, as port users are sensitive to total port costs, rather than their individual components. Thus, such service providers have market power. - **The captive hinterland is large compared to the contestable hinterland**. In this case, monopoly pricing is possible since many port users cannot shift to an alternative port without facing substantial additional costs. Monopoly prices increase revenues for service providers, even if a part of the port’s users in the contestable hinterland shifts to another port. - **Opportunities to differentiate prices in the captive hinterland exist**. Even when the captive hinterland is not sufficiently large to maximize profits via monopoly pricing, it may be possible to charge port users in the captive hinterland higher prices, since they can hardly shift to other ports. ## B. Effects on port users Three different types of port users purchase port services: shippers (cargo owners), shipping lines, and forwarders (or other transport intermediaries). Unless they are located in a perfectly contestable hinterland, **shippers have the worst bargaining position** since switching to a second-best port leads to higher transport costs. Port service providers have market power over captive shippers located in the captive hinterland, as they can charge higher prices than those applicable to contestable shippers. This explains why large shippers in captive hinterlands frequently invest in user-owned port facilities. However, most shippers do not have direct contracts with port service providers. Instead, they have contracts with either shipping lines or forwarders. The bargaining position of port service providers vis-à-vis shipping lines or forwarders is substantially weaker because these users might consolidate cargo with different origins and destinations. Consolidation, the development of transshipment hubs, and the increasing efficiency of inland transportation limit geographical powers and increase the cross-elasticity of demand for ports. Price differentiation related to the origin/destination of the cargo is not viable when shipping lines or forwarders purchase services. In short, port service providers do not have market power vis-à-vis shipping lines and forwarders in ports where the contestable hinterland is so large that the loss of volume (volume effect) offsets the additional revenues from the price increase (price effect), and the port service is an important component of total port costs. The experience from the privatization of terminal operations suggests that due to the lack of intra-port competition, port users rarely face high tariffs and request regulatory institutions to limit the monopolistic position of terminal operators. Such regulation (whether created and monitored by a government agency or by a port authority) incurs costs, such as monitoring costs, including productivity and tariff controls. Furthermore, due to **information asymmetry** between the regulator and the port industry, regulation is unlikely to be ideal for preventing efforts to extract monopoly rents. Intra-port competition is potentially a more effective way to ensure competitive port tariffs. The threat of rent-seeking by port service providers accelerates **vertical integration** in seaports. By providing their own port services, port users can prevent abuse of market power. Two kinds of port users, shippers and shipping lines, frequently own and operate dedicated facilities. The involvement of large shippers in port services is mainly aimed at preventing exposure to market power. This explains why many shippers in the liquid and dry bulk industries (such as Shell, Exxon, BP, and Corus Steel) own terminal facilities. Shipping lines also own terminals, and these investments may be partially explained by the above considerations, as they also stem from a strategy to offer door-to-door transport services. In any case, user-owned port facilities prevent rent extraction if the end products of the vertically integrated firms are sold in a competitive market. This is the case for most user-owned oil, iron ore, and steel terminals as well as most user-owned container terminals. Only very large port users have the scale to develop **dedicated terminals**. In other cases, terminals are owned by joint ventures of a limited number of port users. For port users with only small cargo volumes, vertical integration as a strategy to prevent rent extraction is not a viable option. Therefore, in several cases, the problem of market power is not fully solved through vertical integration. Under such circumstances, promoting intra-port competition remains essential. # 3. Specialization, Flexible adaptation and Innovation Intra-port competition fosters specialization, innovation, and diversity in the provision of port services. It is, in principle, a level playing field for competition. Competitors face **similar cost curves** and operate within the same regulatory framework, labor market conditions, trade costs, and supplier bases. In such an operating environment, specialization of services is more likely. This is especially important since the contemporary port product is a chain of (specialized) interlinking functions that, in most cases, is better offered by a network of firms potentially operating in different organizational forms rather than as one single corporate hierarchy. In an environment marked by flexible specialization and globalization of production as well as the transportation of intermediate goods, port activities retain their competitiveness by understanding user expectations and adjusting their actions accordingly. This includes interactions between those involved in the production and exchange of port services, such as service providers, labor, users, and institutions. Ports need to provide both **generic services** via a standardized process defined in advance and **dedicated services** that respond to individual demand and are based on the mobilization of specialized resources. Therefore, some port network actors focus on standardized services, price competition, and increased volumes of services. In contrast, others focus on an increased range of services, concentrating on economies of scope and competition based on the quality of products and services. Increasing the quality of services, high flexibility and adaptability levels, close integration with other transport modes, service and process innovation, better management, more efficient labor regimes, and adaptability to users’ needs are all goals whose achievement requires ports that exhibit organizational structures incorporating the following elements and principles: - The traditional **industrial world**, based on the efficient mass production of generic services (defined by the producer). It aims to decrease average costs and achieve large-scale operations under conditions of certainty. - The **market world**, based on standardized services, economies of scale, and differentiation. It centers on competition focused on price flexibility, in conditions of uncertainty. - The **interpersonal world**, based on dedicated specialized services, economies of variety, competition. It centeres on competition focused on quality and skilled labor, in conditions of uncertainty. Intra-port competition creates conditions for designing organizational structures based on **economies of scale and economies of scope**. The competition between several port service providers facilitates entrepreneurship and creativity. This ensures that innovations are introduced (and copied), and competing firms constantly aim to improve services to their customers, a dynamic process that keeps ports competitive. Internal competition fosters dynamism throughout the entire port cluster. Differentiation and specialization enhance the performance of the cluster as a whole because port users can purchase products and services that match their specific demands. # 4. Conditions and Effects of Intra-Port Competition The viability of intra-port competition depends on the presence of entry barriers into a particular port market, with size an important consideration. The relevant market should be at least twice as large as the [**Minimum Efficient Scale**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/intra-port-competition/minimum-efficient-scale/) for providing a port service. > The Minimum Efficient Scale (MES) is the smallest scale at which a terminal provider can produce output at a minimum average long-run cost, assuming the terminal is operating with a given technology. In the absence of this size, intra-port competition may be desirable but impossible to introduce since it would create a situation of overcompetition. There would be too much capacity or a level of service that exceeds demand, leading to a downward spiral of inefficiency. Once the size of a port service market is twice that of the MES, facilitating entry and exit in the port market by lowering other **entry barriers** is an additional strategy. Lower entry barriers increase the level of intra-port competition by enhancing market contestability, putting pressure on both existing port service providers and new and potential entrants. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/minimum_efficiency_scale.png?resize=900%2C444&ssl=1 "Minimum Efficient Scale and Long-Run Average Costs in Container Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Minimum Efficient Scale and Long Run Average Costs in Container Terminals A potential adverse effect of intra-port competition could be **facility duplication** leading to a wasteful allocation of resources. However, under the assumption that governments, including public port authorities, create a level playing field and do not grossly subsidize port investments, such a wasteful allocation is unlikely to persist in the long run under free-market conditions. Furthermore, it is by no means apparent that such over-investment would be more likely to arise in an environment with intra-port competition. The second potential adverse effect is that intra-port competition could **generate additional externalities**, such as pollution and congestion. This adverse effect is related to the issue of scale economies in port services and may be present in specific cases. However, there are no compelling arguments for a negative structural relation between intra-port competition and negative externalities. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 4.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/) - [Chapter 4.2 Terminal Concessions and Land Leases](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/) - [Chapter 9.1 Inter-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/) - [Chapter 9.3 Port Marketing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/) - [Chapter 9.4 Port Pricing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/) - [Chapter 9.5 Entry Barriers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/) ## References - Chlomoudis C.I., Karalis V.A., and Pallis A.A. (2003) Port Reorganisation and the Worlds of Production Theory, European Journal of Transport Infrastructure Research, 3(1), 77-94. - De Langen P.W. and Pallis Α.Α. (2007). Entry Barriers in Seaports, Maritime Policy and Management, 34(5), 427-440. - Goss R., (1990). Economic Policies and Seaports: 1. The economic functions of seaports, Maritime Policy and Management, 17(3), 207-219. - Heaver, T.D., (1995). The implications of increased competition among ports for port policy, Maritime Policy and Management, 22 (2), 125-133. - Kaselimi, E.N., Notteboom, T.E., Pallis, A.A. and Farrell, S., (2011) Minimum Efficient Scale (MES) and preferred scale of container terminals. Research in Transportation Economics, 32(1), 71-80. - Notteboom, T.E., (2002). Consolidation and Contestability in the European Container Handling Industry, Maritime Policy and Management, 29(3), 257-269. - Pallis A. A. and de Langen P. W., (2006). Analysis of the benefits of intra-port competition. International Journal of Transport Economics, 33(1), 69-86. - Pallis, A., Notteboom, T. and de Langen, P.W. (2008). Concession Agreements and Market Entry in the Container Terminal Industry. Maritime Economics and Logistics **10**, 209–228. - Storper, M. and Salais, R., (1997). Worlds Of Production: The Action Frameworks of the Economy, London: Harvard University Press. - Theys C., Notteboom T.E., Pallis A.A.**,** and de Langen P.W. (2010). The economics behind the awarding of terminals in seaports: A research agenda. Research in Transport Economics, 27,*,* 10-18. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 10.4 - Port Resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/) **Published:** November 24, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dr. Theo Notteboom and Dr. Athanasios Pallis > For natural and anthropogenic reasons, ports are subject to disruptions that can impair and even stop activities. The adaptive capacity to recover from disruptions defines the resilience of a port. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Defining Resilience](#1_Defining_Resilience) - [2. Shocks and Disruptions Impacting Ports](#2_Shocks_and_Disruptions_Impacting_Ports) - [3. Ports and Natural Disruptions](#3_Ports_and_Natural_Disruptions) - [4. Ports and Anthropogenic Disruptions](#4_Ports_and_Anthropogenic_Disruptions) - [5. Mitigation Mechanisms](#5_Mitigation_Mechanisms) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Defining Resilience The resilience concept is based on the Latin root ‘resilire’ (to leap back or to rebound), which refers to the ability of an entity or system to **recover from a disturbance or disruption**. There is some level of ambiguity as to the precise meaning of the notion of resilience. The three most commonly used definitions are: - **Engineering resilience** (physical sciences). The ability of a system to return to, or resume, its assumed equilibrium state or configuration following a shock or disturbance. The focus is on resistance to shocks and stability near equilibrium. - **Ecological resilience** (ecological sciences). The scale of shock or disturbance a system can absorb before it is destabilized and moved to another stable state or configuration. Focus is on the ‘far from equilibrium’ behavior of a system. - **Adaptive resilience** (complex adaptive systems theory). The ability of a system to undergo an anticipatory or reactionary reorganization of form and function to minimize the impact of a destabilizing shock. The focus is on the adaptive capability of a system. From a transportation and port perspective, resilience allows a **lower probability for a disruption**, and if it occurs, allows a port to **mitigate its impacts**. Therefore, the following definition is used: > A **resilient port** (or infrastructure) can cope with shocks, absorb disruptions, quickly recover, and restore operations to a level similar to or even above a baseline and adapt to changing conditions while continuing to develop and transform. The more important a transportation node or infrastructure is in supporting trade, supply chains, and the regional economy, the more relevant the concept of resilience becomes to port planning and operations. As ports can be exposed to a wide array of disruptions, it becomes essential to have infrastructure and operations that can recover from a disruption in a timely manner. This implies that a maritime transport system has the capability to learn from past disruptions and adapt accordingly. Still, it must be emphasized that more disruptions are not necessarily the result of increased risks, but rather of increased activity with a similar level of risk. More proactively, potential disruptions can be anticipated and mitigated. The new system is expected to be more resilient over [three core dimensions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/resilience-maritime-transportation-systems/ "The Resilience of Maritime Transportation Systems"): - **Absorptive capacity**. The ability of a mode or a terminal to absorb a disruption while maintaining a level of service. - **Adaptive capacity**. The ability to route cargo through different nodes and segments during a disruption in order to maintain a level of service. - **Restorative capacity**. The ability to recover to a level of service similar to, or even above, a baseline, prior to the disruption. Since maritime transport networks are composed of nodes and links, the concept of resilience has several implications for components, including modes, infrastructure, and terminals. Depending on the position of the port in the transport hierarchy, its vulnerability and resilience may have different consequences. The vulnerability of maritime networks has different implications depending on whether the port is a **hub or a gateway**. Disruptions at a hub will mostly impact maritime shipping networks, while disruptions at a gateway will mostly impact the hinterland. Logistical networks are also vulnerable to disruptions impacting one element of the supply chain and the connected activities that are upstream and downstream. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/concept_port_resilience.png?resize=900%2C482&ssl=1 "concept_port_resilience | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The resilience of Maritime Transportation SystemsThe resilience concept is often associated with other related key concepts: - **Agility** refers to the speed of the adaptation process, such as making fast and seamless changes when faced with disruptions. Rapid response and built-in policies and processes that facilitate change are attributes of an agile entity. An **agile supply chain** tries to achieve faster delivery and lead time flexibility. It deploys new technologies and methods, utilizes information systems, technologies, and data interchange facilities, integrates the whole business process, and enhances innovations throughout the chain. An agile port company typically relies on a flat organizational structure to speed up information flows between different departments and develops close and trust-based relationships with its customers and suppliers. - **Flexibility** is understood as the ability to respond to change with innovative solutions. Within a port context, a flexible port or port company can be altered with relative ease so as to be functional under new, different, or changing requirements in a cost-effective manner. - **Lean** refers to the reduction of waste in a system or supply chain. Lean supply chains demand continuous improvement processes that focus on eliminating waste or non-value added steps across the chain. Such a lean supply chain leads to superior financial performance for all organizations in the supply chain while reducing redundancy and increasing certain vulnerability aspects. However, reducing redundancies can have a negative impact on resilience. # 2. Shocks and Disruptions Impacting Ports Disruptions can come from **multiple sources**, some predictable, some random, and some unexpected. They can be **internal** to port operations when related to factors under the control of the port, such as breakage of equipment due to improper maintenance, a breach in security, or a lack of security measures. They can also be external to port operations when related to factors outside the control of the port, such as a hurricane or an economic recession. The impacts of predictable disruptions, such as weather events, can be assessed based on past events and their probability at a specific point in time, such as a year. A random disruption is an event that can occur, but the probability of its occurrence cannot be effectively assessed, particularly over a shorter time period. An unexpected disruption, sometimes referred to as a **Black Swan** event, is the outcome of circumstances that exceed reasonable expectations given the available information. The Black Swan concept was first introduced in the finance and managerial world in 2007, just before the major financial events that unfolded in 2008 and 2009. It is an event or occurrence that deviates beyond what is normally expected of a situation, which is extremely difficult to predict. The COVID-19 pandemic was the foremost example of a Black Swan event that has had profound and complex ramifications in every aspect of the port and shipping industry and global supply chains. In hindsight, all Black Swan events seem predictable. Still, in practice, they are very hard to identify and are so rare that they often change perception relative to the context surrounding the event. The term “crisis” is often used afterward to describe these events. The resilience of a port is **embedded** within its infrastructure and design. Two types of potential impacts on ports can be outlined. One is **disruptive**, impairing operations and causing delays, but leaving the infrastructure and equipment intact since the disruption is within design parameters. The other type of impact is **damaging**, where infrastructure and equipment are damaged or destroyed because the disruption exceeds design parameters. Although some infrastructure and equipment may not have been damaged, the damage that has occurred can prevent regular operations until it is repaired. Port resilience is associated with the structure of maritime shipping networks. These networks are a **[circuitous nodal hierarchy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-transportation-networks-vulnerabilities/ "Maritime Transportation Networks and Vulnerabilities")**, implying that services are commonly an arranged sequence of nodes (ports). Some hierarchies are simple, such as point-to-point services, while others can be complex with inter-range services that loop back to the port of origin and are connected to other networks. While point-to-point services reflect bulk shipping, container shipping is organized through a combination of deep-sea and feeder services, with transshipment hubs serving as the interface between network hierarchies. The vulnerability of maritime networks involves different considerations depending on whether the node is a hub or a gateway. Disruptions at a hub will mostly impact maritime shipping networks, while disruptions at a gateway will primarily affect the hinterland. This represents the primary consideration when examining port resilience and its relationship to its foreland or hinterland. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/maritime_transport_network_vulnerabilities.png?resize=900%2C497&ssl=1 "Maritime Transportation Networks and Vulnerabilities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maritime Transportation Networks and Vulnerabilities![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/supply_chain_distruptions.png?resize=900%2C389&ssl=1 "supply_chain_distruptions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Natural and Anthropogenic Supply Chains Disruptions in the 21st Century# 3. Ports and Natural Disruptions ## A. Extreme weather events Like most transportation modes, maritime transportation can be disrupted by extreme weather events. However, **ports are among the most resilient infrastructures** in the event of weather events. Snowstorms, thunderstorms, and high winds can impair crane operations and may even topple containers; however, the likelihood of infrastructure damage is low. Extreme heat can impair operations by rendering outdoor port work hazardous and can damage superstructures and infrastructures through thermal expansion. The most dramatic weather events are [**hurricanes**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/hurricanes-global-container-ports/ "Risk of Hurricanes for Global Container Ports, 2019"), which can shut down port facilities for several days while the water recedes from flooded areas and debris are cleared. Ports located within hurricane risk areas have plans that involve securing cranes and yard equipment to prevent them from toppling. Loaded containers can be stacked at safer locations within the yard, while empty container stacks can be stacked down to reduce toppling risks. The growth of the cruise industry has highlighted the risk of hurricanes, particularly in the [Caribbean](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-passengers-caribbean-ports-hurricanes/ "Cruise Passengers Handled at Caribbean Ports and Path of Atlantic Hurricanes Above Category 3"), which is the world’s largest destination market. Cruise lines tend to offer fewer cruises during the hurricane season, which spans from August to November, with peak hurricane activity typically occurring in September. Since the path of hurricanes can only be accurately predicted within a day or two of their occurrence, cruises are usually not canceled during a hurricane event. Only the port of call sequence can be altered to take in alternatives that are not at risk. The growth of the cruise industry in Asia is also increasing cruise activity in an area prone to hurricanes (typhoons). ## B. Geophysical disruptions Tectonic activity is the source of the most serious **geophysical disasters**. Earthquakes are a significant form of geophysical threat, as they are difficult to predict but generally occur in areas near tectonic plate boundaries. For ports, this risk is far from being uniform, but can be assessed within a reasonable level. For instance, approximately 100 container ports, accounting for 140 million TEUs, are located in areas considered high tectonic risk, implying a 20% risk over a 50-year period of exposure to an earthquake with a Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI) of 8 or higher (severe potential damage). This accounts for about 20% of the current container port activity. Large earthquakes can cause major damage to port infrastructure and terminal equipment, including ruptures in breakwaters, quaywalls, and terminal surfaces, the collapse of quay and yard cranes, or damage to container stacks. Earthquakes can also result in seismic liquefaction of saturated soils. Prior to an earthquake, the water pressure is relatively low. However, an earthquake can cause the water pressure to increase to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other. When liquefaction occurs, the ability of a soil deposit to support foundations reduces, which can lead to the tilting or sliding of quaywalls or the formation of major holes in terminal surfaces. The Kobe earthquake of 1995 represents one of the most disruptive geophysical events impacting port activities. Immediately after the event, the port was shut down, and repairs took approximately two years. Since Japan is a compact country, there were alternatives to ensure the continuity of maritime services through alternate ports. In January 2010, a large-scale earthquake occurred in Haiti and the Dominican Republic, causing a death toll of 300,000 people and severely damaging ports in the region. The port of Port-au-Prince was severely damaged. In early February 2023, a deadly earthquake measuring 7.8 on the Richter scale struck the border between Türkiye and Syria, severely damaging the port of LimakPort Iskenderun. The earthquake toppled most containers. A large fire broke out at the container terminal yard, forcing the port authority to suspend port operations. Carriers diverted containers to nearby ports and larger transshipment hubs such as Mersin in Turkey and Port Said in Egypt. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Hurricane-Container-Ports-1.png?resize=900%2C471&ssl=1 "Risk of Hurricanes for Global Container Ports, 2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Risk of Hurricanes for Global Container Ports 2022![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Cruise_Caribbean_Visits_Hurricane_Alley.png?resize=900%2C515&ssl=1 "Cruise Passengers Handled at Caribbean Ports and Path of Hurricanes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Passengers at Caribbean Ports and Path of Atlantic Hurricanes Above Category 3![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Container-Ports-Risk.png?resize=900%2C456&ssl=1 "Risk of Earthquake for Global Container Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Risk of Earthquake for Global Container Ports 2022## C. Climate change Additional natural risks to port activity fall under the [**multidimensional impacts of climate change**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/climate-change-and-its-potential-impacts-on-maritime-transportation/ "Climate Change and its Potential Impacts on Maritime Transportation"), many of which will potentially take place in the long term and are difficult to evaluate. In addition to the risk of hurricanes, which may be associated with it, rising sea levels are of direct concern to port activity. However, port terminals are resilient facilities designed to handle tidal ranges. Any potential sea-level rise will likely impact surrounding infrastructure, such as access roads, before disrupting port infrastructure. Thus, port infrastructure may not be significantly impacted, but its hinterland connectivity could be. Climate change can also affect the **hinterland river connectivity of ports**. For example, climate change is expected to result in significant fluctuations in water levels on key inland waterways, such as the Rhine in Europe and the Yangtze in China. Extended periods of extremely low water levels jeopardize the continuity of inland barge service operations and negatively affect the utilization level of inland vessels. Vessels have to sail below their actual loading capacity to restrict their draft. A similar risk associated with water supply has been observed over the [Panama Canal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/panama-canal-draft-limitation-containership-capacity/ "Effect of the Panama Canal Draft Limitation on Containership Capacity") and Great Lakes system, with a potential trend of higher water level fluctuations, with periods of lower than average intermixed with periods of higher than average. Navigation and shipping capacity become more challenging to plan, impacting new ships and equipment investments. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/climate_change_impacts_maritime.png?resize=900%2C508&ssl=1 "Climate Change and its Potential Impacts on Maritime Transportation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Potential Climate Change Impacts on Maritime Transportation![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/panama_canal_draft_limitation2.png?resize=900%2C367&ssl=1 "Effect of the Panama Canal Draft Limitation on Containership Capacity | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Effect of the Panama Canal Draft Limitation on Containership Capacity# 4. Ports and Anthropogenic Disruptions ## A. Accidents Anthropogenic disruptions are related to human activities, particularly managerial and operational errors and labor-related disruptions. **Accidents** at terminal facilities can be disruptive, but the vast majority have a limited impact on total capacity. Errors in ship maneuvering have damaged piers and even toppled cranes, resulting in the loss of terminal capacity and necessitating costly repairs. Infrastructure and equipment failures can create sporadic disruptions, but can be mitigated with predictive maintenance and operational safety. Another risk concerns **accidents in the access channel** that could result in a partial or complete blockage of the port terminal facilities or transoceanic passages. The **blockage of transoceanic passages** is rare but can have significant ramifications due to the cascading effects it creates along supply chains. For instance, the closure of the Suez Canal between 1967 and 1975 because of the conflicts between Israel and Egypt led to substantial disruptions in the shipping industry, with deviations via the Cape Route. In 2021, the Suez Canal was blocked for one week when the [ultra-large containership Ever Given ran aground](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-resilience/suez-canal-blockage-2021/ "Blockage of the Suez Canal, 2021"), causing disruptions in Europe-Asia trade routes and the associated supply chains. Unintentional vessel groundings can have a [wide range of causes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/causes-of-unintentional-vessel-grounding/), but navigation errors remain the most important. Ports with a long and relatively narrow access channel, such as Antwerp or [Hamburg](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/hamburg-port-blockage-2016/ "CSCL Indian Ocean Grounded on the Elbe, 2016"), are particularly at risk of blockage. In the worst-case scenario, an accident or incident on the access route (fairway or lock) can result in a full or partial **port blockage**. The potential impact of a port blockage varies from port to port, as options may be available to mitigate it. The direct effect of a blocked entrance would be that no maritime traffic can enter the port for the duration of the salvage of the blockage or repair of the lock, as was the case in 2024 for the Port of Baltimore, which was almost completely blocked after a containership collision caused the collapse of a major harbor bridge. This would mean that normal maritime-related activities would halt for at least a couple of days, potentially even for months. A significant share of all directly employed personnel involved in dock labor would become technically unemployed. Logistics companies located in the port would suffer since their main mode of transfer would no longer be available, forcing them to secure more costly transportation options. Relocation could become an option. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/117727771_ever-green1.jpg?resize=900%2C506&ssl=1 "Blockage of the Suez Canal, 2021 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Blockage of the Suez Canal 2021![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/causes_vessel_grounding.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Most Common Causes of Grounding Claims, 2013-2017 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Causes of unintentional vessel grounding![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Baltimore.png?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Impacts of the Baltimore Bridge Collapse on Access to Its Main Port Terminal Facilities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Impacts of the Baltimore Bridge Collapse on Access to Its Main Port Terminal Facilities![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/CSCL_INDIAN_OCEAN_16x9_Havariekommando.jpg?resize=900%2C506&ssl=1 "CSCL Indian Ocean Containership Grounded on the Elbe, 2016 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")CSCL Indian Ocean Containership Grounded on the Elbe 2016Moreover, **industrial activities** in the port and the immediate hinterland, such as steel plants and car assembly plants, might be seriously affected. They typically rely on the port for incoming and outgoing maritime cargo flows. Rerouting these flows via neighboring ports is often challenging, given the volumes involved and the impact on inter-port land traffic. The probability of such an event occurring is low to moderate. Ships continuously increase in size, making for smaller margin errors for pilots, including docking. Nautical authorities have established **stringent conditions** for large ships to enter ports or navigation channels, aiming to minimize accident risk as much as possible. Tests using ship simulators can first evaluate the risks associated with accommodating specific ship sizes in navigation channels and ports. A trial call of a ship can provide empirical verification of the simulation results and a good basis for clearance of the respective ship size and class. Traffic rules and separation schemes, port traffic control, and experienced pilots substantially reduce the risk. Still, a catastrophic failure always remains a possibility, even if the chance of occurrence is slim. The risk of accidents and port blockage can be further reduced by providing multiple access points, such as additional locks. The most disruptive events are linked with the use of the port as a **storage facility for hazardous goods**, such as chemicals and explosives. The [Tianjin port explosion of 2015](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/site-2015-tianjin-port-explosions/ "Site of the 2015 Tianjin Port Explosions"), the [Beirut port explosion of 2020](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/site-2020-beirut-port-explosion/ "Site of the 2020 Beirut Port Explosion"), and the [Chittagong container depot explosion of 2022](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/chittagong-port-explosion-2022/ "Site of the 2022 Chittagong Container Depot Explosion") are illustrative of the massive damage, loss of life, and disruptions a port industrial accident can generate. These events were the outcome of a fire that set off an explosion in stockpiled explosives and chemicals. While Tianjin was able to resume operations quickly because the explosion took place in the backport area, the Beirut explosion destroyed and severely damaged multiple piers and storage facilities. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/tinajin_port_explosions_2015.png?resize=900%2C725&ssl=1 "Site of the 2015 Tianjin Port Explosions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Site of the 2015 Tianjin Port Explosions![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/beirut_port_explosion_2020.png?resize=900%2C613&ssl=1 "Site of the 2020 Beirut Port Explosion | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Site of the 2020 Beirut Port Explosion![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/chittagong_explosion_2022-scaled.jpg?resize=900%2C546&ssl=1 "Site of the 2022 Chittagong Container Depot Explosion | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Site of the 2022 Chittagong Port ExplosionMany ports worldwide are home to a whole range of industrial activities, such as chemical and petrochemical clusters, steel plants, and automotive assembly plants. These industrial clusters can be the source of **major industrial disasters** ranging from fire, accident, or explosion in a local area to a large chemical spill affecting the entire port. The remote possibility exists for nuclear contamination since many nuclear plants are located in or near port areas. The impact of an industrial disaster depends on its nature. For example, an isolated fire could lay waste to part of a chemical plant and cause temporary problems for surrounding companies. Still, it will have no major effect on port operations. On the other hand, a full-scale chemical or even nuclear disaster could damage a large part of the port, causing human losses and blocking or heavily disrupting port activities for an extended period of time. Prolonged reparations and contamination could significantly damage the local economy. To avoid accidents, industrial facilities have to comply with the highest possible standards and are monitored continuously. Stringent regional and international standards apply in terms of fire prevention, firefighting, and industrial and environmental safety. Furthermore, the port community needs to ensure that extensive local or regional disaster management plans are in place to respond effectively in case of any event. ## B. Labor disputes **Labor disputes** resulting in strikes can hinder port and terminal operations and even result in a de facto port or terminal blockage. Labor unions are typically very visible in a port context, although major differences in union power can be observed across seaports and countries. Labor unions (representing dockworkers and pilots) initiate most port strikes, often disagreeing with planned port reform schemes, reforms of the nautical service provision, wage levels, remuneration, and overall working conditions and arrangements as part of collective bargaining agreement negotiations. The 2002 port strikes, involving 29 ports on the American West Coast, were highly disruptive events for the trans-Pacific trade and a key factor in maritime shipping lines, which further expanded all-water routes to the East Coast through the Panama Canal. This shift was a significant factor in the decision to expand the Panama Canal, which was completed in 2016. **Terminal automation** can also be a source of labor unrest. For example, the new APM Terminals terminal development at Maasvlakte 2 in Rotterdam faced strong opposition from local labor unions. They feared the possible loss of jobs and lower wages, given the shift from being standard quay crane drivers to remote operators of automated quay cranes. In October 2024, a 3-day strike on the American East and Gulf coasts shut down port operations, mainly over terminal automation, underlining the ubiquity of concerns about the automation of port labor. When a strike lasts several days or even weeks, the disruptions can spread to neighboring ports as many ships deviate to other terminals. Ports affected by regular and extended strikes can incur major **reputational damage** and a **loss of trust** from market players. The impacts can be far-reaching, including structural shifts in cargo volumes to rival ports and a sharp decline in port investments by international companies. Appropriate social dialogue structures and effective stakeholder relations management can help reduce the risk of strikes. Social dialogue through effective joint consultation bodies is considered the key to a sustainable relationship between employers and labor unions. When industrial relations are good, labor unions will have the opportunity to contribute to improving the service provision process and labor productivity. Unions can help dock workers and nautical staff participate effectively in improving performance by creating a safe environment in which to critique existing work methods and identify areas for improvement. A climate of constructive dialogue thus enhances social peace in ports. ## C. Economic and geopolitical events A category of disruptions is associated with the **derived demand of ports**, implying that port activity is bound to external demand factors largely outside its control. **Economic and political shocks** can indirectly disrupt port activities by impacting cargo demand. For instance, the 2008-2009 financial crisis was associated with substantial declines in port activity in several regions of the world. For ports such as [Los Angeles and Long Beach](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/san-pedro-bay-ports-container-volumes-market-share/ "San Pedro Bay Ports Container Volumes and Market Share"), it took almost a decade for the traffic to recover to pre-crisis levels. For a large port, such economic disruptions can result in a gap in the traffic generated that can reach millions of TEUs over the years. If infrastructure investments were made in years prior to the economic disruption, a port could face an enduring overcapacity situation that may test its **financial resilience**. Since future traffic expectations are important factors in terminal concessions and infrastructure investments, the lack of return on investments can undermine the viability of ports and maritime shipping. For instance, the [Hanjin bankruptcy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/hanjin-shipping-bankruptcy/ "The Hanjin Shipping Bankruptcy") of 2016 involved the world’s seventh-largest carrier, which was forced to cease operations in a market that was in a situation of overcapacity, with most shipping lines [posting negative returns](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/average-operating-margins-carriers-quarter/ "Average Operating Margins of Main Carriers by Quarter, 2008-2020"). Ports evolving in highly volatile markets are subject to traffic fluctuations, mostly attributed to economic factors. For example, Argentinian ports like Buenos Aires have experienced no growth since 2010, when they handled 1.9 million TEUs, and 2023, when they handled 1.5 million TEUs, with traffic fluctuating according to deteriorating economic conditions. One of the largest disruptions that impacted the resilience of ports and maritime shipping was the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020-21. While the 1918-19 Spanish Flu pandemic was devastating, international trade and port volumes were much more limited, reflecting the regional orientation of most economies. The Covid-19 pandemic took place in a highly integrated global economy and was associated with the rapid decline in global port activity in the first half of 2020. Still, ports were able to adapt to the widespread disruption, and many even faced a situation of under-capacity in the second half of 2020, as the demand bounced back faster than expected. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/san_pedro_teu2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "San Pedro Bay Ports Container Volumes and Market Share, 1980-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")San Pedro Bay Ports Container Volumes and Market Share 1980 2023![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/operating-margins-carrier-till-Q1-2026.png?resize=900%2C426&ssl=1 "Average Operating Margins of Main Carriers by Quarter, 2008-2026 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Average Operating Margins of Main Carriers by Quarter 2008 2020**Geopolitical events**, particularly conflicts, are acute disrupting factors for the ports involved. As a result of conflicts, port infrastructure can be damaged, pillaged, and unmaintained, undermining the capability to support basic demand for essential goods. Following the Arab Spring of 2011, several countries in North Africa and the Middle East faced social turmoil and, in some cases, the degeneration into civil war. The activity at Libyan (Tripoli, Benghazi), Syrian (Tartus, Latakia), and Yemeni (Aden) ports collapsed and has barely recovered. In the case of civil unrest, ports can become the focus of relief efforts where international aid arrives, creating unique sets of challenges as populations converge towards port facilities. Economic embargos can have adverse effects on port activity of both the country subject to sanctions and the ports of its trade partners. Iranian ports have been affected by successive waves of sanctions that began in 1979, following the Iranian Revolution. The case of Venezuela is also illustrative, as economic policy and the associated massive decline in economic activity since 2015 have undermined port volumes, such as in the leading national ports of Puerto Cabello and La Guaira. In 2022, the [Russian invasion of Ukraine](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/geostrategy-russian-ukrainian-ports/ "The Geostrategy of Russian and Ukrainian Ports") resulted in international sanctions curtailing its port activities and having an impact on the flows of several agricultural and energy commodity trades. In late 2023, the use of drones and missiles by [Houthi rebels in Yemen](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/routing-options-shanghai-rotterdam/ "Routing Options between Shanghai, Rotterdam and New York") was able to substantially curtail transits through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, impacting regional port activity. ## D. Information technologies A new range of disruptions has emerged over the last decade, as ports have become increasingly dependent on information technologies for management, operations, communication, and marketing. One type of disruption involves information technology failures that can undermine operations, particularly management systems, due to vulnerable automated terminals. **Cyberattacks** are an emerging risk, as the [2017 Petya Ransomware Cyber-Attack on Maersk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/petya-ransomware-cyber-attack-maersk/ "Petya Ransomware Cyber-Attack on Maersk") demonstrated. Port Community Systems (PCS) and other port-related platforms for information sharing and exchange are constantly subject to intrusion attempts, partly due to the potential value of the information contained, but more so for the high ransomware reward if an extensive port system is disrupted. Information technologies have underlined the critical importance of **[cyber-resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cyber-resiliency-measures/ "Cyber-Resiliency Measures for Information Technologies")** for the maritime and port industry. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/maersk_petya.png?resize=900%2C496&ssl=1 "Petya Ransomware Cyber-Attack on Maersk | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Petya Ransomware Cyber Attack on Maersk![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cyber-resiliency_measures.png?resize=900%2C517&ssl=1 "Cyber-Resiliency Measures for Information Technologies | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cyber Resiliency Measures for Information Technologies## E. Pandemics Pandemics represent an unpredictable but far-reaching risk. One of the largest disruptions that impacted ports and maritime shipping resilience was the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020-2022. While the 1918-1919 Spanish Flu pandemic was devastating, international trade and port volumes were much more limited, reflecting the regional orientation of most economies. The COVID-19 pandemic occurred in a highly integrated global economy and was associated with the rapid decline in global port activity in the first half of 2020. Still, ports were able to adapt to the widespread disruption. Many even faced a situation of under-capacity in the second half of 2020, as the demand bounced back faster than expected. The outcome was several supply chain disruptions, including port congestion. # 5. Mitigation Mechanisms Port authorities can play a vital role in advancing risk mitigation and adaptability, which can be undertaken using [two approaches](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/proactive-reactive-mitigation-port-resilience/ "Proactive and Reactive Mitigation for Port Resilience"): - **Proactive resilience** (resilience by design; preparedness and port risk management). Risk management strategies that seek to identify, assess, and mitigate risks, and address or mitigate risks before an event happens. It includes risk assessment, risk identification, and vulnerability assessment. Physical asset or infrastructure preparedness focuses on the physical capabilities of the port, including infrastructure, superstructure, or any other physical assets that may be needed to mitigate an expected risk. Process and people preparedness focuses on managerial capabilities required to mitigate an expected risk, including collaborative measures with stakeholders, such as carriers and infrastructure managers. - **Reactive resilience** (resilience by intervention; port crisis management and recovery). Crisis mitigation strategies that are aimed at responding to a crisis (a risk event) immediately after it has taken place, seeking to reduce its negative impacts. Incident response and adaptation focus on the required infrastructure, superstructure, or physical assets necessary to absorb disruptions, restore pre-existing conditions, or recover to a similar level. This mainly concerns repairs. Business continuity focuses on the required managerial and human resources to be mobilized to absorb the disruption and restore the pre-existing conditions. This mainly concerns operational adjustments, crisis communications, collaboration, and financial disbursements. An example is the variability of responses and measures that port authorities developed following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which helped build resilience capacities and contributed to avoiding any significant disruptions to operations. The same example illustrates that appropriate and **timely public policy initiatives** can facilitate the continuation of operations, relief, and recovery in the maritime transport sector. The comprehensive goal of the stated adaptation mechanisms is to keep port facilities operational, primarily as a fundamental node supporting supply chains, including any relief effort that may be required. Ports can act as a [**resilience platform**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-stronghold/ "The Port as a Stronghold"), which is a secure strategic asset able to ensure the continuity of supply chains and securely access their hinterland. The resilience of global supply chains cannot be assessed without a corresponding overview of the resilience of the port sector. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/proactive_reactive_mitigation_port_resilience.png?resize=900%2C432&ssl=1 "Proactive and Reactive Mitigation for Port Resilience | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Proactive and Reactive Mitigation for Port Resilience![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_resilience_platform.png?w=900&ssl=1 "The Port as a Resilience Platform | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Port as a Resilience Platform![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_terminal_infrastructure_investments.png?resize=900%2C391&ssl=1 "Port Terminal Infrastructure and Superstructure | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Terminal Infrastructure InvestmentsImproving port resilience requires mitigation mechanisms that either lessen the impact of disruptions or allow for a quicker recovery. ## A. Port infrastructure and superstructure **Ports can improve port [infrastructure and superstructure](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-terminal-infrastructure-investments/ "Port Terminal Infrastructure and Superstructure")** to withstand natural hazards, such as earthquakes, and anthropogenic risks, including accidents and hazardous materials. The profile of the investment is related to the risks involved, which can be ranked and prioritized. For instance, Japanese and Chilean ports have invested in infrastructure able to withstand earthquake stress at a level much higher than the standard. The risk of earthquakes is so high that the additional investments are perceived as fundamental. Breakwaters, access channels, basins, and turning basins are also part of the port infrastructure that needs to function properly and be able to cope with technical changes in ship design, particularly economies of scale. The port superstructure concerns terminal equipment, particularly cranes, which are the most important for terminal operations. ## B. Traffic diversion Ports can plan **traffic diversion strategies** that consider the closure of elements of the port, such as a specific terminal or an access corridor. This can involve contingencies to use different terminals within the port. For hinterland access, this can involve an alternative mode or corridor. The ultimate strategy is to consider a complete traffic diversion if the port is forced to close for an extended period due to severe disruptions and infrastructure damage. This was the case in 1995 after the Kobe earthquake, when traffic needed to be rerouted. It also occasionally happens with short-lived disruptions where a few ships can be diverted to an alternative port, such as in the aftermath of the Tianjin and Beirut port explosions. Cruise lines also redirect cruises to alternative ports of call during a hurricane and, on rare occasions, are forced to switch to a different home port. ## C. Preparedness **Preparedness** involves the positioning of equipment, parts, and materials to replace or repair damaged facilities. It also identifies key personnel who need to be available to operate the terminal and repair damaged infrastructure and equipment. This improves the restorative capacity of the port terminal at the cost of duplication (more parts and equipment than necessary for standard operations) and higher inventory costs. The key challenge is to assess the quantity to store, considering potential risks and disruptions, in order to build redundancy in operations and infrastructure. ## D. Hazmat reporting To prevent industrial accidents, regulations governing **hazardous materials** must be rigorously enforced. However, industrial accidents often occur not because regulations are not followed but because authorities are unaware of the nature, extent, and conditions in which hazardous materials can be stored within port facilities. Therefore, such regulations cannot be effective without a reporting and accounting system. Growing concerns about cybersecurity issues have underlined that investments in **information technologies** have become a crucial element of port resilience. This can involve continuous monitoring of breaches and the vetting of key users, as well as secure information exchange protocols and the comprehensive backup of databases. ## E. Satellite facilities **Satellite facilities**, such as container depots and inland terminals, allow for support of port operations, relieve congestion, and offer a buffer to accommodate volatility. Off-site office facilities can be set to accommodate the additional managerial workforce and, particularly, to provide a location where management can operate if the on-terminal office facilities are forced to close temporarily. The **relocation of terminal facilities** to lower-risk areas represents the most drastic mitigation strategy. It can occur when a terminal has been damaged to the extent that repairs are not cost-effective, so shutting a terminal down becomes an alternative. A new site is selected at a location assessed as more resilient and less prone to disruptions. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 10.1 Performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/ce) - [Chapter 10.3 Effectiveness](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/) - [Chapter 11.3 Port planning and development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/) - [Ports and the COVID-19 Pandemic](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/ports-and-pandemic/ "Ports and the COVID-19 Pandemic") - [Resilient maritime logistics: Understand risks, respond and adapt](https://resilientmaritimelogistics.unctad.org/). (External link: UNCTAD) ## References - Button, M., O. Davey and A. Leitch (2021) Resilience4Ports: Gateways to a resilient future. Resilience Shift, UK. - Linkov, I. and J.M. Palma-Oliviera (eds), 2017. Risk and Resilience, Amsterdam: Springer. - McKinsey Global Institute (2020). Risk, resilience, and rebalancing in global value chains. - Rodrigue, J-P and G.W.Y. Wang, 2020. Cruise Shipping Supply Chains and the Impacts of Disruptions: The Case of the Caribbean, Research in Transportation Business and Management. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100551> - Touzinsky, K.F., B.M. Scully, K.N. Mitchell and M.M. Kress (2018) “Using Empirical Data to Quantify Port Resilience: Hurricane Matthew and the Southeastern Seaboard”, Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering, Vol 144, No. 4. - UNCTAD (2022) [Building Capacity to Manage Risks and Enhance Resilience: A Guidebook for Ports](https://resilientmaritimelogistics.unctad.org/), UNCTAD/TCS/DTL/INF/2022/3. - Vonck, I. Notteboom, T., 2016., Panarchy within a port setting. Journal of Transport Geography, 51, 308-315, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.10.011> ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 9.1 – Inter-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/) **Published:** September 29, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Theo Notteboom and Dr. Athanasios Pallis > Ports compete for trades, with terminals as the competing units, logistics, transport, and industrial enterprises as the chain managers of the respective trades with port authorities and port policymakers as co-developers. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. The Port Competition Concept](#1_The_Port_Competition_Concept) - [2. Geographical and Functional Levels of Port Competition](#2_Geographical_and_Functional_Levels_of_Port_Competition) - [3. Port Competitive Advantages](#3_Port_Competitive_Advantages) - [4. Determinants of Port Competitiveness](#4_Determinants_of_Port_Competitiveness) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. The Port Competition Concept The globalization of production and consumption, the emergence of a global transport network, and changes in inter-port relations, improved port-hinterland relationships, and logistics have created **greater competition among ports**. Shippers, logistics service providers, and shipping lines do not necessarily choose a port, but they select a transport chain in which a port is merely a node. To meet the requirements of trade and international supply chains, ports must be able to accommodate and handle larger and more numerous ships, as well as provide faster hinterland transport. These trends and the expansion of the role of the private sector in port activities have incited ports to become more market-oriented, innovative, and responsive to the needs of the actors involved in the trades that pass through the port. Port competition has become a complex and [multifaceted concept](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/dimensions-inter-port-competition/ "Dimensions of Inter-Port Competition"). The nature and characteristics of competition depend, among other things, upon the type of the **competing ports** (feeder port, hub port) and the **cargo group** (containers, liquid bulk, dry bulk, non-containerized general cargo). In container transport, a distinction must be made between the large load centers, or main/hub ports, and the smaller regional or feeder ports. The load centers are primarily competing for deepsea intercontinental liner services, in which large ships of up to 24,000 TEU are being deployed. Regional ports strive to establish connections with as many nearby load centers as possible and maintain good regional hinterland connectivity. Similar distinctions must be made in passenger ports. In the cruise market, homeports are primarily competing to be the starting/ending point of cruises, and smaller cruise ports-of-call seek inclusion in the itineraries planned by cruise lines. **Terminals are the primary focus** of the competitive strategy, not ports. Competition between ports has increasingly been replaced by competition among market players who often are present in more than one port ([global terminal operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminals-worlds-major-port-holdings/ "Container Terminals of the World’s Major Terminal Operators, 2021") such as PSA, DP World, Hutchison Ports, and APM Terminals) or multimodal logistics and transport service providers who, in addition to operating various transport modes, have also combined stevedoring, storage, forwarding, and other activities in one bundle for shippers. Port competition can also involve rivalry among port authorities with a view to offering the best infrastructure and facilities (both material and non-material) to all actors involved in the supply chains of the various trades, particularly stevedoring companies, shipping companies, shippers, and multimodal operators. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/dimensions_inter_port_competition2.png?resize=900%2C457&ssl=1 "Dimensions of Inter-Port Competition | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Dimensions of Inter Port Competition![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Terminal-Surface-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Terminals of the World’s Major Terminal Operators, 2021 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminals of the Worlds Major Terminal Operators 2021The complex nature of seaport competition is evident in the multiple competitive levels that can be distinguished. # 2. Geographical and Functional Levels of Port Competition ## A. Intra-port competition Private port companies often compete to handle cargoes at terminals and provide other port services, such as towage and bunkering. For the port authority or the port itself as a whole, such competition can serve as a management method to **improve the efficiency of port activities**. Competition between operators or providers of facilities within the same port can generally increase port efficiency and improve services. However, the need to realize economies of scale and reach what is commonly referred to as the **Minimum Efficient Scale** (MES), as well as the existence of competition from operators in other ports, may justify an operational monopoly in port activities. **Basic infrastructural investment decisions** by port or regional authorities very often influence the playing field for intra-port competition. For example, in many larger ports, not all container terminals have the same draft conditions, reducing options for very large container vessels. Therefore, even if there are a handful of terminals in a large port area, the largest container vessels might be able to call only at one terminal ([Chapter 9.2](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=226) provides a detailed discussion on intra-port competition). ## B. Inter-port competition within a multi-port gateway region The multi-port gateway region concept provides an extended framework for inter-port competition (see [Chapter i.1](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3157)). Many stevedoring companies are expanding their activities over **more than one port in the same maritime range** or port region. The increasingly footloose character of shipping companies prompts port authorities to engage in aggressive competition tactics, which can be related to two layers of competitiveness: - At the **port authority level**, the primary challenge is to provide the efficient basic infrastructure (docks, quays) and information technology (IT) facilities, as well as logistics and distribution facilities, while maintaining the lowest port user costs. - At the **terminal level**, the competition mainly focuses on price, handling time, flexibility, and productivity. When ports in the same gateway region do not fall under the same national government, government policies can impact the conditions and level of competition among sub-groups. For instance, [Dutch ports versus Belgian ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/european-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/ "The European Container Port System and its Multi-port Gateway Regions"), or the port of [Singapore versus Malaysian ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/east-asian-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/ "The East Asian Container Port System and its Multi-port Gateway Regions"), or the [Canadian ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert versus Northwestern American ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/north-american-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/ "The North American Container Port System and its Multi-Port Gateway Regions"). Regional authorities often aim to secure complementary product-market developments in neighboring (rival) ports of the same port region. Therefore, they aim to provide a framework that enables each seaport to manage its port-specific advantages while also promoting cooperation. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-European-Multi-Port-Gateways.png?resize=900%2C700&ssl=1 "The European Container Port System and its Multi-port Gateway Regions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The European Container Port System and its Multi port Gateway Regions![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-East-Asia-Multi-Port-Gateways.png?resize=900%2C700&ssl=1 "The East Asian Container Port System and its Multi-port Gateway Regions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The East Asian Container Port System and its Multi port Gateway Regions![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-North-American-Multi-Port-Gateways.png?resize=900%2C700&ssl=1 "The North American Container Port System and its Multi-Port Gateway Regions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The North American Container Port System and its Multi Port Gateway Regions## C. Inter-port competition within a port range The third level of competition is the port range, which can be defined as a group of ports situated at the same seashore and **sharing a similar hinterland** (see [Chapter i.1](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3157)). Within port ranges, competition can be observed, particularly for discretionary cargo bound to an inland destination. For example, within the Hamburg-Le Havre range, the most significant port range in Europe in terms of cargo throughput, port cooperation initiatives are primarily based on the exchange of information (aimed at improving mutual understanding) rather than real structural cooperation. Intra-range competition in the Hamburg-Le Havre range is reinforced by the fact that the ports are spread over different countries (Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and France), each following its own port policy. Several major ports located in different countries are competing for the status of a nodal point within a European transport network. In North America, ports along the East and West coasts compete along their respective ranges for inbound and outbound cargo flows. ## D. Inter-range competition The fourth and last level of port competition involves the **rivalry between port ranges**. For example, the gradual completion of one European transport network and the growth in hub-feeder port relations have intensified inter-range competition in Europe, such as between the Hamburg-Le Havre range and the Mediterranean ports. Inter-range competition necessitates a unified approach to port development, as disparate policies distort the playing field and consequently lead to inefficient freight flow patterns. However, such a common approach is often complicated even when supra-national authorities, like the European Commission, are involved. In North America, ranges such as the East, West, and Gulf coasts are competing to access the extensive markets of the Midwest. Other parts of the world have much more limited inter-range competition due to more limited hinterland transport capabilities. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Top-15-EU-2023-1.png?resize=900%2C558&ssl=1 "Top 15 Container Ports in the European Union | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Top 15 container ports in the European Union in 2023![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/EU-container-ports-youtube.png?resize=900%2C444&ssl=1 "Container Port Landscape in the EU | Port Economics, Management and Policy")# 3. Port Competitive Advantages The **competitive position of a port** is determined by its competitive offering to shippers and shipping lines for specific trade routes, geographical regions, and other ports to which the port is connected. However, in the broader dimension, the competitiveness of a port is determined by the range of **competitive advantages** that the port acquires or creates over time. Port competitiveness is closely tied to the **array of resources** available for its business and strategy, providing the capabilities to perform activities. These capabilities are the primary source of competitive advantage. To become or remain competitive, ports and their stakeholders must identify, cultivate, and leverage their **core competencies**. > Core competencies are the collective knowledge within an organization, particularly in how to coordinate diverse skills and integrate multiple streams of technology. The ability to consolidate the port’s capabilities and skills into competencies that enable adapting to changing opportunities is an important source of competitive advantage for port management. A competency can only be considered as a core competency for a sustainable competitive advantage if it exhibits the following **[five characteristics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/sustainable-competitive-advantage-ports/ "Sustainable Competitive Advantage of Ports")**: - **Inimitability**. Relates to how easily other ports can imitate a core competency. If it is difficult for a rival port or actor to imitate a port’s competence, the probability of generating a sustainable competitive advantage is increased. However, inimitability usually does not last forever and can be a depreciating asset. A port can outmaneuver its competitors by focusing on resources that are inherently inimitable or by leveraging processes that are difficult to replicate. A number of [core competencies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/core-competency-port/) are practically unchangeable or inimitable by **nature**, simply because they are physically unique, namely geographical location. Other core competencies can only be built through a **process** of continuous improvement and enhancement, such as customer service. If a core competence is based on the complexity of technologies and skills, it will be difficult for competing ports to imitate. Therefore, it will have a higher probability of generating an enduring competitive advantage. Core competencies can be location-bound or non-location-bound port-specific advantages depending on the possibility of transferring the competence to other ports or locations. - **Durability**. The sustainability of a port’s competitive advantage depends upon the rate at which the underlying resources and capabilities depreciate in time. A core competence should possess a high degree of durability. For example, as port technology evolves rapidly, a competitive advantage based solely on technological competencies is less durable than one based on reputation and trust. Therefore, port management will have to invest relatively more in the former competence in order to retain its durable character. - **Transparency**. A core competency that is identifiable and visible to other ports. If competing ports can identify the different underlying resources and capabilities that contribute to a port’s competitive advantage, they may be able to learn about the port’s strategy relatively quickly. Therefore, a competence with high transparency is less likely to lead to a sustainable competitive advantage. In contrast, port competencies, based on a continuous process of improvement and a multitude of skills and capabilities, show little transparency, which is why they are fairly sustainable. - **Transferability**. The potential of a core competency to be transferred into another context. This element is related to location-bound as well as port-specific advantages that are not bound to a specific location. The higher the immobility of resources and capabilities needed for building up competitive advantage, the lower the transferability. High immobility can result from geographical factors, high transaction costs, or imperfect information. It discourages competing ports from imitating strategies if a competing port faces little or no difficulty acquiring the necessary resources and capabilities to imitate a competitive advantage that will be short-lived. - **Replicability**. If a competing port cannot or does not wish to acquire the valuable resources and capabili­ties needed to gain success externally, it can try to acquire these resources through internal investments. However, the non-replicability of resources reflects the difficulties associated with successfully developing resources and capabilities internally. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ports_competitive_advantage.png?resize=900%2C308&ssl=1 "Sustainable Competitive Advantage of Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Sustainable Competitive Advantage of Ports![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/core_competencies_ports.png?resize=900%2C543&ssl=1 "Classification of the Core Competencies of Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Classification of the Core Competencies of PortsBesides these five elements, the ability to appropriate the returns of a specific resource or capability is important for building sustainable competitive advantage. This means that a resource or capability of a particular port will be more valuable if the port succeeds in directing returns and profits to itself, rather than to third parties. A broad array of **core competencies** forms the foundations for (further) development of **core services**, each offering a range of **specialized port services**. In fact, core services are the physical embodiment of one or more core competencies and provide crucial input for specialized port services. For example, a port that develops core competencies in general port productivity and covered storage facilities will be able to use these core competencies to develop core services in covered storage of general cargo. These core services themselves will form the cornerstone for specialized port services, like the handling and storage of forest products. # 4. Determinants of Port Competitiveness The competitiveness of ports can only be understood by following a supply chain approach. Port and route selection criteria are related to the entire network in which the port is one node. Ports that are being chosen will help minimize the sum of seaport and inland costs, including inventory and quality considerations of shippers. Port choice becomes more of a function of the overall network cost and performance. A well-coordinated logistics and distribution function at seaports, with the cooperation of various service providers, facilitates the integration of ports into advanced logistical and distributional networks through a new range of high-quality, value-adding services. The traditional view of a port’s competitiveness primarily considers **standalone physical attributes of a port,** such as: - **Physical and technical infrastructure**, such as the nautical accessibility profile, terminal infrastructure, and equipment, as well as the hinterland accessibility profile. - The **geographical location** in relation to the immediate and distant hinterlands and the main shipping lanes. - **Port efficiency**. - **Connectivity** of the port to transport networks on seaside and landside. - **Quality and costs of auxiliary services** such as pilotage, towage, and customs. - Efficiency and costs of **port management and administration**. - Availability, quality, and costs of [logistic value-added activities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ports-and-distribution-networks/). - Availability, quality, and costs of [port community systems (PCS)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/#3_Port_Community_Systems_and_Blockchains) and other digital solutions. - Port security/safety and [environmental profile ](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/green-supply-chain-management-ports/)of the port. - **Port reputation**. - Reliability, capacity, frequency, and costs of inland [transport services by truck, rail, inland barge](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-hinterlands-regionalization/), and pipelines. The sole focus on physical attributes of a port when assessing its competitiveness does not mirror the reality of (global) supply chains. Ports compete not as individual places that handle ships but as crucial links within global supply chains. Ports and terminals have an incentive to seek effective integration into these supply chains. The **main selection criteria of logistics companies and shippers** include: - Competitive [price of port services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-pricing/). - Reliable services. - Low time costs for goods. - Cargo security and damage prevention. - Facilitation through the use of [information platforms](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/#3_Port_Community_Systems_and_Blockchains). - Good intermodal [connectivity to the hinterland](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/#4_Hinterland_Accessibility). The **out-of-pocket costs** of transporting goods between origins and destinations, as well as to and from the port (including cargo handling costs), constitute just one component of the costs considered in supply chain routing decisions made by shippers or their representatives. The more integrated supply chain decision-making becomes, the more the focus shifts to the **generalized logistics costs**. The implications for port and modal choice are far-reaching. Shippers or their representatives may opt for more expensive ports or more expensive hinterland solutions if the savings overcompensate for the additional port-related and modal out-of-pocket costs, thereby offsetting other logistics costs. These other costs typically consist of: - **Time costs** of the goods, such as the opportunity costs associated with the capital tied up in the transported goods and the costs related to economic or technical depreciation of the goods. - **Inventory costs** linked to the holding of safety stocks. - **Indirect logistics costs** linked to the aggregated quality within the transport chain and the willingness of the various actors involved to tune operations to the customer’s requirements, namely in terms of responsiveness to variable flows, information provision, and ease of administration. However, the **out-of-pocket costs** do not fully explain routing decisions. [**Connectivity** via liner services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-container-shipping/country-port-level-liner-shipping-connectivity-index/ "Country and Port Level Liner Shipping Connectivity Index") and connectivity via rail or barge (where available) remain important factors in route decisions since they imply higher frequencies and better connectivity to the foreland and the hinterland. In practice, a port with high connectivity is typically able to attract more cargo from the distant hinterland, even if another port with much lower connectivity also offers solutions for the hinterland routing of goods. Logistics actors and transport operators have designed more complex networks that require a high level of reliability. The current development and expansion of global supply chains and the associated intermodal transport systems rely on the synchronization of different geographical scales. The efficiency of transport systems can be significantly hampered if shipments are delayed, even with low transport costs. But when the synchronization level increases, the sea-land network as a whole becomes more unstable. This results in additional costs when finding alternative routes. In the context of reducing the risk of major disruptions, logistics players tend to opt for a **flexible network design** offering various routing alternatives. This “not all the eggs in one basket” approach implies a specific port-corridor combination rarely finds itself in a position where the market will forgive major flaws in system performance. To add to the complexity, it is worth noting that the competitive position of a port cannot always be reduced to cost and quality factors. Historical, psychological, political, and personal factors can result in a routing of flows that diverge from a perfect market-based division. [Bounded rationality, inertia, and opportunistic behavior ](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/inter-port-competition/behavior-port-choice/)are among the behavioral factors that could lead to a deviation from the optimal solution. The last cost dimension concerns the external costs (congestion, traffic safety, and environmental damage) generated by port and inland transport activities. When significant differences exist in external costs between modes or when these external costs are not internalized in a balanced manner, the resulting **market imbalances** may enhance port and route choices that deviate from a situation in which external costs are more balanced and equally internalized in the generalized logistics costs. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/economics-rationality.jpg?resize=838%2C570&ssl=1 "Behavioral Factors Influencing Cargo Routing Decisions and Port Choice | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Behavioral factors influencing cargo routing decisions and port choice--- # Related Topics - [Chapter 3.1 The Spatial Transition of Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/) - [Chapter 4.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/) - [Chapter 9.2 Intra-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/) - [Chapter 9.3 Port Marketing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/) - [Chapter 9.4 Port Pricing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/) --- ## References - Barleta E.P. and Pallis A.A. (2024). Hierarchy and mobility of Latin America and Caribbean container ports, *Journal of Transport Geography*, Vol. 121, 104011. - Brooks, M. R., Pallis, T., Perkins, S. (2014). Port investment and container shipping markets: Roundtable summary and conclusions/ International Transport Forum Discussion Paper, No. 2014-03. - Coeck, C., Notteboom, T., Verbeke, A., Winkelmans, W., (1996) A resource-based perspective on strategic port planning, Proceedings of the 11th International Harbour Congress, Antwerp, pp. 29-40. - Kollia S. and Pallis A.A. (2024). Competition effects of vertical integration in container ports: Assessing the European Commission decisional practice. *Maritime Business Review*, 9(1), 74-94. - Notteboom, T. and W.Y. Yap (2012) Port Competition and Competitiveness, in W.R. Talley (ed) The Blackwell Companion to Maritime Economics, London: Blackwell. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 10.1 - Port Performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/) **Published:** November 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Theo Notteboom > The concept of port performance is formed by two interconnected components: efficiency and effectiveness. Resilience to disruptions emerges as the additional third component. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Port Performance Components](#1_Port_Performance_Components) - [2. Performance Measurement: International Initiatives](#2_Performance_Measurement_International_Initiatives) - [3. Performance Measurement: Regional Associations Initiatives](#3_Performance_Measurement_Regional_Associations_Initiatives) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Port Performance Components The pursuit of performance measurement has long been a key concern for ports. Port managers, whether port authorities or terminal operators, need to **organize complex processes [efficiently](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-efficiency/)** **and [effectively](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-effectiveness/)** to find the best ways to capture value for their customers and address the concerns of stakeholders. In combination, these port performance components provide port operators and government policy-makers with essential feedback for assessing whether they meet their strategic objectives. Performance refers to the execution of port activities in a manner that **meets targets** set by owners and service providers and **fulfills the expectations** of port customers (users). Operating in a given economic context, and with the broader structures defined by the [port governance ](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=159)models endorsed and the targets set, ports and their operators develop their strategies. This involves organizing the use of available resources, planning their expansion, and managing interactions between ports and their users to improve the services offered. The outcome of these efforts will enable the port (or a specific actor) to reach its set targets. It will inform any necessary realignment of the governance model and the reorganization of available resources to improve the port’s performance further. Performance is a broad concept covering almost any **objective of operational management and the competitive excellence** of a firm and its activities. In the case of ports, based on the complexity of the contemporary port product, each actor (authorities, operators, and stakeholders) engages in multi-faceted examinations of different performance components. These are based on the development of several, occasionally unique performance indicators grounded on the distinction between terminal operations, cargo transfer operations, port logistics, and production and postponed manufacturing activities. The users of these products and the respective selection criteria for each specific service offered at a port differ substantially. Given the spatial and functional expansion of ports (port regionalization), linking and integrating operational design and strategy within the multi-institutional and cross-functional port sector has become an emerging dimension of port performance. Tailoring performance measurements and communication of performance measures to specific objectives is increasingly common. The addition of **performance indicators** is a key development in recent port performance measurement. Depicting the taxonomy of the applied performance measurement dimensions, efficiency and utilization interact with quality and effectiveness. Service quality measures how the customer is experiencing the expected level of service. Thus, a practical and straightforward view of service quality aligns with what the customer expects and experiences. For a port to respond to stakeholders satisfactorily, performance measures need to focus on the linkage between expectations and performance. > The concept of port performance is formed by two interconnected components, namely [efficiency](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3658) and [effectiveness](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3661). **Efficiency** has been noted as “doing things right”, while **effectiveness** is “doing the right things.” In combination, these port performance components also provide government policy-makers with essential feedback for assessing the governance structure of ports in meeting national strategic objectives. Ports use several indicators to measure each of these performance components and their various dimensions. Indicators are quantitative or qualitative factors or variables that provide a reliable and straightforward means to measure achievement, reflect the changes connected to an intervention, or help assess the performance of an actor. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/linking_port_governance_performance.png?resize=900%2C489&ssl=1 "linking_port_governance_performance | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Reforms The Port Performance based Realignment Process![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_performance_continuum.png?resize=900%2C406&ssl=1 "Port Performance: The Efficiency Continuum | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Port Performance Continuum**[Resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-resilience/) to disruptions** emerges as the third component of port performance. Along with the changing economic environment, unexpected events, such as economic crises, political events, natural disasters, cybersecurity incidents, and health crises, all challenge the infrastructural and operational integrity of ports, terminals, and their industrial and logistics sites. When such events take place, extended supply chains are put at risk. Thus, efforts to enhance port efficiency, effectiveness, and, ultimately, competitiveness provide an additional port performance component. Resilience is defined as the capability to anticipate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from significant multi-hazard threats that affect and disrupt maritime networks. Differences in resilience are the outcome of diverse strategies, policies, governance practices, or simply different approaches to terminal operations. # 2. Performance Measurement: International Initiatives Each port measures its performance. It then uses the outcome of this measurement to make any necessary strategic, structural, operational, or other adjustments to improve its competitiveness. In addition, interest in measuring performance at the port industry level is expanding, with efforts to measure port and related supply chain performance at the industry level developed by two different groups of actors. This reverses a past situation in which this interest was relatively low compared to other infrastructure industries, like the airport industry, where several independent industry performance management initiatives already exist. However, widely accepted measurements that provide opportunities to benchmark against industry averages for individual companies, aggregate industry performance figures for industry stakeholders, and link industry performance to macro-indicators of country performance are absent in the global port industry, despite efforts that refer to either port, port authority, or operational terminal performance. The first group of actors developing indexes measuring aspects of port performance at a global or regional scale includes intergovernmental **international** **organizations** such as [the World Bank](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-world-bank-and-port-performance-measurement/), [UNCTAD](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/unctad-and-port-performance-measurement/), [OECD](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/oecd-and-port-performance/), and the [European Commission](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-european-commission-and-port-performance-measurement/). These initiatives aim to empower decision-makers to better understand the missing links in improving the competitiveness of an industry of critical importance for trade prosperity by monitoring and comprehending trends occurring in ports worldwide or within broader constituencies. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/World-Bank.jpg?resize=900%2C610&ssl=1 "The World Bank Group and Port Performance | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The World Bank Group and port performance![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/UNCTAD.jpg?resize=900%2C506&ssl=1 "UNCTAD Review of Maritime Transport | Port Economics, Management and Policy")UNCTAD and port performance ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/OECD.jpg?resize=900%2C600&ssl=1 "OECD-ITF and ort Performance | Port Economics, Management and Policy")OECD ITF and port performance![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/European-Union-flag.jpg?resize=900%2C635&ssl=1 "The EU and Port Performance | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The EU and port performanceAmong the most influential indicators developed by international organizations to compare countries across economic performance criteria and provide evidence of the **performance of ports**, either at the port or country level, are: - The **[Logistics Performance Index](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/logistic-performance-index/)** (LPI), released by the World Bank, is included as a component of the availability of efficient seaports. - The **[Liner Shipping Connectivity Index](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/country-port-level-liner-shipping-connectivity-index/ "Country and Port Level Liner Shipping Connectivity Index")** (LSCI), released by UNCTAD, incorporates many port-related characteristics related to the connectivity of port systems, such as the number of shipping lines offering services to the national port system and the largest ship sizes. - The **[Container Port Performance Index](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/container-port-productivity-index/ "Container Port Productivity Index, 2023")** (CPPI), released by the World Bank, ranks a large sample of container ports according to the turnaround time of ship calls. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-LSCI-2024.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Country and Port Level Liner Shipping Connectivity Index, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Country and Port Level Liner Shipping Connectivity Index 2024![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-LPI-2023.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Logistic Performance Index, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Logistic Performance Index 2023![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Port-CPPI-2024.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Port Productivity Index, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Port Productivity Index 2023# 3. Performance Measurement: Regional Associations Initiatives The second group of actors developing industry-level performance measurement initiatives concerns **regional or global associations** representing ports and port authorities, such as: - In the Americas, the **American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA)** has implemented a Customer Service Initiative for East Coast US ports to measure user perceptions of service quality. Additionally, AAPA has successfully collected traffic data on American ports. These datasets on trade and traffic flows are made freely available via its website. AAPA also reports on the economic importance of ports to the US economy. - In Europe, the **European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO)** has mainly focused on the environmental performance of European ports via the ECOPORTS initiative. ESPO has also been involved in the successive European projects PPRISM and PORTOPIA, exploring how to detail the different dimensions of port performance and the best ways that the related measurements might develop within a balanced, integrated, and objective approach. National or sub-regional port associations and committees also collect port performance data. Examples include Puertos del Estado (Spain), Assoporti (Italy), the Baltic Ports Organisation (BPO), Danske Havne (Denmark), and the Finnish Ports Association. - In Asia, the **Indian Ports Association (IPA)**, which promotes the growth and development of all major ports under the supervisory control of the Ministry of Shipping, publishes performance metrics on cargo and vessel traffic and port equipment. The **ASEAN Ports Association (APA)** was founded in 1975, with port performance statistics primarily reported on national websites, such as APA Malaysia. These examples are indicative of the collective interest of ports in increasing the knowledge and awareness of port industry performance and developing a shared vision toward this end. On a global scale, the International Association of Ports & Harbors (IAPH) is also advancing similar initiatives within the context of its **World Ports Sustainability Program**, which has been in progress since 2017 and was developed through a strategic partnership with other associations. Among these initiatives is the World Ports Tracker report, which surveys and reports market and sustainability trends in world ports (i.e., vessel calls, volume expectations, investments, and current status and plans in the field of digitalization, sustainability, and safety). The Maritime Anti-Corruption Network (ΜΑCN), with a membership reaching 70% of the global fleet, identifies existing gaps in the commitments of actors involved in the clearance of vessels arriving at world ports. In this context, it has developed the **Global Port Integrity Platform** (GPIP), which measures the commitments of over 300 ports worldwide to practices that reduce the potential for corrupt demand or contribute to preventive reactions when and if a corruption demand occurs. GPIP reports per port on the presence of (a) systems for electronic documentation exchange, (b) specific port procedures for vessel clearance and inspection, (c) an anti-corruption policy, (d) a whistleblowing mechanism when corruption incidents emerge, and (e) a complaints and appeals mechanism. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 10.2 Efficiency](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/) - [Chapter 10.3 Effectiveness](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/) - [Chapter 10.4 Resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/) ## References - Arvis, J.F., Vesin, V., Carruthers, R. and Ducruet, C. (2019). Maritime Networks, Port Efficiency, and Hinterland Connectivity in the Mediterranean. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. - Brooks, M.R. and Pallis A.A. (2008). Assessing port governance models: Process and performance components. Maritime Policy and Management, 35(4), 411-432. - Chung, K.C. (1993). Port performance indicators, Infrastructure notes, no. PS-6, Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. - Ferrari, C., Merk, O., Bottasso, A., Conti, M. and Tei, A. (2012). Ports and Regional Development: a European Perspective, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2012/07, Paris: OECD. - Merk, O. and Dang, T. (2012). Efficiency of world ports in container and bulk cargo (oil, coal, ores and grain). OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2012/09. Paris: OECD. - Saragiotis, P., de Langen, P. (2017). Achieving Full and Effective Corporatization of Port Authorities: Reform Models from Global Experience, Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. - UNCTAD (2016). Port Performance Linking Performance Indicators to Strategic Objectives, Port Management Series, 4, Geneva: UNCTAD. - UNCTAD (various issues). Review of Maritime Transport, Geneva: UNCTAD. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 11.5 - Port-City Relationships](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/) **Published:** November 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Theo Notteboom, Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > Ports and cities are integrated by providing economic opportunities, such as access to global supply chains. Divergence can be observed between a port and its city, leading to conflicts over its role and function. Due to significant technological and economic changes, abandoned port areas have been subject to waterfront redevelopment. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Cities and Global Hubs](#1_Cities_and_Global_Hubs) - [2. Port-City Interactions: Divergence](#2_Port-City_Interactions_Divergence) - [3. Waterfront Redevelopment](#3_Waterfront_Redevelopment) - [4. Port-City Interactions: Sustainable Cruise Growth](#4_Port-City_Interactions_Sustainable_Cruise_Growth) - [5. Port-City Interactions](#5_Port-City_Interactions) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Cities and Global Hubs ## A. The growing role of megacities in trade The reliance on gateway and hub cities continues to play a strong role in facilitating global trade flows. At present, more than half of the world’s population lives in cities, with two-thirds of the global population expected to be living in urban areas by 2050. Therefore, the importance of city regions will continue to grow, particularly since more than [half of the cities and urban populations are within 100 km of a coastline](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3760 "World’s Largest Coastal Cities, 2015"). Population estimates and predictions indicate the strong growth of metropolitan areas around the world due to increased urbanization. A metropolitan area includes urban agglomerations and surrounding areas of lower density under the direct influence of the city. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Largest-Cities-Coastal2.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "World’s Largest Coastal Cities, 2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Largest Coastal Cities 2025![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Globla-Network-Connectivities.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Map Globla Network Connectivities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Network Connectivities Index 2016Cities provide **large efficiency benefits**, which result in gains in productivity and competitiveness. Cities are the centers of knowledge, innovation, and specialization of production and services. To overcome the challenges of expanding urban structures, such as congestion and emissions, megacities focus on innovation in terms of governance models, cooperation schemes, and technological solutions, for example, in the field of urban (public) transport and logistics systems. Global cities are generally open to trade and typically strive for **high regional and international connectivity** by air, sea, and other transport means such as rail or barge. This connectivity is also apparent in the [advanced service](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3921 "Global Network Connectivities Index, 2016") sector, such as accounting, advertising, banking and finance, and law, which is selecting cities in terms of their primacy. This can strengthen the creation of first-tier global transport and communication networks that connect global megacities. Several megacities have reached GDP levels comparable to those of small or medium-sized countries. For example, Shanghai’s GDP is equivalent to the GDP of Saudi Arabia or the Netherlands, while the size of Guangzhou’s economy is comparable to that of Switzerland. The growth of cities and the connectivity and openness they offer have a significant impact on the distribution of wealth and innovation. Corporations look to capitalize on new opportunities while managing their exposure in rapidly developing markets. A small group of global cities assumes a **commanding role** in a world where cities, not nations, are the key global players. Most of the world’s economic power is concentrated in cities, and cities have therefore become pivotal entities in the world economy. Cities are increasingly leading the way by engaging in direct action on environmental issues, digitalization, and innovation. Cities are increasingly interconnected, leading to a network of (mega)cities. Second-tier cities become more connected to the big cities and often act as economic overflow areas or satellites of the megacities, or position themselves as lower-cost manufacturing centers. Surprisingly, considerations about urban development rarely focus on the role and importance of ports as gateways as opposed to the role of cities as central places. ## B. Cities as maritime and logistics hubs The rise of megacities has brought competition among cities to act as **international transportation, logistics, and services hubs** covering the main modes of long-distance transportation, [maritime shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2267 "World’s Major Container Ports, 2015"), [air passenger services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3777 "Passenger Traffic at the World’s Largest Airports, 2010"), and [air freight services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3775 "Freight Traffic at the World’s Largest Airports, 2010"). They are competing to attract the best companies and most talented people. A good example is provided when examining the leading **maritime centers of the world**. The maritime business services sector plays a significant role in several world cities with a heavy commercial orientation. Maritime and commodity trading services are often located in large world port cities. However, due to the digitalization and financialization of trading and maritime service activities, there is no need for the trader or service provider to be near the physical flows of goods or ships. Therefore, other factors are responsible for attracting maritime services to cities. The location of **advanced maritime producer services (AMPS)** is correlated with the presence of shipowners, port-related industry, and general [advanced producer services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3921 "Global Network Connectivities Index, 2016"), but not with the throughput flow of ports. Specialized producer services tend to agglomerate near other service providers in global cities such as London, New York, Singapore, or Hong Kong. Even non-port cities such as Madrid, Moscow, and Paris show a high concentration of AMPS firms. To a certain degree, a **spatial division of labor** has occurred between the concentration of advanced maritime services and the physical flows of goods and ships. Next to London, New York, Singapore, or Hong Kong, only a few port cities, such as Rotterdam, Houston, Shanghai, Dubai, and Hamburg, have **successfully combined physical flows** with a considerable scale in AMPS functions. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-TEU-Throughput-2022.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "World’s Major Container Ports, 2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Major Container Ports 2022![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Passengers-Metropolitan-2018.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Map-Passengers-Metropolitan-2018 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Airport Passenger Traffic by Metropolitan Area 2018![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Freight-Metropolitan-2018.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Map-Freight-Metropolitan-2018 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Air Cargo Traffic by Metropolitan Area 2018Since 2012, risk management firm DNV GL and consultancy firm Menon Economics have identified the **[leading maritime capitals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4239 "World Maritime Capitals, 2017")** worldwide using 25 objective and 11 subjective indicators to measure the support that different cities provide to maritime business in terms of soft and hard infrastructure in four sectors (shipping, maritime finance and law, maritime technology, and ports and logistics) and the overall attractiveness and competitiveness. The strategies of these maritime cities are not necessarily the same. For example, Singapore and Hong Kong take very different approaches to maritime center development. Singapore benefits from a dedicated governmental focus on promoting the maritime economy and a comprehensive strategy to develop a maritime cluster. Hong Kong is characterized by a laissez-faire approach and its role as a gateway to the mainland Chinese market. Maritime capitals show an impressive [diversity in their level of association](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/maritime-capital-index-and-container-traffic-2020/ "diversity in their level of association") between the physical handling of cargoes and their association with maritime services such as shipowning, brokerage, finance, and insurance. Many of the global megacities have developed into **major air and maritime transport hubs**. Some of these cities have become major hubs by combining a strategic location in relation to or between key markets with specific policies such as creating Special Economic Zones (e.g. in Shenzhen and Dubai), conferring financial and transactional advantages to an existing manufacturing and physical flow structure. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Maritime-Capitals-2022.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "World Maritime Capitals, 2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")World Maritime Capitals 2022![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/maritime_capital_index_teu.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Maritime Capital Index and Container Traffic, 2020 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maritime Capital Index and Container Traffic 2020# 2. Port-City Interactions: Divergence The relationship between ports and the cities and territories that host them evolves in parallel with the growth of port activities. Conventionally, the economic dynamism of cities was linked to their port, which was a source of employment and commercial interactions with the global market. Early civilizations settled in proximity to **[commercial crossroads and trading places](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/main-ports-roman-empire-c125-ce/ "Main Ports of the Roman Empire, c125 CE")**. At that time, there was a distinctive correlation between the existence/success of a port and the [development of the urban area.](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/ports-urban-land-use/ "Ports and Urban Land Use") As ports facilitated the growth of major metropolises and attracted people and corporations, they created complex economic and social systems. Many cities worldwide have built an intricate relationship with their port since they owe their origin to their port site. Economic changes in the twentieth century culminated in the reorganization of port activities and their land utilization. Given the increasing tension between the expanding city and the expanding port, some activities were relocated downstream through processes of port migration, leading to the abandonment or diminution of land-use intensity along waterfronts in cities. Ancient port areas were abandoned, and the link between city and port decayed. Ports usually paid little attention to reclaiming neglected areas, leaving them to deteriorate, or renting them to industries from sectors unrelated to the main domain of port business. Many cities worldwide have built an intricate relationship with their port since they owe their origin to their port site. Conventionally, the economic dynamism of cities was linked to their port, which was a source of employment and commercial interactions with the global market. The waterfront still occupies valuable space in proximity to urban activities, which can be a source of dynamism, but also conflict. Land and water use along the waterfront, which is a valuable interface zone, requires cooperation between the port and the city so that social and environmental externalities are mitigated. This has resulted in a [complex typology between port and city size](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/typology-port-cities/ "Typology of Port Cities") and the associated asymmetrical relations. Recently, the prevailing trend has been a **growing level of divergence between ports and their host cities**, particularly because of globalization and containerization. The main factors that have favored a port-city divergence are: - **Terminal migration**. The migration of several terminals towards peripheral locations is underway. The [need for additional space and deeper drafts](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1144 "Drivers of Port Terminal Migration and Relocation") has encouraged terminal operators to seek new sites that are located further away from conventional sites. - **Containerization**. The containerization of terminals has reduced labor requirements, as modern container terminals are capital-intensive and require a small number of qualified workers to operate. Port terminals thus employ far fewer people than before, reducing a whole array of port/city interactions, such as commuting. In addition, a large share of containerized cargo never reaches or benefits local communities, as it is transshipped to distant destinations. Yet container terminals and the various means of transporting cargo produce externalities felt by the communities that host them. - **Safety and security issues**. They have become more salient, so that access to port areas, particularly terminals, is restricted. Ports and harbors are gated and protected areas that the public cannot readily access, particularly in container terminals. - **Ship operations**. Modern ship operations require less labor, and labor sourcing has been internationalized, from managers to ship crews. Under the regime of flags of convenience, ship labor is mostly multinational and, therefore, not linked to the communities along the ports of call. Further, containerships spend little time in ports, often less than 24 hours, considerably reducing shore leave opportunities. - **Hinterland accessibility**. The majority of economic activities using the port are located further inland and much less, as was conventionally the case, in close proximity to port terminals. There is a dissociation between port-related industrial and manufacturing employment. Today, when not properly planned, the **energy transition** accelerates this divergence. To act as energy hubs facilitating this transition, ports have unique space, safety, and security requirements. At the same time, they are located in a vulnerable ecosystem at the edge of sea and land. Port cities and adjacent territories face challenges due to uncertainties around climate change and the ongoing shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Actors in the energy transition frequently have a low level of embeddedness in local conditions and are increasingly bound by geopolitical conditions. The fragmentation of authority, planning, supervision, and implementation hinders the energy transition. Port, city, and regional authorities aim to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and introduce low-carbon energy sources. Due to the multiplicity of stakeholders (of differing scales, power, governance, and values), a sustainable transition requires collaboration in determining and implementing technological responses, as well as in collaborative planning to address the broader spatial, functional, governance, and socio-cultural implications. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Roman-Empire-Ports-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Main Ports of the Roman Empire, c125 CE | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Ports of the Roman Empire c125 CE![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_urban_land_use.png?resize=900%2C573&ssl=1 "Ports and Urban Land Use | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ports and Urban Land Use![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/typology_port_cities.png?resize=900%2C740&ssl=1 "Typology of Port Cities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Typology of Port Cities![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/drivers_port_terminal_migration2.png?resize=900%2C428&ssl=1 "Drivers of Port Terminal Migration and Relocation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Drivers of Port Terminal Migration and RelocationThe outcome is that ports are increasingly economically integrated entities within global supply chains, with environmental externalities, and are disconnected from their urban areas as port authorities and city administrations follow different logics. Such symbiosis was replaced by **separation** and **conflicts**. Since the late twentieth century, ports have begun to feel pressure to secure a social license to operate and build trust and support from communities when undertaking expansion projects. However, the same processes that have promoted divergence between ports and their cities have created opportunities to redevelop older port areas that have become abandoned or underused. Progressively**, ports have changed their approach**, with several taking the first steps toward engaging with their cities. Initially (1980s-2000s), this change was limited to the **waterfront redevelopment**. Today, ports continue to free up obsolete central port areas. Occasionally, they benefit from the real estate process or securing other funding for the port waterfront renaissance, as well as joint strategies that enable them to coexist with the city. This approach has been particularly effective in cases where the contact is more direct, leading to greater social support and acceptance. In the last two decades (2000s-2020s), the relationship between ports and port cities has entered a new phase marked by the recognition of shared challenges and an intensification of attempts for reintegration. The characteristics of this relationship include shared spatial planning frameworks (port–city governance platforms), integrated waterfront logistics and urban design, and the coexistence of port, urban, ecological, and cultural functions, aiming to blur boundaries between the city and the port. Many port cities have undergone transformations that meet their needs. Others could not follow this process, and their need to achieve a sustainable relationship is even greater. A growing number of conscious citizens are protesting for their cities, seeking to change, impede, or halt infrastructure projects. Through **social pressure** and active mobilization, they are questioning port expansion projects due to their significant impact on land use and resource allocation. In several cases, the lack of understanding and knowledge frequently fuels these reactions. To overcome these difficulties, the interaction between ports and the respective port-cities needs to reach a **resilient and inclusive phase**, wherein, ports and their host communities focus on establishing a well-balanced and sustainable relationship that includes the alignment and mutual respect, of the development targets and shared visions of all stakeholders addressing aspects such as sustainable port develoment plans, energy transition, climate resilience, digital and ecological transformation, and maritime cultural heritage. # 3. Waterfront Redevelopment ## A. Waterfront redevelopment as a form of new urbanism > The relocation of port-related activities create an opportunity for urban restructuring. Such revitalization of urban areas is called waterfront redevelopment. The concept of waterfront redevelopment applies to waterfront sites but is not limited to those in port cities. Historically, the **first waterfront redevelopment projects** date back to the 1960s, when cities like Boston, Baltimore, and San Francisco set the trend. At that time, the idea of waterfront revitalization focused on public access to riverbanks through the creation of parks and markets. In the middle of the 1970s, attempts at creating new urban activities and multifunctional projects emerged, including residential, commercial, and cultural projects. Since the end of the 1970s, many cities have intensified efforts to revitalize waterfront areas, rehabilitate physical waterfront structures, and create new architectural and urban values at the boundary between water and land. Nowadays, this concept is known worldwide, even in developing economies. Many cities are undergoing a major redevelopment of older, derelict waterfront areas, intending to turn them into commercial, cultural, tourist, or upscale residential areas. Cities are using waterfront redevelopment to revitalize urban areas and bolster local economies by creating new jobs, improving housing, expanding community amenities, and attracting more tourism. The redevelopment of the waterfront has also become an opportunity to rekindle relationships between the city and the port. In some cases, waterfront redevelopment is largely an aesthetic undertaking, and the extent to which these projects can revitalize urban areas remains unproven. However, even then, they represent a **shift from industrial to post-industrial land use**. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/waterfront-redevelopment.png?resize=900%2C658&ssl=1 "Examples of Waterfront Redevelopment Projects in Europe | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of Waterfront Redevelopment Projects in EuropeMost cities have recognized that the **port industrial heritage should be preserved** rather than eradicated. As such, they have capitalized on their industrial past to create interesting and inviting waterfronts, reflecting the fact that most people want to see a real working city, not a sanitized landscape stripped of all historical references. Industrial, recreational, commercial, and residential land uses can and do coexist successfully, often with significant effects. In fact, their coexistence has proven crucial in dozens of projects around the world. Many projects follow the rules of **new urbanism**, which seeks to redefine the nature of metropolitan areas by reintroducing traditional notions of neighborhood design and fitting those ideas into a variety of urban and suburban settings. Some new urbanism principles include walkable neighborhoods, a primary orientation toward public transit systems, preservation of open space and greenways, and greater integration of different types of land uses at the neighborhood level. As such, **waterfront redevelopment is one of the most visible manifestations** of a growing appreciation of urban values, rooted in specific social, environmental, and cultural factors that have come to the fore in recent decades. These may include environmental concerns, interest in historic preservation, community activism, and changing social values. However, it is clear that waterfront redevelopment should also have the potential to improve the existing economic base of the community and, at a minimum, must not jeopardize this base. In short, successful waterfront redevelopment projects will integrate **economic, societal, and environmental objectives and achieve sustainability**. ## B. Waterfront redevelopment and expanding port activities Changes in maritime transport and the spatial dimensions of port infrastructures significantly influenced the port-city interface. Whereas the port was formerly known for handling commodities, the modern port has evolved into a horizontal cross-section of diverse supply chains. Because of these trends, the port-city interface has evolved. As the port city expands in terms of area occupation, port authorities are driven by changes in the maritime industry. The maritime industry is seeking available land to meet the expectations of its customers, specifically terminal operators and shipping companies, and to adapt to the transition from a conventional to a modern transport system. The [generic model of port and city extensions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=916 "The Evolution of a Port") demonstrates how the growth of the city, combined with a retreat of port activities to downstream sites, increases the pressure on abandoned port areas to shift the focus to commercial and housing functions. The tensions between the city and the port often stem from the relative intrinsic land values at their intersection. The evolutionary model explains how pressure on the city’s borders and the need for port renovation schemes (due to limited availability of port extension areas) lead to increased tension between the city and the port. The outcome will depend on the room given to port activities to expand further downstream or along the coastline: - **Space availability**. If ample space is available, waterfront revitalization schemes are likely to accommodate functions that are not closely entwined with deep seaport activities, such as new residences, offices, retail facilities, parks, cultural and leisure activities, public spaces, pedestrian routes, transportation systems, marinas, and sporting and recreational areas. In many cases, these functions are fuelled not by ports but by real estate and development corporations that have taken over areas abandoned by ports. They can be ubiquitous and might have little to do with the specificity of a place or its maritime culture, which would make them unique and sustainable attributes of a city. The main contribution of these non-port-related commercial and residential zones in the redeveloped waterfront area is to relieve some pressure on the city. - **Expansion**. If the port has only limited expansion possibilities, a competitive situation will emerge in relation to the waterfront area between port functions and other functions. In that case, a mixed-use scenario for waterfront redevelopment is the most likely outcome, leaving the port with some room to rehabilitate older port areas as integral parts of the wider port complex. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/evolution_port_anyport2.png?w=900&ssl=1 "The Evolution of a Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Evolution of a Port![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/spatial_development_antwerp2.png?resize=900%2C585&ssl=1 "Spatial Development of the Port of Antwerp | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Spatial development of the port of Antwerp Belgium![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_city_border_area.png?resize=900%2C345&ssl=1 "Two Possible Constellations for the City-Port Border Area | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Two Possible Constellations for the City Port Border Area## C. Waterfront redevelopment as part of stakeholder relations management Waterfronts often represent a good opportunity for **community enhancement and enrichment**. But at the same time, waterfront redevelopment can be one of the most highly contested aspects of the city and even of port planning. Waterfronts are often the most valuable resource of a city, with many people feeling they are stakeholders; the residents want a beautiful view of marine resources and the port industry, and everyone wants their interests protected. While changes to the waterfront are challenging to implement, rebuilding is essential, as waterfronts are often the first parts of port cities to be built and are often in the greatest state of disrepair or abandonment. Most waterfront redevelopment is challenged by city-port relationships that are stimulated by growth. The most common points of conflict and contact are **port growth, industrial growth, land-use competition, and water-use competition**. This stems from a general desire to keep businesses near their markets and customers, maintain the waterfront’s integrity, and create an aesthetically pleasing environment, often achieved through fostering relationships with private owners. As derelict port areas are located at the port-city interface, the renewed waterfront attracts economic activities due to its proximity to the city center and, at times, the sense of exclusivity associated with a waterfront location. The redevelopment of the **London docklands** is one of the best-known examples of the attractiveness of a waterfront location in a central high-density area with a scarcity of real estate. Attractiveness is significantly related to the importance of the city in the global urban system and the availability of real estate in relation to demand. When evaluating a waterfront redevelopment proposal, a fundamental question arises. Is the project suitable for the port, and is it beneficial for the city? The final decision on whether to develop a derelict port area will be based on evaluating three elements: **physical**, **economic**, and **social advantages**. The **planning of waterfront redevelopment** is usually based upon high-level strategic plans with few details concerning the choice of solutions that enable flexibility in adapting to local market conditions. Usually, the project includes strategic guidelines for redevelopment or a set of simple objectives. Local governments usually act as initiators and enter into partnerships with the private sector. Sometimes, the elaboration of a strategy, management, and finance is given to **specially established institutions or development companies**. These institutions have flexibility in interpreting planning regulations, enabling quick responses to market impulses. Moving from a conceptual design to implementation can be a complicated task, especially when communities have limited resources. Creating an open implementation program can ensure the ongoing input and involvement of key stakeholders. Nevertheless, orchestrating such an interactive process can be complex and time-consuming, and can lead to **conflicts with stakeholders**. Task forces are often created to keep stakeholders informed and engaged during the development of detailed master plans. With public, private, and government interests, waterfront redevelopment projects often take decades and undergo many changes in elected officials and public committee members. Waterfront design can be a successful forum for initiating **community dialogue** about broader port development plans. Community groups can have a large impact on port city development programs. Access to and redevelopment of the waterfront is rarely understood in terms of a working waterfront with maritime and port activities. For residents, the perceived negative effects of waterfront redevelopment include increased traffic, inadequate parking, reduced privacy, commercial intrusion into residential areas, a lack of affordable housing, marine pollution, and non-water-dependent uses in the immediate waterfront. In most cases, these negative aspects are offset by rising property values, historic preservation, and increased public events and amenities. One of the contradictions of renewal is that while property values may increase to benefit some people, most residents cannot afford to live in these areas anymore. In contrast to residents, the broader local community typically perceives waterfront redevelopment as a positive action enhancing **local quality of life**. In some cases, waterfront redevelopment can be used as **compensation** for getting public support for port expansion schemes. These projects can help to activate public acceptance and awareness of seaport activity. Port authorities should seize such opportunities to establish a solid foundation for dialogue with community stakeholders, fostering goodwill and mutual respect. They might even generate more local economic benefits than the renovation of outdated port infrastructure, because draft conditions and terminal surfaces on older quays and docks are often too shallow to support modern transshipment activities. Convincing residents of the benefits of waterfront redevelopment and its possible link to port activity is often not easy. When people understand the vision, buy into it, and recognize how it can be used to leverage resources, they are willing to participate in the whole process. Many questions are put to the community to gather views on how a waterfront could be redeveloped, and people have a wide range of views. The challenge is to distill from those views the essence that can help to form the **guiding principles** for the core group of planners to understand and follow. Ports and industrial waterfronts face complex **environmental contamination and habitat loss** issues that affect the ability of local governments to plan and carry out dredging and waterfront development projects. In many parts of the world, separate regulatory programs exist to address source control, the cleanup of contaminated sediments, navigational dredging projects, habitat restoration, and shoreline development projects, each with its own set of agencies, permits, and regulatory requirements. In some areas, the overlapping and often conflicting requirements and interests have led to difficulties in completing waterfront redevelopment and clean-up projects, despite their potential for substantial environmental benefits. **Greenway projects** are important elements of any waterfront redevelopment scheme because they attract people to the shoreline and provide them with a firsthand experience. Such first-hand experience is essential in building support for further source control efforts, brownfield redevelopment, contaminated sediment remediation, pollution prevention, and habitat rehabilitation and conservation. # 4. Port-City Interactions: Sustainable Cruise Growth ## A. Cruise ports and the city The growth of the cruise industry has underlined the strategic importance of improving port-city relationships. The **gigantism of cruise ships** and the **multiplication of cruise itineraries** imply an increased number of passengers arriving at each port call, posing significant challenges for cruise ports and the destinations hosting them. The contemporary cruise segment, representing more than 75% of cruises, is offered by vessels exceeding 3,000 passengers and 1,000 crew. This implies mass arrivals at destinations, overcrowding, congestion, massive operations, considerable footprint, and the need to cater to the receipt of quantities of waste. Justifiably or not, local communities have started questioning the growth of cruising, which had previously long been taken as a beneficial development. While the benefits, in terms of spending at destinations, are significant, this growth might be associated with **externalities** that need to be addressed. Many cruise ports are located in or very **close to urban areas**. This makes them exciting cruise destinations for tourists wanting to discover their amenities and cultural heritage. It also increases the pressure on ports to minimize tensions with the host cities. Nonetheless, not all port cities are struggling with the same issues regarding cruise tourism. For those who struggle, tensions emerge when the port city receives a high volume of tourists per year compared to its population. The challenges to be addressed relate to **three elements**: - **Society**. Adherence to social perceptions and work with local communities to reverse misconceptions regarding the impact of cruise activities. - **Economy**. Expanding in line with local economic development strategies and providing a level of economic multiplying effects. - **Environment**. Addressing the externalities associated with providing cruise shipping and hosting vessels and cruise passengers at cruise ports. A critical factor in supporting sustainable cruising is understanding different stakeholder concerns, needs, and expectations. Constructive dialogues, partnerships, synergies, and joint research and development initiatives are instruments towards this end. International initiatives having an explicit reference to cruising can also facilitate strategies to advance green cruise port governance. ## B. Reversing social perceptions The expansion of cruise activities has **impacted the image of cruising**. The elite activity of a small number of passengers has been replaced by the mass transportation of thousands of cruise passengers arriving simultaneously. The decision of a community to seek cruise ship visits requires several industries to be involved and has direct and indirect consequences. Besides, a cruise is not dissimilar from the impacts generated by any other tourism development on the visited communities and sites. It might displace current activities, causing changes in costs, access, and variety. These changes can be positive or negative, such as crowded areas near ports, which generate additional infrastructure investment to cater to the cruise industry, but not so much for local residents. From a service and real estate standpoint, locals can be priced out of areas near cruise ports. Changes may be viewed as positive by those who benefit and as negative by those who do not. All this can lead to societal approaches that view cruise growth as associated with a deterioration in quality of life. Aesthetics have become a significant issue, alongside the overcrowding of marquee destinations. Venice is one of the most salient cases of a marquee destination that has experienced the negative effects of mass cruising. A ban on large cruise ships passing through the center of Venice was imposed in late 2014, preventing all ships over 96,000 gross tons from sailing to the main cruise terminal and limiting the number to five per day. The debate on this had gained momentum, as citizens and local protest groups were unhappy with the presence of larger vessels, arguing that they produce pollution and generate substantial emissions. As a world heritage site, Venice is particularly vulnerable to the deleterious effects of air pollution, in addition to the tide effects on the sinking lagoon surrounding the city. Images of giant vessels alongside traditional buildings sparked a heated reaction from local communities. Aesthetics have come to play a role, and cruise liners have had to limit the number of big ships calling at Venice and are now considering a complete ban from docking at the port facilities located in the city center. Other marquee destinations, including Barcelona, Dubrovnik, Santorini, and the French Riviera, have experienced similar issues. The port authority of Barcelona had to substantiate the benefits of cruising using several studies to justify its cruise operations. Dubrovnik decided to limit the number of arriving cruise tourists to a maximum of two ships, combining 8,000 passengers per day at the historic city, and Santorini put the same threshold on daily cruise passenger arrivals. French Riviera ports limit the arrivals to 5,000 cruise passengers per day. Whether these challenges are well-founded or not, some conceptions and perceptions have to be addressed to achieve sustainable growth. Cruising is inextricably linked to the **carrying capacity of the hosting city**, such as the ability of the destination to absorb tourism before negative impacts are felt. Exceeding the carrying capacity can cause unacceptable changes to the physical environment or negatively affect the experience of visitors. The need for cruising to take into account the needs of civil societies that host them is essential due to the periodic overcrowding of cultural sites and historic cities, the limited carrying capacity of specific well-established destinations, the endemic problems of local tourism economies, the dominance of foreign firms enjoying the majority of spending benefits, and the consequent alteration of local population perceptions. Estimating carrying capacity in terms of how many cruise passengers can be hosted or how many are wanted raises questions associated with several parameters, such as who decides management objectives, and what precisely the attributes and capabilities of the destination are. ## C. Expanding in line with local strategies Securing most of the potential local gains by expanding cruise activities requires a consensus on how this might be achieved while also integrating with local economic development strategies. Destinations and cruise ports have **limited spaces and options** for developing the different activities they wish to promote. There are frequently space restrictions, either in the city, at its waterfront, or the port. Antagonism between actors and industries seeking to maintain or expand their market share is not rare. The development of cruise activities or cruise terminals might be associated with **access restrictions to the waterfront**. The growth of the industry is based on the modernization of existing infrastructures, but also on the presence of new facilities and the spatial expansion of the terminals and cruise-related activities. However, waterfront development is appreciated in many cases for preserving alternative uses and the traditions of the cities. Given this appreciation, objections to developing tourist activities or related infrastructures (parking slots, restricted access zones) are not rare. The principles to be adopted and the parameters to be examined should secure a balanced approach. The same is true for port development. The limitations of a port zone imply the necessity of choices regarding a wide spectrum of activities that could be developed. As multi-purpose terminals are less viable for cruise activity development, cruise-sustaining growth results in potential interference with other maritime transport markets. Cargo ports also seek to expand spatially and functionally to improve their supply chain integration. Stakeholders involved in these markets would like to see the most significant parts of the port devoted to their activities rather than to the expansion of cruising. **Balanced port planning** needs to take into account the contradictory potentials of different segments. **Cruise terminal location** raises issues concerning the site and how it should be planned, which cannot be decided separately from the broader destination or regional planning framework. When several potential port sites are available, broader goals may include spreading tourism to new areas, strengthening infrastructure, creating tourism routes, and investing in essential facilities. Plans for other sector development and other forms of tourism create cumulative effects. The forms of stakeholder involvement in location choice and, when essential, spatial and traffic planning are increasingly important. Port planning and the hosting of cruise activities do not end at the terminal gate. Passenger transfers from the terminal to the city and transportation for shore excursions are part of the process. Efficient location choices are conditioned by the efficiency of private or public transport, such as services to the terminal. Consideration must also be given to avoiding interference with urban road traffic when a cruise ship arrives or departs. Location choices are also linked with the capacity of several tourism-related industries to connect, as well as the urban tourism strategies that tourism organizations and other relevant decision-makers have in place. Resolving most problems requires more than agreement on technical issues, such as berth allocation. It also incites the development of two types of coordination. The first is the **coordination between cruise ports and cruise lines** to synchronize the port system and the operations at the port terminal. The second is the **coordination of tourist destinations**, including local public authorities, museums, retailers, and, most importantly, transport service providers (coaches, buses, taxis) and travel-related industries, to create seamless embarkation and disembarkation processes and passenger flow at the destination. Even port arrangements, such as berth planning, cannot be efficiently implemented without means to involve other actors at the destination to orchestrate the entire cruise supply chain. ## D. Sustaining an international agenda Meeting challenges of the cruise industry at the international level does not necessarily imply the endorsement of economic and environmental regulatory initiatives. Nor does it mean the absence of any such initiatives. Distinct approaches might be endorsed in an attempt to address each of these challenges separately. Economic-related challenges refer to the **endorsement of best practices** rather than the necessity or potential for regulatory intervention. Besides, the requirements and maturity of cruise markets across different regions of the world vary. Destinations, waterfronts, and social acceptability of cruise growth are rarely similar. Seasonality means some ports and destinations host cruises for only a few months, compared to those that serve year-round cruises. Technical characteristics and the various hosting capacities of ports, as well as the size of port cities, such as European cruise port cities being remarkably smaller than their North American counterparts, underline a lack of uniformity. At the same time, they create opportunities to share successful practices. Variations in distances between cruise ports within a given region and the types of competition these distances foster might result in variations in stakeholder strategies. Destinations have their dynamics, and cruise ports are diverse in many respects. Since each port is unique, legislation and incentives for developing cruise activities also differ, making it even more challenging to implement similar practices and policies. Stakeholders aim to implement practices that meet economic demands while reducing costs and risks, supporting sustainable development in compliance with legislation. The scope for international exchanges and resolutions is revealed by interest representation and observed associability. In 2013, Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) integrated regional branches to represent common interests. Ports in the Caribbean have also formed their regional association. In contrast, cruise ports in northern and southern Europe are organized in respective associations (i.e., MedCruise, Cruise Europe, Cruise Baltic) and collaborate at the pan-European level. The goal is to combine the growth of cruise activities with social responsibility and environmentally friendly strategies. European institutions have also expressed interest in encouraging stakeholder involvement to promote an integrated approach among cruise shipping, port, and coastal tourism stakeholders in the decision-making process. # 5. Port-City Interactions ## A. Sustainability A strategy for port-city reconnection lies in **sustainable port development** principles grounded in dialogue, partnership, and stakeholder cooperation, including community groups. The public needs to better understand the requirements and risks of port development and expansion. Many port cities have adopted a new approach towards **open**, **accountable**, and **transparent** negotiation and decision-making mechanisms. Sustainable port development schemes do not follow a top-down approach but instead rely on interactive, dynamic processes to build **partnerships with the public**. Sustainability enables port managers and city developers to collaborate with relevant stakeholders to develop a shared vision for the port and the city. This creates a sense of ownership and responsibility among the inhabitants of a port city. The international dimension of several sustainability issues and globalization underscore that effective strategies may be developed at the international level rather than relying solely on local efforts. While sustainability issues are generally local concerns, an international port-city agenda would help advance meaningful proposals and address concerns about a level playing field. Besides, with local conditions and engagement principles in ports differing, an international agenda acts as a facilitator for stakeholders to develop a shared understanding, benchmark existing practices, promote specific solutions, and define actions. Since sustainability issues have emerged as part of the agenda shaping future relations between cities and ports, in 2018, the International Association of Cities and Ports (AIVP) began developing a 10-goal agenda to be achieved by 2030. These [goals specifically focus on port-city relations](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/sustainable-port-cities/ "The Agenda 2030 of AIVP for sustainable port cities") and are closely aligned with the broadly used 17 **Sustainable Development Goals** (SDGs) presented in 2015 by the United Nations. The AIVP Agenda 2030 adapts SDGs to the context of port cities, providing ports and urban stakeholders with realms of engagement that contribute to sustainable development and port-city relationships. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/sdg_port_city.png?resize=900%2C494&ssl=1 "AIVP Agenda 2030 on Sustainable Port Cities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")AIVP Agenda 2030 on sustainable port cities![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/planning_city_port.png?resize=900%2C372&ssl=1 "Planning the City with the Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Planning the City with the PortThe concept of sustainability remains ambiguous and difficult to grasp. It provides generic goals, but achieving these goals is subject to interpretation and capture by stakeholders and interest groups. Therefore, it can create opportunities for ports and cities to pursue common goals, but it can also lead to conflicts due to a lack of alignment. ## B. Planning The spatial and functional expansion of ports, along with the relocation of port activities due to containerization, redefine the interface between ports and cities and, thus, generate the need for ports and cities to jointly plan how to address the various spatial, environmental, and economic considerations in the [planning related to this interface](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/planning-city-with-port/ "Planning the City with the Port"). Given the symbiosis of port and urban functions, partnerships and shared use of resources and territories are observed in several ports worldwide. **Spatial organization** is the first pillar of this planning. Port interfaces with the city are complex territories where competition and complementarity between port and urban functions unfold within constrained spatial environments. Achieving an appropriate balance, seaports’ managers and cities interact in advancing solutions that promote a harmonious spatial and functional mix, capable of revitalizing the city–port interface but also contributing to the broader growth of the port-city: - **Develop the port within existing boundaries**. Many ports face land scarcity due to physical or environmental constraints. Optimizing existing areas through reassignment of functions and more efficient, low-impact operations can enhance capacity and sustainability without expansion. - **Share waterfront uses**. Water and dock basins can serve both port and urban needs. Joint planning based on a full inventory of existing infrastructure enables shared use of waterfront spaces, strengthening port-city integration. - **Mix urban and port functions**. Combining activities horizontally (side-by-side) or vertically (within shared facilities) can improve land efficiency and enrich the character of port areas. Such mixed-use developments enhance their attractiveness to both businesses and the community. - **Bring the city to the water**. Floating or water-based amenities, such as restaurants, cultural venues, or housing, can revitalize waterfronts while preserving scarce land. These features reconnect port-cities with their maritime identity. - **Maintain flexibility**. Temporary or adaptable land uses allow projects to evolve with changing port and urban priorities. Modular or convertible structures support long-term resilience and balanced development. **Managing transitional spaces between the port and city** is a second stream of spatially related planning considerations. It involves planning to strengthen links between the city and the port through bridges, walkways, materials, and public spaces; preserving and framing key views of the port, waterfront, and city landmarks; and using buffer zones to ease coexistence. **Addressing congestion, transportation, and accessibility in port cities** is the third stream of planning related to the port-city interface: - Effective management of congestion and accessibility requires **aligning port transport infrastructure with urban mobility strategies**. Coordination between municipal and port authorities focuses on integrating freight corridors, passenger flows, and public transport systems. - The need to develop or upgrade port-city connections can be leveraged to **regenerate underused or neglected areas**. Infrastructure projects such as new roads, bridges, or intermodal hubs can incorporate public spaces, green corridors, and waterfront promenades. - Improve connectivity through **targeted upgrades and multimodal integration** rather than large-scale expansion, reducing congestion and costs. - **Promoting short-distance maritime and river transport** for last-mile delivery reduces road congestion, emissions, and noise. Integrating waterways into urban logistics systems also supports modal shift policies and strengthens the city’s relationship with its port. - **Sustainable mobility strategies**, such as electrified port equipment, low-emission vehicles, improved public transport, and cycling or pedestrian networks, are used to mitigate the negative externalities of port traffic. Coordinated environmental standards and incentives for green transport encourage behavioral change among users and operators, aligning port development with broader climate objectives. To **safeguard architectural and port identity**, ports, in collaboration with port cities, conduct comprehensive inventories to identify heritage, historical, and scenic assets. These inventories form the foundation for informed preservation and development strategies. Ports also highlight iconic port features — such as cranes, warehouses, or docks — within redevelopment projects, aiming to preserve collective memory while reinforcing the port site’s maritime identity. Prioritizing adaptive reuse of historic port buildings and infrastructure is another strategy. The second pillar of the integrated port-city planning is dealing with **environmental challenges**, such as port and industrial nuisances. This requires identifying environmental impacts and developing proactive, long-term management strategies that go beyond compliance toward sustainable mitigation. This includes systematically assessing noise, air, and water pollution, as well as broader ecological and social effects. At the same time, promoting awareness and acceptance of port activities, for example, via the creation of informative and active **port** **centers,** is used as a means for reaching citizens and creating acknowledgment of the presence of active port operations in urban development, and building public support for the continued coexistence of port functions within the urban environment. Incorporating the planning and design of other environmental risks, e.g., marine submersion, sea-level rise, and flood risk, ensures adaptable, climate-resilient urban and port spaces. Implementing biodiversity conservation plans in port areas, along with modifying existing infrastructure or developing new facilities to mitigate the adverse effects of port and industrial activities, are key initiatives to protect and preserve local ecosystems. **Economic development strategies to enhance the port–city interface** are the third pillar. These strategies focus on fostering traditional and innovative activities that build on each area’s unique characteristics. In addition to supporting cultural clusters, these territories are well-suited for economic clusters in maritime sectors such as offshore wind energy and recreational sailing. Their long-term success depends on strategic planning that attracts residents and businesses while ensuring the financial sustainability needed to maintain profitability. The **governance of planning** and the implementation of decisions are the final, yet most valuable, pillars of port-city interactions in the joint planning of the port/city interface adaptation and development. The challenge is to secure the engagement, understanding, and support of stakeholders, citizens, and local authorities. Avoiding conflict is achieved by formalizing agreements on projects with broader implications for port-cities and territories, by turning the port into an active player in city life (e.g., through social activities, cultural events, etc.), and by making port activities known to citizens. Within the latter strategy, several ports and port cities have developed port centers, a concept based on an interactive approach that enables visitors to learn about the day-to-day life of the modern port, while educating a wider audience and introducing young people to a range of potential future careers. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 3.1 The Spatial Transition of Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/)[g](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/) - [Chapter 7.1 Cruise Shippin](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/) - [Chapter 7.2 Cruise Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/) - [Chapter 7.5 Cruise Terminal Design and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/) - [Chapter 8.5 Green Port Governance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/) - [Chapter 3.4 Ports and the Energy Transition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/) ## References - AIVP (2018) “Agenda 2030: 10 goals for sustainable port cities”, Association Internationale des Villes et Ports, [www.aivp.org](http://www.aivp.org) - Darwin, J. (2020) Unlocking the World: Port Cities and Globalization in the Age of Steam, 1830-1930, London: Allen Lane. - Ducruet, C. (2007) “A metageography of port-city relationships” in Wang J.J., Olivier D., Notteboom T.E., Slack B. (eds) Ports, Cities, and Global Supply Chains, Aldershot, Ashgate, pp. 157-172. - Hein, C. (2011) (ed) Port Cities: Dynamic Landscapes and Global Networks, London: Routledge. - Hein, C. (2019). “The port cityscape: Spatial and institutional approaches to port city relationships”. Potus-Plus, 8. https://portusplus.org/index.php/pp/article/view/190/187 - Hoyle, B.S. (1989) “The port—City interface: Trends, problems and examples”, Geoforum, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 429-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(89)90026-2 - Jacobs, W., Koster, H. and Hall, P. (2011) “The location and global network structure of maritime advanced producer services”. Urban Studies, 48(13), 2749-2769. - MENON (2022) “The lading maritime capitals of the world”, MENON Publication 28/2017, MENON Economics, DNV-GL - Merckx, F., Notteboom, T., Winkelmans, W. (2004) “Waterfront redevelopment: re-establishing the link between city and port”, in Misztal, K., Zurek, J. (eds.), Development of maritime trade, transport and tourism – XXI century vision, Gdansk, 105-126 - United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 11.6 - Representing Port Interests](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/) **Published:** April 30, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Athanasios Pallis & Dr. Theo Notteboom > Port and port-related associations represent the interests of the port industry at the local, national, and international levels. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Port and Terminal Associations](#1_Port_and_Terminal_Associations) - [2. Trade Unions](#2_Trade_Unions) - [3. Port Services Providers](#3_Port_Services_Providers) - [4. Port Users](#4_Port_Users) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Port and Terminal Associations ## A. Global and regional associations Ports, port authorities, terminal operators, and other stakeholders have formed associations targeting **information**, **best practices**, and **knowledge sharing**, as well as **advocacy interests** in port policy-making processes. Port associations are formed at the global, regional, and national levels to represent common concerns and determine an appropriate intervention scale. They are also formed based on special common interests, with [regional port associations](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/regional-associations-ports-terminal-operators/) promoting regional consensus within global port systems. The **International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH)** has a global reach. Established in 1955, IAPH is a non-profit making global alliance of ports and port-related organizations covering 90 countries. Its member ports handle over 60% of international maritime trade and around 80% of world container traffic. IAPH has consultative status with several UN agencies, including the IMO. Through its knowledge base and access to regulatory bodies, IAPH aims to facilitate the energy transition, accelerate digitalization, and help improve the overall resilience of its member ports in a constantly changing world. In 2018, IAPH established the World Ports Sustainability Program (WPSP), together with ESPO, AAPA, PIANC, and AIVP. Guided by the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals, it aims to unite the sustainability efforts of ports worldwide by sharing best practices through its project portfolio and collaborative partnerships. **[Regional associations of port authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/regional-associations-ports-terminal-operators/)** with membership expanding in many countries are present globally. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/regional_associations_ports.png?resize=900%2C488&ssl=1 "Major Regional Port and Terminal Associations | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Major Regional Port and Terminal AssociationsThere are also associations of a smaller regional scale, involving ports in proximity that are located in more than one country. An indicative example is the **North Adriatic Ports Association** (NAPA), established in 2010 to harmonize information systems and the organizational setup of the Croatian, Italian, and Slovenian member ports. A more recent one is **MEDports Association**, created in 2018 by 20 African and European port authorities along the Mediterranean basin. It acts as a business development, cooperation, and promotion platform for its member ports. Another example is the **Baltic Ports Organization** (BPO), a regional port organization established in 1991 to facilitate cooperation among ports and to monitor and improve shipping conditions in the Baltic Sea region. The **Association of Pacific Ports** (APP) is a trade and information association promoting increased efficiency and effectiveness. Its programs aim to enhance the technical and governance expertise of commissioners and other port officials through meetings, educational seminars, and communication exchanges. However, not all regional efforts are successful. In Latin America, public and private ports and terminals from Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia led the formation of the 15-member-strong **Latin American Ports and Terminals Association**, with a head office in Bogotá, Colombia. Ports are typically associated at a **national level**. Depending on the institutional setting, national associations envisage a different role. In some countries, these are just professional associations aiming to build professional expertise and knowledge sharing. In others, they are also active in shaping port and port-related policies at the national or international level. In some cases, these national associations cover only part of the national ports. For example, the **Indian Ports Association** fosters the growth and development of its major ports, which are under the supervisory control of the Ministry of Shipping. The **specialization of port activities** inevitably leads to associations representing the interests of ports or terminal operators in specific port markets. One example is the **Association of Bulk Terminal Operators** (ABTO), which aims to provide a forum for its members to discuss the issues impacting seaborne trade and the global transportation of bulk commodities. The most advanced example of this type of association is observed for **cruise ports**. Because cruise activities are based on itineraries developed in the region where a cruise ship is deployed, cruise ports often form regional associations. The membership of these associations expands to include ports and associates located in the same cruise region. ## B. Cruise ports associations Because cruise activities are based on itineraries developed in the region where a cruise ship is deployed rather than on visits to single destinations, cruise ports tend to form **[regional cruise port associations](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/regional-cruise-ports-associations/ "Regional Cruise Ports Associations")**. The membership of these associations expands to include ports and associates located in the same cruise region. For most cruise port associations, the primary targets are promoting their respective areas as cruise destinations, linking members with cruise lines, and exchanging best practices. Policy-shaping through the formulation of common positions, policies, or plans on common-interest questions, and presenting these positions at regional and international forums, is of secondary importance. Cruise ports have also attempted to create a global cruise association, but without tangible results. Another peculiarity of the cruise world is that in the Caribbean, the most important market, cruise ports do not maintain their own association but are linked with the **Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association** (FCCA), a not-for-profit trade organization, established in 1972, with 22 member cruise lines that operate approximately 200 vessels in Florida, the Caribbean, and Latin American waters. This underlines the commanding role of the source market, the United States, over regional cruise interests. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_port_association.png?resize=900%2C432&ssl=1 "Regional Cruise Ports Associations and their Activities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Regional Cruise Ports Associations and their activities## C. Terminal operators and carriers At the **terminal operator level,** the **International Cargo Handling Coordination Association (ICHCA)**, founded in 1952, is a non-government organization (NGO) dedicated to improving the safety, security, sustainability, productivity, and efficiency of cargo handling and goods movement by all modes and through all phases of national and international supply chains. ICHCA International operates through a series of autonomous national and regional chapters, including ICHCA Australia, ICHCA Japan, ICHCA Canarias/Africa, and working groups. The organization represents its members and the cargo handling industry at large before national and international agencies and regulatory bodies. In Europe, terminal operators have formed their regional association, the **Federation of European Private Companies and Terminal Operators** (FEPORT). Established in 1993, FEPORT represents the interests of a variety of terminal operators and stevedoring companies carrying out activities at over 400 terminals in seaports across the European Union. Inland ports are associated with the European Federation of Inland Ports (EFIP). In North America, terminal owners and operators have been joined by carriers operating throughout the world in the **Pacific Merchant Shipping Association** (PMSA). This independent, not-for-profit shipping association is engaged in community affairs and legislative and regulatory processes in the U.S. West Coast states. ## D. Specialty associations The importance of **port-city relationships** and the integration of ports for development has led to a renaissance in port-city associations. The **International Association of Cities and Ports (AIVP)** supports the need for dialogue among stakeholders involved in port city projects. The AIVP stakeholders include city governments, port authorities and administrations, research institutes, and city developers. AIVP promotes international exchanges between port cities and encourages best practices for sustainable city-port projects that meet the aspirations of citizens. Individual ports usually feature a wide array of **industry and branch organizations** defending the interests of specific professions or activities in the port (e.g. freight forwarders, ship agents, terminal operators, industrial companies) or representing the interests of the entire (private company) port community. Most of these associations strongly focus on operational issues and inter-firm cooperation and exchanges affecting the overall functioning and performance of the port cluster or parts thereof. Still, some of them have widened their focus to include lobby activities at the national and supranational policy level. This is particularly the case for **[umbrella associations of large seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/umbrella-associations-in-rotterdam-and-antwerp/)** with a strong and diverse private company portfolio located in smaller countries. In larger countries, national private sector associations usually play a more prominent role in the dialogue with policymakers. In seaports with a strong presence of state-owned port companies, port interests are represented through consultation among relevant public actors at different policy levels. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Umbrella-associations.png?resize=900%2C573&ssl=1 "Umbrella Associations of Private Companies in Rotterdam and Antwerp | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Umbrella associations of private companies in Rotterdam and Antwerp# 2. Trade Unions **Port labor** has a long history of unionism, which can be traced back as early as the 19th century when the first modern longshoremen union was formed in the port of New York. Today, beyond the national level unions, dockers are associated with two umbrella organizations with a **global presence**: - The **International Transport Workers Federation** (ITF) was established in 1896 as the International Federation of Dock and River Workers and has become an umbrella organization with affiliated unions from approximately 150 countries. It has a section involved in issues facing port workers and dockers worldwide. The affiliates are unions that are organizing labor directly involved in cargo handling, those indirectly involved in cargo activities (such as those with members employed by port managers, agencies, and freight forwarders), and those representing workers employed by the state, city, or other authorities, as well as by private companies. Regional federations of these trade unions are also present, such as the **European Transport Workers Federation** (ETF), which represents and advocates for the interests of port and terminal workers across Europe. - The **International Dockworkers Council** (IDC) is a trade union federation composed of dockworkers’ organizations worldwide. Its basic principles define it as a working-class, unitary, independent, democratic, representative, and assembly organization. Membership is extensive on all continents except Asia. It includes major national unions, such as the **International Longshoremen’s Association** (ILA) and the **International Longshore and Warehouse Union** (ILWU), which represent dockworkers on the East and West Coasts of the US, respectively. In Asia, membership is limited to the Hong Kong Dockers Union. While national or port level unions might prioritize collective agreements and terms of employment at the local level, the themes of the main activities of the international and regional federations include: - Health and safety in the port industry. - Job security for port workers. - Issue-based campaigns, such as container safety. The consequences of automation for port labor have generated trade union agendas, discussions about the future of port work, and a search for a socially sustainable approach to technological developments. ETF is involved in the European sectoral Social Dialogue Committee, where it meets with port and terminal employers to discuss how to shape the future of dock work and promote policies and legislation that ensure jobs and protection of workers’ rights, along with technological developments in European ports. In this context, ETF has also expressed an interest in promoting research on labor schemes and campaigning for job security in the case of a change of port operator. A notable development took place in 2016 when the ITF set up the **Maersk network**, designed to promote the interests of those employed either directly or indirectly by this global company, in essence acknowledging the role of horizontally and vertically integrated global conglomerates. The network has agreed on two main objectives, among other things. First, to put together a union training and development program to support new unions in APM terminals across the Arab World and Africa to build their bargaining capacity and establish strong unions. Second, to assess APM’s Latin America growth strategy and identify priorities for the global network terminals campaign**.** # 3. Port Services Providers Service providers at ports have their own associations, some of which have a global reach. The **International Association of Dredging Companies** (IADC) is the global umbrella organization for contractors in the private dredging industry. The **International Association of Maritime Pilots** (IMPA), launched in 1971, has over 8,000 members in more than 50 countries, with its principal objective being the promotion of professionally sound and safe pilotage services. The **International Boatmen and Linesman Association** has a similar role. It associates the personnel involved in mooring and unmooring operations, as well as boatmen, with the **International Harbour Masters’ Association**, with members in more than 50 countries, and the **International Tug Masters Association**. The members of these associations are also organized at the regional and national levels. An example of the former type of associability in Europe is the presence of the **European Dredging Association** (EuDA), the **European Harbour Masters Committee** (EHMC), the **European Maritime Pilots Association** (EMPA), and the **European Tugowners Association** (ETA), with all of them being also active in interactions with European institutions and international organizations. # 4. Port Users Port users, shipowners, shippers, and freight forwarders are represented at the global or regional level by their respective associations, alongside the many associations at the individual port level. Shipowners maintain a long tradition of being represented globally by either inclusive associations or associations representing specific market segments. One of the former is the **International Chamber of Shipping** (ICS), whose membership comprises the national shipowners’ associations from 37 countries. Associations in the latter group include **Intercargo**, the International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners, **Intertanko**, the International Association for Independent Tanker Owners, and the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA). To these, one might add BIMCO, whose membership comprises owners, brokers, ship agents, and other operators. Regional level associations are also present, such as the **European Community Shipowners Association** (ECSA), which has been active since the early 1950s, with shipowners maintaining national unions as well. **Shippers** are also active at the regional level. In Europe, the **European Shippers’ Council** (ESC) represents cargo owners from over 100,000 companies across Europe, including manufacturers, retailers, and wholesalers. ESC, together with its counterparts in Asia (the **Asian Shippers’ Association** – ASA) and the US (the **American Association of Exporters and Importers** – AAEI), have formed the **Global Shippers Alliance** (GSA). The **International Federation of Freight Forwarders Associations** (FIATA) is a non-governmental, membership-based organization representing freight forwarders in more than 150 countries, with more than 100 Association Members and more than 5,500 individual members, representing an industry of 40,000 freight forwarding and logistics firms. Freight forwarders are also regionally affiliated with the European Liaison Committee of Freight Forwarders (CLECAT), the European Association for Forwarding, Transport, Logistics, and Customs Services, which represents freight forwarders in Europe. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 8.1 Port Governance and Reform](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=159) - [Chapter 11.1 Ports, Policies and Geopolitics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/) ## References - Pallis A.A. (2007). Maritime Interests in the EU Policy-making: Structures, Practices and Governability of Collective Action. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 6(1), 3-20. - Pallis Α.Α. (2008). Lobbying EU Institutions: Strategies and Governance of Contending Maritime Interests. Current Politics and Economics of Europe, 19(3), 179-202. - Pallis A.A. and Tsiotsis S.G.P. (2008). Maritime Interests and the EU Port Services Directive. European Transport, 38, 17-31. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 10.3 - Port Effectiveness](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/) **Published:** November 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Athanasios Pallis > Port effectiveness refers to the performance of a port in fulfilling the expectations and delivering the desired services to its users. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Effectiveness Components of Port Performance](#1_Effectiveness_Components_of_Port_Performance) - [2. Evaluation of Port Effectiveness](#2_Evaluation_of_Port_Effectiveness) - [3. Supply Chain Approach to Effectiveness](#3_Supply_Chain_Approach_to_Effectiveness) - [4. Variation of Stakeholder Perspectives](#4_Variation_of_Stakeholder_Perspectives) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Effectiveness Components of Port Performance Port competitiveness is related to **[effectiveness in delivering the desired services to users](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/parameters-shaping-port-users-perspectives/ "Parameters Shaping the Perspectives of Port Users")**. Desired services are those that are important to the customer, who remain the users of the port. If a negative and significant gap exists between the importance of desired services and their performance, dissatisfaction is the outcome, which can have an impact on port revenue and customer retention. Effectiveness and efficiency are two **interdependent components** of port performance. Improving technical efficiency is only a partial solution. A terminal operator seeking to improve cargo-handling efficiency could enhance berth utilization by accelerating vessel turnaround. In that case, it may also improve its effectiveness as vessel time at berth decreases and customers become more satisfied. However, a terminal operator may improve asset utilization by keeping more vessels at anchor to minimize downtime. In that case, its utilization improves, but customer service expectations may not be met, as more cargo may be stored for more extended periods, increasing yard congestion. In this case, efficiency has come at the expense of effectiveness, as different stakeholders may have **different performance objectives**. Efficiency measures alone do not fully indicate how well a port manages its assets or serves its customers, such as by reducing container dwell times or improving vessel turnaround. Even when efficiency indicators are positive from a port perspective, complaints from port users may still arise since they are not reflected in the efficiency indicators used. Effectiveness measures assess how well the firm or agency uses its strategies, structures, and tasks to achieve its mission and stated goals. For an effectiveness-oriented port authority, if one of the goals is profit-maximizing, there will be a companion goal of developing and retaining customers who generate the greatest margins while not servicing those that are not profitable. There is no interest within the effectiveness-oriented port authority in serving unprofitable customers unless it is mandated by the government. In this case, the port authority will seek a subsidy to offset its losses. However, by meeting the expectations of customers, employees, and stakeholders, profitability will accrue to solutions-driven, customer-focused organizations. The **perception of stakeholders** is increasingly vital for correcting both operational and governance flaws that a port may experience. Measuring user perspectives helps managers understand current issues and address them to improve user experiences with the port. Insights into what is most important to port users provide managers with a two-pronged tool: - It assists ports in **setting priorities**, such as identifying areas that require the greatest investment for improvement, rather than those where investments are less effective. - It identifies areas where a port already **delivers value** and could benefit from marketing initiatives to raise awareness. In supply chains, effectiveness is tied to the objectives of all involved stakeholders, creating heterogeneous expectations. Port user groups might rate the effectiveness of port services in service delivery differently. A port that is highly rated by shipping lines may score poorly when rated by cargo owners or its supply chain partners. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/parameters_perspectives_port_users.png?resize=900%2C447&ssl=1 "Parameters Shaping the Perspectives of Port Users | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Parameters Shaping the Perspectives of Port Users# 2. Evaluation of Port Effectiveness Contrary to other transport sectors, the need to understand efficiency and effectiveness in port performance has been **recognized by the industry**, with several initiatives being implemented in the last two decades. For example, in 2008, Germanischer Lloyd launched the Container Terminal Quality Indicator (CTQI), a certification process for quality standards in container terminals. However, the use of the index remains limited. Port authorities have been involved in collective efforts towards this end, exploring ways to define the relevant indicators and then monitor them. In all cases, the process applied by a port or terminal operator for evaluating its effectiveness includes three steps: - **Step 1: Define the customer**. Shipping lines are commonly considered the primary customers, as buyers of port services. There has been considerable debate about who chooses a port. The early thinking was that the shipping line chose the port, and the cargo chose the shipping line. The rising power of global cargo interests and the consolidation of shipping lines have led to ports having less influence than before. The power that cargo interests or large logistics providers wield makes it even more important that ports make strategic changes tailored to the user groups they wish to attract. In cases where a port is specified in the transport contract (or the sales contract), the manufacturer, the freight forwarder (including 3PLs or 4PLs), or the consignee may also be a buyer, depending on who is responsible for making that purchase decision. Some are actively involved in the supply chain by providing port-related activities in wider geographical locations. Given the incursion of ocean carriers into land-based logistics activities, the role of carriers in port selection may be even more vital than previously considered. Thus, their perceptions are also of considerable significance, given the emerging geographical and functional integration of ports in wider supply chains and logistics and the transformation of ports to elements embedded in value-driven, multifaceted chains, which compete to attract users located in overlapping hinterlands. This second group is included in the category of customers (although they may not be buyers and pay for the services provided), but more frequently are considered stakeholders, parties interested in port activities. This implies understanding the different subcategories of users and actors involved in deciding which port or mode to use to complete a transportation process. - **Step 2: Identify the decision criteria of importance to the user.** Each port aims to understand its user evaluation criteria to improve its performance in relation to what its users seek in service delivery. First, the attributes of importance differ per user or group of users. Second, port performance is dynamic. Thus, both identification and evaluation are periodic activities to be conducted regularly. Dynamic evaluation of attributes enables the port to better understand evolving user perceptions, thereby providing feedback to the strategy as it evolves. - **Step 3: Developing and applying user evaluation of a particular port or service performance**. Once users and their evaluation criteria are defined, attention turns to the development of an appropriate method to assess regularly and, if possible, concretely measure user satisfaction level. Effective performance by a supplier is measured in terms of what the service user expects. Satisfaction occurs when the performance of a supplier meets or exceeds expectations on the criterion (or criteria) of importance to the user. The purpose is to seek an understanding of the relative importance of each of the criteria for the users of a particular port, and conduct a **gap analysis** of the importance a particular user places on the criterion and its assessment of the performance of that port on that criterion. This provides ports with insights about where continuous improvements would pay off from a user and customer perspective. While current satisfaction may not lead to future choice, dissatisfaction will likely lead to rejection for those who are not captive. When a port understands its performance in the context of the expectations of its users, it can identify why users are dissatisfied, why business is lost, or how additional business could be gained, particularly if its performance is benchmarked against that of other competing ports. An effectiveness evaluation program provides a basis for understanding what possibilities exist for **continuous improvement**. It focuses on improving performance on critical factors where it is poor and on investing in resources with the greatest impact. The resulting more efficient allocation of port resources jointly benefits users and operators. Without such understanding, governments are unable to assess when investment in port infrastructure or port policy adjustments are required to meet market needs. Port authorities are less likely to allocate resources optimally to improve their competitiveness, and service providers will be frustrated in their efforts to grow and exploit business opportunities. The [relation between the value attributed to specific port activity parameters and the gap between importance and performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-strategies-enhance-effectiveness/ "Port Performance: Strategies to enhance effectiveness") provides **actionable data** for developing strategic plans for investment and marketing. Ports need to invest in key parameters that users prioritize by identifying gaps between importance and performance. Then, secondary attention can be given to parameters that are of lesser importance. Beyond these, there are cases where performance is such that it **deserves to be marketed**, or it is of little importance to users, and therefore, there is no requirement for action. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_strategies_effectiveness.png?resize=900%2C505&ssl=1 "Port Strategies to Enhance Effectiveness | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Performance Strategies to enhance effectiveness# 3. Supply Chain Approach to Effectiveness The **embeddedness of ports within supply chains** underscores the importance of understanding how port users evaluate the services and processes they consider effective. The integration of ports into supply chains and the corresponding functional and spatial expansion of port-related activities demand greater coordination and synchronization. Relevant interactions include network structures wherein the performance of a firm impacts actors that are upstream or downstream of the supply chain. Given the extended vertical integration and cooperative agreements in shipping and logistics, the limits of these networks are unclear. In the era of information ubiquity, various actors, service providers, and users have access to a wide range of information about alternative options. Moreover, differences in company size, location, and type have led to a high level of diversity in the requirements of business customers. The difficulty lies in the complexity, diversity, and extended scope that characterize the relations between port services providers and users. Conversely, port users refer to choices and satisfaction from a **supply chain perspective**. The **added value** that port activities offer to transportation chains, combined with the fact that those using maritime-related supply chains cannot substitute or bypass them, contributes to the influence and control they exert throughout the supply chain. Supply chain interactions are a factor where port interactions play a role. Ports consist of multiple layers of entities, each pursuing its own goals and strategies, possibly unconcerned with the level of satisfaction the port or the supply chain offers as a whole. These entities are frequently both competitors and cooperating partners, or both users and suppliers, involved in complex internal relationships. The shifting interest towards strategies aimed at controlling broader segments of transportation chains, such as integration, consolidation, cooperation, and coordination, creates broader business portfolios that blur the distinction between market players as competitors or partners. The particulars and the changes are port-specific and closely related activities that directly affect the supply chains in which they are nested. Each participant has its competencies, which are integrated with those of other participants within the supply chain and port setting. It is often within these integrated links that the most value is added within the chain. In this context, ports seek growth through strategies that aim to attract large corporations, attract additional investments, leverage resources, and achieve specific efficiencies. Although such approaches have been proven successful, ports might also outperform competitors by focusing on strategies to identify unmet needs and discover and exploit opportunities for creating, making available, and selling new services in competitive markets. Recognizing and fully understanding the needs of port users is the starting point for developing such strategies. # 4. Variation of Stakeholder Perspectives Ports commonly **[develop tailor-made measurements of their effectiveness](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/criteria-evaluating-port-effectiveness/ "Criteria for evaluating port effectiveness: Levels of influence per actor")**, as the development of usable, as the development of standardized effectiveness instruments is lacking. This is partly because each port has its features, and each user or group of users, such as carriers, shippers, and forwarders, might have their own perspectives on effectiveness and port choice. However, effectiveness is important for most users for the additional reason that ports have developed into functionally and spatially regionalized entities that are embedded in complex supply chains. In this context, supply chain interdependencies (i.e., sequential, pooled, reciprocal) increase with satisfactory port performance as added value for the competitive advantage of the various actors involved. The criteria that most influence **cargo owners or their agents** (exporters, importers, retailers, and freight forwarders) are those related to customer relationships, responding to and accommodating specific needs, and providing timely, useful information. Criteria such as terminal operator and port authority responsiveness to special requests, the ability to offer tailored services, and the ability of employees to accommodate their needs all have either a strong or medium influence on overall performance assessments. The ability of a port to deliver services tailored to different **cargo owner interests**, with the choice of inland carriers and intermodal connectivity, is also among the criteria critical to achieving high-performance scores. Given the importance of inventory carrying cost to many cargo owners, criteria directly related to the speed of service for cargo interests are also considered. Still, the perspectives of cargo interests vary. Any given port needs to first carefully assess the priorities of those using the port, and then prioritize performance improvement strategies. Some **shipping lines** are influenced by a broader range of criteria than other stakeholders, while these criteria might differ between shipping lines. In contrast, for some shipping lines, the quality of inland carriers stands as the most influential criterion. This parameter shows a weak association with overall port performance when other shipping lines assess the ports they use. A similar case is the criteria related to time, such as the incidence of delays, cargo loading and unloading speed, and vessel turnaround. On the other hand, empirical evidence suggests that shipping lines attribute relatively little influence to cargo damage, port charges, hinterland size, and the timeliness of maritime services, such as pilotage and mooring. Depending on which shipping lines use the port, there are other criteria that ports need to invest in or market their capacities. They include the availability of storage capacity, the availability, and capability of dockworkers, the choice of logistics providers serving the port, the connectivity to inland carriers, port authority and terminal operator responsiveness to special requests, the provision of adequate, on-time information, the quality of maritime services (pilotage, mooring), timely vessel turnaround, invoice accuracy, and port security. **Supply chain partners** are trucking companies, warehouse operators, logistics service providers, and rail lines. The criteria with the most decisive influence are the availability of capacity and the efficiency of documentary processes. A common theme is the need for expedient gate operations, labor availability, the incidence of delays, and the speed of cargo loading/unloading. They all strongly influence the perceived overall service performance. Supply chain partners frequently share concerns with the shipping lines that use the same ports. On the other hand, empirical evidence suggests that invoice accuracy, ocean carrier schedule reliability/integrity, and cargo damage incidence are among the criteria having weak influences on perceived overall service performance. There are other areas where ports could invest to improve service and meet the requirements of supply chain partners, such as providing adequate, on-time information and ensuring timely vessel turnaround. Several other criteria are at play, but their influence on supply chain partners’ assessments ranges from medium to weak. These include storage capacity, connectivity, and operability for inland carriers (with some of the most significant supply chain partners having their own means to secure bundling services), port authority, terminal operator responsiveness to special requests, and port security. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_effectiveness_actors.png?resize=900%2C401&ssl=1 "Criteria for Evaluating Port Effectiveness by Levels of Influence per Actor | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Criteria for evaluating port effectiveness Levels of influence per actorThree attributes are essential for the implementation of effective performance measurements: - **Customization**. Each port market has unique characteristics and needs. Thus, selecting the market to be assessed by port users and the variables to be measured is a primary implementation step. - **Confidentiality**. Since users are reluctant to share business information and data due to the sensitive nature of the results, this information should be accessible only to authorized personnel and decision-makers. - **Flexibility**. A port effectiveness measurement should be applied repeatedly, with no specific interval between successive measurements. For example, for significant decisions or infrastructure development, the port authority or the terminal operator might run the exercise both before the decision (project) and after its implementation to assess perceptions. # Related Topics - [Chapter 10.1 Performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/ce) - [Chapter 10.2 Efficiency](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/) - [Chapter 10.4 Resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/) - [Chapter 8.1 Cruise Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/) ## References - Brooks M.R. (2012). The AAPA Customer Service Initiative Report. Washington DC: AAPA. - Brooks M.R. and Pallis A.A. (2008). Assessing port governance models: Process and performance components. Maritime Policy and Management, 35(4), 411-432. - Brooks M.R. and Pallis A.A. *(2013). Time to assess: Port users perspectives are important, Port Technology International.* - Brooks M.R. and Schellinck, T. (2015). Measuring port effectiveness: what really determines cargo interests’ evaluations of port service delivery? Maritime Policy & Management 42 (7), 699-711. - Brooks M.R., Schellinck, T. and Pallis A.A. (2011). Port Effectiveness: Users perspectives in North America. Transportation Research Record (TRR), 2222, 34-42. - Pallis, A.A. (2015). Cruise shipping and Ports. Cruise Shipping and Urban Development State of the Art of the Industry and Cruise Ports. OECD-ITF Discussion Paper 2015-14, OECD: Paris. - Pallis A.A. and Vitsounis T.K. (2010). “Key Interactions and Value Drivers towards Port Users Satisfaction”. In: Hall P.V., McCalla, R. Slack, B. and Comtois C. (2010) (eds) Integrating Seaports and Trade Corridors, Aldershot: Ashgate, 119-136. - Vaggelas G.K. and Pallis A.A., (2018). Lessons learned from measuring shipping companies and other port users’ perceptions of port performance. International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME) Conference 2018, Mombasa, Kenya. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 10.2 - Port Efficiency](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/) **Published:** November 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > Port efficiency is a multi-dimensional concept that refers to operational performance, particularly the maximization of a given output with limited possible resources. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Dimensions of Port Efficiency](#1_Dimensions_of_Port_Efficiency) - [2. Operational Efficiency](#2_Operational_Efficiency) - [3. Market Capture](#3_Market_Capture) - [4. Connectivity Performance](#4_Connectivity_Performance) - [5. Sustainability and Circularity](#5_Sustainability_and_Circularity) - [6. Financial Performance](#6_Financial_Performance) - [7. Port Governance Performance](#7_Port_Governance_Performance) - [8. Socio-Economic Performance ](#8_Socio-Economic_Performance) # 1. Dimensions of Port Efficiency Port efficiency is one of the three components of port performance, the other two being effectiveness and resilience. > Efficiency commonly refers to the operational performance of ports and to the maximization of output given resources, or to the production of a given output with limited resources. Operational performance measurements focus on productivity and relate to the assets available, the levels of effort expended, the scale or scope of activities, and efficiency in transforming resources into a product or service. Indicators traditionally used to measure **terminal operations efficiency** (productivity) include berth occupancy, revenue per ton of cargo, capital equipment expenditure per ton of cargo, turnaround time, and the labor employed for cargo operations. Such efficiency measurements span a performance continuum from maritime operations to terminal and hinterland operations. This performance is commonly measured at the terminal level since the facilitation of cargo arriving, staying, and leaving the terminal through various bundled services is vital in integrated transportation chains. Efficiency is measured at the port level as well, but terminal performance may diverge, leading to inaccurate aggregate figures. This list of indicators used to measure port and port terminal efficiency is expanding, with port [performance becoming multidimensional](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-efficiency-multi-dimensional-concept/ "Port Efficiency: A Multi-dimensional Concept"). Measurements of performance for efficiency-focused ports and terminals also benchmark financial, system-wide, and production and marketing activities against prior year performance and against the performance of competitors to deliver efficiency objectives. Measuring the **financial performance** of port entities (terminal operators and many port management bodies) and the **performance of the governance model** in place is essential and is present in all ports. Given the significance of integrating ports into supply chains and the environmental sustainability challenges they face, the list expands further. The **connectivity performance** (in terms of capacity, costs, and congestion) and the **environmental performance** of ports are also parts of a comprehensive port performance measurement, as are safety, security, and occupational health performance. Additionally, two dimensions reflecting the very essence of port presence include the performance of the port as regards **market capture** and its **socioeconomic contribution** to the region. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_efficiency_multidimensional.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Port Efficiency: A Multi-dimensional Concept | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Efficiency A Multidimensional Concept# 2. Operational Efficiency ## A. The port efficiency continuum The efficiency of a port is [part of a continuum that includes maritime, terminal, and hinterland operations](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/the-port-performance-continuum/ "Port Performance: Τhe Efficiency Continuum"). These dimensions are interrelated, as inefficiencies in one dimension are likely to affect the others. For instance, issues in terminal operations are most likely to negatively affect maritime and hinterland operations, leading to delays. - **Maritime operations**. What happens at the port foreland can affect its performance, particularly due to ship delays. Maritime access efficiency is a component of port performance, including average anchorage time (M1), the time ships wait for an available berthing slot. Long waiting times at anchorage can result from a lack of berthing slots that can accommodate specific ship classes (e.g., draft and cargo type), as well as terminal productivity issues. Depending on their site and configuration, ports can have complex in-port navigation requiring pilotage and tugs through access channels and turn basins. The [average ship turnaround time](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/distribution-average-berth-hours/ "Distribution of Average Berth-Hours, 2023") (or ship dwell time; M2) represents the time it takes to service the ship once it has docked. Enhancing such a system clearly benefits maritime shipping companies. - **Terminal operations**. Represent the most common performance indicator to assess port efficiency. In container terminal operations, these commonly include several key steps. Crane performance (T1) is a common bottleneck in terms of the average number of crane movements per hour. For maritime shipping companies, this is a crucial factor, as it relates to the time their ships spend in port. How cargo (in containers) is brought back and forth to the storage yard is also a component of port performance and is often related to the number of movements per crane hour. Many container terminals use holsters or straddle carriers for such operations. Container storage yard operations involve stacking and related stacking density, both of which are important variables determining terminal capacity. The average yard dwell time (T2) for inbound, outbound, and transshipment cargo is also a common indicator. When trucks enter the terminal to pick up or drop off cargo, space and equipment are required. This is often a critical bottleneck for trucking companies, as it dictates how long they spend at the terminal, reflected in the average truck turnaround time (T3). Gate performance concerns the efficiency of tasks related to document processing and security inspections. A truck is admitted and cleared to pick up or drop off cargo at the facility. Gates used above capacity are characterized by long truck lines waiting to be processed and to enter the terminal to deliver the cargo they are already chartered to handle. Therefore, the average gate waiting time (T4) can be used as a performance indicator. For terminals having on-dock rail facilities, the performance of the rail loading/unloading equipment can also be an important component of terminal performance. - **Hinterland operations**. The efficiency of transport operations beyond the terminal is usually not considered a port performance indicator. It involves all the transport and distribution activities servicing the port’s customers, such as an inland port. However, for practical purposes, it generally focuses on inland operations adjacent to the port area (often labeled as the back of the port). The key factor in hinterland operations is the capacity of the local road network in areas adjacent to the port. Congestion and bottlenecks at street intersections impair port performance across many of the supply chain management strategies of its customers. Some ports have near-dock rail yards that must be serviced through their gates. In many gateway ports, transloading activities that transfer the contents of maritime containers into domestic truckloads (or domestic containers), or vice versa, are an element of the performance of hinterland operations. Port authorities have an oversight, either directly or indirectly, of port efficiency. While terminal operations are usually concessioned to private operators, port authorities tend to have direct oversight of maritime operations and several elements of hinterland operations, such as local roads directly connected to the port terminals, some of which are on land owned by the port. Although cities are not directly involved in port operations and often have limited, if any, jurisdiction over port land, they typically provide and maintain crucial road infrastructure connecting the port to its hinterland. They also bear many of the externalities of port operations, namely local congestion. Therefore, the port authority and the city are important stakeholders in the port performance continuum. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_performance_continuum.png?resize=900%2C406&ssl=1 "Port Performance: The Efficiency Continuum | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Performance The Efficiency Continuum![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/distribution_average_berth_hours.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Distribution of Average Berth-Hours, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Distribution of Average Berth Hours 2023## B. Container terminal efficiency Ports measure performance to monitor their activities, assess efficiency, compare the present with the past, and set targets. Based on the outcomes of these exercises, they adopt any necessary alignments to structures, strategies (and/or targets) to improve performance. The performance measurement output can also be used to promote port business by highlighting **measurable advantages** over competitors. The questions each port management entity and terminal operator must answer are: **what to measure**, **how to measure**, and **how to use the measurement**. In general, the list of indicators that ports and terminal operators use to measure their performance includes: - **[Production measures](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/measurement-container-terminal-production/ "Measurement of Container Terminal Production")**. - **[Productivity measures](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminal-productivity-indicators/ "Container Terminal Productivity Indicators")**. - **[Utilization measures](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminal-performance-utilization-indicators/ "Container Terminal Performance: Utilization Indicators")**. - **[Services measures](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-terminal-service-performance-indicators/ "Container Terminal: Service Performance Indicators")**. Production measurements differentiate between **traffic measures**, where quantity is the temporal unit of reference, and **throughput measures**, where movements are the reference unit. Regarding the ship/port interface, the handling of each container generates a throughput that exceeds the absolute number of containers that are unloaded or loaded on the vessel. Several [additional container movements](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/types-container-movements-terminal/ "Types of Container Movements at the Terminal") occur when the container arrives at the terminal, so each container might generate one to three additional movements. At the quay transfer, the count includes movements to stack inbound and outbound local containers at the yard, discharged transshipment containers, loaded containers, and shifts and restows via the container yard. Beyond the throughput handled at the port from/to vessels, quay throughput, and yard movements, the terminal-related performance also includes indicators related to the port gate throughput, such as the number of vehicles reaching the port to collect full and empty containers. Terminal performance improves when there is a balance between inbound and outbound containers. Throughput imbalances usually negatively impact terminal performance. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/container_terminal_production2.png?resize=900%2C408&ssl=1 "Measurements of Container Terminal Production | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Measurements of Container Terminal Production![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/terminal_productivity_indicators.png?resize=900%2C466&ssl=1 "Container Terminal Productivity Indicators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminal Productivity Indicators![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/terminal_utilization_indicators.png?resize=900%2C397&ssl=1 "Container Terminal Performance: Utilization Indicators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminal Performance Utilization Indicators![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/terminal_service_indicatos.png?resize=900%2C294&ssl=1 "Container Terminal: Service Performance Indicators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminal Service Performance Indicators![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_container_movements.png?resize=900%2C351&ssl=1 "Types of Container Movements at the Terminal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Container Movements at the Terminal## C. Performance and the upscale of port operations The increase in vessel size has changed the scale of port operations across the world. Scale enlargement in vessel size takes place in different shipping markets, redefining port and terminal performance requirements. The most illustrative examples are the cases of [container](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/largest-available-containership-teus/ "The Largest Available Containership, 1970-2024 (in TEUs)"), [cruise](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/largest-available-cruiseshipn-pax/ "The Largest Available Cruise Ship, 1970-2025"), and [RORO](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/the-largest-available-roro-vessel-ceus/ "The Largest Available RORO Vessel, 1985-2025 (in CEUs)") vessels, which require larger terminals. The massification of vessel sizes necessitates a proportional increase in terminal capacity, including performance. In the container business, **consecutive rounds of container scale increases** led to the introduction of ships beyond 20,000 TEU. This has resulted in an overall upscaling across the main East-West trade routes, with large vessels cascading to North-South routes. The largest container vessels operate on the Far East-Europe routes, calling in ports in the Gulf and the Indian Sub-Continent (ISC). The implications are not uniform, given the [variation in the scale of container operations in world ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=6095). Based on vessel size, three distinctive groups of container ports exist. Larger vessels (18,000-24,000 TEU) call at selected major hubs offering transshipment services. The second group of world ports hosts the New Panamax standard (14,500 TEU), and the third one hosts vessels around Panamax size (4,500 TEU). The increase in vessel size calling at a port is accompanied by a decrease in the number of calls required to transport the same amount of cargo, resulting in larger call sizes (i.e., the total number of containers discharged and loaded per vessel call). The trend accelerates further with the reorganization of liner shipping into alliances that allow cargo-sharing agreements, in turn enabling the scheduling of fully loaded container vessels that sail fewer voyages. In retrospect, ports and their terminals need to increase their productivity by redefining operations. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/largest_containership.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "The Largest Available Containership, 1970-2024 (in TEUs) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Largest Available Containership 1970 2023 in TEUs![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Largest-Available-Cruise-Ships-1970-2025.png?resize=900%2C428&ssl=1 "The Largest Available Cruise Ships, 1970-2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Largest Available Cruise Ships 1970 2025![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/largest_roro_vessel2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "The Largest available RORO Vessel, 1985-2026 (in CEUs) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Largest available RORO Vessel 1985 2025 in CEUs# 3. Market Capture The levels of market capture are fundamental performance indicators for port operations. With the monitoring of trends per market and structure having a high practical relevance, many such indicators are already used by the industry. The estimation of [market capture levels](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/market-capture-indicators/ "Market Capture Performance Indicators") relates to: - **Maritime traffic**. Throughput levels per type of cargo served by the ports and passenger movements served in a given period (year/quarter/month). - **Vessel traffic**. Number of different types of seagoing vessels (cargo and passengers) reaching the port in a given time period. - **Call size**. The average and maximum size of the seagoing vessel calling at the port. This indicator is a combination of the two previous indicators. **Maritime traffic** monitoring is used worldwide and includes the collection of data on the following categories of cargoes: - Total tonnage (metric tons). - Total general cargo (tons). - Total liquid bulk (tons). - Total dry bulk (tons). - Containers (TEU). - Passengers (coastal shipping) (number). - Cruise Passengers (number). There are some common standards in maritime traffic measurements. Container traffic is reported in TEU, or the number of containers handled. The most useful of these reports are those detailing these numbers per container category, such as loaded/empties, local/transit/transshipment, dangerous goods, and reefers. Reports of container traffic in tons are occasional, though this indicator is of limited relevance beyond the statistical records. Throughput in the categories liquid bulk, dry bulk, conventional general cargo, and RORO is reported in tons. Still, there are cases where different definitions exist in the measurement of throughput. Port authorities (or terminal operators) **do not necessarily use the same individual traffic categories or measurement units**. Some ports use net tonnage (net weight of the cargo), others use gross tonnage (the net weight plus first packaging), and others use gross plus tonnage (gross tonnage plus tar weight of the load unit). Differences also exist among ports when assigning cargo volumes on trailers to either RORO or conventional general cargo. Some ports add RORO-based container traffic to the container throughput, while other ports only count LOLO (Lift on-Lift off) operations when drawing up their container statistics. Some additional performance indicators apply to each shipping market: - **Inbound and outbound cargo**. The separate monitoring of the **trends of imported and exported cargoes** is relevant as they represent a clear indication of the capacity of the port to facilitate specific supply chains. - **Container types and sizes**. In containerized trade, ports measure **different types of boxes**, including sea-sea transshipment, import/export cargoes, and local cargoes, as well as the number of empty containers and dangerous goods. They also measure the number of containers moved per unit size (20-foot or 40-foot container) and container type (e.g., standard, reefer). - **Homeport and transits**. In the cruise passenger market, ports monitor the number of **transit passenger movements**, which are passengers embarking/disembarking for a few hours, and **homeport passengers**, which are passengers commencing and concluding their cruise at the port. **Vessel traffic** refers to monitoring more than the aggregate number of vessel calls or the type of cargo vessels calling at the port. The average and maximum **size of ships calling at the port** also need to be monitored. Whenever possible, compared with trends in those ports considered as competitors, they represent indicators of the capacity that a port has demonstrated to host particular types of vessels. With different maritime markets having their requests, ports monitor the calls differently by: - Container ships. - Breakbulk ships. - Dry Bulk ships. - Wet Bulk carriers. - LNG carriers. - LPG carriers. - Passenger ship (coastal shipping). - Cruise ships. Additional performance indicators related to market capture are being monitored. They incentivize ports to analyze throughput in light of their capacity further, thereby reaching a comprehensive understanding of the potential for capturing additional calls and increasing throughput. The list of such additional indicators includes: - Share of the market in the port region that is served by the port. - Modal split of cargo moving in/out of the port. - Utilization of the warehousing and distribution capacities of the port. - Cargo served (TEU and/or tons) per hectare. - GPD growth vs. tons per type of cargo. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/market_capture_performance_indicators.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Market Capture Performance Indicators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Market Capture Performance Indicators# 4. Connectivity Performance The connectivity performance of a port relates to its capacity to **integrate within maritime supply chains** and the operational function of a port as a **node in transport networks**. This dimension of port performance requires the development of a list of different types of indicators, aiming to measure the performance of the port and its various activities within a supply chain perspective: - **Maritime connectivity**. The connectivity of a port with container services (liner shipping) and other regular services (i.e., RORO connectivity) to third destinations. Relevant indicators include the frequency of services, the number of operators, the deployed capacity, and the number of ports/countries that maintain direct links with the port. - **Intermodal connectivity**. The connectivity of a port with intermodal container transport services to and from hinterland destinations. These indicators might be split into sub-indicators referring to how well a port is connected with different transport modes (rail, road, barges). Relevant indicators include the frequency of services per transport mode, truck turnaround time (i.e., in minutes), and the number of rail/truck/warehousing companies linked with the port. - **On-time performance**. The reliability of port calls by sea-going vessels and of hinterland transportation services (road, rail, inland waterways). - **Mean-time customs clearance**. The reliability of the customs clearance process. Industry-level initiatives, such as the **[Global Competitiveness Index](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/global-competitiveness-index/)** (GCI), the **[Liner Shipping Connectivity Index](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/liner-shipping-connectivity-index-2020-update/)** (LSCI), the **[Logistics Performance Index](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/logistic-performance-index/)** (LPI), and the **[Container Port Performance Index](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/container-port-productivity-index/ "Container Port Productivity Index, 2023")** (CPPI), provide useful evidence of the **connectivity performance of ports**, either at the port or country level. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-LSCI-2024.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Country and Port Level Liner Shipping Connectivity Index, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Country and Port Level Liner Shipping Connectivity Index 2024![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-LPI-2023.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Logistic Performance Index, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Logistic Performance Index 2022![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Port-CPPI-2024.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Port Productivity Index, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Port Productivity Index 2023# 5. Sustainability and Circularity The environmental performance of any port is a crucial dimension of its overall performance. The expansion of port activities and the increase in environmental externalities contribute to this trend. Market enlargement results in a greater socioeconomic importance of environmental performance in ports, increased sensitivity of public opinion, and the development of related legislation aimed at advancing and making mandatory, in certain respects, the mitigation of environmental externalities produced by port activities. For ports, environmental sustainability has become a **factor of competitiveness**. There are many drivers for port investments in environmental performance. At the top of the list is **regulatory compliance**. Motives leading a port entity to improve its environmental performance include responding to societal pressures, the resulting direct economic benefits, corporate image, improving operations, and gaining a competitive advantage. Most likely, each port has its own motivations depending on the executive management philosophy and its local socio-political context. The priorities ports assign to individual environmental issues **change with time and as conditions evolve**. In the European context, port authorities have developed a periodically [revised hierarchy of the top ten environmental priorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/top-10-environmental-priorities/ "Top Environmental Priorities for the European Port Sector"), aiming to benchmark key areas of port environmental performance. In 2020, air quality was the top environmental priority, followed by climate change, which first reached the top-10 list in 2016. Energy efficiency is the third priority for ports. These priorities have shifted with **climate change emerging as the epicenter**. It was the tenth environmental priority in 2017 and became the second priority for ports in 2020. There are expectations that some ports may be facing operational challenges due to climate change. Thus, ports are interested in monitoring these trends to strengthen the resilience of their existing infrastructure when planning the development of their future infrastructure projects. The culture and practice of identifying, monitoring, and reporting environmental performance indicators are well established. Several parameters have been added to the considerations of environmental impact assessments for port development projects, including dredged material management, protection of natural areas, and port enlargement in reclaimed land from the sea. The environmental performance of ports and their expanding activities is related to several key parameters. The most substantial aspects include carbon footprint, waste reception and handling, water treatment, and the environmental management practices endorsed by the managing entities of the port or any service providers that are involved. A wide range of ports and maritime organizations commonly recognize the need to measure these parameters. Most of the largest ports have an environmental policy in place and an inventory of significant environmental aspects. Monitoring becomes a managerial issue, including managing contaminated soils, water quality, air quality, and sediment quality, as well as identifying the source of pollution and adhering to global standards. Measuring its environmental performance is one of the **most complex exercises** a port can undertake. Quantitative and qualitative data are required, with some collected through costly surveys, and with standardization of the indicators still under development. For instance, the 2040 environmental report of ESPO included more than 60 different benchmark indicators used by European ports. Besides, each port has its own characteristics, so they use individual indicators corresponding to their structures and challenges. Although harmonizing tools, methodologies, and techniques remains a challenge, the standardization of environmental practices and performance monitoring is becoming common practice. In Europe, port authorities have developed a self-diagnosis method that acts as a good practice checklist. **Port environmental review systems** provide an international quality standard of environmental management dedicated explicitly to ports. In this context, [environmental performance indicators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/environmental-performance-indicators/) are split into three categories: - **Operational performance indicators** (OPI) provide information about the environmental performance of port operations. - **Management performance indicators** (MPI) provide information about the management’s efforts to influence an organization’s environmental performance. - **Environmental condition indicators** (ECI) provide information about the local, regional, national, or global condition of the environment. **Environmental management** is an additional dimension of measuring port performance. Environmental performance measurement is closely related to proper reporting practices. The link is so crucial that it can be argued that environmental management is an integral part of measuring environment-related performance. The publicly available environmental reports and the communication of environmental policy to stakeholders are tools for engaging stakeholders in monitoring environmental performance trends and developing initiatives for future improvements. For instance, this communication can involve a defined procedure for consulting with the local community on the environmental program. An additional group of port performance indicators worth mentioning is **[occupational health, safety, and security indicators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/occupational-health-safety-security-performance-indicators/ "Safety, Security, and Occupational Health, Performance Indicators")**. While occupational health has a broader acceptance of its use because it is often part of labor laws, the same does not apply to safety and security. Ports are increasingly implementing these metrics, not least because current international standards and conventions adopted by international legislation (e.g., the International Maritime Organisation SOLAS Convention) underline the need to evaluate port performance in these areas as well. Performance measurement and monitoring also play a key role in supporting **the circular transition in ports**. Monitoring progress toward circular economy goals is still in its early stages of documentation, research, and implementation. A concrete framework for tracking progress toward a circular port offers [12 indicators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/monitoring-progress-circular-ports/ "Potential Indicators for Monitoring Port Circular Processes") that provide port authorities with a monitoring system for progress and performance toward circularity, allowing the formulation of next steps for the gradual advancement of circularity ambitions. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/environmental_priorities_europe.png?resize=900%2C485&ssl=1 "Top 10 Environmental Priorities for European Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Top 10 Environmental Priorities for European Ports![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_environmental_performance_indicators.png?resize=900%2C404&ssl=1 "Port Environmental Performance Indicators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Environmental Performance Indicators![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/portsafty_security_indicators.png?resize=900%2C294&ssl=1 "Port Safety, Security, and Occupational Health Performance Indicators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Safety Security and Occupational Health Performance Indicators![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/indicators_port_circular_processes.png?resize=900%2C584&ssl=1 "Potential Indicators for Monitoring Port Circular Processes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Potential Indicators for Monitoring Port Circular Processes# 6. Financial Performance The financial performance of a port stands as an additional type of performance that is regularly monitored. Its evaluation can offer insights into the bottom-line financial impact of the strategies endorsed by the managing body and by the managerial and operational priorities that have been set. Financial performance indicators contribute to assessing whether the implementation of the specific choices **has been successful** or if corrective initiatives should come into play. Focusing on financial aspects and criteria to assess port performance may not be sufficient to reveal the present or future success of port strategies. Port performance depends on a broad spectrum of factors. Yet, the financial evaluation of port performance bears its own merits for many reasons. **Financial appraisal** directly reflects quantitative and qualitative managerial decisions and policy implications, with such decisions also reflected in the financial results. **Financial profitability** plays a central role in evaluating managerial efficiency as well as successful asset and capital utilization. Then, the financial performance of a port is a critical issue for stakeholders and market participants since it reflects growth prospects and economic robustness. Moreover, port management is judged on the grounds of corporate value maximization rather than simple profit attainment. Especially in the case of port managing entities listed on stock markets, robust financial performance is expected to result in an enhanced firm market value with positive implications for shareholders. It might be argued that efficient operations do not necessarily translate to a profitable financial outcome. A financial assessment is better regarded as part of a balanced scorecard approach, considering financial and non-financial performance dimensions. The latter encompasses efficient operating procedures, user satisfaction, internal business processes, as well as learning and growth perspectives. By simultaneously including the interests of management, customers (port users), employees, and equity owners, such an approach allows for a comprehensive evaluation of port performance. Port financial performance criteria remain among the most important aspects of port performance for managers and investors. The financial accounts of ports provide the data for a [standardized financial evaluation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/financial-perfromance-indicators/). The selected summary of key financial ratios might be compared and contrasted to a benchmark level that has been set beforehand. Although arbitrary, such a benchmark ratio level is commonly chosen based on standard empirical practice, related to cumulative conventional corporate wisdom for (conservative) empirical valuation of the firm’s financial decisions. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/financial_performance_evaluation.png?resize=900%2C437&ssl=1 "Port Financial Performance Evaluation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Financial Performance IndicatorsFocusing strictly on profit maximization policies alone may lead to a partial analysis. Comparing net profits against operating profits, in some cases, net profits might appear to be higher than operating profits. This outcome is mainly associated with the realization of extraordinary one-off earnings that result in a slight improvement in bottom-line results. Improved port profitability arising from irregular factors might lead to skepticism about the robustness of their long-term growth potential. For example, port profitability might be due to a lack of investments or deferred maintenance. **Economic cycles** experienced in the shipping industry affect the port business as well. As a result, profit margins might be constrained, leading to considerable earnings volatility. For these reasons, it is not worth monitoring the financial indicators of any given port alone. Instead, the focus should be on the trends observed in ports in the region and beyond. Financial results are also worth examining in light of the **operating growth rates** of each market the port serves. Containers, bulk cargoes, car terminals, cruise, and coastal shipping are all markets with different dynamics and diverse revenue and profitability margins. In any case, the financial performance of the port is evaluated based on the **priorities that the port managing entity has set**, with these priorities spanning profit generation through throughput maximization and value creation for the local economy. To extract the greatest financial return, profit-oriented companies focus on measures of asset utilization. The purpose of improved operations is to expand the gross margin extracted. Measurements of performance for profit-focused ports tend to benchmark financial, system-wide, and production and marketing activities against prior year performance and against competitor performance to deliver efficiency objectives. When priority is given to maximizing throughput or adding value, profit generation might be of secondary importance. Balanced or deficit financial accounts are considered a healthy situation as long as they are accompanied by the satisfaction of port users and value generation for stakeholders. # 7. Port Governance Performance Governance performance measurement is a comparatively novel exercise, emerging as more critical following the progress and diversity of port governance reforms. This comparatively novel performance measurement allows a better understanding of the decisions undertaken by those responsible for port management, and it contributes towards the better management of a given port. A less sophisticated exercise in terms of data complexity largely depends on the realization of its importance by the managing port entity and the setting of priorities regarding which parameters of governance should be prioritized. Dimensions of [governance performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-governance-performance-indicators-port-cluster-integration-autonomous-management/ "Port Governance Performance Indicators in Port Cluster Integration and Autonomous Management") that are worth measuring include: - **Serving port governance targets**. The extent to which the existing governance model is advancing the main targets set by the port. - **Port cluster integration**. The advancement of the expansion and the integration of the port cluster. - **Port governance transparency**. Reporting verifiable information about the operations in ways that enable stakeholders, including the public sector, to gain knowledge and be involved in the decision-making process. - **Autonomous management**. The extent to which the port managing body maintains and improves its capacity to act autonomously in developing and implementing its strategies. The selected performance measurement indicators need to be realistic and workable, providing meaningful information to the port authority or any other entity involved in the management of the port and all the related stakeholders. **Transparency** refers to a port governing entity making visible, meaningful information to stakeholders, enabling a better understanding of its operations and management. The devolution of port management to more autonomous, corporatized ports and related entities aims to reach increased transparency. Transparency in port governance is an expectation associated with accountability, responsibility, trust, inclusivity, legitimacy, justification, good governance, and socially responsible outcomes. It is also linked with improved performance as it enables the comparison of stated goals with actual performance and supports the enhancement of performance by comparing results with those of other ports in the same market. With ports being multifaceted entities, transparency is a multidimensional concept associated with information flows, formal disclosure policies, publication approaches, discussions, and meetings with stakeholders, the related governmental departments, and the general public. Transparency applies to the various stages of a decision-making process. It begins with the **conceptualization**, followed by the **setting of port development, operation, and management strategies**, the **planning details** of the decided actions (i.e., business plans, master plans, port works, environmental impact assessments, and governance resolutions), and then the **implementation phase**, and the **evaluation of the produced outcomes**. The levels of transparency at each of these stages define the involvement and contribution of service providers, users, and stakeholders, determining the effectiveness of the decisions taken. [Four different dimensions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/dimensions-port-governance-transparency/ "Dimensions of Port Governance Transparency") need to be considered to determine whether the existing levels of transparency facilitate improvements in the governance, and ultimately the performance, of a given port: - **Visibility**. The degree to which information is released and can be found with relative ease. A characteristic of transparency is the degree of completeness of the information. For instance, a summarized unaudited financial report makes the financial results of a port visible. Still, it does not reveal a complete picture, and without the auditor’s opinion, it may not be considered verifiable. - **Inferability**. Refers to the quality of the disclosed information and data, and the extent to which information can be used to draw accurate conclusions. - **Verifiability**. With transparency being a matter of information disclosure, the quality and quantity of information permit one to observe organizational action fully and provide a means of solving organizational and societal problems by improving the effectiveness and quality of transparency efforts. Not all information that is visible is verifiable or even intelligible. - **Performativity**. The extent to which transparency enactment (i.e., acts of making things visible) stands as a process with (un)intended dynamics that induce action, such as agreements, conflicts, tensions, and negotiations, leading to the improvement of management in organizational settings. Decision-making transparency varies depending on whether the model is private, corporatized, or public. The governance model must **balance the diverse expectations** of stakeholders. The challenge in hybrid models (those featuring selected elements of public and private models) is that the reporting structure may not be clear, as the role of shareholder (private) or taxpayer (public) may not be adequately articulated in the governing legislation, regulations, or by-laws. Consequently, transparency in ports varies across regions and governance models and requires more than the publication and disclosure of information. The transparency level of a port authority is frequently imposed by national legislation and regulatory mechanisms, which are subject to the cultural dynamics of the political economy within which they are embedded. Publicly accountable organizations must be open to the general public, allowing them to assess the **rationale behind certain decisions** and enabling stakeholders to participate in the oversight process, thereby holding the board of directors and management accountable for outcomes. The information must be timely, available, understandable, and accurately represent what the organization is accountable for. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governances_performance_indicators.png?resize=900%2C398&ssl=1 "Port Governance Performance Indicators: Port Cluster Integration and Autonomous Management | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Performance Indicators Port Cluster Integration Autonomous Management![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/governance_transparency_indicators.png?resize=900%2C497&ssl=1 "Port Governance: Transparency Performance Indicators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Transparency Performance Indicators![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_transparency.png?resize=900%2C792&ssl=1 "Dimensions of Port Governance Transparency | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Dimensions of Port Governance Transparency![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/governance_transparency_disclosure.png?resize=900%2C169&ssl=1 "Port Governance Transparency: Disclosure and Involvement Directions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Transparency Disclosure and Involvement Directions# 8. Socio-Economic Performance Indicators such as direct employment and direct gross added value provide some evidence of the **[socioeconomic contribution](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/socio-economic-performance-indicators/ "Socio-Economic Performance Indicators")** of a port or a port system. Other indicators revealing the socioeconomic impacts of a port include indirect employment, indirect gross added value, and fiscal revenue generated by the port. Monitoring the socioeconomic performance of a port allows the involved authorities to improve the planning, financing, and funding of port infrastructure. Employment, added value, and private investments in ports are economic impact indicators resulting from (public) investments in port infrastructure. If this (public) investment is made efficiently and effectively, the outcome is an optimized allocation of resources, resulting in better socioeconomic performance. Socioeconomic indicators can be used to evaluate the mechanisms and principles underlying relevant decisions. While these are significant dimensions of port performance, their measurement is commonly part of **ad hoc exercises**, which are occasionally part of port-initiated projects. This is partly because socio-economic indicators are strongly linked to data availability that remains mainly outside the strategic control of the port authority or a port operator. There is no real pressure to measure the socioeconomic impact of port operations from stakeholders who are more focused on other dimensions of port performance. The dependence of these indicators on resources for compiling or measuring data (either extensive annual surveys or annual account databases) and quality and consistency control of input data should not be underestimated. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/socioeconomic_performance_indicators.png?resize=900%2C312&ssl=1 "Port Socio-Economic Performance Indicators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Socioeconomic Performance Indicators## Related Topics - [Chapter 10.1 Performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/ce) - [Chapter 10.3 Effectiveness](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/) - [Chapter 10.4 Resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/) ## References - Brooks, M.R., Knatz G., Pallis A.A. and Wilmsmeier G. (2020). Transparency in Port Governance: Seaport Practices. PortReport No 5. PortEconomics.eu. - European Sea Ports Organisation (2020). ESPO Environmental Report 2020. Brussels: ESPO. - Pallis A.A. and Syriopoulos, T. (2007). Port Governance Models: Α Financial Evaluation of Greek Port Restructuring. Transport Policy, 14(2), 232-246. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Market Capture Performance Indicators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/market-capture-indicators/) **Published:** March 15, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/market_capture_performance_indicators.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Market Capture Performance Indicators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Market Capture Performance IndicatorsThe capacity of a port to capture an increased market share relates to: - **Maritime traffic**. Throughput levels per type of cargo handled and/or passenger movements served in a given period (year/quarter/month). - **Vessel traffic**. Number of different types of seagoing vessels (cargo and passengers) reaching the port in a given time period. - **Call size**. The average and/or maximum size of the seagoing vessel calling at the port. With this indicator, a combination of the two previous indicators is formed. **Maritime traffic** monitoring is the first pillar of such performance measurement exercises. It is used worldwide and includes the collection of data on the following categories of cargoes: - Total tonnage (metric tons) - Total general cargo (tons) - Total liquid bulk (tons) - Total dry bulk (tons) - Containers (TEU) - Passengers (coastal shipping) (number) - Cruise Passengers (number) There are some common standards in these measurements. Container traffic is reported in TEU (twenty-foot-equivalent units). Throughput in the categories liquid bulk, dry bulk, conventional general cargo, and ro/ro is reported in tons. Still, there are cases where different definitions exist in the measurement of throughput. Port Authorities (or terminal operators) do not necessarily use the same individual traffic categories or measurement units. Some ports use net tonnage (net weight of the cargo), others use gross tonnage (the net weight plus first packaging), and others gross plus tonnage (gross tonnage plus tar weight of the load unit). Differences also exist among ports when assigning cargo volumes on trailers to either Roll-on/Roll-off or conventional general cargo. Some ports add the Ro-Ro (Roll on-Roll off) based container traffic to the container throughput, while other ports only count Lo-Lo (Lift on/Lift off) operations when drawing up their container statistics. Some additional performance indicators apply in the case of each shipping market. - In all cargo markets, the separate monitoring of the trends of imported and exported cargoes is worthwhile as they represent a clear indication of the capacity of the port to facilitate specific supply chains. - In containerized trade, ports measure different types of boxes, with the other categories including transshipment, transit, and local cargoes, as well as the number of empty containers and/or dangerous goods. They also measure the number of containers moved per size (i.e., 20-foot or 40-foot container) and container type (e.g., standard, refrigerated, etc.). - In the cruise passenger market, ports monitor the number of transit passenger movements (i.e., passengers embarking/disembarking for a few hours) and of ‘home in/out’ passengers (i.e., passengers commencing and/or concluding their cruise at the port). **Vessel traffic** refers to monitoring more than the aggregate number of vessel calls or the type of cargo vessels calling at the port. The average and maximum size of ships calling at the port also need to be monitored, and whenever possible, compared with trends in those ports considered as competitors, as they represent indicators of the capacity that a port has demonstrated to host particular types of vessels. With different maritime markets having their requests, ports monitor the calls differently by: - Container ships - Breakbulk ships - Dry Bulk ships - Wet Bulk carriers - LNG carriers - LPG carriers - Passenger ship (coastal shipping) - Cruise ships Additional performance indicators related to market capture are worth monitoring. They facilitate ports to analyze further throughput in the light of the port’s capacity and thus reach a comprehensive understanding of the potential that a port has to excel in capturing further calls and throughput. The list of such additional indicators includes: - The share of the market in the port region that is served by the port - The modal split of cargo moving in/out of the port, - The utilization of the warehousing and distribution capacities of the port - The cargo served (TEU and/or tons) per hectare, but also - GPD growth vs. tons per type of cargo ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/market-capture-indicators/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/market-capture-indicators/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/market-capture-indicators/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/market-capture-indicators/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Port Productivity Index, 2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/container-port-productivity-index/) **Published:** July 30, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Port-CPPI-2024.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Port Productivity Index, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Port Productivity Index 2024[PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Port-CPPI-2024.pdf) *Source: World Bank. Note: A value of 0 represents a time performance similar to the global average. A value above zero represents a time performance above the global average. A negative value indicates a time performance below the global average. National CPPI average is unweighted. Only ports with a traffic of above 100,000 TEU were retained.* The World Bank developed the Container Port Productivity Index (CPPI) as a measure to track the efficiency of container ports through **containership AIS data**. It relies on the time container ships spend at ports, which includes their arrival, cargo operations (loading and unloading), and their departure. The index is adjusted (weighted) according to ship sizes (bigger ships spend more time) and call sizes (more cargo handled takes more time), to improve the comparability of ports. The 2024 iteration of the index includes more than 175,000 container vessel calls, covering 403 ports and spanning the entire year. To be included, a port needs to have 24 calls by a container ship during the calendar year. For ports containing several container terminals, the data is aggregated. Once the weighted average time values for all included ports are compiled, the CPPI for each port is compiled from its deviation from a global average. So ports are either within the average or have a notable deviation (difference) from the average. An important issue is that the CPPI may depict the efficiency level of container ports, but **not the causes of this inefficiency**. These causes are numerous and could be internal to the port, such as labor or infrastructure issues, or external, such as geopolitical events. An overview of the geography of the CPPI (see the above map) reveals some patterns: - **East Asian ports** are among the best-performing, underscoring the strategic decisions made in port infrastructure and performance to support export-oriented strategies. - Ports having a strong **export orientation** tend to have a higher CPPI. A key factor is that containers are brought to the port and into export piles in the container yard. This allows for a more optimized loading sequence as the majority of containers are ready to be loaded. - Ports having a strong **import orientation** tend to have lower CPPI, particularly in Australia and North America. Since containers are bound to multiple inland destinations with more complex yard operations, this is associated with longer ship turnaround times. Repositioning large amounts of empty containers is also associated with lower CPPI. - Large **transshipment hubs** tend to have a higher CPPI since their status is dependent on quick ship turnaround times (e.g. Singapore, Dubai, Tanger Med, Busan). The main expectations of using the CPPI as a port performance metric include: - **Performance gaps**. The CPPI can provide evidence in areas where a port may be underperforming in relation to ports with a high CPPI, which becomes the focus of best practices. - **Investment decisions**. By providing a comparable port performance metric, the CPPI can be used as a tool for capital allocation in port infrastructure. The expectation is a higher rate of return on investment. - **Policy making**. Through the provided port performance metric, the CPPI can guide policy developments and regulations aimed at improving the metric. - **Digitalization**. Either through its accuracy in calculating port performance or its potential to capture the situation inaccurately, the CPPI incites port digitalization as a tool for performance improvement and accuracy. Still, the CPPI raises some caution and controversy as it does not reveal the full spectrum of port efficiency and how ports are used within global supply chains. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/container-port-productivity-index/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/container-port-productivity-index/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/container-port-productivity-index/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/container-port-productivity-index/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Country and Port Level Liner Shipping Connectivity Index](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/country-port-level-liner-shipping-connectivity-index/) **Published:** February 7, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-LSCI-2024.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Country and Port Level Liner Shipping Connectivity Index, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Country and Port Level Liner Shipping Connectivity Index 2024*Source: UNCTAD and MDS Transmodal. No data for landlocked countries. Note: Annual index is the average of the year’s four quarters.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-LSCI-2024.pdf) The Liner Shipping Connectivity Index (LSCI) aims to capture the **level of integration into the existing liner shipping network** by measuring liner shipping connectivity. It can be calculated at both the country and port levels. LSCI can be considered a proxy for accessibility to global trade through the shipping network. The higher the index, the easier it is to access a high-capacity and frequency global maritime freight transport system and effectively participate in international trade. Therefore, LSCI can be jointly considered as a measure of connectivity to maritime shipping and as a measure of trade facilitation. It reflects the strategies of container shipping lines seeking to maximize revenue through market coverage. The index is calculated based on five major components: - **Scheduled ship calls**. This concerns the number of ships that are calling on a weekly basis. These calls can involve imports, exports, or transshipment activities. In the case of a high level of transshipment calls, the number of ship calls can be somewhat misleading, as those calls are not related to connectivity to the global trade system but to the presence of a transshipment hub. Still, maritime services remain available for importers and exporters. - **Deployed capacity**. The previous measure is mainly linked with the frequency of services, while adding the total capacity of these services enables a link between port calls and the related physical capacity. The higher the capacity, the greater the potential to trade on global markets. However, it does not necessarily mean that the capacity is available for imports or exports. - **Number of shipping companies and liner services**. This relates to the number of shipping companies servicing the country or the port, as well as the number of scheduled services they use to provide this coverage. - **Average vessel size**. A proxy for the economies of scale available, as they convey lower shipping costs per TEU. A limited number of ports can accommodate ships in excess of 8,000-10,000 TEU. Those who can have higher connectivity. - **Directly connected ports**. This is the number of ports that are directly connected to the reference port. Due to the structure of maritime shipping services oriented along a sequence of port calls (loops), a direct connection implies that a port is connected to another as long as they are part of that loop, and that any container carried between them does not need to be transshipped. In the initial index, the country or port that received the highest score in the reference year of 2006 was assigned a value of 100, which serves as a benchmark to assign value to other ports and countries. In 2024, the LSCI was updated so that 100 refers to the average score of all ports in the first quarter of 2023. The distribution of the port LSCI reveals a **high concentration level** among a small group of highly connected ports that are the gateways and hubs of global trade. The countries with the highest LSCI values are actively involved in international trade. Namely, the export-oriented economies of China and Hong Kong rank first, with the Singapore transshipment hub ranking third. Large traders such as the United Kingdom, Germany, South Korea, the United States, and Japan rank among the top 15. Countries such as Malaysia, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Oman also rank high because of the major transshipment function their ports perform. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/country-port-level-liner-shipping-connectivity-index/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/country-port-level-liner-shipping-connectivity-index/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/country-port-level-liner-shipping-connectivity-index/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/country-port-level-liner-shipping-connectivity-index/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Marketing Objectives of Port Authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/port-marketing-objective-attracting-investments/) **Published:** November 30, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_marketing_objectives.png?resize=900%2C415&ssl=1 "Marketing Objectives of Port Authorities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Marketing Objectives of Port Authorities*Source: Adapted from Parola, F., Pallis, A.A., Risitano, M. & Ferretti, M. (2018). Marketing strategies of port authorities: A multi-dimensional theorisation, Transportation Research Policy and Practice Part A, 111, 199-212.* ### Attracting investments Nearly three-quarters of European Port Authorities are responsible for proceeding autonomously in identifying investors and managing the related concessions. Despite the progressive privatization of port terminals that accelerated the commitment of private firms in commercial operations and attracted considerable (inward) investments from overseas, additional investments are essential to better integrate the services provided by individual entities and facilitate clustering or provide auxiliary infrastructures. Such investments reinforce port performance, reputation, and, ultimately, competitiveness. ### Demand seeking For example, Mediterranean port authorities work collectively to generate demand from source markets for cruising. Notably, port authorities are leaders in such marketing activities even in ports that have concessioned terminal operations (i.e. Naples, Malta, Barcelona, Cyprus). In the case of cargo ports, the port authorities of the three largest European ports (Rotterdam, Antwerp, and Hamburg) are active in overseas markets, aiming to attract cargo traffic to the ports they govern. For instance, meetings organized by cruise ports in Europe, held twice a year through their associations, MedCruise and Cruise Europe, aim to secure the favorable deployment of cruise vessels. The presence of dedicated terminals, such as those operated by a single ocean carrier (or an alliance), provides a distinct setting that requires targeted marketing refinement. Once the demand for operating one such terminal is secured (operator and user are in place), the port authority marketing is rather landside-oriented, aiming to create demand for the operation. ### Exploring business opportunities Enhancing additional demand and securing suitable endowments are two strongly interdependent marketing objectives that may produce synergies. A successful attraction of investments and resources creates the preconditions for a competitive port, with a solid market reputation and the capabilities to deliver reliable services. In turn, a seaport that generates growing traffic volumes is considered attractive by port operators and draws the attention of business and financial players seeking investment opportunities in logistics facilities. The objectives of marketing activities by port authorities include capturing new business opportunities in areas beyond their core objectives, which are the handling and serving of cargoes/passengers in the port and adjacent areas. Here, the reference encompasses not only logistics and supply chain integration but also activities such as ship repair or hotel management. Such emerging initiatives are strategically related to the more traditional port authority marketing objectives (Objectives 1 and 2). Still, they take place through comparatively uncommon strategies that leverage the resources and capabilities accumulated in mainstream activities. This exploitation may occur by leveraging in-house expertise, capabilities, and resources. For instance, the capabilities developed with (foreign) bidders in tendering procedures stimulate the accumulation of managerial and relational skills, which might be monetized by providing consultancy services to other port authorities. In this perspective, port authorities perform a process of internationalization grounded on the deployment of managerial and financial resources, to sell the port worldwide (customers-seeking principle), keep control over the international logistics networks that a given port is part of (efficiency and effectiveness principle), and gain benefits for the organization, such as revenue streams, incremental knowledge, cutting-edge technologies, and attractive business opportunities (competitive advantage principle). The port of Antwerp has developed strategies of this nature with ports in America (Montreal, Panama Canal Authority), Africa (San Pedro), and Asia (Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust; Essar Ports, in India), while in Europe, Rotterdam is also active in different continents, Hamburg is working towards this end in the US, and Bremerhaven does so within Europe. This way, port authorities gain visibility and economic benefits, as well as support core marketing objectives. ### Community liaison A notable example is the establishment of the annual award for societal integration by the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) in the 2000s. Ports from all over the world have also established AIVP, the International Association of Ports and Cities, aiming to promote such marketing activities collectively. This includes establishing, among other initiatives, port centers to facilitate effective communication with the local community. ### Institutional dialogue They do so working either alone, collectively via local initiatives, or their associations at the national level (e.g. American Association of Port Authorities – AAPA in the US; Assoporti in Italy; Hellenic Association of Ports-ELIME in Greece; Cruise Norway), regionally (e.g. European Sea Ports Organisation-ESPO; Cruise Europe; MedCruise in Europe) or internationally (e.g. International Ports & Harbors Association-IAPH). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/port-marketing-objective-attracting-investments/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/port-marketing-objective-attracting-investments/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/port-marketing-objective-attracting-investments/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/port-marketing-objective-attracting-investments/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 8.6 - Port Management, Governance and Leadership](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/) **Published:** July 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Geraldine Knatz, USC Sol Price School of Public Policy, USC Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California > Port leadership is subject to a complex setting related to port governance, the socioeconomic environment, and the main goals of reconciling interest groups. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Leadership Challenges for Port Directors and Executive Staff](#1_Leadership_Challenges_for_Port_Directors_and_Executive_Staff) - [2. The Need for Alignment on the Port Mission](#2_The_Need_for_Alignment_on_the_Port_Mission) - [3. The View from the Top: The Port Director Position](#3_The_View_from_the_Top_The_Port_Director_Position) - [4. Board Relations](#4_Board_Relations) - [5. Trends in C-Suite Composition](#5_Trends_in_C-Suite_Composition) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Leadership Challenges for Port Directors and Executive Staff Port directors work in a complex and constantly changing environment. The chief executive of a port, whether the position is called Executive Director or CEO, sometimes both, must juggle competing demands from customers, board members, stakeholders, staff, and, in some cases, one or more overseeing governmental authorities. The role and functions of a port director and a port’s executive management team reflect the port’s governance structure. This section examines the role of a director at a public port (e.g., U.S. ports) or a corporatized port, which is still publicly owned but administered and operated by a corporate entity (e.g., Rotterdam, Dublin, Canadian, and Australian ports). While there are other governance models, such as entirely private ports (e.g. United Kingdom) or publicly-listed ports with a majority of private corporate shareholders (e.g. Piraeus, Greece), executives of these organizations do not have the added complexity of being controlled fully or partially by government authorities. One of the most significant differences between the CEO of a private corporation and a public port leader is that port authorities may be subject to significant political influence. The public ownership of the port property and the extent of government control make the port director position unique, differentiating it from a private sector CEO position. A desire to quickly make changes and get things done often collides against the realities of the pace and process of government authority decision-making. While a port executive might share some common characteristics with a private sector CEO position, such as prestige and salary, the growing public awareness and participation in port activities, coupled with greater diversity among port board membership, has resulted in **increased politicization of the port director’s position**. To ensure that decisions about port assets and investments were market-driven and free from political influence, a global trend toward privatizing ports emerged in the 1990s, following initial actions by Great Britain and Malaysia in the 1980s. Touting the potential for improved efficiency and increased competitiveness, the World Bank published its Port Reform Toolkit in 2005, with a second edition released in 2016. A corporatized port, purportedly, is one that can focus on commercial interests, with the overriding public interest being served through the government assuming a regulatory role or dictating shareholder policies. But the negative externalities of port expansion on local communities have led to the recognition that the government needs to maintain some modicum of control. Thus, some efforts to corporatize ports, such as in Indonesia, have resulted in a hybrid situation where the government authority still appoints the director, and the board members are political appointments. During this reform period, some ports shifted from operating to landlord ports or were corporatized to a limited degree, with the government entity still retaining some control. The majority of the world’s ports are a hybrid combination of public and private control. The intent here is not to elaborate on the merits of different models of port governance but to examine how the governance model affects the role of the chief executive. What characteristics of a public port authority make its chief executive different from their equivalent in other business enterprises? 1. The public port director is typically a **government employee**. For example, the director of the Port of Long Beach, California, is an employee of the City of Long Beach. In contrast, the director of the Port of Baltimore, Maryland, is an employee of the Maryland State Department of Transportation. Depending on the transparency laws where the port is located, the public port director’s salary may be a matter of public record. 2. The director of a landlord port may have **limited control over operations within the port**. The director may not have a direct relationship with the dockworkers (i.e., no seat at the collective bargaining table between management and labor). This presents some interesting quandaries for port directors, especially during labor disputes, which can result in the port being shut down. In most cases, the public landlord port director has no authority to resolve labor disputes and only acts as a facilitator. 3. The general public and media often fail to distinguish between the port and its users, tenants, or customers, especially when **reporting bad news**. 4. Unlike the corporate world, where board members are generally appointed to a Board of Directors for their expertise in a specific business field, the port Board of Directors may comprise political appointees or elected officials, typically with little to no background in the port industry. This presents an additional responsibility for the port director – educating the board members. 5. The port director may have to **wear multiple hats and serve multiple masters**. For example, the Port of Los Angeles is a municipal enterprise. To the outside world, it is the Port of Los Angeles. To the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Harbor Department is one of its three proprietary departments, alongside the Water and Power Department and the Department of Airports. The California State Lands Commission serves as a watchdog over Los Angeles port spending to ensure that port revenues are consistent with the state grant that established the port in 1911. 6. **Decision-making can be laborious**. The public port Board of Directors may not be empowered to make major decisions. For example, to effect an agreement of longer than three years and over a specific dollar threshold, it is necessary that the port director in Los Angeles seek approval from its Board of Directors, then from the City of Los Angeles Chief Administrative Officer, then from a committee of the Los Angeles City Council, then from the elected City Council. Unless the mayor’s office approves the agreement or expenditure, this process does not even begin. Los Angeles probably represents one extreme in terms of bureaucratic decision-making processes. Like the Port of Long Beach, other port boards are empowered to make final decisions and only require annual budget approval from their respective City Councils. Regardless, decision-making by public port boards often has political connotations that require the executive team to balance competing interests and coordinate extensively with their overseeing government authority. 7. Decision-making and investments may not be market-based, but rather may be responsive to the local community or **influenced by political considerations**. 8. Port pricing may be **a political versus a business proposition,** as port customers will lobby government authorities to keep rates low. Depending on how politicized the port is, its pricing may lag behind the market. 9. A port that is not financially sustainable and must rely on tax assessments or voter-approved general-obligation bonds will have **less independence in spending** than a port that has the ability to issue revenue bonds. The ability to make longer-term investments that port customers want can be affected by this lack of autonomy in financing. 10. Employees of a public port may be **hired and fired in accordance with the policies of the governmental authority** of which it is a part. However, some ports have the right to operate their own personnel departments. The above list illustrates the types of challenges or limitations that a public port director may face. Depending on the specific structure of a corporatized port and the residual powers retained by the government authority, the director of a corporatized port may also experience some of the above challenges. # 2. The Need for Alignment on the Port Mission The ability of a port to undertake activities is related to its board composition, economic trends, financial capacity, and its relationships with customers and stakeholders. The director and executive team must navigate **competing interests to advance the port’s mission**. Success in that venture necessitates alignment on the port’s mission between the port executive team, its Board of Directors, and, if applicable, the overseeing government authority. While this may sound like a straightforward concept, a lack of alignment with the port’s mission can lead to potential conflict. The prevailing view for most of the twentieth century that ports were financially independent, politically insulated, and highly autonomous, no longer exists. It would be naïve to assume the mission for a public port is only to move people and cargo, or even to move people and cargo in a sustainable manner. As the trend toward greater public participation gained momentum in the 1980s and 1990s, port boards became more diverse, and board members felt compelled to represent not only the interests of the port but also those of the community and underrepresented minority groups. Port commissioners are often appointed or elected to serve a particular constituency. Board members may have campaigned for the position to remedy an ill they saw in the port or represent a specific constituency, such as organized labor or environmental interests. Alternatively, they may focus on economic development opportunities for local businesses or visitor-serving activities. Board members have a loyalty to the constituency that elected them, the government authority that appointed them, or their neighbors in the community. Their personal agendas might conflict with the executive team’s vision for the port’s mission. In a 2020 study of board member appointees across 84 ports of multiple governance types in North America, South America, and Europe, only 21% of the board members specified qualifications. Nearly half of the board members appointed in these same ports represented specified organizations such as organized labor in the United States, where the public port model predominates. Only 4.3% of 23 ports surveyed listed board member qualifications. These qualifications were often related to holding a specific position within an agency that qualified them for a board seat. ## A. Alignment between the port executive team and the board members Most ports have **published mission statements**, while others provide their mission, vision, and values, or a complete copy of their strategic plan online. A strategic planning or visioning process that helps create alignment among board members and the executive staff can be crucial in minimizing conflicts. A comprehensive process would also engage customers and stakeholders. Alignment should be sought not just between the port director and the board, but among board members. A board with a split philosophy on mission fundamentals presents a significant challenge for the director. In many cases, decisions represent a **balancing act** that addresses the needs of multiple constituencies, as a port’s mission may be multifaceted. Ensuring that the port’s mission, vision, and values reflect a broader constituency is not as challenging as implementing a diverse range of projects to satisfy multiple constituencies. A budget-setting process with board participation can be a tool used to prioritize investment. **[Port mission statements](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/mission-statements-port/ "Sample Mission Statements from Port Websites") evolve over time** and may be updated as frequently as every few years. Often, the turnover in port directors or board leadership prompts a review of the mission. An update to the mission statement may also be triggered to reflect current business conditions and changing times. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_mission_statements.png?resize=900%2C470&ssl=1 "Sample Mission Statements from Port Websites | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Sample Mission Statements from Port WebsitesThe challenges of remaining competitive have caused many ports to consider **expanding beyond their traditional roles**. Landlord ports have begun to address shortcomings in the supply chain that affect their customers. Rather than being observers of the supply chains, landlord ports are becoming **participants in the supply chain** to help boost performance through their ports. This is evidenced by ports increasing their role in facilitating digitization to support the logistics needs of their customers and evolving into “smart” ports (Port of Hamburg, Germany). Reversing a global trend in governance, Jurong Port, a multi-purpose port in Singapore, had transitioned from a landlord port into an operating port. By developing “port-centric ecosystems” or clusters, they have successfully brought elements of the bulk cargo supply chain closer to their port to improve efficiency and competitiveness. One example is the construction materials supply chain, particularly cement. Jurong now operates the largest common-user cement terminal in the world. While they have not published a mission statement, their website emphasizes their commitment to “extend seamless, integrated solutions for the most complex of projects and logistics operations.” Some ports are expanding their mission **beyond their traditional geographical boundaries** through the development of inland ports and marine “highways” (marine “highways” revive underutilized navigable waterways for shipping goods). Beyond the potential competitive benefits of these actions, ports that expand beyond their traditional geographical boundaries often find that they have increased the size of their constituency, which can bring with it significant political, environmental, and financial implications. Whether they be extreme weather or natural and anthropogenic disasters, disruptive events have led many ports to consider energy production as part of their mission. Ports are examining their dependence on external energy sources as part of their resilience planning. While in the 2000s, solar panels were just being considered for installation on port facilities, by the 2020s, ports were more actively involved in the energy transition. For example, the Port of Marseille, France, is preparing for energy independence and transition by initiating one of the first industrial-scale projects to convert excess green energy into hydrogen gas (Jupiter 1000 project). **Environmental management and sustainability** are two additional concepts that are often incorporated into many port mission statements. Even if there is no direct link to the ports’ mission statement, many ports link their vision and values to one or more of the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. ## B. Alignment of port mission with customer and stakeholder goals Even if the port executive team and board are aligned on mission, port business customers typically expect the port’s primary focus to be on them and their business objectives. A port cannot be successful unless it **recognizes the needs of its customers**. Typically, the maritime industry is well aware of the importance of addressing community and environmental concerns, especially when it puts the port board in a position to advance capital projects in support of customer needs. Yet, port customers will be concerned if their terminal improvements are delayed, as they perceive that the port has prioritized community projects over customer projects. The port executive team will need to find a balance that satisfies customer needs, protects their revenue sources, and maintains a positive relationship with the surrounding communities. Engagement with community stakeholders by port executives is necessary to understand community values. Residents living near a large urban port may be concerned about air pollution and traffic congestion. Smaller ports or ports in rural areas may serve a niche market that is closely tied to the economic vitality of the surrounding community or provide a disproportionate share of jobs within the local community. In such cases, the local community may prioritize a port mission focused on providing jobs and supporting economic development. Inherent in this balancing act is whether or not the port is financially self-sufficient or relies on taxes or subsidies paid by residents of the surrounding communities. Many ports like to tout that they do not rely on tax subsidies or, if the port has taxing authority, that it has not had to assess taxes, as a reflection of the prudent and successful management of the port by its current leadership. However, some ports, such as those in Seattle and Tacoma, have the authority to assess taxes on surrounding residents. They also have elected commissions. Ports that rely on the ability to raise taxes from the general public or on general obligation bonds, which require voter approval, may have **far less independence** in their decision-making than ports that are financially self-sufficient. Public ports in the United States hold regular board meetings that are open to the public. Thirty-nine percent of U.S. public ports have their board meetings webcast. Alternatively, board meetings may be recorded on video and made available on the port’s website. In Canada, ports hold one annual meeting per year. European ports follow the private sector approach and are not open to the public. Based on a 2020 survey of 26 European ports, only 12% opened their board meetings by invitation. In Latin America, only 5% of the 21 ports surveyed have board meetings open to the public. Therefore, it is primarily in the United States and occasionally in Canada that the actions of the board members and executive staff are on **public display**. When conflict arises between a customer-oriented project and community values, or over the environmental impacts of a proposed port action or development project, typically, more of the general public will attend a board meeting than port customers or industry associations. The business perspective can often be drowned out by a well-informed, organized, and even emotional display of community concern or opposition. Often, industry advocates will orchestrate attendance by labor organizations that benefit from the construction or operational jobs a port project might provide. Board members, whether appointed or elected, want to “look good” in public. At the core of surviving public board meetings is a prior understanding of community issues and being **prepared for opposition**. A senior port executive tasked with external affairs should have conducted sufficient outreach to all stakeholder groups to be prepared for the issues that may arise and be ready to respond to them. Board members need to be kept informed and not blindsided by public speakers. This is easier said than done because, at times, both port executives and board members are blindsided by public comments about an issue they may have no knowledge of. Often, the only remedy is to hold an item over to a later meeting so that the port and board members can take the time to educate themselves about the issue. # 3. The View from the Top: The Port Director Position When containerization drove a wave of port construction across the globe in the 1960s, it was not unusual to find that a port director might have **held the top position for decades**. Often, the director had an **engineering or construction background**, as the race was on to build modern facilities to attract customers as globalization took hold. Not surprisingly, all the port directors were male. It was not until the 1970s that **environmental and stakeholder concerns** began to influence the activities of ports, following the adoption of environmental impact assessment legislation by many countries. Ports were suddenly faced with addressing environmental impacts and building relationships with community stakeholders. The ports did not adopt this philosophical change lightly, as evidenced by statements made by port directors in the 1970s, which emphasized that a port’s primary purpose was to serve commerce and create jobs, rather than mitigate environmental impacts. Some port directors were better than others in making the transition from a “build it” perspective to one that gave validity to stakeholder concerns. Those who could not were retired and replaced by a new breed of port executives, better equipped to navigate the complex relationships necessary to succeed in the position. Port boards began to look for leadership that could implement **change management** in a historically conservative industry. The educational background and work experience of contemporary port directors are diverse. They may have come from within the port industry, hopscotching from a smaller port to a larger port, or from the shipping industry or another closely related field in the logistics business. Port boards have also looked outside the maritime industry to select a director. The director may have a background in information management, technology, science, engineering, law, or policy. ## A. Gender Concurrently with the rise of environmental consciousness in the 1970s, a woman was appointed to a port director position in the United States. Miriam E. Wolfe, the Port of San Francisco legal counsel, was appointed to its top post in 1970 and served in that role for five years. By then, San Francisco had already lost its significant position in cargo operations to the Port of Oakland, but Wolfe’s appointment was a significant breakthrough. In the U.S. during the late 1980s and 1990s, a woman would occasionally be appointed as a port director, usually at larger urban ports, where stakeholder concerns could become political issues, and governmental authorities sought the best person to address them. Lillian Liburdi Borrone, from the Port Commerce Department of the Port of New York/New Jersey, and Ann Alyward, from the Port of Boston, were two such pioneering women. (When the author of this Chapter was appointed Executive Director of the Port of Los Angeles in 2006, there were only two other women port Directors in the United States, San Francisco, and New Bedford, MA.) When women were selected for a port’s top job, they **came from within the port industry or oversight agency** in the port governance structure. In other words, they were a known commodity and had earned their stripes. A 2020 survey of 23 of the largest seaports in the United States along all four coasts found only five female port directors, one on the Gulf Coast, one on the East Coast, one on the Great Lakes, and two on the West Coast. Canada has one female port director among the 17 ports that have been corporatized under the Canada Marine Act of 1998. In Latin America, it was possible to identify the chief executives for seventeen of the twenty-one ports surveyed, and two of the directors are female. The background of appointed and elected board members also evolved from a traditionally legal or business background to boards of **greater diversity**. In the 1970s, it became common for an appointing authority to put one woman on a port board. In 2020, 28.3% of the U.S. port board members were female, with those boards ranging from 5 members to 14 positions. Only one port, Alabama State Ports Authority with a board of 9, has no female board members. Eleven of the U.S. ports have only one female board member. But seven ports have at least three female members. Canadian ports fare better than U.S. ports, with 44.8 percent female board members. In Latin America, of the 11 ports where board members were identified, females held 27.4% of the seats. Since the 1970s, when females were rarely found on port boards, the ports have made inroads in addressing gender bias in board appointments, but less progress has been made in top leadership positions. Data for female seafarers indicates even less progress than at the ports. The International Maritime Organization maintains statistics on the number of women seafarers. Today, only 2% of the world’s 1.5 million seafarers are women, and 94% of them work in the cruise industry. Recognizing the need to prepare women for leadership positions within the maritime industry, the IMO launched its Women in Maritime program in 1988 to promote the training and recruitment of women in maritime fields, including ports. Similarly, in 2013, the International Association of Ports and Harbors launched the Women’s Forum, providing scholarships to assist women in advancement within the port sector. Individual ports have also developed their own initiatives to increase diversity among their employee ranks. ## B. Tenure Given the complexity and increased politicization of the port director position, it is not surprising that **tenure has been steadily declining**. Although summary data on port tenure is not available globally, the American Association of Port Authorities examines tenure in an annual survey of its membership. The data for the past 12 years indicate a declining trend in position tenure. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/tenure_port_director.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "tenure_port_director | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Average Tenure of Port Director American PortsIn the case of American ports, **private-sector business and political appointees** replaced engineers and attorneys in director positions, and leadership tenure was shortened. Individuals with marketing and visionary thinking skills supplemented the ranks of the traditional port second-level technocrats. In all cases, the authority of the executive director was reduced in favor of the board of Directors. Between 1987 and 2006, eighteen executive directors served at these four ports, with none remaining in office longer than four years. In Los Angeles, port directors received civil service protection from the inception of the position in 1925 until 1977. During that period, several port directors held the position for decades. That protection was removed by Mayor Bradley and voters through a series of city charter amendments from 1977 to 1995, which restricted the power of the Los Angeles Harbor Board and shifted greater control over the port to the Mayor’s office. There is a growing trend to **hire port directors from outside the port industry**. As mentioned previously, the background for a port chief executive was historically skewed toward engineering. An engineer might be promoted from within to the top job or be recruited from other engineering and construction-related industries, most frequently from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Former Coast Guard officials or shipping executives often found their way to leadership positions at the port. The pathway to a port position is multi-disciplinary. With digitization and emphasis on “smart-ports,” it is not unusual to find someone with these qualifications coming from outside the port industry. The Port of Hamburg’s Director, Jens Meier, began his career in the software industry and has led the transition of Hamburg to the world’s most well-known Smart Port. ## C. Survival strategies for port directors: The power wheel All positions of leadership rely on **relationships**. The public port director does not always rule from a position of authority, depending on the governance structure. The director may face obstacles in achieving their vision for the organization. These might include political, bureaucratic, resource-related, competing interests, stakeholder opposition, or other factors. Any project or policy may require acceptance or approval from multiple individuals and organizations. To ensure that a leader’s focus is directed appropriately, a director may want to map the necessary relationships in a power wheel. The [power wheel](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2180 "Sample Port Power Wheel for a Port Director leading a Locally-Controlled Public Port") is a graphic representation of the relationships that the director needs to have with other organizations or individuals, where they currently exist, and where they should exist. The port director is at the center of the wheel, surrounded by all the constituencies where relationships need to be **cultivated and maintained**. Understanding which groups or individuals interact with each other, as represented by lines between the groups on the graphic, is a necessary step in creating a wheel. Drawing lines to identify known or assumed relationships will clarify the influence of different organizations. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_power_wheel.png?resize=900%2C625&ssl=1 "port_power_wheel | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Sample Port Power Wheel for a Port Director leading a Locally Controlled Public Port## D. Collaboration and training for port executives Not all corporate executives can easily transition to a government-controlled agency. Regardless of how talent requirements in the technical and functional fields have evolved for port executives, **leadership** has become the dominant trait for senior executives. The director must operate in a highly complex and politically charged environment. This individual has to translate vision into reality and problems into opportunities. The director also has to select and assemble a high-performance management team to ensure the **continuity of leadership**. Moreover, the director needs to survive long enough to accomplish something. There are many opportunities for port directors and senior management who come from outside the industry to expose themselves to port industry issues and challenges. Interactions with other port executives are a primary way and can be facilitated by participation in the activities of a port association, like the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), the Japanese Port Association, the Europeans Sea Port Organization (ESPO), the APEC countries Port Services Network (APSN) and other regional associations. AAPA offers a week-long **executive management seminar** every two years frequently attended by port directors or other senior leadership. In addition, a port director can prepare his team for leadership advancement by participating in the AAPA four-year Professional Port Manager (PPM) certification program. The same program is also offered in Spanish for Latin American ports. There are also private organizations and universities that offer training and/or certification programs for port executives. It is not uncommon for port executives to independently seek out other port directors who share similar challenges to build relationships or to form loose collaboratives where the directors can come together for information exchange. For example, the Port of Hamburg initiated chainPort, a group of the world’s leading ports that meet periodically to debate and strategize on the optimization of the flow of information and goods. The port director in Venice, Italy, wrestling with issues related to the cruise business and overtourism, reached out to other ports facing similar challenges to collaborate on possible solutions. Probably one of the most valuable programs that are sufficiently intensive enough to delve deeply into the political issues faced by a public port executive is the three-week Senior Executives in State and Local Government Program at Harvard University Kennedy School of Government. A curated cohort of executives is chosen for participation, and the curriculum is focused on leadership, political strategy, policy development, performance management, and negotiation. While a port director may not be able to take three weeks away for training, it is an excellent opportunity for members of the port’s executive staff. # 4. Board Relations Relationships between members of the Board of Directors and the chief executive can be beneficial to achieving the mission. It is not uncommon for the director to have to deal with one or more board members who begin to stray from their policy-setting and fiduciary roles, and instead locate themselves in functions that are more appropriately within the purview of the director and staff. Board members tend to do this when they feel “out of the loop” or are caught off guard by the press or their associates about activities at the port. No board member wants to be stopped on the street and asked by a friend or colleague about something at the port, only to realize that a community member knows more about a port issue than the board member does. This may prompt a director to go directly to the staff for information or to give direction. One mechanism for minimizing the tendency of board members to focus on the chief executive is to ensure that board members **receive the necessary information in a timely manner**. Some port boards only meet once a month, but their board members are actively engaged in the community on a daily basis. Management needs to have a sense of **what issues will rise to the level of board involvement**, particularly those that are community concerns or are likely to appear in the press. Not all board members will require the same level of information, and some may need more attention from the port director. Generally, a strong board chairperson can set the direction for interactions between board members and lower-level staff. Another strategy is the establishment of board committees that can meet and interact with staff on specified topics. Board committees may hold open or closed meetings, depending on the number of board members appointed to the committee and the board quorum required for decision-making. In the United States, if the committee is sized at a number lower than a quorum for decision-making, board committees do not have to meet in public. Some committee meetings are thus more informal, allowing board members to interact with staff at various levels. Board committees are usually of two types, **standing committees** or **ad-hoc or special-purpose committees**. Finance and governance committees are examples of standing committees. Special committees are often established to deal with specific topics or projects and disband once progress is made. In a 2020 survey of 87 ports across North and South America and Europe, 42% of the ports identified board committees as part of their governance structure. The finance and/or audit committee was the most common standing committee. # 5. Trends in C-Suite Composition A survey of 35 ports across North America and Europe was made in 2020 to examine commonalities among the positions found within the C-suite, i.e., those senior executives that report directly to the port director/CEO. The survey also identified some unique positions that may have been found in only one or a few ports but might indicate future trends in port executive positions. Nearly all of the ports have some combination of the following positions reporting to the director/CEO: chief financial officer, chief operations officer, chief security officer, chief of marketing or customer relations, chief administration officer, or positions with similar titles that have the same types of responsibilities. Most ports have staff responsible for public relations, communications, stakeholder relations, or governmental affairs, but a few U.S. ports (17%) had elevated this position to reporting directly to the CEO. Similarly, a chief sustainability officer is becoming more common in the port organizational structure, but few report directly to the director/CEO. The current emphasis on **port digitalization** is also being reflected in changes in the C-suite. More organizations now have chief information officers than ever before, and some of them have been elevated to the executive management team. Two ports (Hamburg, Germany, and Virginia, U.S.) have Chief Innovation Officer positions. Position duties go beyond the traditional information technology function and are more outwardly focused on customer and supply chain innovation. One of the major trends visible within port organizations that is reflective of the business world, in general, is the elevation of the individual responsible for **[personnel or human resource functions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/evolution-role-human-resources-ports/ "Evolution of the Role of Human Resources at Ports")**. In the past, the personnel or human resource director was considered a “back of house” function, as recruitment and onboarding of new staff were viewed as somewhat routine processes. Today’s CEOs recognize that qualified people are their most valuable asset, and the loss of qualified staff can have a detrimental effect on the organization’s performance. The value that talent can bring to an organization is now recognized as something that can give the port a competitive advantage well beyond the chief executive position but deep within the ranks of the organization. Therefore, the human resource manager’s job is no longer just hiring recruiting firms and processing paper but assuring that the organization finds and retains the best talent. Retention of talent is a major challenge for some organizations and the ones that do it well think strategically about facilitating the growth of their employee’s careers. Consistent with the change in duties to a more strategic role, we also see that the position title is today rarely called “personnel” but more commonly called “human resources” manager. However, a further evolution is evident in the expanded role of this individual, with titles such as Senior Executive for Talent Solutions (Port of Charleston, South Carolina) and Chief People Officer (Port of Houston, Texas). ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/hr_evolution_ports.png?resize=900%2C388&ssl=1 "Evolution of the Role of Human Resources at Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Evolution of the Role of Human Resources at PortsOf the 32 ports surveyed across North America and Europe, in nine ports, the human resources director reports directly to the port director/CEO. This reflects not only the view of personnel as a **strategic position for talent management** but also the repercussions of executives not being aware of **personnel-related claims** within their organization, particularly claims of discrimination or sexual harassment. A chief executive who may be unaware of personnel issues within his organization or worse, was aware but took no action, can be removed to make way for new leadership that will take such claims more seriously. **Inclusion, equity and diversity** initiatives are changing the composition of the C-suite across the business sector and ports are no exception. For years, ports have had minority/women and disadvantaged business enterprise programs to ensure diversity in contracting and procurement. However, ports are recognizing that more can be done beyond the programs geared toward port contractors and suppliers. For instance, the Port of Seattle has created a Senior Director of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion with its own department directly reporting to the Executive Director. Ports should be prepared to examine their policies and programs through a new lens reflecting the **complex political, social, and cultural environments** they are part of. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 3.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminals-and-terminal-operators/) - [Chapter 3.2 Terminal Concessions and Land Leases](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/) - [Chapter 4.2 Port Authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-authorities/) - [Chapter 4.3 Port Coordination and Cooperation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-cooperation-and-coordination/) --- ## Bibliography - Brooks, M. and Pallis, T., (2012) Port Governance in *Blackwell Companion to Maritime Economics*, W. Talley, ed., John Wiley and Sons. - Brooks, M, Knatz, G., Pallis, T. and Wilmsmeier, G., (2020) Transparency in Governance, PortReport No. 5. - Brown, P.H. (2009) *America’s Waterfront Revival: Port Authorities and Urban Redevelopment*. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. - Knatz G. (2017). How competition is driving change in port governance, strategic decision-making and government policy in the United States, Research in Transportation Business & Management, 22, 67-77. - Musser, L. (2020). The Right People at the Right Time, Workforce Initiatives That Help Align Ports’Needs with Skilled Candidates, *Seaports*, 57:10-14. - Saragiotis, P and de Langen, P. 2017. Achieving Full and Effective Corporatization of Port Authorities, Reform Models from Global Experience. *Trade and Competitiveness in Practice*, World Bank Group. - Verhoeven, P. (2009) A review of port authority functions: towards a renaissance? Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), Copenhagen, June 24–6, 2009. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 8.5 - Green Port Governance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/) **Published:** September 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Theo Notteboom, Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > The greening of port management is a process affecting port authorities safeguarding their license to operate and increasing their economic and environmental competitiveness. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Port Authorities and Green Ports](#1_Port_Authorities_and_Green_Ports) - [2. Instruments and Tools for Promoting Green Ports](#2_Instruments_and_Tools_for_Promoting_Green_Ports) - [3. Challenges to Green Port Governance](#3_Challenges_to_Green_Port_Governance) - [4. Green Port Governance and Stakeholders](#4_Green_Port_Governance_and_Stakeholders) - [5. Green Cruise Ports](#5_Green_Cruise_Ports) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Port Authorities and Green Ports ## A. Sources of environmental pollution in ports Since ports are generators of externalities, environmental concerns associated with port activity are increasing. The focus on environmental issues is especially keen for vessel and cargo handling operations, industrial activities in ports, port planning, extension initiatives, and hinterland accessibility. The primary sources of environmental impact from seaports include pollution related to **port construction and operations**. These include air emissions of ships at berth, terminal handling equipment (such as cranes and yard equipment), and logistics and industrial activities in the port. There is also noise associated with port-related operations, with the environmental effects and potential congestion associated with the landside operations of barges, rail, and trucks. There are **nine key environmental facets** in port development and construction, including water quality, coastal hydrology, soil contamination, marine and coastal ecology, air quality, noise and vibration, waste management, visual intrusion, and socio-cultural impacts such as community relocation. This classification identifies potential realms of engagement, mitigation, and policy-making, and requires precise measurements of the respective impacts and externalities. **Air pollution** is one of the major environmental impacts generated by ports, particularly greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which contribute to climate change by trapping heat. This, in turn, distorts the natural ecosystem. There are also health effects impacting the residents of the local community surrounding ports, which include asthma, other respiratory diseases, cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and premature mortality. The main sources of air pollution in ports include: - **Ship port calls**. The maritime shipping industry accounts for 2.5% to 3% of annual human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, with the majority of this contribution stemming from container shipping. Without countermeasures, the emissions of sulfur oxides (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from the shipping industry would exceed those of all other transport emission sources, resulting in poor air quality in ports and their surrounding areas. To reduce and eventually halt emissions, some important steps have already been taken. They include the implementation of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) (Annex VI) that imposes limitations on the main air pollutants contained in ships exhaust as well as plans for implementing additional requirements, the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) for new ships, and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for all ships. The Convention imposes a cap on sulfur emissions within specific areas, known as [Emission Control Areas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/emission-control-areas-maritime-shipping/ "Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping") (ECAs). The worldwide sulfur limit for bunker fuel, previously set at 3.5%, was reduced to 0.5% in early 2020. Specific sulfur caps are in effect when ships are in port. Alternative fuels are considered (Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), and hydrogen) to reduce ship emissions at sea and in ports. Onshore power supply solutions (also known as cold ironing) can significantly reduce ship emissions in port. - **Landside activities**. Cargo operations at terminals form another source of airborne emissions. Emissions of dust from bulk cargo handling, electricity consumption, and gases from cargo handling equipment and trucks adversely affect air quality. Regarding **landside operations** connecting inland transport, environmental impacts caused by intermodal connections and congestion lead to adverse effects, particularly air pollution emitted by internal combustion engines. Depending on modal choices and the associated cost and transit time requirements from shippers, such environmental effects vary and can be mitigated. - **Industrial and logistics activities** in and near port areas. These also contribute to total air emissions but are often considered separate from port emissions. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Emission-Control-Areas.png?resize=900%2C450&ssl=1 "Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/lng_jacques_saade.png?resize=900%2C441&ssl=1 "LNG-Powered Vessel Jacques Saade | Port Economics, Management and Policy")LNG Powered VesselsAnother major environmental concern is **water pollution** and its effects on marine ecosystems. Water pollution comes from ballast water, fuel oil residue, waste disposal from ship operations, and cargo residue. These marine pollutants are harmful to the natural habitats located around port waters, which can upset marine and coastal ecology, leading to damage and loss of coastal ecosystems and fisheries resources. The need for navigation channel deepening and widening would lead to contaminated sludge from dredging. Untreated **water and waste disposal** from port operations, industrial activities, construction, and expansion projects cause another major category of environmental externality. This includes solid, liquid, and hazardous wastes. Waste lubricants, oily mixtures, solid waste (garbage), wastes from cargo operations, daily administration, and buildings also create pollution. Disposal of these contaminated materials on land may cause the destruction of plants, leakage of contaminated materials, unpleasant sights, and other nuisances to the local community. Hence, improper waste control and treatment can be a significant strain on the natural environment surrounding the port area. An international policy agenda has already been developed, referring to the availability and adequacy of port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues. Together with establishing systems that provide incentives for ships to use, these facilities reduce ship discharges into the sea. Relevant provisions have been adopted in Annexes V and VI of MARPOL. These provisions define which wastes can be discharged into the sea and impose obligations to provide facilities for the reception of ship-generated residues and garbage. They also avoid inadequate reception and handling, and inadequate delivery by ships of their waste cargo residues. Regional initiatives (i.e., the European Union Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues) align legislation with international initiatives and address the legal, financial, and practical responsibilities of the different operators involved when operating at ports. Waste management in ports implies a hierarchy containing several steps in a preferred order of priority, with the first three of the following being the most desirable ones: - **Reducing** the use of resources and minimizing the quantities and hazardous qualities of the waste generated. - **Reuse**. Using products or items again for the same or different purposes. - **Recycling**. Reprocessing valuable components/materials of waste for use as a feedstock to manufacture the same or a different product. - **Recovery**. Obtaining value from wastes by composting, energy recovery, or other technologies. - **Disposal**. If there is no other appropriate solution, waste disposal by landfilling and incineration without energy recovery. Waste disposal has various options depending on the type of waste and according to acceptable environmental standards. Two initial steps allow achieving better results: - **Waste segregation** separates waste, making it more usable or easier to dispose of. Waste segregation at source is a prerequisite to securing separate fractions of sufficient quality for different treatment processes. - **Waste treatment** to reduce hazards or nuisances, preferably at the site of generation. The need for treatment and the level and type of treatment are determined by the requirements of its use or disposal. ## B. The greening of port management The **greening of port management** is attracting growing attention in business practice, as the growing green reflex is reflected in the numerous green initiatives of individual ports and the coordinated actions of the wider port community (See [Chapter 2.5](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/green-supply-chain-management-ports/ "Chapter 2.5 – Green Supply Chain Management in Ports") for an overview of initiatives). **Port authorities** are increasingly concerned about the impacts of noise pollution, waste disposal, water pollution, and air emissions on the sustainable functioning of the port, as these represent the externalities that have the most identifiable impacts on the health of people working or living around ports. Limiting pollution is not only an environmental goal for port authorities. It has also become a clear mission in **corporate social responsibility** (CSR) and **stakeholder relations management** in port areas. It has become evident that any port infrastructure project can be constrained by environmental factors and the public response they can generate. Thus, ports are facing increased pressure from the public to fulfill their social responsibility. Ports must demonstrate an ever-higher level of environmental performance to ensure community support. Ports must comply with increasingly stringent regulatory and societal requirements in the field of environmental protection, which can impact the footprint for port growth, not only in terms of hectares but also in terms of so-called environmental space. This challenges seaports to minimize emissions from existing and future activities in port areas and the wider logistics sector. Environmental aspects also play an increasing role in attracting trading partners and potential investors. A port with a strong environmental record and high community support is likely to be favored. As such, **green port governance** is considered a key strategic challenge for port authorities and the broader port community. Without proper environmental governance, tools, and policies in ports, there is an increased risk of having a clear imbalance between the benefits and costs of ports for the local community. Such imbalances potentially form a breeding ground for major socio-economic confrontations related to port development and operations. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/GSCM-in-ports.png?resize=900%2C409&ssl=1 "Range of Actions for Green Supply Chain Management in Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Range of Actions for Green Supply Chain Management in Ports# 2. Instruments and Tools for Promoting Green Ports Given the potential environmental impacts of port development and operations, port authorities or any other managing bodies of a seaport are challenged to avoid and or reduce effects through a range of **green management tools and instruments**. There are three groups of tools and instruments: (A) penalty and incentive pricing, (B) monitoring and measuring, (C) market access control and environmental standard regulation. Instruments can also be grouped into two categories, which are [instruments that directly limit environmental impacts and instruments that do not](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/instruments-environmental-impact-terminal/). Such a range of instruments in a port terminal context can be used to influence the green behavior of a terminal operator. ## A. Penalty and incentive pricing Port authorities can use **port pricing** as an **environmental incentive tool** in ports. Motivating or offering incentive pricing to good-doers and punishing or imposing penalty pricing on wrongdoers are effective tools for promoting environmental awareness. Pricing control by port authorities is most commonly used in shipping traffic, followed by industrial activities at ports. Voluntary schemes aimed at cleaner ships, such as rewarding the use of Low-Sulfur Fuel Oil (LSFO), are the most common. A pioneering example is the Port of Long Beach, which implemented the Green Flag Speed Reduction Program. By slowing down, ships can reduce airborne emissions, and shipowners, in return, are granted a discount the following year as an incentive. Another good example is green port dues, such as the [Environmental Ship Index](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/green-port-dues-environmental-ship-index/ "Green Port Dues: The Environmental Ship Index (ESI)") (ESI) program. Ship operators typically embrace such voluntary schemes, particularly when the implementation and further refinement of these programs occur in conjunction with proactive and constructive collaboration between the maritime industry and the respective government agencies or port authorities. However, since prices paid by shipping companies and other port users affect their commercial behavior and decisions, price regulation may lead to market distortions if not uniformly applied among competing ports. ## B. Monitoring and measuring Ports are highly vulnerable to **unfounded claims of environmental damage**. To counter such claims, ports require quantifiable and detailed information on the environmental impacts of their operations. Port authorities and the wider port community should clearly communicate how environmental impacts associated with port operations are being effectively managed. By monitoring the air quality, water quality, and policy development, the port authority could keep track of the port’s environmental performance, and subsequently formulate or modify its targeted strategies and policies. Many port authorities have increased **transparency on environmental impacts** and broader sustainability aspects by publishing annual or bi-annual sustainability reports. The practice of [sustainability reporting](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/sustainability-reporting-by-port-authorities/ "Sustainability reporting by port authorities"), beyond mere environmental reporting, started in the late 1990s. More recently, the port industry has adopted this reporting to conceptualize sustainability and as an essential basis for the license to operate. Mainly, larger port authorities have started producing sustainability reports or integrated reporting voluntarily in the past decade (e.g., Antwerp, Hamburg, Rotterdam). In contrast, others have been obliged to adopt the practice due to government-enforced legislation, as exemplified by state-owned enterprises (e.g., Swedish ports). Ports are increasingly following global guidelines and standards for sustainability reporting, such as those outlined by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). In 2016, the first Sustainability Report at the level of the European Port Industry was presented in the context of the European Commission PORTOPIA project. Using datasets present within the European Seaports Organisation (ESPO) and the ECOPORTS project, it revealed that many unsolved conceptual issues and differences in approach among ports remain when it comes to sustainability reporting: - The scope and the boundaries of the reporting, i.e., organizational, functional, or geographical boundaries. - The perspectives of performance and the calculation/definition of indicators. - The integration of stakeholder perspectives. ## C. Market access control and environmental standard regulation Assess regulation controls how terminal operators and other port actors access the facilities they need to compete in the market. Access regulation can include elements concerning emissions and overall environmental performance. A good example is how **[environmental criteria can be used in the competitive bidding process](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/greening-of-terminal-concessions/ "The Greening of Terminal Concessions")** for a terminal concession. Port authorities might have varying degrees of regulatory jurisdiction to **restrict market access and stipulate environmental standards**. In other words, the discretionary powers of port authorities in environmental matters have their limits. In most cases, the bulk of regulatory power is found at the regional, national, or supranational level. For example, international conventions, such as MARPOL, give each signatory nation the accountability to enact domestic laws to implement the convention and ensure compliance. In addition to international regulatory control, legislation varies at different levels, depending on the country/port. It could be a stated law from the national government, a law stipulated by the municipality, certain rules set by the port authority (such as the [Clean Truck Program](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/clean-truck-program-in-los-angeles-long-beach/ "Clean Truck Program in Los Angeles/Long Beach") for the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach), or a mutually binding agreement between the port authority and market players, such as concession agreements. Although regulations are usually strict, their implementation and enforcement may be slow and weak due to a lack of local legitimacy resulting from conflicting stakeholder interests. They might also incur high regulatory costs for both implementation and enforcement. While the environmental level playing field among ports remains a consideration, attention has shifted to the need for cooperation, both nationally and internationally, to advance the green port agenda. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/instruments_terminals_enviromental_impacts.png?resize=900%2C406&ssl=1 "Instruments for Port Authorities to Reduce the Environmental Impacts of Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Instruments available to port authorities for the greening of terminals ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ESI-logo.png?resize=900%2C434&ssl=1 "The Environmental Ship Index program | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Environmental Ship Index program![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Capture-1.jpg?resize=900%2C607&ssl=1 "Sustainability Reports by Port Authorities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Sustainability reports by port authorities![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/green_port_concessions.png?resize=900%2C461&ssl=1 "Green Port Concession Agreements and Processes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Green Port Concession Agreements and Processes![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Truck.jpg?resize=900%2C605&ssl=1 "Clean Truck Program at the Ports of LA and Long Beach | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Clean Truck Program ports of LA and Long Beach# 3. Challenges to Green Port Governance Port authorities have recognized that further greening is necessary to maintain their competitive edge and their license to operate, but it can also create new earning opportunities. In practice, the attitude of port authorities can range from **reactive monitoring** of general environmental management programs to more **proactive approaches** aimed at creating value and generating revenue. However, port communities also understand that the **challenges remain immense** and progress made is not at the same level in all domains of action: - Reducing the environmental footprint commonly requires **drastic and large-scale solutions** such as [Carbon Capture and Utilization](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage/ "Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage") (CCU) and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), a further push towards greener shipping, and a modal shift. - The greening of ports also demands a shift in **perspectives, values, and a joint commitment and dedication** from the parties involved. More than ever, port authorities and market players will need to rely on their partners in the supply chain to achieve their green corporate and societal objectives. Success typically depends on coordination and cooperation **between the involved actors** and the availability, use, and **sharing of data** through appropriate platforms and systems. - As many of the landlord port authorities have been corporatized, **investment recovery** is often cited as a critical aspect of green initiatives. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/CCU.jpg?resize=747%2C416&ssl=1 "Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Carbon capture utilisation and storageLike private companies, port authorities have become very sensitive to the **coherence, continuity, and legal certainty of developed government policies**. As many investment decisions have a medium to long-term payback time, any changes in government policy can have huge implications for the soundness of the initial decision related to a green initiative. This is particularly the case for abolishing a subsidy scheme for specific green investments. Thus, government policies and regulations should provide legal and investment certainty to the affected port authorities and private businesses. Instead of opting for a one-size-fits-all approach in environmental initiatives, landlord port authorities are invited to evaluate carefully: - Whether they have **a role to play**, will their involvement likely lead to a superior outcome compared to no involvement? - What **tools or instruments should be used**, such as pricing, knowledge development/sharing, and investment? - Whether they should act as **facilitators or entrepreneurs**. In some cases, port authorities extend their traditional facilitation role by making key investments, particularly when private investors are less willing to do so. While many port authorities are actively implementing the green port concept, **progress remains difficult in some areas**, such as the large-scale adoption of [cold ironing solutions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/greening-of-terminal-concessions/) for deep-sea vessels or the [greening of terminal concession procedures and agreements](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/greening-of-terminal-concessions/). Given the position of seaports as key nodes in global supply chains and logistics networks, it is tempting to urge port authorities to assume a role as **tax collectors for the related environmental damage**. Policymakers should not force port authorities to act as the convenient tax collectors for greening supply chains at the supranational or national level. Any **internalization of environmental costs** should target the polluter at source and cannot lead to an obligation for port authorities to punish for externalities or to reward environmental performance. Obviously, the above point does not imply that port authorities should refrain from launching such **schemes on a voluntary basis**, either individually or in collaboration with other ports. # 4. Green Port Governance and Stakeholders **Stakeholder relations management** has become an important part of port management and strategy (see [Chapter 7.3](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3670#3_Stakeholder_involvement_in_port_planning_and_development)). In dealing with stakeholders, port authorities can resort to **effective environmental management**, which includes: - **Environmental management system**. A documented process that outlines a structure for managing environmental impact processes and implementing continuous improvements, including environmental risk assessment and management actions to address identified risks. - **Environmental monitoring and reporting**. Ports are vulnerable to unfounded claims of environmental damage, such as those related to dredging. To deflect such claims, ports need quantifiable and detailed information on the environmental impacts of their operations. Examples of environmental reporting include environmental impact assessment studies associated with port expansion, reports on the impacts of dredging, and monitoring of natural resources such as wetland conditions, bird populations, and migration patterns. A growing number of ports are developing sustainability reports on an annual or regular basis. - **Community consultation**. Forms a key component of environmental management, as ports should communicate how environmental impacts associated with port operations are being effectively managed. If a port starts a dialogue with the local community only in response to a problem, a negative perception could be the outcome. The key is to identify what aspects of port development are negotiable and then communicate this to the community. - **Land use strategies**. Identify plans for future port operations and strategies to conserve and protect areas of conservation value, such as buffers and wildlife corridors. By coming to terms with both the community and the government on future port activities, a port can reach a higher level of certainty that it will grow and meet changing trade needs. When ecosystems are damaged or lost due to port development, port authorities should interact with stakeholders to find answers to some important questions about the **restoration of environmental assets**: - What is to be restored, the resource itself or resource services? - How much restoration is required to compensate for the loss? - What alternative does the cost-effective restoration option provide? - Do the benefits to be obtained from the restoration justify the costs? - Who pays, or how can the costs be shared equitably? These questions raise real concerns for green port governance, as mitigation and compensation measures can add between **10% and 20% to the port project cost**. # 5. Green Cruise Ports Like cargo ports, cruise ports face challenges in reducing their **environmental impacts**. The aspirations to host more cruise activities are increasingly combined with the strategic importance of sustainability and **green cruise governance**. ## A. The cruise environmental challenge The gigantism of cruise ships and the proliferation of cruise itineraries imply an increased number of passengers arriving at a destination with just one call, posing significant challenges to cruise ports and destinations hosting them. The contemporary cruise segment of the sector, which represents more than 75% of cruises, is offered by vessels that exceed the 3,000-passenger and 1,000-crew threshold. This implies the mass arrival of tourists at local destinations, concerns about overcrowding, congestion, massive operations, a considerable footprint, and the need to handle large quantities of waste. Justifiably or not, local communities have started questioning the unqualified growth of cruising, which had long been taken as a beneficial development. While the benefits, in terms of spending at destinations, are profound, this growth may be associated with congestion and several related externalities that need to be addressed. A key condition for local communities to maximize the benefits from cruise market growth is the endorsement of best practices and policy options to **mitigate the externalities generated by cruise shipping**. The challenges to be addressed relate to three pillars, one of which refers to the environment. Addressing the externalities associated with the provision of cruise shipping and the hosting of vessels and cruise passengers at cruise ports remains a priority today. Environmental externalities refer to the handling of waste produced, water quality, air emissions, noise, and soil, as well as other issues (i.e., constructions that alter natural or built environments, fauna, and energy resources). Two key externalities are waste management and the various forms of emissions, including air and noise emissions. Their importance and global presence have led to discussions and conclusions on measures to occur at the international level. ## B. Waste management An issue on cruising and the environment is developing effective policies and practices for **[collecting and handling the waste and garbage produced onboard](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-ports-waste-reception-facilities/ "Cruise Ports Waste Reception Facilities: Ownership and Fee Schemes")**. As a cruise ship carries several thousand passengers and crew in an enclosed facility, a range of municipal utilities, including water supply, electricity generation, sewers, and waste management, are found onboard. The amount and types of waste may vary from one cruise ship to another; yet, cruises are among the largest generators of garbage compared to other shipping markets. A cruise ship with 3,000 passengers and crew generates about 50 tons of solid waste in a single week and an average of 50 tons of sewage (black water) per day. IMO uses a figure of 3.5 kg/passenger/day, while the US Department of Transportation data estimates that the generated waste during a typical one-week voyage includes 25,000 gallons of oily bilge water; 210,000 gallons of sewage (or black water), one million gallons of non-sewage wastewater and eight tons of solid waste (i.e., plastic, paper, wood, cardboard, food, cans, glass). Most cruise lines and port authorities have implemented environmental management systems to ensure improved **waste reception operations**. Cruise lines have made an effort to reduce, select, and manage the garbage generated onboard in compliance with MARPOL requirements. An environmental policy goal of ‘zero discharge’ for solid waste at sea has been endorsed by several of them, putting pressure on cruise ports to go beyond the environmental regulatory obligations. Waste management at the port is vital, as is shipboard recycling, oil waste treatment, management of hazardous wastes, and ballast water management for cruise companies. Similarly, cruise ports implement solid waste management processes. They develop facilities, technologies, and services to enable a more efficient waste management life cycle for cruise ships. Port reception facilities are generally available, and the volumes of waste delivered, compared to that discharged at sea, have increased. A significant concern for cruise ports, operators, and involved third parties is developing **efficient information and monitoring systems** that enable the optimal use of existing mechanisms. Reducing solid waste and increasing recycling through the availability of garbage reception facilities at all berths, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, requires the cooperation of stakeholders to manage ship-generated waste more effectively, as well as the application of innovative technologies. Cruise ports need to promote handling services, including segregation, biological reprocessing, inactivation, composting, recycling, and storage. Together, these actors can explore waste treatment possibilities on ships by investing in the development of innovative new technologies. These efforts could decrease the significant disparity between waste management ashore and disposal services at the destination. Improving wastewater treatment capacities is important. In this case, the IMO has already designated special areas for passenger ships (i.e., the Baltic Sea), where the discharge of sewage from cruise ships will be prohibited through a gradual process. Stakeholders undertake initiatives to ensure that facilities for the reception of sewage are provided in ports and terminals, where coastal countries can report that the sewage reception facilities in their ports fulfill the criteria of adequacy. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-09-15-122641.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Waste Reception from a Cruise Ship | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Waste Reception from a Cruise Ship## C. Emission control **Cruise port and cruise shipping-related emissions** have generated interest among decision-makers and in port cities that experience the negative externalities of port and port-related operations. Even though the average emissions in a port account are comparatively low, cruise terminals are often close to city centers, meaning that population exposure might be on the higher side. Significant differences in CO2 emissions can be observed between individual cruise ships, depending on their size, age, and capacity configuration (i.e., high-end luxury cruise ships vs. mass cruise ships). The largest ships exhibit the lowest CO2 output, partly due to their high occupancy rates and relatively young age, as well as the number of beds per square meter. The need to control emissions, along with international regulatory frameworks that restrict the use of fueling options, has triggered interest in alternative forms of powering cruise vessels. Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) has emerged as the primary alternative fuel for the shipping industry, as many new vessels feature dual-fuel engines that enable them to operate on both heavy oil and LNG. Cruise ships have the highest adoption build rate among the different types of seagoing vessels; LNG powers 19 out of 105 cruise ships delivered between 2018 and 2026, and more cruise lines are committing to LNG-fueled cruise ships. This increase creates a need for the cruise port industry to provide LNG bunkering facilities. Cruise ports can also use LNG to fuel their handling and transport equipment and serve the energy needs of the cruise terminal buildings, such as air conditioning. [Cold ironing or shoreside power facilities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-ship-store-loading-cold-ironing/ "Cruise Ship Store Loading and Cold Ironing") are also installed in several urban cruise terminals to reduce the environmental impact of docked ships. The application of measures to reduce emissions, including onshore power for cruise ships, remains subject to **regional variations**. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2012-06-16-10.28.54.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "2012-06-16 10.28.54 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Ship Store Loading and Cold IroningRegarding **noise emissions**, there are various noise sources on ships during their dockage at ports, including diesel generator engine exhaust, ventilation inlets/outlets, and secondary noise sources such as pumps or refrigeration units (reefers). Cruise ship operations generate disturbing noise for nearby areas and the crew, and they are also sources of low-frequency noise. The IMO has already defined a Code on noise levels on board ships, detailing limits for different types of noise and setting limits for noise emitted into the surroundings. However, the existing international framework covers only the noise onboard ships, but not in a port or during maneuvering. ## D. Regulating an emerging industry In addressing environmental challenges, **international regulations** are often highly appropriate when a legislative approach proves insufficient. The most effective way to address environmental externalities uniformly, thereby ensuring a level playing field for the entire cruise industry, is the endorsement of international policy instruments. In the significant parts of the market (i.e., North America and Europe), legislation is already recognized as the primary driver of the need for environmental management tools. In emerging areas, such as Asia, environmental considerations remain of secondary importance for the time being. Beyond legislation, agreements on associated issues, such as the presence of remote monitoring systems as tools for improving the level of cruise and port environmental conditions, which demand complex and expensive processes, are better addressed at the international level, rather than being a cause of distorting competition. The industry has implemented several **self-regulatory practices** that have driven growth and remarkable operational achievements. Even on the environmental front, self-regulation at the international level is not rare. Cruise companies spend heavily to install exhaust gas cleaning technology (scrubbers) to reduce air emissions from cruise ships. Receiving support from governmental organizations and through discussion would help develop and implement environmental technology to comply with existing regulations or even pre-empt future ones. Cooperation aims to advance innovation and alternative approaches at the international level to facilitate adjustments and solutions meeting the challenges related to shore power for cruise ships. Similarly, meaningful international cruise emissions inventories would provide information on several unknown factors, such as the actual emissions of ships while docked compared with when they are at sea, or comparison with emissions from other shipping sectors. All these would inform adjustments of the related regulatory frameworks. Environmental externalities have been among the initiatives developed by the port industry within respective port associations. Individual ports utilize environmental management systems that are compliant with ISO 14001 and other best practices and tools to manage environmental issues. Incentive pricing is also applied as a means to address environmental challenges. Ships producing reduced quantities of ship-generated waste are subject to lower dues, as discounts are offered based on green award certificates or based on an environmental ship index. However, even in this case, the presence of common principles would facilitate the identification of such ships. Simultaneously, it would limit questions about the effectiveness of the tools in application, and, not least, the potential for cross-subsidization between ship types, depending on the markets they serve. --- # Related Topics - [i.3 Seaports: Social and Environmental Value](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/) - [Chapter 2.5 Green Supply Chain Management in Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/green-supply-chain-management-ports/) - [Chapter 3.2 Terminal Concessions and Land Leases](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/) - [Chapter 4.2 Port Authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-authorities/) - [Chapter 8.1 Cruise Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/cruises-ports/) ## References - Bergqvist, R. and Egels-Zandén, N., 2012. Green port dues—The case of hinterland transport. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 5, 85-91. - Lam, J.S.L. and Notteboom, T., 2014. The greening of ports: a comparison of port management tools used by leading ports in Asia and Europe. Transport Reviews, 34(2), 169-189. - Merk, O., 2014. Shipping emissions in ports. ITF-OECD, Discussion paper 2014-20 - Pallis A.A. and Vaggelas G.K. (2018). Cruise Shipping and Green Ports: A Strategic Challenge. Ιn: Bergqvist R. and Monios J. (eds): Green Ports: Inland and Seaside Sustainable Transportation Strategies, 255-273, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. - Pavlic, B., Cepak, F., Sucic, B., Peckaj, M. and Kandus, B., 2014. Sustainable port infrastructure, practical implementation of the green port concept. Thermal Science, 18(3), 935. - UNESCAP, 1992. Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Port Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA - Verhoeven, P., 2010. A review of port authority functions: towards a renaissance?. Maritime Policy & Management, 37(3), 247-270. - Wang, S. and Notteboom, T., 2015. The role of port authorities in the development of LNG bunkering facilities in North European ports. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 14(1), 61-92. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Defining the Seaport](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/defining-the-seaport/) **Published:** November 12, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/defining-seaport.png?resize=900%2C487&ssl=1 "Defining the Seaport | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Defining the SeaportA port can be defined by its geographical and functional elements. The **geographical elements** include: - **Situation**. The relative position of the port in relation to other ports serviced through **shipping networks** and its **hinterland**. This reflects how the port is connected to maritime and inland circulation systems. - **[Site](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/port-sites/)**. The physical characteristics of the port, such as its nautical profile (depth, access channel) and the land available for port activities, particularly for terminals. There are ports with direct access to the sea via a bay or natural harbor, and mainland ports with access via an intermediary navigation channel. The following **functional elements** help define a seaport: - **Logistics node**. The added value performed by the port’s transportation function, including the handling, storage, consolidation, and deconsolidation of cargoes. - **Industrial node**. Activities depending on the port as a platform to supply inputs such as raw materials and distribute outputs such as parts and finished goods. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/defining-the-seaport/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/defining-the-seaport/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/defining-the-seaport/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/defining-the-seaport/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Intrinsic Cargo Handling Values per Ton](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/intrinsic-cargo-handling-values/) **Published:** April 23, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/rules_intrinsic_cargo_handling.png?resize=900%2C345&ssl=1 "Rules for Determining Intrinsic Cargo Handling Tons | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Rules for Determining Intrinsic Cargo Handling Tons*Source: Huybrechts, M., Meersman, H., Van De Voorde, E., Van Hooydonk, E., Verbeke, A., Winkelmans, W. (2001) “Port competitiveness: an economic and legal analysis of the factors determining the competitiveness of seaports”, Editions De Boeck and Haezendonck, E. and Moeremans, B. (2019). Measuring value tonnes based on direct value added: a new weighted analysis for the port of Antwerp. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 1-13.* Several studies have attempted to measure **intrinsic cargo handling values** by presenting the relative added value associated with the handling of one ton of cargo. The cargo category that generates the highest added value per ton is given a score of 1, and all other cargo categories are scored relative to this. A score of 9 means that 9 tons of that cargo category generates as much added value as 1 ton of the best-performing cargo category in terms of value added per ton. The higher the value, the less labor is involved. The methodologies deployed range from bottom-up to top-down approaches: - The Port of Hamburg introduced the **Hamburg Rule** in 1976, which has since become the reference standard. - The **Bremen Rule** was presented in 1982 by the port of Bremen. It was based on the differences in labor costs for handling cargo and provided the following relative weights: 1 ton of general cargo equals 3 tons of dry bulk or 12 tons of liquid bulk. - The Rotterdam Port Authority introduced the **Rotterdam Rule** in 1985 and refined the method further in 1991 with more detailed dry bulk classes. - In 1986, the **Dupuydauby Rule** introduced relative weights in cargo handling value per ton. It particularly underlines that containerization was becoming less labor-intensive, with an intrinsic value changing from one to three. - The **Antwerp Rule** is based on data from the Port of Antwerp and distinguishes 13 traffic categories. Based on these figures, the highest added value per ton in the port of Antwerp is created by the handling of fruit. As the Antwerp Rule is only based on Antwerp data, the University of Antwerp also developed a **Range Rule** based on data for ports in the Hamburg-Le Havre range. - The **Antwerp Rule** was updated and refined in 2008 and 2015 (**New Antwerp Rule**). It clearly underlines the growing productivity of containerization from a labor perspective. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/intrinsic-cargo-handling-values/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/intrinsic-cargo-handling-values/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/intrinsic-cargo-handling-values/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/intrinsic-cargo-handling-values/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 3.5 – Ports and the Circular Economy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/) **Published:** July 24, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Theo Notteboom, Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > Ports can play a role in setting circular supply flow principles in terms of materials, energy, land, and waste management. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Circularity and the Circular Economy](#1_Circularity_and_the_Circular_Economy) - [2. The Circular Maritime Economy](#2_The_Circular_Maritime_Economy) - [3. Ports as Hubs for Material Sourcing](#3_Ports_as_Hubs_for_Material_Sourcing) - [4. Port Land Management](#4_Port_Land_Management) - [5. Energy Management](#5_Energy_Management) - [6. Waste Management](#6_Waste_Management) - [7. Strategies for the Circular Economy in Ports](#7_Strategies_for_the_Circular_Economy_in_Ports) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Circularity and the Circular Economy Production systems and their related supply chains tend to be organized in a **linear sequence**, involving the extraction of resources and materials, their transformation, manufacturing, and distribution. At every step, particularly after final consumption or the end of product lifecycles, waste is generated and needs to be discarded. However, in conventional supply chains, a relatively small fraction of waste is reused or recycled, mostly because production systems may not be designed to reuse certain materials or because new materials may be easier and cheaper to procure. As environmental concerns emerged in the 1980s, greater pressure was placed on developing recycling capabilities, with the emergence of concepts such as closed-loop production systems and “cradle to cradle” designs. The goal was to shift as much as possible from linear processes oriented along the “extract-manufacture-consume-dispose” paradigm toward [circular processes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/from-linear-to-circular-economic-principles/) such as “reduce-reuse-recycle”. This **circularity** was eventually conceptualized in a wider context and became known as the circular economy (CE). > The circular economy is a feedback system that aims to minimize resource inputs and waste generation, thereby reducing environmental externalities. The circular economy emphasizes reducing waste and promoting resource efficiency through recycling, reusing, and remanufacturing. It applies well to products and assets with longevity and is less suitable for products with a short life cycle. For instance, assets such as vehicles and appliances can be better designed with CE principles than products such as clothing and even mobile phones. From a supply chain perspective, circularity is expanding **reverse logistics** principles into a more [comprehensive framework](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/circular-economy-supply-chains/ "The Circular Economy and Supply Chains"), including two subsystems: one related to biological goods (e.g., food) and the other to technical goods (products). Four fundamental principles help define circularity: - **Maintenance**. A product can be regularly serviced and upgraded to extend its life cycle, thereby preventing it from becoming obsolete or unusable. - **Reuse**. A product can be transferred from one user to another by using a form of leasing or sharing involving collection, maintenance, storage, and delivery. - **Remanufacture**. The manufacturing of a new product from similar products once it has ceased to function because of damage or wear and tear. The manufacturer refurbishes major parts and adds new components to those that cannot be repaired, if necessary. Then, the product is reintroduced into the supply chain. - **Recycle**. Once consumption occurs, discarded products can be collected and used as inputs in the manufacturing of other products. Implementing these principles requires two fundamental changes within supply chains: - **Product design**. Conventionally, products are designed to be single-use and disposable. The goal is to design products that are modular, upgradable, and have a longer lifespan. At the end of their life cycle, it should be possible for the product to be disassembled, reused, and recycled. A challenge concerns that technological developments incite the design of products with short life cycles. - **Feedback loops**. Capabilities to incorporate feedback loops need to be developed so that circular supply chains become operational. Through feedback loops and their collection mechanisms, goods can be shared, reused, remanufactured, or recycled. A challenge concerns that feedback loops can be complex and costly to implement. The CE brings forward the concept of **[extended ](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-circular-economy/concept-extended-producer-responsibility/ "The Concept of Extended Producer Responsibility")[producer responsibility](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/concept-extended-producer-responsibility/ "The Concept of Extended Producer Responsibility")**, imposing on manufacturers and distributors a higher degree of responsibility for the environmental externalities of the goods they produce. This involves increasing involvement, even covering some of the related costs, over three main cycles: production and distribution, consumption, and recycling. Improving the **production and distribution cycle**, mostly through improved product design, is expected. Furthermore, the consumption cycle enables the extended longevity of the product, specifically its capacity to be reused. Once a product is discarded, mechanisms should be in place to ensure that it enters the **recycling cycle**. During this period, goods are collected, sorted, and reprocessed, eventually being transformed into manufacturing inputs and reentering the production cycle. The concept of extended producer responsibility also involves a form of legal and economic responsibility. However, this raises ethical and legal issues, as the burden is placed on producers and distributors regarding environmental externalities that are complex and controversial to assess, and particularly to measure. At the same time, users may face less accountability for their consumption behavior. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/circular_economy_supply_chains.png?resize=900%2C620&ssl=1 "The Circular Economy and Supply Chains | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Circular Economy and Supply Chains![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/linear_to_circular.png?resize=900%2C363&ssl=1 "From Linear to Circular Economic Principles | Port Economics, Management and Policy")From Linear to Circular Economic Principles![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/extended_producer_responsibility.png?resize=900%2C577&ssl=1 "The Concept of Extended Producer Responsibility | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Concept of Extended Producer Responsibility# 2. The Circular Maritime Economy The crucial role that seaports play in global trade and economic development is [well documented](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/ "Chapter 1.1 – Maritime Shipping and International Trade"). As sustainability concerns gained traction, the circular economy emerged as a **parallel concept** that redefines conventional linear supply chain practices by adding **feedback mechanisms**. Its principles, namely reduce, reuse, recycle, and remanufacture, align with the stated goals of the port industry to minimize its environmental impact, conserve resources, reduce its footprint, and optimize operations. These principles promote a closed-loop system, encouraging seaports to reassess their practices and reconsider their role in both global and local supply chains. The application of circular economy principles is not only about increasing efficiency within the existing economic system, but also about making significant changes to supply chains. The circular economy presents a paradigm shift for seaports, transforming them into **more active actors** in implementing sustainable principles and promoting resource efficiency. By addressing challenges and seizing opportunities, seaports can contribute to a circular global economy with the expectation of improved resilience and environmental impacts. An alignment between governments, businesses, and stakeholders can facilitate the process; however, the nature and extent of such an alignment have **not been well-defined**. Ports and governments are paying attention to the energy transition, as well as specific aspects of it, such as hydrogen (including its flows and infrastructure). Circular challenges are somewhat overshadowed, and the interactions between energy and CE transitions are not fully recognized. A comprehensive overview of the circular economy, as it applies to [maritime container shipping and ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/circular-economy-ports-maritime-shipping/ "The Circular Economy in Ports and Maritime Shipping"), highlights the primary linear and feedback mechanisms specific to the industry. It underlines that there are [two separate and interdependent circular systems](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/circular-ports-circular-maritime-supply-chains/ "Circular Ports and Circular Maritime Supply Chains"): - **Maritime shipping** includes ship maintenance, sales and charters (reuse), ship conversion (remanufacture), and ship scrapping (recycling), which are elements of CE mechanisms. Responsible [ship recycling](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ship-recycling-scrapping-demolition/) and [circular ship design](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/key-components-of-circular-ship-design/) are key fields of action in this area. - **Ports** have CE mechanisms, including port maintenance, concessions (reuse), port upgrading (remanufacturing), and port conversion (recycling). While maritime shipping involves specific CE mechanisms, a focus on ports underlines that they play a **dual role** in the circular economy: - **Circular ports**. Identifying the existing or potential circular processes within a port, considering their inputs and outputs. Fundamental inputs to port operations include capital, land, equipment, labor, and energy, all of which can be subject to circular processes. At a minimum, circularity should result in similar output levels even if several inputs are reduced. A core strategy is to establish linkages between existing port users to find commonalities. - **Circular maritime supply chains**. Identifying the existing or potential options where a port can develop and expand circular processes within the supply chains it supports. The port can serve as a site, facilitator, and intermediary for circular processes. The setting of circular economy principles in ports is incited by [drivers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/drivers-and-barriers-for-the-circular-economy-in-ports/ "Drivers and Barriers for the Circular Economy in Ports") such as the goal to **attract new added value activities** in the port area, **new technologies** allowing for new circular mechanisms, the provision of **incentives** such as subsidies and tax abatements, or inducing **compliance** with circular principles through rules and regulations about environmental externalities. However, several [barriers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/drivers-and-barriers-for-the-circular-economy-in-ports/ "Drivers and Barriers for the Circular Economy in Ports") can hinder the development of a circular economy at ports, such as an **organizational structure** having a lack of leadership, **stakeholders** seeing limited benefits from CE activities, acute **capital requirements** with limited demonstrable returns, **land availability** issues, and the need for **infrastructure** supporting circular economy activities, such as electric power generation and recycling facilities. **Containerization** exemplifies a specialized form of circularity, as a container can be reused as long as it remains in good condition, necessitating regular inspections and maintenance. Empty containers need to be repositioned between locations having a positive inbound trade balance and those with a positive outbound trade balance. At the end of their life cycle of about 15 years, containers can be recycled for their components or remanufactured for other uses, such as for storage sheds and real estate (housing, offices, retail). [American containerized trade with China](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/american-foreign-trade-maritime-containers/ "American Foreign Trade by Maritime Containers, 2017") in the 2010s can be considered an **early form of circular maritime supply chains**. Incentivized by imbalanced trade and the associated lower container freight rates for China-bound cargo, waste paper, and recycled goods, such as metals, were collected on the US West Coast and loaded into empty containers, preferably 20-footers. Then, containers were carried to China, and the cargo was used as manufacturing inputs. Thus, the contents of many American retail imports from China, including the packaging, were recycled goods. This circular process emerged without any form of planning and was the **outcome of market considerations**, which should be the most desirable option in implementing circular processes. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/circular_ports_shipping.png?resize=900%2C417&ssl=1 "The Circular Economy in Ports and Maritime Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Circular Economy in Ports and Maritime Shipping![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/circular_ports_circular_maritime.png?resize=900%2C282&ssl=1 "Circular Ports and Circular Maritime Supply Chains | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Circular Ports and Circular Maritime Supply Chains![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/drivers_barriers_circular_economy_ports.png?resize=900%2C297&ssl=1 "Drivers and Barriers for the Circular Economy in Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Drivers and Barriers for the Circular Economy in Ports![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/american_trade_containers.png?resize=900%2C419&ssl=1 "American Foreign Trade by Maritime Containers, 2024 (in TEUs) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")American Foreign Trade by Maritime Containers 2021![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/components_circular_ship_design.png?resize=900%2C396&ssl=1 "Key Components of Circular Ship Design | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Circular ship design# 3. Ports as Hubs for Material Sourcing ## A. Recycling and beyond The recycling economy differs from the circular economy in that most materials can only be recycled a few times before their quality deteriorates and they become unusable. A circular economy aims to keep products and materials in use **without degrading their quality or downcycling into lower-valued products**. A wide array of **recycling, upcycling, and reuse processing techniques** is available for different types of materials, products, and waste streams: - **Mechanical recycling** involves processing products or materials into secondary raw materials or products through mechanical processes, such as sorting, washing, drying, grinding, re-granulation, and compounding. Mechanical recycling does not alter the chemical structure of the material, allowing for multiple reuse and creating a closed loop. Still, the quality of the component may degrade and can eventually no longer be recyclable. - **Chemical recycling** involves processing products or materials by changing their chemical structure and turning them back into substances (even at the molecular level) that can be used as raw materials for manufacturing other products or materials. Chemical recycling technologies include, for example, pyrolysis, gasification, hydrocracking, and depolymerization. The challenge is that chemical recycling may require large quantities of energy and expensive catalysts. Each technique leads to different decomposition levels of the materials concerned, as exemplified by the available [recycling technologies in the life cycle of plastics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/recycling-technologies-in-the-life-cycle-of-plastics/ "Recycling Technologies in the Life Cycle of Plastics"), the [treatment of contaminated dredged material](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/treatment-contaminated-dredged-material/), [ship recycling](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ship-recycling-scrapping-demolition/), or the r[ecycling of wind turbines](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wind-turbines-parts-materials-potential-disposal-methods/ "Wind Turbine Parts, Materials and Potential Disposal Methods"). The associated chemical processes (if any) must be precise and flexible, as the input materials can be highly diverse. This requires detailed knowledge of the incoming materials and advanced methods to sort out different waste products. Next to recycling, waste material flows can be reduced by **simplifying materials and products** during the design phase and by designing **business models and products** to make more efficient use of materials. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Plastics-recycling-techniques.png?resize=900%2C338&ssl=1 "Recycling Technologies in the Life Cycle of Plastics | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Recycling technologies in the life cycle of plastics![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Amoras.jpg?resize=450%2C299&ssl=1 "Treatment of Dredged Material: Amoras Project, Antwerp | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Treatment of dredged material Amoras project Antwerp![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ship_recycling_methods.png?resize=900%2C703&ssl=1 "Ship Recycling, Scrapping and Demolition | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ship Recycling Scrapping and Demolition![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/wind_turbine_disposal.png?resize=900%2C448&ssl=1 "Wind Turbine Parts, Materials and Potential Disposal Methods | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Wind turbine recycling## B. Action fields for material sourcing hub creation Seaports can transform into hubs for circular materials by adopting comprehensive strategies. They can act as **hubs for material recovery and reuse** by implementing reverse logistics and encouraging sustainable product design. By salvaging materials from end-of-life products and returning them to value chains, seaports can contribute to a more resource-efficient economy. In this way, seaport ecosystems can serve as sources of materials and even individual molecules that form the building blocks for new materials and industry procurement. By integrating these aspects and fostering a circular materials ecosystem, seaports can enhance circularity, minimize waste, and promote sustainable practices within their operations and the broader community. Several [key areas of action](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/action-fields-material-sourcing-hub-creation-ports/ "Action Fields for Material Sourcing Hub Creation in Ports") can be identified: - **Material flow analysis and mapping**. Detailed insights into recycling and reuse flows for a broad range of supply chains (batteries, precious metals, plastics, etc.) and waste products (waste heat, wastewater, etc.) are necessary. This requires thoroughly analyzing material flows within and outside the port to understand the types and quantities of imported, exported, and processed materials. Such an exercise should enable the creation of **detailed materials flow maps** to identify potential circular material opportunities. Some of these circular flows can be organized locally (including the port-city interface), while a more regional and even global flow system needs to be developed for others. **[Material exchange platforms](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/building-blocks-of-material-exchange-platforms/ "Building Blocks of Material Exchange Platforms")** are essential for material flow analysis and mapping, typically comprising four key components: a material passport, a digital twin, material valuation, and matchmaking. Ports are challenged to develop digital platforms that connect businesses and industries within and around the port, facilitating the exchange and reuse of materials. Some industries may be unaware of the material sourcing opportunities that are available. Digital matching platforms ideally enable the discovery of high-value reuse options for materials or waste products, unlocking the potential of these streams by matching them to their highest-value uses. - **Waste reduction and recycling programs**. Relevant stakeholders should implement waste reduction and recycling programs within the port and surrounding areas to minimize landfill waste. At the same time, appropriate infrastructure and incentives should be provided to allow the responsible disposal of materials. For the transition to a circular economy, ports are challenged to close material cycles, allowing residual flows to be given a second life and reused or recycled. - **Circular material sorting and processing facilities**. Port ecosystems that aim to establish a hub function in material sourcing must establish dedicated facilities within the port area for sorting, processing, and repurposing various materials. This also involves implementing technologies that enable efficient sorting and processing of materials to extract maximum value from waste streams. Ports can be instrumental in developing circular flows by supporting **small-scale demonstration or showcase projects** in the port area. Such projects enable testing the technical and economic feasibility of a broad array of material recycling and upcycling techniques. At the same time, such projects are necessary to strengthen stakeholder support for circular activities and to secure access to capital to fund the transition from proof of concept (typically for start-ups) to projects of a viable economic scale (scale-up). - **Collaboration, partnerships, and intermediation**. To become material-sourcing hubs, ports must foster a collaborative port ecosystem centered on circularity. Port actors require collaboration with local businesses, research institutions, government agencies, and non-profit organizations to drive research, innovation, and knowledge sharing in the field of circular materials. At the same time, port authorities, industry associations, and other relevant stakeholders can cooperate to facilitate trade in surplus materials, by-products, or waste streams that can be repurposed by others. Inter-firm cooperation through **industrial symbiosis** is a form of mediation that brings companies together in an innovative collaboration and finds ways to use the waste of one actor as a raw material for another. - **Circular material policies and incentives**. For ports to become effective material-sourcing hubs, the broader port ecosystem should advocate for and implement policies that incentivize businesses to adopt circular practices, such as tax incentives for recycling and material reuse, reduced tariffs for reusing materials, or subsidies for the adoption of circular technologies. - **Education and awareness**. Relevant port actors should facilitate and implement awareness campaigns and educational programs to inform stakeholders, including businesses, employees, and the general public, about the benefits of and specific demands related to creating material sourcing hubs as part of a circular economy in a port context. The information provided should be evidence-based to avoid a public backlash if projects are hyped and fail to yield results according to inflated expectations. - **Circular design and innovation**. The port ecosystem should promote and create awareness of product and packaging designs, prioritizing recyclability, reusability, and durability to ensure easier material recovery and reintegration into the economy. This also includes circular supply chain design, which supports businesses that prioritize sourcing materials from recycled content or utilizing reusable materials, and facilitates efficient transportation and logistics to minimize waste and optimize material use. - **Monitoring and reporting**. The port ecosystem should be responsible for establishing monitoring mechanisms to track the progress of circular material initiatives, including relevant metrics related to material reuse, recycling rates, land use implications, and environmental impact. Regularly reporting progress to stakeholders enhances awareness and creates transparency. Such an exercise can be part of broader [sustainability reporting](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/sustainability-reporting-by-port-authorities/) or be developed separately. A core challenge remains that few, if any, of these practices have been demonstrated to be effective. The value proposition of circular principles applied to ports is still to be assessed. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/action_fields_material_sourcing_ports.png?resize=900%2C558&ssl=1 "Action Fields for Material Sourcing Hub Creation in Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Action Fields for Material Sourcing Hub Creation in Ports![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Material-exchange-platform.png?resize=900%2C446&ssl=1 "Building Blocks of Material Exchange Platforms | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Building blocks of material exchange platforms![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Capture-1.jpg?resize=900%2C607&ssl=1 "Sustainability Reports by Port Authorities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Sustainability reports by port authorities# 4. Port Land Management The circular economy in seaports impacts **land management and spatial planning** by promoting efficient resource use, waste reduction, and sustainable practices. This can lead to optimized land allocation, improved waste management systems, and the integration of recycling and reuse facilities within port areas. Additionally, the circular economy promotes the development of eco-friendly transportation and storage solutions, which in turn influence the layout and design of port infrastructure. ## A. Land availability and demand Land has become a **scarce and complex resource** for ports to manage. Therefore, it is over the issue of land and its footprint that ports are challenged to address the circular economy, as this particular resource is difficult to improve. Land is required for CE activities to develop in ports, but the amount of space required varies depending on the types of CE activities and future economic scenarios relevant to the port. Some studies in this area indicate that, depending on the scenario, the circular economy as a whole could require up to 40% more space than the current linear fossil economy. The implementation of CE principles in a port context requires the **right conditions in spatial planning policy** when developing, transforming, and restructuring the port area. This requires **coordination and cooperation** among relevant stakeholders, including various government departments, port management bodies, and port land users or concessionaires. It is often considered a challenge to find the necessary space between existing land claims in seaport areas, as well as in the vicinity of the port. **Long-term decisions on land allocation** can further impair the transition to a circular economy. For example, when industrial land with high environmental externalities is relocated, this decision can compromise the reuse of the site for CE activities. Additionally, the development of industrial land can take decades due to the permitting and licensing processes. Therefore, it is essential to **allocate the space required for CE activities** with an industrial character in a timely manner and to exercise caution when repurposing existing industrial land and brownfields in seaport areas. To prepare for and accommodate the transition to a circular economy, port management, and local, regional, and national public authorities are challenged to consider the following: 1. Develop a **systematic approach** to secure the required space for CE developments: Decentralized authorities and managing bodies of ports must develop a regional spatial vision of the circular economy and raw materials, linked to a concrete implementation strategy at the regional level. In line with this, higher government levels must work with other parties at the country or supranational level on a spatial strategy or pathway for a circular economy. 2. Estimate the **space required** in and around seaport systems under different CE scenarios. 3. **Reserve strategic locations** in planning terms to avoid irreversible choices that hinder the CE transition. A physical environment that is attractive for circular behavior can contribute to the transition to a circular economy. 4. **Plan and develop infrastructure** for the circular economy. The circular economy requires timely adjustments in transport and energy network infrastructure and the space required to transport materials, goods, and the required (renewable) energy. ## B. The (re)development and (re)use of port sites From a port (re)development perspective, **port sites** can be labeled with several different field names, depending on the location and current use, including [greenfield, brownfield, blackfield, greyfield, and bluefield](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/greenfields-brownfields-and-related-terms/ "Greenfields, Brownfields and Related Terms"). Designating these terms can have regulatory and financial implications in the context of land redevelopment or regeneration. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/greenfields_brownfields.png?resize=900%2C279&ssl=1 "Greenfields, Brownfields and Associated Terms | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Greenfields brownfields and related terms**Greenfield port development** in uncontaminated areas is increasingly under pressure due to a lack of available greenfield space, competition from potential alternative uses (such as nature, agriculture, and urban areas), and the availability of other sites that could be reused. Therefore, ports are challenged to consider the **redevelopment, regeneration, and reuse of existing port sites**. However, these sites are often contaminated. In the past, landfill sites in ports were very common, functioning as buffers or storage areas for waste. While these practices have been replaced by specialized chemical waste treatment facilities, reminders of the old practices can be found in the form of contamination at many port sites. Non-greenfield land may face significant challenges in attracting project developers and investors due to **prior environmental contamination**, even if these lands have enormous potential in terms of space for port renewal or the establishment of new activities. Environmental contamination can involve the penetration of chemicals, asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paints, and hazardous waste into the soil. These locations can be intimidating for most developers and business owners due to concerns about **expensive environmental liabilities, high remediation costs, and unsafe working conditions**. Still, the **redevelopment of port brownfields** produces numerous environmental, social, and economic benefits. Many original port locations have been rendered obsolete by technological advancements or relocated to more strategic locations, a phenomenon known as [port migration](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/drivers-port-terminal-migration-relocation/). In many cases, seaports have grown away from their original locations (see the [‘Anyport’ model](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/spatial-evolution-port/)), often leaving behind abandoned sites, buildings, and equipment. Cleanup and repurposing allows for the removal of hazardous structures, preventing or mitigating contamination near waterways. Most seaports were initially established in or near an urban center. Port redevelopment presents valuable opportunities for urban regeneration, particularly through [waterfront redevelopment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/#3_Waterfront_Redevelopment), and may catalyze broader community revitalization. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/evolution_port_anyport2.png?w=900&ssl=1 "The Evolution of a Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Evolution of a Port![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/drivers_port_terminal_migration2.png?resize=900%2C428&ssl=1 "Drivers of Port Terminal Migration and Relocation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Drivers of Port Terminal Migration and Relocation![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-47-Rotterdam-Harbor.png?resize=900%2C585&ssl=1 "Evolution of the Port of Rotterdam | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Evolution of the Port of Rotterdam![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/waterfront-redevelopment.png?resize=900%2C658&ssl=1 "Examples of Waterfront Redevelopment Projects in Europe | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of Waterfront Redevelopment Projects in Europe**Brownfield redevelopment** frees space for various uses and creates more available property for sale or lease, providing ports with additional sources of revenue. Additionally, the redevelopment of previously used sites can help alleviate pressure on undeveloped wetlands and coastal areas, thereby protecting important coastal habitats. Specific regulatory frameworks have been established to facilitate the **redevelopment or regeneration of brownfield sites**. An example is the so-called **brownfield covenants or agreements** signed between a public authority and the actors of a brownfield project, in which the necessary agreements are made regarding temporal demands, expectations, and procedural requirements. The brownfield covenant enables the development of the port site or area over a longer period within the agreed framework. The responsible government or public agency might also provide a number of financial benefits when concluding a brownfield agreement, such as: - A specific procedure for **expropriating essential land** to realize the project. - An exemption from the normally mandatory provision of financial security on the **transfer of contaminated land**. - An exemption from **registration duties** when purchasing real estate in the context of a brownfield project. - Public authorities might offer **competitive grants** to provide funding for environmental assessments, remediation, public education, and economic assistance. - **Financial assistance** to fund the necessary cleanup efforts can provide developers with the necessary liability assurance to invest in redeveloping these areas. Brownfields can also play a role in the **energy transition in ports**. Energy generation from renewable sources is not affected by contaminated soil, groundwater, or air. When a property with environmental contamination is in various stages of remediation, the land can be used to house solar panels (**brightfields**) and wind farms (**windfields**). Thus, brownfields can be reused for renewable energy generation. Next to greenfield and brownfield port development projects, port sites can also accommodate **retrofit projects,** whereby the equipment, installations, and buildings on an existing site are upgraded to meet contemporary market or sustainability standards. Typical examples include: - The transition from a conventional container terminal to a [fully or semi-automated terminal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/terminal-automation/) by replacing manned yard equipment with automated stacking cranes (ASC) and automated guided vehicles (AGV) for horizontal transport. - The **retrofitting of industrial installations** to allow a transition from fossil fuels to renewables, to change the feedstock used as input for the production process, or to enable the reuse of waste heat or other byproducts of the production process. - Existing warehouses and distribution facilities in the port are upgraded by adding additional insulation, changing lighting to LED lights, installing solar panels on the roofs, and replacing diesel-powered equipment, such as forklifts, with electric equipment. ## C. Lifecycle management of port infrastructure An essential principle of the circular economy involves a commitment to keeping products in use and providing value to the process. Life cycle thinking involves considering the economic and social values of circularity, thinking about design, development, and, crucially, what happens once a structure reaches the end of its life cycle. In this realm, ports are infrastructure-intensive facilities that should develop **infrastructures with an extended life cycle** that can be repaired, refurbished, and reused. Embedding circular principles within the design phase of port infrastructure considers **flexible port infrastructure design**, which allows for upgrades, extensions, and alternative uses when needed. Integrating flexibility concerns in the design of [quaywalls](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/#3_Quay_Wall_Construction) and [locks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/#2_Nautical_Access_to_Terminals) is not easy, given that the initial construction and any subsequent changes are typically very expensive. Building infrastructure creates strong path dependency mechanisms, as it sets standards and capacity for extended periods. Therefore, **designing for flexibility** in practice may result in building more capacity than the current market (or projections) might anticipate, thereby avoiding expensive retrofitting or reconstruction later. For instance, designing a sealock larger than the current capacity would justify anticipating the potential future scale increases in vessel sizes. Still, new technologies, such as **additive manufacturing**, allow for new opportunities in the construction and maintenance of port terminal facilities, particularly when materials are sourced from construction recycling. The lifecycle management of port infrastructure also involves **sustainable maintenance strategies** aimed at reducing the environmental impacts of port operations, enhancing the resilience and performance of port assets, and extending the economic life of the infrastructure. There are various approaches and methods for developing such strategies, depending on the type and condition of the infrastructure, the port’s vision and goals, available data and tools, and stakeholder involvement. Some key considerations for port infrastructure include: - **Port infrastructure maintenance strategies** with a focus on minimizing the life cycle cost and greenhouse gas emissions while maximizing the reliability of the infrastructure. - **Evaluate, compare, and improve maintenance strategies** by taking into account technical, environmental, and economic aspects. A **proactive and preventive maintenance approach** considers the uncertainties and complexities of port infrastructure. - **Decision-making and maintenance planning system** by integrating data on the technical details of the condition of port infrastructure, a risk-based evaluation of infrastructure performance, and a cost-benefit analysis of risk treatment solutions. Decisions and strategies concerning the **circularity of port infrastructure** are among the most costly and risk-prone. If they are successful, the benefits can be substantial, but if not, the sunk costs can create serious financial difficulties for infrastructure managers. When port infrastructure reaches the **end of its life cycle** due to economic or technical reasons, it should be stripped for parts and components, and any remaining materials should be recycled and reused. The challenge remains the cost of recovering and reusing heavy physical infrastructure. ## D. Land concessions Land for port development is a scarce and valuable resource, making the [concessioning of port sites to private companies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2601) a primary task for landlord port authorities. A well-designed concession policy allows port authorities to retain some control over the organization and structure of the supply side of the port market while optimizing the use of scarce resources such as land. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/phases_terminal_awarding.png?resize=300%2C101&ssl=1 "Phases in Port Terminal Awarding Procedure | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Phases in Port Terminal Awarding Procedure Therefore, [landlord port authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-authorities/) can consider the explicit inclusion of **circular economy factors when awarding land concessions to private operators**: - **Site compatibility**. When deciding which site to award, port authorities could more explicitly look at the **CE quality of the port site.** [Brownfields](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/greenfields-brownfields-and-related-terms/) may be more expensive to redevelop, but they often lead to higher spatial quality and site regeneration. Port authorities could also include more stringent guidelines on the circular design of port infrastructure and superstructure, making the concessionaire bear some responsibility for repurposing the site they used near the end of the concession. - **Bid compatibility**. In the **[awarding or selection phase](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2601#6_The_selection_phase)**, the **CE quality** of the bid can constitute a new element in the qualification phase of a port site awarding process. This approach rewards candidates for their current proposals and previous initiatives in other ports or locations in circular activities and operations. There is scope to more explicitly integrate **circularity-inspired performance measures** into the selection process, alongside more traditional criteria such as throughput expectations, financial performance, the price bid, and socio-economic impacts in terms of added value created and employment effects. - **Concession reporting**. Port authorities should also consider including CE elements in the post-bidding phase, such as incorporating circularity-inspired clauses that extend beyond simply stipulating that the concessionaire must make efforts to comply with local, national, and supranational legislation related to CE. Such clauses could, for example, refer to the compulsory use of **[circularity management reporting or monitoring systems](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/monitoring-progress-circular-ports/)**. # 5. Energy Management Circular economy strategies encourage the use of **renewable energy sources** and the adoption of **energy-efficient technologies**, which have a direct impact on seaport operations. Energy is crucial in optimizing resource use, material recycling, and minimizing waste. Additionally, energy efficiency measures contribute to the overall sustainability of circular practices by lowering resource consumption during manufacturing and transportation processes in seaport areas. Ports have a significant role in the **[convergence of energy and materials transitions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ports-new-energy-landscape/ "Ports and the New Energy Landscape")**. It concerns a twin transition or the transition to a circular and low-carbon society over the various [components of the port ecosystem](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/implications-energy-transition-port-infrastructure/ "Implications of Energy Transition for Ports"), such as waterways, quays, yards, and hinterland transportation. Renewable energy integration and energy-saving measures can enhance the overall sustainability of seaport activities. However, abundant and low-cost energy sources are fundamental to economic prosperity, particularly in developing economies. There is a high risk that circular principles applied to the maritime sector could increase the cost of energy and, consequently, the cost of transportation. In the context of seaports, energy management contributes to circularity in several ways, such as: - **Renewable energy integration**. Seaports can adopt renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, or tidal power to generate electricity. Integrating these sources into the port’s energy mix reduces reliance on non-renewable energy and lowers the environmental impact. - **Energy efficiency measures**. Ports can implement energy-efficient technologies and practices in port operations to help reduce overall energy consumption. - **Waste-to-energy systems**. Port ecosystems can explore waste-to-energy systems where waste generated within the port is converted into energy. This supports waste management and contributes to the circular use of resources by extracting value from materials that would otherwise be discarded. - **Digitalization**. Deploying digital data infrastructure and technologies, such as energy management systems and Internet of Things (IoT) devices, enables ports to monitor and control energy consumption in real-time. Digital solutions allow for more informed decision-making and the identification of opportunities for energy optimization. - **Electrification of port equipment**. Transitioning from traditional fossil fuel-powered equipment to electric or hybrid alternatives reduces the carbon footprint of port operations. This electrification can extend to various activities, including cranes, trucks, and other machinery used for cargo handling. - **Energy storage**. Incorporating energy storage systems, such as using batteries or converting green electricity (from wind, solar, or hydro sources) into green hydrogen, enables seaports to store excess energy generated during periods of low demand and utilize it during peak times. This helps balance energy supply and demand, ensuring a more stable and efficient energy use. - **Lifecycle Assessment**. A lifecycle assessment of the port’s energy infrastructure is crucial for identifying areas where improvements in terms of energy use can be made. Energy management also plays a crucial role in **recycling and upcycling activities in seaports**. The **collection and transportation of recyclable materials** by seagoing vessels, inland barges, rail, or trucks often involve energy-intensive processes. By optimizing routes, improving fuel efficiency, and transitioning to alternative energy sources, the overall energy footprint associated with the logistics of recyclables can be reduced. A vast amount of energy is required in the **sorting and processing stages of recycling facilities**. Advanced sorting systems and machinery, along with the use of zero- or low-carbon energy sources, help minimize the energy and emission impact of these activities. In some cases, recyclable materials are used as **feedstock for waste-to-energy systems**, where they are converted into energy through processes like incineration. For these activities, it is essential to maximize the energy yield while minimizing environmental impacts. Finally, **manufacturing products using recycled materials** also requires effective energy management throughout the production process, which can be achieved through the use of energy-efficient equipment and renewable energy sources. Regularly monitoring, analyzing, and implementing energy-efficient technologies and practices throughout the recycling supply chains contributes to continuous improvement in recycling operations. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ports_energy_landscape.png?resize=900%2C334&ssl=1 "Ports in the New Energy Landscape | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ports in the New Energy Landscape![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/implications_energy_transition_ports.png?resize=900%2C402&ssl=1 "Implications of Energy Transition for Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Implications of Energy Transition for Ports# 6. Waste Management ## A. Seaports and waste Seaports generate significant waste through dredging, construction, industrial activity waste, and vessel-generated waste. Managing waste at ports has been practiced for centuries, often with simple disposal practices, such as disposing of waste in nearby landfills or simply dumping it into the ocean. For instance, Monte Testaccio in Rome is an artificial mound almost entirely composed of discarded, imported amphorae accumulated during the maritime trade of the Roman Empire over four centuries. Many amphorae could not be reused because there were limited outbound trade flows for the capital city. The current scale of waste-generating activities in port areas prohibits such practices, and in recent decades, **complex waste management activities** have emerged. Adopting CE practices represents the latest evolution in this trend, involving the implementation of **waste reduction and reuse/recycling programs**, which lead to decreased environmental emissions and improved resource management. It shifts the focus to closing material loops at the port system level, where waste can be utilized as a resource in other parts of the value chain. Waste management in seaports is closely linked to several key activities, including the treatment of contaminated dredge material, the recovery and reuse of industrial waste heat, waste-reception facilities for vessels, and the treatment of waste generated during port operations by port authorities, terminal operators, and other service providers. The way that ports collect and manage waste generated by landside activities or ship calls can lead to high recycling rates and valuable materials finding their way back into the economy. Otherwise, an inefficient system exists where most waste (recyclable or not) ends up in the sea, landfills, or is incinerated, resulting in harmful environmental impacts and potentially significant economic losses. One of the most significant sources of waste in ports results from **[dredging](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cubic-yards-dredged-us-army-corp-of-engineers-selected-port-districts/ "Cubic Yards Dredged by the US Army Corp of Engineers at Selected Port Districts")**, which enables the berthing of larger seagoing vessels and maintains open shipping channels. For many ports, hundreds of millions of cubic yards of material are dredged annually to maintain access for ships into harbors and waterways. However, of the dredged material, only clean, non-contaminated material can be used for land reclamation, construction fills, beach reconstruction, topsoil, and habitat creation or restoration. This accounts for less than half of all dredged material. Contaminated dredged material must be stored in specific facilities where it can either be left to naturally decompose over decades (through bacterial action) or be manually and chemically decontaminated. Waste treatment is critical to circularity in ports. The development of effective **[port reception facilities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/recycling-from-waste-to-pure-raw-material/ "Recycling from Waste to Pure Raw Material") (PRF)** to collect ship wastes and the establishment of systems that provide incentives for ships to use these facilities are significant elements in a process toward reducing waste discharges and implementing circular principles related to waste management. ## B. Ship waste generation Waste generation on seagoing vessels may be harmful when inadequately managed. The annual amount of ship wastes and residues at sea is estimated to exceed 1.2 million cubic meters of oily waste, 1.4 million cubic meters of sewage, 450,000 tons of garbage, 24,000 cubic meters of sludge, and 360,000 cubic meters of bleed-off from scrubbers. The amount and types of **[waste may vary from one ship category to another](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/estimations-of-ship-generated-wastes-per-type-of-waste/).** For example, **cruise ships** are among the largest [generators of waste](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-ships-waste-streams/ "Cruise Ship Waste Streams for a One Week Itinerary"). While they comprise only a small percentage of the global shipping industry, it is estimated that around 24% of all waste produced by shipping comes from this sector. At the same time, some areas are more exposed to the accumulation of and impacts from sea-based waste due to their proximity to shipping routes. Two European cases, Malta and the North Sea, with heavy maritime traffic, serve as good examples of higher geographic exposure compared to other parts of the world, such as the Baltic Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Caribbean Sea, or the North Persian Gulf. For ports, the presence of the essential PRFs and associated processes (i.e., segregation, recycling, etc.) for handling the waste that ships deliver is crucial. A circular economy approach also emphasizes lowering the waste generated by seagoing vessels discharged at sea. In the absence of available global data, the precise amount of waste generated on board ships but not delivered to ports or treated at sea, known as the **waste gap**, remains unknown. Wastes at sea might be the outcome of several sources. In Europe alone, although the amount of garbage delivered to ports has increased since the introduction of regional rules for port reception facilities, a significant delivery gap in waste remains, estimated to be between 60,000 and 300,000 tons, which accounts for 7% to 34% of the total waste to be delivered annually. With shipping accounting for substantial discharges of waste and residues at sea, port activities that target the reduction of ship-generated waste and cargo residues entering the sea are closely linked to protecting the marine environment. Ports play a crucial role in achieving this goal. Avoiding the dumping of any food, domestic, and operational waste by a vessel, as well as the disposal of plastics in territorial waters, is subject to ports providing facilities for receiving ship-generated residues and waste. PRFs should meet the disposal needs of ships using the port without causing undue delays. Circularity is advanced by implementing a cost recovery system, such as a waste fee, which incentivizes ships not to discharge ship-generated waste at sea. Still, addressing the existing waste gap goes beyond port responsibilities and demands investments and measures to combat a range of waste resources, thus requiring collective action by additional stakeholders. ## C. Principles of waste management in ports The efforts of ports in selecting and managing the waste they collect are linked to the need to implement waste management and develop facilities, technologies, or services that allow for continuity in a ship’s waste disposal life cycle. This involves separate perceptions between how waste management from vessels is carried out and the systems and controls implemented in land-generated solid waste management. Since there are differences between land-based and maritime waste management, it is worth effectively segregating the types of waste generated onboard and ashore with the recycling facility. Yet, an **on-board and ashore integrated waste management system** is essential to prevent a discontinuity in the ship-shore interface. Developing and implementing comprehensive programs that consider all types of waste and the waste management process jointly may be the most effective way to address the adverse impacts of waste management. This is because implementing the appropriate waste management schemes would enable avoiding breaks in the life cycle of waste streams sorted and collected on board and their transfer ashore. An integrated approach takes into account five overarching **principles for waste management:** - **Waste management hierarchy**. The aim is for waste materials to be reused, recycled, recovered, or utilized as an energy source, rather than to prevent waste generation and reduce its harmful effects through safe disposal. The goal is to identify the most harmful or valuable wastes and prioritize the handling, disposal, and reuse accordingly. - **Self-sufficiency in the community,** along with establishing an integrated and adequate network of waste disposal facilities. - **Implementing the best available techniques**. Costs associated with circularity are reduced as much as possible and in the most economically efficient way. - **Proximity**. Wastes should be disposed of as close to the source as possible. - **[Extended Producer Responsibility](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/concept-extended-producer-responsibility/)**. Economic operators, particularly product manufacturers, must be involved in extending the life cycle of substances, components, and products from the point of their production. Regulatory initiatives at international and regional levels support a circular approach to waste management, as they establish specific long-term obligations for ports that provide the necessary conditions for receiving and treating waste. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) has addressed the delivery of ship-generated waste and cargo residues through initiatives promoting the availability of PRF and enhancing its suitability. The requirements that limit the types of waste discharged into the marine environment have been adopted as part of Annex V of the convention, which sets restrictions on handling waste, including all food, domestic, and operational waste. An example of the measures endorsed at a regional level concerns the European Union (EU), where institutions have adopted and regularly reform directives that aim to enhance the presence of effective PRF in European ports. This directive applies only to ship operations in EU ports, detailing the legal, financial, and practical responsibilities of the various operators involved in handling ship-generated waste and cargo residues. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/dredging_usace_port_districts.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Cubic Yards Dredged by the US Army Corp of Engineers at Selected Port Districts, 2014-2018 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cubic Yards Dredged by the US Army Corp of Engineers at Selected Port Districts![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/recycling_waste_raw_materials.png?resize=900%2C382&ssl=1 "Recycling from Waste to Pure Raw Materials | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Recycling from Waste to Pure Raw Materials![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/estimate_ship_generated_wastes.png?resize=900%2C384&ssl=1 "Estimations of Ship-Generated Wastes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Estimations of ship generated wastes per type of waste![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/goods_consumed_3000_cruise_ship.jpg?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Some Goods Consumed on Board a 3,000 Pax Cruise Ship per Week | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Some Goods Consumed on Board a 3000 Pax Cruise Ship per Week![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Picture-1.png?resize=900%2C451&ssl=1 "Cruise Ship Waste Streams for a One Week Itinerary | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise ship Waste Streams for a one week itinerary# 7. Strategies for the Circular Economy in Ports Implementing CE strategies requires the involvement and commitment of multiple stakeholders, as well as **demonstrable benefits**. It also involves social and organizational changes supported by economic and legal tools. ## A. Path creation toward circularity The specific challenges brought by CE for ports in the fields of material sourcing, land management, energy management, and waste management were discussed in the previous sections. These challenges include knowing the contribution of a particular economic activity, such as a port service provision, to the environment, equipping the labor force with the relevant skills, raising awareness, and increasing the capacity of involved business entities, modifying linear economic systems, developing and investing in new business models, changing behavior; and relationships between consumer and producer liability regimes, pricing goods and services to reflect full costs and set up policies that promote circular economy. From a strategic perspective, it is important to acknowledge that circularity in ports is to be perceived as a **long-term transition with path dependency mechanisms**. This implies that a successful circular transition is a step-by-step process in which small-scale opportunities for closing material flow cycles are identified and seized (for example, two companies in the port area linking waste streams), opening up opportunities for new and larger projects or initiatives. It also underlines the risks of [hyping the potential of circularity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/technology-hype-cycle-port-circular-economy/ "Technology Hype Cycle and the Port Circular Economy") with inflated expectations. While port authorities and other stakeholders might set large-scale, long-term ambitions regarding circularity as part of strategic planning processes, practical implications often involve a growth path from isolated circular initiatives involving only a few actors to more **integrated port-wide plans and projects**. Circularity in ports can only materialize under entrepreneurial conditions. The existing technological, economic, and governance-related knowledge and know-how, and the relationships and interactions between actors in the port community, are the starting point. Such an entrepreneurial approach is expected to eventually generate multiple ‘small wins’ that have the potential to accumulate in a much more profound circular transition in the port. In this sense, a port will have to undergo a [transitional stage before evolving into a truly circular port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/circular-economy-transition-phases-ports/) in the longer term. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/hype_cycle_port_circular_economy.png?resize=900%2C492&ssl=1 "Technology Hype Cycle and the Port Circular Economy | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Technology Hype Cycle and the Port Circular Economy![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/circular_transition_phases_ports.png?resize=900%2C335&ssl=1 "Circular Economy Transition Phases for Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Circular Economy Transition Phases for PortsIntegrating circularity into seaport planning involves designing and operating seaports with sustainability and resource efficiency in mind. In general, CE activities need to be developed at three different levels: - **Micro-leve**l. Focuses on improving the environmental performance of individual companies involved in port activities by reducing resource consumption and pollution discharges, or designing more environmentally friendly services. - **Meso-level**. Focuses on networks that improve regional systems and environmental protection, energy cascading, exchanging by-products, recycling waste, and, when possible, sharing infrastructures. - **Macro-level**. Focuses on port-related communities (i.e., regions, cities, municipalities, or provinces) that might facilitate the development of a sustainable port services provision and use system. Existing CE initiatives at ports already range from the **micro-level**, such as reusing waste streams within a single port or service provider, to the **meso-level**, such as industrial symbiosis between two or more companies at a port, to interregional port-industry networks for the exchange of secondary resources at the **macro-level** (e.g., the Bioport of Europe project of the Port of Rotterdam). The initiatives have varied from short-term demonstration projects (see, e.g., the Port of Antwerp Sustainability Strategy) to more innovation and optimization-focused medium-term initiatives (see e.g., the Biopark Terneuzen project of the Port of Zeeland) to long-term vision strategies. ## B. A systems thinking approach > Integrating circularity in seaport planning and operations demands a systems thinking approach. Port authorities and port-related stakeholders should consider the **interconnectedness and interdependence of various elements within a port system** when addressing challenges related to achieving circular processes. To consider the environmental, social, and economic aspects of circularity in ports holistically, system thinking also requires an understanding of the interactions and interdependencies among various elements within the system, such as materials, energy, technology, land, governance, and human behavior. Changes in one part of the system can have ripple effects throughout the entire system over time. For circularity to gain traction in ports, all actors involved should gain an understanding of the dynamic nature of the system, recognizing that it evolves and adapts over time. They should also be able to adapt to changing conditions and uncertainties, namely through [resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-resilience/). **Synchronism** considerations are part of the systems thinking approach. Not all elements within the system will develop at the same speed, leading to time lags and bottlenecks in the development of ports towards more circularity. For example, a lack of funding, scarcity of land, limited supply of material flows for recycling, non-optimal governance arrangements, or constraining regulatory frameworks are some of the reasons that can stall the development of a circular project in a port. By adopting a systems thinking approach in circularity, stakeholders can develop more effective strategies and interventions that address the complexity and interconnectedness inherent in sustainable and circular practices. ## C. Self-assessment and monitoring Port ecosystems should conduct a self-assessment of their **circular economy practices**. Ports are challenged to assess their current operations to identify areas where circularity principles can be applied. This may involve thoroughly analyzing the materials and resources flowing through the port, waste generation, and energy consumption. Setting up a port-based [material exchange platform](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/building-blocks-of-material-exchange-platforms/) can be beneficial in achieving this goal, but other initiatives to improve transparency on flows, projects, and plans within the CE context are also relevant. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/indicators_port_circular_processes.png?resize=300%2C195&ssl=1 "Potential Indicators for Monitoring Port Circular Processes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Potential Indicators for Monitoring Port Circular Processes **[Performance measurement ](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-performance/)and monitoring** also play a key role in supporting the circular transition in ports. To assess the circular port efficiency and effectiveness, key performance indicators (KPIs) can be developed and implemented to measure and track circular economy aspects in ports. Implementing performance metrics also helps track the progress of circularity initiatives within the seaport. Some port authorities (such as Copenhagen Malmö Port) have already developed monitoring practices in this field, while broader monitoring exercises have been designed recently, such as the Circular Port Monitor. This monitor provides a concrete framework of 12 indicators tracking the progress towards a circular port. It provides port authorities with a monitoring system for the progress and performance towards circularity, allowing the formulation of next steps for the gradual advancement of circularity ambitions. Still, monitoring progress toward **circular goals** is in its early stages of documentation, exploration, and implementation. ## D. The governance of circularity in ports Implementing circular principles in ports requires the consideration of a series of [governance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-reform-and-governance/) challenges: ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/benefits_leadership_port_authorities_circular.png?resize=300%2C174&ssl=1 "Benefits of the Leadership of Port Authorities in Promoting Circularity | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Benefits of the Leadership of Port Authorities in Promoting Circularity - **Intermediaries for configuring, brokering, and facilitating circular transition efforts.** Intermediation helps balance the diverse objectives and efforts within the complex network of port-related actors and stakeholders. A wide array of public and public-private organizations can play a crucial role in community building and leadership toward a circular transition. - **The role of the port managing entity**. Port authorities play a central role as active community builders, engaging policymakers across different policy areas and levels of governance, as well as various stakeholders in the circular port transition. Port governance settings must be aligned to enable the port managing entity to fully leverage its position between actors and networks, thereby engaging as an intermediary in the circular transition and serving as a leader in building-related communities within the port ecosystem. Port authorities can advance processes to reduce, incentivize, and support the waste reduction and high-quality separation of generated waste, enabling industrial symbiosis, facilitating the clustering of activities to prevent by-products from becoming waste, and advancing new business models, all while encouraging wider and better consumer choices. While they aim to decarbonize their footprint in the energy transition process, port authorities can also stimulate emission reductions of the main emitters. Within the wider port area, and to benefit the broader economy and community, port authorities can serve as facilitators, enablers, developers, and integrators of renewable energy streams and supply chains, thereby stimulating energy transition initiatives within the port. - **Community building and collaboration** enable the collaborative resolution of common issues, the development of case studies that can serve as blueprints to accelerate the adoption of initiatives, the realization of essential incremental phases, and any (de)regulatory needs, as well as the required transitional phases. It can also bring CE-related projects to reality (i.e., not being overambitious) and, not least, increase investments in advancing circularity. As circular projects are not necessarily interconnected, and their contributions may not be entirely visible and understandable to all parties involved in the port ecosystem, the level of voluntary investment by individual entities may be otherwise low. As cluster and community managers, port authorities have a specific role in engaging and stimulating collaboration with local governments, environmental organizations, and businesses to exchange best practices, share resources, and align goals for CE in ports. Through cluster governance of the circular port transition, the port authority may even assume leadership in aspects that conventionally fell outside its jurisdiction, such as developing various strategies to monitor and improve circular performance, setting up material flow analysis tools, and facilitating relations with its surrounding urban areas on circular port issues. [The leadership of port authorities creates conditions for increased levels of investment in advancing port circularity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/benefits-port-authorities-active-leadership-circularity/ "The leadership of the port authorities creates conditions for increased levels of investments in advancing port circularity"). ## E. Focus areas Implementing port circular processes can focus on the following approaches: - **A focus on resource efficiency**. Port infrastructure and facilities must be planned, designed, and operated to minimize resource consumption, including energy, water, and raw materials. This includes, for example, energy-efficient lighting, renewable energy sources, and water recycling systems. - **A focus on sustainable transportation**. This involves not only using low-emission and energy-efficient transportation methods, such as electric or hybrid vehicles, for cargo handling and transport, but also assumes a sustainable [modal split](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/modal-split-selected-ports-europe/) in connecting the [hinterland](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/port-hinterlands-regionalization/). - **Digitalization and smart technologies**. Digital technologies and data analytics are not only important for optimizing port operations. They can also help improve resource allocation, reduce energy consumption, provide transparency in material flows, and enhance overall circular efficiency. - **Circular business models**. Port authorities can encourage port-related businesses to adopt circular business models, where products and materials are designed for reuse, refurbishment, or recycling. - **Research and innovation**. Port authorities can support research and innovation initiatives to find new circular solutions, technologies, and practices for seaports. - **Public awareness and education**. Educating port stakeholders and the general public about the importance of circularity in seaports is key to making the transition feasible and fostering a sense of responsibility and sustainability within the community. - **Regulatory compliance**. Port authorities should ensure the port complies with relevant environmental and sustainability regulations and standards. At the same time, the broader port community should provide input and feedback on the regulatory environment, particularly when complex and inconsistent regulations complicate the CE transition in the port. - **Financial considerations**. The circular transition involves significant financial and investment needs. Port authorities, in collaboration with relevant stakeholders, should carefully estimate and assess the upfront investments required for circular projects and their associated return on investment. Additionally, the link between sustainable finance and circular projects is a crucial consideration when engaging in circular projects within a port context. The previous sections discussed other focus areas in the fields of material sourcing, land management, energy management, and waste management. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 1.2 Ports and Maritime Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1530) - [Chapter 1.4 Ports and Distribution Networks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3020) - [Chapter 2.5 Green Shipping and Supply Chain Management](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/green-supply-chain-management-ports/) - [Chapter 2.6 Ports and Energy Transition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-energy-transition/) - [Chapter 6.4 Port Resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-resilience/ "Chapter 6.4 – Port Resilience") - [Chapter 7.4 Port-City Relationships](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7/port-city-relationships/) --- **Acknowledgment**: *This chapter has been made possible with the support of Circular Flanders. However, the content in this chapter reflects the personal inputs of the authors about the subject supported by relevant sources and inputs. Further information and background material on circularity in ports can be found in the [circular ports section](https://circularports.vlaanderen-circulair.be/) of the website of Circular Flanders.* ## References and further reading - Alix, Y., Mat, N., Cerceau, J. (eds.) (2015). Economie circulaire et écosystèmes portuaires, Editions EMS: Cormelles-le-Royal, 423 p. - Barona, J., Ballini, F., Canepa, M. (2023). Circular developments of maritime industrial ports in Europe: a semi-systematic review of the current situation. Journal of Shipping and Trade, 8(1). - Bjerkan, K. Y., Hansen, L., Steen, M. (2021). Towards sustainability in the port sector: The role of intermediation in transition work. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 40, 296-314. - Carpenter, A., Lozano, R., Sammalisto, K. and Astner, L. (2018). Securing a port’s future through Circular Economy: Experiences from the Port of Gävle in contributing to sustainability, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 128, 539-547. - CE Delft / EMSA (2017). The Management of Ship-Generated Waste On-board Ships, Lisbon: EMSA. - Circular Ports (2024), website hosted by Circular Flanders, <https://circularports.vlaanderen-circulair.be/> - Courtens, F. M., Haezendonck, E., Dooms, M., Verbeke, A. (2023). Accelerating the circular economy transition process for gateway ports: The case of the Port of Zeebrugge. Maritime Transport Research, 4, 100088. - de Langen, P. W., Sornn-Friese, H., Hallworth, J. (2020). The role of port development companies in transitioning the port business ecosystem; the case of port of Amsterdam’s circular activities. Sustainability, 12(11), 4397. - Dellink, R. (2020). The consequences of a more resource efficient and circular economy for international trade patterns: A modelling assessment, OECD Environment Working Papers No. 165 - European Commission, 2018. *Impact Assessment proposal for a Directive on port reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ships, COM(2018) 33 final. Brussels: European Commission.*. - Faut, L., Soyeur, F., Haezendonck, E., Dooms, M., de Langen, P. W. (2023). Ensuring circular strategy implementation: The development of circular economy indicators for ports. Maritime Transport Research, 4, 100087. - GESAMP (2021). “Sea-based sources of marine litter”, (Gilardi, K., ed.) (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/ WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP/ISA Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). Rep. Stud. GESAMP No. 108. - Haezendonck, E., Van den Berghe, K. (2020). Patterns of circular transition: What is the circular economy maturity of Belgian ports?. Sustainability, 12(21), 9269. - Wille, E., Tempst, W., Hill, A., Van Cauwelaert, F. (2023). A View on Port Area Regeneration in the Flanders Region (BE), Circular Flanders/ OVAM, 5 June 2023 ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 3.3 - Green Supply Chain Management in Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/) **Published:** September 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Theo Notteboom and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > Green supply chain management integrates environmental concerns into organizational and operational practices, with ports as key nodes in environmental strategies. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. The Greening of Supply Chains](#1_The_Greening_of_Supply_Chains) - [2. Green Design, Procurement and Manufacturing](#2_Green_Design_Procurement_and_Manufacturing) - [3. Drivers of GSCM and Corporate Strategy](#3_Drivers_of_GSCM_and_Corporate_Strategy) - [4. GSCM and Ports](#4_GSCM_and_Ports) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. The Greening of Supply Chains Green shipping and supply chain management (GSCM) has gained increased attention within the maritime industry, with a growing need for integrating environmental strategies into supply chain management (SCM) practices. The growing importance of GSCM is closely tied to **environmental concerns**, including the scarcity of specific resources, the footprint of human activities on ecosystems, waste disposal, and the emission of pollutants, such as carbon emissions. Adding green components to supply chain management involves addressing the externalities generated by these components. During the 1960s and 1970s, economists and environmentalists began to emphasize the role of industrial activities, their outputs, and their environmental implications. This led to the first environmental regulations, mainly addressing emission standards. In the 1980s, the concepts of **industrial ecology** and **life cycle assessment** were developed to better assess and quantify environmental impacts. The pursuit of **environmental standards** in product development, process design, operations, logistics, regulatory compliance, and waste management increasingly became part of corporate policy. This led to a multitude of uncoordinated mitigation attempts, which started to change with the SCM revolution of the 1990s as environmental management became more integrated with operations. Still, this approach was primarily viewed as a cost center, as compliance often led to increased production and distribution costs. Environmental practices aimed at **gaining a competitive advantage and economic benefits** have become a formal field of investigation with the formalization of strategies. Investments in greening can be resource-saving, waste-eliminating, and improve productivity. Thus, the greening of supply chains does not have to be just a cost center but could constitute a potential source of competitive advantage. These ideas were further developed in the early 2000s, with a shift from environmentally friendly approaches to integrating green initiatives that achieved good business sense and higher profits. The industry started to show a growing awareness that GSCM could constitute a **business value driver**, not just a cost center. The primary objective of GSCM is to minimize environmental impacts by implementing a [range of strategies throughout the supply chain](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=5916 "Functional Model of an Organizational Green Supply Chain"). They include **Reduce, Re-use, Recycle, and Remanufacture**, also known as the four “Rs” which comprise **reverse logistics**. GSCM is often linked to **life-cycle assessment** (LCA), a process that assesses and evaluates the environmental, occupational health, and resource-related consequences of a product or service throughout its entire life cycle. This includes extracting and processing raw materials, production, transportation, distribution, use, remanufacturing, recycling, and final disposal. The scope of LCA involves tracking all the material and energy flows of a product, from the extraction of its raw materials to its disposal. The fields of action in GSCM include product design, process design and engineering, procurement and purchasing, production, energy use and mix, and logistics (including distribution and transportation). ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/green_supply_chains.png?resize=900%2C376&ssl=1 "Functional Model of an Organizational Green Supply Chain | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Functional Model of an Organizational Green Supply Chain# 2. Green Design, Procurement and Manufacturing ## A. Eco-design and green process engineering A significant part of the environmental impact of a resource, good, or service is determined during its **design phase**, when materials and processes are selected. This can go beyond the choice of materials and encompass the entire procurement and distribution process. For example, effective reverse logistics practices largely depend on eco-design principles focused on design for disassembly, design for recycling, and other design considerations that support reverse logistics practices. Eco-design, also known as **design for the environment** (DfE) or **environmentally conscious design** (ECD), helps improve environmental performance by addressing product functionality while minimizing the life-cycle environmental impacts of their supply chains. It is an important GSCM practice that aims to combine product or service functionality to minimize environmental impacts. One of the key aspects of eco-design is **facilitating reuse, recycling, and recovery** through designs such as easy disassembly of used products. Eco-design also involves other fields of action, such as designing products for reduced material or energy consumption, or designing products to minimize the use of hazardous materials and their associated manufacturing processes. For example, a company might decide to replace a potentially hazardous material or process with one that appears less harmful, thereby considering the potential impacts on resource use and the increased extraction of other materials. The roles of eco-design and environmental processes change with the stage in the **product life cycle**. When a new product is introduced, the eco-design of the product is a crucial aspect. In the more mature and declining stages of the product life cycle, greater emphasis will be placed on refining processes and implementing an efficient reverse logistics system. Successful eco-design typically requires internal cooperation within the leading corporation involved in the design and procurement of a product, as well as external cooperation with other partners throughout the supply chain. This results in a lower environmental footprint, but it requires coordination, standardization, and adherence to relevant compliance regulations. ## B. Green procurement and purchasing Organizations have established **global networks of suppliers** that leverage country-specific characteristics in their endowments of labor and resources. Key factors for green purchasing include providing design specifications to suppliers that incorporate environmental requirements for purchased items, cooperating with suppliers on environmental objectives, conducting environmental audits, implementing internal management systems, and obtaining ISO 14001 certification for Environmental Management Systems. Companies can encourage or even require their suppliers to develop environmental management systems in compliance with ISO 14001, or require their suppliers to be ISO 14001 certified. **Procurement or purchasing decisions** will impact the green supply chain through the purchase of materials that are recyclable, reusable, or have already been recycled. Many large customers, such as multinational enterprises, have exerted pressure on their suppliers to **improve their environmental performance**, resulting in greater incentives for suppliers to cooperate with customers on environmental objectives. Additionally, the pressure from the final customer is a primary driver for enterprises to enhance their environmental image and practices. **Green procurement strategies** are typically supported by national or supranational regulations. For example, the European Community Directives on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) and Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) have led many European and non-European suppliers to increase their organizational efforts for product recovery. Environmental compliance is becoming an increasingly important criterion for accessing specific markets. ## C. Green production and remanufacturing Green production complements eco-design, green purchasing, and green logistics. Cooperation with suppliers and customers is essential for transitioning to cleaner and greener production processes. Green production has often been associated with the concept of **industrial ecology**, which views manufacturing as a system that is part of local ecosystems and the global biosphere. Conceptually, the term is ambiguous and confusing, but in practice, green production mainly focuses on: - **Resources**. Techniques for **minimum resource consumption** in order to reduce the use of new materials. - **Energy input**. A shift towards a more **sustainable energy** with fewer environmental and carbon emissions. - **Product recovery**. Techniques for **product recovery** are often considered within a circular economy where parts and value can be reclaimed within a supply chain. - **Waste management**. Minimize the environmental footprint of waste disposal. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/green_production2.png?resize=900%2C208&ssl=1 "Green Production | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Green ProductionProduct recovery refers to the broad set of activities designed to **reclaim value** from a product at the end of its life cycle in order to reuse products and materials. This can be achieved through recycling, remanufacturing, repair, or refurbishment. Recycling is performed to recover the material content of used and non-functional products, often driven by regulatory and economic factors. Remanufacturing is a recycling-integrated manufacturing process that entails a thorough reevaluation of traditional production planning and scheduling methods. Industries that commonly apply remanufacturing include the automotive, electronics, and tire sectors. The purpose of repair is to return used products to working order. The purpose of refurbishing is to bring used products up to a specified quality standard, allowing their sale on second-hand markets. Remanufacturing and the associated recycling activities typically involve disassembly to separate a product into its constituent parts, components, subassemblies, or other groupings. Cleaner production requires effective **waste management** for products and materials that cannot be reused or recycled. The supply chains of non-reusable waste involve waste collection, transportation, incineration, composting, and disposal. The general idea of cleaner production is to prevent pollution generated during manufacturing and throughout a product’s life cycle. Thus, cleaner production initiatives are also focused on preventing waste creation rather than managing waste after it has been generated. ## D. Green logistics, distribution and transportation The implementation of GSCM has a significant impact on **how goods move across supply chains**, which implies a [green logistics approach](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/realms-action-green-logistics/ "Realms of Action in Green Logistics") that reconciles environmental concerns with transportation, warehousing, and distribution activities. It ties environmental and economic efficiency to logistics by reducing its environmental impacts. Logistics service providers are challenged to be eco-conscious, comply with existing environmental regulations, and anticipate potential technological changes and regulations while providing their services at a competitive price. This represents a complex paradox to navigate. Logistics service providers must focus on **supply networks** that meet the expectations of carriers, shippers, and cargo owners regarding cost and efficiency, while also meeting the additional expectation of operating in a sustainable manner. To this extent, shippers expect coordination from service providers that supports operational efficiency, as advocated by green logistics, namely by achieving a greater convergence between physical and information processes. The most common realms of application of green logistics involve: - **Packaging**. Lowering the material requirements to support the transport of goods while maintaining their integrity. - **Modal choice**. Selecting transportation modes with a lower environmental footprint and synchronizing these modes along a sequence. - **Distribution**. Organizing a distribution system where conveyances carry an optimal load over the shortest distance possible. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/action_green_logistics2.png?resize=900%2C274&ssl=1 "Realms of Action in Green Logistics | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Realms of Action in Green Logistics# 3. Drivers of GSCM and Corporate Strategy ## A. Green supply chains and Environmental Management Systems An **Environmental Management System** (EMS), as defined by ISO 14001, consists of a comprehensive set of internal policies, assessments, plans, metrics, and implementation actions that collectively impact the entire organization. In practice, an EMS is a strategic management approach that defines how an organization will address its environmental impacts. It typically includes establishing an environmental policy or plan and performing internal assessments of the organization’s environmental impacts. This includes quantifying environmental impacts, understanding how they change over time, and developing mitigation strategies. It also involves providing resources, training workers, monitoring the progress of implementation, and taking corrective actions if the goals are not met. An EMS can be regarded as a valuable element in improving environmental and business performance. Once an organization implements an EMS, it may elect to be certified to the ISO 14001 standard. Organizations that develop an effective EMS typically demonstrate higher regulatory compliance, which enhances their corporate image and can lead to improved stock market valuations and better lending terms. There are different views on the relations between EMS and GSCM. One of the limitations of an EMS is that it primarily focuses on **enhancing the environmental performance** of an organization, rather than extending this strategy throughout the entire supply chain. A corporation with an EMS may have little incentive to green its supply chains, as it can market itself as environmentally focused without undertaking additional efforts. However, by developing an EMS, a company develops skills and insights, which in turn help it develop more comprehensive GSCM initiatives. Therefore, organizations that adopt an EMS may also have a stronger focus on implementing GSCM practices. ## B. GSCM and corporate profitability Sustainability principles are increasingly integrated into supply chain management. Pressures exist to consider environmental issues when pursuing portability within supply chains. Simultaneously, government regulations are increasingly prompting corporations to **reduce their environmental footprint**. Thus, organizations might initiate several environmental practices due to drivers such as sales to customers and legislative and stakeholder institutional pressures. Although GSCM has significant environmental motivations, regulatory, competitive, and economic pressures also play a role in its adoption across various economic sectors. When focusing on the corporate context, there are clear signs that not opting for green supply chains can **negatively affect cost base and profitability**. A focus on GSCM may help secure revenue growth, achieve cost reductions, develop brand value, and mitigate risks. However, corporations cannot roll out initiatives as part of GSCM without due consideration of their costs, benefits, and impact on profitability. There is a lack of key evidence of successful practices across economic sectors, as success stories (often circumstantial) are publicized while failures are barely mentioned. Logistics and supply chain managers must **balance efforts** to reduce costs, improve service quality, increase flexibility, and innovate while maintaining a strong environmental performance. When deciding on green initiatives, corporations consider strategic performance requirements, which may not be environmentally based, such as cost, return on investment (ROI), service quality, and flexibility. Initiatives should not only support green supply chains but also make business sense. Otherwise, the competitive and financial position of the organization may be **negatively affected**. **Investment recovery** is often cited as a critical aspect of GSCM, typically at the back end of the supply chain cycle. Financial incentives or penalties are available from public authorities, such as subsidies and tax breaks for green investments or penalties for non-compliance. They are also available through private service providers, such as commercial banks, which offer favorable loan conditions for green investments. These conditions are often crucial in investment or divestment decisions and in achieving investment recovery. ## C. Incentives for GSCM **Financial incentives and penalties** are one way for governments and public entities to support the greening of supply chains. Whatever governments and public entities do in terms of environmental policy development, the business world is very sensitive to coherence and continuity in existing policies, the legal coherence of implemented policies, and the enforcement of policies through inspection and control. As many investment decisions have a medium to long-term amortization, any changes in government policy, such as abolishing subsidy schemes for certain investment classes, can have significant ramifications on the soundness of the initial corporate decision related to a green initiative. Thus, government policies and regulations typically impact green strategies, investments, and GSCM initiatives pursued by corporations, while also providing legal and investment stability to the affected sectors. There is a growing awareness that GSCM can be a significant driver of business value and a source of competitive advantage. However, this does not imply that all organizations follow the same approach when dealing with GSCM challenges. Corporate attitudes towards GSCM can range from **reactive monitoring** of general environmental management programs to more **proactive practices** implemented through the various Rs (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, Remanufacture, and Reverse logistics). **Internal environmental management** is central to improving corporate environmental performance. A supporting managerial structure is necessary and often a key driver for successfully adopting and implementing most innovations, technology, programs, and activities in GSCM. Successful GSCM initiatives often involve multiple departments (or even corporations), and such cooperation and communication are essential to achieving successful environmental practices. Sharing responsibility inter-organizationally for various aspects of environmental performance is the key to successful GSCM. Individual corporations cannot solely opt for cooperation on a bilateral or multilateral basis. Industry and branch organizations often play a crucial role in coordinating multiple organizations to undertake **joint initiatives** in GSCM. In other cases, private companies, sometimes with diverse backgrounds, and organizations, such as public entities, form coalitions to advance the design and implementation of GSCM solutions. # 4. GSCM and Ports Seaports are **active environments** for scaling up and expanding the scope of initiatives to improve green supply chain management, particularly since they serve as nexuses where international and regional supply chains intersect. [Five fields of action](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4448 "Range of Actions for Green Supply Chain Management in Ports") can be distinguished: **green shipping**, **green port development and operations**, **green inland logistics**, **circular economy**, and **knowledge exchange and development**. A broad array of market players and public entities play a role in each of these fields. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/GSCM-in-ports.png?resize=900%2C409&ssl=1 "Range of Actions for Green Supply Chain Management in Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Range of actions for Green Supply Chain Management in Ports## A. Green shipping Ships are major contributors to emissions in ports, even when they are idling or berthed. Next to shipowners, ship operators, and supranational organizations such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO), ports play a role in reducing ship emissions. The main fields of action include: - **Reducing operational ship emissions in ports**. Decreasing waiting times and vessel turnaround times can be achieved by synchronizing and integrating the nautical chain through optimized vessel traffic management systems. - **Green port dues**. Voluntary green shipping schemes are used to incentivize operators to improve the environmental performance of their ships. The [Environmental Ship Index (ESI)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=6427), initiated by the International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH), is a certification scheme that ranks a ship’s environmental performance, which is correlated with port dues. Shipping companies can register their ships for this index. Based on the provided data, including fuel consumption and emissions, each ship is assigned a score ranging from 0 to 100, indicating its level of pollution, from highly polluting to emission-free. Ports decide which advantages to offer participating ships, but these mostly involve a rebate on port dues. While ports or other public authorities could, in principle, also decide to implement strict regulations on emission criteria for ships entering the port (i.e., low-score ships are not granted access), such access restrictions have only been implemented in a few ports around the world. The concern is that such a system could undermine the competitiveness of a port if competing ports do not follow. - **Provision of shore power**. Implement Cold ironing, Onshore Power Supply (OPS), or Alternate Marine Power (AMP), whereby seagoing vessels and barges at berth utilize shore power for their auxiliary engines instead of bunker fuel. Cold ironing is most prevalent in the [cruise](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/coldironing-on-shore-power-supply-vessels/ "Coldironing: On-shore Power Supply for Vessels") and ferry industries, particularly since these ships consume more electricity and spend a significant amount of time at the terminal. There are challenges related to the investment cost, the allocation of these costs among different stakeholders, and the break-even point compared to bunker fuel. - **Alternative ship fuels**. Support the transition to **alternative ship fuels with low or no carbon emissions** by providing bunkering facilities offering price incentives for vessels that use alternative fuels. Since 2010, investments in port **LNG bunkering infrastructure** have surged. Many public port authorities actively facilitate the [use of LNG](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/long-powered-container-vessel/ "LNG-Powered Vessels"), often collaborating closely with industrial partners. Although using LNG instead of heavy fuel does not lead to a significant reduction in carbon emissions, it performs significantly better in terms of sulfur emissions. The maritime industry has also increasingly focused on the potential use of **methanol and ammonia** as ship fuels, as well as **battery-powered vessels** for shorter distances. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ESI-logo.png?resize=900%2C434&ssl=1 "The Environmental Ship Index program | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Environmental Ship Index program![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/175.jpg?resize=900%2C505&ssl=1 "On-Shore Power Supply at the Cruise Port of Vancouver | Port Economics, Management and Policy")On shore power supply at the cruise port of Vancouver![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/lng_jacques_saade.png?resize=900%2C441&ssl=1 "LNG-Powered Vessel Jacques Saade | Port Economics, Management and Policy")LNG as a ship fuel## B. Green port development and operations Green port development is about actions to reduce its environmental footprint and implement sustainability goals. **Multiple instruments and concepts** of green port development and operations exist, including: - Develop a [**green concession and lease policy**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=6440) by implementing [green clauses](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/common-clauses-green-concessions/ "Most Common Clauses in Green Concessions") in terminal concession, lease procedures, and contracts. This particularly involves setting standards for emissions and waste management across port users. - Maximize the [**ecologies of scale** and **industrial symbiosis**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=258#2_Activities_in_Port_Clusters) in industrial clusters or ecosystems. The goal is to find and promote related industrial, manufacturing, and distribution activities. Environmental zoning and co-location can help to achieve these effects. - Develop **green zones and buffers** in the port area, with nature forming a shield between heavy port industries and residential areas. A common form is the setting of linear parks. This can also involve restoring marine ecosystems. - Develop wind and solar parks, wave energy, and **combined port energy management**, utilizing the port as a procurement and maintenance platform. - Implement [**Carbon Capture and Storage** (CCS)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=6436) and fume return systems. Carbon can also be used as an input for other products, such as Carbon Capture and Utilization (CCU). - Support the **production of biofuels** and bio-based chemicals, which are particularly used for drayage. - Facilitate the use of **low-emission or zero-emission quay and yard equipment** on terminals, particularly through electrification. - Reduce **idling of ships and inland transport modes**, as well as waiting times at terminals, through information sharing and appointment systems facilitated by data platforms. - Develop **green warehousing and distribution activities** in ports through optimal location choice, efficient distribution system design, sustainable warehouse design (utilizing LED lighting and smart cooling and heating systems), and recycling of energy and materials. ![Examples of windfarms and gas terninals in ports](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Windfarms.png?resize=900%2C372&ssl=1 "Examples of Windfarms and Gas Terminals in Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of windfarms and gas terminals in ports![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/CCU.jpg?resize=747%2C416&ssl=1 "Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Carbon capture utilisation and storage![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/green_port_concessions.png?resize=900%2C461&ssl=1 "Green Port Concession Agreements and Processes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Towards green concession agreements and processes![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/clauses_green_concessions2.png?resize=900%2C533&ssl=1 "Most Common Clauses in Green Concessions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Most Common Clauses in Green Concessions## C. Green inland logistics, modal shift and inland terminals Inland logistics comprises the transportation of goods from the hinterland to the port or from the port to the hinterland via barge, rail, truck, or pipeline. Port authorities can play a role in the following GSCM areas: - Stimulate a **modal shift and implement multimodal transport solutions** through pricing (taxes and incentives), regulation of emission standards, provision of information to users, liberalization of freight markets, and infrastructure investments to make specific transport modes more attractive. - Optimize the use of each modality by **reducing empty movements (backhauls)**, improving vehicle utilization rates, and increasing the scale of transport modes (vessel scale, train length and tonnage, truck platooning). - Implement **[cargo bundling](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2509#6_Cargo_Bundling_in_Hinterland_Transport)** strategies that allow port users to combine cargo into larger loads. - Support the transition to **greener energy sources** for transport by imposing minimum emissions standards on vehicles entering the port area and giving incentives for the use of low-emission vehicles, including electric vehicles. - Promote the role of **[inland terminals, dry ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=629)**, and port-hinterland strategies in GSCM, such as by incorporating inland terminals as [extended gates](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2509#2_The_Hinterland_Focus_of_Market_Players) to seaport terminals. - Develop advanced and integrated **traffic management systems** for rail, barge, and truck. - Implement **pricing mechanisms** and other instruments to make fleets greener or to spread traffic in time and space. These include appointment systems, peak pricing, or extended (night) terminal opening hours. - Develop **pipeline networks** (intra-port, inter-port, and port-hinterland) to transport liquids over short and long distances. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/extended_gate_concept.png?resize=900%2C543&ssl=1 "The Extended Gate Concept | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Extended Gate Concept![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cargo_bundling_options_hinterland.png?resize=900%2C598&ssl=1 "Cargo Bundling Options in Hinterland Transportation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cargo Bundling Options in Hinterland Transportation## D. Seaports and the circular economy There are [three circular scales](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=5951 "The Circular Economy in Ports and Maritime Shipping") in which ports and maritime shipping are embedded. At the largest scale, the circular economy is about **restructuring industrial systems** by adopting methods that maximize the efficient use of resources through recycling and minimizing emissions and waste (circular economy issues are discussed in detail in [chapter 3.5](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/ "Chapter 2.7 – Ports and the Circular Economy")). In a port context, the main fields of action are: - Promote **industrial ecology clusters** to optimize waste management through interactions between stakeholders within the same geographical area, such as exchanging materials, water, and by-products. - Develop seaports as **hubs for recycling flows** where flows are delivered, transformed into new products, and re-exported worldwide. - Use **renewable energy sources** through hydro and offshore power installations. The second scale concerns the circular processes directly related to **shipping and port operations** and their supply chains. The third is related to the **specialized container market, which involves circular processes including** the repair, repositioning, and recycling of discarded containers. By design, containers are circular goods that can be constantly reused and exchanged on transport markets. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/circular_ports_shipping.png?resize=900%2C417&ssl=1 "The Circular Economy in Ports and Maritime Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Circular Economy in Ports and Maritime ShippingA circular system is **not necessarily sustainable,** as the costs of reusing or recycling may exceed those of linear procurement. For instance, recycling goods such as waste paper and some plastics is more expensive than sourcing from new resources. Under such circumstances, circularity becomes a political or societal choice that requires regulations and subsidies, resulting in higher costs and potential disruptions related to resource availability. ## E. Knowledge development Another possible field of action for GSCM in ports includes measures that **facilitate knowledge development**, information sharing, and the exchange of best practices. A non-exhaustive list of some areas for initiatives includes: - Develop interactive **environmental and energy information and management systems** that support business processes with new knowledge about energy consumption and emissions. This can help set up benchmarks and standards. - Cooperate within the framework of **port-related associations**, such as the World Port Sustainability Program (WPSP) and Ecoports, which provide a forum for discussing strategies and best practices. - Develop **sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs** to enhance the social and environmental performance of the port cluster and improve communication with a diverse range of stakeholders. - Implement **sustainability reporting** at the corporate, port authority, or port industry level. Larger port authorities are the leading actors that have started producing sustainability reports. - Develop the **local knowledge base on GSCM** in ports by establishing incubators and labs for start-ups and scale-ups, hosting hackathon events, and fostering a conducive business environment for R&D-focused firms, research centers, consultancy firms, and start-ups. --- # Related Topics - [i.3 Seaports: Social and Environmental Value](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3151) - [Chapter 1.2 Ports and Maritime Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1530) - [Chapter 1.3 Ports and Container Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1532) - [Chapter 1.4 Ports and Distribution Networks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3020) - [Chapter 2.7 Ports and the Circular Economy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-circular-economy/) ## References - Ahi, P. and Searcy, C. (2013) “A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable supply chain management”. Journal of cleaner production, 52, 329-341. - Bui, M., Adjiman, C.S., Bardow, A., Anthony, E.J., Boston, A., Brown, S., Fennell, P.S., Fuss, S., Galindo, A., Hackett, L.A. and Hallett, J.P. (2018) “Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward”. Energy & Environmental Science, 11(5), 1062-1176. - Cullinane, K., and J. Yang (2022). Evaluating the Costs of Decarbonizing the Shipping Industry: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 10(7), 946. - Darnall, N., Jolley, G.J. and Handfield, R. (2008) “Environmental management systems and green supply chain management: complements for sustainability?”. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(1), 30-45. - De Langen, P. and Sornn-Friese, H. (2019) “Ports and the Circular Economy”. In: Green Ports, 85-108. Elsevier. - Diabat, A. and Govindan, K. (2011) “An analysis of the drivers affecting the implementation of green supply chain management”t. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(6), 659-667. - Doerr, O. (2001) “Sustainable port policies”. Bull. FAL 2011, 299, 1–8. - Geerts, M., Dooms, M. (2017) “Sustainability reporting by port authorities: a comparative analysis of leading world ports”. IAME 2017 conference, Kyoto, paper no. 317 - International Energy Agency (IEA) (2025), World Energy Outlook. - International Transportation Forum (2020) Decarbonising Maritime Transport: Pathways to zero-carbon shipping by 2035, Paris: OECD. - Lam, J.S.L. and Notteboom, T. (2014) “The greening of ports: a comparison of port management tools used by leading ports in Asia and Europe”. Transport Reviews, 34(2), 169-189. - McKinnon, A. (2018) Decarbonizing Logistics: Distributing Goods in a Low Carbon World, London: Kogan Page. - Notteboom, T. (2010) “Green concession agreements: how can port authorities integrate environmental issues in the terminal awarding process?”, Port Technology International, issue 47, Autumn 2010, 36-38. - Notteboom, T. and Lam, J. (2018) “The greening of terminal concessions in seaports”. Sustainability, 10(9), 3318. - Notteboom, T., Van der Lugt, L., Van Saase, N., Sel, S., Neyens, K. (2020) “The role of seaports in Green Supply Chain Management: initiatives, attitudes and perspectives in Rotterdam, Antwerp, North Sea Port and Zeebrugge”, Sustainability, 12, 1688 - Puig, M., Wooldridge, C., Michail, A. and Darbra, R.M. (2015) “Current status and trends of the environmental performance in European ports”. Environmental Science & Policy, 48, 57-66. - Sarkis, J. (2003),“ A strategic decision framework for green supply chain management”. Journal of cleaner production, 11(4), 397-409. - UNESCAP (1992) “Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Port Development”, United Nations: New York, NY, USA - Wang, S. and Notteboom, T. (2015) “The role of port authorities in the development of LNG bunkering facilities in North European ports”. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 14(1), 61-92. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Blockchains and Intermodal Transportation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/blockchains-intermodal-transportation/) **Published:** January 6, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/blockchains_intermodal_transport.png?resize=900%2C433&ssl=1 "Blockchains and Intermodal Transportation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Blockchains and Intermodal TransportationA simple intermodal chain typically involves an exporter, an importer, and various carriers and terminals acting as intermediaries. Assuming one full dry container load (reefers or hazardous materials trade would generate more transactions and information), for an intermodal transportation chain to occur, a series of operations and related information flows are required. Although blockchain technology has little to do with operations, it substantially changes how the related information flows are stored and shared among the involved parties. For instance, the preparation of an order may require tasks such as packaging and stuffing the consignment into a container. This order generates various information flows, including a certificate of origin, a commercial invoice, a packing list, and an insurance certificate, as well as the booking of a carrier (or a third-party logistics provider) to transport the container consignment to a specified destination. This information can be stored in a blockchain and made available to carriers and other relevant parties along the intermodal transport chain for their own use. One particular use is the construction of **blockchain bills of lading**. The truck carrier uses the blockchain information to issue its bill of lading, which is appended to the blockchain and takes effect once the container has been picked up. This blockchain is populated with additional blocks as the carrier performs its transportation service, including the equipment used (truck and chassis), the date the container was picked up, the container identification number, and any notable events that occurred during transportation. An event can be passing at a specific location (e.g., a toll), the duration of a stop (for rest), or a change of driver and/or truck. Using sensors, it is possible to automatically input event information into the blockchain, such as a location at a given time. At the container port terminal, various operations will continue to populate the blockchain. The time the container crossed the terminal gate (transfer of liability), and its yard storage location, as well as the customs export clearance, are among the most important. A series of events can also be recorded on the blockchain, such as the equipment used to handle the container or whether it was re-stacked (for yard management purposes). Once the container has been brought quayside and loaded into a containership, a smart contract can automatically be executed if the Incoterms involved Free On Board (FOB), which would pay the supplier since the terms of the contract have been met (under this contract, the supplier would also pay the truck carrier and the terminal operator). There is also the possibility of using cryptocurrencies to settle blockchain smart contracts and serve as booking deposits in the event of a no-show by the shipper or over-booking by the carrier. The shipping line issues a master bill of lading, which is its obligation to carry containers from the stated port of origin to the destination port. A series of events can also be recorded, such as daily location or the use of a transshipment hub involving terminal operations and a change of ship (and even of shipping line). A few days before arrival, the shipping line can issue an arrival notice (with an estimated time of arrival, or ETA) on the blockchain to the consignee, allowing them to arrange land transportation. At the port of destination, similar intermodal operations are performed and appended to the blockchain. If the [Incoterms](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=5614) are Cost Insurance Freight (CIF), then a smart contract can automatically pay the supplier (including the shipping line, the terminal operator, and the truck carrier). Once the container receives customs clearance (compliance is met, duties are paid, and the details are appended to the blockchain), it is ready to be picked up by the land carrier. In this case, we assume a rail link is performed from an on-dock rail facility with its own bill of lading, which is appended to the blockchain. The sequence is then repeated for the last-mile truck haulage, with all appended information added to the blockchain. At the destination, the final operations are performed on the container, such as destuffing and stocking the items in the distribution center. Upon inspection, if the shipment matches the order, then the commercial invoice can be cleared, the blockchain updated, and the supplier paid if the Incoterms were Carriage and Insurance Paid (CIP). This marks the end of this blockchain, which now contains the complete transport, intermodal, and transactional sequence of this intermodal chain. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/blockchains-intermodal-transportation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/blockchains-intermodal-transportation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/blockchains-intermodal-transportation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/blockchains-intermodal-transportation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Community System](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/port-community-system/) **Published:** January 6, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_community_system2.png?resize=900%2C628&ssl=1 "Port Community System | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Community SystemAs a digital freight platform, a port community system can be an ad hoc entity built upon available opportunities and existing stakeholder relationships within a port community. These specific applications can be part of the system: - **Vessel call management**. A carrier can issue a berth and anchorage request and receive authorization from the terminal operator. Firms involved in port services, such as pilotage, towage, and mooring, can also receive service requests. Simultaneously, related public authorities, such as the port authority, customs, and the port police, are notified. - **Container handling management**. Carriers (such as shipping companies or trucking firms) can interact with the respective terminal operators through a standard interface, removing the issue of dealing with different terminal information systems. The cargo manifest is simultaneously provided to the carrier and the terminal operator, as well as to regulatory agencies such as customs and the port authority. This enables automatic cross-referencing with customs, clearing the cargo for import or export much faster. - **Gate management**. This involves electronic management of inbound and outbound movements at the terminal gate, which predominantly concerns freight forwarders, shipping lines, trucking firms, and terminal operators. It is possible to cover all the inland logistical operations, such as transport contracts, release orders, and admittance orders, with a single electronic document. If the e-document is provided in advance, often by 24 hours, then all the processes can be pre-cleared, leaving only the physical movement of pick up or delivery to take place. This improves the throughput of existing gates, often more than doubling their capacity, without additional infrastructure beyond automatic gate processing equipment. - **Security and control**. This covers strategies to automate the authorized and secure usage of the facilities, including access to cargo. A particular approach leans on the optical character recognition of license plates and container identification numbers. Real-time observation can be cross-checked with bills of lading with discrepancies, which are subject to manual verification. This can also include other scanning devices such as radiation detection or RFID. Again, this results in better usage of existing assets, and at the same time, it improves security procedures. - **Tracking**. All of the above enables, through IT integration, the tracking of container loads throughout the port community, from the moment they have been unloaded from a containership, while they are clearing the terminal gate, or when they have been delivered. This permits a better level of supply chain management and asset utilization within the port community. PCS vary around the world in terms of scope, functionality, and interoperability. In some ports, they are linked to Trade Single Windows (TSW) systems, which enable the exchange of information between traders and border agencies. In other ports, the PCS is integrated with Maritime Single Windows (MSW) systems, which allow the ship-to-shore data exchanges. These overlaps aim to facilitate information exchange among the various stakeholders involved in maritime trade and logistics. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/port-community-system/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/port-community-system/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/port-community-system/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/port-community-system/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 7.3 – Tourist Harbors and Marinas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/) **Published:** July 26, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Athanasios Pallis, Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue and Dr. Theo Notteboom > Tourist ports for recreational vessels are a distinctive category of ports where infrastructure, hinterland services, and facilities functionally support the docking of recreational boating and yachting. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Tourist Ports](#1_Tourist_Ports) - [2. Yachting and Boating](#2_Yachting_and_Boating) - [3. Marinas](#3_Marinas) - [4. Planning and Developing a Marina](#4_Planning_and_Developing_a_Marina) # 1. Tourist Ports There is no formal consensus concerning the definition of marinas or yacht harbours that strictly support recreational and touristic purposes. Still, tourist ports are commonly divided into four categories: - **Marina**. A tourist port with land and sea facilities and infrastructure to serve recreational boating and yachting, as well as their users. Within marinas, slips and berths are portions of a pier, main pier, finger pier, or float where a boat is berthed or moored, or used for embarking or disembarking. The docks that designate the storage space supply various services, including water, electricity, sewage pumpouts, and telecommunications. Slips are rented to boaters on an annual, seasonal, or short-term (transient) basis. In some marinas, slips are owned by individuals who hold title to their slips and have non-exclusive ownership and use of common marina property (clubhouse, restrooms, and recreational facilities) that is professionally managed. Many marinas offer drystack berths, drysail berths, and dry land storage. - **Tourist harbor** (or **shelter**). A tourist port with basic infrastructure of at least 300 square meters, including water, electricity, telephone, fuel, waste and refuse collection, fire fighting, accommodation, and sanitary facilities and services. Many are designed for this purpose or have been converted from port facilities that were closed. - **Anchorage**. Port facility created within a protected bay, lake, or river, with a limited number of berths and basic facilities, and with light infrastructure and equipment that do not cause significant alteration of the environment. - **Fishing shelter**. A port facility that is used to moor fishing vessels. They might be accompanied by port facilities, such as piers, buildings, refrigerated warehouses, and processing centers, that, together with the associated land area, are intended to serve the fishing vessels and the sale of the caught products. Several of these areas have a propensity to attract tourism and recreational boating. # 2. Yachting and Boating ## A. Market expansion Yachting is a dynamic market that continues to grow and expand globally, driven by the significant growth in the superyacht segment, which is expected to remain the primary driver of international growth. As the number of people with discretionary income increases, so does the enthusiasm for recreational boating, water sports, and outdoor endeavours, particularly following the pandemic. This has prompted a surge in demand for yachts and the expansion of the [boatbuilding industry](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/yacht-manufacturers/), which aims to create models that are affordable, versatile, and user-friendly. As of 2024, the global yacht market was valued at USD 12.4 billion and is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 6.4% over the next decade. However, the recreational boating industry is highly fragmented and characterised predominantly by small, privately owned businesses catering to a specific region. Smaller boats are more difficult to reposition or distribute globally, which favors local manufacturing. This fragmentation presents significant challenges in accurately assessing its complete economic footprint. In particular, it complicates data collection and aggregation for individual associations, resulting in figures that are likely approximations of their actual economic value. Combining available data, it is estimated that the **global boating industry** encompasses: - 30,000 marinas and yacht harbours, providing close to 5 million berths and over a million open moorings to boat owners around the globe. - Approximately 100,000 direct companies, the majority of which are engaged in refit, repair, and maintenance services supporting the world’s boating population. - One million direct employees, with over 100,000 employees engaged in boat and engine manufacturing across the industry’s most important markets. - 30 million recreational yachts and boats in ownership, with outboard-powered motorboats accounting for 34% of boats owned globally. - More than $50 billion in annual manufacturing turnover, with sailboats and inboard/sterndrive motorboats only accounting for 5% of unit production annually. The **increased popularity of maritime tourism**, combined with the convenience provided by online booking services, continues to lead to a rise in boat sales, particularly of larger vessels, and a growing number of first-time boat owners. These factors contribute to a surge in demand for storage space (including berths, moorings, and dry stacks), as well as berth rentals, launching, fueling, and repair services at marinas. The global boating industry has sustained a compound annual growth rate of 10% since 2014. ## B. Regional characteristics The market is predominantly concentrated in [North America and Europe](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/yachts-density-major-markets/ "Yachts Density in Major Markets"), the largest and fastest-growing markets, respectively. These two regions collectively account for approximately 70% of the global market share. In terms of propulsion, motorboats in these regions represent approximately 90% of the market. In North America, outboard engines account for approximately 70%, while in Europe, inboard engines represent around 50%. **North America** accounts for the largest share of the yacht market, reaching approximately 37%. Many high-net-worth individuals, a strong boating culture, and vast coastal access, along with proximity to the Caribbean, provide North America with a significant market position, driving luxury lifestyle trends and a robust yacht charter market that contributes to consistent demand for yachts and superyachts. The United States accounts for more than half of the manufacturing, retail, and aftermarket sales market. Over six million boats and yachts sail in **Europe**, while 4,000 to 10,000 marinas and tourist harbors provide more than one million berths in inland and coastal areas. The related cluster (ecosystem) comprises boatbuilders, engine manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, trade, and service providers. Primarily composed of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), as well as a small number of large companies, this ecosystem consists of approximately 32,000 companies that directly employ over 280,000 people. Boatbuilding alone comprises 3,600 companies that employ over 82,000 people. Growing affluence and interest in other parts of the world, such as China and India, the UAE (Middle East), and South America, are opening new customer bases, driving the expansion of the yacht market and marina infrastructure in these regions. Similarly to cruising, the globalisation and expansion of penetration in different nations is underway. In 2024, the **Asia-Pacific region** is expected to host 530 active superyachts exceeding 30 meters, a 19% increase from 2023, with 700 new builds anticipated to be delivered. The **Chinese yacht market** is expected to experience significant growth. Various elements are driving the yacht ownership and charter market, including regulatory easing (lower import taxes, relaxed registration, and extensive movement of owned or charter-owned yachts), with estimates suggesting total yacht ownership will grow from 38,100 to 163,500 between 2020 and 2025. Multiple countries beyond China, such as Thailand and Vietnam, are investing heavily in marina infrastructure to cater to their local markets. In the **Middle East**, the UAE, the most developed yachting market, has many luxury and ultra-luxury yachts utilising marinas like Dubai Marina, Yas Marina (Abu Dhabi), or Mina Rashid in Dubai and introducing relaxed restrictions on yacht ownership and registration, as the UAE has a higher number of mega-infrastructure projects aimed at upgrading luxury and environmentally friendly yachts, revitalising entertainment projects, and developing new marina projects. **Latin America** is also projected to grow. Countries in the region (e.g. Brazil, Mexico, and Chile) are enhancing port facilities, revising yacht registration, and promoting domestic yacht production. Investment in marina development is increasing and will help enhance its profile as a yachting destination. Countries are concentrating their efforts on new marina investments, upgrading and improving facilities to accommodate both domestic and international tourists traveling by yacht. ## C. Market segmentation The yacht market is divided into three market [**segments based on the length of the yachts**](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/segments-yacht-market-length/). The smaller ones, which are less than 24 meters, the yachts between 24 and 45 meters, and the yachts with a length above 45 meters, respectively. A second categorization of the yacht market is the segmentation based on the [propulsion system](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/segments-yacht-market-propulsion/ "Segmentation of the Yacht Market: Propulsion"). In this case, the yacht market is segmented into motor, sail, and the comparatively minor hybrid/electric categories. The motor segment dominates, as it is more flexible in its cruising ability under varying conditions and in its average cruising speed, extending its range. A third categorization is based on type, with the yacht market divided into flybridge yachts, sport yachts, superyachts, and other categories. In this categorisation, the superyacht segment dominates, accounting for around 37% in 2024. Across categories, there is a tendency for customisation, as owners prefer individualised interiors filled with amenities to increase their onboard comfort. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Leisure-Ships.png?resize=900%2C484&ssl=1 "Yachts Density in Major Markets | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Yachts Density in Major Markets![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/segmentation_yacht_lenght.png?resize=900%2C380&ssl=1 "Segments of the Yacht Market based on Yacht Length | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Segments of the Yacht Market based on Yacht Length![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/segmentation_yacht_propulsion.png?resize=900%2C380&ssl=1 "Segments of the Yacht Market based on Propulsion | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Segments of the Yacht Market based on PropulsionThe emerging trends shaping the recreational boating market include a **shift in the customer base**. An industry heavily reliant on personal connections, recreational boating is experiencing a change in its customer base toward millennials, who value a closer connection with nature and a greater emphasis on eco-friendliness. This change is also apparent in the superyacht market, with projections indicating that 60% of luxury superyacht owners will soon be part of the millennial demographic. The new customer base demonstrates a growing preference for personalized solutions and design features that reflect lifestyle aspirations and environmental values. Contemporary yacht design is increasingly seeking a symbiotic integration with the natural environment, thereby reshaping traditional industry priorities, such as privacy and comfort. In parallel, the introduction of **eco-friendly** yachts reflects a broader shift in the industry toward sustainability, through innovative practices such as the use of recycled components, the adoption of eco-friendly materials, and the use of low-emission engines. **Innovations in technology** also enhance user experience, attracting more customers. The integration of the Internet of Things (IoT), advanced automation, and state-of-the-art navigational systems in yachts significantly enhances operational safety and security, while enabling greater user control over onboard systems through mobile devices. These technological advancements not only improve convenience and entertainment but also cater to the preferences of technologically sophisticated consumers, thereby serving as a differentiating factor in an increasingly competitive market. Shipyards are progressively adopting innovative practices, including the incorporation of recycled components, the use of environmentally responsible materials, and the advancement of alternative propulsion systems, notably hydrogen fuel cells powered by methanol and hybrid engines, in response to heightened environmental awareness and regulatory pressures. The production of recreational crafts is highly diverse, ranging from series to one-off boats built to order. Advanced engineering, innovative design methodologies, and high-quality craftsmanship are critical aspects of leadership in yacht production. [Yacht manufacturers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/yacht-manufacturers/) are primarily European firms, particularly in the superyachts sector. The United States contributes strongly in niche areas, with manufacturers being particularly strong in sportfishing yachts, custom, and mid-size motor yachts. However, it is less competitive in large-scale sailing yacht production compared to France or Italy. In the 21st century, a new market segment has emerged, one that builds superyachts (yachts exceeding 24 meters in length). Based on the cumulative length of hulls produced, the Italian manufacturer Azimut-Benetti has consistently topped the rankings in this market. This contributes to Italy’s preeminence in the global yacht manufacturing industry, as reflected in its consistent control over 40% of all yachts under construction. Beyond Italy, large groups of manufacturers are located in the Netherlands, Germany, the UK, and Poland. The major non-European yacht manufacturer worldwide is operating in Taiwan. The [top 15 yacht builders in 2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/top-yacht-builders-length-construction/) had orders for over 640 newbuilds reaching a total length of 25,000 meters. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Major-Yacht-and-Boat-Manufacturers-in-Europe-North-America-1.png?resize=900%2C385&ssl=1 "Main Yacht and Boat Manufacturers in Europe North America | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Yacht and Boat Manufacturers in Europe North America![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Top-Yacht-Builders-by-Total-Length-of-Construction-2024.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Top Yacht Builders by Total Length of Construction | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Top Yacht Builders by Total Length of Construction 2024The expansion of the **yacht charter market** is an additional market trend. The rise in yacht charter services lowers the entry barrier for consumers, increasing accessibility and market penetration among affluent customers. - **Bareboat chartering**, which involves the chartering or hiring of a boat without crew or provisions included as part of the agreement, where the individuals renting the vessel from the owner are responsible for providing these services, remains the most significant activity in the charter sector. Nevertheless, there is an increasing demand for other charter services, such as chartering boats with staff on board, whether skippered boats or charter boats with hostesses, for events, including conferences, celebrations, and team-building activities. - **Fractional yacht ownership** is also gaining popularity as an affordable alternative to traditional full yacht ownership. The developments offer personalised yachting options to more individuals at a reduced maintenance cost. This trend is expanding the scope of access to a larger share of the market, as well as to younger consumers. Despite the easing of the pandemic and inflation, the nautical industry still faces **shortages of components and skilled labour**. To tackle this, many shipyards are implementing vertical integration strategies to ensure timely and cost-effective production. In the 2020s, the boating market underwent over 400 mergers and acquisitions transactions, with a focus on downstream segments (approximately 57%) and primarily occurring in North America (approximately 58%). Yachting operators and shipyards active in boat construction accounted for approximately 60% of these transactions, while financial investors contributed around 20%, marking a slight increase in their presence. The related port industry is also consolidating through numerous acquisitions and the development of specialised tourist marinas, both in emerging regions (e.g., the Middle East) and established markets like the Mediterranean (e.g., Greece and Italy). ## D. Superyachts The increased penetration of new buyers has contributed to the growth in the number of **superyachts** (>24 meters), with demand for new orders primarily driven by the 30-40 meter segment. [New superyacht completions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/superyachts-deliveries-2020-2025/) reached a record level of almost 700 in 2024, with half of the delivered yachts being 24-30 meters in length, and 23 of the rest being in the 70 meters and above category. Despite its niche status within the broader market, the luxury yacht segment (superyachts and high-end boats) has experienced notable growth in recent years. The worldwide growth in high-net-worth individuals translates into increased demand for luxury yachts that are symbols of prestige and exclusivity. Wealth accumulation in emerging economies encourages discretionary spending on consumer-based leisure assets. As the luxury market expands, it drives firm-level sales and investments in yachts, including custom yachts and superyachts, leading to consistent growth across global yacht markets. The size and length of the [world’s largest yachts](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/top-10-largest-yachts-world-2025/) are also expanding. Scheduled to be delivered in 2026, REV Ocean is approaching the 200-meter threshold (194.9 meters) to replace Azzam, the largest privately owned superyacht since 2013, at the top of its respective rankings. In the superyachts market, most vessels are owned by a management company (approximately 65%) and are rented to individuals who wish to use them for a specified period. This trend is seen worldwide. The remaining 35% is privately owned, with individuals being the sole owners. Significant in the yachting business is the number of passengers a superyacht can accommodate. If it can accommodate more than 12 passengers, different (and stricter) IMO regulations will apply to the yacht, as it is more similar to regular passenger vessels. This market falls between the rental and cruise industries. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Superyacht-deliveries-by-year-2020-2025.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Superyacht Deliveries, 2020-2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Superyacht Deliveries 2020 2025![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Top-10-Largest-Yachts-in-the-World-.png?resize=900%2C453&ssl=1 "Top-10 Largest Yachts in the World | Port Economics, Management and Policy") 10 Largest Yachts in the World in 2025# 3. Marinas ## A. Recreational setting An increasing development of coastal infrastructure supports the growing yacht and boat markets. An expanding network of marinas and yacht-friendly facilities worldwide supports ease of access and maintenance, promoting yacht ownership and longer cruising seasons. The term *marinas* refers to quite different situations, ranging from small ports belonging to the historical part of a town to extensive, modern infrastructure able to host thousands of recreational boats and yachts, and provide all types of services to tens of thousands of boaters. There is thus no accurate count of the number of marinas operating globally. The International Council of Marine Industry Associations (ICOMIA) estimates that there are **30,000 marinas**, with a combined capacity of five million berthing slots. In **Europe**, the largest marina is Port de La Rochelle on the Atlantic coast of France, with a total of 5,157 berths spread over 70 hectares. Port-Camargue, also in France, follows closely behind with approximately 4,600 berths. Port Vauban, located on the glamorous French Riviera, is the largest marina in the Mediterranean in terms of tonnage and one of the oldest superyacht marinas in the Mediterranean. It can accommodate up to 19 superyachts, ranging from 70 to 165 meters in length, thereby hosting some of the world’s largest and most luxurious superyachts. The largest marina in northern Europe is located in the Belgian coastal town of Nieuwpoort, offering approximately 2,000 berths spread across five berthing areas. The ten [European countries with notable marina capacities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/marinas-europe-total-capacity/) collectively provide almost 1.5 million berths, with Sweden being the most significant contributor. The [average capacity of marinas across European countries](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/average-capacity-marinas-europe/) varies significantly, influenced by both planning decisions and geomorphology. On average, the biggest marinas are found in the Iberian Peninsula. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/europe_marinas_capacity.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Total Capacity of Marinas in Selected European Countries | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Total capacity of marinas in selected European countries![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Average-capacity-of-Marinas-in-Europe-1.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Average Capacity of Marinas in Europe, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Average capacity of Marinas in Europe 2023In **North America**, Marina del Rey in California stands out as the world’s largest fully operational marina by berth count (4,600 berths). Port of Everett, WA (2,300 berths), dominates the public marina segment on the West Coast. Shilshole Bay, WA (1,400 berths), and Elliott Bay, WA (1,200 berths) serve key regional markets with both community and transient moorings. Reed Point, in British Columbia (800 berths), is the largest marina in the smaller yacht market of Canada. In the **Caribbean**, Puerto del Rey, PR, is recognised for its extensive scale and mixed wet/dry storage capacity. Habacoa, Bahamas, is due for completion in 2027 and aims to provide superyacht mooring on a large scale. One of the newest mega-marinas of unprecedented scale is **Dubai** Harbour Marina, which can berth over 1,000 vessels, including yachts up to 160 metres. Rather than the number of berths, however, marinas are commonly ranked according to the quality and extent of their services, the attractiveness of the destination, and the size (length) of the vessels they can accommodate. Marinas are essential to the boating community, providing core services such as vessel storage, maintenance, supply provisioning, and a range of diverse amenities. With ongoing infrastructural advancements, marinas are evolving beyond their traditional role as functional storage facilities into integrated tourism destinations. Beyond their primary function, they often serve as hubs of recreational and lifestyle activity, offering diverse experiences to members, visitors, and other stakeholders, thus extending their benefits to the broader community. In doing so, they contribute to the wider **economic development of coastal regions**. Moreover, generating employment, stimulating tourism, and enhancing interactions and leisure activities associated with boating, marinas frequently act as economic multipliers. Due to the increasing presence of larger yachts, a distinct group of **superyacht marinas** has emerged, offering world-class amenities and serving as epicentres of luxury and lifestyle. Examples of major superyacht marinas in Europe include Port Hercules in Monaco, which hosts yachts of up to 120m, the port de Saint-Tropez, France, hosting at its limited berths elite yacht owners and celebrities, Puerto Banús in Marbella, Spain, Marina di Porto Cervo in Sardinia, Italy, and the largest marina in the Mediterranean by capacity, Port Vauban, which offers berthing for yachts over 170m at its “Billionaires’ Quay”. New superyacht marina includes Marina Ibiza, Spain, that caters to vessels up to 185 meters, and the luxury marina, Porto Montenegro at the UNESCO-protected Bay of Kotor, Montenegro. ## B. Location factors Beyond the **location** **of the marina** and its **core infrastructure**, the **quality of the essential services** is the most relevant criterion for boaters to consider when selecting their next marina. Factors such as capacity, access, waterfront, price, crowding levels, and, most importantly, weather conditions are important. Yet additional criteria help this decision: - **Cooperation between marinas**. Most important for marinas is that a boater uses their boat instead of having the recreational vessel moored at a berth. To achieve this goal, cooperation between marinas is vital at the local, regional, national, and international levels. By working together, marinas can offer their customers better services and higher standards, encouraging them to travel, while also ensuring that boaters do not change their home marina. Being part of a network enables marinas to learn from one another and, in turn, improve their services. - **Connection between nautical and landside tourism**. Marinas are often perceived as leisure destinations rather than places to store a yacht. One strategy to encourage boaters to stay longer in a marina is to inform them about the available services, cultural activities, and local tourist attractions. - **Ratings**. Marketing tools, such as publicly available performance reviews, whether provided by experts or not, are used to assess the marina proceedings. Once selected, core marina services, onshore destination experiences, marina supporting products, basic destination attributes, and charter products are the five [marina dimensions that have the potential to influence the yachters overall experience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/) from the marina. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/marina_attributes_experience.png?resize=900%2C435&ssl=1 "Marina Attributes Influencing Yachtsmen Experience | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Marinas Attributes Influencing Yachtsmen ExperienceMarinas are predominantly financed through **private investments**. Their development generally relies, in principle, on an economic model where the demand for services is not met by existing suppliers or competition. The availability and terms of **concessions**, licenses, or leases significantly influence both initial capital commitments and ongoing investments. These concessions are typically granted for several decades, as investment payback periods are lengthy. Investments are complex due to challenging and high-risk government planning controls, which can cause delays, require large initial capital, lead to high maintenance costs, and incur high management expenses. Key challenges include the physical aspects of the proposed anchorage, planning law, environmental constraints, lease contracts, and funding. An added complexity is meeting the differing infrastructure needs of small to large recreational boats. Moreover, with users’ shifting attitudes in short periods, marinas require ongoing adaptation to market requirements through additional capital investment and a change in offering and management approach. Superyacht marinas are associated with **investments in real estate** due to the following: - **Scarcity**. They are limited in number and often located in the most desirable waterfront destinations. This scarcity drives up both berth prices and the value of nearby real estate. - **Exclusivity**. They offer access to luxury residences, private clubs, fine dining, and exclusive events, enhancing lifestyle and rental income potential. - **Security**. They foster elite communities with high levels of security and privacy, attracting discerning investors and high-profile residents. - **Legal status**. Investing in marina real estate often comes with residency or citizenship benefits in certain jurisdictions, adding another layer of value for global investors. ## C. Major challenges for marinas With marinas, recreational boating, and yachting interconnected, the marina industry is experiencing global growth that is expected to continue in the foreseeable future. However, despite the primarily positive outlook, marinas continue to confront challenges that vary depending on their respective markets. The first challenge is meeting the **changing pace of customer expectations**. The pandemic attracted new and younger boaters with new expectations, as well as new boat designs and technologies. In addition, more boaters mean higher demand for boat storage and marina services, as well as new technologies (e.g., dry stack automation, marina management software), marina amenities, and environmental protection. In post-pandemic years, marinas in various countries, particularly those within a short drive from population centres, have been at full or nearly full capacity, and revenues per storage space (e.g., berths, moorings) have increased. Many marinas continue to have waitlists, and some are unable to accommodate additional yachts and boats of various sizes. The **Mediterranean market** is one such example. There are approximately 1,000 marinas, with more than half located in three countries: Italy, Spain, and France. Greece, Croatia, and Turkey also have a network of ports and marinas. Marinas, especially in Western European Mediterranean countries, are generally close to full capacity. Greece and Turkey are poised to follow a similar trend. Boat owners may further explore marinas in Southern Mediterranean countries (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia) as home marinas, which they can easily reach via air transport. This can be an option, especially for international yacht owners from Russia, the Arabian Peninsula, and Asia. Second, marinas continue to confront public opposition and efforts to restrict **marina expansion and development**. On the one hand, the leisure boating sector continues to exert significant pressure on infrastructure development. Berth demand is growing and is used to justify new marina projects. The time and cost of navigating multiple and sometimes conflicting regulations, as well as the involvement of various organisations, are ongoing problems in many countries. More marinas are seeking to expand the number of available storage spaces, especially on-water storage, and to enhance customer recreational and service amenities. However, gaining approval to build and reconfigure on-water storage spaces remains costly and takes a considerable amount of time. Typically, local authorities and communities prefer to leverage the value of residential real estate against the amenities of a marina. Moreover, in countries with a high density of marinas, the potential for spatial expansion is now limited by environmental protection legislation. Where waterfront property is not available and regulations and public opposition prevent expansion of on-water storage spaces, marinas are seeking to expand automated dry (stack) storage. With all the interest in marinas, bankers and lenders appear increasingly open to financing storage space additions and other marina enhancements. Third, marinas are exposed to the **risks of climate change**, including rising average sea levels and an increased frequency and intensity of storms, which impose new challenges. Not only does this require marinas to invest in more climate-resilient facilities, but it is also leading to significant increases in the cost of marina insurance and financial instruments used to hedge against potential catastrophic environmental events. Marinas are increasingly called upon to introduce **management practices** to address the ongoing shift from “ownership of a boat” to “boat as a service”. Aligning with a trend already in place for cars, accommodation, and other markets, there are already platforms for boat sharing (e.g., Boatbound, GetMyBoat, Barqo, Sharemysea), which have led to a fast-growing market segment. Accordingly, a similar number of boats meets the demand of many more people. Marinas have also started to adapt to meet the demand of the owners of electric outboard motors. The electric boating market is still in its early stages, but it has the potential for significant growth. Meanwhile, the trend of **online booking** has been a growing phenomenon over the last two decades, making it easier for boaters to find and access a marina. A trend that has accelerated with the extension of mobile applications and Wi-Fi offerings in marinas. **Seasonality** is a problem that affects services offered in the marina (e.g., restaurants) and staff more than the marina itself. Some marinas generate a significant profit during the summer season, while others focus on boating activities during the summer and provide boat maintenance and storage during the winter, remaining active throughout the year. Port authority activities can take place in a marina during the winter, including local and corporate events, yacht club activities, and training sessions. Providing boating training during winter might bring new customers during the summer. Still, marinas, like much of the recreational marine industry, are confronting **difficulties attracting and retaining skilled staff**. Moreover, the industry is **exposed to economic and market volatility**. Luxury goods, such as yachts, are highly sensitive to economic downturns, which reduce demand during recessions and lead to fluctuating sales and market instability. Finally, marinas and marina organisations have a long-standing **deficiency in scientifically gathered and analysed data** that documents industry performance, barriers, and socio-economic contributions, which are insufficient to inform public policy and investment decisions. # 4. Planning and Developing a Marina ## A. Site selection Beyond competition, such as the presence of another marina or berthing facilities for pleasure boats and yachts within a 5-10 nautical miles radius, the following criteria determine the selection of a site for marina planning and development: 1. **Public utilities infrastructure**. Key considerations include the existence of spatial development plans, wastewater treatment capacity (particularly biological treatment), adequacy and stability of electricity supply, and sufficient water resources, as shortages are common in remote or island locations. Additional factors include internet connectivity, waste management facilities, health services, and customs services. 2. **Transport infrastructure and services**. This includes both maritime and land accessibility. Maritime aspects involve the adequacy of port infrastructure and existing sea connections. Land-based factors include proximity to the road network, availability of public transportation (e.g., bus connections and public-use cars), the presence of an airport in the broader area, and the frequency and range of air connections. 3. **Tourism infrastructure**. Relevant considerations include the presence of hospitality and food service establishments, ranging from fast-food outlets to full-service restaurants and cafés. Additional factors include food and retail outlets, accommodation options, and related services in the broader area of the proposed marina. Equally important are businesses catering to recreational boating needs (e.g., ship repair, marine supplies), as well as banking services, postal services, and fuel stations. 4. **Socioeconomic characteristics.** These criteria include the demographic potential of the region, the attractiveness of the hinterland for tourism (e.g., cultural and historical assets), the level of community acceptance of marina development, and the project’s expected impact on local employment. The structure of the regional economy (dominant sectors) and the availability of state incentives for investment are also important considerations. 5. **Geographic and environmental parameters**. These factors include prevailing weather and sea conditions, such as wind regimes, wave exposure, water depth, and navigational safety, as well as the site’s proximity to major sailing routes. The potential environmental impacts of marina development, both at seaside and landside, are always carefully assessed. Marinas develop with different layouts at sea and ashore, depending on land availability and weather constraints at the seaside. The layout of marina land facilities is typically determined by the physical constraints of the specific location and the need to facilitate efficient material and activity flow paths. A **land-to-water area** ratio of between 50:50 and 40:60 is commonly adopted for a marina development, depending on the extent of shore-based facilities to be provided. However, the financial viability of the land/water ratio must also be carefully considered, as the real estate created by reclamation in many marina developments is the principal financial asset of the development. ## B. Marina infrastructure and superstructure Once the marina layout is established, decisions must be made regarding the configuration of various elements. The **berthing facilities** can significantly impact operational efficiency, convenience for boat owners, security, safety, and the overall comfort of owners working or living on board. While boat sizes may not be forecast with any certainty, ample turning areas are provided, particularly adjacent to fuelling berths. To minimise the chance of collision, the water area for turning, entering, and leaving berths is at least twice the length of the longest boat hosted by a marina. Additionally, the positioning in relation to walkways is such that it maximizes their numbers and reduces maneuvering difficulties. Berths for hire and bare-boat charter crafts allow greater tolerance for inexperienced drivers. In general, hire boats are used more frequently and by less experienced people than privately owned boats at the marina. Berths for these boats are readily accessible to the open waterways, minimising manoeuvring within the marina. They are also wider to accommodate inexperienced drivers. **Marina basins** secure a minimum depth of no less than 2.5 meters and limit the exposure to ocean wave energy. They are designed to minimise vertically faced structures, which lead to reflection of wave energy, causing erratic waves within the berthing area. They also facilitate adequate flushing of the marina, which is necessary for maintaining the water quality of the marina basin and adjacent waterway. Poorly flushed marinas can become stagnant, allowing pollutants from the marina facility and boats to accumulate, reducing their appeal. **Channels** with sufficient navigable width in unexposed conditions and aligned in the direction of prevailing winds, **fairways** wide enough to minimise manoeuvring accidents, **piers**, and **breakwaters**, as well as wide enough **walkways** to allow two-way pedestrian traffic with barrows, are also critical parts of the infrastructure. Visiting yachts seek various **utilities** (water, electricity, and Wi-Fi access), as well as **waste treatment**, good recycling services, and **disposal facilities**. **Fuelling facilities** and pump-out services, and not least their location, are essential. The location of a fuelling facility is a critical decision with respect to safety. It should be located to be easily accessible by visiting and passing boats, without access through the main berthing area. **Maintenance areas** are also available for scheduled and/or unexpected boat repairs. Yard services in several marinas offer to boat owners the potential of **off-season boat storage**, including onshore storage. Given the shifting customer base, **boat launching facilities** are increasingly present. Many marinas have added **dry storage** as a service. Dry storage partially mitigates the seasonality of the business, as it generates additional income during the off-season. Areas for dry storage are preferably located in areas with relatively low land prices, as storage takes up a significant amount of space. Additionally, maintenance is offered in and around dry storage and winter storage facilities. Consequently, such dry storage facilities must be well accessible via water and land. Marinas offer a range of **additional amenities**, including commercial facilities, parking areas, and administrative offices. Users seek marinas close to home and offer amenities that complement and supplement their boating experiences. In response, a growing number of marinas now host boat clubs and offer rental boats as a way to diversify their revenue sources. Commercial marinas and yacht clubs have experienced considerable increases in storage, service, and repair, as well as boat sales, boat rentals, food, and beverage revenues. ## C. Environmental considerations and circularity Marina operations and development are closely linked to the need for environmental protection and sustainability. Sustainability is already influencing yacht design and ownership. Due to the increasing number of government regulations regarding greenhouse gases and electric motors, as well as the growing popularity of green lifestyles among consumers, the yacht industry is shifting towards alternative operations, emission reductions, and sustainability. Marina owners and operators attempt to follow. Most modern marinas adhere to international and local regulations regarding ballast water, waste, and anchoring. Solar-powered dock lighting and waste treatment facilities help align with IMO environmental guidelines. In recent years, many marinas have adopted environmental certifications, such as the Blue Flag or the Clean Marina, which align with international initiatives supporting cleaner oceans. Besides, marinas are not only essential facilities that shelter recreational boats during storms and emergencies, but also offer berths and supply services. These are clusters (ecosystems) that also include a set of services for nautical users and visitors, which implies an **economic, social, and environmental impact** on local development that extends beyond mere attention to the boats and yachts. Sustainable marina facilities should provide net positive outcomes at multiple levels, through careful consideration of natural processes, ecosystem functions, stakeholder engagement, and through implementation of strategies that maximise opportunities for navigation and nature, create value on multiple dimensions, and achieve co-benefits, flexibility, and resilience. Marinas are increasingly linked to the principles of **circularity**. To address the growing issue of overcrowding, marinas are developing a role in providing boaters with **disposal solutions for end-of-life boats**. This brings concrete advantages, both in terms of free berths from obsolete boats and yachts and in the recovery and eventual sale of second-hand materials. Acting both as promoters and beneficiaries when adopting circular economy approaches, marinas can enhance the effectiveness of the circular economy in additional ways. This is showcased by many existing projects that include certification initiatives to promote appropriate management of marina areas by means of methods and tools that meet environmental challenges, especially when it comes to chronic and accidental pollution, and toxic waste from operations, the reuse of boats’ cooking oils, digitalisation for smart lighting through LED technology, or smart mobility through electric cars. Likewise, data loggers, sensors, and integrated systems are used to measure and record meteorological parameters, air pollution, noise, and water quality within the marina or in the wider area. --- ## Related Topics - [Chapter 8.4 Port Clusters](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/) - [Chapter 11.5 Port-City Relationships](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/) ## References - CPMR Intermediterranean Commission and MedWaves, the UNEP/MAP Regional Activity Centre for SCP. (2022). A Circular Blue Economy for the Mediterranean: Current practices and opportunities, Barcelona. Interreg MED Blue Growth Community project and SwitchMed Programme. - European Commission (2016). Study on specific challenges for a sustainable development of coastal and maritime tourism in Europe, June 2016, Brussels: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) - Global Market Insights (2025). Yacht Market Size – By Type, By Length, By Propulsion, Growth Forecast, 2025 – 2034. August 2025. Delaware: USA. - International Council of Marine Industry Associations-ICOMIA. (2024). Global Marina Industry Report. [https://www.icomia.org](https://www.icomia.org/) - ICOMIA-International Council of Marine Industry Associations, (2025). “Recreational Boating Industry Statistics 2024”. Surrey, UK - Maglic L., Varazdinac P. and Skiljan I., (2019). “Multi-Criterion Decision Model for marina location selection in the County of Primorje and Gorski Kotar”. Nase More 66(1), pp. 28-36. - Mikulić, J. Krešić, D. and Kožić I. (2015). Critical factors of the maritime yachting tourism experience: An impact-asymmetry analysis of principal components. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32 (1) (2015), pp. S30-S41. - New South Wales Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (1996). EIS Guidelines Marinas and Related Facilities. - Shen Y., Kokkranikal J., Paaske C. and Morrison A.M. (2021). Perceived importance of and satisfaction with marina attributes in sailing tourism experiences: A kano model approach, Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 35, 100402. - Symes M. (2023) (eds). Introduction to Sustainability in Marinas (2nd edition). Lanzarote: Innovamarina. - Vaggelas G.K. and Pallis A.A. (2010). Passenger ports: Port Services and their benefits. Maritime Policy and Management, 37(1), 73-89. - Vaggelas G.K. and Pallis A.A. (2025). Where should we build it? Spatial planning criteria for marinas. International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME) 2025 Annual Conference, Bergen, Norway. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Major Maritime Ranges](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/major-maritime-ranges/) **Published:** January 12, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Maritime-Ranges-1.png?resize=900%2C328&ssl=1 "Major Maritime Ranges | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Major Maritime Ranges*Source: Adapted from Rodrigue, J-P (2020) “The Geography of Maritime Ranges: Interfacing Global Maritime Shipping Networks with Hinterlands”, Geojournal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10308-y* *Note: The boundary of many ranges is based on Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ). Several EEZs are subject to contention. The boundaries depicted on this map are functional representations and should not be viewed as anything else.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Maritime-Ranges.pdf) The above map is an attempt to depict the world’s main [maritime ranges](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1104). These ranges can be used as regional units to monitor changes in commercial activity. Since oceans are not empty entities (e.g. Hawaii in the Pacific), they can be considered as separate ranges that have oceanic boundaries, such as between the Atlantic (1) and the Indian (3) oceans. However, they are more systems of maritime circulation than functional maritime ranges, and they account for a marginal share of global port activity. The Arctic (4) is an emerging maritime range with some port activities (e.g. Murmansk, Narvik), but limited container traffic. Climate change and the lengthening of the Arctic navigation season have led to increased traffic in the range. The Antarctic is not a maritime range since it has no port activity level and virtually no maritime traffic. The maritime ranges of the Americas are oriented along the east and the west coasts, with the Caribbean (7) as a subset. Due to North American economic integration, both the West Coast (6) and the East Coast (5) encompass the United States and Mexico as a single functional entity. The same rationale applies to including Canada in the East and West Coast ranges. While for South America, the hinterland boundary is mostly physical (Andean), the North American hinterland boundary is mostly defined by the market areas of rail operators. Still, the northern boundary with the Arctic range remains ill-defined. European maritime ranges are organized into two main regions: one linked to the Atlantic (the British Isles, the European Atlantic, and the Northern Range) and the other to the Mediterranean (the East and West). Due to relatively short hinterland distances, all these ranges compete with one another, with the Northern European range (13) assuming a level of dominance. For the African continent, the Southern Mediterranean range (16) represents a specific market of nonintegrated ports servicing their national markets and with limited competition. A similar observation applies to the West African (17) and East African (18) ranges, where ports serve poorly connected national markets by setting up inland corridors at an early stage. The lack of maritime orientation of Sub-Saharan African ports, particularly in West Africa, is mainly attributed to geography. There is a scarcity of suitable port sites and limited access to the hinterland through river systems, which are punctuated by waterfalls and rapids, as well as substantial seasonal variations in water levels. South Africa (19) represents a specific range due to its higher level of economic development and its position at the interface between two oceans, with growing levels of transshipment. The Middle East (20) and South Asia (21) ranges are impacted by the dual functions of accessing regional economies, as well as serving as growing transshipment platforms. Southeast Asia (22) is an archipelago range with a series of ports servicing their respective insular or national markets, with the system articulated by a major hub; Singapore. Conventionally, East Asia was considered a single range corresponding to its standard regional definition, encompassing China, the Korean Peninsula, and Japan. The substantial growth in port activity, particularly in China, has necessitated the fragmentation of East Asia into four maritime ranges. Mainland China is divided into three ranges, each corresponding to the hinterland of its three main river systems. Conventionally, the Korean Peninsula was functionally part of the Japan range (26), but the trade reorientation of South Korea towards China supports its inclusion in the Yellow Sea range (23). Japan (26) is a specific range due to its archipelago nature, with its ports oriented at servicing the national economy and supporting cabotage. The Russian Far East range (27) is marginal and does not see significant volumes, but the setting up of the [Eurasian landbridge](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=333) is improving its relevance. Lastly, Oceania (28) encompasses the ranges of Australia and New Zealand, which are active exporters of resources and agricultural products. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/major-maritime-ranges/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/major-maritime-ranges/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/major-maritime-ranges/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/major-maritime-ranges/?share=reddit) - --- ### [III. PORTS IN TRANSITION](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/) **Published:** December 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Contemporary ports are facing a series of new dynamics that supplement and complement their conventional role. They are part of a geography, and their locations and operations are subject to economic and technological changes. The digital transformation of the industry, green supply chain management, the energy transition, and circular economy concepts have also significantly impacted ports seeking to transition into new roles and functions. - [Chapter 3.1 The Spatial Transition of Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/) - [Chapter 3.2 The Digital Transformation of Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/ "Chapter 3.2 – The Digital Transformation of Ports") - [Chapter 3.3 Green Shipping, Ports and Supply Chain Management](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/) - [Chapter 3.4 Ports and Energy Transition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/) - [Chapter 3.5 Ports and the Circular Economy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/) --- ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 2.3 - Inland Ports / Dry Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/) **Published:** December 31, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue and Dr. Theo Notteboom > A dry port is a rail or barge terminal linked to a maritime terminal with regular inland transport services. They are also called inland ports. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. A New Role for Inland Terminals](#1_A_New_Role_for_Inland_Terminals) - [2. Driving Forces](#2_Driving_Forces) - [3. Functions within Transport Chains](#3_Functions_within_Transport_Chains) - [4. The Regional Impacts of Inland Ports](#4_The_Regional_Impacts_of_Inland_Ports) - [5. Future Prospects](#5_Future_Prospects) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. A New Role for Inland Terminals Transport development is gradually **shifting inland** after a phase focused on developing port terminals and maritime shipping networks. The complexity of modern freight distribution, the increased focus on intermodal and co-modal transport solutions, and capacity issues appear to be the main drivers behind a renewed focus on hinterland logistics. While trucking tends to be sufficient in the initial phase of the development of inland freight distribution systems, at some level of activity, diminishing returns caused by congestion, energy consumption, and empty movements become strong incentives to consider **setting up inland terminals** as the next step in regional freight planning. The massification of flows in networks, through a concentration of cargo in a limited set of ports of call and associated corridors to the hinterland, has created the [right conditions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=633) for nodes to appear along and at the end of these trunk lines. Therefore, bimodal and trimodal inland terminals have become an intrinsic part of the transport system, particularly in gateway regions having a high reliance on trade. The evolution of inland freight distribution can be seen as a cycle in the ongoing development of containerization and intermodal transportation. The geographical characteristics linked to modal availability, capacity, and reliability of regional inland access play a crucial role in shaping this development. As maritime shipping networks and port terminals become better integrated, the focus has shifted to inland transportation and the **inland terminal as a fundamental component of this strategy**. Thus, after a phase that relied on developing port terminals and maritime shipping networks, the integration of maritime and inland freight distribution systems has facilitated the establishment of inland ports. An inland port has a level of integration with the maritime terminal and supports more efficient access to the inland market for inbound and outbound traffic. This implies an array of related logistical activities linked with the terminal, such as distribution centers, depots for containers and chassis, warehouses, and logistical service providers. Since the inland terminal is an extension of some port activities inland, the term “**dry port**” has gained acceptance and tends to be the most commonly used term. The term is subject to debate, as many inland terminals are, in fact, “wet” due to their direct access to inland waterway systems. Moreover, the inland location can effectively be a port if a barge service is considered. Still, it fundamentally cannot be considered a port if it involves a rail terminal or, more simply, truck depots. Thus, there seems to be no consensus on the terminology, resulting in a wide range of terms, including dry ports, inland terminals, inland ports, inland hubs, inland logistics centers, and inland freight villages. The reason for this lies in the multiple shapes, functions, and network positions these nodes can have. A similar issue arises with the inclusion of airport terminals, particularly their freight activities, as an element of an inland node. A whole array of transport terminal infrastructures is often presented as a dry port. Therefore, the concept of an inland port is **polymorphic**, implying that it can have different meanings depending on its location, connectivity, role, function, or even the marketing objectives of its promoters. Regardless of the terminology used, three fundamental characteristics are related to an inland node: - An **intermodal terminal**, either rail or barge, that has been built or expanded. - A **connection with a port terminal** through rail, barge, or truck services, often through a high-capacity corridor. - An array of **logistical activities** supporting and organizing the freight transited are often [co-located](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=643) with the intermodal terminal. The functional specialization of inland terminals has been linked to the **clustering of logistical activities**. In many cases, inland terminals have witnessed a clustering of logistics sites in the vicinity, leading to a process of logistics polarization and the creation of [logistics zones](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=8133). They have become excellent locations for consolidating a range of ancillary activities and logistics companies. In recent years, the dynamics in logistics networks have created the right conditions for the large-scale development of such logistics zones. ![Basic Requirements for Dry Ports](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/basic_requirements_dry_ports.png?resize=900%2C533&ssl=1 "Basic Requirements for Dry Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Basic Requirements for Dry Ports![Main Advantages of Co-location for Dry Ports](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/co_location_advantages_dry_ports.png?resize=900%2C453&ssl=1 "Main Advantages of Co-location for Dry Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Advantages of Co location for Dry Ports# 2. Driving Forces Each inland port remains the outcome of transport geography pertaining to modal availability and efficiency, market function, intensity, and regulatory framework and governance. Their emergence underlines some **deficiencies in conventional inland freight distribution** that need to be mitigated. This [mitigation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3715 "Main Driving Forces behind the Setting of Inland Terminals") includes: - **Input costs**. Land and labor costs are among the highest logistics costs. Many deep-sea terminal facilities have limited land available for expansion, resulting in higher land costs, whereas inland locations tend to have more land available. Many port areas also face higher labor costs since they are located within large metropolitan areas. High input costs favor intensifying activities at the main terminal and searching for lower-value locations supporting less intensive freight activities. - **Capacity and congestion**. Capacity issues appear to be the main driver of inland port development since a system of inland terminals increases the intermodal capacity for inland freight distribution. While trucking tends to be sufficient in the initial phase of the development of inland freight distribution systems, at some level of activity, diminishing returns such as congestion, energy consumption, and empty movements become strong incentives to consider setting up inland terminals as the next step in regional freight planning. - **Hinterland market**. Inland ports confer higher accessibility through long-distance transport corridors because of lower distribution costs and improved capacity. These high-capacity inland transport corridors allow ports to penetrate the local hinterland of competing ports and extend their cargo base. In such a setting, the inland port serves as a commercial and trade development tool, jointly increasing imports, exports, and intermodal terminal usage. It is thus better placed to support regional and international trade patterns. - **Supply chain management**. An inland port is a location that is actively integrated into supply chain management practices, particularly due to the rise of containerization. It reflects the level of vertical integration between the port and hinterland actors, such as carriers and supply chain managers. This takes many forms, such as the agglomeration of freight distribution centers, customs clearance, container depots, and logistical capabilities. The inland terminal can also become a buffer in supply chains, acting as a temporary warehousing facility. - **Policy and regulations**. Economic development strategies, land use policies, and financial incentives by port authorities and economic development agencies can lead to the development of inland ports. This can be supported by policies related to foreign trade zones and customs procedures, enabling a transfer of functions that were previously taking place at the port (customs port of entry) to an inland location. This is commonly a significant hurdle since many national trade regulations only enable containers to be cleared for imports or exports at a port. A similar trend applies to cargo safety and security procedures, where the inland port becomes a component of a chain of cargo integrity. The geographical characteristics linked to modal availability and the capacity for regional inland access play a significant role in shaping the emergence and development of inland ports. Each inland market has its potential, requiring different transport services. Thus, there is **no single strategy for an inland port** in terms of modal preferences, as the regional effect remains fundamental. In developed economies, namely in North America and Europe, which tend to be at the receiving end of many containerized supply chains, several inland ports have been developed to focus on inbound logistics. The setting up of global supply chains and the strategy of Pacific Asian countries, centered on the export-oriented paradigm, have been powerful forces shaping contemporary freight distribution. Indirectly, this has compelled players in the freight transport industry to examine their supply chains as a whole and **identify segments where capacity and reliability are issues**. Once maritime shipping networks and port terminal activities were better integrated, primarily through the symbiotic relationship between maritime shipping and port operations, inland transportation became a visible issue to be addressed, with the inland terminal serving as a fundamental component of this strategy. This initially occurred in advanced economies, specifically North America and Europe, which tended to be at the receiving end of many containerized supply chains. The focus has also shifted to considering inland terminals for the early stages of global supply chains (outbound logistics), particularly in countries with a marked export-oriented economy. Inland terminals have evolved from simple intermodal locations to their **incorporation within logistics zones**. Rail terminals have historically been locations from which specific market coverage was achieved. Containerization has impacted this coverage by selecting terminals that serve a wider market area. A functional shift has accompanied this spatial change, as intermodal terminals began to specialize in roles based on their geographical location and function within supply chains. # 3. Functions within Transport Chains A hierarchy of functional and added value has emerged for inland terminals. They try to **replicate several services performed at a port terminal**, namely customs clearance, container storage, cargo consolidation, and de-consolidation. In many instances, freight transport terminals fit within a hierarchy with a functionally integrated inland transport system of gateways and their corridors, where they serve [three major functions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=660): - **Satellite terminals**. They tend to be located close to a port facility, but mainly at the periphery of its metropolitan area (often less than 100 km away), as they primarily serve the seaport facilities. They accommodate additional traffic and service functions that have become too expensive at the port, such as warehousing and empty container depots, or are less bound to a location near a deep-sea quay. Several satellite terminals only have a transport function, transshipping cargo between rail/barge and trucks. Satellite terminals can also serve as load centers for local or regional markets, particularly if the economic density is high. They form a multi-terminal cluster with the main port connected through regular rail or barge shuttle services. For gateways that dominate imports, a satellite terminal can serve a significant transloading function, where the contents of maritime containers are transloaded into domestic containers or truckloads. As the footprint of container terminals faces pressure due to increases in traffic and ship sizes, satellite terminals can provide additional terminal capacity at a connected off-port site. - **Freight distribution clusters (load centers)**. This is a major intermodal facility – a load center – providing access to well-defined regional markets that encompass both production and consumption functions. It commonly corresponds to a metropolitan area where a variety of terminals simultaneously serve intermodal, warehousing, distribution, and logistics functions. These tend to take place in logistics parks and free trade zones, also known as foreign trade zones. The inland terminal is thus the point of collection or distribution of a regional market. The more extensive and diversified the market, the more important the load center is. If the load center has a suitable intermediary location, such as being situated along a major rail corridor, freight distribution activities serving an extended market will likely be present. - **Transshipment facilities**. These link large freight circulation systems either through the same mode (e.g. rail-to-rail) or intermodalism (rail-to-truck or even rail-to-barge). In the latter case, the inland terminal assumes the role of a load center. The origin or the destination of the freight handled is outside the terminal’s market area, with a function similar to that of transshipment hubs in maritime shipping networks. Such transshipment terminals are often found near country borders, combining administrative processes linked to cross-border traffic with value-added logistics activities. Although this function remains marginal in most parts of the world, ongoing developments in inland freight distribution, where the scale and scope of intermodal services are increasing, indicate that transshipment services are likely to become more prominent. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/functions_inland_terminals2.png?resize=900%2C493&ssl=1 "Functions of Inland Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Functions of Inland Terminals![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/modal_shift_inland_freight_diversion.png?resize=900%2C521&ssl=1 "Modal Shift and Inland Freight Diversion | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Modal Shift and Inland Freight Diversion![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/added_value_activities_perfomerd_inalnd_port.png?resize=900%2C439&ssl=1 "Added Value Activities Performed at an Inland Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Added Value Activities Performed at an Inland PortThese functions are **not exclusive**, implying that inland terminals can serve several functions at once. Therefore, there is no single model for an inland port. For inbound or outbound freight flows, the inland terminal is the first tier of a [functional hierarchy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=672) that defines its fundamental (activities it directly services) and extended (activities it indirectly services) hinterlands. Similar to logistics clusters, dry ports offer unique [added value opportunities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3856 "Added Value Activities Performed at an Inland Port") as inland locations for handling cargo. Considering the potential mix of the functions of inland ports, five major criteria ensure that they fulfill their role as an interface between global and regional freight distribution systems efficiently: - **Site and situation**. Like any significant transportation facility, an inland port requires an appropriate site with good access to rail or barge terminals, as well as available land for development. Access to an area of significant economic density, such as one with a large population base, is important since it will be linked to the traffic level handled by the inland port. Transportation remains the highest logistics cost, underlining the importance of an accessible location. Several inland ports also have an airport in proximity, which can help support a variety of freight activities. - **Massification**. The hinterland [massification opportunities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=652) offered by inland ports are associated with lower transport costs and better accessibility. Massification occurs across two interdependent dimensions. The first concerns the massification of flows between the port terminal and the inland port through a high-capacity corridor. Intermodal rail and barge services represent the dominant means by which this process is achieved. The second relates to the consolidation and deconsolidation of cargo flows, depending on whether inbound or outbound logistics are involved. - **Reconciling cargo flows**. Since most long-distance (and some domestic) trade is supported by containerization, there are numerous instances where a regional market imports more than it exports, or vice versa. Under such circumstances, an inland port must provide the physical and logistical capabilities to ensure that empty containers are repositioned efficiently to other markets if local cargo is unavailable. This can take the form of empty container depots and arrangements with freight forwarders to have slots available for repositioning. Whether there are imbalances in container flows or not, an inland port must ensure that the inbound and outbound flows are reconciled as quickly as possible. A common method involves cargo rotation from import activities, where containers are emptied, to export activities, where containers are filled with goods. For container owners, whether they are maritime shipping or leasing companies, a rapid turnover of their assets is fundamental to securing continuous usage of the inland port. Effective repositioning and cargo rotation strategies ensure higher revenue for both the container owners and the inland port operators. - **Trade and transactional facilitation**. An inland port can also be a fundamental structure that promotes both the import and export sectors of a region, particularly for smaller businesses that are unable to achieve economies of scale independently. Through these, new market opportunities become possible as both imports and exports are cheaper. Setting up a [Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=678 "Operational Advantages of Foreign Trade Zones (FTZ)") is also an option to consider as a trade facilitation strategy. The [functional pairing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=681 "Functional Pairing of Inland Ports") of inland ports is a transactional strategy in which an inland port seeks agreements with other inland ports to establish or reinforce reciprocal supply chains. - **Governance**. The way an inland port is [owned and operated](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=691 "Main Governance Models for Inland Ports and Logistic Zones") indicates its potential to identify new market opportunities and invest accordingly. In many cases, the commitment of a large private investor, such as a terminal operator or a real estate developer, can be perceived as a risk mitigation strategy, providing expertise in developing facilities and related activities. Sections of an inland port can be shared facilities (e.g. distribution centers) so that smaller players can get involved by renting space and equipment. This also applies to the appropriate strategies related to each stage in the [life cycle](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=685) of an inland terminal, from its construction to its maturity, where its potential has essentially been realized. The enduring challenges in inland port development remain the **provision of infrastructure** and the ability to attract **sufficient cargo volumes** in a timely fashion to justify returns on investments. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/massification_transportation_inland_systems.png?resize=900%2C525&ssl=1 "The Massification of Transportation in Inland Systems | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Massification of Transportation in Inland Systems![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/function_relations_inland_terminals_hinterland.png?resize=900%2C446&ssl=1 "Functional Relations between Inland Terminals and their Hinterland | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Functional Relations between Inland Terminals and their Hinterland![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/operational_advantages_ftz.png?resize=900%2C477&ssl=1 "Operational Advantages of Foreign Trade Zones (FTZ) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Operational Advantages of Foreign Trade Zones FTZ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/functional_pairing_inland_ports.png?resize=900%2C520&ssl=1 "Functional Pairing of Inland Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Functional Pairing of Inland Ports![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/governance_models_inland_ports.png?resize=900%2C480&ssl=1 "Main Governance Models for Inland Ports and Logistic Zones | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Governance Models for Inland Ports and Logistic Zones![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/inland_terminal_life_cycle.png?resize=900%2C436&ssl=1 "Inland Terminal Life Cycle | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Inland Terminal Life Cycle# 4. The Regional Impacts of Inland Ports Regional issues, namely how inland ports **interact with their regional markets**, remain fundamental as they define their modal characteristics, regulatory framework, and commercial opportunities. Depending on the [geographical setting](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=5822 "Functions of Selected Inland Ports") and the structure, governance, and ownership of inland transport systems, inland terminals have different development and integration levels from port terminals. They are part of a port regionalization strategy supporting a more extensive hinterland. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/functions_inland_ports.png?resize=900%2C392&ssl=1 "Functions of Selected Inland Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Functions of Selected Inland Ports## A. Europe In Western Europe, the setting up of inland terminals is the most advanced, with **close integration of port terminals with rail shuttles and barge services**. Rail-based dry ports are found throughout Europe, often linked to the development of logistics zones. Depending on the European country considered, these logistics zones are known under different names, such as “platformes logistiques” in France, the “Güterverkehrszentren (GVZ)” in Germany, “Interporti” in Italy, “Freight Villages” in the UK, “Transport Centres” in Denmark, and “Zonas de Actividades Logisticas (ZAL)” in Spain. The rail liberalization process in Europe supports the development of real pan-European rail services on a one-stop-shop basis. Across Europe, new entrants are emerging, while some large former national railway companies have formed alliances. Rail terminals in Europe are mostly built and operated by large railway ventures. The largest rail facilities have bundles of up to ten rail tracks, each with a maximum length of 800 meters. Rail hubs are typically equipped to allow simultaneous batch exchanges, or direct transshipment, through the use of rail-mounted gantry cranes that span over the rail bundles. In northwest Europe, barge transport is assuming a more prominent role in managing gateway traffic. Barge container transport has its origins in the transportation between Antwerp, Rotterdam, and the Rhine Basin. Recent years have seen development along the north-south axis between the Benelux countries and northern France. Antwerp and Rotterdam handled about 6 million TEU of inland barge traffic in 2024, accounting for about 95% of total European container traffic on that mode. Promising barging developments are also found on the Seine between Le Havre and the Paris region, in the Rhône/Seine basin between Marseille, Lyon, and Dijon, on the Elbe and the Weser in Northern Germany, and on the Danube River out of the port of Constanza. Barge services have also been initiated on the Po River connecting the Port of Venice with Mantua and Cremona near Milan. European integration processes have enabled the establishment of more natural (commercially based) hinterlands that did not previously exist. Since a significant portion of the European market is inland, growth in international trade necessitated the establishment of intermediary locations inland to facilitate larger flows between ports and their hinterlands. A large concentration of inland terminals can be found around the [Rhine/Scheldt delta](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=705), which is Europe’s most important gateway region, with a total container throughput of about 28 million TEU in 2024, where the role of satellite terminals is particularly prominent. Almost every European port has an inland terminal strategy in place to secure its hinterland traffic. ![Modal Split at Selected European Inland Terminals, 2007](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/modal_split_europe_inland_terminals.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Modal Split at Selected European Inland Terminals, 2007 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Modal Split at Selected European Inland Terminals 2007![Gennevilliers Inland Port, Paris](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_2264.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Gennevilliers Inland Port, Paris | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Gennevilliers Inland Port Paris![Inland Ports and Logistics Zones Around the Rhine / Scheldt Delta](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Rhine-Scheldt-Delta-Inland-Ports.png?resize=900%2C574&ssl=1 "Inland Ports and Logistics Zones Around the Rhine / Scheldt Delta | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Inland Ports and Logistics Zones Around the Rhine Scheldt Delta![Extended Distribution Center System of JVC Belgium](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMGP5840.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Extended Distribution Center System of JVC Belgium | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Extended Distribution Center System of JVC Belgium## B. North America There have been large inland terminals in North America since the development of the transcontinental railway system in the late 19th century. Their setup was a natural process in which **inland terminals corresponded to large inland market areas**, commonly around metropolitan areas commanding a regional manufacturing base and distribution system. Although exports were significant, particularly for agricultural goods, this system of inland terminals mostly supported domestic freight distribution. With globalization and intermodalism, two main categories of inland terminals have emerged in North America. The first is related to ocean trade. Inland terminals are an **extension of a maritime terminal** located in one of the three major ranges (Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific) either as satellite terminals or, more commonly, as inland load centers (e.g., [Chicago](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=710) or [Mexico](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=713)). The second category concerns inland terminals mainly connected to **transborder trade** that can act as customs pre-clearance centers. [Kansas City](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=719) can be considered the most advanced inland port initiative in North America. It combines intermodal rail facilities from four different rail operators, foreign trade zones, and [logistics parks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=722) at various locations throughout the metropolitan area. There is even the world’s largest underground warehousing facility, [Subtropolis](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=6720), where temperature-stable space can be leased. Like Chicago, the city can essentially be perceived as a terminal. Several recent logistics zone projects in North America capitalize on the simultaneous planning and setup of a new intermodal rail terminal, often done in conjunction with a logistics zone project. This [co-location partnership](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=731) fundamentally acts as a filter for the commercial potential of the project, as both parties must make the decision to go ahead with their respective capital investments in terminal facilities and commercial real estate. Compared to Europe, North American dry ports tend to be **larger and cover a much more substantial market area**. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/BNSF_logistics_park_chicago.jpg?resize=900%2C694&ssl=1 "BNSF Logistics Park, Chicago | Port Economics, Management and Policy")BNSF Logistics Park Chicago![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/TILH_HPH_Mexico.jpg?resize=850%2C564&ssl=1 "Terminal Intermodal Logistica de Hidalgo (TILH) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Terminal Intermodal Logistica de Hidalgo TILH![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Kansas-City.png?resize=900%2C654&ssl=1 "Kansas City Smartport: The Regionalization of Logistics | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Kansas City Smartport: The Regionalization of Logistics ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/kcs_intermodal_center.jpg?resize=852%2C750&ssl=1 "CenterPoint-KCS Intermodal Center, Kansas City | Port Economics, Management and Policy")CenterPoint KCS Intermodal Center Kansas City![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/raritan_center.jpg?resize=900%2C699&ssl=1 "Raritan Center, New Jersey | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Raritan Center New Jersey![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-NA-Logistics.png?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Major Inland Terminal Clusters in North America | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Intermodal Terminals and Selected Co Located Logistic Zones Projects in North America## C. East and Southeast Asia For Asia, inland terminals are much more recent. Geographical characteristics, namely coastal population concentrations and export-oriented development strategies, have **not been conducive to the setting up of inland terminals**. Several container depots have appeared inland to improve the availability of export containers within manufacturing clusters (e.g. [South Korea](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=737), [Thailand](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=741), India), but containers are mainly carried by truck. It is China that has the largest potential for the emergence of a network of inland terminals, with three main types emerging: - The first are **satellite facilities** in the vicinity of port terminals. They assume the conventional role of accommodating activities decongesting port operations, such as container depots and container stuffing, as well as performing customs clearance. - The second type concerns **inland facilities** located in major metropolitan areas to provide better connectivity to port terminals along the coast, as well as to support the logistics of a growing internal consumption market. Significant dry port development is underway on the Yangtze River, extending up to the upper stretches near Chongqing, approximately 2,400 km upstream from Shanghai. Intermodal rail development faces the challenge of competing with the existing rail network for passengers and dry bulk commodities. As the Chinese economy expands its internal market, intermodal rail and barge traffic are increasing, along with the use of inland ports. - The third type is **border facilities** that fulfill the functions of customs clearance, consolidation, and deconsolidation of cargo, as well as emerging trans-modal functions of linking different systems or circulation. The setting up of Asia-Europe rail connections along the [Eurasian landbridge](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3544 "The Eurasian Landbridge") has promoted this function, which will remain a function of the rail trade volumes that are carried. Another system of inland terminals is likely to emerge in Southeast Asia, particularly along the Mekong. In light of the North American and European experiences, the question remains of how Pacific Asia can develop its inland port strategy and regionalism. The unique geographical characteristics of the region are likely to rely heavily on the satellite terminal concept and inland load centers in relative proximity. For this context, the European example is more appropriate. However, setting up long-distance intermodal rail corridors within China and through Central Asia favors developing the inland load center system common in North America. ![Uiwang Inland Port, South Korea](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/uiwang_dry_port.jpg?resize=900%2C606&ssl=1 "Uiwang Inland Port, South Korea | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Uiwang Inland Port South Korea![Lat Krabang Inland Container Depot, Thailand](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/lat_krabang_dry_port.jpg?resize=900%2C644&ssl=1 "Lat Krabang Inland Container Depot, Thailand | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Lat Krabang Inland Container Depot Thailand![CRIntermodal Chongqing Terminal](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_0367.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "CRIntermodal Chongqing Terminal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")CRIntermodal Chongqing Terminal# 5. Future Prospects The setting up of dry ports has been a dominant paradigm in hinterland transportation development. The growth of maritime shipping and its economies of scale have placed pressure on the **inland segment of freight distribution**. The prospects for inland ports remain positive, with large continental markets, such as North America and Europe, relying on a network of satellite terminals and load centers as a fundamental structure to support the massification of hinterland freight movements. This has led to the emergence of extended gates and [extended forms of supply chain management](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=750) in which **inland terminals play an active role**. As congestion increases, inland terminals will be even more important in maintaining efficient supply chains. It can also be expected that resources will play a greater role within containerized trade, with inland terminals acting as platforms to export containerized resources. Dry ports are playing an increasingly important role as a **repositioning strategy for empty containers**, aiming to improve this efficiency by providing better cargo rotation opportunities or serving as platforms that promote containerized exports. Inland ports are taking part in the ongoing intermodal integration between ports and their hinterlands through long-distance rail and barge corridors. They are becoming more important elements within supply chains, particularly through their role as a buffer where containerized consignments can be cheaply stored, waiting to be forwarded to their final destinations. Like other transport infrastructures, there is a potential for **overinvestment, duplication, and redundancy** since many inland locations seek to claim a stake in global value chains. This appears to be the case in Western Europe, where an abundance of inland terminals, particularly within the [Rhine-Scheldt delta](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=705), underlines the overly competitive environment and the waste of resources. In North America, due to different ownership and governance structures, the establishment of an inland port, or at least the intermodal terminal component, is largely in the hands of rail operators. Each decision thus takes place with much more consideration being given to market potential as well as the overall impact on their network structure. The decision of a rail company to build a new terminal or expand existing facilities commonly marks the moment when regional stakeholders, from real estate developers to logistics service providers, readjust their strategies. Furthermore, local governments may develop inland ports with the expectation of creating multiplier effects on the regional economy. Therefore, inland ports should **develop in alignment** with the market and stakeholders they are servicing. Misalignment may result in missed opportunities and wasteful investments. The development of dry ports worldwide has underlined an **emerging functional relationship between port terminals and their hinterland**. In the case of China, such initiatives can be far-reaching, as the goal is to promote trade and economic integration across Central Asia, extending to Europe. Dry ports assume various functions, often co-located with logistical zones, a dominant development paradigm driven by their regional setting. While the interest in dry ports has increased, each dry port is confronted with a **unique regional, economic, and regulatory setting** that defines its functions and its relations with seaports. Best practices can only be applied successfully if the relative uniqueness of each dry port setting is taken into account. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 1.4 Ports and Distribution Networks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3020) - [Chapter 2.1 The Changing Geography of Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=312) - [Chapter 2.5 Port Hinterlands and Land Corridors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2509) --- ## References - Cardebring, P.W. and C. Warnecke, C. (1995) “Combi-terminal and Intermodal Freight Centre Development”. KFB-Swedish Transport and Communication Research Board, Stockholm. - Chang, Z., Notteboom, T., Lu, J. (2015) “A two-phase model for dry port location with an application to the port of Dalian in China”, Transportation Planning and Technology, 38(4), 442-464 - Gujar, G., Ng, A.K.Y., Notteboom, T. (2019) “The impacts of major government initiatives on the development of dry ports: a case study of the Direct Port Delivery scheme in India”, Journal of Transport Geography, [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.102498 ](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.102498%20) - Jarzemskis, A. and A.V. Vasiliauskas (2007) “Research on dry port concept as intermodal node”, Transport, 22(3), 207-213. - Lavissière, A. and J-P Rodrigue (2017) “Free Ports: Towards a Network of Trade Gateways“, Journal of Shipping and Trade, Vol 2, No. 7. - Li, J., Notteboom, T., Wang, J. (2017) “An institutional analysis of the evolution of inland waterway transport and inland ports on the Pearl River”, GeoJournal, 82(5), 867–886 - Li, J., Notteboom, T., Jacobs, W. (2014) “China in transition: institutional change at work in inland waterway transport on the Yangtze river”, Journal of Transport Geography, 40, 17–28 - Ng, A., and G. C. Gujar (2009), “The spatial characteristics of inland transport hubs: evidence from Southern India”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 17, No. 5, 346-356. - Nguyen, L.C., Notteboom, T. (2016) “Dry ports as extensions of maritime deep-sea ports: a case study of Vietnam”, Journal of International Logistics and Trade, 14(1), 65-88 - Nguyen, L.C., Notteboom, T. (2016) “A Multi-Criteria Approach to Dry Port Location in Developing Economies with Application to Vietnam”, Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 32(1), 23-32 - Nguyen, L.C., Notteboom, T. (2017) “Public-Private Partnership Model Selection for Dry Port Development: an Application to Vietnam”, World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research, 6(3), 229-249 - Nguyen, L.C. and T. Notteboom (2019) “The relations between dry port characteristics and regional port-hinterland settings: findings for a global sample of dry ports”, Maritime Policy & Management, 46:1, 24-42 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2018.1448478> - Notteboom, T. (2007) “Container river services and gateway ports: similarities between the Yangtze River and the Rhine River”, Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 48 (3), 330-343 - Notteboom, T. (2012) “Challenges for container river services on the Yangtze River: A case study for Chongqing”, Research in Transportation Economics, 35(1), 41-49 - Notteboom, T., Parola, F., Satta, G., Risitano, M. (2017) “A taxonomy of logistics centres: overcoming conceptual ambiguity”, Transport Reviews, 37(3), 276-299 <https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1231234> - Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2005) “Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port development”, Maritime Policy and Management, 32(3), p. 297-313 - Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2007) “Re-assessing port-hinterland relationships in the context of global supply chains”, in: Wang, J., Notteboom, T., Olivier, D., Slack, B. (eds), Ports, cities, and global supply chains, Ashgate: Alderschot, ISBN 0-7546-7054-6, p. 51-68 - Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2009) “Inland Terminals within North American and European Supply Chains”, Transport and Communications Bulletin for Asia and the Pacific, United Nations, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, No. 78, pp. 1-57. - Notteboom, T., Yang, D., Xu, H. (2019) “Container Barge Network Development in Inland Rivers: A Comparison between the Yangtze River and the Rhine River”, Transportation Research part A, 132, 587-605 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.10.014> - Rodrigue, J-P, J. Debrie, A. Fremont and E. Gouvernal (2010) “Functions and Actors of Inland Ports: European and North American Dynamics”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 519-529. - Rodrigue, J.-P., Notteboom, T. (2009) “The terminalization of supply chains: reassessing port-hinterland logistical relationships”, Maritime Policy and Management, 36(2), 165–183 - Rodrigue, J.-P., Notteboom, T. (2010) “Comparative North American and European Gateway Logistics: The Regionalism of Freight Distribution”, Journal of Transport Geography, 18(4), 497-507 - Rodrigue, J.-P., Notteboom, T. (2012) “Dry Ports in European and North American Intermodal Rail Systems: Two of a Kind?”, Research in Transportation Business & Management, 5, 4–15 - Rodrigue, J.-P., Notteboom, T. (2012) “Containerized Freight Distribution in North America and Europe”, in: Bookbinder, J.H. (ed.), Global Logistics, ISBN 9781441961310, Springer-Verlag New York Inc, pp. 219-246 - Roso, V. (2005) “The dry port concept: applications in Sweden”, Proceedings of Logistics Research Network, Plymouth: International Logistics and Supply Chain Management. - Roso, V., J. Woxenius and K. Lumsden (2009) “The dry port concept: connecting container seaports with the hinterland”, Journal of Transport Geography, 17(5), 338-345. - Slack, B. (1999) “Satellite terminals: a local solution to hub congestion?”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 7, pp. 241-246. - Veenstra, A., Notteboom, T. (2011) “The development of the Yangtze River container port system”, Journal of Transport Geography, 19(4), 772-781 - Wiegmans, B., E. Masurel and P. Nijkamp (1999) “Intermodal Freight Terminals: an Analysis of the Terminal Market”, Transportation Planning and Technology, 23, 105-128. - Wilmsmeier, G., Monios, J., Lambert, B. (2011) “The directional development of intermodal freight corridors in relation to inland terminals”, Journal of Transport Geography, 19, 1379–1386 - Witte, P., B. Wiegmans and J-P Rodrigue (2017) “Competition or Complementarity in European Inland Port Development: A Case of Overproximity?”, Journal of Transport Geography*,* Vol. 60, pp. 80-88. - Yang, D., Notteboom, T., Zhou, X. (2021) “Spatial, temporal and institutional characteristics of entry strategies in inland container terminals: a comparison between Yangtze River and Rhine River”, Journal of Transport Geography, 90, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102928> ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Main Governance Models for Inland Ports and Logistics Zones](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/governance-models-inland-ports-logistic-zones/) **Published:** January 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/governance_models_inland_ports.png?resize=900%2C480&ssl=1 "Main Governance Models for Inland Ports and Logistic Zones | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Governance Models for Inland Ports and Logistics Zones*Source: Adapted from B. Slack et C. Comtois (2010) “Identification des modeles de gouvernance d’un pole logistique en lien avec la realite quebecoise”, Amenagement d’un pole logistique au Quebec: cadre d’analyse de l’etude de faisabilite, Etude 1.2.* Inland ports and their associated logistic zones have a wider range of options than ports in terms of their governance model, in which the landlord model prevails. The ownership and management of an inland port can be public, private, or a combination of both: - **Single ownership**. The logistics or inland port project is spearheaded by a single public or private actor. Although this governance model provides a clear purpose for the project, it is also potentially of high risk since only one actor is involved and must provide the financing. - **Public-private partnership**. A model where both the public and private sectors share the development of a logistics zone or inland port through the setting up of an entity, commonly with a public charter. Usually, the public sector is responsible for infrastructure development, while the private sector develops real estate. - **Landlord model**. A form of PPP with the public sector owning the real estate and developing the basic infrastructure. However, concessions are offered where private actors develop their projects, namely warehouses and distribution centers. Since a logistics zone or an inland port is a long-term project that is unlikely to be profitable in its initial phase, it represents a high risk for private investors. It is not surprising to realize that one of the largest private actors in North America, CenterPoint Properties, is financially backed by a pension plan (CalPERS) where the time horizon for returns on investment is more long-term. Because the benefits of inland ports and logistics zones include job creation and better usage of regional transport infrastructures, they tend to be perceived as projects of public benefit. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/governance-models-inland-ports-logistic-zones/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/governance-models-inland-ports-logistic-zones/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/governance-models-inland-ports-logistic-zones/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/governance-models-inland-ports-logistic-zones/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 2.2 - Ports and Distribution Networks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/) **Published:** November 6, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Theo Notteboom and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > Ports are nodes within distribution networks that include warehouses and fulfillment centers and provide the management of freight flows. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Warehousing Activities in Supply Chains](#1_Warehousing_Activities_in_Supply_Chains) - [2. Ports as Locations for Distribution Centers](#2_Ports_as_Locations_for_Distribution_Centers) - [3. Regional Distribution Networks](#3_Regional_Distribution_Networks) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Warehousing Activities in Supply Chains ## A. Warehouses and distribution centers Warehousing involves the administrative and physical actions required to [store and distribute](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/nature-function-warehousing/ "Nature and Function of Warehousing") goods and materials located at the beginning, middle, and end of the supply chain or near production and industrial facilities. Warehousing facilities act as essential nodes in logistics networks and have become key components of informational flow management. The terms **warehouse** and **distribution center** are often used interchangeably, but can have [very different connotations](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3125 "Warehouses and Distribution Centers"). Both are large buildings that hold inventory. However, the use of cases and services provided is often quite different. > A **warehouse** is a facility designed to store goods for longer periods of time. Goods stored in a warehouse have usually not yet been sold and are held in inventory until a buyer is found. A warehouse is driven by the supply of manufacturers and wholesalers. There are warehousing providers geared toward wholesale or B2B (business-to-business) orders in large quantities. Some major retailers will have their warehouse(s) to store excess inventory, while others rent warehousing space in conjunction with other businesses. > A **distribution center** (or fulfillment center) is a facility that performs consolidation, warehousing, packaging, decomposition, and other functions linked with handling freight. Orders are received, processed, and filled. Their main purpose is to provide value-added services to freight, which is stored for relatively short time periods (days or weeks). Goods stored in a distribution center have usually been sold and are in transit to their destination. Distribution centers can also perform light manufacturing activities such as assembly and labeling. They tend to focus on meeting customer demand. Thus, a fulfillment center is focused on getting orders to customers in a **timely fashion** and can relieve companies of managing this process when a 3PL is used. Orders are increasingly processed through online platforms linking demand with available inventory, which is stored strategically in preparation for fulfilling customer orders. Once an order has been placed, inventory is picked, boxes are packed, labeled, and, if needed, consolidated for shipment. Fulfillment centers can process both B2B orders, typically a high volume of goods sent to a large customer, such as a retailer, as well as B2C (business-to-consumer) orders. Fulfillment companies work with cut-off times for orders to be placed. For example, customer orders placed by noon local time will be processed in the fulfillment center and shipped out the same day. In contrast to a warehouse, fulfillment centers turn **inventory** over quickly. The challenge is to ensure there is sufficient inventory on hand before shipment. Unlike warehouses that are more static or inactive, fulfillment centers thus have continuous movement in a more complex operational setting. Typical fulfillment services include receiving inventory, picking orders, kitting and packing items, labeling shipments, and managing returns. The equipment used in distribution centers and (rapid) fulfillment centers include forklifts, (automated) stacking cranes, shelves, cargo consolidation and deconsolidation infrastructure (such as conveyor belt systems), a cargo management system, scanning devices (barcode, QR-scanner, or a system of radio frequency identification (RFID) tags and loading bays for trucks (and occasionally also rail). Contemporary fulfillment companies depend heavily on technology to deliver fulfillment services. Every step of the fulfillment process is automatically documented in real time. Like most segments of the supply chain, warehousing has gone through several **evolutionary stages.** Initially, warehouses were located in proximity to manufacturing facilities as a primary means of storing materials needed to produce finished goods, which would then be transported to customers. Since most production facilities were located near ports and major access points, the need for inland or halfway warehouses was rather limited. Except for the production and sales storage areas, where buffer and cargo bundling activities surrounding ports and major transport nodes took place, little or no warehousing activity was present. This changed with the onset of globalization, containerization, and the emergence of more complex and global supply chains. Warehousing slowly evolved from a purely industrial-derived activity to a more defined and specialized industry. It remains an integral part of the production process and plays a more prominent role in the logistics and transport industry by offering rapid fulfillment and added-value activities. Activities linked to warehousing are limited to the basic storage of goods within a covered storage space and activities such as receipt, identification, verification (customs), and retrieval. The term warehousing is, therefore, a universal meaning. Still, the [types of specific warehousing facilities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3128 "A Typology of Warehousing") differ greatly depending on the stage within the supply chain (distance to consumer) and the level of product specialization. As a general rule, the closer warehousing is to the consumer and the more specialized the product, the more complex the required storage facilities and related activities. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/nature_function_warehousing.png?resize=900%2C359&ssl=1 "Nature and Function of Warehousing | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Nature and Function of Warehousing![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/warehouses_distribution_centers.png?resize=900%2C377&ssl=1 "Warehouses and Distribution Centers | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Warehouses and Distribution Centers![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/typology_warehousing.png?resize=900%2C469&ssl=1 "A Typology of Warehousing | Port Economics, Management and Policy")A Typology of Warehousing## B. Main trends in the warehousing sector The **main economic and logistics trends** impacting the warehousing sector are roughly the same as those impacting the logistics industry. Globalization, just-in-time supply chains, mass customization, and increased sustainability all play their role. The resulting landscape is becoming increasingly complex in terms of its geography, supply chains, distribution networks, and technologies. Continuous innovation and efficiency improvements are key to keeping a competitive edge in this rapidly evolving market. The warehousing sector has been subjected to several specific trends: - **Lean warehousing**. The lean principles were initially developed in the automotive industry to reduce waste in terms of time and inventory. The strategy is also used in the logistics and warehousing sector, resulting in cost reduction, customer satisfaction, and production efficiency. The lean warehousing philosophy aims to reduce activities that do not generate added value for the customer. The lean principles impact the core of warehousing by reducing various types of waste in the process, such as excessive inventory or unnecessary movements (resulting in an unoptimized workflow distribution). - **Green and sustainable warehouses**. The warehousing sector is undergoing a green wave and an improved sustainable footprint achieved by optimizing warehouse operations and transporting goods in an environmentally friendly manner. Several [principles](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3241 "https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3241") enable large-scale environmental impact reductions, such as the use of sustainable construction materials, energy efficiency, and electrification. - **Collaborative warehousing**. A group of warehouse managers can share warehousing space according to their respective availability and locations. The underlying operating model requires high levels of trust and data sharing using advanced IT management systems. - **Transportation and warehouse management systems alignment**. A TMS (Transportation Management System) is software used to plan freight operations with a given allocation of supply and demand, such as finding carriers and rates, routing, and related transactions (bill of lading, receivables). A Warehouse Management System (WMS) is software used to manage all aspects of warehousing operations, including inventory, shipping, and receiving. Advanced capabilities, such as directed put-away, cycle counting, and master schedules, enable users to track and control all warehouse activities using real-time information, which is constantly at their disposal. WMS and TMS integration can lead to optimized operational solutions by creating better planning, accurate delivery times, and faster processes, while increasing visibility throughout the supply chain. The main benefits linked to such integration include improved visibility (transparent supply chain), operational synchronization (alignment of shelf and truck distribution), pick efficiency improvements (batch sizes linked to transport mode), and improved customer service. - **Labor management software**. Gives the ability to track the productivity of warehouse employees. For example, it enables comparison of the time it takes an employee to finish a task to a pre-defined standard. The data collected helps avoid bottlenecks in the order fulfillment process before they occur, thereby indirectly improving lead times. This technology also allows for easier decision-making and increased labor productivity and accuracy. - **Voice-enabled technology**. Complements classic input options for warehousing activities. The devices allow employees to interact with software applications through microphones and headphones. This creates a hands-free work environment and facilitates their jobs to a great extent. The picking process is made easier since users are now directed to pick designated items for an order. Information on location, quantity, and other useful items is given directly through the headphones. - **Automation**. Allows for the automatic sorting, storage, retrieval, and packing of goods stored in a warehouse. The goal is to replace labor-intensive tasks through process automation. For instance, automated guided vehicles (AGVs) are able to move picked items across a warehouse, notably from storage to packing areas. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/green_warehouses.png?resize=900%2C399&ssl=1 "Green and Sustainable Warehouses | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Green and Sustainable Warehouses## C. The emergence of XXL warehouses Another trend concerns the construction of very large distribution centers, colloquially known as XXL warehouses, which have a floor area of at least 40,000 m². This is mainly driven by the rise of e-commerce and online retail, relying on large-scale distribution capabilities. An expanded scale of activity reflects widespread recognition of the structural shift of supply chains and retailers towards larger schemes. In addition to logistics service providers or third-party logistics providers (3PLs), many shippers elect to use XXL warehouses. Among them are many e-commerce companies, which handle mostly small orders collected in plastic containers or directly in shipping boxes. Within the facility, these shipments are consolidated along large conveyor belts connecting different zones (product categories) to the packaging and forwarding department. A range of factors is driving the remodeling of logistics networks, including growth in the number of product lines and order complexity, customer demand for faster delivery times, and the need for flexibility to cope with demand volatility. These are particularly relevant for supply chains that support growth in online retailing. These drivers have incited the setting of XXL warehouses through the reconfiguration of supply chains and the consolidation of operations into fewer, larger centralized hubs. These hubs supply a large hinterland area that is more cost-effective than might be possible from traditional networks. XXL warehouses offer several **advantages:** - Two important factors that determine the size of a warehouse are **inventory costs** and **transport costs**. Concentrating the stock in one facility requires **less stock** than with a network with two, three, or even more stock points. Inventory costs are therefore lower in an XXL warehouse. When it comes to transport costs, it is less clear which is better in terms of the number of stock points. With a single central stock point, the distances to customers and, consequently, the transportation costs are higher than with a network comprising multiple stock points. On the other hand, less transport is required to stock one warehouse than for two or three warehouses. - Another argument for an XXL warehouse is the **overhead costs**. With a single warehouse, only one organization is required to oversee the operation and management of the building. Additionally, investments in automation systems are more easily recouped with a single warehouse. XXL warehouses also bring some **challenges**: - Additional measures are needed to organize the **internal logistics operations** efficiently. Due to the longer intra-facility distances, there is a risk that employee productivity in the warehouse will decrease. - The **facility design** involves dividing the warehouse into several areas or zones, with the incoming and outgoing flows of goods, and intra-facility distances are mitigated. An additional advantage is that these different operations often have different peak moments. This offers the logistics service provider the opportunity to deploy its employees more efficiently. If a zone has a low level of activity, labor can be allocated to a zone with higher activity. This requires a complex planning system for allocating labor and other resources within the warehouse. - An XXL warehouse requires a **large upfront investment,** which provides a good return only if expected volumes are realized. Despite the growth of XXL warehouses, the market has not shifted towards omnichannel warehouses, where all activities are conducted under one roof. Instead, the market has evolved towards a relative specialization of warehousing functions. E-commerce leads to the development of more cross-docking sites near large population centers, allowing for quicker lead times. Online retail, therefore, has had a positive impact on the development of logistics real estate. # 2. Ports as Locations for Distribution Centers Ports are important locations for storing resources, parts, and finished goods with [terminal-specific forms of warehousing and storage](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/warehousing-tiers-port-terminals/ "Warehousing Tiers at Port Terminals"). In particular, container terminals perform a range of [port-centric logistics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2231 "Port Centric Logistics"), primarily around two tiers. The **first tier** covers the activities directly related to the cargo, while the **second tier** concerns freight distribution. Regarding the second tier, many seaports have established logistics parks within the port area or in the immediate vicinity of the port. Three basic types of port-centric logistics parks in seaport areas can be distinguished: - **Traditional seaport-based logistics park**. This type of logistics park is associated with the pre-container area in seaports. It is mainly associated with manufacturing and heavy industry, which have high material inputs carried by maritime transportation. Others were created to convey the benefits of free trade zones outside specified customs regulations. - **Container-oriented logistics parks**. This is the dominant type, characterized by a number of large warehouses located in proximity to or co-located with container terminal locations and intermodal terminal facilities. A core element is the **container freight station** (CFS), a facility where cargo is consolidated into containers (stuffing) for exports or deconsolidated (destuffing) into domestic cargo loads for inland distribution. - **Specialized seaport-based logistics parks**. These cover a variety of functions, often closely related to the characteristics of the seaport. The park may focus on the storage of liquid bulk (chemicals), on trade in which a combination of warehousing and office space is offered to several import-export companies, or on high-value office-related employment such as fourth party logistics service providers, information technology firms, and financial service providers. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/warehousing_tiers_port_terminals.png?resize=900%2C404&ssl=1 "Warehousing Tiers at Port Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Warehousing Tiers at Port Terminals![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_centric_logistics2.png?resize=900%2C487&ssl=1 "Port Centric Logistics | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Centric Logistics![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/factors_stages_free_trade_zone.png?resize=900%2C449&ssl=1 "Factors and Stages of Free Trade Zone Development | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Factors and Stages of Free Trade Zone Development![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/functional_types_port_centric_logistics.png?resize=900%2C429&ssl=1 "Functional Types of Port Centric Logistics | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Functional Types of Port Centric LogisticsLogistics parks also have a [functional orientation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2243 "Functional Types of Port Centric Logistics") depending on the general direction of the flows, with export, intermediate, and import focuses. A non-exhaustive list of logistics activities that typically opt for a location in a port includes: - Logistics activities involving **large volumes of bulk cargoes**, suitable for inland navigation and rail. - Logistics activities directly related to companies that have **a production site in the port area**. - Logistics activities related to cargo that need **flexible storage** to create a buffer (products subject to seasonality or irregular supply). - Logistics activities with a **high dependency on short sea shipping**. Moreover, ports are competitive areas for distribution centers in multiple import structures and as consolidation centers for export cargo. The decision to locate a distribution center inside a port implies advantages and disadvantages that include: - Good **integration and cooperation** between terminal operations and distribution center activities. - Possibility to **re-export from the port to other markets**. - **Reducing local traffic congestion and pollution** when operating distribution activities inside the port area. - Port real estate tends to be **more expensive than the surrounding areas**. The market price of port real estate is often higher, particularly because it is scarce and located in areas with high accessibility and connectivity. Port managers aim to avoid incurring opportunity costs associated with the suboptimal use of prime locations within the port area. Still, port managers cannot price the port real estate too high as they have to consider the competitive setting in attracting logistics operations. - Port real estate tends to be **priced differently**. Very often, logistics service providers cannot purchase the land, as most ports are landlords. In these cases, the port authority grants the port real estate a concession to a private port or warehouse operator for a specific term. - Manufacturers have **less flexibility** because of the constraint of calling the port where the distribution center is located, giving fewer routing options. A distribution center located at an intermediate location can have more options and benefit from inter-port competition. - Logistics service providers might decide not to locate a distribution center in a port partly because of the **complexity of the dock labor system**. This can involve a lack of experience with the existing social dialog patterns in that port, such as labor unions. - If the port is located away from the final destination of goods, it offers a **locational disadvantage**. The dynamics in distribution networks are affected by the **large-scale development of inland ports**. The functions of inland logistics centers are wide-ranging, from simple cargo consolidation to advanced logistics services. Many inland locations with multimodal access have become broader logistics zones and have assumed a significant number of traditional cargo handling functions and services. They have also attracted many related services, including distribution centers, shipping agents, trucking companies, forwarders, container repair facilities, and packing firms. Several of these logistics zones compete with seaports in terms of the location of their warehousing and distribution facilities. Shortages of industrial premises, high land prices, congestion problems, the inland location of markets, and severe environmental restrictions are among the well-known arguments against companies locating in a seaport. Despite the rise of inland ports and logistics platforms in many parts of the world, seaports continue to be **key constituents of many supply chains**. Several ports have actively stimulated logistics polarization in port areas by offering flexible labor conditions, streamlined customs formalities (combined with [freeport status](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/factors-stages-free-trade-zone-development/ "Factors and Stages of Free Trade Zone Development")), and robust information systems. Logistics activities can take place at the terminal, in a logistics park where several logistics activities are concentrated, or, in the case of industrial subcontracting, on the site of an industrial company. While there is a clear tendency in the container sector to move away from terminals, an expansion of logistics on terminals can be observed in other cargo categories. As such, a mix of pure stevedoring and logistics activities occurs. # 3. Regional Distribution Networks Many warehousing facilities have evolved or been specifically designed to act as distribution centers for an extensive regional distribution network. The decoupling of orders and delivery encourages the [reconfiguration of distribution networks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3205 "Distribution Network Configurations for Containerized Import Cargo in Europe"). The trend towards decoupling orders and deliveries is reinforced by the rise of digital ordering platforms and the corresponding increase in e-fulfillment and e-commerce. Like the conventional retailers that have established a network of [inbound cross-docking facilities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/amazon-inbound-cross-dock/ "Amazon Inbound Cross Dock Facilities Network") to distribute containerized cargo into truckloads, major e-commerce firms have pursued a similar strategy. Therefore, distribution networks have to adapt to new requirements. When it comes to the regional distribution of goods, corporations are challenged to find optimal solutions at [various levels](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3211 "Key decision levels in the development of a regional distribution network"): 1. The **choice of the distribution system**, such as whether it is based on a centralized distribution center or a series of regional distribution centers. 2. The **location of distribution centers** to maximize the efficiency of the distribution system in relation to inbound and outbound logistics. 3. The **location of value-added logistics services** (VALS) within the distribution system, which accounts for the availability of labor and input costs. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/reconfiguration_logistics_networks.png?resize=900%2C383&ssl=1 "The Reconfiguration of Logistics Networks: De-coupling of Order and Delivery | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The reconfiguration of logistics networks The de coupling of order and delivery![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/amazon_idx.png?resize=900%2C560&ssl=1 "Amazon Inbound Cross Dock Facilities Network | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Amazon Inbound Cross Dock Facilities Network![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/decision_levels_regional_distribution.png?resize=900%2C510&ssl=1 "Key Decision Levels in the Development of a Regional Distribution Network | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Key decision levels in the development of a regional distribution network## A. Choice of distribution system A general distribution structure does not exist since corporations have a **[multiplicity of options](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3264 "Distribution Network Configurations for Containerized Import Cargo in North America")**. They can opt for direct delivery without going through a distribution center, distribution through the main distribution center (MDC), distribution through a group of national distribution centers (NDCs) or regional distribution centers (RDCs), or a tiered structure in which one or a few MDCs and several NDCs and RDCs are combined to form a distribution network. These decisions are based on the characteristics of the respective supply chains, the type of products, and the demand level. Multiple factors exist when choosing between a **centralized distribution center** in comparison with **several decentralized distribution centers**. On the one hand, the number of distribution centers serving regional markets has expanded, favoring inland locations close to markets. On the other hand, the number of centers serving global markets has also expanded, favoring locations close to large international seaports or airports. The choice between the various distribution channels depends on the type of product (consumer goods, semi-finished products, and foodstuffs) and the frequency of deliveries. For example, in the fresh food industry, main distribution centers are unusual because perishability dictates a local distribution structure with the associated short lead times. In the pharmaceutical industry, main distribution centers are common. Regional or local distribution centers are still not present because pharmaceutical products are often manufactured in a single central plant, and delivery times are not critical, as hospitals often maintain their own inventories. However, in the high-tech spare parts industry, all of the distribution center functions are present because spare parts need to be delivered within a few hours. High-tech spare parts are usually costly, which encourages the use of centralized distribution structures. Corporations often opt for a [hybrid distribution structure](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3220 "The reconfiguration of logistics networks to logistics chains") of centralized and local distribution facilities. For instance, they use MDCs for medium- and slow-moving products and RDCs for fast-moving products. These RDCs typically function as fulfillment centers rather than holding inventories. The conventional or multi-country distribution structures are being replaced by merge-in-transit, cross-docking, or other fluid logistics structures. The cross-docking principle means that products are transferred almost immediately from the discharge area to the load area with minimal or no storage. Cost-service trade-offs also have an impact on the choice between a centralized or decentralized distribution network configuration. On the one hand, the centralization of inventories offers an opportunity to reduce costs. On the other hand, storing products close to the final consumers could help increase customer responsiveness. [Europe](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3226 "Distribution Network Configurations for Containerized Import Cargo in Europe") and [North America](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3268 "Distribution Network Configurations for Containerized Import Cargo in North America") serve as illustrative examples of these complex distribution dynamics. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/distribution_network_configurations_containerized.png?resize=900%2C334&ssl=1 "Distribution Network Configurations for Containerized Import Cargo | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Distribution Network Configurations for Containerized Import Cargo![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/reconfiguration_logistics_networks-1.png?resize=900%2C272&ssl=1 "The Reconfiguration of Logistics Networks to Logistics Chains | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The reconfiguration of logistics networks to logistics chains![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/distribution_network_europe.png?resize=900%2C700&ssl=1 "Distribution Network Configurations for Containerized Import Cargo in Europe | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Distribution Network Configurations for Containerized Import Cargo in Europe![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/distribution_network_north_america.png?resize=900%2C708&ssl=1 "Distribution Network Configurations for Containerized Import Cargo in North America | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Distribution Network Configurations for Containerized Import Cargo in North America## B. Location selection for distribution centers A second key decision level in developing a regional distribution network concerns **decisions on the locations of the distribution centers** once the distribution system has been selected. When referring to distribution centers, the terms warehouse and fulfillment center are often used interchangeably, but they can have very different connotations. Distribution center location analysis has received considerable attention. The optimal distribution location decisions involve careful attention to **inherent trade-offs between facility costs, inventory costs, transportation costs, and customer responsiveness**. Also, they are influenced by the inventory stocking policy. The variables that affect site selection are numerous and quite diverse, and can be quantitative or qualitative. Of particular relevance are centrality, accessibility, market size, the firm’s reputation and experience, land and its attributes, labor (costs, quality, productivity), capital (investment climate), government policy and planning (subsidies, taxes), and personal factors and amenities. Conventional [location selection criteria](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=5276 "Location Criteria for Distribution Centers") have emphasized cost-related variables such as economies of scale and transportation costs. They include major factors that may strongly influence international location decisions, such as the costs of the factors of production (land, labor), infrastructure, labor characteristics, political factors, and economic factors. Nowadays, however, **non-cost-based variables** also play a significant role in selecting the location of distribution centers, including infrastructure support, local labor market characteristics, and institutional factors. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/location_design_distribution_centers.png?resize=900%2C372&ssl=1 "Location Criteria for Distribution Centers | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Location Criteria for Distribution Centers## C. Value-added logistics services The third key decision level in developing a regional distribution network involves determining **where to add value to products**. Many products require customization for a specific country or customer, including labeling, kitting, and adding manuals in local languages, before they can be delivered to the customer. Historically, these country- or customer-specific activities have been primarily conducted in the factory, resulting in high inventory levels. Due to the increasing variety of products and shorter product life cycles, many companies have moved their country and customer-specific kitting or assembly operations as close to the customer as possible. This implied that the traditional storage and distribution functions of many distribution centers are supplemented by light manufacturing activities such as customizing and localizing products, adding components or manuals, product testing, quality control, or even final assembly. > **Value-added logistics services** (VALS). Activities integrating the production and distribution segments of a supply chain. They range from low-end activities that add little value to the goods, mostly transport and storage, to high-end activities such as postponed manufacturing, including systems assembly, testing, and software installation. VALS **connect production and transport chains** in areas where international inflows and outflows of goods can be linked to regional flows. Logistics platforms incorporate additional functions such as back-office activities, like managing goods and information flows, inventory management, tracking and tracing of goods, and fulfilling customs documentation and other formalities. While setting up their logistics platforms, logistics service providers favor locations that combine a central location, such as proximity to the consumer market, with an intermodal gateway function. Seaports and sites along hinterland corridors typically meet these requirements. VALS are a **prime source for revenue generation** and added value in distribution centers and warehousing facilities. A key issue for logistics service providers is deciding where to perform these value-added logistics services. These activities can be performed at the source in the country of export (e.g., in a Chinese warehouse), an intermediate location (e.g., a distribution center near a major port), or somewhere close to the consumer markets (e.g., close to an inland logistics platform). Even if VALS often takes place in distribution centers and warehouses, the factors influencing the location decision for distribution centers are not necessarily identical to the determinants that guide the location of VALS. A complex interaction between selection factors determines where to perform value-added logistics activities, including the choice of distribution system, the location of distribution centers, and the logistical characteristics of the product concerned. Thus, the diversity of VALS indicates where to perform these activities. The **logistics characteristics** of different products also play a key role in making the location decision. These characteristics will impact operational decisions related to shipment scale, frequency, and velocity, as well as the associated infrastructural level. For instance, fashion goods and commodities have different logistics factors that require different supply chain strategies. Fashion goods have a relatively high product shelf value and profit margin, a short product life cycle, high demand variability and seasonality, a distribution focus measured in service requirements instead of costs, and high requirements in terms of market response flexibility. On the other hand, commodities have a relatively low product shelf value and profit margin, a long product life cycle, low demand variability, a distribution focus measured in costs rather than service level, and low market response flexibility requirements. When considering VALS, the most relevant logistics characteristics of products include: - **Distribution focus measurements.** For most labor-intensive activities, the **lower costs** may outweigh the associated higher costs of transport and the longer lead times. As a result, these activities are performed in a warehouse at the source or a centralized distribution center. In contrast, **service-oriented** activities that imply quick responses typically operate near the final market within several decentralized distribution centers. The higher the service requirement, the closer to the final market the VALS are positioned, and the more relevant decentralized distribution centers are. - **Intensity of distribution and economies of scale.** The delivery frequency is expected to increase as manufacturers and retailers seek to achieve even greater economies linked with low levels of inventory, as well as time-based distribution. This is the paradox of pressures toward economies of scale and high-frequency delivery. While centralized distribution systems are sensitive to large economies of scale and low delivery frequency, lower economies of scale and a high delivery frequency push logistics services in the opposite direction. - **Replenishment lead time and demand uncertainty.** Replenishment lead time is the time that elapses once an order has been placed until it is physically on the shelf and available for consumption. Generally, the longer the replenishment lead time, the more safety stock needs to be kept, and the more relevant it is to keep the inventory in a centralized distribution center structure. The demand variability of the product is also a major element affecting logistics decisions. Stable and predictable demand would lead to a location closer to low-cost sites and centralized distribution. Unstable and unpredictable demand requires a quicker response and a higher service level, resulting in locations closer to the final market and the decentralization of distribution. - **Ratio of transportation costs over total costs**. A high ratio of transportation costs as part of total costs implies longer transport distances within supply chains and energy costs. The share of transportation costs in total costs is determined by factors such as the future balance between global sourcing strategies and more local sourcing, as well as the continued attractiveness of low-cost countries in global supply chains. In other words, a high share of transportation costs in total costs may motivate logistics service providers to relocate their activities closer to their customers. - **Product life cycle**. Longer life cycles are typical for standard products, such as canned soup, which have relatively stable customer demand, lower market requirements, and a lower profit margin. This kind of product is more appropriate for operating at a centralized low-cost site. VALS on products with a shorter life cycle would be better performed closer to the final markets. - **Market response flexibility.** If the products are needed to respond quickly to any changes in the market, it would be better to position the VALS near the customer base. - **Product profit margin.** A low-profit margin product will have to reduce costs and be better served via a more centralized distribution concept. High-profit margin products generally require a closer link with customers to increase service levels. - **Country-specific products or packaging requirements**. Packaging requirements can result in a significant increase in product volume, as it would be more efficient to perform this activity near the final market to minimize shipping volume and transportation costs. However, power supply customization can easily be implemented in product manufacturing to meet regional standards. VALS can also have a significant impact on the choices regarding the **structure of distribution systems** and the **location of distribution centers**. This is due to differences in logistics characteristics and requirements for each product category. The mix of structural logistics factors related to products will have a significant impact on determining which distribution network structure to adopt, where to locate distribution centers, and where to operate Value-Added Logistics Systems. It is also important to notice that once a VALS location has been selected, the **situation does not remain unchanged**. At some point, the factors behind the selection of a specific VALS location may change, necessitating an adjustment. This can range from a few weeks to a few months, depending on the scale of the inventory and the availability of new facilities on the leasing market. Relocating a distribution center is a more complex and time-consuming process. Once a distribution center has been set up, the logistics service provider typically operates the facility for at least 5 to 10 years, primarily due to the sunk costs. A complete change in the choice of the distribution system will be even more complex and time-consuming. By redistributing the location of VALS within existing nodes, a short-term impact on the quality and service attributes within the distribution network can be observed without requiring changes to the distribution structure or facility location. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 1.1 Maritime Shipping and International Trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=147) - [Chapter 1.2 Ports and Maritime Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1530) - [Chapter 1.3 Ports and Container Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1532) - [Chapter 4.4 Port Clusters](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=258) - [Nike European Logistics Campus in Belgium](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3120 "Nike European Logistics Center in Belgium") --- ## References - Chen, L., Notteboom, T., 2012, Determinants for assigning value-added logistics services to logistics centers within a supply chain configuration, Journal of International Logistics and Trade, 10(1), 3-41 - Ferrari, C., Parola, F., Morchio, E., 2006, Southern European ports and the spatial distribution of EDCs. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 8(1), 60-81. - Lavissière, A. and J-P Rodrigue, 2017, Free Ports: Towards a Network of Trade Gateways, Journal of Shipping and Trade, Vol 2, No. 7. - Monios, J., Notteboom, T., Wilmsmeier, G., Rodrigue, J.-P., 2016, Competition and complementarity between seaports and hinterland locations for attracting distribution activities, PortEconomics Discussion Report 04/2016, Chios, Greece, 31 p. - Rodrigue, J.-P., Notteboom, T., 2010, Comparative North American and European Gateway Logistics: The Regionalism of Freight Distribution, Journal of Transport Geography, 18(4), 497-507 - Vonck, I., Notteboom, T., 2012, Economic analysis of the warehousing and distribution market in Northwest Europe, study commissioned by ING Bank, JCBGAM: Wavre, ISBN 978 94 9135 902 6, 88 p. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Introduction - A Multifaceted Approach to Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/) **Published:** December 23, 2019 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** Ports are multifaceted entities providing economic, social, and environmental value. A port is defined as a transit area, a gateway through which goods and people move from and to the sea. It is a place of contact between land and maritime space, a node where ocean and inland transport lines meet and intertwine; an intermodal place of convergence. Ports have social and environmental value that can be the subject of conflicts with their communities, but also of engagement. Ports come in various sizes and functions and cannot be narrowed down to the geographical notion of a delimited spatial area. The demand and supply of port services are also examined from a microeconomic perspective. - [Chapter 0.1 Defining Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/) - [Chapter 0.2 Seaports and the Blue Economy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/) - [Chapter 0.3 Seaports: Social and Environmental Value](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/) - [Chapter 0.4 Seaports: Demand and Supply Determinants](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/) \[New\] - [Chapter 0.5 Emerging Issues in Ports and Maritime Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/emerging-issues-ports-maritime-shipping/) --- ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Services provided at LNG Import Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/services-provided-lng-import-terminals/) **Published:** December 13, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Services-at-LNG-Terminals.png?resize=900%2C359&ssl=1 "Services at LNG Import Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Services provided at LNG import terminalsMainly due to oversupply and low margins, many [LNG import terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/) have sought to create new demand by introducing new services at traditional LNG import facilities that had been limited to LNG unloading, regasification, and injection into the national gas supply network. These terminals have adapted, or are adapting, their facilities to offer a range of services to customers. These new services often allow LNG to be moved to other markets, include: - Ship reloading – the transfer of LNG from the terminal into a vessel (including smaller ships); - Transhipment – the direct transfer of LNG from one vessel to another; - Bunkering – the loading of LNG onto bunkering ships for supply to LNG-fuelled ships. - Truck loading – the loading of LNG onto tank trucks, which transport LNG in smaller quantities; - A cooling down and gassing up service – making use of LNG to cool down and gas up ships. - Rail loading (i.e., loading LNG onto railcars) is currently offered at a few terminals but is under consideration at several additional LNG import terminals. The basic service is unloading and storing LNG cargoes in insulated onshore tanks or floating storage units. Storage enables greater operational flexibility in regasification times. It also creates arbitrage opportunities for the market. This preliminary process is followed by regasification, which converts the LNG back to its gaseous state for distribution through pipelines towards the domestic and regional markets. Public and private plants allow for matching seasonal demand peaks. LNG facilities might support small-scale LNG distribution, loading LNG onto trucks or small vessels for delivery to industrial sites, ferries, and off-grid communities. This niche can be significant in countries with less developed pipeline networks, such as island nations (Malta, Cyprus) or smaller markets. Bunkering services have increased due to IMO discussions on sulphur caps and the broader decarbonisation agenda. Bunkering operations can be conducted via truck-to-ship, ship-to-ship (STS), or hybrid methods. Early adopters have used this practice to provide the infrastructure to attract cruise lines and overland businesses switching to low-emission fuels. For shipping firms, bunkering LNG helps reduce transit risks and ensures compliance with the IMO International Code of Safety for Ships Using Gases or Other Low-Flashpoint Fuels (IGF Code). Further, the flexibility offered by reloading and small-scale distribution presents buyers and shipowners with greater opportunities to optimise supply chains. Reloading and re-export of stored LNG: cargoes are transferred on board vessels for onward delivery to alternative markets. For example, Spanish terminals have regularly re-exported LNG to Asian markets when favourable price spreads warrant arbitrage. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/services-provided-lng-import-terminals/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/services-provided-lng-import-terminals/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/services-provided-lng-import-terminals/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/services-provided-lng-import-terminals/?share=reddit) - --- ### [LNG Terminals in Europe (2023)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/lng-terminals-in-europe-2023/) **Published:** December 13, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/LNG-Terminals-in-Europe-2023-1.png?resize=900%2C423&ssl=1 "LNG Terminals in Europe (2023) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")LNG Terminals in Europe 2023*Source: GIIGNL Annual Report 2023 Edition.* Over the past two decades, the European Union has become increasingly reliant on liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a cleaner alternative for propulsion. Beyond the implementation of the relevant IMO rules (i.e., MARPOL Annexe VI), the creation of Emission Control Areas (ECAs) and the “Fit for 55” initiative provided an impetus for increasing the adoption of LNG as a transitional fuel for the maritime sector (European Commission, reviewed 2020). However, geopolitics played the most critical role. The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was a watershed event. European dependence on Russian pipeline gas plummeted, but LNG imports rose sharply. Between 2021 and 2023, EU LNG imports increased by over 60%, with the US accounting for almost 45% of EU imports. Today, there are several large-scale LNG terminals in the EU, most of them in Spain. There are also multiple new LNG projects – including floating storage and regasification units (FSRUs) – at various stages of planning or construction, work on which will contribute to contract flexibility. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/lng-terminals-in-europe-2023/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/lng-terminals-in-europe-2023/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/lng-terminals-in-europe-2023/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/lng-terminals-in-europe-2023/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Natural Gas Spot Prices, United States and Europe (1997-2025)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/natural-gas-spot-prices-united-states-europe/) **Published:** December 14, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/natural_gas_sport_prices_US_EU.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Natural Gas Spot Prices, United States and Europe (1997-2025) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Natural Gas Spot Prices United States and Europe 1997 2025*Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Note Henry Hub Natural Gas Spot Price, Dollars per Million BTU, Monthly, Not Seasonally Adjusted. EU: Title Transfer Facility (TTF), a trading hub in the Netherlands.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/natural-gas-spot-prices-united-states-europe/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/natural-gas-spot-prices-united-states-europe/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/natural-gas-spot-prices-united-states-europe/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/natural-gas-spot-prices-united-states-europe/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Global LNG Trade: Exporting Countries (2023)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/global-lng-trade-exporting-countries/) **Published:** December 13, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Global-LNG-Trade-Exporting-Countries.png?resize=900%2C423&ssl=1 "Global LNG Trade: Exporting Countries (2023) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global LNG Trade Exporting Countries 2023Source: International Gas Union (IGU) (2025): 2024 World Energy Report. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/global-lng-trade-exporting-countries/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/global-lng-trade-exporting-countries/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/global-lng-trade-exporting-countries/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/global-lng-trade-exporting-countries/?share=reddit) - --- ### [About](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/) **Published:** December 17, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** **Port Economics, Management and Policy** is a project that aims to provide information about the port, shipping, and logistics industry to a wide readership. The authors of the online reference project and book are [Theo Notteboom](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/short-cv-theo-notteboom/), [Athanasios Pallis](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/short-cv-athanasios-pallis/), and [Jean-Paul Rodrigue](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/short-cv-jean-paul-rodrigue/), collaquially known as the “Charthouse Group”. ![Charthouse Group](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-06-25-140824-1.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Dr. Athanasios Pallis, Dr. Theo Notteboom and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue (left to right) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Dr Athanasios Pallis Dr Theo Notteboom and Dr Jean Paul Rodrigue left to right### Citation Information cited from this web site should be referred to as either: - Notteboom, T., A. Pallis and J-P Rodrigue (2022) Port Economics, Management and Policy, New York: Routledge. <https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429318184> - Theo Notteboom, Athanasios Pallis and Jean-Paul Rodrigue (2022) Port Economics, Management and Policy, https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/ ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Outcomes of Port Terminal Migration and Relocation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/outcomes-port-terminal-migration-relocation/) **Published:** December 9, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/outcomes_port_migration_relocation.png?resize=900%2C406&ssl=1 "Outcomes of Port Terminal Migration and Relocation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Outcomes of Port Terminal Migration and Relocation*Source: Adapted from Ducruet, C., Notteboom, T. and Slack, B. (2023) Port migration patterns in the global port system since the 1950s. In Port Systems in Global Competition (pp. 122-146). Routledge.* The dynamics of port terminal migration and relocation are spatial processes closely related to site characteristics, with costs and benefits being considered. - **Activity**. Two interrelated activities can take place. The first involves **migration**, which is using a new terminal site while the existing site(s) remain active. This can imply that a share of the total cargo-handling activities is moved from an initial site to a new site. The second involves relocation, which entails simultaneously opening a new terminal facility while a corresponding facility is closed at the initial site. The entirety of the cargo activities is transferred to the new site. - **Continuity**. Terminal migration or relocation can be **continuous** when it involves a new site that is reasonably adjacent to the existing port facilities. It can be **discontinuous** when the new site is in a different location, which mainly occurs when there is no ready availability of sites in proximity to the initial site, as well as a way to escape important constraints of the initial site, particularly its nautical profile. - **Nautical direction**. Related to the site options available for migration or relocation. A port that has its facilities located along a river, such as in a delta, will see a **downstream** expansion of its facilities, which is usually associated with an improvement in the nautical profile. A port along the coast will see lateral expansion toward sites that usually have a similar or better nautical profile. An **outward** or **offshore** move implies the creation of new port terminals in artificial sites created through land reclamation or by constructing offshore berths and access piers. Examples of the continuity aspect include: - Deurgankdock Dock, Antwerp (2005). - Maasvlakte II, Rotterdam (2013). - Terminal 3, Baltic Hub, Gdansk (2025). - MSC Terminal, Valencia (2029). Discontinuous (same port authority): - Nansha, Guangzhou, China (migration). - Yangshan, Shanghai, China (migration). - Tuas Port, Singapore (the final aim is complete relocation as the existing container terminals of Pasir Panjang, Brani, Keppel, and Tanjung Pagar are to be closed by 2040). - Busan New Port, Busan (final aim is relocation as terminals in Busan North Port will be closed) Discontinuous (other port authority): - JadeWeserport, Wilhelmshaven, Germany. - London Gateway, UK. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/outcomes-port-terminal-migration-relocation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/outcomes-port-terminal-migration-relocation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/outcomes-port-terminal-migration-relocation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/outcomes-port-terminal-migration-relocation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Regionalization for Freight and Passenger Functions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/port-regionalization-for-freight-and-passenger-functions/) **Published:** December 4, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_regionalization_freight_passengers.png?resize=900%2C413&ssl=1 "Port Regionalization for Freight and Passenger Functions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Regionalization for Freight and Passenger Functions*Source: Concept developed by T. Notteboom, A. Pallis and J-P Rodrigue.* To further expand the concept of port regionalization, a parallel tract for passenger and cruise activities can be considered, which can take place independently or in co-development with freight activities. The setting of cruise services usually involves for a port of call, the use of an existing general pier, or tendering (1). As the number of cruise port calls increases, additional piers and tendering services can be used (2), leading to an intensification of cruise-related activities. The growth and potential of a port call for cruise activities are judged significant enough to justify the construction of a dedicated cruise terminal, usually at an alternative site (3). This could lead to the redevelopment of the port site for other activities, including cruise-related functions (recreational areas, restaurants, hotels). Further, during the specialization phase (3), container shipping saw the establishment of transshipment hubs, improving network connectivity. In the cruise sector, the establishment of [offshore island port calls](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/private-islands-caribbean-owned-cruise-lines/ "Private Islands in the Caribbean Owned by Cruise Lines"), often owned by cruise lines, has added value to itineraries. As transshipment hubs improve container shipping connectivity, offshore islands add buffering capabilities, as they can serve as a port of call if another port needs to be dropped off an itinerary. The regionalization phase (4) primarily applies to cruise turn ports seeking to expand their market reach through improved connectivity and access to their regional market base, thereby driving **cruise port regionalization**. This implies: - **Airport connectivity**. A better integration with nearby airports, including check-in counters and shuttles, allows cruisers a more seamless transition between the hinterland (cruise source market) and the cruise port. The airport can serve as a satellite terminal for the cruise port, underscoring that airport connectivity affects the potential of the cruise source market. - **Rail connectivity**. Rail stations tend to be located closer to main cruise terminals, particularly in Europe and East Asia. High-speed rail services are improving intercity connectivity and the cruise source market at a scale similar to that of air transportation. The rail station can serve as a satellite terminal for the cruise port. - **Shuttle connectivity**. The setting of inland collection points where cruisers can take a shuttle bus directly to the cruise terminal. These shuttles mainly call from airport and rail terminals. - **Drive-to cruises**. They are particularly prevalent in North America, creating a unique array of port-city relations, namely the demand for parking space near cruise terminals and large influxes of visitors around cruise departures and arrivals. Convenient parking extends the cruise source market by enabling customers to park in a facility [adjacent to or nearby the cruise terminal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/royal-caribbean-galveston-cruise-terminal/ "Royal Caribbean Galveston Cruise Terminal"). - **New or expanded cruise terminal facilities**. These facilities are designed to enable more efficient passenger throughput during intensive embarkation and disembarkation periods. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/port-regionalization-for-freight-and-passenger-functions/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/port-regionalization-for-freight-and-passenger-functions/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/port-regionalization-for-freight-and-passenger-functions/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/port-regionalization-for-freight-and-passenger-functions/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Centric Logistics: From Dissociation to Reinsertion](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/port-centric-logistics-dissociation-reinsertion/) **Published:** July 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_centric_logistics_disso_reinsertion.png?resize=900%2C475&ssl=1 "Port Centric Logistics: From Dissociation to Reinsertion | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Centric Logistics From Dissociation to ReinsertionHistorically, ports and adjacent areas had a pronounced maritime support function with a clearly defined port district composed of docks, piers, warehouses, and other related activities. These are usually referred to as first-tier logistics because they directly support the port’s cargo transfer. Low mechanization levels implied the use of a large workforce manually handling breakbulk cargo, loading or unloading ships, and moving to adjacent transit sheds. This was a time-consuming process, with ships spending a significant amount of time at ports, in many cases, two-thirds of their operational time. The second tier of port-centric logistics was directly adjacent to port districts, which included warehouses, distribution centers, manufacturing, and commercial and financial districts. Inefficiencies in port operations and throughput were a strong driver of containerization, and its diffusion indirectly led to a dissociation between ports and their logistical activities. Because of the technical requirements of containerization, new port terminal facilities were built at locations better suited to container operations, particularly those with a larger terminal footprint. This, by itself, led to a physical dissociation of the terminal from local logistical activities, which was exacerbated by the substantial decline in the port workforce due to mechanization. Many old port sites were abandoned and converted to other uses (commercial and residential), further contributing to the dissociation. Port districts were declining in size and importance. Lower inland transport costs and low congestion levels allowed commercial and manufacturing activities related to ports to be less constrained in their locational choice. Container ports were serving a wider hinterland, which coincided with trade liberalization and the offshoring of manufacturing activities to lower-cost locations. While port-centric logistics were being dissociated in older port areas, new forms of port-centric logistics were being created in others. For bulk port activities such as metals and petrochemicals, the level of integration did not change much because of the high weight-to-value transport cost ratio for the involved commodities. What changed was mostly the larger scale of these activities, which, for some, has prompted relocation to more suitable sites. As containerization is reaching a phase of maturity in terms of spatial diffusion and lower growth rates, a reinsertion of port-centric logistics is occurring around many container ports. Enduring trade imbalances reflected in container flows require the management and repositioning of empty containers, along with related logistics activities. For instance, at gateways with a strong import function, transloading the contents of containers into domestic load units is a notable port-centric logistics activity. At export-oriented gateways, warehousing and container stuffing operations are more prevalent. Global supply chains are becoming increasingly complex, which, for some sectors, is prompting the relocation to port-centric logistics zones to maximize connectivity to suppliers and customers that could be shifting due to market, technological, or regulatory changes. The impact of congestion is also non-negligible, as additional costs, uncertainty, and delays could render port-centric sites more suitable than lower-cost inland sites. There is also a scale effect as large containerized volumes handled at major ports increase the commercial appeal of their port-centric logistics sites. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/port-centric-logistics-dissociation-reinsertion/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/port-centric-logistics-dissociation-reinsertion/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/port-centric-logistics-dissociation-reinsertion/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/port-centric-logistics-dissociation-reinsertion/?share=reddit) - --- ### [World Container Throughput, 1980-2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/world-container-throughput/) **Published:** November 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/world_container_port_throughput.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "World Container Throughput, 1980-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")World Container Throughput 1980 2024*Source: Drewry Shipping Consultants/UNCTAD. Note: Throughput is the summation of traffic handled by all container ports.* Container throughput encompasses both full and empty containers, which account for 80% and 20% of maritime traffic, respectively. The large-scale adoption of containerization and globalization consistently drove global container port growth rates of 5% to 10% from the 1980s to the 2000s. Then, in the 2010s, growth rates steadily declined as global trade headed toward a phase of maturity. Throughput grew from 36 million TEU in 1980 to 237 million TEU in 2000, 545 million TEU in 2010, and more than 792 million TEU in 2020. A core driver of the traffic surge in the 2000s was the rapid industrialization of China, partly due to the offshoring and outsourcing of manufacturing processes by multinational corporations. Similar to the 2008-09 financial crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic was one of only two events in which growth turned negative. In both cases, the decline was associated with a drop in discretionary spending, which was more lasting and significant during the 2008-09 financial crisis, but with a strong recovery in the subsequent year. In 2021, container traffic resumed its growth, reaching 849 million TEUs, following stimulus packages across several economies and shifts in consumption patterns. However, in 2022 and 2023, container throughput experienced its lowest positive growth rate in over 40 years, as demand has stabilized and sourcing strategies have begun to shift. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/world-container-throughput/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/world-container-throughput/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/world-container-throughput/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/world-container-throughput/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Types of Container Terminal Truck Appointment Systems](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/types-container-terminal-appointment-systems/) **Published:** November 23, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/container_terminal_appointment_systems2.png?resize=900%2C439&ssl=1 "Types of Container Terminal Truck Appointment Systems | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Container Terminal Truck Appointment Systems*Source: Adapted from Dr. Paul Kent, Monument Economics Group.* Soft forms of terminal automation involve gate management and appointment systems. Since many container terminals are located in high-density areas, their vicinity and approaches can be subject to congestion. Further, large container ships tend to increase the number of containers handled per port call and the number of related trucks passing through the terminal gate within a given period. Truck appointment systems (also known as vehicle booking systems) have been deployed to mitigate gate and corridor congestion by managing capacity and synchronizing gate and truck flows. They can be categorized into four major categories, with increasing levels of sophistication and dynamic adjustments. - **Terminal specific**. The first generation of truck appointment systems offers a predefined number of appointments that are booked on an online platform (or an app) by approved terminal users. Drivers are usually provided with an appointment time and a 15- to 30-minute window to meet it. They tend to be terminal-specific and cannot be modified if a reserved slot does not get used, leading to relatively high levels of “no shows”. The container and its related appointment are cross-verified at the gate using the container ID (OCR) or RFID. The ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach (PierPASS, TERMPoint, etc.), Valencia (TERMPoint), and Busan (Vehicle Booking System) have implemented such systems. - **Smart gate**. The appointment system is typically deployed across several terminals within a port (or a single terminal if there are no others) and is usually linked to the [port community system](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/port-community-system/ "Port Community System") and terminal operating system(s). This implies that appointment slot adjustments can be made, not in real time, but for the next appointment cycle. Jeddah Islamic Port (Fasah Platform), Singapore (OptETruck), and Antwerp (Advanced Port Information and Control System) have implemented such systems. - **Digital pre-notification**. The appointment system allows dynamic rescheduling when there is a lack of capacity at the terminal, gate congestion, or the truck is unable to fulfill its scheduled appointment. By using an API for real-time data exchange, slots can be assigned or rebooked dynamically, with driver notification. Gate and yard flows are therefore coordinated at the terminal and port community system level, though not in real-time throttling. These systems can be found in Rotterdam (Port Base), Hamburg (Dakosky), and Tanjung Pelepas (Terminal Truck Optimization, TT-O). - **Centralized gate**. Involve using an off-terminal gate as a point of entry, which can be a physical facility (e.g., a waiting area) or a virtual mechanism (e.g., a geofence). This implies two crucial processes for dynamic flow adjustment. First, like the digital pre-notification system, appointments can be dynamically adjusted based on real-time terminal gate and yard conditions. Second, since the gate is located in a selected area around the port perimeter (or at multiple locations, depending on the complexity), gate routing can be dynamically adjusted based on live traffic conditions. This involves complex information technology coordination with information generated and updated from multiple sources. The port of Abaqa represents, so far, a unique case of dual flow management. However, ports with existing appointment systems, such as Antwerp, are heading in this direction. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/types-container-terminal-appointment-systems/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/types-container-terminal-appointment-systems/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/types-container-terminal-appointment-systems/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/types-container-terminal-appointment-systems/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Balancing Water and Yard Capacity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/balancing-water-and-yard-capacity/) **Published:** December 10, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/water_versus_yard_capacity.png?resize=900%2C497&ssl=1 "Balancing Water and Yard Capacity | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Balancing Water and Yard CapacityAn important element of container terminal design and configuration concerns the ratio between the water and the yard capacity. The desired outcome is related to the function of the terminal within shipping networks and its hinterland. Therefore, there is no optimal ratio as the ideal design is context-specific. - **Water capacity lower than yard capacity**. This mainly concerns ports that act as **gateways** to major commercial hinterlands, implying that the containers may spend more time in the yard (longer dwell time). It could also involve ports with a constrained nautical profile, limiting pier capacity. Increasing the water capacity can involve both the port’s hardware and software, and also its orgware. From a hardware perspective, quay walls can be expanded, and more cranes can be added. From a software perspective, a series of optimizations can be pursued, primarily by improving berth window management and increasing crane productivity. The term orgware refers to organizational and process-related adaptations. - **Water capacity higher than yard capacity**. This mainly concerns ports that serve as **transshipment hubs** and handle several ships at any time. It could also involve ports constrained from the landside, such as those with limited land for expansion and proximity to urban activities. From a hardware perspective, increasing port hardware entails expanding the yard surface (and adding more ground slots) and adding yard equipment. From a software perspective, yard operations can be optimized, resulting in lower dwell times and more throughput for the same yard surface. These facilities tend to have higher container turnover per hectare. Still, container terminals can rarely have an optimal configuration due to the commercial environment, including foreland and hinterland activity, and port site limitations on nautical profile and available land footprint. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/balancing-water-and-yard-capacity/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/balancing-water-and-yard-capacity/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/balancing-water-and-yard-capacity/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/balancing-water-and-yard-capacity/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Empty Containers Stacking Area, Maher Container Terminal, Newark](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/empty-containers-stacking-area-maher-terminal/) **Published:** January 8, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_3878.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "empty stacking | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Empty Containers Stacking Area Maher Container Terminal Newark*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2010.* Most container terminals have an empty stacking area that acts as a pool for exporters. Terminals tend to have an imbalanced container traffic, meaning that for ports that import more full containers than they export, empty containers are brought back from the hinterland to either be made available to local exporters or placed on containerships to be repositioned. For ports that export more full containers than they export, empty containers are mainly brought in by containerships to be placed in empty piles for exporters. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/empty-containers-stacking-area-maher-terminal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/empty-containers-stacking-area-maher-terminal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/empty-containers-stacking-area-maher-terminal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/empty-containers-stacking-area-maher-terminal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Configuration of Container Yards](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/configuration-container-yards/) **Published:** January 3, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/container_yard_configuration.png?resize=900%2C482&ssl=1 "container_yard_configuration | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Configuration of Container YardsThere are several methods to store and stack containers in a container yard, which is in its simplest form a flat paved surface. There are two fundamental models around which container yards are designed and operated: - **Linear layouts** account for the simplest and least capital-intensive yard operations. At start, containers can be stored on **chassis** that can be parked in parallel (L1) for space maximization or diagonally (L2) to favor quick drop-off and retrieval (all called fishbone configuration). This organization is common for intermodal rail terminals and RO-RO facilities. Straddle carrier configurations (L3) store containers one or two in height along rows over which straddle carriers drive. This is common for average-density yards that can store around 700 TEU per hectare. Reach stackers can be used to stack full containers in piles up to 3 in height (L4), which is mainly used in intermodal terminals. The majority of container ports have empty stacks (L5) with higher stacks (about 5 containers) that are managed by reach stackers. - **Block layouts** are more capital-intensive as they rely on gantry cranes to manage stacks. A group of stacked containers serviced by a crane is referred to as a block. Rubber-tired gantry cranes allow for higher stacking density in the range of 1,000 TEU per hectare, where blocks can be sideloaded (B1; faster individual container access time but lower stacking density) or front-loaded (B2; slower individual container access time but higher stacking density). Wide-span gantry cranes operating on fixed rails allow for the highest stacking density, in the range of 2,000 TEU per hectare, and can be sideloaded (B3) or front-loaded (B4). Automated container yards usually rely on front-loading gantries. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/configuration-container-yards/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/configuration-container-yards/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/configuration-container-yards/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/configuration-container-yards/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Wheeled Reefer Storage](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/wheeled-reefer-storage/) **Published:** January 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-06-04-12.35.26.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "2019-06-04 12.35.26 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Wheeled Reefer Storage*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2019. Gloucester Marine Terminal, Holt Logistics.* The simplest way to store reefers at a terminal or distribution center is to use parked chassis connected to reefer plugs. Reefer units are transported using a standard truck, resulting in minimal equipment usage but a higher level of space consumption. Tex is a container leasing company that has provided its customer, Del Monte, with a long-term lease of the reefers. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/wheeled-reefer-storage/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/wheeled-reefer-storage/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/wheeled-reefer-storage/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/wheeled-reefer-storage/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Advantages and Disadvantages of Container Transloading](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/advantages-disadvantages-container-transloading/) **Published:** July 17, 2022 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/advantages_disadvantages_container_transloading2.png?resize=900%2C302&ssl=1 "Advantages and Disadvantages of Container Transloading | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Advantages and Disadvantages of Container Transloading*Source: adapted from The Tioga Group (2008) Containerized Intermodal Goods Movement Assessment, North American Logistics Chain, Transportation Issues and Trends.* Transloading conveys a number of advantages to its users, but also has a few disadvantages: - **Importers**. An important benefit for importers is the reduction of unit transport costs per TEU if the contents of maritime containers are transloaded into a lesser number of domestic containers. A common practice in North America involves transferring the contents of three maritime containers into two domestic containers. This conveys a notable advantage in terms of haul and intermodal costs (number of lifts). There is also the possibility of performing a series of added-value activities simultaneously to ensure customization and final preparation for retail. Additionally, transloading offers the opportunity to reassess the final destination of a load in view of changing regional market conditions. There are also some drawbacks to transloading, particularly its associated costs and time delays (at least one day) since it essentially represents an additional load break along the supply chain. Transloading also assumes the availability of domestic containers, which can be problematic if trade flows are imbalanced for the concerned port terminal. It should also be considered that not all cargo is suitable for transloading. For instance, if the goods have a high density, the capacity of domestic containers cannot be fully utilized. Last, transloading involves a risk of damaging the cargo as well as potential theft. It is not suitable for high-value shipments. - **Carriers**. Maritime shipping companies also benefit from transloading since it reduces the repositioning of empty containers from inland locations. The outcome is a higher usage rate of maritime container assets through faster turnovers. This is particularly important if trade flows are imbalanced. There is, however, a risk of container damage. Paradoxically, transloading reduces the availability of maritime container equipment inland for exports, resulting in lower revenue for return trips. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/advantages-disadvantages-container-transloading/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/advantages-disadvantages-container-transloading/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/advantages-disadvantages-container-transloading/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/advantages-disadvantages-container-transloading/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Categories of Cruise Ports Fees](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/categories-cruise-ports-fees/) **Published:** September 19, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/categories_cruise_port_fees.png?resize=900%2C515&ssl=1 "Categories of Cruise Ports Fees | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Categories of Cruise Ports Fees### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/categories-cruise-ports-fees/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/categories-cruise-ports-fees/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/categories-cruise-ports-fees/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/categories-cruise-ports-fees/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Ports Charges as Tools for Geopolitical Objectives](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-charges-tools-geopolitical-objectives/) **Published:** November 1, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ### Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > Seaports are increasingly attracting interest as geopolitical levers, given their typical functionalities in stimulating national and regional industrial development and securing trade. The use of port charges as tools for achieving geopolitical objectives is indicative of this interest. In 2025, the United States and the People’s Republic of China used port charges as tools to advance their geopolitical aspirations. For the United States, the goal is to achieve greater reciprocity in [trade balances](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/monthly-trade-china-united-states/ "Monthly Trade between China and the United States (1985-2025)") and [tariffs](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/us-china-tariffs/ "US-China Tariffs, 2018-2025") on its exports compared to those on imports. Another goal is to increase the number of US-flagged commercial vessels, which accounted for only 0.6% of global capacity in 2023. On the grounds of such geopolitical considerations and the consequent further escalation of ongoing trade tensions, the administrations of these two economic powers and participants in global maritime trade imposed additional port charges on calls by seagoing vessels flying the flag of the other country. The extra charges apply to both cargo and passenger vessels, affecting the respective shipping markets, ports, and related maritime logistics. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/US_China_tariffs.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "US-China Tariffs, 2018-2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")US China Tariffs 2018 2025The US imposed extra port fees on China-built, owned, and operated ships and foreign-built vehicle carriers calling at US ports, starting October 2025, as part of initiatives to address China’s growing dominance in the maritime sector. Fees imposed on ships built, owned, or operated by Chinese entities are paid directly to the US Department of the Treasury, not at the port of entry, and are intended to help revive US shipbuilding. However, this move is part of a broader strategy to address concerns over national security, supply chain resilience and the competitive landscape of global shipping. The regulatory action follows ongoing scrutiny of Chinese-built or owned vessels and their role in US maritime infrastructure – and the investigation into China’s “targeting the maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors for dominance”, which had been launched in 2024 under the previous US administration. Although subject to certain exemptions, the fee structure is designed to impose additional costs on vessels constructed in China, regardless of ownership or flag state. Initially, vessels owned or operated by a Chinese entity will face a flat fee of $50 per net ton per voyage to the US. For vessels built in China but operated by a non-Chinese entity, the initial rate is around $18 per net ton or $120 per container discharged (whichever is higher), with these fee levels scheduled to increase over the next three years. A vessel classified as a foreign-built vehicle carrier or roll-on/roll-off vessel will also be subject to a $46 fee per net ton. These fees are imposed on a vessel no more than five times a year to avoid overly impacting container shipping with ships calling US ports multiple times per year. The fee may be suspended for a period not to exceed three years if the vessel owner orders and takes delivery of a U.S.-built vessel of equivalent or greater net tonnage. Fees will not be charged to Chinese-built vessels or vehicle carriers carrying US government cargo, or to privately owned U.S.-flag vehicle carriers under bareboat charter to the US government. Additionally, there are various other exemptions to the fees for certain Chinese-built vessels. In the **container market**, the move is expected to cost the top 10 cargo carriers $3.2 billion in port fees in 2026, with China’s COSCO Shipping estimated to be most exposed, owing $1.5 billion in potential port fees next year \[SOURCE?\]. **China** responded to US port fees on Chinese ships with countermeasures that had an immediate effect. It could not apply the same fee structure as the United States since there are few US-flagged ships. In October 2025, it issued special port fees for vessels on US services calling at Chinese ports, with the “special port fee” calculated per net ton. The $55 per net ton was planned to increase annually until reaching over $155 per net ton. Two classes of vessels are charged a maximum of five voyages per year, with the fee levied only at their first port of call in China. The first one is the ’pure’ US vessels. i.e., owned or operated by US nationals or entities registered in the US; vessels built in the US; or vessels flying the US flag. The second one is US-linked vessels, i.e., cases where a US national or a US entity directly or indirectly holds 25% or more of the voting rights or board seats in the entity that owns or operates a vessel. The latter marks a paradigm shift from traditional concepts of “flag” or “vessel origin” to a “shareholder-based” regulatory logic. The special port fee does not apply to Chinese-built vessels or ballast calls at Chinese shipyards. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/monthly_trade_China_US.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Monthly Trade between China and the United States (1985-2025) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Monthly Trade between China and the United States 1985 2025Although the extra port charge was initially intended for cargo vessels, the impact on the operations of U.S.-owned cruise ships in China was evident immediately, particularly since the world’s two largest cruise consortia, Carnival and Royal Caribbean, are headquartered in the United States. T**he cruise market** is affected by the new policies because cruise ships are disproportionately larger. Therefore, the new charge led to the cancellation of scheduled calls to Shanghai and diversion to Busan, South Korea, to avoid the charges. Estimates of the costs for the vessel that was first to cancel, Oceania Cruises’ Riviera, are that under the new rule, the Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings-owned vessel would need to pay local authorities $1.64 million to dock in China. With Shanghai serving as a primary homeport for foreign cruise ships operating in China, exemptions were subsequently granted to homeported vessels. Another Royal Caribbean vessel called in Shanghai after receiving a waiver of the special port fee, allowing it to continue its operations in China. The 168,666-ton Spectrum of the Seas would have been required to pay nearly $10 million this year, an amount that would increase to over $26 million in 2028. This exemption is expected to apply specifically to vessels home-ported in China. As cruise ships targeting international markets are unlikely to receive exemptions, other cruise lines planning stops in Chinese ports may revisit their itineraries, with changes reflecting shifting market dynamics driven by geopolitical considerations. Following a meeting between the leaders of the world’s two largest economies, these measures were **suspended for a year**, less than a month after their implementation. Ports were part of a broader trade truce between the two countries that included the suspension of US rules on Chinese-built ships and Chinese shipping companies, as well as the removal of Chinese fees on American ships, just two weeks after they took effect. --- ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-charges-tools-geopolitical-objectives/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-charges-tools-geopolitical-objectives/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-charges-tools-geopolitical-objectives/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-charges-tools-geopolitical-objectives/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Transloading at Major North American Container Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/transloading-major-north-american-container-ports/) **Published:** August 18, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/transloading_north_american_ports.png?resize=900%2C457&ssl=1 "Transloading at Major North American Container Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Transloading at Major North American Container Ports*Source: IANA, TTX, Port authorities, PIERS. Note: IPI = Inland Point Intermodal, the movements of ISO containers by rail directly to an inland location. Rail share = IPI + transload.* Containers bound to a large continental market such as North America are facing three options. - **Inland Point Intermodal (IPI)**. ISO containers are moved directly to an inland destination, such as an inland port, mostly through an on-dock intermodal rail facility. - **Transload**. The contents of ISO containers are transloaded into domestic containers and then placed on intermodal rail (or trucks) for the inland destinations. - **Truck**. The ISO containers are placed on trucks for local (mainly) or long-distance deliveries. Of the 31.3 million TEUs of import containers handled by the major North American container ports in 2024, 24.2% were directly brought by intermodal rail (IPI) to their inland destinations. 16.1% were transloaded into domestic containers and then brought by intermodal rail. The majority of ISO containers, 59.6%, are delivered by trucks, mainly to local or regional destinations. There are significant regional differences in the mode used for inland distribution. The share of rail is much higher on the West Coast as containers are carried inland over long distances. For instance, it stands between 60 and 70% for the coast ranging from Prince Rupert to Los Angeles. It is significantly lower for Pacific Coast Mexican ports (Manzanillo and Lazaro Cardenas), as most of their cargo is bound for the Mexico City metropolitan area. The rail share is much lower on the US East Coast (25 to 30%), as most inland markets are reached over shorter distances and have higher economic density. For the Gulf Coast, the share of rail is very low, which underlines the east-west orientation of the intermodal rail network. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/transloading-major-north-american-container-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/transloading-major-north-american-container-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/transloading-major-north-american-container-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/transloading-major-north-american-container-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Monthly Trade between China and the United States (1985-2025)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/monthly-trade-china-united-states/) **Published:** November 3, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/monthly_trade_China_US.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Monthly Trade between China and the United States (1985-2025) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Monthly Trade between China and the United States 1985 2025*Source: US Census Bureau.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/monthly-trade-china-united-states/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/monthly-trade-china-united-states/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/monthly-trade-china-united-states/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/monthly-trade-china-united-states/?share=reddit) - --- ### [US-China Tariffs, 2018-2025](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/us-china-tariffs/) **Published:** November 3, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/US_China_tariffs.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "US-China Tariffs, 2018-2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")US China Tariffs 2018 2025*Source: Peterson Institute for International Economics.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/us-china-tariffs/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/us-china-tariffs/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/us-china-tariffs/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/us-china-tariffs/?share=reddit) - --- ### [XII. CASE STUDIES](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/) **Published:** February 23, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Overview --- - [Optimal Ship Size: Container Ships and Cruise Vessels](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4854) - [Competition between the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/) - [Ports and the COVID-19 Pandemic](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-and-pandemic/) - [The Port of Savannah Logistics Cluster](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/) - [Nike European Logistics Campus in Belgium](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nike-european-logistics-center-belgium/) - [The Nicaragua Canal Project](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nicaragua-canal-project/) - [Tools for Managing Port Risk and Resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/tools-for-managing-port-risk-and-resilience/) - [Port Charges as Tools for Geopolitical Objectives](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-charges-tools-geopolitical-objectives/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Athanasios Pallis - Short Bio](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/short-cv-athanasios-pallis/) **Published:** December 5, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Thanos-Pallis-2.jpg?resize=272%2C300&ssl=1 "Athanasios Pallis | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Athanasios PallisORCID: <https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3242-5081> Athanasios (Thanos) Pallis is Professor in Port & Shipping Economics and Policy at the Department of Maritime Studies, University of Piraeus, Greece, and holder of the Jean Monnet Chair in European Port Policy. He is a co-director of [PortEconomics](http://www.porteconomics.eu), and the Vice-Chair of the Port Performance Research Network (PPRN). At the University of Piraeus, he directs the *Integrated Port Economics and Management Laboratory*. He has co-authored the books *European Port Policy: Towards a long-term strategy* (published in English, Japanese, and Greek), Common EU Maritime Transport Policy (published in English and Greek), *Maritime Transport: The Greek Paradigm* (published in English), and *Port Economy* (in Greek). Thanos is a member of the International Association of Ports & Harbours (IAPH) Risk and Resilience Committee, for which he co-authors the World Ports Tracker together with Theo Notteboom. He was the chief consultant of the UN program on “COVID-19 Implications on Transport/Connectivity and Trade”. He was a Fulbright Scholar at Columbia University, New York, US (Centre for Energy, Marine Transportation & Public Policy), Professor in Port Economics & Policy at the University of the Aegean, Greece (2001-2021), and the scientific director of the Jean Monnet Action in European Port Policy (2003-2018). Thanos served as Adjunct Professor at the Centre for International Trade and Transportation, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada (2008-2017); and as Visiting Professor at the School of Management, Universidad de Los Andes, Colombia. He has contributed to research in North America (Transport Canada: Port Performance Indicators and Benchmarks; Atlantic Gateway Research Initiative, Port governance reform) and the Association of American Port Authorities (Port Customer Service Initiative); in South America on container port development (Chile); in Asia defining a maritime strategy (Turkey; Bangladesh); in Africa on port privatization and concessions; in Europe for OECD and Cruise Europe on cruise ports. He was Secretary-General of MedCruise (2013-17), and served as General Secretary for Ports & Port Policy, at the Ministry of Development, Competitiveness, and Shipping of the Hellenic Republic (2011-2012). From 2018 to 2022, he was the President of the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME). He currently serves as a member of the IAME Council. Thanos won the “Maritime Economics & Logistics Best Paper Award” of the International Maritime Association of Maritime Economists twice: in 2008, for leading research on container port concession agreements, and in 2017, for research on private entry in cruise terminal operations. He won the “Best European Study 1999” Competition, organized by the European Community Studies Association (ECSA). The (co)author of more than 70 papers published in academic journals and over 150 peer-reviewed papers presented at academic conferences or other formats. In 2025, Thanos was ranked among the top 2% of most-cited researchers in transportation and logistics. **E-Mail: apallis@unipi.gr – LinkedIn page – [Google scholar page](https://scholar.google.gr/citations?user=BVfQR7UAAAAJ&hl=el)** – **[Personal webpage](https://maritime-unipi.gr/en/academic_staff/athanassios-thanos-pallis/ "Personal webpage")** ## Latest publications - Notteboom T., Pallis A.A. and Knatz G., (2025). “Stakeholders’ attitudes toward container terminal automation”. *Maritime Economics and Logistics*. [doi.org/10.1057/s41278-025-00322-7](https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-025-00322-7) - Barleta E.P. and Pallis A.A. (2024). “Hierarchy and mobility of Latin America and Caribbean container ports”, *Journal of Transport Geography*, 121, [doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2024.104011](http://104011.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2024.104011 "104011.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2024.104011"). - Kollia S. and Pallis A.A. (2024). “Competition effects of vertical integration in container ports: Assessing the European Commission decisional practice”. *Maritime Business Review*, 9(1), 74-94. [doi.org/ 10.1108/MABR-10-2022-0058](https://doi.org/ 10.1108/MABR-10-2022-0058). - Wilmsmeier G., Pallis A.A., Schorch S.L. and Trujillo D.L. (2024). Port governance and the implications of institutional fragmentation: Lessons from Colombia. *Research in Transportation Business and Management*, 56, 101179. [doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2024.101179](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2024.101179). - Pallis A.A., Kladaki P. and Notteboom T. (2024). “Port Economics, Management and Policy Studies (2009-2020): a bibliometric analysis”. *WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs*. *23 (2), 217-255.* [doi.org/10.1007/S13437-023-00325-2](https://doi.org/10.1007/S13437-023-00325-2) *.* - Knatz G., Notteboom T. and Pallis A.A. (2023). “Container Terminal Automation: assessment of drivers and benefits”. *Maritime Policy and Management*, 51(6), 1252-1276. [doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2023.2249460](https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2023.2249460). - Knatz, G., Notteboom T. & Pallis A.A. (2022). Container Terminal Automation: Revealing Distinctive Terminal Characteristics and Operating Parameters. *Maritime Economics and Logistics,* 24(3), 537-565. [doi.org/10.1057/s41278-022-00240-y](http://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-022-00240-y "doi.org/10.1057/s41278-022-00240-y") - Brooks M.R., Knatz, G. Pallis A.A. and Wilmsmeier G. (2022). “Transparency in port governance: setting a research agenda”. *Journal of Shipping and Trade,* **7 (**1),[ doi.org/10.1186/s41072-021-00103-4](http://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-021-00103-4). - Notteboom T., A.A. Pallis, and J-P. Rodrigue (2021). “Disruptions and Resilience in Container Shipping, Ports and Supply chains: The COVID-19 pandemic vs. the 2008-2009 Financial Crisis”. *Maritime Economics and Logistics*, 23, 179-210, [doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00180-5](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41278-020-00180-5). - Pallis A.A. and A.A. Papachristou (2020). “European Cruise ports: Challenges since the pre-pandemic era”. *Transport* *Reviews,* [doi.org*/10.1080/01441647.2020.1857884*](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01441647.2020.1857884)*.* - Papachristou A.A. Pallis A.A. and Vaggelas G.K. (2022). “Cruise home-port selection criteria”. *Research in Transportation Business and Management*, 45B, 100584 [doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100584](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210539520301218). - Pallis A.A. and G.K. Vaggelas, (2020). “Regulating and financing Greek ports”. In: Haralambides H., Tei A. & Ferrari C. (eds). *Regulation and Finance in the port sector: current practices and future port development*. London: Palgrave - Brooks, M.R., G. Knatz, A.A. Pallis, and G. Wilmsmeier (2020). “Transparency in Governance: Seaport Practices”, [PortReport No 5](https://www.porteconomics.eu/mdocs-posts/portreport-no-5-2020-7-brooks-et-al/), 1-39. - Pallis A.A. and G.K. Vaggelas, (2020). “The changing geography of cruise shipping”. In: Wilmsmeier G., Monios J., Browne M. & Woxenius J. (eds.) *Geographies of waterborne transport: Transitions from transport to mobilities*, 170-191. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. - Ros Chaos , S., A.A. Pallis, S., Saurí Marchán, D. Pino Roca, and A. Sánchez-Arcilla Conejo. (2020). “Economies of Scale in Cruise Shipping”. *Maritime Economics and Logistics,* [doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00158-3](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41278-020-00158-3). - Pallis A.A., K.P. Arapi, and A.A. Papachristou (2019). “Models of Cruise Ports Governance”. Maritime” Policy and Management, 46(5), 630-651. [doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2019.1590657](https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2019.1590657) - Vaggelas G.K. and A.A. Pallis (2019). “Configuration and Prospects of the Piraeus shipping cluster”. [Spoudai Quarterly Economic Journal, 69, 3-17](https://spoudai.unipi.gr/index.php/spoudai/article/view/2717). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/short-cv-athanasios-pallis/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/short-cv-athanasios-pallis/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/short-cv-athanasios-pallis/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/short-cv-athanasios-pallis/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Reefer Rack Storage, Porte Oceane Terminal, Le Havre](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/reefer-rack-storage-porte-oceane-terminal-le-havre/) **Published:** January 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_5894.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "IMG_5894 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Reefer Rack Storage Porte Oceane Terminal Le Havre*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2010.* Terminals commonly allocate a portion of their yard space to storing reefers. Porte Oceane terminal started its operations in 2008 and is managed by Terminaux de Normandie. The reefer staking area, which is a completely separate part of the terminal, has 438 plugs available, some of which are at reefer racks. Reefer racks share a common power supply, and each reefer can be accessed and monitored via a platform. They require continuous monitoring to ensure that the reefers refrigerating equipment are operational and that the cargo temperature is kept within a specific range. Otherwise, the terminal operator is liable for any damage to the refrigerated cargo. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/reefer-rack-storage-porte-oceane-terminal-le-havre/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/reefer-rack-storage-porte-oceane-terminal-le-havre/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/reefer-rack-storage-porte-oceane-terminal-le-havre/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/reefer-rack-storage-porte-oceane-terminal-le-havre/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Generations of Cruise Passengers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/generations-of-cruise-passengers/) **Published:** October 28, 2024 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/average_cruise_passenger_generation.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Cruise Passenger Generation Groups | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Generation of Cruise Passengers*Source: CLIA (2024). 2024 State of the Cruise Industry Report. Washington DC: CLIA.* The core cruise market is mature adults, with the average age of a cruise traveler being 46, with 42% aged 30-59. Millennials (born 1981-1996) represent 22% of all passengers, and Generation Z (born 1997-2012) represents 14%. Gen X (1965-1980) and Baby Boomers (1946-1964) each have a 24% share. After their first cruise, the vast majority of passengers of all generations are expressing an interest in cruising again. For Generation Z, this percentage stands at 74%; for millennials, it is 81%. 84% of Gen X and Baby Boomers intend to cruise again. These shares are particularly significant for the growth of an industry that relies heavily on repeat customers (i.e., cruise passengers who have already cruised and decided to cruise again): 12% of cruise travelers take two or more cruises a year; 10% take three to five cruises a year. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/generations-of-cruise-passengers/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/generations-of-cruise-passengers/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/generations-of-cruise-passengers/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/generations-of-cruise-passengers/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 7.5 - Cruise Terminal Design and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/) **Published:** January 19, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > Cruise terminals have a unique set of characteristics and operational considerations, as they must handle a large number of passengers and supplies for cruise ships. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Cruise Terminals](#1_Cruise_Terminals) - [2. Maritime Infrastructure](#2_Maritime_Infrastructure) - [3. Apron Area of the Cruise Terminal](#3_Apron_Area_of_the_Cruise_Terminal) - [4. Cruise Terminal Buildings](#4_Cruise_Terminal_Buildings) - [5. Embarkation and Disembarkation Processes](#5_Embarkation_and_Disembarkation_Processes) - [6. Ground Transportation](#6_Ground_Transportation) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Cruise Terminals Cruise terminals are designed to **serve the requirements of cruise vessels and their passengers**. At the same time, they must be integrated with the transport, tourism, and urban planning strategies of the port city and its nearby destinations. From a maritime perspective, cruise terminals must meet minimum requirements for draft, berthing lines, and navigation channels to accommodate cruise ships. Inside the cruise terminal, provisions are made for various spaces, including the apron area, terminal building, and ground transportation facilities. Due to the nature of their customers and the nature of cruise operations, connectivity to the city, car parking, and public transport facilities are particularly important. **Operational considerations** are a critical factor in implementing the design of a cruise terminal that is carried out at a specific port. The cruise port’s function as a home port, a transit port, or a hybrid port, implies different needs and design considerations: - **Homeport**. Cruise vessels begin or conclude their itinerary, commonly arriving early in the day, so that passengers proceed to customs and immigration, have their luggage (un)loaded, and make their flight connections (more of an issue for arriving passengers). Provisions for the next cruise need to be loaded, baggage from arriving passengers scanned and loaded, and passengers processed through ticketing. Spare parts, deck supplies, and bunkers (including potable water and fuel oil) must also be taken aboard. Minor repairs may also be undertaken. A portion of the crew visits the port city and returns before the ship departs. All these activities must be completed within 24 hours, preferably within 8 hours or less, for a cruise departing on the same day as the arrival cruise. Handling a large number of passengers in a short period requires a terminal building, adequate parking areas, and good access to the local transportation system, particularly at airports. This implies that cruise terminal design has **similarities with airport terminal design**. The conditions and performance of the cruise port terminal are strongly linked with **homeports selection** by cruise lines. - **Port of call** (transit). Visited for only a few hours within a day, or overnight, and requires a fast and efficient system for transporting passengers to points of interest or recreational spots. - **Hybrid cruise ports**. Used for both home-porting and transit activities. The terminal is designed to handle both home-port and visitor flows simultaneously. Once designed and constructed, the operating costs of cruise terminals are **generally smaller than in other port terminals**, as cruise terminals do not require heavy equipment and do not consume much energy. The main operating cost items include staff for managing the terminal, security, and luggage handling. These are frequently outsourced owing to the seasonal nature of the industry. On the other hand, security is a fundamental concern, as cruise ships and their passengers at ports may be vulnerable. A large number of passengers concentrated in a small restricted area might be considered a potential risk. Cruise ships also have high symbolic and economic value. Consequently, [cruise port design and operations](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-terminal-configuration/ "Cruise Terminal Configuration") must comply with several security regulations, while cruise lines and regulatory agencies constantly audit port security. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_terminal_configuration2.png?resize=900%2C533&ssl=1 "Cruise Terminal Configuration | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Terminal Configuration# 2. Maritime Infrastructure The core consideration for cruise terminal design is related to the **expected technical characteristics of the cruise ships**. Indicators, such as tonnage, overall length (LOA), beam, and draft of modern cruise ships, along with passenger capacity and the number of crew on board, are the most considered. Due to the range of cruise vessel types and sizes related to [ship scale of dimensions and capacities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-shipping-representative-vessels/ "Evolution of Cruise Shipping: Representative Vessels"), the maritime infrastructure of a cruise terminal depends on several factors: - The **number, size, and [class](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-ships-scale-dimensions-capacity/ "Cruise Ships: Scale of Dimensions and Capacity")** of the cruise vessels that could utilize the terminal. Since the 2000s, the average size of cruise ships has increased in all dimensions (i.e. larger, wider, and higher passenger capacity). The average cruise ship capacity has increased from 1,300 to 3,100 passengers, and the average length from 200 to over 300 meters. - The **characteristics of the vessel types** that could call at the port are key aspects. Due to design changes and technology, the mass and dimensions of cruise vessels include a variety of deck designs. These features contribute to the design of shoreside infrastructures, including shore-power locations, gangway placement, and cruise terminal building dimensions and facilities. - **Operational conditions** imposed by weather. Some cruise ports may be exposed to the seasonality of weather risks, such as hurricanes in the Caribbean. - The **operational needs of stevedoring** for activities such as mooring, bunkering, and stores. - The desired **potential berthing patterns** and the average number of cruise ships expected to be docked. - For home ports, the **number of crew members** is also a significant factor. Depending on the size and market segment of the cruise, the ratio varies from one crew member per passenger in a luxury cruise ship to one crew member per three passengers in a standard ship. Entrance **channels to berths and maneuvering** areas provide safe clearance during vessel movements and operational loading conditions. Their minimum depth incorporates the maximum draft and allowances for technical and wave conditions anticipated during vessel approaches. Modern cruise vessels are very maneuverable in most sea conditions. The berth area length required for safe mooring and securing the vessel allows for a minimum clearance of 10% of the vessel’s overall length (LOA). Where turning basins are required, a diameter of twice the LOA, plus an allowance for adverse weather conditions, is necessary. For home port operations, the port maintains contingency plans in case of extreme weather, as passengers need to connect to various modes of transportation from the terminal. Ports of call do not require such plans, as ships have the option to skip a port of call in the event of inclement weather. **Mooring of cruise vessels** generally uses arrangements where the maximum pier frontage adjacent to the vessel offers loading/unloading efficiencies. In some transit ports, vessels are moored to piers shorter than the vessel, using dolphins to secure the offshore end of the vessel. Cruise vessel facilities are typically provided with fender systems along the full frontage of the berth area to absorb the energy of an impact during vessel berthing and provide a soft buffer between the pier and vessel while moored. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Evolution-of-Representative-Vessels-in-Cruise-Shipping-1.png?resize=900%2C298&ssl=1 "Evolution of Cruise Shipping: Representative Vessels | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Evolution of Cruise Shipping Representative Vessels![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_ships_scale_dimension.png?resize=900%2C301&ssl=1 "Scale and Dimension of Cruise Ships | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Ships Scale of Dimensions and Capacity# 3. Apron Area of the Cruise Terminal Aprons are fenced and secured areas immediately adjacent to the cruise building and vessel service doors. While cruise vessel loading can occur with a narrow apron surface, the broader and less obstructed the surface area is, the better. The apron area provides space for any of the following operations: - **Stevedoring services** include line-handling, baggage movement, utility connections, and waste processing from the vessel. [Luggage is moved by forklift](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/baggage-loading-cargo-door-cruise-ship/ "Baggage Loading through a Cargo Door of a Cruise Ship") and baggage handling carriages between the ground floor of the cruise building and the luggage doors of the vessel. - **Supplies** to the vessels to serve the needs of passengers, crew, systems, and equipment. The provisions arrive on trucks soon after the ship arrives at the berth, so [truck access to the apron](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/truck-unloading-ramp-cruise-stores-on-dock-deliveries/ "Truck Unloading Ramps for Cruise Stores On-Dock Deliveries") and connectivity to the local road network are important. While cruise terminals rarely have warehousing facilities, supplies are brought just-in-time from nearby distribution centers. - **Access for vehicle** circulation, parking, unloading, and loading/unloading equipment. - **Emergency vehicle access**. - **Provisions for site-specific needs** of terminal operations, such as vehicle controls. All these operations take place in the apron area via the various **service doors of cruise vessels**. Within the apron, the operational pier service loading area for vehicles servicing cruise vessels, such as containers and tanker trucks, is separated from the passenger areas of the cruise terminal. Gangways are the single most important passenger processing element of the entire terminal, as they are crucial for turning vessels around quickly and efficiently. > The **gangway** (also known as seaport passenger boarding bridge) is the means of getting on and off a ship. In general shipping terms, it refers to a walkway or bridge connecting the vessel to land. Because access varies widely from one port to another, a cruise ship gangway refers to the place on the ship where passengers enter and exit. Gangways transfer passengers from the vessel’s doors to the terminal building through the boarding corridor (also known as a boardwalk). For example, on embarkation and debarkation days, the gangway will often consist of an enclosed, raised bridge, similar to a jetway at an airport. For larger vessels, the embarking and disembarking processes require two fully automated mobile gangways per berth to accommodate in excess of 1,000 passengers per hour. Cruise terminal operators might select one of the various types of cruise gangways available to meet these needs and provide safe boarding in all conditions. For home-ports, the demand for some or all of the following **vessel utilities** might require further infrastructure that might even extend beyond the facility property in order to provide sufficient capacities to allow vessels to be serviced during their limited time at berth: - **Bunkering** for ship refueling. - **[Waste reception facilities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/waste-reception-cruise-ship/ "Waste Reception from a Cruise Ship")** such as oily wastes, garbage from ships, and sewage. - **Potable water**. A 3,500 passenger vessel can use approximately 1.40 million gallons during a seven-day itinerary. Most of this water demand is met by onboard desalination systems, which account for 75% to 90% of the total, depending on the cruise ship. However, it is not uncommon for cruise vessels to take on water while at the pier. - **Ballast water**. - **Energy** such as shore power (cold ironing and LNG provisioning). ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-09-15-124152.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Luggage Loading through a Cargo Door of a Cruise Ship | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Luggage Loading through a Cargo Door of a Cruise Ship![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-09-15-123958.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Truck Unloading Ramps for Cruise Stores On-Dock Deliveries | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Truck Unloading Ramps for Cruise Stores On Dock Deliveries![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_gangways.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Types of Cruise Gangways | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Cruise Gangways![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-09-15-122641.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Waste Reception from a Cruise Ship | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Waste Reception from a Cruise Ship# 4. Cruise Terminal Buildings The presence of a **cruise terminal building** is a key part of the evolution of the cruise industry. As the market matures, cruise ports have started developing purpose-built terminal buildings to serve cruise passenger movements. Still, for ports where cruising activities are in their initial phase, the terminal is often a temporary structure or a building primarily used for a non-cruise purpose, and is convertible on days when a ship calls. A range of structures is used: - **Temporary cruise terminal buildings** are found in cruise ports with limited calls and are only managed when a ship is in port. This includes vessel navigation and berthing, provisioning, passenger debarking, ship hoteling, passenger embarking, and vessel deployment. The methods for addressing these needs rely primarily on essential services, and on occasion there is no dedicated building for a cruise terminal. In these cases, organizing and segregating functions are handled on-site with temporary event-type facilities with movable barriers, traffic control elements such as bollards and cones, and tape lines. A temporary facility can also be used while a more permanent facility is being constructed. This takes place when cruise lines wish to quickly deploy cruise services at a port to expand their market opportunities. - **Convertible cruise terminal buildings** focusing on hospitality, civic, commercial, retail, or warehousing as the primary function. As these facilities are not specialized cruise terminals, passengers, baggage, and supplies are managed on a day-of-cruise basis. Before a ship berths, a specific cruise uses elements such as signage, furniture, equipment, and space-dividing materials that are set up for the cruise and then removed after the ship departs. Several processes (including immigration) may be handled on the vessel rather than in the terminal. - **Purpose-built cruise terminal buildings** address the entire needs and functionality of cruises on both disembarkation and embarkation. On occasion, some of the building spaces may be designed for dual use (embarking and debarking). Most often, each space is [designed and built for specific functionality](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/royal-caribbean-galveston-cruise-terminal/ "Royal Caribbean Galveston Cruise Terminal"). These buildings can also have secondary uses, such as event spaces for shopping areas, cafeterias, and restaurants. Still, cruising remains the primary design and operational driver. Embarkation and disembarkation spaces, equipment, furniture, signage, and agency requirements are all designed to optimize flow, heighten passenger satisfaction, minimize staffing levels, and maintain security. Often, these buildings are part of a larger port community or a combined waterfront context, but they stand alone and usually offer no other uses when no ship is at berth. - **Mixed-use cruise terminal buildings** are the most developed response to cruise tourism, along with the need to serve a waterfront community. Recognizing the multi-functionality that a single building can provide, such [mixed-use buildings](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-ship-port-of-vancouver/ "Cruise Ship at the Port of Vancouver") include all the necessary elements of a purpose-built terminal. They also incorporate other uses into their plan and volume, such as shopping areas, commercial areas, theaters, and conventions. As with other mixed-use buildings, the economics of capital investment, operating costs, and revenue streams are combined to benefit from multiple uses. This creates a beneficial cycle of increased use, greater revenue, heightened visibility, and a stronger tourism market. Simultaneously, regardless of whether cruising is the primary purpose of the mixed-use building, the cruise market must perceive that the building is successfully serving the core cruise terminal mission. Cruise terminal buildings are either **single-story** or **multi-story**. A single-story terminal has the advantage of fitting on an open site, particularly given the length of a cruise vessel, the need for ground transportation, and the absence of vertical core elements such as stairs, escalators, and elevators. On the negative side, the operational distances are longer on one level than in multi-story terminals. Multi-story terminals are becoming the more common form of cruise terminal, especially in larger home-porting cruise ports. This format leverages the inherent differences between embarkation and disembarkation processes to segregate them by floor level, a design common in airport facilities. Stacking spaces across different levels offers greater advantages when co-locating other activities, such as parking. Most often, a multi-story terminal will have the majority of disembarkation spaces on the ground floor and most of the embarkation space on the upper level. This has the operational advantage that embarking passengers are brought upstairs to check in and wait to board, while disembarking passengers flow through immigration, baggage pickup, customs, and ground transportation. Due to the complexity, the large number of passengers, and the stress associated with a novel experience, **clear and abundant signage** is crucial to prevent confusion and unnecessary work for terminal personnel. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/royal_caribbean_galveston.jpg?resize=900%2C484&ssl=1 "Royal Caribbean Galveston Cruise Terminal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Royal Caribbean Galveston Cruise Terminal![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2012-06-16-10.11.24.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Cruise Ship at the Port of Vancouver | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Ship at the Port of Vancouver![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/terminalization_cruise_barcelona.png?resize=900%2C483&ssl=1 "The Terminalization of Cruise Ports: Port of Barcelona | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Terminals at Cruise Port Barcelona# 5. Embarkation and Disembarkation Processes The **embarkation process** of cruise passengers begins upon arrival at the cruise terminal. In home ports, a number of different spaces and services are provided to facilitate the process: - **Entrance space**. Serves as a gathering area for passengers arriving at the terminal, providing shelter from the weather, a place to seek information, and a queueing area for the next step in the process. The design should convey a positive image of the facility and, if dedicated to a cruise line, be an element of its branding. - **Bag drop space**. Where bags are brought for the security check and organized prior to loading onto the ship. - **Luggage security controls (X-ray **scanners**)**. Allow thorough luggage monitoring and detecting objects that are not allowed to be taken on board. - **Queuing space**. Includes multiple lanes for passengers to process through security controls before boarding the vessel. - **Passenger security controls** (passenger X-ray lanes). Operating schedules are adapted to the size of traffic, peak hours, and other local and cruise-ship requirements. - **Ticketing**. Where passengers pick up their tickets before check-in if not available through prior arrangements. - **Ticket area queue**. Where passengers queue before checking in, allowing them to move quickly from ticketing to boarding. - **Check-in area**. With counters where cruise-line staff process passengers for the designated cruise trip. The use of new technologies, such as mobile applications or bar-coded wristbands, in the check-in process is already bringing changes to the layout of this area. - **[Waiting areas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/cruise-passengers-waiting-area/ "Cruise Passengers Waiting Area")**. For checked-in ticketed passengers, waiting until boarding can begin. This space is large enough to accommodate ample seating and circulation areas, as well as space for cruise information and other pre-travel materials provided by the cruise lines. They act as a buffer in the boarding process. - **[Boarding corridors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/cruise-boarding-corridor/ "Cruise Boarding Corridor")**. Where passengers move toward the vessel. - **Staff offices**. For cruise operator staff, cruise line personnel, and port security personnel. - **Other spaces**. Such as spaces where passengers can have their pictures taken, VIP lounges separated from the general embarkation experience, and even dedicated spaces for weddings and other special groups. The size and location orientation of each of the above spaces and respective services vary from one cruise terminal to another. Not all of the spaces listed will be found in every terminal or in similar arrangements. Security might take place at the entrance of the terminal building or after check-in. Well-developed VIP spaces do not exist in all terminals, as the configuration is determined to meet the needs of all stakeholders (port, cruise lines, operator, customs, and port security). In any case, the terminal needs to offer a **positive experience to passengers**, as it might provide the first impression to the embarking passengers, and it is thus valued significantly by cruise lines. Furthermore, if the terminal is too small to accommodate the cruise ship’s capacity, passengers may experience discomfort due to being forced to stand in crowded spaces for extended periods. The **disembarkation process** in the home port begins before a passenger leaves the vessel and enters the terminal, aiming to minimize processing time and maximize the overall experience. The different spaces and services that are provided in home-port terminals include: - **Boarding corridors** for disembarking passengers. - **Customs, immigration, quarantine, and police** spaces and processes. - **[Luggage lay-down areas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/luggage-lay-down-area/ "Luggage Lay-Down Area")**. They are often the single largest space in the building. Luggage is brought directly from the ship according to deck level and grouped via a “lay-down” process that takes place before passengers enter the space. While in most cases separation refers to luggage waiting in different areas for each group of passengers, more sophisticated bag management processes also exist, the most obvious being carousels, such as those used in airports. - **[Customs areas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/customs-clearance-cruise-terminal/ "Customs Clearance at a Cruise Terminal")**. Most cruises are international, requiring customs procedures at intermediate ports and at home ports. For passengers to proceed after luggage collection to processing counters, and to conclude applicable procedures. - **Meeting spaces**. Where passengers gather, meet with others, and transition to ground transportation. In ports of call, the disembarkation/embarkation processes are less complex, particularly since passengers do not carry luggage. The terminals do not usually require a building to host passengers, as the (dis)embarkation time is usually short, lasting less than an hour. Access to local means of transportation or walkways back to the ship must be as fast and straightforward as possible. In the absence of a terminal building, the port provides an open space along the quay, enabling passengers to gather comfortably. If a terminal building exists, transit terminals do not require dedicated spaces for check-in or luggage operations. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-09-15-122316.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Cruise Passengers Waiting Area | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Passengers Waiting Area![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-09-15-122619.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Cruise Boarding Corridor | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Boarding Corridor![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-09-15-123455.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Luggage Lay-Down Area | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Luggage Lay Down Area![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-12-20-110003.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Customs Clearance at a Cruise Terminal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Customs Clearance at a Cruise Terminal# 6. Ground Transportation The ground transportation area of a cruise terminal is where passengers arrive from all modes of transportation to embark on the cruise. It is also where they disembark to take any mode of transportation to travel inland, usually via public roads and transit systems. It connects the cruise port to its hinterland. Since the passengers of a single cruise generate **large numbers of inland trips**, ground transportation is an important function of the cruise terminal. As traffic needs to move quickly, safely, and efficiently from and to the terminal, this area must be located close to the terminal building. The ground transportation area includes spaces for: - **Coach parking**. Such as shuttle buses provided by the port or the cruise lines, tour buses provided by the ship, and independent excursion buses. - **Taxi lines**. With a comfortable space around the cars to facilitate loading and unloading. - **Drop-off spaces**. Such as a short-stay car park earmarked for people dropping off or picking up passengers. - **Parking spaces**. For passengers who drove to the terminal to take a cruise. This is particularly important for cruise ports in the United States. - **Regional and local connectivity**. Both the local and regional intermodal systems, such as airports, need to be connected to the home port by rail or road. The [modal distribution of cruise passenger mobility](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/modal-distribution-cruise-passengers-barcelona/ "Modal Distribution of Cruise Passengers mobility at Port of Barcelona") differs by port. Passengers can choose to take a coach, a taxi, a private car, or walk, depending on factors such as proximity to major hotels and connectivity to the regional transportation system. Space assigned to ground transportation services at a cruise terminal depends on: - **Type of cruise vessel**. Operations at the port of call, with buses and shuttles being the main transport mode. In a home port, taxis and private transportation are the most commonly used modes of transportation, along with transfers and connections to the airport. - **Port-city distance**. When the cruise terminal is located within a metropolitan district, most passengers may walk into the city, depending on the availability of pedestrian corridors. However, if the city is far off, a shuttle system is provided. - **Available transportation**. Several transportation modes and services near the terminal area, including car parks, train connections, and airport connectivity, are considered. - **Other factors**. Include local, regional, and environmental considerations that may affect the design criteria. A terminal in an area of recurrent high temperatures may need to provide air conditioning in most ground transportation areas. In contrast, a terminal in an area prone to security risks will need to ensure that these areas are secured. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/modal_distribution_cruise_passengers_barcelona.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Modal Distribution of Cruise Passengers mobility at Port of Barcelona | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Modal Distribution of Cruise Passenger Mobility at Port of BarcelonaIn addition to infrastructures such as quays construction, dock expansion, dredging of channels and basins, waiting areas, and gangways that improve traffic flows and accessibility, modern cruise terminals also involve **shoreside projects**. In many cases, land reclamation, retail, restaurants, and hotels are of equal importance. The multi-purpose use of cruise terminals is of a different type. Due to their service- and tourist-oriented nature, the terminals are ‘people-friendly’ rather than ‘cargo-friendly’. Thus, they might be used with open access for the public to attend events or for other purposes. This is especially true, as the seasonality of cruise activity means that several terminals host cruise ship calls for only a few months each year. Beyond changes in the use of existing infrastructure or the development of greenfield projects, recent developments have also focused on the **adaptive reuse of brownfield assets**. Such cases can be found in the United States, both on the East Coast (Brooklyn and Galveston) and the West Coast (San Francisco and San Diego). In all cases, cruise port infrastructure development takes far longer than building new cruise ships, meaning that ports may struggle to keep up with the development of vessel capacity in the market. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 4.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminals-and-terminal-operators/) - [Chapter 4.2 Terminal Concessions and Land Leases](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/) - [Chapter 9.4 Port Pricing ](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/port-pricing/) - [Chapter 7.2 Cruise Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/cruises-ports/) --- ## References - Cheng, Z. Gong L. and Li C. (2020). Design and Practice of Cruise Ports. Singapore: Springer. - Pallis, A. A. 2015. “Cruise shipping and urban development state of the art of the industry and cruise ports”. *OECD-ITF Discussion Paper 2015-14*, OECD: Paris. - PIANC Working Group 152 (2016). Guidelines for Cruise Terminals. Brussels: PIANC. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Luggage Loading through a Cargo Door of a Cruise Ship](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/baggage-loading-cargo-door-cruise-ship/) **Published:** September 21, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-09-15-124152.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Luggage Loading through a Cargo Door of a Cruise Ship | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Luggage Loading through a Cargo Door of a Cruise Ship*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2025* A modern cruise ship can carry well over 4,000 passengers, which results in an equivalent number of luggage pieces (about 1.5 per passenger). During boarding, luggage is collected at the terminal’s check-in area, scanned, and sorted by deck and cabin. They are then loaded onto trolleys and brought to the cargo doors by forklifts. These cargo doors are usually at pier level, which facilitates cargo operations but requires them to be watertight. Then, the trolleys are going to be rolled unboard onto decks, sections, and cabins. Luggage handling takes place at the front and back of the cruise ship to minimize the intra-ship movements of luggage trolleys. The same applies to stores that are brought on pallets. During the unboarding process, luggage is collected by cabin section, loaded onto trolleys, and unloaded by forklift at the cargo doors. The luggage will then be brought to the [pickup area at the terminal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/luggage-lay-down-area/ "Luggage Lay-Down Area"), where passengers retrieve it by deck and section. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/baggage-loading-cargo-door-cruise-ship/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/baggage-loading-cargo-door-cruise-ship/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/baggage-loading-cargo-door-cruise-ship/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/baggage-loading-cargo-door-cruise-ship/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Truck Unloading Ramps for Cruise Stores On-Dock Deliveries](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/truck-unloading-ramp-cruise-stores-on-dock-deliveries/) **Published:** October 24, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-09-15-123958.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Truck Unloading Ramps for Cruise Stores On-Dock Deliveries | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Truck Unloading Ramps for Cruise Stores On Dock Deliveries*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2025. Royal Caribbean Cruise Terminal, Galveston.* Most cruise terminals do not have storage capabilities, as deliveries are usually brought directly to the apron by trucks. Consolidation primarily occurs at the distribution center, where orders for a specific cruise are consolidated into truckloads for on-dock delivery during the home port rotation. With larger ships served by a total of 20 to 40 tractor-trailer-sized trucks, managing this flow and ensuring proper maneuvering, unloading, and turnaround space is critical to the success of this process. In the above photo, mobile truck unloading ramps have been placed on the apron of a cruise terminal. Delivery trucks back up to the ramp, and the palletized cargo is unloaded by forklifts and brought to the [cargo doors of the cruise ship](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/baggage-loading-cargo-door-cruise-ship/ "Luggage Loading through a Cargo Door of a Cruise Ship"). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/truck-unloading-ramp-cruise-stores-on-dock-deliveries/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/truck-unloading-ramp-cruise-stores-on-dock-deliveries/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/truck-unloading-ramp-cruise-stores-on-dock-deliveries/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/truck-unloading-ramp-cruise-stores-on-dock-deliveries/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Repeat Cruisers: Taking More than One Cruise Per Year](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/repeaters-cruising-more-than-once-per-year/) **Published:** June 11, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/repeat_cruisers.png?resize=900%2C756&ssl=1 "Repeat Cruisers: Taking More than One Cruise Per Year | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Repeat Cruisers Taking More than One Cruise Per Year*Source: Adapted from CLIA (2025); CLIA December 2024 Sentiment, Perception & Intent Research. Washington DC: CLIA.* Among international travelers, one in three has taken a cruise, and 82% of those who have cruised express a firm intention to cruise again, a trend that is increasing. Cruise frequency is also on the rise. According to the CLIA December 2024 Sentiment, Perception & Intent Research, one out of four repeat cruise travelers reports cruising two or more times per year. 14% of cruise travelers take two cruises a year (up from 12% in 2023), and 11% take three to five cruises annually (up from 10% in 2023). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/repeaters-cruising-more-than-once-per-year/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/repeaters-cruising-more-than-once-per-year/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/repeaters-cruising-more-than-once-per-year/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/repeaters-cruising-more-than-once-per-year/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Luxury Cruises](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/luxury-cruise-ships-capacity/) **Published:** June 11, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Luxury-cruise-ships-capacity.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Luxury Cruise Ships Capacity, 2010-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Luxury cruise ships capacity 2010 2024 No of Lower Berths*Source: Cruise Industry News.* The luxury segment offers cruises ranging from seven nights and up; per diem rates are among the highest in the industry, the ships are either medium-sized or small, but spacious, and tend to sail worldwide. They offer superb food and service. This travel market has more than tripled in size since 2010. Based on the number of ships, from 28 ships in 2010 to 97 cruise ships in 2024. That’s nearly threefold growth in the number of ships (and total lower berths of the combined fleet) compared to 14 years ago. Based on the orderbook, the luxury segment of cruise shipping will continue to grow and exceed 40,000 lower berths by 2027. The capacity growth is expected to meet demand, which has been rising faster than in any other cruise segment. In 2010, luxury cruise passengers numbered 355,000, representing 2% of the total cruise passengers for that particular year. Following a notable increase, luxury cruise passengers exceeded the one million threshold for the first time in 2023 (3% of the total cruise volume of the year), and are expected to be more than 1,5 million by 2028, when they will represent 4% of the total number of cruise passengers. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/luxury-cruise-ships-capacity/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/luxury-cruise-ships-capacity/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/luxury-cruise-ships-capacity/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/luxury-cruise-ships-capacity/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Modal Distribution of Cruise Passenger Mobility at Port of Barcelona](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/modal-distribution-cruise-passengers-barcelona/) **Published:** January 11, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/modal_distribution_cruise_passengers_barcelona.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Modal Distribution of Cruise Passengers mobility at Port of Barcelona | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Modal Distribution of Cruise Passenger Mobility at Port of BarcelonaSource: *PIANC Working Group 152 (2016). Guidelines for Cruise Terminals. Brussels: PIANC.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/modal-distribution-cruise-passengers-barcelona/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/modal-distribution-cruise-passengers-barcelona/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/modal-distribution-cruise-passengers-barcelona/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/modal-distribution-cruise-passengers-barcelona/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Tonnage and Number of Transits, Panama Canal, 1915-2025](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/tonnage-number-transits-panama-canal/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/panama_canal_tonnage_transits.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Tonnage and Number of Transits, Panama Canal, 1915-2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Tonnage and Number of Transits Panama Canal 1915 2025*Source: Panama Canal Authority (Autoridad del Canal de Panama). For fiscal years (October to September). A Panama Canal ton is the equivalent of 100 cubic feet of cargo space.* From the opening of the Panama Canal in 1914 to the early 1980s, the number of transits increased in proportion to the tonnage. This process was affected by economic and political disruptions, including the Great Depression (1930-1936) and World War II (1941-1945). During that phase, traffic was closely tied to the dynamics of the American economy, since most of it was trade between the East and the West Coasts or between the United States and Latin America. From the 1980s, a new dynamic was set in which the number of transits declined and stabilized around the 13,000-14,000 range. A share of the global fleet was being optimized to the Panamax standard, so as the number of transits stabilized, the tonnage gradually increased. Economies of scale were at play, but constrained by what could physically fit into the locks. Traffic particularly surged in the 2000s, driven by growing exports from China and shipping lines’ use of the all-water route to the East Coast. Labor issues at American West Coast ports, such as the 2002 strike, were also an incentive to consider shipping alternatives relying more on canal use. Bigger ships transiting the canal, such as containerships specifically designed to optimize cargo loads considering the dimensions of the Panama Canal locks (ships dubbed Panamax Max), became the norm. Yet, the Panama Canal had size limitations, and the growth of the tonnage in the 2000s incited the decision to expand with a new set of locks able to handle much larger ships. After the 2016 expansion, economies of scale were quickly realized, and tonnage surged, while the number of transits did not change in a significant manner. The number of Panamax ships transits decreased, and NeoPanamax ships with about three times the capacity could transit the canal. The global shipping industry is transitioning, when possible, away from the Panamax standard to take advantage of the economies of scale the NeoPanamax standard confers. However, 2023 underlined a weakness in the capacity and operations of the Panama Canal, specifically the water supply. The reduced capacity resulted in a slight decline in the total number of transits and tonnage. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/tonnage-number-transits-panama-canal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/tonnage-number-transits-panama-canal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/tonnage-number-transits-panama-canal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/tonnage-number-transits-panama-canal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Main Trade Routes Using the Panama Canal, 2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-trade-routes-panama-canal/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/main_trade_routes_panama_canal.png?resize=900%2C450&ssl=1 "Main Trade Routes Using the Panama Canal, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Trade Routes Using the Panama Canal 2024*Source: Panama Canal Authority.* The construction of the Panama Canal in the early 20th century was mainly justified to support and expand trade between the US East and West coasts. In 2024, the Panama Canal handled 210.3 million tons of cargo, but **American intercoastal trade accounted for less than 2.5% of this tonnage**. Still, about 76% of the tonnage handled by the canal concerns an American origin or destination. The most significant trade route serviced by the canal involves connecting Asia to the US East Coast (48.4% of tonnage), followed by the West Coast South America (WCSA) / US East Coast route (13.9%). In particular, the importance of the Asia/East Coast route largely justified the Panama Canal expansion project to reinforce its economies of scale. The US East Coast has become a particularly contestable market for containerized trade with Asia. The US East Coast / WCSA and US East Coast / WCCA (West Coast of Central America) routes have grown the most, underscoring the canal’s growing regional importance. Economic development in Latin America is expected to increase the amount of intercoastal trade within the region. More than a century after its opening, the commercial function of the Panama Canal has considerably changed, and it is expected to continue to do so in the post-expansion era. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-trade-routes-panama-canal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-trade-routes-panama-canal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-trade-routes-panama-canal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-trade-routes-panama-canal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Customs Clearance at a Cruise Terminal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/customs-clearance-cruise-terminal/) **Published:** September 29, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-12-20-110003.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Customs Clearance at a Cruise Terminal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Customs Clearance at a Cruise Terminal*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2025. Cruise Terminal 25, Galveston. Note: Downtime. Photo taken under the supervision of CBP.* Almost all deep-sea cruises involve ports of call outside the jurisdiction of the port of embarkation. Upon return, passengers must clear customs to enter the country of destination, regardless of whether they have left the ship or not. Due to large volumes to be processed in a short amount of time, customs clearance is often organized in a manner similar to airports, particularly since they use the same clearance system and under the same authority. Although passports are usually mandatory documents to take a cruise, closed-loop cruises from the United States allow the use of an enhanced driver’s license or a birth certificate as valid forms of identification for travel. This is only valid for sea border crossings (such as the one shown in the above photo) and allows a larger pool of cruisers. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/customs-clearance-cruise-terminal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/customs-clearance-cruise-terminal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/customs-clearance-cruise-terminal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/customs-clearance-cruise-terminal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Luggage Lay-Down Area](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/luggage-lay-down-area/) **Published:** September 29, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-09-15-123455.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Luggage Lay-Down Area | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Baggage Lay Down Area*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2025. Royal Caribbean Cruise Terminal, Galveston.* Luggage lay-down areas consume a substantial amount of space, as thousands of luggage items need to be recovered within a short amount of time. Luggage is picked up from cabins and brought to the lay-down areas, where it is sorted by deck and section. Passengers can then retrieve their luggage at a designated area and exit to ground transportation. Usually, first-class (or premium) passengers have their luggage brought in first and placed in a section closer to the exit. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/luggage-lay-down-area/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/luggage-lay-down-area/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/luggage-lay-down-area/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/luggage-lay-down-area/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cruise Passengers Waiting Area](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/cruise-passengers-waiting-area/) **Published:** September 29, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-09-15-122316.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Cruise Passengers Waiting Area | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Passengers Waiting Area*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2025. Royal Caribbean Cruise Terminal, Galveston.* Due to their size and the large number of passengers they house, boarding a cruise ship can take several hours. As cruises are usually boarded by deck and section, with luggage delivered to the cabin, cruise terminals need a waiting area that acts as a buffer. These areas are usually spacious and comfortable as they represent the first experience of the cruise. There is usually a separate waiting area for first-class passengers with more amenities. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/cruise-passengers-waiting-area/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/cruise-passengers-waiting-area/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/cruise-passengers-waiting-area/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/cruise-passengers-waiting-area/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Typology of Cruise Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/typology-cruise-ports/) **Published:** February 8, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/typology_cruise_ports-scaled.png?resize=900%2C398&ssl=1 "Typology of Cruise Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Typology of cruise portsSeveral criteria can be used to characterize cruise ports and the role they play in their regional markets, with some of them focusing on the **port element** associated with the port: - **Market region**. Cruise ports are part of a region with a specific appeal and commonly the destination (itinerary). The region relates to specific demand patterns (e.g. level, growth, seasonality). The [Caribbean](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1555) and the [Mediterranean](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1563) are basic cruise regions but can be subdivided into subregions usually covered by standard 7-day itineraries (e.g. Eastern Caribbean or Eastern Mediterranean). - **Ownership and operations** (governance). The stakes involved in the ownership and operation of the cruise terminal. Some cruise ports are privately owned, while others are publicly owned, mostly through port authorities. Cruise terminals can also be concessioned. - **Cruise terminal**. The type of facility available to accommodate cruise ships. This ranges from dedicated terminals built solely to service cruise ships to simple tendering, where passengers embark and disembark using tender boats. Tendering is used when there are no facilities available to dock cruise ships, when a cruise ship is too large to use existing facilities, or when a pier is not available. - **Size**. A fundamental attribute since it indicates the level of activity and the importance of a cruise port in the cruise industry. The number of [major cruise ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1600) with annual traffic exceeding 1 million visits (i.e., the number of de-embarkations) is limited. Size is linked with the number of cruise ship calls, the facilities required to accommodate them, and the impacts of cruises on the local economy. Nassau in the Bahamas is the world’s most-visited cruise port, while Barcelona, Spain, and Civitavecchia (near Rome) are the most visited in Europe. - **Seasonality**. A key differentiating factor is that many cruise ports are only active during a specific period of the year, whereas others are perennial cruise ports. High seasonality implies that all cruise visits occur within a few months. For instance, Alaskan, Baltic, and Norwegian cruise ports are only visited from May to September. - **Port function in the itinerary**. Implies if a cruise port is a homeport (turn) port or a call port. A homeport is where a cruise itinerary begins (and ends) and where passengers can embark on a cruise ship for the first time. A call port is where passengers can temporarily disembark for a shore excursion or other tourist activities. A homeport requires much more supporting infrastructure and services than a call port. For instance, an important airport is fundamental (usually within 45 minutes of the port), as well as an extensive accommodation structure (hotels, restaurants, malls, convention centers, parking areas). Additionally, cruise ships require supplies of food, fuel, and stores, an activity that typically only occurs at a turn port. However, fueling is more flexible, and cruise lines will opt for refueling where they can obtain lower prices and greater convenience. The **tourism element** include: - **Attractiveness**. Since cruises are touristic operations, the attractiveness of a destination plays an important role. A marquee port is a “must-see” venue that plays a key role in attracting customers for a cruise. The venue is often the primary reason a cruise is selected and a core element of marketing. A “discovery port” is a location that is less renowned but offers amenities that will appeal to cruisers. - **Local and regional integration.** There are three ways in which a cruise port has a level of integration with its locality and region. For a destination cruise port, the cruise port area is the sole destination. In the case of cities such as Venice and Barcelona, the cultural amenities on offer are world-class, to the point that tourists may have little incentive to explore anything else in the vicinity. Alternatively, in some cases, safety and security issues may arise outside the port area, which is particularly common in developing countries. A gateway cruise port serves as a technical stop, offering no significant cultural or physical amenities, but it grants access to a major tourist destination. For instance, the port of Civitavecchia is the gateway to Rome, one of the most visited cities in the world. A **balanced cruise port** represents an array of cruise ports where the port can be a destination, but excursions are also available. The balance between the gateway and destination functions varies according to what each port and its region has to offer. - **Accessibility**. Relates to how the customer base of a turn port is reached. Air hub ports are linked with major international airport facilities offering connections to a wide array of markets. For instance, Miami / Fort Lauderdale is connected to a large number of North and Latin American airports, while it is easy to reach Rome or Barcelona from many European cities. Alternatively, there is a drive/train to cruise ports accessible within a 2 to 4-hour drive. Ports like Southampton, Galveston, New Orleans, Baltimore, Genoa, and Marseille are notable drive/train to ports. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/typology-cruise-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/typology-cruise-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/typology-cruise-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/typology-cruise-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Total Gross Tonnage by Ship Classes, Royal Caribbean Cruises](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/gross-tonnage-ship-classes-royal-caribbean-cruises/) **Published:** October 27, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/tonnage_ship_classes_royal_caribbean.png?resize=900%2C437&ssl=1 "Total Gross Tonnage by Ship Classes, Royal Caribbean Cruises | Port Economics, Management and Policy")*Note: Total gross tonnage derived from the average gross tonnage per ship multiplied by the number of ships in class. The Quantum class is subdivided between Quantum ships with a capacity of 4,900 passengers and Quantum Ultra ships with a capacity of 5,500 passengers.* Cruise ships are frequently classified by size, associated with a particular commercial cruise line, and not by a more general industry-wide characterization. Cruise lines, such as Royal Caribbean, continuously introduce successive cruise ship classes that improve the quality (more amenities) and quantity (more passengers) of the cruise experience. Each class forms a fleet of 3 to 6 ships that are deployed in cruise markets depending on the demand and novelty. When a new class is introduced with the ship that bears the class name, it is usually at a major turn port, such as Miami, where it commands a novelty premium. As the ship ages, it tends to be redeployed to more secondary markets and replaced by a new ship class. A core factor in introducing new ship classes is novelty and adaptation to market demands, including the time it takes for shipyards to build them. The deployment of all the cruise ships of a new class usually takes about five years after 2 to 3 years of construction. The life span of a cruise ship is around 30 years, and, eventually, it will be retired (scrapped) or sold to another cruise line. Many are refurbished after around 10 years with new amenities, but they eventually lose their appeal in the cruise market since cruisers can compare with the availability of the amenities of new ship classes that have been deployed. The Sovereign class, introduced between 1998 and 2003, has been entirely retired. While new ship classes carry more passengers, they tend to be staggered in their deployment, implying that a cruise line may deploy a smaller ship class to fit smaller markets and niche ports. The six Oasis-class ships have a capacity of 6,680 to 6,780 passengers and are among the world’s largest cruise ships. Each has more than 16 decks, standing as small towns with distinct “neighborhoods” and numerous amenities to fill the expectations of wider social and age groups. In service since 2009, this class, which will expand with a seventh ship in 2028, has included the largest cruise vessel in the world until 2023. The latest class of Royal Caribbean cruise ships, the Icon of the Seas, was introduced in 2024. While only one ship has been deployed as of late 2024, five more are on order, with one to be delivered in 2025. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/gross-tonnage-ship-classes-royal-caribbean-cruises/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/gross-tonnage-ship-classes-royal-caribbean-cruises/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/gross-tonnage-ship-classes-royal-caribbean-cruises/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/gross-tonnage-ship-classes-royal-caribbean-cruises/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Food and Alcohol Provisioning for a 2,000 Passenger 7-Day Cruise](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/food-alcohol-provisioning-passengers-cruise/) **Published:** October 19, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/food_alcohol_provisioning_cruise.png?resize=900%2C432&ssl=1 "Food and Alcohol Provisioning for a 2,000 Passenger 7-Day Cruise | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Food and Alcohol Provisioning for a 2000 Passenger 7 Day Cruise*Source: Celebrity Cruises.* Cruise lines are managing a complex procurement strategy for their ships, which is based on fundamental variables such as the number of cruisers and the duration of the cruise. The demand pattern can vary by region (diet) and the age composition of the cruise. This leads to consumption estimates in terms of volumes per passenger per day that are used for procurement. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/food-alcohol-provisioning-passengers-cruise/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/food-alcohol-provisioning-passengers-cruise/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/food-alcohol-provisioning-passengers-cruise/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/food-alcohol-provisioning-passengers-cruise/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI) and other Freight Rate Indices](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/shanghai-containerized-freight-index-scfi-and-other-freight-rate-indices/) **Published:** January 27, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/SCFI-revised4.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Shanghai Containerized Freight Index | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Shanghai Containerized Freight Index comprehensive*Source: based on Container News.* Several metrics or freight indices exist that can be used for benchmarking spot rates and trends in the container market, for settling up derivative container contracts, and in the context of **Index Linked Container Contracts (ILCCs)**. > **Index Linked Container Contracts (ILCCs)** are long term freight contracts that allow the freight rates to fluctuate with market conditions based on agreed mechanisms (such as an upper and or lower limit for the rate, dampeners, time-lagged adjustments, etc..). The mechanism for this fluctuation should be based on trusted, independent sources that publish metrics/indices. The Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI) is such a metric. Another example of a metric on the freight market is the World Container Index (WCI) assessed by Drewry. The WCI provides weekly assessments of container freight rates, daily forward price estimates, and a historical price database. The **SCFI** moves up and down based on the weekly spot rates of the Shanghai export container transport market, based on data compiled from 15 different shipping routes. The SCFI is published for each of these routes, but there is also a comprehensive index covering all routes. The SCFI’s spot rate fluctuates not on real-time rates but on what carriers intend to charge. The SCFI is one of the metrics or indices exporters and shipping companies can use to trade derivatives against, which in theory would allow them to mitigate the extreme volatility in the freight market. While this was one of the primary goals behind the index’s creation, the SCFI failed to create a proper derivatives market, but that hasn’t stopped industry analysts from tracking it closely. The much broader **China Containerized Freight Index (CCFI)** is based on container prices leaving all major ports in China and is a composite of spot and contractual rates. Spot rates can deviate from long-term contract rates. By comparison, roughly 75% of the global market runs on contracted rates, so while the SCFI is useful, it is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the prices paid by the majority of shippers who have signed long-term contracts with shipping lines. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/shanghai-containerized-freight-index-scfi-and-other-freight-rate-indices/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/shanghai-containerized-freight-index-scfi-and-other-freight-rate-indices/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/shanghai-containerized-freight-index-scfi-and-other-freight-rate-indices/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/shanghai-containerized-freight-index-scfi-and-other-freight-rate-indices/?share=reddit) - --- ### [World’s Major Container Ports, 2022](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/worlds-major-container-ports/) **Published:** July 25, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-TEU-Throughput-2022.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "World’s Major Container Ports, 2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Major Container Ports 2022*Source: data collected from port authorities and regional port associations. Only considers ports with traffic above 100,000 TEU.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-TEU-Throughput-2022.pdf) Container ports are reflective of the world’s **commercial geography,** particularly since they dominantly handle finished and intermediate goods. Commodities are becoming more prevalent but remain a niche market. Prior to the 1990s, the world’s most important ports were North American (e.g. New York) and Western European (e.g. Rotterdam). Globalization, supported by containerization, completely changed the world’s commercial geography with the emergence of new port locations reflecting changes in the global geography of production, distribution, and consumption. This geography indicates a high level of traffic concentration around large port facilities, notably Pacific Asian ports along the Tokyo – Singapore corridor. The 25 largest ports account for 49.8% of the traffic. As export-oriented economic development strategies took shape, the number of containers handled in Pacific Asian ports, notably Chinese ports, surged. The comparative size of ports requires caution, as several ports can be considered more statistical agglomerations than functional entities. For instance, the port of Shenzhen in the Pearl River Delta is composed of several large port facilities (e.g. Yantian, Chiwan, Shekou) that act as distinct entities within their operations and are even servicing different hinterlands. The same observation applies to Guangzhou and Shanghai, which are multiport (and multi-terminal) entities. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/worlds-major-container-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/worlds-major-container-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/worlds-major-container-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/worlds-major-container-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [XI. PORT POLICIES & DEVELOPMENT](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/) **Published:** December 13, 2018 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Ports are political and economic tools. There are principles and themes for national and international port and port-related policies, including international initiatives such as emissions control, port security, port labor, and the controversial role of geopolitics in port development. The role of ports in economic development and strategic port planning is a relevant theme. The relationships between ports and their localities remain a challenge involving various facets of port-city interactions. To mitigate the political climate, associations are formed at different levels with varying priorities to represent port interests. --- - [Chapter 11.1 Ports, Policies and Geopolitics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/) - [Chapter 11.2 Ports and Economic Development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/) - [Chapter 11.3 Port Planning and Development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/) - [Chapter 11.4 Port Safety, Security, and Cybersecurity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/) \[Under construction\] - [Chapter 11.5 Port-City Relationships](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/) - [Chapter 11.6 Representing Port Interests](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/?share=reddit) - --- ### [X. PORT PERFORMANCE](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/) **Published:** December 13, 2018 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Since ports operate in a competitive environment, their performance is carefully considered and monitored through a series of indicators. Port performance is composed of efficiency, performing tasks to minimize costs and externalities, and effectiveness, performing tasks that meet the expectations of its users. Performance tends to be an operational factor, while effectiveness is a market factor that fulfills expectations and delivers the desired services to its users. Ports can be subject to disruptions impairing their operations, testing their resilience. --- - [Chapter 10.1 Performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/) - [Chapter 10.2 Efficiency](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/) - [Chapter 10.3 Effectiveness](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/) - [Chapter 10.4 Resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/?share=reddit) - --- ### [IX. PORT COMPETITION](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/) **Published:** December 13, 2018 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** Ports are evolving within a complex, competitive environment, with various forms of port competition, including inter-port and intra-port competition. Marketing and pricing are crucial parameters for competition. While marketing underlines the relationships that a port establishes with its customers, pricing remains a determining factor. Conditions for enhancing port competition are of strategic importance, including the potential of lowering entry barriers in port operations. --- - [Chapter 4.1 – Inter-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2588 "Chapter 4.1 – Inter-Port Competition")[Chapter 9.1 Inter-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/) - [Chapter 9.2 Intra-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/) - [Chapter 9.3 Port Marketing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/) - [Chapter 9.4 Port Pricing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/) - [Chapter 9.5 Entry Barriers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/?share=reddit) - --- ### [VIII. PORT GOVERNANCE](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/) **Published:** December 13, 2018 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Port governance is the adoption and enforcement of rules that govern conduct, authority, and institutional resources, enabling the development and management of port activities to benefit society and the economy. There is a link between governance and performance, shaped by reforms and models that have influenced the global port sector. Port authorities have a changing role as their centrality in contemporary port management is reinforced. Their evolving role is evident through trends such as the coordination of actors along supply chains, port cooperation, port clusters, and green port management. Port management, governance, and leadership have evolved to reflect a new reality. --- - [Chapter 8.1 Port Governance and Reform](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/) - [Chapter 8.2 Port Authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/) - [Chapter 8.3 Port Coordination and Cooperation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/) - [Chapter 8.4 Port Clusters](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/) - [Chapter 8.5 Green Port Governance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/) - [Chapter 8.6 Port Management, Governance and Leadership](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/) --- ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/?share=reddit) - --- ### [VII. PASSENGER PORTS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/) **Published:** October 15, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** The global cruise industry involves seagoing transportation and tourism, offering a combination of local destinations accessible through cruise ports and onboard amenities. Ports and destinations have developed into cruise ports and terminals. Tourist ports for recreational vessels are a distinctive category of ports that support recreational boating and yachting. River cruises have emerged as a distinct form of tourism that blends leisure with cultural and environmental engagement. Cruise terminals have specific design characteristics and operational considerations, as they must handle large numbers of passengers and supplies for cruise ships. --- - [Chapter 7.1 Cruise Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/) *(v1 Chapter 1.5)* - [Chapter 7.2 Cruise Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/) *(v1 Chapter 8.1)* - [Chapter 7.3 Tourist Harbors and Marinas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/) \[New\] - [Chapter 7.4 River Cruises and Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/river-cruises-and-ports/) \[New\] - [Chapter 7.5 Cruise Terminal Design and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/) *(v1 Chapter 3.6)* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/?share=reddit) - --- ### [VI. CONTAINER PORTS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/) **Published:** October 15, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Containerization significantly impacted shipping and ports, forming extensive shipping networks in which seaports play a pivotal role as high connectivity hubs. A container terminal is a specialized facility that handles the transshipment and temporary storage of containers between at least two transportation modes. The provision and management of containers are the responsibility of shipping lines and container leasing companies, with the repositioning of empty containers primarily driven by trade flow imbalances. The variety of goods carried in containers is substantial, including commodities that were previously carried in bulk or breakbulk. Cold chain technology has enabled ports to play an active role within these supply chains, particularly with the use of refrigerated containers. Terminal automation is the full or partial substitution of terminal operations with automated equipment and processes, transforming container ports. --- - [Chapter 6.1 Ports and Container Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/) - [Chapter 6.2 Containers: The Box and Chassis Markets](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/) - [Chapter 6.3 Containers: The Containerization of Commodities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/) - [Chapter 6.4 Port Cold Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/) - [Chapter 6.5 Container Terminal Design and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/) - [Chapter 6.6 Container Terminal Automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/?share=reddit) - --- ### [V. BULK & BREAKBULK PORTS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/) **Published:** October 15, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** The markets and means of shipping cargo by maritime transportation are the outcome of a specialization. Historically, cargo was mainly carried in breakbulk and in limited quantities. However, the onset of the 20th century led to a surge in the trade of raw materials carried in bulk, particularly mining and energy products. Ports have adapted by setting up a multiplicity of terminals designed to handle single commodities, which has led to the specialization of the breakbulk market that focuses on the automotive and project cargo sectors. --- - [Chapter 5.1 Breakbulk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/) - [Chapter 5.2 Automotive and RORO Markets](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/) - [Chapter 5.3 Ports and Energy Commodities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/) - [Chapter 5.4 Bulk and Breakbulk Terminal Design and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/?share=reddit) - --- ### [IV. PORT TERMINALS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/) **Published:** October 15, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Terminals and terminal operators maintain a complex portfolio that is usually acquired through concessions and land leases. Forms of terminal funding and the financialization of terminal operations are also essential to terminal development. Port labor remains a fundamental issue for terminal operations, performance, and overall port competitiveness. It is challenged by changing market requirements, which result in dock labor reform and adaptations in working practices. The construction of port terminals is related to ship and terminal demand characteristics, including nautical access conditions, quay walls, and terminal layout and equipment. --- - [Chapter 4.1 Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/ "Chapter 4.1 – Terminals and Terminal Operators") - [Chapter 4.2 Terminal Concessions and Land Leases](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/ "Chapter 4.2 – Terminal Concessions and Land Leases") - [Chapter 4.3 Financialization, Terminal Funding and Valuation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/ "Chapter 4.3 – Financialization and Terminal Funding") - [Chapter 4.4 Port Labor](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/ "Chapter 4.4 – Port Labor") - [Chapter 4.5 Port Terminal Construction](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/ "Chapter 4.5 – Port Terminal Construction") ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/?share=reddit) - --- ### [II. PORTS & HINTERLAND NETWORKS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/) **Published:** December 13, 2018 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Ports rely extensively on their hinterland as the main driver of their cargo-handling activities and port-related distribution networks. The development of corridors, the regionalization of port activities, and the setting of inland ports have expanded the conventional port hinterland to complex networks spanning extensive areas. --- - [Chapter 2.1 Port Hinterlands, Regionalization and Corridors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/) - [Chapter 2.2 Ports and Distribution Networks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/) - [Chapter 2.3 Inland Ports / Dry Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/?share=reddit) - --- ### [I. PORTS & SHIPPING NETWORKS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/) **Published:** December 13, 2018 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Maritime shipping networks shape contemporary seaports through a complex hierarchy. Maritime shipping and international trade are dynamic systems with the insertion of ports in maritime supply chains. Global trade patterns, consumer preferences, supply chain management, and information technology are fundamental drivers. The crucial role of interoceanic passages in maritime trade networks underlines economic and geopolitical challenges. --- - [Chapter 1.1 Maritime Shipping and International Trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/) - [Chapter 1.2 Ports and Maritime Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/) - [Chapter 1.3 Interoceanic Passages](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/?share=reddit) - --- ### [I. PORTS & SHIPPING NETWORKS](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/) **Published:** December 13, 2018 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** Maritime shipping networks shape contemporary seaports through a complex hierarchy. Maritime shipping and international trade are dynamic systems with the insertion of ports in maritime supply chains. Global trade patterns, consumer preferences, supply chain management, and information technology are fundamental drivers. The crucial role of interoceanic passages in maritime trade networks underlines economic and geopolitical challenges. --- - [Chapter 1.1 Maritime Shipping and International Trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/) - [Chapter 1.2 Ports and Maritime Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/) - [Chapter 1.3 Interoceanic Passages](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Stacking Density of Container Yard Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/stacking-density-container-yard-equipment/) **Published:** February 9, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/stacking_dentiy_dynamic_capacity.png?resize=900%2C419&ssl=1 "Stacking Density of Container Yard Equipment and Annual Dynamic Container Yard Capacity | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Stacking Density of Container Yard EquipmentTwo standard capacity measures can be used to assess container yard capacity: - **Static capacity**. The total capacity of the yard at any given point in time, in terms of how many TEU equivalent can be stored, considering its physical and equipment characteristics. - **Dynamic capacity**. The capacity of the yard over a defined period of time. It is contingent on dwell time, which is the average amount of time a container spends in the yard before being picked up for inland distribution or loaded onto a ship. Dynamic capacity (TEU per ha/year) = static capacity \* (365/Dwell time) Container terminals can exhibit significant variations in stacking density (static and dynamic) on the same surface, depending on the type of container yard equipment. The most common are rubber-tired gantries (RTGs) and straddle carriers, which are associated with average stacking densities of 500-800 TEU per hectare of yard space. At any given time, a container yard using RTGs should be able to store about 800 TEU per hectare. If containers remain in the yard for an average of 4 days, the dynamic capacity of this yard is around 72,500 TEUs per ha/year. The available terminal footprint and the complexity of terminal operations determine the choice of stacking density and the related static and dynamic capacity. Low densities offer lower capital investment and a quick turnaround, but consume more yard space. In contrast, high densities are logistically more complex and require careful operations to avoid undue container rehandling. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/stacking-density-container-yard-equipment/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/stacking-density-container-yard-equipment/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/stacking-density-container-yard-equipment/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/stacking-density-container-yard-equipment/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The First Cruise Vessel, S.S. Prinzessin Victoria (1900)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/the-first-ever-cruise-vessel-s-s-prinzessin-victoria-1900/) **Published:** June 10, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![Prinzessin Victoria](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Prinzessin-Victoria-Luise.jpg?resize=900%2C759&ssl=1 "The First Cruise Vessel: S.S. Prinzessin Victoria (1900) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The *S.S. Prinzessin Victoria Luise*, a passenger vessel with a gross register tonnage (GRT) of 4,409 tons, is credited as the first purpose-built cruise ship. Launched on June 29, 1900, the ship operated under the Hamburg-America Line (Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien-Gesellschaft, or HAPAG), which was then the largest shipping company in the world. Her service continued until December 16, 1906. Following her launch in Hamburg, the *Prinzessin Victoria Luise* embarked on her first cruise, a 35-day voyage that included visits to ports in the West Indies and Venezuela. The ship’s maiden transatlantic voyage began on January 5, 1901, with stops in Boulogne and Plymouth before arriving in New York on January 17. From there, she departed on her inaugural cruise to the West Indies on January 26, carrying 200 passengers. Subsequent voyages often followed similar itineraries, though destinations varied to include the Mediterranean, the Baltic Sea, and other regions. In the summer, *Prinzessin Victoria Luise* sailed to Norway and the Baltic; in the winter, she cruised the Mediterranean and Caribbean—four destinations that became staples of the early cruise industry. Throughout her service, she called at ports in New York, France, England, Ireland, Scotland, the North Cape of Norway, and St. Petersburg. Albert Ballin, the director of HAPAG, envisioned a future in which leisurely sea travel would be accessible to anyone who could afford a ticket. The shipbuilding firm Blohm & Voss constructed a 407-foot, 4,419-ton vessel powered by twin-screw engines, capable of reaching speeds of up to 16 knots (approximately 19 miles per hour). For comparison, the *Titanic*—launched over a decade later—had a top speed of 23 knots. The vessel was painted entirely white and featured two masts—one located fore and the other aft—as well as two tall, slender funnels positioned amidships. She exhibited a rounded stern and an ornately decorated clipper bow, complete with a bowsprit bearing a figurehead of Princess Victoria Luise of Germany. Onboard amenities were extensive and luxurious, including a large gymnasium, a social hall, a library, a smoking room, and a palatial art gallery encircling the dining room. Additional facilities included spacious promenade decks, a ballroom for dancing, and a darkroom for amateur photographers. The ship was equipped with 120 first-class staterooms, each furnished in the European style with brass beds and double-light portholes that could be opened in warm climates. The design and service standards were intended to rival those of the finest European hotels. No provisions were made for accommodating lower-class passengers or transporting freight, underscoring the ship’s exclusive focus on elite leisure travel. Although the ultra-wealthy in society had their own private yachts, such vessels were not available for public charter. To appeal to passengers and ensure the venture’s commercial success, HAPAG marketed the *Prinzessin Victoria Luise* as a “cruising yacht,” even encouraging engineering journals to adopt this terminology. ### References - Austin, D. (2021, July 22). *The history of the world’s first cruise ship built solely for luxurious travel*. *Smithsonian Magazine*. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/worlds-first-cruise-ship-180978310/ - Brinnin, J. M. (1971). *The sway of the grand saloon: A social history of the North Atlantic*. Delacorte Press. - Peter, B. (2017). *Cruise ships: A design voyage*. Ferry Publications. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/the-first-ever-cruise-vessel-s-s-prinzessin-victoria-1900/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/the-first-ever-cruise-vessel-s-s-prinzessin-victoria-1900/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/the-first-ever-cruise-vessel-s-s-prinzessin-victoria-1900/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/the-first-ever-cruise-vessel-s-s-prinzessin-victoria-1900/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cruise Passenger Age Groups, 2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-passenger-age-groups-2024/) **Published:** June 11, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_passengers_age_group_2024.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Cruise Passenger Age Groups, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Source: CLIA (2025). State of the Cruise Industry Report 2025. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-passenger-age-groups-2024/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-passenger-age-groups-2024/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-passenger-age-groups-2024/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-passenger-age-groups-2024/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Average Cruise Duration](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/average-cruise-duration/) **Published:** October 28, 2024 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/average_cruise_duration.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Average Cruise Duration | Port Economics, Management and Policy")*Source: CLIA (2024), 2023 Global Market Report.* Cruise shipping lines strive to maximize their asset utilization by continuously turning over their cruise ships. For instance, a ship typically finishes a weekly cruise early in the morning and begins a new one on the same evening. Within the 8- to 12-hour window between the end of the inbound cruise and the beginning of the outbound cruise, passengers must check out and disembark. Facilities are cleaned, waste is discarded, stores are replenished, the ship is refueled, basic maintenance is performed, and outbound cruise passengers must check in and embark. The design variables for itineraries within this time frame primarily concern the number and order of port calls, synchronization with (international) air transfers at the turn ports, vessel speed, and vessel size. In 2019, the average duration of a cruise was 7.1 days. In 2021, the restart of cruises after the COVID-19 pandemic, accompanied by new protocols, was associated with shorter cruises. In the post-pandemic uncertainty, cruise lines opted to offer a range of programs, including those of up to 3 days, which increased from 11% of cruise programs in 2019 to 20% in 2021. On the one hand, it would facilitate passengers returning on board and re-familiarizing them with the idea of cruising following the 2020 hiatus. On the other hand, this strategy lowered the operational costs for cruise lines, aiming to rediscover the appetite for cruising around the globe while enabling them to adjust. This trend of lowering cruise days did not last long. In 2023, the average duration of a cruise stood at 7.3 days, exceeding the 2021 average. The increasing number of cruise passengers, the willingness of younger generations to cruise, and the increased spending of cruise passengers provide the background conditions for a potential further increase in the average length of cruise programs. The average duration of cruises differs per cruise region. Cruisers sailing from Europe and Australasia take longer cruises. In Western Europe, Scandinavia/Iceland, and Australia/New Zealand/Pacific, the average cruise duration is more than eight days. On the other hand, the average length of cruise programs in the Middle East is less than seven days; in Africa, this average is less than five days. In the post-pandemic period, three-day programs are particularly popular in Asia. Cruisers sailing from Asia and younger cruisers sailing from the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula take the shortest cruises. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/average-cruise-duration/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/average-cruise-duration/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/average-cruise-duration/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/average-cruise-duration/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Planning the City with the Port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/planning-city-with-port/) **Published:** October 14, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/planning_city_port.png?resize=900%2C372&ssl=1 "Planning the City with the Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Planning the City with the Port*Adapted from: AIVP (2021). Planning the City with the Port Guide of Good Practice.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/planning-city-with-port/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/planning-city-with-port/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/planning-city-with-port/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/planning-city-with-port/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Regional Cruise Ports Associations](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/regional-cruise-ports-associations/) **Published:** April 29, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_port_association.png?resize=900%2C432&ssl=1 "Regional Cruise Ports Associations and their Activities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Regional Cruise Ports Associations and types of activitiesThe major regional cruise port associations include: - **MedCruise** represents ports and associates in the Mediterranean and its adjoining seas. It is the largest cruise port association in terms of annual cruise passenger movements in its member ports. Membership exceeds 160 ports and spans more than 20 countries in three continents (Europe, Asia, and Africa), and is divided into four local markets: West Med, Adriatic, East Med, and the Black Sea. - **Cruise Europe** represents cruise ports in Northern and Atlantic Europe. It was the first cruise port network with its membership divided into four chapters: Atlantic Europe, the Baltic, UK and Ireland, and Norway, Iceland, and the Faroes. Three more ‘local’ cruise networks are particularly active in the region as well. These are **Cruise Baltic, Cruise Britain and Cruise Norway**, all of them being members of Cruise Europe. - **Australia Cruise Association** represents regional ports, national and state tourism agencies, and shipping agents for Australia and the Pacific region. **New Zealand Cruise Association** is another active cruise network operating in Oceania, promoting cruise activities in the region. - **Asia Cruise Terminal Association** includes some of the major terminal operators in the booming Asian cruise market, with membership from six countries (China, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/regional-cruise-ports-associations/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/regional-cruise-ports-associations/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/regional-cruise-ports-associations/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/regional-cruise-ports-associations/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Port as a Funnel to Economic Development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/port-funnel-economic-development/) **Published:** December 23, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_funnel_economic_development.png?resize=900%2C476&ssl=1 "The Port as a Funnel to Economic Development | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Port as a Funnel to Economic DevelopmentPorts can be considered as “funnels” to economic development since they act as a catalyst, enabling three major types of effects: - **Direct benefits to the port**. They involve the revenues that accrue from port activity, arising from various charges levied on ships and cargo for the use of the port. The volume of the port is thus directly proportional to revenue. They include pilotage, berthing, and towing fees, cargo handling charges, and demurrage. With the emergence of the landlord port model, port authorities are getting additional revenue from terminal concessions. Further, there may be additional rental revenue from developing port land, such as logistics zones or broader real estate projects. However, direct economic benefits tend to be less important than they were in the past, particularly because of mechanization and terminal concessions. Another category of direct benefits concerns the revenue generated by national transport firms servicing the port, such as trucking companies and railways (if present). The direct benefits to port users are generally referred to as economic benefits. These are also generally included in economic appraisals, although the benefits included will depend on the specific situation. - **Indirect benefits to port users**. They involve firms that import or export goods from the port. Indirect benefits to port users include cost savings that arise from reduced operating costs, some of which may be realized outside the immediate port area. They involve lower shipping costs due to shorter turnaround times enabled by improvements such as more berth space, better channel access, higher terminal productivity, and reduced cargo processing time at the port. They may also include savings in ship operating costs from economies of scale enabled by larger ships with deeper drafts and additional volumes. Enhanced port facilities and operations may also reduce inland transport costs by reducing congestion, increasing productivity, and improving turnaround times. Other benefits to users may include reduced insurance costs from port improvements and lower interest costs related to inventory, particularly from lower inventory levels, as more efficient port operations enable users to adopt better supply chain management practices. - **Induced benefits to the economy**. Include the benefits that filter through to suppliers of input factors, such as income to labor directly employed in port-related activities, and income to industries supplying the port with goods and services, creating indirect employment. In turn, these incomes generate re-spending, which further induces employment and income through the economic multiplier effect. Port investment may also stimulate economic activity in industries that use the port. Such benefits, however, are not as straightforward as cost-saving benefits. The induced benefits are secondary and not usually taken into account in economic appraisals. This is partly because it is hard to know where to draw the line in including the successive rounds of induced income and employment. Thus, there is a risk for economic benefit analysis to overstate the impacts of port activities by assuming indirect benefits that may not materialize. Besides, in developing economies, the potential induced benefits are often curtailed by a lack of capital and skilled labor and are lost through import leakage. Induced benefits can also be assessed from an environmental perspective, where less pollution, such as noise, particulates, and carbon, accrues as social benefits in terms of quality of life and healthcare costs. From a geographical perspective, the induced benefits effects are difficult to associate with a particular area or region, particularly given the transnational nature of maritime shipping, manufacturing, and the service sector. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/port-funnel-economic-development/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/port-funnel-economic-development/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/port-funnel-economic-development/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/port-funnel-economic-development/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 0.5 - Emerging Issues in Ports and Maritime Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/emerging-issues-ports-maritime-shipping/) **Published:** April 23, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Theo Notteboom, Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > A multidisciplinary, multisectoral, and global analysis of the contemporary port industry, port governance, and development reveals the dynamics, diversity, and continuous evolution of modern seaports and port-related activities. Several emerging issues are central to port economics, management, and policy. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Volatility and Shifts in Port Demand](#1_Volatility_and_Shifts_in_Port_Demand) - [2. Managing the Foreland and the Hinterland](#2_Managing_the_Foreland_and_the_Hinterland) - [3. Mitigating Environmental and Social Challenges](#3_Mitigating_Environmental_and_Social_Challenges) - [4. Ongoing Digitalization and Automation](#4_Ongoing_Digitalization_and_Automation) - [5. Vertical and Horizontal Integration in Port Competition](#5_Vertical_and_Horizontal_Integration_in_Port_Competition) - [6. A Multi-scalar Approach to Port Performance](#6_A_Multi-scalar_Approach_to_Port_Performance) - [7. The Evolution of Port Governance](#7_The_Evolution_of_Port_Governance) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Volatility and Shifts in Port Demand Seaports serve as **nodes in global supply chains** operating in an efficiency-oriented, competitive, and highly dynamic market environment. Economic globalization, based on the principles of free trade and open markets, led to a **growing demand for port services**. Historically, the maritime industry has played a significant role in supporting trade and economic development, which has been subject to cycles of growth and retrenchment. Since the 1970s, the port and maritime shipping industry has been at the forefront of globalization, experiencing the massification of its terminals and conveyances. However, globalization is being challenged by **economic and geopolitical events**. Changes in market opportunities and trade barriers can undermine the growth potential of ports through shifts in volume, direction, origin, and destination. In particular, the difficulties surrounding existing and new bilateral and multilateral trade agreements add to the volatility and uncertainty in global trade flows. This challenges ports and stakeholders to demonstrate higher flexibility and resilience as they integrate into global production and logistics networks. Further, maritime shipping and ports are recurrently facing disruptions, some local in scope, but others far more reaching. The COVID-19 pandemic, incidents such as the Suez Canal blockage in 2021, the water constraints of the Panama Canal in 2023, and the Red Sea crisis, have made policymakers, regulators, and the public much more aware of the crucial role of shipping and ports in facilitating world trade. Port resilience and adaptive capacity are also needed in the context of a whole **range of potential disruptions**. Economic shocks and major trends such as nearshoring and reshoring, the energy transition, and automation are ongoing disruptions. Ports are intensifying their efforts to prepare for structural changes in port traffic levels, cargo mix, or the geographical distribution of foreland and hinterland flows. While the container business has attracted most of the attention over the past decades, it is expected that the future will bring a more balanced discussion that focuses on other cargo segments and the passenger/cruise market. **Geographical considerations** will continue to play a fundamental role in the global structure of production, distribution, and consumption that ports and maritime shipping support. Increasingly, **geopolitics** plays a similar role**,** as an increasing number of nations view seaports, which offer pivotal connections between national economies and the world, as potential sources of geopolitical power. # 2. Managing the Foreland and the Hinterland Ports are confronted with managing the interests of their customers, which are on their foreland (shipping lines) and hinterland (cargo owners). The growth of international trade has given rise to **large hub ports**, which often combine intermediacy in the global shipping network with centrality towards specific hinterland markets. These developments have shown that ports are not only about fulfilling a derived demand. An integrated port cluster can serve as an economic engine for regional development and increase its attractiveness as a location for distribution, manufacturing, and industrial activities, including the service sector. The locational and logistics capabilities of a port form an **integrated demand**. Not all ports can and should aim for hub status; instead, they should find an optimal position within their foreland and hinterland, which is key. This leaves ports with the challenge of developing **appropriate functional and spatial strategies** that bring about a desirable mix of international and regional functions. Each seaport has a distinct footprint associated with its unique combination of cargo and passenger handling, logistics, and industrial activities. Their **network position**, combined with observed **cluster effects**, makes ports ideal to lead the way in many domains such as energy transition, the greening of supply and transport chains, cargo bundling and optimization, modal shift in inland transport, the social dimension of automation, knowledge development and exchange, and transparency and visibility in global supply chains. Policymakers and stakeholders should provide ample room for port communities to take up and develop a leadership position. In the immediate hinterland, major socioeconomic conflicts are related to port development and operations. They can occur when community groups or other stakeholders perceive a significant disparity between the benefits (added value, employment) and costs (congestion, environmental impacts) for the local community when ports expand their footprint. Any potential erosion of public support for seaport activities should remain a key concern to port managers. Well-balanced **stakeholder relations management** and effective city-port interactions are expected to play an increasingly important role in decisions regarding the future of port footprints and the associated mix of port functions. # 3. Mitigating Environmental and Social Challenges Port development and operations are not only guided by economic considerations, as **environmental and social issues** are having a growing impact. Many ports are assuming a more enterprising role in addressing environmental, energy, and climate change challenges, partly because environmental factors are increasingly significant in attracting customers and potential investors, and partly because regulations are growing more stringent. A port with a strong environmental record and high community support is likely to be favored by market players, as it is potentially less prone to disruptions. The growing importance of environmental and social considerations is shaping the behavior and strategies of port-related actors. This includes a greater role attributed to setting and achieving sustainability goals, managing stakeholder relations, and implementing green supply chain management. Still, ports often find themselves in a **contradictory situation**, as they are simultaneously the source of environmental externalities but also a key element in mitigating them. Climate change, energy generation, provision, and transportation, and the decarbonization of the maritime industry are complex, contradictory, and rife with ramifications. There are also issues that will contribute significantly to shaping ports in the foreseeable future. In the short to medium term, it is essential to ensure that climate change directly impacts the industry in a significant manner, rather than the regulatory framework imposed by environmentalism. Since less than 5% of carbon emissions are attributed to ports and maritime shipping, the industry should not face a regulatory burden well above its contribution. Environmental and social issues are often strongly influenced by perception, which can lead to misguided policies. Knowledge generation, stakeholder engagement, and dialogue are essential to resolving many misconceptions and advancing realistic port strategies. # 4. Ongoing Digitalization and Automation **Information technologies** are high on the agenda of many ports, leading to a digital transition. Ports have come to understand that **coordination and integration** in supply chains are key to their future competitiveness. Port-related actors and port authorities are developing initiatives to strengthen the interconnectivity of ports concerning their physical, digital, and operational networks. The number of initiatives in this area has proliferated, demonstrating an evolution in the emerging digital strategies being pursued. It highlights how ports and their stakeholders utilize existing assets more efficiently, leading to new opportunities. Still, many challenges remain. Cooperation between actors demands a conducive environment for innovation and data sharing characterized by trust, mutual benefits, and sustainable business and revenue models. Conflicts over data ownership, competition for leadership, and regulatory challenges are expected to increase as data becomes a highly valued commodity. At the same time, port communities will need to address **cybersecurity** issues related to data use and exchange. Cybersecurity threats rank as the most critical risk factor perceived by port authorities. With the increasing use of digital technologies, drones, robotics, and the Internet of Things (IoT), data breaches can disrupt operations, steal sensitive information, or cause significant financial loss. In addition to their digital systems, ports are also facing the challenges of **automation**. The issue is not just related to capital investment, but the contrasts between ports as sources of employment and the need for productivity improvements. This has led to tensions and conflicts between operators and labor. However, just as containerization became inevitable more than half a century ago, automation is also inevitable. In many ports, there is a limited footprint available for expansion, and automation is the only reasonable option to increase productivity. # 5. Vertical and Horizontal Integration in Port Competition Port competition is no longer restricted to attracting cargo volumes. The growing importance of integrating ports and terminals into supply chains has heightened the focus on **creating added value** for cargo being handled. Furthermore, port competitiveness can be better understood by following a supply chain approach. Ports compete not only as individual places that handle ships but as **crucial links within global supply chains**. Port choice becomes more of a function of the overall network cost and the performance of the supply chains in which a port is embedded. Thus, a port could be more costly to use from a singular perspective, but could result in a lower cost structure from a supply chain perspective. While competition between adjacent ports remains important, **port competition has expanded** spatially due to advances in maritime and inland transport networks. Corridors, dry ports, and inland strategies of market players and port authorities have contributed to a highly dynamic and competitive landscape in serving local and more distant hinterland regions. Captive hinterlands and customers have made room for **shared hinterlands** and large **footloose port users**. The corporate strategies of these port users are having an impact on the inter-port and intra-port competition. To improve their operating margins, generate revenue, and offer a better service to their customers, market players in shipping, ports, and logistics simultaneously pursue two complementary strategies. The first is **cost control through horizontal integration**, and the second is **service differentiation through vertical integration** along the supply chain. Digital transformation and value capture along the chains play a key role in rolling out these strategies. Competitive pressures to accommodate global supply chains have led to functional changes in seaports and other nodes of the global transport and logistics network. Ports are increasingly seeking **cooperation and coordination** by bundling their transport flows with the hinterland. Nodal competition is supplemented by nodal cooperation. Port competition is increasingly affected by **consolidation and scale increases** in shipping and logistics. The introduction of ever-larger container vessels was once seen as a clear benefit for global trade and maritime operations. Economies of scale at sea from mega-ships lowered the unit cost per container and led to changes in the port hierarchy. In recent years, concerns have been raised about the **distribution of costs and benefits** of these large ships among the actors involved. Issues related to the impact of mega-ships on supply chains, terminal operations, public spending on nautical accessibility, and society at large were brought forward. A limit may have been reached, or there may still be additional economies of scale to be realized. Debates about the massification, concentration, and scale increases in the port and shipping industry will remain at the forefront. # 6. A Multi-scalar Approach to Port Performance Port performance is often considered from a port competitiveness and competition angle. From this perspective, cargo throughput and vessel traffic remain important output measures. However, ports face challenges in developing a multi-scalar approach to port performance, as they must consider a range of indicators, including supply chain performance, maritime and inland connectivity, financial performance, customer satisfaction, sustainability, socioeconomic significance, port governance, and port resilience. There is also a focus on the effectiveness of stakeholder relations management, as well as on mitigating broad sustainability goals. The COVID-19 pandemic has underlined the importance of **risk management and resilience** in a seaport context characterized by uncertainty and volatility. Ports are expected to develop capabilities in port resilience planning and enhance their **adaptive capacity** to cope with economic shocks and trends, as well as the challenges imposed by climate change. Still, many challenges remain. **Interdependencies**, or lack thereof, between various port performance measures remain relatively underexplored. Furthermore, many indicators are still experimental, with concerns expressed on their feasibility, acceptability, and relevance, particularly when comparing ports (benchmarking). Additionally, the identification and relevance of performance indicators may be influenced by the objectives and beliefs of relevant actors. The challenge lies in comparing ports due to the difficulties in matching roles and functions, as well as using standard performance indicators. # 7. The Evolution of Port Governance Changes in the competitive environment, environmental and social challenges, and the evolving functions of ports have intensified the search for a **suitable port governance model**. Innovative ideas and customized approaches to port governance have emerged, with some put to the test. Port governance reforms have brought both tensions and opportunities, not least because ports must function within a global economic system while adapting to and integrating into a regional or local political and economic context. Opportunities exist to advance the measurement of the effectiveness and efficiency of port governance solutions, providing tools that can help actors identify the best governance fit. One of the most remarkable trends in port governance is the shift from managing individual ports to **managing multi-port groups or regions**. Port authority mergers and other far-reaching cooperation schemes are on the rise in response to mounting market and financial pressures and opportunities, aiming to avoid duplication of facilities and unnecessary competition. This could trigger regulatory responses, as monopolistic and oligopolistic situations could emerge. Port governance reforms have often led to greater autonomy, more commercially oriented strategies, enhanced resilience, increased accountability, and a push for rational investment decisions. They have also opened **new revenue and business models** for port authorities. While port authority pricing structures differ worldwide, most ports have retained their traditional revenue base and pricing systems. The financial backbone remains heavily dependent on port dues and land fees for landlord port authorities, often designed using simple and relatively rigid pricing methods. Port pricing strategies and revenue models are expected to evolve, including the exploration of more **dynamic, flexible, and differentiated pricing methods**. Moreover, port dues and land fees might complement other revenue streams from investments in digital transformation, energy transition, and the circular economy. The **centrality of port authorities** will likely endure. Contrary to the skepticism that accompanied the rebalancing of the public-private interface in port governance in the past decades, the search and implementation of port governance models are expected to sustain the core role of port managing entities. The same is true for the role of **terminal operators**, especially given their multinational character, as well as the continuation of vertical integration trends. A different balance between port authorities and terminal operators might emerge, yet their interaction will be fundamental for advancing ports. Irrespective of the critical and challenging issues that may arise in the future, there is no reason to expect a uniform response or adjustment by ports. The **diversity of ports** worldwide will undoubtedly endure, making ports an industry worth investigating. The saying “to know one port is to know one port” remains valid. # Related Topics - [i.1 Defining Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/) - [i.2 Seaports: Economic Value](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/) - [i.3 Seaports: Social and Environmental Value](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/) - [Chapter 1.1 Maritime Shipping and International Trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/emerging-issues-ports-maritime-shipping/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/emerging-issues-ports-maritime-shipping/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/emerging-issues-ports-maritime-shipping/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/emerging-issues-ports-maritime-shipping/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Number of Reefer Slots per Container Port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/number-reefer-slots-container-port/) **Published:** January 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Reefer-Slots.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Number of Reefer Slots per Container Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Number of Reefer Slots per Container Port*Source: Web sites of port authorities and terminal operators.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Reefer-Slots.pdf) The majority of container terminals allocate space for refrigerated containers (reefers), as they account for about 5% of all TEUs handled. This represents a separate and specialized port function that requires equipment such as reefer plugs (power outlets), a power supply, and labor to monitor the reefers. Although handling reefers at ports involves additional costs, it also generates revenue due to the higher value of the cargo and its time sensitivity, which commands premium rates. The following patterns in the geographical distribution of reefer storage capacity at container ports are observed: - An inventory of the world’s ports revealed a total reefer storage capacity of more than **475,000 reefer slots**. At the port level, the median number of reefer slots is 815, but with a very high standard deviation, underlining an outlier group of ports with very high numbers of reefer slots. - Major **transshipment hubs** have a large number of reefer slots (3,000 and above) that are necessary to accommodate the connectivity between reefer shipping networks. - Major **commercial gateways** that serve as distribution nodes for imported cold chain goods. - Major **cold chain export gateways** supplying the global market with cold chain goods, particularly fruits, in Central and South America (Brazil, Chile, Ecuador) and South Africa. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/number-reefer-slots-container-port/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/number-reefer-slots-container-port/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/number-reefer-slots-container-port/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/number-reefer-slots-container-port/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Top 20 Cruise Brands by Berth Capacity, 2026](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/top-20-cruise-brands/) **Published:** February 10, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Top-20-Cruise-Brands-by-Berth-Capacity-2026-1.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Top 20 Cruise Brands by Berth Capacity, 2026 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Top 20 Cruise Brands Total Berths*Source: Data in various industry reports.* The top 20 cruise brands, measured by total berth capacity, continue to upgrade their fleets. The number of berths in each cruise vessel is equal to the number of people who can sleep on board. Comparing the evolution of berth capacity over the last decade, the largest cruise brands continue to expand faster than the smaller lines. The aggregate cruise ship capacity controlled by the top 10 cruise lines in 2019 was 351,433 berths. In 2026, this aggregate has increased to 455,032 berths. The existing market concentration in cruise supply is expected to persist and may even increase in the coming years. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/top-20-cruise-brands/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/top-20-cruise-brands/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/top-20-cruise-brands/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/top-20-cruise-brands/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Jean-Paul Rodrigue - Short Bio](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/short-cv-jean-paul-rodrigue/) **Published:** December 5, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/rodrigue-jeanpaul-headshot-001.jpg?resize=300%2C300&ssl=1 "Jean-Paul Rodrigue | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Jean Paul Rodrigue ORCID: <https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0008-1501> Jean-Paul Rodrigue has been a Professor at the Department of Maritime Business Administration at Texas A&M University – Galveston since 2024. Between 1999 and 2023, he was a Professor in the Department of Global Studies & Geography at Hofstra University, New York. His research interests mainly cover the fields of transportation and economics as they relate to logistics and global freight distribution. Specific topics over which he has published extensively cover maritime transport systems and logistics, global supply chains, gateways, and transport corridors. He is a lead member of the [PortEconomics.eu](http://www.porteconomics.eu/) initiative as well as of the International Association of Maritime Economists. Dr. Rodrigue was a member of the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on the Future of Manufacturing (2011-2016). In 2013, the US Secretary of Transportation appointed Dr. Rodrigue to sit on the Advisory Board of the US Merchant Marine Academy, a position he held until 2018. He was also the New York team leader for the [MetroFreight](https://www.metrans.org/metrofreight) project about city logistics. In 2019, he was the recipient of the Edward L. Ullman Award for outstanding contribution to the field of transport geography by the American Association of Geographers. In 2022, Dr. Rodrigue was appointed a Distinguished Fellow at the Hagler Institute for Advanced Study / Department of Maritime Administration, Texas A&M University. **E-Mail: ecojpr@tamug.edu – [Home page](https://jeanpaulrodrigue.info/) – [LinkedIn page](https://www.linkedin.com/in/jean-paul-rodrigue-30780511/) – [Google Scholar page](https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=NcfmD_8AAAAJ&hl=en)** ## Latest publications - Rodrigue, J-P (2025) “A Systemic Analysis of Container Terminal Layouts”, Journal of Shipping and Trade, Vol. 10, No. 4, <https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-025-00194-3>. - Rodrigue, J-P (2024) “Singapore stuck between a shipping hub and a hard place”, [East Asia Forum](https://eastasiaforum.org/2024/10/31/singapore-stuck-between-a-shipping-hub-and-a-hard-place/), <https://doi.org/10.59425/eabc.1730368800>. - Rodrigue, J-P, (2024) *The Geography of Transport Systems*, Sixth Edition, London: Routledge. 402 pages. ISBN 9781032380407. <https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003343196>. - National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2024) Intermodal Chassis Provisioning and Supply Chain Efficiency: Equipment Availability, Choice, and Quality. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. <https://doi.org/10.17226/27806>. - Arvis, J-F, C. Rastogi, J-P Rodrigue and D. Ulybina (2024) [A Metric of Global Maritime Supply Chain Disruptions: The Global Supply Chain Stress Index (GSCSI)](http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099746107032431443/IDU19447dab513757140b1193cd19643f0ab7c10). Policy Research working paper WPS10839, Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-10839> - Oulmakki, O., J-P Rodrigue, A. Hernandez Meza and J. Verny (2023) “The implications of Chinese investments on Mediterranean trade and maritime hubs”. J. shipp. trd. 8, 28. <https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-023-00157-6> - Rodrigue, J-P (2022) “Home-Based Parcel Deliveries: Consumer and Logistics Patterns from Retail Digitalization”, *Case Studies on Transport Policy*. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2022.11.004> - Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2022) “Maritime Container Terminal Infrastructure, Network Corporatization, and Global Terminal Operators: Implications for International Business Policy”, *Journal of International Business Policy*.<https://doi.org/10.1057/s42214-022-00142-z>. - Rodrigue, J-P (2022) “The Vulnerability and Resilience of the Global Container Shipping Industry”, invited contribution, annual Global Trends issue, *Current History*, 121 (831), pp. 17-23. University of California Press. <https://doi.org/10.1525/curh.2022.121.831.17>. - UNCTAD (2022) [Building Capacity to Manage Risks and Enhance Resilience: A Guidebook for Ports](https://resilientmaritimelogistics.unctad.org/), UNCTAD/TCS/DTL/INF/2022/3, 135 pages. Lead consultant. - Rodrigue, J-P (2022) A Review of Public Policy Responses to Supply Chain Pressures: An International Assessment, Policy Integration and Research, Strategic Policy and Innovation Policy Group, Transport Canada. - Notteboom T., A.A. Pallis, and J-P. Rodrigue (2021). “Disruptions and Resilience in Container Shipping, Ports and Supply chains: The COVID-19 pandemic vs. the 2008-2009 Financial Crisis”. *Maritime Economics and Logistics*, [doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00180-5](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41278-020-00180-5). - Rodrigue, Jean-Paul, (2021) “Transport Modes and Globalization”. In: Vickerman, Roger (eds.) International Encyclopedia of Transportation vol 5. pp. 38-44. United Kingdom: Elsevier Ltd. - Rodrigue, J-P and T. Notteboom (2021) “Automation in Container Port Systems and Management”, TR News, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, No. 334, pp. 20-26. - Rodrigue, J-P (2021) “Embedding Transportation into Geography”, Domusair, No.2, pp. 24-25. - Rodrigue, J-P, (2020) *The Geography of Transport Systems*, Fifth Edition, London: Routledge. 456 pages. ISBN: 978-0-367-36463-2. - Rodrigue, J-P (2020) “Caribbean Transshipment in the New Panamax Era: The Case of the Port of Cartagena, Colombia”, in Y. Alix, M. Montantin and J.M. Pages Sanchez (eds) Dynamiques portuaires latino-caribéennes, Fondation SEFACIL. - Rodrigue, J-P (2020) “The Geography of Maritime Ranges: Interfacing Global Maritime Shipping Networks with Hinterlands”, *Geojournal*. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10308-y> - Rodrigue, J-P and G.W.Y. Wang (2020) “Cruise Shipping Supply Chains and the Impacts of Disruptions: The Case of the Caribbean”, *Research in Transportation Business and Management*. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100551](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100551 "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100551") - Rodrigue, J-P (2020) “The Distribution Network of Amazon: Analyzing the Footprint of Freight Digitalization”, *Journal of Transport Geography*, Vol. 88. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102825> - Notteboom, T., T. Pallis and J-P Rodrigue (2020) Ports and Shipping in the COVID-19 Pandemic, Port Technology International, No. 100, pp. 80-84. - Rodrigue, J-P (2020) Constraints in the Canadian Transport Infrastructure Grid, The School of Public Policy Publication, University of Calgary. - Rodrigue, J-P (2020) “The Emerging Role of Connectivity”, Port Centric Logistics: The Model of the Future? Port Technology International. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/short-cv-jean-paul-rodrigue/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/short-cv-jean-paul-rodrigue/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/short-cv-jean-paul-rodrigue/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/about/short-cv-jean-paul-rodrigue/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Man Load Concept](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/man-load/) **Published:** February 9, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/man_load_concept3.png?resize=900%2C507&ssl=1 "The Man Load Concept | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Man Load concept*Source: adapted from Meeuse, G.C., (1977), Technologische aspecten van het geïntegreerd transport, Nederlands Vervoerswetenschappelijk Instituut: Rijswijk*. Cargo can be bundled into pieces or units (horizontal arrows) that dock workers can manipulate. This refers to the man load, except for gases and some liquids that are transported in bulk. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/man-load/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/man-load/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/man-load/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/man-load/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Forms of Cargo Transportation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/forms-cargo-transportation/) **Published:** October 7, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/forms_cargo_transportation.png?resize=900%2C297&ssl=1 "Forms of Cargo Transportation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Forms of Cargo TransportationCargo, including maritime cargo, is characterized by the method of transportation and the type of load unit involved. - **Continuous transport**. Loose and unpacked cargo that can be potentially carried in large quantities without interruption and load handling equipment. This applies to solids, gases, and liquids that conveyor belts or pipes can transport from one storage medium (onshore or on a ship). - **Discontinuous transport**. Cargo that requires specific handling in loads necessitates a form of consolidation and deconsolidation. - **Determined content**. Cargo is carried in known and measurable quantities, which require a load unit, such as a tank, pallet, box, or container. - **Own form**. Cargo, which, due to its physical characteristics, can be carried as is without the need for a container. This includes bulk, such as ores or petrochemicals, and break bulk, such as vehicles and project cargo (e.g. wind blades). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/forms-cargo-transportation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/forms-cargo-transportation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/forms-cargo-transportation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/forms-cargo-transportation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Potential Indicators for Monitoring Port Circular Processes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/monitoring-progress-circular-ports/) **Published:** December 6, 2023 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/indicators_port_circular_processes.png?resize=900%2C584&ssl=1 "Potential Indicators for Monitoring Port Circular Processes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Circular ports monitor*Based on Circular Flanders (2023). [Circular ports Monitor](https://circularports.vlaanderen-circulair.be/themes/circular-port-monitor/indicators/ "Circular ports Monitor").* **Monitoring progress toward circular goals** is at an early stage of documentation, research and implementation. A concrete framework for tracking progress towards a circular port has been developed and tested within the context of Circular Flanders activities. This **Circular Ports monitoring framework** provides a set of 12 indicators that enable port authorities to track progress and performance towards circularity, facilitating the formulation of next steps for the gradual advancement of circularity ambitions. The 12 selected indicators are: 1. **The number of CE business activities located in the port area**. The indicator directly relates to the number of CE business activities in the port area. A circular (business) activity is defined as an initiative that passed the minimum efficient scale or pilot phase, moving to a greater maturity level. 2. **The number of CE projects in the port area**. A circular project is defined here as a temporary circular initiative that has recently started. It has not yet passed a minimum efficient scale. The initiative is still in a pilot or test phase and is mostly financially supported by one or more organizations. 3. **Share of tender specifications that include a circular procurement policy.** This indicator relates to the circularity of port infrastructure and governance measures used by Port authorities. Circular requirements referred to in tender specifications could include, but are not limited to, building infrastructure modularly or requiring that a minimum percentage of the used materials be secondary. 4. **Share of CE start-ups in the port area that use incubation services.** The indicator highlights the R&D and services that can be leveraged to enhance the economic viability of circular initiatives. Incubators can provide start-ups with services related to, amongst others, administration and applications for subsidies. The idea is that CE start-ups that use incubation services will grow faster and further than those that do not and, therefore, have a higher long-term potential. Embedded in this indicator is another value: the number of CE start-ups in the port area. This gives an idea of the CE innovation in the port area. (Examples of incubation services: Prodock (Port of Amsterdam), Circular Kickstart (Antwerp, Gent, Bruges).) 5. **Share of port companies that are members of a CE platform/s in the port cluster.** The indicator introduces the notion of a CE platform. This network of actors and players enhances collaboration, innovation, and/or knowledge transfer. The more members it holds, the greater its value resulting from synergies. This is particularly relevant in the context of the CE because it facilitates industrial symbiosis. For example, the production waste of one port company can be used as a valuable input in the production process of a different port company (An example of a CE platform is Smart Delta Resources (North Sea Port, Belgium/Netherlands). 6. **Share of non-recyclable waste generated onboard ship**s. The indicator relates to waste generated on board ships, particularly non-recyclable waste. In this case, the recyclable waste deposited at the port reception facility is assumed to be recycled. The non-recyclable waste, however, is disposed of. Existing codes defined internationally (such as the “D-codes” developed by the European Union institutions) allow for distinguishing between recyclable and non-recyclable waste. 7. **Share of cargo volume of end-of-life materials**. The indicator has two components, namely, (a) import and (b) export, and identifies the volume of the cargo streams that relate to the CE, i.e., how the CE transition is reflected in ports’ cargo streams. 8. **Share of non-recyclable waste generated in the port are**a. Analogous to Indicator No. 6, this indicator concerns waste generated in the port area. The assumption is made that recyclable waste collected by the waste collection system is indeed recycled. 9. **Share of hectares of CE activities in the port area**. This indicator relates to the land use within the port area and the extent to which land is used for circular activities. The calculation is straightforward for concessionaires whose activities are fully circular, as the whole plot area can be included. However, the feasibility of providing an accurate value is limited for plots where circular activities are only a part of the total activities taking place. 10. **Share of direct employment from CE activities and projects in the port area**. This indicator considers the issue of employment in the CE. Employment is a crucial factor in ports’ social license to operate, making it worthwhile to understand how the CE transition may impact this. The feasibility of measuring this indicator depends on whether the circular activities comprise the total business activities. 11. **Amount of end-of-life material processed in the port area**. This indicator is made up of four components: (a) material (tons), (b) water (liters), (c) energy (kilojoules), and (d) CO2 (tons). It relates to the processing of end-of-life material. Here, processing pertains to recycling and encompasses other R-levels, such as re-manufacturing, repair, and processing for internal and external reuse. Material, water, energy, and CO2 are prepared to be used as a new input. These are the main types of resources given a second life in the port area. 12. **Share of secondary material consumption in the port area.** This indicator pertains to the utilization of secondary materials in the port area. Its four components are the same as those of the previous indicator: (a) material (tons), (b) water (liters), (c) energy (kilojoules), and (d) CO2 (tons). This indicator provides insight into the use of secondary materials instead of virgin materials by port companies. While the exercise is admittedly a “work in progress”, it provides a valuable instrument to **ports for developing competitive advantages in the circular economy and benchmarking themselves against their competitors**. A common set of relevant circular indicators that can potentially raise the circular ambitions of ports allows for baseline, follow-up, and benchmarking analysis. These circular indicators would also support the possibility of aggregating information across ports and show their collective efforts for society in this transition. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/monitoring-progress-circular-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/monitoring-progress-circular-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/monitoring-progress-circular-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/monitoring-progress-circular-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Top Environmental Priorities for the European Port Sector](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/top-10-environmental-priorities/) **Published:** March 15, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/environmental_priorities_europe.png?resize=900%2C485&ssl=1 "Top 10 Environmental Priorities for European Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Top 10 Environmental Priorities European Ports*Source: European Sea Ports Organisation (2020).ESPO Environmental Report 2020. Brussels: ESPO.* The priority ports assigned to individual environmental issues change with time and as conditions evolve. In a European context, port authorities have developed a periodically revised hierarchy of the ten environmental priorities, aiming to produce benchmarking regarding key areas of port environmental performance to be addressed. In 2020, air quality was the top environmental priority, followed by climate change, which first reached the top-10 list of European ports environmental priorities in 2016. Energy efficiency is the third priority of ports. These priorities have shifted with climate change emerging as the epicenter. It was the tenth environmental priority in 2017 and became the second priority for ports in 2020. There appears to be an increase in the number of ports facing operational challenges due to climate change. Thus, they are interested in monitoring these trends to strengthen the resilience of their existing infrastructure and adapt it to climate change, considering this when planning future infrastructure projects. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/top-10-environmental-priorities/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/top-10-environmental-priorities/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/top-10-environmental-priorities/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/top-10-environmental-priorities/?share=reddit) - --- ### [A Taxonomy of Strategic Marketing Positioning by Port Authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/strategic-marketing-positioning-port-authorities-taxonomy/) **Published:** November 30, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/taxonomy_strategic_marketing.png?resize=900%2C431&ssl=1 "A Taxonomy of Strategic Marketing Positioning by Port Authorities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")A Taxonomy of Strategic Marketing Positioning by Port Authorities*Source: Adapted from Parola, F., Pallis, A.A., Risitano, M. & Ferretti, M. (2018). Marketing strategies of port authorities: A multi-dimensional theorisation, Transportation Research Policy and Practice Part A, 111, 199-212.* A port authority might select among multiple combinations of stakeholders and marketing actions, emphasizing the distinguishing features of its value proposition and market image. Strategic marketing options can be portrayed as a combination of the stakeholder-action matrixes. The potential approaches are diverse, ranging from a very narrow segmentation to full market coverage. When defining its strategic positioning, a port authority decides in which segments to be present and the intensity of its marketing efforts. Essentially, there are five different patterns of target market selection: 1. Single-segment concentration. 2. Selective specialization. 3. Marketing action specialization. 4. Stakeholder (market) specialization. 5. Full market coverage. When defining its strategic positioning, a port authority typically decides to follow one of the above five patterns. This variation of marketing approaches largely corresponds to the specialization observed in shipping and the expansion of actors active in port-specific or port-related activities. The intensity of the overall positioning and the corresponding marketing efforts depend on the specifics of each port: 1. When a port is active in shipping markets, marketing focuses on a **single segment**. To understand the needs and wants of a specific segment, the port authority focuses on a homogeneous group of stakeholders with a limited geographic scope. This approach typically ensures cost flexibility for service production and promotion, leading to specialization. This might increase the chances of achieving a strong market presence in a particular segment. As a limitation, the port authority is more exposed to risk due to the absence of diversification, such as unforeseen contextual changes. 2. **Selective specialization** occurs when the port authority identifies a number of target segments and then undertakes varied marketing actions directed to several stakeholder groups. This strategy has the advantage of risk diversification. The port authority can achieve economies of scale and scope, as well as gain existing synergies in marketing actions. Drawbacks arise from the need to cater to multiple segments in a complex and dynamic environment. Hence, it is necessary to develop multi-market knowledge and competencies in sophisticated marketing activities. 3. **Marketing action specialization** means that the port authority employs a set of similar marketing actions to address various stakeholders across its foreland and hinterland. The advantage of this approach is that the port authority can cater to different segments with a single marketing action, thereby developing unique internal resources and capabilities. 4. In the case of **stakeholder specialization**, the port authority interacts with **one specific market**, trying to match the needs of a particular stakeholder group. This is particularly the case for the container shipping market, which is dominated by alliances of a few companies, and the cruise market, which is dominated by a few brands. The advantage of this pattern is that in the case of a monopolistic/oligopolistic environment, the port authority has the potential to adjust. The geography of stakeholders is limited, reducing the complexity of marketing actions. The weakest point of this positioning is that the port authority becomes stakeholder-focused. If the specific segment weakens, the port authority risks a profound downsizing or even a market exit. 5. **Full market coverage** implies that the port authority covers all market segments. This strategy requires committing a substantial amount of financial and technical resources, as well as the capacity to navigate diverse contexts and stakeholder categories. The advantages are that large-scale diversification (multi-geography of stakeholders) reduces market and other types of risk, minimizing the chances of failure. The main drawback is the implied lack of focus on any particular stakeholder market. Marketing actions have to intercept stakeholders in multiple geographic regions, and port markets add further complexity to the overall picture. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/strategic-marketing-positioning-port-authorities-taxonomy/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/strategic-marketing-positioning-port-authorities-taxonomy/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/strategic-marketing-positioning-port-authorities-taxonomy/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/strategic-marketing-positioning-port-authorities-taxonomy/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cruise Boarding Corridor](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/cruise-boarding-corridor/) **Published:** September 29, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-09-15-122619.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Cruise Boarding Corridor | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Boarding Corridor*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2025. Royal Caribbean Cruise Terminal, Galveston.* Due to the size and length of cruise ships, boarding corridors are often part of cruise terminal design. They allow the transfer between passenger waiting areas and the gangways to board the ship. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/cruise-boarding-corridor/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/cruise-boarding-corridor/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/cruise-boarding-corridor/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/cruise-boarding-corridor/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Waste Reception from a Cruise Ship](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/waste-reception-cruise-ship/) **Published:** September 29, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2025-09-15-122641.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Waste Reception from a Cruise Ship | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Waste Reception from a Cruise Ship*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2025. Royal Caribbean Cruise Terminal, Galveston.* Cruise ships are subject to strict environmental regulations concerning the disposal of greywater (from sinks, showers, and kitchens) and blackwater (toilets). While graywater can be discharged into the high seas, blackwater requires treatment and proper disposal. In the above photo, wastewater is being collected into truck tanks during the rotation between two cruises. The wastewater will then be brought to a local water treatment facility. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/waste-reception-cruise-ship/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/waste-reception-cruise-ship/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/waste-reception-cruise-ship/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/waste-reception-cruise-ship/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cruise Terminals Operated by Global Ports Holding (GPH), 2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/cruise-terminals-operated-gph/) **Published:** January 5, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-GPH-Cruise-Ports-Holding-1.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Cruise Ports or Terminals Operated by Global Ports Holding (GPH) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise ports andor terminals operated by Global Ports Holding GPH*Source: Global Ports Holding (GPH) website; various sources of cruise passenger movements per port.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-GPH-Cruise-Ports-Holding-1.pdf) Established in 2004, Global Ports Holding GPH has become the world’s largest cruise terminal operator. Its growth is similar to the expansion in the container terminal industry two decades earlier with the setting up of global terminal operators. As the cruise industry grew and gained a critical mass of passengers, cruise terminals became increasingly profitable but complex to manage. Further, the development of new facilities, particularly at turn ports, requires capital investments that port authorities may be unable to provide. This has opened up a window of opportunity for developing portfolios in cruise terminal operations. GPH has positioned its assets in three major cruise markets: - **Mediterranean**. From its initial operations in Turkey, GPH acquired a portfolio comprising the most important cruise ports, particularly Barcelona (a major turn port) and Venice (a major destination). - **Caribbean**. Represents the most important cruise market in the world, with perennial use. GPH was able to secure Nassau, a major hub and destination. It is unlikely that GPH will secure concessions in Florida, as major cruise lines such as Royal Caribbean and Carnival are already terminal operators in hubs like Miami and Fort Lauderdale. Still, many cruise ports in the Caribbean are potential targets for acquisition, which has already begun with Antigua and Havana. - **Southeast Asia**. Represents a fast-growing market for the cruise industry. GPH has established a strong foothold in Singapore, but the development of its portfolio in this region is still in its early stages. Vietnam represents a growth opportunity for the cruise industry. From an initial portfolio of only three ports based in Turkey, the expansion of GPH was rapid, with one phase occurring between 2013 and 2019 and a second phase following the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, the demand for cruises was growing rapidly, providing an incentive for one of the first global cruise terminal asset managers to enter. Since mid-2017, GPH has been a public company listed on the London Stock Exchange. Its portfolio included a 62% majority shareholding in Barcelona, the leading cruise port in the Mediterranean Sea. The pandemic temporarily halted the expansion as cruise activities worldwide came to a standstill. Since 2021, GPH announced further acquisitions (Cagliari, Ravenna, Catania, La Spezia), with greenfield (Barcelona), and operating (Dubrovnik) concessions. In late 2024, GPH operated 34 cruise ports in 32countries and continued to grow steadily. GPH provides services for over 22 million passengers annually, reaching a market share of 29% in the Mediterranean. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/cruise-terminals-operated-gph/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/cruise-terminals-operated-gph/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/cruise-terminals-operated-gph/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/cruise-terminals-operated-gph/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Transport and Handling of Bananas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/handling-bananas/) **Published:** January 16, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Handling-equipment-banana-terminal.png?resize=900%2C485&ssl=1 "The Transport and Handling of Bananas | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Transport and Handling of BananasThe banana is one of the most important perishable commodities in international trade. Cargoes of bananas are carried either in the holds of **reefer (refrigerated) vessels** or in **refrigerated shipping containers**. A voyage may take a few days or several weeks from the loading to the discharging port. Over the past decade, the banana trade has been moving toward almost full containerization. The international banana trade is based on the harvesting and transportation of hard, green, unripe fruit, which is later ripened in the country of consumption. The lowest temperature at which bananas can be safely shipped is approximately 13.3°C, which is optimal for extending postharvest life. At temperatures below this critical value, there is a risk of chilling injury. In contrast to most other fruit commodities, bananas are usually presented to the carrier at ambient temperature. It is the task of the ship or container to cool them safely to the carriage. Technological advancements have enabled the development and growth of the international banana trade. One of the significant developments of banana handling techniques was the packing of bananas in cardboard boxes. The mechanization of handling techniques in loading and discharging areas, through the use of cranes in ports and forklifts or even robots, is also a significant advance for the movement of delicate fruits such as bananas. Advances in **refrigeration technologies** are crucial for the development of banana reefer transport, enabling bananas to reach consumption centers faster and in better quality. The new methods for transporting perishable technologies better control the cold chain and allow for tracing the process through computerized systems. When transported by sea, **bananas are said to be ‘put to sleep’**, reducing the amount of oxygen in the storage area to extend their shipping life. Some of the technologies used are controlled atmosphere, controlled humidity, remote access monitoring, enhanced airflow, better insulation materials and techniques, and internal monitoring controls. The **banana supply chain** is as follows: - Banana producers can be small, independent growers; national companies; or multinational companies. From the production sites (mainly located near plantations in South-Central America), the boxes of bananas are transferred to the loading port. Each box weighs around 40 pounds (18 kg). In the chosen port, the boxes are consolidated into pallets (approximately 48 boxes per pallet) and loaded directly onto a bulk ship or into reefer containers (around 20 pallets per reefer). - Bananas are **transported by sea** through independent reefer carriers (specialized or containerized) or by reefer fleets owned by the same multinationals. - After their **unloading in the importing countries**, bananas may move through importers before their arrival at retail outlets to be sold to consumers. At the port of destination, the vessel is unloaded and hauled towards the retailers’ infrastructures (reefer warehouses and platforms). Before the ship’s arrival, a barcode manifest of the cargo is sent to the terminal so that it is known beforehand what the volume of the products are and the type of packaging (boxes, pallets, containers). This manifest is sent electronically to the terminal and automatically uploaded into the IT system of the terminal. Equipment typically used in the **discharge process** includes quayside cranes, forklifts, and pallet jacks. Some of the vessels that arrive at the terminal do have their own onboard cranes, but quayside cranes are faster and more efficient than on-board cranes: - When **reefer containers** are transported by a **mainline container vessel**, the reefer container usually ends up at a full container terminal in the port. It is then brought to the banana facility by truck or barge (if available). - Reefer vessels usually also have reefer containers on deck. These reefer vessels call at the banana terminal directly, where they first unload the reefer containers before engaging in below-deck cargo handling operations of palletized banana boxes. The **equipment used to discharge bananas** depends on the unit load used: - **Discharge of reefer containers** is handled by mobile shore cranes or, when available, by [STS container cranes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/portainers-ship-to-shore-container-cranes/). Reefer containers are plugged into electrical outlets provided at the terminal, and their cargo is stripped later in a warehouse adjacent to the quay. The pallets inside the containers are transferred to the warehouse with forklifts and are processed in the same way as the rest of the pallets. - **Discharge of pallets** occurs in order to begin the discharging process of the pallets from the hull of the reefer vessel. The first batch of four pallets should be unloaded. That will happen with the use of a sling. These four pallets have been prepared from the port of origin and are bound together with belts. That applies to each level of the hull because this way, a square opening in the hatch allows the forklifts inside the vessel to handle the rest of the pallets. A sling will pick up these first pallets, and then forklifts waiting at the quayside will collect them and transfer them to the warehouse, where the temperature is controlled. Once this is done, the pallets are placed inside the vessel using pallet jacks and forklifts. They are then accommodated in a pallet cage or pallet tray, which can hold up to 8 pallets, depending on the equipment. The pallets are offloaded at the quayside, and again forklifts, which are waiting on the quayside, collect them and move them inside the warehouse. Consequently, the pallets are exposed to the open air for a limited period, only during transportation from the quayside to the warehouse. A number of reefer vessels have **side doors**, and the loading and discharging are done via the ships’ side door and cargo elevators. However, these operations are not as productive as using the terminal’s cranes. - **Discharge of loose boxes** often occurs in the hull of the ship. To unload loose boxes, spiral unloaders were used that could reach any required point in the ship’s hold to take in the boxes. In the hull, the boxes were manually loaded onto the telescopic belt and then automatically transported into the spiral. As soon as the loose boxes were discharged, they were guided to the warehouse using a conveyor belt. Palletizing robots were used to palletize the boxes before they were brought to the cold store. With the introduction of pallet cages and containerization, the **number of banana boxes handled per minute per crane** increased from 50 when using a spiral unloader to 385 for the pallet cage and 480 when pallets are containerized. As soon as the pallets are offloaded from the vessel, they are transferred to the warehouse. Depending on the **type of warehouse** (automated or not), different processes apply: - **Automated warehouse**: This type of facility uses an **automated storage and retrieval system (AS/RS)**, then the pallets enter the reception area of the warehouse and are placed on the conveyor belt with a forklift. As the pallets move along the conveyor belt, they pass a scanning device that scans the barcode affixed to the carton. In this way, the warehouse management system of the terminal is updated. Each pallet follows a pre-designed path to the actual stacking area, and they are stored according to temperature. - **Traditional warehouse**: Block stacking is typically used, and the pallets are stacked on the aisles by temperature, and depending on how they need to be delivered (by vessel, container, etc.). When the receiver/buyer requests their cargo, then their pallets are collected from the warehouse, moved to the shipping area, and loaded onto the dedicated truck. In this process, the truck is parked against a docking space at the warehouse. The pallets are loaded onto trucks using forklifts. There is little exposure to non-controlled air. The trucks are refrigerated trailer trucks. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/handling-bananas/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/handling-bananas/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/handling-bananas/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/handling-bananas/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Optimal Size of a Container Ship](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/optimal-size-container-ship/) **Published:** December 7, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/optimal_ship_size.png?resize=900%2C421&ssl=1 "The Optimal Size of a Container Ship | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The optimal size of a container shipScale increases in container vessel size are a well-documented and much-debated topic. The search for economies of scale and the focus on cost control have pushed the container shipping industry towards the deployment of ever-larger **containerships**. The introduction of ever-larger container vessels of up to 24,000 TEU has resulted in an overall upscaling across the main east-west trade routes, with slightly smaller vessels cascading to north-south routes. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/optimal-size-container-ship/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/optimal-size-container-ship/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/optimal-size-container-ship/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/optimal-size-container-ship/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Maximum Container Vessel Size Call per Region (2006-2020)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/maximum-container-vessel-size-calling-per-region/) **Published:** January 3, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Maximum-Containership-Size-Calling-per-Region-1.png?resize=900%2C401&ssl=1 "Maximum Containership Size Ccalling per Region (2006-2020) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maximum Containership size calling per region 2006 2020Since the mid-2000s, the maximum size of containerships has doubled. In 2020, the biggest vessels in operation exceeded 23.000 TEU capacity. The largest vessels of all operate on the Far East-Europe routes, also calling in ports in the Gulf and the Indian Sub-Continent (ISC). It is on this route that the largest vessel was operating in 2020 (23,964 TEU). North American ports also serve some of the largest container vessels in operation, with the largest vessel of all those calling on North America having a 23,756 TEU capacity. A decade ago, in 2010, the maximum vessel size in all these regions of the world was less than 15,000 TEU. The biggest vessels do not call in the other regions of the world. The biggest container vessel calling in sub-Saharan Africa stands at 15,000 TEU capacity, in Latin America at a capacity slightly less than that (14,354 TEU) and in Oceania at 11,000 TEU. Yet, since 2010, the scale of the maximum container vessel calling has doubled in these regions of the world as well. The increase in vessel size is not reflected solely in the maximum size of the vessel. It has been accompanied by a **cascading effect** in the feeder market as well. As larger vessels call at major hubs, the feeder market is served by vessels that had previously been engaged in main maritime transportation routes, increasing the pressure on medium- and small-sized container ports to adjust as well. [Calls of post-Panamax sized vessels take place in a large cluster of container ports in different parts of the world](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=6095). Ports have to continuously adapt to the upscaling of operations, both in terms of infrastructure and operations. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/maximum-container-vessel-size-calling-per-region/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/maximum-container-vessel-size-calling-per-region/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/maximum-container-vessel-size-calling-per-region/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/maximum-container-vessel-size-calling-per-region/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Circular Economy Transition Phases for Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/circular-economy-transition-phases-ports/) **Published:** November 3, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/circular_transition_phases_ports.png?resize=900%2C335&ssl=1 "Circular Economy Transition Phases for Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Circular Economy Transition Phases for PortsA port can transition to a circular port through a series of phases and the related actions concerning its major inputs (land, capital, energy, equipment, labor) and outputs: - **Conventional port**. Tend to focus on greenfield development projects, and the port is challenged by the reconversion of existing sites that are underused or abandoned. Most of the equipment is powered by fossil fuels, which can also be used to generate electricity. Financing for infrastructure, superstructures, and equipment is predominantly assessed on a rate-of-return (RoR) basis, with limited consideration of environmental accounting. The port acts as an intermediary location, supporting linear supply chains through the handling and transit of import and export cargoes. The port is connected to the shipping network through scheduled services with ships powered by bunker fuels. Wastes generated by port activities are partially recycled, but most end up in landfills. - **Transitional port**. The land footprint of the port is more comprehensively managed through strategies that aim to reuse brownfield sites for new activities, but greenfield development projects are still common. Efforts are made to electrify the equipment with labor partially substituted through automation and digitalization. Energy transition projects are implemented, including alternative energy sources and surplus heat distribution. Circular economy projects, such as material exchange platforms, are being implemented to identify opportunities. In particular, hubs for material recovery and reuse are being set. Most port emissions and waste generation are being identified and monitored. Further, green corridors, both at the foreland and hinterland, are set with a reliance on alternative fuels. - **Circular port**. Land management is fully integrated with strategies to reuse all the brownfield sites under the port’s jurisdiction, with greenfield developments uncommon. Most terminal activities have been automated and electrified. Several activities related to renewable energy generation and distribution are present, allowing port activities to be supplied with renewable heat and electricity. Financing and environmental reporting are primarily undertaken in accordance with ESG guidelines. Cargo handling has been integrated within circular supply chains, and connectivity is mainly achieved through green corridors. The port becomes an effective material sourcing hub with recycling and reuse processing techniques for different materials, products, and waste streams. Port-related waste is nearly fully recycled, reused, and made available for other activities. The transition to circularity is related to a path dependency by type of terminal, implying that a series of decisions lead to outcomes locking in the facility. This is commonly the case when a commitment is made to a specific technology, such as yard equipment, locking the terminal into an operational business model. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/circular-economy-transition-phases-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/circular-economy-transition-phases-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/circular-economy-transition-phases-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/circular-economy-transition-phases-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Site of the 2015 Tianjin Port Explosions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/site-2015-tianjin-port-explosions/) **Published:** December 7, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/tinajin_port_explosions_2015.png?resize=900%2C725&ssl=1 "Site of the 2015 Tianjin Port Explosions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Site of the 2015 Tianjin Port Explosions*Source: Background map from Google Earth, February 2015.* Ports are significant land consumers involving terminal operations and port-centric logistics activities, generating large volumes of cargo flows and the need to store this cargo temporarily. The port of Tianjin is the third-largest in the world in terms of tonnage and the 10th largest in terms of container volumes. It is a massive industrial and petrochemical complex accounting for about 40% of all Chinese vehicle imports and exports. On August 12, 2015, two subsequent explosions at the Ruihai Logistics facilities dedicated to storing and handling hazardous materials took place. The outcome of the blasts was the complete destruction of adjacent facilities and their stored cargo (mostly container yards and automotive storage facilities that involved close to 12,000 destroyed or damaged vehicles). Significant damage within a radius of 1 km (or more) also occurred depending on how the infrastructure was positioned in relation to the explosions (such as blasted windows and damaged roofs on more than 17,000 housing units). A rail transit station on the other side of an adjacent major highway was also severely damaged, and the transit line it serviced was closed. One hundred seventy-three people were killed by the blast, including firefighters who were on site trying to extinguish the fires. The port terminals were not damaged by the explosions, which took place in an area dominated by logistical activities (particularly empty container depots) as well as automotive storage. Port activities were shut down for a day but resumed afterward, with the movement of chemical cargoes severely restricted. The industrial incident triggered serious concerns because of large amounts of sodium cyanide being stored on-site at the time of the explosion, which involved the risk of contamination and permanent evacuation for nearby residential areas. Several compounding factors have exacerbated the severity of the incident to the level of a transportation disaster. - **Improper handling of the cargo** before and during the incident. The cause of the fire that triggered the explosion is the result of a failure to properly handle hazardous materials. The situation was exacerbated by firefighters not being well-informed about the chemicals stored on site. - **Lack of knowledge by the authorities of the nature and quantity of the hazardous materials being stored on site**. The land where the hazardous materials were stored is leased from the port authority of Tianjin and subject to standard regulations and reporting related to industrial land use. However, Ruihai Logistics did not fully comply with such regulations, which in turn were not fully enforced by local authorities. There were substantially more hazardous materials stored on-site than reported, about 700 tons, which is 70 times the authorized limit. The port oversees thousands of tenants operating very different activities, and the fast growth of the port of Tianjin in recent years (as well as for Chinese ports) has made port management increasingly complex. Further, a slowdown of the Chinese economy, particularly in the mining sector, incited higher inventory levels of several chemicals on-site due to an unexpected decline in demand. - **Incompatible land uses in the port area**. Under normal circumstances, residential areas and freight-intensive activities are incompatible and should not be located in proximity. As the above map illustrates, there are significant residential areas in close proximity to the hazardous materials site. This proximity conflicts with Chinese environmental law, which states that hazardous materials facilities must be at least 3,200 feet (975 meters) from residential areas. The site was approved for handling hazardous materials only a few months before the explosion, implying that it had been operating informally beforehand. The economic consequences of this industrial accident were limited, but estimated to be in the range of $9 billion. The port’s major infrastructures were unaffected, and the area where the disaster took place was dominantly devoted to container storage, stuffing, and de-stuffing, as well as automotive storage. These activities can be relocated relatively easily and are not particularly capital-intensive (their major inputs are space and labor). Still, the port temporarily lost a share of the logistical capabilities of its port-centric logistics zones. More complex is the outcome on neighboring residential and commercial activities (including a civic center and a major sports stadium). The industrial accident underlines the complexity of port and logistical operations and the risk related to storing hazardous materials in such a setting. The lack of information to monitor hazardous materials stored within the port facilities was the root cause of the problem. These issues were particularly apparent during the [2020 Beirut port explosion](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/site-2020-beirut-port-explosion/ "Site of the 2020 Beirut Port Explosion"). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/site-2015-tianjin-port-explosions/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/site-2015-tianjin-port-explosions/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/site-2015-tianjin-port-explosions/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/site-2015-tianjin-port-explosions/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Types of Cruise Gangways](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/types-cruise-gangways/) **Published:** January 11, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_gangways.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Types of Cruise Gangways | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Cruise Gangways*Photos: Gangways located at Port Canaveral, U.S., and Port of Venice, Italy*. The passenger **gangway**, commonly referred to as a seaport passenger boarding bridge (SPBB) by the industry, is the means of conveyance used for boarding and disembarking from a ship. In general shipping terms, it refers to a walkway or bridge connecting the vessel to land. Because access varies widely from one port to another, a cruise ship’s gangway refers to the area on the ship where passengers enter and exit. Today, different **types of cruise gangways** are available to meet these needs and provide safe boarding in all conditions. **Fixed gangways** leading directly from the pier deck to the vessel door; **fixed telescoping gangways** that can accommodate a wider diversity of vessel door locations and tide ranges as a pivot about the fixed building end; and mobile adjustable gangways that are not fixed at either the building or vessel end but provide almost unlimited access to vessel doors at any location and height and control over ramp slopes are three of the most used of the options available. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/types-cruise-gangways/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/types-cruise-gangways/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/types-cruise-gangways/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/types-cruise-gangways/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cruise Terminal Configuration](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/cruise-terminal-configuration/) **Published:** January 11, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_terminal_configuration2.png?resize=900%2C533&ssl=1 "Cruise Terminal Configuration | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Terminal Configuration*Source: Adapted from: PIANC Working Group 152 (2016). Guidelines for Cruise Terminals. Brussels: PIANC.* Cruise terminals mainly follow four major configurations: - **A. Wharf cruise terminal**. A lateral orientation of the terminal facility that favors the full service of the ships with the terminal building adjacent to the dock. Home (or turn) ports tend to be of this configuration, which can account for substantial warf space but allows for the quick turnaround of ships. - **B. Pier terminal**. Typically, converting an older pier facility into a cruise terminal offers the advantage of denser use of the port facility. - **C. Jetty terminal**. Cruise ships are serviced through an artificial extension requiring longer distances between the cruise terminal and the cruise ships. They tend to be more prevalent for smaller ports of call. Jetties can be horizontally or laterally aligned. - **D. Offshore terminal**. Through an anchorage area or latching to dolphins, cruise ships are serviced through tenders. This occurs when the port of call has limited facilities and docking space. However, boarding capabilities are curtailed by the frequency and capacity of tenders. A typical **cruise home port** is a wharf terminal that accommodates multiple cruise ships simultaneously. The clearance between two ships is usually 10% of their length overall (LOA), with a minimum of 10 meters. This function allows for the estimation of how many cruise ships can be docked simultaneously, considering the available wharf length. The terminal building, similar to an airport terminal, is designed for quick drop-off and pickup of passengers and offers good connectivity to the local transportation network. A separate access is available for cargo deliveries to the apron. The terminal may also have storage capabilities for stores, including refrigerated goods. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/cruise-terminal-configuration/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/cruise-terminal-configuration/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/cruise-terminal-configuration/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/cruise-terminal-configuration/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Yachts Density in Major Markets](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/yachts-density-major-markets/) **Published:** September 12, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Leisure-Ships.png?resize=900%2C484&ssl=1 "Yachts Density in Major Markets | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Yachts Density in Major Markets*Note: Number of AIS positions reported by leisure vessels per grid cell (550m x 550m) between Jan 2015 and Feb 2021. Source: World Bank Group.* Yachts are designed to travel long distances over the high seas in comfort and safety. However, they are typically used for short-distance trips in areas offering scenic views and tourist attractions, including the availability of marinas. The density of yachting is related to the presence of marinas that can service these ships, such as providing berths, fuel, stores, and repairs. Two regions account for the majority of the yachting activity: - **North American East Coast and the Caribbean**. An extensive coastal system, ranging from the St. Lawrence to the Florida Keys. The northern part of this submarket tends to be seasonal, with limited activity during the winter as many yachts are repositioned in Florida and the Caribbean. The Caribbean is characterized by a corridor that connects the island chains on the Greater and Lesser Antilles. Long-distance trips involve reaching Bermuda and crossing the North Atlantic to reach the Mediterranean. - **Europe and the Mediterranean**. Yachting in the Mediterranean is extensive, particularly along the Costa del Sol in Spain, the French Riviera, the West coast of Italy, and the Aegean Sea. These areas account for the most developed and sought-after amenities for marinas. Due to political instability, little yachting takes place in the southern part of the Mediterranean. In northern Europe, the Channel, the North Sea, and the Oresund area have the most activity, but on a much more seasonal basis. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/yachts-density-major-markets/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/yachts-density-major-markets/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/yachts-density-major-markets/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/yachts-density-major-markets/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cruise Passengers Movements in Mediterranean Cruise Ports, 2023](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-passengers-visits-mediterranean/) **Published:** February 5, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Cruise_Mediterranean_Visits-1.png?resize=900%2C526&ssl=1 "Cruise Passengers Visits, Mediterranean, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Passengers Visits Mediterranean 2023*Source: Data adapted from Cruise Market Watch. Cruise port visits are based on the published itineraries of about 90% of the global cruise shipping capacity (P&O and Aida are not covered). Also include inland locations that are formally part of a cruise itinerary. Regional and seasonal fluctuations in occupancy levels can significantly impact estimates.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Cruise_Mediterranean_Visits-1.pdf) The Mediterranean is the world’s second-largest cruise shipping market, representing over 16% of the annual cruise capacity. It can be broken down into distinctive multi-port regions, the Western Med, the Eastern Med, and the Adriatic. The Western Med represents the main market, but congestion is encouraging the consideration of new itineraries in the Eastern Med and the Black Sea. The proximity of the Mediterranean to Europe provides the advantage of a large pool of customers with discretionary spending potential. It is a perennial cruise market with a summer peak season (several itineraries are not serviced in the winter). The Mediterranean offers, at the same time, seaside resort destinations (e.g. Palma de Mallorca, Mykonos) as well as world-class cultural amenities, as several cities are museums on their own (e.g. Venice). The Eastern Med lacks airport capacity and connectivity, with limited cruise terminals, except for the Greek Islands, which are predominantly serviced by Piraeus with smaller ships. Typical seven-day itineraries are structured as small loops of four to five ports of call, each covering a specific subregion, such as the Adriatic or the Spanish coast. Since the distances between ports of call are relatively short, this leaves additional time for shore excursions at each port of call, offering a wide array of cultural amenities. Fourteen-day itineraries are also being offered to cover large parts of the European side of the Mediterranean. Many of the itineraries are focused on historical sites and exceptional scenery. Spain, Italy, and Greece are the most popular countries for cruise ports of call in Europe. The strong growth of Mediterranean cruises in recent years has made some ports crowded. This is particularly felt in top cruise tourist destinations such as Santorini in Greece, Venice in Italy, and Dubrovnik in Croatia. Hub ports such as Civitavecchia and Barcelona are challenged to cope with the strong growth. Eight ports serve more than 1 million cruise passenger movements per year, with the largest being Barcelona, which accommodates over 3 million passengers, and two more (Civitavecchia (Rome) and the Balearic Islands) host over 2 million passengers. The cruise period is marked by substantial seasonality. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-passengers-visits-mediterranean/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-passengers-visits-mediterranean/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-passengers-visits-mediterranean/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-passengers-visits-mediterranean/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cruise Passengers Visits, Caribbean, 2023](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-passengers-visits-caribbean/) **Published:** February 5, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Cruise_Caribbean_Visits.png?resize=900%2C678&ssl=1 "Cruise Passengers Visits, Caribbean, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Passengers Visits Caribbean 2023*Source: Data adapted from Cruise Market Watch. Cruise port visits are based on the published itineraries of about 90% of the global cruise shipping capacity (P&O and Aida are not covered). Also include inland locations that are formally part of a cruise itinerary. Regional and seasonal fluctuations in occupancy levels can have a notable impact on estimates.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Cruise_Caribbean_Visits.pdf) The Caribbean is the world’s largest cruise shipping market, accounting for over 40% of the annual cruise supply. It serves as an ideal cruising destination for the following reasons: - **Geography**. The Caribbean is primarily a chain of islands (an archipelago) in close proximity, resulting in short cruising distances between ports of call. The climate is subtropical with limited temperature fluctuations, although the hurricane season (August to October) can create some disruptions. The region features a diverse array of landscapes, ranging from rainforests to semi-arid conditions, and is home to coral and volcanic islands. - **Historical and cultural**. The region has a long history associated with European colonialism and accounts for the oldest settlements in the Americas. African, Hispanic, English, French, and Dutch influences are prevalent, conferring a very diversified cultural landscape that often changes completely from one island to another. Therefore, the cruise industry can offer its customers a variety of cultural experiences in close proximity to each other. - **Commercial**. Being adjacent to the United States offers a large market of potential tourists able to afford cruise packages without having to travel far to start a cruising itinerary. Most Caribbean cruises call from the Miami, Fort Lauderdale, or Port Canaveral cruise ports, which act as the main turn (hub) ports. All are near major airports that are well-connected to the rest of the United States and major tourist destinations in their own right. New York is also a significant hub port, but its distance limits its options for Caribbean ports of call; Kings Wharf (Bermuda) represents a common port of call for New York-bound Caribbean itineraries. Galveston and New Orleans have emerged as turn ports for cruises calling the Western Caribbean market. Itineraries using San Juan, Puerto Rico, as a hub port have the advantage of effectively covering the Southern Caribbean market, the farthest from the United States. The typical Caribbean itinerary is 7 nights in duration, covering a sub-region of the Caribbean comprising 3 or 4 ports of call. Cruise ships commonly arrive at the port of call early in the morning and leave in the evening, using the night to sail to the next port of call. Ships are constantly moving between ports of call, and shore leaves are of short duration, averaging 4.3 hours in the Caribbean. To take advantage of a location that does not have sufficient infrastructure to accommodate cruise operations, several cruise shipping companies developed private cruise terminals, including related private touristic amenities (beaches, craft markets, restaurants, etc.). A salient example is Labadee in Haiti, which is privately owned by Royal Caribbean Cruises. The facility is an enclave protected by private security forces and acts as a port of call for most Western Caribbean itineraries since the nearby Windward Passage is the main gateway to the region. Still, the importance of Labadee as a port of call has declined due to the enduring political unrest in Haiti. Another important type of itinerary concerns cruises of 3 to 5 nights in duration that will call 2 or 3 ports in the Bahamas. It caters to a mass market of tourists wishing to take a short, low-cost cruise, often using the largest ships in the fleet, commonly combined with a longer vacation (in Florida). This market is also very appealing for cruise lines, as it involves very short distances and, therefore, low fuel consumption, thereby maximizing the utilization of their ship assets. To take advantage of this market opportunity, every major cruise line has established [private resort facilities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/private-islands-caribbean-owned-cruise-lines/ "Private Islands in the Caribbean Owned by Cruise Lines") in the Bahamas, including CocoCay (Royal Caribbean), Half Moon Cay (Holland), Castaway Cay (Disney), Princess Cay (Princess), and Great Stirrup Cay (Norwegian). An example of a combination cruise/resort concerns Disney Cruise Line, which calls from Port Canaveral and offers 4 to 5-night cruises to the Bahamas (Nassau and Castaway Cay). This cruise can be taken in combination with a vacation package at Disneyland Resort in Orlando, which is just 100 km inland of Port Canaveral. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-passengers-visits-caribbean/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-passengers-visits-caribbean/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-passengers-visits-caribbean/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-passengers-visits-caribbean/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Global Cruise Port System](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/global-cruise-port-system/) **Published:** February 5, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Cruise-Ports-World-1.png?resize=900%2C456&ssl=1 "The Global Cruise Port System, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Global Cruise Port System*Source: Data adapted from Cruise Market Watch. Cruise port visits are based on the published itineraries of about 90% of the global cruise shipping capacity (P&O and Aida are not covered). Also include inland locations that are formally part of a cruise itinerary. Regional and seasonal fluctuations in occupancy levels can significantly impact estimates.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Cruise-Ports-World-1.pdf) The global cruise port system has been characterized by a high level of regional concentration as well as a clustering of port visits. This **regionalism** forms [major cruise markets](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/map-deployment-global-cruise-fleet/ "Deployment of the Global Cruise Fleet, 2023"), or cruise regions, where most cruise itineraries are deployed. However, this concentration level is declining as more extensive itineraries are being built by cruise lines, and interest in developing cruise activities has increased the number of cruise ports of call and home ports. The observed destination patterns clearly underscore the prominence of port visits around the [Caribbean](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1555) and the [Mediterranean Sea](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1563), in line with the operational characteristics of seven-day cruises calling at three to five ports. Other clusters of significant activity concern New England / Atlantic Canada, Alaska, Hawaii, and Northern Europe. In the 2010s, Asia was the [most significant growth market](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1472) for the industry. However, after the COVID-19 pandemic, the market share of Asian cruises dropped by half, mainly due to the decline of China-related cruises. A similar decline was observed in the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea because of geopolitical issues. New cruising clusters are emerging to serve a latent demand from a growing middle and upper class in Asia, the Middle East, and South America. Still, this growth has been volatile compared with the stability and organic growth of the Caribbean and the Mediterranean. The cruise industry is being globalized with new itineraries and cruise regions becoming increasingly popular, such as Iceland, the Galapagos, and Antarctica. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/global-cruise-port-system/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/global-cruise-port-system/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/global-cruise-port-system/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/global-cruise-port-system/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Optimal Ship Size: Container Ships and Cruise Vessels](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/optimal-ship-size-container-ships-cruise/) **Published:** December 8, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Theo Notteboom and Dr. Athanasios Pallis > The optimal ship size is an ongoing concern in the shipping and port industry and associated with (dis)economies of scale with the deployment of larger vessels. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Feasibility of Mega Container Ships](#1_Feasibility_of_Mega_Container_Ships) - [2. Economies of Scale in Cruise Shipping](#2_Economies_of_Scale_in_Cruise_Shipping) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Feasibility of Mega Container Ships The economic efficiency of ship size has been researched since the early 1970s. The seminal work by Jansson and Schneerson, published in 1982, pointed out that the optimal ship size represents a trade-off between the positive returns earned at sea (i.e., economies of size during the line-haul operation) and the negative returns accruing while in port (i.e., diseconomies of size during the handling operations in ports). In the late 1990s, numerous scholars demonstrated that port and terminal-related factors indeed significantly impact the feasibility of deploying bigger vessels. A survey among container shipping lines conducted by Scottish economist Alfred Baird in 1999 showed that 78% of the respondents expected that containership sizes would not go beyond the 12,000 TEU threshold. When asked about the main operational barriers to the deployment of larger container ships, the shipping lines did not point to technical limitations or market obstacles. Still, they identified **port and terminal-related** factors as the main impediments to further scale increases. Low terminal productivity, port congestion, limited nautical accessibility, berth length, and turning circles are the most significant. In the late 1990s – early 2000s, academic studies seemed to agree that the 8,000 TEU ship was the optimal ship size for the Europe-Far East trade. Economies of scale diminished very rapidly beyond the 5,000 TEU scale. More recent research shows that **economies of scale at sea do not stop at the 6,000, 8,000, or 10,000 TEU threshold** as suggested. Economies of scale at sea seem not to have been fully exhausted. At the same time, ports, terminals, and entire transport systems have been expanded and upgraded to significantly **reduce possible diseconomies of scale in ports.** The adaptive capacity of the port and terminal industry in terms of investments and productivity/efficiency gains typically did not result in the penalization of larger vessels through port and terminal pricing. Advances in port productivity have resulted in disproportionately lower growth of port turnaround time as a function of vessel size. In other words, the potential diseconomies of scale linked to larger vessels **have been fully or partially absorbed by port authorities, terminal operators, and other actors in the chain**, thereby enabling/facilitating shipping companies to pursue consecutive rounds of scale increases in vessel size. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/optimal_ship_size.png?resize=900%2C421&ssl=1 "The Optimal Size of a Container Ship | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The optimal size of a container ship![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/disadvantage_scale_shipping.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "The Disadvantages of Scale in Maritime Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Disadvantages of Scale in Maritime ShippingThe further benefits of lower slot costs diminish as ships get larger, and savings might not be (fully) realized. The effort necessary to prepare ports and terminals for ships of ever-increasing size is growing disproportionally. Supply chain risks related to bigger containerships could rise. Thus, it seems to become increasingly challenging to bring any further benefits for the shipping lines, the ports/terminals, and the shippers when pursuing further scale increases in ship size (for example, Europe-Far East trade). The outcome of any analysis on (dis)economies of scale and optimal vessel scale seems to be **context- and time-dependent**. For example, the economic viability of deploying ships of more than 10,000 TEU was considered weak in the late 1990s. However, weak market conditions in the post-2009 era, combined with a strong adaptive capacity of ports and terminals to accommodate bigger vessels, have helped shipping lines to order larger vessels, to improve firm and environmental performance. A 2019 academic paper by Jiawei Ge and others presented an economic analysis of different mega-ship sizes (units of 18,000, 20,000, and 25,000 TEU). The focus was on comparing unit (slot) costs and more comprehensive cost-benefit measures such as the net present value (NPV). The study evaluated whether there are economic, operational, and environmental justifications for shipping companies to push the ULCS size from 18,000-20,000 TEU to 25,000 TEU, considering the current and expected market conditions on the Europe-Far East trade and the current and expected environmental context for ship operations. The study came to the following conclusions: - A **further scale increase to a 25,000 TEU ULCS still generates economies of scale**. Even under weak market conditions, the 25,000 TEU option gives a slightly better NPV result than the other two ship options, while the annual unit cost advantage for the largest ship size is more pronounced. Strong market conditions lead to positive NPVs for all three size options, but the 25,000 TEU ULCS clearly shows the best results. - Changes in **freight rates** and **load factors** have the highest impact on the NPV results. Very low freight rates, even below the poor freight rates of 2016, are not beneficial to the economic viability of 25,000 TEU ships compared to the other two ship types. Higher rates give a strong incentive to shipping lines to order the largest ULCS possible. - Very **low load factors** make the 18,000 and 20,000 TEU units more competitive from an NPV perspective, while the balance tilts to the 25,000 TEU unit when higher load factors are achieved. - The NPV results are also susceptible to **vessel speed**. When super slow steaming is applied, the NPV values of the three ship sizes remain very similar. However, the 25,000 TEU vessel can present more favorable NPV results than the other two ship sizes when a sailing speed above 17 knots is adopted, which remains unlikely in the current market context. - A fall in **shipbuilding prices** and **bunker prices** makes the 25,000 TEU ship slightly better off compared to the other two ship types. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/largest_containership.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "The Largest Available Containership, 1970-2024 (in TEUs) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Largest Available Containership 1970 2019 in TEUs![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Max-TEU-2020.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Maximum Container Vessel Size calling Port, 2020 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maximum Container Vessel Size calling Port 2020![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/containership_size_port_hinterland.png?resize=900%2C359&ssl=1 "Impacts on Containership Size on Port and Hinterland Traffic | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Impacts of Containership Size on Port and Hinterland Traffic![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/impact_20000_teu_call_inland.png?resize=900%2C489&ssl=1 "Impact of 20,000 TEU Vessel Call on Inland Transport | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Impact of a call of a 20000 TEU vessel on inland transport in Antwerp and Rotterdam# 2. Economies of Scale in Cruise Shipping Cruise shipping has also been a shipping market characterized by the **increase in cruise vessel size**. Following the exploitation of economies of scale, the capacity of each of the 50 largest cruise ships in operation exceeds 3,000 passengers, with the largest of them having a capacity of 6,687 passengers and 228,081 Gross Tons (GT). Unlike cargo shipping, there is no universal classification of cruise ships based on their size, and [each cruise line classifies its cruise ships according to its preference and strategy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=6224). Recent research on the capital, operating, and voyage costs associated with the construction and operations of the cruise fleet suggests that **further upscaling of cruise vessels’ size should not be unquestionable**. This is because a further increase in cruise ship size is not necessarily associated with diminishing costs per passenger (guest). Capital costs refer to the expenses incurred for building the cruise ship, as well as any related interest. Operating costs refer to the expenses associated with the daily operation of the vessel, including crew wages, maintenance and repairs, insurance, and administrative expenses. Voyage costs refer to the expenses incurred for the commercial use of the vessel. Includes fuel costs, provisions, port costs, canal dues, agency expenses, and others. In their study Chaos et al calculated these three types of costs for 246 cruise vessels, grouped into five different ship sizes, namely small (under 20,000 GT); mid-sized (20,000 to 60,000 GT); big (60,000 to 120,000 GT); super (120,000 to 200,000) and mega (over 200,000 GT). **Capital costs** are the highest cost component (28% to 38%) for a cruise vessel. The second-highest cost component is manning (16% to 26%), due to a large number of auxiliary personnel required. Insurance costs represent 10 to 11% of the total costs. This percentage is higher than the respective 5% that is observed in other types of seagoing vessels. Yet, it is justified by the substantially higher construction costs of the newly built cruise vessels. In contrast to other types of passenger ships or cargo vessels, operating costs (ranging from 41% to 50%) are higher than voyage costs (ranging from 21% to 22%). Based on these results, a model detailing [the unit costs per passenger and per year (€/pax·year) for different size cruise vessels](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=6233), under the assumptions of full occupancy and a low operating time of 60 days (which is the case of approximately 60% of such vessels) estimates a decline in the average voyage, operating, and capital costs, in mid-sized and big cruises compared to small cruises at over 30%. From this size upwards (i.e., in the case of super or mega-size cruise vessels), the average costs remain stable. The explanation lies in the significant weight of capital costs in relation to the other costs. When cruise vessels are utilized for extended periods, operating time increases to 120 days per annum, voyage costs are altered, and economies of scale are realized, as average total costs decrease with the increase in ship size. However, the presence of scale economies is limited to a specific size (60,000 to 120,000 GT). From this size upwards, average total costs (per passenger) were found to increase. It is important to highlight that larger cruise ships are more sensitive to passenger occupancy than smaller ones due to their high capital and operating costs. Although the number of passengers increases significantly with ship size, the capital cost of the largest vessels (including construction and financing costs) is such that the average capital cost per passenger actually increases, rather than decreases. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Largest-Available-Cruise-Ships-1970-2025.png?resize=900%2C428&ssl=1 "The Largest Available Cruise Ships, 1970-2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Largest Available Cruise Ships 1970 2025![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Cruise-Ships-Classification-by-Royal-Caribbean-International.png?resize=900%2C304&ssl=1 "Cruise Ships Classification by Royal Caribbean International | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Ship classification example Royal Caribbean International![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Small-size-cruise-vessels.png?resize=900%2C421&ssl=1 "Small-size-cruise-vessels | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Distribution of Costs of Small sized Cruise Vessels![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Medium-and-Big-size-cruise-vessels-1.png?resize=900%2C421&ssl=1 "Medium-and-Big-size-cruise-vessels-1 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Distribution of Costs of Medium and Big size Cruise Vessels ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/costs_cruise_vessels.png?resize=900%2C510&ssl=1 "Costs of Super- and Mega-size Cruise Vessels (> 120,000 GT) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Costs of super and mega size cruise vessels![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Unit-cost-by-size-of-cruise-ship.png?resize=870%2C419&ssl=1 "Unit-cost-by-size-of-cruise-ship | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise ship costs per size of vessel--- # Related Topics - [Chapter 1.3 – Ports and Container Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-container-shipping/ "https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-container-shipping/") - [Chapter 1.5 – Ports and Cruise Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/) - [Chapter 2.2 – Port Hinterlands, Regionalization and Corridors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/) ### References - Chaos, S.R., Pallis, A.A., Marchán, S.S., Roca, D.P. and Conejo, A.S.A., 2020, Economies of scale in cruise shipping. *Maritime Economics & Logistics*, *https://*doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00158-3. - Ge, J., Zhu, M., Sha, M., Notteboom, T., Shi, W., Wang, X., 2020, Towards 25,000 TEU vessels? A comparative economic analysis of ultra-large containership sizes under different market and operational conditions, *Maritime Economics and Logistics*, <https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-019-00136-4>. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/optimal-ship-size-container-ships-cruise/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/optimal-ship-size-container-ships-cruise/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/optimal-ship-size-container-ships-cruise/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/optimal-ship-size-container-ships-cruise/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Revenue and Expenses per Average Cruiser, 2023](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/revenue-expenses-average-cruiser/) **Published:** February 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/revenue_expenses_cruiser.png?resize=900%2C419&ssl=1 "Revenues and Expenses per Average Cruiser, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Revenues and Expenses per Average Cruiser 2023*Source: Cruise Market Watch. Note: Excursions only cover those organized by the cruise line.* *Note: 2023 figures; financial breakdown of typical cruiser worldwide (across all cruise lines); average cruise duration: 8.0 days; median duration: 7.0 days.* While in 2023, the average revenue was about $2,202 per cruiser, the associated expenses were $1,862, implying a profit margin in the range of 12-13%. At the beginning of the decade, these percentages stood at 77% ($1,663) and 23% ($1,485), respectively, indicating that upgrading onboard amenities provides higher yields to cruise lines. The breakdown of revenues and expenses has the following characteristics: - **Revenue**. The base fare paid by the average cruiser accounts for 69% of the revenue, implying that cruise lines can generate an additional 31% of revenue through onboard services, such as gambling, excursions, drinks, and personal services. Additionally, cruisers are spending on goods and services at ports of call, which are not accounted for here. - **Expenses**. The main expenses related to ship operations include port fees and taxes (often levied per cruiser), ship maintenance, fuel (9%), payroll (13%), food & beverages, and the provision of onboard services. A standard cruise package includes food services as well as onboard services such as shows. Since booking ships is a marketing-intensive activity involving advertising, agent commissions account for a notable share of expenses (15%). Cruise ships are capital-intensive (a ship carrying 3,500 passengers costs more than $800 million, and the latest generation of mega-ships costs close to $2 billion), with approximately 13% of the expenses related to servicing the debt contracted for their purchase. --- ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/revenue-expenses-average-cruiser/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/revenue-expenses-average-cruiser/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/revenue-expenses-average-cruiser/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/revenue-expenses-average-cruiser/?share=reddit) - --- ### [One of the Last Liners, SS France (1969)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/last-liners-ss-france-1969/) **Published:** February 2, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ss_france1.jpg?resize=776%2C550&ssl=1 "One of the Last Liners, SS France (1969) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")One of the Last Liners SS France 1969*Photo: World Ship Society Port of New York Branch.* Launched in 1960 with a length of 316 meters and a capacity of about 1,000 to 2,000 passengers (depending on cabin occupation), the SS France was one of the last of a long series of liners that provided transatlantic services between Europe and North America. However, the business model that France was built to serve was in strong decline and would be short-lived. Operating between 1961 and 1974, it primarily served the conventional transatlantic route between Le Havre and New York. With rising oil prices and more efficient jetliners, including the 747 (introduced in 1970), the liner could no longer effectively compete over the transatlantic route. While a jet plane could link Paris or London to New York in about 8 hours, it took about 4 days for a liner to cross the Atlantic, excluding a train segment between London and Southampton (or Paris and Le Havre). Considering one round trip per day, a 747 could carry about 3,200 passengers across the Atlantic in the time it took the SS France to carry 2,000 passengers on a single journey. By the late 1960s, transatlantic travel was being dominated by the jet plane. Unable to generate enough revenue to justify its operating costs, the SS France was decommissioned in 1974 and purchased by Norwegian Cruise Line (renamed the SS Norway). After being refurbished, its final commercial years between 1980 and 2003 were spent as a cruise ship. With a post-conversion capacity of 2,044 passengers, the ***SS Norway*** became the first cruise vessel to exceed the 1,600-passenger threshold, much larger than the then-[available purpose-built cruise ships](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/the-largest-available-cruiseship-1970-2025-in-pax-capacity/). The ship was then scrapped. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/last-liners-ss-france-1969/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/last-liners-ss-france-1969/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/last-liners-ss-france-1969/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/last-liners-ss-france-1969/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 8.4 - Port Clusters](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/) **Published:** December 24, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Dr. Thanos Pallis and Dr. Theo Notteboom > Port clusters consist of geographically concentrated and mutually related business units centered around transport, logistics, trade, and industrial production. They are also increasingly referred to as ecosystems. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Port Cluster Formation](#1_Port_Cluster_Formation) - [2. Activities in Port Clusters](#2_Activities_in_Port_Clusters) - [3. Port-Centric Logistics](#3_Port-Centric_Logistics) - [4. Port Cluster Governance](#4_Port_Cluster_Governance) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Port Cluster Formation Ports are clusters of companies and economic activities. Port clusters exhibit strong scale and scope advantages linked to physical cargo flows. The concentration of activities opens up more opportunities for bundling cargo flows via intermodal transport (short sea, barge, or rail) and achieving higher connectivity to the rest of the world through frequent transport services. The process of cluster formation takes place at two scales. The first concerns the **clustering of ports** around a maritime range, and the second concerns the **clustering of activities** around a port. There are important geographical attributes behind port cluster formation, which vary substantially by maritime range, mainly owing to the following constraints: - **Availability of port sites**. Coastal geography varies across different ranges, impacting the number of suitable port sites due to factors such as protected bays, river deltas, and tidal ranges. Such characteristics are related to the distribution of cities, where a coastal cluster of cities is more prone to forming port clusters, reflecting the urban system. Additionally, container terminals require a substantial amount of real estate for piers and yards, which can be challenging to find. Coastal geography attributes along a maritime range are generally prone to cluster formation. - **Administrative divisions**. Nation-states commonly have their own cabotage rules and restrictions, which can impact how hinterlands are serviced. In a context of limited economic integration, adjacent national states or even administrative divisions can have a dedicated container port serviced, with the level of activity constrained by the size of the administrative unit. This can also lead to over-supply and duplication of port infrastructure, creating the illusion of a port cluster. Simultaneously, the absence of administrative divisions would have led to fewer ports, or even a single large port, to service this hinterland. - **Hinterland accessibility and density**. Economic development, urbanization, and the distribution of resources imply an uneven hinterland density. As major economic regions are structured along corridors, this concentration favors specific container ports and port groups servicing these areas. The higher the density, the greater the propensity for clustering. Therefore, the nature of the hinterland influences cluster formation. - **Economies of scale and infrastructure**. The growing average size of containerships tends to restrict port choice due to draft limitations and underscores the capital intensity of containerization. In turn, this leads to a concentration of investments and infrastructure in a limited number of efficient container ports, aiming to generate sufficient traffic and economic returns. Technical and technological developments lean towards cluster formation. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/maritime_ranges_cluster_formation.png?resize=900%2C331&ssl=1 "Maritime Ranges and the Propensity for Cluster Formation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maritime Ranges and the Propensity for Cluster FormationThe above constraints result in the geographical distribution of the [world’s major container ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2267 "World’s Major Container Ports, 2015") along several [large clusters of port activity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4005 "World’s Largest Container Port Clusters, 2016"): - The Yangtze River Delta with ports such as Shanghai and Ningbo. - The Pearl River Delta with Hong Kong and Shenzhen. - The Strait of Malacca with Singapore and Tanjung Pelepas. - The Rhine / Scheldt Delta with Antwerp and Rotterdam. - The San Pedro Bay with Los Angeles and Long Beach. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-TEU-Throughput-2022.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "World’s Major Container Ports, 2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Major Container Ports 2022![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Container-Port-Clusters.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "World’s Largest Container Port Clusters, 2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Largest Container Port Clusters 2022# 2. Activities in Port Clusters ## A. Transport and cargo handling A port cluster is built from the concentration of transport and cargo handling activities, particularly their related infrastructure. A distinction can be made between basic nautical infrastructure (such as access channels and locks), commercial port infrastructure (including quay walls), and port superstructure (including cranes and warehouses). The construction, operation, and maintenance of these infrastructures are key activities in ports. For example, dredging companies undertake most of the capital and maintenance dredging work in seaports and are also involved in land reclamation projects. The development of new terminals, port zones, and intra-port and inland access infrastructure presents opportunities for consultancy firms, contractors, construction firms, engineering firms, and various suppliers of technical equipment and services. The call of a vessel in a port generally requires the involvement of towage companies, pilotage services, mooring/unmooring services, the harbor master’s office (part of the port authority or government department), lock operators (if any), ship agents, companies involved in signaling and shipping services, waste reception facilities, ship suppliers and chandlers, marine surveyors, bunkering firms, classification societies, safety contractors, and security firms. Several ports also offer ship repair facilities or are home to shipyards. **Cargo handling operations** in ports can relate to different types of goods: liquid bulk cargo (crude oil, oil products, LNG), dry bulk cargo (coal, iron ore, grain), roll-on/ roll-off cargo (new cars, used cars, rolling material, trailers), containerized cargo, and conventional general cargo. Conventional general cargo encompasses a myriad of different non-containerized commodities such as project cargo (power generation plants, steel mills, wood-pulp factories, gas power plants, road construction equipment), power plant equipment (gas turbines, power generators, transformers, turbines, heavy machinery, industrial equipment), iron and steel products (bars, coils, plates, wires), forest products (wood and paper products), parcels (malt, fertilizer, sugar, rice), reefer vessel trades (fruit, meat) and breakbulk shipments of smaller lots. The efficiency and effectiveness with which **loading and discharging activities** occur in a port are crucial cornerstones for its competitiveness and ability to generate broader economic benefits, including employment and value-added creation that reinforces clustering. Cargo handling involves terminal and stevedoring companies that employ or use dock workers. The dock labor needs are very dependent on the cargo flows handled in the port. Other cargo-related service jobs include cargo survey, land transport and storage, port-related storage, conveyor/pipeline, and transfer between berths and storage facilities. Generally speaking, conventional general cargo handling is confronted with ever-tighter handling space in many seaports (containers consume more and more square meters). Given the strong labor intensity, it is also sensitive to labor-related issues. **Government agencies and organizations** develop activities linked to cargo and vessel operations in ports. Semi-public or public managing bodies of ports are important players in the port arena, depending on the tasks the port authority adopts. Government agencies typically include customs, sanitary and food inspection, environmental offices, harbor police, the pilotage service, state-owned tugboat companies, navigation aids, vessel traffic systems (VTS), firefighters, and maritime courts. **Military activities**, such as naval bases, can also be found in seaport areas. The permanent stationing of naval fleets in a seaport or visits by foreign naval vessels can affect a regional economy through the purchase of fuel and provisions, as well as the expenditures of crews in the local economy. Many seaports also act as important nodes for **passenger traffic**. These passenger flows might be linked to cruise vessels, ferries, and regional river or coastal passenger services. Passenger terminals create direct value-added and employment, but also have an impact on other activities that might be located elsewhere. Examples include tourism agencies, hotels, restaurants, museums, taxi and bus companies, and airports. ## B. Logistics Goods can undergo logistics transformations in the port area, which is defined as [port-centric logistics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-clusters/functional-types-port-centric-logistics/). Examples include storage, distribution, and other logistics activities within the framework of industrial subcontracting or postponed manufacturing in port areas. The gateway position of major seaports offers opportunities for the development of **value-added logistics services** (VALS). Many seaports have evolved from pure transshipment centers to complexes of key functions within a logistics system. A mix of pure stevedoring activities and logistics activities occurs. Ports are not only nodes handling goods flows. They also handle large quantities of information. Many service companies involved in booking, consolidating, and tracking vessels and cargo (freight forwarders and ship agents) are located in the seaport or its immediate vicinity. The consolidation of cargo is an important port activity that generates added value, employment, and contributes to efficiency improvements in loading rates and the balance between incoming and outgoing goods flows. Ports often serve as consolidation points for partial loads, such as LCL (less-than-container-load) cargo and groupage activities. However, disintermediation in the supply chains and the increasing globalization of the maritime and port industry can imply that some ports face a relocation of some of the decision-making power over cargo flows to inland centers or major (maritime) cities. When cargo control centers are set up outside the port area, the role of local service providers is limited to specific operational tasks or back-office functions. Therefore, the role of the port in supply chains is increasingly dependent on factors and actors outside the port area. The branch associations of economic sectors in the port (i.e. freight forwarders, ship agents, industrial firms) and umbrella associations (for example, [Deltalinqs in Rotterdam and Alfaport Voka in Antwerp](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-clusters/umbrella-associations-in-rotterdam-and-antwerp/)) are involved in the promotion of their respective port sectors. Numerous jobs are created in training and education, not only at the public level (universities, higher education schools, and technical colleges) but also in private training centers. A wide range of advanced trade service firms (such as banks, other financial institutions, investment firms, insurance firms, law firms) realize a part of their turnover in ports. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/functional_types_port_centric_logistics.png?resize=900%2C429&ssl=1 "Functional Types of Port Centric Logistics | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Functional Types of Port Centric Logistics![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Umbrella-associations.png?resize=900%2C573&ssl=1 "Umbrella Associations of Private Companies in Rotterdam and Antwerp | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Umbrella associations of private companies in Rotterdam and Antwerp## C. Industrial activities There exists a wide range of industrial activities that typically locate in port areas. Industries that are part of **maritime clusters** include shipyards (ship repair and shipbuilding), marine equipment companies, crane and terminal equipment producers, salvage companies, offshore companies (offshore survey, exploration, production, installation, supply, pipe laying), marine construction firms, dredging firms, naval bases, and the fish processing industry. Non-maritime cluster industries that are often found in ports include chemical plants, power plants, steel plants, car assembly plants, paper mills, food production companies, and firms producing building materials (cement, bricks, tiles). **Petrochemical and chemical companies**, as well as large integrated industrial centers in seaports, constitute an essential part of the economic activity in ports, exemplified by the large petrochemical and chemical clusters in Singapore, Houston, Rotterdam, and Antwerp. These clusters are integrated upstream into primary raw materials, feedstock, commodities, or intermediates and downstream into other chemical industry sectors or key customer industries (automotive, packaging, construction). The petrochemical industry is strongly based on oil refinery activities, many of which are located in ports: - First, there are the **basic chemicals** which include polymers (e.g. polyethylene (PE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polypropylene (PP), polystyrene (PS) and fibers such as polyester, nylon, polypropylene, and acrylics), bulk petrochemicals and intermediates (i.e. primarily made from liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), natural gas and crude oil and used for the production of ethylene, propylene, benzene, toluene, methanol, styrene), other derivatives and basic industrials (e.g. synthetic rubber, surfactants, dyes and pigments, resins, carbon black, explosives), inorganic chemicals (e.g. salt, chlorine, caustic soda, soda ash, acids) and fertilizers (phosphates, ammonia and potash chemicals). - Second, the **life sciences** include differentiated chemical and biological substances, pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, animal health products, vitamins, and crop protection (herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides). These products tend to have very high prices and require substantial investment in research and development. - The third group concerns **specialty chemicals** such as electronic chemicals, industrial gases, adhesives, sealants, coatings, cleaning products, and catalysts. - The fourth group consists of **consumer products** that are directly sold to the consumer, such as soaps, detergents, and cosmetics. The successful development of the **chemical clusters in seaports** depends on various factors such as: - The availability of skilled labor at competitive prices. - Good training and educational facilities. - The role and support of port authorities and government agencies in providing incentives and support in the development of infrastructure. - The availability of land - The availability of raw material supplies at competitive prices. - Competitive prices for energy and utilities. - A low-risk and stable business climate and stable regulatory environment. - Co-siting and partnering opportunities (industrial cascades). - Relative proximity and easy access to most important customers. - The availability of efficient services (logistics, finance, IT, packaging, security, marketing, promotion). Industrial clusters in ports often rely on **industrial symbiosis** or **industrial ecosystems**. Raw materials are extracted locally, and finished products and secondary flows are used locally. By-products of the production process (for example, oxygen, heat, or water) are recycled and reused locally. This ensures far-reaching industrial and circular integration, as well as the creation of **ecologies of scale**. Such symbiosis requires supporting infrastructures, such as pipelines and storage tanks, to transport raw materials and finished products to the correct location. Thus, a competitive cluster requires good inter-company infrastructure (e.g. pipelines), product diversity, the sharing of utility services and infrastructure, and strong cluster governance. Chemical clusters are increasingly **overcoming regional boundaries** by developing pipeline systems and other mass transport infrastructure that link chemical clusters in several ports (e.g. pipeline linkages between Rotterdam, Antwerp, and Terneuzen) and also link the ports to major chemical clusters in the hinterland (e.g. links between the Rhine-Scheldt Delta ports in Belgium and the Netherlands, the chemical axis along the Albert Canal to Liège in Belgium and the German Ruhr area). Many of the world’s **steel plants** are located in seaport areas. The steel industry operates in a highly competitive global environment, where rigorous cost management is essential for maintaining and enhancing its competitiveness. Therefore, steelmaking processes have been developed and refined over the years. Steelmaking is capital-intensive, and the average plant life is very long, which makes changes to new technologies possible only in a timeframe of several decades. A good example is ArcelorMittal, which operates several maritime flat carbon steel mills (e.g. in Europe: Dunkirk, Ghent, Fos Marseille, Gijon, and Bremen). Most other mills are located within 100 km of major import ports. On the import side, steel plants generate large iron ore flows, pellets, coking coal, metal scrap, and steel slabs. The outgoing cargo flows typically include steel coils, steel booms, steel wires, and related products. The same applies to the **automotive industry**. While assembly plants are mostly not located in seaport areas (for example, only about 10 of the 150 European assembly plants are located in seaport areas), they often locate quite close to seaports for reasons of ingoing and outgoing flows of parts and finished cars. ## D. Energy Many seaports are home to large **energy plants**. Electricity is produced in conventional steam-electric plants (coal and lignite), conventional steam-electric plants (other fuels), combined-cycle and gas turbine plants, conventional hydroelectric plants, pumped-storage hydroelectric plants, nuclear power plants, waste-to-energy plants, biomass power plants, diesel and gas-engine power plants, wind energy plants, geothermal power plants, and solar power plants. The availability of land and cooling water, as well as the presence of large industrial customers, are some of the reasons why energy-producing firms establish businesses in seaport areas. Depending on the setup, conventional steam-electric plants are massive consumers of coal. Growing trends in electricity production include plants that generate electricity using natural gas, pellets, waste, or biomass. Stations powered by these fuels present economic advantages, are often faster to build, and are more environmentally friendly when compared to electricity production from other (fossil) fuels. There is also an increased interest in **wind energy**. While most wind farms are installed offshore (mostly on sandbanks) or in open plots in the hinterland, a number of seaports are also home to wind farms. These wind farms are typically installed on breakwaters or narrow stretches of land near the sea, thereby benefiting from the favorable winds in coastal areas. Many seaports also play an essential role in the **distribution of natural gas**. The gas is transported either via vessels (LNG carriers) using specialized deep-sea terminals or via pipelines that terminate in the seaport area. The presence of power plants and power distribution infrastructure not only generates direct jobs and value-added in power plants, energy distribution platforms, and the terminal operating business (i.e. handling of coal, gas, and other fuels), but is also a major creator of jobs and value-added in other industries and services such as engineering firms, construction companies, maintenance and repair companies, survey and inspection firms, and security services. ![Ports as Clusters of Economic Activity](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_cluster_activities.png?resize=900%2C392&ssl=1 "Ports as Clusters of Economic Activity | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ports as Clusters of Economic Activity![Examples of windfarms and gas terninals in ports](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Windfarms.png?resize=900%2C372&ssl=1 "Examples of Windfarms and Gas Terminals in Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of windfarms and gas terninals in ports![Examples of nuclear power plants in ports](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Nuclear-power-plants.png?resize=900%2C223&ssl=1 "Examples of nuclear power plants in ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of nuclear power plants in ports![Examples of coal powered plants in ports](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Coal-plants.png?resize=900%2C440&ssl=1 "Examples of coal powered plants in ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of coal powered plants in ports# 3. Port-Centric Logistics The clustering of ports is associated with the clustering of logistics. > Port-centric logistics refers to the range of freight transportation and distribution activities that are directly related to port terminals. Port terminals handle three types of flows: inbound (imports), outbound (exports), and transshipment (mostly for containers), each of which is associated with different forms of [port-centric logistics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-clusters/port-centric-logistics/ "Port Centric Logistics"). These come into two tiers: - **Port cargo logistics (first tier)**. The set of activities that directly affect the load unit of the cargo handled at the port. The first is the function of storing, where the cargo is waiting to be picked up or transshipped. This usually occurs within the terminal facility (for transshipment, a container rarely leaves the terminal), with dwell time being an important consideration for supply chain managers to organize pickup. The de-stuffing (and often palletization) of container loads is a crucial activity that occurs at nearby specialized facilities. Transloading is also commonly associated with de-stuffing activities as it transfers loads of maritime (ISO) containers into domestic containers. Empty containers are then repositioned either back to the container terminal or to an empty depot. Containers are then available for stuffing and subsequent export. - **Port-related production and distribution** (second tier). Activities that perform a level of transformation (in whole or in part) to the cargo that is either imported or exported through a port. Inbound cargo, particularly finished goods, must be consolidated and sorted in distribution centers for hinterland customers. Outbound cargo is usually warehoused waiting to be loaded (break-bulk cargo) or stuffed (containerized cargo). Manufacturing activities that are closely dependent on global markets, either for inputs (suppliers) or outputs (customers), will tend to be located in the vicinity of port areas. The commodity sector has traditionally shown a high association with port terminals (e.g. petrochemicals), which has usually endured. However, the growing use of containers to transport commodities, such as agricultural goods and refrigerated goods, conveys a new dynamic to port-centric logistics. ![Port Centric Logistics](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_centric_logistics2.png?resize=900%2C487&ssl=1 "Port Centric Logistics | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Centric Logistics![Port Centric Logistics: From Dissociation to Reinsertion](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_centric_logistics_disso_reinsertion.png?resize=900%2C475&ssl=1 "Port Centric Logistics: From Dissociation to Reinsertion | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Centric Logistics From Dissociation to Reinsertion![Functional Types of Port Centric Logistics](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/functional_types_port_centric_logistics.png?resize=900%2C429&ssl=1 "Functional Types of Port Centric Logistics | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Functional Types of Port Centric LogisticsMoreover, instead of using the stacking area as a facilitator for a smooth synchronization between transport modes, shippers and logistics service providers started to use terminals as places for the temporary storage of consignments. Terminals thus serve as **buffers in logistics chains**, which have allowed the development of value-added logistics activities such as: - Paper-cutting operations at forest products terminals. - Steel-cutting operations and packaging of project cargo at general cargo terminals. - Quality control and packaging at fruit terminals. - Sorting and blending operations at major bulk terminals. - PDI activities (pre-delivery and inspection) at car terminals. - Bagging at minor bulk terminals (e.g. plastics). Containerization had enduring impacts on the [relationships between ports and their hinterlands](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2239 "Port Centric Logistics: From Dissociation to Reinsertion"). These relationships evolved over time, with dissociation in the earlier phases of containerization and the recent reinsertion phase, characterized by port-centric logistics. Port-centric logistics is not a uniform strategy because it is a function of a port’s position within the global maritime transport system and the dominant direction of the flows it handles. In this regard, [three main types of port-centric logistics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2243 "Functional Types of Port Centric Logistics") can be retained: export-oriented, intermediate, and import-oriented. # 4. Port Cluster Governance The governance of hinterland access regimes is linked with **cluster formation**. It refers to the agglomeration effects and the degree of internal cohesion and competition within a hinterland. This governance concept not only applies to ports, but can also be applied to airports, inland ports, logistical zones, or any freight distribution construct where a closer integration of the involved actors could lead to performance improvements. An emerging paradigm views the **city as both a terminal and a hub**, meaning it functions as a regional freight center. This paradigm is fundamental because: - A metropolitan area is the **origin, destination, and point of transit** of large volumes of passengers and freight. They are embedded within their respective supply chains with a wide array of flows. - All regional transportation assets are **interrelated** and contribute to the regional, national, and global economy. They are embedded within their respective transport chains with an array of modes and terminals. - Existing governance and regulatory structures are ill-placed to reflect this **jurisdictional, functional, and operational reality**. [Cluster governance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=829 "Emerging Paradigm in the Role of Port Authorities within their Port Regions") is a business strategy that relates to the mix of, and relations between, organizations and institutions that foster coordination and pursue projects that improve the cluster as a whole through regional strategies and the [coordination of their hinterland](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3167). The primary advantages of cluster governance include improved access to competencies and innovative ideas, enhanced connections with suppliers and customers, increased access to capital, and a reduction in overall transactional costs. Although there is no single cluster governance model, as each port (or terminal) region has a different set of geographical, economic, regulatory, and operational characteristics, the following four issues tend to be common to all clusters: - **Service efficiency**. Concerns a series of initiatives to improve the quality and reliability of terminal assets. This extends beyond infrastructural issues, as it involves operational commitments to maintaining standard levels of service, often through certification by external agencies. An emerging strategy in this direction involves developing [port community systems](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1011 "Port Community System") that provide access to information to manage terminal-related supply chains, commonly through a web portal. Service efficiency can also involve technical and managerial training to improve labor quality. A standard is thus set among terminal users regarding the level of quality and efficiency expected. In turn, this promotes the marketability of all the terminal users. - **Logistical integration**. Concern strategies that aim at better embedding terminals within their regional supply chains. For a port, this can involve the setting up of satellite terminals or inland ports that are accessed through dedicated corridors. The setting up of co-located logistics zones is also common in proximity to port, rail, or airport terminal facilities. - **Infrastructure and growth management**. Although port authorities conventionally undertake both infrastructure and growth management, the emerging paradigm concerns a higher level of intermodal integration, such as on-dock rail facilities. Infrastructure development also occurs more frequently in a public-private partnership form, involving terminal operators and other private stakeholders, including rail operators and logistics firms. - **Terminal-city integration**. Concern various strategies that help mitigate the frequently significant environmental and social externalities that terminals have on their surrounding communities. As terminal facilities, notably ports, tend to be in proximity to high-density urban areas, environmental management, and corporate responsibility are perceived as tools helping to promote better coordination and avoid possible conflicts. On the other hand, airport terminals are typically located away from central areas, implying that their integration can rely on the establishment of transit corridors and adjacent retail, office, and housing activities. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/emerging_paradigm_port_authority.png?resize=900%2C440&ssl=1 "Emerging Paradigm in the Roles of Port Authorities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Emerging Paradigm in the Roles of Port Authorities![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_community_system2.png?resize=900%2C628&ssl=1 "Port Community System | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Community System![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Maritime-Capitals-2022.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "World Maritime Capitals, 2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")World Maritime Capitals 2017The full implications of **cluster governance** remain to be assessed, particularly the extent to which it generates added value to the terminal region and whether such strategies are linked to the attraction, or at least the retention, of customers and the traffic they generate. There are also impacts on competition within the cluster as firms undertake collaborative strategies to improve their respective efficiency. It is to be expected that better access to international markets will be achieved, which would indirectly promote the globalization of the companies within the cluster. This also has an impact on competition between clusters over discretionary traffic, namely transshipment. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 4.1 Port Governance and Reform](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-reform-and-governance/) - [Chapter 4.2 Port Authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-authorities/) - [Chapter 4.3 Port Coordination and Cooperation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-cooperation-and-coordination/) - [The Port of Savannah Logistics Cluster](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2046) ## References - de Langen, P.W. and E. Haezendonck (2012) Ports as Clusters of Economic Activity, in W.K. Talley (ed) The Blackwell Companion to Maritime Economics, New York: Blackwell. pp. 638-655. - Jacobs, W., H. Koster, and P. Hall (2011) “The location and global network structure of 36 maritime advanced producer services.” Urban Studies, Vol. 48 (13), pp 2749-69. - Additional references coming. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Market Share of Main Cruise Lines, 2026](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/market-share-main-cruise-lines/) **Published:** February 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/market_share_cruise_lines.png?resize=900%2C416&ssl=1 "Market Share of Main Cruise Lines, 2026 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Market Share of Main Cruise Lines 2026*Source: adapted from Cruise Industry News. Share of worldwide deployed capacity.* The cruise line market is characterized by oligopolistic ownership but offers a diversified range of services. It competes fundamentally for the discretionary spending of tourists by offering a variety of brands. Two main cruise lines account for 62% of the market: Carnival and Royal Caribbean. Each owns a portfolio of lines catering to a specific market in terms of cost and experience. Thus, the industry offers product diversity through a market segmentation of cruise offerings, even if ownership is highly concentrated. In 2026, the Big-4 groups (Carnival, Royal Caribbean, MSC, and Norwegian Cruise Line (NCL)) own 228 ships with 629,433 berths, representing a deployed capacity of 30.30 million passengers, or 78.9% share of the total deployed fleet. Disney Cruises, with a 2.9% share of the deployed capacity, tops the list of the other cruise lines. In comparison, the comparatively recently established Virgin Voyages holds a notable 1.4% of the deployed market capacity. **Carnival Corporation**. The world’s largest cruise operator was founded in 1972 and is headquartered in Miami. In addition to Carnival Cruise Lines, it owns Holland America Line, Princess Cruises, Seabourn Cruise Line, and Seabourn. The fleet of these cruise lines sails year-round in the Caribbean, Mexico, and Panama. The seasonal routes operate in Alaska, Hawaii, the Panama Canal, and the Canadian waters. Costa Cruises, AIDA Cruises, Cunard Line, and P&O Cruises (UK) offer cruises in Europe and the UK, and P&O Cruises Australia is the market leader in Australia/New Zealand. **Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines**. The world’s second-largest cruise line was founded in 1969. It is a major brand with new types of ships, large tonnage, and diverse facilities. It owns cruise ship brands such as Royal Caribbean International (RCI) and Celebrity Cruises. TUI Cruises, Silversea, and Hapag-Lloyd. Royal Caribbean International operates the world’s largest super-luxury cruise ships (Oasis class vessels). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/market-share-main-cruise-lines/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/market-share-main-cruise-lines/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/market-share-main-cruise-lines/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/market-share-main-cruise-lines/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Total Gross Tonnage by Ship Classes: Carnival Cruises](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/total-gross-tonnage-ship-classes-carnival/) **Published:** September 15, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Total-Gross-Tonnage-by-Ship-Classes-Carnival.png?resize=900%2C437&ssl=1 "Total Gross Tonnage by Ship Classes-Carnival | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Total Gross Tonnage by Ship Classes *Note: Total gross tonnage derived from the average gross tonnage per ship multiplied by the number of ships in class.* Cruise ships are frequently classified by size, associated with a particular commercial cruise line, and not by a more general industry-wide characterization. **Carnival Cruises** has introduced eight successive cruise ship classes that enhance the quality (with more amenities) and quantity (accommodating more passengers) of the cruise experience. **T**he Fantasy Class is the oldest class still in service. They are smaller, more compact ships with fewer amenities than the newest ships. The Panamax-size Spirit Class is also a smaller cruise ship generation compared to the newer large ones, and the Conquest Class offers large mid-size ships, with a good mix of amenities but fewer new features. Dream Class offers slightly older “new-generation” ships (2009-2012) with spacious public areas, a balance of modern & classic design. Vista Class, on the other hand, includes vessels delivered from the mid-2010s to the late 2010s. Ships in the Excel Class are the newest and largest. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/total-gross-tonnage-ship-classes-carnival/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/total-gross-tonnage-ship-classes-carnival/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/total-gross-tonnage-ship-classes-carnival/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/total-gross-tonnage-ship-classes-carnival/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Deployment of the Global Cruise Fleet, 2025](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/map-deployment-global-cruise-fleet/) **Published:** February 10, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Deployed-cruise-vessels-2025-1-scaled.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Deployment of the Global Cruise Fleet, 2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Deployment of the Global Cruise Fleet 2025*Source: adapted from Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) Resource Deployment Data. Note: The boundaries of cruise regions focus on the main areas of activity.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/map-deployment-global-cruise-fleet/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/map-deployment-global-cruise-fleet/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/map-deployment-global-cruise-fleet/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/map-deployment-global-cruise-fleet/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Marina Attributes Influencing Yachtsmen's Experience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/marinas-attributes-influencing-yachtsmen-experience/) **Published:** September 8, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/marina_attributes_experience.png?resize=900%2C435&ssl=1 "Marina Attributes Influencing Yachtsmen Experience | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Marina Attributes Influencing Yachtsmen ExperienceSource: a*dapted from Mikulić, J. Krešić, D. and Kožić I. (2015). Critical factors of the maritime yachting tourism experience: An impact-asymmetry analysis of principal components. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(1), S30-S41.* Five dimensions have the potential to influence the yachtsmen’s overall experience. Three of them have a significantly higher, though asymmetrical, potential influence on the overall yachting experience. **Core marina services** and **basic destination attributes** significantly influence the level of satisfaction from marina use. While these attributes are unlikely to contribute to a delightful yachting experience, they should be provided at expected, satisfactory levels to avoid dissatisfaction among marina users. A third attribute is the **yacht charter product,** which enhances the yachting experience and serves as a satisfier for marina users. From a destination management and/or stakeholder perspective, this dimension has the potential to satisfy an increasingly important part of the market. The **onshore destination experience** is by far the most influential yachting experience dimension. Accordingly, attributes belonging to this dimension are likely to be decisive determinants of a yachting destination’s competitive position on the market. Although not directly connected to the primary travel motivation of yachtsmen (i.e. sailing), a delightful experience in the grounds in and around the port destination may be the strongest determinant of the overall yachting tourism experience. **Marina’s supporting product** is a fifth important group of attributes determining the satisfaction of its users. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/marinas-attributes-in%ef%ac%82uencing-yachtsmen-experience/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/marinas-attributes-in%ef%ac%82uencing-yachtsmen-experience/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/marinas-attributes-in%ef%ac%82uencing-yachtsmen-experience/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/marinas-attributes-in%ef%ac%82uencing-yachtsmen-experience/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Ports as Energy Platforms](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/ports-energy-platforms/) **Published:** July 27, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ports_energy_platforms.png?resize=900%2C299&ssl=1 "Ports as Energy Platforms | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ports as Energy PlatformsPorts play three main roles as energy platforms: - **Energy transport**. Benefit from the large volume of energy being transited, either as an export or import platform, which requires substantial storage facilities. - **Energy transformation**. Benefit from the port’s proximity to support energy transformation activities whose inputs or outputs are transported by maritime shipping. - **Energy generation**. Benefit from the diversity in the provision of several conventional and alternative sources of energy within the port area. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/ports-energy-platforms/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/ports-energy-platforms/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/ports-energy-platforms/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/ports-energy-platforms/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Average Capacity of Marinas in Europe, 2023](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/average-capacity-marinas-europe/) **Published:** September 11, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Average-capacity-of-Marinas-in-Europe-1.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Average Capacity of Marinas in Europe, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Average capacity of Marinas in Europe 2023*Source: ICOMIA-International Council of Marine Industry Associations, (2023). Recreational Boating Industry Statistics 2022. Surrey, UK* The **average capacity (in terms of the number of berths) of marinas** in several countries, such as Croatia, Portugal, Poland, and the Netherlands, is relatively small. Geomorphological characteristics that limit the development of large-scale facilities contribute to this pattern. For instance, **Poland** has a short coastline that constrains the establishment of high-capacity marinas; however, its extensive network of navigable rivers supports the creation of numerous smaller marinas distributed across inland waterways. A similar situation is observed in **the Netherlands**, where recreational boating is deeply embedded in everyday life. There, the prevalence of smaller marinas, facilitated by the country’s extensive river and canal system, enables the development of a wide network that serves large segments of the population. In contrast, **Greece**, **Sweden**, and **Turkey** have an average marina capacity of approximately 250 berths, which is higher than the respective numbers observed in most other European countries. Marinas in **Portugal** (324 berths) and **Spain** (354 berths) have, on average, more berthing facilities than the rest of European countries. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/average-capacity-marinas-europe/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/average-capacity-marinas-europe/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/average-capacity-marinas-europe/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/average-capacity-marinas-europe/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Marinas in Europe: Total Berth Capacity per country, 2023](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/marinas-europe-total-capacity/) **Published:** September 11, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** According to the most detailed relevant database, the International Council of Marine Industry Associations -ICOMIA estimates that the top-10 European countries in terms of total marina capacity offer yachtmen approximately 1.43 million berths, with Sweden (500.000 berths), France (253.000) and Italy (181.000) standing at the top of the relevant list. Sweden records the highest number of berths as well as the highest ratio of berths per kilometre of coastline (155,38). In all Scandinavian countries, yachting is closely integrated into the daily lives of many citizens, with a notable share of residents choosing to live permanently on pleasure boats rather than in land-based housing. In Northern European countries, the popularity of sporting and recreational boating activities contributes to the expansion of their recreational boat fleets. These social and cultural conditions create a strong demand for berthing capacities. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/europe_marinas_capacity.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Total Capacity of Marinas in Selected European Countries | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Total capacity of marinas in selected European countries 2023Source: *ICOMIA-International Council of Marine Industry Associations, (2023). “Recreational Boating Industry Statistics 2022”. Surrey, UK* Europe represents a significant market for recreational sailing, serving both as a destination and as a source of private boat and yacht owners, as well as charter companies. Marinas are essential for sustaining and facilitating these yachting activities. However, the global lack of standardisation also applies to Europe, resulting in divergent statistics regarding the capacities of the operating facilities. There are only estimates, rather than precise figures. According to the most detailed relevant database, the International Council of Marine Industry Associations -ICOMIA estimates that the top-10 European countries in terms of total marina capacity offer yachtmen approximately 1.43 million berths, with Sweden (500.000 berths), France (253.000) and Italy (181.000) standing at the top of the relevant list. Sweden records the highest number of berths as well as the highest ratio of berths per kilometre of coastline (155,38). In all Scandinavian countries, yachting is closely integrated into the daily lives of many citizens, with a notable share of residents choosing to live permanently on pleasure boats rather than in land-based housing. In Northern European countries, the popularity of sporting and recreational boating activities contributes to the expansion of their recreational boat fleets. These social and cultural conditions create a strong demand for berthing capacities. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/marinas-europe-total-capacity/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/marinas-europe-total-capacity/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/marinas-europe-total-capacity/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/marinas-europe-total-capacity/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Terminal Footprint, Selected Container Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/terminal-footprint-selected-container-ports/) **Published:** December 17, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Container-Terminal-Layout.png?resize=900%2C460&ssl=1 "Terminal Footprint, Selected Container Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Terminal Footprint Selected Container Ports[PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Container-Terminal-Layout-1.pdf) *Source: Rodrigue, J-P (2025) “A Systemic Analysis of Container Terminal Layouts”, Journal of Shipping and Trade, Vol. 10, No. 4.* The optimal shape of a container terminal is a **rectangle** that allows sufficient berthing space and a corresponding yard footprint. However, due to physical and site constraints, such an ideal footprint is rarely found, particularly in older terminals. The outcome is a variety of container terminal footprints that are relatively rectangular if the site allows, but each terminal has faced specific constraints in its development. The following footprint development strategies are noted: - **Reconversion**. A container terminal can be created by **reconverting existing port facilities** that have been abandoned or deemed less profitable, which is a common and low-cost option for existing ports. However, the challenge is an effective reconversion. For instance, the Port Elizabeth complex (New York) is among the oldest container terminal facilities and began operation in the 1960s. The terminals were built over reconverted break-bulk and warehousing facilities that were gradually demolished as container traffic increased. For this complex, the port did not expand its total footprint but reconverted towards containerization by removing marginalized port activities. In the 1990s, an on-dock rail facility was added between the APM and Maher terminals, which reduced the yard footprint while allowing for better hinterland access. The case of Montreal underlines unique reconversion challenges as the container terminal facilities were forced to expand laterally due to the limited availability of adjacent real estate. This led to terminal footprints that were narrow and elongated. - **Adaptation**. A new terminal footprint can be adapted to **mitigate the physical, technical, or real estate limitations of a site**, leading to unique footprints. In the late 1980s and 1990s, two major container terminals were added to the port of Antwerp at a downstream location of the Scheldt River (Europa Terminal and Noordzee Terminal). These facilities were constrained by the available real estate footprint and the inability to expand into the Scheldt River through land reclamation. In the early 2000s, the Port of Shanghai was expanding rapidly, with new facilities being built downstream along the Yangtze River. For the Mingdong complex, shallow depths along the river banks and siltation made dredging costs prohibitive. To the container yard facilities, a series of jetties and piers were added, separating the berth areas from the yards and allowing the complex to be used as a container port. The drawbacks of this adaptive footprint are longer pier-to-yard movements. - **Land reclamation**. The construction of new terminal facilities involves creating an entirely new footprint, which allows for mitigating technical limitations such as depth and the lack of available real estate. These facilities tend to be rectangular and closer to optimal design, but require substantial engineering and capital investments. They are common on mega port development projects where a suitable and available land footprint does not exist. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Singapore and Busan undertook massive land reclamation projects to expand their transshipment facilities into new areas. The Pasir Panjang (Singapore) and Newport (Busan) terminals were designed mainly to serve the function of transshipment, implying that they are more rectangularly shaped, which allows for more berth space as containers tend to spend less time in the yard. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/terminal-footprint-selected-container-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/terminal-footprint-selected-container-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/terminal-footprint-selected-container-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/terminal-footprint-selected-container-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Global Estimated Surfaces of Lowest Astronomical Tide](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/global-surfaces-lowest-astronomical-tide/) **Published:** September 7, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![- Dark blue areas indicating more than -4.0 meters of lowest astronomical tide globally](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Global-estimated-surfaces-of-Lowest-Astronomical-Tide-1.png?resize=900%2C455&ssl=1 "Global Estimated Surfaces of Lowest Astronomical Tide | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Estimated Surfaces of Lowest Astronomical Tide*Source: Dataset from Poncelet C., Billant G., Saunier A. (2021). Global estimated surfaces of Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) and Mean Sea Level (MSL).* Port facilities are constrained by tidal ranges and must be planned accordingly with nautical infrastructure such as breakwaters and tidal gates. A standard point of reference is the **Lowest Astronomical Tide** (LAT), which is the lowest sea level under average meteorological conditions. It is determined by astronomical forces, predominantly the gravitational effects of the Moon and the Sun, over a period of 18.6 years. It represents the time when the sun and the moon have an ascending and receding effect on tides due to their respective positions in the sky. LAT serves as a standard reference (chart datum) for nautical charts, meaning that all depths are measured relative to this level. Several coastal areas have high tidal ranges due to a combination of astronomical and geographical factors. High tidal ranges occur in areas such as bays and estuaries, amplifying the tidal effect. The Bay of Fundy (Canada), Patagonia (South America), and the Gulf of Saint Malo (France) are among the areas with the highest tidal ranges. Enclosed seas and gulfs are usually subject to little or no tidal variations, such as the Mediterranean, the Baltic, the Red Sea, the Sea of Japan, and the Caribbean. **Amphidromic points**, or tidal nodes, are areas where there is little difference between the high and the low tide over the astronomical period (18.6 years). There are a dozen such locations around the world, including in the North Atlantic off the coast of Newfoundland, on the northeast Pacific between Hawaii and California, and off the south-western coast of Australia. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/global-surfaces-lowest-astronomical-tide/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/global-surfaces-lowest-astronomical-tide/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/global-surfaces-lowest-astronomical-tide/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/global-surfaces-lowest-astronomical-tide/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Bunker Fuel Sales at the Port of Singapore, 2013-2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/bunker-fuel-sales-singapore/) **Published:** September 27, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/bunker_port_singapore.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Bunker Fuel Sales at the Port of Singapore, 2013-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Bunker Fuel Sales at the Port of Singapore 2013 2024*Source: Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore.* Singapore is the world’s largest bunkering port, where more than 50 million tons of bunkering fuels are sold annually. Its strategic location at the onset of the Strait of Malacca and its extensive petrochemical sectors make it one of the most suitable locations for bunkering. Before the regulations implemented in 2020 by the International Maritime Organization limiting the sulfur content of bunker fuels within [emission control areas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7/ports-policies-and-politics/emission-control-areas-maritime-shipping/ "Emission Control Areas for Maritime Shipping") encompassing access to major ports in Europe and North America, Marine Fuel Oil (MFO) was the most widely sold bunker with a 95% market share. By 2020, the standard had become 0.5% sulfur content or less worldwide and 0.1% in emission control areas, triggering a substantial shift to bunker fuels with lower sulfur content, particularly Low Sulfur Fuel Oil (LSFO). While in 2020 the energy transition was substantial, with LFSO reaching a market share of 68%, this share noticeably declined afterward. By 2024, the share decreased to 54% while Low Sulfur Marine Gasoil (LSMGO) had a 7% market share. This decline is primarily attributed to the Red Sea Crisis, as ships circumnavigated the Cape of Good Hope and avoided the emerging emission control area in the Mediterranean. To save fuel costs, several shipping lines relied on marine fuel oil (IFO 180) instead of LSFO. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/bunker-fuel-sales-singapore/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/bunker-fuel-sales-singapore/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/bunker-fuel-sales-singapore/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/bunker-fuel-sales-singapore/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Harbor Types](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/harbor-types/) **Published:** October 30, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Harbor-Types-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Harbor Types | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Harbor Types*Source: adapted from National Geospatial-intelligence Agency, World Port Index.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Harbor-Types-1.pdf) The [port site](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2814 "Port Sites") refers to its location concerning major maritime attributes such as the coastline and river systems. The harbor type refers to the physical positioning of a port. There are eight major types of harbors, and the above map depicts only large-sized ports: - **Open roadstead**. A harbor with no natural or artificial protection, allowing for a safe anchorage with limited exposure to currents, winds, and tides. They are often built to accommodate very large ships (such as oil tankers) or in a setting with limited tides, implying that sheltering infrastructure is much less required (Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Mexico). 580 (12.5%) ports are in this category, including Ras Tanura, Saudi Arabia, a major oil port in the Persian Gulf. - **Coastal natural**. Represents a sheltered site, the outcome of a natural coastal profile, creating a natural barrier such as a cape, a reef, or an island. Approximately 2,100 (46.0%) ports fall into this category, underscoring that the selection of a port site is predominantly influenced by the quality of the harbor. - **Coastal breakwater**. A harbor lying behind an artificial breakwater construction, built from scratch or built to add to the existing natural shelter. This is particularly the case for harbors exposed to dominant winds, waves, or sea currents. About 810 ports (17.6%) are in this category, such as Zeebrugge, Belgium (part of the port of Antwerp). - **Coastal tide gates**. A harbor behind a set of locks or other mechanical devices that were built to ensure sufficient water levels in the harbor for all tide levels. In many cases, ships can only enter or exit the port at specific times of the day when water levels are suitable. These facilities tend to be capital-intensive and are typically located in large ports. Only 39 (0.8%) such ports exist, such as Le Havre, France, and Mumbai, India. - **River natural**. A harbor located along a river where water is not retained by any artificial means. The harbor often consists of quays or wharves parallel to the river banks. Piers may also extend into the river. About 850 (18.5%) such ports exist, such as Jacksonville or Montreal. - **River basins**. A river harbor where basins have been excavated to accommodate ships, often parallel to the flow of the river. This confers the advantage of additional berth space without impeding navigation on the fluvial route. 77 (1.6%) such ports exist, including Bremen. - **River tide gates**. A river harbor behind a set of locks or other mechanical devices built to ensure sufficient water levels in the harbor for all tide levels. Such harbors tend to be located close to the ocean, such as in a river delta or estuary, as in the case of Antwerp (Scheldt estuary) and Bremerhaven (Weser estuary). Only 47 (1.0%) such ports exist. - **Canal or lake**. A harbor located along an artificial canal or by a river accessible through a navigable waterway. 67 (1.4%) such ports exist, including Balboa in Panama and Brugge in Belgium. Each of these sites requires different types of infrastructure to ensure proper port access and operation. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/harbor-types/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/harbor-types/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/harbor-types/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/harbor-types/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Main Yacht and Boat Manufacturers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/yacht-manufacturers/) **Published:** September 6, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Major-Yacht-and-Boat-Manufacturers-in-Europe-North-America-1.png?resize=900%2C385&ssl=1 "Main Yacht and Boat Manufacturers in Europe North America | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Yacht and Boat Manufacturers in Europe North America*Source: Authors based on various sources*. The production of recreational crafts is highly diverse, ranging from series to one-off boats built to order. Advanced engineering, innovative design methodologies, and high-quality craftsmanship are critical aspects of leadership in yacht production. **Yacht manufacturers** are primarily European firms, particularly in the superyachts sector. France is a leader in global boat production (catamarans, monohulls, multihulls, and motor yachts), and overseas sales, with its largest boatbuilders, Groupe Bénéteau (established in the 1880s) and the publicly listed Fountaine-Pajot, building thousands of boats annually. Sales go to overseas markets, primarily the US and Caribbean. The Italian Fincantieri, which leverages its status as one of the largest shipbuilding groups with advanced manufacturing capabilities and strategic partnerships, is the market leader, holding approximately a 10% market share. The top six groups (Feadship, Ferretti Group, Fincantieri, Group Beneteau, Lürssen, Princess Yachts) share one-third of the market. Other large groups are located in the Netherlands (Feadship, Damen) and Germany (Lurssen, which focuses on megayachts and superyachts, with projects averaging 106.8 m in length in 2024), the UK (Princess, Sunseeker), and Poland (i.e., the luxury catamaran manufacturer Sunreef). The production of recreational crafts is highly diverse, ranging from series to one-off boats built to order. [Yacht manufacturers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/yacht-manufacturers/) are primarily European firms, particularly in the superyachts sector. The U.S. contributes strongly in niche areas, with manufacturers being particularly strong in sportfishing yachts, custom and mid-size motor yachts. However, it is less competitive in large-scale sailing yacht production compared to France or Italy. Italy’s preeminence in the global yacht manufacturing industry is substantiated by its consistent control of over 40% of all yachts under construction, a dominance attributed to the consistent production output of its major shipyards. The substantial volume of large motor yacht orders is a critical factor in Italy’s sustained prominence, reinforcing its position as the world’s foremost producer of motor yachts and a pivotal contributor to advancements in maritime technology and luxury vessel manufacturing. Beyond Italy, large groups of manufacturers are located in the Netherlands, Germany, the UK and Poland. The major non-European yacht manufacturer worldwide is operating in Taiwan. The **U.S. market** contributes strongly in niche areas, with manufacturers being strong in sportfishing yachts (Viking, Hatteras), custom and mid-size motor yachts (Westport, Delta, Christensen, Burger), but is less competitive in large-scale sailing yacht production compared to France or Italy. Taiwan’s Ocean Alexander is the major non-European manufacturer of yachts worldwide. Throughout the 21st century, the Italian manufacturer Azimut-Benetti has consistently topped the rankings for **building superyachts** (yachts exceeding 24 meters in length), based on the cumulative length of hulls produced. Another Italian manufacturer, Sanlorenzo, ranks second. In 2024, these two companies had 167 projects with an average length of 36 m. and 132 projects with an average length of 34.1 m. in progress, respectively, with no other manufacturer developing more than 40 projects within the year. Adding the other major Italian yards (i.e., Ferretti Group, The Italian Sea Group, Overmarine, Custom Line*),* Italy is the undisputed world leader in the production of yachts and superyachts. The [top-15 yacht builders in 2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/top-yacht-builders-length-construction/) had orders for over 640 new builds, reaching a total length of 25.000 meters. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/yacht-manufacturers/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/yacht-manufacturers/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/yacht-manufacturers/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/yacht-manufacturers/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Superyachts deliveries by year (2020-2025)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/superyachts-deliveries-2020-2025/) **Published:** September 8, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Superyacht-deliveries-by-year-2020-2025.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Superyacht Deliveries, 2020-2025 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Superyacht deliveries by year 2020 2025*Sources: Based on Boat International & SuperYacht databases; \* 2024 & 2025 estimations* While new yacht sales have slowed somewhat and new yacht completions reached a record level in 2024, the total number of yachts over 30 metres under construction, whether sold or not, remains largely unchanged as of early 2025, at 692 yachts. This stability is mainly due to an increase in speculative yacht projects started in 2024 compared to previous years. Over half of the 2024 delivered yachts are 24 – 30 meters in length, with 23 of the rest being in the 70+ meters category. According to the Boat International database, by mid-2024, 1.166 total projects were in biuld or ordered, with the average length of boats under construction being 33.5 meters, and the total length of yachts under construction standing at 45.722 m.. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/superyachts-deliveries-2020-2025/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/superyachts-deliveries-2020-2025/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/superyachts-deliveries-2020-2025/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/superyachts-deliveries-2020-2025/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Bulk Ship Classes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/bulk-ship-classes/) **Published:** April 3, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/bulk_ship_classes.png?resize=900%2C399&ssl=1 "Bulk Ship Classes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Bulk Ship ClassesBulk carrier classes can be dimensioned to meet the maximum nautical access of specific **waterways** (seaways, canals, or ports), such as: - **Malaccamax**. Largest vessel that can pass through the Straits of Malacca (20m draft and 300,000 DWT). - **Suezmax**. Largest vessel that can pass through the Suez Canal (24m draft and 240,000 DWT). - **Panamax**. Largest vessel that can pass through the initial (old) locks (12m draft and 65,000 DWT). - **New Panamax (Neo Panamax)**. Largest vessel that can pass through the new locks completed in 2016 (15.2m and 120,000 DWT). - **Seawaymax**. Largest vessel that can pass through the canal locks of the St Lawrence Seaway (max LOA: 226m, max draft: 7.92m, 28,500 DWT). This allows access to the Great Lakes system, deep within North America. - **Dunkirkmax**. Largest vessel that can enter the eastern harbor lock in the port of Dunkirk, France (max LOA: 289m, max beam: 45m, 175,000 DWT). Dunkirk is a major bulk port, particularly for petroleum products. - **Newcastlemax**. Largest vessel that can enter the port of Newcastle in Australia (max beam: 47m, 185,000 DWT). The port is among the world’s largest coal exporters. Several classes of **bulk carriers** exist: - **Valemax ships**. Very large ore carriers (VLOC) with a unit capacity of 380,000 to 400,000 DWT and about 360 meters in length overall (LOA). The ships are owned or chartered by the mining company Vale (Brazil) and deployed on the iron ore trade route between Brazil and Europe and Asia. In recent years, Chinese shipping companies have also started to order Valemax-type vessels. - **Capesize**. Vessels have a capacity of between 90,000 and 200,000 DWT. A common Capesize vessel size is between 130,000 and 170,000 DWT. - **Panamax**. A class of bulk carriers having a capacity of 65,000 to 89,999 DWT and meeting the maximum ship dimensions to pass through the old Panama Canal locks. - **Supramax or handymax**. Bulk carriers of 40,000 to 64,999 DWT. - **Handysize**. Smaller bulk carriers of 15,000 to 39,999 DWT. - **Mini Bulk Carrier**. Ships of 3,000 to 14,999 DWT employed in coastal trade and to reach ports having a lower draft. Economies of scale in the **oil tanker** sector are the most extensive: - **Very large and ultra-large crude carriers (VLCC/ULCC)** of more than 200,000 dwt used on some main trade lanes between the Persian Gulf and Europe, North America, and Asia, and between Africa and China. - **Suezmax vessels** with a capacity of between 100,000 and 160,000 dwt typically found on routes to and from West Africa and in the Mediterranean. - **Aframax vessels** of 70,000 to 100,000 dwt. - **Panamax vessels** of 40,000 to 70,000 dwt. **LNG carriers** have their own classification: - Small carriers between 25,000 and 50,000 m3 are used for short-range trades, especially in the Mediterranean. - Vessels between 120,000 and 165,000 m3. It was not until 2006 that a 150,000 m3 vessel entered the market. In 2008, vessels of up to 165,000 m3 were delivered for the first time. - Large **Q-Flex** (210,000 to 217,000 m3) and **Q-Max** (260,000 to 270,000 m3) vessels initially designed to service LNG projects in Qatar (owned by Qatar Gas). In 2010, the first vessels in the 170,000 to 180,000 m3 range were delivered, narrowing the gap between the more traditional vessels and the Qatari designs. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/bulk-ship-classes/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/bulk-ship-classes/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/bulk-ship-classes/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/bulk-ship-classes/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Top-15 Yacht Builders by Total Length of Construction, 2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/top-yacht-builders-length-construction/) **Published:** September 7, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Top-Yacht-Builders-by-Total-Length-of-Construction-2024.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Top Yacht Builders by Total Length of Construction | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Top 15 Yacht Builders by Total Length of Construction 2024*Source: Based on data reported by Boat International (2025).* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/top-yacht-builders-length-construction/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/top-yacht-builders-length-construction/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/top-yacht-builders-length-construction/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/top-yacht-builders-length-construction/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Top-10 Largest Yachts in the World, 2025 ](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/top-10-largest-yachts-world-2025/) **Published:** September 6, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Top-10-Largest-Yachts-in-the-World-.png?resize=900%2C453&ssl=1 "Top-10 Largest Yachts in the World | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Top 10 Largest Yachts in the World in 2025*Source: Based on Boat International data (2025).* Built in the UK in 1865, ***El Mahrousa*** has carried the title of the largest (in length)yacht in the world unchallenged for a remarkable 119 years. This was the first yacht ever to exceed 150 m. length. Exceeding 160 m. length, the yacht ***Dubai*** broke this record in 1999; however, in the 21st century, yachts have become larger and longer. Today, the list of sailing yachts over 150 meters in length totals seven. All top-10 yachts measure over 146 metres; in total, there are 17 yachts of 140 metres in length or more. Onboard features of these yachts include everything from submarines and helicopters to swimming pools, cinemas, and numerous other amenities. Since October 2013, the largest privately owned superyacht in the world is ***Azzam***. According to her shipyard, Azzam was designed to be 145 metres but grew to 180.1 metres in the “process of optimisation”. It accommodates 36 guests and up to 80 crew members. The behemoth was reportedly built for members of Abu Dhabi’s royal family. On board features include a gym, pool and a special “golf training room”. The yacht boasts an impressive speed for its size, thanks to its innovative water-jet propulsion system, which propels it at 31.5 knots or more. The German shipyard that constructed Azzam, Lürssen, currently holds a near monopoly in the construction of supersized superyachts, having delivered 14 of the world’s top 25. This list of the top-10 yachts in length is expected to change in 2026, when the Norwegian yard Vard is scheduled to deliver **REV Ocean,** which at 194.9 metres will be the world’s largest superyacht. Her top speed is expected to be 17.0 knots, with power provided by two diesel-electric engines. She will accommodate up to 36 guests and 54 crew members, with a gross tonnage of 19,045 GT and a beam of 22 m. When delivered, REV Ocean will join a fleet of 74 motor yachts longer than 100m. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/top-10-largest-yachts-world-2025/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/top-10-largest-yachts-world-2025/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/top-10-largest-yachts-world-2025/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/top-10-largest-yachts-world-2025/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Royal Caribbean Galveston Cruise Terminal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/royal-caribbean-galveston-cruise-terminal/) **Published:** November 24, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/royal_caribbean_galveston.jpg?resize=900%2C484&ssl=1 "Royal Caribbean Galveston Cruise Terminal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Royal Caribbean Galveston Cruise TerminalGalveston is the fourth-largest cruise port in the United States (11th globally), handling more than 2.2 million passengers in 2023. It is a drive-to port located in proximity to large Texas metropolitan areas, including Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Austin, with more than two-thirds of passengers driving their own vehicles to the port. There is a substantial population with discretionary income to draw cruisers from, which has been the primary driver of growth. The emergence of the cruise industry in the 2010s marked a significant shift in the port’s role and function. From a general bulk and breakbulk facility, cruises accounted for, as of 2023, 72% of the port’s revenue, up from 62% in 2019. In 2022, the third cruise terminal in Galveston (Terminal 3) opened under a 60-year concession. The 161,000 square feet facility is located on Pier 10 and represents a partial reconversion of a RoRo facility (there is still the option to use the pier as a RoRo terminal with a direct access ramp on the eastern edge). It is the world’s first cruise terminal to be certified as a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) zero-energy facility, meaning it can fulfill its entire electricity needs through 30,000 square feet of solar panels. The $125 million investment is a joint venture between Royal Caribbean and Ceres Terminals (acquired in 2023 by SSA Marine), which provides management and stevedoring services. The facility can handle the latest generation of Icon Class cruise ships (about 6,000 passengers) and is for the exclusive use of Royal Caribbean. The majority of the cruises last 4 or 5 days and are bound to Cozumel and Costa Maya in Mexico. The two-story terminal is designed like an airport terminal, featuring similar amenities such as check-in, luggage drop-off, security, and waiting areas, all of which are accessed sequentially through a gangway for boarding. Like a standard airport terminal, check-in is on the second floor, and arrivals are on the ground floor. This implies different access points for drop-offs and pickups. There is also a separate waiting area (lounges) for passengers occupying suites. Since Galveston is a drive-to-cruise port, a significant concern is parking, which is a substantial source of revenue for the port authority. In 2023, more than 210,000 cars were parked at facilities operated by Galveston Wharves, close to double the pre-pandemic 2019 figures. In addition to the dedicated parking facilities adjacent to the terminal, operated by the port authority, a network of private parking services has emerged around the port. This has represented an unexpected reconversion of port-centric real estate, including the reconversion of old warehouses into covered parking lots. Further, in 2023, Terminal 25 (about 1.5 kilometers to the west) was renovated to better suit the requirements of its primary customer, Carnival, mainly being able to bring its latest generation of cruise ships of the Excel class (about 6,000 passengers). A fourth cruise terminal, a joint venture with MSC Cruises, is underway at Pier 16 and is expected to open in late 2025. This will reinforce the position of Galveston as a major cruise turn port. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/royal-caribbean-galveston-cruise-terminal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/royal-caribbean-galveston-cruise-terminal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/royal-caribbean-galveston-cruise-terminal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruise-terminal-design-equipment/royal-caribbean-galveston-cruise-terminal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Segmentation of the Yacht Market: Propulsion](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/segments-yacht-market-propulsion/) **Published:** September 6, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/segmentation_yacht_propulsion.png?resize=900%2C380&ssl=1 "Segments of the Yacht Market based on Propulsion | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Segments of the Yacht Market based on PropulsionBased on propulsion, the yacht market is segmented into motor, sail and the comparatively minor hybrid/electric. The motor segment dominates, as they are more flexible in their cruising ability at varying conditions and in their ability to move their locations at a faster rate - **Motorboats** remain the most popular form of recreational ocean travel, due to their speed, manoeuvrability, and ease of handling. Recent innovations include hybrid propulsion systems designed to reduce fuel consumption and emissions while maximizing speed. Complementary advancements, such as real-time engine monitoring and automated control systems, have increased operational efficiency, onboard safety, and overall user convenience. - **Sailboats** have undergone significant transformation through the adoption of advanced materials and technologies aimed at improving performance, particularly in relation to speed and manoeuvrability. Increasingly, electric-assisted sails and energy recovery systems are being integrated, allowing owners to enjoy a quieter and more environmentally responsible experience while preserving the traditional appeal of sailing. - **Hybrid and fully electric yachts** are rapidly emerging as sustainable alternatives within the luxury travel market. Improvements in battery technology now enable extended cruising ranges without emissions, while supplementary energy sources—such as solar panels and regenerative power systems—provide additional autonomy. Owners are drawn to these yachts not only for their reduced environmental footprint but also for their smooth, quiet, and technologically sophisticated operation. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/segments-yacht-market-propulsion/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/segments-yacht-market-propulsion/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/segments-yacht-market-propulsion/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/segments-yacht-market-propulsion/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Segmentation of the Yacht Market: Yacht Length](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/segments-yacht-market-length/) **Published:** September 6, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/segmentation_yacht_lenght.png?resize=900%2C380&ssl=1 "Segments of the Yacht Market based on Yacht Length | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Segments of the Yacht Market based on Yacht LengthBased on length, **the key segments of the yacht marke**t are three: - The **less than 24-meter yachts**. Owners of these yachts enjoy the ease of handling and low operating costs, as well as innovative, space-saving, and multifunctional design. Electric and hybrid propulsion methods are on the rise. - **The 24 – 45 meter** **yachts**. This segment dominated the market (a 64% share in 2024). Fully customised yachts offering luxury and bringing smart integration for navigation and entertainment remain diachronically popular. - **The above 45-meter yachts**. These offer luxurious amenities for well-being onboard, including spas, gyms, and cinemas. The first yachts to incorporate green technologies are a result of the continued interest in yachts designed for remote cruising, featuring fuel storage and autonomous navigation systems for safer long-distance sailing. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/segments-yacht-market-length/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/segments-yacht-market-length/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/segments-yacht-market-length/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/tourist-harbors-marinas/segments-yacht-market-length/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Types of River Cruise Itineraries](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/river-cruises-and-ports/types-river-cruise-itineraries/) **Published:** October 17, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_river_cruise_itineraries.png?resize=900%2C507&ssl=1 "Types of River Cruise Itineraries | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of River Cruise ItinerariesThe main river markets include the Rhine/Danube system in Europe, the Mississippi and its tributaries in North America, and the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers in China. Due to navigation limitations such as shallow draft and bridge clearance, river cruise ships are smaller, commonly with 200 guests or less. Due to the scale issue, they have fewer onboard entertainment and amenities. Still, unlike sea cruises, they have the opportunity to resupply along the route with local catering, products, and entertainers. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/river-cruises-and-ports/types-river-cruise-itineraries/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/river-cruises-and-ports/types-river-cruise-itineraries/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/river-cruises-and-ports/types-river-cruise-itineraries/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/river-cruises-and-ports/types-river-cruise-itineraries/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Services Supporting International Trade and the Shipping Business](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/services-supporting-international-trade/) **Published:** February 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/services_shipping_business.png?resize=900%2C473&ssl=1 "Services Supporting International Trade and the Shipping Business | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Services Supporting International TradeInternational trade requires several types of services provided by a number of actors related to the shipping business: - **Distribution services**. Related to the function of transportation and warehousing, which are physical operations performed on trade goods. A carrier, such as a truck or a maritime shipping company, and a terminal operator provide transportation services, while a cargo owner can have own-account transportation and warehousing. - **Transaction services**. Activities for managing international trade. Procurement involves finding suppliers, setting up contracts, and ensuring continuity in the supply. Customs comprise all the regulatory compliance necessary to ensure that traded goods meet national standards and that duties are paid. Freight forwarders regularly assume this function on behalf of their customers. Finance provides capital to invest in trade activities, such as purchasing (leasing) equipment and constructing facilities, an activity performed by investment banks. Cargo also needs to be insured against common risks (delays, theft, damage), a function assumed by insurance companies, some of which are also involved in finance. Since many trade transactions are settled through currency exchange drawn from corporate deposits, commercial banks play a major role in settling transactions and letters of credit. In recent decades, third-party logistics providers (3PLs) have offered their customers a broader range of trade services by controlling key transportation and transactional services. Several 3PLs are carriers that have strategically expanded their range of services to provide added value by combining the physical assets they control (ships, terminals, vehicles, warehouses) with procurement and customs services. Fourth-party logistics providers (4PLs) have also emerged, mainly focusing on non-physical asset trade services. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/services-supporting-international-trade/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/services-supporting-international-trade/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/services-supporting-international-trade/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/services-supporting-international-trade/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Treatment of Contaminated Dredged Material](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/treatment-contaminated-dredged-material/) **Published:** January 8, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Amoras.jpg?resize=450%2C299&ssl=1 "Treatment of Dredged Material: Amoras Project, Antwerp | Port Economics, Management and Policy")*Photo: Courtesy of the Port of Antwerp.* Contaminated dredged material can be treated in situ or ex-situ: - **In situ (in-place) remediation** refers to the cleanup of contaminated soils and groundwater without removing contaminated media from the subsurface, typically through the use of physical and/or chemical processes. - **Ex-situ remediation** involves the removal of contaminated media, either for off-site disposal or for on‑site treatment, and subsequent return to the subsurface. The treatment mechanisms can range from **physical, chemical, biological, to thermal technologies**: - **Physical and chemical treatment technologies** can potentially remove high levels of metal contaminants in situ. Many metal species can be simultaneously removed. Despite their effectiveness, they are generally costly due to the specialized devices, machinery, and chemicals. This category of treatment includes soil vapor extraction, solidification/stabilization, chemical oxidation, soil flushing, and electrokinetic separation. - **Biological treatment technologies** use a process whereby contaminants in soil, sediments, sludge, or groundwater are transformed or degraded into **innocuous substances,** such as carbon dioxide, water, fatty acids, and biomass, through the **action of microbial metabolism**. This technology is commercially available for treating fuel contamination. This category of treatment includes bioventing and phytoremediation. - **Thermal treatment technologies** raise the temperature of the contaminated soil to approximately 260 °C for a specified period of time by exposing it to hot gases (i.e. heated air), volatilizing the contaminants, and destroying them in an afterburner. The techniques available include electrical resistance heating, steam injection and extraction, conductive heating, radio-frequency heating, and vitrification. An example of ex-situ treatment of dredged material is the **Amoras project,** which became operational in 2011 in the port of Antwerp, Belgium. Water is removed from the soil by chamber filter presses, after which the filter cake can be disposed of in a controlled manner. This joint project between the Flemish government and the Antwerp Port Authority provides a sustainable solution for the processing and disposal of dredged soil from the port. In parallel with Amoras, the Vamoras project explores methods for recycling the filter cake into bricks, lightweight aggregate, or concrete for foundations. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/treatment-contaminated-dredged-material/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/treatment-contaminated-dredged-material/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/treatment-contaminated-dredged-material/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/treatment-contaminated-dredged-material/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Impact of Changing Market Requirements on Dock Labor](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/impact-changing-market-requirements-on-dock-labour/) **Published:** December 4, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/changing_market_requirements_dock_labor.png?w=900&ssl=1 "The Impact of Changing Market Requirements on Dock Labor | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The impact of changing market requirements on dock labor*Source: adapted from Notteboom, T. (2018) The impact of changing market requirements on dock labour employment systems in northwest European seaports, International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics (IJSTL), 10(4), 429-454 https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSTL.2018.093457* There is a series of linkages between the key requirements of market actors and the resulting impact on demands in terms of dock labor performance. Shipping companies, third-party logistics service providers, and shippers impose specific logistics requirements on ports and terminals based on the characteristics and needs of their supply chains. Terminal operators are challenged to meet these market requirements if they want to attract cargo and ships. The production factor, dock labor, and the associated systems and arrangements for deploying dock labor play a role in meeting market requirements. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/impact-changing-market-requirements-on-dock-labour/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/impact-changing-market-requirements-on-dock-labour/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/impact-changing-market-requirements-on-dock-labour/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/impact-changing-market-requirements-on-dock-labour/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Classification of Geopolitical Developments and Dimensions Affecting Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/geopolitical-developments-dimensions-ports/) **Published:** August 27, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![Seaports and geopolitics in maritime networks, trade, defense, and conflicts.](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/geopolitical_developments_dimensions_ports.png?resize=900%2C455&ssl=1 "Classification of Geopolitical Developments and Dimensions Affecting Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Classification of Geopolitical Developments and Dimensions Affecting Ports*Source: adapted from Notteboom, T., Haralambides, H., 2025, Seaports in a tense geopolitical environment: key agents or sitting ducks? Maritime Economics & Logistics, 27 (1), 1-24.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/geopolitical-developments-dimensions-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/geopolitical-developments-dimensions-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/geopolitical-developments-dimensions-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/geopolitical-developments-dimensions-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Types of Port Reforms](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/types-port-reforms/) **Published:** August 25, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![Port Economics, Management and Policy diagram illustrating privatization, commercialization, decentralization, and corporatization processes.](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_port_reforms.png?resize=900%2C364&ssl=1 "Types of Port Reforms | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Port Reforms### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/types-port-reforms/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/types-port-reforms/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/types-port-reforms/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/types-port-reforms/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Private Service Port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/private-service-port/) **Published:** August 24, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![Shaded port categories on port authority performance meter, focusing on port management and policy aspects.](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/private_service_port.png?resize=900%2C615&ssl=1 "Private Service Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Private Service Port*Source: Adapted from World Bank (2025), Port Reform Toolkit, 3rd edition.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/private-service-port/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/private-service-port/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/private-service-port/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/private-service-port/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Corporatized Port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/corporatized-port/) **Published:** August 24, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![Corporatized Port](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/corporatized_port.png?resize=900%2C615&ssl=1 "Corporatized Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")*Source: Adapted from World Bank (2025), Port Reform Toolkit, 3rd edition.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/corporatized-port/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/corporatized-port/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/corporatized-port/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/corporatized-port/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Landlord Port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/landlord-port/) **Published:** August 24, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/landlord_port.png?resize=900%2C615&ssl=1 "Landlord Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Landlord Port*Source: Adapted from World Bank (2025), Port Reform Toolkit, 3rd edition.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/landlord-port/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/landlord-port/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/landlord-port/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/landlord-port/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Public Tool Port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/public-tool-port/) **Published:** August 24, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/public_tool_port.png?resize=900%2C615&ssl=1 "Public Tool Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")*Source: Adapted from World Bank (2025), Port Reform Toolkit, 3rd edition.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/public-tool-port/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/public-tool-port/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/public-tool-port/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/public-tool-port/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Public Service Port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/public-service-port/) **Published:** August 24, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/public_service_port.png?resize=900%2C615&ssl=1 "Public Service Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Public Service Port*Source: Adapted from World Bank (2025), Port Reform Toolkit, 3rd edition.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/public-service-port/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/public-service-port/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/public-service-port/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/public-service-port/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Main Port Governance Models](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/main-port-governance-models/) **Published:** January 5, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/main_port_governance_models2.png?resize=900%2C512&ssl=1 "Main Port Governance Models | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Port Governance ModelsThere are four basic governance models for ports in terms of their respective public and private responsibilities. - **Public service ports**. The port authority or a similar public agency has sole ownership and control of all port activities. It is responsible for all investments, operations, and maintenance activities. These ports are increasingly less common. - **Tool ports**. The port authority owns and operates all the port infrastructure and superstructure. Activities, such as cargo handling, are assumed by private companies acting on behalf of the port authority or cargo owners. - **Landlord ports**. The port authority assumes the planning and development of port infrastructure while leasing facilities to private operators over long-term concessions. This has become the dominant port governance model worldwide. - **Corporatized ports**. The port authority is a private shareholding company, with the public sector often the main shareholder. Outside this ownership structure, it functions similarly to a landlord port. - **Private ports**. The public sector has limited involvement in port activities, primarily serving as the regulator and providing services such as customs and pilotage. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/main-port-governance-models/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/main-port-governance-models/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/main-port-governance-models/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/main-port-governance-models/?share=reddit) - --- ### [A Broader View of Port Governance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/broader-view-port-governance/) **Published:** March 5, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/broader_port_governance.png?w=900&ssl=1 "A Broader View of Port Governance | Port Economics, Management and Policy")A Broader View of Port Governance*Source: adapted from Brooks M.R. and Pallis A.A. (2012). Port Governance. In: Talley W.K. (ed.). Maritime Economics – A Blackwell Companion. Blackwell, 232-267.* Ports are critical infrastructure for an economy as their management, operations, and development are capital-intensive, consume (public) scarce land use, are associated with externalities (noise, emissions), and involve many stakeholders (port authority, terminal operators, rail operators, trucking companies, logistics providers, port-cities, etc.). Due to the latter, developing a governance model for a port requires a broader vision that considers addressing relationships within the port and its economic and operational parameters. At the same time, it also allows for the weighting and consideration of several social and cultural variables linked with port operations and developments. Once decided, governance principles apply to all relationships between businesses and their shareholders, governments and citizens, public/private agencies and stakeholders, port authorities, other organizations, and those who establish them to undertake activities on their behalf. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/broader-view-port-governance/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/broader-view-port-governance/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/broader-view-port-governance/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/broader-view-port-governance/?share=reddit) - --- ### [A Multi-Modal Port Governance Vision](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/multi-modal-port-governance-vision/) **Published:** March 5, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_multi_modal.png?resize=900%2C590&ssl=1 "A Multi-Modal Port Governance Vision | Port Economics, Management and Policy")A Multi modal Vision of Port Governance*Source: adapted from Brooks M.R. and Pallis A.A. (2012). Port Governance. In: Talley W.K. (ed.). Maritime Economics – A Blackwell Companion. Blackwell, 232-267.* A port governance model that seeks to optimize management, operations, and economic development prospects of the port, while considering social and cultural variables, can be achieved by adopting a concentric approach to engagement, incorporating a multi-modal perspective. The logistics integration in ports, the regionalization of port functions, as well as the importance of inland freight distribution, have a major impact on port governance. This is because a mix of stakeholder management approaches emerges as the scope of coordination beyond price between actors involved is essential, and opportunistic behavior could limit trust and infrastructure for solving collective action problems. Within such a multi-modal perspective, the notion of port governance includes spatial-jurisdictional scales, stakeholder relations (internal, external, public policy, and community), and logistical capabilities. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/multi-modal-port-governance-vision/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/multi-modal-port-governance-vision/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/multi-modal-port-governance-vision/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/multi-modal-port-governance-vision/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Port of Portus, Ancient Rome](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/port-portus-ancient-rome/) **Published:** October 18, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/portus_ancient_rome.png?resize=900%2C540&ssl=1 "The Port of Portus, Ancient Rome | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Port of Portus Ancient Rome*Source: Engraved in “Civitates Orbis Terrarum” (IV: Urbium praecipuarum totius mundi, liber quartus, first edition 1588)/Koeman B&H4*. The port of Ostia, located at the mouth of the river Tiber, was the main port serving Rome since its foundation and emergence as an imperial city. As the Roman Empire expanded and reached dominance around the Mediterranean, a need arose to expand the shipping capabilities and connectivity of the capital. Portus was constructed in 42 CE as an addition to Ostia, which was located just 6 km away. It represented the most important public work of the Roman Empire at that time, taking 20 years to complete, and is also known as the Claudian harbor in the name of Emperor Claudius, who initiated the project. One of the advantages of Portus was its proximity to Rome (32 km), with the construction of Via Portuensis and a canal connecting to the Tiber. Traffic between the port and Rome was so intense that Via Portuensis was expanded to become the world’s first dual carriageway. Portus became an extensive facility covering more than 200 hectares and the most important hub of the Mediterranean for at least three centuries until the collapse of the Eastern Roman Empire in the fifth century. In 102 CE, it was expanded to include a hexagonal basin of 5 meters in depth, expanding docking space, surrounded by extensive warehousing facilities (the basin is still present today). This basin, known as the Trajan harbor, was paved at the bottom and could hold 200 ships. Portus acted as a major commercial and distribution hub and such an important facility that the modern term ‘port’ was directly derived from its name. Due to siltation and declining activity, the port facility has disappeared and is now located about 2 km inland from the sea. In the second century, the Greek orator Aelius Aristides made the following statement concerning the prominence of Portus and the Roman trade network: > “Here is brought from every land and sea, all the crops of the seasons and the produce of each land. The arrivals and departures of the ships never stop, so that one would express admiration not only for the harbor, but even for the sea. Everything comes here, all that is produced and grows … whatever one does not see here, it is not a thing which has existed or exists.” ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/port-portus-ancient-rome/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/port-portus-ancient-rome/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/port-portus-ancient-rome/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/port-portus-ancient-rome/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Loading Break-bulk Cargo, Port of New Orleans, early 20th Century](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/loading-break-bulk-cargo-port-new-orleans-early-20th-century/) **Published:** December 22, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/new_orleans1920s1.jpg?resize=850%2C568&ssl=1 "Loading Break-bulk Cargo, Port of New Orleans, early 20th Century | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Loading Break bulk Cargo Port of New Orleans early 20th Century*Source: Port of New Orleans.* Before containerization, break-bulk cargo had to be manually loaded and unloaded. Several systems were put in place to do so, depending on the type of cargo and how it was packaged. Cargo could be in barrels, crates, or bags, but the maximum size of these load units remained at the level that crews could carry using various means. Piers were usually made out of wood because of lower construction costs, particularly since the loads transiting were not particularly heavy (loads of half to one ton). In the above photo, longshoremen are using a system of pulleys and slides to lift bagged cargo onto a ship from a hand cart that traveled a short distance from the adjacent on-dock transit shed. Such warehouses were prevalent in ports at that time to ensure that break-bulk cargo spent the least amount of time exposed outdoors. Still, the cargo was prone to damage and presented the opportunity for cargo theft. The cargo being handled in the above photo appears to be flour, particularly since New Orleans has historically been a major export gateway for American agricultural goods shipped through the Mississippi system. The disks on the mooring lines were to prevent rodents from climbing into the ship, as bagged foodstuffs were particularly vulnerable. The typical productivity level of a longshoremen crew was 5 to 10 tons per hour (a modern gantry crane can handle 500 tons per hour), implying that ships spent a large share of their commercial life at ports being loaded or unloaded. At a later time, further attempts at unitization involving pallets and larger bags were made. Still, the system changed little until [containerization](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=1323) in the late 1950s. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/loading-break-bulk-cargo-port-new-orleans-early-20th-century/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/loading-break-bulk-cargo-port-new-orleans-early-20th-century/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/loading-break-bulk-cargo-port-new-orleans-early-20th-century/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/loading-break-bulk-cargo-port-new-orleans-early-20th-century/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port of Genoa, Late 15th Century](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/port-genoa-late-15th-century/) **Published:** October 27, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Genova_1481_copy_1597.jpg?resize=900%2C493&ssl=1 "Port of Genoa, Late 15th Century | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port of Genoa Late 15th CenturySince antiquity, the technology supporting maritime shipping has not changed much. Port sites with a protected area and access to inland trade routes were more prominent. Genoa is a port city that can be traced back to the Roman Empire, granting access to Northern Italy, particularly the Po River valley. In the Middle Ages, Genoa was an independent city-state able to maintain a commercial network rivaling other city-states such as Venice and Pisa. The city generated the core of its wealth by projecting its maritime power and controlling trade routes across the Mediterranean. The above engraving, dated 1481, depicts Genoa’s main harbor. Most anchored ships are caravels (small ships with a triangular sail) and carracks (larger ships with a square sail). Both were designed in the late Medieval times (15th century) and used for the first long-distance expeditions across the Atlantic. Ships were spending a large amount of time at ports, implying that harbors tended to be crowded places. Further, ships often traveled as convoys for security and mutual support, which needed to be assembled. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/port-genoa-late-15th-century/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/port-genoa-late-15th-century/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/port-genoa-late-15th-century/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/port-genoa-late-15th-century/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Demand for Port Services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/demand-port-services/) **Published:** August 19, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/table_demand_port_services.png?resize=900%2C338&ssl=1 "The Demand for Port Services | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Demand for Port Services### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/demand-port-services/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/demand-port-services/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/demand-port-services/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-demand-supply-determinants/demand-port-services/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Nature and Function of Warehousing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/nature-function-warehousing/) **Published:** November 16, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/nature_function_warehousing.png?resize=900%2C359&ssl=1 "Nature and Function of Warehousing | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Nature and Function of WarehousingThe nature of warehousing involves several interrelated factors: - **Buffer**. The supply and demand for raw materials, parts, and finished goods can experience substantial fluctuations and cannot be reconciled in real time. The rate of production can be different from the rate of consumption. Therefore, a buffer is required to ensure that they are synchronized in volume, time (weekly, monthly deliveries), and space (several locations). There is also seasonality in the production and demand patterns in several sectors, such as agriculture, which requires storage. - **Consolidation**. Production typically occurs in large batches that require storage before distribution, since orders involve multiple units rather than single units. Further, transporting goods requires consolidated loads. This commonly occurs in the earlier phases of supply chains when the inventory is massified to be shipped in large quantities. - **Deconsolidation**. Consumption usually requires smaller batches that are provided through deconsolidation at a distribution center, where they are released. This commonly occurs in the later phases of supply chains, where goods are prepared for final distribution in smaller units such as less-than-truckload. - **Transloading**. On occasion, load units (boxes, pallets, truckloads, less-than-truckloads containers) need to be changed due to changes in transport modes (e.g. from container loads to truckloads). Further, the inventory may need to be mixed due to locational fluctuations in the demand composition of the inventory. - **Postponement**. Inventory can be held in reserve because timeliness can be a demand factor. Occasionally, the time horizon when an inventory will be needed is not well known (e.g. spare parts, strategic reserves), so it is stored until the occasion arises. This involves stocking in case of emergency or unforeseen surges in market demand (e.g. a weather event). Postponement can also be used as a strategy to wait for demand and market price changes, thereby ensuring a higher margin. The function of warehousing involves a combination of several of the following: - **Storage**. The ability to hold inventory without compromising the integrity of the goods through storage techniques and conditions (e.g. temperature, humidity, contamination). - **Receiving and shipping**. The ability to receive raw materials, parts, or final goods into the warehouse through an inbound unloading system. The same applies to the ability to ship outbound inventory. - **Inventory management**. Maintaining an adequate level of inventory that anticipates the expected demand during a time period over a market area. - **Order fulfillment**. The ability to prepare orders according to customer specifications, including picking and packaging. - **Quality control**. The ability to ensure that the inventory meets regulatory and commercial expectations. - **Added-value services**. The ability to provide light transformation and manufacturing to the inventory, such as customization and labeling. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/nature-function-warehousing/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/nature-function-warehousing/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/nature-function-warehousing/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/nature-function-warehousing/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Regional Associations of Ports and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/regional-associations-ports-terminal-operators/) **Published:** April 28, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/regional_associations_ports.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Major Regional Port and Terminal Associations | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Major Regional Port and Terminal AssociationsRegional associations representing port authorities and terminal operators are present on all five continents: - **Port Management Association of Eastern and Southern Africa** (PMAESA). Established in 1973, PMAESA is a non-profit, inter-governmental organization made up of port operators, government ministries, logistics and maritime service providers, and other port and shipping stakeholders from the Eastern, Western, and Southern African and the Indian Ocean regions. - **Port Management Association of West and Central Africa** (PMAWCA). Established in 1972, PMAWCA is associated with ports located along the West Coast of Africa, including Mauritania and Angola. The 40 port members handle about 300 million tons of maritime import/export trade for the sub-region, excluding crude oil, which is a major market for many. - **American Association of Port Authorities** (AAPA). Established in 1912, AAPA represents 150 port authorities in the U.S., Canada, the Caribbean, and Latin America. AAPA protects and advances the common interests of its diverse member organizations as they connect their communities with the global transportation system. Member ports vary in size, cargo and vessel types, operating structure, and geographic areas serviced. The association’s main goals are to advocate for government policies that strengthen and expand opportunities for member ports, advance professionalism in port management and operations, promote information sharing and relationship-building opportunities for all members, and achieve a greater understanding of the essential role and economic and social value of ports. - **Port Management Association of the Caribbean** (PMAC). Established in 1988, PMAC fosters operational and financial efficiency and enhances the level of service to the mutual benefit of Caribbean ports and their stakeholders. - **ASEAN Port Association (**APA). Established in 1974, APA provides to member ports in nine South-East Asian nations regional cooperation in development, operations, management, and promotion of interests. APA promotes and assists in the development and implementation of efficient operational methods, the exchange of data and information on shipping and cargo traffic, upgrade of port personnel skills and knowledge, coordination of port operations and management on an ASEAN basis; it has close relationships with organizations of shippers, shipowners, and inland transport agencies, as well as with other regional or national port associations or international port-related associations. - **European Sea Ports Organisation (**ESPO). Established in 1993 as an interests advocacy organization, ESPO has been a major contributor to EU port policy discussions and progressively expanded its role in knowledge, data, and best practices sharing between its membership. It represents the port authorities, associations, and administrations of the seaports of 22 member states of the EU and Norway at the EU political level. ESPO also has observer members in Albania, Iceland, Israel, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom. - **Association of Australian Port and Marine Authorities (**Ports Australia**).** Established in 1916, Ports Australia represents 28 ports that account for over 95% of Australia’s imports and exports, a long list of associate members who provide Australia’s ports with services, and also several international member ports from across the South Pacific Region. It was initially formed in 1916 as the Interstate Harbour Conference in Melbourne and officially changed its name in 2007. In Europe, **terminal operators** have formed their regional association, the **Federation of European Private Companies and Terminal Operators (FEPORT)**. Established in 1993, FEPORT represents the interests of a variety of terminal operators and stevedoring companies carrying out activities at over 400 terminals in the seaports of the European Union. **Inland ports** are associated with the **European Federation of Inland Ports** (EFIP). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/regional-associations-ports-terminal-operators/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/regional-associations-ports-terminal-operators/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/regional-associations-ports-terminal-operators/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/representing-port-interests/regional-associations-ports-terminal-operators/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Typology of Port Cities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/typology-port-cities/) **Published:** November 28, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/typology_port_cities.png?resize=900%2C740&ssl=1 "Typology of Port Cities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Typology of Port Cities*Source: adapted from Ducruet, C. (2007) “A metageography of port-city relationships”, in: Ports, Cities, and Global Supply Chains, J.J. Wang, D. Olivier, B. Slack, and T. Notteboom, T. (eds.), Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 157-172.* There is a relationship between the size of a port and the size of the metropolitan area it is located in, particularly for coastal cities having good port sites. Conventionally, because of high inland transport costs, city size and port size tended to **converge**. Maritime activities were a direct driver of urban growth. With a limited hinterland, port activities were bound to the level of economic activities of a city as a consumption and production center. Containerization changed this relationship by supporting the setting up of much larger port terminals and by expanding hinterland access. This allowed for a higher level of **divergence** between port activity and city size. Intermediate hubs are the most notable example of such a process since little traffic is bound to the hinterland. Ports such as Algeciras and Freeport are major transshipment hubs near cities of relatively small size. Port size can thus be entirely unrelated to city size. The setting up of gateways also contributes to the divergence between port size and city size since they serve vast hinterlands. European gateways, such as Antwerp and Rotterdam, are salient examples of medium-sized cities where the port area is larger than the metropolitan area. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/typology-port-cities/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/typology-port-cities/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/typology-port-cities/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/typology-port-cities/?share=reddit) - --- ### [World Maritime Capitals, 2022](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/world-maritime-capitals/) **Published:** December 2, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Maritime-Capitals-2022.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "World Maritime Capitals, 2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")World Maritime Capitals 2022*Source: Adapted from Menon Consulting (2022), Maritime Capitals of the World.* *Note: The lower the score, the higher the ranking. Each selected city was ranked according to a series of criteria within five major categories (Shipping centers, maritime finance and law, ports and logistics, maritime technology, and competitiveness). The index is the unweighted summation of the average score for each category.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Maritime-Capitals-2022.pdf) According to various ranking systems, the global urban system can be classified where some cities can assume a level of preeminence in the hierarchy depending on selected criteria. These criteria are commonly related to demographic and economic attributes. Since maritime transportation is a unique industry, it is also characterized by its own hierarchy of activities supporting its financing, management, innovation, and operations. The clustering of a number of high-ranking activities leads to the formation of a maritime capital, a city that commands importance in the industry through its capabilities to make decisions and allocate capital. The classification of maritime capitals by a series of criteria leads to a hierarchy of importance. Among the first tier of this hierarchy are cities like Singapore, Rotterdam, Shanghai, Tokyo, Hamburg, and London, which have developed an impressive accumulation of maritime activities. This is the outcome of a long-term and enduring level of commercial activity in the maritime sector. However, this maritime hierarchy is not uniform, as some cities are more prominent due to their financial activities, while for others, it is due to their logistics capabilities. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/world-maritime-capitals/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/world-maritime-capitals/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/world-maritime-capitals/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/world-maritime-capitals/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Global Network Connectivities Index, 2016](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/global-network-connectivities-index/) **Published:** November 29, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Globla-Network-Connectivities.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Map Globla Network Connectivities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Network Connectivities Index 2016*Source: Adapted from B. Derudder and P.J. Taylor, Data Set 28, Globalization and World Cities (GaWC) Research Network.* *Note: The GNC index ranks a set of global cities based on their connectivity through four categories of advanced producer services (accountancy, advertising, finance, and law). The connectivity is assessed by the number of branch offices of hundreds of representative firms.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Globla-Network-Connectivities.pdf) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/global-network-connectivities-index/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/global-network-connectivities-index/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/global-network-connectivities-index/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/global-network-connectivities-index/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Impacts of the Baltimore Bridge Collapse on Access to Its Main Port Terminal Facilities, 2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/baltimore-bridge-collapse/) **Published:** March 28, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Baltimore.png?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Impacts of the Baltimore Bridge Collapse on Access to Its Main Port Terminal Facilities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Impacts of the Baltimore Bridge Collapse on Access to Its Main Port Terminal Facilities 2024On Tuesday, March 26, 2024, around 1:30 AM, the containership MV Dali (neopanamax class of a length of 300 meters and a capacity of 10,000 TEU), due to a major electric power failure, lost steering and collided (an allision since the ship was the only moving object) with a pier of the cross harbor Francis Scott Key Bridge (inaugurated in 1977). The ship was managed by the Singaporean shipowner Synergy and was chartered by Maersk. The event resulted in the complete collapse of the bridge into the port access channel, which was blocked, cutting access to the great majority of its marine terminals to the high seas. 10 other large merchant ships were stranded in the harbor, including three bulk carriers, one car carrier, two general cargo ships, and one tanker. Further, two cargo ships of the US Maritime Administration (MARAD) Ready Reserve Force were stranded, undermining the capability for a rapid deployment of military cargo overseas. If the event had taken place during the day, particularly during rush hour, the loss of life would have been major since the bridge handled about 34,000 vehicle crossings per day. Baltimore is considered a mid-sized port in the American context. The scale of this blockage can be better understood by looking at the composition of the port’s traffic and the main terminal facilities handling it (see the above map): - **Containers**. Seagirt Marine Terminal is the main facility that handled 1.1 M TEUs in 2023. Baltimore is a smaller hub, particularly compared with New York/New Jersey (7.8 M TEU) and Norfolk (3.3 M TEU). Ports on the East Coast can handle the diversion in container traffic, particularly to Norfolk, Virginia, which is nearby. Still, this divergence also required inland transport capacity, such as drayage, to be readjusted with longer transits. - **Vehicles**. Baltimore is the largest car transit platform in the United States, handling 750,000 vehicles, including 417,000 automobiles, in 2023. The proportion is 75% for vehicle imports and 25% for exports, implying that the core focus is handling imports. These vehicles are mostly handled by three large facilities, including Dundalk, Fairfield, and Chesapeake terminals. Handling vehicles requires a large amount of parking space, specialized labor, and parts, which makes this sector more difficult to reroute to other ports. - **Coal**. Baltimore exported 22 million tons of high-quality metallurgical coal in 2023 through its Consol Marine Terminal and Curtis Bay facility. Since the coal is for exports, there are limited supply impacts within the US, but purchasers of the coal had to temporarily find alternative sources or delay their procurement. - **Cruises**. The Maryland Cruise Terminal handled 440,000 passengers in 2023, mainly through Carnival and Royal Caribbean. The blockage forced two Caribbean cruises home-ported in Baltimore to be diverted to Norfolk. Cruisers were offered shuttles to bring them back to Baltimore (drive to cruises). During the blockage, both cruise lines transferred their home port to Norfolk. - **Breakbulk**. Mainly handling wood and paper products through the South Locust facility. One particular commodity is gypsum, an important construction material. - **Domino Sugar Plant**. For more than 100 years, the plant has been a major producer, refining about 855,000 tons of sugar per year. - **US Coast Guard Yard**. The Coast Guard has a major maintenance facility that is responsible for its entire fleet of 240 cutters. This port blockage is likely to be the most expensive in recent history since it was associated with the destruction of a major bridge, loss of life of six people, heavy damage to the containership and a portion of its cargo, a dozen ships stranded in the harbor, reduced capabilities of the US military and Coast Guard, loss of income for the port authority and terminals and the multiple of disruption in the related supply chains. The bridge, which took five years to build, will likely take a similar amount of time to rebuild. On April 1st, a temporary navigation channel of 11 feet was opened to allow tug boats and barges to better access the stranded ships. On April 3rd, a second temporary channel of 14 feet was opened, allowing the first limited commercial navigation. On April 25, a 35-foot limited access channel was opened to allow ships stranded in the harbor since the bridge collapsed to exit. The first containership to enter the Baltimore harbor was on April 27, when a 2,800 TEU feeder ship was able to use the temporary channel. On May 20, after the Dali was pulled away, a 50-foot and 400-foot wide channel was reopened, allowing the return of regular commercial services. On June 11, the navigation channel was fully reopened, two and a half months after the event. The blockage also prompted ports and regulators to examine more closely the vulnerability of their critical infrastructure and the risks associated with large containerships navigating harbor channels. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/baltimore-bridge-collapse/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/baltimore-bridge-collapse/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/baltimore-bridge-collapse/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/baltimore-bridge-collapse/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Cyberattacks, 2011-2023](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/port-cyberattacks/) **Published:** November 21, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Cyberattacks-Ports-1.png?resize=900%2C480&ssl=1 "Port Cyberattacks, 2011-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Cyberattacks 2011 2023*Source: Expanded from Senarak, C. (2024) “Port cyberattacks from 2011 to 2023: a literature review and discussion of selected cases” Marit Econ Logist 26, 105-130.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Cyberattacks-Ports.pdf) A look at the global pattern of cyberattacks on ports reveals four major types of events: - **Ransomware**. The most common type of port cyberattack (69%) involves attempts to encrypt crucial operational data stored on a network and demand a ransom for the decryption key. The 13 ransomware events of 2017 are related to the [Petya cyberattack on Maersk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/petya-ransomware-cyber-attack-maersk/ "Petya Ransomware Cyber-Attack on Maersk") (APMT), which diffused across several of its terminals worldwide. This was a pivotal event that underlined the vulnerability of the industry and resulted in large revisions of cybersecurity protocols. - **Intrusion**. Attempts to intrude into an information network without the operator noticing to extract an advantage (15% of port cyberattacks). A salient intrusion attack took place at the port of Antwerp in 2011 when a criminal drug cartel was able to access the container management system and hide the whereabouts of some containers carrying drugs. - **Denial of service (DDoS)**. Attempts at disrupting information network resources by overwhelming servers to cause financial and reputational damage (15% of port cyberattacks). In 2023, there was a surge of DDoS attacks related to the Ukraine War as Russian hacker groups tried to disrupt port facilities in nations actively supporting Ukraine. - **Cyberwarfare**. A deliberate attempt to infiltrate and disrupt port facilities as a dimension in an active conflict. The main example concerns the disruption at the Iranian Port of Shahid Rajaee in 2020 by Israel as retaliation for cyberattacks on Israeli infrastructure. There is no particular geographical pattern for cyberattacks. Still, a large share of the cybersecurity events has occurred in Europe and North America, with the events in South America and Africa (outside South Africa) linked with the 2017 Petya cyberattack through APMT’s terminal network. It is worth underlining that no cyberattack events have been reported from China, even if it accounts for the world’s largest container port activity. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/port-cyberattacks/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/port-cyberattacks/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/port-cyberattacks/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/port-cyberattacks/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cyber-Resiliency Measures for Information Technologies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/cyber-resiliency-measures/) **Published:** December 15, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cyber-resiliency_measures.png?resize=900%2C517&ssl=1 "Cyber-Resiliency Measures for Information Technologies | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cyber Resiliency Measures for Information Technologies*Source: Adapted from IAPH (2021) Cybersecurity Guidelines for Ports and Port Facilities, Version 1.0, International Association of Ports and Harbors, Tokyo.* The concept of cyber resilience relies on four dimensions supporting the **integrity of the information system** of an organization: - **Access control**. The range of strategies controlling and regulating access to a specific information technology network of an organization. The most fundamental relates to how the network is accessed through the use of credentials, mainly user names and passwords. Further, the roles and what information users can access are subject to close management to ensure that privileges are removed if a user leaves the organization or is assigned another function. Stricter conventions are being imposed on the selection of passwords that need to be more complex and include special characters to avoid brute force password attacks. For highly sensitive information or if the user accesses the system from a new (remote) location, two-factor authentication is becoming the norm. - Data security. The range of strategies used to regulate the integrity of the information stored by an organization. Encrypting data and its transmission has become the norm to avoid breaches. Further, corporate data needs to be classified by level of importance and sensitivity and stored accordingly. Key strategic information should be stored in systems only accessible through internal networks and through highly secure connections. Removable media, such as USB storage drives, but also laptops and portable devices, need to be restricted as they represent security risks if lost or stolen. Additionally, old IT equipment, such as computers (particularly their hard drives), needs to be properly disposed of. A common practice is to wipe or physically destroy any storage device subject to disposal. The software and hardware used to process the data can also be tampered with, implying that their integrity needs to be verified regularly. - **Network security**. The range of strategies to protect the integrity of an organizational information technology network. An IT network can be segmented so that the administrative network is separated from the network supporting operations. Network redundancy can improve cyber resilience. Firewalls have become standard, enabling the monitoring of all inbound and outbound traffic between a network and the outside world, including the use of virtual private networks (VPN) for external access. IT systems also require a form of physical protection that can range from locked access for servers and network hubs, but this protection must also include a form of protection from hazards such as floods and power outages. The IT network must be protected from malware attacks, which can be used as a propagation tool within the organization’s IT infrastructure. Further, physical components of the network, such as cables and switch boxes, must be hardened against physical damage. - **Operational security**. The range of strategies to ensure that daily IT operations do not contribute to risks. Software upgrades and patches must be monitored to ensure that each network component is up to date with the latest version. IT networks are constantly probed by hackers, implying that the network needs to be constantly monitored for vulnerabilities. Since the finances of organizations can be accessed online, there is a risk that unauthorized transactions can occur, as there are strong incentives for hackers to achieve these results. Furthermore, an organization’s IT must keep pace with changes in the sector’s culture and intelligence. This is how new risks can be identified and mitigated, and lessons can be learned from events taking place elsewhere. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/cyber-resiliency-measures/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/cyber-resiliency-measures/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/cyber-resiliency-measures/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/cyber-resiliency-measures/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Vulnerabilities of the Maritime Industry to Cybersecurity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/vulnerabilities-maritime-industry-cybersecurity/) **Published:** November 18, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/vulnerabilities_maritime_cybersecurity.png?resize=900%2C282&ssl=1 "Vulnerabilities of the Maritime Industry to Cybersecurity | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Vulnerabilities of the Maritime Industry to CybersecurityLike many industries, the maritime sector has its own cybersecurity vulnerabilities due to its nature and operations. These involve: - **Transactions**. The maritime industry is transaction-intensive, with documents such as bills of lading and letters of credit shared by a large number of stakeholders (e.g., carriers, cargo owners, terminal operators). All stakeholders may have different information systems, opening the risk of cyber-vulnerability. Due to the chain of custody in transportation, cargo switches from one information system to another, such as between the carrier, the terminal operator, and the warehouse. - **Asset value**. The cargo carried by maritime transportation and handled at ports can be of high value, providing an incentive for criminal groups to engage in cyber-attacks. The same applies to the physical assets, including ships, equipment, and facilities. Further, this capital intensity, such as economies of scale, offers limited substitution if a disruption takes place, increasing the vulnerability and the leverage if a cyber-attack is successful. - **Transnationalism**. The maritime industry is transnational by definition, which implies multiple jurisdictions to own or move assets. This also involves complex procurement mechanisms for software and IT devices where a flaw in one branch has the potential to propagate across multiple transnational branches. Further, several ports and carriers are closely related to the national interests of the states they represent and, as such, can be the target of cyber warfare. - **Life cycle**. The physical assets have a long life cycle, implying the presence of legacy systems and equipment. Upgrading the IT is costly and often lags behind. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/vulnerabilities-maritime-industry-cybersecurity/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/vulnerabilities-maritime-industry-cybersecurity/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/vulnerabilities-maritime-industry-cybersecurity/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/vulnerabilities-maritime-industry-cybersecurity/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Port Strategy Matrix](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/the-port-strategy-matrix/) **Published:** January 30, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_strategy_matrix.png?resize=900%2C379&ssl=1 "The Port Strategy Matrix | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Strategy Matrix*Source: adapted from Rugman, A., Verbeke, A. (1990), Global Corporate Strategy and Trade Policy, London, Routledge, 168 p.* The **Port Strategy Matrix** identifies four basic strategies that ports can adopt. Port behavior is classified according to the nature of the strategy and the different channels used for implementing this strategy: - **Nature of the strategy**. Can be either efficiency-oriented or non-efficiency-oriented. The former situation can typically be expected in a competitive environment. In such a situation, a port seeks protection from competitors by creating government shelter or collusive behavior. - **Implementation channels**. They are situated either in a **market** or a **non-market** environment. In the former context, market forces prevail, whereas in the latter situation, ports exert strategic behavior vis-à-vis government and pressure groups. By combining nature and channel elements, the Port Strategy Matrix is constructed, and **four port strategy options** are identified. Non-efficiency-based port strategies aim to achieve an artificial advantage in the form of shelter or protection vis-à-vis rival ports. Unfortunately, such shelter-based strategies are not sustainable in the long run as ports are increasingly subjected to competitive market forces. For instance, ports situated in **quadrant 3** and looking for market-sharing agree­ments may find themselves in an unstable position and may be forced to pursue an efficiency-based strategy. The **Russian port system during Soviet times** was situated in **quadrant 4**. The Soviet government had a significant impact on the economy through state-owned factories and companies and the development of rigid multi-year plans affecting all economic activities. As all ports were state-owned, inter-port competition in the Soviet Union was low to non-existent (non-market environment). The ports were developed as strategic assets to serve state-owned industries (steel, mining, manufacturing) and the overall economic system. Given the focus on full employment, port efficiency, and overall labor productivity were generally low in ports. As a result of the changes in the market environment, an increasing number of ports are forced to seek a position in **quadrant 1**, which has a major impact on traditional strategic port planning. Ports operating in highly competitive and volatile markets often develop formal port planning processes involving a larger amount of data collection and analysis. These planning exercises are concerned with directing change rather than responding to it. This involves a proactive rather than a reactive or defensive attitude towards changes in the external environment. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/the-port-strategy-matrix/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/the-port-strategy-matrix/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/the-port-strategy-matrix/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/the-port-strategy-matrix/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Adaptive Port Planning Approach](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/adaptive-port-planning/) **Published:** February 10, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/adpative_port_planning.png?resize=900%2C388&ssl=1 "The Adaptive Port Planning Approach | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Adaptive port planning vs traditional master planning*Source: adapted from Taneja, P. (2013), The Flexible Port, Volumes 2013-2016 of TRAIL thesis series, ISSN 1566-0788* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/adaptive-port-planning/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/adaptive-port-planning/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/adaptive-port-planning/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/adaptive-port-planning/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Stakeholder Participation in Port Development Decision Making](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/stakeholder-participation-in-port-development-decision-making/) **Published:** January 30, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/stakeholder_participation_port_development.png?resize=900%2C286&ssl=1 "Stakeholder Participation in Port Development Decision Making | Port Economics, Management and Policy")### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/stakeholder-participation-in-port-development-decision-making/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/stakeholder-participation-in-port-development-decision-making/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/stakeholder-participation-in-port-development-decision-making/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/stakeholder-participation-in-port-development-decision-making/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Classification of Stakeholders Based on Impact and Involvement](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/stakeholders-involvement/) **Published:** January 30, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/stakeholders_impact_involvement.png?resize=900%2C410&ssl=1 "Classification of Stakeholders Based on Impact and Involvement | Port Economics, Management and Policy")*Source: adapted from Notteboom, T., Winkelmans, W., 2003, Dealing with stakeholders in the port planning process, in: Dullaert, W., Jourquin, B., Polak, J., Across the border: building upon a quarter of a century of transport research in the Benelux, De Boeck, Antwerp, p. 249-265* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/stakeholders-involvement/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/stakeholders-involvement/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/stakeholders-involvement/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/stakeholders-involvement/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Stakeholder Groups in a Port Context](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/stakeholder-groups/) **Published:** January 30, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_stakeholder_groups.png?resize=900%2C376&ssl=1 "Stakeholder Groups in a Port Context | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Stakeholder groups*Source: adapted from Notteboom, T., Winkelmans, W., 2003, Dealing with stakeholders in the port planning process, in: Dullaert, W., Jourquin, B., Polak, J., Across the border: building upon a quarter of a century of transport research in the Benelux, De Boeck, Antwerp, p. 249-265.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/stakeholder-groups/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/stakeholder-groups/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/stakeholder-groups/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/stakeholder-groups/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Demand and Capacity Utilization](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/port-demand-and-capacity-utilisation/) **Published:** April 25, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_demand_capacity_utilization.png?resize=900%2C378&ssl=1 "Port Demand and Capacity Utilization | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Capacity Utilisation *Source: adapted from Winkelmans, W., Notteboom, T. (2002). Dealing with uncertainty in port capacity planning, Port Technology International, edition 16, Summer 2002, 187-189* Port planning decisions are taken in a world full of uncertainty. Errors in port traffic forecasts can under- or overestimate the demand for new port facilities. Therefore, traffic growth rates should be integrated explicitly in the planning model in order to circumvent the error risks in forecasting. Much attention must be directed to the combination of individual risk factors. The **interdependency between port capacity and port traffic demand** is one of the main points of attention. In general, any port capacity extension will result (albeit not always) in a proportional growth in port traffic. **Port user costs (PUC)** rise sharply once port traffic approaches the existing effective port capacity limits (the **HEAT or highest efficient attainable throughput**). This creates a real danger of traffic decline or stagnation. The HEAT should be increased in due time to keep demand growth at a high level. An extension and optimization of port facilities will reduce waiting times. A crucial factor is to know whether the demand for new capacity exists. **Port overcapacity** is created when a port extension does not induce growth in port demand. In these circumstances, average port costs will be elevated, negatively affecting the competitiveness of the port. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/port-demand-and-capacity-utilisation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/port-demand-and-capacity-utilisation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/port-demand-and-capacity-utilisation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/port-demand-and-capacity-utilisation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Key Performance Indicators (KPI) vs Objectives and Key Results (OKR)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/okrs-versus-kpis-strategy-map/) **Published:** January 10, 2025 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/kpi_okr_ports.png?resize=900%2C408&ssl=1 "Key Performance Indicators (KPI) vs Objectives and Key Results (OKR) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/okrs-versus-kpis-strategy-map/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/okrs-versus-kpis-strategy-map/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/okrs-versus-kpis-strategy-map/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/okrs-versus-kpis-strategy-map/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Dynamics in Port-Related Planning and Strategy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/dynamics-port-planning-strategy/) **Published:** November 4, 2024 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_related_planning_strategy.png?resize=900%2C381&ssl=1 "Changes in Port-related Planning and Strategy | Port Economics, Management and Policy")*Source: adapted from Notteboom, T., 2023, Port planning and long-term strategy in a rapidly changing world: Setting the scene, ESPO Annual Conference, European Sea Ports Organisation, Bremen, June 2023. KPI = Key Performance Indicator.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/dynamics-port-planning-strategy/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/dynamics-port-planning-strategy/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/dynamics-port-planning-strategy/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/dynamics-port-planning-strategy/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Factors Expanding a Port’s Cargo Base](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/factors-expanding-port-cargo-base/) **Published:** December 23, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_cargo_base.png?resize=666%2C622&ssl=1 "port_cargo_base | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Factors Expanding a Ports Cargo BaseThere are three main interdependent factors behind the growth of a port’s cargo base, particularly when it is containerized. They are reflective of port competition strategies: - **Hinterland intensification**. A port has a market area over which it assumes the dominance of cargo flows. This is often referred to as its main, or [fundamental hinterland](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3136). Any organic growth in this hinterland, either as imports or exports, results in expanding the cargo base. A port can also be more actively involved in intensifying its fundamental hinterland by developing land for logistics, such as port-centric logistics zones. - **Hinterland expansion**. A port also has a market area where it is competing with other ports, often referred to as its competition margin. If this hinterland expands, so does a port’s cargo base. However, this requires significant investments in infrastructure to increase hinterland connectivity, particularly along corridors. Further, inland facilities such as dry ports are part of a strategy to expand the cargo base of the port. - **Additional transshipment**. Many ports have developed a notable transshipment function (ship-to-ship), some even becoming pure transshipment hubs. This function is often related to the position of a port within the [global and regional shipping networks](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3462) and the outcome of the decision of shipping lines in the organization of their service networks. The challenge remains that transshipment is complex to anchor and subject to fluctuation if a shipping line decides to change its network configuration. Ports with an active hinterland can expand this connectivity with that of transshipment since they can build additional economies of scale. Thus, the balance between hinterland intensification, expansion, and transshipment can shift during the evolution of a port. Typically, a port starts with a local cargo base, which can be expanded through the development of its hinterland. However, until recently, the port played a limited role in developing its hinterland. Hinterland expansion was more coincidental and subject to national or regional infrastructure strategies. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/factors-expanding-port-cargo-base/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/factors-expanding-port-cargo-base/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/factors-expanding-port-cargo-base/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/factors-expanding-port-cargo-base/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Impact of the Red Sea Crisis on Port Arrivals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/impact-red-sea-crisis-port-arrivals/) **Published:** August 6, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Red-Sea-Crisis-Ports.png?resize=900%2C346&ssl=1 "Impact of the Red Sea Crisis on Port Arrivals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Impact of the Red Sea Crisis on Port Arrivals[PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Red-Sea-Crisis-Ports.pdf) *Source: IMF PortWatch. Note: Percentage change based on the difference between average daily ship arrivals between January and November 2023 (reference period) and between December 2023 and June 2024 (crisis period).* The Red Sea Crisis refers to events that began in December 2023 and which led to a notable decline in transits through the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb because of attacks on passing ships by drones and missiles out of West Yemen. The outcome was that several Asia-Europe shipping services were rerouted through the Cape of Good Hope. Since the Red Sea and the Suez Canal account for approximately 15% of global trade and twice as much for global container traffic, this deviation came with costs, disruptions, and delays, primarily affecting European supply chains. The Red Sea was not closed to maritime circulation, and the Suez Canal remained fully open and operational. The impact on maritime shipping can be seen from the perspective of changes in the average number of port arrivals compared with a reference period. - Transshipment hubs around the Persian Gulf, including Jebel Ali and Salalah, experienced a decline in vessel calls as traffic going through the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb dropped by 48%. - Saudi Arabian ports on the Red Sea were among those experiencing the most pronounced declines (Jeddah and King Abdullah). At the same time, Damman, on the Persian Gulf, saw an increase as cargo was diverted. - As several deep-sea services were diverted away from the Red Sea, some were replaced by additional feeder services. Sokhna experienced a surge in port calls, while the decline of others was partially mitigated (Port Said and Damietta), even if the Suez Canal saw a 37% decline in the number of transits. - Main transshipment hubs in the Central Mediterranean, Gioia Tauro and Marsalokk, experienced a notable decline as many deep-sea services that usually call them were diverted through the Cape Route. - Mediterranean gateways to Europe, such as Barcelona, Genoa, Piraeus, and Ambarli, saw a slight decline in port calls, in part attributable to the decline in transshipment activity in the region. - Major transshipment hubs adjacent to the Strait of Gibraltar experienced a mitigated outcome. While transits through the strait declined by 13%, hubs like Tanger Med and Algeciras saw either slight growth or decline in port arrivals, according to the restructuring of shipping networks. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/impact-red-sea-crisis-port-arrivals/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/impact-red-sea-crisis-port-arrivals/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/impact-red-sea-crisis-port-arrivals/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/impact-red-sea-crisis-port-arrivals/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Transloading](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/container-transloading/) **Published:** July 17, 2022 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/container_transloading.png?resize=900%2C537&ssl=1 "Container Transloading | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container TransloadingTransloading involves transferring cargo from one load unit to another, which is common in containerized transportation. It reduces transportation and inventory costs through destuffing (or stripping) the contents of a load unit and stuffing it in another load unit that is more suitable for the involved transport leg. There are several reasons why container transloading is performed, which tends to take place in the vicinity of port terminals or inland (satellite) terminals: - **Consolidation**. When there is a significant market for domestic containers, and the domestic load unit is larger than the maritime load unit, shipment consolidation is often performed. In North America, the largest domestic load unit is 53 feet in length, which represents the maximal legal size of a truckload on the Interstate. Thus, in distribution centers in the vicinity of several major port terminals, the contents of three maritime containers can be transferred into two domestic containers. This enables cost savings as shipment costs, including terminal costs, are established in terms of loads. Rail terminals charge by the number of lifts, which means it costs the same to handle a 40-foot or a 53-foot container. Under such circumstances, transloading costs are compensated by savings on inland transport costs, which can be in the range of 30% compared with the option of moving maritime containers inland. Yet, transloading involves some risks, such as damage and theft, or additional delays (about one day), which may not be suitable for some supply chains. - **Weight compliance**. Involves shifting the contents of heavy containers into lighter loads such as domestic containers or twenty-footers. This is particularly the case for the containerized movement of commodities. However, transloading heavy maritime containers into domestic containers is not common. - **Palletizing**. Very common for shipments of consumption goods. To gain shipment space in imbalanced flows, many containers are “floor loaded” and once arriving near consumption markets; the shipments are broken down and assembled into pallets. This also allows adapting to local load units that involve different sizes, such as North American and European pallets. Doing such a task at the point of origin would be logistically complex. - **Demurrage and equipment availability**. Containers are commonly leased for a specific time period. The leasing contract may also specify that the maritime container cannot leave the vicinity of the port or cannot spend more than a specific amount of time inland. Transloading is thus performed to ensure that the leased container is handed back to the maritime shipping or the leasing company without additional charge. This reduces the repositioning of empty containers over long distances and promotes a higher level of asset utilization for the container lessor. Transloading also enables more efficient use of both container assets (international and domestic) and can facilitate international trade by freeing transport capacity. For instance, moving maritime containers over long distances in the North American transport system can be considered a suboptimal usage of transport equipment, particularly from the perspective of maritime shipping companies. Conversely, the global maritime shipping industry is mainly designed to handle 40-foot containers and cannot accommodate domestic containers. However, a large amount of transloading for inbound shipments may reduce the availability of maritime containers for export at inland locations. This is a salient problem for the export of containerized commodities. - **Supply chain management**. A transloading facility can act as a buffer within a supply chain, enabling shippers some room to synchronize the delivery of goods with the requirements of their customers. This is particularly the case for long-distance trade, where a shipment can be in transit for several weeks while the demand conditions at the destination may have meanwhile changed or are uncertain. Transloading enables delaying the decision about routing freight to the final destination by using the facility as an opportunity to make last-minute adjustments in terms of which shipments should go to which markets. Another common supply chain practice concerns the assembly and consolidation of loads for a specific market (merge-in-transit) during transloading. For instance, large retail importers commonly purchase goods from several foreign suppliers. Transloading offers the opportunity to consolidate the loads for specific regional distribution centers or stores. In this context, the transloading facility performs a function similar to a cross-docking facility. Also, transloading represents an opportunity to perform some added-value activities (packaging, labeling, final assembly, etc.) before shipments arrive at the final markets. It works well when long inland distances and several regional distribution centers are involved. Transloading is thus used to the advantage of both importers and maritime shipping companies. About 30% of all the containers handled by North American West Coast ports are transloaded into domestic containers and then moved by rail. The goods that are the most suitable for transloading include apparel, appliances, assembly furniture, electronics, footwear, toys, and household goods. In many cases, transloading requires specialized equipment and a facility in the vicinity of the intermodal terminal where it can be performed. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/container-transloading/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/container-transloading/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/container-transloading/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/container-transloading/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Geopolitics and Foreign Direct Investments in Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/geopolitics-foreign-direct-investments-ports/) **Published:** May 5, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2021-05-05-at-12.53.59-PM.png?resize=659%2C599&ssl=1 "Foreign Direct Investments in Port of Piraeus | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port of Piraeus Greece Foreign direct investments are controversial since their hold on strategic port facilities may imply a loss of sovereignty and go against long-term national interests. In 1997, HPH was awarded concessions on container facilities on both sides of the Panama Canal (Balboa and Cristobal). The reaction by some was that China was now controlling the canal, even if the canal itself is under the full jurisdiction of the Panama Canal Commission. This even prompted statements by the CEO of Hutchinson Whampoa, Li Ka-Shing, reassuring the United States that this purchase was strictly a commercial venture, fitting the strategies of the holding and that it had nothing to do with the operations of the canal itself. Another salient example took place in 2006. The controversy pertained to management contracts of major American ports to the United Arab Emirates state-owned company DP World. The contracts had already been foreign-owned by Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O), a British firm. DP World acquired the terminal assets of P&O, further consolidating its global holdings and managing terminals in **major American ports** (including New York, Baltimore, Miami, New Orleans, and Philadelphia). In a post-September 11 setting where security issues had become highly controversial, the deal stirred a public debate, particularly since Middle Eastern interests control DP World. President George W. Bush argued for approval of the agreement, claiming that the delay was sending the wrong message. Legislation was introduced to the US Congress to delay the sale, and the US House Committee on Appropriations voted 62–2 to block the deal. The settlement involved DP World delegating the American terminal assets of P&O to an American entity. American Insurance Group (AIG) holding purchased assets that included five port terminals and 16 freight handling facilities, which were incorporated in the portfolio of Ports America. Australia overhauled its foreign investment laws in late 2020, giving the government the retrospective power to impose new conditions or even force divestment on deals that had already been approved. Ports were among the first sectors to gain attention. In Spring 2021, the government decided to review the lease of Port Darwin to Landbridge Group, which is owned by a Chinese billionaire. Landbridge won a 99-year bid in 2015 to operate the port, the centerpiece of the government’s plan to develop its remote north. The Australian government decided to review whether to force the company to give up its ownership due to national security concerns, focusing on its alleged ties to the Chinese military. The news came only weeks after the Australian government’s decision to cancel a BRI agreement signed in 2018 between China and the state of Victoria. In Europe, the potential **geopolitical advantage** of the Piraeus port offer led the Chinese government to pursue ownership of the port via its state-owned shipping conglomerate COSCO Pacific. Following **bilateral discussions**, the two governments agreed in the mid-2000s to the involvement of COSCO in Piraeus port operations. When the Greek PM announced the decision during an official trip to China, European institutions sent a reminder of the need for an open tender to secure a level playing field for all parties. In 2008, a 35+5 year container terminal concession was given to COSCO, making Piraeus its port of entry into southern Europe and the Mediterranean. China recognized an opportunity in a financially struggling country and actively sought to control the port. Successive Chinese leaders have initiated official trips to Greece, emphasizing the importance of securing control of the major Greek port as part of China’s efforts to aid Greece in overcoming its debt crisis. In 2016, an international tender for selecting the preferred investor for PPA SA gave COSCO Shipping Corporation majority share ownership of the Piraeus Port Authority and all operations. Although six parties expressed an initial interest, only COSCO placed a bid at the final stage. The Greek Parliament endorsed the agreement in 2016. The arrival of COSCO Pacific has been catalytic. Piraeus experienced an increase in container throughput due to additional transshipment traffic and moved from the 17th largest container port in Europe in 2007 to the 4th by 2020. This was a political process balancing the geopolitical interests of the Chinese government developing a presence in the region and Greek interests to ease the pressures posed by the accelerated economic crisis. The public port authority has been replaced by a Chinese entity acting as owner-manager and operator of the whole port. The Greek case also highlights the **importance of politics in port development**. At the beginning of the 2010s, the structural reforms program was accompanied by disagreements between a Troika of international organizations on the desired model. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) favored selling the shares of Greek port authorities. The European Commission and the European Central Bank preferred concessioning to third parties, with the port authorities remaining under public control. Lawsuits followed Piraeus’ concession, while COSCO’s first arrival in Greece was met with a month-and-a-half-long dockworkers’ strike. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/geopolitics-foreign-direct-investments-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/geopolitics-foreign-direct-investments-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/geopolitics-foreign-direct-investments-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/geopolitics-foreign-direct-investments-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Potential Climate Change Impacts on Maritime Transportation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/climate-change-and-its-potential-impacts-on-maritime-transportation/) **Published:** January 28, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/climate_change_impacts_maritime.png?resize=900%2C508&ssl=1 "Climate Change and its Potential Impacts on Maritime Transportation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Potential Climate Change Impacts on Maritime Transportation*Source: adapted from National Research Council (2008). Potential Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Transportation*: *Transportation Research Board.* Elements associated with climate change have an array of potential impacts on transport operations and infrastructures: - **Heat waves**. These impair the construction and maintenance of port infrastructure by shortening and restricting work conditions. The cooling equipment of reefer transport is subject to additional loads on the electric grid and the supporting power generation systems. Heat stress can negatively impact port infrastructure, such as the softening of pavement, which can then be substantially damaged by yard equipment such as straddle carriers. - **Rising sea levels**. In areas near ports, transport operations can be impaired by the temporary flooding of infrastructures accessing port facilities. Port terminals can also be flooded, damaging equipment and disrupting operations. Regular storm surges or tides can erode and damage port infrastructure, such as breakwaters. - **Increase in intense precipitation events**. These can damage transport infrastructure through pluvial flooding, disrupt maritime shipping operations, and cause delays. In ports along river systems (e.g. deltas), flooding can damage riverbanks, impair navigation channels (sedimentation), and navigation. It can also impair terminal operations and require additional investment in water evacuation infrastructure, including water retention basins. - **Increasing hurricane intensity**. Due to higher humidity, the expectation is that hurricanes will release more rainfall and that their average intensity will increase. Hurricanes impose substantial disruptions on port operations, including maritime shipping. The impacts are not confined to just a single port but may affect a series of ports along a hurricane path. For cruise operations, such as in the Caribbean, hurricanes force the diversion of itineraries. Very strong winds can topple container stacks and port equipment such as cranes. The accumulation of debris can delay operations and add to maintenance costs. - **Increase in Arctic temperatures**. The receding ice cover over the Arctic may extend the shipping season in the region. There is also the potential to use shorter Arctic shipping routes, shortening maritime shipping distances within the Northern Hemisphere. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/climate-change-and-its-potential-impacts-on-maritime-transportation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/climate-change-and-its-potential-impacts-on-maritime-transportation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/climate-change-and-its-potential-impacts-on-maritime-transportation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/climate-change-and-its-potential-impacts-on-maritime-transportation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Maritime Transportation Networks and Vulnerabilities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/maritime-transportation-networks-vulnerabilities/) **Published:** February 6, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/maritime_transport_network_vulnerabilities.png?resize=900%2C497&ssl=1 "Maritime Transportation Networks and Vulnerabilities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maritime Transportation Networks and VulnerabilitiesMost maritime transport systems are composed of circuitous networks having a nodal hierarchy, including hubs, gateways, and feeders. By their nature, ports are associated with three main types of risks: - **Concentration**. A large share of the traffic can become concentrated in a small number of ports, implying that if a disruption occurs at a hub or a gateway, the impact could be significant. - **Substitutability**. If the option of using a specific hub or gateway is temporarily removed, what is the available range of options? The less likely a substitution is, the higher the associated risk. - **Dependence**. This represents the share of hinterland or feeder traffic that is associated with a single hub (A) or gateway (B). High levels of dependence are associated with vulnerability as they concern significant cargo volumes that are more difficult to substitute. This is particularly the case for hinterlands related to a single port and with few, if any, options. Large transshipment **hubs (A) and gateways (B)** are particularly representative of this vulnerability, as the scale and connectivity advantages they are built on can become a vulnerability if they are disrupted in a significant manner. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/maritime-transportation-networks-vulnerabilities/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/maritime-transportation-networks-vulnerabilities/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/maritime-transportation-networks-vulnerabilities/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/maritime-transportation-networks-vulnerabilities/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Risk of Earthquake for Global Container Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/risk-earthquake-global-container-ports/) **Published:** November 28, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Container-Ports-Risk.png?resize=900%2C456&ssl=1 "Risk of Earthquake for Global Container Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Risk of Earthquake for Global Container Ports*Source: Earthquake risk from “The World Map of Natural Hazards”, Munchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft (Munchener Re), Koniginstrasse 107, D-8000 Munchen 40, Germany.”* *Note: MMI stands for Modified Mercalli Intensity scale, which ranks from I (not felt) to XII (extreme catastrophic). Probable MMI is the 20% probability of an earthquake event of a specific scale over 50 years*. Only ports with activity above 100,000 TEU *in 2022 are displayed.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Container-Ports-Risk.pdf) Due to the positioning of tectonic plates, ports are exposed to a significant geographical distribution of risk. As container ports have a life span of at least 50 years, it is almost certain that all container ports will be exposed to an earthquake event. What will differ is the intensity of this event. Some areas have a high risk of a high-intensity earthquake taking place over half a century, while for others, only a low-intensity earthquake can be expected for the same time period. Ports bordering the Pacific Plate, also known as the “Pacific Ring of Fire”, are at a particularly high risk since most of the most significant earthquake events of the last century took place in that region. Areas of high tectonic risk are associated with a lower level of economic and port activity. For instance, 31 container ports (20% of all ports) in very high MMI risk areas (IX scale and above) account for only 4.8% of the total TEU handled. Japan and the Pacific Coast of the Americas are areas of high risk. Other areas of high port activity have a very low risk, such as around the Strait of Malacca, Australia, Northern Europe, the Baltic, the American Eastern Seaboard, and the Gulf Coast. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/risk-earthquake-global-container-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/risk-earthquake-global-container-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/risk-earthquake-global-container-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/risk-earthquake-global-container-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Proactive and Reactive Mitigation for Port Resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/proactive-reactive-mitigation-port-resilience/) **Published:** August 2, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/proactive_reactive_mitigation_port_resilience.png?resize=900%2C432&ssl=1 "Proactive and Reactive Mitigation for Port Resilience | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Proactive and Reactive Mitigation for Port Resilience*Source: Adapted from UNCTAD (2022) Building Capacity to Manage Risks and Enhance Resilience: A Guidebook for Ports, UNCTAD/TCS/DTL/INF/2022/3.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/proactive-reactive-mitigation-port-resilience/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/proactive-reactive-mitigation-port-resilience/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/proactive-reactive-mitigation-port-resilience/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/proactive-reactive-mitigation-port-resilience/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cruise Passengers Handled at Caribbean Ports and Path of Atlantic Hurricanes Above Category 3](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/cruise-passengers-caribbean-ports-hurricanes/) **Published:** February 6, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Cruise_Caribbean_Visits_Hurricane_Alley.png?resize=900%2C515&ssl=1 "Cruise Passengers Handled at Caribbean Ports and Path of Hurricanes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Passengers Handled at Caribbean Ports and Path of Atlantic Hurricanes Above Category 3*Source: data adapted from Cruise Market Watch. NOAA Hurricane Research Division. Rodrigue, J-P and G.W.Y. Wang (2020) “Cruise Shipping Supply Chains and the Impacts of Disruptions: The Case of the Caribbean”, Research in Transportation Business and Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100551* The Caribbean is within a zone of high hurricane activity over the Northwest Atlantic that has been dubbed ‘Hurricane Alley’ because it is shaped like a corridor beginning in the Atlantic north of the equator and following westward the Gulf Stream towards the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico and the American East Coast where hurricanes reach their full force and then dissipate as they move northward. The seasonal occurrence mainly takes place between June 1 and November 30, with hurricane activity usually peaking in September. During a hurricane event, forecasts of arrivals and warnings, possible storm surges, high wind speeds, and possible tropical rainfall are critical. They could disrupt a cruise and change onboard demand for services. Southern Florida is one of the world’s largest cruise markets, with its major turn ports (Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and Port Canaveral) in an area of recurring hurricane risk. The risk is not just for the cruise but also the home port. For instance, in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in 2012, returning passengers from a cruise at the Bayonne Cruise Terminal found that the terminal parking lot had been flooded with several vehicles that were no longer operable. Despite this demonstrated risk pattern, the frequency, intensity, and path of a hurricane cannot be reliably known until a day or two beforehand. There are annual fluctuations, with some years seeing limited hurricane activity while hurricanes are more frequent and disruptive in others. The path followed by a hurricane is a critical and somewhat unpredictable factor. The same hurricane following a slightly different path could result in a very different disruptive outcome. Under such circumstances, cruise lines rarely cancel cruises but instead change the sequence of port calls to avoid the expected path of a hurricane, which involves last-minute decisions during a cruise. A highly disruptive exception occurs when a turn port is in the path of a hurricane, resulting in the cancellation of incoming cruises and rerouting ongoing cruises to another turn port. Cruise lines have adapted to this by offering the least number of cruises during the peak hurricane season of September. Even if the Caribbean is a perennial cruise market, the risk of hurricanes and tropical storms has a noticeable impact on the offering of cruises during the hurricane season. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/cruise-passengers-caribbean-ports-hurricanes/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/cruise-passengers-caribbean-ports-hurricanes/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/cruise-passengers-caribbean-ports-hurricanes/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/cruise-passengers-caribbean-ports-hurricanes/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Concept of Port Resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/resilience-maritime-transportation-systems/) **Published:** February 6, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/concept_port_resilience.png?resize=900%2C482&ssl=1 "concept_port_resilience | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The resilience of Maritime Transportation Systems*Source: Adapted and improved from Linkov, I. and J.M. Palma-Oliviera (eds) (2017) Risk and Resilience, Amsterdam: Springer.* Resilience tests the capacity of a port in three different ways: - **Absorptive capacity**. The ability of a port or a terminal to absorb a disruption while maintaining a level of service. This implies attributes such as robustness, redundancy, and visibility. A robust system is said not to be impacted by some disruptions, as it can withstand them. Ports have technical and engineering design characteristics that allow them to withstand geophysical disruptions such as storms, for which they have a level of robustness. Through their redundancy, ports can withstand disruptions by accelerating and expanding their operations or by storing additional inventory at terminals. Therefore, ports have a technical buffer and a storage buffer for their resilience. Visibility allows port users to access information supporting their operations and make appropriate decisions. Providing real-time information during a disruption reduces the impacts on the related supply chains. - **Restorative capacity**. The ability of a port to recover from a specific disruption to a level of service similar to or even above a baseline. The first element is the ability of a port to respond to a disruptive event, mainly through its preparedness and the resources that can be mobilized to contain and abate the disruption. The second element of the restorative capacity involves recovery, with the port able to return to a normal operational state with its associated capacity. After the restorative capacity is brought in, an outcome can be a capacity loss, as recovery leads to lower levels of efficiency. Another possible outcome is that the disruption becomes a “learning event”, allowing for a capacity gain and more efficient operations. - **Adaptive capacity**. The ability of a port to change its operations and even its management, either as anticipation or a reaction to a disruption. It involves flexibility, where a port can adjust its operations to mitigate disruptions, such as changing its schedule and workflows. A port can also have a level of agility, being able to respond rapidly to disruptions, including having a workforce capable of performing various tasks outside those they usually perform. Through collaboration, cargo can be routed through different terminals within the same port or through different ports. If a port is part of a port system with a well-connected hinterland, its adaptive capacity is improved by using other ports temporarily through collaborative efforts. Last, a port can rely on communication to inform stakeholders accurately of changes they are implementing, so that they can adjust their operations. A port should also be able to receive and process information from third parties such as carriers. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/resilience-maritime-transportation-systems/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/resilience-maritime-transportation-systems/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/resilience-maritime-transportation-systems/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/resilience-maritime-transportation-systems/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Environmental Performance Indicators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/environmental-performance-indicators/) **Published:** March 15, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_environmental_performance_indicators.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Port Environmental Performance Indicators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Environmental Performance Indicators### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/environmental-performance-indicators/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/environmental-performance-indicators/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/environmental-performance-indicators/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/environmental-performance-indicators/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Maximum Containership Size Calling Container Port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/maximum-containership-size-calling-container-ports/) **Published:** January 3, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Max-TEU-2020.png?resize=900%2C554&ssl=1 "Maximum Container Vessel Size calling Port, 2020 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maximum Container Vessel Size calling Port 2020*Source: UNCTAD.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Max-TEU-2020.pdf) The introduction of ever-larger container vessels has resulted in an overall upscaling across the main east-west trade routes, with large vessels cascading to north-south routes. At the same time, it has resulted in a variance of scale in world port operations. Based on vessel size, three distinctive groups of container ports exist. Larger vessels (18,000-24,000 TEU) call at selected major hubs offering transshipment services. The second group of world ports accommodates vessels up to the scale of the New Panamax standard (12,500 TEU), and a third one hosts vessels around the Panamax size (4,500 TEU). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/maximum-containership-size-calling-container-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/maximum-containership-size-calling-container-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/maximum-containership-size-calling-container-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/maximum-containership-size-calling-container-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Logistic Performance Index, 2023](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/logistic-performance-index/) **Published:** October 25, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-LPI-2023.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Logistic Performance Index, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Logistic Performance Index 2023*Source: adapted from World Bank, Logistics Performance Index.* In November 2007, the World Bank published its first report, which ranked 150 nations according to their logistics performance based on a metric labeled the Logistics Performance Index (LPI). Since then, the LPI has been updated every two years to reflect the evolution of national logistics performance. It is an index that has a strong port orientation since it mainly assesses the efficiency of international trade. The LPI is a composite of a country’s rating across seven criteria: customs clearance, logistics infrastructure, ease of international shipments, logistics competence/internal skillsets and service providers, tracking and tracing capabilities, domestic logistics costs, and timeliness/consistency. The higher its value, the more performant the national logistics. Countries that are able to connect to the global logistics network have access to vast markets and improved opportunities. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/logistic-performance-index/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/logistic-performance-index/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/logistic-performance-index/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/logistic-performance-index/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Risk Profile of Port Customers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/risk-profile-port-customers-2/) **Published:** December 14, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_customers_risk_profile.png?resize=900%2C441&ssl=1 "Risk Profile of Port Customers | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Risk profile of port customers*Source: adapted from Hughes, A.M., 2003, The customer loyalty solution, MacGraw Hill, New York.* Port managers can determine the **lifetime value of the customers** (LTV) and divide them into high, medium, and low lifetime value segments. They can also determine the **likelihood that the customer will leave** by dividing the customers into three defection classes. This assessment should be internal to the organization, with the customers unaware of their ranking within the port authority, since it may convey a negative perception. The customers a port should be most concerned about are the four most important boxes, priorities A and B. Those with the highest lifetime value and the highest probability of defecting are the priority A customers. Priority C customers are those with a low lifetime value or loyal customers who are unlikely to leave. Once port managers have identified those customers with the highest retention value, they can take a simple step, such as designating those customers as key accounts. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/risk-profile-port-customers-2/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/risk-profile-port-customers-2/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/risk-profile-port-customers-2/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/risk-profile-port-customers-2/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Routing Options between Shanghai, Rotterdam and New York](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/routing-options-shanghai-rotterdam/) **Published:** January 14, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Global-Shipping-Alternatives-1.png?resize=900%2C457&ssl=1 "Routing Options between Shanghai, Rotterdam and New York | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Routing Options between Shanghai Rotterdam and New York*Note: Assume a containership cruising speed of 16 knots, no ports of call, and waiting times at Panama and Suez.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Global-Shipping-Alternatives.pdf) Global maritime shipping is constrained by strategic locations commonly defined as [chokepoints](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/main-maritime-shipping-routes/ "Main Maritime Shipping Routes and Chokepoints"). In October 2023, a major conflict between Israel and anti-Israel groups, such as Hamas (Gaza Strip) and Hezbollah (southern Lebanon), became regionalized. By late November, other Iranian proxy groups, particularly the Houthis movement, initiated from their controlled areas in West Yemen attacks on ships transiting the Strait of Bab el-Mandeb into the Red Sea using missiles, drones, and even attempts at boarding ships. In light of these attacks and the risk involved, Asia-Europe freight and insurance rates surged. By December 2023, major shipping lines started diverting their Asia-Europe traffic through the Cape of Good Hope route. By early 2024, the number of transits through Bab el-Mandeb dropped to about half of the previously observed volumes. Since the Red Sea and the Suez Canal account for approximately **15% of global trade** and twice as much for global container traffic, this deviation (The Great Rerouting) came with substantial costs, disruptions, and delays, primarily affecting European supply chains. Using the case between Shanghai, the world’s largest container port, and Rotterdam, the largest container port in Europe, a container shipping service using the Suez Route covers about 10,600 nautical miles in about 27 days, assuming a speed of 16 knots, and with no ports of call. In reality, a typical Asia-Europe sequence can take 35 days with 5 to 10 ports of call. The alternative, the Cape Route, involves a distance of 13,800 nautical miles, which can be covered in approximately 35 days at a speed of 16 knots. This route also includes a minimum of 7 days of transit, although figures of 10 to 14 days are more common due to the inclusion of ports of call. The risk was also reflected in cargo and ship insurance rates, which increased up to 1% of the total cargo value from the usual 0.1%. The Eurasian Landbridge offers an alternative of limited capacity that could accommodate express container cargo in about 14 days, but cannot compensate for the large volumes being carried at sea. Further, the conflict in Ukraine creates additional uncertainties regarding the use of the route. The Northern Sea Route is not an alternative, even if it appears to be an attractive proposition, with a transit time of 20 days, which is only available for a few months during the summer (July to September). However, no container shipping lines are using this route, and its [commercial potential is negligible](https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter1/transportation-and-space/polar-shipping-routes/) at this point. On the positive side, economies of scale for the Asia-Europe route have remained intact, and there was shipping capacity to absorb the Good Hope deviation, at least in the short term. Carriers received a rate increase, which should compensate for the costs associated with the deviation. On the negative side, the synchronism of many Asia-Europe supply chains was disrupted. The deviation incurred unnecessary additional costs and higher fuel consumption/emissions that were passed on to the end consumer. The Suez Canal/Egypt lost significant revenue, which created additional geopolitical complications. Many Med transshipment hubs and gateways (e.g., Piraeus, Gioia Tauro, Marsaxlokk) lost some traffic that was diverted to Northern European ports. Shipping routes between Shanghai and New York, the largest container ports on the Eastern Seaboard, were more marginally impacted. First, the transpacific route offers the option of either calling a West Coast port such as Los Angeles/Long Beach (after a 14-day transit time) and using the double-stacked rail landbridge (5 to 8 days) or using the Panama Canal route, which totals about 28 days. However, in 2023 and 2024, the Panama Canal was impacted by [water shortages](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-draft-limitation-containership-capacity/ "Effect of the Panama Canal Draft Limitation on Containership Capacity") and forced to temporarily reduce its daily number of transits and the capacity of the Post Panamax ships transiting the canal. Disruptions on the Red Sea impact a share of the North American East Coast traffic using the Asia-Suez route, which has been growing in recent years. The Cape Route deviation may add about 5 days to the transit from Shanghai to New York. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/routing-options-shanghai-rotterdam/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/routing-options-shanghai-rotterdam/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/routing-options-shanghai-rotterdam/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/routing-options-shanghai-rotterdam/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Minimum Efficient Scale (MES)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/minimum-efficient-scale/) **Published:** April 23, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/minimum_efficiency_scale.png?resize=900%2C444&ssl=1 "Minimum Efficient Scale and Long-Run Average Costs in Container Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Minimum Efficient Scale and Long-Run Average Costs in Container Terminals *Source: Adapted from Kaselimi, E.N., Notteboom, T.E., Pallis, A.A. and Farrell, S., (2011). Minimum Efficient Scale (MES) and preferred scale of container terminals. Research in Transportation Economics, 32(1), 71-80.* In economic theory, the Minimum Efficient Scale (MES) is a concept that is particularly challenging to define. One possible way to define MES in a port context is by linking terminal scale to operational efficiency, as reflected in the average cost function. > The Minimum Efficient Scale (MES) is the smallest terminal provider scale at which output can be produced at a minimum average long-run cost under the assumption that the terminal is operating with a given technology. The Long Run Average Cost (LRAC) cost curve defines all the possible options and represents the expected distribution of average costs. The LRAC curve typically exhibits an L-shape or a stretched U-shape. The L-shape assumes that economies of scale will gradually diminish and eventually disappear, while the U-shape requires the appearance of diseconomies of scale after the Maximal Efficiency Scale (MaxES). Since each terminal has different configurations and equipment, there is a range of terminal-specific MES (Terminal 1, 2, and 3). For instance, Terminal 1 is likely to be a small facility with limited equipment, while Terminal 3 is likely to be a large, well-equipped, and managed facility. From the perspective of the terminal operator, MES represents the capacity beyond which there are **no further significant unit cost advantages**, as economies of scale have been fully exhausted. Empirical evidence suggests that a unique MES might not exist given the observed diversity in terminal scales worldwide. Essentially, one can expect variations in MES rather than a unique MES for the entire terminal industry. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/minimum-efficient-scale/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/minimum-efficient-scale/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/minimum-efficient-scale/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/minimum-efficient-scale/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Dimensions of Inter-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/dimensions-inter-port-competition/) **Published:** June 11, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/dimensions_inter_port_competition2.png?resize=900%2C457&ssl=1 "Dimensions of Inter-Port Competition | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Dimensions of Inter Port CompetitionPorts can compete over three main dimensions: - **Shipping network** (foreland). Ports strive to enhance their access and connectivity to the global shipping network, which is often linked to opportunities to attract customers and cargo. The goal is to portray the port as a favorable location with multiplying effects on maritime connectivity. In such a network, ports can act as gateways, hubs, and feeders, an indicator of their position in the global maritime hierarchy. The [Liner Shipping Connectivity Index](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-container-shipping/country-port-level-liner-shipping-connectivity-index/ "Country and Port Level Liner Shipping Connectivity Index") is a measure reflecting this dimension. - **Port-centric**. Ports aim to attract and retain a diverse range of industrial, manufacturing, and service activities that are directly supported by their facilities and infrastructure. The goal is to portray the port as a valuable multiplying factor for investments. The combination of these activities is a determinant of the port function, with some ports more energy or resource-oriented, while others have more of a commercial function with distributional and service capabilities. - **Hinterland**. Ports aim to develop and enhance their hinterland connectivity through road, rail, and barge networks. The goal is to portray the port as a multiplying factor in inland market access. The hinterland is indicative of the non-port-centric cargo base. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/dimensions-inter-port-competition/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/dimensions-inter-port-competition/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/dimensions-inter-port-competition/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/dimensions-inter-port-competition/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cooperation of Port Authorities: A Typology](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/cooperation-port-authorities-typology/) **Published:** November 27, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_authorities_collaboration.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Collaboration of Port Authorities: A Typology | Port Economics, Management and Policy")*Adapted from: Brooks M.R., McCalla, R., Pallis A.A., and Van der Lugt L. (2010). Cooperation and Coordination in Strategic Port Management: The Case of Atlantic Canada’s Ports. Canadian Journal of Transportation, 4(1), 29-42.* Examples of port cooperation provide a typology or classification of cooperation practices. As a first division, differentiation between **formal and informal** cooperation is noted. Formal agreements typically apply to legal contracts or written documents, such as memoranda of understanding (MoUs); informal arrangements, on the other hand, are ad hoc in nature, responding to a specific issue or serving as a trial before formal arrangements are agreed upon. The different forms of cooperation can then be grouped under four headings: marketing and business development, operations, administrative, and regulatory. In North America, Los Angeles and Long Beach cooperate to apply environmental initiatives (i.e. PierPass) and coordinate cargo storage fees to reduce congestion. Seattle and Tacoma cooperate on infrastructure, promotion, and environmental issues. The infrastructure projects are operational and administrative in scope, involving road and rail, to improve access to port areas. In northwest Europe, the port authorities of Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg, Bremen, and Le Havre meet regularly to discuss, amongst other matters of shared concern, financial, environmental, and security issues. Rotterdam and Amsterdam have merged their independent port data systems to exchange data between themselves, their customers, and customs. The formal creation of a single port community information system is both an operational and administrative initiative resulting from the demand of the international business community operating in both ports. Regional cooperation in intercontinental marketing and operations is also evident in the Mediterranean region. Algeciras, Dover, Calais, and Tanger Med cooperate in marketing, commercial development, and Ro-Ro terminal management. Barcelona cooperates with the Tunisian Maritime Authority to enhance the quality of port services, as do Las Palmas and several ports in Morocco. In Asia, the term port co-opetition’ has been used to describe the collaborating relations developed between competing neighboring ports in China and Hong Kong. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/cooperation-port-authorities-typology/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/cooperation-port-authorities-typology/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/cooperation-port-authorities-typology/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/cooperation-port-authorities-typology/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cooperation and Coordination in Strategic Port Management](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/port-cooperation-coordination-strategic-management/) **Published:** November 29, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_cooperation_coordination2.png?resize=900%2C558&ssl=1 "Port Cooperation and Coordination | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cooperation and Coordination in Strategic Port Management*Source: adapted from Brooks M.R., McCalla, R., Pallis A.A., and van der Lugt L. (2010). Cooperation and Coordination in Strategic Port Management: The Case of Atlantic Canada’s Ports. Canadian Journal of Transportation, 4(1), 29-42.* There are two types of competitive strategies for ports: - The concept of **cooperation** between different ports. - The concept of improving the integration and **coordination** in hinterland transport networks. Ports may cooperate to serve shippers and shipping lines, or a port may coordinate with other port services, logistics providers, and carriers, aiming to provide better services in linking overseas forelands with inland destinations. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/port-cooperation-coordination-strategic-management/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/port-cooperation-coordination-strategic-management/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/port-cooperation-coordination-strategic-management/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/port-cooperation-coordination-strategic-management/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Port Governance Reform Process](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-reform-process/) **Published:** March 5, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_reform_process.png?resize=900%2C431&ssl=1 "The Port Governance Reform Process | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Port Governance Reform Process*Source: adapted from Brooks M.R. and Pallis A.A. (2008). Assessing port governance models: Process and performance components. Maritime Policy and Management, 35(4), 411-432.* Port governance reform is a complex process that unfolds and is adjusted over time. Relevant policy actors decide to initiate change in the light of a specific economic environment, having a vision of (or objective for) what they would like to see as port performance output. Implementing authorities take actions to develop goals and targets and implement systems and processes that effectively execute these decisions. Changes are accompanied by transition times and might be affected by several variables. Within the port reform process, port governance decisions (i.e. strategies and structures of the ports) are the inputs. The aim is to adjust the structures of port governance and the strategies of the ports in a way that the resulting configuration of the economic environment-strategy-structure framework will produce the best output, as embodied within the performance of the port. Intentions and desired goals might not result in respective actions. Either because of flaws in the decisions taken or because of flaws in implementing appropriate decisions, inconsistent governance frameworks might produce performance deficiencies. Thus, by [linking port governance and performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1880), an assessment of the output of governance follows the initiation of any change, with the conclusions derived from this assessment, along with the contextual environment, both providing the background for the initiation of further changes aiming to adjust minimally, or comprehensively reform, the specifics of the governance model in place. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-reform-process/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-reform-process/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-reform-process/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-reform-process/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Governance Tasks: Management of Concession Agreements](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-management-concession-agreements/) **Published:** March 8, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_management_concession.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Port Governance Tasks: Management of Concession Agreements | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Tasks Management of Concession Agreements**Concessions of rights to operate and provide port services**, with the public sector retaining port ownership and authority, have been the most common practice worldwide. Commonly, concessions are granted for specific terminals (i.e. container terminal, cruise terminal) and for providing specific services. Beyond determining the main terminal characteristics such as size, location, waterside and landside access, and the conditions and the process of granting such concessions, (public) port authorities or other public agencies need to monitor and manage the implementation of concession agreements. Monitoring general compliance, service level agreements, public service obligations, and the implementation of business plans by concessionaires are tasks as important as evaluating concession agreements, renegotiating them, investigating any breaches, and organizing and facilitating consultations on port operations. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-management-concession-agreements/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-management-concession-agreements/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-management-concession-agreements/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-management-concession-agreements/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Governance Tasks: Management of Emerging Issues](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-management-emerging-issues/) **Published:** March 8, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_emerging_issues.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Port Governance Tasks: Management of Εmerging Ιssues | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Tasks Management of Εmerging Ιssues indicativeThe **management of emerging issues** and the efficient and effective adaptation of port organization and operations represent key port governance activities. Within a dynamic economic context marked by business model adjustments by carriers, transportation companies along the supply chains, as well as port terminal operators and other service providers, the themes of this group expand. Responses to the ongoing consolidation and alliance formation in the shipping industry, as well as the coordination of port and landside transport integration, are two illustrative examples of such issues. Technological trends also introduce emerging issues, including the advancement of collaboration in innovation and the implementation of new technologies, the development of port community systems, and cybersecurity concerns. While the specific themes may change in the future, the allocation of responsibilities regarding the leadership and implementation of strategies and specific plans to address emerging issues remains a core part of port governance models. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-management-emerging-issues/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-management-emerging-issues/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-management-emerging-issues/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-management-emerging-issues/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Governance Tasks: Market and Price Regulations](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-market-price-regulations/) **Published:** March 7, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_market_price.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Port Governance Tasks: Market and Price Regulations | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Tasks Market and Price Regulations Ports require the performance of several tasks related to **market conditions**, the tariffs applied, and the rules governing sub-concessions to service providers. Public authorities (national, port level) might have a major or minor role in setting various tariffs applying at the port (e.g. infrastructure, service charges). Depending on the governance model, private service providers may require approval or can set the tariffs independently. Governance tasks also include market monitoring, ensuring the quality of the offered services, applying competition rules, conducting competition-related investigations, handling complaints, and arbitration. All these functions, and thus the choices regarding their governance, are interdependent with the other [types of port governance tasks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1997). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-market-price-regulations/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-market-price-regulations/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-market-price-regulations/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-market-price-regulations/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Governance Tasks: Technical Management of the Port Area](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-technical-management-of-port-areas/) **Published:** March 7, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_technical_management.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Port Governance Tasks: Technical Management of Port Areas | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Tasks Technical Management of the Port AreaPort governance includes decisions regarding the various responsibilities linked to the **technical management of the port area**. The operation of a port is subject to decisions related to the land used by the port (e.g. land assigned to the port, acquisitions), the type of use for parts of this land (e.g. type of cargoes/passengers to be served, land to be used for building, warehouses, commercial reasons, the provision of building permits), and the provision of any licenses and authorizations needed for port operation and development. The above usually fall within the planning and real estate management offices. The decisions and execution of responsibilities related to the various dimensions of technical port management, and thus the choices regarding their governance, are closely tied to other [types of port governance tasks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1997). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-technical-management-of-port-areas/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-technical-management-of-port-areas/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-technical-management-of-port-areas/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-technical-management-of-port-areas/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Governance Tasks: Public Authority Functions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-public-authority-functions/) **Published:** March 7, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_public_authority.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Port Governance Tasks: Public Authority Functions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Tasks Public Authority FunctionsThe **management of port operations** is subject to a number of functions that are commonly undertaken by public authorities. Depending on the port governance model, these authorities might be national, regional, or at the port level. Some of the functions might also be undertaken by the harbor master or the coastguard. Private entities tend to be less involved in these matters. Port authorities also adopt and enforce security regulations for marine traffic, including speed limits, the safety of operations, berthing, the movement of hazardous materials, accessibility of the port area, substance abuse, recreational boating, and personnel licensing. The functions included in this category of port governance tasks are the **adoption and approval of regulations** concerning the safety of operations and the provision of maritime services, such as pilotage, towage, and mooring, as well as infrastructure (lighting, channels, buoying, navigability, and radar). Further responsibilities are the implementation of local or international safety and security codes (i.e. ISPS Code; International Ship and Port Facility Security Code) and protocols; the provision of waste reception facilities in line with international conventions; Port State Control according to international regulations; and the organization of a number of auxiliary services ranging from customs formalities, immigration control, and veterinary checks, to policing, fire-fighting, search and rescue services and emergency and contingency plans. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-public-authority-functions/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-public-authority-functions/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-public-authority-functions/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-public-authority-functions/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Trade, Transport, and Port Governance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/trade-transport-port-governance/) **Published:** March 5, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/transport_trade_port_governance.png?resize=900%2C293&ssl=1 "Transport, Trade and Port Governance | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Transport Trade and Port GovernanceThe economic context, defined by trends in trade and transport, is vital for port governance. The objectives of port governance are determined within a specific economic context, where trends in global trade, the facilitation of this trade, as well as transport and related agreements and logistics, inform the decisions of policymakers at the national, regional, or local/port level. Furthermore, the applications of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), along with the resulting e-governance mechanisms, are readjusting the operational and commercial relationships within the port community, thereby increasingly informing port governance changes. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/trade-transport-port-governance/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/trade-transport-port-governance/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/trade-transport-port-governance/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/trade-transport-port-governance/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Portainers or Ship-to-Shore (STS) Container Cranes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/portainers-ship-to-shore-container-cranes/) **Published:** December 10, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ship_to_shore_crane.png?resize=900%2C454&ssl=1 "Ship-to-Shore Container Cranes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ship to shore container cranesThe largest modern container cranes are classified as ultra-post-Panamax, some having a 120-ton load capacity. The basic structure of portainers consists of the following parts: - **Main boom**. The part that hangs over the ship and is vertically retractable. For the stability of the spreader, the main boom must be as close to the maximum stacking height of the ship as possible. This factor may complicate the berthing of vessels, which is why the main boom has a hinge point just above the tip of the quay, allowing it to be lifted. As a result, the ship is not limited by the crane. Manufacturers offer the market a variety of main booms. Low-profile STS cranes exist where the boom can either push forward or extend above the vessel deck. These cranes are suitable for areas with maximum crane height restrictions (for example, near airports) and offer reduced visual impact. - **Trolley**. The part of the crane that drives over the main boom. The trolley serves as the supporting structure for both the spreader and the cabin. They have to support the hoisting mechanism and the mechanism that enables the trolley to ride over the main boom. - **Spreader**. The device that picks up the containers is mounted on the trolley with cables. - **Cabin**. The part of the crane that houses its operator, which can be accessed by stairs or elevator. - **Legs** (waterside leg or WS and landside leg or LS). The height of the cranes has been increasing over the years due to the increasing stacking height of containers above the ship’s deck (now up to 11 containers above decks and 12 below deck). In general, the WS leg is thicker than the LS leg, because the WS leg has to support more moment forces. Legs can be vertical, but some of the WS legs have a slight angle in the LS direction. - **Cable reel and power supply**. Allow flexibility during the loading and unloading of the ships, and ensure that the cranes can move along the quay. STS cranes are commonly powered by two types of power supply. The first is a diesel engine-driven generator located on top of the crane. The second is the electric power provided by the terminal facility from the dock. Most STS cranes are electrically powered and therefore require a connection to a power grid. This connection is realized by huge cables that lie in gutters over the quay. The voltage that they require may range from 4,000 to 13,200 volts. When the crane needs to move, the cable must roll on and off the motorized reel. - **Boogie set and wheels**. The boogie set is the part of the crane that is under the leg of each corner, meaning that a crane has four boogie sets. Typically, a crane has eight wheels per corner that distribute the weight on the quay. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/portainers-ship-to-shore-container-cranes/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/portainers-ship-to-shore-container-cranes/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/portainers-ship-to-shore-container-cranes/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/portainers-ship-to-shore-container-cranes/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Commodity Group and Containerization Level](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/commodity-group-and-containerization-level/) **Published:** November 25, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/commodity_group_containerization.png?resize=900%2C480&ssl=1 "Commodity Group and Containerization Level | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Commodity Group and Containerization LevelContainerization is typically commodity-dependent, resulting in a wide range of existing and potential containerization levels. Even within the same SITC (Standard International Trade Classification) groups, levels of containerization differ. The containerization level in several types of manufactured goods is very high since this represents the conventional base of the container trade. Although several factors support containerization, its level of adoption is mainly related to the transportability (weight, packaging, perishability) and market characteristics of the commodity. The transportability factor is relatively straightforward since highly ponderous commodities (e.g. ores, coal, fertilizers) are less suitable for containerization. Still, if a commodity can be packaged (such as in bags, pallets, or drums), it can be containerized. The market characteristics of the commodity are also important, as a high value-to-weight ratio is more prone to containerization. Commodity markets having a high concentration level of producers and consumers are usually better serviced by conventional bulk (crude oil) or break-bulk shipping. Therefore, markets with numerous producers or consumers typically exhibit lower demand densities, which are better served by container services. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/commodity-group-and-containerization-level/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/commodity-group-and-containerization-level/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/commodity-group-and-containerization-level/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/commodity-group-and-containerization-level/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Financial Performance Evaluation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/financial-perfromance-indicators/) **Published:** February 11, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/financial_performance_evaluation-scaled.png?resize=900%2C451&ssl=1 "Port Financial Performance Evaluation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Financial Performance Evaluation Key Performance IndicatorsThe financial statement accounts of ports provide the data for a standardized financial evaluation. The most common financial outcomes monitored relate to the profitability prospects and growth dynamics of port companies. Widely employed financial performance indicators include revenue, profit margin, and growth ratios, including : - Revenue trend. - Revenue growth changes. - Gross profit margin. Focusing on the operational profitability and net earnings performance of port companies includes the following critical metrics: - **Earnings Before Interest and Taxes (EBIT)**: Revenue minus all operating costs, before interest paid, taxes and dividends, or, alternatively: - **Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization (EBITDA)**: EBIT after deducting depreciation and amortization. A highly variable EBIT can indicate a risky business, whereas a stable EBIT indicates a well-managed company with predictable operating performance. - **Operating profit margin (OPM)**: Calculated as EBIT to revenue. OPM indicates the net operating profitability versus total revenue and indicates how successfully management has performed to generate income from the core business operations, control costs effectively, and/or increase revenues faster than operating costs. This operating profit component is to compensate subsequently for debtholder claims (interest payments), State claims (taxes), and, lastly, shareholder claims (dividends), who bear the highest risk exposure, being residual claimants. - **Net profit**: Calculated as the gross profit (revenue minus cost of goods sold) minus operating expenses, interest paid on debt, taxes, and all other expenses. - Based on that, the **net profit margin** is calculated as the ratio of net profits to revenues. A set of critical and widely employed diagnostic tools to evaluate the managerial efficiency of port management entities (port authorities, investors, or governmental departments) includes the Return on Equity (ROE), Return on Assets (ROA), and Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) ratios. The outcome of these ratios indicates whether the financial performance of the company’s assets, capital, and resources improves, thereby strengthening the company’s overall financial performance and growth prospects. At the same time, it reflects managerial efficiency to utilize investments and capital resources and to create value for the company’s shareholders (owners). Furthermore, these financial metrics also permit comparative performance evaluation over time for the port entity itself as well as against its competitors. The ROE, ROA, and ROIC ratios correspond to the following evaluations: - **Return on Equity (ROE)**: Defined as net earnings to equity, it indicates how effectively the company’s management is using equity (owners’ capital) and reflects the equity component required to attain a certain level of net earnings. - **Return on Assets (ROA)**: Calculated as net earnings to assets, it indicates how effectively the management utilizes the company’s fixed and current assets and reflects the assets required to generate a certain level of net earnings. - **Return on Invested Capital (ROIC)**: Defined as EBIT (earnings before interest and tax) to total invested capital (equity plus debt), indicates how efficiently the company allocates all its capital to profitable investments, and reflects how much capital (of any source) is required to grow the business. Critical financial ratios commonly monitored at the firm level for short-term management include the **liquidity ratio** (defined as current assets over short-term liabilities) to indicate the liquidity position of the company, particularly important at recessionary economic phases and declining markets; and the **capital adequacy ratio** (own equity over total liabilities), to reflect the own capital robustness and adequacy of the company to meet its total liabilities. For those ports listed on stock exchanges, additional stock-related indicators come into play. The most popular indicator is the **Earnings Per Share ratio**, calculated as net earnings after tax divided by the number of shares outstanding. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/financial-perfromance-indicators/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/financial-perfromance-indicators/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/financial-perfromance-indicators/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/financial-perfromance-indicators/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Disadvantages of Scale in Maritime Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/disadvantages-scale-maritime-shipping/) **Published:** November 9, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/disadvantage_scale_shipping.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "The Disadvantages of Scale in Maritime Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Disadvantages of Scale in Maritime ShippingAlthough economies of scale in container shipping convey several advantages, such as lower unit costs and more capacity, they can also generate externalities for a port. They include: - **Externalities of maritime and port operations**. The size and draft requirements of larger ships reduce the number of ports able to accommodate them, implying fewer options. This may involve pressures for expensive capital dredging projects. - **Externalities in yard operations**. With the same volume, economies of scale create compressed surges in terminal and yard operations. - **Externalities in gate and hinterland operations**. In addition to surges in gate access, there are supply chain effects, as the frequency of shipments can change, impacting lead times and inventory levels. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/disadvantages-scale-maritime-shipping/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/disadvantages-scale-maritime-shipping/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/disadvantages-scale-maritime-shipping/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/disadvantages-scale-maritime-shipping/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Impact of Organised Crime on Port Performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/impact-of-organised-crime-on-port-performance/) **Published:** May 22, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/organized_crime_port_performance.png?resize=900%2C451&ssl=1 "The Impact of Organized Crime on Port Performance | Port Economics, Management and Policy")*Source: Adapted from: Vanlaer N., et al. (2022), 100% Operational! An organizational resilience perspective on ports as critical infrastructures, Case Studies on Transport Policy, 10, 1, 57-65,* Targeting either illicit trade or capturing the governance of ports via various tactics, organised crime groups pose a significant threat to port performance by exerting disruptive influence across policy, economic, and operational domains. Their involvement not only jeopardises the institutional legitimacy and reputation of ports but also diminishes their attractiveness as places of employment and may hinder the execution of strategic objectives. From an economic standpoint, profitability can be adversely affected through both a decline in operational efficiency and the imposition of extortion-related costs. Moreover, the necessity of investing in preventive measures to combat illicit activities further increases financial burdens on port authorities and stakeholders. Operational disruptions are also evident, as the implementation of security protocols and the involvement of law enforcement agencies can lead to measurable reductions in terminal efficiency. Furthermore, the potential for social unrest as a by-product of organised criminal activity cannot be discounted and warrants consideration in risk assessments and mitigation planning. To effectively address these challenges, macro-level policy interventions should be complemented by targeted, port-specific measures. These include the enhancement of surveillance and identification capabilities, the cultivation of trust-based relationships among port actors, and the optimisation of operational routines. The implementation of context-appropriate, evidence-based solutions is critical to reducing the influence of organised crime and preserving the integrity and performance of port operations. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/impact-of-organised-crime-on-port-performance/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/impact-of-organised-crime-on-port-performance/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/impact-of-organised-crime-on-port-performance/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/impact-of-organised-crime-on-port-performance/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Three Pilars of Cruising](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/the-three-pilars-of-cruising/) **Published:** June 11, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Three-Pilars-of-Cruising.png?resize=900%2C533&ssl=1 "The Three Pilars of Cruising | Port Economics, Management and Policy")### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/the-three-pilars-of-cruising/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/the-three-pilars-of-cruising/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/the-three-pilars-of-cruising/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/the-three-pilars-of-cruising/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Average Cruise Passenger Age Group](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/average-cruise-passenger-age-group/) **Published:** March 28, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_pasenger_age_groups.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Cruise Passenger Age Groups | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Passenger Age Groups *Source: CLIA (2024). 2023 Global Passenger Report. Washington DC: CLIA.* Cruise lines are expanding their target audience, attracting younger age groups, including families and youngsters. While it used to be a market for retired customers (65 years and older), the average age of cruisers was 46.7 in 2018. Just 13% were over 70 years old, and the 65+ years old group accounted for 32% of all persons cruising within the year. A similar picture of [cruise passenger age was observed in 2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/cruise-passenger-age-groups-2024/). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/average-cruise-passenger-age-group/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/average-cruise-passenger-age-group/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/average-cruise-passenger-age-group/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/average-cruise-passenger-age-group/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Terminal Intermodal Logistica de Hidalgo (TILH)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/terminal-intermodal-logistica-de-hidalgo-tilh/) **Published:** January 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/TILH_HPH_Mexico.jpg?resize=850%2C564&ssl=1 "Terminal Intermodal Logistica de Hidalgo (TILH) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Terminal Intermodal Logistica de Hidalgo TILH*Photo: Courtesy of TILH, 2013.* The concept of port regionalization incites ports and terminal operators to look at the hinterland to support their core terminal business. Such a process takes different forms based on market conditions, the availability of land, and the infrastructure available to connect a port with inland intermodal centers. Terminal Intermodal Logistica de Hidalgo (TILH), which opened in 2012, is an inland port facility owned and operated by HPH (80% stake). It is located in the southern part of the state of Hidalgo, about 50 km north of Mexico City, one of the world’s largest metropolitan areas with a population of more than 21 million. HPH is the dominant container terminal operator in Mexico, handling about 50% of the country’s container port throughput in four major terminal facilities (Ensenada, Veracruz, Manzanillo, and Lazaro Cardenas). As an origin or destination, Mexico City accounts for 40% of all the container cargo handled by HPH, generating about 700,000 TEU per year. In recent years, significant developments have occurred in the northern part of the metropolitan area, with several large retailers and manufacturers establishing distribution facilities in the area (e.g., Liverpool, Costco, Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Philips, and Diago). Because of its geography, the Mexico City metropolitan area has a scarcity of large surfaces of flat land, implying that the TILH site required significant modifications (mostly infill and grade adjustments) to make it suitable for intermodal operations. The site includes a planned greenfield logistics zone of 123 hectares (Zona de Actividades Logisticas Hidalgo – ZALH; 80% owned by the Mexican trucking company Unne) co-located with an intermodal terminal facility covering 28 hectares (a total of 53 hectares when the second phase is completed), with an additional 10 hectares allocated to customs. Securing land was a complex endeavor that took three years since the ownership of the rural land was collective and required a process where it was transferred to the state and then to private interests (HPH and Unne). Recognizing the potential of such a facility and its logistics zone for employment and regional development, the public sector contributed by building an access road, a bridge, and providing utilities (electricity, water, and sewage). TILH handles import and export cargo from Veracruz and Lazaro Cardenas by truck and rail. It is a grounded intermodal facility where containers are stacked on the trackside (see above photo), which is different from the standard North American chassis-based storage. The initial intermodal capacity of the facility is about 200,000 TEU, and once all expansion phases are completed, the capacity will increase to above 1 million TEU. In its current setting, the terminal provides four rail sidings of 600 meters directly connected to the rail network of two of Mexico’s largest railways, Kansas City Southern de Mexico (KCSM) and Ferrosur, placing it in a unique competitive position (Ferromex also has a line nearby). Through KCSM, on-dock rail facilities at Lazaro Cardenas can be serviced, and through Ferrosur and KCSM rail corridors, the on-dock rail facilities at Veracruz are serviced. However, since HPH owns TILH, it competes with some of the intermodal terminals of KCSM and Ferrosur, implying a level of reluctance from the rail carriers to service TILH. The main value propositions of the facility are: - **Modal shift**. Like many developing countries, the share of trucking for inland distribution in Mexico is very high, linked to congestion, energy consumption, air pollution, and delays. The expectation is that the inland port will favor a modal shift of a share of the cargo bound to Mexico City to rail, thus improving the cargo capacity (rail economies of scale) and using a more energy-efficient mode. One of the key advantages of the facility is its direct connectivity to both the Pacific and Atlantic maritime ranges where HPH operates port terminals. Veracruz on the Atlantic side is about 500 km away, while Lazaro Cardenas and Manzanillo on the Pacific side are about 600 km away. This distance is at the threshold of commercial competitiveness for rail services. - **Custom clearance and dwell time**. Importers have the option, through bonded deliveries, of having the customs clearance deferred to the inland port instead of at the gateway port. This can lower inspection costs as well as delays. Inland terminals having abundant storage space can also offer convenient dwell time, implying that they can partially act as a warehouse for their customers since a container at the inland port can be considered as part of the inventory of a nearby distribution center. - **Load center**. As a facility integrated into the maritime ports it is linked to, TILH acts as a deconsolidation (for imports) and consolidation (for exports) center. This can be effective in attracting and retaining customers as well as improving the quality of the transport service since the HPH port terminals and TILH are one functional transport chain. In addition to the inland accessibility from ports on the Atlantic and Pacific sides (longitudinal flows), TILH has the potential to become a load center for the NAFTA trade (latitudinal flows), which remains dominantly serviced by trucks. Its access to the Lazaro Cardenas – Laredo – Kansas City corridor offers a strategic commercial opportunity. - **Metropolitan accessibility**. A logistics cluster (intermodal terminal and nearby distribution centers) offers a better platform to service a metropolitan area (Mexico City) than direct truck services from port terminals, particularly if well connected to an urban highway system. There are also more opportunities to deconsolidate the cargo into loads that are more suitable to urban demand (high frequency) and driving conditions (congestion). - **Cargo security**. Cargo moving long distances by rail is much less prone to theft, a significant concern in Mexico, particularly in its main commercial hinterland. FreightWatch International ranks the cargo theft risk in Mexico as severe, with hijacking accounting for more than 80% of the incidents. Moving the cargo directly from a secure on-dock rail facility to an inland terminal by rail dramatically reduces the risk of cargo theft. This is linked to lower insurance premiums. Since TILH represents a novel intermodal model for Mexico, it has faced the challenge of securing regular rail services to its facility. Customs operations began in July 2012, and the first train services began shortly after September 2012. While traffic was slow to pick up in the first two years of operations, by 2014, the inland terminal could handle more than 100,000 TEU, ranking it as a medium-sized intermodal facility in North America. In 2022, TILH began to support a new logistics function involving RORO operations, particularly cars. The development of TILH underlines the importance of being proactive in developing hinterland intermodal facilities and the weight major customers can have in inciting the usage of novel approaches in hinterland logistics. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/terminal-intermodal-logistica-de-hidalgo-tilh/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/terminal-intermodal-logistica-de-hidalgo-tilh/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/terminal-intermodal-logistica-de-hidalgo-tilh/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/terminal-intermodal-logistica-de-hidalgo-tilh/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Number of Port Calls by RORO Ships, 2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/number-port-calls-roro-ships/) **Published:** May 4, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-RORO-Calls.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Number of Port Calls by RORO Ships, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Number of Port Calls by RORO Ships 2024*Source: Based on data available at ports’ websites and related RORO Market Reports. Note: Port calls do not account for ship size, which could vary.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-RORO-Calls.pdf) The number of port calls by RORO car carriers shows a large concentration level, which is a function of [car manufacturing and market demand](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/largest-car-exporters-importers/). Two significant clusters of RORO activity can be identified: - **Northeast Asia (Japan, South Korea, China)**. Major car producers and exporters, in which the role of China as an exporter of electric vehicles is becoming salient. RORO activity is dominantly the outcome of export-oriented car manufacturing. - **Northern Europe (UK, Belgium, Netherlands)**. Although there is limited car production in Belgium and the Netherlands, they act as large exporters of German cars. In particular, [Zeebrugge](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/large-car-terminal/ "A Large Car Terminal: Bastenaken Terminal Zeebrugge") represents the world’s largest RORO port. The UK has significant activity because of both production (exports) and consumption (imports). The total number of port calls in European ports within a month stands at approximately 400, with the major ports also including Antwerp, Bremerhaven, Southampton, Livorno, and Barcelona. North America (United States) shows a more marginal activity level than the major RORO markets, which is attributed to significant domestic production and trade of parts and vehicles with Canada and Mexico, which is mainly land-based. Further, RORO traffic is more dispersed among ports due to the extensive size of the market and the convenience of distributing vehicles from a close RORO port location. The US ports receiving significant numbers of calls include Baltimore, Brunswick, Jacksonville, Newark, and Tacoma. In the Middle East ports with significant numbers of RoRo car carriers calls include Jebel Ali, Ad Dammam, Mina Khalifa at Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, and Sohar. The region offers various lengths of berthing times per deep-sea vessel call. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/number-port-calls-roro-ships/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/number-port-calls-roro-ships/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/number-port-calls-roro-ships/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/number-port-calls-roro-ships/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Barge Carrier Concept](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/the-barge-carrier-concept/) **Published:** April 23, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/800px-Lash_vessel.jpg?resize=800%2C600&ssl=1 "LASH Carrier in the Waalhaven, Rotterdam | Port Economics, Management and Policy")LASH carrier in the Waalhaven RotterdamWhen reaching a deconsolidation port of call, barges are launched from the mothership for the remaining part of their journey. The barge carrier concept can broadly be divided into two categories, the “Lighter Aboard Ship” (LASH) and “Barge Container Carrier” (BACO). Other barge carrier types include Heavy Lift vessels and Naval Auxiliary vessels. Two further designs, the “Barge Catamaran” (BACAT) and “Sea Barge” (SEABEE), are currently no longer in use. Barge carriers are typically used for forest products (various types), project, oversized and other cargo (e.g. plant equipment), steel products, and bulk commodities. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/the-barge-carrier-concept/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/the-barge-carrier-concept/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/the-barge-carrier-concept/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/the-barge-carrier-concept/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Largest Available Containership, 1970-2024 (in TEUs)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/largest-available-containership-teus/) **Published:** November 9, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/largest_containership.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "The Largest Available Containership, 1970-2024 (in TEUs) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Largest Available Containership 1970 2024The principle of economies of scale is fundamental to maritime transportation economics, as the larger the ship, the lower the cost per unit transported. This trend has been particularly apparent in bulk and containerized shipping. For instance, the [evolution of containerization](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2232), as indicated by the size of the largest available containership, has been a stepwise process. In 1972, the largest containership had a capacity of 2,400 TEU. Changes are rather sudden and correspond to the introduction of a new class of containership by a shipping company (Maersk Line tended to be the main early mover), quickly followed by others. The major ship classes include L “Lica” Class (1981; 3,430 TEU), C10 Class (1988; 4,500 TEU), R “Regina” Class (1996; 6,000 TEU), S “Sovereign” Class (1997; 8,000 TEU), E “Emma” Class (2006; 12,500 TEU), “Triple E” Class (2013; 18,000 TEU), and “Megamax” Class (2019; 24,000 TEU). A new class generally takes the name of its first ship. Depending on the calculation method, there are some variations concerning how many containers can be carried by a containership. For instance, for the Emma class, a ship could carry about 15,200 TEUs of containers if they were empty, representing all the available container slots. If all the carried containers were loaded with an average load of 14 tons per container, about 11,000 TEUs could be carried (25% less). The official capacity figures used are 12,500 TEUs, which considers containerships carrying a mix of loaded and empty containers, but containerships can usually carry slightly more. Thus, container capacity figures should be treated cautiously because they depend on the cargo mix and are estimated conservatively. Since the 1990s, three substantial steps have taken place in the evolution of containership sizes. The first involved a jump from 4,000 to 8,000 TEUs, effectively moving beyond the “Panamax” threshold of around 5,000 TEUs. This threshold is particularly important as it indicates the physical capacity of the Panama Canal and thus has been an essential operational limitation in maritime shipping. Most modern container ports were designed to handle Panamax-class ships since this standard has existed for a century. Ships of the “C10” class were introduced by APL in 1988 and were the first post-Panamax ships with 14 containers across deck with a capacity of 4,500 TEUs (a Panamax ship is limited to 13 containers across). However, only six ships of this class were commissioned, implying a relatively limited impact on container shipping services. It was only after 1995 that a growing number of post-Panamax containerships began to be deployed, particularly with the introduction of the “Regina” class by Maersk in 1996. The second step took place in the 2000s to reach the 12,500 TEU level, which was essentially a “Suezmax” level, or a “new Panamax” class, when, in 2016, the extended Panama Canal came online. However, this 12,500 TEU capacity is assessed from a ship fully loaded with containers averaging 14 tons. Using a load configuration that includes empties can result in effective capacities of 15,200 TEU for an E-class ship. From a maritime shipper’s perspective, using larger containerships is a straightforward process as it conveys economies of scale and thus lowers costs per TEU carried. From a port terminal perspective, this places intense pressure on infrastructure investments, namely portainers. A third step is unfolding. In 2011, China Shipping Container Lines took delivery of the first container ships with a theoretical capacity of 14,100 TEUs, setting a new landmark. The introduction of the Triple E class (about 18,000 TEU) by Maersk Line in 2013 was followed by even larger vessels of competing lines, such as COSCO Shipping (ships of up to 21,237 TEU), CMA CGM (up to 20,954 TEU), and OOCL (units of up to 21,413 TEU). The 18,000 TEU threshold was overtaken in 2014, and by 2017, ships above 20,000 TEU were available. The first ULCSs of 23,000 TEUs were delivered in 2019, often dubbed “Megamax” with 24 containers alongside. The Ever Alot was the first vessel with more than 24,000 TEU capacity (24,004 TEU, to be precise). This step is likely to level around 25,000 TEU, close to the limit of the Strait of Malacca. Several converging factors underline that further economies of scale in maritime shipping are unlikely to unfold within the foreseeable future or come at a high cost. The more economies of scale are applied to maritime shipping, the lower the number of ports able to handle such ships, limiting commercial options and accessibility. Economies of scale involve higher costs for inland operations as a large number of containers arrive at once and must be handled effectively to maintain a level of service. In all the dimensions it involves, economies of scale require capital intensiveness in infrastructure and equipment (ships, portainers, terminal facilities), which are prone to risk. The challenge is no longer about economies of scale but finding paying cargo to fill the ships. Therefore, it is possible that the optimal size of a containership would be in the range of 8,000 to 10,000 TEUs. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/largest-available-containership-teus/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/largest-available-containership-teus/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/largest-available-containership-teus/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/largest-available-containership-teus/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Average Monthly Container Traffic Share, Selected Ports, 2005-2022](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/average-monthly-container-traffic-share-selected-ports/) **Published:** January 5, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/monthly_container_traffic_share_ports2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Average Monthly Container Traffic Share, Selected Ports, 2005-2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Average Monthly Container Traffic Share Selected Ports 2005 2022*Source: Port Authorities. Note: The grey area represents one standard deviation from the average.* As a derived demand, container traffic is subject to seasonal fluctuations due to retail and manufacturing cycles. Generally, the peak season of port activity is between May and November, and the through season is between December and March, with February being the month of lowest activity. Retail cycles are particularly important as sales are more pronounced in the last trimester of the year (e.g., Thanksgiving and Christmas). So, goods must be procured and carried a few months beforehand, particularly for Asia-Europe and trans-Pacific trades. Ports usually handle 26% of their annual traffic during the peak months of August to October and 23% of their annual traffic from December to February. This pattern is evident for a major commercial gateway with deep hinterland connections, such as Los Angeles and New York. The low February volume for Shanghai is associated with the Chinese New Year and the slowdown in industrial activity (and exports). Transshipment hubs are subject to less volatility (or have more traffic stability) since they connect multiple shipping networks and regional markets. Seasonality impacts port infrastructure and operations since it requires investments to handle the peak demand, but must account for lower revenues during the off-peak periods. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/average-monthly-container-traffic-share-selected-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/average-monthly-container-traffic-share-selected-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/average-monthly-container-traffic-share-selected-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/average-monthly-container-traffic-share-selected-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Examples of Largest Container Vessels (Unit Capacity > 20,000 TEU)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/largest-container-vessels/) **Published:** December 7, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Container-vessels-over-20000-TEU.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Largest Container Vessels in 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Largest Container Vessels### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/largest-container-vessels/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/largest-container-vessels/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/largest-container-vessels/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/largest-container-vessels/?share=reddit) - --- ### [World’s Largest Maritime Container Shipping Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/largest-maritime-container-shipping-operators/) **Published:** December 8, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Top-20-carriers-May-2025.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "World’s Largest Maritime Container Shipping Operators (May 28, 2025) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Largest Maritime Container Shipping Operators on 28 May 2025*Source: Alphaliner.* > *[Current situation slot capacities of the fleets operated by the top 100 container lines (in TEU) ](https://alphaliner.axsmarine.com/PublicTop100/)– Source: Alphaliner* The global container shipping business has a high concentration level, with the top 10 operators accounting for more than 60% of the total capacity. While Maersk and MSC are the two largest container shipping lines, a substantial share of their shipping capacity is leased (about 40 and 60% respectively). Ship chartering is usually done to lower operating costs and accommodate fluctuations in demand. If the demand declines, then the chartering contract is left to expire, and the owner retakes the ship. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/largest-maritime-container-shipping-operators/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/largest-maritime-container-shipping-operators/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/largest-maritime-container-shipping-operators/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/largest-maritime-container-shipping-operators/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Geopolitics and the De-Risking Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/trading-with-friends-friendshoring-and-ethical-sourcing/) **Published:** April 1, 2025 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/de_risking_supply_chains.png?resize=900%2C504&ssl=1 "De-Risking Supply Chains | Port Economics, Management and Policy")*Source: adapted from Notteboom, T. and Haralambides, H. (2025). Seaports in a tense geopolitical environment: key agents or sitting ducks? Maritime Economics & Logistics, 27(1), 1-24.* - **Reshoring**. Bringing activities back to the country/region. - **Nearshoring**. Moving activities in a neighboring country. - **Friendshoring**. Moving activities to a country with similar norms and values and/or political system. - **Offshoring**. Moving activities to countries on other continents (different time zones). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/trading-with-friends-friendshoring-and-ethical-sourcing/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/trading-with-friends-friendshoring-and-ethical-sourcing/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/trading-with-friends-friendshoring-and-ethical-sourcing/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/trading-with-friends-friendshoring-and-ethical-sourcing/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Types of Port Site Developments](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/types-port-site-developments/) **Published:** February 16, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_port_site_developments2.png?resize=900%2C457&ssl=1 "Types of Port Site Developments | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Port Site DevelopmentsA port/terminal development project can take place in several contexts related to the level of completion of the site: 1. **Undeveloped site**. The port authority or a responsible public agency can provide a suitable undeveloped site with existing or available nautical access. The site is expected to be zoned for port development and clearly demarcated. All the infrastructure and superstructure, including the terminal, road and rail connectors, and utilities, need to be developed, which requires substantial capital investment. 2. **Greenfield site**. This site differs from an undeveloped site only in the availability of infrastructure, such as roads, rail connectors, and utilities, reaching the site boundary. The terminal infrastructure and superstructure require development. Often, undeveloped and greenfield sites are considered to be the same. 3. **Improved site**. The foundations of a port terminal are present or to be provided. These mainly involve a quay line, paved yard, and intra-terminal roads without superstructures such as buildings, warehouses, or handling equipment. This can involve converting an existing facility to another port for use. 4. **Completed site**. A site where all the infrastructure and some of the superstructure are provided. These include gates, offices, warehouses, and sheds. What is usually missing is the terminal handling equipment, such as quay cranes and yard handling equipment. 5. **Fully developed site**. This is a complete terminal site with infrastructure and superstructure ready to be used. It includes quay cranes, but the operator supplies yard handling equipment, such as reach stackers and RTGs. Capital costs tend to decline proportionally with the terminal site development level and the risk assumed by the private sector, particularly if a concession is involved. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/types-port-site-developments/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/types-port-site-developments/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/types-port-site-developments/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/types-port-site-developments/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port and Maritime Industry Finance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/port-maritime-industry-finance/) **Published:** December 2, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_maritime_industry_finance.png?resize=900%2C410&ssl=1 "Port and Maritime Industry Finance | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port and Maritime Industry Finance*Source: Adapted from Stopford, M. (1997 & 2009) Maritime Economics, 2nd & 3rd edition, London: Routledge.* The financing of the port and shipping industries comes from several sources, but it is commonly the responsibility of specialized brokers with close relationships with the industry. The income is used to directly finance the operational and capital requirements of shipping companies and terminal operators, as well as to pay back dividends to the institutions providing capital. In this context, the maritime industry has the most significant influence on the allocation of investment capital, and the financial sector provides this capital based on merit and expected returns. These are strongly derived from existing trade volumes and their growth potential. Globalization has substantially expanded maritime trade in recent decades, attracting significant capital investments. Containerization, in particular, increased the capital intensity of the industry, which in turn prompted additional investments. Another significant trend has also been the increased direct involvement of investors, such as insurance companies, pension funds, and sovereign wealth funds. The conventional link between brokers and the maritime industry is becoming more tenuous. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/port-maritime-industry-finance/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/port-maritime-industry-finance/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/port-maritime-industry-finance/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/port-maritime-industry-finance/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Typology of Global Port Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/typology-global-port-operators/) **Published:** January 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/typology_global_terminal_operators.png?resize=900%2C447&ssl=1 "Typology of Global Terminal Operators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Typology of Global Port OperatorsThe rise of and **diversity in global terminal operators** has a structural impact on the port industry. As terminal operators move towards better integration of terminals in supply chains and shipping lines, they acquire container terminal assets worldwide. Leading terminal operating companies are developing diverging strategies toward controlling larger parts of the supply chain. Terminal operators mainly come from three main backgrounds: - **A. Stevedores**. Terminal operation is a key activity but is often delivered as part of wider logistics services, including inland distribution. - **B. Carrier-linked**. Maritime shipping is the core business, and investments in container terminals are part of a carrier’s logistics integration. - **C. Holdings**. Financial assets management is the core business, and investments in container terminals are used for valuation and revenue generation. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/typology-global-port-operators/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/typology-global-port-operators/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/typology-global-port-operators/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/typology-global-port-operators/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Greenfields, Brownfields and Related Terms](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/greenfields-brownfields-and-related-terms/) **Published:** October 18, 2023 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/greenfields_brownfields.png?resize=900%2C279&ssl=1 "Greenfields, Brownfields and Associated Terms | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Land available for port development can fall into five main categories: - A **greenfield** is pristine land that has never been developed, such as woodland, wetland, or farmland. However, farmland might not be considered greenfields if pesticides and herbicides have been used intensively for a longer period of time. - A **brownfield** is a property of which the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Thus, a brownfield is a set of neglected and underused land that was used in the past for industrial or commercial purposes and has, therefore, been damaged or contaminated to such an extent that it can only be (re)used by means of structural measures. - **Blackfields** are also underused areas where redevelopment is needed, but unlike brownfields, the soil is so heavily contaminated that project developers and investors no longer see the possibility of a profitable project. In these cases, it is, therefore, up to the government to take the initiative. Otherwise, no redevelopment or regeneration of these lands will occur. Thus, the difference between brownfields and blackfields can be seen in the question of who is responsible for carrying out the remediation. In the case of blackfields, the contamination is so severe that a private party will never invest because the remediation costs are too high. - **Greyfields** are areas that have been developed and then abandoned. The difference between a greyfield and a brownfield is that environmental liabilities are likely not a concern. - **Bluefields** are waterfront sites alongside rivers, oceans, or lakes, with high flooding risks and subject to extensive ecological laws. As bluefield areas are prone to flooding and stormwater issues, reviving or reusing these sites may encounter challenges such as soil instability, recurring flooding, or restrictions on property reuse. Considering the above, three main approaches can be followed in view of the remediation of a contaminated port site: (a) the government or public agency solves the problem, such as in the case of blackfields; (b) the problem is solved through cooperation between public and private partners; (c) the contamination is solved entirely using private means. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/greenfields-brownfields-and-related-terms/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/greenfields-brownfields-and-related-terms/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/greenfields-brownfields-and-related-terms/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/greenfields-brownfields-and-related-terms/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Impediments and Delaying Factors of Port Terminal Migration and Relocation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/impediments-and-delaying-factors-of-port-terminal-migration-and-relocation/) **Published:** May 15, 2025 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/impediments_delaying_port_terminal_migration.png?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Impediments and Delaying Factors of Port Terminal Migration and Relocation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Impediments and Delaying Factors of Port Migration and Relocation*Source: compiled and adapted from Notteboom (2016), The adaptive capacity of container ports in an era of mega vessels: the case of upstream seaports Antwerp and Hamburg, Journal of Transport Geography, 54, 295-309* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/impediments-and-delaying-factors-of-port-terminal-migration-and-relocation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/impediments-and-delaying-factors-of-port-terminal-migration-and-relocation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/impediments-and-delaying-factors-of-port-terminal-migration-and-relocation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/impediments-and-delaying-factors-of-port-terminal-migration-and-relocation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Digitization and Digitalization](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/digitization-and-digitalization/) **Published:** May 13, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/digitization_digitalization.png?resize=900%2C667&ssl=1 "Digitization and Digitalization | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Digitization and Digitalization### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/digitization-and-digitalization/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/digitization-and-digitalization/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/digitization-and-digitalization/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/digitization-and-digitalization/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Concept of Maritime Range](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/concept-maritime-range/) **Published:** January 12, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/concept_maritime_range.png?resize=900%2C373&ssl=1 "The Concept of Maritime Range | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Concept of Maritime RangeA maritime range is a functional area that includes a series of ports jointly defined by their hinterland when inland markets are serviced and by their foreland when transshipment is taking place. In a maritime range, ports can compete and complement each other, and when the range extends across several countries, they can share common regulations. A geographical commonality can involve proximity, adjacency, contiguity, or being part of an archipelago. Commercial services are established by maritime shipping companies to either link maritime ranges (deep-sea services) or to connect the range itself with regional, feeder, or cabotage services. An hinterland can also be contestable when it is subject to competition by ports from separate ranges or when it is ill-defined due to a lack of port-related commercial activity. In the above figure, three maritime ranges are conceptualized (R1, R2, and R3). A maritime range thus represents a functional region that includes the coast (the maritime / land interface) as well as a hinterland and a maritime boundary. The hinterland boundary is the land area potentially serviced by the range, as services outside this boundary are possible but represent a marginal share of the hinterland activity. The maritime boundary could be the coastline, but using [Exclusive Economic Zones](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3962) (EEZ) to mark the maritime boundary is more relevant to the geopolitical and economic reality of maritime ranges since it includes an area of maritime jurisdiction recognized by an international treaty. The following map provides a representation of the [world’s main maritime ranges](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1107). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/concept-maritime-range/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/concept-maritime-range/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/concept-maritime-range/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/concept-maritime-range/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Maritime Zones and Legal Boundaries](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/maritime-zones-legal-boundaries/) **Published:** October 22, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/maritime_zones_legal.png?resize=900%2C512&ssl=1 "Maritime Zones and Legal Boundaries | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maritime Zones and Legal BoundariesSea areas nearby nations are divided into maritime zones representing internationally recognized legal boundaries. The most important marker from which other boundaries are derived is the **baseline**, which is the mean low tide line. Many seaports are located in close proximity to the baseline. From this marker, three areas can be identified by their level of sovereignty: - **Sovereign waters**. Water areas over which the state has complete jurisdiction, implying that no foreign vessel may navigate without permission. This includes **national waters**, such as rivers and lakes. Each coastal nation can claim a 12 nautical mile area from its baseline, a **territorial sea** over which it exercises full sovereignty of the waters, seabed, and airspace. A foreign ship may have the right of “innocent passage”, subject to the state’s rules and regulations. **Archipelagic waters** (not shown) are sovereign waters enclosed within a group of islands belonging to the same nation. Indonesia and the Philippines are the most notable examples of states with substantial archipelagic waters that allow free navigation along defined passages, such as the Strait of Malacca. - **Areas outside of sovereignty but within national jurisdiction**. The **contiguous zone** is a 12 nautical mile area extending beyond the territorial sea over which a state can prevent any potential infringement of its laws and regulations. This can involve the seizure of cargo and people judged to be in violation. The **[exclusive economic zone](https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter7/transborder-crossborder-transportation/exclusive-economic-zones/)** (EEZ) extends 200 nautical miles from the baseline. It represents an area over which a state has sovereignty for exploiting natural resources, such as fishing and seabed mining. It also has the right to establish artificial structures, such as islands and rigs. Foreign ships have the right of passage without being subject to the state’s rules and regulations. The continental shelf represents an area, often extending beyond the EEZ, with relatively shallow waters over which a state has the right to the seabed resources. - **Areas beyond national jurisdiction**. Often labeled as the **high seas**, which represent international waters where no state has sovereignty and jurisdiction over water and seabed resources. About 64% of the oceans are within this category. Although not subject to sovereignty, the resources of the high seas are managed by the International Seabed Authority (ISA). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/maritime-zones-legal-boundaries/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/maritime-zones-legal-boundaries/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/maritime-zones-legal-boundaries/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/maritime-zones-legal-boundaries/?share=reddit) - --- ### [A Multi-Layer Approach to Port Dynamics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/multi-layer-approach-port-dynamics/) **Published:** January 5, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/multi_layer_approach_port_dynamics.png?resize=900%2C571&ssl=1 "A Multi-Layer Approach to Port Dynamics | Port Economics, Management and Policy")A Multi Layer Approach to Port Dynamics*Source: adapted from Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2007) “Re-assessing Port-Hinterland Relationships in the Context of Global Supply Chains”, in J. Wang et al. (eds) Inserting Port-Cities in Global Supply Chains, London: Ashgate.* Since ports are the nexus of maritime and inland transport systems, port hinterlands are strongly shaped by port dynamics, particularly over four interrelated layers ranging from a **spatial** to a **functional** perspective. The spatial perspective aims to valorize the port site through investments in infrastructure, while the functional perspective addresses the demand effects of the shippers and cargo owners. - The **locational layer** relates to the geographical location of a port concerning the central places in the economic space. It forms a basic element for the intrinsic accessibility of a seaport, which can be a **central or an intermediate location** within transport chains. A good intermediate location can imply a location near the main maritime routes, such as offshore hubs (e.g. Singapore, or Mediterranean load center ports such as Tanger Med, Marsaxlokk, and Gioia Tauro) and near production and consumption centers such as gateway ports (e.g. Shanghai, Rotterdam, New York, Santos). For gateway ports, a good location is a necessary condition for attaining high intrinsic accessibility to a vast hinterland, which often builds upon the centrality of the port region. It becomes a sufficient condition when the favorable geographical location is valorized using efficient infrastructures and transport services. - The **infrastructural layer** involves providing and exploiting basic infrastructure for both links and nodes in the transport system. Containerization and intermodal transportation, and particularly the transshipment infrastructures they rely on, have contributed to a significant accumulation of infrastructure. This is where the intrinsic accessibility is vaporized, as a port site has little meaning unless capital investment is provided. - The **transport layer** involves the operation of transport services on links and corridors between the port and other nodes within the multimodal transport system and the transshipment operations in the nodes of the system. It is a matter of volume and capacity. - The **logistical layer** involves transport chains and their integration into logistical chains, namely port-centric logistics. This layer is primarily managerial, involving decision-making processes related to procurement, mode allocation, and transshipment facility booking. In a demand-driven market environment (demand-pull), the infrastructural layer serves the transport and logistical layers. The more fundamental the layer, the lower its adaptability in facing market changes. For instance, the planning and construction of major port and inland infrastructures (infrastructural level) typically take a decade. The duration of the planning and implementation of shuttle trains on specific railway corridors (transport level) usually varies between a few months and up to one year. At the logistical level, freight forwarders and multimodal transport operators can respond almost instantly to market variations by modifying the supply chain design, such as routing goods through the transport system. As adaptable as they may be, they are still dependent on the existing capacity. Still, their decisions often reveal the inefficiencies of the other layers and potential adjustments that need to be made. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/multi-layer-approach-port-dynamics/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/multi-layer-approach-port-dynamics/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/multi-layer-approach-port-dynamics/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/multi-layer-approach-port-dynamics/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Basic Requirements for Dry Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/basic-requirements-dry-ports/) **Published:** December 31, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/basic_requirements_dry_ports.png?resize=900%2C533&ssl=1 "Basic Requirements for Dry Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Basic Requirements for Dry PortsA rail-based dry port (or inland port) has three basic requirements to fulfill a relevant commercial role: an intermodal terminal, the presence of logistics activities, and a corridor to a gateway that offers connectivity to external markets. **Economies of scale** (massification of flows) and **economies of agglomeration** provide multiplying effects. Particularly, a high-capacity and frequently serviced intermodal corridor coupled with an efficient rail terminal helps reduce transportation costs while maintaining reliable services and, therefore, benefits logistics activities (distribution centers). The principle of co-location provides additional value to an inland port, particularly by minimizing drayage. It involves setting up a real estate base that can be sold or leased to freight distribution activities. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/basic-requirements-dry-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/basic-requirements-dry-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/basic-requirements-dry-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/basic-requirements-dry-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Daily Transits at Selected Strategic Maritime Passages](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/daily-transits-selected-strategic-maritime-passages/) **Published:** November 24, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/daily_transits_strategic_passages2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Daily Transits at Selected Strategic Maritime Passages | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Daily Transits at Selected Strategic Maritime Passages*Source: IMF PortWatch. Based on AIS data. Each observation is averaged over a week.* Disruptions in maritime shipping can be noticed at several levels, from the individual port to the global shipping network. One simple measure is the number of transits at selected strategic locations and associate these changes with specific economic and political events. A look at the weekly-averaged number of transits at the Suez Canal, the Cape of Good Hope, and the Panama Canal reveals substantial recent fluctuations and disruptions. - The COVID-19 lockdowns in the first half of 2020 resulted in a drop in transits at the Panama and Suez canals as shipping demand temporarily declined. With the rise in idle capacity, shipping lines opted for slower speeds and longer routes to avoid the Suez Canal tolls, leading to an increase in Cape transits, an event labeled as the Slow Repositioning. - In March 2021, the [Suez Canal Blockage](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/suez-canal-blockage-2021/ "Blockage of the Suez Canal, March 2021") resulted in the temporary shutdown of the canal and a surge in backlogged traffic once it reopened a week later. - During the post-pandemic surge in international trade between 2021 and 2023, the gap between the transits in the Suez Canal and the Cape of Good Hope substantially widened to the advantage of the Suez Canal. Capacity was tight, which led to the use of the shorter Suez Route, including return trips to East Asia. - In the later part of 2023 and into the first half of 2024, lower rainfall in Panama led to water shortages and a reduction in the [capability of the canal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-draft-limitation-containership-capacity/ "Effect of the Panama Canal Draft Limitation on Containership Capacity") to handle its designed number of daily transits. - The Red Sea crisis, which began in late 2023, led to a significant decline in the number of transits at the Suez Canal (around 70% of early 2023 levels) and a corresponding increase in the use of the Cape Route. This can be labelled as the [Great Rerouting](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/routing-options-shanghai-rotterdam/ "Routing Options between Shanghai, Rotterdam and New York"). Since the container shipping industry was in a situation of overcapacity, the event allowed this capacity to be absorbed and shipping rates to be maintained and increased. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/daily-transits-selected-strategic-maritime-passages/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/daily-transits-selected-strategic-maritime-passages/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/daily-transits-selected-strategic-maritime-passages/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/daily-transits-selected-strategic-maritime-passages/?share=reddit) - --- ### [World’s Main Intermediate Hubs and Markets](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/worlds-intermediate-hubs-markets/) **Published:** February 7, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/shipping_bottlenecks_intermediate_hubs.png?resize=900%2C509&ssl=1 "Major Shipping Bottlenecks and Intermediate Hubs, 2019 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Main Intermediate Hubs and Markets 2019*Source: adapted from Drewry Shipping Consultants and web sites of port authorities.* *Note: TI refers to transshipment incidence. Several transshipment figures are estimates and based on an average of figures available since 2008 to account for missing data and annual fluctuations in transshipment volumes.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Intermediate-Hubs.pdf) With the growth of long-distance containerized trade, **intermediate hubs** grew in importance in connecting different systems of maritime circulation. They tend to be located along the main circum-equatorial maritime route through Panama, the Strait of Malacca, Suez, and Gibraltar. Intermediate hubs usually have a [low maritime deviation](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2122), and many provide connectivity between north-south and east-west shipping lanes. [Transshipment incidence](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3436) is the share of the total port throughput that is “ship to ship”, implying that the final destination of the container is another port. The higher it is, the more a port can be considered a transshipment hub. For ports with low transshipment incidence (less than 25%), transshipment is an incidental activity, while ports having a transshipment incidence above 75% can be considered “pure” transshipment hubs. While, in theory, pure intermediate hubs do not have a hinterland, but a significant foreland, the impact of feedering confers them a **significant indirect hinterland**. Feedering combines short sea and deep sea containerized shipping at a hub where traffic is redistributed, such as for the Caribbean. Using containerships has favored the traffic concentration at terminals that are able to accommodate them in terms of draft and transshipment capacity. Smaller ports, particularly those well connected to inland transport systems, become feeders through the use of short sea shipping. As the transshipment business remains highly volatile, offshore hubs might show ambition to develop services that add value to the cargo instead of merely moving boxes between vessels. Transshipment emerged in the 1970s as trade with Asia increased, but volumes were insufficient to justify direct connections to many ports. Ports such as Singapore, Busan, Tokyo, and Kaohsiung emerged as the first transshipment hubs. This eventually led to the setting up of pure transshipment hubs at key locations along major shipping routes, such as Colombo, Salalah, Gioia Tauro, Algeciras, and Kingston. The emergence of major intermediate hubs favored a concentration of large vessels along long-distance high-capacity routes, while smaller ports could be serviced with lower-capacity ships. Economies of scale over long distances are thus reinforced, permitting liner services that would otherwise be economically unfeasible. However, there is a limit to the hub-and-spoke network configuration and consequently also to the size of the vessels being deployed on the trunk routes. Seven major transshipment markets account for the bulk of transshipment activity. They are referred to as markets since transshipment is an activity that is not tied to a specific port, unlike gateway traffic linked with a hinterland and inland freight distribution. Therefore, transshipment hubs compete for traffic related to a region/market. Geography plays an important role in the setting up of a transshipment market, which is often at the crossroads of north / south shipping routes and where there is a bottleneck: - **Southeast Asia** (25.5% of all transshipments). The world’s most important intermediate hub is Singapore, where 85% of the traffic is transshipment, which accounted for more than 34.9 million TEUs of transshipped containers in 2024. Major Asia–Europe shipping lanes are constrained to pass through the Strait of Malacca, which led to the setting up of an adjacent transshipment hub competing with Singapore, Tanjung Pelepas. - **Southern China** (15.5% of all transshipments). Mostly concerned with transshipment activity taking place in the Pearl River Delta (Hong Kong and Shenzhen), with cargo shifting to coastal and river shipping. - **Northeast Asia** (13.7% of all transshipments). Captures the Yellow Sea, South Korea, and Japan. This market has experienced a shift in transshipment dynamics due to the changing commercial environment. Transshipment incidence levels in the Japanese ports of Tokyo and Yokohama used to be in the 20% range but have declined to less than 10% as Japan was losing its role as a manufacturing center, with many transshipment activities shifting to Korea or China. - **South Asia/Middle East** (11.2% of all transshipments). A primary transshipment market along the East Asia-Europe shipping route that collects cargo from India and East Africa. - **Mediterranean** (14.5% of all transshipments). The transshipment market has only two points of entry (Suez and Gibraltar), both of which have significant transshipment activity and ports that are at the center of the basin (e.g. Marsaxlokk and Gioia Tauro). - **Caribbean** (8.2% of all transshipments). Although the Caribbean has a large exposure on the Atlantic side, it has one outlet for the Pacific; the Panama Canal, which has significant transshipment activities on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The Caribbean generates limited cargo demand, but neighboring regions are substantial generators of traffic, some of which is being transshipped in the region (East and Gulf coast of the United States, Central America, and northern South America). - **North Sea/Baltic** (9.7% of all transshipments). Since the Baltic is a dead-end, it is subject to tail-cutting with its ports serviced by feeder services from northern Europe (e.g. Antwerp, Hamburg). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/worlds-intermediate-hubs-markets/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/worlds-intermediate-hubs-markets/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/worlds-intermediate-hubs-markets/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/worlds-intermediate-hubs-markets/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Commodity Index, Baltic Dry Index and Container Shipping Rates, 2000-2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/commodity-index-baltic-dry-index-container-shipping-rates/) **Published:** November 25, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/commodity_bdi_scfi.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Commodity Index, Baltic Dry Index and Container Shipping Rates, 2000-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Commodity Index Baltic Dry Index and Container Shipping Rates 2000 2024*Source: IMF, Baltic Exchange, UNCTAD and Shanghai Shipping Exchange. 2000=100.* The IMF All Commodity Index (IMF-ACI) is maintained by the International Monetary Fund, which tracks prices of internationally traded primary commodities, such as metals, foodstuffs, beverages, agricultural goods, and fuels. The Baltic Dry Index (BDI) is an assessment of the average price to ship raw materials, such as coal, iron ore, cement, and grains, on a number of shipping routes and by ship size. It is thus an indicator of the cost paid to ship raw materials on global markets and an important component of input costs. The Shanghai Containerized Freight Index is a composite figure accounting for shipping costs for a 40-foot container from Shanghai to major world ports. Since 2000, the BDI has experienced much volatility and has climbed much faster than the IMF-ACI, which implies that, in relative terms, the cost of shipping bulk commodities has grown faster than that of commodities. A major reason is that new transport capacity is difficult to bring online when commodity demand rises. Thus, there is a comparative cost incentive to consider containerization as an alternative. The collapse of the BDI and the IMF-ACI in late 2008 and early 2009 placed bulk shipping rates more in line with their conventional relation with commodity prices. From 2010, a new diverging pattern was observed as commodity prices remained in a high range while the BDI tanked to lows not seen in a decade. This pattern endured until the COVID-19 pandemic, when a surge in container rates made commodities less attractive cargo in container shipping. Compared with the BDI and the AMF-ACI, container shipping rates are showing much less volatility, with rates remaining stable and even declining in the long term (in great part due to economies of scale). From a cargo value/transport cost per TEU proposition, the containerized shipping of commodities has become more advantageous. The value of the cargo has increased (3 times from the 2000 base) while the shipping rates have slightly declined. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/commodity-index-baltic-dry-index-container-shipping-rates/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/commodity-index-baltic-dry-index-container-shipping-rates/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/commodity-index-baltic-dry-index-container-shipping-rates/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/commodity-index-baltic-dry-index-container-shipping-rates/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Bulk and Containerized Commodity Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/bulk-and-containerized-commodity-chains/) **Published:** November 25, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/bulk_containerized_commodity_chains2.png?resize=900%2C734&ssl=1 "Bulk and Containerized Commodity Chains | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Bulk and Containerized Commodity ChainsThe “First Mile” of bulk commodity chains (bulk shipping) is assumed by dedicated consolidation centers; one center per type of commodity (grain, coal, potash, petroleum, etc.). These centers have specialized storage facilities for the commodity as well as the terminal equipment for transfer. Additionally, this requires the usage of specialized transport equipment for hinterland movements (e.g. hopper cars) as well as dedicated port terminal facilities where the commodity must be accumulated/stored until the shipment is big enough to justify a shipload. Then, specialized bulk carriers traveling full in one direction and empty in the other with a point-to-point service are required. Specialized terminal facilities at the destination market often act as a warehouse where the commodity is directly shipped to the final consumer using dedicated equipment; the “Last Mile” of the bulk commodity chain. Economies of scale have been massively applied to bulk commodity chains, but this commonly requires large storage stacks or tank farms. Further, it is common for bulk-dependent activities to locate adjacent to port sites. The “First Mile” for containerized commodity chains (a form of breakbulk shipping) would essentially be the same as for bulk commodity chains. It could require a regional facility, next to an intermodal terminal, that would containerize the commodities. Alternatively, the containerization process can occur at the export port facility, particularly in the context where an inland distribution system collecting commodities has already been established and is operating efficiently. At this point, the commodity chain becomes integrated into the existing containerized freight transport system, which is commonly articulated by corridors for inland distribution. This system is flexible and subject to port competition, meaning there are options to select services from a cost and time perspective. Container ports are commonly serviced by pendulum services, conferring frequency and a number of port calls along with maritime ranges. At gateways, containers are transferred to corridors until they reach the closest inland terminal to the customer. In between, there can be facilities that will decompose the commodities into loads manageable by the customers, such as bags and pallets. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/bulk-and-containerized-commodity-chains/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/bulk-and-containerized-commodity-chains/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/bulk-and-containerized-commodity-chains/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/bulk-and-containerized-commodity-chains/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Largest RORO Carriers, 2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/largest-roro-carriers/) **Published:** May 6, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/largest_roro_carriers.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Largest RORO Carriers, 2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Largest RORO Carriers 2024*Source: Clarksons Research.* The RORO industry is characterized by a high concentration level, with the top 10 carriers accounting for 78% of the capacity in CEU. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/largest-roro-carriers/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/largest-roro-carriers/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/largest-roro-carriers/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/largest-roro-carriers/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Blockage of the Suez Canal, March 2021](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/suez-canal-blockage-2021/) **Published:** March 27, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/117727771_ever-green1.jpg?resize=900%2C506&ssl=1 "Blockage of the Suez Canal, 2021 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Blockage of the Suez Canal March 2021On March 23, 2021, the containership Ever Given ran aground in the Suez Canal. The vessel’s bow got lodged in the eastern bank of the Canal. The Ever Given measures 400m long with a beam of 59m and a capacity of over 20,000 TEU. Since the 2016 investment program, large sections of the Suez Canal have allowed for two-way transit. However, the incident occurred in the southern section of the Suez Canal, which has only one navigation lane, resulting in the complete blockage of all transits. The incident is the outcome of a loss of maneuverability because of high winds, as at the time of the incident, the vessel experienced high tailwinds and a sandstorm. The containership was sailing around 13.5 knots, while the normal speed for Canal transit is 7.5 to 8.5 knots. The vessel did not have a tugboat escort through the canal, while the two ships immediately ahead of it had escorts, though such escorts were not required. On March 29, the containership was **refloated** and towed away to the Great Bitter Lake. Smit Salvage, a subsidiary of the Dutch Boskalis group, assisted in refloating the vessel on a ‘no cure no pay’ basis. This included the deployment of large dredgers and backhoe cranes to remove more than 30,000 cubic meters of sand from around the ship’s bow, while 11 harbor tugs and two powerful seagoing tugs were used to free the vessel. Canal operations resumed shortly thereafter. The **main impacts of the blockage** include: - A **traffic jam** on both entries of the Canal (the Mediterranean and the Red Sea), where more than 430 ships were forced to wait. Each additional day of delay was tying up an additional 0.5% of the global shipping capacity waiting in queues. For shipping lines, this resulted in time costs for the vessels, a loss of revenue, and a loss of capacity. The backlog of ships in the Suez Canal was cleared on April 3. On a normal day, some 50 ships pass through the Suez Canal (18,840 ships in 2020). To clear the backlog, peaks of more than 100 transits per day were recorded, pushing the limits of the Canal’s transit capacity. - **Trade and supply chain disruptions** occurred as several shipments were delayed, particularly European imports from Asia. The blockage held up some USD 9 billion in global trade each day, leading to time costs of the goods (i.e. economic depreciation, technical depreciation, and opportunity costs of capital). The Suez blockage further added to a constriction in shipping capacity and equipment and, consequently, some deterioration in supply chain reliability. Several weeks after the opening of the Canal, European ports experienced peaks in vessel arrivals, further increasing the pressure on seaport terminals, which were already high due to the peak in cargo demand induced by the COVID-19 pandemic. - **Loss of revenue** for the Suez Canal Authority, including salvage costs, in the range of USD 100 million. Revenue linked to the Suez Canal transit fees reached USD 5.6 billion in 2020. - **Diversion** of dozens of ships through the Cape Route around Africa for 6 days, as the situation remained uncertain, with shipping lines deciding to re-route some of their ships, even if this entailed about 7 to 10 additional sailing days. For the 27 ships that opted for the Cape route, the new estimated times of arrival were roughly the same as if they had stayed. The incident once again demonstrates the **international nature of the shipping industry**. The Ever Given was registered in Panama, operated by Evergreen shipping line, and owned by Shoei Kisen Kaisha, a shipowning and leasing subsidiary of the Japanese shipbuilding company Imabari Shipbuilding. Its technical management was the responsibility of the German ship management company Bernhard Schulte Ship Management. UK Club was the P&I insurer, while the ship’s hull was insured by Japan’s MS&AD Insurance Group. After the refloating of the Ever Given, the ship was escorted to the Great Bitter Lake for inspections. On April 13, Egypt impounded the vessel and sought compensation. In late June 2021, Ever Given’s owners reached an agreement in principle with the Suez Canal Authority for the ship’s release. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/suez-canal-blockage-2021/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/suez-canal-blockage-2021/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/suez-canal-blockage-2021/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/suez-canal-blockage-2021/?share=reddit) - --- ### [RORO Fleet Load Capacity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/roro-fleet-load-capacity/) **Published:** May 1, 2025 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/RORO-Vessles-Load-Capacity.png?resize=900%2C423&ssl=1 "RORO Fleet Load Capacity | Port Economics, Management and Policy")RORO fleet load capacity CEUAt the beginning of 2025, the global RORO fleet’s median load capacity was 6.200 CEU (Car Equivalent Units), with just less than 200 vessels having a carrying capacity of 7.000 CEU or more. Seeking the benefits of economies of scale, car carriers have recently built some of the largest Pure Car and Truck Carriers (PCTCs). Half of the 12 vessels with a loading capacity exceeding 8.500 CEU were delivered in 2024 or later. Shipbuilding of RORO vessels is taking place in Asian shipyards, with Japan being the country where over 40% of the total fleet has been built. South Korea and China are also active; approximately 20% of the global fleet has been built in each of these countries. In Europe, Croatia, Germany and Poland are the countries active in building PCTCs. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/roro-fleet-load-capacity/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/roro-fleet-load-capacity/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/roro-fleet-load-capacity/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/roro-fleet-load-capacity/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Global Merchandise Exports and Container Throughput, 1980-2023](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-merchandise-exports-container-throughput/) **Published:** February 9, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/merchandise_exports_container_throughput2.png?resize=900%2C437&ssl=1 "Global Merchandise Exports and Container Throughput, 1980-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Merchandise Exports and Container Throughput 1980 2023*Source: World Bank and Drewry Shipping Consultants/UNCTAD.* There is a high correlation between global merchandise exports and global container throughput (R square of 0.97), which is indicative of the **derived demand function of global container shipping**. Although this relation is proportional and usually follows a linear trajectory, there are fluctuations in this proportionality and a growing divergence in time. - **A. 1980-1994**. Before the mid-1990s, the residuals (the difference between the curve and the exports/throughput observation) tended to be negative, implying a lower relationship between throughput and exports than the average. The globalization of production was ongoing but tended to involve more regional trade agreements (e.g. NAFTA/USMCA and EU) relying on non-containerized freight flows over shorter distances. Still, the growth of container flows was robust, consistently between 5 and 10% per year. Most long-distance container trade flows were transatlantic, with transpacific flows growing with the export-oriented strategies pursued by Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. - **B. 1995-2002**. From the mid-1990s to the early 2000s, the residuals became positive, implying an export/throughput relation higher than the average. This was particularly linked with the contribution of export-oriented economies such as China, using the benefits of containerization to access global markets. This was associated with a substantial growth of the trans-Pacific trade, which overtook the dominance of the transatlantic trade. - **C. 2003-2006**. Trade and container volumes increased sharply between 2003 and 2006, representing the period of peak globalization with strong growth in the value of exports, particularly driven by Chinese trade. The development of transshipment hubs also played a role in the higher relationship between throughput and exports than the average. - **D. 2007-2010**. During that period, the relationship between exports and container volumes was subject to significant volatility with shifts in the trajectory, particularly between 2008 and 2009, when exports and container volumes dropped significantly due to the financial crisis. Still, the recovery of trade and container volumes was swift, with significant growth in containerized volumes. - **E. 2011-2020**. Since 2011, the relationship between exports and throughput resumed as the residuals went from negative to positive. Still, the relationship is volatile, as exemplified by a sharp decline in 2015 and the COVID-19 pandemic, where trade and container throughput declined proportionally. 2015 represented the sharpest decline in global trade since the financial crisis of 2008-2009, a drop mainly attributed to an economic slowdown in China, substantial declines in oil and commodity prices, and the decline of several currencies in relation to the US dollar. Further, trade sanctions imposed by the United States on Chinese goods had depressing effects in 2018 and 2019. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in both the value of trade and container volumes dropping, but to a relatively lower extent than the financial crisis of 2008-09. - **F. 2021-**. In 2021, the value of trade substantially bounced back in part due to deferred demand, changes in consumption patterns, and stimulus packages. However, the growth of global trade, value-wise, embarked on a new trajectory with much less association with container volume growth. For instance, the growth of container volumes between 2021 and 2023 was the lowest in more than 40 years. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-merchandise-exports-container-throughput/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-merchandise-exports-container-throughput/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-merchandise-exports-container-throughput/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-merchandise-exports-container-throughput/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Foreland and Hinterland-Based Regionalization](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/foreland-hinterland-based-regionalization/) **Published:** November 17, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/foreland_hinterland_regionalization.png?resize=900%2C580&ssl=1 "Foreland and Hinterland-Based Regionalization | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Foreland and Hinterland Based Regionalization*Source: adapted from Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2010) “Foreland-Based Regionalization: Integrating Intermediate Hubs with Port Hinterlands”, Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 27, pp. 19-29.* The concept of **foreland-based regionalization** refers to integrating intermediate hubs in regional shipping networks, where the maritime foreland of the intermediate hub functions as a hinterland. For reasons like high deviation, small volumes, and niche hinterland (e.g., agriculture), some ports are not that well-connected to the global long-distance shipping network and show limited opportunities to improve this connectivity. Shipping lines must consider effective network configurations that tend to focus on major [gateways](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3373) and [intermediate hubs](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3462). Freight flows on the foreland and hinterland are not taking place with the same momentum, particularly since [economies of scale](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2161) have been more effectively applied on the foreland than on the hinterland. In light of an increasing **massification of containerized freight loads**, and while the ultimate goal remains atomization (individual containers delivered to cargo owners), the insertion of an intermediate hub can act as a mitigation strategy. The largest containerships can call intermediate hubs with high capacity and frequency services. Through feedering, ports serviced through the intermediate hub can have smaller feeder ships (e.g. Panamax class) calling at a high frequency. At a regional level, several small or medium-sized ports may realize that it is in their long-term interests to have a higher level of integration with an intermediate hub, even if it comes at the expense of shorter distance inter-range service calls. Foreland-based regionalization can support export-oriented strategies with better connectivity of more marginal (or early growth stage) ports to global shipping networks and international trade. Site constraints, environmental factors, or simple market potentials may limit the volumes generated by the hinterlands of some ports. On the intermediate hub side, the volatile long-distance transshipment traffic would be complemented by more stable and secure regional traffic. Both the foreland and the hinterland are **mutually self-reinforcing**, as hinterland stability can anchor the volatility of the transshipment function, particularly in light of footloose operators. Better integration between forelands and hinterlands would help ensure higher returns on investments, less fluctuation, and improved competitiveness of maritime ranges. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/foreland-hinterland-based-regionalization/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/foreland-hinterland-based-regionalization/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/foreland-hinterland-based-regionalization/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/foreland-hinterland-based-regionalization/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Connectivity Pattern of the World’s Major Maritime Bottlenecks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/connectivity-pattern-worlds-major-maritime-bottlenecks/) **Published:** December 27, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/world_major_bottlenecks_connectivity2.png?resize=900%2C455&ssl=1 "Connectivity Pattern of the World’s Major Maritime Bottlenecks | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Connectivity Pattern of the Worlds Major Maritime Bottlenecks*TEU figures are for 2020 and relate to the total container traffic of selected nearby ports interacting with the bottleneck. TI refers to [transshipment incidence](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/levels-transshipment-incidence/ "Levels of Transshipment Incidence"); the share of all the transshipped containers handled by the port system.* Bottlenecks (or chokepoints) of global maritime shipping have been, for decades, the object of **geostrategic considerations** as obligatory points of passage for global trade. Their connectivity is related to reducing maritime shipping distances for international trade and the convergence of shipping services. Transshipment hubs, another form of connectivity, have been particularly active in addressing major maritime bottlenecks. This [usually](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1627) involves feeder services towards smaller ports, relays connecting deep-sea services towards different maritime ranges, or interlining supporting different port-of-call configurations along a similar maritime range. Through geographical and commercial considerations, the clustering of transshipment takes different forms for each of the following strategic bottlenecks (left to right): - [Panama](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-ports-panama-canal/ "Container traffic around the Panama cluster"). The connectivity of the Panama Canal system involves three dimensions, the first being the connectivity offered by the canal itself, which was expanded in 2016 with a new set of locks. In addition, on each of the maritime facades of the canal (Pacific and Caribbean), transshipment activities have emerged, each supporting feeder services as well as offering relays along deep-sea services. This is particularly the case for the [Caribbean](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3592), with a large share of transshipment being handled by Panama. - [Gibraltar](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-handled-ports-strait-of-gibraltar/ "Container traffic around the Gibraltar cluster"). The connectivity of Gibraltar is the outcome of its role as a bottleneck between the Mediterranean Sea and the North Atlantic, linking Europe / Asia routes and being at the intersection of West Africa / Europe routes as well. It thus represents a convenient location for relay forms of transshipment and is subject to competition between the main transshipment hubs on its northern (Algeciras) and southern (Tanger Med) facades. - [Oresund](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-handled-ports-strait-of-oresund/ "Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Oresund"). The importance of Oresund is derived from the level of economic activity in the Baltic, which is a maritime dead-end and does not have ports generating enough volume to justify a variety of direct deep-sea services. Therefore, the Baltic is mainly covered by feeder services from Northern Range ports, notably Hamburg and Gdansk. - [Suez](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-ports-suez-canal/ "Container traffic around the Suez cluster"). The growth of Europe / Asia trade routes has been supported by the connectivity offered by the Suez Canal. Transshipment has been particularly active on the Mediterranean facade since deep-sea services can be connected with feeder services towards Southern and Eastern European markets. - [Hormuz](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=495 "Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Hormuz"). Like the Baltic, the Persian Gulf is a dead-end that does not generate enough container volumes to support a wide array of direct services. Significant infrastructure investments have enabled Dubai to become a major transshipment hub, acting as a connector along the Asia / Europe routes as well as providing feeder services to East Africa and South Asia. - [Malacca](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=484 "Container Traffic Handled at Main Ports around the Strait of Malacca"). The Strait of Malacca is the world’s most important bottleneck. It is the main passage between the Pacific and Indian oceans, combining deep sea relay services and feeder services through Southeast Asia. The port of Singapore is the world’s most important transshipment hub, with competing hubs such as Tanjung Pelepas in proximity. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/connectivity-pattern-worlds-major-maritime-bottlenecks/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/connectivity-pattern-worlds-major-maritime-bottlenecks/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/connectivity-pattern-worlds-major-maritime-bottlenecks/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/connectivity-pattern-worlds-major-maritime-bottlenecks/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cost leadership and differentiation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/cost-leadership-differentiation/) **Published:** November 10, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cost_leadership_differentiation.png?resize=900%2C572&ssl=1 "Cost Leadership and Differentiation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cost leadership and differentiation*Source: adapted from Notteboom, T. (2004) Container shipping and ports: an overview, The Review of Network Economics, 3(2), pp. 86-106.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/cost-leadership-differentiation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/cost-leadership-differentiation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/cost-leadership-differentiation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/cost-leadership-differentiation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Piraeus Car Terminal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/piraeus-car-terminal-2/) **Published:** April 7, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Piraeus-car-terminal.png?resize=900%2C657&ssl=1 "Piraeus Car Terminal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Piraeus Car Terminal### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/piraeus-car-terminal-2/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/piraeus-car-terminal-2/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/piraeus-car-terminal-2/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/piraeus-car-terminal-2/?share=reddit) - --- ### [A Large Car Terminal: Bastenaken Terminal Zeebrugge](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/large-car-terminal/) **Published:** January 13, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ICO-Zeebrugge.png?resize=578%2C344&ssl=1 "Large Car Terminal: Bastenaken Terminal Zeebrugge | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Large Car Terminal Bastenaken Terminal Zeebrugge*Source: adapted from ICO and Port of Zeebrugge websites*. The port of Zeebrugge is Europe’s largest port for handling new cars. In 2019, some 3 million cars were handled at several terminals in the inner port area. The Bastenaken terminal is one of the largest and most modern facilities and is operated by ICO (International Car Operators). In 2019, the port added 54 ha to allow an annual volume of around 350,000 units. Construction of a 1,071-metre quay wall in the southern canal dock to extend the terminal and the necessary dredging works is ongoing. The terminal has invested in a **battery charging area** with sufficient capacity to simultaneously provide 308 battery chargers of 11 KWH each and two superchargers of 135 KWH each. Since February 2019, 304 cars have been loaded at a normal charging speed at the same time and four cars at a speed of 100% in 75 minutes. On an annual basis, about one million cars are charged at the terminal. The chargers are equipped with intelligent software and (mobile) communication to control and record used power, which can be done remotely. The system is also being linked to the terminal’s TOS system. The terminal is also investing in **energy transition**. The terminal has become the location for a large onshore wind farm with a total capacity of 44 MW of locally produced green energy from 11 wind turbines. The power is used by the local community, ICO, and moored ships. The installation represented an investment of 55 million euros by ICO Windpark (ICO 37,5%, ENGIE 37.5%, and port of Zeebrugge 25%). The terminal has made **other investments in green terminal operations**: solar panels to power the vehicle processing centres, heat pumps for temperature control in the buildings, a water recuperation system which allows to wash 500 cars using only 20 liter of rain water, etc.. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/large-car-terminal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/large-car-terminal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/large-car-terminal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/large-car-terminal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Tank Storage Capacity and Number of Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/tank-storage-capacity-number-terminals/) **Published:** April 5, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/tank_storage_capacity.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Tank Storage Capacity and Number of Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Tank Storage Capacity and Number of Terminals### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/tank-storage-capacity-number-terminals/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/tank-storage-capacity-number-terminals/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/tank-storage-capacity-number-terminals/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/tank-storage-capacity-number-terminals/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Traffic Handled by the Panama Canal Railway, 2001-2014](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-panama-canal-railway/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/panama_canal_railway2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Container Traffic Handled by the Panama Canal Railway, 2001-2014 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Traffic Handled by the Panama Canal Railway 2001 2014*In units. Source: Panama Canal Railway Company.* The initial Panama Railway was opened in 1855 as a venture to connect the shipping services of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. However, with the construction of the Panama Canal, a new 47-mile (75-km) path for the railway was designed, and operations began in 1912. When a highway across the isthmus was completed in 1943, railway traffic started to decline, and the railway gradually went into disuse due to the lack of investment and maintenance. In 1977, after the Carter-Torrijos Treaty that started the retrocession process of the Panama Canal Zone to the Government of Panama, the railway was one of the first assets to be turned over. Up to the mid-1990s, the government of Panama provided limited maintenance to the railway. At that point, it was considered to have ceased to serve a relevant commercial function. The setting of private port terminal concessions in 1995 and the introduction of post-Panamax containerships led to a reconsideration of the commercial relevance of the railway. In 1998, a 50-year concession was secured by a joint venture (50/50) between Kansas City Southern and Mi-Jack Products to offer passenger and freight services. After some upgrades and the building of two new intermodal terminals in Balboa and Colon, the new Panama Canal Railway (PCR) was reopened in 2001. The railway became fully containerized and able to handle [double-stack railcars](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=436) and refrigerated containers. It provides a dedicated corridor for maritime shipping lines to reposition containers between the Atlantic/Caribbean to the Pacific ranges without transiting through the canal. The growth of [transshipment traffic at Panamanian ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=457) underlined the relevance of establishing a rail service as a complement to the Panama Canal. This complementarity takes the form of a short-haul landbridge for containers to reposition them between pendulum routes in the Atlantic and Pacific without the tolls and the potential delays of using the canal. For instance, the shipping line Maersk is a heavy user of the railway as a strategy to reposition containers between its Pacific and Atlantic / Caribbean routes. This is mainly because, on the Pacific side, Maersk uses many post-Panamax ships that cannot enter the canal. In 2025, APM Terminals, a parent company of Maersk, acquired PCR since it was a major user. PCR also offers the opportunity to reposition empty containers across the isthmus for transpacific backhauls. A significant advantage for the railway is the possibility of moving bounded containers between the Pacific and Caribbean ports without going through customs. The 75 km trip between the Pacific and Atlantic intermodal terminals takes about an hour and a half. PCR runs 10 trains daily in each direction, carrying on average 100 containers, but has the capacity to run 32 trains a day. The railway has a design capacity of about 2 million containers per year. However, in its current stage, the capacity is about 500,000 units per year, implying that it operates at 75% of capacity. At such capacity levels, operations are facing hurdles, particularly if the traffic is not uniformly distributed in time. It underlines that the expansion of the Panama Canal railway is required to handle future growth in port volumes and their corresponding trans-isthmus repositioning of containers. There is also a challenge as an important rationale in using the PCR, which relates to the fact that post-Panamax ships are calling the port of Balboa, and several containers are transshipped across the peninsula. With the expansion, such a transshipment function may no longer be required, placing uncertainties about the future of the Panama Canal Railway. However, the more traffic ports on both sides of the canal handle, the more opportunities there are for repositioning containers using the railway. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-panama-canal-railway/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-panama-canal-railway/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-panama-canal-railway/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-panama-canal-railway/?share=reddit) - --- ### [From Breakbulk to Containerized Commodities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/containerized-commodities/) **Published:** January 16, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/containerization-commodities.png?resize=900%2C541&ssl=1 "Containerized Commodities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Containerized CommoditiesMost commodities used to be shipped and handled as breakbulk (i.e. loose or palletized boxes and bags). However, the past decades have brought rapid containerization of these commodities. Containers are stripped at specialized terminals and warehousing facilities using forklifts, specialized grippers, and conveyor systems. In some cases, like for coffee, the container is tilted to unload its content. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/containerized-commodities/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/containerized-commodities/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/containerized-commodities/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/containerized-commodities/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Maritime Supply Chains Options for Green Hydrogen](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/maritime-supply-chains-options-for-green-hydrogen/) **Published:** March 22, 2025 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ports_green_hydrogen_hubs.png?resize=900%2C428&ssl=1 "Maritime Supply Chains Options for Green Hydrogen | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Note: The graph assumes H2 use by the end user. LH2, CH2 and ammonia can in many cases also directly serve as input or feedstock for the end user without prior transformation to H2. *Source: adapted from Notteboom, T., Haralambides, H., 2023, Seaports as green hydrogen hubs: advances, opportunities and challenges in Europe, Maritime Economics and Logistics, 25 (1), 1-27* Most of the available techniques to transport hydrogen transport over long distances require the conversion of wind or solar energy to hydrogen carriers in or near the exporting port and the transport of a suitable hydrogen carrier to importing areas. The most commonly considered **supply chain solutions for the import of green hydrogen produced overseas** include : - Hydrogen can be transported in **liquid form** (LH2) at an extremely low temperature in its pure form, but cooling to below -252.87 °C consumes a lot of energy. A wide range of large-scale hydrogen liquefaction methods and approaches exist (see for an overview Aasadnia and Mehrpooya, 2018); - Hydrogen can also be **compressed** in hydrogen tanks at very high pressures to compressed hydrogen (CH2 or CGH2); - Hydrogen can be packed in **ammonia (NH3)**. Reacting green hydrogen with nitrogen forms green ammonia. This allows hydrogen to be efficiently and safely transported in large volumes. Ammonia synthesis is traditionally achieved via the Haber-Bosch process, converting nitrogen (N2) to ammonia by a reaction with hydrogen using a metal catalyst under high temperatures and pressures. In recent years, a lot of research has been dedicated to explore sustainable synthesis of ammonia as an alternative to the capital- and often carbon-intensive fossil-fuel-driven Haber–Bosch process. The ammonia can then be stored and converted again to green hydrogen, but turning ammonia back to hydrogen requires decomposition (cracking) at high temperatures. Green ammonia is immediately usable as CO2-free fuel, for example in shipping, or as a raw material in the production of fertilizers; - Hydrogen can be transported by coupling to other Liquid Organic Hydrogen Carriers (LOHCs). These are organic compounds that can absorb and release hydrogen through chemical reactions. A good example is methylcyclohexane (MCH), which is a liquid obtained from the chemical reaction of hydrogen and toluene. After the initial hydrogenation step, MCH can be transported by ship, truck, or tank wagon. Dehydrogenation ensues, followed either by direct use of the obtained hydrogen, or its conversion back into electricity. The byproduct toluene can be returned to the hydrogenation plant for reuse. The above processes lead to various possible green hydrogen value chains. Investigating the technical and economic feasibility of such value chain solutions is crucial for the sustainable development of hydrogen-based energy production and consumption. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/maritime-supply-chains-options-for-green-hydrogen/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/maritime-supply-chains-options-for-green-hydrogen/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/maritime-supply-chains-options-for-green-hydrogen/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/maritime-supply-chains-options-for-green-hydrogen/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Key Requirements for Ports to Serve as Green Hydrogen Hubs](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/key-requirements-for-ports-to-serve-as-green-hydrogen-hubs/) **Published:** March 22, 2025 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ports_green_hydrogen_hubs-1.png?resize=900%2C469&ssl=1 "Key Requirements for Ports to Serve as Green Hydrogen Hubs | Port Economics, Management and Policy")*Source: adapted from Notteboom, T., Haralambides, H., 2023, Seaports as green hydrogen hubs: advances, opportunities and challenges in Europe, Maritime Economics and Logistics, 25 (1), 1-27* There is still a considerable **production cost difference** between green hydrogen and fossil fuels. A key factor in bringing green hydrogen costs down, ensuring its availability on a large scale, is **scalability**. Mobilizing investments to scale up the production of green hydrogen will require continued efforts towards more international collaboration to shape policy, regional and multilateral agreements and supportive frameworks from regulatory bodies. The scalability aspect comes with a lot of requirements which can be met more easily by certain locations such as seaport areas. **Key requirements for ports** to serve as green hydrogen hubs include: - **Availability of land for hydrogen production and storage infrastructure**: The production and storage of green hydrogen requires large surfaces. This challenges ports to make enough land available for production and storage activities which, for many ports, is not an easy task due to land unavailability. Land area is required for electrolysers and related equipment such as transformers, rectifiers, water supply, cooling water towers, separators, dryers and compressors. The overseas import of hydrogen carriers (such as ammonia), requires berths and conversion infrastructure for liquid hydrogen, ammonia and LOHCs (liquid organic hydrogen carriers). Room for energy supply infrastructure, for the cracking of ammonia (conversion to hydrogen) and the recovery of hydrogen from LOHCs is also necessary. Furthermore, one would need storage space for hydrogen carriers and compressor stations, to be able to inject hydrogen in a pipeline system. - **A good maritime and landside connectivity** to high capacity electricity grid and to hydrogen infrastructure and assets: The production and storage of green hydrogen in seaports requires a considerable amount of renewable energy and this comes with its own challenges. Some countries face mounting capacity issues in the high-voltage grids, partly as a result of complex planning and permitting procedures. This can hamper the energy transition efforts. - **A strong demand base for green hydrogen**: Quite a number of larger seaports have developed into major industrial and logistics ecosystems, and are well connected to other industrial clusters in proximity. Hydrogen demand could come from hard-to-abate industrial applications, logistics (e.g., as a fuel for ships, barges and trucks, directly or through transformation into ammonia or methanol) and industrial applications (e.g., green feedstock/reactant in chemical production, metal treatment, food processing, etc., or as a fuel). - **Technological innovation and policy support**: In terms of technological progress, the main focus is on minimizing the use of scarce materials for electrolysers, increasing the stack lifetime and system size so that large-scale production can take place, and reducing cold start-up time (solid oxide systems). In terms of policy support mechanisms, direct financial support and fiscal incentives for R&D and production are key at the first stages of market entry and scale-up. - **Access to large-scale project finance**: Large green hydrogen projects demand significant investment, requiring the full spectrum of sustainable finance instruments and technical expertise. Many seaports are home to individual plants or even entire clusters or ecosystems of large energy-related companies. The proximity of these establishments and the existing inter-firm exchanges among them facilitate fostering strong partnerships also in the area of green hydrogen production and distribution. - **Public acceptance of large green hydrogen projects**: Ports which successfully reach out to civil society and industry stakeholders, towards creating public acceptance of green hydrogen projects have a competitive edge in the green hydrogen economy. Reaching out to stakeholders on the green hydrogen theme concerns not only the provision of information on strategic plans and projects. It also requires efforts to educate the wider population on the sense of urgency in energy transition and the wider ramifications of green hydrogen adoption on emissions, infrastructure and asset needs. Next to information provision, port authorities are also challenged to consider an active participation of certain stakeholder groups in project planning stages, where deemed valuable, or when existing regulations and ESG frameworks and practices require such an involvement. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/key-requirements-for-ports-to-serve-as-green-hydrogen-hubs/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/key-requirements-for-ports-to-serve-as-green-hydrogen-hubs/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/key-requirements-for-ports-to-serve-as-green-hydrogen-hubs/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/key-requirements-for-ports-to-serve-as-green-hydrogen-hubs/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Annual Precipitation in the Panama Canal Watershed, 1950-2023](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/annual-precipitation-panama-canal-watershed/) **Published:** April 11, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/precipitation_panama_canal_watershed.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Annual Precipitation in the Panama Canal Watershed, 1950-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Annual Precipitation in the Panama Canal Watershed 1950 2023*Source: Panama Canal Authority.* The Panama Canal depends on an ample supply of freshwater captured by its watershed and stored in retention reservoirs such as Lake Gatun, usually during the rainy season, which is between May and December. A look at the precipitation trend underlines fluctuations around an average of about 2.6 meters (2634 millimeters) per year. Since 1950, 14 years have had precipitations outside one standard deviation (wetter or dryer years), which is 19.4% of the time. These deviations are normal and associated with the El Nino Southern Oscillation, which is a fluctuation in sea surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean, resulting in seasons of higher (El Nino) and lower (La Nina) rainfalls. 2023 was a dryer year than usual, corresponding to a longer-than-usual La Nina event. There have been several prior occasions when rainfall was less than usual without noticeable enduring impacts on canal operations. The main reason the 2020-23 La Nina event restricted the availability of water for canal operations is related to the 2016 canal expansion, which created an additional set of locks that were much bigger than the old locks. Even if additional reservoir capacity was provided and the new locks had water-saving features, the restrictions on canal operations in terms of the number of transits per day and ship capacity underline the vulnerability of the Panama Canal to seasonal variations in precipitation, even without strong outliers events. To mitigate this risk, the Panama Canal Authority plans to extend the watershed supplying the canal so that it is less prone to fluctuations in water availability. In 2025, a new 1.5 billion cubic foot reservoir was authorized to be developed along the Indio River on the western side of Lake Gatun, which would feed freshwater through a transfer tunnel. The outcome would be a system of three reservoirs to support canal operations instead of the current two. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/annual-precipitation-panama-canal-watershed/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/annual-precipitation-panama-canal-watershed/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/annual-precipitation-panama-canal-watershed/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/annual-precipitation-panama-canal-watershed/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Typical Cross-Sections of Gravity Quay Walls](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/typical-cross-section-quay-wall/) **Published:** February 2, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cross_sections_gravity_walls.png?resize=900%2C334&ssl=1 "Typical Cross-Sections of Gravity Quay Walls | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cross section caisson type quay wall*MSL: Median Sea Level.* There are three major types of gravity quay walls: - **Concrete block walls**. Consists of heavy precast mass concrete blocks. This type of construction is suitable where a rock foundation exists since differential settlement cannot easily be accommodated by this form of gravity wall. Blocks are placed vertically above each other. - **L-walls**. Stable due to their structural and soil weight, which rests on the horizontal part of the L-shaped structure. L-walls can be built in situ in dry conditions or prefabricated ex-situ and brought to the waterside. - **Concrete caissons**. A pressurized chamber underneath the structure is created to keep the water out of this chamber. From this chamber, the soil under the structure can be removed. By carefully and evenly removing the soil from under the structure, it will submerge gradually until its final depth. During this process, verticality is monitored continuously, and the place where the soil is removed from under the structure is adjusted accordingly to maintain verticality. Concrete caissons consist of **open‑topped cells prefabricated in the dry** (on land, in a dry dock, or a floating dock), usually floated to their final location and then sunk into position on the seabed. Concrete caissons may be built in a wide variety of shapes, such as rectangular, circular, or cloverleaf. Caissons are usually limited to about 30 meters in width. They are usually designed so that, after sinking, the top is just above the low water level with due allowance for waves. The cells are filled, usually with sand and sometimes concrete or gravel. The superstructure may consist of a solid in-situ concrete capping or a reinforced concrete edge retaining wall, which is backfilled, and the top surfaced with concrete paving. Caissons, after filling, form self‑stable structures that can be used to support heavy construction equipment. Large caissons will generally need to be strengthened with internal walls. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/typical-cross-section-quay-wall/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/typical-cross-section-quay-wall/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/typical-cross-section-quay-wall/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/typical-cross-section-quay-wall/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Vertical Integration for Selected Major Container Shipping Lines](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/vertical-integration-selected-major-container-shipping-lines/) **Published:** December 7, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/vertical_integration_carriers.png?resize=900%2C395&ssl=1 "Vertical Integration for Selected Major Container Shipping Lines | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Vertical Integration for Selected Major Container Shipping LinesMany of the largest carriers have moved beyond their shipping activities into terminal operations (mainly through concessions) and added-value logistics. This represents a paradigm shift in which vertical integration leads to new ventures and business opportunities that support the core function of maritime shipping. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/vertical-integration-selected-major-container-shipping-lines/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/vertical-integration-selected-major-container-shipping-lines/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/vertical-integration-selected-major-container-shipping-lines/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/vertical-integration-selected-major-container-shipping-lines/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Alliances in Container Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/alliances-container-shipping/) **Published:** February 10, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Alliances-situation-Q1-2025.png?resize=900%2C486&ssl=1 "Alliances in Container Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Alliances in container shipping*Source: updated from Notteboom, T. (2012), Chapter 12: Container shipping, in: Talley, W. (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Maritime Economics, Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, ISBN: 978-1-4443-3024-3, pp. 230-262*. Operational cooperation between container shipping companies comes in many forms, ranging from slot-chartering and vessel-sharing agreements to multi-trade strategic alliances. The first strategic alliances between shipping lines date back to the mid-1990s, which coincided with the introduction of the first post-Panamax container vessels in the Europe-Far East trade. In 1997, about 70% of the services on the main East-West trades were supplied by the four main strategic alliances. The alliance partnerships evolved due to **[mergers and acquisitions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/mergers-acquisitions-container-shipping-industry/)**, such as the merger between P&OCL and Nedlloyd, the takeovers by P&O Nedlloyd and SeaLand by Maersk, and the market entry and exit of liner shipping companies. In early 2023, three alliances were operational globally: **2M**, **Ocean Alliance**, and **THE Alliance**. However, in late January 2023, MSC and Maersk announced they mutually agreed to discontinue the 2M alliance in January 2025. This implies that the 10-year agreement, which was signed in 2015, was not extended. Both carriers had already begun to make changes to their liner service networks before 2025. The announcement on the termination of 2M (combined with the termination of the EU Consortia Block Exemption Regulation (CBER) in April 2024) triggered the start of an industry-wide re-shaping of existing operational agreements, especially on the major east-west trades. In January 2024, Hapag-Lloyd announced that it would leave THE Alliance. From February 2025, Hapag-Lloyd started a new cooperation scheme with Maersk under the name of Gemini Cooperation. In February 2024, the members of the Ocean Alliance extended their agreement for five years to 2032. In September 2024, the remaining members of THE Alliance announced the creation of the Premier Alliance. This renewed partnership started in February 2025 and works closely with MSC on the Asia-Europe trade route through slot chartering. In early 2025, MSC was the only large container shipping line not being part of an alliance. In February 2025, MSC operated a fleet (owned and chartered) of about 6.4 million TEUs, with an order book of an additional 2 million TEUs. Initially, many of the largest carriers did not opt for alliance membership. These firms reached a sufficient scale to benefit from the same economies of scale and scope that strategic alliances offer. Some of the top carriers at that time, Maersk Line, MSC, CMA CGM, and Evergreen, were notable examples. In comparison, the remaining two top-six carriers (i.e. COSCO and Hapag-Lloyd) have always opted for alliance membership despite the scale of their activities. Several shipping lines, such as Evergreen, initially did not participate in alliances due to commercial independence and flexibility. However, in the 2010s, even the **largest shipping companies resorted to joining alliances** as a competitive strategy and to increase margins. The case of Evergreen demonstrates that even outsiders have had to pursue alliance membership. The main **[incentives](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/incentives-carriers-alliances/ "Main Incentives for Carriers to be Involved in Alliances")** for shipping lines to engage in strategic alliances are the need for critical mass in the scale of operation, enhancing global reach, improving fleet deployment, and spreading risks associated with investments in large container vessels. Alliances also come with some **[impediments for members](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/main-impediments-for-carriers-to-be-involved-in-alliances/),** particularly at the level of a loss of operational and strategic independence and regulatory headaches. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/alliances-container-shipping/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/alliances-container-shipping/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/alliances-container-shipping/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/alliances-container-shipping/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Strategic Transformation of Maersk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/a-p-moller-maersk-transformation-from-a-diversified-conglomerate-to-a-focused-and-integrated-global-logistics-company/) **Published:** January 26, 2023 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Maersk-transformation.png?resize=900%2C432&ssl=1 "The Strategic Transformation of Maersk | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Transformation from a diversified conglomerate to a focused and integrated global logistics company. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/a-p-moller-maersk-transformation-from-a-diversified-conglomerate-to-a-focused-and-integrated-global-logistics-company/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/a-p-moller-maersk-transformation-from-a-diversified-conglomerate-to-a-focused-and-integrated-global-logistics-company/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/a-p-moller-maersk-transformation-from-a-diversified-conglomerate-to-a-focused-and-integrated-global-logistics-company/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/a-p-moller-maersk-transformation-from-a-diversified-conglomerate-to-a-focused-and-integrated-global-logistics-company/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Hanjin Shipping Bankruptcy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/hanjin-shipping-bankruptcy/) **Published:** February 9, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** By the early 2010s, the shipping industry was facing overcapacity, which was depressing rates and impairing the profitability of shipping lines. Further, almost every major shipping line was ordering larger containerships, caught in a vicious circle of trying to boost profitability with economies of scale. Capacity was growing faster than demand., undermining the profitability of several shipping lines. In September 2016, the Korean company Hanjin Shipping filed for bankruptcy, representing the largest bankruptcy in the shipping industry in recent years. In September 2016, industry journals reported that Hanjin owned 37 containerships and chartered 62 others, totaling 98 ships crewed by about 2,500 seafarers. This represented the world’s seventh-largest container shipping line at that time, with about 3.2% of the global container shipping capacity. Even if this share is relatively small, this was still more than 623,000 TEU of disrupted shipping capacity. Further, a large share of this capacity was allocated to transpacific routes as well as routes from Asia to Europe. Although Hanjin was a global shipping line, it has a pronounced regionalism. The 37 containerships directly owned by Hanjin were subject to full asset seizure by creditors under bankruptcy protection, but the matter was more complex for the 62 chartered ships. In theory, chartered ships fully belong to the leasing company and are thus not subject to seizure, only to be declined services since a terminal operator may not get paid by the company under receivership. This is a risk that many are unwilling to assume. However, many chartering agreements are under “bareboat” conditions where the owner gives possession of a containership to the shipping line, which assumes all the operational costs, including crew, fuel, insurance, and terminal charges. Such chartering arrangements can be used as a form of ship financing, which could lead to legal complications in terms of whether the ship was indeed leased or if the chartering arrangement is a sale in disguise. The orientation of Hanjin, both in terms of trade routes and terminal assets, implied a focused impact of its bankruptcy. The first stage of the bankruptcy (September-October 2016) created a “shock” for supply chains using Hanjin since services were interrupted without prior notice. Cargo became stuck in transit as shippers (ports, transport companies) refused to handle Hanjin ships since they would likely not get paid for that service. This was highly disruptive for supply chains because of the scale involved. Assuming a 70% level of ship utilization and a 20% share of empty cargo, this represented 350,000 TEU of cargo. Assuming a cargo value of $50,000 per TEU (average value reported by the insurance industry), the outcome was that $17.5 billion worth of cargo had been impacted. In the second stage, the increase in rates and the capacity demand on routes and ports serviced by Hanjin incited competitors to quickly offer additional services and capture the opportunity. Since the industry was in a situation of overcapacity, placed downward pressure on rates rather quickly as shipping lines aggressively competed to gain market share. Within three months, the shipping industry will likely have completely substituted services that were offered by Hanjin. The last stage concerned the allocation of Hanjin’s assets. With liquidation, most of its assets were captured at discount prices. Although some ships were retired, most were brought back into service. The bankruptcy of Hanjin was a significant event in global container shipping. The situation of overcapacity ensured that the shock was short-lived and quickly absorbed. Further to shipping, Hanjin had stakes in 20 container terminals, totaling an annual capacity of 22.4 million TEU. Korea had the most significant potential terminal capacity disruptions, including Busan, an important transshipment hub for the China trade. The main issue was that most of these terminals lost ship calls from Hanjin, impairing their revenue. These assets were sold to other terminal operating companies. For instance, Total Terminals International (TTI), with assets in Long Beach and Seattle, was purchased by MSC. Hyundai Merchant Marine (HMM) took over terminals in Tokyo and Kaohsiung. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/hanjin-shipping-bankruptcy/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/hanjin-shipping-bankruptcy/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/hanjin-shipping-bankruptcy/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/hanjin-shipping-bankruptcy/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Toll Revenue, Panama Canal, 2000-2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/toll-revenue-panama-canal/) **Published:** January 31, 2025 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/toll_revenue_panama_canal2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Toll Revenue, Panama Canal, 2000-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Toll Revenue Panama Canal 2000 2024*Source: Panama Canal Authority. Canal transit services include booking, inspection, security charges, appointment (for a reserved transit slot), and tug assistance fees.* Tolls account for about 70% of the revenue of the Panama Canal Authority (PCA), with another 25% related to canal transit services. Since its formal autonomy in January 2000, the tolls levied by the PCA have steadily increased at a rate faster than the [handled tonnage](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/tonnage-number-transits-panama-canal/ "Tonnage and Number of Transits, Panama Canal, 1915-2023"), implying an increase in the toll revenue per transited ton. By the early 2010s, toll revenues per ton peaked as capacity constraints became more prevalent and shipping lines optimized their use of Panamax ships. The opening of the new set of locks in 2016 led to a surge in toll revenue due to the additional tonnage transited. Still, revenue per ton was declining for tolls and transit services as shipping lines took advantage of the additional economies of scale by larger ships able to transit. In 2022, the PCA implemented a new toll structure to be gradually deployed until January 2025, which substantially increased toll revenues per transited ton. During the [capacity shortages created by the 2023-2024 drought](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-draft-limitation-containership-capacity/ "Effect of the Panama Canal Draft Limitation on Containership Capacity"), toll revenues declined, but toll per ton surged as yield management strategies were implemented and adjustments made to account for higher inflation. This is reflected in the surge of transit services revenue per ton, which allowed the Panama Canal to increase its revenue in 2024 despite a notable decline in transits. As of 2024 (according to PCA financial statements), the PCA levied 3.18 billion USD in tolls and another 1.66 billion USD in canal transit services. Reported profits were at 3.44 billion USD, 68.9% of total revenues. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/toll-revenue-panama-canal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/toll-revenue-panama-canal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/toll-revenue-panama-canal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/toll-revenue-panama-canal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Construction of Maasvlakte 2, Rotterdam](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/construction-maasvlakte-2-rotterdam/) **Published:** January 8, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Maasvlakte-2.jpg?resize=900%2C667&ssl=1 "Construction of Maasvlakte 2, Rotterdam, Circa 2011 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Construction of Maasvlakte 2 Rotterdam Circa 2011*Photo: Port of Rotterdam.* *Source: adapted from Port of Rotterdam website and Van der Plas, R. (2013). Maasvlakte 2, providing ample space for the future, Port Technology International, issue 58, p. 20-22*. **Maasvlakte 2** is a major civil engineering project in the [port of Rotterdam](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/changing-geography-of-seaports/evolution-port-rotterdam/) (the Netherlands) involving the construction of a new port area and supporting infrastructure on reclaimed land. A 20-meter-deep port was created with space for deep sea-related container activities, distribution, and chemical industry. Approximately 2000 ha was reclaimed behind a 3.5km long breakwater/seawall. When fully developed, Maasvlakte 2 will add 1000 ha of port area. The other 1,000 ha consists of infrastructure such as seawalls, waterways, railways, roads, and harbors. The basic infrastructure was completed in 2013. The port area is home to container terminals of [APM Terminals and Rotterdam World Gateway](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/changing-geography-of-seaports/rotterdam-maasvlatke-port-expansion-project/) (operated by DP World). Both terminals opened in 2015. The land reclamation of Maasvlakte 2 was part of a broad package of measures to improve the social and environmental climate of the area. Five Dutch ministries, the Province of South Holland, the Rotterdam City District, and the Rotterdam Municipality, collaborated in 1997 on the Rotterdam Main Port Development Project, or PMR. PMR encompasses three linked projects: - The construction of Maasvlakte 2, including extensive compensation measures for natural areas, was lost in the process. Costs and risks concerning the land reclamation were the full responsibility of the Port of Rotterdam Authority. - Execution of a large number of projects in the existing port and industrial zone for more efficient use of the space and improvement of the social climate. - Construction of 750 hectares of new nature and recreation area in the immediate vicinity of Rotterdam. The consortium PUMA (Project Uitbreiding Maasvlakte, a combination of companies Boskalis and Van Oord) was contracted to build the first sites, quay walls, road and rail infrastructure, docks and canal and sea defense with a value of 1.1 billion euro. This phase was completed in April 2013 and covers a port area of 700 hectares of plots for lease. The Port Authority chose a design, construction, and maintenance contract. Some technical figures on the scale of the project: - Land reclamation works required 240 million cubic metres of sand sprayed to create land, raise industrial sites and construct 7.5 km of beaches and dunes. - The 3.5 km hard seawall contains 7 million tons of riprap, 20,000 concrete blocks, and 150,000 tonnes of clay. The design of the hard seawall was optimized as a stony dune with a block dam in front of it as a breakwater. - The construction of the quay walls required 300,000 cubic meters of concrete. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/construction-maasvlakte-2-rotterdam/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/construction-maasvlakte-2-rotterdam/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/construction-maasvlakte-2-rotterdam/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/construction-maasvlakte-2-rotterdam/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Panama Canal Toll Structure](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-toll-structure/) **Published:** December 26, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/panama_canal_tolls.png?resize=900%2C453&ssl=1 "Panama Canal Toll Structure | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Panama Canal Toll Structure*Source: Panama Canal Authority. Note: Tolls are for January 2025.* To levy tolls on ships transiting the canal, the Panama Canal Authority has a toll structure that considers ship size and class, including a distinction between non-containerized and containerized ships. For **non-containerized ships**: - TOLL = **Fixed transit fee** + **Capacity tariff** + **Miscellaneous fees**. - **Fixed transit fees** are paid irrespective of the ship type and cargo load. They are divided into three classes: Regular ($60,000 for ships of below Panamax class with beam less than 91 feet / 27.74 meters), Super ($100,000 for Pamamax-max ships fitting exactly into the old locks; length of 965.0 feet, beam of 105.8 feet, 5,000 TEUs of capacity and a PC/UMS of 45,701 tons), and Neopanamax ($300,000 for ships using the new locks; length of 1,096 feet, beam of 159 feet, 12,000 TEU and PC/UMS of 116,295 tons). - **Capacity tariff** is also known as Panama Canal/Universal Measurement System tons (PC/UMS). One PC/UMS ton equals 100 cubic feet (2.83 m3) of [net ship capacity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/ship-characteristics-capacity-measures/ "Ship Characteristics and Capacity Measures"). It is a function of the ship cargo class (tanker, LNG, passenger), which is posted in dollars per PC/UMS tons of ship capacity (or cubic meter for LNG). For instance, a Neopanamax tanker would pay a capacity tariff of $3.25 per PC/UMS ton, while a Panamax tanker would pay $5.25. Most capacity tariffs are designed to convey a scale benefit. - **Miscenallenous fees** are mainly transactional, such as booking, inspection, and security charges, including appointment (for a reserved transit slot) and tug assistance fees. Anchorage fees are levied if the ship has to wait for more than one day. For **containerships**, tolls are levied as follows: - TOLL = **Fixed transit fee** + **Total TEU allowed tariff** + **Tariff on loaded TEU** + **Tariff on empty TEU** + **Miscellaneous fees**. - **Fixed transit fees** are the same as non-containerized ships. - **Total TEU allowed tariff** is the ship TEU capacity determined by the Panama Canal to reflect a standard container load. Capacity tariffs are in USD per TEU. - **Tariff on loaded TEU** is the charge for loaded containers stored above deck. - **Tariff on empty** TEU is the charge for empty containers stored above deck. - **Miscenallenous fees** are the same as non-containerized ships. As of 2024, the following tolls were levied (approximate from the [Panama Canal toll calculator](https://calculadora.pancanal.com/en/)): - Panamax containership with an 80% full load and 20% empties without reservation: $475,000. - Neopanamx containership with an 80% full load and 20% empties without reservation: $1,125,000. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-toll-structure/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-toll-structure/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-toll-structure/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-toll-structure/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Traffic Handled at the Main Panamanian Ports, 1995-2023](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-panamanian-ports/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/container_traffic_panama_ports2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Container Traffic Handled at the Main Panamanian Ports, 1995-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Traffic Handled at the Main Panamanian Ports 1995 2023 *Source: Autoridad Maritima de Panama.* Prior to the mid-1990s, Panama was handling limited container volumes, most of them related to domestic demand, such as for the Colon Free Zone. These volumes did not exceed 200,000 TEUs per year and were mainly handled by the ports of Colon and Cristobal on the Caribbean coast. The subsequent growth of container traffic handled by Panamanian ports can be divided into three phases. The **first phase,** between 1995 and 2002, corresponded to the initial privatization of Panamanian ports through concessions to private terminal operators. This led to the construction of new container terminal facilities, such as Manzanillo International Terminal (Carrix/SSA) in 1995 and Colon Container Terminal (Evergreen) in 1997. Panama Ports Company (HPH) took control of the Cristobal and Balboa facilities in 1996, which were then modernized and expanded. The reopening of the [Panama Canal Railway](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=433) in 2001 further supported repositioning transshipment containers between the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. The **second phase** took place between 2002 and 2011 and marked the setting of Panama as a major transshipment hub. The Port of Balboa gained the most during this phase, which is indicative of the emerging transshipment function that Panama is playing for the transpacific and the west coast of Latin America. This led to a rebalancing of the distribution of cargo activity between the Pacific and Caribbean coasts. While the Pacific coast accounted for only 5% of the container cargo activity in 2000, this share surged to 50% in 2015. Yet, the majority (more than 90%) of all this activity is related to transshipment and little from domestic demand. This is prone to uncertainties since transshipment traffic may shift to other port facilities if shipping lines change their service configurations. The **third phase** illustrates the maturity of Panama’s role as a transshipment hub. Since 2011, Panamanian ports have experienced limited growth and a further rebalancing of the traffic towards the Caribbean facade. In 2012, Panama International Terminal (PSA) started operations on the Pacific side, competing with Balboa. While the terminal had an initial capacity of 250,000 TEU, this capacity was expanded to 2 million TEU in 2017 underlining the willingness of PSA to capture additional traffic. On the Caribbean side, growth was initially leaning more on a zero-sum game where a terminal benefits at the expense of another. The expansion of the Panama Canal in 2016 resulted in a decline in transshipment activity as some of the cross-isthmus transshipment could be avoided by using larger containerships. The decline in port activity in 2023 is mainly associated with a drought, which resulted in lower water levels available for operation and a corresponding drop in transits through the canal. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-panamanian-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-panamanian-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-panamanian-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-panamanian-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port of Balboa, Panama](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/port-balboa-panama/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_7243.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Port of Balboa, Panama | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port of Balboa Panama*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2011.* The Port of Balboa, operated by Hutchinson Port Holdings (HPH), is an important transshipment hub on the Pacific side of the Panama Canal. It handled 2.5 million TEUs in 2018, but the port is close to capacity and has limited expansion options. The ship in the middle (blue color) is operated by Maersk Line and is of post-Panamax design, implying that it cannot enter the old locks of the Panama Canal (which begins on the left side of the photo). The transshipped containers can either be placed on another ship or on the Panama Canal Railway, which has an intermodal terminal immediately adjacent to the port. Through this rail connection, a container can be brought to the port of Colon on the Atlantic side of the canal. In 2015, a new container port expansion project was approved at Corozal, just upstream of the port of Balboa, on 120 hectares of land that used to belong to the US Army, and which has been administered by the Panama Canal Authority since the hand over of the canal zone to the Panamanian government in 1999. The expansion is expected to add about 5 million TEUs of capacity in two phases but was delayed because of more limited growth prospects. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/port-balboa-panama/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/port-balboa-panama/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/port-balboa-panama/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/port-balboa-panama/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Authority Marketing Strategies and Stakeholder Types](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/port-authority-marketing-strategies-stakeholder-types/) **Published:** January 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/pa_marketing_strategies.png?resize=900%2C423&ssl=1 "Port Authority Marketing Strategies and Stakeholder Types | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Authority Marketing Strategies and Stakeholder Types*Adapted from: Parola, F., Pallis, A.A., Risitano, M. and Ferretti, M. (2016). Marketing strategies of Port Authorities: A multi-dimensional framework. Paper presented at EURAM Conference 2016, 1-4 June, Paris, France.* The role and function of most port authorities have [evolved](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3352). In many cases, the conventional role of the operator has been discarded and replaced with concessions to private terminal operators. As such, port authorities are becoming more marketing-oriented with the main objective of promoting the port region’s (or port cluster’s) interests. These strategies take place over three main realms of engagement, each with its associated stakeholders: - **Commercial**. From a commercial standpoint, often the core of marketing strategies, the port authority seeks to capture or retain traffic and secure investments to develop infrastructures or superstructures. This is particularly important since economies of scale push for larger ships and, therefore, more substantial investments in the port’s handling capabilities. Corporations doing business with the port, such as lessees and carriers, are the main stakeholders. The port authority seeks to create a commercial environment where users have opportunities to expand their businesses. The outcome is the expansion of business capital able to assist the port authority. - **Institutional**. Port authorities are part of a complex institutional setting that sets policies and regulations impacting port activities. They regulate processes such as the planning and development of port infrastructure, how decisions are made, regulations are applied, and projects are funded. The main stakeholders are institutions responsible for the oversight of port activities. The outcome is the expansion of institutional capital. - **Community**. The communities in which port authorities require public relations initiatives, particularly since port activities are associated with congestion and environmental externalities. Therefore, port authorities engage in projects with local community stakeholders to mitigate its negative externalities and promote their respective interests. The outcome is the expansion of social capital. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/port-authority-marketing-strategies-stakeholder-types/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/port-authority-marketing-strategies-stakeholder-types/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/port-authority-marketing-strategies-stakeholder-types/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/port-authority-marketing-strategies-stakeholder-types/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Emerging Paradigm in the Role of Port Authorities within their Port Regions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/emerging-paradigm-role-port-authorities-port-regions/) **Published:** January 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/emerging_paradigm_port_authority.png?resize=900%2C441&ssl=1 "Emerging Paradigm in the Roles of Port Authorities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Emerging Paradigm in the Role of Port Authorities within their Port Regions*Source: adapted from P. Verhoeven (2010) ‘A review of port authority functions: towards a renaissance?’, Maritime Policy & Management, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp.247–270.* Conventionally, a port authority acts as a landlord, a regulator, and an operator: - As a **landlord**, a port authority manages the port assets under its jurisdiction. This commonly concerns the provision of infrastructure such as piers and the dredging of waterways, which is commonly done with public funds. - As a **regulator**, a port authority sets the planning framework, namely fees, subcontracting services, and safety, as well as enforcing national and port related rules and regulations. - As an **operator**, a port authority provides day-to-day services to ships (e.g. pilotage and towage) and merchandises (e.g. loading / unloading and warehousing). With deregulation, the trend is a changing role of port authorities within their region, which has mainly taken two dimensions: - **Concessionning** has reduced the role of the port authority as an operator since this role is increasingly assumed by specialized terminal operators renting terminal facilities over long periods of time (up to 30 years). The dominant rationale behind this process was that port authorities tended to have poor performance levels in their terminal operations. Many are [global terminal operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=783) with terminal assets in a wide variety of markets. - **Cluster governance** is an emerging and extensive trend in which the port authority assumes leadership in activities that conventionally were outside its jurisdiction. These include the setting of [inland terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=629) and [logistics zones](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=8304) (directly or in partnership), various strategies to monitor and improve performance, setting [port community systems](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1011 "Port Community System"), promoting environmental and social initiatives, being involved in training and education for port-related employment as well as facilitating relations with its surrounding urban areas. This requires the setting of [marketing strategies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=825) where the port authority engages with a variety of stakeholders. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/emerging-paradigm-role-port-authorities-port-regions/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/emerging-paradigm-role-port-authorities-port-regions/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/emerging-paradigm-role-port-authorities-port-regions/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/emerging-paradigm-role-port-authorities-port-regions/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Governance Tasks: Port Policy Formation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-port-policy-formation/) **Published:** March 7, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_policy_formulation.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Port Governance Tasks: Port Policy Formulation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Tasks Port Policy FormationThe **formulation of port policy** incorporates several port governance tasks. The definition, development, and adoption of a (national) port policy are just some of them. The adopted port policy has to be implemented via a number of activities, such as the coordination of actors involved in the sector; the coordination of transport and other policies related to it; the adoption and approval of master plans or business plans submitted by the terminal and port operators; and the development of relevant environmental legislation in line with the principles of port policy. Both the formation and implementation of port policy also include the representation of ports at the international fora that shape and adopt regulations applying at the port level (e.g. the International Maritime Organisation – IMO), and the development of a framework (i.e. consultation with stakeholders, maintenance of port statistics, carrying out strategic studies) that provide the background for any needed adjustments of the port policy in place. These decisions regarding port policy formations, and thus the choices regarding their governance, inform and, therefore, are strongly related to the other [types of port governance tasks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1997). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-port-policy-formation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-port-policy-formation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-port-policy-formation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-tasks-port-policy-formation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Shipment of Forest Products](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/shipment-forest-products/) **Published:** April 23, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** The specialized forest products shipping industry is characterized by a limited number of players, such as Gearbulk. As far as trade lanes are concerned, well-established exporters of forest products are located in the Pacific-Northwest, Eastern Canada, and Scandinavia. However, competition is heating up from suppliers in South America (Brazil and Chile), Russia, and China. Major importers of forest products include China and Europe. Forest products are increasingly being carried in containers nowadays. One of the main reasons for the increasing container penetration rate in the forest products sector lies in the fact that parcel sizes used to be too big to fit into a container in the past. Nowadays, the first transformation of the cargo takes place at the origin, such that it increasingly loses weight but gains value. This makes it perfectly suitable for supply chains involving regular shipments in containers. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/shipment-forest-products/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/shipment-forest-products/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/shipment-forest-products/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/shipment-forest-products/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Diffusion of Key Port Terminal Automation Technologies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/diffusion-port-terminal-automation-technologies/) **Published:** January 6, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/diffusion_port_automation_technologies2.png?resize=900%2C423&ssl=1 "Diffusion of Key Port Terminal Automation Technologies | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Diffusion of Key Port Terminal Automation TechnologiesThe main types of [container port terminal automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=963) in terms of their current level of diffusion include: - **Automated decision-making (yard management)**. Account for the earliest implementations of automation since they improve terminal managerial aspects and the performance of existing assets without automating them. This can involve **berth planning**, where vessels are more effectively assigned and scheduled to use docking and transloading capacity. **Stowage and yard planning** are also of common use so that the loading and unloading sequence between the ship and the container yard is improved. This includes the stacking and distribution of containers in the storage yard (e.g. piles for imports and exports and even for a specific ship). Another concern is inland predictability, where a terminal can further anticipate the volumes generated by importers and exporters in the terminal’s hinterland. It becomes possible to assess better the demand for the usage of the terminal’s assets. Managing human resources, such as work shifts, has also been the subject of automation. By 2015, about 40% of the world’s container terminals were using a form of automated decision making. - **Automated gates**. Container terminal gates involved several transactions and were thus among the earliest terminal assets to be automated. Automated gate systems are able to identify drivers (registered and issued an identification card), process bill of lading information (and any other documents) electronically, scan and identify containers using optical character recognition or RFID, and direct drivers to a designated spot for loading or unloading a container. Appointment systems are also used to improve waiting times at terminals. - **Automated tracking and tracing**. Focuses on a higher level of integration of the components of terminal operation such as ships, cranes, containers and yard equipment by accurately pinpointing their location within the terminal. Although global positioning systems can be used, the placement of reference nodes across the terminal provides higher positioning accuracy. This is also known as “digital twins”. This technology enables more effective use of terminal equipment and faster storage and retrieval of containers. - **Automated yard cranes**. Since stacking containers in a yard is an asset-intensive activity requiring the frequent movement of cranes, there is a high incentive to automate the process. Automated yard cranes (automated stacking cranes; ASC) are able to store and retrieve containers along a stacking area automatically. - **Automated horizontal transport**. Involves the use of automated guided vehicles (AGVs such as automated straddle carriers) to move containers within the terminal. The most common use involves the transfer of containers from pier-side crane operation to yard storage. This is a complex operation due to the high number of container moves, particularly in high-throughput terminals. - **Automated quay cranes**. Cranes are usually the most capital-intensive superstructure in a port terminal. The growing size of ships has placed pressure on improving ship-to-shore productivity, and automated quay cranes are starting to be introduced. They reduce cycle time, are able to handle up to four containers at once, and therefore increase the number of movements per hour. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/diffusion-port-terminal-automation-technologies/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/diffusion-port-terminal-automation-technologies/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/diffusion-port-terminal-automation-technologies/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/diffusion-port-terminal-automation-technologies/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Outbound and Inbound Traffic at Car Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/car-terminal-outbound-traffic/) **Published:** December 4, 2024 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/outbound_inbound_car_terminals.png?resize=900%2C505&ssl=1 "Outbound and Inbound Traffic at Car Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Outbound and Inbound Traffic at Car Terminals*Source: Expanded from: Beškovnik B. & Zanne M. (2018). Business process re-engineering of a maritime car terminal: Changing from inbound to outbound intermodal node in Finished Vehicle Logistics (FVL). Polish Maritime Research, Vol. 25(3), 54-61.* *Note: Some car terminals in Chinese (Yangtze River Delta and Pearl River Delta) and European ports ([Rhine Basin](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/roro-barges-2/ "Roro Barges for New Car Transport")) also use barges to transport cars.* Car terminals depend on **finished vehicle logistics (FVL)**, which are complex chains as every car production plant uses customized logistics chains and provides all the necessary services expected by both the automotive industry and the final consumer. In response, a car terminal works to secure different operational services such as loading, discharging, and storage. Moreover, the terminal is often requested to inspect vehicles at different manipulation stages, pre-delivery inspections (PDI), maintenance, car customization, and defects/damage assessment. Sometimes, terminals and ports offer other services, such as dissembling and assembling operations or car postponement services. The FVL chain can be organized as a simple service for moving cars or a higher-value chain where additional services are performed on the handled vehicles. The latter process requires knowledge and skills to ensure safety and security levels for cargo and logistics providers, with carmakers expecting additional services to be provided as part of the car terminal activities. Car terminals for inbound or outbound car flows are almost always quite distinct. This is because they require different processes and different infrastructure. The requested services are organized in logistics nodes closer to the production point or the end consumer. More services related to car logistics and customization are often provided in inbound flows, where the node (terminal or dealer’s depot) is closer to the end consumers and offers more opportunities for customization. Such a position usually requires different buffer strategies that are tailored to groups of customers. Consequently, the terminal operators monitor and adapt internal processes to the changing market and customer expectations. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/car-terminal-outbound-traffic/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/car-terminal-outbound-traffic/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/car-terminal-outbound-traffic/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/car-terminal-outbound-traffic/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Direct and Competitive Types of Terminal Awarding Procedures](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/direct-competitive-types-terminal-awarding-procedures/) **Published:** December 4, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/direct_competitive_terminal_awarding2.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Direct and Competitive Types of Terminal Awarding Procedures | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Direct and Competitive Types of Terminal Awarding Procedures*Source: Adapted from Theys C., Notteboom T.E., Pallis A.A., & de Langen P.W. (2010). The economics behind the awarding of terminals in seaports: A research agenda. Research in Transport Economics, 27, 10-18.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/direct-competitive-types-terminal-awarding-procedures/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/direct-competitive-types-terminal-awarding-procedures/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/direct-competitive-types-terminal-awarding-procedures/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/direct-competitive-types-terminal-awarding-procedures/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Changes in Global Trade Flows](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/changes-global-trade-flows/) **Published:** February 17, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/changes_global_trade_flows.png?resize=900%2C690&ssl=1 "Changes in Global Trade Flows | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Changes in Global Trade Flows*Source: Seaborne trade data adapted from UNCTAD, Review of Maritime Transport.* Prior to the 1970s, global trade flows were dominated by [three major poles](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=1397), North America, Western Europe, and the developing economies of East Asia (Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan). A trade dichotomy was observed between advanced (developed) and developing economies as raw materials mainly flowed north and finished goods flowed south. Differences in development levels can mainly explain this situation, including better economies of scale in advanced economies and unequal trade relations set up during the colonial era. From the 1970s, this situation changed as economic development took place across a range of nations in Latin America (Mexico), Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia), and East Asia (China, South Korea, Taiwan). Many manufacturing activities that had emerged in advanced economies were relocated to lower input cost locations, because of cheaper labor. Emerging multinational corporations were actively involved in this process. Such a structural shift is well illustrated by the variation in the share of developing economies in seaborne trade, which used to be highly imbalanced, with much more cargo being loaded than unloaded. Economic development resulted in a growing share of developing economies as a destination for cargo. Consequently, global trade is now characterized by significant flows of cargoes (raw materials, intermediate and finished goods) from advanced to developing economies. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/changes-global-trade-flows/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/changes-global-trade-flows/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/changes-global-trade-flows/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/changes-global-trade-flows/?share=reddit) - --- ### [World’s Most Traded Goods and Lead Exporter, 2022](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/worlds-most-traded-goods-lead-exporter/) **Published:** February 16, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/most_traded_goods_lead_exporter.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "World’s Most Traded Goods and Lead Exporter, 2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Most Traded Goods and Lead Exporter 2022*Source: Observatory of Economic Complexity. HS4 Composition (Harmonized System, four digits).* Many of the world’s most traded goods require specialized maritime transport conveyances. The first two most important goods are crude and refined petroleum, which requires tanker ships and specialized terminals with tank farms. Cars are also among the most traded goods in terms of value, implying the deployment of a fleet of car carriers and the prominence of RORO facilities. A wide range of commodities, such as vehicle parts, are carried in containers. High-value goods, including integrated circuits, computers, and pharmaceuticals, are more likely to be carried as air cargo. Thus, the scale and value effect on global trade influences the selection of maritime transport modes and terminals. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/worlds-most-traded-goods-lead-exporter/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/worlds-most-traded-goods-lead-exporter/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/worlds-most-traded-goods-lead-exporter/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/worlds-most-traded-goods-lead-exporter/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Distribution of Terminal Equity Stakes by Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/distribution-terminal-equity-stakes-terminal-operators/) **Published:** December 2, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/terminal_equity_stakes.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Distribution of Terminal Equity Stakes by Terminal Operators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Distribution of Terminal Equity Stakes by Terminal Operators*Source: Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2022) “Maritime Container Terminal Infrastructure, Network Corporatization, and Global Terminal Operators: Implications for International Business Policy”, Journal of International Business Policy.* The distribution of terminal equity stakes across a sample of 541 container terminals reveals a wide variety of stakes. 31.8% of all terminals have a stake higher than 90%, indicating that many terminal operators prefer full control. If this is not possible, a majority stake above 50% remains preferred. Due to the regulatory framework, such as rules forbidding the majority ownership by a foreign entity of terminal assets or another terminal operator already having a majority stake, another common entry point (20.5% of all stakes) is a minority stake between 40 and 50%. Multiple minority stakes are usually found among the largest container terminals, which assume a well-established gateway function. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/distribution-terminal-equity-stakes-terminal-operators/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/distribution-terminal-equity-stakes-terminal-operators/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/distribution-terminal-equity-stakes-terminal-operators/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/distribution-terminal-equity-stakes-terminal-operators/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Terminal and Port Related Risks for a Terminal Operator](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/terminal-port-related-risks-involved-terminal-operator/) **Published:** December 4, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/terminal_risks_terminal_operator.png?resize=900%2C445&ssl=1 "Terminal and Port Related Risks for a Terminal Operator | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Variables defining TerminalPort related Risks for a Terminal Operator*Source: Adapted from Theys C., Notteboom T.E., Pallis A.A., de Langen P.W. (2010). The economics behind the awarding of terminals in seaports: A research agenda. Research in Transport Economics, 27, 10-18.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/terminal-port-related-risks-involved-terminal-operator/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/terminal-port-related-risks-involved-terminal-operator/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/terminal-port-related-risks-involved-terminal-operator/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/terminal-port-related-risks-involved-terminal-operator/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Common Ship Hull Markings](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/common-ship-hull-markings/) **Published:** December 1, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/common_ship_hull_markings.png?resize=900%2C506&ssl=1 "Common Ship Hull Markings | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Common Ship Hull MarkingsThe most common hull markings on a cargo ship include: - **Registry flag**. The name of the country of registry. - **IMO Number**. The unique ship ID is registered with the International Maritime Organization. - **Pilot Boarding Mark**. The location where pilots can board the ship with the midsection of the marker at 9 meters from the freeboard. - **Draft Lines (FWD and AFT)**. Indicators of water depth above the keel. Provides a visual indicator of the draft and the ship’s balance. - **Load Line (Plimsoll Line)**. Indicates the maximum safe loading depth under different water conditions (saltwater, freshwater, summer, and winter). The summer load line is usually the reference. - **Classification society**. The summer load line and the acronym of the hull classification society. - **Tug Marking**. Indicates where tugboats can push to assist in maneuvering the ship. It represents a point of high structural integrity, such as a bulkhead. - **Bow Thruster**. The location of the bow thruster. - **Bow Marking**. The structural alignment and identification of the underwater bow. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/common-ship-hull-markings/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/common-ship-hull-markings/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/common-ship-hull-markings/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/common-ship-hull-markings/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Warehousing Tiers at Port Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/warehousing-tiers-port-terminals/) **Published:** November 29, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/warehousing_tiers_port_terminals.png?resize=900%2C404&ssl=1 "Warehousing Tiers at Port Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Warehousing Tiers at Port TerminalsA substantial amount of warehousing takes place at ports, which takes unique forms depending on the cargo type, which can be terminal-specific. **First-tier** warehousing involves storage taking place directly within the terminal, while **second-tier** warehousing is port-centric and directly connected with the terminals. For general (unitized) cargo: - **Break Bulk**. The most common form of first-tier break bulk storage involves on-dock or near-dock warehouses where the cargo can be temporarily stored, waiting to be loaded into a tramp cargo ship or distributed inland. For large pieces of breakbulk cargo, open storage areas are common. Break-bulk cargo comes from (or is bound to) manufacturing and assembly plants acting as storage facilities. - **RORO**. Since vehicle carriers carry large quantities (3,000 to 5,000 units), RORO facilities require large parking areas with options for [parking configurations](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/storage-car-terminals/ "Storage Configurations at Car Terminals"). Multideck facilities can be available for high-density terminals. Vehicles are related to processing facilities (vehicle preparation and storage before final distribution) or assembly lines that commonly ship directly to terminal facilities vehicles for exports. - **Containerized**. Require large stacking areas that act as a buffer between the maritime and inland circulation systems with a dwell time usually less than 7 days. Staking density will vary according to the types of [yard equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/stacking-density-container-yard-equipment/ "Stacking Density of Container Yard Equipment") used. Container freight stations may be present within the terminal facility, with the role of stuffing or destuffing containers depending on the trade orientation. Container terminals are part of complex supply chains and an ecosystem of port-centric facilities (second tier), including transloading facilities, distribution centers, and container depots (mostly for empties), which are common. For bulk (loose) cargo: - **Liquid bulk**. Often composed of tank farms, which are groupings of tanks storing similar products accessed through pipelines and pumps. Refineries and petrochemical plants are dominantly port-centric activities, often including the terminal facility to load and unload liquid products. - **Dry bulk**. Rely on stockpiles, bulk warehouses, or silos to handle a volume large enough for the economies of scale that commonly characterize bulk shipping. Dry bulk is associated with large processing plants involving in the transformation of resources. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/warehousing-tiers-port-terminals/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/warehousing-tiers-port-terminals/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/warehousing-tiers-port-terminals/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/warehousing-tiers-port-terminals/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Multilevel car parks at Antwerp Euroterminal (AET)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/multilevel-car-parks-at-antwerp-euroterminal-aet/) **Published:** November 29, 2024 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/AET-multilevel-car-park.png?resize=900%2C396&ssl=1 "AET-Multilevel Car Park | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Multilevel car parks at AET in Antwerp Photos courtesy of AET ©**Antwerp Euroterminal (AET)** is the largest multipurpose terminal in Europe, and it is located in the Antwerp port area in Belgium. The facility has been fully owned by the Italian Grimaldi Group since August 2022 and is Grimaldi’s main hub in Northern Europe. The terminal opened in 2001 and is home to RoRo and ConRo vessels of the Grimaldi Group, including its sub-brands Finnlines, Grimaldi Euromed, Grimaldi Deepsea, and Atlantic Container Line (ACL). The terminal specializes in different types of cargo and processes cars and other RoRo-units, breakbulk (such as tropical timber), containers, project cargo, and heavy lifts. The terminal welcomes both deep sea and short sea line services. The terminal covers a surface of 149 ha and provides a quay length of 2.3 km. Limited with expansion in width and length, AET expanded in height through the opening of the first multilevel car park in 2022. The 7-story facility with a height of 19m offers space for 9,700 cars. About 8,400 solar panels have been installed on the roof, which can generate 3.8MWh at its peak. Parts two and three of the multilevel car park will be opened in early 2025, adding an extra terminal capacity for 12,500 cars spread over seven floors. Parts 1, ,2 and 3 combined expand the terminal’s RoRo capacity by 407,000 m² (+27%) on a surface area of just 45,000 m². The ground floors are designed with a higher ceiling, allowing higher vehicles to be stored there and/or added value activities to be organized. The internal ramps of the car parks are heated to avoid slippery conditions under icy or snowy conditions. The parking garages are designed so that there is no cross traffic, which adds to terminal safety. On the **environmental front,** AET provides full rainwater buffering and recuperation for carwash and container cleaning. More than 90% of the wash water is reused. The terminal also supports rainwater infiltration covering 368,750 m². To support the decarbonization in shipping and terminal operations, AET invests in a range of projects, including onshore power supply (OPS, two fixed connections operational as of 2026), in situ windmills, solar parks on top of the multilevel car pars, charging poles for electric vehicles, a battery energy storage system, an intelligent energy management system, the use of electric forklifts, and test setups for hydrogen propulsion of terminal equipment. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Multilevel-opbouw-luchtfotos-03-04-2024-1-1024x682.jpg?resize=900%2C599&ssl=1 "Multilevel Car Parks at Antwerp Euroterminal (AET) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Construction of parts 2 and 3 adjacent to the existing part 1 Photo April 2024 courtesy of AET ©*Source: own compilation based on info provided by Antwerp Euroterminal (AET)* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/multilevel-car-parks-at-antwerp-euroterminal-aet/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/multilevel-car-parks-at-antwerp-euroterminal-aet/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/multilevel-car-parks-at-antwerp-euroterminal-aet/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/multilevel-car-parks-at-antwerp-euroterminal-aet/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Storage Configurations at Car Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/storage-car-terminals/) **Published:** January 13, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/parking_configurations_car_terminal.png?resize=900%2C541&ssl=1 "Storage Configurations at Car Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The storage configuration at car terminals is the outcome of operational decisions with different types of parking configurations that can be combined. - **Fishbone configuration**. Used for pre-sorting cars in view of loading operations onto trucks or rail wagons. - **5×4 block configuration**. Implies that a maximum of one car needs to be moved to reach any car within this block. They are used for longer-term storage. - **Diagonal configuration**. High-density storage used for the sequential batch processing of 5 to 12 vehicles for specific orders and customization. - **Multi-deck car storage**. Facilities designed to reduce the spatial footprint. They come at an additional cost and are mostly found in ports with land availability issues and high concession fees. The automotive customer might specifically request multi-deck storage for economic, safety, or environmental reasons. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/storage-car-terminals/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/storage-car-terminals/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/storage-car-terminals/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/storage-car-terminals/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Supporting Videos on RoRo Vessels](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/supporting-videos-on-roro-vessels/) **Published:** November 29, 2024 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Supporting-videos-roro-vessels.png?resize=900%2C156&ssl=1 "Supporting Videos - RoRo Vessels | Port Economics, Management and Policy") The Aurora Class of Höegh Autoliners – 9100 CEU (Source: Höegh Autoliners) RoRo vessel designs using steel sails – Orcelle Wind of Wallenius Wilhelmsen (Source: Wallenius Wilhelmsen) The FLEXIE series of MOL (Source: Mitsui O.S.K. Lines)### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/supporting-videos-on-roro-vessels/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/supporting-videos-on-roro-vessels/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/supporting-videos-on-roro-vessels/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/supporting-videos-on-roro-vessels/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Supporting Videos on Container Vessels](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/supporting-movies-container-vessels/) **Published:** December 8, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Supporting-videos-container-vessels.png?resize=900%2C157&ssl=1 "Supporting Videos - Container Vessels | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Below you will find a number of youtube videos providing more insight on the deployment of large container vessels in liner shipping. Maiden voyage of HMM Algeciras – port call in Busan, South Korea (source: HMM) Construction of engine of CMA CGM Jacques Saadé (source: CMA CGM) Record call size of MSC Isabella in port of Los Angeles, June 2020 (source: Port of Los Angeles) Triple ‘E’ vessel class of Maersk Line – first vessel operational since 2013 (source: Maersk Line) Ever Ace with a capacity of 23,992 TEU, the world’s largest container vessel (status May 2022) (source: Evergreen)### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/supporting-movies-container-vessels/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/supporting-movies-container-vessels/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/supporting-movies-container-vessels/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/supporting-movies-container-vessels/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Benefits of Home-porting at the Port of Barcelona](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/benefits-homeporting-barcelona/) **Published:** February 8, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Benefits-of-Homeporting-Barcelon.png?resize=900%2C438&ssl=1 "Benefits of Home Porting: Port of Barcelona | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Benefits from Home port Port of Barcelona 2014Source: *Port de Barcelona and Turisme de Barcelona (2014). Cruise activity in Barcelona: Impact on the Catalan economy and socioeconomic profile of cruise passengers.* In 2014, the revenues resulting from cruise activities at the Port de Barcelona, the major cruise port in Europe, were estimated at an average of €202 spending per cruise passenger hosted in Barcelona with an overnight stay in a hotel. This is to be compared to the €57 average spending of cruise passengers without an overnight stay and the average €156 spending of a holiday tourist in the city with an overnight stay in a hotel. The same year, Barcelona port served 841 cruise calls and 2.6 million cruise passenger movements, 1.22 million of which used the port as the starting port of their cruise. In 2019, the number of cruisers per annum exceeded the three million threshold. Per year, Barcelona was found to receive €315.8 million from cruise passenger spending, €121.2 million from cruise lines (shopping and fuel supply services, provisions, terminal services, travel agencies, and tour operator services, etc.), and €5.5 million from crew spending. In 2018, CLIA calculated the spending of a passenger before boarding a cruise at $376 and the spending at a port while visiting during a cruise at $101. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/benefits-homeporting-barcelona/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/benefits-homeporting-barcelona/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/benefits-homeporting-barcelona/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/benefits-homeporting-barcelona/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cruise Home Port Selection Criteria](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-home-port-selection-criteria/) **Published:** December 20, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_homeporting_criteria.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Cruise Home Port Selection Criteria | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Selecting a home port the 10 most significant criteria for cruise linesSource: *adapted from*: *Papachristou A.A., Pallis A.A. and Vaggelas G.K. (2020). Cruise home-ports selection criteria. Research in Transportation Business & Management.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-home-port-selection-criteria/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-home-port-selection-criteria/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-home-port-selection-criteria/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-home-port-selection-criteria/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Oresund](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-handled-ports-strait-of-oresund/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/oresund_system2.png?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Oresund, 1995-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Oresund 1995 2023The Baltic Sea is only accessible through the Strait of Oresund, which gives opportunities for transshipment due to the limited container volumes involved and its lack of appeal for large-scale deepsea services. Transshipment is mainly assumed by Hamburg and Bremerhaven, which are usually the last ports of call for deepsea services towards Europe. However, their volumes have stabilized and even declined in recent years. St. Petersburg is Russia’s most important port, acting as its commercial gateway, but trade sanctions imposed in 2013 and the Ukraine war of 2022 have been associated with a notable decline in traffic and its associated transshipment activities upstream. Gdansk emerged as a gateway to Eastern Europe as well as a transshipment hub servicing the Baltic. As its volumes increase, it becomes an increasingly attractive proposition for deepsea services, implying that transshipment is shifting towards the Baltic. Gothenburg is acting as Sweden’s gateway and handles limited transshipment volumes. Other ports in the Baltic are small feeders since there are few direct services out of the Baltic. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-handled-ports-strait-of-oresund/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-handled-ports-strait-of-oresund/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-handled-ports-strait-of-oresund/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-handled-ports-strait-of-oresund/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Gibraltar](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-handled-ports-strait-of-gibraltar/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/strait_gibraltar_system.png?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Gibraltar, 1995-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Gibraltar 1995 2023The Strait of Gibraltar is a natural bottleneck at the junction of the Mediterranean, North Atlantic, and West African shipping routes. The growth of the Europe / Asia trade has led to the increasing use of the strait for transshipment. Most of this transshipment takes the form of a dual competition between the established hub of Algeciras (on the Spanish side of the strait) and the new hub of Tanger Med (on the Moroccan side). When it opened in the late 2000s, Tanger Med saw the relocation of some of the transshipment activities taking place in Algeciras. Still, both hubs resumed their growth afterward, an ongoing trend as economies of scale continue to be applied to the major Asia / Middle East / Europe routes. They are pure transshipment hubs since more than 90% of their volume concerns transshipment cargoes that do not leave the port. Valencia has also been an active transshipment hub despite involving a higher level of deviation from the main shipping lanes since it provides hinterland cargoes as well. The port of Sines in Portugal is also vying for a share of the transshipment business and overtook Las Palmas, which has been a transshipment hub focusing on the West African trade, a role that has been eroded by the emergence of Tanger Med. A divergence is emerging between the mega-hubs of Algeciras, Tanger Med, and Valencia and the remaining ports of the region. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-handled-ports-strait-of-gibraltar/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-handled-ports-strait-of-gibraltar/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-handled-ports-strait-of-gibraltar/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-handled-ports-strait-of-gibraltar/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Suez Canal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-ports-suez-canal/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/suez_canal_system2.png?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Suez Canal, 1995-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Suez Canal 1995 2023With the growth of the Asia-Europe trade, the Suez Canal experienced a [surge in the number of transits and tonnage](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=364) in the 2000s. This surge has been accompanied by a growth of transshipment activities at Port Said, which is located at the Mediterranean entrance of the canal, and Jeddah on the Red Sea. This traffic leveled off in the early 2010s. The remaining ports in the region are mostly hinterland ports, some vying for a share of the transshipment activity generated around the bottleneck. Still, anchoring transshipment traffic is a complex proposition. For instance, the port of Sokhna (Ain Sokhna) was inaugurated in 2003 on the southern end of the Suez Canal, expecting to become a major transshipment hub, complementing Port Said. However, the port has been slow to attract significant transshipment traffic, which remains under 1 million TEU. The connectivity offered by the Suez Canal concerns first its link between the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea, supporting deep-sea shipping services. The second connectivity is the interlining and feeder services calling at the transshipment ports of the Mediterranean facade (mostly Port Said). The third, on the Red Sea side, offers limited feedering and is primarily concerned with interlining (mostly Jeddah; not shown on the map). This system was seriously disrupted beginning in 2023 with the Red Sea Crisis, which resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of Suez Canal transits. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-ports-suez-canal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-ports-suez-canal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-ports-suez-canal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-ports-suez-canal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Petya Ransomware Cyber-Attack on Maersk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/petya-ransomware-cyber-attack-maersk/) **Published:** December 28, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/maersk_petya.png?resize=900%2C496&ssl=1 "Petya Ransomware Cyber-Attack on Maersk | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Petya Ransomware Cyber Attack on Maersk*Source: Maersk website and The Maritime Executive (28 July 2017).* In the Summer of 2017, a cyber-attack in the form of the “Petya” ransomware affected the Maersk group. The source of the attack is attributed to a Ukrainian accounting software company, whose server had been hacked by the Russian government. Once the accounting software patch was installed on a Maersk computer in its Odessa offices, it spread across the whole network. Maersk contained the attack but had to shut down multiple systems in order to prevent the malware from spreading. For a short while, Maersk Line was unable to accept new electronic bookings on its own systems. Its APM Terminals division suffered from the effects of the attack at 17 port terminals worldwide, including shutdowns or severe slowdowns for cargo operations at Nhava Sheva (JNPT), Rotterdam, Mobile, Alabama, Port Elizabeth, and Port of Los Angeles. Some terminals had to reserve extra storage space for export containers that were temporarily stranded by APM’s inability to access booking data. This attack affected not only Maersk but major supply chain actors such as FedEx and TNT, with damages estimated to be around $10 billion, including $300 million for Maersk. The event sent shock waves through the supply chain, causing all parties to re-evaluate their cybersecurity defenses. It remains one of the most significant attacks yet undertaken. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/petya-ransomware-cyber-attack-maersk/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/petya-ransomware-cyber-attack-maersk/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/petya-ransomware-cyber-attack-maersk/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/safety-security-and-cybersecurity/petya-ransomware-cyber-attack-maersk/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Largest Car Exporters and Importers, 2022](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/largest-car-exporters-importers/) **Published:** November 22, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/car_exporters_importers.png?resize=900%2C404&ssl=1 "Largest Car Exporters and Importers, 2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Largest Car Exporters and Importers 2022*Source: WTO.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/largest-car-exporters-importers/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/largest-car-exporters-importers/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/largest-car-exporters-importers/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/largest-car-exporters-importers/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Large RoRo vessels of the PCTC and PCC type](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/large-roro-vessels-of-the-pctc-and-pcc-type/) **Published:** November 22, 2024 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/large-car-carriers.png?resize=900%2C519&ssl=1 "Large PCTC and PCC vessels | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Large PCTC and PCC vessels### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/large-roro-vessels-of-the-pctc-and-pcc-type/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/large-roro-vessels-of-the-pctc-and-pcc-type/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/large-roro-vessels-of-the-pctc-and-pcc-type/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/large-roro-vessels-of-the-pctc-and-pcc-type/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Mega Car Carriers: the Shaper+ Class](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/mega-car-carriers-the-shaper-class/) **Published:** November 20, 2024 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Shaperplus-Wallenius-1.png?resize=900%2C510&ssl=1 "Mega Car Carriers: The Shaper+ Class | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The first units of the Shaper+ class ships of Wallenius Wilhelmsen are being built by China Merchants Jinling Shipyard (Jiangsu) for deliveries starting in late 2027. These vessels are a supersized version of the regular Shaper Class vessels with a unit capacity of 9,300 CEU (12 decks; 228m LOA and a beam of 38m; first deliveries in 2026). The ‘Shaper+’ Class vessels will count 14 decks and measure 238m in length overall (LOA) with a beam of 40m. The ships will be an integral part of the company’s comprehensive end-to-end, net-zero service for vehicle transport. The above graph compares the vessel size to the parking space needed for 11,700 cars or the ship’s capacity. Every colored bar represents one car. It would require a parking lot of 700m by 400m (assuming only limited space between cars and no connecting roads) to park all the cars that can be loaded on one vessel of the Shaper+ class. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/mega-car-carriers-the-shaper-class/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/mega-car-carriers-the-shaper-class/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/mega-car-carriers-the-shaper-class/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/mega-car-carriers-the-shaper-class/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Extended Distribution Center System of JVC Belgium](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/extended-distribution-center-system-jvc-belgium/) **Published:** January 2, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMGP5840.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Extended Distribution Center System of JVC Belgium | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Extended Distribution Center System of JVC Belgium*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2006. Source: based on Rodrigue and Notteboom (2009).* JVC Belgium was set up in 1999 and is responsible for the European distribution of the products of Japanese electronics producer JVC. The European Distribution Centre is located in Boom, halfway between Antwerp and Brussels in Belgium. JVC Belgium uses inland barges to transport the containers with imported electronics (mostly of Asian origin) to the EDC in Boom. The containers are handled at the inland terminal TCT Belgium, which is part of ECT/Hutchison. The terminal maintains a daily barge connection to Rotterdam and three daily sailings to Antwerp. Over the years, JVC has developed a simple and effective system for transporting containers between Rotterdam and Boom. Instead of giving shipping lines a separate transport order for each container, the company follows the four-day rule. Each container discharged in Rotterdam should be at TCT Belgium within three days. Every morning TCT Belgium informs JVC about the number of containers that are waiting at the inland terminal or will be arriving later that day. JVC picks the containers they like to have in their warehouse that day and these are subsequently delivered by truck to the warehouse during the same day. Trucks take empties on the way back from the inland terminal facility. In the afternoon, the truck bays at the EDC are solely used to supply the regional distribution centers in the European Union. The warehouse management system of JVC considers full containers stacked at TCT Belgium to be in stock like any other inventory within the walls of the warehouse. If a full container load of a specific product needs to be delivered to a regional distribution center somewhere in Europe, JVC might leave the stock in the warehouse and send directly a full container stationed at TCT Belgium, since it has to be moved anyway. There, the cargo of floor-loaded containers is likely to be palletized and brought by truck to inland destinations. The streamlined supply system of JVC Belgium makes optimal use of the free storage time at the deepsea terminal in Rotterdam and the inland terminal. Free time in Rotterdam is limited to around 5 days, while free time at TCT Belgium amounts to 21 days. By imposing the four-day rule on shipping lines, JVC Belgium guarantees the dwell time at the deepsea terminal never exceeds the free time. In other words, JVC has successfully externalized a significant share of its warehousing costs through an optimal combination of deepsea and inland terminal use. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/extended-distribution-center-system-jvc-belgium/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/extended-distribution-center-system-jvc-belgium/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/extended-distribution-center-system-jvc-belgium/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/extended-distribution-center-system-jvc-belgium/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Limon Moin Container Terminal, Costa Rica](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/limon-moin-container-terminal-costa-rica/) **Published:** January 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Moin-primary-3.jpg?resize=900%2C588&ssl=1 "The Limon Moin Container Terminal, Costa Rica | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Limon Moin Container Terminal Costa Rica*Source: Photo courtesy of APMT.* Located about 160 nautical miles from the Caribbean entrance of the Panama Canal, the port of Limon Moin surpassed 1 million TEU for the first time in 2012, six times as much as the second-largest Costa Rican port, Caldera, on the Pacific side. However, the port was limited to alongside drafts of 9 meters and to container ships around 2,500 TEUs (Panamax ships can carry around 4,500 TEUs). The growth prospects of the Costa Rican economy, which ranks among the most stable and competitive in Latin America, underlined that the port infrastructure was inadequate to accommodate traffic growth expectations, larger classes of containerships, and more stringent requirements in supply chain management. In this context, APM Terminals (APMT) secured in 2011 a 33-year concession from the Costa Rican government to design, build, finance, and operate (DBFO) a new container terminal in the city of Moin. This DBFO form of public/private partnership implies that APMT assumes almost all the risk of the 992 million USD terminal project. TCM (Terminal de Contenedores de Moin) is the largest infrastructure project in Costa Rican history. It is meant to support Costa Rica’s growing agricultural export industry as well as an active manufacturing sector. The first phase of the TCM project was completed in 2019. It consisted of an 80 hectares island 500 meters off the Caribbean coast, 650 meters of quay, two berths (alongside depth of 14.5 meters), a 1500-meter long breakwater, an 18-meter deep channel, and six super-post Panamax container gantry-cranes. This enables the terminal to handle ships in the range of 8,500 TEUs, depending on the load configuration. Future expansion phases will place the alongside berth depth at 16 meters, enabling the terminal to handle containerships in the range of 13,000 TEUs. This corresponds to the New Panamax ship class, which is able to transit the expanded Panama Canal. By 2019, the terminal handled more than 1 million TEU as container traffic was transferred from the old Limon Moin container facilities to TCM, which reached 1.3 million TEU in 2023. An important driver for terminal activity concerns reefer (refrigerated containers) exports, mainly Costa Rican bananas and pineapples, the fourth-largest banana exporter and the largest pineapple exporter in the world. To support this activity, the terminal has 3,800 reefer plugs, which is among the top 10 highest in the world. Costa Rica currently has 70% of the global market share for pineapples, with 82% of the US market. Since pineapples are a relatively new commodity on global markets, low levels of market penetration underline a substantial growth potential. Such an important consideration is part of the terminal design, with about 15% of the terminal capacity allocated to handle reefers, which is three times the average. The terminal is expected to reduce further the costs of Costa Rican fresh tropical fruit exports and thus promote their competitiveness and availability on global markets. This will make Limon Moin one of the world’s largest reefer terminals. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/limon-moin-container-terminal-costa-rica/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/limon-moin-container-terminal-costa-rica/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/limon-moin-container-terminal-costa-rica/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/limon-moin-container-terminal-costa-rica/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Amazon Inbound Cross Dock Facilities Network](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/amazon-inbound-cross-dock/) **Published:** October 12, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/amazon_idx.png?resize=900%2C560&ssl=1 "Amazon Inbound Cross Dock Facilities Network | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Amazon Inbound Cross Dock Facilities Network 2023*Source: Adapted from MWPVL International. Note: As of 2023.* The growth of e-commerce has resulted in the setting of a hierarchy of distribution capabilities where the inbound cross-docking distribution center (IDX) is usually the point of entry. These facilities receive and consolidate orders from suppliers. Since a large share of the suppliers are foreign, IDXs mainly aim to [transload import containers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/container-transloading/ "Container Transloading") into truckloads (or less than truckloads) that are delivered to a network of e-fulfillment centers. They are also, to an extent, the entry point for domestic procurement. While retailers have used inbound cross-docking distribution centers extensively in the past, Amazon has replicated this model since the mid-2010s. As of 2023, 36 IDX were operational with two orientations: - **Port-centric**. IDX located in the vicinity of a major container port facility. Since a substantial share of retail goods sold in the United States are imported, it is unsurprising that Amazon has allocated more than 61% of its IDX footprint near a container port. On the West Coast, this footprint is distributed between three major gateways; LA/LB, Oakland, and SeaTac. On the East Coast, the focus is on the eastern seaboard, with the ports of NY/NJ and Norfolk in prominence. - **Inland-centric**. IDX located in the vicinity of a major inland intermodal facility, which represents 39% of the footprint. Many of these facilities are related to long-distance rail corridors linked with West Coast ports, such as Chicago, Memphis, Phoenix, and Dallas. The weighted median center of all the IDX indicates a Pacific orientation in their distribution, underlining a greater focus on transpacific shipping lanes for e-commerce procurement. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/amazon-inbound-cross-dock/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/amazon-inbound-cross-dock/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/amazon-inbound-cross-dock/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/amazon-inbound-cross-dock/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Warehouses and Distribution Centers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/warehouses-distribution-centers/) **Published:** November 10, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/warehouses_distribution_centers.png?resize=900%2C377&ssl=1 "Warehouses and Distribution Centers | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Warehouses and Distribution CentersEven if they may physically look similar, a warehouse and a distribution center have significant differences. A warehouse is a storage-based facility (supply-driven), while a distribution center has a significant throughput orientation (demand-driven). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/warehouses-distribution-centers/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/warehouses-distribution-centers/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/warehouses-distribution-centers/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/warehouses-distribution-centers/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Roro Barges for New Car Transport](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/roro-barges-2/) **Published:** January 13, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/roro-barges.png?resize=900%2C198&ssl=1 "roro-barges | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Roro barges### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/roro-barges-2/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/roro-barges-2/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/roro-barges-2/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/roro-barges-2/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Ramp Configurations for RORO Vessels](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/ramps-roro-vessels/) **Published:** January 13, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Ramp-configurations-roro-vessels.png?resize=900%2C663&ssl=1 "Ramp-configurations-roro-vessels | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Possible configurations for ramps on roro vesselsDifferent configurations exist for ramps on RoRo vessels. The stern quarter ramp is most commonly used for [PCTCs and PCCs](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/#2_Types_of_RoRo_vessels). In the case of PCTCs, the ramp is strengthened for high and heavy cargoes like industrial and agricultural equipment and rolling project cargoes loaded on trailers. [RoPax vessels](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/#2_Types_of_RoRo_vessels) are typically equipped with bow ramps or stern ramps. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/ramps-roro-vessels/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/ramps-roro-vessels/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/ramps-roro-vessels/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/ramps-roro-vessels/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Calais Ferry Terminal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/calais-ferry-terminal/) **Published:** January 13, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/vue-aerienne-port-car-ferry-calais.jpg?resize=900%2C598&ssl=1 "vue-aerienne-port-car-ferry-calais | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Calais Ferry TerminalThe Calais Ferry Terminal is a complex of **fixed ramps, parking areas, gates, and buildings**. The facility accommodates ferries operating across the English Channel. The payload of these ferries includes accompanied trucks, cars, and passengers. Calais is the busiest ferry port in mainland Europe. The crossing time to the English port of Dover is 75 minutes. Trucks and cars enter the terminal via the highway network (A16 and A26). The terminal offers additional facilities to travelers such as ticket offices, ATMs, currency exchange, car hire, bar/restaurant, and showers/toilets. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/calais-ferry-terminal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/calais-ferry-terminal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/calais-ferry-terminal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/calais-ferry-terminal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Wind Turbines as Break Bulk Cargo](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/wind-turbines-break-bulk/) **Published:** April 23, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/8c255509ff8cdc6e45c45660561588f52a7b7b03.jpeg?resize=900%2C506&ssl=1 "Wind Turbines as Breakbulk Cargo | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Heavy lift vessel carrying wind turbine bladesAs of 2022, wind blade equipment is estimated to constitute roughly 20% of ocean-borne multi-purpose heavy lift cargo. It has become extremely important for a number of reasons. It moves almost from everywhere to everywhere and has become a commoditized business in many ways. It has produced a large volume of cargo. These cargos require specialized vessels due to their dimension, not because they are heavy. They need to stow on vessels in a way that makes them more economically viable to transport. As part of the project’s multi-purpose heavy lift cocktail, they have thus become a vital ingredient. Compared to the blades, some of the turbines and the other structures, such as the towers, can get quite heavy. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/wind-turbines-break-bulk/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/wind-turbines-break-bulk/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/wind-turbines-break-bulk/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/wind-turbines-break-bulk/?share=reddit) - --- ### [World’s Largest Ports, 2016](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/largest-ports-world/) **Published:** January 21, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Largest-Ports-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "World’s Largest Ports, 2016 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Largest Ports 2016[PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Largest-Ports.pdf) The global distribution of ports follows the Pareto principle, which states that a small number of ports account for a large share of the traffic. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/largest-ports-world/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/largest-ports-world/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/largest-ports-world/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/largest-ports-world/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Import-Oriented Dry Bulk Terminal: EMO Rotterdam](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/dry-bulk-terminal-rotterdam/) **Published:** January 12, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/EMO-Rotterdam.png?resize=900%2C497&ssl=1 "EMO-Rotterdam | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Import Oriented Dry Bulk Terminal EMO RotterdamMajor bulk terminal – EMO Rotterdam*Source: adapted from website EMO Rotterdam*. EMO is one of the largest dry bulk terminals in Europe, with a **storage capacity** of 7 million tons. The terminal receives some of the largest bulk carriers in the world. Almost 80% of **dry bulk commodities** are transported either via rail or inland barges to the German hinterland. The commodities are used by the steel industry (iron ore and coal), silicon industry (coal used in, for example, the production of solar panels), and the energy sector. The terminal is equipped with five **unloaders** positioned along a **deep-sea quay** of 1350m and a draft of 23m. The average unloading capacity is 200,000 tons a day. A floating crane makes direct board-to-board loading possible. The terminal is equipped with fully automated stacker reclaimers, seagoing vessel loaders, and coal wagon loaders. The terminal operator is also working on automating the unloaders. The terminal offers additional services such as: - **Washing and screening**: EMO can wash and screen 2,500 tonnes of coal daily to remove impurities in the product. - Special **screening installations** are used to separate the clean coal into different grades. - **Blending products**: the terminal is equipped with six blending silos and loaders with a total capacity of 7,000 tons of coal. - **Compacting**: Stored coal is compacted to prevent spontaneous combustion. Compacting means layer-by-layer storage, where each layer will be rolled to prevent as much space for oxygen as possible. From an **environmental** point of view, dry bulk terminals such as EMO invest in reducing noise emissions, energy saving, dust emission reduction (for example, through sprinkler systems), and the more sustainable use of materials. EMO bulk terminal in Rotterdam, the Netherlands### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/dry-bulk-terminal-rotterdam/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/dry-bulk-terminal-rotterdam/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/dry-bulk-terminal-rotterdam/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/dry-bulk-terminal-rotterdam/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Crane Technology at Bulk Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/crane-technology-at-bulk-terminals/) **Published:** January 13, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Equipment-bulk-terminal-cranes.png?resize=900%2C452&ssl=1 "Crane Technology at Bulk Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Common crane types used at bulk terminalsBulk commodities are usually discharged using **grabs** attached to a crane. High-capacity clamshell grabs offer high unloading rates and high efficiency. The bulk handling cranes can be positioned along the quay (quay crane), on a platform/pontoon (floating crane), or on the ship (deck crane): - Common **quay crane types** include portal cranes (mounted on rails), jib cranes, and balanced hydraulic cranes. Lifting capacities can range from a few tons up to 85 tons. **Slewing cranes** are built with **single jib and double jib** designs. The main advantage of the double jib crane is the horizontal path of the load. During the **luffing of the crane**, the grab stays at practically the same height. > **Luffing** is the vertical motion of a crane. **Slewing** is when a crane rotates around its vertical axis. - **Floating cranes** can be used for cargo handling when few quays or no quays are available, or the water depth alongside the quays is too shallow. Large bulk terminals might use floating cranes for direct ship-to-ship or ship-to-barge operations. Floating cranes can also be deployed for ‘topping off’ or ‘lightening’ operations on large bulk carriers (Panamax or Capesize) using ship-to-barge transfers (river) or ship-to-ship transfers (coast or river). In this manner, the vessel draft decreases to a level that allows entry into a port with restricted nautical access. - **Deck cranes** or derricks are cranes installed on the vessel itself. They are particularly used in regions where ports lack the necessary cargo-handling devices. In some cases, **continuous unloaders and loaders** are used: - **Continuous ship unloaders** are equipped with an L-shaped, bucket-elevator-type unloading device that is suspended from the boom. The material to be unloaded is scooped up by the bucket elevator and transferred to a belt conveyor. - **Ship loaders** are mounted on rails that are parallel to the ship and are fed by a conveyor belt. A belt conveyor is utilized on the boom and usually, a shuttle head provides complete coverage of the ship’s hold. The discharge spout incorporates a rotating spoon, which allows the operator greater flexibility when placing the material. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/crane-technology-at-bulk-terminals/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/crane-technology-at-bulk-terminals/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/crane-technology-at-bulk-terminals/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/crane-technology-at-bulk-terminals/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Train Ferries on the Caspian Sea as Part of the Middle Corridor](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/train-ferries-on-the-caspian-sea-as-part-of-the-middle-corridor/) **Published:** October 30, 2024 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Middle-Corridor.png?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Train Ferries on the Caspian Sea as Part of the Middle Corridor | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The train ferries on the Caspian Sea mostly operate as part of China-Europe rail services on the Middle Corridor of the [Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/belt-and-road-initiative-bri/). The **Middle Corridor** is the [shortest route between western China and Europe](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/eurasian-landbridge/), compared with the more frequently used **Northern Corridor** through Kazakhstan and Russia. The Middle Corridor offers a projected 14-18 days of transit time, compared with the 19-day journey through Russia. However, the Middle Corridor still has a low capacity, which is currently estimated to be only about 5% of the capacity of the Northern Corridor. The vessels operated on the Caspian Sea have low capacity and there is a shortage of locomotives and wagons in Azerbaijan and Georgia. As part of the Middle Corridor, ports in Kazakhstan (such as the ports of Aktau and Kuryk) and Turkmenistan (port of Turkmenbashi) are linked across the Caspian Sea to ports in Azerbaijan (Baku in particular). The dedicated rail ferries on the Caspian Sea are operated by Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan government Joint Stock fleets such as the Azerbaijan Shipping Company (ASCo). More than 25 rail ferries are operating on the Caspian Sea. One of the train ferries in operation is the MV Azerbaijan, which has a capacity of 56 railcars. The annual transportation capacity of Caspian ferries is estimated at 95,000 railway wagons or 4.5 million tons of cargo. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/train-ferries-on-the-caspian-sea-as-part-of-the-middle-corridor/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/train-ferries-on-the-caspian-sea-as-part-of-the-middle-corridor/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/train-ferries-on-the-caspian-sea-as-part-of-the-middle-corridor/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/automotive-roro-markets/train-ferries-on-the-caspian-sea-as-part-of-the-middle-corridor/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Ocean-going Cruise Vessels Newbuilds in European Yards by Capacity in Passengers, 2015-2018](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/european-yards-dominate-cruise-ships-newbuildings/) **Published:** March 28, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_newbuilts_europe_capacity.png?resize=900%2C844&ssl=1 "Ocean-going Cruise Vessels Newbuilds in European Yards by Capacity in Passengers, 2015-2018 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ocean going Cruise Vessels Newbuilds in European Yards by Capacity in Passengers 2015 2018*Source: CLIA Europe (2017). Contribution of Cruise Tourism to the Economies of Europe. Brussels: CLIA* Although conventional merchant shipbuilding has declined in Europe since the late 1970s due to low-cost competition from the Far East, the European industry has been more successful in retaining market share in some specialist sectors. The most important is cruise ship construction, in which the European industry has been the world leader for nearly 50 years. The yards in Italy, Germany, France, and Finland are the most important suppliers and account for most ships due for delivery. Germany and Italy are leaders, with 70% of the order book. Europe offers an abundance of specialist skills and sophisticated technology in navigation and outfitting, which support European cruise ship construction and allow yards to maintain a competitive edge. The outstanding reputation of European yards has meant that US cruise lines have continued to order ships from European shipbuilders. Thus, most oceanic cruise ships constructed in the second half of the 2010s were built in European yards. Although other non-European yards have the capacity and technology to build cruise ships, they may not have project management capability, aptitude, or the desired balance of labor and skills required to deliver a cost-effective result within a required budget in the contracted delivery time. However, Far Eastern yards have been studying the market diligently, and prospective orders have been reported for yards in China. Japan had orders for a few ships, but its market participation has been sporadic, with previous ships delivered between 1998 and 2004. Most cruise ships serving the European market are dry-docked in Europe, together with a number of North American ships summering in the region. European yards also undertake major conversions such as replacing main engines and inserting a mid-body to lengthen the ship. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/european-yards-dominate-cruise-ships-newbuildings/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/european-yards-dominate-cruise-ships-newbuildings/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/european-yards-dominate-cruise-ships-newbuildings/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/european-yards-dominate-cruise-ships-newbuildings/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Classification of Cruise Ships by Cruise Lines](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/classification-cruise-ships/) **Published:** January 14, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/classification_cruise_ships_cruise_lines.png?resize=900%2C352&ssl=1 "Classification of Cruise Ships by Cruise Lines | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Classification of Cruise Ships by Cruise Lines*Note: Gross tonnage figures are rounded.* *The Quantum class is subdivided between Quantum ships with a capacity of 4,900 passengers and Quantum Ultra ships with a capacity of 5,500 passengers.* Each cruise line (e.g. the illustrated cases of Carnival, Royal Caribbean, and Princess Cruises) classifies its vessels according to similar sizes and experiences offered to its passengers. About 3 to 6 ships are ordered within a few years, constituting the fleet associated with that class. All cruise ships in a particular class share a handful of amenities and stylings, so a fairly similar experience can be expected across all of the ships. Still, newer ships within a class will likely have better amenities and technologies. Within 5 to 10 years, a new class is introduced, which includes the latest developments in ship design and amenities. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/classification-cruise-ships/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/classification-cruise-ships/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/classification-cruise-ships/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/classification-cruise-ships/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Global Cruise Passengers Carried and Growth Rates, 1990-2024](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/global-cruise-passengers-carried-rates/) **Published:** February 2, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/global_cruise_passengers.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Global Cruise Passengers Carried and Growth Rates, 1990-2024 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Cruise Passengers Carried and Growth Rates 1990 2024*Source: adapted from Cruise Market Watch. Note: Growth rates not depicted for 2020 (-74.2%), 2021 (+96.1%), 2022 (+46.7%) and 2023 (+50.4%).* The global cruise market has witnessed continuous growth throughout the last three decades, a growth that was interrupted in 2020 by the COVID-19 pandemic. In the 1990s and the 2000s, the size of the global cruise markets doubled about every 10 years, representing an annual growth rate of about 7%. Growth rates were relatively lower since the financial crisis of 2008-09. Yet, despite geopolitical difficulties (i.e, the Arab Spring that affected cruising in the Meditteranean) or the negative image produced by the Costa Concordia accident in Italy), the cruise industry has demonstrated a capacity for uninterrupted growth, the pace of which was faster than that of other transport or tourism industries. Only the COVID-19 pandemic represented a major setback. In 2019, almost 30 million single passengers enjoyed a cruise on one of the 400 cruise vessels calling at one of the main cruise regions of the world (North America, Caribbean, South America, Mediterranean, North Europe, Australia, Asia, Africa), generating more than 150 million passenger movements in world cruise ports. At the turn of the century, the number of persons who took a cruise was just over seven million. The global cruise industry remains relatively small compared with the tourism industry, which accounted for 1 billion arrivals in 2011. For instance, it was estimated that about 37 million people visited Las Vegas in 2010, while the global cruise industry carried about 18 million passengers the same year. However, this observation must be nuanced because most cruises typically involve 3 to 5 ports of call with the corresponding number of visits per passenger. Second, the industry remains fundamentally derived from the supply of ships and itineraries. Thus, the strategy is to fill the ships, which are a fixed supply, and when the demand is weaker, discounts are offered to keep the ships full. Third, the customer base of the cruise industry tends to be of a higher income level than the customer base of the tourism industry at large. This market segment is usually less impacted by economic downturns. Further, the growth in income levels in many countries, including developing economies, has expanded the customer base susceptible to taking a cruise. In light of this context, there is little evidence about the full extent of the market potential of the cruise industry and when a saturation point could be reached. The COVID-19 pandemic triggered unprecedented global health and economic crisis. In February-March 2020, COVID-19 outbreaks associated with three cruise ship voyages caused more than 800 confirmed cases among passengers and crew. The whole industry voluntarily suspended worldwide operations, with the timing and the conditions of return remaining questionable. In late April 2020, all global destinations had COVID-19 travel restrictions, while the 2020 prospects suggested a decline in arrivals of 60%-80%. Six months later, the second wave of the pandemic resulted in the postponement of cruise calls in most world ports, including the regions (e.g. in Europe and Japan) that have seen a restart of cruising. As the post-COVID-19 new normal evolves, a precise assessment of the longer-term implications is challenging. 2020 turned out to be the most disastrous year in cruise shipping history, with the number of passengers dropping from 27.5 million in 2019 to just above 7 million. This represented a 75% drop in traffic. After more than one year of hiatus, cruise operations resumed in the Caribbean in June 2021. Some test cruises occurred in the Mediterranean market in the summer of 2020. Throughout 2021, occupancy rates remained low, around 50%, with the number of passengers bouncing back to 13.9 million. In 2022, occupancy rates improved to around 78%, with 20.4 million people taking a cruise, and by 2023, the number of passengers, at 30.7 million, exceeded pre-pandemic levels. However, 2022 brought new challenges for the industry with an increase in the price of food by 20%, an important cost component in a cruise offering. Further, the war in Ukraine impacted Baltic cruises as St. Petersburgh, Russia, could not be called, inciting a redeployment of ships to other markets. Labor shortages were also experienced as Russian and Ukrainian seafarers were much less available. Further, an economic downturn in China seriously undermines future growth prospects in the region. It may incite cruise lines to revise their deployment in a region that, before the COVID-19 pandemic, showed significant growth. However, evidence of continuous growth remains amble. According to the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA), 31.7 million passengers cruised in 2023, the equivalent of 107% of the 2019 total. This compares to overall international tourism arrivals, which stood 12% lower than 2019. Forecasts estimate the reach of 40 million cruise passengers per year as early as 2028. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/global-cruise-passengers-carried-rates/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/global-cruise-passengers-carried-rates/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/global-cruise-passengers-carried-rates/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/global-cruise-passengers-carried-rates/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Kansas City Smartport: The Regionalization of Logistics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/kansas-city-smartport-the-regionalization-of-logistics/) **Published:** January 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Kansas-City.png?resize=900%2C654&ssl=1 "Kansas City Smartport: The Regionalization of Logistics | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Kansas City Smartport: The Regionalization of Logistics Kansas City is after Chicago, the second most important rail transport hub in North America. The city acts as a large terminal organizing regional and continental freight distribution. Located two-thirds of the way between Los Angeles and Chicago, Kansas City is at the heart of a rich agricultural and manufacturing region, making it a substantial freight market but also an important intermediary location within North American trade routes. With the emergence of NAFTA, Kansas City saw a growth of a freight corridor with Mexico dubbed the “NAFTA highway”. KSC (Kansas City Southern), a class I railway company, expanded this corridor with the setting of a direct link with Mexico with its Mexican subsidiary (Kansas City Southern de México), all the way to the port of Lazaro Cardenas on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. Towards the end of the 1990s, it became clear to regional stakeholders that there was a greater need to coordinate development strategies and the territorial organization of transportation and logistical activities within the metropolitan area of 2.2 million inhabitants. The growing quantity of freight being handled, the variety of origins and destinations, and the lack of land in proximity to rail terminals in the central area were all factors inciting a more regional perspective on transport and logistics activities. Established in 2001, KC Smartport is a non-profit organization similar to a port authority and was created by the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, the Kansas City Area Development Council, and the Mid-America Regional Council. It includes 18 counties, 50 cities, two states, several rail terminals (KCS, UP, and BNSF), logistics zones, and free trade zones. The Missouri River has also been open for barge navigation for about 8 months each year and has recently experienced a growth in agricultural goods and chemicals traffic. Several co-located logistics zones have been developed in combination with major terminal facilities such as KCI Intermodal Business Center (Kansas City International Airport) and the [CenterPoint Intermodal Center](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=722 "CenterPoint-KCS Intermodal Center, Kansas City") (new KCS intermodal terminal). Its Board of Directors includes a representative group of public and private actors related to transportation and commerce. Kansas City Smartport is not a logistic zone and does not directly manage any transportation assets. It is a **cooperative governance model** of a regional freight distribution system acting as a comprehensive inland port, which is in itself a cluster of assets. Under such a governance framework, issues of organizational purpose (strategy) are distinct from all other organizational issues (operations). While the Board of Directors focuses on strategic issues, the member companies and institutions are the main actors in operationalizing the strategies agreed upon by the Board. In such a setting, the Board exists on the members’ behalf and is accountable to the members in terms of the soundness and effectiveness of its strategies. This governance model is considered one of the most advanced in North America in terms of its scale (a metropolitan area across two states) and scope (all freight modes represented). It can be considered as a “**coopetitive**” structure where actors agree upon strategies that promote common interests while many of them will be effectively competing in daily operations. KC Smartport has a broad mandate with the general aim of promoting economic growth in the region by attracting firms related to freight distribution as well as undertaking strategies to improve the efficiency of regional freight distribution. To meet these goals, KC Smartport is actively promoting three points: - **Economic development**. A standard marketing function to attract private investments in firms related to warehousing and distribution, third-party logistics, and manufacturing. - **Trade data exchange**. A form of freight community system (automated logistics data clearinghouse) to improve the supply chain visibility through inventory and shipment tracking, reporting, bill payment, and invoicing. This type of initiative enables a more effective of transport and logistical assets in addition to strengthen linkages between regional firms. - **Business services**. Attract firms that provide services to transport and logistics enterprises. One particular category concerns customs and foreign trade zone activities. Kansas City was a pioneer in the setting of **distributed foreign trade zones** (FTZ), which conveys several [operational advantages](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=678) in managing freight distribution, particularly when foreign cargo is involved. Each FTZ is not a unique real estate asset at a single location, but a set of sites (sub-zones), each enabling to exploit a specific locational advantage such as an airport, intermodal rail yard, or highway interchange. A total of 14 FTZ sites accounting for 10,000 acres of land are available. The development of transport and logistics activities requires a wide array of labor skills. Recruiting adequate labor is a common issue in areas with a high concentration of logistics activities that are “draining” the available regional labor. KC Smartport undertook an initiative grouping a critical mass of educational institutions to develop specialized training programs in critical sectors where there is a shortage of labor. The private sector offers several grants for those wishing to develop skills related to transportation and supply chain management. The outcome is creating an educational matrix where each institution offers specific programs based on its resources. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/kansas-city-smartport-the-regionalization-of-logistics/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/kansas-city-smartport-the-regionalization-of-logistics/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/kansas-city-smartport-the-regionalization-of-logistics/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/kansas-city-smartport-the-regionalization-of-logistics/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Ports With at Least One Cruise Berth with Shoreside Power, 2023](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/ports-cruise-berth-shoreside-power/) **Published:** October 22, 2024 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Shore-Power-1.png?resize=900%2C450&ssl=1 "Ports with Cruise Berth with Shoreside Power, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")*Source: CLIA (2024) State of the Cruise Industry 2023.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Shore-Power.pdf) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/ports-cruise-berth-shoreside-power/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/ports-cruise-berth-shoreside-power/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/ports-cruise-berth-shoreside-power/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/ports-cruise-berth-shoreside-power/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Offshore Dry Bulk Handling](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/offshore-dry-bulk-handling/) **Published:** January 29, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/offshore-dry-bulk-handling.png?resize=900%2C333&ssl=1 "Offshore Dry Bulk Handling | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of offshore dry bulk handling activitiesThe offshore handling of dry bulk cargo ranges from simple floating cranes to floating transfer stations with large offshore storage. Cranes are placed on one or more pontoons and connected to a cargo handling system consisting of hoppers, conveyors, and ship loaders (see left picture). The ship loaders have a large outreach and sufficient air draft to be able to deliver cargo on ballast in the holds of a large vessel. In some cases, the transshipment equipment is placed on a ship that is anchored next to other dry bulk carriers (see right picture). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/offshore-dry-bulk-handling/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/offshore-dry-bulk-handling/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/offshore-dry-bulk-handling/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/offshore-dry-bulk-handling/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Deployment of Cruise Vessels: Coupling of Markets](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/coupling-cruise-markets/) **Published:** January 17, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/deployment_cruise_coupling.png?resize=900%2C346&ssl=1 "Deployment of Cruise Vessels: Coupling of Markets | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Deployment of Cruise Vessels Coupling of MarketsCruise lines organize their itineraries and cruise offerings, repositioning their vessels between markets. Repositioning involves **coupling cruise markets** based on their proximity, cost issues, and passenger pattern sourcing. For instance, North Asia and South East Asia are two such markets, with their coupling based on the same sourcing of passengers, the demand for the same product, warm alternative weather, and low-cost repositioning. The coupling of North Asia and Australia provides a warm alternative, robust yields, and low-cost repositioning. An Australia/Pacific-Alaska coupling is justified on the same sourcing of passengers, the same product that is offered in both markets and warm alternative weather for cruise passengers at different times of the year. Finally, the coupling of the Meditteranean market and the North American/Caribbean markets is based on the same sourcing of passengers, the offering of the same product, the warm alternative, and not least, the low-cost repositioning of the vessels. For cruise ports, this coupling of markets implies cruise calls by deployed vessels and cruise passengers hosting in parts of the year only. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/coupling-cruise-markets/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/coupling-cruise-markets/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/coupling-cruise-markets/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/coupling-cruise-markets/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Share of Monthly Cruise Passengers by Region of Destination, 2012](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/share-of-monthly-cruise-passengers-by-region-of-destination-2012/) **Published:** February 5, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/monthly_cruise_passengers.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Share of Monthly Cruise Passengers by Region of Destination, 2012 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Share of Monthly Cruise Passengers by Region of Destination 2012*Source: data from Cruise Market Watch.* The monthly deployment of cruise ship capacity underlines a substantial market seasonality. The Caribbean and the Mediterranean are regional and complementary markets accounting for more than 70% of the global capacity of the cruising industry (measured in bed days). They are complementary in the sense that the Caribbean is dominantly serviced during the winter while the Mediterranean experiences a summer peak season. Seasonality thus plays a key role in the cruise industry and is observed in terms of both the regions of embarkation and destination. North America remains the dominant embarkation region throughout the year, with Europe claiming a 40-50% share during the summer season. They are both perennial markets since they are serviced year-round. Alaska and the Northeast Atlantic (New England / Atlantic Canada) and Australia / New Zealand are examples of strictly seasonal markets that are only serviced during their summer months. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/share-of-monthly-cruise-passengers-by-region-of-destination-2012/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/share-of-monthly-cruise-passengers-by-region-of-destination-2012/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/share-of-monthly-cruise-passengers-by-region-of-destination-2012/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/share-of-monthly-cruise-passengers-by-region-of-destination-2012/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Functional Relations between Inland Terminals and their Hinterland](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/functional-relations-inland-terminals-hinterland/) **Published:** January 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/function_relations_inland_terminals_hinterland.png?resize=900%2C446&ssl=1 "Functional Relations between Inland Terminals and their Hinterland | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Functional Relations between Inland Terminals and their Hinterland*Source: adapted from Wakeman, T. (2008) Marine Transportation of International Freight for the Northeast Corridor, in Anticipating 2025 in Northeast Corridor Transportation: Aerial, Highway, Marine, and Rail Technologies & Linkages, Institute of Public Administration, Public Policy Forum, University of Delaware, Newark, DE. pp. 38-59.* An inland terminal has various integration levels with its hinterland that are contingent upon the concerned economic activities. These functional relations involve a specific array of flows within the facility and between the inland terminal and the activities it services. Succinctly, functional relations can be divided into three tiers: - **Tier I (Inland terminal)**. Concern all the activities and flows taking place within the terminal, particularly intermodal movements (rail car to a storage area and vice versa) and those related to warehousing and stacking in the yard. These flows are closely integrated since they are linked with terminal efficiency and productivity. However, intermodal terminals require a large amount of space to reconcile the operational differences between rail (high volume and low frequency of flows) and trucking (low volume and high frequency of flows). - **Tier II (Logistics node)**. Inbound and outbound freight is linked with distribution centers and other freight activities directly related to the terminal, such as empty container depots and chassis storage. Logistics activities also involve management since these flows must be reconciled with existing demand and transport capabilities in terms of capacity and timely availability. Thus, the second tier is a managerial apparatus of the physical and information flows related to the inland terminal. It functions as a buffer between the terminal and its hinterland (regional economy). It acts as the fundamental hinterland of the terminal. Over this issue, two dynamics are prevalent: one export-oriented and the other import-oriented. Export-oriented logistics are mainly based on consolidation, reconciling commercial flows with load units according to customer demand and level of service constraints. Import-oriented logistics are mainly based on deconsolidation, reconciling inbound load units with commercial flows. This implies several logistics activities such as assembly, transloading, palletizing, and even postponing deliveries to better answer changes in demand. - **Tier III (Freight region)**. This tier is not linked directly to the terminal but to its buffer (second tier) and concerns two distinct flow categories. The retailing sector is dominated by inbound flows that are imbalanced and must be managed by the second tier. The manufacturing sector tends to have more balanced flows, particularly for intermediate activities, and generates substantial outbound flows managed by the second tier, which acts as an extended hinterland. On the opposite side of the spectrum, commodities, particularly if they are containerized, generate imbalanced outbound flows. The ideal would be to reconcile the imbalances of inbound container flows with outbound flows. A **logistics pole** can be defined as the interactions between tier 1 and tier 2 activities, essentially creating a freight buffer for a hinterland. All three tiers, taken together, essentially define a freight region, the dominant market area of an inland terminal. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/functional-relations-inland-terminals-hinterland/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/functional-relations-inland-terminals-hinterland/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/functional-relations-inland-terminals-hinterland/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/functional-relations-inland-terminals-hinterland/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Examples of Heavy Lift Cranes at Breakbulk Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/heavy-lift-cranes/) **Published:** January 16, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Heavy-lift-cranes.png?resize=900%2C377&ssl=1 "Examples of Heavy Lift Cranes at Breakbulk Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of heavy lift cranes### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/heavy-lift-cranes/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/heavy-lift-cranes/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/heavy-lift-cranes/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/heavy-lift-cranes/?share=reddit) - --- ### [AMAX Round-the-World Route, 2005-2007](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/amax-round-the-world-route/) **Published:** November 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/AMAX-Round-the-World.png?resize=900%2C515&ssl=1 "AMAX Round the World | Port Economics, Management and Policy")AMAX Round the World Route 2005 2007*Source: China Shipping Line.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map_AMAX-Round-the-World.pdf) The first round-the-world routes were introduced in 1984 by the Taiwanese maritime shipping company Evergreen. This route took about 69 days and was serviced by about ten containerships of 4,000 TEUs in each direction (Westbound and Eastbound). Each port was thus called twice a week. However, by early 2002 this service was replaced by two pendulum services (North Europe, North and Central America, and East Asia; North Europe, Asia, and the Pacific North West) offering higher service frequencies. In 2005, China Shipping Line (AMAX) introduced a new round-the-world service that included a rotation of ten 4,250 TEU containerships (the maximum size that can go through the Panama Canal) completed in about 67 days. This service was mainly designed to support Chinese exports to Europe and the East Coast of North America and bring back empty containers on the back leg across the Pacific through Los Angeles. In 2007, the AMAX service was discontinued, underlining the challenges of running profitable round-the-world container shipping services in light of competing pendulum services. The expansion of the Panama Canal that took place in 2016 will likely trigger the reconsideration of these services. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/amax-round-the-world-route/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/amax-round-the-world-route/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/amax-round-the-world-route/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/amax-round-the-world-route/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Large Locks in the Port of Antwerp](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/large-locks-port-antwerp/) **Published:** January 8, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/antwerp_locks.png?resize=900%2C467&ssl=1 "Large Locks in the Port of Antwerp | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Large locks connecting the dock systems to the river ScheldtThe port of Antwerp in Belgium is located along the river Scheldt which gives access to the North Sea some 80km downstream. As a result of three **capital dredging programs** on the river and the estuary, completed in the periods 1970–1975, 1997–1998, and 2010–2011, Antwerp can now accommodate vessels with a draught up to 16 m sailing up-river and 15.2 m down-river on a tide-dependent basis. The tide-independent draught is 13.1 m. The Scheldt river is a **tidal river** with a tidal range (low tide vs. high tide) of 3.5m near the northern part of the port and 5.7m near the city center. Large parts of the port area have historically been developed in **dock systems behind locks** in order to provide a constant water depth to the berthed vessels and facilitate cargo handling operations. Some of the **largest sea locks** in the world are found in the port: the Zandvlietlock opened in 1967, and the Berendrechtlock opened in 1989. The Kieldrechtlock is the latest addition: the large lock was opened in 2016 and provided a second nautical access to the left bank port area, next to the smaller Kallolock. Construction of the Kieldrechtlock required nearly three times the amount of steel used to build the Eiffel Tower. The main works included: - Construction of a bentonite slurry wall: 90.000m² - Groundworks: 5.5 million m³ - Excavation works: 9.1 million m³ - Concrete works: 0.75 million m³ - Metal fabrication (lock doors): 8,700 tons - Steel bridges: 3,000 tons - Electromechanical structures: 113 tons - Roadworks In the 1990s, the port of Antwerp decided to start developing terminals on the river (tidal terminals Europe Terminal and Noordzeeterminal and the tidal Deurganckdock), as container ships are time-sensitive and lock operations take time and form a risk (collision). Today all major container terminals in Antwerp have **direct access to the river** without sea locks (including the planned open tidal Saeftinghe dock). In this way, container vessels are not subjected to lock operations, reducing risks and port turnaround time. The tidal difference at the container terminals implies that the vessels go up and or down several meters when handled. To cope with that the systems/ropes used to fix the ship to the quay are adjusted continuously. The height of quay cranes is calculated for high tide. Note that the port of Rotterdam has a tidal range of only 1m, so locks were not needed. The tidal range near the Channel (French ports) can reach more than 10m, such as in St-Malo in France. The English Channel is like a funnel that intensifies high and low tides. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/large-locks-port-antwerp/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/large-locks-port-antwerp/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/large-locks-port-antwerp/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/large-locks-port-antwerp/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Competition between the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/) **Published:** March 6, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Geraldine Knatz, University of Southern California Sol Price School of Public Policy. Executive Director, Port of Los Angeles (2006-2014) > Los Angeles and Long Beach are part of a cluster and are in direct competition for the same market. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Introduction: Adjacent Ports](#1_Introduction_Adjacent_Ports) - [2. Competition for Containerized Cargo](#2_Competition_for_Containerized_Cargo) - [3. Port Rates](#3_Port_Rates) - [4. The Impacts of Global Shipping Line Alliances](#4_The_Impacts_of_Global_Shipping_Line_Alliances) - [5. The Challenges of Port Congestion](#5_The_Challenges_of_Port_Congestion) # 1. Introduction: Adjacent Ports The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, both municipal operations run by their respective cities, are located **directly adjacent to each other** within San Pedro Bay, California. Early development of harbor facilities began on the Los Angeles side of the bay in the mid-19th century and accelerated after 1871 once the federal government began to invest in infrastructure. Long Beach did not begin to develop its port until after 1900 and only received federal aid beginning in 1919. Both Ports became municipal operations of their respective cities by acts of the California State Legislature in 1911 after an aborted attempt to combine the ports under state control. Both cities created semi-autonomous harbor departments headed by citizen commissions charged with overseeing the development of harbor facilities. In the early decades of the 20th century, Los Angeles’s cargo volume grew quickly, surpassing San Francisco as the leading port on the US west coast. While Long Beach was slower in obtaining control of the waterfront and developing its municipal facilities, the discovery of oil in Long Beach in 1921 provided the funds to expand the Long Beach port. Long Beach was able to invest in port facilities without acquiring debt until 1970, while the Port of Los Angeles had to rely first on general obligation bonds approved by the voters and then revenue bonds. As a result, by the middle of the 20th century, Long Beach grew significantly and became comparable in size to Los Angeles. Long Beach’s debt-free status meant that it could offer lower rates than Los Angeles, fueling the rivalry between the two ports as both sought to capture containerized cargo. Since 1980, the two ports passed have [aggressively competed](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1960) to maintain the lead port position on containerized volume in the Bay. # 2. Competition for Containerized Cargo Competition for terminal space within the finite area of the San Pedro Bay ports had traditionally led ocean carriers to **seek dedicated terminals** to ensure their position in the market. There was intense competition between the two ports for containerized cargo, and both ports invested in reconfiguring their existing terminals, filling slips to make marginal wharfs suitable for containerized cargo. Los Angeles’s containerization leasing strategy was to enter into long-term agreements directly with the shipping lines in order to bind their cargo to a Los Angeles terminal for the life of the lease through exclusivity language. Typically, that language required all cargo carried by a particular ocean carrier to call at its home terminal, and if that terminal was congested, cargo could be handled at another terminal but only within the Port of Los Angeles. The Port of Long Beach approach was to lease to stevedoring companies, most notable Stevedoring Services of America (SSA), who would then market the terminal to multiple ocean carriers until they were full. The advantage of the Los Angeles model was locking in a particular carrier’s business, in good times and in bad. The disadvantage was the carrier focused on service to its own customers rather than maximizing the use of the terminal. Over time, Long Beach began to lease their terminals to joint ventures of SSA and a particular ocean carrier as a way to lock that cargo to a specific terminal, and Los Angeles proprietary terminal operators, like Maersk line, began to recognize the need for third-party business. When annual container growth rates reached double digits through the 1980s and 1990s, generally the ports had all they could do to keep developing facilities fast enough to meet the demand of their own customers. Nevertheless, competition between the two ports influenced their actions. Although there have been several instances of litigation between one of the cities against the other port cities, there has been only one case of litigation between the two ports. In 1993, the Port of Los Angeles sued the Port of Long Beach to block the purchase of 725 acres of land from Union Pacific Resources Company that was located primarily within the port Long Beach with some land parcels in Los Angeles or straddling the city boundary. The acquisition was large enough to increase the size of the Port of Long Beach by 35% and included land areas suitably shaped for container terminals. Long Beach’s proposed acquisition posed a competitive threat to Los Angeles, which occurred at the time when both ports were hoping to provide a future home for American Presidents Lines, a Los Angeles tenant that was seeking a larger terminal. Los Angeles maintained in their lawsuit that Long Beach failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act and that a full Environmental Impact Report should have been prepared by Long Beach prior to acquisition. Los Angeles lost the suit, and Long Beach completed the acquisition in 1994. American President Lines stayed in Los Angeles, moving to Pier 300, and the ports vowed to work closely together going forward, a necessity considering they were in the midst of negotiating the purchase of railroad rights-of-way for the [Alameda Corridor Project](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2023). ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/san_pedro_teu2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "San Pedro Bay Ports Container Volumes and Market Share, 1980-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")San Pedro Bay Ports Container Volumes and Market Share 1980 2023![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/monthly_container_port_LA.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Monthly Container Traffic at the Port of Los Angeles, 2005-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Monthly Container Traffic at the Port of Los Angeles 2005 2023![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_la_lb_inland_flows.png?resize=900%2C455&ssl=1 "port_la_lb_inland_flows | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ports of Los Angeles Long Beach Inland FlowsMost of the competition between the two ports occurs between the port’s terminal operators, with the ports’ marketing staff working to facilitate an agreement. A smaller ocean carrier without a proprietary terminal or a long-term commitment to a particular terminal might shift cargo from one terminal to another, seeking better service or rates. Referred to as a third-party business, if a terminal became too congested, the third-party business was a prime target for marketing staff from the other port. Often, the terminal would be in the neighboring port. On rare occasions, when a new land area became available, and it coincided with the end of a long-term lease at one of the existing terminals in the Bay, a major ocean carrier might switch from one port to the other. An example would be Maersk Line’s move from Long Beach to Los Angeles in 2002 and Hyundai’s move to Los Angeles in 2008. # 3. Port Rates Fueled by the ability to develop facilities without taking on debt in the early days of containerization, Long Beach’s strategy of low rates gave them the ability to market the port as the “business-friendly” port. That business-friendly posture was also rooted in a significant governance difference between the two ports. The Long Beach City Charter grants the Long Beach Board of Harbor Commissioners the final say on long-term leases and agreements. In Los Angeles, all long-term leases and any agreement over 3 years or over $150,000 require city council approval. This process could become political and typically add several months to the decision-making process. In 2006, a change in Long Beach city administration brought increased political scrutiny to the Long Beach port and its activities. A review of container minimum annual guarantees for the 13 container terminals in San Pedro Bay in 2015 indicates that Long Beach had higher **minimum annual guaranteed** (MAG) rates per acre than Los Angeles. They ranged from $160,000 per acre per year to $220,000 per acre per year in Long Beach. In Los Angeles, minimum annual guarantees per acre ranged from $118,000 to $176,000 in the same year. The low value of $118,000 reflected a terminal impacted by construction. Once construction was completed, the guarantee would increase to $166,000 per acre. Most customers pay more than the (MAG) rates; however, on a scale that is based on TEU volumes, a higher MAG is not necessarily a competitive disadvantage when overall volumes in the Bay are increasing. The average revenue collected by each port per TEU is very close. Los Angeles container terminal revenue in the fiscal year 2013 was $313,353,000, with a TEU volume handled of 7,778,469 or an average of $40.28 per TEU. Port of Long Beach received $268.3 million in container revenue, handling 6.648 million TEUs for an average TEU revenue of $40.35. Over time, guarantees will change as both city charters require a compensation reset every 5 years. In addition, changes in the ocean carrier industry, including terminal sales, could also trigger lease amendments with compensation resets. Updated values for guarantees are listed in each terminal lease. These leases become public documents once approved by the respective Boards of Harbor Commissioners. Both city charters require a renegotiation of lease agreement compensation every five years. There is one exception to this rule. The Everport lease (Evergreen Line) in Los Angeles includes an annual cost of living increase rather than a five-year compensation reset. This has caused Evergreen’s lease to escalate at a faster pace than the other terminals. To address this issue, during the economic downturn of 2008-2010, the port of Los Angeles waived the annual cost of living increase. Currently, the lowest MAG’s in the Bay Area at the Los Angeles Trapac terminal. Prior to 2006, Trapac’s MAG’s were one of the highest but were lowered to reflect they were the only Los Angeles terminal without an on-dock railyard. Further reductions for Trapac are construction rates during terminal modernization. The rates rise again after construction ends. The MAGS adopted for the new fully-automated terminal in the Port of Long Beach at Piers D/E/F, known as the Middle Harbor project and operated by Overseas Orient Container Line, involves higher rates. The port negotiated these very high rates to support its 1.3 billion dollar investment in this terminal. The terminal, when fully operational, can handle half the current cargo volume of the entire Port of Long Beach. The impact of this mega-terminal on the competitive environment in San Pedro Bay remains to be seen. In addition to the five-year compensation resets required by each port’s city charters, the ports have published tariffs of rates and charges that are periodically increased. The ports can modify specific rates in the tariffs for specific commodities or then implement a General Rate Increase (GRI), which would affect all cargo and other services like pilotage. Neither port, however, has implemented a general rate increase since 2005. # 4. The Impacts of Global Shipping Line Alliances Collectively, the ports are **regional, state, and national assets**. Shippers who move their cargo through San Pedro Bay may know the terminal they do business with but are often oblivious to whether the terminal is in Los Angeles or Long Beach. Recent changes in the global container industry are also contributing to the homogenization of port operations. Traditionally, cargo handled by one ocean carrier, such as Maersk Line, would have moved through a specific terminal in one of the ports. Ships arriving at the ports today often hold cargo from multiple ocean carriers due to the carrier alliance agreements. Thus, the allegiance of a shipping line to one particular port or one particular terminal has become less important. As terminals become **commoditized**, the differentiation between the two ports becomes less apparent. Ocean carriers seek maximum flexibility for their vessel calls at ports and terminals. Unfortunately for the ports, their long-term leases were written before the current consolidation of carriers into mega-alliances. Legacy leases with exclusivity language tying a special ocean carrier’s cargo to a specific terminal or port are becoming difficult to enforce, and carriers have restructured to divest from these commitments. Since the economic recession of 2008, alliance cargo handled by Maersk Line, CMA-CGM, and MSC have switched back and forth between terminals in the two ports. This is reflected in the [market share numbers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1960) for the years 2010 through 2012, where a decline in one port is offset by an increase in the other, while volumes for the bay remained flat. A cargo forecast prepared jointly for both ports in 2009 forecasted annual average growth rates decreasing from the previous forecast by approximately 1%, with container forecasts for the period of 2009-2013 of 1.7%, followed by a period of annual growth averaging 5.5% until decreasing to 4.8% for the years 2020-2030. This is reflective of the changing competitive landscape due to an expanded Panama Canal, terminal expansions in Canada and Mexico, and increased Southeastern Asian cargo using the Suez Canal. # 5. The Challenges of Port Congestion Cargo volumes dropped in the latter half of 2014 and early 2015 due to [multiple issues](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1979) that congested both ports’ container terminals, particularly because of increasing ship sizes and chassis shortages. This loss of cargo and the increased reputational risk triggered a comprehensive collaboration between the two ports in the area of supply chain management despite the fact that the issues were operational and solutions were primarily within the auspices of the port terminal operators and not the port administrations. However, like the terminal operators, the ports have significant infrastructure investments to protect. At one point during the congestion crisis, the Port of Long Beach proposed owning and supplying a chassis fleet as a way to address chassis shortfalls. Although that effort did not materialize, it indicates how the port was willing to move beyond its traditional landlord role to improve operational issues. The Port of Long Beach has also created a senior executive position devoted to supply chain optimization. Building on an earlier joint effort known as the “Beat the Canal” program begun in 2011, with the approval of the Federal Maritime Commission, both ports began to take a more focused interest in supply chain management. In May 2015, the ports announced the creation of stakeholder working groups in seven key areas: Peak Season 2015, Container Terminal Optimization, Chassis, Off-dock Solutions, Key Performance Indicators/Data Solutions, Intermodal Rail, and Drayage. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/congestion_san_pedro.png?resize=900%2C376&ssl=1 "congestion_san_pedro | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Factors behind the Congestion of San Pedro Ports![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/truck_turn_times_san_pedro.png?resize=900%2C419&ssl=1 "truck_turn_times_san_pedro | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Truck Turn Times San Pedro Ports 2015One key indicator of port performance is [truck turn time](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1984), the time it takes the trucker to retrieve the container from the terminal. One early outcome of the drayage working groups is an agreement on the definition of “truck-turn time”. As truckers often appear at the terminal and wait outside until 6 PM when the Pier Pass fee expires (a fee-based incentive program to shift container moves to off-peak hour shifts on weeknights and Saturdays), truckers were reporting turn times that were skewed by their time spent outside the terminals. The agreed-upon definition includes only that time the trucker is actually in the terminal, from clocking in at the entrance gate to leaving the exit gate. --- ## Related Topics - Topic A - Topic B --- ## References - Knatz, G. (2019) Port of Los Angeles, Conflict, Commerce and the Fight for Control, Huntington, CA: USC Institute for California and the West. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Main American Banana Import Ports, 2011](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/main-american-banana-import-ports/) **Published:** January 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-US-Banana-Ports.png?resize=900%2C650&ssl=1 "Map US Banana Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main American Banana Import Ports 2011The United States is the world’s largest importer of tropical fruits with a long history of corporations actively involved in their production, transport, and distribution. For instance, Dole, Del Monte, and Chiquita are household names that have actively been involved in commercializing bananas for more than [100 years](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=6630), with products mostly coming from Costa Rica, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, and Panama. They are among the 10 largest importers of containerized cargo in the United States, with Dole and Chiquita importing respectively the equivalent of 211,000 and 117,000 TEUs in 2010. There is a high level of concentration of the banana trade along a few ports in the United States; the ten largest ports accounting for 91% of the 4.7 million tons imported in 2011. Wilmington, Delaware, handling close to 1 million tons per year, is the largest banana import port in North America, but second to Antwerp, the world’s largest. Since the banana trade is a mass market with constant demand, it is mostly carried in small, specialized, and fast ships that do not require a deep draft. As evidenced on the above map, the main import ports are small niche ports in proximity to major markets. Thus, the shipping companies avoid the risk of congestion and delays that can be prevalent in large port facilities. Ports of the Delaware River (Wilmington, Philadelphia, and Chester) are called instead of New York, where the banana trade used to take place. In the 1980s, Chiquita and Dole relocated their facilities to Wilmington, which created a significant cluster of refrigerated import activities with specialized terminals, on-dock and inland refrigerated warehouses, and labor trained to handle these types of goods. A similar pattern applies on the West Coast, where Hueneme and San Diego are used instead of Los Angeles, and on the Gulf Coast with Gulfport, the dominant facility of the range that replaced New Orleans when United Fruits relocated its facilities. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/main-american-banana-import-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/main-american-banana-import-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/main-american-banana-import-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/main-american-banana-import-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Weekly Vessels Calls in World Ports, 2020 vs 2019](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/vessels-calls-ports-2020/) **Published:** March 30, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Vessels-calls-2020-Globe-.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Vessel Calls In World Ports: 2020 vs. 2019 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Vessel Calls In World Ports 2020 vs 2019 per week Source: *UNCTAD Project (2021; in progress) “Assessing the impact of COVID-19 on the maritime transport systems”. Geneva: UNCTAD.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/vessels-calls-ports-2020/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/vessels-calls-ports-2020/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/vessels-calls-ports-2020/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/vessels-calls-ports-2020/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Ports and the COVID-19 Pandemic](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-and-pandemic/) **Published:** April 2, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Theo Notteboom, Dr. Athanasios Pallis and Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue The COVID-19 pandemic produced new and unprecedented impacts on global supply chains, ports and shipping. The pandemic has been a stark reminder that **external shocks are recurring events** testing the resilience of the port industry. The shape of the industry remains dependent on economic prospects for which it has limited control. Still, the severity of the pandemic is unparalleled since it impacted a **multiplicity of issues all at once**, such as the supply of goods and resources, demand patterns, and even the operations of ships, terminals, and inland freight distribution systems. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Impact on Cargo Volumes and Vessel Calls](#1_Impact_on_Cargo_Volumes_and_Vessel_Calls) - [2. Impact on Container Ship Size and Liner Shipping Connectivity](#2_Impact_on_Container_Ship_Size_and_Liner_Shipping_Connectivity) - [3. Port Authorities: Leading Adaption and Risks Mitigation](#3_Port_Authorities_Leading_Adaption_and_Risks_Mitigation) # 1. Impact on Cargo Volumes and Vessel Calls ## A. Q1 2020: the China effect The Coronavirus emerged in China in December 2019. A full lockdown in China followed in January 2020, with an immediate effect on trade volumes as production activities were halted and ports were forced to downsize their activities. The closure of factories generated a **supply shock** in China. The disruptions in China and later also in other East Asian economies started to disrupt global supply chains, which made container carriers to announce a **first wave of blank sailings**. Given the sailing time between Asia and major markets in Europe and North America, the full impact of these blanked sailings on European and North American ports became only visible from March 2020 onwards. A significant drop in the **[number of vessel calls](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/vessels-calls-ports-2020/ "Weekly Vessels calls in World Ports, 2020 vs 2019")** followed the virus outbreak. On an annual basis, this decline reached almost 10% compared to the year before. The major drop occurred in **passenger ports.** The halting of passenger vessel operations accompanied lockdowns, social distancing, and sanitary measures imposed in several countries. In addition, the cruise industry decided to suspend all its operations. The second most affected type of calls were those by ro/ro vessels. On the other hand, the least impact was recorded in the number of calls by containers. In the early months of the virus, the container volume situation in individual ports was largely determined by their exposure to trade with the Far East. For example, among European container ports, Rotterdam (no. 1 in Europe) and Hamburg (no. 3) handle the highest number of containers in relation to China. Furthermore, China represents about 30% of Hamburg’s container throughput and about one-fourth of Rotterdam’s volume. These figures exclude intra-European transshipment flows linked to the mainline services from/to China. Europe’s second-largest container port, Antwerp, is less exposed to China: 12% of total TEUs handled in 2019. Valencia (no. 5 in Europe in 2019) and Bremerhaven (no. 7) show similar shares of about 10 to 12%. Despite the fact that the effects of the COVID-19 crisis only partially affected the Q1 2020 throughput figures, most non-Asian ports recorded negative growth figures. In the first months of COVID-19, terminal operators faced **an unintended terminalization of the inventory** with high utilization levels of terminal yards and warehousing facilities in ports. Many importers did not take ownership of the cargo since there were limited demand and the uncertainties of receiving the inventory in terms of labor costs and warehousing. It became acceptable to ‘abandon’ the inventory. In some cases, such as in the crude oil business, a part of the inventory was stored on ships and barges to cope with the temporary peak. Then, as demand remained low, the peak inventory situation at terminals and warehouses eased, with a growing number of facilities reporting a moderate or even severe underutilization. Another temporary consequence for shipping lines and terminals was a rebalancing of empty container flows. As demand dropped in North America and Europe, large volumes of empty containers were repositioned back to China and major exporters. This created storage problems at terminals and inland depots until the situation is rectified, assuming that trade resumes to pre-crisis levels and that trade imbalances remain similar. ## B. Q2 2020: The health crisis becomes a pandemic In mid-March, the World Health Organization officially declared the Coronacrisis a pandemic. At that time, the supply shock in Asia faded as factories were reopening on a massive scale. However, the sharp rise in f**ull and semi lockdown situations** in virtually all European countries and parts of the Americas generated a **demand shock**. This resulted in a **second wave in blank sailings** with container carriers withdrawing up to 20% of their network capacity on the main trade lanes and idling more than 2.7 million TEU of fleet capacity or more than 10% of the world’s container fleet. At least 40% of container ports worldwide have experienced blank sailings each week since the pandemic declaration in mid-March 2020. For some ports, the blank sailings implied 20% to even up to 50% fewer vessel calls for April, May, and June 2020, although for most ports, the impact was mainly visible on the main trade routes (e.g. Far East-Europe) and not so much on other trade routes. This wave of blank sailings negatively affected Q2 2020 volumes in main ports on the east-west trade routes. As expected, the vast majority of the large container ports in the world recorded **negative growth figures in the first half of 2020**. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on container volumes has been less severe than the impact on the number of containership calls. The biggest ports of the world (i.e., those handling more than 10 million TEUs per year) experienced on average a smaller decline (-4%) than ports handling 3-10 million TEUs per year (-10%): - The worst performers in H1 2020 among the large **Asian container hubs** included Dalian (-31%), Shenzhen (-10.8%), Port Klang (-9.3%), Shanghai (-6.9%) and Kaohsiung (-6.8%). Tianjin (+2.9%), Qingdao (+0.3%), Singapore (-1.1%), Busan (-1.1%) and Guangzhou (-1.6%) were among the least affected ports in the Far East. - The situation in **North America** was far worse with all top ten ports of the continent recording negative growth. The situation in H1 2020 was particularly bad in Seattle/Tacoma (-18.3%), Los Angeles (-17.1%) and Norfolk (-12.4%), while Houston was able to limit the TEU drop to 2.3%. - In **Europe**, the port of Antwerp was the only large gateway port which was able to reach a volume level in H1 2020 comparable to H1 2019 (+0.4%). Algeciras and Bremerhaven recorded a rather modest decline, while others saw their TEU throughput drop by more than 20% (i.e. Le Havre and Barcelona). Ports less affected by the crisis were those that benefited from their strong focus on containerized basic goods and commodities, as well as from a central position as regional hubs in some shipping lines shipping networks. More vulnerable were the gateway ports serving mainly national hinterlands which are subjected to intense competition for transshipment flows, and with a strong specialization in containerized consumer products mainly originating from Asia. However, for some ports, the trends in handling cargoes continued to be determined by broader developments i.e. take-overs or the dynamics that had been developed in past years. Port pricing plays an essential role in this reconfiguration, with larger ports, possessing more developed hinterland transport systems, more resilient than small and medium-sized ports. Also, ports that have balanced traffic were likely to be less impacted. As liner service rationalization occurs, shipping companies face a more comprehensive **review of their port calls and network configurations**. Port pricing plays an important role in this reconfiguration with larger ports and their more developed hinterland transport systems in a better position than small and medium-sized ports. Ports with a relatively captive hinterland in proximity have more latitude than ports with a more long-distance and fragmented hinterland or those that depend heavily on transshipment. Also, ports that have balanced traffic are less impacted. However, it is not entirely clear yet to what extent sustained declines in traffic could be a factor of cargo concentration or deconcentration in port systems. In the early Spring of 2020, shipping lines started using some of the world’s leading transshipment hubs (such as Bremerhaven, Busan, Panama, etc.) as **advanced yard storage** to convince shippers to begin moving goods early in anticipation of a demand recovery. Shipping lines offering flexible storage solutions to shippers not only minimized booking cancelations but also helped to limit congestion in ports of discharge, thus improving efficiency, as products were placed closer to distribution networks. However, at the same time, shippers generating substantial container traffic (e.g. major retailers such as Arcadeia, C&A, Gap, Levi Strauss, Walmart, etc.) were among those that made no immediate commitment to collect and transport orders completed, stored, and in production. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Vessels-calls-2020-Globe-.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Vessel Calls In World Ports: 2020 vs. 2019 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Vessel Calls In World Ports 2020 vs 2019 per week![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Growth-at-container-ports-2020-2009-crises.png?resize=836%2C447&ssl=1 "Growth of Container Traffic at Major Container Ports, 2019/20 vs 2008/09 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Growth of Container Traffic at Major Container Ports H1 2019H1 2020 vs 20082009## C. Second Half of 2020: Moving to a Demand Peak in Container Volumes In the **late Summer of 2020**, shipping lines drastically reduced the number of blank sailings to accommodate the demand growth: the share of idle vessels in total fleet capacity decreased from 11.6% in May 2020 to only 1.8% in October 2020. In **late 2020/early 2021**, the **strong demand peak** on the Europe-Far East and trans-Pacific trade routes resulted in vessel capacity shortages and severe box availability issues. The demand/supply imbalance resulted in port congestion, box rollings, ship deviations and a historically low schedule integrity. All these factors combined led to [sharp increases of container freight rates](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-container-shipping/shanghai-containerized-freight-index-scfi-and-other-freight-rate-indices/) and further improved the [operating margins of container carriers.](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-container-shipping/average-operating-margins-carriers-quarter/) The demand peak led to a **strong recovery of container volumes** in the main container ports around the world: - **Europe**: Antwerp was the only large gateway port in the top 15 which was able to reach a modest increase of the TEU volume in 2020 (+1.4%). The vast majority of top 15 ports still recorded negative growth figures, despite a modest to strong recovery of container trade volumes in H2 2020. Le Havre (-14.4%), Barcelona (-11%), Genoa (-10%) and Hamburg (-7.9%) were most affected by the Pandemic. These are all gateway ports serving mainly national hinterlands which are subjected to intense competition for transhipment flows, and with a strong specialization in containerized consumer products mainly originating from Asia. Cosco-owned Greek hub port of Piraeus (-3.8%) and the port of Gdansk in Poland (-7.2%), two fast climbers in the European container port ranking in the past years, both recorded negative growth figures for the first time since many years. - **Asia**: Except for Dalian, all major ports in the Far East experienced less volume impacts in 2020 compared to the 2009 crisis. About half of the depicted ports even achieved a modest y-o-y TEU increase in 2020, while only Dalian (-41.7%) and Kaohsiung (-7.7%) had to accept significant volume drops. - **North America**: many North American ports, particularly West Coast ports, reported record monthly throughput figures for late 2020/early 2021, mainly due to consumer spending and large-scale restocking taking place. Volume growth would even be higher if supply chains would not be confronted with equipment shortages (empty containers) and port congestion. This trade volume peak partly compensated the very negative results of H1 2020. For example, the y-o-y TEU loss in Los Angeles declined from 17% in H1 2020 to only 1.5% for the entire year. Comparable trends were observed in other ports. Overall, the ports that have been impacted the most (in terms of an initial steep decline followed by a strong recovery) usually have a strong orientation on consumer products and a strong position as gateways for containerized trade flows in relation to Asia. There is no evidence of a correlation between traffic changes occurring during the 2008-09 financial crisis and COVID-19, either at the regional or global level. The pattern is significantly different. At the regional level, the changes in container traffic patterns observed during the financial crisis cannot be used as a predictor for the potential impacts of COVID-19 on ports and shipping networks. For an external shock such as COVID-19, its impacts are the outcome of how individual ports fit within complex supply chains. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/SCFI-revised4.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Shanghai Containerized Freight Index | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Freight Rate Boom in late 2020early 2021![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/operating-margins-carrier-till-Q1-2026.png?resize=900%2C426&ssl=1 "Average Operating Margins of Main Carriers by Quarter, 2008-2026 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Impact COVID 19 on Operating Margins of Carriers![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/TEU-volume-West-Coast.png?resize=900%2C725&ssl=1 "Container volumes at US West Coast Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container volumes at US West Coast Ports# 2. Impact on Container Ship Size and Liner Shipping Connectivity The **maximum size of the container vessels** deployed at each port continued to increase despite the pandemic as shipping lines continue to exploit economies of scale. As a result, terminal operations and the entire maritime supply chain faced additional pressure as they hosted fewer vessel calls with substantially more cargoes to be handled per port call. A negative trend has been observed across the other components that determine **liner shipping connectivity levels**. The number of liner shipping services, weekly port calls, liner shipping operators, vessel carrying capacity deployed, and direct calls, have dropped over the first half of 2020. The decline intensified since the COVID-19 pandemic was declared in Week 12 of 2020. The negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on liner shipping connectivity levels varied widely at the regional level. In Asia and Oceania, ports experienced a moderate decrease in connectivity levels. Even though China was the first country to face the challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the initial negative effect on the liner shipping connectivity of Chinese ports was relatively moderate. Europe, which was the second wave after China, has seen substantial drops in liner shipping connectivity levels. In North America, the picture was mixed. West Coast port in the United States experienced significant negative trends, especially during the second quarter of 2020. The impact was not as severe on ports located on the East Coast. In Central and Latin America, container ports showed signs of strength as their liner shipping connectivity levels remained steady and, in some cases, increased during the early days of the pandemic. African ports also performed comparatively well. During the second quarter of 2020, the decline of the liner shipping connectivity accelerated. Overall, the ports that have been impacted the most (in terms of an initial steep decline followed by a strong recovery) usually have a strong orientation on consumer products and a strong position as gateways for containerized trade flows in relation to Asia. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Changes-in-average-size-2020-2009-crises.png?resize=866%2C426&ssl=1 "Change in Average Ship Size and Deployed Capacity by Major Port, 2019/20 vs 2008/09 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Change in Average Ship Size and Deployed Capacity by Major Port 20192020 vs 20082009# 3. Port Authorities: Leading Adaption and Risks Mitigation Port Authorities have strived to mitigate the risks and challenges generated by the COVID-19 crisis by adopting a range of responses and measures. **Their responses have been multi-dimensional and** included: - operational adjustments; - financial/economic adjustments; - sanitary protocols and processes; and - adjustments to working practices and organizational aspects. As a result, most ports managed to avoid significant disruptions to cargo operations. This was facilitated by the reduced number of vessel port calls and the reduced maritime trade flows. **Some of the responses at the port level entailed a substantial reorganization of operations.** These include (a) the prioritization of essential services; (b) the reorganization of operations and working conditions due to sanitary protocols; and (c) the advancement of digitalization and communication strategies. **Responding to the COVID-19 challenges required collaboration and coordination among all stakeholders.** When established, collective actions have been more effective in combating risks and improving resilience. Adjustments to governance and communication strategies of parties involved have been equally instrumental. Existing contingency plans have facilitated quick responses to the crisis. Ports that lacked such plans had to take ad hoc responses or develop plans in a short period of time during the crisis. **Sanitary protocols and related measures had to be urgently implemented even within a day.** The capacity to coordinate with national and/or local authorities and communicate with other actors along the chain was critical to the response and coping strategies. The capacity to put in place the necessary protocols when treating (suspected) COVID-19 cases was also key. **Developing guidelines for ensuring a safe interface between ship and shore-based personnel** has been critical, not least due to the nature of the crisis. This has taken place both at the local and at the international level and with support from relevant industry associations and international organizations. The ‘crew changes’ challenge highlighted a need for orchestrating an integrated approach by all. Crew changes have been one of the major issues faced by the maritime supply chain. This is largely due to difficulties related to third parties (i.e. airports, and public policies imposing restrictions to traveling, etc. **For ports, the financial implications of the crisis are manifold and more pronounced in the case of fully privatized ports**. These include (i) the difficulties of ports themselves to continue their financing, (ii) the limited financial capacities of several port providers that are constrained by lockdowns and suppressed demand, and (iii) the challenges imposed on port users. The capacity of ports to adopt urgent and compensatory measures, by, for example, taking advantage of cash flows for early payment of providers, or delay of payments by some of their users, can contribute to mitigating the negative effects of the crisis. **Multidimensional adjustments of working practices** were used to limit personnel shortages Ports were able to diffuse several risks when they allowed for telecommuting, implemented sanitary protocols including social distancing, rearranged working shifts, limited meetings and traveling, took advantage of relevant social policies, and made greater use of technology. Similar adjustments were identified in the case of shipping lines. Responses to the crisis and the ‘back to work practices’ vary in scope and type. Nonetheless, the capacity for active and prompt interventions has proved to be crucial. **Working and operational adjustment measures that helped the sector adapt have been transformational** for the maritime supply chain stakeholders. Digitalization of processes and the use of technology by much of the workforce have triggered the need to revisit operations and upgrade knowledge and skills. **Maintaining landside operations has been the most difficult task for those involved in the maritime supply chain**. Long queues at borders have highlighted the importance of reliable chains when a crisis like a pandemic erupts. These difficulties did not affect maritime countries only. Land-locked and transit countries need to maintain their access to seaports as well. Shippers and ports have worked to address land-side operations, but the ability to adapt has not been always effective. The main instruments used to address these issues have been digitalization and enhanced communications and coordination with other stakeholders and public authorities. Digitalization of interactions and information sharing have been critical to the continuity of maritime transport operations during the pandemic. All seem to agree that digitalization will be a key component of resilience building efforts. **Public policy initiatives have facilitated relief and recovery in the maritime transport sector**. These initiatives have been both economic and operational. Such measures have been adopted at the national level, with the challenge in some countries being the need to align federal and state-level initiatives. Supranational institutions and international organizations have also adopted a long list of initiatives. Applied at a broader scale, these initiatives have facilitated risk mitigation. ## References - Notteboom T.E. and Pallis A.A. (2020;2021). IAPH Port Economic Impact Barometer, various issues, Antwerp: International Association of Ports & Harbors. - Notteboom T.E. Pallis A.A. and Rodrigue J-P. (2021). Ports and Shipping in the COVID-19 Pandemic. Port Technology International, 100, 80-84. - Notteboom T.E. Pallis A.A. and Rodrigue J-P. (2021). Disruptions and Resilience in Container Shipping, Ports and Supply chains: The COVID-19 pandemic vs. the 2008-2009 Financial Crisis. Maritime Economics and Logistics. doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00180-5 - UNCTAD (2020). COVID-19 and maritime transport: impact and responses. UNCATD/DTL/TLB/NF/2020/1. Geneva: UNCTAD. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-and-pandemic/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-and-pandemic/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-and-pandemic/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-and-pandemic/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Containerization, Cold Chains and the Flexibility of Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/containerization-cold-chains-flexibility-supply-chains/) **Published:** January 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cold_chain_flexibility.png?resize=900%2C590&ssl=1 "Containerization, Cold Chains and the Flexibility of Supply Chains | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The example depicted in the above figure is illustrative of how commodity chains can become more flexible with the application of cold chain logistics. Conventionally, langoustines (a type of lobster also known as scampi) were fished off the coast of Scotland and brought to a nearby processing plant where they were mechanically pealed (high water pressure). After a maturation period of about three weeks in cold storage, the langoustine meat was then processed (e.g. cooked and breaded), packed, and then distributed to the main United Kingdom market. By using the cold chain technology at the global level, it becomes possible to relocate part of the process to a lower cost location and at the same time improve the quality of the product. In the above case, after freezing, the langoustines are placed in reefer containers and shipped by containership to Thailand, which takes about three weeks. Such a change in the supply chain appears to be counter-intuitive from a distance perspective as it increases the amount of energy used. However, a few nuances must be brought forward. Since the containerized trade between Europe and Asia is very imbalanced, the cold chain benefits from a significant shipping rate discount on the UK – Thailand transport chain, in the range of 50%. The cargo is carried on containerships, offering economies of scale and the most environmentally efficient mode per unit carried. In Thailand, the Langoustines are manually peeled, which improves the quality of the product. Then, the peeled langoustines are shipped back to the UK. Since the maturation process takes about three weeks, the reefer acts at the same time as a transport unit as well as a maturation warehouse, conferring additional economies since no more warehousing space is required for that process (reduced land take and energy costs). The final stages, processing and packaging, are taking place in the UK market. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/containerization-cold-chains-flexibility-supply-chains/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/containerization-cold-chains-flexibility-supply-chains/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/containerization-cold-chains-flexibility-supply-chains/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/containerization-cold-chains-flexibility-supply-chains/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Strategies of Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/strategies-port-operators/) **Published:** January 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/strategies_terminal_operators.png?resize=900%2C499&ssl=1 "The Strategies of Terminal Operators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Strategies of Terminal Operators### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/strategies-port-operators/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/strategies-port-operators/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/strategies-port-operators/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/strategies-port-operators/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Size of Cruise Terminals in North America](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/size-cruise-terminals-north-america/) **Published:** January 12, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Size-of-Cruise-Terminals-in-North-America.png?resize=877%2C446&ssl=1 "Size of Cruise Terminals in North America | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Size of cruise terminals in North America*Source: Barmello Ajamil and Partners (2016).* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/size-cruise-terminals-north-america/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/size-cruise-terminals-north-america/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/size-cruise-terminals-north-america/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/size-cruise-terminals-north-america/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Terminalization of Cruise Ports: Port of Barcelona](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/terminalization-cruise-ports-barcelona/) **Published:** January 12, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/terminalization_cruise_barcelona.png?resize=900%2C483&ssl=1 "The Terminalization of Cruise Ports: Port of Barcelona | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Terminalization of Cruise Ports Port of Barcelona*Sources: Port of Barcelona; Creuers del Port de Barcelona S.A.; Palacruceros.* The port of Barcelona is the major cruise port in Europe and among the biggest in the world. Used for both home-porting and transit calls, the port hosts over 3 m. passenger movements per year. In 2019, it recorded 800 cruise calls, 875.600 home-porting passengers, and 1.384.696 transit passengers. The port facilitates cruise activities via the operation of several terminals of various sizes. The larger terminals accommodating the biggest cruise vessels are concessioned by the Port Authority of Barcelona to terminal operators. The Port Authority only operates some of the smaller cruise facilities. Founded in 1999, **Creuers del Port de Barcelona S.A.** (Creuers) operates five public cruise terminals at the port of Barcelona: Terminal A, B, C at Adossat pier; and Terminal North & Terminal South at the World Trade Center. In the second half of the 2000s, Terminal A was demolished and a larger facility was built, which has the capacity to serve mega cruise ships. In 2014, Global Ports Holding acquired the majority of Creuers and became the largest cruise port operator in the World. **Palacruceros**, which is owned by the Carnival group, is the operator of two cruise terminals. Terminal D – Palacruceros was opened in 2007, and the total amount invested in its construction has been wholly financed by the Italian company, Costa Crociere. Since then, the terminal has operated under a private concession that guarantees preference to Carnival Corporation ships. Helix Cruise Center is the newest 12,500m² cruise terminal of the port. Completed in 2018, it is considered among the state-of-the-art cruise terminals of the world and is also concessioned to Pacrucreros. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/terminalization-cruise-ports-barcelona/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/terminalization-cruise-ports-barcelona/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/terminalization-cruise-ports-barcelona/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/terminalization-cruise-ports-barcelona/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Potential Impacts of Container Terminal Automation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/potential-impacts-container-terminal-automation/) **Published:** January 7, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/impacts_container_terminal_automation.png?resize=900%2C294&ssl=1 "Potential Impacts of Container Terminal Automation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Potential Impacts of Container Terminal AutomationThe automation of container terminals may impact several aspects of maritime shipping, terminal operation, and logistics. - **Shipping network**. Terminal automation may encourage shipping lines to call at automated ports with their largest ships since these terminals may be able to provide higher throughput, allowing them to use their assets more effectively. An additional form of competition for transshipment hubs could emerge, imposing a rationalization of shipping networks along a hierarchy where automation plays a role. - **Terminal facilities**. Automation promotes the design of new terminal facilities with new arrangements of stacking yards and interactions with the piers and the gates. This changes terminal operations in terms of the availability of terminal capacity, work cycles, and turnaround times. In turn, the velocity of the respective terminal flows changes, requiring adjustments, particularly with inland distribution. - **Terminal footprint**. Terminal automation allows for higher-density use of terminal space. If automation becomes a dominant force in shipping terminal development, then a decline in the terminal footprint could be expected as the same amount of traffic (or more traffic) could be handled with less footprint. In ports with several container terminals, this could imply the closure of less productive terminal facilities. - **Vertical integration**. The digitalization aspect of automation encourages better integration with the providers of logistical services, from carriers, cargo owners, and distributors, as well as regulatory stakeholders (port authority, customs). Therefore, both automation and its associated digitalization increase the velocity of freight and provide new forms of interactions (such as freight markets) between actors. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/potential-impacts-container-terminal-automation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/potential-impacts-container-terminal-automation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/potential-impacts-container-terminal-automation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/potential-impacts-container-terminal-automation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Carrier Haulage vs Merchant Haulage](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/carrier-merchant-haulage/) **Published:** March 11, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/carrier_merchant_haulage.png?resize=900%2C431&ssl=1 "Carrier Haulage vs Merchant Haulage | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Carrier Haulage vs Merchant HaulageIntermodal transportation can be organized under two general models: - **Carrier haulage**. Acting on behalf of the Beneficial Cargo Owner (BCO), the carrier is responsible for organizing transportation between the origin and the destination of the cargo. When an inland movement is concerned, the carrier has to use a third-party motor carrier to transport on its behalf and remains liable. - **Merchant haulage**. A portion of the transport chain, usually hinterland transportation (e.g. from port or rail yard to distribution center), is organized by the BCO or an agent acting on its behalf. The BCO has the choice of selecting its own rail or motor carrier who is liable. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/carrier-merchant-haulage/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/carrier-merchant-haulage/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/carrier-merchant-haulage/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/carrier-merchant-haulage/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Q-flex LNG Carrier "Mesaimeer"](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/the-lng-shipping-market/) **Published:** January 29, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/lng-ship-mesaimeer.jpg?resize=900%2C600&ssl=1 "Q-flex LNG Carrier "Mesaimeer" | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Q Flex LNG carrier Mesaimeer*Photo: Qatar Gas.* **LNG** is natural gas stored and transported in liquid form at atmospheric pressure at a temperature of -161°C (-256°F). Liquefied gas occupies a volume corresponding to 1/600 of the product in the gaseous state, which brings remarkable economic value for transportation and storage. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/the-lng-shipping-market/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/the-lng-shipping-market/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/the-lng-shipping-market/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/the-lng-shipping-market/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Emerging Global Maritime Transport System](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/emerging-global-maritime-freight-transport-system/) **Published:** November 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Emerging-Global-Maritime-System-1.png?resize=900%2C491&ssl=1 "Emerging Global Maritime Transport System | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Emerging Global Maritime Transport System[PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Emerging-Global-Maritime-System-1.pdf) A global maritime freight transport system has been established since the late 19th century and has expanded with containerization. It includes east-west and north-south routes and locations enabling interconnectivity between these systems of circulation, whose main components include: - **Circum Equatorial Route**. With the expansion of the Panama Canal, a relative parity exists for the first time between the Panama and Suez canals. In such a setting, maritime shipping companies may elect to establish circum-equatorial routes in both directions using high-capacity (8,000 to 14,000 TEU) containerships. This high-frequency “conveyor belt” could support a significant share of global east-west freight movements in a cost-effective way. This does not imply a homogeneous service as several different configurations of ports of call are possible along this route, particularly if a 300 nautical mile deviation is considered. This enables different circum-equatorial network configurations. - **North-South Connectors**. These connectors reflect existing commercial relations, namely for raw materials (oil, minerals, agricultural goods), such as South America / North America, Africa / Europe, or Australia / Asia. For container shipping, they are mostly based on the rationale that there is not enough volume to support transoceanic services, so cargo is collected/delivered along a latitudinal sequence of ports. This conventional network will be expanded with transshipment opportunities with the circum-equatorial route. - **Transoceanic Connectors**. These connect a series of ports along ranges of large oceanic masses. The three main transoceanic connectors are transpacific, Asia-Europe (through the Indian Ocean), and transatlantic. The industrialization of Asia (China in particular) has made Asia – Europe and the transpacific connectors particularly important. The emergence of a new connector in the Southern Hemisphere between the east coast of South America, the Cape of Good Hope, and Southeast Asia is also observed. - **[Transshipment Markets](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1620 "World’s Main Intermediate Hubs and Markets, 2008-14")**. They connect regional port systems to transoceanic and circum-equatorial routes, mainly through hub-and-spoke services. The [intersection and relay functions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1627 "The Insertion and Location of Transshipment Hubs") between long-distance shipping services performed by those markets are also significant. The most important markets are Southeast Asia, the Mediterranean, and the Caribbean. They are referred to as markets because the transshipment function can be substituted for another port. Therefore, ports in a transshipment market are vying to attract port calls as this type of traffic is difficult to anchor. The development of circum-equatorial routes is thus likely to expand the opportunities for transshipment. - **[Polar Routes](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=412)**. Consider using circum-polar routes as shortcuts to link East Asia, Western Europe, and North America (both east and west coasts). Even if the distance advantages of these polar routes appear significant, they are subject to the uncertainties of climate change and niche market opportunities. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/emerging-global-maritime-freight-transport-system/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/emerging-global-maritime-freight-transport-system/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/emerging-global-maritime-freight-transport-system/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/emerging-global-maritime-freight-transport-system/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Ship Recycling, Demolition or Scrapping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/ship-recycling-scrapping-demolition/) **Published:** October 23, 2023 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ship_recycling_methods.png?resize=900%2C703&ssl=1 "Ship Recycling, Scrapping and Demolition | Port Economics, Management and Policy")*Source: adapted from OECD (2019), Ship recycling: an overview, OECD/Paris*. The **average ship demolition/scrapping/recycling age** ranges between 20 and 32 years, depending on the vessel type, the freight market conditions, and the demand from scrapyards. When freight and charter rates are high, average demolition ages are typically high since ship assets will be used as long as possible to generate revenue. Regulatory requirements (for example, phasing out of single-hull tankers) and technical conditions (new Panama Canal locks introduced in 2016) can also impact the average ship age for scrapping. According to UNCTAD data, the top three ship vessel scraping countries in terms of tonnage are Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan. There are four types of ship recycling/shipbreaking setups: - **Dry Docking**: The ship is sailed into a dock, and the water is pumped out. Subsequently, workers dismantle the vessel, and upon termination, the dock is cleaned and flooded again. As building and maintaining a dock is relatively costly, this method is hardly used for ship recycling purposes only (in Europe). - **Pier breaking/alongside**: The ship is secured along a wharf or quay in calm waters, where a crane removes the pieces of the ship until the vessel is lifted or sent to a dry dock for final cutting (in China, Europe, and the US). - **Landing/slipway**: The ship is sailed against the shore or a concrete slipway that extends into the sea at sites with little or no tides. The ship is subsequently dismantled using a mobile crane located onshore or on barges. Additionally, temporary quays or jetties are used on-site to use heavy lifting or cutting equipment (common in Turkey). - **Beaching**: Sailing a lightened ship full steam onto a tidal beach so that workers have access to the ship to cut it off into pieces. The metal pieces are recycled in nearby processing plants and sold as ingots (in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan). **Unserviceable vessels are sold** based on their [Lightweight Tonnage](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/terminals-and-terminal-operators/ship-characteristics-capacity-measures/ "Ship Characteristics and Capacity Measures") (LDT). The lightweight of a vessel is the weight of the hull, including machinery and equipment. The length, breadth, depth, and displacement are important factors for buying and selling an unserviceable ship. Generally, 95% of a ship’s body is made of mild steel (M.S.), 2% of stainless steel, and 3% of miscellaneous metals, such as brass, aluminum, copper, gunmetal, and other alloys, which are important factors of ship breaking. Ships also contain stores and other materials ranging from foodstuff to clothing, from electrical to electronics, machinery of most types, life-saving equipment, drugs, and communication equipment. In negotiating the price of a ship to be scrapped, consideration is given to whether it is a dead ship or a running one. In recent years, several countries have tightened regulations pertaining to ship demolition to anticipate the entry into force of the **IMO Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships** of 2009, as well as an EU Ship Recycling Regulation in force since 31 December 2018. The Hong Kong Convention overhauls how shipowners can dispose of tonnage. It gives responsibility to owners to keep a tally of what is on a ship so that recycling facilities can reduce the health risks to workers as well as make owners and re-sellers use only approved facilities that meet specific standards. Ship recycling facilities are required to provide a Ship Recycling Plan specifying how each vessel will be recycled based on its particular characteristics and its inventory of hazardous materials. Voluntary initiatives by industry associations and other domestic policy priorities also induce changes in the sector to make it safer and cleaner. In 2018, China banned the entry of all foreign ships into the country for recycling. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/ship-recycling-scrapping-demolition/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/ship-recycling-scrapping-demolition/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/ship-recycling-scrapping-demolition/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/ship-recycling-scrapping-demolition/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Types of Port Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/types-port-terminals/) **Published:** December 6, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_port_terminals.png?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Types of Port Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Port TerminalsPorts are complexes that include at least one terminal, but larger facilities include a variety of terminals that handle different types of cargo. The composition of these terminals determines the role and function of the port, with some ports being multifunctional while others can be specialized. Terminals come into three major categories: - **General cargo**. Unitized cargo that can be carried in batches and handled by three specialized terminal types; break-bulk terminals, neo-bulk terminals (e.g. car terminals), and container terminals. The latter has become the most prevalent unitized cargo terminal and has been subject to pressures toward economies of scale. - **Bulk cargo**. Loose cargo carried in loads relative to the ship size and the storage capacity. Liquid bulk and dry bulk rely on different transshipment techniques and are, consequently, two distinct categories of bulk terminals. Further, the majority of bulk terminals are specialized to the level of a unique commodity, such as coal, grain, iron ore, natural gas, or petroleum. - **Passengers**. A relatively small element of modern port terminals, with the notable exception of areas with a high intensity of ferry services (e.g. Agean Sea, the Baltic, or Indonesia). Many ferry terminals handle RORO freight. Recently, the growth of the cruise industry has led to the emergence of specialized cruise terminals. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/types-port-terminals/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/types-port-terminals/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/types-port-terminals/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/types-port-terminals/?share=reddit) - --- ### [From Linear to Circular Economic Principles](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/from-linear-to-circular-economic-principles/) **Published:** October 8, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/linear_to_circular.png?resize=900%2C363&ssl=1 "From Linear to Circular Economic Principles | Port Economics, Management and Policy")From Linear to Circular Economic PrinciplesConventional economic systems were mainly built around linear principles, where resources were extracted, transformed, distributed, and eventually disposed of. This principle can be mitigated with recycling mechanisms, where discarded resources can be reinputted into the manufacturing process. Most economic systems have recycling mechanisms, particularly when they are cost-effective. The emergence of circular economic principles aims at a more comprehensive closed-loop system with several feedback mechanisms. It requires an adaptation of linear and recycling principles with a focus on: 1. **Product design**. Products can be designed with a long life cycle in mind, with options to be repaired, upgraded, or remanufactured. 2. **Product use**. A product can go through multiple life cycles, switching consumers through sharing, reselling, or refurbishing. 3. **Recycle**. A conventional approach where, at the end of a product life cycle, its materials will be recovered for other uses. The goal is to minimize the importance of procurement and disposal by ensuring that materials are circulated within the economic system. It is relevant to underline that circular processes should not be conceptually associated with perspectives such as degrowth, which are mainly ideologically driven. Circular processes can be implemented in the context of economic growth, and their effective implementations can even lead to additional growth opportunities with more efficient use of resources and assets. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/from-linear-to-circular-economic-principles/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/from-linear-to-circular-economic-principles/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/from-linear-to-circular-economic-principles/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/from-linear-to-circular-economic-principles/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Implications of Energy Transition for Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/implications-energy-transition-port-infrastructure/) **Published:** November 10, 2023 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/implications_energy_transition_ports.png?resize=900%2C402&ssl=1 "Implications of Energy Transition for Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Implications of Energy Transition for PortsSource: adapted from *Royal Haskoning (2022). The new energy landscape: Impact on and implications for European ports, study commissioned by ESPO and EFIP, 22 April 2022*. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/implications-energy-transition-port-infrastructure/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/implications-energy-transition-port-infrastructure/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/implications-energy-transition-port-infrastructure/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/implications-energy-transition-port-infrastructure/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Ports and the New Energy Landscape](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/ports-new-energy-landscape/) **Published:** November 10, 2023 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ports_energy_landscape.png?resize=900%2C334&ssl=1 "Ports in the New Energy Landscape | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ports in the New Energy LandscapeSource: adapted from *Royal Haskoning (2022). The new energy landscape: Impact on and implications for European ports, study commissioned by ESPO and EFIP, 22 April 2022*. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/ports-new-energy-landscape/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/ports-new-energy-landscape/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/ports-new-energy-landscape/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/ports-new-energy-landscape/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Geofencing at Port Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/geofencing-port-terminals/) **Published:** April 12, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/geofencing_port_terminals.png?resize=900%2C598&ssl=1 "Geofencing at Port Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Geofencing at Port Terminals*Note: Although the above map relates to a real port complex, the geofences depicted are fictitious.* Geofencing creates virtual boundaries that act as notification events when they are crossed. To do so, location and status data of mobile assets (e.g., ships, trucks, containers) must be collected in real-time by a platform that cross-references these locations with set virtual boundaries. Once one of these boundaries is crossed, a log and notification are generated. Geofencing boundaries are commonly points, lines, or polygons. For points, geofencing is usually expressed as a radius from a defined coordinate. Lines involve at least two connected points that can be used to geofence a well-defined corridor, such as a channel, a terminal gate, or a road. Polygons enclose a defined area that can be a jurisdiction or a complex facility, which allows for a more clear definition of whether an asset is inside or outside. Geofencing can be used at several scales and for several functions. On the above map, a port complex can have several geofences used for different purposes. The port area (polygon) can be enclosed by a geofence, allowing AIS data to be used to determine if a ship has entered or exited. Individual terminals can also be geofenced, giving a better level of precision about ship performance, including turnaround time. Specific facilities, such as warehouses or depots (polygons), can be geofenced to track cargo or empty containers. Another type concerns preset boundaries (lines), such as strategic road locations that can monitor traffic and truck turnaround time. The decision to set geofencing boundaries is related to the specific information needs of shipping lines, terminal operators, inland carriers, cargo owners, and port managers. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/geofencing-port-terminals/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/geofencing-port-terminals/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/geofencing-port-terminals/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/geofencing-port-terminals/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Coldironing: On-shore Power Supply for Vessels](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/coldironing-on-shore-power-supply-vessels/) **Published:** January 7, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/175.jpg?resize=900%2C505&ssl=1 "On-Shore Power Supply at the Cruise Port of Vancouver | Port Economics, Management and Policy")On shore power supply at the cruise port of VancouverCold ironing for seagoing vessels and barges implies that a ship at berth uses shore power for the auxiliary engines instead of bunker fuel. This reduces emissions from the ships by a substantial margin, although the reduction in pollution occurs only when the ship is stationary at berth. Power cables are plugged into an electricity supply board at the terminal on one end and to the ship’s power supply board on the other. The power is used for lights, refrigerators, air-conditioners, and other equipment on a ship. The power coming from the shore can be from a separate power generation unit or the power plant supplying power to the port city or town. At present, cold ironing is most widespread in the cruise shipping market and ferry business as the pressure on cruise and ferry terminals to reduce emissions is high, particularly when they are located close to (historical) city centers: - Due to strict local and state environmental regulations for idling ships, early adopters of cold ironing practices are found along the west coast of **North America** (i.e. Vancouver, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and Oakland). Cold ironing for commercial vessels was launched in Los Angeles in 2004 when China Shipping’s container ships were plugged into a dedicated port barge floating close to the berth. - In **Northern Europe**, Scandinavian countries, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands have already developed cold ironing solutions. Since 2010, vessels berthing for more than two hours have switched to a 0.1% sulfur fuel or use alternative technologies, such as shore-side electricity. The EU approved Directive 2014/94/EU on the deployment of alternative fuel infrastructure in 2014. This directive obliges member states to implement alternative infrastructure networks, such as shoreside power technology, by December 2025. The EU’s TEN-T program has indicated that shore power is an area where funding is available to help with up to 50% of the costs of research and 20% of its implementation costs. - Cold ironing technologies are also being implemented in several **Asian ports**. China has included cold ironing in its 12th five-year plan and links it to the existing domestic emission control areas. Despite its potential contribution to promoting green shipping, the cold ironing solution faces some major challenges: - There are challenges related to the **investment cost** (terminal and ship), the **division of these costs** between different stakeholders (shipping line, terminal operator, and port authority), and the break-even cost compared to bunker fuel. - There are still some issues with the **standardization of on-shore power systems** in terms of onboard and terminal equipment and voltages. - Shipping lines are not always eager to invest in retrofitting ships as long as cold ironing possibilities are limited to **only a few ports of call** (a ‘chicken and egg’ problem). Certain ships are not even compatible and suitable for the process of on-shore power. Most new-build ships are pre-equipped. - The large-scale application of cold ironing in a port might require extensive **capacity upgrading of the local or regional power grid.** For example, a large container ship typically requires approximately 1,600 kilowatts (kW) of power. In contrast, at berth, the power requirements can differ substantially (cruise ships need a lot more power), depending on the size of the vessel and the number of refrigerated containers on board. - **Environmental advantages of cold ironing** depend on how clean the shore-based electricity production process is. If shifting the power production from ship to shore increases the load on fossil-fuel power plants and increases air emissions, then the overall impact on emissions might be marginal. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/coldironing-on-shore-power-supply-vessels/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/coldironing-on-shore-power-supply-vessels/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/coldironing-on-shore-power-supply-vessels/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/coldironing-on-shore-power-supply-vessels/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Examples of Nuclear Power Plants in Seaport Areas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/nuclear-power-plants-seaport-areas/) **Published:** February 4, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![Examples of nuclear power plants in ports](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Nuclear-power-plants.png?resize=900%2C223&ssl=1 "Examples of nuclear power plants in ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")*1 – Doel (Antwerp), Belgium, 2 – Borssele (Flushing), the Netherlands, 3 – Vandella II (Tarragona), Spain* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/nuclear-power-plants-seaport-areas/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/nuclear-power-plants-seaport-areas/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/nuclear-power-plants-seaport-areas/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/nuclear-power-plants-seaport-areas/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Examples of Coal-Powered Plants in Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/coal-fired-gas-oil-fired-plants-seaport-areas/) **Published:** February 4, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![Examples of coal powered plants in ports](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Coal-plants.png?resize=900%2C440&ssl=1 "Examples of coal powered plants in ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")*1 – Sines, Portugal (hard coal), 2 – Varna, Bulgaria (bituminous coal and natural gas), 3 – Esjberg, Denmark (hard coal, oil), 4 – Hanasaari, Finland (hard coil, oil), 5 – Rotterdam/Maasvlakte, the Netherlands (hard coal, natural gas, biomass), 6 – Le Havre, France (hard coal, heavy fuel oil).* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/coal-fired-gas-oil-fired-plants-seaport-areas/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/coal-fired-gas-oil-fired-plants-seaport-areas/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/coal-fired-gas-oil-fired-plants-seaport-areas/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/coal-fired-gas-oil-fired-plants-seaport-areas/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Electrification End Uses](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/port-electrification-end-uses/) **Published:** August 13, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_electrification_end_uses.png?resize=900%2C242&ssl=1 "Port Electrification End Uses | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Electrification End Uses*Source: Adapted from US Department of Energy (2024) Port Electrification Handbook, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.* Port electrification has four major end uses: - **Shore power**. Cold ironing has been present in ports for decades, particularly for cruise and ferries, which require high voltage and high loads (e.g. 10 MW on average for a cruise ship). This can be a challenge if multiple ships require shore power at the same time. The introduction of electric vessels is in its infancy and mainly concerns small and short-distance ferries, tug boats, and small service crafts. - **Electric vehicles**. Light duty vehicles such as vans and pickup trucks are the most readily available form of vehicle electrification in ports. Heavy duty vehicles, such as trucks used for intra-terminal drayage, require large battery packs and have a shorter range. Still, the short distances of intra-port movements and drayage are more suitable for electrification than standard trucking. In all cases, the challenge is to install vehicle charging stations that are able to recharge light and heavy vehicles within a reasonable amount of time. - **Cargo handling**. Non-rolling cargo handling equipment, such as cranes, rail gantries, conveyor belts, and even rubber-tired gantries, operate within a defined area or path, which allows for their direct connection to the electric grid. Rolling equipment, such as straddle carriers, forklifts, reach stackers, and loaders, require battery packs and related charging stations. Refrigerated containers (reefers) require power plugs to supply their refrigeration units. - **Buildings**. A port complex includes multiple buildings, such as offices, repair shops, and warehouses. Although these facilities are already electrified, electrification can include climate control (heating and cooling) and improvements in energy efficiency. This also applies to lighting, which is already electrified but could benefit from energy efficiency or solar power generation. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/port-electrification-end-uses/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/port-electrification-end-uses/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/port-electrification-end-uses/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/port-electrification-end-uses/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Fundamental Characteristics of the Maritime Industry](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/fundamentals-maritime-industry/) **Published:** August 7, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/fundamentals_maritime_industry.png?resize=900%2C440&ssl=1 "Fundamental Characteristics of the Maritime Industry | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Fundamental Characteristics of the Maritime IndustryThe [maritime industry](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/elements-maritime-industry/ "Elements of the Maritime Industry") is characterized by several fundamentals: - **Tertiary industry**. The majority of the activities are in the tertiary sector, mainly services to cargo and ships. Some activities, such as fishing and offshore energy extraction are in the primary sector. Others, such as shipbuilding, equipment manufacturing, and port construction, are in the secondary sector. - **Derived demand**. Maritime transportation mainly exists because of other activities for which it provides services. Industrial and manufacturing activities generate movements of raw materials and goods that are carried by maritime shipping and handled at ports. International trade is a key driver of maritime shipping with retail goods accounting for an important driver of container shipping. More recently, the cruise industry has been driven by the growth of tourism and disposable income. - **Capital-intensive**. Since maritime transport is an infrastructure-heavy industry, large sums of capital need to be provided before it can take place. This implies that the cost of entry is very high, and investments need to be made over the long term (decades). While the maritime industry is very competitive, there is a propensity toward oligopolies where a few actors control most of the assets, particularly when capital intensity is high (carriers, terminals). - **Fixed and mobile assets**. This industry is composed of fixed and mobile assets that are interdepent as both need to be present. Ships and inland transportation are the main mobile assets that can be deployed according to market demand. Ports, channels, and superstructures are fixed assets requiring careful planning since they are dependent on local conditions. - **Economies of scale**. The maritime industry is the sector where economies of scale are the most applicable as no other transportation mode can carry such large quantities and volumes. This propensity, while reducing unit transport costs, increases capital intensiveness. Still, the more economies of scale are applied, the greater the need for consolidation (classification) and deconsolidation (atomization), which comes at a cost. - **Transaction-intensive**. The maritime industry is intensive in transactions because of the multiplicity of actors involved, such as shipping lines, terminal operators, regulators, and logistics service providers. Negotiating contracts and rates, abiding by customs regulations, settling transactions and shipping documents such as bills of lading are complex tasks as they involve a multiplicity of markets and jurisdictions. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/fundamentals-maritime-industry/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/fundamentals-maritime-industry/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/fundamentals-maritime-industry/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/fundamentals-maritime-industry/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Marine Sales of International Marine Bunkers, 1925-2000](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/marine-sales-international-marine-bunkers/) **Published:** August 11, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/bunker_transition.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Marine Sales of International Marine Bunkers, 1925-2000 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Marine Sales of International Marine Bunkers 1925 2000*Source: Adapted from Endresen, Ø., Sørgård, E., Behrens, H.L., Brett, P.O., and Isaksen, I.S.A. (2007) “A historical reconstruction of ships’ fuel consumption and emissions”, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112, D12301.* The transition from coal to bunker oil as the main fuel for maritime shipping mainly took place between 1920 and 1950. During this phase, the tonnage of commercial bunker fuel declined, particularly between 1929 and 1950. The main reason is that marine fuel oil (usually bunker C) is about 40% more energy-intensive than bituminous coal per unit of weight. With the same fuel efficiency, an oil-powered ship requires 40% less fuel mass to perform the same voyage. Another factor was the global economic depression in the 1930s, which reduced shipping demand, and World War II, which created substantial disruptions in commercial shipping. By the mid-1950s, global shipping grew rapidly, and the transition from coal to oil was completed, leaving old coal-powered ships to be retired and scrapped. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/marine-sales-international-marine-bunkers/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/marine-sales-international-marine-bunkers/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/marine-sales-international-marine-bunkers/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/marine-sales-international-marine-bunkers/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Number of Ports Managed per Port Authority in Europe](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/number-ports-managed-per-port-authority-europe/) **Published:** February 19, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Number-of-Ports-managed-per-Port-Authority-Europe.png?resize=774%2C391&ssl=1 "Number-of-Ports-managed-per-Port-Authority-Europe | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Number of Cruise Ports managed per Port Authority European Ports 2011 2016Sources: *European Sea Ports Organisation (2011). Fact Finding Report. ESPO; European Sea Ports Organisation (2016). Fact Finding Report. Brussels: ESPO.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/number-ports-managed-per-port-authority-europe/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/number-ports-managed-per-port-authority-europe/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/number-ports-managed-per-port-authority-europe/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/number-ports-managed-per-port-authority-europe/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Benefits and Drawbacks of Port Electrification](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/benefits-drawbacks-port-electrification/) **Published:** July 29, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/benefits_drawbacks_port_electrification.png?resize=900%2C566&ssl=1 "Benefits and Drawbacks of Port Electrification | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Benefits and Drawbacks of Port Electrification*Source: Adapted from US Department of Energy (2024) Port Electrification Handbook, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.* Port electrification has a series of expected benefits: - **Environmental**. One of the core expected benefits of electrification is the reduction of environmental impacts generated by ports. Port equipment, particularly trucks, cranes, portainers, and gantry cranes, were conventionally powered by fossil fuels. Its electrification would result in a significant decline in air and water quality with fewer pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, particulates, and carbon monoxide and discharges into aquatic ecosystems. Electric equipment generates substantially less noise than its fossil fuel equivalent. Since communities in proximity to port facilities and their access thoroughfares are exposed to environmental externalities, the expectation is an improvement in the quality of life. Cost savings can also be realized through better compliance with environmental regulations and related incentives. - **Economic**. While electric equipment can be more capital-intensive, it is also more energy-efficient and has lower maintenance costs, which can lead to lower operational costs. If a port can generate some of its own electricity or if local electric power is low-cost, additional operational benefits can be derived. Electrification can also lead to new economic multiplier effects by attracting related industries, including innovative capabilities in renewables. - **Resilience**. If port electrification involves the development of port electric grids, resilience to power supply disruption can be improved, allowing the continuation of operations. Energy dependence on imported fossil fuels can also be reduced. It is relevant to note that many of these benefits are expected but have not been fully demonstrated. Further, port electrification can be associated with a series of drawbacks: - **Technology**. Equipment in its initial phase of development, particularly electric vehicles, is usually more expensive and less efficient than its fossil fuel counterparts. Making a business case for purchasing electric equipment can be difficult, but costs have been declining with the gradual adoption of electric vehicles. Electric equipment, particularly vehicles, may not be the equivalent of their fossil fuel counterparts as they require charging and may not generate the same amount of power. This can increase the risk of operational disruptions. - **Electrical**. Port electrification significantly increases the load on local power grids, which can be expensive and complex to upgrade. It may require entirely new power generation capabilities, requiring a higher level of coordination with utility providers. With the development of port electric grids, the port is no longer a large electric customer, but also a potential utility provider. - **Implementation**. Since ports are composed of multiple stakeholders, many tenants of the port authority, coordination can be complex. Some stakeholders could be proactive toward electrification, as they may have much to gain, and others may be antagonistic, particularly if electrification disrupts their business model. From a labor perspective, electrification disrupts the workforce by reducing those related to the operation of fossil-fueled equipment and requiring new sets of skills for the electric equipment. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/benefits-drawbacks-port-electrification/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/benefits-drawbacks-port-electrification/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/benefits-drawbacks-port-electrification/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/benefits-drawbacks-port-electrification/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Digital Twin, PNIT, Busan New Port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/digital-twin-pnit-busan-new-port/) **Published:** November 7, 2022 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2022-11-03-134021.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Digital Twin, PNIT, Busan New Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Digital Twin PNIT Busan New Port*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2022.* Container ports are highly suitable infrastructures to be represented as “digital twins”, which are exact virtual representations in terms of positionality, scale, and dynamism. Since both physical and virtual representation should be indistinguishable, the digital representation (the digital twin) can be used for terminal operations and simulation. This is particularly the case for terminal automation, which requires a highly accurate digital representation for automated guided vehicles and automated gantry cranes to operate and navigate within a facility composed of a large number of mobile (cranes, containers, vehicles) and immobile (routes, storage, yards, piers, buildings) elements. Creating a digital twin requires reconstructing a digital reality out of a “digital shadow” of the real world. The above representation is a digital twin of Pusan Newport International Terminal (PNIT), a container terminal facility in Busan, South Korea. Its purpose is to offer an accurate simulation environment to plan the allocation of ships, berths, and yard equipment for improved container handling and throughput. This is particularly important as Busan is a major transshipment hub in East Asia, highly connected to Chinese, Japanese, and North American trade. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/digital-twin-pnit-busan-new-port/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/digital-twin-pnit-busan-new-port/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/digital-twin-pnit-busan-new-port/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/digital-twin-pnit-busan-new-port/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Intra-Port Competition in Busan New Port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/intra-port-competition-busan-new-port/) **Published:** June 15, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Busan-New-Port-1.png?resize=900%2C541&ssl=1 "Intra-Port Competition in Busan New Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Intra Port Competition in Busan New PortBusan New Port became operational in 1997 as an extension of the port of Busan. Over time, the port complex acquired six major container terminals, leading to an intense level of intra-port competition. Each terminal has an annual capacity above 2 million TEUs. The latest facility, Busan Container Terminal (BCT), is an automated terminal that became operational in 2022. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/intra-port-competition-busan-new-port/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/intra-port-competition-busan-new-port/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/intra-port-competition-busan-new-port/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/intra-port-competition-busan-new-port/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Dimensions of Intra-Port Competition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/dimensions-intra-port-competition/) **Published:** June 15, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/dimensions_intra_port_competition.png?resize=900%2C580&ssl=1 "Dimensions of Intra-Port Competition | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Dimensions of Intra Port Competition### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/dimensions-intra-port-competition/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/dimensions-intra-port-competition/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/dimensions-intra-port-competition/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/dimensions-intra-port-competition/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Behavioral Factors Influencing Cargo Routing Decisions and Port Choice](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/behavior-port-choice/) **Published:** January 15, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/economics-rationality.jpg?resize=838%2C570&ssl=1 "Behavioral Factors Influencing Cargo Routing Decisions and Port Choice | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Behavioral factors Humans do not always behave in a fully rational way, which could affect the choice of a route, a transportation mode, or a port: - Incorrect and incomplete market information on the possible alternative routes available to supply chain managers and shippers results in ‘**bounded rationality’** in the transport chain design, leading to sub-optimal decisions. Shippers sometimes impose bounded rational behavior on freight forwarders and shipping lines, as in the case where a shipper asks to call at a specific port or to use a specific land transport mode, even if this port or mode might not be the most efficient solution from a rational economic point of view. - **Opportunistic behavior** of economic actors or informal commitments to individuals or companies might lead to non-cost minimizing decisions. Some customers might not consider using other ports or transport modes because they assume that the **inertia and transaction costs** associated with transferring activities to other ports or modes do not outweigh the direct and indirect logistics costs connected to the current non-optimal solution. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/behavior-port-choice/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/behavior-port-choice/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/behavior-port-choice/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/behavior-port-choice/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Sustainable Competitive Advantage of Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/sustainable-competitive-advantage-ports/) **Published:** June 11, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ports_competitive_advantage.png?resize=900%2C308&ssl=1 "Sustainable Competitive Advantage of Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Sustainable Competitive Advantage of Ports### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/sustainable-competitive-advantage-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/sustainable-competitive-advantage-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/sustainable-competitive-advantage-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/sustainable-competitive-advantage-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Terminals of the World’s Major Terminal Operators, 2021](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-worlds-major-port-holdings/) **Published:** January 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Terminal-Surface-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Container Terminals of the World’s Major Terminal Operators, 2021 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminals of the Worlds Major Terminal Operators 2021*Source: Adapted from Drewry Shipping Consultants.* [PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Terminal-Surface-1.pdf) The footprint of global terminal operators is substantial, with an average terminal size of around 45 hectares. However, the figure is biased by a small number of very large terminal facilities, as the most common size is 30 hectares. Port holdings are mainly the outcome of horizontal integration through expansion and mergers, leading to a high level of concentration of the global containerized throughput. Four major port holdings have substantial global assets of about 50 dedicated port terminals each; APM Terminals (controlled by the Danish maritime shipper Maersk; 51 terminals), Dubai Ports World (DPW; 54 terminals), Hutchison Port Holdings (Hong Kong; 55 terminals), and the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA; 42 terminals). Jointly, they controlled through various equity stakes 202 dedicated maritime container terminals in 2021. Their assets are [geographically diversified](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=796 "Regional Share in the Terminal Portfolio of the Largest Global Terminal Operators (Hectares, 2018)"), with Pacific Asia being the main focus of HPH and PSA, South Asia and the Middle East having DPW well represented, and APM having a portfolio with a strong North American emphasis. They are particularly focused along the world’s main commercial gateways, such as the Pearl River Delta (Hong Kong) and the Rhine / Scheldt Delta (Rotterdam and Antwerp). Several other port holdings exist, owned by specialized private companies (such as SSA for North America or Eurogate for Europe), by ocean carriers (MSC and Maersk have notable assets), or by financial holdings (Ports America owned by AIG), but their focus is mostly regional. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-worlds-major-port-holdings/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-worlds-major-port-holdings/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-worlds-major-port-holdings/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/container-terminals-worlds-major-port-holdings/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Evolution of the Role of Human Resources at Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/evolution-role-human-resources-ports/) **Published:** June 6, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/hr_evolution_ports.png?resize=900%2C388&ssl=1 "Evolution of the Role of Human Resources at Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Evolution of the Role of Human Resources at Ports*Source: Joan MacLeod, Human Resources Director for Port of Halifax, Canada.* Joan McLeod, who has 42 years’ experience at the Port of Halifax, Canada recently put together a chart characterizing the changes in the role and responsibilities of the port’s Human Resources Director. She has witnessed a change not only in the functions of the human resources staff but also in the expectations of employers and employees. “The HR function has moved away from processing paperwork to making sure innovative individuals are chosen and equipped to excel, and ensuring employees feel valued in the organization,” said MacLeod. “In the future, human resources will undoubtedly take on more of a talent management persona, focused more on performance and productivity. That’s going to require a total transformation in thinking.” ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/evolution-role-human-resources-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/evolution-role-human-resources-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/evolution-role-human-resources-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/evolution-role-human-resources-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Sample Mission Statements from Port Websites](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/mission-statements-port/) **Published:** June 6, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_mission_statements.png?resize=900%2C470&ssl=1 "Sample Mission Statements from Port Websites | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Sample Mission Statements from Port Websites A port mission may focus on contributing to the economic development of the local economy and job creation (Maryland, U.S.). The port may view itself as a steward of a particular geographic region (Oakland, CA). The Port of Gladstone, Australia’s mission statement incorporates the principle of reducing social inequality, in their case, specifically to address the needs of indigenous peoples. Gladstone Ports Corporation in Queensland Australia, was one of the first ports to develop a Reconciliation Action Plan to raise the living standards of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. The importance of their relationship with the indigenous population is reflected in the mission statement: “facilitate the prosperity of others.” ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/mission-statements-port/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/mission-statements-port/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/mission-statements-port/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/mission-statements-port/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Main Impediments for Carriers to be Involved in Alliances](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/main-impediments-for-carriers-to-be-involved-in-alliances/) **Published:** January 26, 2023 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Impediments-alliances.png?resize=900%2C418&ssl=1 "Main Impediments for Carriers to be Involved in Alliances | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main impediments of alliances for carriers Alliance membership comes with challenges and impediments for the carriers involved, as summarized in the above scheme. Alliances come with a loss of some **operational independence** for their members. While alliances play a key role in capacity management on the main East-West routes, carriers, therefore, show an increased level of pragmatism when setting up vessel sharing agreements (VSA) with other carriers on these and other trade routes. The design of joint liner services and the selection of ports of call can sometimes result in hefty negotiations between alliance members, particularly when one or more alliance members operate their own carrier-owned global container terminal networks. Alliance membership can overcome a lack of economies of scale and network effects of individual carriers. However, the more extensive the global service network and fleet of a member becomes, the fewer benefits alliance membership brings in this respect. Alliances also imply a certain loss of **strategic independence**. Alliance membership becomes more difficult to reconcile with far-reaching [vertical integration strategies of carriers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-container-shipping/#5_Vertical_Integration_Extending_the_Scope_of_Operations). Alliances typically play a strong role in company survival during depressed market conditions. However, the added value of alliances might be less obvious during ‘good times’ when carriers enjoy healthy financial positions. Alliance membership can imply r**egulatory headaches** for its members. For example, alliances are under legal scrutiny by the EU. In 2009, the EU adopted a **Consortia Block Exemption Regulation** (Commission Regulation (EC) No 906/2009), allowing shipping companies to operate joint liner shipping services. This regulation was prolonged in 2014 by five years and was due to expire on 25 April 2020. After a lengthy and heated public consultation launched in September 2018, the EU decided in late 2019 to prolong the regulation for another four years till 25 April 2024. In August 2022, the EU launched a new review round of CBER, inviting all parties concerned – container shipping companies, customers of logistics service providers, freight forwarders, and operators of ports and terminals – to provide their feedback to the European Commission by October 2022 on the possible extension of the regulation beyond 2024. In October 2023, the **EU decided not to extend the CBER beyond 25 April 2024**. The EU’s move to remove the industry’s exemption marks a first step towards ensuring more competition in the container sector in the years ahead. Since late April 2024, shipping companies continue to be able to cooperate after the end of the CBER with the alliances now falling under the existing EU competition rules in this area, which apply to all industries. In other words, liner shipping alliances serving European trades now fall under the EC’s general competition rules for horizontal cooperation between companies. **Alliances are not illegal in the EU context**. Instead, they are evaluated under an existing set of rules. Still, the end of the CBER might lead carriers to re-evaluate the benefits and costs of alliance formation and could eventually results in the disappearance or restructurering of the large existing alliances covering East-West trade routes. Regulatory scrutiny is also found in the US. The supply chain crisis in the US of 2020-2022, which was particularly felt in the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, incited US President Biden to take aim at the shipping’s exemption from competition law during his State of the Union in early March 2022. He announced his administration would target regulations that allow carriers to collaborate on vessel sharing and other elements in the supply chain. However, the strong stance of President Biden against carriers and alliances is at odds with the results of an investigation by the **Federal Maritime Commission (FMC)**. The Chair of the FMC has made several statements in favor of alliances. The idea that alternative arrangements might be worse than alliances, is a much-stated notion in regulatory circles. In May 2022, a new Ocean Shipping Reform Act was passed, addressing many of the grievances of users and service suppliers to the container shipping lines. Customers of carriers might act against alliances in case they feel their interests are negatively affected. In a 2022 communication, the **global forwarders’ association (FIATA)** called for a rethinking of regulatory antitrust exemptions and vessel-sharing agreements in support of shipping lines to ensure they remain fit for their intended purpose. FIATA considers that a more appropriate regulatory response would be to grant permissions to shipping lines, rather than exemptions, to deviate from antitrust law in certain prescribed situations. This would retain the regulatory intent, whilst allowing for certain criteria to be developed for such benefits to ensure they are not misused. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/main-impediments-for-carriers-to-be-involved-in-alliances/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/main-impediments-for-carriers-to-be-involved-in-alliances/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/main-impediments-for-carriers-to-be-involved-in-alliances/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/main-impediments-for-carriers-to-be-involved-in-alliances/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Top 15 container ports in the European Union in 2023](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/top-15-container-ports-in-the-european-union-in-2021/) **Published:** March 3, 2022 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Top-15-EU-2023-1.png?resize=900%2C557&ssl=1 "Top 15 Container Ports in the European Union | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Top 15 container ports in the European Union in 2023[Port performance measurement](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-efficiency/) covers a wide array of key performance indicators (KPIs) related to supply chain performance, productivity, connectivity, sustainability/energy transition, corporate social responsibility (CSR), financial performance, customer satisfaction, innovation and economic impact. Still, it remains relevant to observe how cargo volumes have evolved over time, as cargo flows and related activities remain the bread and butter of many managing bodies of ports. The table shows the container throughput in TEU in 2023 for the top 15 containers ports in the European Union as well as the growth figures for 2022-2023, 2021-2022 and 2007-2023. The year 2007 preceded the financial crisis of 2008-09. > *The top 15 EU ports combined handled 72.5 million TEU in 2021 or 5.3% more than in 2022.* This compares to -4.2% in 2022 and +5% in 2021. The economic and geopolitical situation is reflected in the handled container volumes. The top three ports in the EU all recorded a traffic decline of around 7% in 2023 adding to a TEU drop of more than 5% in 2022. Among the top 15 ports, only Gioia Tauro, Piraeus and Sines handled more containers in 2023 compared to 2022. These three ports are characterized by a high sea-sea transhipment incidence. The Spanish transhipment port Algeciras, Polish gateway port Gdansk, and Ports of Genoa all recorded a small drop in container throughput. A traffic loss of 5.5% in the Genoa port area was largely compensated by an exceptional 30% growth in Savona/Vado Ligure managed by the same port system authority. French ports HAROPA and Marseille were hit by massive double-digit TEU decreases in 2023. Spanish ports Valencia and Barcelona faced a drop in container throughput of about 5 to 6%. Benelux ports Rotterdam and Antwerp-Bruges remain by far the largest container ports in the EU. Piraeus became the fourth largest EU port in 2023 but keeps a respectable distance from Hamburg. When taking a longer-term perspective, the TEU growth in a few ports can be considered rather underwhelming. The 2023 container throughput figures of German ports Hamburg and Bremerhaven, and French port HAROPA remained below the volumes handled in 2007, the year before the start of the financial-economic crisis. On the other side of the spectrum, relative newcomers Gdansk, Sines and Piraeus recorded the biggest traffic gains in the period 2007-2023, while Valencia performed the best among the more long-established container ports. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/top-15-container-ports-in-the-european-union-in-2021/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/top-15-container-ports-in-the-european-union-in-2021/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/top-15-container-ports-in-the-european-union-in-2021/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/top-15-container-ports-in-the-european-union-in-2021/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Green Port Dues: The Environmental Ship Index (ESI)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/green-port-dues-environmental-ship-index/) **Published:** January 7, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/ESI-logo.png?resize=900%2C434&ssl=1 "The Environmental Ship Index program | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Environmental Ship Index programPorts can implement voluntary programs to incentivize ship operators to green their ships. Green ship operators, in return, receive a benefit, such as a discount on port dues. An example is the **[Environmental Ship Index (ESI)](https://www.environmentalshipindex.org/)**. The index was created by major ports in cooperation with the **International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH)** and has been fully integrated into the IAPH’s governance structure since 2020. ESI is administered by **Green Award Foundation**, a non-profit organisation that offers a certification and port incentive program for shipping. > The **Environmental Ship Index** portal enables ports and other interested parties to incentivize ships to use cleaner engines and fuels with preferential treatment offered either through discounts on port dues, bonuses or other benefits commensurate with a specified level of cleanliness. ESI is a voluntary tool that includes a formula-based evaluation of vessels’ nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur oxide (SOx) emissions. The calculation also rewards vessels that are equipped to use available onshore power and which demonstrate fuel efficiency improvements over time, reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) and particulate matter (PM) emissions. The ESI has become the **established standard** by which port authorities and maritime administrations incentivize ship owners and ship owners/operators to continuously improve the environmental performance of the fleets calling at their terminals. ESI has been recognised by the **International Maritime Organisation (IMO)** as the standard basis for port incentives for low- and zero-carbon ships. **Green Award Foundation** administers and manages the more than 8,400-strong database of ships and 59 incentive providers already registered on the index. The strongest representation comes from the container shipping sector, with over half of the world fleet registered. Tankers (gas, chemical, and oil) are also well represented, with 28% of the world fleet. The focus is on growing the number of registered dry bulk and general cargo vessels as well as ro-ro and cruise vessels. Green Award is a global, independent, non-profit quality assurance organization with the primary task of certifying ship managers and vessels that go beyond the industry standards in terms of safety, quality, and environmental performance. The foundation works closely with maritime authorities and classification societies and provides data to Equasis (the database containing safety-related information on the world’s merchant fleet). In March 2024, it was announced that the ESI is entering a new phase with revised and expanded modules and formulae, and the introduction of new GHG and innovation modules. By 2026, ESI’s revised and expanded offering will take into account a range of potential emissions, introduce a new GHG methodology, and reward innovation and application of zero-emissions techniques onboard vessels. The new ESI will also address global concerns about the environmental impact of vessels on marine life. For example, from 2026 ESI will offer a new option to reward the mitigation of underwater radiated noise. The **revised format of ESI** will better align with global regulatory changes, in particular at the IMO and EU. While ports or other public authorities could, in principle, also decide to implement **strict regulation on emission criteria** for ships entering the port (i.e. dirty ships are not granted access), such access restrictions have only been implemented in a few ports around the world. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/green-port-dues-environmental-ship-index/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/green-port-dues-environmental-ship-index/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/green-port-dues-environmental-ship-index/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/green-port-dues-environmental-ship-index/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Regional Share of Hectares in the Terminal Portfolio of the Largest Global Terminal Operator, 2021](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/regional-share-terminal-portfolio-global-terminal-operators-hectares/) **Published:** January 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/regional_hectares_gto.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Regional Share of Hectares in the Terminal Portfolio of the Largest Global Terminal Operator, 2021 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Regional Share of Hectares in the Terminal Portfolio of the Largest Global Terminal Operator 2021There is a substantial geographical diversity of terminal assets among two groups; the four major holdings (HPH, PSA, DPW and APM) and the smaller terminal operators. DP World and APM Terminals have the most diversified portfolio of terminals in terms of geographical spread and can thus be considered the most “global” of the global terminal operators. However, a [level of regional orientation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=783) is already evident. APM Terminals does not have a presence in Australia, while DP World has only a very small presence in North America (CenTerm in Vancouver). PSA and HPH have a limited presence in North and South America. The strong global character of the largest operators contrasts with the regional orientation of smaller holding companies. Stevedores tend to have a much higher regional orientation than terminal operators controlled by shipping companies. Three stevedores, Ports America, Eurogate, and Shanghai International Port Group, are strictly regional operators. Shipping companies such as Cosco and CMA-CGM are embarking on a substantial transnational strategy, mostly by securing concessions at smaller terminals. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/regional-share-terminal-portfolio-global-terminal-operators-hectares/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/regional-share-terminal-portfolio-global-terminal-operators-hectares/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/regional-share-terminal-portfolio-global-terminal-operators-hectares/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/regional-share-terminal-portfolio-global-terminal-operators-hectares/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Conditions for Port Privatization](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/conditions-port-privatization/) **Published:** January 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/conditions_port_privatization2.png?resize=900%2C495&ssl=1 "Conditions for Port Privatization | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Conditions for Port Privatization*Source: adapted from UNCTAD meeting on Globalization of Port Logistics: Opportunities and Challenges for Developing Countries, December 2007, Geneva.* A set of conditions, namely the bidding process, can be made available to favor a more efficient port privatization process. One of the most complex issues concerns conditions related to labor. In many countries, ports are a significant employment source, even if this labor productivity is low (social port). Privatization will inevitably lead to less labor employed, commonly by a factor of 50%. This is particularly the case if a terminal facility is expanded or converted for containerization. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/conditions-port-privatization/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/conditions-port-privatization/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/conditions-port-privatization/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminals-and-terminal-operators/conditions-port-privatization/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Nicaragua Canal Project](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nicaragua-canal-project/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue and Dr. Theo Notteboom > Plans for a canal crossing in Nicaragua first emerged in the 19th century to provide a maritime shortcut between the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. In the 21st century, new ambitions emerged to construct such a canal in view of introducing a direct competitor to the Panama Canal. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Historical Perspectives](#1_Historical_Perspectives) - [2. The 21st Century Nicaragua Canal Project](#2_The_21st_Century_Nicaragua_Canal_Project) - [3. Challenges and Risk Factors](#3_Challenges_and_Risk_Factors) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Historical Perspectives The idea of constructing a Nicaragua canal can be traced back to the 16th century. Still, no concrete construction plans were developed for another three centuries due to a lack of technological knowledge, means, and concrete market demand. Nicaragua represented [one of the options considered](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=405 "Central American Interoceanic Canal Routes Considered") for an interoceanic route in Central America. In the 19th century, the United States became interested in building a transoceanic canal, and in 1890 dredging works started at the San Juan River in Nicaragua. However, the work was suspended in 1893. In 1899, the American government established an Isthmian Canal Commission to investigate two routes, one via Nicaragua and the other via Panama. The Commission report came out in 1901 and favored the Nicaraguan route. However, the US Senate voted for the Panama route, in large part because of a sharp decrease in the asking price for the real estate and assets owned by the French New Panama Canal Company. Further, the completion of a trans-isthmian rail connection in Panama between 1904 and 1914 reinforced the appeal of Panama. In the late 1920s, just a decade after the Panama Canal was completed, US interest in the Nicaragua Canal resurged as capacity concerns over the Panama Canal would incite the consideration of a second interoceanic waterway. However, the plans to construct the Nicaragua Canal were shelved in 1931 due to a combination of factors. The Great Depression eased the fears of future capacity shortages at the Panama Canal and shifted investment priorities outside the United States. Furthermore, the enormous construction costs and fears over nearby active volcanoes (fuelled by some deadly eruptions in the late 1920s) were important deterring factors. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Interoceanic-Central-American-Canal-Routes-Considered.png?resize=900%2C475&ssl=1 "Interoceanic Central American Canal Routes Considered | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Interoceanic Central American Canal Routes ConsideredFrom the late 19th century to the 21st century, the Nicaragua Canal option occasionally resurfaced, with various stakeholders expressing interest in constructing or financing the project. However, these interests never went further than surveys and feasibility studies that traced possible routes. # 2. The 21st Century Nicaragua Canal Project The strong growth of transpacific trade in the late 20th and early 21st century occasionally raised concerns about the capacity of US West Coast ports or the Panama Canal to handle the traffic. While the United States was historically the main actor for large infrastructure projects in Central America, geopolitical changes resulted in China and proxy interests to become more proactive in infrastructure development that supports its national interests. In 2013, the Nicaragua Canal option again came to the fore, with the announcement that a 100-year concession had been signed with a Chinese company registered in Hong Kong (HKND Group). In late 2014, a route was officially retained, which is divided into two segments connecting Lake Nicaragua. The West Canal from the Pacific crosses the Isthmus of Rivas at Brito, a segment of about 26 km. One lock system is expected to be built midway along this segment. Then, Lake Nicaragua is used for 107 km. The East Canal connects Lake Nicaragua to the Caribbean Sea over 127 km and will also require the construction of a lock. On both sides of the expected canals, new ports were planned. This iteration of the Nicaragua Canal project had a minimum water depth of 26.9–29.0 m, thus accommodating vessels with a draft of 24–26 m, which are too large to pass through the expanded Panama Canal. The canal could easily accommodate all existing and planned container ships, 320,000 DWT VLCC (very large crude oil carriers), 400,000 DWT bulk carriers, and other mega vessels with these water depth conditions. The Nicaragua Canal would thus surpass by far the capacities of both the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal in terms of nautical characteristics. However, by 2016, the project had stalled, and limited information about its status has been released since then. In 2018, HKND closed its head offices and was dissolved, underlining that in all appearances, the Nicaragua Canal project has once again been abandoned. The project represents a list of complex challenges and risk factors that have, over time, prevented its materialization. # 3. Challenges and Risk Factors ## a. Construction costs The expansion of the Panama Canal underlines the technical feasibility of the Nicaragua project but also its engineering complexity and costs. Due to the length of the canal, several physical obstacles (e.g. Isthmus of Rivas) would necessitate the construction of locks and the requirement to accommodate large ships in both directions at once. Construction costs would be excessive, with some estimates placing them at more than 40 billion dollars, and delays and cost overruns almost always plague megaprojects. This represents a very high sunk cost before any revenue can be generated. In comparison, the expansion of the Panama Canal had a price tag of about 6 billion dollars and handled more than 250 billion dollars worth of cargo per year. Thus, securing long-term financing is a challenge because of high costs and limited knowledge about potential returns on investments. Taking into consideration the competition with the Panama Canal, there would need to exist a substantial trade volume to support such a project. ## b. Geophysical and environmental risks The Nicaragua Canal project passes in an area of [volcanic and seismic activity](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=6411), one of the reasons why Panama was initially retained for a transoceanic canal. There is thus a risk of potential damage to infrastructure and even closure. The project would also go through wetlands and conservation areas, implying negative impacts on ecosystems. The canal route crosses Lake Nicaragua, the country’s largest freshwater lake. Canal dredging and shipping activities may seriously impact the lake’s water quality and ecological environment. Shipping activities on the canal would seriously affect biodiversity and the protection of endangered species. The Nicaragua canal shipping activities would negatively affect the surrounding tropical rainforest, forest wetlands, natural and biosphere reserves, and other ecological systems. Shipping ballast water could also cause marine biological invasion. The canal project would also destroy local archaeological sites, disrupt the lives of indigenous people, and cause damage to other social environments. ## c. Political and governance risks Nicaragua has a history of political instability, and its governance system is thus prone to risks. According to Transparency International, its corruption perception index for 2013 was 29/100, which is very low (ranked 130 out of 176 countries). Nicaragua is thus perceived as a highly corrupted country where the rule of law is not effectively enforced. Until 2021, Nicaragua had no diplomatic relations with China, which was a potentially large risk to Chinese investors. The Chinese government repeatedly and officially warned Chinese companies not to get involved in this risky project in any way. The stronger economic and diplomatic exchanges between China and Panama undermine plans for the realization of the Nicaragua Canal. Major transoceanic canal projects, such as Panama and Suez, have required setting up an independent governance structure to manage infrastructures and operations. These projects are self-financed and highly independent of political interventions. It is uncertain if such a governance structure can be established in Nicaragua, increasing risks to investors and potential users. ## d. Market potential and competition The Nicaragua Canal project is designed to accommodate the long-term expectations of substantial growth in global maritime trade, particularly in Latin America. Recent years have underlined that global trade is experiencing lower growth rates, particularly concerning its main drivers; North America, Europe, Japan, and China. It remains uncertain to what extent this shift will be compensated by a growth in trade concerning Latin American countries, including their relations with new trade partners such as China and India. There are strong competitors for the Nicaragua Canal project, which cannot take the “first mover” advantage. The high construction costs would put pressure on the Nicaragua Canal to impose high tolls for capital recovery. The expansion of the Panama Canal in 2016 brought additional capacity, but compared to Nicaragua, it faces fewer pressures to impose high tolls (less capital investment). If necessary, Panama would also respond with a second expansion phase, placing additional competitive pressures. Compared with Panama, Nicaragua offers limited-time advantages concerning maritime deviation, one day depending on the route. Furthermore, the [North American](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=7251) and Mexican landbridges also offer niche alternatives, in addition to the several [dry canal projects](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=469 "Dry Canal Projects in Central America") pursued by several Central American countries. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Nicaragua-Canal.png?resize=900%2C600&ssl=1 "The Nicaragua Canal Project | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Nicaragua Canal Project![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Dry-Canals-Central-America.png?resize=900%2C475&ssl=1 "Dry Canal Projects in Central America | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Dry Canal Projects in Central AmericaThe Nicaragua Canal project remains a technically feasible option that may not be suitable in the current commercial context but could eventually take shape. However, this is usually a stepwise process requiring the presence of port infrastructure on both facades as well as a highway and rail corridor. The chance that the canal will ever be built remains low. --- # Related Topics - [Chapter 1.5 Interoceanic Passages](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=317) ## References - Chen, J., Notteboom, T., Liu, X., Yu, H., Nikitakos, N., Yang, C. (2019) The Nicaragua Canal: Potential Impact on International Shipping and its Attendant Challenges, Maritime Economics and Logistics, 21 (1), 79–98 <https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-017-0095-3> - Clayton, L.A. (1987) The Nicaragua canal in the nineteenth century: Prelude to American Empire in the Caribbean. Journal of Latin American Studies 19 (2): 323–352. - Huete-Perez, J.A., A. Meyer, and P.J. Alvarez (2015) Rethink the Nicaragua Canal, Science, 347 (6220): 355. - McCrary, J.K. (2015) Nicaragua: Biodiversity on canal route already at risk, Nature, 525 (7567): 33. - Yip, T.L., and M.C. Wong (2015) The Nicaragua Canal: Scenarios of its future roles. Journal of Transport Geography, 43, 1-13. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nicaragua-canal-project/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nicaragua-canal-project/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nicaragua-canal-project/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nicaragua-canal-project/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Greening of Terminal Concessions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/greening-of-terminal-concessions/) **Published:** January 7, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** [![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/green_port_concessions.png?resize=900%2C462&ssl=1 "Green Port Concession Agreements and Processes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4426)Towards green concession agreements and processes*Source: adapted from NOTTEBOOM, T., 2010, Green concession agreements: how can port authorities integrate environmental issues in the terminal awarding process?, Port Technology International, issue 47, Autumn 2010, ISSN 1358 1759, p. 36-38* One emerging field of action for landlord port authorities relates to the inclusion of **green factors when awarding terminals to private terminal operators**. Land for port development is scarce, making the [concessioning of terminals to private stevedoring companies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2601) a primary task of landlord port authorities. Key issues in the concessioning of terminals include the allocation mechanisms used for granting seaport concessions, and determining the concession term and concessions fees. The inclusion of special clauses in the concession contract aimed at assuring that the terminal operator will act in the interest of the port authority and the wider community (for example, throughput guarantees) is common. A well-designed concession policy allows port authorities to retain some control over the organization and structure of the supply side of the port market while optimizing the use of scarce resources such as land (for a full analysis refer to [terminal concessions and leases](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2601)). When deciding what site to award, port authorities could more explicitly look at the **environmental quality of the port site.** Brownfields might be more expensive to redevelop but often lead to higher spatial quality and regeneration of older port sites. Port authorities could also include more stringent construction guidelines for port infrastructure and superstructure. Such measures could include using a minimum percentage of green energy or the installation of cold ironing facilities. In the **[awarding or selection phase](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2601#6_The_selection_phase)**, port authorities often include a **pre-qualification stage.** The number of candidates is narrowed down based on minimum requirements related to their financial strength and relevant experience in operating facilities for similar cargo in the same or other ports. **Environmental performance** can constitute a new additional element in the qualification phase of a terminal awarding process. By doing so, possible candidates are rewarded for their market scale and financial potential. They will have taken initiatives previously to develop a green policy at other terminals in their portfolio. There is scope to more explicitly integrate environmental performance in the selection process next to more traditional criteria such as throughput expectations, financial performance, the price bid, and socio-economic impacts in terms of value-added created and employment effects. Port authorities should also consider the inclusion of green elements in the **[post-bidding phase](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2601#7_Postbidding_phase)**, such as by including **[environmental clauses](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/clauses_green_concessions2.png "Most Common Clauses in Green Concessions")** that go beyond simply stipulating that the terminal operator will have to comply with local, national, and supranational environmental legislation. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/greening-of-terminal-concessions/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/greening-of-terminal-concessions/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/greening-of-terminal-concessions/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/greening-of-terminal-concessions/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Most Common Clauses in Green Concessions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/common-clauses-green-concessions/) **Published:** May 3, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/clauses_green_concessions2.png?resize=900%2C533&ssl=1 "Most Common Clauses in Green Concessions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Most Common Clauses in Green ConcessionsThe main environmental clauses that can be part of a terminal concession include: - The compulsory use of some sort of **environmental management reporting system**. - Stipulations on **emission levels**. - Specific **technical equipment** to be used to limit emissions. - Causes of existing or future **contamination** of the terminal site. - **Modal split** targets. A small number of recent terminal contracts include **modal split specifications**, particularly for container terminals. This mostly takes the form of some **technical specifications and compulsory investments** to be done by the terminal operator in hinterland transport infrastructures on the terminal site. In only a few cases, the modal split clauses explicitly impose a **specific modal split** on the terminal operator to be reached by a certain year (for example, 40% road, 40% barge and shortsea, and 20% rail by a specific date). The **modal split target** is often formulated as a **soft objective** (an intention). However, soft targets are best kept outside the contractual setting as they cannot be legally imposed on the terminal operator. The port authority can encourage terminal operators to reach soft targets through favorable pricing or awarding systems (the ‘carrot’ approach). The setting of **hard targets** in the concession agreement implies binding clauses and enforcement (penalties for non-compliance). In following such a stick approach, port authorities often face the problem of posing credible threats. For example, terminal operators confronted with **hard modal split clauses** will argue that the distribution of cargo over the various inland transport modes is largely affected by exogenous factors such as the supply chain practices of their customers, the pricing and quality of rail and barge services and infrastructure policy (of the government) outside the port area. However, terminal operators can positively influence the modal split on their terminal through pricing (for instance, a dwell time fee system or pricing of moves to inland transport modes), actions to increase the transparency of information flows (which makes cargo bundling towards rail and barge easier) and [extended gate solutions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3456) in the hinterland (for instance by setting up satellite terminals in the hinterland). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/common-clauses-green-concessions/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/common-clauses-green-concessions/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/common-clauses-green-concessions/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/common-clauses-green-concessions/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Green Production](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/green-production/) **Published:** May 2, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/green_production2.png?resize=900%2C208&ssl=1 "Green Production | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Green Production### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/green-production/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/green-production/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/green-production/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/green-production/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Maritime Capital Index and Container Traffic, 2020](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/maritime-capital-index-and-container-traffic-2020/) **Published:** January 19, 2022 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/maritime_capital_index_teu.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Maritime Capital Index and Container Traffic, 2020 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maritime Capital Index and Container Traffic 2020*Source: Adapted from Menon Consulting (2022), Maritime Capitals of the World. Note: The lower the score, the higher the ranking. Each selected city was ranked according to a series of ranking criteria within five major categories (Shipping centers, maritime finance and law, ports and logistics, maritime technology and competitiveness). The index is the unweighted summation of the average score for each category.* Correlating the [Maritime Capitals Index](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7/port-city-relationships/world-maritime-capitals/ "Maritime Capitals Index") with traffic in TEU for 2020 can be an indication of the level of physical connectivity between the city and the port. For several port cities, the TEU figures are regionalized (Tianjin traffic is accounted for Beijing; Le Havre for Paris; and Piraeus for Athens). Cities that are above the trend are more logistically-oriented while cities below the trend tend to be more service-oriented. Four categories can be identified: - **A**. First tier maritime capitals deeply connected to maritime shipping. Singapore and Shanghai are two maritime capitals the most associated with physical port traffic and its associated logistics segments. Still, a distinction must be made between gateway and transshipment activities since maritime capitals such as Singapore, Busan, and Dubai are handling substantial intermediary cargoes that are not processed within their logistical clusters. Cities such as Shanghai, Rotterdam, Guangzhou and Antwerp are major gateways with a strong logistical component. - **B**. First tier maritime capitals that are highly connected to shipping, but with many having evolved towards maritime services, particularly ownership, finance, insurance and management. The majority are still major ports (Hamburg, New York, Athens), but others (London, Oslo, Copenhagen) have limited maritime activity and focus on maritime services. For Houston, the specialization in other port activities, such as petrochemicals, does not fully reflect its importance as a port. - **C**. Emerging maritime capitals deeply connected to shipping. They tend to have a more recent history of container port activity and the maritime service sector is not proportional to the level of port activity. Maritime capitals such as Ningbo, Qingdao and Los Angeles are major cargo gateways, but do not have a proportional complex maritime service ecosystem. - **D**. Lower tier maritime capitals that can be separated by a higher propensity towards services (lower triangle) or toward cargo handling (upper triangle). The effect of transshipment is noted for capitals such as Panama City, Colombo and Valencia. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/maritime-capital-index-and-container-traffic-2020/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/maritime-capital-index-and-container-traffic-2020/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/maritime-capital-index-and-container-traffic-2020/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/maritime-capital-index-and-container-traffic-2020/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Realms of Action in Green Logistics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/realms-action-green-logistics/) **Published:** April 29, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/action_green_logistics2.png?resize=900%2C274&ssl=1 "Realms of Action in Green Logistics | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Realms of Action in Green LogisticsThe main fields of action in green logistics are related to: - **Eco-friendly packaging**. Packaging characteristics such as size, shape, and materials impact distribution due to their effect on the transport characteristics of the goods. Better packaging, along with rearranged loading patterns, can reduce materials usage, increase space utilization in the warehouse and the transport modes, and reduce the amount of handling required. For instance, having strong and sturdy pallets ensure their long-term use. Systems that encourage and adopt returnable packaging require a strong customer-supplier relationship and an effective reverse logistics channel. Efficiencies in packaging directly affect the environment. In many countries, take-back legislation on packaging has made packaging operation and planning a critical environmental logistics consideration. - **Eco-friendly transport mode choice and synchromodality**. Environmental pressure from the customer base, society, and legislation forces companies to use greener alternatives for logistics. Advancing GSCM requires a massive re-engineering of supply chains in favor of a modal shift to environmentally friendly transport modes and synchromodality. Modal shift and co-modality policies have been implemented to incite the use of barges, rail, and shortsea shipping. Modal shift and co-modality have been expanded to include the notion of synchromodality, which is defined as “the optimally flexible and sustainable deployment of different modes of transport in a network under the direction of a logistics service provider so that the customer (shipper or forwarder) is offered an integrated solution for his (inland) transport”. Implementing a synchromodal solution requires the involvement of several actors. Shipping lines, terminal operators, inland terminals, inland transport operators, 3PL companies, shippers, and public authorities all play a role in developing synchromodal solutions. A synchromodal approach assumes that the shipper books without specifying the mode, thereby leaving modal decisions to logistics service providers. This renders the whole transport system more flexible in terms of modal choice. Synchromodal transport is particularly effective for corridors and regions where sufficient volumes are present, allowing for economies of scale supported by modes such as rail and barge. - **Load and route optimization**. One example of load optimization can be to send a truck only as a full truckload (FTL). Route optimization is about reducing transport costs, time or distance. By choosing the best route, it is possible to save fuel and reduce emissions. Synchromodality allows for the consolidation of cargo consignments and finds the optimal route, thus achieving additional efficiency benefits. - **Green distribution networks and distribution hubs**. GSCM incites logistics service providers to include green considerations in the design and implementation of distribution networks and the location choice and operational modalities of their distribution hubs and warehousing facilities. The type of product mainly influences these choices and the frequency of delivery, but green considerations are increasingly considered when making such decisions. For example, distribution network configurations might involve internalizing the environmental costs of transport and distribution, such as through environmental taxes such as a CO2 tax. The future configuration of distribution systems has an impact on cargo routing patterns. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/realms-action-green-logistics/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/realms-action-green-logistics/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/realms-action-green-logistics/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/realms-action-green-logistics/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Panama Canal: Gatun Locks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-gatun-locks/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/gatunlocks.jpg?resize=850%2C565&ssl=1 "Panama Canal: Gatun Locks | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Panama Canal Gatun Locks*Photo: Dr. Gordon Wilmsmeier, 2013.* The Gatun Locks are at the north end of the Canal and are composed of two lanes and three lock chambers. Southbound vessels are approaching from the Atlantic (Caribbean) to be raised 26 meters in three steps to the level of the artificial Gatun Lake. After crossing the Gaillard Cut, the ships arrive at the Pedro Miguel Locks. In the above photo, a bulk carrier is exiting the Gatun Locks and entering the Manzanillo Bay, which connects to the Caribbean Sea. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-gatun-locks/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-gatun-locks/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-gatun-locks/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-gatun-locks/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Factors and Stages of Free Trade Zone Development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/factors-stages-free-trade-zone-development/) **Published:** April 4, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/factors_stages_free_trade_zone.png?resize=900%2C449&ssl=1 "Factors and Stages of Free Trade Zone Development | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Factors and Stages of Free Trade Zone Development*Source: Adapted from Lavissière, A. and J-P Rodrigue (2017) “Free Ports: Towards a Network of Trade Gateways“, Journal of Shipping and Trade, Vol 2, No. 7.* Free zones (or free ports or free trade zones) have a wide variety of settings, roles, and functions. They can be seen as an evolution of factors related to their jurisdiction, function, and flow orientation. The first factor is **customs extraterritoriality**, which is a core characteristic of free ports. Customs extraterritoriality is a juridical factor linking the structure of the free port and its transactional environment. The free port is an entity outside the jurisdiction of its surrounding nation-state. This factor alone is not sufficient to explain the evolution of free ports and their wide variety. Moreover, the reduction of customs rules and duties, while free ports were growing in number, underlines that customs extraterritoriality does not fully explain the issue. Free ports can be single entities acting completely outside their surrounding areas, or act as an intermediary between domestic and external customs areas. An emerging trend is their insertion within logistics corridors, connecting other free ports in a sequence allowing the generation of added value at the most suitable locations. The adaptation of free ports to a wider **range of services** in order to cope with the evolution of supply chains is another factor. The logistics functions of free ports have become more complex to cope with global supply chains and incorporate free ports into the international trade system, which helps explain their evolution. While conventionally, free ports tended to be storage facilities, holding inventory to be distributed to nearby areas, contemporary free ports assume an impressive variety of manufacturing and logistics functions. More recently, free ports are assuming service functions in the realm of banking, finance, insurance, and marketing). The functional distinction between **trade orientation** concerns the involved trade flows. Simpler free ports support sequential trade flows, either as imports or exports. However, free ports can support a wide variety of flows depending on their position within global supply chains. Developing economies tend to have free ports that are at the origin of supply chains, implying a more market export orientation while developed economies have free ports with a more salient import orientation. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/factors-stages-free-trade-zone-development/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/factors-stages-free-trade-zone-development/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/factors-stages-free-trade-zone-development/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/factors-stages-free-trade-zone-development/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Operational Advantages of Foreign Trade Zones (FTZ)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/operational-advantages-foreign-trade-zones/) **Published:** January 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/operational_advantages_ftz.png?resize=900%2C477&ssl=1 "Operational Advantages of Foreign Trade Zones (FTZ) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Operational Advantages of Foreign Trade Zones FTZA Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) is an area that is considered outside the customs jurisdiction of a country where cargo can be placed in a duty and tax-free environment until ready to enter the country. The main advantages of FTZ are thus regulatory and financial, which enables unique and flexible supply chain management practices: - **Custom clearance**. Since the FTZ is a bounded facility, customs clearance can be done inland instead of at the port of entry, and the consignment can stay in the bounded area for an unlimited amount of time. It is likely that this can be done faster inland because the facility is less congested than a large gateway port. Thus, the consignee gets better notice about the availability of his shipment and can plan his supply chain management accordingly. If a quota is imposed on a type of good, an FTZ can be used to postpone the entry until the quota is lifted or until the good is transformed into another good not subject to quotas. - **Duties and fees**. Despite decades of trade liberalization, duties and merchandise processing fees (fees paid to customs to cover inspection and processing costs even if no duties are levied) are still levied on international trade. With an FTZ, duties are not paid until the consignment is shipped out (re-exported) and can be deferred further if moved to another FTZ. Therefore, an FTZ can be an inventory management strategy for high-duty goods and servicing a multinational market from a single distribution center. For instance, a large quantity of high-duty goods can be imported and stored in an FTZ. Then the products can be gradually sold with the duty paid only when they leave the FTZ. If a transformation (e.g. assembly, labeling, testing) is performed within the FTZ, this added value activity is not subject to duties. It can change the duty class of a product to a more preferential level. Commonly, duties are not levied if a product is damaged, defective, or obsolete since its commercial value is considerably reduced. Thus, by inspecting products in an FTZ, the duty will be waived for any defective products. This is particularly useful for products that have a higher propensity to be damaged or defective. - **Settlement**. For most transactions, particularly through letters of credit, the vendor is not paid until the consignment has left a facility (FTZ and/or transport terminal). An FTZ can thus be used to delay settlement until judged suitable by the consignee and also offers the opportunity to readily remove the value of damaged or defective products from the settlement. - **Security**. Since FTZs are secure areas of customs jurisdiction, insurance rates are lower because of the reduced theft risks. FTZ can also present the opportunity to delay the inspection and entrance of cargo that does not comply with national regulations. - **Transformation and manufacturing**. Cargo can be brought to an FTZ and transformed (e.g., labels) to comply with customs regulations, such as for labels. It makes it possible to import specific categories of goods without going through customs procedures as long as they remain within the FTZ. In the FTZ, the goods can be transformed (e.g. assembled, tested, packaged) into other goods and then “exported” out under a different custom category. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/operational-advantages-foreign-trade-zones/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/operational-advantages-foreign-trade-zones/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/operational-advantages-foreign-trade-zones/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/operational-advantages-foreign-trade-zones/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Port as a Resilience Platform](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/port-stronghold/) **Published:** February 3, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_resilience_platform.png?resize=900%2C527&ssl=1 "The Port as a Resilience Platform | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Port as a Resilience PlatformLooking at the port as a resilience platform allows for the continuation of supply chains and the availability of transport capabilities. It includes four core aspects: - **Strategic asset**. As a transport facility, a port provides access and distribution capabilities to global and national markets. Ports should be recognized as strategic assets of national importance with related regulatory and financial support. They support the resilience of their hinterlands by maintaining inbound and outbound supply chains. This also includes power generation facilities, essential to maintaining an electric power supply, many adjacent to port sites. - **Secure facility area**. The port facility must be secured to promote safe access, which involves a perimeter and checkpoints. The core purpose is to maintain the operational capabilities of the port, which requires the presence of key personnel and equipment. - **Inventory management**. Ports commonly have co-located logistical facilities (warehouses and distribution centers) that should be considered part of the secure perimeter. These logistical facilities support critical supply chains by ensuring the procurement of energy, parts, goods, food, and medical supplies. During a disruption, these facilities are expected to continue their operations and provide storage of critical inventory. - **Connectivity and accessibility**. Ports must maintain their connectivity to the shipping network and accessibility to their hinterland. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/port-stronghold/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/port-stronghold/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/port-stronghold/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/port-stronghold/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Most Common Causes of Cyberattacks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/most-common-causes-of-cyberattacks/) **Published:** March 22, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/causes_cyberattacks.png?resize=900%2C423&ssl=1 "Most Common Causes of Cyberattacks | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Most Common Causes of Cyberattacks*Source: Statistica. Based on a survey of managed service providers in August 2020. Respondents were asked to pick three answers.* For an organization relying on information systems for its management and operation, cyberattacks represent a significant threat. The most common causes of a cyberattack include: - **Weak or stolen credentials**. Network access and privileges rely on login identity and related passwords. Simple and common passwords represent a risk that could allow an authorized user, through brute force attacks (automatically inputting thousands of weak passwords), to access accounts and critical information. - **Application vulnerabilities**. Software, network protocols, and operating systems that are complex can be subject to vulnerabilities that can be exploited, such as installing malware. Organizations can be reluctant (or forget) to update software across hundreds, if not thousands, of individual computers. - **Malware**. Software that is purposely designed to extract information, take control of the operating system, or remove access to data (encryption). The goal is to gather commercial information (e.g., bank accounts), shut down equipment, or extract a ransom in exchange for redeeming access to the data. Malware can be remotely installed through weak credentials, installed through malicious websites or attached to an email. - **Malicious insiders**. Employees having access to the network can represent a risk if they are disgruntled (fired, disciplined, demoted) or wish to gain a monetary advantage. - **Insider error**. An employee can unwillingly allow malware to be installed by opening an email, sending a file to the wrong email address, or losing a device (laptop, phone, USB storage) containing key information. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/most-common-causes-of-cyberattacks/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/most-common-causes-of-cyberattacks/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/most-common-causes-of-cyberattacks/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/most-common-causes-of-cyberattacks/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Distribution of Average Berth-Hours, 2023](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/distribution-average-berth-hours/) **Published:** March 12, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/distribution_average_berth_hours.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Distribution of Average Berth-Hours, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Distribution of Average Berth Hours 2023*Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence, Based on 4,864 *port call* events.* The time at berth, an indication of the dwell time, is a performance metric for container terminal efficiency. A large sample of containership calls reveals that the majority of calls last less than 25 hours, with an average of 22.7 hours and a median of 19.3 hours. The distribution of the berth-hours is a function of terminal performance and ship size, as large ships with significant container loads are likely to spend more time docked at the berth. Shipping lines require consistent terminal performance to help maintain the schedule integrity of their network. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/distribution-average-berth-hours/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/distribution-average-berth-hours/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/distribution-average-berth-hours/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/distribution-average-berth-hours/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Evolving Role of Shipping Lines in the Hinterland](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/evolving-role-shipping-lines-hinterland-push-strategy/) **Published:** November 17, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/shipping_lines_hinterland_push_strategy.png?resize=900%2C512&ssl=1 "The Evolving Role of Shipping Lines in the Hinterland | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Evolving Role of Shipping Lines in the HinterlandDepending on the number of gateways, carrier haulage can increase in complexity, and estimating its cost in a bill of lading may lead to errors (usually under estimations). - For a **single gateway**, carrier haulage can involve a double sequence involving ocean shipping and inland delivery to the destination selected by the cargo owner. - For a **secondary gateway**, a line may issue a bill of lading to port B, but the vessel may only call at port A. The line must pay the full cost of moving the cargo to port A using modes such as road, rail, or barge as a secondary transport sequence and then a final leg to the inland destination, which can be merchant haulage. - In a **multi-port gateway region**, port calls by separate shipping lines can imply more second moves and more substituted services and, as such, possibly large landside container interchanges between adjacent ports. The setting of an inland port represents a strategy allowing for a consolidation of carrier haulage shipments and a better level of cost control. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/evolving-role-shipping-lines-hinterland-push-strategy/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/evolving-role-shipping-lines-hinterland-push-strategy/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/evolving-role-shipping-lines-hinterland-push-strategy/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/evolving-role-shipping-lines-hinterland-push-strategy/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Digital Transformation and Expected Implications](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/digital-transformation-expected-implications/) **Published:** December 27, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/digital_transportation_implications.png?resize=900%2C406&ssl=1 "Digital Transformation and Expected Implications | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Digital Transformation and Expected Implications*Source: Adapted from Van Peteghem (2016).* Digital transformation involves the convergence of technology, data science, processes, and innovation. In particular, digitalization is the convergence of technology and data science. Digital transformation comes with expectations: - **First mover**. Adopting digital technologies can confer a first-mover advantage, improve competitiveness, and increase market share. It allows a form of differentiation. - **Demand responsive**. Expectations that the organization will be able to respond more effectively to changes in market conditions and adapt accordingly in the provision of goods and services. - **Cooperation**. The ability to cooperate with key suppliers and customers through effective information exchange. - **Organizational change**. The formation of new business models, sources of revenue, and pricing systems. - **Continuous change**. The implementation of new technologies has a continuously disruptive effect that may require enduring adaptation of organizational and managerial processes. - **Agility and resilience**. Similar to the demand responsive approach, information technologies are expected to allow more effective use of infrastructure and assets. So, a similar level of performance is expected to occur with fewer assets. - **Competencies**. Digital technologies and processes require capabilities to be properly integrated and managed. - **Digital focus**. Digital technologies and processes need to be spearheaded through a designated unit responsible for the identification of the processes most likely to benefit. It is relevant to underline that the above are expectations about digital transformations. This does not mean that these transformations will take place as the role of digital technologies could be exaggerated and their full impacts remain to be fully assessed. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/digital-transformation-expected-implications/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/digital-transformation-expected-implications/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/digital-transformation-expected-implications/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/digital-transformation-expected-implications/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Lat Krabang Inland Container Depot, Thailand](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/lat-krabang-inland-container-depot-thailand/) **Published:** January 2, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/lat_krabang_dry_port.jpg?resize=900%2C644&ssl=1 "Lat Krabang Inland Container Depot, Thailand | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Lat Krabang Inland Container Depot ThailandWith a population of 12 million, the metropolitan area of Bangkok is the largest city in Thailand and among the world’s largest agglomerations. It represents an important manufacturing and consumption center. However, Bangkok is more than 118 km from the main port facilities of Laem Chabang. By the early 1990s, container traffic was booming, and containers carried to and from the port terminal facilities started to severely impact congestion; Bangkok ranks among the world’s most congested cities. The development of an inland container depot acting as a satellite terminal to the port of Laem Chabang became an attractive value proposition. In 1993, land was purchased by the State Railway of Thailand (SRT), and construction of the facility began at a site about 30 km from downtown Bangkok, including the setting of a colocated rail terminal. The 200-acre Lat Krabang Inland Container Depot (LICD) was completed in 1995 and started its operations in 1996 with a design capacity of 400,000 TEU per year, which was expanded to 1,700,000 TEU by 2005. It also acts as a customs clearance facility as government agencies (customs, inspection, quarantine) are on site. The publicly owned facility is designed around the concession governance model. Six modules (A to F) are leased over a 10-year period to tenants, mostly maritime shipping companies (Evergreen, Hanjin, and NYK are tenants). LICD was a success, and traffic surged from 291,000 TEU in 1997 to 1,669,000 TEU in 2007 and then leveled to around 1,382,000 TEU in 2018. 70% of the containers arrive at the facility by road and 30% by rail. A logistic zone was built in co-location to consolidate and deconsolidation container loads. Chassis storage facilities are also present in the vicinity. Thus, LICD represents a fully mature inland terminal facility working close to capacity but with room for expansion. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/lat-krabang-inland-container-depot-thailand/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/lat-krabang-inland-container-depot-thailand/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/lat-krabang-inland-container-depot-thailand/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/lat-krabang-inland-container-depot-thailand/?share=reddit) - --- ### [CRIntermodal Chongqing Terminal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/crintermodal-chongqing-terminal/) **Published:** January 2, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_0367.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "CRIntermodal Chongqing Terminal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")CRIntermodal Chongqing Terminal*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2014.* CRIntermodal Chongqing Terminal opened in 2009 at a site about 20 km from downtown Chongqing, which is a provincial municipality independent of the surrounding Sichuan Province. It was built on a railway substation converted into an intermodal terminal with a capacity (first phase) of about 350,000 TEU. It is owned and operated by CRIntermodal, which is a company owned by the Chinese Ministry of Railways and includes 18 facilities in China. Shareholders are NWS of Hong Kong and DB Railways of Germany. This is part of a strategy to develop intermodal transportation within China and better connect its ports and the hinterland. The Chongqing intermodal terminal has emerged as an inland port with several nearby greenfield logistics zones under development, such as Chongqing Logistics City. Most of the cargo handling is domestic and with standard 20-foot boxes, with direct connections to the ports of Yantian and Shanghai. In 2013, rail services started to be offered to the inland port of Duisburg, Germany. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/crintermodal-chongqing-terminal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/crintermodal-chongqing-terminal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/crintermodal-chongqing-terminal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/crintermodal-chongqing-terminal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Uiwang Inland Port, South Korea](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/uiwang-inland-port-south-korea/) **Published:** January 2, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/uiwang_dry_port.jpg?resize=900%2C606&ssl=1 "Uiwang Inland Port, South Korea | Port Economics, Management and Policy")A large share of the South Korean economy is export-oriented, so containers have to be brought inland and made available to importers and exporters. Seoul is Korea’s largest city and a significant manufacturing hub. However, Korea’s main deepsea port (and the world’s fifth largest) is located in Pusan, about 350 km to the southeast. In 1992, a cluster of two inland container yards was established at Uiwang, about 25 km South of Seoul. It formed an inland port that acts as a load center for the metropolitan area and handles about 45% of its container traffic. The first yard has a capacity of about 1 million TEU, while the second has about half a million TEU. As of 2015, about 1 million TEUs were handled by the facility. Each yard has intermodal rail terminals, enabling a connection to the port of Pusan. Uiwang can functionally be considered a satellite terminal where containers are trucked in or out and where customs clearance is realized. 75% of the inland container deport is owned by private transport companies, and 25% is owned by the Korean National Railroad, a governmental agency. The expansion of the container port at Incheon, 30 km west of Seoul, may challenge the growth of this facility. Still, Pusan has a substantial array of global port calls as it involves a lower level of detour from main shipping lanes, anchoring traffic flows. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/uiwang-inland-port-south-korea/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/uiwang-inland-port-south-korea/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/uiwang-inland-port-south-korea/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/uiwang-inland-port-south-korea/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Major Inland Terminal Clusters in North America](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/inland-terminal-clusters-north-america/) **Published:** January 2, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-NA-Logistics.png?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Major Inland Terminal Clusters in North America | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Major Inland Terminal Clusters in North AmericaThe principle of co-location is fundamental to the operational efficiency of an inland port, particularly in North America. A distributional hierarchy is a function of accessibility and connectivity, where locations in the Midwest rank high as distribution hubs. The location of rail terminals is particularly preponderant around distribution hubs, underlining their role as inland load centers. Several inland port projects in North America are capitalizing on this advantage. The planning and setting up of a new intermodal rail terminal are done concomitantly with a logistics zone project. This partnership fundamentally acts as a filter for the commercial potential of the project as both actors must decide to go ahead with their respective capital investments in terminal facilities and commercial real estate. Co-located logistics zone projects tend to be significantly larger than conventional logistics zones solely serviced by road. The convergence between the need for rail companies to develop large terminals to accommodate economies of scale and the capital intensiveness of these investments has incited partnerships with large commercial real estate developers who have the capital and expertise to develop large logistics zones. CenterPoint Properties, which was acquired in 2006 by a branch of CalPERS (California public employees’ retirement fund), is a salient example of a commercial developer actively involved with several rail operators in developing and managing logistics zones. In most cases, CenterPoint will bring forward a project after a terminal development project has been announced. The trend is shifting towards concomitant planning of the intermodal rail terminal and the logistics zone. In one case (Crete, Illinois), CenterPoint decided to develop a logistics zone beforehand, and the rail operator CSX latched on afterward with its National Gateway Program. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/inland-terminal-clusters-north-america/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/inland-terminal-clusters-north-america/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/inland-terminal-clusters-north-america/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/inland-terminal-clusters-north-america/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Raritan Center, New Jersey](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/raritan-center-new-jersey/) **Published:** January 2, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/raritan_center.jpg?resize=900%2C699&ssl=1 "Raritan Center, New Jersey | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Raritan Center New JerseyRaritan Center, located about 20 km from the terminals of the port of New York and along the I-95 interstate, is a major concentration of logistics activities. With 950 hectares, 3,000 tenants, and 15,000 people employed, it counts among the largest planned freight zones on the North American East Coast. Like several logistics zones in North America, it is a reconversion of former military land (ammunition depot) used from the First World War until it was sold to private interests in 1964. It now belongs to Federal Business Centers and Summit Associates. The initial goal of the promoters was to develop light manufacturing activities. Still, the advantages of the site for freight distribution (such as its adjacency to the most important highway in the United States and its proximity to the Port of New York) rapidly changed the orientation towards freight distribution. The northern part of the site along the I-95 has seen the development of several commercial activities such as hotels, office space, convention centers, restaurants, daycare, and personal services. This confers a substantial service support function for the logistic activities, including the workers. Raritan Center is directly adjacent to the I-95 with a direct access ramp, limiting local circulation impacts. Additionally, a college campus is adjacent to the site. Therefore, the cluster can be considered a full-fledged **freight village**. Rail development represents one of the priorities of the promoters, as the site is currently served by bulk rail for specific tenants (plastics, construction materials, flour, etc.). A railway company, Raritan Central Railway, was created in 2001 to promote this initiative. It also serves the nearby privately owned Heller Industrial Park. The main goal is to establish **direct short-line intermodal services**, known as Raritan Express, between the logistics zone and the container terminals of the Bay of Newark (Maher Terminals, APM Terminals, and PNCT). One of the main advantages is that the rail infrastructure already exists, and what is required is the construction of an intermodal yard, punctual improvements to connect specific rail segments, and the purchase (or location) of equipment. The idea is to create a system similar to the Alameda corridor in Los Angeles / Long Beach, but at a much lower cost since no massive infrastructure investments are required. Raritan Center would become a satellite terminal for the Port of New York. There is also an abandoned pier planned to be upgraded for short-sea shipping (RO-RO), a project labeled Port Raritan. If this comes to fruition, Raritan Center would be one of North America’s few trimodal centers. Therefore, Raritan Center is a mature freight zone that went through since its inception an ongoing transformation to offer a complete array of services supporting directly and indirectly freight distribution. Even if there is still ample space available for expansion, much of this space is subject to environmental constraints (marshland and littoral areas), making other logistical sites more attractive and less costly. Promoters are aiming at intermodal rail services and proximity to port terminal facilities to attract new activities willing to pay higher rent for such a strategic convenience. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/raritan-center-new-jersey/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/raritan-center-new-jersey/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/raritan-center-new-jersey/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/raritan-center-new-jersey/?share=reddit) - --- ### [CenterPoint-KCS Intermodal Center, Kansas City](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/centerpoint-kcs-intermodal-center-kansas-city/) **Published:** January 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/kcs_intermodal_center.jpg?resize=852%2C750&ssl=1 "CenterPoint-KCS Intermodal Center, Kansas City | Port Economics, Management and Policy")CenterPoint KCS Intermodal Center Kansas CityWith the ongoing integration of the North American economy (e.g. NAFTA/USMCA), Kansas City has seen the emergence of a new corridor towards Mexico, often dubbed the “NAFTA highway”. The rail operator Kansas City Southern (KSC) has been a major proponent of this corridor by establishing a Mexican subsidiary (Kansas City Southern de Mexico; KCSM) with rail terminals at the port of Lazaro Cardenas. The system is labeled KCS International Intermodal Corridor. However, the setting of this corridor requires supply chain managers to consider the Lazaro Cardenas option, thus setting an inland port at the end of the corridor in Kansas City to help anchor this freight. In 2007, KCS and CenterPoint Properties began building a 1340-acre inland port labeled CenterPoint-KCS Intermodal Freight Gateway over a reconverted military base (Richards-Gebaur). This reconversion is managed by the Kansas City Port Authority, which can sell or lease the land under its jurisdiction. The developer Hunt Midwest is also involved in projects related to underground warehousing facilities. Like many inland ports in North America, it follows the landlord model where a real estate promoter seeks revenue generation through a partnership with a rail operator, building logistics activities in co-location with the rail terminal. This park is a geographically specialized inland port within the Kansas City cluster with an orientation towards Mexican supply chains or global supply chains going through Mexico. It is thus interesting to note that the complex is labeled as a gateway to underline its status as a point of entry for global trade transiting through Mexico to an inland port deep inside the United States. The site has a foreign trade zone (FTZ) status, which supports its NAFTA-related import function. Like many commercial projects, the development of the inland port is divided into phases (five in this case), where facilities are incrementally provided to the location market. What is also particular to the project is its adjacency to a major interstate highway and its proximity to Kansas City (25 km south), a retailing component planned for revenue generation. However, partly due to the recession that unfolded in 2008, the project took time to attract tenants. The first lease was signed in 2013 when the US Department of Agriculture elected to relocate its animal and plant inspection facility within the logistics park. This underlines that it is often difficult to reconcile the goals and expectations of a logistics park project with commercial opportunities. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/centerpoint-kcs-intermodal-center-kansas-city/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/centerpoint-kcs-intermodal-center-kansas-city/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/centerpoint-kcs-intermodal-center-kansas-city/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/centerpoint-kcs-intermodal-center-kansas-city/?share=reddit) - --- ### [BNSF Logistics Park, Chicago](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/bnsf-logistics-park-chicago/) **Published:** January 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/BNSF_logistics_park_chicago.jpg?resize=900%2C694&ssl=1 "BNSF Logistics Park, Chicago | Port Economics, Management and Policy")BNSF Logistics Park ChicagoMost of the site is a reconversion of a former Army munitions depot (Arsenal) that was decommissioned in 1976, freeing about 25,000 acres of real estate. Of this, 19,000 acres became park land, and another 1,000 was allocated for a military cemetery. 2,032 acres were sold to the real estate developer Centerpoint Properties, and 620 acres were sold to the class 1 rail operator BNSF for the construction of a [state-of-the-art intermodal rail terminal](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3683). The logistics park began operating in 2002 and is entirely private, with ProLogis and CenterPoint responsible for providing and managing distribution centers. Thus, the world’s largest rail company is in partnership with two of the largest promoters and managers of logistics real estate. It is a suburban logistic center taking advantage of the principle of co-location; the rail terminal and the logistics park have been constructed simultaneously, reducing drayage considerably. A wide array of freight distribution activities are present, including free trade zones. The rail terminal handles the largest volume in North America. It is directly linked to the most important North American rail corridor, the Los Angeles – Chicago axis, with the Chicago hub handling more than 10 million TEU. The rail lines of this corridor are either owned by BNSF or UP. Therefore, the terminal is modern and productive, with limited dwell time and demurrage. This productivity and capacity benefit the co-located activities that use such advantage in their marketing as the site benefits from massive economies of scale and excellent accessibility to the North American freight distribution system. So far, about 1 billion USD worth of investments have been made. A large share of the real estate of 12 million square feet is leased, underlining the business model, which is based upon revenue generation from location to amortize capital investments. The main tenants are Walmart (retailer with 3.4 million square feet), DSC Logistics (third-party logistics service provider; 3PL), Georgia Pacific (the world’s largest wood product manufacturer; it is using the logistic park but not the intermodal rail terminal), Potlatch (forest products), Sanyo Logistics (distribution), Partners Warehouse (3PL), California Cartage (3PL) and Maersk Logistics (3PL). The presence of the maritime shipping company Maersk underlines the setting of a hinterland strategy pursued by several shippers around the world, which helps better manage their containerized assets. The BNSF Logistics Park is an important component for inland distribution for imports from the West Coast, and its dynamics are thus strongly linked with transpacific trade. A drawback is that despite the co-location of distribution centers, shipments have to go through the rail terminal gate. About two miles north of the site, a second component was planned with 3,600 acres acquired by Centerpoint. The CenterPoint Intermodal Center – Joliet (CIC-Joliet), co-located with a new UP intermodal terminal, came online in 2010. Jointly with BNSF Logistics Park, CIC-Joliet creates the largest logistics center in North America. This underlines a co-location principle beyond logistic activities to include rail terminals. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/bnsf-logistics-park-chicago/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/bnsf-logistics-park-chicago/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/bnsf-logistics-park-chicago/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/bnsf-logistics-park-chicago/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Gennevilliers Inland Port, Paris](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/gennevilliers-inland-port-paris/) **Published:** January 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_2264.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Gennevilliers Inland Port, Paris | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Gennevilliers Inland Port Paris*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2008.* The Genevilliers inland port is a barge port located about 10 km from downtown Paris. It is directly serviced from the ports of Le Havre and Rouen. One of the notable advantages of the inland port is its generous dwell time, about 10 days, which enables the facilities to be effectively used as a warehouse for freight distribution activities servicing the Paris region. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/gennevilliers-inland-port-paris/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/gennevilliers-inland-port-paris/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/gennevilliers-inland-port-paris/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/gennevilliers-inland-port-paris/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Modal Split at Selected European Inland Terminals, 2007](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/modal-split-selected-european-inland-terminals/) **Published:** January 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/modal_split_europe_inland_terminals.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Modal Split at Selected European Inland Terminals, 2007 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Modal Split at Selected European Inland Terminals 2007*Source: adapted from “The future of freight transport and inland shipping in Europe 2010 – 2011”, Dutch Inland Shipping Information Agency.* The development of inland terminals in Europe has been based on two main modal options complementing trucking; rail and barge. Facilities along the Rhine, such as Duisburg in Germany, handled substantial intermodal volumes in the range of 1 million TEU in 2009, with a modal split of 50% by road, 30% by rail, and 20% by barge. Still, European inland terminals are facing several challenges. First, the hinterland often does not correspond to national boundaries, leading to coordination problems. Second, there is no double stacking of containers along rail corridors, which limits economies of scale and the optimal efficiency of inland transportation. Therefore, it is not surprising that the most successful inland ports are those able to benefit from the economies of scale of barge services. Third, trucking remains an effective competitor as the distances concerned are relatively short. The development of intermodal rail services is conferring a level of flexibility required for periods of peak demand, and periods of low and high water levels along the Rhine / Scheldt, which impairs inland navigation, the repositioning of empty containers, and customized services. Some shippers use a bi-modal alternative to avoid congested port rail facilities (on dock or near dock) by moving by barge to an inland port and then shifting traffic to rail. This also enables traffic consolidation from several ports along the range, particularly for Antwerp and Rotterdam. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/modal-split-selected-european-inland-terminals/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/modal-split-selected-european-inland-terminals/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/modal-split-selected-european-inland-terminals/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/modal-split-selected-european-inland-terminals/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Wind Turbine Parts, Materials and Potential Disposal Methods](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/wind-turbines-parts-materials-potential-disposal-methods/) **Published:** December 5, 2023 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/wind_turbine_disposal.png?resize=900%2C448&ssl=1 "Wind Turbine Parts, Materials and Potential Disposal Methods | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Wind Turbine Parts Materials and Potential Disposal Methods*Source: adapted from Jensen, J.P. (2019). Evaluating the environmental impacts of recycling wind turbines. Wind Energy, 22(2), 316-326.* As a result of the rise of wind energy as part of the energy transition mix, wind blade equipment is estimated to constitute roughly 20% of **ocean-borne multi-purpose heavy lift cargo**. These cargos require specialized port terminals and specialized vessels due to their dimensions and the specific know-how required to handle the large sections constituting a wind turbine. Compared to the blades, some of the turbines and the other structures, such as the towers, can get quite heavy. As the first generation of wind turbines was introduced decades ago, the **replacement and recycling** of these turbines have become a growing issue and concern in recent years. At the end of their 20-to-30-year lifespan, wind turbines have to be removed and recycled. Recycling wind turbines poses several challenges due to the complex nature of their components and the variety of materials used in their construction. However, efforts have been made to develop techniques for the recycling of wind turbines to address environmental concerns. **Wind turbines consist of various materials**, including steel, copper, aluminum, fiberglass, and composites. Efficient material separation is crucial for recycling. Technologies such as shredding, sorting, and magnetic separation are used to separate different materials. **Specific technologies are available or being developed** for the recycling of specific components of wind turbines: - **Blade recycling**: Wind turbine blades are often made from fiberglass and other composite materials, which, combined with the durability of these materials, complicates the recycling process. Some techniques involve grinding the blades into small particles, while others explore chemical processes to break down the composite materials. Still, quite a few windblades still end up in landfills as the alternatives often remain costly. - **Steel recycling**: The tower and structural components of wind turbines are typically made of steel. Recycling steel involves melting it down and reforming it into new products. This process is well-established in the recycling industry. - **Recycling of other materials**: Copper and aluminum are widely used in various electrical components of wind turbines, such as generators and wiring. Recycling these metals involves melting them down and reusing them to produce new components. Permanent magnets in wind turbine generators often contain rare earth elements. Efforts are being made to develop processes for the efficient recovery of these valuable materials while recycling wind turbines. - **Reconditioning and reuse of specific components**: Some components, such as gearboxes and generators, may be reconditioned and reused in other applications. This can extend the lifespan of certain parts and reduce the overall demand for new materials. The **field of wind turbine recycling is evolving rapidly**, and new technologies and approaches emerge on a regular basis. It is also important to note that **regulations and best practices** for wind turbine recycling may vary by region. For example, some regions implemented [Extended Producer Responsibility](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-circular-economy/concept-extended-producer-responsibility/) programs, requiring wind turbine manufacturers to take responsibility for the end-of-life disposal and recycling of their products. This can incentivize manufacturers to design products with recycling in mind. **Seaports** are not only important locations in the supply chains for installing new wind parks. Given their proximity to many offshore and onshore wind farms, they can also function as **favorable hub locations for establishing large-scale wind turbine recycling activities**. The generated recycled material can provide an additional source for recycling streams within the broader port cluster, making the port more attractive as a material-sourcing location. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/wind-turbines-parts-materials-potential-disposal-methods/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/wind-turbines-parts-materials-potential-disposal-methods/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/wind-turbines-parts-materials-potential-disposal-methods/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/wind-turbines-parts-materials-potential-disposal-methods/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Action Fields for Material Sourcing Hub Creation in Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/action-fields-material-sourcing-hub-creation-ports/) **Published:** December 10, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/action_fields_material_sourcing_ports.png?resize=900%2C558&ssl=1 "Action Fields for Material Sourcing Hub Creation in Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Action Fields for Material Sourcing Hub Creation in Ports### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/action-fields-material-sourcing-hub-creation-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/action-fields-material-sourcing-hub-creation-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/action-fields-material-sourcing-hub-creation-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/action-fields-material-sourcing-hub-creation-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Estimations of Ship-Generated Wastes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/estimations-of-ship-generated-wastes-per-type-of-waste/) **Published:** January 27, 2024 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/estimate_ship_generated_wastes.png?resize=900%2C384&ssl=1 "Estimations of Ship-Generated Wastes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Estimations of Ship Generated Wastes*Source: CE Delft / EMSA (2017). The Management of Ship-Generated Waste On-board Ships, Lisbon: EMS* For almost every type of waste generated by seagoing vessels, there is a variety of waste flows depending on the size of the ship; the cargo carried, and the number of persons on board. Fuel is a primary source of oily waste, depending on the size of the ship, the type of fuel used, the amount consumed, and the condensation and leakages in the engine room. Some additional variables are important regarding the waste generated onboard passenger and [cruise ships](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-circular-economy/cruise-ships-waste-streams/). These are the provisions for passengers and personnel on board, the types of products used, and the type of food prepared. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/estimations-of-ship-generated-wastes-per-type-of-waste/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/estimations-of-ship-generated-wastes-per-type-of-waste/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/estimations-of-ship-generated-wastes-per-type-of-waste/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/estimations-of-ship-generated-wastes-per-type-of-waste/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Functions of Selected Inland Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/functions-selected-inland-ports/) **Published:** December 26, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/functions_inland_ports.png?resize=900%2C392&ssl=1 "Functions of Selected Inland Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Functions of Selected Inland Ports*Rodrigue, J-P, J. Debrie, A. Fremont and E. Gouvernal (2010) “Functions and Actors of Inland Ports: European and North American Dynamics”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 519-529.* Located only a couple of kilometers from the German border, **Venlo, Netherlands** was initially linked to Rotterdam by the Betuweline rail link in the 19th century. This link was shut down in 1991, but a new high-capacity rail line labeled Betuweroute was completed in 2007 by the Dutch Government. The double-track high-capacity rail corridor goes up to Venlo and it is expected that improvements will be made on the German side to extend the corridor up to Duisburg; Europe’s largest inland port. European Container Terminals (ECT), the main terminal operator in the port of Rotterdam and an element of Hutchinson Port Holdings (HPH), has been actively involved in the setting up of three inland ports to mitigate truck volumes at the port of Rotterdam, which was creating serious congestion issues. They are Venlo in the Netherlands, Duisburg in Germany, and Willebroek in Belgium, all of which entered operation in 1999. The main function of Venlo is the consolidation and deconsolidation of rail traffic bound to or coming from the port of Rotterdam’s on-dock or near-dock rail facilities. ECT acts both as a handling company to transload containers from rail to trucks and as a rail operator. Shuttle trains, managed by Keyrail and with DB Schenker as the main carrier, offer shuttle services several times per day for containers between Venlo and the terminals on the River Maas, including Delta (APM) and Home (HPH) terminals in Rotterdam. As a handling operator, ECT has the opportunity to consolidate flows for many shipping lines, a task performed by similar companies at other locations. Gradually, other services have been added like the storage of empty containers, a function to which Venlo is particularly well suited for due to its inland location and proximity to major importers and exporters along the Ruhr. The **inland Port of Lyon** illustrates a variety of functions and actors involved in these functions. The term “port avancé” is used officially in the partnership initiated in early 1990 between the port of Marseille and the river port Edouard Herriot in Lyon, 310 km inland. This partnership is based on relations between private and public stakeholders, respectively, in port, river, and rail operations. These players came together in 1993 to form a society called “Lyon Terminal”, to help coordinate various activities related to intermodal transportation servicing the inland port. Lyon Terminal society is composed of different shareholders, with Compagnie Nationale du Rhône being the majority shareholder of a corporation that also includes the port of Marseille, a barge operator, and the combined transport rail Naviland Cargo. The company operates two container terminals to promote the development of river and rail shuttles. The various functions of handling, storage, packing, and inland transportation are provided in partnership with the shipowners and companies in charge of leasing and repairing containers. Lyon Terminal society, using the concept of “port avancé” in its discourse, offers a typical example of an inland port involving different stakeholders (public and private, institutional and operational) and carrying different port functions (promotion, management, development, operations). Two important functions characterize this type of inland port. First (and typically), the society promotes **intermodal integration** through rail and fluvial transport corridors. Additional services (container leasing, packing, storage, etc.) correspond to the traditional functions of inland ports. Secondly, the inland port of Lyon is also developing **city logistics services**. The inland port is in close proximity to downtown, which is a rather unique situation compared with other inland ports that tend to occupy more peripheral locations within large metropolitan areas. Therefore, to justify its position and its consumption of contested centrally located land the port of Lyon must provide a service to the urban agglomeration. Also, the main shareholder of the port (Compagnie Nationale du Rhone; CNR) has an obligation to develop services of general interest, by providing investments each year. To meet this obligation, the development of a more sustainable freight mobility strategy is being pursued. The mix of actors places the inland port in a unique role of fulfilling a conventional intermodal function, but the hinterland of this function focuses on the nearby agglomeration. It does not really function as a standard inland port to capture market shares in a competition between other inland ports, even if it provides for the consolidation of traffic in the agglomeration of Lyon for the port of Marseille. The port of Lyon is an inland port of agglomeration (serving a local market) servicing the port of Marseille by offering additional intermodal options for the hinterland. The **Zaragoza Maritime Terminal** (tmZ; terminal maritima Zaragoza) is a strategic initiative of the Port of Barcelona. It is part of the port’s development plan that aims at expanding the port hinterland, namely through the setting up of inland ports. In this line, tmZ was set up in 2001 as a partnership between the Port of Barcelona and the Logistics Activities Area of Mercazaragoza (founded by the Municipality of Zaragoza and the Mercasa National Company). This is not a new terminal, but the implementation of existing infrastructure into a service labeled “port of Barcelona” which includes road shuttle services, freight handling, consolidation and deconsolidation, warehousing, and other value-added logistic services. The port of Barcelona takes on the role of terminal promoter and the logistics activities are assumed by operators in the area of Mercazaragoza. Therefore, it is a strategy aiming at the promotion and organization of inland freight distribution, but without significant investments. The Port of Barcelona participated mainly in the funding of a new rail terminal in partnership with the national rail infrastructure manager (RENFE) and the company Acciona Logistica, allowing rail shuttle services between the port and the inland port. The Zaragoza Maritime Terminal is a nodal point in the center of two strategic corridors: the Ebro Corridor (Barcelona-Zaragoza-North of Spain) and the transversal Iberian corridor (Barcelona-Zaragoza-Madrid-Lisbon). The inland port is roughly at the center of an area delimited by Barcelona, Madrid, and Bilbao which account for 70 % of the Spanish GDP. This inland terminal mainly competes with the port of Valencia for services to the region of Madrid. Through a similar strategy, the port of Barcelona is developing two inland ports in the south of France and west of Spain. The Zaragoza Maritime Terminal illustrates a specific inland port role; the capture or retention of traffic in areas of market competition with a strategy involving a minimal level of investment. The **BNSF Logistics Park Chicago** began operations in 2002 and is entirely a private initiative spearheaded by the rail operator BNSF who spent close to one billion USD to build North America’s largest intermodal rail terminal 60 km southwest of Chicago. The Joliet terminal, along with many others around Chicago, is at the end of a transcontinental rail corridor serviced by BNSF and UP that links the Los Angeles / Long Beach ports to the Chicago hub. Chicago is a particularly important location within the North American rail system with seven major rail operators interconnecting. Co-located with this project is a 2,200 acres logistics zone that fulfills a wide array of functions, including an FTZ. A good share of the real estate is the outcome of the reconversion of a munitions depot that was owned by the US Army (Arsenal), which was developed by CenterPoint, one of the world’s largest promoters and managers of logistical parks. The promoter ProLogis is also involved in the development of warehousing space in a section of the park. Co-location is an important aspect of such inland port ventures as it minimizes drayage between tier-one and tier-two activities. A large share of the warehousing assets is rented, underlining the standard inland port landlord model where a promoter develops facilities with the expectation of revenue generation. The tenants are major “big box” retailers, and third-party logistics providers dominantly linked with Pacific Asian supply chains transiting through California. The BNSF Logistics Park Chicago thus leverages the interests of several private actors in transportation and freight distribution. For the rail operator, it provides a modern high-capacity intermodal terminal, improving the efficiency of the largest rail corridor in the world and consequently a major source of revenue (long-distance rail flows). The traffic of the corridor and the Joliet terminal is further anchored by a co-located private logistics park. The users of this park benefit from more reliable rail services as well as better rates linked to economies of scale and short drayage distances; the rail terminal becomes part of the inventory management systems of the co-located customers. The **port of Savannah and its logistics cluster** is under the jurisdiction of the Georgia Port Authority and has seen strong growth, the outcome of two major trends. The first concerns demographic and commercial changes that have attracted cargo that conventionally transited through the middle or North Atlantic ranges of the East Coast. The second concerns investments in port infrastructures to provide additional capacity, shorter transit times through the all-water Panama route, large assets of greenfield real estate, and lower labor costs, which have contributed to position the region as a North American gateway. Savannah’s growth has increasingly placed pressure on the setting up of satellite terminal facilities to alleviate the port’s terminals and facilitate inland distribution. The port authority has particularly been active in the setting up of logistic zones in the port’s periphery. One such zone is the Savannah Port Authority Industrial Park (SPAIP) which is a site specializing in satellite activities removing pressures from the container terminals, such as container and chassis storage and repair. Nearby are two near-dock real terminals, one owned by CSX and the other by NS. About 10 km from the port terminals are two large logistics zones; the Crossroads Business Park (CBP) owned by the Savannah Economic Development Agency and the Savannah River International Trade Park (SRITP) owned by the Georgia Port Authority. They both replicate the revenue generation landlord model where facilities are leased to tenants for various time periods, but some have purchased land and built their own facilities. Although such a speculative strategy can help attract customers since their entry costs are lower, it also comes at a risk that the landlord must bear if the expected customer base does not materialize or if some customers decide to move elsewhere. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/functions-selected-inland-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/functions-selected-inland-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/functions-selected-inland-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/functions-selected-inland-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Inland Terminal Life Cycle](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/inland-terminal-life-cycle/) **Published:** January 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/inland_terminal_life_cycle.png?resize=900%2C436&ssl=1 "Inland Terminal Life Cycle | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Inland Terminal Life Cycle *Source: adapted from Inland Port Transportation Evaluation Guide.* An inland terminal, like most transport infrastructure, has a life cycle that involves a sequence of stages: - **Stage 1 (Planning)**. At this stage, the business opportunities of an inland terminal are considered and evaluated. This involves the identification of potential sites and the costs incurred, as well as the search for potential users and sources of financing. Consideration should also be made to the size of the facility, its governance, its integration with a logistics zone, and its insertion within local, regional, and global systems of freight circulation. - **Stage 2 (Setting)**. Once a decision has been reached about the terminal site, construction takes place, often through expansion stages, so that the provision of additional capacity can be made incrementally. This marks the setting of the first users; some of them can be transitional (e.g. taking advantage of cleared land for storage purposes before other facilities are constructed). - **Stage 3 (Growth)**. If the commercial premises of the inland terminal are sound, it quickly develops its market potential, which will be proportional to its sitting within local, regional, and global freight distribution systems. New users decide to use the facility and by locating in the vicinity, which favors the development of logistical clusters generating added value to freight distribution. - **Stage 4 (Maturity)**. At some point, the market potential of the inland terminal is reached, and traffic and revenue generation reach a peak. Most of the development zone is now occupied, and few new users set in, often to replace users that may have left. This is also the phase that sees rising costs due to real estate pressures and congestion of the terminal facilities and their accessibility to the regional transport system. Since the inland terminal has become a node of economic activity, many other forms of real estate development take place in proximity, notably housing and retail. This has the potential to increase externalities and public pressures to mitigate them. Unless a new expansion phase takes place, the inland terminal facility is contemplating a stabilization of its traffic, which could lead to a decline. - **Stage 5 (Decline)**. Because of changing market conditions (e.g. new competitors) and rising externalities, the relevance of the inland terminal for components of the regional freight distribution system could change. This usually coincides with the departure of several key users and attempts made by public authorities to subsidize users to keep using the facility (e.g. tax credits or infrastructure provision). If the commercial environment has substantially changed, the closing of the inland terminal facility is possible. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/inland-terminal-life-cycle/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/inland-terminal-life-cycle/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/inland-terminal-life-cycle/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/inland-terminal-life-cycle/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Functional Pairing of Inland Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/functional-pairing-inland-ports/) **Published:** January 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/functional_pairing_inland_ports.png?resize=900%2C520&ssl=1 "Functional Pairing of Inland Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Functional Pairing of Inland PortsSince most trade flows are imbalanced, gateways and inland ports are facing challenges concerning the repositioning of empty containers as well as their availability at inland locations. As one of the objectives of inland ports is the promotion of their regional economies, a proactive strategy concerns the functional pairing of an inland port with other inland ports so that additional cargo flows, both inbound and outbound, can be generated. Under such circumstances, it is expected that better reciprocity in trade flows can be achieved. Functional pairing concerns: - The identification of **main trade partners** for the importers and exporters using the inland port. This enables to assess the concerned supply chains and their volumes. - The evaluation of the **commercial potential** of pairing with new inland ports and in which way this can result in additional volumes. The potential can be assessed for the importers (where the paired inland port acts as an origin) and the exporters (where the paired inland port acts as a destination). - **Joint marketing strategies**, as paired inland ports seek to reinforce their respective traffic by finding customers who could set new functional relations and establish activities such as distribution centers at both locations. - Pending sufficient volumes, **container pools** can be established to support specific trade relations as an inbound container becomes an outbound container after cargo rotation. This would help improve the availability of containers at inland locations. - The inland port acting as a **clearinghouse for transactions** remains a potential strategy, particularly for commodities. This implies that an exporter establishes a facility at the paired inland port and sells to customers at a spot rate, as the exporter now assumes transport costs and delivery to the inland port. A likely positive outcome of functional pairing is cheaper and more reliable transport costs along the concerned transport chains as greater volumes are achieved and carriers provide additional capacity. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/functional-pairing-inland-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/functional-pairing-inland-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/functional-pairing-inland-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/functional-pairing-inland-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Panama's Changing Role in the Global Transport System](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-changing-role-global-transport-system/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/panama_role_global_transport.png?resize=900%2C345&ssl=1 "Panama’s Changing Role in the Global Transport System | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Panamas Changing Role in the Global Transport SystemBecause of commercial and technological changes, the role a location plays in the global transport system can evolve, deriving higher levels of added value and economic development. Panama and its transoceanic canal are highly reflective of this evolution. From a simple point of transit, Panama is shifting towards a range of higher added value activities related to its growing role in maritime transshipment. This changing role of Panama in the global transport system can be summarized in four main phases: - **Pre-1914**. Through the colonial era, Panama was a **transit country** connecting Pacific and Atlantic trade routes through trails across the isthmus. The function of Panama City as a transit hub can be traced back to the 17th century, when it acted as a trading platform for the Spanish Empire, particularly on the South American west coast. The completion of the Panama Railroad in 1855 provided an additional impetus to the transit function, with the ports of Balboa and Colon established as a terminus on their respective maritime facades. - **1914-1990s**. The growth of global trade (particularly intra-American trade) and the development of steamships provided an impetus for constructing the Panama Canal, which was completed in 1914. This set the stage for Panama to become a **tollbooth country,** deriving revenue from canal crossings. Within decades, Panama became an important connector within the global maritime transport system and imposed Panamax as a de facto standard in maritime shipping. However, limited investments related to this connectivity took place since Panama remained a location where cargo was passing by. It could be said that Panama was a weak intermediary location since the cargo transiting was not “touched”. Even if the Colon Free Trade Zone was established in 1947, it was not until the 1990s that the zone would experience significant growth. Still, the logistics and manufacturing activities were of low added value. Still, service functions such as flags of convenience and bunkering emerged. Today, Panama remains the world’s leading [ship registry](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2269) country. - **1990s-2000s**. In the 1990s, a series of events favored the transformation of Panama’s conventional role as a transit country, which culminated in 1999 when the Panama Canal Authority took full control of the canal. Prior to 1995, Panamanian container ports (Cristobal and Balboa) handled very limited amounts of containerized cargo, in the range of 100,000 to 150,000 TEUs. Port privatization reforms in 1995 were accompanied by significant investments in port infrastructure and the entry of major global terminal operators (HPH, SSA, and PSA). Containerized traffic handled by the ports grew rapidly, reaching the 3 million TEU threshold in 2006. The setting of post-Panamax ship services and the growth of the Transpacific trade induced a new dynamic in Panama. It quickly became a transshipment hub, helping reconcile long haul and feeder maritime services, both on the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the Canal. About 95% of the container traffic handled by Panamanian ports involved transshipment activities. For instance, before 2001, there was almost no traffic handled by the Port of Balboa on the Pacific coast. By 2012, the port was handling more than 3.2 million TEUs. The Panama Canal Railway was reopened in 2001 to support growing container flows between the Atlantic and Pacific container ports. As such, the intermediary role of Panama was expanded as transshipment involved growing quantities of containers being stored temporarily at the port terminals but also containers being repositioned through the isthmus, which is placing pressure on road and rail infrastructures. - **2010s-?**. As the first decade of the 21st century progressed, a new trend emerged, reinforcing the role of Panama as a global trade platform. The growth in transshipment volumes (8 million TEU handled in 2018), the central position of Panama within the Americas, the growth of the finance sector, and its emerging function as an [air transportation hub](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2433) incited the setting of logistics activities that were not present before. In such a scenario, Panama could become a **logistics platform** servicing global and regional supply chains by providing added value activities for the region, such as manufacturing, customization, and distribution. This transition is far from being complete, and several challenges will need to be addressed to ensure that Panama is able to develop world-class logistics capabilities. In particular, developing additional port capacity is necessary, particularly on the Pacific side, as well as port-centric logistics zones and a more extensive road system to support these new interactions. Economic development and expanded trade relations throughout Latin America will directly (transshipment and freight distribution) and indirectly (more canal transits) benefit Panama. Therefore, the development of a logistics platform is more than an infrastructure issue but must be linked with effective governance and human capital development. The expansion of the canal in 2016 represented for Panama a unique opportunity to position the country as a hub interfacing longitudinal and latitudinal trade flows and deriving added value in the process. This may further trigger additional transshipment activities and potentially some diseconomies due to port, road, and rail congestion. The New Panamax ships (about 12,500 TEUs) that can transit through the expanded canal and call Panama’s ports are associated with different service configurations and different forms of freight distribution within the region. What remains to be seen is the scale, nature, and function that the logistics platform will take. The matter is clear that Panama is no longer a location where ships are simply transiting through. It is becoming a hub of the global transport system; its conventional geographical advantage is being expanded by logistics. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-changing-role-global-transport-system/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-changing-role-global-transport-system/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-changing-role-global-transport-system/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-changing-role-global-transport-system/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Tonnage and Number of Transits, Suez Canal, 1976-2023](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/tonnage-number-transits-suez-canal/) **Published:** December 27, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/suez_canal_transits.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Tonnage and Number of Transits, Suez Canal, 1976-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Tonnage and Number of Transits Suez Canal 1976 2023*Source: Suez Canal Authority.* The number of ships transiting and the tonnage handled by the Suez Canal underline two subsequent trends. From the 1980s to 2002, transits were in net decline while the tonnage handled steadily increased. This reflected the application of economies of scale, particularly in container shipping, as fewer ships transited roughly the same amount of cargo. The average net tonnage per transit increased from about 13,500 tons in 1980 to 33,000 tons in 2002. After 2002, as global trade was booming, particularly between Asia and Europe, so did the number of transits. The tonnage handled more than doubled, with net tonnage per transit surging from 33,000 tons to 42,500 tons in 2008, implying that economies of scale were also taking place. The global economic slowdown of 2008 substantially impacted the traffic handled by the Suez Canal, with traffic and tonnage down by about 25% between 2008 and 2009. By 2013, traffic was back to pre-crisis levels, and net tonnage per transit surpassed 55,000 tons and kept increasing to reach 64,000 in 2019. This is attributable to the application of economies of scale in maritime shipping. After a decline linked to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, both the number of transit and tonnage surged to unprecedented levels in 2023. The Canal was even blocked for a full week in 2021 when the [containership Ever Given ran aground](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-resilience/suez-canal-blockage-2021/ "Blockage of the Suez Canal, March 2021"), but this temporary event had no impact on the annual traffic. By late 2023, geopolitical events led to repetitive attacks on ships transiting the Red Sea, substantially impacting the number of transits, which will likely impact 2024 figures. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/tonnage-number-transits-suez-canal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/tonnage-number-transits-suez-canal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/tonnage-number-transits-suez-canal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/tonnage-number-transits-suez-canal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Massification of Transportation in Inland Systems](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/massification-transportation-inland-systems/) **Published:** December 31, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/massification_transportation_inland_systems.png?resize=900%2C525&ssl=1 "The Massification of Transportation in Inland Systems | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Massification of Transportation in Inland Systems*Source: Rodrigue, J-P and T. Notteboom (2011) “Port Regionalization: Improving Port Competitiveness by Reaching beyond the Port Perimeter”, Port Technology International, No. 52, pp. 11-17.* The growth of hinterland traffic, if only supported by drayage (truck) operations, leads to increasing diseconomies such as congestion and capacity limitations. With this, the level of disorder in the inland transport system involves higher transport costs and unreliability in freight distribution. Therefore, the formation of an inland load center network aims to cope with these diseconomies through the massification of several inland flows. It involves a series of inland terminals (IT) linked to the port facilities by high-capacity rail or barge (when feasible) corridors. A supporting land use structure needs to be established, mostly concerning the [clustering of logistics activities](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=8133) (e.g. distribution centers) and often in co-location with the terminal facilities. For instance, [port-centric logistics zones](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3335) support freight distribution activities related to maritime shipping and have a dominant international trade orientation. Port authorities tend to be proactive in this type of development since it supports and provides added value to port activities. An inland port is an intermodal terminal (commonly rail) built or updated concomitantly with the development of adjacent (co-located) logistical and service activities. Although in proximity (not co-located) to the terminal facility, an intermodal industrial park is a similar structure. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/massification-transportation-inland-systems/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/massification-transportation-inland-systems/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/massification-transportation-inland-systems/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/massification-transportation-inland-systems/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Modal Shift and Inland Freight Diversion](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/modal-shift-inland-freight-diversion/) **Published:** January 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/modal_shift_inland_freight_diversion.png?resize=900%2C521&ssl=1 "Modal Shift and Inland Freight Diversion | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Modal Shift and Inland Freight DiversionA gateway services its hinterland with a single mode (road) through a capillary / tree-like structure where flows converge at the terminals (A). In time, many transport terminals have become surrounded by various freight-related economic activities, which pose challenges in terms of local and regional road access. Congestion increases, and terminal access becomes increasingly problematic, which may negatively impact the efficiency and reliability of regional freight distribution. This problem is compounded if the terminal is surrounded by a large metropolitan area, as most ports are. Port-related circulation conflicts with the circulation of other urban activities. To cope with a growing level of congestion which undermines the reliability of freight distribution as well as imposing additional costs and delays, two interdependent strategies can be implemented (B): - **Modal shift**. This involves a closer integration with an alternative transport mode, with a share of the shipments entering or exiting the terminal through another mode, which commonly involves rail or barge shuttles. These modes are likely to be much less congested and convey better economies of scale. Still, this requires the setting of inland terminal facilities to act as load centers. - **Freight diversion**. Satellite terminals enable the interception of freight shipments, which, instead of entering a congested metropolitan area, are bound to easier access terminals. The same rationale applies to outbound freight flows. This can also have the advantage of expanding the hinterland of the gateway, particularly since flows have an intermodal alternative. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/modal-shift-inland-freight-diversion/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/modal-shift-inland-freight-diversion/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/modal-shift-inland-freight-diversion/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/modal-shift-inland-freight-diversion/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Functions of Inland Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/functions-inland-terminals/) **Published:** January 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/functions_inland_terminals2.png?resize=900%2C493&ssl=1 "Functions of Inland Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Functions of Inland TerminalsInland terminals serve three non-exclusive functions: - **Satellite terminal**. An intermodal facility built in proximity to the port in order to handle additional traffic, particularly if the port facility is congested (high costs). It allows ports to outsource a part of their footprint to lower-cost locations. Satellite terminals are also widely used to support container transloading activities and empty container depots. - **Load center**. A standard intermodal terminal aiming at servicing a regional market and connecting through corridors to ports and other intermodal facilities. - **Transshipment**. In some circumstances, an inland terminal may also serve a transshipment role that connects different systems of circulation. This transshipment can occur either by shunting (rail to rail) or between terminals with truck transfers. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/functions-inland-terminals/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/functions-inland-terminals/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/functions-inland-terminals/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/functions-inland-terminals/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Main Co-Location Advantages for Dry Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/advantages-co-location-dry-ports/) **Published:** December 31, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/co_location_advantages_dry_ports.png?resize=900%2C453&ssl=1 "Main Advantages of Co-location for Dry Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Advantages of Co location for Dry PortsMost of dry ports that were initially developed were intermodal facilities acting as nodes of convergence for regional freight distribution, enabling a [modal shift](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=656) away from road and freight diversion and away from congested areas. These two key paradigms have been expanded with a more comprehensive approach leaning on the principle of co-location. As a dry port project becomes increasingly capital-intensive and prone to risk because of its size, required equipment, and infrastructure, the need for a higher value proposition is now based on the principle of co-locations, many of which are public-private partnerships. The most common actors in a typical co-located dry port project involve a railway operator, a commercial real estate developer, or a local public development office. Therefore, co-location expands the market opportunities of the intermodal terminal through a set of value propositions: - **Real estate**. Logistic zone projects occupy a large amount of space to accommodate existing and anticipated freight distribution activities. Most co-located projects occupy at least 100 hectares, and several projects are well above 400 hectares. Larger projects tend to have lower land acquisition costs. Also, since co-located projects involve at least two large players, a commercial real estate developer, and a railway company, they can tap into capital pools with better conditions than a smaller actor (e.g. interest rates). For instance, CenterPoint Properties is owned by the pension fund CalPERS (California public employees’ retirement fund), enabling access to long-term capital pools. Another important aspect is that a co-located logistic project enables the joint planning of facilities. - **Specialization**. A co-location project enables both actors involved to focus on their core competencies, creating multiplying factors. For instance, the rail company can focus on terminal development and operations while the real estate promoter can develop and manage the freight distribution facilities. - **Interdependency**. The terminal operator and freight distribution activities are their respective customers, implying that both partners have vested interests in the efficiency of their operations. The possibility of joint marketing where the logistic zone is promoted as a single intermodal package is also common since the terminal is sold as a value proposition to potential customers. - **Drayage**. A co-location project offers notable operational advantages for drayage, not just because of proximity but because trucks can have priority access through the terminal’s gates (e.g. pre-registration, advance notification, RFID). Drivers can perform more deliveries per day, and the reliability of these deliveries improves. - **Asset utilization**. Intermodal transportation assets are capital intensive, and there are pressures to increase their utilization level to achieve better returns on investments. Containers and chassis tend to be the assets that are the most prone to such strategies, namely by setting up chassis pools and empty container depots. - **Information technologies**. A co-location project offers the possibility of jointly planning information systems for terminal operations and related supply chains, creating a community system where users can have access to real-time information about the status of their shipments. Both terminal operations and their related supply chains benefit. One drawback is that co-located logistics activities depend on the performance of the terminal and the level of service offered by the rail operator. If the rail operator has other priorities within its network, then the efficiency of the co-located logistic zone is compromised. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/advantages-co-location-dry-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/advantages-co-location-dry-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/advantages-co-location-dry-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/advantages-co-location-dry-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Bomb Carts, Yusen Terminals, Port of Los Angeles](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/bomb-carts-yusen-terminals/) **Published:** February 9, 2024 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2023-03-28-134043.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Bomb Carts, Yusen Terminals, Port of Los Angeles | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Bomb Carts Yusen Terminals Port of Los Angeles*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2023.* Bomb carts are designed for intra-terminal use allowing a quick turnaround of containers because they are gravity-loaded. There is no latching system (twist locks) and the container is dropped in a casing. For this reason, they cannot be used to carry containers on regular roadways. They can also be used for the storage of heavy container loads since they are the most structurally resilient type of chassis. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/bomb-carts-yusen-terminals/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/bomb-carts-yusen-terminals/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/bomb-carts-yusen-terminals/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/bomb-carts-yusen-terminals/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Construction of Deurganckdock, Antwerp](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/construction-deurganckdock/) **Published:** January 8, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/be-deurganckdok_2.jpg?resize=900%2C888&ssl=1 "Construction of the Deurganckdock in Antwerp | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Construction of the Deurganckdock in Antwerp*Source: adapted from Vandamme, M., Bernaers, G., Aerts, F., Construction of the Deurganckdok in the Port of Antwerp, Belgium*. After the completion in 1996 of two container terminals (Europaterminal and Noordzeeterminal) situated on the river Scheldt in the port of Antwerp, new container handling capacity was needed to accommodate the fast-growing container traffic in the port. A new **tidal dock (Deurganckdock)** was constructed, consisting of about 5 km of new quay walls at the left bank of the river Scheldt, surrounded by 300 ha of terminal area. The first terminals were officially opened in 2005. At present, the dock is home to two terminals: MPET (PSA/MSC) and Antwerp Gateway (operated by DP World), which combined handle a large part of the port’s total container throughput. The quay walls were constructed as a large **L-shaped reinforced concrete wall** with a height of 30m, fully constructed in a **dry excavation**. The water depth taken into account during the design was 17m at the mean low water level. A **draining system** was incorporated to prevent excessive water pressure behind the quay wall. In front of the quay wall, **erosion protection** was installed to prevent erosion of the harbor bottom. The construction took place in several phases: - **Lowering the groundwater** level at the construction area by 26m. - **Large excavation** to make it possible to build the quay wall in a dry way. The sand that was excavated from the deeper layers was later used to refill the excavation behind completed parts of the quay wall. - **Sheet piling** to prevent erosion due to piping beneath the quay wall and prevent sliding of the quay wall. - **Continued excavation** continued between the sheet piles until the foundation level of the quay wall was reached. - Construction in reinforced concrete of the **foundation base of the L-shaped quay wall** (width of 24 to 26m). The concrete part of the quay wall was made in modular parts 20m wide. - Placement of **rubber joint strips** to prevent loss of sand through the joints. - Construction of the **vertical part of the quay wall** on top of the foundation also in parts with a length of 20m. Concrete was made by a concrete plant at the construction site. - **Refilling of excavation** behind the finished parts of the quay wall. - Construction of the **top phase of the wall** and the installation of the necessary **mooring equipment** are included (bollards, fenders). - Installations of provisions for the **waterside crane rail**. - After finishing the quay walls, **dredging** started. During the first phase of the dredging works, the embankment between the river and the dock was kept untouched (see picture). The dredged material was used for the hydraulic landfill at the future terminal areas and to fill up part of the existing Doeldok. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/construction-deurganckdock/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/construction-deurganckdock/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/construction-deurganckdock/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/construction-deurganckdock/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cargo Bundling Options in Hinterland Transportation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/cargo-bundling-options-hinterland-transportation/) **Published:** January 5, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cargo_bundling_options_hinterland.png?resize=900%2C598&ssl=1 "Cargo Bundling Options in Hinterland Transportation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cargo bundling options in hinterland transportation*Source: adapted from Notteboom, T. (2008) Bundling of freight flows and hinterland network development, in: Konings, R., Priemus, H., Nijkamp, P. (eds), The Future of Intermodal Freight Transport, Operations, Technology, Design and Implementation, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, p. 66-88*. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/cargo-bundling-options-hinterland-transportation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/cargo-bundling-options-hinterland-transportation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/cargo-bundling-options-hinterland-transportation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/cargo-bundling-options-hinterland-transportation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Yangtze River System](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/yangtze-river-system/) **Published:** January 4, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/yangtze_system2.png?resize=900%2C459&ssl=1 "The Yangtze River System | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Yangtze River SystemThe navigable part of the Yangtze River can be divided into three main sections: - The **Lower Yangtze** from Shanghai to Nanjing that allow deepsea ships with a draft of around 11 meters. - The **Middle Yangtze** from Nanjing to Yichang (the nearest container port to the Three Gorges Dam). - The **Upper Yangtze** from Yichang to Yibin. The inland port city of Chongqing is located in the upper reach, and the city of Wuhan is located in the middle reach. Together with Nanjing and Shanghai, these four cities are the main cities along the Yangtze River. The river depth during Winter (the low draft period) declines from 10.5 meters in the delta area between Shanghai and Nanjing, around 5 to 6 meters between Wuhu and Wuhan, about 4 meters in the stretch between Fuling and Wuhan, to between 2.5 and 3 meters around Chongqing and to less than 2 meters beyond Lanjiatuo (which lies between Chongqing and Luzhou). The water level between the Winter and Summer seasons can differ as much as 4 meters on average, implying more technical capacity during summer. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/yangtze-river-system/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/yangtze-river-system/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/yangtze-river-system/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/yangtze-river-system/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Designated US Marine Highways](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/designated-us-marine-highways/) **Published:** December 25, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-US-Maritime-Routes.png?resize=900%2C573&ssl=1 "Designated US Marine Highways | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Designated US Marine Highways*Source: Adapted from U.S. Department of Transportation – Maritime Administration.* In 2007, the US Maritime Administration initiated a program promoting the use of the [national waterway system](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3308), which includes rivers, channels, coastal navigation routes, and the [St. Lawrence Seaway](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=9075) / Great Lakes system. In order to underline the possible complementarity between the highway and waterway system, analogies were created. Specific waterway corridors were identified as ‘marine highways’, and each was given a designation corresponding to a similar [Interstate Highway](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=1864) using the prefix ‘M’ instead of ‘I’. For instance, marine highway M-95, which spans the eastern seaboard, corresponds to the I-95 highway that follows a similar path. There are several expectations behind this strategy: - **Reduce congestion** on the Interstate Highway and, to a lesser extent, on the railway system. It is expected that additional cargo, particularly heavier cargoes, may switch from rail and road to waterways. In addition, this may reduce maintenance costs for road and rail systems. - **Reduce air emissions** per ton-km since waterway transportation is much more energy-efficient than road and rail. This could help make the national transport system more sustainable. - **Provide additional transport options** for cargo that complement more than compete with existing transport systems and add a redundancy level to the system. The expectation is that the competitiveness of the American economy would be improved. Yet, waterway transportation in the United States is facing several challenges. The first is related to the geography of commercial flows, which are dominantly east-west while the waterway system has a north-south orientation. Very few ports in North America are at the head of a waterway system enabling extensive hinterland access, and the only major exceptions are New Orleans and Montreal. The second is the established competitiveness of road and rail transportation, leaving the use of waterways to niche markets such as long-established bulk trades (grain, coal) or project cargo. Waterways have difficulties fitting in contemporary freight distribution systems that lean more on time and reliability than transport costs. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/designated-us-marine-highways/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/designated-us-marine-highways/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/designated-us-marine-highways/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/designated-us-marine-highways/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Inland Ports and Logistics Zones Around the Rhine / Scheldt Delta](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/inland-ports-logistics-zones-rhine-scheldt-delta/) **Published:** January 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Rhine-Scheldt-Delta-Inland-Ports.png?resize=900%2C574&ssl=1 "Inland Ports and Logistics Zones Around the Rhine / Scheldt Delta | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Inland Ports and Logistics Zones Around the Rhine Scheldt Delta*Source: adapted from Notteboom, T. (2006) Port regionalization in Antwerp, in: Notteboom, T. (ed.), Ports are more than piers, De Lloyd: Antwerp, pp. 307-328.* [PDF MAP](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Rhine-Scheldt-Delta-Inland-Ports.pdf) Seaports are the central nodes driving the dynamics of large logistics clusters. But at the same time, seaports rely heavily on inland ports to preserve their attractiveness. A major example of the formation of a [gateway region](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=1416) in Western Europe is the Rhine-Scheldt Delta. The logistics zones in the Netherlands are mainly located in ports or around new or existing barge or rail terminals in the hinterland. Dordrecht and Moerdijk are important overflow locations for the port of Rotterdam. There are now large concentrations of logistics sites in and around the inner port of Liege, along the Geel-Hasselt-Genk axis and the Antwerp-Brussels axis, and in the Kortrijk/Lille border region. The existing geographical concentration of logistics sites has stimulated the development of inland terminals in these areas. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/inland-ports-logistics-zones-rhine-scheldt-delta/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/inland-ports-logistics-zones-rhine-scheldt-delta/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/inland-ports-logistics-zones-rhine-scheldt-delta/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/inland-ports-logistics-zones-rhine-scheldt-delta/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Rail Freight Corridors in Europe](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/rail-freight-corridors-europe/) **Published:** January 4, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/RNE_Europe_map_2018_full.png?resize=900%2C613&ssl=1 "Rail Freight Corridors in Europe | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Rail Freight Corridors RFCs in Europe*Source: RailNetEurope.* Regulation No. 913/2010 of the European Union required EU Member States to establish international rail freight corridors with the following main features: - Co-operation between the (often national) Infrastructure Managers (IMs) in the field of train path allocation, deployment of interoperable systems, and infrastructure development. - Provide enough capacity for freight transport, next to passenger transport. - Promoting intermodality by integrating terminals into the corridor management process. In late 2005 RailNetEurope (RNE) adopted a corridor management approach for the main European corridors carrying international rail traffic. In the meantime, all RNE Corridors have been replaced by Rail Freight Corridors (RFCs). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/rail-freight-corridors-europe/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/rail-freight-corridors-europe/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/rail-freight-corridors-europe/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/rail-freight-corridors-europe/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Betuweroute](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/betuweroute/) **Published:** December 25, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2000px-Niederlande_und_Betuwe_4.svg_.png?resize=900%2C636&ssl=1 "The Betuweroute | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Betuweroute*Source: Wikipedia.* The Betuweroute is a double tracked freight rail track towards Germany and further into Europe. Work on the Dutch part of the track began in 1998. Delayed by two years, the railway was finished in mid-2007, at a cost of 4.7 billion euro, more than two times the original budget. The Betuweroute is managed by Keyrail, with the shareholders being Prorail (50% – Prorail is the rail infrastructure manager in the Netherlands), Rotterdam Port Authority (35%), and Amsterdam Port Authority (15%). The Port of Amsterdam was connected to the Betuweroute in March 2011 via a railway connection near Meteren/Geldermalsen. A key problem limiting the capacity of the Betuweroute is that the German part – the final stretch Emmerich-Oberhausen – is still not completed. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/betuweroute/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/betuweroute/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/betuweroute/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/betuweroute/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/belt-and-road-initiative-bri/) **Published:** January 4, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/belt_and_road.png?resize=900%2C900&ssl=1 "The Belt and Road Initiative | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Belt and Road Initiative The **Belt and Road Initiative** (BRI) was launched in 2013 by President Xi Jinping to foster economic cooperation from the Western Pacific to the Baltic Sea and to break the connectivity bottleneck in Asia through infrastructure investments. It was initially called the **One Belt One Road Initiative** (OBOR). The BRI program is central to China’s foreign policy and domestic economic strategy. In March 2015, the Chinese government unveiled a BRI initiatives action plan. The initiative covers a land-based (in essence rail-based) **Silk Road Economic Belt** (One Belt), including a zone of influence on both sides of the Belt, and a 21st century **Maritime Silk Road** (One Road). The land-based Belt begins in Xi’an in central China before stretching west through Lanzhou (Gansu province), Urumqi (Xinjiang), and Khorgas (Xinjiang), which is near the border with Kazakhstan. The Silk Road then runs to Duisburg in Germany via Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, the Czech Republic, and Germany. From Duisburg, it connects to major north European ports such as Rotterdam, Antwerp, and Hamburg. The Belt runs south to Venice in Italy, where it meets the Maritime Silk Road. The Maritime Silk Road begins in the port of Quanzhou in Fujian province and calls at Guangzhou, Beihai (Guangxi), and Haikou (Hainan) before heading south to the Malacca Strait. Then, it connects to India/Pakistan (Gwadar port) and East Africa before entering the Mediterranean with key stops in the port of Piraeus in Greece and the port of Venice in Italy. Meanwhile, the number of routes has been extended. It now covers six economic corridors: the China-Mongolia Russia economic corridor, the New Eurasia Landbridge economic corridor, the China-Central Asia-West Asia economic corridor, the China-Pakistan economic corridor, the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar economic corridor, and the China-Indochina Peninsula economic corridor. Since the announcement of the BRI, the number of countries involved has continued to grow. The BRI initiative is supported by a range of funds and financial institutions such as the Silk Road Fund, China Development Bank, and the Export-Import Bank of China (China Eximbank). CIC Capital, a subsidiary of China’s sovereign wealth fund, also finances BRI projects like other commercial banks. Also, the multilateral Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) has a role in financing infrastructure in Asia. China’s motives for launching the BRI are of a cultural/historical, geoeconomic, and geopolitical nature: - The **historical and cultural motives** are linked to the ancient trade routes that connected China to the Middle East and Europe established during the Han dynasty (207 BCE to 220 CE). Xi’an served as the starting point and endpoint of the historical Silk Road. The geography of the Maritime Silk Road resembles the historical exploits of Admiral Zheng He (1371-1433), who made maritime journeys between 1405 and 1433 with a reported fleet of some 300 ships. After sailing through South Asia, India, and the Middle East, Somalia and Kenya were reached in 1418. - The **geoeconomic motives** are mainly linked to China’s search for economic growth, including for its western and central provinces (Go West policy). Developing stronger economic ties with trading partners and emerging nations in Asia, Central Asia, and Africa, finding new markets for Chinese industries, for example, in steel, cement, and alumina, streamlining the foreign investments of Chinese companies and enhancing capital convergence and currency integration of the Chinese Yuan (RMB) are also core motives. - The **geopolitical motives** relate to China’s ambition to increase its influence and to adopt a leadership role in the world by making stronger use of economics in shaping diplomatic relationships. There is also a domestic geopolitical component, as China is determined to preserve its territorial integrity. Including Xinjiang province in the BRI as a hub for Central Asia should help meet this objective. While the BRI offers potential for economic cooperation and development, its implementation is **not without risks**. Some of the key regions involved face political instability. Infrastructure development faces some governance risks, such as the need for financial discipline, careful budgeting, and fair tender procedures to avoid any waste of resources. Another key issue is the need to further develop know-how and expertise in infrastructure planning and financing in some of the less developed regions along the Belt and Road. At the seaport level, Chinese companies have proven to be highly instrumental in the realization of key port expansion and rehabilitation projects across Asia, Africa, and parts of Europe, partly in the context of BRI. Still, Chinese investments are **being scrutinized** regarding the security risk they might pose to national interests, the need for open and fair contracting procedures, and China’s credit terms imposed on some of the developing countries involved. Claims and accusations in these areas potentially damage China’s reputation. Therefore, the Chinese government and companies are developing a more restrictive and prudent approach. At the same time, the BRI focuses on softer aspects, such as cultural exchange, to complement the complex economics behind international investments and transactions. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/belt-and-road-initiative-bri/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/belt-and-road-initiative-bri/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/belt-and-road-initiative-bri/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/belt-and-road-initiative-bri/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Modal Split at Selected North American Container Ports, 2007](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/modal-split-selected-ports-north-america/) **Published:** January 13, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/modal_split_north_america.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Modal Split at Selected North American Container Ports, 2007 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Modal Split at Selected North American Container Ports 2007*Source: Port Authorities.* The North American hinterland usually involves long distances, which is related to the higher role of rail transportation, particularly in comparison with [Europe](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/modal-split-selected-ports-europe/ "Modal Split at Selected European Container Ports, 2007"). Still, there are substantial variations in the modal split of ports, which is attributable to their hinterland. The differences between East Coast and West Coast port hinterlands are noticeable. Ports such as New York, Hampton Roads, Houston, and Savannah are mostly servicing an immediate hinterland, implying a higher share of trucking. San Pedro Bay ports (Los Angeles and Long Beach), Seattle, and Vancouver have a much higher share of rail, particularly since they serve as gateways to inland markets. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/modal-split-selected-ports-north-america/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/modal-split-selected-ports-north-america/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/modal-split-selected-ports-north-america/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/modal-split-selected-ports-north-america/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Modal Split at Selected European Container Ports, 2007](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/modal-split-selected-ports-europe/) **Published:** January 13, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/modal_split_europe.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Modal Split at Selected European Container Ports, 2007 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Modal Split at Selected European Container Ports 2007*Source: adapted from “The future of freight transport and inland shipping in Europe 2010 – 2011”, Dutch Inland Shipping Information Agency.* The relatively short hinterland distances serviced by European ports, often less than 600 km (most common distances between 450 and 1200 km), are reflected in the modal split where **trucking dominates**. However, as traffic increases, this modal dominance is associated with congestion at terminal gates and involves higher energy consumption levels. Since the 2000s, several strategies have been implemented to diversify modal options towards rail and barge, supporting better economies of scale and being more energy-efficient. This is particularly the case of Antwerp and Rotterdam along the Rhine – Scheldt delta, which has enabled them to develop inland barge services that account for more than 30% of the container transshipped at the ports. Ports that have grown recently, such as Constanza, Bremerhaven, and Zeebrugge, have better integrated with hinterland rail connections since on-dock or near-dock facilities were part of the terminal design. Comparatively, the hinterland of [North American ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/modal-split-selected-ports-north-america/ "Modal Split at Selected North American Container Ports, 2007") concerns much longer distances. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/modal-split-selected-ports-europe/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/modal-split-selected-ports-europe/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/modal-split-selected-ports-europe/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/modal-split-selected-ports-europe/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The North American Container Port System and its Multi-Port Gateway Regions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/north-american-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/) **Published:** November 17, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-North-American-Multi-Port-Gateways.png?resize=900%2C700&ssl=1 "The North American Container Port System and its Multi-Port Gateway Regions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The North American Container Port System and its Multi Port Gateway Regions*Source: Rodrigue, J-P and T. Notteboom (2010) “Comparative North American and European Gateway Logistics: The Regionalism of Freight Distribution”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 497-507.* The North American hinterland can be accessed from three main maritime facades: the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the Gulf coasts. Along gateway regions, various long-distance intermodal rail corridors have been established. The inland rail freight transport system of North America is unique in the world, not only because of its size but also because of the direct link made between three different coastlines, forming an integrated landbridge. The observed cargo concentration levels in the North American container port system emanate from the increasing dominance of Long Beach/Los Angeles as the major gateways along the Pacific Coast, mainly catering to Asian import cargo. The Pacific Coast now accounts for 55% of the total container volume handled, up from 50% in 1990, placing intense pressure on its main gateways. The share of the Los Angeles / Long Beach port cluster of the total US container traffic evolved from 25.6% in 1995, 35.2% in 2005, 32.6% in 2015, and 33.0% in 2020. During the same period, New York/New Jersey’s share increased from 10.6%, 11.6%, 13.5%, and 14.5%, respectively, which is in part attributed to the expansion of the Panama Canal. Traffic doubled every decade, an indication of the rapid growth of international trade as well as the diffusion of containerization as a privileged mode of transportation. However, the extent to which this trend will endure is highly questionable, as evidenced by the impacts of the financial crisis of 2008-09 and the subsequent fall and limited recovery of container volumes. The West Coast of North America is also the object of significant transloading activities, which account for about 30% of all the containers handled. The other 40% and 30% are railed to inland destinations or trucked. Therefore, gateways have different modal splits depending on their role as consumption centers and points of distribution to the North American hinterland. Major North American hinterlands are changing, namely because of the relative decline of the industrial belt (which has been monitored for decades) and the industrialization of the “sunbelt”. These are long-term shifts influencing the geography of production and consumption that are reflected in the gradual reorientation of trade. NAFTA (which became USMCA in 2018) also favored the setting of what can be labeled as natural gateways and corridors since they reflect geographic advantages (market accessibility) instead of regulatory impositions (e.g. a mandated port of entry) that prevailed before. This particularly concerns Canada (Vancouver, Prince Rupert, and Montreal) and Mexico (Lazaro Cardenas), which have experienced a gradual reorientation of traffic flows. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/north-american-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/north-american-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/north-american-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/north-american-container-port-system-multi-port-gateway-regions/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Authority Mergers in the Rhine-Scheldt Delta](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/rhine-scheldt-delta-europe-multi-port-gateway-region/) **Published:** February 4, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/RSD-cooperation.png?resize=900%2C573&ssl=1 "RSD-cooperation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")*Source: Notteboom (2021), own compilation based on figures port authorities* The Rhine-Scheldt Delta includes all ports located in the estuary systems of the Rhine, Meuse, and Scheldt rivers. In 2020, this port system handled about 878 million tons and about 28.7 million TEU. The two largest ports in Europe, Rotterdam and Antwerp, are located in this Delta as well as Europe’s fourth-largest (Amsterdam). Antwerp, Rotterdam, North Sea Port, and Moerdijk are home to large interconnected (petro)chemical industry clusters. At the same time, steel plants can be found in North Sea Port (ArcelorMittal) and Ijmuiden/Amsterdam (Tata Steel). The port of Amsterdam is strongly specialized in liquid bulk and dry bulk and has very limited container traffic. The coastal port area of Zeebrugge (by late 2021, managed by Port of Antwerp-Bruges) is the largest car-handling port in the world, with about three million new cars handled each year, and a major energy hub for gas transported by pipelines and LNG carriers. The region is home to several **‘bottom-up’ mergers and cooperation agreements between port authorities**: - The cross-border port authority **North Sea Port** was formed in 2018 after the merger between the port authority of Ghent (Belgium) and Zeeland Seaports (ports of Flushing and Terneuzen in the Netherlands). North Sea Port is the second cross-border European port merger after the creation of Copenhagen-Malmo port (Denmark/Sweden). - **Port of Antwerp-Bruges**. This merger port authority was announced in February 2021 and formally installed on 22 April 2022. It is the result of the merger between the Antwerp Port Authority and MBZ, the port authority of Zeebrugge. It is one of the largest port mergers in Europe in terms of volume. The merged entity remains a municipal port authority, with 80% of the shares held by the City of Antwerp and 20% by the City of Bruges. Discussion about the merger started in early 2018 between the City of Antwerp and the City of Bruges with a view to closer collaboration. However, there have been several other attempts to reach a closer collaboration between both ports in the past decades, particularly focusing on the container business. Next to further strengthening its position in cargo handling and logistics, the merged entity also aims to become Europe’s most important hub for hydrogen, a center for energy transition and the circular economy, and overall a resilient, sustainable, and diversified port ecosystem. The ports combined handled 278 million tons in 2020 and 13.8 million TEU. The port area (i.e. Antwerp right bank, Antwerp left bank, and Zeebrugge’s inner and outer port area) covers just over 14,000 hectares. Direct employment amounts to 72,000 jobs, and direct and indirect value added reached 20 billion euro (or 4.5% of Belgium’s GDP in 2019). - In 2013, the **Port of Rotterdam Authority** adopted responsibility for the operation and development of **Dordrecht’s port area.** The port authority is working closely with the Municipality of Dordrecht and local companies to exploit the full potential of the 290-hectare port area and the neighboring industrial estate under the brand name **Dordrecht Inland Seaport**. - The **Port of Amsterdam** can be considered the main port in a cluster of ports along the North Sea Canal, which include Amsterdam, Velsen/IJmuiden, Zaanstad, and Beverwijk. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/rhine-scheldt-delta-europe-multi-port-gateway-region/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/rhine-scheldt-delta-europe-multi-port-gateway-region/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/rhine-scheldt-delta-europe-multi-port-gateway-region/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/rhine-scheldt-delta-europe-multi-port-gateway-region/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Some Goods Consumed On Board a 3,000 Pax Cruise Ship per Week](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/goods-consumed-3000-pax-cruise-ship/) **Published:** January 27, 2024 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/goods_consumed_3000_cruise_ship.jpg?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Some Goods Consumed on Board a 3,000 Pax Cruise Ship per Week | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Some Goods Consumed on Board a 3000 Pax Cruise Ship per Week*Photo: Wikipedia. Source: Costa Departments: Fleet Operations and Environmental Management.* A cruise ship with 3,000 passengers is considered of average size, with the largest ships exceeding 6,000 passengers. A typical cruise is seven days, and the ship stores are usually replenished at the turn port, so the cruise carries all the provisions for the full journey. For instance, about 24,000 water bottles are loaded on board at each cruise turn. The provisions on the above chart are all containers (plastic, aluminum, cardboard, or glass) that need to be disposed of and compacted on the ship as international laws forbid their disposal at sea. This requires a recycling facility on board as well as a point of collection at the turn port. Further, it offers a large amount of materials to be used within the port community for circular economy processes. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/goods-consumed-3000-pax-cruise-ship/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/goods-consumed-3000-pax-cruise-ship/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/goods-consumed-3000-pax-cruise-ship/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/goods-consumed-3000-pax-cruise-ship/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Packer Avenue Marine Terminal, Philadelphia](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/packer-avenue-marine-terminal-philadelphia/) **Published:** January 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-06-04-10.10.30.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "2019-06-04 10.10.30 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Packer Avenue Marine Terminal Philadelphia *Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2019.* The Philadelphia / Wilmington/ Gloucester port cluster is the most important concentration of reefer activity in the United States, particularly for fruit imports from Latin America. The Packer Avenue Marine Terminal, operated by Holt Logistics, is a container terminal facility handling around 350,000 TEUs per year on a 42-hectare facility. About 50% of all the containers handled by the terminal are reefers, which is a very high proportion compared to an average of around 5%. This underlines the importance of cold chain logistics, with the terminal having more than 2,200 reefer plugs. Such a number is usually found in the refrigerated capacity available for a 2 million TEU terminal. Four new super post-Panamax cranes were delivered in early 2019, which allows the terminal to handle ships up to 12,000 TEUs. The ship depicted in the above photo is the Hammonia Husum, a geared containership of 2,500 TEUs that is dominantly used for carrying reefers between Latin America and the US East Coast and Europe. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/packer-avenue-marine-terminal-philadelphia/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/packer-avenue-marine-terminal-philadelphia/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/packer-avenue-marine-terminal-philadelphia/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/packer-avenue-marine-terminal-philadelphia/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Extended Gate Concept](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/extended-gate-concept/) **Published:** November 17, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/extended_gate_concept.png?resize=900%2C543&ssl=1 "The Extended Gate Concept | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Extended Gate ConceptWhile [port r](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3399)[eg](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/spatial-development-port-system/ "The Spatial Development of a Port System")[ionalization](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3399) relates to the process that a port undertakes to improve its accessibility to its hinterland, the **extended gate concept** refers to the strategies by a single terminal operator to improve its hinterland services. Therefore, an extended gate is a specific form of port regionalization where the services offered by a terminal operator go beyond its gate. It involves horizontal and vertical integration and extension of its services. - **Horizontal Integration**. Terminal operators can set up services to a terminal located in another port, and this can be done either through maritime (feeders) or land (rail shuttles, barge services) connections. Thus, they can deliver containers to a nearby port on behalf of their customers as a service to that port that is only available if a selected port is used. This is particularly true if a terminal operator has assets in both ports and wishes to improve their utilization level. A new form of port competition takes shape. Extended gates also rely on better management of the inventory that is temporarily stored at the terminal, enabling owners to have the opportunity to pick up or drop cargo (containers) at a moment that better fits their supply chains. Another form of horizontal integration concerns the setting up of **extended distribution centers** that effectively use the inland port (or the port terminal) as a warehouse, implying that once a container is at the terminal, it can be considered part of the inventory of the warehouse. - **Vertical Integration**. Integrating a terminal with [transloading](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/containers-and-ports/container-transloading/ "Container Transloading") activities and container depots is a form of vertical integration where a terminal operator offers or connects to inland logistical services beyond its gates. However, using inland ports represents the most advanced form of vertical integration for an extended gate strategy. By setting up transport services to an inland port facility, a terminal operator can deliver (or pick up) containers at a facility closer to main importers or exporters (cargo owners). The inland port becomes the extended gate of the port terminal. [Additional activities](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=7451), such as customs clearance, can also take place at the inland facility. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/extended-gate-concept/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/extended-gate-concept/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/extended-gate-concept/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/extended-gate-concept/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Contact Us](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contact-us/) **Published:** September 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** For queries concerning using the material for different purposes or corrections, please contact the authors: - **Dr. Theo Notteboom**. Chair Professor ‘North Sea Port’ at the [Maritime Institute](https://www.law.ugent.be/maritimeinstitute/maritime-institute), Faculty of Law and Criminology, Ghent University, Belgium. ([theo.notteboom@ugent.be](mailto:theo.notteboom@uantwerpen.be)) - **Dr. Athanasios Pallis**. Professor in Port & Shipping Economics and Policy, [Department of Maritime Studies](https://maritime-unipi.gr/en/), University of Piraeus, Greece. (<apallis@unipi.gr>) - **Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue**. Professor and Hagler Distinguished Fellow, [Department of Maritime Business Administration](https://www.tamug.edu/mara/index.html), Texas A&M University-Galveston. (<ecojpr@tamug.edu>) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contact-us/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contact-us/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contact-us/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contact-us/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Circular Economy and Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/circular-economy-supply-chains/) **Published:** September 23, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/circular_economy_supply_chains.png?resize=900%2C620&ssl=1 "The Circular Economy and Supply Chains | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Circular Economy and Supply ChainsMost environmental processes, such as the water and carbon cycles, are based on large-scale circular principles since materials flow from one state to another. However, true circular principles are impossible from an entropic perspective since environmental processes require an important external input, which is energy (solar), to function. The circular economy tries to imply some of these principles on a smaller scale, such as within definable supply chains. Similar to environmental processes, a circular economy cannot function without large and low-cost energy inputs. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/circular-economy-supply-chains/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/circular-economy-supply-chains/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/circular-economy-supply-chains/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/circular-economy-supply-chains/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Benefits of the Leadership of Port Authorities in Promoting Circularity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/benefits-port-authorities-active-leadership-circularity/) **Published:** December 6, 2023 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/benefits_leadership_port_authorities_circular.png?resize=900%2C522&ssl=1 "Benefits of the Leadership of Port Authorities in Promoting Circularity | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Benefits of the Leadership of Port Authorities in Promoting CircularityThe leadership of the port authorities creates conditions for increased investments in advancing port circularity. By assuming a leadership role, port authorities are the active community builders engaging policymakers across different policy areas and levels of governance, as well as various stakeholders, in the circular port transition. Substantial investments condition circularity in any given port. However, ports are complex ecosystems with multiple service providers, users, and stakeholders who might not necessarily devote resources and invest alone in initiatives enhancing the circular transition. This is because the benefits of such initiatives might not be visible, individual entities might endorse different hierarchies, or simply because the impact of investments by a single actor alone might not be considerable. The level of voluntary investments is considerably lower than the optimum level (I\*). Port authorities might advance processes, incentivizing, supporting, and, thus, enabling the clustering of activities. They might also introduce new business models, and encourage broader and better CE-related investments and choices. In addition, port authorities can be facilitators, enablers, developers, and integrators that stimulate circularity transition initiatives in the port. Besides, as [cluster and community managers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-authorities/#2_Functions_of_Port_Authorities), port authorities have a specific role in engaging and stimulating collaboration with local governments, environmental organizations, and businesses to exchange best practices, share resources, and align goals for CE in ports. Through cluster governance of the circular port transition, the port authority might even assume leadership in aspects that conventionally were outside its jurisdiction, such as various strategies to monitor and improve circular performance, setting up material flow analysis tools, and facilitating relations with its surrounding urban areas on circular port issues. Port authorities can potentially be the crucial intermediaries in transitioning the many different sectors that intersect in ports. Intermediation helps to balance the many different objectives and efforts in the complex network of port-related actors and stakeholders. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/benefits-port-authorities-active-leadership-circularity/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/benefits-port-authorities-active-leadership-circularity/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/benefits-port-authorities-active-leadership-circularity/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/benefits-port-authorities-active-leadership-circularity/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Recycling from Waste to Pure Raw Material](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/recycling-from-waste-to-pure-raw-material/) **Published:** November 11, 2023 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/recycling_waste_raw_materials.png?resize=900%2C382&ssl=1 "Recycling from Waste to Pure Raw Materials | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Recycling from Waste to Pure Raw MaterialsRecycling from waste to pure raw material in a certified way allows for better environmental performance while helping people and companies become more sustainable. By carefully selecting and shorting materials, extracting the highest feasible volume of new row material for every tonne of waste is possible. Certification allows for efforts towards a circular port economy to be acknowledged. Foremost, certification provides all parties with certainty and a level playing field to determine when a secondary raw material should no longer be considered as ‘waste’ but as ‘end-of-waste’. One of the barriers faced by operators who want to use secondary raw materials is uncertainty about their quality. Given the absence of standards to ascertain impurity levels or suitability for recycling, certification increases trust in secondary raw and recycled materials, and helps support the market. One such example exists in the Netherlands, where a metal recycling company transforms waste generated in the port of Rotterdam and provides an “End-of-Waste” (EoW) certificate. The certificate allows manufacturers to offer recycled materials such as iron, steel, and aluminum as pure raw materials. This recycled material can be used for the production process of new metals. Using recycled material instead of virgin materials not only solves energy but also reduces greenhouse gas emissions, including CO2. Recycling metals also reduces other adverse environmental issues associated with extracting new raw materials from the earth. The certificate offers buyers and sellers of recycled materials the assurance that metal waste has been processed and offered sustainably and responsibly. Working this way favors the commitment to a sustainable and circular economy with the goal of zero emissions, as it lowers the use of raw materials, energy, and costs. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/recycling-from-waste-to-pure-raw-material/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/recycling-from-waste-to-pure-raw-material/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/recycling-from-waste-to-pure-raw-material/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/recycling-from-waste-to-pure-raw-material/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Technology Hype Cycle and the Port Circular Economy](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/technology-hype-cycle-port-circular-economy/) **Published:** December 13, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/hype_cycle_port_circular_economy.png?resize=900%2C492&ssl=1 "Technology Hype Cycle and the Port Circular Economy | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Technology Hype Cycle and the Port Circular EconomySince port circular processes are a relatively recent endeavor relying on technologies and concepts that have not been fully formalized, they can be subject to hype cycles. There is a potential that some aspects of circularity can be exaggerated and may lead to **delusion** and even **abandonment**. This path dependency is not assured, but a realistic assessment of each port circular process needs to be considered to avoid a backlash from funders, policymakers, and the general public. Although each port may have a different potential for the realization of circularity, the following can be currently assumed: - **Introduction**. Some circular processes are being introduced in some ports as test cases, most of the time with high levels of subsidies. For instance, material hubs have yet to demonstrate their supporting role fully. A more inventive process of port land management is underway, particularly in ports in transition, but the costs and risks of brownfield sites can lead to a reassessment. - **Inflated expectations**. The issue of green hydrogen can be the subject of inflated expectations due to the difficulties and high cost of procuring fuel on a scale relevant to maritime shipping. ESG (Environmental Social Governance) financing has been more controversial, associated with massive capital misallocations on projects with limited or no returns or forcing corporations to comply with policies imposed by external actors with unproven benefits. - **Realization**. Electrification and automation are well-proven technologies that have gradually been implemented into port terminals because of the measurable operational benefits. Still, these strategies are complex and capital-intensive, not necessarily available to smaller ports. Further, recycling has a long-standing implementation in the maritime industry, particularly concerning dismantling ships and containers. Recycling is being expanded to include circular processes such as reuse and remanufacturing as well as better mechanical and chemical processes for recycling. Most circular initiatives have not yet reached the productivity peak, when the principles are effectively implemented, leading to productive outcomes. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/technology-hype-cycle-port-circular-economy/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/technology-hype-cycle-port-circular-economy/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/technology-hype-cycle-port-circular-economy/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/technology-hype-cycle-port-circular-economy/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Circular Economy in Ports and Maritime Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/circular-economy-ports-maritime-shipping/) **Published:** December 30, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/circular_ports_shipping.png?resize=900%2C417&ssl=1 "The Circular Economy in Ports and Maritime Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Circular Economy in Ports and Maritime ShippingThe port and maritime shipping industry have **unique forms of circularity**. Both shipping lines and terminal operators rely on their linear supply/procurement chains, with the outcomes being the setting up of shipping networks (A) and investments in port infrastructure (B). Four principles common to the circular economy can be integrated into the port and shipping sectors: - **Maintenance**. This basic form of circularity ensures that the product can be recurrently used and has its life cycle extended. To maintain acceptable operational conditions, both ships (A.1) and ports (B.1) require recurring maintenance. For capital-intensive assets, maintenance is a common aspect of extending their life cycle, in opposition to several consumer goods not designed to be repaired. Therefore, the port and shipping industries are based on substantial repair and maintenance practices where cost-effectiveness and predictability are at the forefront of their commercial viability. Maintenance is a particularly challenging issue for port terminals as operations have to continue while maintenance is taking place. - **Reuse**. There is an extensive market for ship sales or leases (A.2), allowing shipping assets to be shared and remain optimally used. For instance, several of the largest shipping lines can lease more than half of their ship assets. At the end of the lease, the ship can return to the leasing market and be “reused”. Another circular characteristic concerns the cascading of ships from deepsea to regional feeder services when new and larger ships are introduced. Since ports are fixed assets, concessions (B.2) can be perceived as circularity mechanisms where port authorities offer terminal assets to be leased. Once the concession is over, the terminal asset can be leased by another terminal operator. Terminal equipment can also be leased to cover periods of high activity or to remove excess capacity. - **Remanufacture**. Ships can be converted to new uses and new propulsion technologies (A.3). For instance, the first containerships were converted bulk and break-bulk ships, and the first cruise ships were converted liners. Low sulfur bunker fuel requirements implemented in 2020 are inciting many shipping lines to reconvert their ship engines with technologies such as scrubbers. In the port sector, changing the function or operational characteristics of a port terminal by upgrading the existing equipment (B.3) is a form of circularity. For instance, cranes and yard equipment can be upgraded for automation. - **Recycle**. There is an extensive industry that scraps ships and recycles their components, particularly metals (A.4). India and Bangladesh are the most significant locations where ships are scrapped. Once at the end of its life cycle, terminal equipment can be discarded and recycled (B.4). A more complex issue concerns the land footprint of a terminal that can be converted for other uses, such as residential. For instance, if the nautical profile of the terminal is no longer suitable for port operations (lack of depth), the site can be “recycled” into urban redevelopments. Containers represent a **specialized form of circularity** as container shipping is designed as a recycling system. A container is a reusable unit constantly being repositioned by carriers who own or lease container fleets. Another segment involves container leasing companies allocating their assets to maximize returns. Thus, the container is an interchangeable transport unit, with its carrying capacity being traded on transport markets. To remain a suitable asset for carriers, containers need to be cleaned, maintained, and repaired. At the end of their useful life (about 15 years), containers can be discarded and recycled for their components or other uses (e.g. storage, office space). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/circular-economy-ports-maritime-shipping/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/circular-economy-ports-maritime-shipping/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/circular-economy-ports-maritime-shipping/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/circular-economy-ports-maritime-shipping/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Monthly Container Traffic at the Port of Los Angeles, 2005-2023](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/monthly-container-traffic-port-of-los-angeles/) **Published:** November 19, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/monthly_container_port_LA.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Monthly Container Traffic at the Port of Los Angeles, 2005-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Monthly Container Traffic at the Port of Los Angeles 2005 2023*Source: Port of Los Angeles.* The Los Angeles / Long Beach port cluster (also known as the San Pedro Bay) is the most important center of container port activity in the Americas. As of 2020, they jointly handled more than 17.3 million TEU, of which Los Angeles accounted for 9.2 million. Like many North American container ports, the Port of Los Angeles has the following characteristics: - **Imbalanced flows**. As a reflection of negative trade balances maintained by the United States, particularly over the Pacific Trade, the number of inbound loaded containers far exceeds the number of outbound loaded containers. There are about 2.5 to 2.7 times more inbound containers than outbound containers. - **Seasonality**. The consumption of retail goods has a substantial impact on container port volumes. Retail cycles result in peak periods of activity between August and November and low periods of activity between February and March. - **Economic cycles**. During periods of recession, the level of port activity declines, such as during the financial crisis of 2008-09. For instance, comparing February 2008 and February 2009, traffic declined by 33%. The COVID-19 pandemic initially had a strong negative impact on traffic (a decline of 23% between March 2019 and March 2020). However, this decline was counterbalanced by a rapid surge in traffic in the second half of 2020 as the economy recovered and with deferred demand effects. The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on port activity are apparent. First, volumes dropped significantly as lockdown measures were imposed in China and then in the United States. Then, traffic resumed and accelerated through a combination of shifting demand patterns (more household goods that are dominant in the transpacific trade) and financial stimulus. However, shipping lines and terminals had challenges to bring capacity back, a challenge exacerbated by container shortages. Exports of empty containers surged, apparently to the detriment of loaded exports, as empty containers were repositioned to Asia as soon as unloaded. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/monthly-container-traffic-port-of-los-angeles/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/monthly-container-traffic-port-of-los-angeles/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/monthly-container-traffic-port-of-los-angeles/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/monthly-container-traffic-port-of-los-angeles/?share=reddit) - --- ### [San Pedro Bay Ports Container Volumes and Market Share](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/san-pedro-bay-ports-container-volumes-market-share/) **Published:** March 6, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/san_pedro_teu2.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "San Pedro Bay Ports Container Volumes and Market Share, 1980-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")San Pedro Bay Ports Container Volumes and Market Share 1980 2023*Source: Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach.* From 1980 through 2023, the lead status has shifted back and forth between the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, with Los Angeles holding the lead for 32 years and Long Beach holding the title for 11 years. The only time during these years that one port controlled more than 60% of the San Pedro Bay market share was in 2003, after the Maersk line moved from Pier J in Long Beach to Pier 400 in the Port of Los Angeles in the summer of 2002. The loss of the Maersk Line, the largest ocean carrier in the world, has kept Long Beach in the second position since then. Further, it took until 2017 for the San Pedro Bay ports to recover from their peak of 2005, which declined following the financial crisis of 2008-09. The surge in traffic in 2021 was attributed to the surge in imports related to the COVID-19 pandemic, notably a shift in consumption patterns (more appliances, furniture, and electronics). However, traffic substantially declined afterward to levels below pre-pandemic. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/san-pedro-bay-ports-container-volumes-market-share/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/san-pedro-bay-ports-container-volumes-market-share/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/san-pedro-bay-ports-container-volumes-market-share/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/san-pedro-bay-ports-container-volumes-market-share/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Drivers of Port Terminal Migration and Relocation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/drivers-port-terminal-migration-relocation/) **Published:** January 13, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/drivers_port_terminal_migration2.png?resize=900%2C428&ssl=1 "Drivers of Port Terminal Migration and Relocation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Drivers of Port Terminal Migration and Relocation*Source: compiled and adapted from Notteboom (2016), The adaptive capacity of container ports in an era of mega vessels: the case of upstream seaports Antwerp and Hamburg, Journal of Transport Geography, 54, 295-309* There are multiple possible drivers for port terminal migration and relocation, including: (a) more stringent technical requirements, such as the need for deep water access to accommodate ever larger vessels; (b) the need for locations that offer better connectivity to liner shipping networks; (c) diseconomies of scale and land availability issues at existing port terminal areas; (d) additional real estate for terminal operations and supporting logistical activities in light of traffic growth; (e) better accessibility to regional transportation such as highways, rail or barge; (f) urban/city development dynamics; (g) cost differentials between existing and new locations in terms production factors capital, labor and or land; (h) environmental restrictions at established ports terminals; (i) competition between incumbent and entrant terminal operators; and (j) political and administrative issues in existing jurisdictions. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/drivers-port-terminal-migration-relocation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/drivers-port-terminal-migration-relocation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/drivers-port-terminal-migration-relocation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/drivers-port-terminal-migration-relocation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Modal and Temporal Separation at Freight Transport Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/modal-temporal-separation-freight-transport-terminals/) **Published:** January 14, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/modal_temporal_seperation_freight_terminals.png?resize=900%2C494&ssl=1 "Modal and Temporal Separation at Freight Transport Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Modal and Temporal Separation at Freight Transport Terminals*Source: Rodrigue, J-P and T. Notteboom (2009) “The Terminalization of Supply Chains: Reassessing the Role of Terminals in Port / Hinterland Logistical Relationships”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 165-183.* Due to congestion, capacity, and availability of inland transportation, containerization contributed to a modal separation at terminals and the setting of a significant buffer in the form of large storage areas. Each transport mode received a [specific area on the terminal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1174), so that operations on vessels, barges, trucks, and trains could not obstruct one another. This **modal separation in space** was a requirement for setting up a system of indirect transshipment whereby each transport mode follows its own time schedule and operational throughput, implying a **modal separation in time**. Since rail, road, or barge modes have completely different operational characteristics, namely capacity and sequence, a large buffer is required within the terminal’s facilities. Under the indirect transshipment system, the terminal stacking area functions as a buffer and temporary storage area between the deepsea operations and the land transport operations that take place later in the process. Consequently, despite higher turnover levels, the space consumed by container terminals increased substantially. In turn, these space requirements changed the geography of ports and the [migration of terminals to new peripheral sites](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=938). The push towards economies of scale in maritime shipping has further expanded the space requirements at terminals with a larger asymmetry between the average maritime loads and the average loads carried by inland transport systems. The synchronization between elements of the intermodal terminal varies according to the geographical setting and related inbound or outbound logistics. For instance, the export-oriented manufacturing clusters of China are adjacent to major port terminal facilities and the bulk of containerized exports arrive by truck. The assembly of container shipping loads for exports brought in by trucks thus requires a large amount of terminal storage space. In North America, many port terminals have access to double-stack rail corridors with inland terminals, enabling a higher turnover volume that proportionally reduces pressures on port terminal facilities to relocate them inland where land is much less scarce. A similar situation applies to Western Europe, but with barge services linking main gateways to inland terminals in addition to single-stack rail services. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/modal-temporal-separation-freight-transport-terminals/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/modal-temporal-separation-freight-transport-terminals/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/modal-temporal-separation-freight-transport-terminals/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/modal-temporal-separation-freight-transport-terminals/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Three Major Inter-Range Routes Serviced by Maersk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/major-inter-range-routes-serviced-maersk/) **Published:** November 22, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Maersk-Shipping-Routes.png?resize=900%2C515&ssl=1 "Three Major Inter-Range Routes Serviced by Maersk | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Three Major Inter Range Routes Serviced by Maersk[PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map_Maersk_Shipping_Routes.pdf) Maritime shipping lines offer scheduled services commonly organized as loops calling ports along several maritime ranges that eventually end at the ‘starting port’, which is usually the port that generates the largest amount of export cargo. To maintain fixed call days, shipping lines usually employ what is colloquially called the “Rule of 7”: The number of vessels in a rotation is a multiple of 7. So a rotation of 28 days would employ 4 vessels, while a rotation of 56 days would employ 8 vessels. The world’s largest container shipping line, Maersk, maintains several [inter-range services](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2290) servicing the world’s major freight markets. The three main serviced markets are Western Europe (Atlantic and Mediterranean facades), North America (Atlantic and Pacific Facades), and Pacific Asia (mainly China’s main coastal ports). Each is serviced by a series of port calls where containers are transshipped to offshore hubs or hinterlands, depending on the function of the port and the destination of the cargo. The time it takes to complete a full loop is a function of the nautical distance involved as well as the number of ports called. Transatlantic loops tend to be shorter (about 32 days for the TA2 service), while Asia-Europe loops are among the longest (73 days for AE11). The itinerary of inter-range service is carefully selected to ensure distribution strategies that reflect the global and regional trade framework. Ports of call usually involve a combination of gateways and transshipment hubs. For instance, several Mediterranean port calls of the AE11, such as Port Said and Gioia Tauro, are major transshipment hubs. For the United States, cabotage regulations (Jones Act) forbid a foreign-owned maritime shipper to carry traffic between American ports, so port calls are at major gateways. Also, high-capacity ships can be used for inter-range services (such as across the Pacific), supporting the profitability of long-distance shipping. Express services are also offered. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/major-inter-range-routes-serviced-maersk/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/major-inter-range-routes-serviced-maersk/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/major-inter-range-routes-serviced-maersk/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/major-inter-range-routes-serviced-maersk/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Ripening of Bananas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/the-ripening-of-bananas/) **Published:** April 23, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/3421057b24ec44a0936636d3df322fe0.jpg?resize=720%2C364&ssl=1 "Ripening of Bananas | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Color Stages of Bananas source DoleBananas are harvested green and hard. After being packaged inside the boxes and put into a refrigerated environment, bananas temporarily stop to ripen. When arriving at the destination, bananas could be ripened according to customers’ needs and the distance of the retailer from the warehouse. Usually, in the warehouse, these requirements have to be fulfilled to provide efficient ripening: (1) the ripening room must be air tight to prevent the ethylene leaking out; (2) control the refrigerated temperature; (3) make sure there is enough space for air circulation to provide a uniform temperature. Ethylene could be used to trigger the bananas to start producing their own ethylene, introducing a natural ripening process. Bananas could be ripened in both boxes and pallets, but boxes should adopt an ‘air stack’ way to allow enough air circulation for ethylene. Two common technologies for pallet ripening include curtain depressure (dedicated fans put in a depressure box produce pressure difference) and rooftop depressure (the depressure fans are located inside evaporators put over a central corridor). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/the-ripening-of-bananas/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/the-ripening-of-bananas/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/the-ripening-of-bananas/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/the-ripening-of-bananas/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Deployment of the Global Cruise Fleet, 2008-23](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/deployment-global-cruise-fleet/) **Published:** February 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/deployment_cruise_fleet_chart.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Deployment of the Global Cruise Fleet, 2008-23 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Deployment of the Global Cruise Fleet 2008 23*Source: adapted from Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA).* The Caribbean and the Mediterranean are regional and **complementary markets** accounting for more than 50% of the global deployed capacity of the cruising industry (measured in the number of bed-days). They are complementary because the Caribbean is dominantly serviced during the winter while the Mediterranean experiences a summer peak season. Both also have different main source markets that are not interchangeable, with the United States for the Caribbean and the European Union for the Mediterranean. An important factor behind the popularity of the Caribbean and Mediterranean is that the distances between port calls are relatively short and involve various cultural experiences. In recent years, the fastest-growing market has been Asia, as it represented a new source of cruisers, particularly for China. Cruise lines, rapidly deployed ships, and developed itineraries in the region. However, the COVID-19 pandemic, which initially got global attention as the passengers of some Asian cruises got infected in early 2020, had the most significant impact on the East Asian market. Its share of the deployed capacity went down from 10% in 2019 to 6.7% in 2023. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/deployment-global-cruise-fleet/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/deployment-global-cruise-fleet/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/deployment-global-cruise-fleet/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/deployment-global-cruise-fleet/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Media Elements](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/media/) **Published:** December 23, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** [Port Economics, Management and Policy (Introduction and Chapter 1.1)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/10.4324_9780429318184_previewpdf.pdf) PowerPoint presentations not yet available. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/media/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/media/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/media/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/media/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Caisson Construction Tema Port, Ghana](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/caisson-tema-ghana/) **Published:** February 2, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Quay-wall-Caisson-Precast-Tema-Port.jpg?resize=900%2C432&ssl=1 "Caisson Construction of Tema Port, Ghana | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Caisson construction of Tema Port Ghana*Source: adapted from Samara M., Meridian Port Services (MPS)* Tema Port in Ghana was constructed by MPS, a consortium of Bolloré Ports, Ghana Ports and Harbour Authority, and APM Terminals. The caisson method was used. A trench was dredged in the seabed 19m deep to receive 74 caissons. These concrete blocks of 1000 cubic meters and 2600 tons each, were pre-constructed on land and moved onto a floating dock by rolling them on inflatable air bags. The floating dock transported the caissons to the trench location. On the spot, the floating dock was sunk, which allowed the caissons to float and to be transported until their final position with tugs. Each caisson was sunk and filled with sand. The last step consisted of casting the deck of the quay on top. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/caisson-tema-ghana/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/caisson-tema-ghana/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/caisson-tema-ghana/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/caisson-tema-ghana/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Port Traffic and Transshipment Traffic around the Caribbean Basin, 2015](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/container-port-traffic-transshipment-traffic-caribbean-basin/) **Published:** February 7, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Caribbean-Transshipment-Triangle.png?resize=900%2C700&ssl=1 "Caribbean Transshipment Triangle | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Port Traffic and Transshipment Traffic around the Caribbean Basin 2015*Source: TEU data from American Association of Port Authorities. Transshipment data adapted from Drewry Shipping Consultants and port authorities.* The Caribbean Basin is a region prone to transshipment activities, particularly for the following factors: - **Proximity to shipping lanes**. Transshipment activities tend to converge in proximity to main long-distance shipping lanes to avoid undue detours (deviations). The Panama Canal essentially acts as a funnel for shipping lanes between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. It is thus not surprising that ports on both sides of the canal (Balboa and Colon) have a dominant transshipment function as stopping to enter the Panama Canal offers the opportunity to drop or pick up cargo. Kingston, Jamaica, has a central location, in proximity to the Gulf of Mexico, the East Coast, and transatlantic routes. On the Pacific Coast, Manzanillo (Mexico) and Callao (Peru) offer transshipment opportunities for the transpacific and South American shipping routes. - **Costs and land availability**. An important factor in transshipment remains terminal costs and efficiency, with ports located in developing countries having lower labor costs. Miami would be a logical location for transshipment, but due to higher costs and cabotage restrictions (Jones Act), nearby Freeport (Bahamas) assumes that role. Several global terminal operators such as DPW (Puerto Caucedo) and HPH (Freeport, Cristobal, and Balboa) have invested in terminal developments in part because several Caribbean port sites have room for expansion with the site selected with higher depth in mind to accommodate the new generations of containerships. One of the prerequisites of a port location, the quality of hinterland access, thus plays a much less important role. Most of the transshipment activities take place within what is known as the “Caribbean transshipment triangle” that roughly encompasses Colon, Freeport, and Port of Spain at each of its edges. Still, the Caribbean is more composed of clusters of transshipment hubs, each representing a specific market. For instance, transshipment taking place at Port of Spain or Fort-de-France dominantly concerns traffic to smaller ports of the Lesser Antilles. With the expansion of the Panama Canal, transshipment activities in the Caribbean Basin are increasing because NeoPanamax ships can call directly to a centrally located transshipment. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/container-port-traffic-transshipment-traffic-caribbean-basin/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/container-port-traffic-transshipment-traffic-caribbean-basin/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/container-port-traffic-transshipment-traffic-caribbean-basin/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/container-port-traffic-transshipment-traffic-caribbean-basin/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Potential Configurations of All-Water Routes Servicing the East Coast, Post Panama Canal Expansion](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/shipping-configurations-post-panama-canal-expansion/) **Published:** January 10, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/all_water_shipping_configuration_panama.png?resize=900%2C333&ssl=1 "Configuration of All-Water Routes Servicing the East Coast, Post Panama Canal Expansion | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Configuration of All Water Routes Servicing the East Coast Post Panama Canal Expansion*Source: adapted from A. Ashar (2006) Revolution #4, Containerization International, December, pp. 46-49.* There are four possible configurations to service East Coast ports through the expanded Panama Canal, each possible in conjunction with the others: - **Conventional**. A single sequence that covers the entire East Coast through its main ports of call. The drawback of this configuration is a longer service time, but with New Panamax ships, the capacity can be sufficient to justify such a configuration. - **Direct**. The East Coast can be serviced by three (or more) direct services, each focusing on a specific sub-range such as the North Atlantic, Central Atlantic, or South Atlantic / Gulf Coast. This regional service specialization is slightly more time-effective than the conventional service and offers a wider port coverage level. These services can also be arranged in terms of containership capacity, with, for instance, New Panamax ships calling East Coast ports having the capacity to handle them. - **Transshipment**. Similar to the previous configuration, but with the insertion of one or more competing transshipment hubs, where deviation from major shipping lanes is reduced. The regional services become feeder loops with smaller ships but higher frequencies. - **Circum-equatorial**. It involves an additional hierarchy in the network structure with a global maritime shipping system with a circum-equatorial “conveyor belt” serviced by high-capacity containerships (8,000 to 12,000 TEU; New Panamax). In this case, the Caribbean transshipment hub acts as an interface between several major circulation systems, namely the Asia-Caribbean-Mediterranean circum-equatorial route and north-south connectors to South America. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/shipping-configurations-post-panama-canal-expansion/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/shipping-configurations-post-panama-canal-expansion/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/shipping-configurations-post-panama-canal-expansion/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/shipping-configurations-post-panama-canal-expansion/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Comparative Characteristics of the Panama Canal Expansion](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/characteristics-panama-canal-expansion/) **Published:** December 29, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/comparative_characteristics_panama_canal_expansion.png?resize=900%2C512&ssl=1 "Comparative Characteristics of the Panama Canal Expansion | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Comparative Characteristics of the Panama Canal ExpansionThe Panama Canal expansion project had four main dimensions: - **New locks**. Two complete new lock systems were built in parallel to the existing locks. They employ the rolling gates principle and use side basins to minimize water consumption. The gates are a dual system, implying that two independent gates are servicing the entrance/exit of each lock. This improves the reliability and maintenance of the lock system since it is possible to maintain operations while one gate is serviced. The expanded Panama Canal operates both the old and new lock systems, allowing conventional Panamax ships to use the old locks. - **Deepening of canal entrances**. Both the Atlantic and Pacific access to the canal was dredged to accommodate larger vessel drafts. - **Deepening of the Culebra (Gaillard) Cut**. The continental divide and the navigation channels between the Pacific Locks and Gatun Lake were expanded to accommodate deeper drafts and vessels circulating in both directions. - **Gatun Lake expansion**. Deepening of the Gatun Lake navigation channel as well as raising the water level of the lake from 26.7 meters above sea level to 27.1 meters. This increased the water supply available to the lock systems. Although the annual capacity only increased by about 2,000 additional ships able to transit the canal, it is through economies of scale that the impacts of the expansion are the most significant. Individual ship capacity in terms of TEU almost tripled, while bulk capacity in deadweight tons more than doubled. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/characteristics-panama-canal-expansion/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/characteristics-panama-canal-expansion/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/characteristics-panama-canal-expansion/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/characteristics-panama-canal-expansion/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Building Blocks of Material Exchange Platforms](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/building-blocks-of-material-exchange-platforms/) **Published:** October 23, 2023 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Material-exchange-platform.png?resize=900%2C446&ssl=1 "Building Blocks of Material Exchange Platforms | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Building blocks of material exchange platformsMaterial exchange platforms typically include four components: - A **material passport** includes the characteristics or identity of the material, such as its composition, origin, toxicity or deconstructability. - A **digital twin** approach to match the digital identity of the material to the physical material (via tracking and tracing systems) in order to follow it throughout its life cycle. - The **valuation** of the financial, environmental, and societal impact of materials, products, and waste streams, enables data-driven decision-making between several next-use options. - **Matchmaking** of the material, product, or waste stream to a new high-value reuse option across industries, using a combination of Artificial Intelligence and human expertise. Material exchange platforms thus aim to link the input and output of collectors and processors in order to map entire material chains, including international recycling chains. Such platforms not only help to comply with reporting obligations (such as in the European Union) but also allow to determine how much of the selectively collected waste is effectively recycled, to assess how much is recycled, and how much secondary raw materials ultimately end up in new products and where. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/building-blocks-of-material-exchange-platforms/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/building-blocks-of-material-exchange-platforms/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/building-blocks-of-material-exchange-platforms/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/building-blocks-of-material-exchange-platforms/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Key Components of Circular Ship Design](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/key-components-of-circular-ship-design/) **Published:** November 8, 2023 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/components_circular_ship_design.png?resize=900%2C396&ssl=1 "Key Components of Circular Ship Design | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Key Components of Circular Ship DesignIn recent years, increasing attention has been geared towards **circular ship design**. Bringing circularity into ship design typically refers to incorporating principles of sustainability, environmental responsibility, and resource efficiency in the design and operation of ships. This is part of a broader effort to create a more sustainable and environmentally responsible maritime industry. The main areas of advancements in this field relate to: - The use of **environmentally friendly and recyclable materials** in ship construction, such as reusable composites, aluminum, or advanced polymers, that have lower environmental impacts. This includes considerations on how materials can be repurposed or recycled rather than scrapped. - Implementing more **advanced methods for life cycle assessment of the ship design** to evaluate the environmental, energy, and circularity impacts during construction, operation, maintenance, and eventual disposal. **Steel corrosion prevention and treatment are essential parts** of maintenance strategies to extend the lifecycle of a vessel. Another key area relates to the use of eco-friendly and **anti-fouling coatings**. **Smart technologies and data analytics** can be used to monitor and optimize ship performance and for preventive maintenance purposes. A ship design focused on easily disassembling, repairing, and upgrading the vessel or parts thereof can extend the vessel’s lifespan and reduce the need for new ship production. - The optimization of the ship design for **energy efficiency** using advanced propulsion systems and energy-saving technologies like waste heat recovery and improved hull design. - The integration of **renewable energy sources**, such as wind propulsion technology. Wind-assisted ship propulsion solutions cover a wide array of technologies, such as large rigid sails (wingsails) or soft sails; hull sails; suction wings that create an upward lifting force similar to the wings on airplanes; small rigid sails on deck which can utilize both wind and solar energy; towing sky sails or kites; wind turbines installed on deck; or the installation of rotors which are vertical spinning cylinders utilizing the Magnus Effect for ship propulsion. - The **minimization of waste generation** during the ship’s construction and operation. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/key-components-of-circular-ship-design/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/key-components-of-circular-ship-design/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/key-components-of-circular-ship-design/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/key-components-of-circular-ship-design/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Circular Flanders as an Intermediary for Circularity in Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/circular-flanders-intermediary-circularity-ports/) **Published:** December 5, 2023 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Cicular-Flanders-screenshot-website-1024x469.png?resize=900%2C412&ssl=1 "Cicular-Flanders-screenshot-website | Port Economics, Management and Policy")*Source: Circular Flanders* The Government of Flanders in Belgium has set the circular economy as one of the seven transition priorities and appointed OVAM (the Public Waste Agency of Flanders) as the initiator of Circular Flanders. Circular Flanders portrays itself as the hub and the inspiration for the Flemish circular economy. It is a partnership of governments, companies, civil society, and the knowledge community in view of taking joint actions. The operational team, responsible for the day-to-day operation, is embedded in OVAM. One of the products of Circular Flanders is **Circular Ports**, a site for the circular economy and port communities. Circular Ports does not present a policy or political program, nor does it have the ambition to replace what the circular and port communities are already doing. The initiative primarily aims to provide practitioners with a curated selection of resources and actionable insights to support and fuel their journey toward a circular future. As such, Circular Ports creates a context for learning, doing, and finding workable solutions. While the Circular Ports website focuses primarily on the Flemish and Rhine-Scheldt delta port region, it has a view of Europe and beyond. Circular Ports consists of **three building blocks**: (1) a **RE-SOURCES** database aimed at sharing content as well as providing contextual relevance; (2) **THEMES** as a series of niches and actionable insights that can act as both a conversation starter and a solid ground to build on as an interim step towards action, and where Circular Flanders could make a difference in their role as intermediary; (3) **TRACKS** showing emergent processes in which shared goals and small wins can be tracked, and one can learn about the appropriate booster mechanisms and the conditions under which they can work. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/circular-flanders-intermediary-circularity-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/circular-flanders-intermediary-circularity-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/circular-flanders-intermediary-circularity-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/circular-flanders-intermediary-circularity-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Panama and the Regional Transshipment System](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-regional-transshipment-system/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Panama-Value-Proposition.png?resize=900%2C900&ssl=1 "Panama and the Regional Transshipment System | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Panama and the Regional Transshipment SystemSince 2000, Panama has seen substantial investments in port infrastructure. The sustained growth of Manzanillo International Terminal, Cristobal, Balboa, and Colon Container Terminal provides testimony to the success of these investments. The presence of Global Container Terminal operators such as Hutchison Whampoa (HPH), Evergreen, SSA, and, more recently, PSA attests to the attractiveness and value of Panama as a major transshipment center. Panama is the undisputed center for containerized cargo distribution in Latin America, handling close to 7 million TEUs in 2015. The growth of maritime commerce through Panama, specifically manufactured or semi-manufactured goods originating in East Asia, has been one of the main drivers of the expansion of the Panama Canal. Transshipment in Panama represents a high-value proposition within the trade system of the Americas, and the convergence effect on trade flows that the canal has incited over a century of operations. The Panama Canal has the effect of a narrow strait, similar to Gibraltar or Singapore, where axial east-west trade routes intersect with north-south connectors, making nearby ports ideal for the transshipment of cargoes. Panama is well placed to be the anchor point of the [Caribbean transshipment triangle](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3592) and the growing trade between the economies of the West Coast of South America and Asia. Its location permits the establishment, on both coasts, of hub-and-spoke services covering relatively short distances within the America’s coastal systems and allows for interlining between long-distance shipping networks. The result is additional transshipment demand from north-south connectors linking east-west deep sea and east-west relay routes. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-regional-transshipment-system/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-regional-transshipment-system/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-regional-transshipment-system/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-regional-transshipment-system/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Cargo Market Share Northeast Asia to the United States East Coast, 1999-2017](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-cargo-market-share-northeast-asia-united-states-east-coast/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/container_cargo_market_share_us_east_coast.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Container Cargo Market Share Northeast Asia to the United States East Coast, 1999-2017 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Cargo Market Share Northeast Asia to the United States East Coast 1999 2017 *Source: Panama Canal Authority.* Conventionally, the American East Coast was dominantly serviced for the Asian trade through West Coast ports and intermodal services since transit times were advantageous and capacity was abundant. This trade pattern supported the development of the [North American landbridge](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=7251), a network of trade corridors linking the west and the east coasts. The dominance of this transport chain started to be contested in the 2000s, particularly after a major strike impacting West Coast ports in 2002, which created significant disruptions. By 2004, the growth of the transpacific trade was causing significant capacity and labor shortages along the West Coast. Major importers, particularly retailers, started to build distribution centers along the East and Gulf Coasts, inciting a growing share of Asian imports to use the all-water route through the Panama Canal. Although this involved longer transit times, they could be mitigated with inventory management strategies such as considering the inventory in transit as part of the inventory ready to be allocated to distribution centers across North America. By 2007, several landbridge rail service contracts were up for renewal at significantly higher rates, which again promoted the competitive advantage of [East Coast ports](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=8495) through the all-water route. At the same time, the application of economies of scale on the Asia-Europe route transiting through the Suez Canal led to the use of Mediterranean transshipment hubs to service East Coast ports through transatlantic services. By 2014, the respective shares of the landbridge, the Panama Canal, and the Suez Canal to service the East Coast from East Asia were roughly equivalent. After the expansion of the Panama Canal in 2016, the usage of larger containerships further incited the growth of the share of both the Panama and Suez Canal routes. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-cargo-market-share-northeast-asia-united-states-east-coast/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-cargo-market-share-northeast-asia-united-states-east-coast/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-cargo-market-share-northeast-asia-united-states-east-coast/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-cargo-market-share-northeast-asia-united-states-east-coast/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Containership Transiting Through the Agua Clara Locks, Panama](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/containeriship-transiting-agua-clara-locks-panama/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2018-11-12-143431-1.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Containership Transiting Through the Agua Clara Locks, Panama | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Containership Transiting Through the Agua Clara Locks Panama*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2018* The expanded Panama Canal came online in 2016, offering the opportunity to accommodate large ships and strengthen its economies of scale. The Agua Clara locks are one of the two lock sets that link the Atlantic / Caribbean Ocean to Lake Gatun. The containership in the above photo is the Valparaiso Express, owned by Hapag Llyod. The Neopanamax ship of 11,500 TEU was built in 2016 with the design specifications to fit the expanded Panama Canal locks exactly. In the background is the Atlantic Bridge crossing the Atlantic entrance of the canal, which opened in 2019. It is the third bridge crossing the canal, along with the Bridge of the Americas and the Centennial Bridge. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/containeriship-transiting-agua-clara-locks-panama/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/containeriship-transiting-agua-clara-locks-panama/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/containeriship-transiting-agua-clara-locks-panama/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/containeriship-transiting-agua-clara-locks-panama/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Suez Canal, end of 19th Century](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/suez-canal-19th-century/) **Published:** December 27, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/39suez.jpg?resize=900%2C687&ssl=1 "Suez Canal, end of 19th Century | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Suez Canal end of 19th Century*Source of image: Museum Victoria.* By 1874, British shipping dominated traffic through the Suez Canal by four to one. Yet, it was owned solely by French shareholders and the Egyptian ruler. The two parties had come together in 1869 to form the Suez Canal Company. At that time, several countries were interested in buying additional canal shares. The French were the most serious contenders, but Great Britain was able to secure the shares. This allowed England to expand the commercial integrity of its empire, particularly in South and Southeast Asia. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/suez-canal-19th-century/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/suez-canal-19th-century/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/suez-canal-19th-century/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/suez-canal-19th-century/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Containership Exiting the Gaillard Cut](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/containership-exiting-gaillard-cut/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_7219-1-1024x768.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Containership Exiting the Gaillard Cut | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Containership Exiting the Gaillard Cut*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2011.* A containership of the Hamburg Sud shipping line completes the transit through the Gaillard Cut, the part of the Panama Canal that slices through the **Continental Divide**. The ship mostly carries empty containers, likely originating from the American East Coast and bound back to Asia. In the background is the Centennial Bridge, which opened in 2004 and offers an additional crossing over the canal in addition to the Bridge of the Americas, which was opened in 1962. Originally named Culebra (snake) Cut for the nature of its curves, it was renamed for Col. David DuBose Gaillard, the engineer who supervised its construction. The Cut is approximately 12.8 kilometers long and, during the 1960s, was widened from its original 91.5 meters to 152.4 meters. The Gaillard Cut was further widened in 2015 to increase the canal capacity and facilitate vessel transit scheduling. After crossing the Gaillard Cut, ships enter the Pedro Miguel Locks and the [Miraflores Locks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=397). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/containership-exiting-gaillard-cut/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/containership-exiting-gaillard-cut/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/containership-exiting-gaillard-cut/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/containership-exiting-gaillard-cut/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Maritime Chokepoints: Capacity, Limitations and Threats](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/maritime-chokepoints-capacity-limitations-threats/) **Published:** December 29, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/maritime_chokepoints.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Maritime Chokepoints: Capacity, Limitations and Threats | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maritime Chokepoints Capacity Limitations and ThreatsThe maritime circulation capacity mainly dictated by the chokepoints does not leave much additional room to accommodate growth, although there is significant room to manage more effectively their use. Still, these geographical constraints cannot be easily bypassed and will be a significant factor in the security of global freight distribution. Occasionally, the dependency of the global economy on their use is underlined by the unfolding of geopolitical events. The Strait of Hormuz has particularly been the object of recurring contentions since it is linked to the strategic supply of oil. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/maritime-chokepoints-capacity-limitations-threats/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/maritime-chokepoints-capacity-limitations-threats/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/maritime-chokepoints-capacity-limitations-threats/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/maritime-chokepoints-capacity-limitations-threats/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Capacity of Key Strategic Passages](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/capacity-key-strategic-passages/) **Published:** December 29, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/capacity_strategic_passages.png?resize=900%2C459&ssl=1 "Capacity of Key Strategic Passages | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Capacity of Key Strategic PassagesWhile the bulk of global maritime trade takes place on open seas, the configuration of continental masses coupled with market demand, production, and resource extraction forces the convergence of maritime trade at three major bottlenecks: the Panama Canal, the Suez Canal, and the Strait of Malacca. Their physical and operational characteristics dictate the volume and capacity of ships transiting through them. Capacity can be measured in deadweight tons (dwt), the mass a ship can carry, and TEUs, which is the volume a containership can carry. The capacity of a passage in deadweight tons (dwt) does not relate effectively with the capacity in TEU. For instance, a 220,000 dwt containership would have a capacity of about 20,000 TEU and a draft of 16.5 meters, while a similar tanker would have a draft reaching 21 meters. The reason behind this lies in the cargo density, also known as the stowage factor, which is the ratio between cargo volume and cargo weight. The average cargo density for containers is about 3 cubic meters per ton, while for oil and iron ore, this ratio is 1.1 and 0.44 cubic meters per ton, respectively. The capacity of a strategic passage is also a function of the number of transits it can handle. Panama can handle about 45 transits per day, while this figure is about 100 (78 before the expansion) per day for Suez. The capacity of the Strait of Malacca is difficult to assess, but about 210 commercial ships are transiting each day. By handling about 30% of the global maritime trade, Malacca is the most important passage in the global economy, followed by Suez (15%) and Panama (5%). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/capacity-key-strategic-passages/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/capacity-key-strategic-passages/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/capacity-key-strategic-passages/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/capacity-key-strategic-passages/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Asian Cruise Passengers Source Markets, 2015-2020](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-passengers-source-markets-asia/) **Published:** February 10, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/asian_cruise_source_markets.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Asian Cruise Passengers Source Markets, 2015-2020 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Asian Cruise Passengers Source Markets 2015 2020*Source: Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA), and various industry reports. Data for 2020: estimates as of Autumn 2019.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-passengers-source-markets-asia/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-passengers-source-markets-asia/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-passengers-source-markets-asia/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-passengers-source-markets-asia/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cruise Source Markets, 2013-18](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-source-markets/) **Published:** February 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_source_markets.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Cruise Passengers Source Markets, 2013-2018 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Source Markets 2013 18*Source: adapted from Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA).* The dominant source market for cruise shipping remains North America, with a penetration level of around 3%, but there is a gradually changing customer base towards developing economies, particularly Asia. Countries with a maritime tradition tend to have a higher share of the population taking cruises. Penetration levels in Asia remain low (0.1 to 0.2%) as a cruise is generally not perceived as an accepted form of vacationing, but the situation is changing rapidly. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-source-markets/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-source-markets/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-source-markets/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-source-markets/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cruise Shipping during the Soviet Era](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruises-soviet-period/) **Published:** January 17, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Cruise-Activities-in-Eastern-Europe-pre-1989.png?resize=382%2C442&ssl=1 "Cruise Lines offering Cruises in Eastern Europe in the Soviet Era (1945-1989) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Lines offering Cruises in Eastern Europe in the Soviet Era 1945 1989Cruises in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union began in the post-World War II period. One early example is the company Intourist, which in 1957 started organizing cruises in the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea. Another example is the *Black Sea Shipping Company*. Soviet Union registered vessels, mostly former liners registered either in CCCP or any of its allies, were engaged in cruises in the Black Sea, offering low-cost cruises as a form of mass tourism. Aiming at maximizing passengers’ carrying capacity, these vessels had smaller cabins and were typically less luxurious than contemporary cruises. The refurbished ex-Soviet liners were withdrawn from world cruising as they reached the end of their economic life. In the post-1989 period, international cruise lines and modern cruisers started offering itineraries in both the Black Sea and the Baltic. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruises-soviet-period/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruises-soviet-period/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruises-soviet-period/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruises-soviet-period/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Comparison Between Bulk and Containerized Commodity Transportation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/comparison-bulk-containerized-commodity-transportation/) **Published:** November 26, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/comparison_bulk_containerized_commodity2.png?resize=900%2C461&ssl=1 "Comparison Between Bulk and Containerized Commodity Transportation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Comparison Between Bulk and Containerized Commodity TransportationDespite appearing to be very different modes of shipping, there is an emerging complementarity between bulk and containerized shipping. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/comparison-bulk-containerized-commodity-transportation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/comparison-bulk-containerized-commodity-transportation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/comparison-bulk-containerized-commodity-transportation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/comparison-bulk-containerized-commodity-transportation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Monthly Containerized Agricultural Trade, United States, 2016-2021](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/containerized-agricultural-trade-usa/) **Published:** November 26, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/containerized_agricultural_trade_usa.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Monthly Containerized Agricultural Trade, United States, 2016-2021 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Monthly Containerized Agricultural Trade United States 2016 2021*Source: USDA, U.S. Waterborne Containerized Agricultural Trade.* Containerized agricultural trade, which includes imports and exports, has steadily been increasing. About 74% of agricultural imports are containerized, while 24% of exports are. This underlines very different commercial dynamics. The dominant containerized imports involve bananas, beverages, fruits, and vegetables, while the main exports are soybeans, animal feed, and cotton. The imports are mainly bound for urban markets, while the exports are coming from inland agricultural regions. Agricultural trade declined in 2021 due to the surge in containerized imports involving retail goods and the pressure to reposition them across the Pacific as soon as possible, undermining the availability of containers for exports. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/containerized-agricultural-trade-usa/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/containerized-agricultural-trade-usa/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/containerized-agricultural-trade-usa/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/containerized-agricultural-trade-usa/?share=reddit) - --- ### [20-Foot Containers on Chassis, Belgium](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/20-foot-containers-chassis-belgium/) **Published:** November 27, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMGP5857-1024x768.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "20-Foot Containers on Chassis, Belgium | Port Economics, Management and Policy")20 Foot Containers on Chassis Belgium*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2007.* In Europe and other chassis markets, including China, motor carriers own chassis, which if often assigned to a specific truck. The above truck is pulling a combination of two 20-foot chassis designed to handle the heavy loads that these chassis often handle. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/20-foot-containers-chassis-belgium/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/20-foot-containers-chassis-belgium/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/20-foot-containers-chassis-belgium/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/20-foot-containers-chassis-belgium/?share=reddit) - --- ### [On Terminal Chassis Pool, Port of Los Angeles](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/on-terminal-chassis-pool-port-los-angeles/) **Published:** November 27, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2023-03-28-131119.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "On Terminal Chassis Pool, Port of Los Angeles | Port Economics, Management and Policy")On Terminal Chassis Pool Port of Los Angeles*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2023.* In the United States, a large portion of chassis are made available on regional or terminal pools owned by intermodal equipment providers, port authorities, or joint ventures. In this case, a truck driver backs up to pick up a pool chassis at Yusan Terminals in the Port of Los Angeles. Then, a container will be loaded onto the chassis and delivered to its consignee. The driver then has the option to return to the terminal to pick up another container with the same chassis or return the chassis to a designated location that could be elsewhere than where it was initially picked up. Due to a lack of space or use, chassis can be stacked for longer-term storage. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/on-terminal-chassis-pool-port-los-angeles/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/on-terminal-chassis-pool-port-los-angeles/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/on-terminal-chassis-pool-port-los-angeles/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/on-terminal-chassis-pool-port-los-angeles/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Bagged Coal Entering the Port of Cartagena to be Transloaded into Containers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/bagged-coal-cartagena-transloaded-containers/) **Published:** November 26, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_1293-1024x768.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Bagged Coal Entering the Port of Cartagena to be Transloaded into Containers | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Bagged Coal Entering the Port of Cartagena to be Transloaded into Containers*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2012.* The port of Cartagena, on the Caribbean coast of Colombia, has become a significant transshipment hub and a load center taking advantage of its proximity to the Panama Canal and the resource trade of the Colombian market. This confers a ready pool of empty containers available for commodity exports. One unlikely commodity that has seen substantial growth is high-grade coal used for metallurgical processes (coke). This coal is exported by Inter-American Coal, a Colombian supplier of high-grade coal that roughly exports 2 million tons per year to global markets. The main advantages of bagged coal are easier transloading into containers using forklifts as well as less damage to the container itself. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/bagged-coal-cartagena-transloaded-containers/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/bagged-coal-cartagena-transloaded-containers/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/bagged-coal-cartagena-transloaded-containers/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/bagged-coal-cartagena-transloaded-containers/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Coal Stuffing Station, Port of Cartagena](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/container-coal-stuffing-station/) **Published:** November 26, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_1322-1024x768.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Container Coal Stuffing Station, Port of Cartagena | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Coal Stuffing Station Port of Cartagena*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2012.* For several commodities, container stuffing is a relatively simple process, particularly if the commodities are delivered in loads that can readily be handled by forklifts. In the above photo, bagged coal is being stuffed into 20-foot maritime containers at an on-dock facility within the Manga Container Terminal at the port of Cartagena, Colombia. The bags are designed to fit into a container, including a clearance for loading and unloading. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/container-coal-stuffing-station/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/container-coal-stuffing-station/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/container-coal-stuffing-station/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/container-coal-stuffing-station/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Growth Factors behind the Containerization of Commodities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/growth-factors-containerization-commodities/) **Published:** November 25, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/factors_containerization_commodities.png?resize=900%2C484&ssl=1 "Growth Factors behind the Containerization of Commodities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Growth Factors behind the Containerization of CommoditiesEach containerization factor plays a different role depending on the circumstances and the commodity trade involved. For instance, in the United States, imbalances in container shipping rates have favored the export of low-value commodities (e.g. waste paper) across the Pacific. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/growth-factors-containerization-commodities/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/growth-factors-containerization-commodities/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/growth-factors-containerization-commodities/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/growth-factors-containerization-commodities/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Coffee Stuffing Station, Port of Cartagena](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/container-coffee-stuffing-station-port-of-cartagena/) **Published:** November 25, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/DSC_4208.JPG?resize=900%2C598&ssl=1 "Container Coffee Stuffing Station, Port of Cartagena | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Coffee Stuffing Station Port of Cartagena*Photo: Sociedad Portuaria Regional de Cartagena, 2012.* Mainly because of its geography, a tropical mountainous country, Colombia, with production above 510,000 tons, was in 2010 the world’s fourth largest producer of coffee behind Brazil (2.9 M tons), Indonesia (1.1 M tons), and Vietnam (0.8 M tons). About 95% of the coffee exported on global markets is carried in containers. This requires a thoroughly cleaned 20-foot container fitted with a liner bag, which is often considered disposable. Coffee bags of about 60 kg can also be directly loaded into containers, but this implies a lower packing density. The above photo depicts a container coffee stuffing station where coffee bags are brought on pallets and manually emptied on a conveyor belt, which loads the coffee sideways into the container liner bag. Although this process implies additional transloading costs, these are compensated by higher packing density. On-terminal stuffing also offers the benefit of higher security, limiting the risk of illicit uses of the container. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/container-coffee-stuffing-station-port-of-cartagena/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/container-coffee-stuffing-station-port-of-cartagena/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/container-coffee-stuffing-station-port-of-cartagena/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containerization-of-commodities/container-coffee-stuffing-station-port-of-cartagena/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cubic Yards Dredged by the US Army Corp of Engineers at Selected Port Districts](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/cubic-yards-dredged-us-army-corp-of-engineers-selected-port-districts/) **Published:** November 24, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/dredging_usace_port_districts.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Cubic Yards Dredged by the US Army Corp of Engineers at Selected Port Districts, 2014-2018 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cubic Yards Dredged by the US Army Corp of Engineers at Selected Port Districts 2014 2018*Source: CRS, using USACE Dredging Information Statistics.* The extent of capital and maintenance dredging work is related to the **length of a port’s access channel** and the **level of sedimentation**. The district of New Orleans accounts for the most extensive dredging efforts in the United States, with a navigation channel of around 400 km from the Mississippi Delta, including the ports of New Orleans and Baton Rouge. These efforts are justified by the importance of the Mississippi as a gateway to American grain and energy trades. The Galveston district includes the ports of Galveston and Houston, which are important cruise, container, and petrochemical ports. In particular, the Houston Ship Channel is an 83 km waterway granting access to the petrochemical and container terminals of Houston, Barbours Cut, and Bayport. Savannah, Portland, and Jacksonville are river ports requiring regular access channel maintenance. At the opposite end of the spectrum, the Los Angeles district, which includes the Los Angeles / Long Beach port complex, has limited dredging because of its direct maritime access and natural deep drafts. A challenge, as well as an opportunity, is the deposition of dredging materials. Commonly, materials are released at a defined offshore location, or they can be used for reclamation projects. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/cubic-yards-dredged-us-army-corp-of-engineers-selected-port-districts/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/cubic-yards-dredged-us-army-corp-of-engineers-selected-port-districts/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/cubic-yards-dredged-us-army-corp-of-engineers-selected-port-districts/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/cubic-yards-dredged-us-army-corp-of-engineers-selected-port-districts/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Reconfiguration of Logistics Networks to Logistics Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/reconfiguration-logistics-networks-logistics-chains/) **Published:** November 13, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/reconfiguration_logistics_networks-1.png?resize=900%2C272&ssl=1 "The Reconfiguration of Logistics Networks to Logistics Chains | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The reconfiguration of logistics networks to logistics chains### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/reconfiguration-logistics-networks-logistics-chains/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/reconfiguration-logistics-networks-logistics-chains/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/reconfiguration-logistics-networks-logistics-chains/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/reconfiguration-logistics-networks-logistics-chains/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Distribution Network Configurations for Containerized Import Cargo in Europe](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/distribution-network-configurations-containerized-import-cargo-europe/) **Published:** November 13, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/distribution_network_europe.png?resize=900%2C700&ssl=1 "Distribution Network Configurations for Containerized Import Cargo in Europe | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Distribution Network Configurations for Containerized Import Cargo in EuropeBefore 1993, most companies set up a distribution structure based on a network of distribution centers in major countries in which they were present. Since cross-border transactions have increased drastically after the creation of the European Internal Market in 1993 and the fall of the Iron Curtain, most companies have consolidated their national distribution centers to European distribution centers (EDC) covering all of Europe. A few main developments characterize contemporary logistics networks in Europe. First, the evolution from an EDC to a networked EDC reduces labor requirements but demands higher skills. Second, fewer VALS are performed at the central distribution centers as these are decentralized or moved to low-cost production facilities or overseas to the source. Third, the EDC can be bypassed altogether by cross-docking, merge-in-transit, or adequate consolidation at the supplier transport hub. Fourth, a shift in location occurs caused by market dynamics (distribution follows demand) and logistics trends. This can lead to a decoupling of one EDC serving the whole European market to two or even three EDCs of similar status spread over Europe (twin or triple EDCs). Fifth, specific sectors require EDCs for their supply chain, like basic processing industries (chemicals, food, etc..), sectors with a low logistics cost (pharmaceutical, medical), and Asian SMEs with new emerging global brands from China. These trends could cause stagnation in EDC investments and growth. The fifth trend does not offset the others. Existing EDCs will be transformed into networked EDCs, reducing employment possibilities. This does not mean that investments in new specialized EDCs in ports are not possible. For the aforementioned sectors or transporters requiring sea-sea trades, these distribution centers are still required. In several studies, European regions have been ranked based on their intrinsic qualities in view of attracting EDCs. Based on these analyses, Flanders (the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium), northern France, and the Netherlands remain the top locations for EDCs. Still, more and more regions are vying for an attractive location for RDCs and potentially EDCs. The future distribution system configuration impacts the cargo routing patterns in Europe. EU enlargement up to now has not had a huge impact on the location of EDCs in the so-called ‘blue banana’ as this zone still offers the best access to the EU’s core markets and infrastructure. However, road congestion, increasing labor costs, and land scarcity may encourage companies to search for alternative distribution structures. The Brexit pushes the center of gravity for European distribution somewhat to the (south)east. High potential candidates for RDC location are northern Germany and Finland for northern access, Hungary and Austria for central access, northern Italy and the north Adriatic region for southern access, and the Czech Republic and Poland for eastern access. Land and maritime corridors might prove crucial to further developing efficient European distribution network configurations. However, efficient long-distance corridors can also have a downside to well-established EDC regions such as the Netherlands and Belgium: they make it easier for logistics service providers to move distribution facilities inland closer to the customer base without sacrificing good accessibility to the maritime gateways. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/distribution-network-configurations-containerized-import-cargo-europe/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/distribution-network-configurations-containerized-import-cargo-europe/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/distribution-network-configurations-containerized-import-cargo-europe/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/distribution-network-configurations-containerized-import-cargo-europe/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Functional Types of Port Centric Logistics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/functional-types-port-centric-logistics/) **Published:** July 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/functional_types_port_centric_logistics.png?resize=900%2C429&ssl=1 "Functional Types of Port Centric Logistics | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Functional Types of Port Centric LogisticsThe first functional type illustrates the standard **export-oriented paradigm,** where the container port is the pivot for an export-oriented platform. This is particularly prevalent in East Asia, where offshoring has substantially influenced port development towards the setting up of large manufacturing clusters. First-tier port-centric logistics are predominantly focused on consolidating loads and container stuffing. Since there are more exports than imports (in addition to the different composition of imports versus exports), an important component of first-tier logistics is the repositioning of large pools of containers between importers and exporters, many empty. Second-tier logistics are oriented along with manufacturing activities, having a close relationship with the port to provide for their inputs (parts) and outputs (finished products). The second functional type of port-centric logistics is the least common but represents a value proposition in a global economy where the importance of connectivity is increasing. It relates to **major transshipment hubs** as intermediary locations that connect deep sea and feeder shipping networks. Notable examples include Dubai, Singapore, and Panama. Under such circumstances, the port becomes a distribution platform servicing a region by stocking parts and finished goods, assembly, and customization services, and light manufacturing. New interactions can also occur, particularly when maritime and air cargo operations are jointly used in supply chain management. The joint connectivity of air and maritime networks creates multiplying effects since there are additional sourcing and distribution options through air/maritime transloading. The third functional type of port-centric logistics is **import-oriented**, which is common in North America and Europe. Since the import of retail goods dominates, first-tier port-centric logistics rely on container destuffing and the deconsolidation of loads for specific distribution centers. Like export-oriented platforms, an active container repositioning market is trying to reconcile inbound and outbound logistics. Transloading is also an important logistics activity, with the contents of container load units transferred into domestic units, such as between 40-foot ISO containers and 53-foot domestic containers in North America. Since inbound logistics has a significant retail orientation, second-tier port-centric logistics involves assembly and customization and various forms of distribution, such as fulfillment and postponement. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/functional-types-port-centric-logistics/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/functional-types-port-centric-logistics/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/functional-types-port-centric-logistics/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/functional-types-port-centric-logistics/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cruise Ship Waste Streams for a One Week Itinerary](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/cruise-ships-waste-streams/) **Published:** November 11, 2023 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Picture-1.png?resize=900%2C451&ssl=1 "Cruise Ship Waste Streams for a One Week Itinerary | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Ship Waste Streams for a One Week Itinerary*Adapted from: Maritime Administration (MARAD) (2002). Maritime Trade & Transportation 2002 Washington D.C.: United States Department of Transportation.* Depending on the ship size, the number of persons on board, the ship-operating route, the voyage duration, and the time spent in the respective areas, waste discharge might be restricted to time spent in port. The quantity and types of garbage to deliver by cruises into a port reception facility may vary a lot, making the port’s waste services planning and provisions more challenging to manage in terms of demand, capacity, and adequacy. Pollutants and waste from cruise ships include air emissions, ballast water, wastewater, hazardous waste, and solid waste. An average cruise ship generates a minimum of 1 kg of solid waste plus two bottles and cans per passenger per day and an average of 50 tons of sewage (black water) per day. A figure of 3.5 kg/passenger/day, with the estimated amount of generated waste (typical one-week voyage) including 25,000 gallons of oily bilge water; 210,000 gallons of sewage (or black water); 1 million gallons of non-sewage wastewater from showers, sinks, laundries, baths, and galleys (or grey water) and eight tons of solid waste (i.e. plastic, paper, wood, cardboard, food, cans, glass). The average cruise ship of 3,000 passengers and crew generates about 50 tons of solid waste in a single week. These vessels, or the ones with double capacity (i.e. the Royal Caribbean Oasis-class vessels that exceed capacities of 6.000 passengers), cruise with a capacity utilization that exceeds 90%, thus producing significant wastes and residues to be delivered at the cruise ports they visit. Overall, a considerable part of the solid waste generated by shipping comes from cruise ships. In the absence of recent data, it is worth noting that two decades ago, the share of comparatively lesser cruise activities was measured to stand at approximately 24% of the total waste produced. Under the IMO International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78), ports are complied to provide adequate port waste reception facilities with no undue ship delay. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/cruise-ships-waste-streams/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/cruise-ships-waste-streams/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/cruise-ships-waste-streams/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/cruise-ships-waste-streams/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Tehuantepec Interoceanic Railway Project, 1884](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/tehuantepec-interoceanic-railway-project-1884/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/806px-Mining_and_Scientific_Press_-_March_28_1885_-_Interoceanic_Ship_Railway_206.png?resize=806%2C1024&ssl=1 "The Tehuantepec Interoceanic Railway Project, 1884 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Tehuantepec Interoceanic Railway Project 1884 *Source: Mining and Scientific Press, 1885.* The Isthmus of Tehuantepec was, for long, an interoceanic shipping option that was particularly attractive to the United States. From its perspective, the distance involved was shorter than the Panama option. However, due to elevation and land distance (roughly 230 km), canal construction was not retained as an attractive proposition. In 1884, the American civil engineer James B. Eads proposed constructing a transoceanic rail line between Salina Cruz (Pacific side) and Coatzacoalcos (Gulf of Mexico) that could carry whole ships. The goal was to build a six-track railway with three locomotives pulling ships across the isthmus in about 13 hours. The system was designed to carry ships of up to 10,000 tons into a wheeled cradle. Although initially triggering interest, the project was abandoned in 1887 after Eads’ death. The interoceanic railway was designed at a time when ship weights were still relatively light because of their wood armature. The growth in ship size and weight by the early 20th century would have made such a project increasingly marginal. Still, the idea endured. The Mexican government considered a similar project in the 1940s, which could carry ships of up to 15,000 tons. Again, the substantial growth in ship size after World War II would render such an option impractical. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/tehuantepec-interoceanic-railway-project-1884/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/tehuantepec-interoceanic-railway-project-1884/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/tehuantepec-interoceanic-railway-project-1884/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/tehuantepec-interoceanic-railway-project-1884/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Drivers and Barriers for the Circular Economy in Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/drivers-and-barriers-for-the-circular-economy-in-ports/) **Published:** October 27, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/drivers_barriers_circular_economy_ports.png?resize=900%2C297&ssl=1 "Drivers and Barriers for the Circular Economy in Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Drivers and Barriers for the Circular Economy in PortsSeveral **drivers** favor the implementation of circular economy mechanisms: - **Attracting new activities**. New added value activities related to the circular economy can be located within a port complex, which supports a mission statement related to generating economic activities and their benefits for a regional economy. - **New technologies**. Technological advances allow for new opportunities related to the circular economy, including digital technologies tracking assets for reuse and recycling; production technologies allowing for better designs and processes; energy technologies allowing the switch to alternative sources. - **Incentive mechanisms**. Public actors offer incentives such as subsidies and tax abatements if circular economy practices are implemented in specific sectors. - **Compliance**. Rules and regulations concerning carbon emissions, energy mixes, or recycling can comply ports to undertake circular economy initiatives. Still, barriers can prevent or hinder the implementation of circular economy mechanisms: - **Organizational structure**. There could be an unwillingness or a lack of leadership. On occasion, a port authority may not perceive circular strategies to be an element of its mission statement or jurisdiction. - **Stakeholders**. Port customers and users may not be in sectors that could derive opportunities from the circular economy, including the generation of higher costs undermining their competitiveness. - **Capital requirements**. Circular economy initiatives can be capital-intensive and have a lack of demonstrated economic benefits. - **Infrastructure**. Port and ancillary infrastructure need to be present to support circular projects. In particular, low or no-emission electricity generation capabilities are required, as well as infrastructure for the collection and storage of recycling materials. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/drivers-and-barriers-for-the-circular-economy-in-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/drivers-and-barriers-for-the-circular-economy-in-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/drivers-and-barriers-for-the-circular-economy-in-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/drivers-and-barriers-for-the-circular-economy-in-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Recycling Technologies in the Life Cycle of Plastics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/recycling-technologies-in-the-life-cycle-of-plastics/) **Published:** October 23, 2023 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Plastics-recycling-techniques.png?resize=900%2C338&ssl=1 "Recycling Technologies in the Life Cycle of Plastics | Port Economics, Management and Policy")*Source: adapted from JRC Technical Report (2023), Environmental and economic assessment of plastic waste recycling* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/recycling-technologies-in-the-life-cycle-of-plastics/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/recycling-technologies-in-the-life-cycle-of-plastics/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/recycling-technologies-in-the-life-cycle-of-plastics/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/recycling-technologies-in-the-life-cycle-of-plastics/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Concept of Extended Producer Responsibility](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/concept-extended-producer-responsibility/) **Published:** October 22, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/extended_producer_responsibility.png?resize=900%2C577&ssl=1 "The Concept of Extended Producer Responsibility | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Concept of Extended Producer Responsibility### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/concept-extended-producer-responsibility/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/concept-extended-producer-responsibility/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/concept-extended-producer-responsibility/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/concept-extended-producer-responsibility/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cruise Ports Waste Reception Facilities: Ownership and Fee Schemes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/cruise-ports-waste-reception-facilities/) **Published:** April 19, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** In the second major cruise market of the world, the Mediterranean Sea, the available waste reception facilities in port are under different proprietary status, private ownership being dominant, yet the extent of that this happens per type of facility differs. In the case of recycling plants, over half of the available facilities are privately owned. This percentage reduces to one-third in the case of incineration and biological plants and storage areas and one-quarter in the case of energy recovery plants. The public proprietary status is comparatively high in storage areas, while public-private partnerships are on the rise in all types of waste reception facilities. The fee selection schemes aim to enable ports to establish cost recovery systems to encourage the delivery of waste on land and discourage dumping at sea. The most commonly applied fee selection scheme is collecting indirect fees irrespective of the actual use of facilities. The direct fee selection scheme is applied at almost one-quarter of the ports, while the remainder applies a combination of direct and indirect fee schemes. Given the remarkable variation in fee payment methods, it is worth focusing on the main principles of fee selection schemes applied at five major ports in different countries: - **Barcelona** (Spain). The largest European cruise port applies a fixed waste tax per call. A private company provides the service requested by ships, and the port authority is responsible for the payment for the services offered. - **Dubrovnik** (Croatia). The ships are charged different fees based on the type of waste. The disposal of solid waste carries an obligatory fee based on ship gross tonnage. Ships that are less than 500 grt pay a fixed fee, and those over 500 grt pay a fee based on the quantity of the disposed waste. Other wastes received are fluid waste and oil waste, with a quantity charge for both disposals. - **Kusadasi** (Turkey). All cruise ship vessels are subject to a compulsory contribution fee that is designated according to the gross tonnage of the vessel. This compulsory contribution fee allows each vessel to deliver a certain amount of waste (m3) without any charge, while it is charged for any additional m3 of garbage. - **Piraeus** (Greece). Two categories of waste fees apply to cruise ships calling. The first is a contributory fee that covers the delivery, treatment, and final disposal of a maximum permitted quantity of waste per ship call. This fee applies to cruise ships whose deployment includes frequent and regular calls at the port of Piraeus, i.e., those realizing a minimum of three monthly calls. The second type of fee is a fixed fee per call. This applies to cruise ships without scheduled itineraries and is structured to cover food waste and domestic waste only. For the operational waste and the excessive quantities of domestic waste that are not covered by the contributory fee, the additional applicable charge depends on the waste quantity. - **Venice** (Italy). The fee selection scheme is based on dividing the respective fees into two different types of rates. The first type is a fixed rate that covers the costs necessary to carry out the collection and disposal service by ensuring at least 35% of the fixed costs. The current legislation requires the payment of this fee even from vessels that do not discharge waste at the Port of Venice. The second one is a variable rate that covers costs directly related to the actual delivery of wastes based on tonnage. This variable rate is also subdivided into an hourly rate, a fee per cubic meter, and a fee for the service provided. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/cruise-ports-waste-reception-facilities/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/cruise-ports-waste-reception-facilities/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/cruise-ports-waste-reception-facilities/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/cruise-ports-waste-reception-facilities/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Circular Ports and Circular Maritime Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/circular-ports-circular-maritime-supply-chains/) **Published:** September 27, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/circular_ports_circular_maritime.png?resize=900%2C282&ssl=1 "Circular Ports and Circular Maritime Supply Chains | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Circular Ports and Circular Maritime Supply Chains### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/circular-ports-circular-maritime-supply-chains/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/circular-ports-circular-maritime-supply-chains/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/circular-ports-circular-maritime-supply-chains/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-circular-economy/circular-ports-circular-maritime-supply-chains/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Dry Canal Projects in Central America](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/dry-canal-projects-central-america/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Dry-Canals-Central-America.png?resize=900%2C475&ssl=1 "Dry Canal Projects in Central America | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Dry Canal Projects in Central America[PDF Map](https://transportgeography.org/wp-content/uploads/Map_dry_canals_central_america.pdf) Conventionally, Central American countries had poor connectivity internally (within countries and through the region) and with the global economy. The expansion of the Panama Canal and growing trade in Latin America has incited the consideration of several dry canal projects linking the Pacific Ocean to the Caribbean Sea (Atlantic). Such projects usually involve setting a high-capacity rail connection between two ports, or at least a highway corridor, and economic development (logistics) zones favoring the exploitation of national comparative advantages. Dry canals can be built quickly (in less than five years), instead of constructing a transoceanic canal that can take 10 to 15 years. Every Central American country with access to both the Caribbean and the Pacific has set dry canal projects in various phases of planning or development, including Colombia and Mexico: 1. **Isthmus of Tehuantepec**. It represents the shortest distance between the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean, with a width of about 200 km. This route served as a dry canal from 1907, but the option was abandoned shortly after the opening of the Panama Canal. However, the rail route between the ports of Coatzacoalcos (Gulf of Mexico) and Salina Cruz (Pacific) is still operational (operated by Ferrosur), and the dry canal option could be reopened as a logistics corridor. 2. **Guatemala**. A 372-kilometer double-track rail project, including a highway, linking two greenfield ports on the Atlantic and Caribbean coasts. These ports are expected to be able to accommodate ships above 8,000 TEUs. The holding company, Corredor Interoceanico de Guatemala, is responsible for the project, with most of the infrastructure set on a Build, Operate, Transfer (BOT) scheme. 3. **Honduras**. A dry canal project to connect Amapala island in the Pacific with Puerto Castilla, a container port on the Caribbean, 280 km apart. There is also a proposed sub-branch of the corridor in El Salvador, connecting the port of La Union. 4. **Nicaragua**. The concept of a dry canal was spearheaded by Nicaragua in the 1990s, but it failed to gain enough support. The Nicaragua Interoceanic Canal Company (CINN), funded by private interests, was set in 2001 to develop the option of the dry canal. However, in 2012, the Nicaraguan government moved toward constructing an [interoceanic canal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=464). This project later stalled as it became clear it was commercially non-viable. 5. **Costa Rica**. The project aims at developing more effective road connections between the Caribbean and Pacific coasts of Costa Rica, particularly towards the [Limon Moin facility](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=6661), which is being expanded. This project thus does not portray itself as an alternative to the Panama Canal, but as a strategy to improve the mobility of national imports and exports. 6. **Panama Canal Railway**. The only [operational](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=433) dry canal, which was reopened in 2001 and accounts for an annual volume exceeding 450,000 TEUs. The dry canal offers an opportunity to reposition containers between container ports on the Caribbean and Pacific sides of the Canal. 7. **Colombia**. Involves a 220 km rail link connecting two greenfield ports on Colombia’s Pacific and Atlantic coasts. Its proximity to the Panama Canal makes the transoceanic option a difficult value proposition. In this case, a rail corridor more effectively connecting the ports of Cartagena and Buenaventura would be more relevant to the commercial interests of Colombia. An important limitation concerns economies of scale, and the cost of unloading, transporting across the peninsula, and reloading containers would likely undermine any advantage. It is also argued that Central America would gain more by constructing an effective regional highway system linking the countries than through competing transoceanic dry canal projects. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/dry-canal-projects-central-america/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/dry-canal-projects-central-america/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/dry-canal-projects-central-america/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/dry-canal-projects-central-america/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Port of Savannah Logistics Cluster](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/) **Published:** March 7, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue > The port of Savannah has become an important gateway and logistics cluster for the North American market. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. The Emergence of the Savannah Gateway](#1_The_Emergence_of_the_Savannah_Gateway) - [2. Port-Centric Logistics: The Crossroads Business Park](#2_Port-Centric_Logistics_The_Crossroads_Business_Park) - [3. Mitigating Site Constraints](#3_Mitigating_Site_Constraints) - [4. Ongoing Expansion of Port Centric Logistics?](#4_Ongoing_Expansion_of_Port_Centric_Logistics) # 1. The Emergence of the Savannah Gateway The port of Savannah is under the jurisdiction of the Georgia Ports Authority (GPA) and has become a **[major commercial gateway](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=7677)** along the American East Coast. Up to the 1990s, the port used to be dominantly focusing on exports such as paper and chemicals. Savannah was a relatively small container port with a [traffic level](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2052) well under Charleston, a nearby competing port with deeper drafts. Since it is within the general mandate of GPA to promote port and regional development, strategies were devised to increase container imports and promote Savannah as a commercial gateway of the American Southeast. Such growth was the outcome of three major trends: - The first concerns **demographic and commercial changes** that have attracted cargo that conventionally transited through the middle or North Atlantic ranges of the East Coast. - The second concerns **investments in port infrastructures** to provide additional capacity, shorter transit times through the [all-water ](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=8502)[Panama ](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2057)[route](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=8502) to complement and sometimes circumvent the rail landbridge from Pacific Coast ports. - Large assets of **greenfield real estate** and lower labor costs, enabling to position the region as an attractive proposition for investments in warehousing and distribution. The Savannah logistics cluster was developed to **capture hinterland commercial opportunities** that were ill-serviced, particularly in the context of the changing commercial environment of freight distribution from the late 1980s. This includes access to the American Southeast, with the port hinterland covering about 44% of the American population. The immediate hinterland includes the Piedmont Atlantic region (Atlanta, Charlotte, etc.), which accounts for a population of 15 million. These developments have been related to the setting of a number of logistics zones within a radius of about 40 km from the port, forming a port-centric logistics cluster that accounts for one of largest in the United States for import retail distribution centers. These zones are built upon a set of advantages mostly related to the availability of land, short drayage distances, effective use of container assets, and supply chain considerations, particularly the proximity of producers and consumers. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/teu_east_coast.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Container Traffic at Selected East Coast Ports, 1990-2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Traffic at Selected East Coast Ports 1990 2022![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/routing_na_landbridge.png?resize=900%2C769&ssl=1 "routing_na_landbridge | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Transit Times from Shanghai and North American Routing Options in Days![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/operational_advantages_ftz.png?resize=900%2C477&ssl=1 "Operational Advantages of Foreign Trade Zones (FTZ) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Operational Advantages of Foreign Trade Zones FTZThe development of logistics activities is strongly related to the **level of port activity** since the port is the main connection to global supply chains. The port/logistics relation is self-reinforcing as the growth of port traffic incites the setting of logistics activities, and these new activities contribute to port traffic. Savannah is very illustrative of this process since the development of the logistics cluster created a virtuous effect where logistical activities attracted additional port traffic, and additional port traffic was a driver in the locational decision of freight distribution activities within the cluster. For instance, Georgia has developed a significant export market for its poultry industry, which is carried in refrigerated containers. As such, this attracted large refrigerated warehouse facilities around Savannah, which account for 40% of American poultry exports. An important characteristic of the port’s traffic that has a notable impact on logistics is the **balance between import and export cargo**. For instance, while 1.81 million TEU of cargo were imported in 2016, 1.82 million TEU were exported. This underlines that ports and their nearby logistics zones tend to fare better when there is a relative balance between imports and exports. Maritime shipping companies find this an attractive proposition to call Savannah since the utilization of their assets is similar for inbound and outbound ships. The logistics cluster, therefore, offers **container rotation opportunities** between inbound and outbound logistics. About 20% of all the container traffic is carried by truck, with 35 to 40% of the containers bound to logistics zones. The status of a **Foreign Trade Zone** (FTZ) offers several [operational advantages](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=678) in terms of postponement and added value strategy for American logistics zones. Importers are using this advantage to delay payments on their imports until they are leaving the FTZ to their stores or regional distribution centers. The logistic cluster of Savannah was granted FTZ status in 1984. The Savannah Airport Commission is the Grantee for FTZ 104. The zone has transitioned to Alternative Site Framework (ASF), where companies located in a designated ASF county, can now quickly and inexpensively be designated with FTZ status. # 2. Port-Centric Logistics: The Crossroads Business Park The **Crossroads Business Park** (CBP), designed in 1988, was the first logistics zones to be established in the Savannah logistics cluster, with its first user beginning operations in 1991. The logistics zone set in motion a business model and a development pattern that was replicated within the cluster with the setting of several other logistics zones. CBP is a 1,661 acres facility that comprises about 2.7 million square feet of warehousing space located directly adjacent to Interstate 95 (I95) within the City of Savannah. It is less than 10 km away from the gates of the Garden City Container Terminal, the main intermodal facility of the Port of Savannah. CBP is owned by the **Savannah Economic Development Agency** (SEDA), which is an independently funded organization whose mission is to support economic development in Savannah and Chatham County, Georgia. It assists companies interested in relocating to or expanding in the Savannah area. The [Crossroads Business Park](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2066) was developed to accommodate the first major distribution centers and related office activities in the Savannah metropolitan area and serves three major purposes: - **Inbound retail**. Its core focus concerns deconsolidation logistics for major retailers for containers arriving at the port of Savannah. The cargo is then deconsolidated into domestic containers and sent to regional distribution centers. - **Manufacturing**. While manufacturing was a major function initially intended for CBP, the only significant manufacturer is Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, a manufacturer of business jets, which has facilities in the logistics zone. - **Education**. To cope with the skills demand, particularly engineering, two academic institutions have opened campuses; Savannah Technical College and Georgia Institute of Technology. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/crossroads.png?resize=900%2C570&ssl=1 "crossroads | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Crossroads Business ParkThe development of the CBP was initially triggered by a **failure to provide suitable logistics space** for large freight distribution companies. In 1986, SEDA was in discussion with two large corporations interested in locating some of their activities in Savannah. However, in part because Savannah did not have at that time have large industrial or logistics areas to be developed, the location prospects were not realized. Around the same time, the port authority was issuing statements that due to expansion plans and the expected growth in container traffic, there would be an acute shortage of land to develop distribution centers. In light of this setback and the urgent need to compensate for the shortage of land, SEDA decided to move from a reactive to a **proactive stance**. The first step was site location, where SEDA found a track on land owned by a single stakeholder, the Union Camp Corporation. It then contacted developers who might be interested in developing the site. However, global and national logistics real estate developers were not interested in developing logistics zones in Savannah. Port traffic was less than 500,000 TEU, and Savannah was not known as a logistics gateway; the risk was perceived to be too high. SEDA, therefore, decided in 1988 to **develop land on its own**. After securing the first tenants, including the headquarters of Union Camp (a large paper manufacturer that was acquired by International Paper in 1999) and a major **Home Depot distribution center**, the construction of the logistics zone began in 1994. # 3. Mitigating Site Constraints The land use around Savannah, which is reflective of coastal regions in the Southeast, is occupied by about **60% of wetlands**. This created development and environmental issues that substantially impacted the **siting and structure of logistics zones** in the area. As such, CBP became the first logistics park in the United States to be **developed over large tracks of wetland**, which created unique planning and regulatory challenges (the Clean Water Act regulates all developments taking place on wetlands). After a complex review process, SEDA was able to receive in 1991 a permit to develop land on the CBP site. Due to wetland protection regulations, CBP is surrounded by about 7,000 acres of green zones, many of which are preserved wildlife habitats. This wetland is protected under the Clean Water Act of 1977, which requires a permit for infringing developments. The outcome of this constraint is low densities and the siting of facilities to ensure that minimal encroachment is made on wetlands. For instance, for a 100-acre development taking place on private land, there are usually 25 acres of wetland that are protected by federal law. Of these 25 acres, only 10 to 15% can be impacted (e.g. landfill). This implies the careful organization of facilities to minimize (within the 10-15% limits) the impacted wetland. Consequently, many logistics zones in the Savannah area have **spread-out structures** with substantial green buffer zones. Companies prefer to have land **shovel-ready** within 4-5 months since once they approach developers, they usually have already made their location decision and would quickly like to act upon it. Customers have narrowed their choice to a few sites, and the matter is to find a site that can accommodate their development requirements (time, surface, accessibility, etc.). Locating at CBP was offered as a package where the land was shovel-ready in timeframes not seen elsewhere in North America, with infrastructures such as road access and utilities offered to need the requirements of the customer quickly. For instance, in 2000, Dollar Tree was able to begin construction of its distribution center 30 days after a deal with SEDA was brokered. This was a **strong competitive advantage** for CBP in regard to other logistics zones or logistics sites. An important value proposition of the deconsolidation centers located at CBP involves **short drayage distances**. The drayage of containers from the port terminal to distribution centers (or customers) is usually efficient within a radius of about 30 km as it supports the effective use of truck assets. Beyond that threshold, additional distances add to costs and delays, particularly for empty returns. The main accessibility advantages of the CBP site involve: - **Direct access to I95** through a specifically built highway interchange. I95 is the most important highway corridor on the East Coast and a crucial element of its road accessibility to national markets. This accessibility is also supported by I16, which is linking Atlanta. - Within 10 km of drayage from the gates of the **Garden City Container terminal**, the main container terminal of the port of Savannah. The port offers regular services to regions of the global market. - **Two near dock rail terminals**, one owned by CSX (Tremont) and the other by NS (Mason Intermodal Container Transfer Facility), are located nearby. They transited 235,000 TEU in 2007, about 9% of the port’s traffic. CBP is connected by rail spurs, but they are currently not used but remain an option for users. - A specific advantage is that the State of Georgia authorizes **gross vehicle weights** (including truck, cargo, container, and chassis) of 80,000 pounds (36,000 kg) and up to 100,000 pounds (45,000 kg) if special permits and equipment (chassis). This enables support of the maximum weight a container can handle, which is around 26 tons (24,000 kg). - **Savannah Hilton Head International Airport** is a marginal advantage. It is a medium-sized airport that handled 1.6 million passengers and 8,400 tons of cargo in 2011. Comparatively, Memphis and Louisville handled 3.9 and 1.8 million tons of cargo, respectively, in 2010. Thus, air freight plays a limited role in the dynamics within the cluster. A cluster of hotels and convention centers was developed adjacent to the airport, which offers support services to CBP. # 4. Ongoing Expansion of Port Centric Logistics? The provision of space for logistics in the Savannah logistics cluster has evolved from a situation of undersupply to **oversupply**. The main factors behind this issue are: - The substantial growth of the logistics sector in the late 1990s and early 2000s attracted new investments and may have led to **over-expectations about future growth prospects**. - A **large availability of greenfield land** having limited agricultural value and therefore having limited competing activities that could bid for this land. Savannah represented a rather unique situation in North America where large tracks of land could readily be found nearby port facilities. - Several **adjacent and competing counties** (Bryan, Chatham, Effingham, Liberty) are developing their own logistics zone projects to attract economic development opportunities within their jurisdiction. There are about 5 million square feet of warehousing space ready to be occupied in the Savannah logistics cluster. The infilling of this space may take some time, so meanwhile, there are limited incentives to develop new projects. Like all commercial projects, there is always the risk of **changing market conditions**. For instance, in 2008, due to a drop in retail volumes, Walmart decided to stop operations in its 800,000 square foot distribution center in CBP and consolidate its activities in Statesboro, about 70 km inland. In the current setting of port competition, the Georgia Ports Authority is concerned about **draft issues** in the Savannah harbor. Still, the port saw a surge in its traffic to 5.9 million TEU by 2022, particularly in light of the expansion of the Panama Canal and the dredging of the harbor to a depth of 47 feet from its draft of 42 feet. This requires several modifications of the existing terminal facilities, particularly the Garden City Container terminal. However, the footprint will remain relatively similar, implying the densification of terminal operations, such as stacking and gate throughput. If these traffic projections become a reality, it will likely trigger a phase of **additional development of logistics and manufacturing zones** as the existing overcapacity will be filled. The port of Savannah has also experienced a shift in its trade orientation. In 2011 the Suez Canal accounted for 25% of the traffic handled by the port, while 50% was handled by the Panama Canal. By 2015, this ratio shifted to 48% in favor of Suez and 30% for Panama. On another front, an **inland port** 275 km west of Savannah became operational in late 2011. The main promoter of the **Cordele Intermodal Center** (CIC) is a county industrial council that follows the conventional strategy of landlord revenue generation and economic development by securing land in proximity to a rail terminal (CSX) and making it available for the development of logistics activities. Another goal is to improve the hinterland of the port of Savannah in southwestern Georgia, in the Florida panhandle, and in western Alabama, competing more effectively with the port of Mobil. While in terms of the traffic it could be a zero-sum game, lower inland distribution costs could lead to indirect economic benefits. The rail link mainly belongs to two short line operators, which confers the advantage of having a rail shuttle service that does not impair the existing CSX network. Satellite terminal activities and the possible development of an inland port underline a set of strategies spearheaded by the port authority to cope with the import-oriented functions generated by the freight distribution activities of North America’s largest “big box” retailers. --- ## Related Topics - [Port Terminals](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3235) - [Terminals and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=252) - [Logistics and Freight Distribution](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3928) - [Freight Distribution Clusters](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=8133) - [Inland](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=8139)[Ports](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=8139) --- ## References - Reference a. - Reference b. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Traffic at Selected East Coast Ports, 1990-2022](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/container-traffic-selected-east-coast-ports/) **Published:** March 7, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/teu_east_coast.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Container Traffic at Selected East Coast Ports, 1990-2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Traffic at Selected East Coast Ports 1990 2022*Source: Port Authorities.* Gateway ports of the North American East Coast have experienced a renewed dynamic with the growth of global trade and [all-water services with Asia through the Panama Canal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=425). This trend was mostly played out between 2002 and 2008. The port of Savannah benefited substantially from this trend and experienced strong growth; by 2008 it handled about 2.6 million TEU. After a decline to 2.3 M TEU in 2009 related to the financial crisis, traffic recovered to 3.6 M TEU in 2016. Then traffic surged to 5.9 M TEU in 2022. Savannah surpassed competing ports, namely Charleston and Hampton Roads to become the most important East Coast port after New York. However, New York is essentially a local cargo port with the bulk of its traffic related to the metropolitan area, especially imports. An important factor behind Savannah’s growth is the dynamism of its logistics cluster and the strong export function of the port. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/container-traffic-selected-east-coast-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/container-traffic-selected-east-coast-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/container-traffic-selected-east-coast-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/container-traffic-selected-east-coast-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Global Containerized Trade by Main Cargo Category (in TEU)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-containerized-trade-main-cargo-category-teu/) **Published:** February 9, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/global_containerized_trade_cargo.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Global Containerized Trade by Main Cargo Category | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Containerized Trade by Main Cargo Category in TEU*Source: MDS Transmodal, World Cargo Database. Note: Groups are at the [SITC](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=4028) 2 digits level.* It is estimated that in 2015, 135.5 million TEU of trade was carried in containers, compared to 88.5 million TEU in 2005. The composition of global containerized trade shows an extensive diversity of the goods being carried, with no particular category (SITC 2 digit level) dominating. The four most important categories accounted for 20.6% of the containerized trade volumes in 2015: - Miscellaneous manufactures (SITC 89) include articles made of plastics (e.g. bags), toys, sporting goods, or office supplies. The manufacturing of these goods has been highly impacted by outsourcing and offshoring since it requires significant labor input. - Electrical machinery (SITC 77) includes machines powered by electricity, such as electric cables, appliances, batteries, and integrated circuits. The production of these goods has also been substantially internationalized, particularly for electronics. - Vegetables and fruits (SITC 05) compose an important segment of transportation by [refrigerated containers](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2659). This sector has been the object of notable growth with more reliable cold chain logistics. - Textiles and made-up articles (SITC 65) include yarn, woven fiber, blankets, linen, curtains, and carpets. The textile industry has been the object of internationalization for several decades. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-containerized-trade-main-cargo-category-teu/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-containerized-trade-main-cargo-category-teu/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-containerized-trade-main-cargo-category-teu/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-containerized-trade-main-cargo-category-teu/?share=reddit) - --- ### [International Trade of Merchandises, 2003-2013](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/international-trade-merchandises/) **Published:** July 26, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/trade_merchandises_structure.png?resize=900%2C500&ssl=1 "International Trade of Merchandises, 2003-2013 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")International Trade of Merchandises 2003 2013*Source: WTO. In billions of dollars and in % of all exports.* Three major poles account for the majority of the global trade, about 83% of all exports in 2013. However, most of this trade is regional in scale, particularly within Europe where close to 69% of all exports are taking place within the region, up from 62% in 2003. This is also the case for Asia, which has seen the share of regional trade slightly increase to about 53% (from 50%) despite the high level of export dependency of many of its economies. All of the above is underlining a growing regionalization of trade relations. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/international-trade-merchandises/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/international-trade-merchandises/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/international-trade-merchandises/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/international-trade-merchandises/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Modal Shares of World Trade by Volume and Value, 2008](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/modal-shares-world-trade-volume-value/) **Published:** November 6, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/global_trade_modal_share.png?resize=900%2C533&ssl=1 "Modal Shares of World Trade by Volume and Value, 2008 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Modal Shares of World Trade by Volume and Value 2008### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/modal-shares-world-trade-volume-value/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/modal-shares-world-trade-volume-value/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/modal-shares-world-trade-volume-value/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/modal-shares-world-trade-volume-value/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Tools for Managing Port Risk and Resilience](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/tools-for-managing-port-risk-and-resilience/) **Published:** April 14, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** The types of risks ports are exposed to force them to adopt **means of coping with uncertainty**. Increased volatility and major external and internal shocks require a focus on risk analysis and mitigation and avoiding actions and situations that entail more than moderate degrees of risk. **Tools** can provide port authorities and port-related companies with a set of actions and alterations to their risk approach. In the long term, any actor wishing to survive and thrive should become resilient. This means elevating risk management to a strategic level and implementing a mindful corporate culture where the organization can recognize, take, and rapidly and effectively adapt to changes and the resulting risks. ## A. Modelling tools to deal with uncertainty **Sensitivity analysis** is a method of determining how the variation in the output of a model (numerical or otherwise) can be apportioned, qualitatively or quantitatively, to different sources of variation. The given model responds to the information it uses. The goal of sensitivity analysis is to understand the quantitative sources of uncertainty and identify the sources providing the greatest uncertainty. Sensitivity testing does not encourage the analyst to consider dependencies between parameters and probabilities that certain values will occur together. **Error propagation equations** were originally developed by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to estimate error propagation in calculations. The goal of the error propagation equations is to assess how the quantified uncertainties in model inputs propagate in model calculations to produce an uncertainty range in a given model outcome of interest. This addresses statistical uncertainty (inexactness) in inputs and parameters. The error propagation equations require no specific hardware or software and can typically be applied using a spreadsheet. Therefore, it is suitable as a quick check tool since it requires very little resources and skills. **Monte Carlo simulation** is a statistical numerical technique for stochastic model calculations and error propagation analysis in (model) calculations. The goal of Monte Carlo analysis is to trace the structure of model output that results from the uncertainty of model inputs. A number of software packages are available to do Monte Carlo analysis. Widely used are the commercial packages @Risk and Crystal Ball. Monte Carlo analysis typically addresses statistical uncertainty, and although it is rarely used this way, it is possible to use Monte Carlo analysis also for assessing model structure uncertainty, by introducing one or more “switch parameter” to switch between different model structures with probabilities attached for each position of the switch. Monte Carlo assessment is limited to those uncertainties that can be quantified and expressed as probabilities. Moreover, the interpretation of a probability distribution of the model output by decision-makers is not always straightforward. ## B. Forecasting tools to deal with uncertainty **Scenario analysis** is a method that tries to describe logical and internally consistent sequences of events to explore how the future might, could, or should evolve from the past and present. Through scenario analysis, different alternative futures can be explored, and uncertainties thus addressed. Scenario analysis creates awareness of alternative development paths, risks, opportunities, and possibilities for policies or decision-making. The two main methods used when developing scenarios are scenario writing (qualitative scenarios) or basic policy exercises and modeling analysis (quantitative scenarios). Quantitative scenario models are, for example, forecast scenarios for traffic throughput within a port. Scenario Analysis typically addresses ignorance, the impact of choices (assumptions), and “what-if” questions (scenario uncertainty) concerning both the context of the (environmental) system considered in the assessment and assumptions about the environmental processes involved. **PRIMA** is an acronym for Pluralistic Framework of Integrated uncertainty Management and risk Analysis. PRIMA is not a tool in the classic sense, but a framework for structuring the process of uncertainty management. The guiding principle is that uncertainty legitimates different perspectives on policy issues and that, as a consequence, uncertainty management should explicitly take these different perspectives into account. Central to the PRIMA approach is the determination of the most policy-relevant uncertainties that play a role in controversies surrounding complex issues. Various legitimate and consistent narratives are developed to serve as a basis for perspective-based model routes. The methodology is best applicable to scenario-based planning. PRIMA is the only approach so far that advances and provides structure to the systematic use of multiple values, paradigms, perceptions, and judgments in assessment processes. The PRIMA approach is, by definition, a group process approach. A near miss is an unplanned event that did not result in injury or damage but could have under different circumstances. A **near miss analysis** is an approach to identifying and analyzing these events and creating the appropriate corrective actions in order to avoid such events in the future. The purpose of this analysis is to identify systemic or latent errors and hazards and alert the port or enterprise about them. Although near-miss events are much more common than adverse events, reporting systems for such events are much less common. Near miss management consists of seven steps: (1) Identification of the incident, (2) Disclosure/ reporting of the incident; (3) Distribution of the incident data; (4) Root cause analysis; (5) Solution/improvement recommendation; (6) Dissemination; (7) Follow up. The method is scalable and applicable to all industries, and easy to implement and act upon. However, it remains a reactive approach, not a proactive one. **Adaptive forecasting** allows a port or port-related company to plug in various variables to gauge the potential outcomes of a single course of action from multiple angles. While including more variability in the forecast, this method also forces the port or port company to think in terms of uncertain outcomes and take new variables from their external environment into account. However, the abundance of data and variables makes selection cumbersome. Therefore, it might be more difficult to implement and create than historical trend forecasting. [Adaptive port planning](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7/port-planning-and-development/#5_Adaptive_Port_Planning) can serve as a complement to more traditional port planning approaches. A more detailed discussion on **forecasting methods and tools** (using traffic forecasting as an example) is provided in [Chapter 7.3. Port planning and development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7/port-planning-and-development/#3_Traffic_Forecasting_as_part_of_Port_Planning_and_Development). ## C. Project tools to deal with uncertainty A **SWOT analysis** is a study undertaken by an organization to identify internal strengths and weaknesses, as well as external opportunities and threats. This technique examines a project or plan from each of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) perspectives to increase the breadth of identified risks by including internally generated risks. The technique starts with identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the organization, focusing on either the project, organization or the business area in general. SWOT analysis then identifies any opportunities for the project that arise from organizational strengths and any threats arising from organizational weaknesses. The analysis also examines the degree to which organizational strengths offset threats and identifies opportunities that may serve to overcome weaknesses. SWOT highlights both the positive and negative aspects of a company and its risks and explicitly the areas where danger lurks or improvement is possible. **Diagramming Techniques** consist of a set of techniques, methods, and tools aimed at graphically representing variables and outcomes of certain decisions or risks. Examples include: - **Cause and effect diagrams**. These are also known as fishbone diagrams and are useful for identifying causes of risks. - **System or process flow charts**. These show how various elements of a system interrelate and the mechanism of causation. - **Influence diagrams**. These are graphical representations of situations showing causal influences, time ordering of events, and other relationships among variables and outcomes. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/tools-for-managing-port-risk-and-resilience/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/tools-for-managing-port-risk-and-resilience/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/tools-for-managing-port-risk-and-resilience/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/tools-for-managing-port-risk-and-resilience/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Energy Strategies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/port-energy-strategies/) **Published:** November 16, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_energy_strategies.png?resize=900%2C331&ssl=1 "Port Energy Strategies | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Energy Strategies### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/port-energy-strategies/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/port-energy-strategies/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/port-energy-strategies/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/port-energy-strategies/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port-Centric Energy Production and Transformation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/port-centric-energy-production-transformation/) **Published:** October 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_centric_energy.png?resize=900%2C697&ssl=1 "Port-Centric Energy Production and Transformation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Centric Energy Production and TransformationPorts are effective locations for energy production or transformation industries such as power or petrochemical plants. The main reason behind this locational behavior is that the material inputs of the energy industry are bulk products prone to economies of scale (petroleum, coal), for which the use of maritime shipping is the most efficient. Still, there are two fundamental choices concerning the port-centric location of energy industries: - **Upstream cluster**. The production or transformation of energy resources is done at a port close to the main material source. The main advantage involves lower procurement transportation costs through a direct connection to energy extraction areas by rail or pipeline corridors. Large energy producers try to build energy transformation facilities to capture additional value along energy supply chains and supply their domestic markets. Dependency on one energy supply source is a risk, implying that if the source is compromised (exhaustion or change in market prices), the cluster could lose its relevance. - **Downstream cluster**. The production or transformation of energy resources is done at a port close to the main market. The main advantage involves choosing the origins of procurement alternatives since energy resources can be brought in from any location, offering a scalable maritime service. This allows flexibility in procurement and a direct outlet to major consumption markets. The locational preference is downstream clustering of energy production and transformation, as it confers more procurement flexibility. Ports such as Rotterdam, Ulsan, Houston, and Tianjin are importing energy products, mainly petroleum, from a large array of sources. However, there are several upstream clusters in energy exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, and Nigeria. Options for intermediary locations can also be attractive, such as Singapore, one of the world’s largest oil refining clusters, taking advantage of its halfway position between the Middle East and major Asian consumption markets. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/port-centric-energy-production-transformation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/port-centric-energy-production-transformation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/port-centric-energy-production-transformation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/ports-energy-transition/port-centric-energy-production-transformation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Terminal Depth at Selected Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/terminal-depth-selected-ports/) **Published:** January 12, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Port-Depth.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Terminal Depth at Selected Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Terminal Depth at Selected Ports[PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-World-Port-Depth.pdf) Terminal depth represents the available draft at existing terminals that can differ from channel depth, which is the draft of the port access channel(s). Docking depth and pier length may limit the number of slots that can accommodate a deep draft vessel within a port. The drafts of a large sample of commercial ports reveal two major clusters. The first is around the Panamax standard of about 12 meters, and the second is around 15-16 meters, which is the New-Panamax standard. The introduction of larger containerships, namely the post-Panamax plus class (draft above 12 meters), imposes limitations on available port calls. Draft considerations have become a key component in the commercial viability of ports. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/terminal-depth-selected-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/terminal-depth-selected-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/terminal-depth-selected-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/terminal-depth-selected-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Major Types of Chassis Pools](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/types-chassis-pools/) **Published:** February 8, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_chassis_pools.png?resize=900%2C323&ssl=1 "Major Types of Chassis Pools | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Major Types of Chassis PoolsThere are four main types of chassis provision models, mostly organized as pools. - **Single chassis provider**. An individual intermodal equipment provider (IEP) owns chassis pooled/stored at selected locations, usually in proximity to container yards. The motor carrier must pick up and drop chassis from selected locations offered by the IEP. Providing chassis to shippers and carriers is undertaken under individually negotiated rental agreements or at posted daily rates. - **Gray pool**. Several IEPs or other chassis owners contribute chassis managed by a single pool neutral manager. The pool manager is a third party created by IEPs or stakeholders such as ocean carriers to manage the pool. The pool manager performs chassis maintenance and repair and is reimbursed for these costs by the chassis contributors. IEPs receive compensation based on the provided number of chassis in the pool. - **Motor carrier controlled**. Motor carrier owns chassis or leases them long-term from an IEP and is responsible for maintenance and repair, storage while not in use, and repositioning. Chassis provisioning is part of the transportation service that the motor carrier provides to its customers. - **Pool of pools**. Involves the cooperation between the separate pools of IEPs, with flexible pick-up/drop-off locations, allowing for inter-pool chassis interoperability. Each IEP is still responsible for the M&R of its own chassis. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/types-chassis-pools/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/types-chassis-pools/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/types-chassis-pools/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/types-chassis-pools/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Container and the Chassis Markets](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/container-and-chassis-markets/) **Published:** February 6, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/container_chassis_markets.png?resize=900%2C451&ssl=1 "The Container and the Chassis Markets | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Container and the Chassis MarketsThe container and chassis markets are separate and interdependent. - **Container market**. Controlled by shipping lines and container leasing companies, which generally involves the movement of containers over long distances and across international boundaries. - **Chassis market**. Controlled by Intermodal Equipment Providers (IEP), shipping lines, and motor carriers, which involves regional and local movement of containers by trucks. Chassis can also be used for terminal operations such as moving containers from loading areas to the yard and for yard storage. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/container-and-chassis-markets/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/container-and-chassis-markets/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/container-and-chassis-markets/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/container-and-chassis-markets/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chassis Operations](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/chassis-operations/) **Published:** February 6, 2023 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/chassis_operations.png?resize=880%2C375&ssl=1 "Chassis Operations | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Chassis OperationsChassis operations cover two main categories, for drayage (terminal to destination and back) and for terminals (intra-terminal movements and wheeled container storage). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/chassis-operations/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/chassis-operations/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/chassis-operations/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/chassis-operations/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Carrier Competition within Alliances](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/carrier-competition-within-alliances/) **Published:** January 26, 2023 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Carrier-competition-within-alliances.png?resize=900%2C430&ssl=1 "Carrier Competition within Alliances | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Carrier competition within alliances### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/carrier-competition-within-alliances/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/carrier-competition-within-alliances/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/carrier-competition-within-alliances/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/carrier-competition-within-alliances/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Labor Requirement in Conventional versus Fully Automated Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/labor-requirement-conventional-automated-terminals/) **Published:** January 14, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/labor_requirement_conventional_automated.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Labor Requirement in Conventional versus Fully Automated Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Labor Requirement in Conventional versus Fully Automated Terminals*Sources: Journal of Commerce; Moffat & Nichol; Moody’s Investors Service. Notes: Supercargo is a shipboard representative of the cargo owners. A signalman is a worker providing guidance for crane operators. A swingmen directs traffic under cranes so that vehicles are properly aligned. A container handler is a person taking care of the latching and unlatching of containers. Figures are for a berth of five portainers. Conventional assumes eight Utility Tractor Rig (UTR) drivers, four swingmen under the hook, two crane operators, and one signalman per gang. Automated assumes Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs)*. Efficiencies and productivity derived from automation are in part attributed to lower labor requirements, reducing operational costs, and the potential for errors and accidents. On a per dock crane basis (portainer), automation can reduce around 50 to 60% of the labor requirements. For semi-automated container terminals, horizontal transport is performed by tractor drivers, which usually involves five to eight drivers per portainer. For a conventional container yard, operating four RTGs for each portainer requires two to four workers. Yard automation allows one supervisor to manage three to four RTGs. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/labor-requirement-conventional-automated-terminals/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/labor-requirement-conventional-automated-terminals/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/labor-requirement-conventional-automated-terminals/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/labor-requirement-conventional-automated-terminals/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Ports as Clusters of Economic Activity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/ports-clusters-economic-activity/) **Published:** October 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_cluster_activities.png?resize=900%2C392&ssl=1 "Ports as Clusters of Economic Activity | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ports as Clusters of Economic ActivityEach port has a combination of economic activities that define its role and function. - **Transport and cargo handling**. All the activities related to the organization and operation of freight movements at the port terminals and inland. - **Logistics**. All the activities supporting the distribution of goods, including warehousing, which are fully or partially handled by the port. - **Industrial/manufacturing**. All the activities related to the transformation of materials and parts that are fully or partially handled by the port. - **Energy**. All the activities involved in the production, distribution, and generation of fuels and electricity supporting port activities or handled by the port. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/ports-clusters-economic-activity/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/ports-clusters-economic-activity/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/ports-clusters-economic-activity/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/ports-clusters-economic-activity/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Remotely Operated Crane, Busan Container Terminal (BCT)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/remotely-operated-crane-busan-container-terminal/) **Published:** November 8, 2022 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2022-11-03-151243.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Remotely Operated Crane, Busan Container Terminal (BCT) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Remotely Operated Crane Busan Container Terminal BCT*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2022.* A form of terminal automation concerns remotely operated ship-to-shore gantry cranes. In the above photo, an operator controls a crane handling containerized cargo at Busan Container Terminal (BCT), a facility that opened in mid-2022. A system of cameras in a closed circuit allows for monitoring loading or unloading operations from multiple sets of angles and viewpoints, minimizing the risk of mishandling. Further, schemas are available concerning the loading and unloading sequence, the result of an optimization process for ship and yard stowage. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/remotely-operated-crane-busan-container-terminal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/remotely-operated-crane-busan-container-terminal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/remotely-operated-crane-busan-container-terminal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/remotely-operated-crane-busan-container-terminal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Control Station for Automated Stacking Cranes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/control-station-automated-stacking-cranes/) **Published:** January 6, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2018-11-12-123324-1.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "Control Station for Automated Stacking Cranes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Control Station for Automated Stacking Cranes*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2018.* Automated Stacking Cranes (ASC) are rail-mounted gantry cranes managing stacks of containers that are usually aligned perpendicular to the pier. They have become an important component of container terminal automation by allowing faster and continuous stacking, repositioning, and retrieval of containers. The above photo depicts an ASC control station where an operator is monitoring a series of container stacks at Manzanillo International Terminal (Colon, Panama). The system is entirely automated, and the operator will manually intervene if the crane cannot latch to the container anchor points within a defined margin. Above the station is a virtual representation of the whole container yard; its digital twin. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/control-station-automated-stacking-cranes/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/control-station-automated-stacking-cranes/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/control-station-automated-stacking-cranes/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/control-station-automated-stacking-cranes/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Selected Port Community Systems](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/selected-port-community-systems/) **Published:** January 7, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/selected_port_community_systems.png?resize=900%2C476&ssl=1 "Selected Port Community Systems | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Selected Port Community SystemsMost of the port authorities are implementing their own platforms as an interface between the main stakeholders using their services. Each is an ad hoc design trying to integrate the massive amounts of involved channels and data flows. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/selected-port-community-systems/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/selected-port-community-systems/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/selected-port-community-systems/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/selected-port-community-systems/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Composition of the Global Fleet of Containers, 2012](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/composition-global-fleet-containers/) **Published:** August 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/composition_fleet_containers.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Composition of the Global Fleet of Containers, 2012 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Composition of the Global Fleet of Containers 2012*Source: Drewry Shipping Consultants.* The 40-footer, both in its standard and “high cube” form, is the most common container, accounting for 68% of all TEUs, while the 20-footer accounts for 26%. The remaining 16% involves specialized containers such as reefers (7%). About 90% of the world’s containers are made in China, namely because China is a large exporter of manufactured goods. The total number of containers being used is very difficult to estimate. An approximate figure indicates that 3 TEUs of containers are available for every TEU of maritime containership capacity. The composition of the container fleet is a balancing act between the requirements of “weighting out” and the requirements of “cubing out”, which is related to the nature of what is being carried. Even if higher container units tend to be desirable since they can carry greater quantities of goods, the containerization of commodities, such as grain, indicates that the 20-footer is likely to remain an important intermodal unit. It can carry a full load of 20 tons, while larger containers are limited to a maximum load of 28 tons, irrespective of their size. For standard retail goods, the 40-foot high cube is the preferred unit since the load unit will cube out well before reaching its maximum weight. The tank container market represents a niche with its separate logistics and operations. They are double-hulled and insulated with a carrying capacity of around 25,000 liters. There are two sub-markets for tank containers. The first is food grade where tank containers can be used to carry consumable liquids, particularly oils, alcohol, and juices. The second concerns chemicals for industrial use. Between each usage, a tank container needs to be thoroughly cleaned. Unlike regular containers and reefers, tank containers are usually not stored at a container terminal for a long duration as they require to be picked up as soon as possible and brought to a specialized depot. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/composition-global-fleet-containers/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/composition-global-fleet-containers/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/composition-global-fleet-containers/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/composition-global-fleet-containers/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Traffic Handled at Main Ports around the Strait of Malacca](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-ports-strait-of-malacca/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/malacca_strait_system2.png?resize=900%2C425&ssl=1 "Container Traffic Handled at the Main Ports Around the Strait of Malacca, 1995-2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Traffic Handled at Main Ports around the Strait of MalaccaThe Strait of Malacca is the world’s most important strategic passage in terms of the volumes it transits; about 30% of the global maritime traffic. Benefiting from its strategic location, the Port of Singapore dominates (around 50% of traffic) and has remained the region’s most important transshipment hub, connecting cargoes between Europe / Asia routes. 85% of its traffic concerns transshipment such as regional feeder services as well as relay transshipment between different deep-sea services. Two major competing hubs have emerged in proximity to Singapore, Tanjung Pelepas and Port Klang (or Port Kelang). The development of these two ports underlines the demand for transshipment that this passage generates as a point of transit in global trade, a process that appears to be ongoing. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-ports-strait-of-malacca/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-ports-strait-of-malacca/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-ports-strait-of-malacca/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/container-traffic-ports-strait-of-malacca/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Transshipment Patterns](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/transshipment-patterns/) **Published:** February 7, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/transshipment_patterns.png?resize=900%2C380&ssl=1 "Transshipment Patterns | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Transshipment Patterns*Source: adapted from Ashar (2009).* A transshipment hub can emerge under specific circumstances involving three main patterns: - **Direct service**. A default configuration where a sequence of ports (A, B and C) are all serviced by the same shipping route. - **By-passing**. Mainly because of insufficient volume a port call may be dropped along a port sequence and replaced by a feeder service. It could also concern a port that is judged not productive enough for the original service sequence and be the cause of delays impacting the level of service. In the above figure, port B is dropped (by-passed) from a route sequence. The amount of throughput handled at hub A now includes twice the throughput handled at port B since each container imported or exported through port B must also be handled at port A. For instance, a service along the western European northern range calling Felixstowe, Le Havre, and Rotterdam could see Le Havre being dropped and replaced by a feeder service from Rotterdam. - **Tail Cutting**. Involves a similar rationale to by-passing, but in this case, the furthest port(s) along a route sequence is(are) dropped to be replaced by a feeder service. The main rationale is an attempt to rationalize the performance of the pendulum route by removing the additional delays servicing the last port along the chain implies. For instance, a pendulum service calling from Asia to Antwerp and finally Hamburg could see Hamburg being dropped and replaced by a feeder service from Antwerp (likely covering several ports of the Baltic Sea). - **Hubbing**. Concerns the concentration of transshipment activities at a hub for the purpose of serving a regional market and accommodating larger ships. New “pure” **transshipment hubs** (PTH) can emerge as the only port call within a regional market. Ports no longer directly serviced are now part of a new smaller shipping route that acts as a feeder for the transshipment hub. For instance, several ports along the Mexican Gulf Coast could be serviced by a transshipment hub in the Caribbean (e.g. Kingston). - **Intersection.** Involves connecting different mainline (mother) services that are reaching different markets. This commonly involves connecting at a PTP east-west and north-south trade routes. The Port of Salalah in Oman is an example of an intersection PTP connecting east-west shipping routes between Asia and Europe and north-south routes linking the Middle East and East Africa. A similar function is performed by the Port of Algeciras, often used to connect Northern European, Mediterranean, West African, and transatlantic routes. - **Relay**. This occurs along mainline routes that are usually along a trade axis but which are servicing a different set of ports. For instance, Singapore could be used as a hub connecting Europe – Asia mainline services, one calling coastal China ports while the other calling South Korea and Japan. Thus, in the case of by-passing and tail cutting, the port selected for transshipment is not generally a transshipment hub as it still handles a substantial amount of gateway throughput. Usually, transshipment accounts for at most 30 or 40% of the port throughput. However, in the case of a [hub-and-spoke structure](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1627), a pure transshipment hub commonly emerges where transshipment can easily account for 90% of all the throughput. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/transshipment-patterns/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/transshipment-patterns/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/transshipment-patterns/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/transshipment-patterns/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Site of the 2022 Chittagong Container Depot Explosion](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/chittagong-port-explosion-2022/) **Published:** June 10, 2022 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/chittagong_explosion_2022.jpg?resize=900%2C547&ssl=1 "Site of the 2022 Chittagong Container Depot Explosion | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Site of the 2022 Chittagong Container Depot Explosion*Note: Image, February 2022. Source: Background map from Google Earth.* BM Container Depot is an inland container depot located at Sitakunda, 40 km north of the Port of Chittagong, Bangladesh. The Dutch/Bangladeshi joint venture started operations in 2011 as a buffer between Bangladesh’s main port and its largest city, Dhaka, 250 km north. The area is part of a heavy manufacturing complex involved in recycling and steelmaking, mainly from the dismantling of ships. On June 5, 2022, a fire broke out at the container depot and was followed by a giant chemical explosion linked to hydrogen peroxide stored in containers at the depot. The explosion sent fireballs into the sky. The force of the blast was felt kilometers away. At least 43 people died, and hundreds were injured, including many firefighters, volunteers and journalists. The depot stores around 4,000 containers, many of them filled with garments destined for Western retailers. The facility employed about 600 workers. Around 90 percent of Bangladesh foreign trade passes through the nearby port of Chittagong at the northern end of the Bay of Bengal, which handled above 2.7 million TEUs in 2021. Container shipping is particularly important to the garment industry, which account for 90% of Bangladeshi exports. Similar to the [2015 Tianjin port explosions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-resilience/site-2015-tianjin-port-explosions/ "Site of the 2015 Tianjin Port Explosions"), the accident is related to the improper storage and inventory of dangerous goods at terminal facilities. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/chittagong-port-explosion-2022/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/chittagong-port-explosion-2022/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/chittagong-port-explosion-2022/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/chittagong-port-explosion-2022/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Geostrategy of Russian and Ukrainian Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/geostrategy-russian-ukrainian-ports/) **Published:** April 3, 2022 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Russia-Port-Geopolitics.png?resize=900%2C715&ssl=1 "The Geostrategy of Russian and Ukrainian Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Geostrategy of Russian and Ukrainian Ports*Sources: FAO Database, bp Statistical Review of World Energy July 2021. Own port dataset. Data is for 2020.* Even if it is the world’s largest country covering a large share of the Eurasian landmass, Russia has highly constrained access to commercial maritime shipping that can be blocked for strategic reasons. - On the **Baltic range**, Russia has access to the Atlantic Ocean through the Strait of Oresund. This range grants access to Russia’s largest urban agglomerations, including Moscow. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia lost access to the ports of the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia) that joined the European Union in 2004. - On the **Black Sea range**, Russia and Ukraine have access to the Mediterranean through the Strait of Bosporus, controlled by Turkey. The dissolution of the Soviet Union also substantially impacted this range, particularly the founding of Ukraine in 1991, which left Russia with a substantially reduced number of ports on the northeastern range of the Black Sea (e.g. Novorossiysk, the largest port). - On the **Pacific range**, Russia has a port complex (Vladivostok) with access to the Pacific Ocean constrained by the outlets of the Sea of Japan (e.g. straits of Tsushima and Tsugaru). In the eastern part of Russia, the distances are extensive, and the economic density is low. - On the **Artic range**, the options are excessively limited. The port of Murmansk has been developed over the last century as it represented the only site with ice-free conditions with direct access to the Atlantic Ocean. Still, the Arctic range is poorly connected to Russia’s core economic regions, limiting its opportunities. **Port clusters** are characteristics of both the Baltic and the Black Sea ranges, indicating that the lack of options has incited Russia to duplicate facilities in proximity and in sites that are not optimal. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia in March 2022 created disruptive effects on the global commodity and energy markets, significantly impairing Russian and Ukrainian port activity. - **Cereals**. Both Russia and Ukraine are significant producers and exporters of grains (corn and wheat). However, most of the grain produced globally is for domestic consumption, with 17.1% of the production actually traded at the international level. Even if Ukraine accounted for 10.1% of all grain exports, this implies only that about 1.7% of the global grain supply has potentially been compromised (excluding Russia). Still, several low-income countries such as Egypt, Indonesia, and Bangladesh depend heavily on Ukrainian grain exports, creating serious food security challenges. - **Petroleum**. A large share (73.5%) of the global oil production is exported to international markets. While Ukraine has a very limited role, Russia’s is significant, with 12.1% of the production and 11.4% of the exports. - **Natural gas**. Russia is a large producer of natural gas, accounting for 16.6% of the global production, with Ukraine assuming a marginal role. However, international trade in natural gas, particularly LNG, is significantly less. The most disruptive effect concerns pipeline gas trade between Russia and Europe. Concerns have also emerged regarding the prospects of major projects such as Sakhalin 2, one of the world’s largest integrated, export-oriented oil and gas projects, as well as Russia’s first offshore gas project, and the Yamal facility in northwest Siberia due to the expression of intentions by third parties to exit their investments in the country. - **Containers**. The importance of Russia and Ukraine on the global container shipping market is marginal and mostly focused on imports of consumer goods and processed food. Russian and Ukrainian ports account for only 0.8% of the global container volume. The impacts mainly concerned containers bound to Russia. Due to the crisis and the imposed sanctions on imports from Russia, over 4,500 containers had to queue at Rotterdam, a major container port handling Russian-bound trade (mainly through St. Petersburg). These containers would risk remaining at the terminal for an unknown duration, taking storage capacity away. This created concerns about how the port could continue to handle Russian-bound shipping containers and the considerations for creating a separate space to stow Russian-bound shipping containers. Another notable effect of the conflict is the disruption of the Eurasian rail landbridge between China and Europe (New Eurasian Landbridge, NELB), impacting supply chains involving intermediate to high-value retail goods. In 2021, about 1.5 million containers worth of cargo were exported from China to Europe using the rail landbridge. Although Chinese exports to Europe are allowed to transit, many cargo importers have switched to the longer maritime route to avoid risks. Trade supported by rail between China and Russia remained unaffected and allowed Russia to continue getting access to several key goods despite sanctions. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/geostrategy-russian-ukrainian-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/geostrategy-russian-ukrainian-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/geostrategy-russian-ukrainian-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/geostrategy-russian-ukrainian-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container traffic of European ports between 1985 and 2021](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/container-traffic-european-ports/) **Published:** December 5, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** The EU container port skyline 1985 to 2021This video shows **container traffic growth in European ports between 1985 and 2021**. The bars are proportional to the total container traffic handled in TEU. The **top 3 European container ports** have remained unchanged since the start of containerization in European ports in the late 1960s: the Dutch port of Rotterdam, the Belgian port of Antwerp and the German port of Hamburg have always occupied the top spots in TEU terms in the European container port system. These three ports are all located in the so-called Hamburg-Le Havre range in northwest Europe. Hamburg for a long time ranked second in Europe, but since the crisis year 2009 Antwerp successfully challenged Hamburg’s position. We also see a **strong growth in the main container ports in the Mediterranean**. Valencia, Piraeus, Algeciras and Barcelona have joined north European ports in the top 10. A large part of the growth observed in the mentioned Med ports is related to the **sea-sea transhipment business**: Piraeus and Algeciras are almost pure transhipment hubs in the Med, while Valencia combines transhipment flows with gateway cargo to the (mainly Spanish) hinterland. All three north-European ports mentioned above also combine transhipment flows with import/export cargo. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/container-traffic-european-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/container-traffic-european-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/container-traffic-european-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/container-traffic-european-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Conferences versus Alliances in Maritime Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/conferences-liner-shipping/) **Published:** November 10, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/conferences_versus_alliances.png?resize=900%2C387&ssl=1 "Conferences versus Alliances in Maritime Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Conferences versus Alliances in Maritime ShippingContainer shipping lines have evolved from conferences toward alliances. A liner conference is defined by UNCTAD’s Convention on a Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences (Chapter 1) as “a group of two or more vessel-operating carriers which provides international liner services for the carriage of cargo on a particular route or routes within specified geographical limits and which has an agreement or arrangement, what-ever its nature, within the framework of which they operate under uniform or common freight rates and any other agreed conditions concerning the provision of liner services.” Liner conferences are essentially trade agreements between shipping lines, which could legally fix prices and coordinate capacity on their respective trade lanes. Examples of liner conferences that existed till late 2008 include the Far Eastern Freight Conference (FEFC) and Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement (TACA). Liner conferences such as TACA have tried to install shared fixing of intermodal inland rates in Europe. The European Commission opposed such practices and decided that the broad block exemption from the usual ban on restrictive agreements given to traditional maritime liner conferences (EC Regulation no. 4056/86) could not be broadened to include inland operations. In March 2003, an OECD report recommended that member countries remove an antitrust exemption for price-fixing and rate discussion. A European Commission consultation paper (2003) and White Paper (2004) argued that there was no causal link between price-fixing and reliable liner services because conferences cannot enforce tariffs. However, transport users did not consider the conference system delivered adequate services. Given the extent of the relationships between carriers in conferences, consortia, alliances, and vessel sharing agreements, the extent to which conferences are subject to outside competition was complex and had to be carried out on a case-by-case basis. In the end, the European Union repealed EC Regulation No. 4056/86 in 2008 through Council Regulation 1419/2006. This ended the antitrust immunity that liner conferences had long enjoyed and thus ended the liner conference era concerning Europe. Conferences have been replaced with alliances, which are also cooperative agreements between carriers. They mainly try to regulate competition along major east-west trade lanes through shipping lines allocating vessels are make slots available to alliance members on their respective ships. Still, freight rates are independent and each alliance member is free to negotiate its own rates with its customer base. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/conferences-liner-shipping/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/conferences-liner-shipping/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/conferences-liner-shipping/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/conferences-liner-shipping/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Seaborne Reefer Trade, 2008](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/seaborne-reefer-trade/) **Published:** January 14, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/seaborne_reefer_trade.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "seaborne_reefer_trade | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Seaborne Reefer Trade 2008*Source: Drewry Shipping Consultants (2010), Reefer Shipping Market 2010/11, Drewry Publishing, London.* A 40-foot reefer costs in the range of $30,000 while a regular container costs $5,000. The main reefer commodity groups are divided into living and non-living cargo. Bananas, exotics (pineapples, kiwifruit, avocados), deciduous (apples, grapes, pears) and citrus (oranges, lemons/limes, grapefruit, others) are a part of the living group. The non-living commodities concern fish/seafood and meat (poultry, pork, beef/veal, sheep meat). The diary (cheese/curd, butter) and other groups (tomatoes, frozen potatoes, berries, melons, frozen vegetables, fresh vegetables) contain living and non-living commodities. Making the distinction between the living and the non-living is of vital importance for transport because of the distinct temperature setup and atmosphere control they require. Living commodities will be transported under refrigerated conditions with a limited lifespan (shelf life), and non-living commodities can be frozen, resulting in a longer lifespan. Fresh products carried at temperatures around freezing point account for 48% of the reefer demand. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/seaborne-reefer-trade/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/seaborne-reefer-trade/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/seaborne-reefer-trade/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/seaborne-reefer-trade/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Program of Maersk Line to Shorten the List of Charges/Surcharges (2013)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/maersk-surcharges-list/) **Published:** January 27, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Surcharges-maersk.png?resize=900%2C800&ssl=1 "Reduction of number of surcharges by Maersk Line | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Surcharge system of Maersk LineMaersk Line introduced its first “Maersk Line BAF Calculator” in 2008 based on the following formula: > BAFt = (Bunker Pricet – Base) x (ConsumptionTEU/day) x (Transit Timeday) x (Imbalance Factort) In this case, the bunker price change is extracted from the difference in time t between a representative basket of prevailing bunker prices in a specific trade (Bunker Pricet) and a pre-defined bunker base element for a trade (Base) or “normal” bunker cost already included in the freight rate. The trade-specific component is a function of the consumption in metric tons per TEU per day of a representative vessel, a transit time in days, and an imbalance factor. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/maersk-surcharges-list/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/maersk-surcharges-list/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/maersk-surcharges-list/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/maersk-surcharges-list/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Main Incentives for Carriers to be Involved in Alliances](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/incentives-carriers-alliances/) **Published:** April 8, 2022 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/incentives_carriers_alliances.png?resize=900%2C418&ssl=1 "Main Incentives for Carriers to be Involved in Alliances | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Incentives for Carriers to be Involved in Alliances*Source: Adapted from Ghorbani, M., M. Acciaro, A. Transchel and P. Cariou (2022) ”Strategic alliances in container shipping: A review of the literature and future research agenda”. Maritime Economics and Logistics.* The setting of alliances in the container shipping industry relies on several factors with related expectations: - **Financial**. The potential to combine container cargo allows for the usage of larger container ships, which drives **economies of scale**, particularly less bunker fuel per TEU. This can be achieved through the possibility of generating **economies of scope** by offering a more diverse range of services, from trans-oceanic deep-sea services to regional feeder routes. Considering the high capital investment costs for container ships, a better capacity to combine cargo leads to **less capital requirements** to invest in additional capacity. - **Market**. Alliances offer additional opportunities to **increase service frequency**, through the combination of their respective ship assets as more ships available results in more frequent port calls. The **expansion of network coverage** is a notable incentive as shipping lines usually have a regional specialization, implying existing service networks that can be combined and carriers able to service new areas without deploying new ships. - **Operational**. Since shipping lines own about half the container assets, alliances can give opportunities to increase the **utilization levels** for these containers and the related leasing revenues. Further, the container shipping industry has been subject to important fluctuations in demand; alliances have the ability to provide a level of **capacity management**. - **Tactical**. Through the **rationalization of service routes**, alliances can improve competitive advantages as ships can be deployed to the most profitable services. Further, each alliance member can provide their **intermodal services** to others, particularly their hinterland connectivity. - **Strategic**. Alliance members are able to gain **entry into trade routes** they were not servicing beforehand, expanding strategic opportunities to gather customers and market shares. A similar advantage applies to the **entry into gateways or hubs** (transshipment) that alliance partners have a foothold on, particularly through their terminal operating branches. The market can take an oligopolistic character, allowing for a **level of control over competition** between carriers for cargo and rate setting. - **Managerial**. From a managerial perspective, an alliance perspective on ship and container **assets** allows for a more comprehensive deployment that improves revenue. Through the diffusion of best practices and related information, the **managerial skills** of the respective workforces should improve. At a high level, a **global coordination** of the shipping services can be implemented. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/incentives-carriers-alliances/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/incentives-carriers-alliances/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/incentives-carriers-alliances/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/incentives-carriers-alliances/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Shipping Lanes and Strategic Passages in Pacific Asia](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/shipping-lanes-strategic-passages-pacific-asia/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Strategic-Passages-Southeast-Asia.png?resize=900%2C630&ssl=1 "Shipping Lanes and Strategic Passages in Pacific Asia | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Shipping Lanes and Strategic Passages in Pacific Asia[PDF Map](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Strategic-Passages-Southeast-Asia-1.pdf) Economic development in Pacific Asia has been accompanied by the strong growth of container port traffic and the setting of a major maritime trade corridor and its connectors. This corridor is structured along a North-South maritime axis that runs from a cluster of Japanese ports (Tokyo/Yokohama, Nagoya, Osaka/Kobe) to Singapore, including along the way major gateways such as the port of Busan in South Korea, the Chinese ports of the Yangtze River and the Pearl River Delta, and the port of Kaohsiung, Taiwan. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/shipping-lanes-strategic-passages-pacific-asia/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/shipping-lanes-strategic-passages-pacific-asia/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/shipping-lanes-strategic-passages-pacific-asia/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/shipping-lanes-strategic-passages-pacific-asia/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Central American Interoceanic Canal Routes Considered](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/interoceanic-central-american-canal-routes-considered/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Interoceanic-Central-American-Canal-Routes-Considered.png?resize=900%2C475&ssl=1 "Interoceanic Central American Canal Routes Considered | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Interoceanic Central American Canal Routes ConsideredThrough the centuries of European and American involvement in Central America, several routes were considered and eventually discarded as an option to link the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. The first surveys were done by the Spanish in the 16th century and recommended routes that would remain for centuries the most viable options for a transoceanic canal. The Panama and the Nicaragua routes were the top contenders. All these routes also served to some extent as portage routes. By the mid 19th century, the commercial (growth in trade and larger ships) and technical (heavy machinery) conditions incited renewed interests and more comprehensive surveys of the canal routing options: 1. The **Panama Canal route** was selected as the most suitable because of the shortest distance and thus the lowest construction cost (highest elevation at Lake Gatun, which is 85 feet / 26 meters above sea level). In 1881 the French began construction of the canal but were forced to abandon the project in 1889 in part due to engineering difficulties in part because of a very high mortality rate among workers due to tropical diseases such as malaria. This existing sunk cost was a further incentive for the United States to continue what had already begun by acquiring in 1904 the failed French concession in Panama. 2. **The Lake Nicaragua route**, which was also considered a possibility, particularly in 1884 when the governments of the United States and Nicaragua agreed upon a memorandum to build a canal. However, the project was abandoned in part because of prohibitive construction costs. There were also concerns about the volcanic activity of mount Conception that sits in the middle of Lake Nicaragua and that has been recursively active. Lake Nicaragua is 107 feet (32.7 meters) above sea level. However, access to the Pacific Ocean from Lake Nicaragua must pass through a coastal mountain range where the lowest point is around 185 feet. 3. **The Isthmus of Tehuantepec route**, which represents the shortest distance between the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean. Several routes were investigated in the 19th century to build a canal, but the distances involved made this option less attractive than the others. In the 1880s, a plan was devised to build an interoceanic ship railway through the Isthmus that would carry ships on a six tracks rail corridor, but such a plan was abandoned. In 1907 the Tehuantepec National Railway, which linked the ports of Coatzacoalcos (Gulf of Mexico) and Salina Cruz (Pacific), was opened. It offered an efficient transoceanic alternative that at its peak (1913) carried 850,000 tons of cargo. However, after the opening of the Panama Canal in 1914, the railway lost its competitiveness and ceased to be used as a transoceanic option. 4. **The Darien route**. Interests for the Darien route take their origin in the failed attempt by the Scots to establish a colony in 1698, an attempt in part motivated by a possible transoceanic canal. In the 1850s an expedition sponsored by England, France, and the United States was sent to survey a potential canal route across the isthmus of Darien, from Caledonia Bay, on the Caribbean coast, to the Gulf of San Miguel, on the Pacific. Although both sides were judged to have excellent harbor facilities, a practical path across the 65 km isthmus could not be effectively assessed. 5. The **Gulf of Uraba route**. An option that was surveyed, but judged to be too expensive, particularly since it would have necessitated the construction of a ship tunnel. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/interoceanic-central-american-canal-routes-considered/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/interoceanic-central-american-canal-routes-considered/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/interoceanic-central-american-canal-routes-considered/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/interoceanic-central-american-canal-routes-considered/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Largest E-Commerce Corporations by Revenue, 2019](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/largest-e-commerce-corporations/) **Published:** February 11, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![Amazon and Alibaba in logistics](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/largest_ecommerce_corporations.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Largest E-Commerce Corporations by Revenue, 2019 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Amazon as a logistics player*Source: MarkinBlog.* In the past 20 years, **Amazon**‘s operating strategy has shifted from an online retailer to B2B service provider, offering a stack of critical infrastructure as a service to other businesses. In cases where operations were initially outsourced, Amazon developed in-house, technology-driven solutions. Once successful, these solutions were offered as an external service to third-party businesses. Amazon is adding logistics primarily to meet its own growth, but over time, Amazon will likely offer this expertise to third parties as well. In 2014, Amazon started to focus on logistics components that were previously outsourced – first inbound logistics (Amazon started by offering outsourced consolidation for international sellers in 2014) and then, in 2015, home delivery. In 2016, Amazon leased an air fleet, while Amazon trucks started appearing on the road. For the first time, packages were delivered by Amazon employees passing via robot-operated Amazon warehouses. More recently, Amazon successfully filed to function as a freight forwarder. In summary, Amazon has made a habit of extending internal services into third-party services supported by technology-driven disruption. Logistics companies must keep pace with the technological innovation that Amazon is likely to deploy. Amazon Logistics Services may well emerge as a new platform in the next decade, unseating and disrupting existing freight leaders. Chinese e-commerce company **Alibaba** is also embracing logistics. Alibaba has grown to be one of the largest companies in China and the world. Alibaba’s five largest individual and institutional shareholders as of November 2018 are Softbank (an information technology company based in Japan – share of 29.11%), Yahoo! (14.95%), Jack Yun Ma (7%), Joseph C. Tsai (2.5%), and T. Rowe Price (2.2%). Alibaba is implementing an investment plan of USD 15 billion for 2017-2022 to build a global logistics network. Alibaba co-founded the Chinese logistics platform Cainiao in 2013, with partners including department store owner Intime Group, conglomerate Fosun Group and a few logistics companies. Alibaba became the majority holder (51%) of Cainiao in 2017. Cainiao Logistics operates an information platform that connects and coordinates a network of more than 3,000 logistics and delivery partners. In 2019, Alibaba made its fourth investment in the domestic delivery sector, purchasing 15% of STO Express for USD 693 million. Alibaba also owns 10% of ZTO, 11% of YTO, and 27.9% of Best Logistics. Alibaba is also investing heavily in the further internationalization of its activities. For example, in 2018, the company announced the establishment of a European distribution hub in Liège (Belgium). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/largest-e-commerce-corporations/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/largest-e-commerce-corporations/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/largest-e-commerce-corporations/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/largest-e-commerce-corporations/?share=reddit) - --- ### [CSCL Indian Ocean Grounded on the Elbe, 2016](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/hamburg-port-blockage-2016/) **Published:** December 30, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/CSCL_INDIAN_OCEAN_16x9_Havariekommando.jpg?resize=900%2C506&ssl=1 "CSCL Indian Ocean Containership Grounded on the Elbe, 2016 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")CSCL Indian Ocean Containership Grounded on the Elbe 2016Hamburg is Germany’s main port and ranked in 2020 as the 18th largest container port in the world, handling 8.5 million TEUs. It possesses an extensive network of hinterland accessibility into Central and Eastern Europe. The terminals are accessible through navigating the river Elbe over a 116 kilometers stretch from the North Sea. This bottleneck represents a risk for port accessibility and operations, particularly as ships are getting larger. Some of the largest containerships are unable to call Hamburg with a full load of containers, particularly on the return trip as Hamburg is a major export port. On February 3, 2016, the CSCL Indian Ocean, a 19,100 TEU container ship, ran aground because of a defective rudder. It took one week and 12 tugboats to free the ship. During the incident, the navigation channel remained open but faced restrictions. If the navigation channel would have been closed, the consequences for the port of Hamburg would have been significant. Still, the port has faced limitations in its growth prospects that are associated with the length and the restrictions of its access channel. A core mitigation issue remains the dredging of the Elbe river by one additional meter to allow the navigation of large containerships unrestricted by tidal windows as well as the dredging of a by-passing channel. This project began in 2019 and was completed in 2021. Several segments of the navigation channel were brought to a draft of 14.5 meters (at high tide) and a width of 320 meters, allowing larger ships to pass each other. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/hamburg-port-blockage-2016/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/hamburg-port-blockage-2016/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/hamburg-port-blockage-2016/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/hamburg-port-blockage-2016/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Main Natural and Anthropogenic Supply Chains Disruptions in the 21st Century](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/natural-anthropogenic-supply-chains-disruptions/) **Published:** February 14, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/supply_chain_distruptions.png?resize=900%2C389&ssl=1 "supply_chain_distruptions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Natural and Anthropogenic Supply Chains Disruptions in the 21st Century*Note: The level of severity is relative to the scale of the event in relation to the context it is taking place. For instance, the Haiti Earthquake of 2010 has a high severity in terms of its impact on the Haitian economy. On the global scale, its severity is much more limited.* Supply chains can be subject to natural and anthropogenic disruptions that have an impact on their scale and scope. It is challenging to classify disparate events, particularly their severity. Some notable supply chain disruptions include: - The Sendai eathquake and tsunami of 2011 impacted the production of car components, including electronics, resulting in assembly line disruptions accross the world. - A local event, floods in the Tchao Phrya river around Bangkok disrupted a quarter of the global hard drive production, impacting personal computer manufacturers, distributors and retailers. - In 2017, Hurricane Harvey landfall in Texas and Louisiana, distrupting major petrochamical clusters and the provision of plastics. A global event such as the Covid-19 pandemic has multifaceted impacts that are much more complex to assess than a single event. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/natural-anthropogenic-supply-chains-disruptions/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/natural-anthropogenic-supply-chains-disruptions/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/natural-anthropogenic-supply-chains-disruptions/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/natural-anthropogenic-supply-chains-disruptions/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Sea Lock Ijmuiden in Port of Amsterdam](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/new-sea-lock-in-port-of-amsterdam/) **Published:** February 2, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Amsterdam-sealock.jpg?resize=724%2C483&ssl=1 "New Sea Lock in Amsterdam | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Artist impression of new sea lock Amsterdam center*Sources: adapted from Port of Amsterdam website and Gordijn, R. (2017), Amsterdam port: building the largest sea-lock, Port Technology International, issue 75, p. 36-38*. The building consortium OpenIj constructed the largest sea lock in the world (in lock chamber dimensions) at the mouth of the 27-kilometer-long North Sea Canal (Noordzeekanaal) that links Amsterdam and its port with the sea. The new Sea Lock Ijmuiden measures 500m long, 70m wide, and 18m deep. In comparison, Antwerp’s new Kieldrechtlock measures 500m to 68m while the new Panama Canal locks measure 427m to 55m. The lock gates in Amsterdam reach almost 8m above the current water level to provide defense against rising sea levels while also strengthening flood control in the Netherlands. Construction of the sea lock began in January 2016 with commercial operations starting in January 2022 after a short testing period. On 26 November 2021, the tanker Petrel Pacific was the first vessel to pass through the lock. The construction process was quite challenging given its proximity to existing locks which needed to stay operational throughout the construction period, and because of the complicated soil profile due to its history with liquefactions and major breaches. Total construction cost amounted to 850 million euro. The construction process consisted of the following steps: - Shifting of the **fairway** - Placement of **sheet piles** in the former fairway. - Transport of dredged sand back to the lock complex to create a **building site** and a quay for construction equipment and materials. - The **diaphragm wall method** is used for the construction of the chamber walls instead of using more traditional steel combi-wall or sheet pile walls. The diaphragm walls are constructed in a trench. The first step is the construction of guide walls just inside the topsoil. During excavation, a bentonite slurry is pumped into the trench to maintain the stability of the trench while excavating about 40 meters deep. Once the bottom of the panel is reached, the reinforcement cage can be lowered into position. After positioning the reinforcement cage, the bentonite slurry is replaced by concrete by using vertical pipes. - Construction of the concrete structures holding the **gate chambers** using the pneumatic caisson method. The new lock uses **rolling steel gates** that are parked in a gate chamber when the gate is in the open position. The upper lock head (seaside) has one gate chamber, the lower lock head (landside) has two chambers. - The **lock gates**, which were built in South Korea, are fitted in the gate chambers - **Removal of the soil** at the entrance canals - **Lock open** for operation. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/new-sea-lock-in-port-of-amsterdam/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/new-sea-lock-in-port-of-amsterdam/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/new-sea-lock-in-port-of-amsterdam/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/new-sea-lock-in-port-of-amsterdam/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Types of Cruise Itineraries](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/types-cruise-itineraries/) **Published:** February 5, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_cruise_itineraries-scaled.png?resize=900%2C325&ssl=1 "Types of Cruise Itineraries | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Cruise ItinerariesCruise lines set itineraries to maximize customer satisfaction (and revenues) but must take into consideration the seasonality of the demand. These fundamental market characteristics imply that three main types of itineraries are used: - **Perennial**. Concern markets that are serviced year round because of stable demand and relatively constant weather conditions (tropical and sub-tropical). The two most significant perennial markets are the [Caribbean](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=7106) (with Miami as the main turn port) and the [Mediterranean](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=7112) (with Barcelona as one of the main turn ports). Perennial markets can have a seasonality implying that although they are serviced throughout the year, there have periods of lower demand. - **Seasonal**. Ideally, cruise lines would prefer to only service perennial markets since this would represent a close to optimal use of their ship assets. However, like the tourism industry in general, seasonality is an important component of the demand implying that some markets are going to be serviced for a few months, mostly during the summer. The most important seasonal markets cover Baltic, Norwegian and Alaskan cruises that are serviced during summer. - **Repositioning**. This mostly takes place between seasons when ship assets need to be repositioned from seasonal to perennial itineraries (or vice-versa). For instance, during the summer, several cruise ships are repositioned from the Caribbean to the Mediterranean, while in the Fall the same ships will be repositioned back to the Caribbean. Repositioning cruises are usually point-to-point between turn ports. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/types-cruise-itineraries/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/types-cruise-itineraries/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/types-cruise-itineraries/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/types-cruise-itineraries/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Unloading a Banana Ship, New Orleans, 1903](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/unloading-banana-ship-new-orleans-1903/) **Published:** January 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/4a10816v.jpg?resize=900%2C722&ssl=1 "Unloading a Banana Ship, New Orleans, 1903 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Unloading a Banana Ship New Orleans 1903*Source: Library of Congress LC-D4-16345.* By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, cold chains began to be set. The banana trade was an important driver of this transformation since it represented a perishable good that could be produced in large quantities and thus required mass conveyances. As long as the cargo could arrive in good condition to consumption markets, buyers could readily be found. Thus, the banana trade was dominantly constrained by distribution more than by supply or demand. By the late 19th century, the mass consumption of bananas in the United States became a reality with the setting of supply chains, including production (plantations in Latin America) and distribution facilities. The United Fruit Company (which later became Chiquita) and Standard Fruit and Steamship Company (which later became Dole) were the first major actors involved. In the above photo, unripe banana bunches are being manually unloaded from a ship at the port of New Orleans, where Dole was based. A refrigerated rail car (using ice as a coolant) is waiting to be loaded and bring bananas to inland consumption markets (up to Chicago). This was a labor-intensive process prone to spoilage. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/unloading-banana-ship-new-orleans-1903/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/unloading-banana-ship-new-orleans-1903/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/unloading-banana-ship-new-orleans-1903/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/unloading-banana-ship-new-orleans-1903/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Repositioning using an Empty Container Depot](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/container-repositioning-empty-container-depot/) **Published:** August 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/container_empty_depot.png?resize=900%2C468&ssl=1 "Container Repositioning using an Empty Container Depot | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Repositioning using an Empty Container Depot*Source: adapted from Boile, M., S. Theofanis, M. Golias and N. Mittal (2006) Empty Marine Container Management: Addressing Locally a Global Problem. TRB Annual Meeting, Washington, DC. Paper # 06-2147.* Among the variety of roles that an empty container depot can fulfill, the most prevalent include: - A **neutral location** where empty containers owned by leasing companies and maritime shipping companies can be stored, waiting to be reused or repositioned. It supports an exchange market for container assets between different actors involved in supply chains (e.g. importers and exporters). - An **extension to a maritime (or rail) terminal**, often referred to as a satellite terminal (an [extended gate](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/extended-gate-concept/ "The Extended Gate Concept")), that can have greater flexibility in its access and opening hours. In particular, a maritime terminal may have access constraints due to local congestion at peak terminal hours. Empty containers can be stored at the empty depot and made available for export activities. Containers that need to be repositioned to the maritime terminal can be brought in outside peak hours (when more truck drivers are available). The depot can also act as a buffer to the maritime terminal capacity, notably because the storage of empty containers is a lower added value activity that can be perceived as a suboptimal usage of the maritime terminal’s real estate assets. - A **closer location** to logistics activities helps reduce movements, which is particularly beneficial for a metropolitan area where maritime (or rail) terminals are in high density and congested areas. The depot enables better response to the demands of freight distribution activities and can have multiplying effects if located within a logistics cluster. These effects include a more timely availability of empty containers and a better potential for [cargo rotation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=2401 "Cargo Rotation") between import and export-based firms within the cluster. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/container-repositioning-empty-container-depot/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/container-repositioning-empty-container-depot/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/container-repositioning-empty-container-depot/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/container-repositioning-empty-container-depot/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Global Oil Market](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/global-oil-market/) **Published:** October 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Petroleum-Market.png?resize=900%2C700&ssl=1 "Map Petroleum Market | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Oil Market*Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy. (oil production and consumption). Lujala, Päivi; Jan Ketil Rød & Nadia Thieme (2007) “Fighting over Oil: Introducing A New Dataset”, Conflict Management and Peace Science 24(3), 239-256 (oil field data). Harvard WorldMap (pipelines).* The global oil market is composed of three main elements interacting to set supply, demand, and price: - **Production**. Oil producers have a level of output related to their physical capabilities in extracting oil as well as market demand subject to seasonality. The geography of oil production shows a high level of concentration and output due to the significant potential for scale economies of the industry and a concentration of oil reserves. In the beginning of 2020s OPEC countries account for 40% of global production. - **Consumption**. Each economy has a level of oil consumption often expressed in barrels per day. Global oil consumption and production are usually similar since they represent a supply/demand equilibrium. - **Reserves** (not shown). These reflect medium or long-term expectations about the future level of potential output. There are significant differences in the geography of oil consumption and production, which require distribution infrastructures such as pipelines and shipping networks. In 2018, global oil production was at 95 million barrels per day, but consumption is marginal in a large number of countries. There is a correspondence between the level of oil consumption and the level of economic development. The United States, Japan, China, Germany, Russia, Italy, and France, account for approximately 52% of the global oil demand. The geography of oil production is much more concentrated than its consumption. Eight producers, Saudi Arabia, the United States, Russia, Iran, China, Venezuela, Mexico, and Norway, accounted for approximately 55% of the global production with a significant share of production in the Middle East. Unlike most countries where oil is domestically produced, a significant portion of OPEC’s oil is traded in international markets. The geographical concentration of reserves in the Middle East is also evident. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/global-oil-market/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/global-oil-market/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/global-oil-market/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/global-oil-market/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Umbrella Associations in Rotterdam and Antwerp](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/umbrella-associations-in-rotterdam-and-antwerp/) **Published:** May 3, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Umbrella-associations.png?resize=900%2C573&ssl=1 "Umbrella Associations of Private Companies in Rotterdam and Antwerp | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Umbrella associations of private companies in the ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam**Deltalinqs** was established in 2001 to represent the interests of about 700 companies or over 95% of all logistic, ports, and industrial enterprises from 14 different sectors in the Port of Rotterdam. Deltalinqs strives to strengthen Rotterdam’s competitiveness, sustainable growth, and social and political acceptability for all activities within the port and industrial area. Expertise is shared via knowledge networking groups. The association also develops port-wide initiatives, such as the Digital Safety Passport and the Deltalinqs Training Window. As a lobbying entity, Deltalinqs promotes the interests of its members at many institutions, both locally and, nationally, and in European circles. **Alfaport Voka** is the platform of and for companies and professional associations from the **Port of Antwerp** within Voka (Chamber of Commerce Antwerp–Waasland). It is the umbrella association of five professional associations in the Port of Antwerp: ABAS (stevedoring companies), ASF (Antwerp Shipping Federation; shipping agencies), Forward Belgium (freight forwarders), RBSA (Royal Belgian Shipowners Association), and KVBG (goods handlers). Unlike Deltalinqs, industrial firms in the port are not represented in Antwerp’s umbrella association. The large chemical and petrochemical companies in the port are members of **Essenscia**, the Belgian sector federation of the chemical industry and life sciences. Alfaport Voka strives for an accessible, facilitative, cost-competitive, and sustainable Port of Antwerp with a view to a sustainable anchoring of employment and added value in the port. Next to providing advice and opinions on operational issues and promoting cooperation and exchanges between firms, both umbrella associations also lobby at the national and European policy levels. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/umbrella-associations-in-rotterdam-and-antwerp/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/umbrella-associations-in-rotterdam-and-antwerp/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/umbrella-associations-in-rotterdam-and-antwerp/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/umbrella-associations-in-rotterdam-and-antwerp/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The European Union and Port Performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/the-european-commission-and-port-performance-measurement/) **Published:** April 29, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/European-Union-flag.jpg?resize=900%2C635&ssl=1 "The EU and Port Performance | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The EU and port performanceIn addition to publishing port traffic data via the **statistics office EUROSTAT** of the European Union, the **European Commission (EC)** funded two major projects focused on the development of Europe-wide performance measures for ports: - The **PPRISM project** aimed to identify a set of sustainable, relevant and feasible port performance indicators to be implemented at EU level in order to measure and assess the impact of the European Port System on society, the environment and the economy. To this end, a typology of port performance indicators was created, validity and data availability was assessed and the indicators were proposed to key stakeholders for assessment in terms of their suitability to be implemented at EU level. The final result of PPRISM was a set of port performance indicators that provide an overview of the environmental, socio-economic and supply chain performance of the European port system. The project was the first systematic attempt at EU level to determine a set of relevant port performance indicators that is widely accepted and commonly defined by the entire port sector and other relevant key stakeholders (such as port users, societal groups, etc.). - The **PORTOPIA project** ended in November 2017. The project had two main objectives: (1) To support the European Port Industry with meaningful performance data to increase individual port and port transport system performance; and (2) To support policy formulation and monitor policy implementation. The PORTOPIA project resulted in the creation of an integrated knowledge base and management system of European port performance focusing on **five categories of port performance indicators**: (1) market trends and structure, (2) socio-economic performance, (3) environment and occupational health and safety and security, (4) logistic chain and operational efficiency and (5) governance and finance and user perceptions of quality. Inland ports were also covered in the project. The project also aimed at enhancing a culture of performance management in the European port sector. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/the-european-commission-and-port-performance-measurement/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/the-european-commission-and-port-performance-measurement/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/the-european-commission-and-port-performance-measurement/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/the-european-commission-and-port-performance-measurement/?share=reddit) - --- ### [OECD and Port Performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/oecd-and-port-performance/) **Published:** April 29, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** - ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/OECD.jpg?resize=900%2C600&ssl=1 "OECD-ITF and ort Performance | Port Economics, Management and Policy") OECD-ITF and port performanceThe Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an alliance of 36 member states. Most of them have an above-average economic level with a higher income. Several port-related research initiatives are worth mentioning, most of them published by the OECD research team at International Transport Forum (ITF): - In 2013, OECD developed a meta-study of approximately 150 port impact studies worldwide to compare the **socio-economic impacts of ports** worldwide. While the OECD explicitly mentions that the methods used in these studies differ in many ways, they draw a number of high-level conclusions on the economic impacts of ports. - Another source of more case-based information on port performance can be found in the **OECD Port-Cities Program**. This program aimed to identify how ports can be assets for urban development. The program primarily assessed the impact of ports on cities and regions. It also compared policies aimed at increasing positive regional impacts of ports and limiting negative effects. While the focus is mainly on the port-city interaction, the reports also contain case-based data on the aspects of the performance of the ports under consideration. The OECD has published a large number of case study reports as part of the port-cities program. - The OECD has authored several other reports on the measurement of the socio-economic impact of seaports, the efficiency of world ports for containers and bulk cargo, port migration, the hinterland connectivity of ports, and the impact of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). - OECD has developed several discussion papers specifically dealing with **the (container) shipping industry** with some references to port performance, such as on the impact of mega-ships on ports and supply chains, the role of alliances in container shipping (as input for the evaluation of the EU Consortia Block Exemption), the Northern Sea Route (NSR), the decarbonization of shipping and maritime subsidies. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/oecd-and-port-performance/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/oecd-and-port-performance/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/oecd-and-port-performance/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/oecd-and-port-performance/?share=reddit) - --- ### [UNCTAD and Port Performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/unctad-and-port-performance-measurement/) **Published:** April 29, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/UNCTAD.jpg?resize=900%2C506&ssl=1 "UNCTAD Review of Maritime Transport | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cover of the Review of Maritime Transport 2020 by UNCTADUnited Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) is a permanent intergovernmental body established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1964. Its headquarters are in Geneva (Switzerland). UNCTAD supports developing countries in accessing the benefits of a globalized economy more fairly and effectively, by providing analysis, consensus-building, and technical assistance. Its focus is predominantly on trade, investment, finance, and technology as vehicles for inclusive and sustainable development. Nevertheless, national and international port systems constitute a privileged field of research and activity for this organization: - In 1976, UNCTAD developed one of the first studies on port performance by providing 18 indicators divided into two broad categories: financial (7 indicators) and operational (11 indicators). - UNCTAD has developed **Port Management Monographs**, gathering in-depth reports on national and international port systems addressed through various analytical perspectives. In some cases, the reports are focused at terminal level while in others they deal with the port as a whole. - Published in 2016, the report “**Port Performance Linking Performance Indicators to Strategic Objectives**” (Port Management Series, volume 4) defines a focus on management benchmarking across a cooperative network of ports, and aims to build a port performance scorecard. The document contains country-level port performance measures, which are an average of many disparate port environments. The report attempts to select measures for port services at cargo mode level, which also provides a product mix profile for the port. A port performance scorecard is presented based on four strategic dimensions, i.e. finance, operations, human resources and market. This port-wise scorecard is analogous to the Kaplan and Norton balanced scorecard, a tool that is used to link strategy with performance. The UNCTAD report also addresses additional issues related to port authorities, such as finance and human resource management. - Since 1968, UNCTAD has published “**Review of Maritime Transport**” on an annual basis. This review provides an analysis of structural and cyclical changes affecting seaborne trade, and ports and shipping, as well as an exhaustive collection of statistical information. Several port performance indicators are reported in the annual reviews as well as on its website: port throughput, vessel calls, liner shipping connectivity, ship size indicators, container berth productivity and vessel turnaround times in ports. For further information: consult the UNCTAD website. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/unctad-and-port-performance-measurement/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/unctad-and-port-performance-measurement/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/unctad-and-port-performance-measurement/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/unctad-and-port-performance-measurement/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The World Bank and Port Performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/the-world-bank-and-port-performance-measurement/) **Published:** April 29, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/World-Bank.jpg?resize=900%2C610&ssl=1 "The World Bank Group and Port Performance | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The World Bank GroupThe World Bank had already started to report on port indicators in the early 1990s, focusing also on operational issues as it proposed three broad categories of indicators: (1) asset performance indicators, (2) operational performance indicators, and (3) financial performance indicators. A 1993 report simply only proposed the indicators but did not include any data on specific world ports. In a 2016 report on the performance of container ports in South Asia (i.e. main ports in India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Maldives, and Bangladesh), the World Bank reported and compared data on operational indicators such as average turnaround time, average pre-berthing waiting time and the average percentage of idle time at berth. A well-known, more general indicator published by the World Bank is the [Logistics Performance Index (LPI)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/logistic-performance-index/). The World Bank also provides an online tool to show the evolution in the **quality of port infrastructure** in a country (1=extremely underdeveloped to 7=well developed and efficient by international standards) and compare this figure with other countries. The quality of port infrastructure is one factor (as part of transport infrastructure) in the [Global Competitiveness Index](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-competitiveness-index/) developed by the World Economic Forum. The World Bank is also very active in **port governance and reform** aspects and their related port performance dimension. The **Port Reform Toolkit** (now in its second version) is a well-known online set of documents aimed to provide policymakers and practitioners with effective decision-making support in undertaking sustainable and well-considered reforms of public institutions in developing countries. A 2017 World Bank Viewpoint on “Achieving Full and Effective Corporatization of Port Authorities” also delivered detailed insight on **port governance**. In recent years, the World Bank has published several reports on **maritime networks, port efficiency and hinterland connectivity**, such as the 2019 report on the Mediterranean. In cooperation with other organizations, the World Bank is also advancing the development of other port-related performance metrics related to environmental issues, digital transformation, and port time. In 2021, the World Bank launched the Container Port Performance Index (CPPI), which was developed in co-operation with IHS Markit. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/the-world-bank-and-port-performance-measurement/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/the-world-bank-and-port-performance-measurement/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/the-world-bank-and-port-performance-measurement/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-performance/the-world-bank-and-port-performance-measurement/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Classification of the Core Competencies of Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/core-competency-port/) **Published:** January 15, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/core_competencies_ports.png?resize=900%2C543&ssl=1 "Classification of the Core Competencies of Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Classification of core competencies in a port*Source: adapted from Coeck, C., Notteboom, T., Verbeke, A., Winkelmans, W., 1996, A resource-based perspective on strategic port planning, Proceedings of the 11th International Harbour Congress, Antwerp, pp. 29-40.* Based on the parameters of **source of inimitability** and **character of the core competencies**, a matrix can be constructed. A core competency purely based on the geographic location of a port is a typical example in quadrant 1. A port’s high productivity can usually be situated in quadrant 2. This requires a continuous building process based on an interaction between technology and human skills that cannot be easily transferred to other ports. Both maritime and hinterland accessibility can partly be positioned in quadrant 1 (the part which can be attributed to natural geographic conditions) and partly in quadrant 2 (the part which is the result of a dynamic building process aimed at consolidating good accessibility such as the progressive development of a hinterland network). A competence purely based on port technology can be positioned in quadrant 4. For example, a fully automated container terminal results from a technological process that might be difficult to imitate. Still, the technology itself can rather easily be transferred to other ports. However, the patent on this technology could be positioned in quadrant 3 as it is by definition inimitable. Core competencies situated in quadrant 4 are rather important to defend, which may demand enormous efforts. Fierce port competition on the level of the development of core competencies primarily exists in quadrants 2 and 4. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/core-competency-port/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/core-competency-port/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/core-competency-port/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/inter-port-competition/core-competency-port/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cruise Ship Store Loading and Cold Ironing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-ship-store-loading-cold-ironing/) **Published:** February 5, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2012-06-16-10.28.54.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "2012-06-16 10.28.54 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Ship Store Loading and Cold Ironing*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2012.* Cold ironing or shoreside power facilities are being installed in several urban cruise terminals to reduce the environmental impact of docked ships. In 2001, the port of Juneau in Alaska was the first in the world to offer shoreside power for cruise vessels. Seattle followed with two installations in 2005 and 2006. In 2009, Port Metro Vancouver also introduced a system to connect ships to the power grid so they could turn off their engines while docked. It is estimated that for an average cruise ship, some 17,000 liters of fuel can be saved in a 10 hour docking period. In October 2010, San Francisco became the first port in California to offer clean shore power for cruise ships. Los Angeles, San Diego, and Long Beach now provide similar facilities. Also, in Europe, a number of ports have taken initiatives in this area (e.g., Gothenburg, Venice, Barcelona, La Spezia, Civitavecchia, and Hamburg). A cruise ship requires a fast store loading process since port turns between cruises are relatively short (8 to 12 hours on average). In the above photo, a cruise ship (MS Zuiderdam of Holland America Line) is being serviced at the Port of Vancouver. Because the pier is higher than the cargo door, a lift system is used to lower cargo pallets (mostly food) to the cargo dock level. To mitigate the environmental impacts of cruise ships docked at the [cruise terminal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1575) adjacent to its central business district, Port Metro Vancouver installed cold ironing facilities (the blue structure on the above photo) in 2009 to provide electric power to ships. This enables a cruise ship to cut its bunker engines and thus considerably reduce its emissions at the cruise port. Alaskan cruises rely the most on cold ironing, particularly in light of the environmental sensitivity of the region visited. About 5% of the energy spent on Alaskan cruises is from cold ironing. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-ship-store-loading-cold-ironing/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-ship-store-loading-cold-ironing/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-ship-store-loading-cold-ironing/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-ship-store-loading-cold-ironing/?share=reddit) - --- ### [LNG-Powered Vessels](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/long-powered-container-vessel/) **Published:** December 7, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/lng_jacques_saade.png?resize=900%2C441&ssl=1 "LNG-Powered Vessel Jacques Saade | Port Economics, Management and Policy")LNG powered container ship CMA CGM Jacques Saadé leaving the port of SingaporeLiquefied Natural Gas (LNG) serves as an attractive fuel for ships to meet the stringent environmental regulations enacted by IMO, particularly in sulfur and NOx emissions. Dual-fuelled ships are entering the market. An example is the new generation of LNG containerships introduced by CMA CGM in 2020, which are emitting up to 25% less CO2, 99% fewer sulfur emissions, 99% fewer particulates, and 85% fewer nitrogen oxide emissions than ships using heavy fuel oil (HFO). The orderbooks suggest that by 2025, more than 650 LNG-powered ships of all types will be in operation. LNG bunkering facilities still remain more the exception than the rule. On the one hand, the drivers for ports to provide LNG bunkers are extensive. They include the location of the port relative to an ECA, the number of ship calls at the port, the pricing of LNG fuel comparable to alternative fuel options, the provision of infrastructure and facilities for LNG bunkering, the demand from cruise lines for LNG bunkering, the development of a positive public perception of the port and the status of the port as a major bunker port, and the existence of other competitive bunkering ports along the itinerary. The EU has endorsed a directive addressing LNG bunkering terminal availability in ports stating that refueling points for LNG at maritime and inland ports of the TEN-T core network should be available by the end of 2025 and 2030, respectively. On the other hand, it can be argued that LNG may not be the ship fuel of the future as, compared to fuel oil, the savings in CO2 are quite limited. There are unresolved questions about the impact of methane slip (unburned natural gas) on climate change. Several crucial barriers, such as the lack of bunkering infrastructure and operational standards, have slowed down its development. However, rising environmental concerns give an incentive for the public sector to provide policy support in removing any remaining obstacles. The competitive environment supports the widespread application of LNG as a ship fuel with global LNG supply chains already in place. Still, the use of LNG as a ship fuel is expected to first gain momentum in niche markets, like small ferry routes and regular liner traffic. LNG carriers are pioneers in using LNG as a ship fuel as they typically burn a portion of their boil-off gas. In the longer run, the adoption of LNG as a ship fuel on a global scale rests on three main factors: - The price differences between LNG, low sulfur fuel (LSFO), and scrubber technology. - The dynamics in the global emission regulations. - The availability of LNG bunkering facilities. In the past decade, **investments in LNG bunkering infrastructure in ports** have really taken off. Quite a few public **port authorities** are playing a proactive role in facilitating LNG use as a marine fuel, often in close partnership with industrial actors. Port authorities are also using **various types of financial instruments** to promote the market development of LNG facilities, for instance: - Building joint ventures or PPPs with private actors to invest in bunkering facilities. - Providing funding or applying for subsidies to support investment. - Developing a differential port tariff favoring ships powered by clean fuels, like LNG - Providing funding for ship conversion (e.g., in the port of Stockholm). - If applicable, establishing pilot projects, such as owning LNG-powered port vessels, kick-starting LNG market development, and solving the chicken-and-egg problem. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/long-powered-container-vessel/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/long-powered-container-vessel/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/long-powered-container-vessel/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/long-powered-container-vessel/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Sustainability Reporting by Port Authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/sustainability-reporting-by-port-authorities/) **Published:** February 12, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Capture-1.jpg?resize=900%2C607&ssl=1 "Sustainability Reports by Port Authorities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The practice of sustainability reporting, beyond mere environmental reporting, started in the late 1990s. More recently, the port industry is adopting this reporting to conceptualize sustainability and as an essential basis for the license to operate. Mainly larger port authorities have started producing sustainability reports or integrated reporting on a voluntary basis in the past decade (e.g. Antwerp, Hamburg, Rotterdam). In contrast, others have been obliged to adopt the practice due to enforced legislation by governments when it comes to example-setting by state-owned enterprises (e.g. Swedish ports). Ports increasingly follow **global guidelines and standards for sustainability reporting** (such as the Global Reporting Initiative – GRI). In 2016, the first **Sustainability Report at the level of the European Port Industry** was presented in the context of the EC PORTOPIA project (PORTOPIA, 2016). The report is set up along six dimensions (Market Trends and Structure indicators – Socio-Economic indicators – Environmental and Occupational Health, Safety and Security indicators – Logistics Chain and Operational Performance indicators – Governance indicators – User Perceptions on Port Quality indicators). It uses datasets present within the European Seaports Organisation (ESPO) and the ECOPORTS project. Many unsolved conceptual issues and differences in approach among ports remain when it comes to sustainability reporting: (1) the scope and the boundaries of the reporting i.e. organizational, functional, or geographical boundaries; (2) the perspectives of performance and the calculation/definition of indicators, and; (3) the integration of stakeholder perspectives. *Further reading: Geerts, M., Dooms, M., 2017. Sustainability reporting by port authorities: a comparative analysis of leading world ports. IAME 2017 conference, Kyoto, paper no. 317* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/sustainability-reporting-by-port-authorities/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/sustainability-reporting-by-port-authorities/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/sustainability-reporting-by-port-authorities/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/sustainability-reporting-by-port-authorities/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Reform and Integration in Mainland China](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/port-reform-integration-mainland-china/) **Published:** April 20, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-China-Authorities.png?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Map-China-Authorities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Reform and Integration in Mainland ChinaThe past 65 years have brought significant changes to China’s economic and political landscape. The changes in China’s economic policy brought by Deng Xiaoping in 1978 were followed by a long transition period towards a market-based economy. Chinese national reforms and the transfer of power from the central government to local governments had an impact on the governance of seaports which evolved in several phases: - Period 1979-1984: The first phase was characterized by a centrally planned economic system with strongly centralized decision-making. The combination of insufficient funds for port development and lagging efficiency improvements caused severe port capacity problems in the early 1980s. - Period 1984-2004: The second phase brought a process towards decentralization. With the exception of Qinghuangdao, which stayed under central government control, all other ports ended up being controlled either by central and local governments or by the local government alone. The port authorities received regulatory powers, but at the same time their status as state-owned enterprises (SOE) pushed them to become more market-oriented, for instance in terms of investment decisions. The new governance system resulted in a gradual entry of foreign private investors in Chinese ports, particularly in the container business as exemplified by the investments of HPH and PSA. However, the government de facto remained in the driver’s seat when it came to port planning and secured the biggest share of the revenues collected from port terminal operations. - The Port Law of 2004 forms the cornerstone for today’s port governance. The new policy led to further decentralization of port governance in China and opened the path to the corporatization of port authorities and the introduction of modern corporate governance principles in the seaport system. In order to end the dual role of port authorities as both regulator and port operator, the new governance framework aimed at strictly separating these functions via the establishment of so-called Port Administration Bureaux and separate port business companies or groups. Moreover, the Port Law put an end to port ownership by the central government. The ceiling of 49% for foreign investors was abolished which in theory opened possibilities for foreign players to invest in and operate ports, even without needing a local Chinese partner. Policy formulation and strategic port planning fall under the responsibility of the central government and the respective provincial governments, so any plans of local governments need to be approved by these higher authorities. In more recent years, the decentralization policy brought by the 2004 Port Law shifted to large-scale port integration at the provincial level. Port cooperation and integration has become a hot topic in China against the background of slower traffic growth, increased competition and growing international opportunities. We can interpret this result in two ways. One approach concludes that the port devolution process to the more local level has not resulted in the excessive self-interest and ambitions of individual ports, but has actually enhanced their sense of cooperation and coordination. Another possible perspective is that the port devolution process made government agencies at higher levels (i.e. national and provincial) work out schemes to avoid duplication of facilities, overcapacity and excessive competition in a seaport system characterized by a highly decentralized governance structure. In our view, both perspectives have played a role, although regional differences exist in the relative contribution of each perspective. Integration and cooperation schemes are currently rolled out in almost all coastal provinces: - **Liaoning Province**. Dalian port group and Jinzhou port, both located in Liaoning Province in the Northeastern part of China began to cooperate in 2006. In June 2017, it was announced that Liaoning province would form a new company to run its ports, with China Merchants Group purchasing a controlling stake. The new Liaoning Port Group was set up to integrate the coastal ports in Liaoning province. - **Hebei Province**. Hebei Port Group Co. Ltd, the largest bulk cargo handling company in the world, owns Qinghuangdao port, Caofeidian port and Huanghua port. The company is controlled by Hebei province. In December 2015, the Tianjin Port Group Co. Ltd and Hebei Port Group Co. Ltd signed an agreement to form a 50/50 joint venture company Jinhaiyi port investment. The company is planning to purchase some berths in Tianjin port and Huanghua port. In May 2016, Hebei Port group subsidiary Qinghuangdao Co. Ltd and Tianjin Port Group established Bohai Jinyi port investment development Co. Ltd. - **Shandong Province**. In April 2009, the ports of Qingdao, Rizhao and Yantai signed a strategic alliance agreement. It was agreed that Qingdao port act as the leading port and Yantai port and Rizhao port act as assistant ports with a view of establishing a regional shipping center. The resulting Shandong Port Group Co Ltd. is not only active in the Shandong Province. Through Shandong Port Overseas Development Group Co Ltd, the company concentrates on overseas development. Its overseas involvement includes Vado Ligure Port in Italy and Kimbo Port in Guinea, and it also has projects on a fiduciary basis such as Qasim Port in Pakistan and Boffa Port in Guinea. - **Jiangsu Province**. In 2017, Jiangsu Port Group Co. Ltd. was established by integrating Nanjing port, Lianyungang port, Suzhou port, Nantong port, Zhenjiang port, Changzhou port, Taizhou port and Yangzhou port. - **Zhejiang Province**. At the end of September 2015, the port complexes of Zhoushan and Ningbo in Zhejiang province merged to form the largest port group in the world. The Ningbo port group was renamed to Ningbo-Zhoushan Port Group Co. Ltd. Next to the creation of Ningbo-Zhoushan Port Group, Zhejiang Province has set up a company named Zhejiang sea-port group, which is devoted to integrating the five ports of Zhejiang province (i.e. Ningbo- Zhoushan port, Wenzhou port, Taizhou port, Jiaxing port and Yiwu International Dry Port). - **Guangxi Province**. In 2007 the Guangxi Beibu Gulf International Port Group Co. Ltd. was established, including Qinzhou port, Beihai port and Fangchenggang port. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/port-reform-integration-mainland-china/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/port-reform-integration-mainland-china/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/port-reform-integration-mainland-china/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/port-reform-integration-mainland-china/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Italian Port System Authorities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/italian-port-system-authorities/) **Published:** April 20, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Italy-Port-Authorities-1.png?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Map-Italy-Port-Authorities-1 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Italian Port System Authorities*Source: Parola, F., Ferrari, C., Tei, A., Satta, G., and Musso, E. (2017). Dealing with multi-scalar embeddedness and institutional divergence: Evidence from the renovation of Italian port governance. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 22, 89-99.* The merging of the 24 existing port authorities and other smaller ports into 15 Port System Authorities (PSAs) has been the foundation of the 2016 Italian port governance reform. The stated aim for this merging of port managing entities was to eliminate the major weaknesses threatening Italian ports, such as sub-optimal port size, insufficient financial and funding resources, low competitiveness, and inefficiencies related to hinterland connections. The 15 PSAs inherited the duties and the power of the traditional port authorities, with a broader geographical scope. Existing port authorities have been grouped into PSAs according to historical backgrounds, political pressures, port characteristics, and hinterland profiles. For example, the three Ligurian ports (Savona, Genova, and La Spezia) were included in two different PSAs, and the three Apulian port authorities acted similarly (Bari and Brindisi formed a single PSA with a couple of minor ports, but Taranto formed a PSA on its own). With this being a top-down initiative rather than a port-level decision, challenges remain. The most significant relates to the presence of a multi-layer port governance system and the role sustained by the central government that does more than appointing the head of each PSA. The PSAs play a coordination role, while for each former port authority, a special Port Directorate (PD) remains in charge of port-level tasks and duties. The PD also proposes the implementation of different actions to the President of its PSA. As a consequence, the introduction of coordination mechanisms through the formation of PSAs is predicted to bring a rationalization of small ports. The simultaneous presence of two diverse entities (PDs and PSAs) with overlapping functions might reduce the positive effect of the new organization, especially as a third layer was also introduced, and a special ministerial department was assigned to rationalize and coordinate investments and financial resources of the different PSAs, as a whole. In a nutshell, the central government retains a great influence on the financial aspect, the PSAs playing the critical planning and coordination role, and the PDs managing local resources. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/italian-port-system-authorities/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/italian-port-system-authorities/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/italian-port-system-authorities/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/italian-port-system-authorities/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cooperation between Non-proximate Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/cooperation-between-non-proximate-ports/) **Published:** April 20, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cooperation_non_proximate_ports.png?resize=900%2C414&ssl=1 "cooperation_non_proximate_ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cooperation between non proximate ports*Source: Adapted from Pallis A.A. and Kladaki P. (2019). Inter–organisational relationships of European port management entities. Ιn: Panayides P.M. (ed): Routledge Handbook In Maritime Management, 283-298, London: Routledge.* Collaborative efforts between non-proximate ports are scattered across continents and take on different types of relationship formats. These range from collaborations (formalized via mutually signed agreements or not), Joint Ventures/investments, and port alliances with the signing of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), to consultancy services, where one of the port authorities involved acts as the consultant. Several port authorities have created subsidiary companies that develop such partnerships. The corporatized Port of Rotterdam Authority established the Port of Rotterdam International (PORint) department to promote trade by developing a global port network. In a similar pattern, Port of Antwerp International is an investment subsidiary of the Port of Antwerp Authority. The Port of Amsterdam has also been involved in a collaboration. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/cooperation-between-non-proximate-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/cooperation-between-non-proximate-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/cooperation-between-non-proximate-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/cooperation-between-non-proximate-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Linking Port Governance and Performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/linking-port-governance-performance/) **Published:** March 5, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/linking_port_governance_performance.png?resize=900%2C488&ssl=1 "linking_port_governance_performance | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Linking Port Governance and Performance*Source: adapted from Brooks M.R. and Pallis A.A. (2008). Assessing port governance models: Process and performance components. Maritime Policy and Management, 35(4), 411-432.* Once in place, a port governance model is under re-evaluation and subject to re-alignments. The scope is to fix any misalignment in the framework imposed or to fit it to changing economic circumstances, but also to incorporate feedback from the port itself or perhaps its political masters as experience with port reform unfolds in practice. A feedback loop is generated through the evaluation of performance to the contemplation of opportunities for readjustment. Within a process that unfolds over time, the output (performance) and the contextual environment provide the background for the initiation of further adjustments aiming to adjust minimally, or comprehensively reform, the specifics of the governance model in place. Motivated by the conditions of a port, relevant policymakers decide to initiate change at (t1). These decisions are made in the light of a specific environment, with decision-makers having a vision of what they would like to see as port performance output. These decisions generate a process wherein Port Authorities (PAs) act at t2 to develop their objectives and implement the systems and processes to execute the decisions. Even when the governance model is fully implemented (t3), estimations of its output are needed to fine-tune adjustments. All these changes are accompanied by transition times (t4). Measuring the performance (output) at (t5) and informed by any changes in the economic environment (defined partially by previous governance decisions that reform objectives and regulatory frameworks, and partially by exogenous variables), PAs and relevant government agencies and/or other actors can reach decisions for adjusting previous governance choices. Governance modifications will then continue to result in performance changes and vice-versa. Of course, to complete the process, PAs and other relevant actors need to establish essential performance monitoring practices. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/linking-port-governance-performance/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/linking-port-governance-performance/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/linking-port-governance-performance/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/linking-port-governance-performance/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Terminals Concessions in Global Ports per Type of Transaction](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/container-terminals-concessions-transactions-per-type/) **Published:** April 8, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/concessions_type_transaction.png?resize=900%2C421&ssl=1 "Container Terminals Concessions in Global Ports per Type of Transaction | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminals Concessions in Global Ports per Type of Transaction*Source: Farrell S. (2012): The ownership and management structure of container terminal concessions, Maritime Policy & Management, 39(1), 7-26* Tracking the terminal concessions process in world ports reveals that more than one out of four ports have assigned terminals through some form of **competitive tendering**. In most cases, this has been a formal process, beginning with a published invitation to interested parties to submit expressions of interest, the issue of tender documents containing information on the project and the mechanism by which the concession is to be assigned, and a pre-determined process for evaluating the bids. In a few cases, however, the process has resembled an informal beauty contest, in which two or more companies set out their proposals in private, with the concession assigned to the one which is judged to be the most suitable bidder. As an alternative to competitive tendering, **concessions negotiated with a new entrant or a company already operating in the port (the incumbent)** have been endorsed in almost half of the ports. Negotiations with incumbents include concession renewals and the involvement of existing general cargo stevedores in the development of container terminals in the 1970s and 1980s. More than 100 of the current concessions have been negotiated with incumbents. Local stevedoring companies form the largest group, but incumbents also include national shipping lines, shipping agents, and freight forwarders. Another category of incumbents can be found in China (Dalian, Qingdao, and Tianjin), where successive terminals in large ports have been built by the existing operators, but with modifications to the consortium ownership structure at each stage to bring in additional partners. The ‘other’ category comprises **semi-dedicated terminals** leased to partnerships of stevedores and container lines on a regular renewal basis. What is striking about this category, apart from the large number of separate terminal leases it generates in each port, is its concentration on the West Coast of the USA and Japan, with common features on both sides of the Pacific. In Japan, shipping lines and stevedoring companies may be linked through *keiretsu*, vertically integrated groups of companies with inter-locking share ownerships, such as Mitsui & Co. Ltd. This makes it difficult to establish exactly where management control over terminals resides. Regarding the **geographical balance**: - The proportion of competitively tendered concessions is highest in **Central and South America**, where the concessions process has primarily involved the divestment of public assets. In Brazil and Uruguay, terminal operating rights have been publicly auctioned. Elsewhere, the ‘two envelopes’ system has been more common, with bids evaluated on technical and financial criteria. The main exceptions to competitive bidding in this region are found in Colombia, where whole port concessions have been awarded to Sociedades Portuarias Regionales, umbrella organizations of local stakeholders. - The proportion of competitively tendered concessions is lowest in **North America**, which has a strongly entrenched private stevedoring industry, access to capital markets and local taxpayers for the funding of new berth construction, and a high level of inter-port competition. Local authorities have been more willing than elsewhere to build new terminals on demand for individual stevedores and/or shipping lines, even though this has resulted in below-average use of port assets. There has not been much interest in using competitive tendering to select the most efficient operator until recently. - The relatively low proportion of competitively tendered concessions in **Asia** is due to the large number of new terminals located in China, which has had a strong preference for negotiated deals with large foreign operators based on the creation of joint ventures. India has developed quite elaborate rules for the competitive assignment of concessions in Major Trust Ports but has been slow to implement its divestiture program; new greenfield terminals have been mainly built outside of the Major Trust Ports, authorized by individual State governments which have generally favored negotiated deals. - Europe, the Middle East, and Africa occupy the middle ground. **Europe**’s long private stevedoring tradition has resulted in a high proportion of leases being assigned to incumbents, particularly in Northern Europe. Although the concessioning process in German ports still favors local operators, terminal operations in the Netherlands and Belgium were opened up to outsiders in the 1990s through competitive bidding and merger and acquisition activity, a process which only began in France in the mid-2000s. However, competitive tendering has been an important component of the port reform process in the Mediterranean countries and is now beginning to be used for greenfield projects in Northern Europe and in response to shortages of capital and space. Within Europe, there has been a marked increase in the use of competitive tendering. - In the **Middle East**, competitive tendering has been important in some countries (Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia). Still, in the UAE, contracts for the management of smaller ports, such as Fujairah and Mina Zayed, have been directly negotiated with DP World. Oman has also preferred negotiation as a means of bringing in foreign expertise and funding to its centrally controlled ports system. - In **Africa**, the World Bank has provided technical assistance to countries wishing to follow the competitive tendering route. Still, the desire to retain some degree of public sector control over ports has led to an almost equal number of negotiated deals. - **Australia** has recently moved to competitive tendering in order to increase intra port competition and break the duopoly of the incumbent terminal operators. Global trends are less clear, however, as the increase in competitive tendering generated by divesture programs in Africa and Central/South America has been largely offset by the number of new terminals in China, which have been non-competitively concessioned. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/container-terminals-concessions-transactions-per-type/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/container-terminals-concessions-transactions-per-type/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/container-terminals-concessions-transactions-per-type/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/container-terminals-concessions-transactions-per-type/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Nike European Logistics Campus in Belgium](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nike-european-logistics-center-belgium/) **Published:** November 10, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** #### Author: Dr. Theo Notteboom > Nike, one of the world’s leading sportswear companies, operates a large Main Distribution Center (MDC) in Belgium. In this case study, we apply the theoretical discussion on distribution centers presented in chapter 1.4 to Nike’s European Logistics Campus. - ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Nike-ELC.png?resize=860%2C690&ssl=1 "Nike ELC | Port Economics, Management and Policy")European Logistics Campus ELC of Nike - ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/decision_levels_regional_distribution.png?resize=900%2C510&ssl=1 "Key Decision Levels in the Development of a Regional Distribution Network | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Key decision levels in the development of a regional distribution network Nike made a major change in its **distribution system (level 1)** in Europe in 1994. Nike Inc., founded in 1972 in Oregon, is a well-known world-leading company in the sports industry. Nike originated from Blue Ribbon Sports (BLS), a company founded in 1964 through an investment of $500 each by Phil Knight and Bill Bowerman. The company has evolved from being an importer and distributor of Japanese specialty running shoes to becoming one of the world-leading companies in the design, distribution, and marketing of athletic footwear. Before opening the European internal market in 1993, Nike – just like many other international companies – had national DCs to serve different European countries. In 1994, Nike built one EDC of operations and logistics to serve all European countries at Laakdal in Belgium. The Nike European Logistics Campus (ELC) coordinates all the logistical activities between 700 factories (mainly in Asia) and 25,000 customers. All the Nike shoes, clothing, and accessories found in stores in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa (the so-called EMEA region) pass either virtually or physically through the facility in Laakdal. The term ELC refers to the fact that the facility focuses on distribution and delivers VALS to the goods passing through. The distribution system of Nike in Europe is thus based on a centralized configuration with the goods passing through the ELC also reaching parts of the Middle East and Africa. While Nike operates the ELC in Laakdal, distribution centers of large customers (such as Footlocker and Decathlon) are acting as some sort of ‘external’ RDCs which mainly involve cross-docking. By changing from 32 decentralized DCs prior to 1994 to 1 EDC, Nike realized big savings on inventory costs and close-outs after each season. The savings on warehousing and transportation costs were more limited. While deciding whether to build one centralized distribution center, Nike took into account a trade-off between the product life cycle and demand variability. With a short product life cycle and high demand variability, it is better to have one centralized distribution center. If the product life cycle is long and demand is stable, the company can decentralize its products at low risk. The main logistics characteristics of Nike apparel and footwear are a short product life cycle (typically three months due to seasonality), unpredictable customer demand, a high product profit margin, and a distribution focus on service. The strong seasonality and high demand variability were strong incentives for Nike to build one centralized distribution center at Laakdal. In terms of **location choice (level 2),** Nike opted for Laakdal in Belgium. The Laakdal facility is located along the Albert Canal about 45 km east of the port of Antwerp and adjacent to a large inland container terminal. In the early 2010s, the facility underwent a major expansion with the realization of a new building for storing and handling equipment. The project comprised an automated high warehouse for storing goods, a low warehouse across three floors for handling goods, an office block with social amenities, a technical block with offices and technical facilities. The focus was entirely on using sustainable materials and energy-efficient operations in order to restrict the installations’ energy consumption and make them as efficient as possible. The decision of Nike to set-up the ELC in Laakdal in 1994 and to further expand the facility was mainly based on the following rationale: - Central location: Laakdal is located in the south-eastern part of the province of Antwerp in Flanders. About 60% of European purchasing power is within 300 miles of Flanders. Being located in the central part of the ‘blue banana’ of Europe, the Nike ELC is well positioned to reach any part of Europe within 4 days. - Infrastructure – The infrastructure support for intermodal transportation near the Nike facility in Laakdal is very good. Some 96% of Nike’s inbound flow is over water via regular container barge services coming from the ports of Antwerp, Rotterdam and Zeebrugge. The ELC is very close to the highway E313 which connects Antwerp to Germany. The cargo airport of Brussels and Liège are within a 100 km distance. In March 2007, Nike welcomed its first inbound container delivery via rail. The addition of rail makes that the Laakdal facility has a trimodal access to the gateway ports in the Benelux and the European hinterland. Other important location factors identified by Nike relate to the co-operation with local authorities, the availability of an educated work force and the integration process within Nike Belgium. The last level relates to the **VALS (level 3)** performed at Nike ELC. Products of Nike can be delivered to their European customers via three different supply chain models: directly from the factory to the customer (one container/one customer); from the factory to the customer via a deconsolidation center (one container/multiple customers); from the factory to the customer via the ELC in Laakdal. The main VALS activities in the Laakdal ELC are related to quality control, cross-docking, product labeling, shoebox labeling, the application of security tags, outer carton labeling, palletizing, final packaging, and order picking for parts of the Nike store online orders. Depending on customers’ requests, the activities of the Nike ELC can also include the transfer of loose shirts, T-shirts, and pants onto hangers to make the products shop ready. About 30% of the products are sent to the customers directly without repacking, while the remaining 70% of the products are processed on an item basis in the facility. Big customers with a massive order volume, such as Footlocker, receive the products directly from the Laakdal ELC without repacking. For repacked goods, the logistics system in the ELC is aimed at deconsolidation and reconsolidation. On the inbound side, containers are deconsolidated into cartons and then to individual product items. After order picking the individual items is reconsolidated into cartons, followed by the palletization of these cartons and outbound shipment via truck (in a few cases also by trailer on rail). Some other value-added services are performed at the source in the country of export. For example, one of the factories in Vietnam has a separate line for producing customized Nike footwear. Customers order customized shoes on the Nike store website using a NikeID, and the factory in Vietnam takes customized orders and produces the products accordingly. Finally, in some cases Nike operates its VALS in a local 3PL close to the customer at customers’ requests. Nike uses a number of criteria when deciding where to perform VALS such as (a) complexity and capabilities of factories, EDC, RDC, or 3PL;(b) speed to market – lead times; (c) integration with the customers; (d) cost comparison between different options. Furthermore, Nike only executes the product value-added services or customized packaging at the factory if there is a direct link between the purchase order and the customer’s sales order. In other cases, the inventory is only being allocated to the sales orders after receipt at the EDC. This criterion is by far the most important one. - ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Nike-reasons-for-centralised-distribution.png?resize=762%2C512&ssl=1 "Nike - reasons for centralised distribution | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Why did Nike choose for one main distribution center for Europe - ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Nike-laakdal-sorting-system.jpg?resize=825%2C550&ssl=1 "Nike-laakdal-sorting-system | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Automated sorting system - ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Nike-laakdal-inside.jpg?resize=900%2C506&ssl=1 "Nike-laakdal-inside | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Order picking activities - ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/NIke-Laakdal.jpg?resize=790%2C443&ssl=1 "NIke-Laakdal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Overview of Nike ELC facilities ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nike-european-logistics-center-belgium/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nike-european-logistics-center-belgium/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nike-european-logistics-center-belgium/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/nike-european-logistics-center-belgium/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Green and Sustainable Warehouses](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/green-sustainable-warehouses/) **Published:** November 14, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/green_warehouses.png?resize=900%2C399&ssl=1 "Green and Sustainable Warehouses | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Green and Sustainable Warehouses - **Construction materials**. The use of sustainable construction materials contributes to a lowering of the ecological footprint of warehouses. Using non-toxic paints, high-value insulation, installing skylights or natural light access points leads to a more efficient building. - **Energy efficiency**. Solar panels and stormwater management systems improve energy efficiency and self-sufficiency. Other improvements include the use of light-colored materials and natural native landscaping. High-efficiency climate control systems can help to manage building temperature and airflow for reduced heating and cooling expenditure. The use of solar panels is once again a major impact factor here. - **Equipment**. By using electric-powered lift trucks and stacking cranes instead of internal combustion engines, the total emissions of the storage area go down. The utilization of synthetic pallets, advanced designs in trucking. - **Operations**. Improved inventory and transport management systems have a major impact on the sustainability of warehousing operations. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/green-sustainable-warehouses/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/green-sustainable-warehouses/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/green-sustainable-warehouses/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/green-sustainable-warehouses/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Functional Integration of Maritime Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/functional-integration-maritime-supply-chains/) **Published:** November 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/functional_integration_supply_chains.png?resize=900%2C581&ssl=1 "Functional Integration of Maritime Supply Chains | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Functional Integration of Maritime Supply Chains*Source: Rodrigue, J-P (2006) “Challenging the Derived Transport Demand Thesis: Issues in Freight Distribution”, Environment & Planning A, Vol. 38, No. 8, pp. 1449-1462*. The efficiency of freight distribution is linked with the level of **functional integration** along supply chains. It is dependent not only on physical flows generated by its various functions (manufacturing, physical distribution, after-sales service) but on how well each element is linked with the others. Since transportation is a core component in this process of functional integration and economies of scale in distribution, the emergence of “megacarriers” involved in numerous segments of the transport chain can be seen as a logical process. In a push logistics context, freight distribution was highly fragmented and was assumed by different entities ranging from maritime shipping lines, shipping and customs agents, freight forwarders, and rail and trucking companies. Regulations were often preventing multimodal ownership, underlining this fragmented state. Moving freight from one part of the supply chain to the other involved additional costs and delays, either administrative or physical (namely intermodal) in nature. With an increasing level of functional integration, many intermediate steps have been removed. **Mergers and acquisitions** have permitted the emergence of large logistics operators that control many segments of the supply chain, a process supported by the development of economies of scale in distribution. Carriers can offer comprehensive services, including cargo handling and information processing. Technology also plays a significant role in this process, with information technologies enabling better control of the process and intermodal integration enabling better control of the flows. Another significant outcome has been that maritime and land distribution systems have become closely integrated, with some transport companies involved in both. The control of the supply chain through functional integration challenges derived demand as the concerned actors (3PLs and megacarriers) can anticipate and regulate freight flows. These integrators behave in a manner reflecting that they are not responding to a derived demand, but with a view to controlling their respective supply chains and answering the needs of their customers, if not actually shaping them, or at least the time sequence at which they are serviced. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/functional-integration-maritime-supply-chains/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/functional-integration-maritime-supply-chains/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/functional-integration-maritime-supply-chains/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/functional-integration-maritime-supply-chains/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Freight Station, Shenzhen, China](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/container-freight-station-shenzhen-china/) **Published:** June 16, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_3169.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Container Freight Station, Shenzhen, China | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Freight Station Shenzhen China*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2005.* Since Shenzhen is a large manufacturing cluster, its export-oriented economy generates volumes of outbound containerized cargo. This cargo can be brought to a **container freight station** (CFS) where it can be consolidated into container loads. Empty containers are collected from the nearby port terminal (Yantian), brought to the CFS, filled with cargo, and then delivered to the container yard to be exported. Most container freight stations have a specialization towards outbound or inbound cargo and can be located within a container port terminal, adjacent or in proximity. For inbound cargo, the CFS will be stripping containers into loads to be placed into domestic modes such as truckloads. Then, empty containers can be brought back to the container yard or an empty container depot to be made available for exports or to be repositioned. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/container-freight-station-shenzhen-china/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/container-freight-station-shenzhen-china/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/container-freight-station-shenzhen-china/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/container-freight-station-shenzhen-china/?share=reddit) - --- ### [World’s Largest Third-Party Logistics Providers, 2019](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/largest-third-party-logistics/) **Published:** May 17, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/world_3PL.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "World’s Largest Third-Party Logistics Providers, 2019 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Largest Third Party Logistics Providers 2019*Source: Armstrong & Associates.* In 1999, DHL Supply Chain and Global Forwarding, a part of the Deutsche Post DHL Group, acquired the Swiss logistics provider Danzas and Air Express International (AEI), the largest American service provider in the field of international airfreight. Deutsche Post acquired DHL in 2002. In late 2005, Deutsche Post acquired the British logistics company Exel for 5.5 billion euros. At that time, approximately 111,000 employees worked for Exel in 135 countries. Horizontal integration also occurred on a large scale in other logistics market segments, such as among shipping lines and terminal operators. In 2019, two major M&As marked the consolidation and vertical integration dynamics in the logistics industry. CEVA Logistics was taken over by the container shipping line CMA CGM (vertical integration), and DSV and Panalpina merged to form DSV Panalpina A/S (horizontal integration). In April 2021, Agility and DSV Panalpina A/S signed an agreement for DSV to acquire Agility’s Global Integrated Logistics (GIL) business. This take-over will create a top-three global freight forwarder based on revenues (after DHL Logistics and Kuehne & Nagel), representing a revenue of approximately USD 22 billion and a combined workforce of more than 70,000 employees. The acquisition is expected in the third quarter of 2021. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/largest-third-party-logistics/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/largest-third-party-logistics/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/largest-third-party-logistics/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/largest-third-party-logistics/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Types of Container Flows](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/types-container-flows/) **Published:** August 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** - ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_container_flows.png?resize=900%2C563&ssl=1 "Types of Container Flows | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Container Flows For long distance trade, three main types of container flows are possible: - **Balanced**. Container flows for exports and imports between two partners are almost similar. Thus, for each full container being unloaded, there is an opportunity for a backhaul movement. This situation is uncommon. - **Imbalanced**. There are container flows in only one direction, implying that once a container has been emptied, the return leg is performed without carrying any load. Again, this situation is uncommon but can happen at the local or regional level. - **Hybrid**. For various reasons, such as differences in the level of industrialization and development, container flows have a level of imbalance, which requires a specific market for the repositioning of empties. This situation is relatively common, particularly along the [Asia-Europe and Transpacific routes](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2724). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/types-container-flows/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/types-container-flows/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/types-container-flows/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/types-container-flows/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Costs of Super and Mega-size Cruise Vessels](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/costs-super-mega-size-cruise-vessels/) **Published:** January 4, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/costs_cruise_vessels.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Costs of Super- and Mega-size Cruise Vessels (> 120,000 GT) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Costs of super and mega size cruise vessels > 120000 GT*Source: Chaos, S.R., Pallis, A.A., Marchán, S.S., Roca, D.P. and Conejo, A.S.A., 2020, Economies of scale in cruise shipping. Maritime Economics & Logistics. doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00158-3.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/costs-super-mega-size-cruise-vessels/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/costs-super-mega-size-cruise-vessels/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/costs-super-mega-size-cruise-vessels/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/costs-super-mega-size-cruise-vessels/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Nicaragua Canal System](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/nicaragua-canal-system/) **Published:** January 5, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Nicaragua-Canal.png?resize=900%2C600&ssl=1 "The Nicaragua Canal Project | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Nicaragua Canal Project[PDF Map](https://transportgeography.org/wp-content/uploads/Map_Nicaragua-Canal.pdf) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/nicaragua-canal-system/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/nicaragua-canal-system/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/nicaragua-canal-system/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/nicaragua-canal-system/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Reefers Used for Temporary Cold Chain Storage](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/reefers-temporary-cold-chain-storage/) **Published:** January 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2016-10-04-12.48.41.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "2016-10-04 12.48.41 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Reefers Used for Temporary Cold Chain Storage*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2016.* In several developing economies, the availability of cold storage facilities is limited, and building such storage can be beyond the reach of small and medium-sized traders. Alternative solutions, such as using reefers for the temporary storage of frozen food, can be found. The importer is willing to pay additional demurrage (about $50 per day) to be able to use reefers as refrigerated warehouses and load refrigerated delivery trucks directly from them. Once the contents of a reefer have been fully unloaded for multiple smaller deliveries (can take about a week), it is brought back to the container yard. Second-hand reefers can also be purchased and used as permanent refrigerated storage. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/reefers-temporary-cold-chain-storage/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/reefers-temporary-cold-chain-storage/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/reefers-temporary-cold-chain-storage/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/reefers-temporary-cold-chain-storage/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Global Natural Gas Market](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/global-natural-gas-market/) **Published:** October 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Gas-Market.png?resize=900%2C697&ssl=1 "Map Gas Market | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Natural Gas Market*Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy.* Substantial reserves of natural gas exist, likely to satisfy energy needs for the next century. With 45% of the world’s reserves are in Russia and Iran, the supply has a high concentration level, leading to classification opportunities. These have been particularly taken advantage of by Russia that has set an extensive pipeline system distributing natural gas in Europe. Still, the regional concentration of gas resources is more diverse, leading to many production and distribution opportunities. Unlike oil, only 36% of the reserves are in the Middle East. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/global-natural-gas-market/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/global-natural-gas-market/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/global-natural-gas-market/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/global-natural-gas-market/?share=reddit) - --- ### [European Port Policies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/european-port-policies/) **Published:** May 2, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/european_port_policy.png?resize=900%2C405&ssl=1 "European Port Policy and Port-related Initiatives | Port Economics, Management and Policy")European Port policy and port related initiatives### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/european-port-policies/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/european-port-policies/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/european-port-policies/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/european-port-policies/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The AIVP 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Port Cities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/sustainable-port-cities/) **Published:** February 11, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/sdg_port_city.png?resize=900%2C494&ssl=1 "AIVP Agenda 2030 on Sustainable Port Cities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")AIVP Agenda 2030*Source: adapted from AIVP* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/sustainable-port-cities/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/sustainable-port-cities/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/sustainable-port-cities/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/sustainable-port-cities/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Two Possible Constellations for the City-Port Border Area](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/possible-constellations-port-border-region/) **Published:** November 26, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_city_border_area.png?resize=900%2C345&ssl=1 "Two Possible Constellations for the City-Port Border Area | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Two possible constellations for the city port border region### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/possible-constellations-port-border-region/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/possible-constellations-port-border-region/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/possible-constellations-port-border-region/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/possible-constellations-port-border-region/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Airport Passenger Traffic by Metropolitan Area, 2018](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/passenger-traffic-worlds-largest-airports/) **Published:** November 27, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Passengers-Metropolitan-2018.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Map-Passengers-Metropolitan-2018 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Airport Passenger Traffic by Metropolitan Area 2018*Source: Airports Council International. Note: Several metropolitan areas contain more than one airport.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/passenger-traffic-worlds-largest-airports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/passenger-traffic-worlds-largest-airports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/passenger-traffic-worlds-largest-airports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/passenger-traffic-worlds-largest-airports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Traffic at Container Ports: Impact of crises (2019/2020 vs 2008/2009)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/growth-container-traffic-major-container-ports-2019-2020-2008-2009/) **Published:** March 30, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Growth-at-container-ports-2020-2009-crises.png?resize=836%2C447&ssl=1 "Growth of Container Traffic at Major Container Ports, 2019/20 vs 2008/09 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Growth of Container Traffic at Major Container Ports 20192020 vs 20082009Source: *Notteboom T.E. Pallis A.A. and Rodrigue J-P. (2021). Disruptions and Resilience in Container Shipping, Ports and Supply chains: The COVID-19 pandemic vs. the 2008-2009 Financial Crisis. Maritime Economics and Logistics, doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00180-5.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/growth-container-traffic-major-container-ports-2019-2020-2008-2009/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/growth-container-traffic-major-container-ports-2019-2020-2008-2009/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/growth-container-traffic-major-container-ports-2019-2020-2008-2009/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/growth-container-traffic-major-container-ports-2019-2020-2008-2009/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Performance: Strategies to enhance effectiveness](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/port-strategies-enhance-effectiveness/) **Published:** December 18, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_strategies_effectiveness.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Port Strategies to Enhance Effectiveness | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Strategies to enhance effectiveness*Source: Adapted from Mary R. Brooks and Thanos A. Pallis (2013). Time to assess: Port users perspectives are important, Port Technology International[.](http://www.porttechnology.org/)* The relation between the value attributed to specific parameters of port activities and the gap between importance and performance provides actionable data for developing strategic plans for investment and marketing. Ports need to invest in improving parameters, which are important for the (groups of) users that they want to prioritize and they identify a gap between importance and performance, and then to issues of secondary attention or lowest priorities, which are of less importance. Beyond these, there are cases that performance is such that it deserves to be marketed, as the port or terminal performs as well as expected, or it is of little importance to users and therefore there is no requirement for action. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/port-strategies-enhance-effectiveness/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/port-strategies-enhance-effectiveness/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/port-strategies-enhance-effectiveness/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/port-strategies-enhance-effectiveness/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Parameters Shaping the Perspectives of Port Users](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/parameters-shaping-port-users-perspectives/) **Published:** March 11, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/parameters_perspectives_port_users-scaled.png?resize=900%2C448&ssl=1 "Parameters Shaping the Perspectives of Port Users | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Parameters shipping port users perspectives on port performance### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/parameters-shaping-port-users-perspectives/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/parameters-shaping-port-users-perspectives/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/parameters-shaping-port-users-perspectives/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/parameters-shaping-port-users-perspectives/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Timing of Port Capacity Extensions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/the-timing-of-port-capacity-extensions/) **Published:** April 25, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/timing_port_capacity_expansion.png?resize=900%2C432&ssl=1 "The Timing of Port Capacity Extension | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The timing of port investments*Source: adapted from Winkelmans, W., Notteboom, T. (2002). Dealing with uncertainty in port capacity planning, Port Technology International, edition 16, Summer 2002, 187-189* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/the-timing-of-port-capacity-extensions/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/the-timing-of-port-capacity-extensions/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/the-timing-of-port-capacity-extensions/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/the-timing-of-port-capacity-extensions/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Criteria of Cruise Ports Performance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/cruise-ports-performance-criteria/) **Published:** February 12, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/criteria_cruise_port_performance.png?resize=731%2C385&ssl=1 "criteria_cruise_port_performance | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Ports Performance Evaluation Criteria*Source: Based on surveys of European Cruise Ports* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/cruise-ports-performance-criteria/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/cruise-ports-performance-criteria/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/cruise-ports-performance-criteria/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/cruise-ports-performance-criteria/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Efficiency: A Multi-dimensional Concept](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/port-efficiency-multi-dimensional-concept/) **Published:** March 15, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_efficiency_multidimensional.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Port Efficiency: A Multi-dimensional Concept | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Efficiency A multi dimensional ConceptPort efficiency focuses on **terminal operations efficiency** (productivity). It relates to the physical quantities of items, the levels of effort expended, the scale or scope of activities, and the efficiency in transforming resources into some product (or service). Indicators traditionally used to measure ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/port-efficiency-multi-dimensional-concept/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/port-efficiency-multi-dimensional-concept/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/port-efficiency-multi-dimensional-concept/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/port-efficiency-multi-dimensional-concept/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Variance of Port Authorities Role in Cruise Ports Governance](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/variance-port-authorities-cruise-ports/) **Published:** April 21, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_port_governance_models.png?resize=900%2C391&ssl=1 "Cruise Ports Governance Models | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Ports Governance ModelsSource: *Adapted from Pallis A.A., Arapi K.P. and Papachristou A.A. (2019). Models of Cruise Ports Governance. Maritime Policy and Management, 46(5), 630-651.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/variance-port-authorities-cruise-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/variance-port-authorities-cruise-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/variance-port-authorities-cruise-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/variance-port-authorities-cruise-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Governance Transparency: Disclosure and Involvement](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/port-governance-transparency-disclosure-involvement/) **Published:** March 12, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/governance_transparency_disclosure.png?resize=900%2C169&ssl=1 "Port Governance Transparency: Disclosure and Involvement Directions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Transparency Disclosure and Involvement*Source: Brooks M.R., Knatz G., Pallis A.A. and Wilmsmeier G. (2020). Transparency in Port Governance: Seaport Practices. PortReport No 5. PortEconomics.eu* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/port-governance-transparency-disclosure-involvement/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/port-governance-transparency-disclosure-involvement/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/port-governance-transparency-disclosure-involvement/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/port-governance-transparency-disclosure-involvement/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Governance Performance Indicators in Port Cluster Integration and Autonomous Management](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/port-governance-performance-indicators-port-cluster-integration-autonomous-management/) **Published:** March 18, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governances_performance_indicators.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Port Governance Performance Indicators: Port Cluster Integration and Autonomous Management | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Performance Indicators Port Cluster Integration Autonomous Management### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/port-governance-performance-indicators-port-cluster-integration-autonomous-management/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/port-governance-performance-indicators-port-cluster-integration-autonomous-management/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/port-governance-performance-indicators-port-cluster-integration-autonomous-management/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/port-governance-performance-indicators-port-cluster-integration-autonomous-management/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Monthly Container Volumes for the Main US West Coast Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-and-pandemic/monthly-container-volumes-for-the-main-us-west-coast-ports/) **Published:** April 22, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/TEU-volume-West-Coast.png?resize=900%2C725&ssl=1 "Container volumes at US West Coast Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Evolution of container traffic in TEU for major US West Coast Ports*Source: based on traffic data of respective port authorities* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-and-pandemic/monthly-container-volumes-for-the-main-us-west-coast-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-and-pandemic/monthly-container-volumes-for-the-main-us-west-coast-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-and-pandemic/monthly-container-volumes-for-the-main-us-west-coast-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/ports-and-pandemic/monthly-container-volumes-for-the-main-us-west-coast-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Clean Truck Program in Los Angeles/Long Beach](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/clean-truck-program-in-los-angeles-long-beach/) **Published:** February 12, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Truck.jpg?resize=900%2C605&ssl=1 "Clean Truck Program at the Ports of LA and Long Beach | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Clean Truck Program is part of the **San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan**, a comprehensive joint strategy of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach for accelerating the transition of the entire fleet to zero-emissions trucks by 2035. The strategy addresses technology, the cost and commercial availability of clean trucks, financing, funding for incentives, infrastructure, workforce development, regulations, and legislative advocacy. In 2008, the ports banned pre-1989 trucks, followed by a progressive ban on all trucks that did not meet 2007 emission standards by 2012. All drayage trucks entering port terminals must be signed up in the **Port Drayage Truck Registry (PDTR)** and comply with the California Air Resources Board’s Drayage Truck Regulation. In 2018, only model year 2014 or newer are allowed to sign up in the PDTR going forward. Since the start of the Clean Truck Program in 2008, emissions of diesel particulate matter from heavy-duty trucks have plummeted 97% at the Port of Long Beach and 96% at the Port of Los Angeles. A **Clean Truck Rate** was established to create a pool of incentive funds to help the trucking industry purchase near-zero- and zero-emissions drayage trucks. Cargo owners will pay the cost on loaded containers moved by truck. Collecting the rate, managing the pool of money, and allocating it in the form of incentives are key elements the ports are working on. When implemented, the Clean Truck Rate could generate an estimated USD 90 million per year. Further changes to the Clean Truck Program might follow, such as the **exemption of near-zero-emissions trucks** from the Clean Truck Rate. *Sources: websites Port of LA, Port of Long Beach and Association of Pacific Ports* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/clean-truck-program-in-los-angeles-long-beach/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/clean-truck-program-in-los-angeles-long-beach/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/clean-truck-program-in-los-angeles-long-beach/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/clean-truck-program-in-los-angeles-long-beach/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Air Cargo Traffic by Metropolitan Area, 2018](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/freight-traffic-worlds-largest-airports/) **Published:** November 26, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Freight-Metropolitan-2018.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Map-Freight-Metropolitan-2018 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Air Cargo Traffic by Metropolitan Area 2018*Source: Airports Council International. Note: Several metropolitan areas contain more than one airport.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/freight-traffic-worlds-largest-airports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/freight-traffic-worlds-largest-airports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/freight-traffic-worlds-largest-airports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/freight-traffic-worlds-largest-airports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Policy Options to Reduce Entry Barriers in Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/policy-options-reduce-entry-barriers-seaports/) **Published:** April 18, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/policy_reduce_entry_barriers_seaports.png?resize=900%2C414&ssl=1 "Policy Options to Reduce Entry Barriers in Seaports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Policy Options to Reduce Entry Barriers in Seaports*Source: Adapted from De Langen P.W. and Pallis Α.Α. (2007). Entry Barriers in Seaports, Maritime Policy and Management, 34(5), 427-440.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/policy-options-reduce-entry-barriers-seaports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/policy-options-reduce-entry-barriers-seaports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/policy-options-reduce-entry-barriers-seaports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/policy-options-reduce-entry-barriers-seaports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Strategies to Introduce Intra-Port Competition and Prevent Rent Extraction](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/strategies-introduce-intra-port-competition-rent-extraction/) **Published:** January 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/intra_port_competition_strategies.png?resize=900%2C401&ssl=1 "intra_port_competition_strategies | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Strategies to introduce intra port competition and prevent rent extraction*Source: Adapted from: De Langen P.W. and Pallis A.A. (2006). The benefits of intra-port competition. International Journal of Transport Economics, 33(1), 69-85.* The figure shows available policy options to introduce intra-port competition and strategies to prevent excess rent-seeking by port service providers. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/strategies-introduce-intra-port-competition-rent-extraction/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/strategies-introduce-intra-port-competition-rent-extraction/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/strategies-introduce-intra-port-competition-rent-extraction/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/strategies-introduce-intra-port-competition-rent-extraction/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Entry Barriers in Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/entry-barriers-seaports/) **Published:** January 26, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/entry_barriers_seaports.png?resize=900%2C413&ssl=1 "Entry Barriers in Seaports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Entry Barriers in Seaports*Adapted from: De Langen P.W. and Pallis Α.Α. (2007). Entry Barriers in Seaports, Maritime Policy and Management, 34(5), 427-440.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/entry-barriers-seaports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/entry-barriers-seaports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/entry-barriers-seaports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/entry-barriers-in-seaports/entry-barriers-seaports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Categories of Port Fees at Cruise Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/categories-fees-cruise-terminal/) **Published:** January 18, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_fees_cruise_terminal.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Categories of Fees at Cruise Port Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Categories of Tariffs at Cruise Port Terminals ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/categories-fees-cruise-terminal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/categories-fees-cruise-terminal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/categories-fees-cruise-terminal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/categories-fees-cruise-terminal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Terminal Cargo Storage Handling Charges](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/container-terminal-cargo-storage-handling-charges/) **Published:** January 19, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cargo_storage_charges.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Container Terminal: Cargo Storage Handling Charges | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminal Cargo Storage Handling Charges### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/container-terminal-cargo-storage-handling-charges/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/container-terminal-cargo-storage-handling-charges/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/container-terminal-cargo-storage-handling-charges/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/container-terminal-cargo-storage-handling-charges/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Conditions Supporting Market Power of Port Service Providers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/conditions-excess-market-power-port-service-providers/) **Published:** January 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/market_power_port_service_providers.png?resize=900%2C405&ssl=1 "Conditions Supporting Market Power of Port Service Providers | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Conditions Supporting Market Power of Port Service Providers*Source: Adapted from: De Langen P.W. and Pallis A.A. (2006). The benefits of intra-port competition. International Journal of Transport Economics, 33(1), 69-85.* The figure summarises the conditions under which port service providers enjoy excess market power and can extract economic rents. The introduction of intra-port competition is essential to maintain or improve the competitiveness of a port. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/conditions-excess-market-power-port-service-providers/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/conditions-excess-market-power-port-service-providers/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/conditions-excess-market-power-port-service-providers/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/intra-port-competition/conditions-excess-market-power-port-service-providers/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Concession Fees and Financial Flows of Port Authorities and Terminal Operators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/concession-fees-and-financial-flows/) **Published:** April 12, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/concession_fees_pa_to.png?resize=900%2C359&ssl=1 "Concession Fees and Financial Flows of Port Authorities and Terminal Operators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Concession fees and the financial flows of port authorities and terminal operators*Source: Adapted from Uyttendaele, P. (2012) “Public Private Partnerships in Ports: Pitfalls and Challenges”, ESPO Annual Conference, Sopot, 10-11 May 2012*. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/concession-fees-and-financial-flows/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/concession-fees-and-financial-flows/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/concession-fees-and-financial-flows/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/concession-fees-and-financial-flows/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Most Common Causes of Grounding Claims, 2013-2017](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/causes-of-unintentional-vessel-grounding/) **Published:** April 11, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/causes_vessel_grounding.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Most Common Causes of Grounding Claims, 2013-2017 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Most Common Causes of Grounding Claims 2013 2017*Source: adapted from data of The Swedish Club. Note: include bulk carriers, container vessels and tankers.* Ship grounding or ship stranding can be intentional or unintentional: - **Intentional grounding** occurs in order to land crew or cargo, to ‘beach’ a vessel for scrapping, or to conduct maintenance or repairs. It demands very careful maneuvering and high navigational skills. - **Unintentional grounding** refers to the accidental impact of the ship on the seabed or waterway side. Human errors mostly cause ship grounding accidents, sometimes by inadequate information related to the port access route or the seabed. Also, improper maneuvering and navigational operations are common causes for unintentional ship grounding. Mechanical failure (e.g. rudder malfunction or faulty navigation instruments) and bad weather conditions can also lead to groundings. Grounding accidents can have **wide-ranging effects** on the ship, the port or navigational route, and the wider economy. In extreme cases, they can lead to the loss of human lives on board, the complete blockage of a port or maritime passage (such as in the case of the [Ever Given incident at the Suez Canal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-resilience/suez-canal-blockage-2021/ "Blockage of the Suez Canal, March 2021")), and/or severe environmental impacts (e.g. oil spills or damage caused by cargo loss on impact). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/causes-of-unintentional-vessel-grounding/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/causes-of-unintentional-vessel-grounding/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/causes-of-unintentional-vessel-grounding/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/causes-of-unintentional-vessel-grounding/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Recent Post Governance Reforms: Asia](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/recent-post-governance-reforms-asia/) **Published:** December 3, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/asia_port_governance_reforms.png?resize=900%2C450&ssl=1 "asia_port_governance_reforms | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Recent Port Governance Reforms AsiaAdapted from: *Brooks M.R., Cullinane K.P.B. and Pallis, A.A. (2017). Revisiting Port Governance and Port Reform: A Multi-country Examination. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 22, 1-10.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/recent-post-governance-reforms-asia/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/recent-post-governance-reforms-asia/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/recent-post-governance-reforms-asia/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/recent-post-governance-reforms-asia/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Instruments for Port Authorities to Reduce the Environmental Impacts of Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/instruments-environmental-impact-terminal/) **Published:** February 12, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/instruments_terminals_enviromental_impacts.png?resize=900%2C406&ssl=1 "Instruments for Port Authorities to Reduce the Environmental Impacts of Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")*Source: adapted from Notteboom, T. and Lam, J., 2018. The greening of terminal concessions in seaports. Sustainability, 10(9), 3318.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/instruments-environmental-impact-terminal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/instruments-environmental-impact-terminal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/instruments-environmental-impact-terminal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/green-port-governance/instruments-environmental-impact-terminal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Recent Port Governance Reforms: Europe](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/recent-post-governance-reforms-europe/) **Published:** December 3, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/major_european_port_governance_reforms.png?resize=900%2C445&ssl=1 "major_european_port_governance_reforms | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Adapted from: *Brooks M.R., Cullinane K.P.B. and Pallis, A.A. (2017). Revisiting Port Governance and Port Reform: A Multi-country Examination. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 22, 1-10.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/recent-post-governance-reforms-europe/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/recent-post-governance-reforms-europe/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/recent-post-governance-reforms-europe/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/recent-post-governance-reforms-europe/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Governance: Matching Frameworks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-matching-frameworks/) **Published:** March 9, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_frameworks.png?resize=900%2C379&ssl=1 "port_governance_frameworks | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Matching Frameworks ConfigurationsSource: *Adapted from: Baltazar R and Brooks M.R.(2006). Port governance, devolution and the matching framework: a configuration theory approach, Research in Transportation Economics 17, 379-403.* The port governance model is defined by the configuration of three inputs: (a) the strategy (in other words, the objectives, the decisions about its product-market scope, and the plan for effecting these) of the port, as developed by the port authority (PA); (b) the structure, which is implemented as a result of government regulations and policies, and the strategy chosen by the PA; and (c) the contextual environment in which a port operates represent, which has both controllable and uncontrollable factors. In the absence of a better framework, changes in the structures and strategies of the respective ports aim to generate a **matching framework**. The quality of which results from the consistency or fit of the inputs when taken together. There are two configurations of the triangle environment-structure-strategy that might produce a matching framework: 1. **First Configuration**. Characterized by an environment of low uncertainty, low complexity, and dynamism. It is an efficiency-oriented strategy that focuses on the delivery of the basic services, and a mechanistic structure of centralized decision-making characterized by procedural standardization. 2. **Second Configuration**. Characterized by a highly uncertain environment with an effectiveness-oriented strategy offering peripheral products and services in addition to basic services. It is an organic structure of decentralized decision-making. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-matching-frameworks/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-matching-frameworks/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-matching-frameworks/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/port-governance-matching-frameworks/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage/) **Published:** January 7, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/CCU.jpg?resize=747%2C416&ssl=1 "Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Carbon capture utilisation and storage **Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU)** and **Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)** are broadly seen as instruments that could help achieve climate change targets by emitting a lower net-amount CO2 into the atmosphere. The process of CCS consists of three steps which are capturing, transportation, and storage. In 2018, there were 43 large-scale CCS facilities, of which 18 commercially operational, 5 under construction, and 20 in various stages of development. **Port ecosystems** have developed a keen interest in the large-scale application of CCU and CCS solutions as these are indispensable in view of meeting the CO2 reduction targets. Some examples of projects in Flemish ports in Belgium are provided below. > The discussion on Carbon Capture, Utilisation & Storage (CCUS) in Flemish ports started in 2011 in consultation with the Flemish Institute for Technical Research (VITO), the Belgian Geological Service, and the Environment, Nature, and Energy department of the Flemish government. The study “Towards CO2-neutral industry in Flanders – the role of Carbon Capture, Utilisation & Storage (CCUS)” created momentum among policymakers and the Antwerp port community to move in this direction. A CCU-hub was founded within the Cleantech Cluster. *The Cleantech Cluster wants to connect economic, ecological, and social considerations through clean technologies and stimulate the transition from a linear to a circular economy.* > > In early 2019, the Port of Antwerp launched an initiative to bring different players together to produce sustainable methanol. The pilot project aims for 4,000 to 8,000 tonnes of sustainable methanol per year. Methanol is an important raw material with multiple uses in the chemical industry and also has many applications outside of it. The idea is to produce methanol from waste CO2 and sustainably generated hydrogen. The waste CO2 will be collected by Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU) in which at least some of the CO2 emissions are recovered. This CO2 is then combined with hydrogen generated on a sustainable basis using green energy in a new electrolysis plant. > > *A 2019 study provided a detailed analysis of the possibilities for Carbon Capture & Utilisation for the port area of North Sea Port Flanders.* With a view to creating a circular economy, AM Ghent is focusing on so-called Carbon Capture & Use techniques (CCU) so that CO2 can be used as a raw material for numerous applications. On the one hand, CO2 can be used in pure form, for example, in the food industry or as a coolant. On the other hand, the CO2 can also be used in production processes, such as a basic raw material in the chemical industry, for the production of biofuels, or after carbonation in building materials. A good example is Steelanol, a CCU project of AM Ghent in partnership with LanzaTech (who licensed the technology) focusing on the biological transformation of CO linked to the steel production process into bioethanol. The construction of a new installation for converting carbon-containing gas from blast furnaces into bioethanol started in June 2018 on the site of AM Ghent in the North Sea Port Port area. It is the first installation of its kind on an industrial scale in Europe. Commissioning and first production is expected by mid-2020. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/carbon-capture-utilisation-and-storage/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Public and Private Roles in Port Management](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/public-private-roles-port-management/) **Published:** February 2, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/public_private_roles_management.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Public and Private Roles in Port Management | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Public and Private Roles in Port Management*Adapted from: World Bank (undated, 2005) World Bank Port Reform Toolkit.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/public-private-roles-port-management/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/public-private-roles-port-management/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/public-private-roles-port-management/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/public-private-roles-port-management/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Evolution of Representative Vessels in Cruise Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-shipping-representative-vessels/) **Published:** January 12, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Evolution-of-Representative-Vessels-in-Cruise-Shipping-1.png?resize=900%2C298&ssl=1 "Evolution of Cruise Shipping: Representative Vessels | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Evolution of Cruise Shipping Representative Vessels### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-shipping-representative-vessels/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-shipping-representative-vessels/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-shipping-representative-vessels/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-shipping-representative-vessels/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Depth and Surface Distribution of a Sample of Container Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/depth-surface-distribution-sample-container-terminals/) **Published:** January 12, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/depth_surface_container_terminals.png?resize=900%2C373&ssl=1 "depth_surface_container_terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Depth and Surface Distribution of a Sample of Container Terminals*Source: Web sites of port authorities and terminal operators.* There are technical constraints in accommodating large containerships, mainly related to terminal depth and terminal surface. While a terminal could have sufficient depth to handle a large ship, it could be lacking in a sufficient terminal surface to store a large inflow and outflow of containers (and vice versa). This underlines that although the draft is an important issue, a port could face acute congestion and be unable to technically accommodate large ships if its yard space is insufficient. For container terminals built in recent years (particularly in Pacific Asia), depth and available space considerations were of prime importance in site selection. This is notably the case for transshipment hubs where the nautical profile dominates site selection instead of hinterland access. A sample of over 500 container terminals located in all of the world’s major markets reveals that one-third of the terminals are below Panamax depth (slightly above 12 meters; 40 feet). 62.3% of the facilities have a depth below 14 meters (45 feet), making them unable to accommodate most Post-Panamax containerships. 37.5% of container terminals can handle Post-Panamax containerships in the range of 8,000 TEU. Still, few facilities (7.8%) have a depth above 16 meters (50 feet), which limits the service network configuration of the largest containerships (above 14,000 TEU). In terms of surface, 40.7% of the terminals have enough yard space (above 40 hectares) to handle very large containerships, with two major categories standing out. The first corresponds to terminals between 10 to 30 hectares, which relate either to standard standalone terminals or to a single pier concession within a larger terminal facility (e.g. Laem Chabang, Kaohsiung). The second category corresponds to mega terminals above 100 hectares operated as single facilities by a global terminal operator (e.g. Singapore, Tanjung Pelepas). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/depth-surface-distribution-sample-container-terminals/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/depth-surface-distribution-sample-container-terminals/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/depth-surface-distribution-sample-container-terminals/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/depth-surface-distribution-sample-container-terminals/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Change in Average Ship Size and Deployed Capacity by Major Port (2019/2020 vs 2008/2009)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/maritime-ranges-propensity-cluster-formation/change-average-ship-size-deployed-capacity-major-port-2019-2020-vs-2008-2009/) **Published:** March 30, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Changes-in-average-size-2020-2009-crises.png?resize=866%2C426&ssl=1 "Change in Average Ship Size and Deployed Capacity by Major Port, 2019/20 vs 2008/09 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Change in Average Ship Size and Deployed Capacity by Major Port 20192020 vs 20082009Source: *Notteboom T.E. Pallis A.A. and Rodrigue J-P. (2021). Disruptions and Resilience in Container Shipping, Ports and Supply chains: The COVID-19 pandemic vs. the 2008-2009 Financial Crisis. Maritime Economics and Logistics, doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00180-5.* In 2020 the maximum size of the container vessels deployed at each port continued to increase despite the pandemic as shipping lines continue to exploit economies of scale. As a result, terminal operations and the entire maritime supply chain faced additional pressure as they hosted fewer vessel calls with substantially more cargoes to be handled per port call. Overall, ports have witnessed a rise in the average call size. In the first half of 2020, quite a few call size records have been broken. For example, 34,263 TEU was handled on MSC Isabella calling the port of Los Angeles (June 2020), 21,500 TEU handled on MSC Kalina in Singapore (April 2020), and 18,059 TEU handled on MSC Mina calling Antwerp (June 2020). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/maritime-ranges-propensity-cluster-formation/change-average-ship-size-deployed-capacity-major-port-2019-2020-vs-2008-2009/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/maritime-ranges-propensity-cluster-formation/change-average-ship-size-deployed-capacity-major-port-2019-2020-vs-2008-2009/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/maritime-ranges-propensity-cluster-formation/change-average-ship-size-deployed-capacity-major-port-2019-2020-vs-2008-2009/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/maritime-ranges-propensity-cluster-formation/change-average-ship-size-deployed-capacity-major-port-2019-2020-vs-2008-2009/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Construction of the Suez Canal, 1869](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/construction-suez-canal-1869/) **Published:** December 27, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/suezconstruc.jpg?resize=900%2C664&ssl=1 "Construction of the Suez Canal, 1869 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Construction of the Suez Canal 1869*Source for image: unknown.* With the rise of modern Europe through its industrial revolution and the growth of seaborne commerce, entrepreneurs began to think of building canals. One such initiative aimed at connecting the Red Sea with the Mediterranean Ocean directly. This would same time either to sail around Africa or transshipping passengers and freight across the Suez Peninsula. A French enterprise took the initiative to obtain a 99-year concession for the Canal and organize the Suez Canal Company, mainly with European capital, to build and operate it. The Canal was completed in 1869 under the leadership of the French promoter Ferdinand de Lesseps (he would later try unsuccessfully to build the Panama Canal). Numerous obstacles had to be overcome, one of which was the widely held conviction that the level of the Red Sea was more than 30 feet higher than that of the Mediterranean. More serious was the opposition of Great Britain, which was in competition and frequently in conflict with France in the eastern Mediterranean throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth. The British feared the alterations in the status quo that the Canal would bring. They preferred the existing connectors across Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula or a railroad transshipping line to a canal that would be subject to French or international influence. After its completion, the British recognized its vast strategic and economic importance and acquired a substantial financial interest in the enterprise. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/construction-suez-canal-1869/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/construction-suez-canal-1869/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/construction-suez-canal-1869/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/construction-suez-canal-1869/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Interlinked Drivers of Cruise Ships Deployment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/interlinked-drivers-cruise-ships-deployment/) **Published:** March 22, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/drivers_cruise_deployment.png?resize=891%2C823&ssl=1 "Interlinked Drivers of Cruise Ships Deployment | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Interlinked Drivers of Cruise Ships Deployment Several interlinked factors contribute to the decision of a cruise line to deploy a cruise ship in a particular cruise region and develop itineraries including a number of ports. Beyond the presence of a port that is capable to host home-porting activities, and several cruise ports in a reasonable geographical distance that allows calling more than few destinations within a 3-7 days cruise, these factors include the length of the cruise itinerary that might develop, the existence of destinations generating the interest of cruisers. They also include port-specific criteria, such as the levels of safety and security at the ports of the region, the operating costs resulting from the deployment selection, and itinerary planning, and not least the days of the week that a cruise ship might commence her itinerary and/or visit a port of call. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/interlinked-drivers-cruise-ships-deployment/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/interlinked-drivers-cruise-ships-deployment/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/interlinked-drivers-cruise-ships-deployment/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/interlinked-drivers-cruise-ships-deployment/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Safety, Security, and Occupational Health, Performance Indicators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/occupational-health-safety-security-performance-indicators/) **Published:** March 15, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/portsafty_security_indicators.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Port Safety, Security, and Occupational Health Performance Indicators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Safety Security and Occupational Health Performance Indicators### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/occupational-health-safety-security-performance-indicators/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/occupational-health-safety-security-performance-indicators/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/occupational-health-safety-security-performance-indicators/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/occupational-health-safety-security-performance-indicators/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cruise Market Segments](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-market-segments/) **Published:** February 10, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/segmentation_cruise_shipping.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Segmentation of Cruise Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Market Segments### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-market-segments/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-market-segments/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-market-segments/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-market-segments/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Socio-Economic Performance Indicators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/socio-economic-performance-indicators/) **Published:** March 15, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/socioeconomic_performance_indicators-scaled.png?resize=900%2C317&ssl=1 "Port Socio-Economic Performance Indicators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Socio Economic Performance Indicators### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/socio-economic-performance-indicators/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/socio-economic-performance-indicators/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/socio-economic-performance-indicators/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/socio-economic-performance-indicators/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Governance: Transparency Performance Indicators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/port-governance-transparency-performance-indicators/) **Published:** March 15, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/governance_transparency_indicators.png?resize=900%2C496&ssl=1 "Port Governance: Transparency Performance Indicators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Governance Transparency Performance Indicators ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/port-governance-transparency-performance-indicators/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/port-governance-transparency-performance-indicators/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/port-governance-transparency-performance-indicators/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/port-governance-transparency-performance-indicators/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Key Decision Levels in the Development of a Regional Distribution Network](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/key-decision-levels-development-regional-distribution-network/) **Published:** November 13, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/decision_levels_regional_distribution.png?resize=900%2C510&ssl=1 "Key Decision Levels in the Development of a Regional Distribution Network | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Key decision levels in the development of a regional distribution network### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/key-decision-levels-development-regional-distribution-network/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/key-decision-levels-development-regional-distribution-network/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/key-decision-levels-development-regional-distribution-network/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/key-decision-levels-development-regional-distribution-network/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Reconfiguration of Logistics Networks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/reconfiguration-logistics-networks-de-coupling-order-delivery/) **Published:** November 13, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/reconfiguration_logistics_networks.png?resize=900%2C383&ssl=1 "The Reconfiguration of Logistics Networks: De-coupling of Order and Delivery | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The reconfiguration of logistics networks The de coupling of order and delivery### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/reconfiguration-logistics-networks-de-coupling-order-delivery/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/reconfiguration-logistics-networks-de-coupling-order-delivery/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/reconfiguration-logistics-networks-de-coupling-order-delivery/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/reconfiguration-logistics-networks-de-coupling-order-delivery/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port and Terminal Selection by Container Shipping Lines](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/port-terminal-selection-container-shipping-lines/) **Published:** February 10, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_terminal_selection-2.png?resize=900%2C524&ssl=1 "Port and Terminal Selection by Container Shipping Lines | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port and Terminal Selection by Container Shipping Lines*Source: Adapted from Notteboom, T.E., Parola, F., Satta, G., Pallis, A.A., 2017, The relationship between port choice and terminal involvement of alliance members in container shipping, Journal of Transport Geography, vol. 64, p. 58-173.* Port selection is a complex process subject to several criteria. The direct impact of shippers and other cargo interests on terminal operations depends on the commodity and terminal activity type. There are typically no contractual arrangements between terminal operators and shippers in the container business or their representatives, such as freight forwarders. The market demand is exerted indirectly via the shipping lines that have contractual arrangements with the terminal operators. The port choice criteria used by shipping lines include **four distinctive groups of selection factors** relevant to shipping lines. These factors are related to the **demand profile** of the port or terminal, the **supply profile**, the **market profile,** and **carrier dynamics** linked to carrier operations and cooperation. The above figure conceptualizes the port selection process by container lines, combining these four groups of selection factors. The shaded areas refer to decision variables in liner service design. They include the choice of the liner service type (e.g. direct service vs. transshipment), the number and order of port calls, vessel speed, service frequency, and vessel size and fleet mix. Terminal ownership of shipping lines (or their affiliated companies) and the [strategic alliance dynamics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=1758) among shipping lines belong to the fourth category of port selection factors (see textbox at bottom left). Thus, strategic considerations at the company level play a role in port and terminal selection. These strategic considerations include alliance developments and the location of container terminals of the carrier or alliance. Other strategic factors include the fit of the port in the trade (or string), the location of key customers, present contracts with independent terminal operators, and the location of decision-makers (head office vs. more regional offices). Port choice can be subject to negotiations among the alliance members and can deviate from the choice of one particular member. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/port-terminal-selection-container-shipping-lines/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/port-terminal-selection-container-shipping-lines/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/port-terminal-selection-container-shipping-lines/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/port-terminal-selection-container-shipping-lines/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Asset Management Domains in Container Shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/asset-management-domains-container-shipping/) **Published:** December 7, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/asset_management_domains_container_shipping.png?resize=900%2C341&ssl=1 "Asset Management Domains in Container Shipping | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Asset management in container shipping### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/asset-management-domains-container-shipping/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/asset-management-domains-container-shipping/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/asset-management-domains-container-shipping/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/asset-management-domains-container-shipping/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Dimensions of Port Governance Transparency](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/dimensions-port-governance-transparency/) **Published:** March 12, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_transparency.png?resize=900%2C792&ssl=1 "Dimensions of Port Governance Transparency | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Nested Dimensions of Port Governance TransparencySource: Adapted from: Brooks, M.R., Knatz G., Pallis A.A. and Wilmsmeier G. (2020). Transparency in Port Governance: Seaport Practices. PortReport No 5. PortEconomics.eu. Four different dimensions need to be considered in order to realize whether the existing levels of port governance transparency facilitate improvements in the governance, and ultimately the performance, of a given port. The *visibility* of information, i.e. the degree to which information is released and found with relative ease is the first of them. A characteristic of transparency is the degree of completeness of information. By way of example, a summarized unaudited financial report, makes the financial results of a port visible but does not reveal a complete picture, and without the auditor’s opinion it may not be considered verifiable. An additional dimension of transparency is *inferability,* which refers to the quality of the disclosed information and/or data, and the extent to which the information, in its form and content, can be used to draw accurate conclusions. The third dimension is *verifiability*. With transparency being a matter of information disclosure, the quality and quantity of information permits one to fully observe organizational action, and provides a means of solving organizational and societal problems by improving the effectiveness and quality of transparency efforts. Not all information that is visible is verifiable or even intelligible. The fourth dimension is *performativity*. This is the extent that transparency enactment (i.e. acts of making things visible) stands as a process with (un)intended dynamics that induce action, such as agreements, conflicts, tensions, and negotiations, and leads to the improvement of management in organizational settings. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/dimensions-port-governance-transparency/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/dimensions-port-governance-transparency/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/dimensions-port-governance-transparency/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/dimensions-port-governance-transparency/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Criteria for evaluating port effectiveness: Levels of influence per actor](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/criteria-evaluating-port-effectiveness/) **Published:** March 11, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_effectiveness_actors.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Criteria for Evaluating Port Effectiveness by Levels of Influence per Actor | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Criteria for evaluating port effectiveness Levels of influence per actorSource: *Adapted from: Brooks M.R. (2012). The AAPA Customer Service Initiative Report. Washington DC: AAPA.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/criteria-evaluating-port-effectiveness/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/criteria-evaluating-port-effectiveness/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/criteria-evaluating-port-effectiveness/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-effectiveness/criteria-evaluating-port-effectiveness/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Margins, Service Customization and Complexity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/increasing-margins-service-customization-complexity/) **Published:** November 10, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/margins_service.png?resize=900%2C295&ssl=1 "Increasing Margins through Service Customization and Complexity | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Increasing margins through service customization and complexity### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/increasing-margins-service-customization-complexity/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/increasing-margins-service-customization-complexity/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/increasing-margins-service-customization-complexity/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/increasing-margins-service-customization-complexity/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Art Dedicated to Dock Workers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/art-dedicated-dock-workers/) **Published:** December 4, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/docker-statues.png?resize=831%2C720&ssl=1 "Art dedicated to dock workers | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of art dedicated to dock workersIn many port cities, statues or other artworks honoring the contribution of dockworkers to the development and competitiveness of the port can be found. Some examples include: 1. ‘De Dokwerker’ by Mari Andriessen in Amsterdam, the Netherlands in commemoration of the February strike of 1941. 2. ‘Buildrager’ monument of the harbor worker by Constantin Meunier, near City Hall in Antwerp, Belgium. The words below the statue mean labor (arbeid) and freedom (vrijheid). 3. Dockers statue by Les Johnson at the north side of the Royal Victoria Dock, London, UK. 4. Statue on the Liffey in Dublin. 5. Work by street artist JR in support of the dockers of Le Havre, France. 6. The ‘Docker’ by artist Colin Miller, Jersey. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/art-dedicated-dock-workers/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/art-dedicated-dock-workers/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/art-dedicated-dock-workers/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/art-dedicated-dock-workers/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cruise Ship at the Port of Vancouver](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-ship-port-of-vancouver/) **Published:** February 5, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2012-06-16-10.11.24.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Cruise Ship at the Port of Vancouver | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Ship at the Port of Vancouver*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2012* The port of Vancouver (Port Metro Vancouver) is an important cruise shipping turn port for the seasonal Alaskan cruises (June to September) and handled about 805,000 passengers in 2015. The main cruise port is located at the Canada Place facility, which is at the core of the city and can accommodate 3 ships concomitantly. This multi-purpose facility includes a major hotel and a convention center, implying that the pier has other revenue-generating uses outside the cruise season. The city is serviced by a major and well-connected airport and also has substantial touristic amenities. In the above photo, the Princess Cruises (belonging to Carnival Cruises) ship Sapphire Princess, which can carry about 2,600 passengers, is being serviced for an Alaskan cruise. Cruise lines have a quick rotation of their ships, implying that the above ship completed a cruise in the morning and will depart in the evening of the same day, usually for a 7 days cruise. Two tender barges are servicing the ship. The largest is a bunker fuel barge for refueling while the smaller one is a waste barge carrying recyclable and non-recyclable garbage. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-ship-port-of-vancouver/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-ship-port-of-vancouver/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-ship-port-of-vancouver/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-ship-port-of-vancouver/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Number of Cruise Ports managed per Port Authority: The Med (2015)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/number-cruise-ports-managed-port-authority/) **Published:** February 19, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Number-of-Cruise-Ports-operated-by-PA-Med-1.png?resize=900%2C365&ssl=1 "Number-of-Cruise-Ports-operated-by-PA-Med-1 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")![](blob:https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/0580cb62-2f8a-4fef-8cc0-177abd48de36)Number of cruise ports managed per Port Authority: Mediterranean Sea, 2015Source: *MedCruise Fact Finding Report (2015). Piraeus: MedCruis*e. An increasing number of Port Authorities manage today more than one port. An illustrative example is cruise ports in the Meditteranean Sea. A survey conducted by MedCruise in 2015 revealed that 13% of Port Authorities operating the smaller cruise ports in the region, i.e. those hosting less than 80.000 passenger movements per year, are responsible for two ports. The percentage of Port Authorities that are responsible for more than one port increases to 47% in the case of the bigger cruise ports in the region (i.e., those hosting more than >80.000 per year): 21,9% of Port Authorities are responsible for two cruise ports, and 25% for three or more cruise ports. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/number-cruise-ports-managed-port-authority/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/number-cruise-ports-managed-port-authority/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/number-cruise-ports-managed-port-authority/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/number-cruise-ports-managed-port-authority/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Expected Cruise Ports Services & Facilities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/expected-cruise-ports-services-facilities/) **Published:** February 12, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_port_facilities_services.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Expected Cruise Ports Services and Facilities | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Expected Cruise Ports Services and Facilities### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/expected-cruise-ports-services-facilities/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/expected-cruise-ports-services-facilities/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/expected-cruise-ports-services-facilities/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/expected-cruise-ports-services-facilities/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Goods Explosion Model](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/goods-explosion-model/) **Published:** February 9, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/goods_explosion_model2.png?resize=900%2C489&ssl=1 "The Goods Explosion Model | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Goods explosion model*Source: adapted from Meeuse, G.C., (1977), Technologische aspecten van het geïntegreerd transport, Nederlands Vervoerswetenschappelijk Instituut: Rijswijk* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/goods-explosion-model/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/goods-explosion-model/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/goods-explosion-model/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/break-bulk/goods-explosion-model/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Size of Cruise Terminals in North America](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/size-cruise-terminals-north-america/) **Published:** December 18, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Size-of-Cruise-Terminals-in-N.-America.png?resize=881%2C446&ssl=1 "Size of Cruise Terminals in North America | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Size of Cruise Terminals in North AmericaSource: *Port Authorities; various industry reports.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/size-cruise-terminals-north-america/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/size-cruise-terminals-north-america/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/size-cruise-terminals-north-america/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/size-cruise-terminals-north-america/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cruise Ships: Scale of Dimensions and Capacity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-ships-scale-dimensions-capacity/) **Published:** January 12, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_ships_scale_dimension.png?resize=900%2C301&ssl=1 "Scale and Dimension of Cruise Ships | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Ships Scale of Dimension and CapacitySource: *Cheng, Z. Gong L. and Li C. (2020). Design and Practice of Cruise Ports. Singapore: Springer .* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-ships-scale-dimensions-capacity/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-ships-scale-dimensions-capacity/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-ships-scale-dimensions-capacity/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/ports-and-cruise-shipping/cruise-ships-scale-dimensions-capacity/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Coordination Mechanisms and Arrangements in Seaports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/coordination-mechanisms-arrangements-seaports/) **Published:** January 30, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/coordination_mechanisms_seaports.png?resize=900%2C349&ssl=1 "Coordination Mechanisms and Arrangements in Seaports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Coordination Mechanisms and Arrangements in Seaports*Source: adapted from AT Operators.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/coordination-mechanisms-arrangements-seaports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/coordination-mechanisms-arrangements-seaports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/coordination-mechanisms-arrangements-seaports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-cooperation-and-coordination/coordination-mechanisms-arrangements-seaports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Groups of Port Governance Tasks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/groups-port-governance-tasks/) **Published:** March 7, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_governance_tasks.png?resize=900%2C719&ssl=1 "Port Governance Tasks | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Groups of Port Governance TasksWith ports being multifaceted organizations whose functioning depends on numerous functions, port governance involves decisions regarding many different tasks. Each task is related to one of the following six groups of port governance activities: - Port policy formation; - Public authority functions; - Technical management of port areas; - Market and price regulations (including competition); - Management of concession agreements; and - Management of emerging issues; These interlinked tasks might be the responsibility of one or more, public or private, entities operating at the port or another level. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/groups-port-governance-tasks/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/groups-port-governance-tasks/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/groups-port-governance-tasks/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-reform-and-governance/groups-port-governance-tasks/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Terminal Cargo Handling Charges](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/container-terminal-cargo-handling-charges/) **Published:** January 18, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cargo_handling_charges.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Container Terminal: Cargo Handling Charges | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Categories of Container Terminal Cargo Handling Charges### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/container-terminal-cargo-handling-charges/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/container-terminal-cargo-handling-charges/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/container-terminal-cargo-handling-charges/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/container-terminal-cargo-handling-charges/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Strategic Port Planning Process](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/the-strategic-port-planning-process/) **Published:** January 26, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/process_strategic_port_planning2.png?resize=900%2C478&ssl=1 "The Strategic Port Planning Process | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The strategic port planning process### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/the-strategic-port-planning-process/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/the-strategic-port-planning-process/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/the-strategic-port-planning-process/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-planning-and-development/the-strategic-port-planning-process/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Terminal: Service Performance Indicators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/container-terminal-service-performance-indicators/) **Published:** January 26, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/terminal_service_indicatos.png?resize=900%2C293&ssl=1 "Container Terminal: Service Performance Indicators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminal Service Performance Indicators ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/container-terminal-service-performance-indicators/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/container-terminal-service-performance-indicators/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/container-terminal-service-performance-indicators/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/container-terminal-service-performance-indicators/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Terminal Performance: Utilization Indicators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/container-terminal-performance-utilization-indicators/) **Published:** January 26, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/terminal_utilization_indicators.png?resize=900%2C397&ssl=1 "Container Terminal Performance: Utilization Indicators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminal Performance Utilization Indicators### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/container-terminal-performance-utilization-indicators/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/container-terminal-performance-utilization-indicators/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/container-terminal-performance-utilization-indicators/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/container-terminal-performance-utilization-indicators/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Terminal Productivity Indicators](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/container-terminal-productivity-indicators/) **Published:** January 26, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/terminal_productivity_indicators-scaled.png?resize=900%2C466&ssl=1 "Container Terminal Productivity Indicators | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Terminal Productivity Indicators### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/container-terminal-productivity-indicators/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/container-terminal-productivity-indicators/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/container-terminal-productivity-indicators/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/container-terminal-productivity-indicators/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Types of Container Movements at the Terminal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/types-container-movements-terminal/) **Published:** January 26, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_container_movements.png?resize=900%2C351&ssl=1 "Types of Container Movements at the Terminal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Container Movements at the Terminal ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/types-container-movements-terminal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/types-container-movements-terminal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/types-container-movements-terminal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/types-container-movements-terminal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Measurement of Container Terminal Production](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/measurement-container-terminal-production/) **Published:** January 26, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/container_terminal_production2.png?resize=900%2C407&ssl=1 "Measurements of Container Terminal Production | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Measurement of Container Terminal Production ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/measurement-container-terminal-production/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/measurement-container-terminal-production/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/measurement-container-terminal-production/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-efficiency/measurement-container-terminal-production/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Functional Interdependences of a Seaport](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/interaction-port-other-nodes/) **Published:** February 4, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Fig_i_4.png?resize=900%2C840&ssl=1 "Functional Interdependencies of a Seaport | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Functional Interdependences of a SeaportSeaports interact with other nodes such as overseas and neighboring seaports, intermodal terminals, and inland logistics platforms. They rarely operate in isolation from other ports. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/interaction-port-other-nodes/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/interaction-port-other-nodes/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/interaction-port-other-nodes/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/defining-seaports/interaction-port-other-nodes/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Equipment on a coal/iron ore terminal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/equipment-coal-iron-ore-terminal/) **Published:** January 13, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Equipment-bulk-terminal-1.png?resize=900%2C465&ssl=1 "Equipment at a Coal and Iron Ore Terminal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Equipment on a coaliron ore terminal### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/equipment-coal-iron-ore-terminal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/equipment-coal-iron-ore-terminal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/equipment-coal-iron-ore-terminal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/equipment-coal-iron-ore-terminal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Dredging Activities and Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/dredging-activities-and-equipment/) **Published:** January 8, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** - ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Dredging-equipment-1.png?resize=900%2C487&ssl=1 "Main Types of Dredgers | Port Economics, Management and Policy") Most common dredgers > Dredging is the process of underwater excavation of soils and rocks. Dredging is done periodically to remove underwater sediments called silt and debris from shipping harbors, rivers, coastlines, or lakes. There are four phases in the dredging process: excavation, vertical transport, horizontal transport, and placement or use of the dredged material. The main reasons to dredge include: - **Maintenance / increasing navigation channels** – to ensure the safe passage of boats and ships - **Land reclamation** for residential and industrial areas, habitats for birds or wildlife. - **Excavation at underwater foundations** – prior to placement of pipelines or tunnels for underwater infrastructure. - Excavation to remove overlying soil – to reach minerals, gems, precious metals, and fertilizers lying in the sea, river, or lake. - **Environmental dredging** – to prevent contamination and improve water quality to restore the affected marine area. - **Protect the beach** – providing fill materials in the form of sand and rocks to replenish the beach - **Flood control** – improve or manage the flow of the tidal movement in rivers, channels, or natural waterways. - **Maintaining irrigation canals and reservoirs** – conserve the usage of scarce water supplies. The dredged material can vary greatly (peat and organic soils, cobbles, clays, boulders, silts, broken rock, sands, rock and gravels, cemented soils and corals), and dredging depth can vary from a few meters to more than a hundred meters. This implies the right dredging equipment needs to be used: - ***Mechanical dredgers***: backhoe dredger, bucket ladder dredgers and grab - ***Hydraulic dredgers***: trailing suction hopper dredger - ***Hydraulic / mechanical dredgers***: cutter suction dredger - ***Hydrodynamic dredgers***: water injection dredger Trailer Suction Hopper Dredger (Source: Jan De Nul Group) Cutter Suction Dredger (Source: Jan De Nul Group)### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/dredging-activities-and-equipment/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/dredging-activities-and-equipment/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/dredging-activities-and-equipment/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/dredging-activities-and-equipment/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Handling Gear Used at Breakbulk Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/handling-gear-breakbulk/) **Published:** January 16, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Breakbulk-handling-gear-1.png?resize=900%2C490&ssl=1 "Examples of Breakbulk Handling Gear | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples breakbulk handling gear### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/handling-gear-breakbulk/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/handling-gear-breakbulk/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/handling-gear-breakbulk/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/handling-gear-breakbulk/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Lock Operations Principles](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/lock-operations-explained/) **Published:** January 8, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** - ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/How_Canal_and_River_Locks_Work_14121059490.jpg?resize=900%2C814&ssl=1 "Lock Operations | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Lock operations ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/lock-operations-explained/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/lock-operations-explained/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/lock-operations-explained/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-terminal-construction/lock-operations-explained/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Examples of Grain Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/grain-terminals-examples/) **Published:** January 13, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Grain-terminals.png?resize=900%2C623&ssl=1 "Grain-terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of grain terminals### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/grain-terminals-examples/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/grain-terminals-examples/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/grain-terminals-examples/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/bulk-breakbulk-terminal-design-equipment/grain-terminals-examples/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Distribution of Port Dues per Size of Cruise Vessel](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/port-dues-size-cruise-vessel/) **Published:** January 18, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cruise_port_dues.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Distribution of Port Dues per Size of Cruise Vessel | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Distribution of Port Dues per Size of Cruise Vessel### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/port-dues-size-cruise-vessel/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/port-dues-size-cruise-vessel/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/port-dues-size-cruise-vessel/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-pricing/port-dues-size-cruise-vessel/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Options Related to the Splitting and Phasing of a Terminal Site](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/options-splitting-phasing-terminal-site/) **Published:** December 4, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/splitting_phasing_terminal.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Splitting and Phasing of a Terminal Site | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Splitting and phasing of a terminal*Source: Theys, Notteboom, Pallis & De Langen (2009) “The economics behind the awarding of terminals”. in seaports: towards a research agenda.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/options-splitting-phasing-terminal-site/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/options-splitting-phasing-terminal-site/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/options-splitting-phasing-terminal-site/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/options-splitting-phasing-terminal-site/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Phases in Port Terminal Awarding Procedure](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/phases-port-terminals-awarding-procedure/) **Published:** December 4, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/phases_terminal_awarding.png?resize=900%2C304&ssl=1 "Phases in Port Terminal Awarding Procedure | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Phases in Port Terminals Awarding Procedure*Source: Adapted from Theys C., Notteboom T.E., Pallis A.A., & de Langen P.W. (2010). The economics behind the awarding of terminals in seaports: A research agenda. Research in Transport Economics, 27, 10-18.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/phases-port-terminals-awarding-procedure/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/phases-port-terminals-awarding-procedure/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/phases-port-terminals-awarding-procedure/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/phases-port-terminals-awarding-procedure/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Main Types of Public-Private Partnerships](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/characteristics-types-public-private-partnerships/) **Published:** December 4, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/types_public_private_partnerships.png?resize=730%2C317&ssl=1 "Main types of Public-Private Partnerships | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main types of Public Private Partnerships PPP*Source: adapted from Hammami, M., Ruhashyankiko, J.F., & Yehoue, E. (2006). Determinants of public-private partnerships in infrastructure. IMF Working Paper, IMF Institute.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/characteristics-types-public-private-partnerships/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/characteristics-types-public-private-partnerships/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/characteristics-types-public-private-partnerships/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/terminal-concessions-and-land-leases/characteristics-types-public-private-partnerships/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Quay and Yard Equipment Combinations](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/combinations-of-quay-and-yard-equipment/) **Published:** January 11, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Quay-and-yard-equipment-combinations.png?resize=900%2C429&ssl=1 "Quay and Yard Equipment Combinations | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Quay and Yard Equipment Combinations### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/combinations-of-quay-and-yard-equipment/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/combinations-of-quay-and-yard-equipment/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/combinations-of-quay-and-yard-equipment/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/combinations-of-quay-and-yard-equipment/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Insertion of a Satellite Terminal in Port Operations](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/insertion-satellite-terminal-port-operations/) **Published:** December 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/insertion_satellite_terminal.png?resize=900%2C451&ssl=1 "insertion_satellite_terminal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Insertion of a Satellite Terminal in Port OperationsFor many container ports, increasing throughput and terminal productivity have become a challenge, particularly in light of larger containerships placing pressures on port operations around a specific time slot. Thus, the capacity problem may not be in absolute terms, but in terms of throughput. The conventional strategy to address capacity issues mainly involved expanding terminal facilities and purchasing more efficient intermodal equipment, including automation. In many cases, lateral expansion is no longer an option. The amount of truck traffic servicing the terminal is such that significant delays are experienced at the gate and on local access roads. A better maritime / land interface is an important step in improving the throughput, speed, and efficiency of port terminals. The goal is to link directly through a dedicated rail corridor on-dock rail facilities to a nearby [satellite rail terminal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/functions-inland-terminals/ "Functions of Inland Terminals") where containers can be sorted by destination. On one side, the maritime terminal increases its throughput without additional land. On the other side, a satellite terminal facing fewer land constraints is used to sort containerized shipments to their respective inland destinations. A share of the cargo storage and sorting aspect of terminal operations is consequently moved inland. This involves two major modes of operation for the on-dock rail terminal: - **Block Swap**. Full-length trains are assembled at the on-dock facility, consisting of blocks of container cars, each sorted for specific inland destinations. These blocks are then sorted with blocks from other trains at the inland facility to create destination-specific unit trains. The drawback of the approach is that it would require a large rail yard (both at the port and inland terminals) and a lot of shunting and block cars spending more time at the on-dock facility while they are assembled. - **‘No Sort’ Shuttle Trains**. Unsorted full-length trains are assembled at the on-dock rail terminal. All sorting of containers into destination-specific unit trains is performed at the inland facility. It requires the container to be offloaded from the inland facility to other destination-specific trains and also requires additional yard space. The ‘No Sort’ approach could be the most effective dock-wise in terms of throughput and would require transmodal operations at the inland rail facility. In such a setting, the satellite terminal becomes an important component of the system as its role becomes increasingly focused on transmodal (rail to rail) operations. [Transloading](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3074) is also significant, particularly in the North American setting. A maritime container can be picked up at the port terminal and trucked to a distribution center. At the distribution center, the contents of three maritime containers (40 footers) can be transloaded into two domestic containers (53 footers) and then brought to the satellite terminal to be loaded on a freight train. This has the advantage of reducing domestic transportation costs since rail companies charge about the same rate for 40 and 53 footers. This also prevents long-distance movements of maritime empty containers. The “synergy” between the port and the satellite terminal creates a new type of maritime / land interface, which results in a regionalized port. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/insertion-satellite-terminal-port-operations/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/insertion-satellite-terminal-port-operations/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/insertion-satellite-terminal-port-operations/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/insertion-satellite-terminal-port-operations/?share=reddit) - --- ### [On-Dock Rail, Maher Terminal, Newark](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/on-dock-rail-maher-terminal-newark/) **Published:** January 8, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_3876.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "on dock rail | Port Economics, Management and Policy")On Dock Rail Maher Terminal Newark*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2010.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/on-dock-rail-maher-terminal-newark/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/on-dock-rail-maher-terminal-newark/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/on-dock-rail-maher-terminal-newark/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/on-dock-rail-maher-terminal-newark/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Rubber-Tired Gantry Crane](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/rubber-tired-gantry-crane/) **Published:** January 8, 2021 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_1874.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "rubber-tired-gantry | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Rubber Tired Gantry Crane*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2008.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/rubber-tired-gantry-crane/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/rubber-tired-gantry-crane/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/rubber-tired-gantry-crane/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/rubber-tired-gantry-crane/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Double Stacked Containers Carried on the Panama Canal Railway](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/double-stacked-containers-panama-canal-railway/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_1560.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Double Stacked Containers Carried on the Panama Canal Railway | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Double Stacked Containers Carried on the Panama Canal Railway *Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2013.* The [Panama Canal Railway Company](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=433) is operated as a subsidiary of the American railway KCS, which is also involved in Mexico. The 75 km corridor links the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the canal in about an hour and a half. It also offers daily passenger services, but its dominant function is carrying double-stacked containers. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/double-stacked-containers-panama-canal-railway/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/double-stacked-containers-panama-canal-railway/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/double-stacked-containers-panama-canal-railway/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/double-stacked-containers-panama-canal-railway/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Bosporus at Istanbul](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/bosporus-istanbul/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2013-05-09-08.03.01.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Bosporus at Istanbul | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Bosporus at Istanbul*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2013.* The dividing line between Europe and Asia, the link-up between the Mediterranean (Marmara Sea) and the Back Sea, the Bosporus is an ancient valley along a fractured tectonic line. The strait is entirely within Turkey and divides Istanbul in two. It is considered an international shipping lane of free access, but Turkey reserves the rights to close its navigation to other nations. Since the independence of Ukraine in 1991, the strait of Bosporus retook strategic importance for international trade with the adjacent countries in the Black Sea, such as Ukraine and Georgia. This trade notably involves grain and oil. The strait is also intensively used for ferries across Istanbul, a city of more than 13 million people. Three suspension bridges (Bosporus, Fatih Sultan Mehmet, and Yavuz Sultan Selim) crosses the Bosporus, the latest completed in 2016. Since the capacity of the Bosporus is limited and that navigation can be hazardous, there are projects about digging a canal across the peninsula. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/bosporus-istanbul/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/bosporus-istanbul/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/bosporus-istanbul/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/bosporus-istanbul/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Corinthian Canal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/corinthian-canal/) **Published:** December 29, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_0554.jpg?resize=768%2C1024&ssl=1 "The Corinthian Canal | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Corinthian Canal *Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2015.* The Corinthian canal is 6.4 km in length and connects the Ionian and the Aegean seas through the Isthmus of Corinth. The idea of using the short isthmus as a canal can go as far back as the 7th Century BC when a portage road was established. Upon its completion in 1893, the canal soon became obsolete due to its narrowness (21 meters wide; only one ship at a time), its shallowness (8 meters deep), and the limited time savings it confers for long-distance shipping routes. Further, erosion and sedimentation require constant dredging, which adds to operating costs and force the temporary closing of the canal. It is a good example of how quickly changes in ship size and trade patterns can impact the commercial relevance of a canal project. If the canal could have been built in Antiquity, it would have substantially impacted trade flows in the region. However, for contemporary maritime shipping, it offers little or no advantage. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/corinthian-canal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/corinthian-canal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/corinthian-canal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/corinthian-canal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Dardanelles and Bosporus Passages](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/dardanelles-bosporus-passages/) **Published:** December 29, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Bosporus.png?resize=900%2C649&ssl=1 "The Dardanelles and Bosporus Passages | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Dardanelles and Bosporus PassagesThe dividing line between Europe and Asia, the link-up between the Mediterranean and the Back Sea, the Bosporus is an ancient valley along a fractured tectonic line. From the Mediterranean Ocean, it runs through the Dardanelles passage to reach the Sea of Marmara, a small interior sea. Then, the narrow Bosporus passage (1 km at its narrowest point) goes through [Istanbul](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=509) to reach the Black Sea. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/dardanelles-bosporus-passages/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/dardanelles-bosporus-passages/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/dardanelles-bosporus-passages/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/dardanelles-bosporus-passages/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Development of the Suez Canal, 1869-2015](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/development-suez-canal/) **Published:** December 29, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** | | **1869** | **1956** | **1962** | **1980** | **1994** | **1996** | **2001** | **2010** | **2015** | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | Overall Length (km) | 164 | 175 | 175 | 189.8 | 189.8 | 189.8 | 191.3 | 193.3 | 193.3 | | Width at 11m Depth (meters) | 44 | 60 | 90 | 160 | 210 | 210 | 210 | 210 | 317 | | Maximum Draft (feet) | 22 | 35 | 38 | 53 | 56 | 58 | 62 | 62 | 66 | | Doubled Parts (km) | none | 29 | 29 | 78 | 78 | 78 | 79 | 80.5 | 113 | | Water Depth (meters) | 10 | 14 | 15.5 | 19.5 | 20.5 | 21 | 22.5 | 24 | 24 | | Maximum Tonnage (dwt) | 5,000 | 30,000 | 80,000 | 150,000 | 180,000 | 185,000 | 210,000 | 210,000 | 240,000 | *Source: Suez Canal Authority.* In more than 140 years of operation, the Suez Canal has been expended to increase its operational capacity, which allows for ships of up to 240,000 dwt. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/development-suez-canal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/development-suez-canal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/development-suez-canal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/development-suez-canal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Challenges to the Expansion of the Panama Canal](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/challenges-expansion-panama-canal/) **Published:** December 29, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** | **Issue** | **Challenge** | |---|---| | **Aggregate demand** | Potential shift in demand growth patterns | | **Maritime shipping costs** | Higher shipping costs and slow steaming; Tolls taking a large share of the benefits of economies of scale | | **Economies of scale** | Less ship calls and traffic concentration | | **Transshipment hubs** | Changes in the transshipment dynamics (hub concentration); “Funnel effect” towards Panama | | **West Coast ports** | Improved competitiveness of West Coast ports through better hinterland access | | **Railways** | Improved competitiveness of North American rail corridors; Emerging dichotomy between East Coast and West Coast railways | | **Gateways** | New points of entry to service markets (e.g. Lazaro Cardenas, Prince Rupert) | | **Suez Canal** | Increasing competitiveness of the Suez Route; Potential of the Cape Route | | **Global sourcing** | Changes in sourcing strategies (e.g. near sourcing) | *Source: Adapted from Rodrigue, J-P (2010) Factors Impacting North American Freight Distribution in View of the Panama Canal Expansion, The Van Horne Institute, University of Calgary.* In the early 2010s, the expansion of the Panama Canal brought forward expectations about traffic growth and trade opportunities within Latin America as well as the US East Coast. Yet, these expectations were mitigated by the following commercial challenges: - **Lower aggregate demand**. A common misconception is the belief that the expansion of the Panama Canal generated additional trade. Global container throughput will eventually level off in mature markets such as Europe and North America, implying less demand for maritime transportation or at least less growth opportunities. This trend is much less salient in Latin America where the potential for substantial growth remains. The rebalancing of this growth will impact the shipping routes using the Panama Canal. - **Maritime shipping costs**. Since the choice of routing options is dependent on comparative costs, two factors influence the selection of the Panama Canal route as an option. The first is fuel (bunker) prices and slow steaming. Higher prices incite maritime shipping companies to reconsider routing options, network configuration and the type of ships used. The second cost variable concerns tolls levied on cargo (containers) transiting through the Panama Canal. The expansion of the Panama Canal came with substantial capital investments that need to be recovered through tolls. This creates a conundrum since higher tolls undermine the attractiveness of the Panama Canal as a routing option. - **Economies of scale**. The new locks of the Panama Canal were designed to accommodate a new ship class (New Panamax) of around 12,500 TEUs, expanding economies of scale on routes that were previously limited to 4,200 TEUs (Panamax ships). There are also operational limits to economies of scale as larger ships put additional pressures on port and inland infrastructure. For instance, many East Coast ports have undertaken [infrastructure expansion and dredging projects](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=554) with the expectation that the expansion would involve calls by much larger ships. Although economies of scale convey benefits to maritime shipping, they are less advantageous from a supply chain perspective. Larger ships usually involves less frequent services, which can be disruptive for supply chain management with more cargo needing to be handled during port calls. - **Transshipment hubs**. The expansion is impacting the transshipment dynamics in the [region](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3592). Bigger ships have a lower tolerance to deviation from main shipping routes, which have incited a greater role for ports in the [Caribbean side of Panama](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=428) and in the vicinity (e.g. Cartagena) to capture additional transshipment traffic (the “funnel effect”). - **Competition from West Coast ports**. The Panama Canal route (all-water route) is competing with ports along the American West Coast to access some North American markets, including the East Coast ([landbridge versus all-water routes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=425)) and the Midwest. West Coast ports are implementing various strategies to improve their competitiveness with a revision of their fares, rules and connectivity with their hinterlands. A particular emphasis is placed on hinterland access regimes as a strategy to improve the cost, quality and reliability of the West Coast as well as to secure traffic outside their fundamental hinterlands. - **North American rail competition**. In light of the previous point, railways, particularly those servicing the West Coast (BNSF and UP), are also implementing strategies to improve their competitiveness for the landbridge market. For instance, in recent years many railways committed substantial capital investments to improve long distance corridors. The outcome has been a more efficient maritime / land interface along the West Coast. On East Coast (NS and CSX) as a growth of the all-water route traffic may is benefiting inland services calling from the East and Gulf coast ports. For instance, NS completed in 2010 the double-tracking and double-stacking of a rail corridor between Hampton Roads, Virginia and Columbus, Ohio; labeled the Heartland Corridor. - **New gateways**. Gateways are major freight platforms that coordinate freight distribution over vast markets. The development of the [Savannah gateway](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=8490) has been a notable driver of traffic growth through the all-water route. Two new port gateways are also emerging, both with the support of major rail operators. In Canada, Prince Rupert capitalizes on shorter transpacific distances and a dedicated and uncongested CN rail corridor to Chicago. In Mexico, Lazaro Cardenas with a rail corridor operated by KCS up to Kansas City (and through the major market of Mexico City), offers a new corridor to access the United States. In 2019, CN announced in collaboration with HPH the development of a new container terminal in Quebec City, offering an additional option to access the North American market. Thus, the role of gateways in coordinating freight distribution influence the routes selected to access markets. - **Suez Canal option**. The usage of the Suez Canal as a routing option to service East Coast ports has increased in the last decade, particularly with the growth of transshipment activities around the Mediterranean basin as well as shift in sourcing towards South and Southeast Asia. Mediterranean transshipment hubs offer additional opportunities to consolidate Asian and European cargo and employ larger ships. The Cape Route option is also an alternative to connect to Asian markets, particularly for Brazil and Argentina. - **Global sourcing**. A substantial share of the growth in global trade over the last decades was based upon global comparative advantages, particularly labor in Asia, through outsourcing and offshoring. This has favored the growth of Transpacific trade as well as the use of the Panama Canal to access the American East Coast. The rise in labor costs and automation is mitigating this process and incite supply chain managers to consider closer sourcing alternatives, such as in Latin America, or even sourcing back to the United States. The outcome would be a more regionalized production system (near sourcing) that relies less on long distance shipping. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/challenges-expansion-panama-canal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/challenges-expansion-panama-canal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/challenges-expansion-panama-canal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/challenges-expansion-panama-canal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Terms Used to Define Inland Nodes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/terms-define-inland-nodes/) **Published:** December 31, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** | **Term** | **Definition** | **Source** | |---|---|---| | Inland Clearance Deport | A common-user inland facility, with public authority status, equipped with fixed installation, and offering services for handling and temporary storage of any kind of goods (including container) carried under customs transit by any applicable mode of inland surface transport, placed under customs control to clear goods for home use, warehousing, temporary admission, re-export, temporary storage for onward transit, and outright export. | UNECE (1998), see also Roso (2005), Jarzemskis and Vasiliauskas (2007), Roso et al (2009) | | Inland Container Depot | A common user facility with public authority status, equipped with fixed installations and offering services for handling and temporary storage of import/export stuffed and empty containers. | Roso (2005), Jarzemskis and Vasiliauskas (2007), Roso et al (2009) | | Intermodal Freight Center | A concentration of economic independent companies working in freight transport and supplementing services on a designated area where a change of transport units between traffic modes can take place. | Cardebring and Warnecke (1995), Roso et al (2009) | | Inland Freight Terminal | Any facility, other than a seaport or an airport, operated on a common-user basis, at which cargo in international trade is received or dispatched. | UNECE (1998), see also Jarzemskis & Vasiliauskas (2007), Roso et al (2009) | | Inland Port | An inland port is located inland, generally far from seaport terminals. It supplies regions with an intermodal terminal or a merging point for traffic modes – rail, air, and truck routes – involved in distributing merchandise that comes from seaports. An inland port usually provides international logistics and distribution services, including freight forwarding, customs brokerages, integrated logistics, and information systems. | Economic Commission for Europe (2001), see also Jarzemskis and Vasiliauskas (2007), Roso et al (2009) | | Dry Port | A dry port is an inland intermodal terminal directly connected to seaport(s) with high capacity transport mean(s), where customers can leave/pick up their standardized units as if directly to a seaport. Alternatively, a dry port can be understood as an inland setting with cargo-handling facilities to allow several functions to be carried out, for example, consolidation and distribution, temporary storage, custom clearance, connection between transport modes, allowing agglomeration of institutions (both private and public) which facilitates the interactions between different stakeholders along the supply chain. | Leveque and Roso (2002), Roso (2005), Roso et al (2009), Ng and Gujar (2009) | | Freight Village | An integrated logistic zone including distribution centers and support activities such as hotels, office space and restaurants. It does not require an adjacent intermodal terminal, but this terminal is commonly in vicinity. | Europlatforms | | Transport Terminal | Type of terminal almost exclusively aimed at transshipping continental freight. There is almost no collection and distribution in the region where the terminal is located. The freight arrives at and departs from the terminal in huge flows. The terminal is characterized by large areas that enable direct transshipment between trains and/or barges. The corresponding bundling model is the hub-and-spoke network. | Wiegmans et al (1999) | | Distribution Terminal | At this terminal value added is created in the form of an extra service provided by the terminal operator. From location A, B, and C continental freight arrives at the terminal and is consolidated into shipments for customers X, Y, and Z. One or more terminal services is added by the terminal operator to the shipments at the terminal. The corresponding bundling model is line network. | Wiegmans et al (1999) | | Hinterland Terminal | Small continental cargo shipments are brought to the hinterland terminal and consolidated into bigger freight flows. These bigger freight flows are further transported by larger transport means such as trains or barges. The corresponding bundling model is the trunk line with a collection and distribution network. | Wiegmans et al (1999) | | Satellite Terminal | Facility located at a peripheral and less congested site that often performs activities that have become too expensive or space consuming for the maritime terminal, such as empty container depots. Rail satellite terminals can be linked to maritime terminals through rail shuttle or truck drayage (more common) services. | Slack (1999) | There is a wide variety of terms that have been used to refer to inland freight facilities both in the academic and commercial literature. For instance, nodes in the hinterland networks of ports have been referred to as dry ports, inland terminals, inland ports, freight villages, inland hubs, inland logistics centers, inland freight villages, etc. The reason for this diversity lies in the multiple shapes, governance, functions, stakeholders, and network positions these nodes can have. Thus, there is no consensus on the terminology to be used to describe such facilities, but the terms dry port and inland port have become the most prevalent. - Cardebring, P.W. and C. Warnecke, C. (1995) Combi-terminal and Intermodal Freight Centre Development. KFB-Swedish Transport and Communication Research Board, Stockholm. - Jarzemskis, A. and A.V. Vasiliauskas (2007) “Research on dry port concept as intermodal node”, Transport, 22(3), pp. 207-213. - Ng, A., and G. C. Gujar (2009), “The spatial characteristics of inland transport hubs: evidences from Southern India”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 346-356. - Slack, B. (1999) “Satellite terminals: a local solution to hub congestion?”, Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 7, pp. 241-246. - Roso, V. (2005) “The dry port concept: applications in Sweden”, Proceedings of Logistics Research Network, Plymouth: International Logistics and Supply Chain Management. - Roso, V., J. Woxenius and K. Lumsden (2009) “The dry port concept: connecting container seaports with the hinterland”, Journal of Transport Geography, 17(5), 338-345. - UN ECE, (1998) UN/LOCODE – Code for Ports and other Locations, Recommendation 16, Geneva. - Wiegmans, B., E. Masurel and P. Nijkamp (1999) “Intermodal Freight Terminals: an Analysis of the Terminal Market”, Transportation Planning and Technology, 23, 105-128. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/terms-define-inland-nodes/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/terms-define-inland-nodes/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/terms-define-inland-nodes/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/terms-define-inland-nodes/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Automated Guided Vehicles and Automated Stacking Cranes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/automated-guided-vehicles-automated-stacking-cranes-long-beach-container-terminal/) **Published:** January 6, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-10-18-13.53.03.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "Automated Guided Vehicles and Automated Stacking Cranes, Long Beach Container Terminal (LBCT) | Port Economics, Management and Policy")*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2019. Location: Long Beach Container Terminal (LBCT).* An important component of container terminal automation concerns horizontal movements, which includes flows between the docks and the stacking yards. Automated Guided Vehicles (AGV) are able to carry containers between dockside and the stacking yards using various sensors and positioning systems to properly navigate. They are almost exclusively electric with a charge of about 6 to 8 hours and a power down mode when not in use. Charging is usually achieved by swapping their batteries with a charged pack, while the uncharged pack is being recharged. Automated Stacking Cranes (ASC) are able to automatically load containers from both ends of the stacking yard. On the quayside, containers can be brought and retrieved by AGVs while on the gate side they are usually brought and retrieved by chassis and trucks. Each stacking yard contains at least two ASC; one for quayside operations and the other for gate side operations. During low activity cycles, such as nighttime, ASCs usually reposition containers in light of the anticipated activity, such as an inbound ship to be loaded with a series of containers that are easier to retrieve sequentially. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/automated-guided-vehicles-automated-stacking-cranes-long-beach-container-terminal/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/automated-guided-vehicles-automated-stacking-cranes-long-beach-container-terminal/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/automated-guided-vehicles-automated-stacking-cranes-long-beach-container-terminal/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/automated-guided-vehicles-automated-stacking-cranes-long-beach-container-terminal/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Remote Verification of Container Identification at a Port Terminal Gate](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/remote-verification-container-identification-port-terminal-gate/) **Published:** January 6, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2018-11-12-122358-1.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "Remote Verification of Container Identification at a Port Terminal Gate | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Remote Verification of Container Identification at a Port Terminal Gate*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2018.* The verification of the container identification code is done at the entry and/or exit of a terminal gate. The process uses the [Container Identification System](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2675) to ensure that the right container gets picked up or delivered. In the above photo, a manager operates a verification station at the gate of a container port terminal in Colon, Panama (Manzanillo International Terminal). The remotely controlled closed-circuit video feed on the left side displays the Container Identification Code, which is a zoom of the upper right side of the back of the container. The same screen displays bill of lading information related to this container. The left screen displays mainly the yard storage allocation for the inbound containers. The operator also has an intercom to communicate with the truck driver waiting at the gate. In recent years, the verification technology has improved notably through optical character recognition, implying that the container identification code is read electronically. The operator ensures that the sequence has been read without error, which requires the intervention of an operator only if there is an error or mismatch. There was also a convergence with the video feed, the information system, and the intercom as part of the same computer system (digital audio and video). Eventually, RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) may remove the need to read the container identification code visually. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/remote-verification-container-identification-port-terminal-gate/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/remote-verification-container-identification-port-terminal-gate/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/remote-verification-container-identification-port-terminal-gate/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/terminal-automation/remote-verification-container-identification-port-terminal-gate/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Share of Refrigerated Transport Capacity in Maritime Shipping, 1980-2017](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/share-refrigerated-transport-capacity-maritime-shipping/) **Published:** January 14, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/refrigirated_maritime_capacity.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "refrigirated_maritime_capacity | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Share of Refrigerated Transport Capacity in Maritime Shipping 1980 2017*Source: Adapted from Drewry Shipping Consultants.* The maritime transport of refrigerated goods has experienced a paradigm shift in recent decades. While in 1980 33% of the refrigerated transport capacity in maritime shipping was containerized, this share rapidly climbed to 47% in 1990, 68% in 2000 and 72% in 2013. This implies that the traditional refrigerated ships have been replaced by reefers using conventional container ships, the majority of which have power outlets able to accommodate reefers. Also, [small specialized container reefer ships](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2659) have also been designed to carry reefers in high demand markets, particularly for produce and fruits. These ships are of smaller sizes, around 500 and 1,800 TEUs that have the advantage of offering point to point services at a high speed. Such a shift is also indicative of the change of ports of call as the refrigerated trade, such as the [banana trade](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=6619), usually services smaller specialized ports. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/share-refrigerated-transport-capacity-maritime-shipping/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/share-refrigerated-transport-capacity-maritime-shipping/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/share-refrigerated-transport-capacity-maritime-shipping/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/share-refrigerated-transport-capacity-maritime-shipping/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Reefer Slots Available at North American Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/reefer-slots-available-north-american-ports/) **Published:** January 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-US-Reefer-Slots.png?resize=900%2C650&ssl=1 "Map US Reefer Slots | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Reefer Slots Available at North American Ports*Source: Web sites of port authorities and terminal operators.* In North America two main trends impact the availability of reefer slots by port: - For the major container ports such as Los Angeles / Long Beach, Seattle, Vancouver, Houston, Savannah and New York, the number of reefer slots is proportional to the amount of container traffic. This implies that the reefer business is a part of their function as commercial gateways to the North American market. - There are a number of smaller ports that are offering a larger number of reefer slots in relation to their total containerized traffic. This implies a level of specialization in the reefer business, either for exports (Oakland, Jacksonville, Halifax) of for imports (Wilmington, Port Everglades, Philadelphia, Hueneme). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/reefer-slots-available-north-american-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/reefer-slots-available-north-american-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/reefer-slots-available-north-american-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/reefer-slots-available-north-american-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Examples of waterfront redevelopment in European port cities](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/waterfront-redevelopment-european-port-cities/) **Published:** February 4, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/waterfront-redevelopment.png?resize=900%2C658&ssl=1 "Examples of Waterfront Redevelopment Projects in Europe | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Examples of Waterfront Redevelopment Projects in EuropeSome European examples of dockland and riverfront redevelopment 1 – Genoa (Porto Antico), 2 – Hamburg (HafenCity), 3 – London (Docklands), 4 – Lisbon (Parque das Nações), 5 – Valencia, 6 – Marseilles (Euroméditerranée), 7 – Rotterdam (Kop van Zuid), 8 – Antwerp (‘t Eilandje) ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/waterfront-redevelopment-european-port-cities/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/waterfront-redevelopment-european-port-cities/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/waterfront-redevelopment-european-port-cities/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/waterfront-redevelopment-european-port-cities/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Examples of wind farms and gas terminals in seaport areas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/wind-farms-gas-terminals-seaport-areas/) **Published:** February 4, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![Examples of windfarms and gas terninals in ports](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Windfarms.png?resize=900%2C372&ssl=1 "Examples of Windfarms and Gas Terminals in Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")*1 to 4 – Examples of wind farms in seaport areas*: *1 – Karuhsaari, Finland, 2 – slufterdam in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, 3 – Zeebrugge, Belgium, 4 – Blyth Harbour, UK* *5 – Gas terminals in the port of Zeebrugge, Belgium (source Fluxys)*: *LNG terminal in outer harbour for LNG ships, terminals for pipelines Zeepipe (from Norway’s Troll and Sleipner gas fields)* *and Interconnector (to/from Bacton, UK) and peak shaving installation* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/wind-farms-gas-terminals-seaport-areas/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/wind-farms-gas-terminals-seaport-areas/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/wind-farms-gas-terminals-seaport-areas/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-social-and-environmental-value/wind-farms-gas-terminals-seaport-areas/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cruise Ships at the Port of Barcelona](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-ships-port-of-barcelona/) **Published:** February 5, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_3861-1.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Cruise Ships at the Port of Barcelona | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cruise Ships at the Port of Barcelona*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2011.* The port of Barcelona on the Mediterranean coast of Spain is the most important cruise shipping hub of the Mediterranean and the second most important in the world after Miami. In 2010, it handled around 2.35 million passengers with the months between April and October being the busiest (summer peak season). The cruise ship depicted on this photo is the MSC Splendida, that entered service in 2009 with a capacity of 3,900 passengers and a crew of 1,300. The cruise ship in the back is being refueled by a port-based tanker. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-ships-port-of-barcelona/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-ships-port-of-barcelona/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-ships-port-of-barcelona/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-ships-port-of-barcelona/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Large Ships in Small Places, Chios, Greece](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/large-ships-small-places-chios-greece/) **Published:** February 5, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_0509.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "IMG_0509 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Large Ships in Small Places Chios Greece*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2015.* Cruise ships are often calling relatively small ports since they represent attractive venues in the cruise experience; a sense of exclusiveness. However, depending on the local amenities, such as docks, they can have disruptive impacts on local communities. The above cruise ship, the Celestyal Crystal, is docked at the port of Chios, an island in the Aegean Sea in Greece. The town has a population of about 32,000. Initially used as a ferry, the ship was rebuilt in 1992 as a full-fledged 1000 passengers cruise ship. Although this cruise ship is relatively small, the docking facilities are directly adjacent to the main commercial street. To ensure a safe boarding and onboarding, one street lane has to be closed, impeding local circulation. However, such impacts are minor compared with what communities such as Venice and Santorini are facing since they have several cruise ships docked (or anchored) at once. The thousands of daily cruise passengers are placing acute pressures on the touristic amenities of these high profile destinations. Two days after the above photo was taken, the Celestyal Crystal collided with a tanker off the coast of Gallipoli in Turkey. No injuries were reported and the ship was slightly damaged at the bow. This incident underlines navigation difficulties due to congestion in the Bosporus Strait. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/large-ships-small-places-chios-greece/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/large-ships-small-places-chios-greece/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/large-ships-small-places-chios-greece/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/large-ships-small-places-chios-greece/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Selection Factors for a Transshipment Hub](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/selection-factors-transshipment-hub/) **Published:** February 7, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/selection_factors_transshipment_hub.png?resize=900%2C527&ssl=1 "Selection Factors for a Transshipment Hub | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Selection Factors for a Transshipment HubSequential port call services can be partially replaced through the insertion of an intermediate hub (also known as a transshipment hub). These hubs usually have several advantages inciting maritime shipping companies to configure their service network, namely with interlining and hub-and-spoke configurations. The selection of a port to act as a transshipment hub is based on a set of considerations: - **Location**. Many intermediate hubs have emerged on island locations or on locations without a significant local hinterland to fulfill the role of intermediacy within global maritime networks. They are close to points of convergence of maritime shipping routes ([low deviation](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2122)) where traffic bound to different routes can be transloaded. This is known as a relay function. Intermediate hubs tend to be located nearby major bottlenecks in global maritime networks (Strait of Malacca, Mediterranean or the Caribbean) as they take advantage of the convergence effect with a minimal deviation from shipping routes. For ports that specialize in transshipment limited inland investments are required since most of the cargo is transshipped from ship to ship with temporary warehousing at the port facilities. The footprint such transshipment hub terminals have on the local or regional transport system is thus limited. In addition, the terminal operator does not have to wait for local/regional transport agencies to provide better accessibility to the terminal, which is often a source of conflict between the port and the city/region. In other cases, the transshipment hub can also benefit from being able to handle a significant share of local cargo. The confers the advantage to shipping lines of being able to combine the benefits of using the transshipment hub to access feeder and relay services as well as with the benefit of a local cargo base. - **Infrastructure**. Transshipment hubs tend to have greater depth since they were built recently in view to accommodate modern containership drafts, placing them at a technical advantage over many older ports with more constraining settings. Their selection often involves the consideration of growing containership drafts and the future capacity, in terms of transshipment and warehousing, of the hub to accommodate such growth. About 13.5 meters (45 feet) is considered a minimal requirement to be an effective deepsea transshipment hub. The sites of intermediate hub terminals tend to be less crowded and outside the traditional coastal areas that have seen a large accumulation of economic activities. This is supportive in the setting of large yard areas that are important to accommodate transshipment activities since few containers are leaving the terminal. They often have land for future expansion, which is a positive factor to help to secure existing and future traffic. - **Operations**. Since transshipment is an activity that does not add any value to the cargo, costs and productivity factors are highly important. Operation costs for transshipment hubs in developing countries tend to be lower, in part due to lower labor costs, particularly if it concerns a new terminal facility. Transshipment costs of $100 per box are considered to be within an acceptable range. Costs below $100 improve the competitiveness of the transshipment hub. Ships tend to spend as little time as possible at the hub (turnaround time), thus the necessity of a high level of productivity for the terminal equipment. An average of 35-40 moves per hour per crane is considered a desired level of productivity, but standards are aiming towards 60 moves. Most terminals are owned (concessioned), in whole or in part, by a global terminal operator (often a single one) which are efficiently using these facilities and have leeway in deciding future terminal developments. Transshipment hubs are avoiding a governance legacy of public port authorities. They thus tend to be responsive and adaptable to market changes. Since the transshipment business remains highly volatile, transshipment hubs can eventually develop services that add value to the cargo instead of simply moving containers between vessels. This strategy could trigger the creation of logistics zones within or in the vicinity of the port area, in many cases implemented as a Free Trade Zone. This potential capture of added value can help improve the competitiveness of a transshipment hub in view of a general footlessness of transshipment traffic. Not all port systems feature transshipment hub development. In the United States, shipping regulations gravitating around the Jones Act have favored a process of port system development with limited (feeder) services between US ports and the absence of US-based transshipment hubs (Freeport in the Caribbean to a limited extent takes up this role). Instead, the US port systems at the east and west coast are characterized by a strong inland orientation supported by extensive double-stack rail services, local and long-distance trucking and limited barging. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/selection-factors-transshipment-hub/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/selection-factors-transshipment-hub/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/selection-factors-transshipment-hub/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/selection-factors-transshipment-hub/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Levels of Transshipment Incidence](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/levels-transshipment-incidence/) **Published:** February 7, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/levels_transshipment_incidence.png?resize=900%2C587&ssl=1 "Levels of Transshipment Incidence | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Levels of Transshipment IncidenceTransshipment incidence refers to the share container transshipment traffic (ship to ship) takes in regard to the total volume handled by a port. This share can be classified into four levels: - **Gateway or feeder port (low incidence)**. Transshipment incidence is less than 10%, which implies that the majority of the port activities are related to hinterland services. In the case of a gateway, we are dealing with a large port servicing an extensive hinterland. A feeder is usually a small port servicing its hinterland, but having the bulk of its traffic related to a transshipment hub. New York, Los Angeles and Felixstowe are examples of gateways having very little transshipment. Many smaller ports in the Baltic or the Caribbean are feeder ports that can access global shipping networks through a transshipment hub. - **Regional gateway (average incidence)**. With a transshipment incidence around 25% regional gateways handle a substantial amount of hinterland traffic, but also act as a low level transshipment hub for a specific transshipment market. Antwerp, Rotterdam, Hamburg and Hong Kong are examples of regional gateways that are at the same time servicing extensive hinterlands but also performing a regional transshipment function (Baltic and British Isles for Antwerp, Rotterdam and Hamburg and the Pearl River Delta for Hong Kong). - **Hub port (high incidence)**. With a transshipment incidence around 50%, the port takes the function of a transshipment hub, but is also servicing an hinterland. Such ports usually became hubs after maritime shipping companies made the decision to use them as such. In many cases, the hinterland traffic acts as an anchor to transshipment traffic. Valencia, Barcelona and Cartagena are ports that are significant transshipment hubs as well as servicing their respective hinterlands. - **Pure transshipment hub (very high incidence)**. Once a port has more than 90% of its traffic assumed by transshipment, it is labeled as a pure transshipment hub since transshipment is an exclusive function. Ports such as Singapore, Tanjung Pelepas, Colombo and Balboa are among the world’s most prominent pure transshipment hubs. Many were built for this sole purpose in mind. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/levels-transshipment-incidence/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/levels-transshipment-incidence/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/levels-transshipment-incidence/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/levels-transshipment-incidence/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Slow steaming in container shipping](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/slow-steaming-container-shipping/) **Published:** February 10, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** Since 2007, shipping lines started to implement slow steaming by reducing their vessels’ commercial speed from 22-23 knots to 18 knots or even slower (the so-called super slow steaming). Slow steaming was initially used to realize fuel cost savings in a period when the bunker price was rising fast. For example, the fuel cost per ton of IFO380 in Rotterdam increased from USD 220 in January 2007 to a peak of more than USD 700 in mid-July 2008. After the start of the economic and financial crisis, bunker prices dropped to less than USD 200 per ton in December 2008 and then fluctuated between USD 400 and 700 in the period 2010-2019. Today, slow steaming is not only a way to reduce ship operating costs, but it has also become a way to absorb vessel overcapacity in the market and to reduce ship emissions. Slow steaming has become common practice on the main trade routes. Container lines have no plans to speed up ships despite the call of shippers for shorter transit times. The question arises whether existing shipping lines will ever consider offering faster shipping services with a smaller vessel capacity than the ships currently sailing between Asia and Europe, but at the same time offering a much faster transit time, at higher schedule reliability, and, unavoidably, a higher freight rate. Such a service could target volume-based high-value and time-sensitive cargo. It is highly unlikely the major container carriers will fill this gap in the foreseeable future. They are busy controlling costs by focusing on scale and trying to improve schedule reliability. If the gap is ever to be filled, the initiative will most likely come from outsiders, not active in the large-scale container business today. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/slow-steaming-container-shipping/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/slow-steaming-container-shipping/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/slow-steaming-container-shipping/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/slow-steaming-container-shipping/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Ports of Los Angeles / Long Beach, Inland Flows](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/ports-los-angeles-long-beach-inland-flows/) **Published:** March 6, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_la_lb_inland_flows.png?resize=900%2C455&ssl=1 "port_la_lb_inland_flows | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ports of Los Angeles Long Beach Inland Flows *Source: adapted from M. Rahimi, A. Asef-Vaziri and R. Harrison (2008) “An Inland Port Location-Allocation Model for a Regional Intermodal Goods Movement System”, Maritime Economics & Logistics, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 362-379.* The challenges of connecting a port to its hinterland are particularly acute for large gateways such as the Los Angeles / Long Beach port cluster. About 68% of the traffic is bound to long-distance inland locations. In particular, local congestion and constraints for infrastructure expansion incite mitigation strategies that must consider where the cargo is bound to, but also its logistics. For Los Angeles and Long Beach, there are two main options in the routing of inland flows: - **Rail option**. Maritime containers are brought to an intermodal railyard and placed on a unit train. This can be done directly within the maritime terminal where containers are brought to an on-dock rail yard. Alternatively, maritime containers can be drayed to a near dock or and off-dock rail yard. The containers thus enter the local road system with the ensuing externalities (noise, particulates). To mitigate this issue, the [Alameda corridor](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=2017), a 20 miles (32 km) rail corridor linking the port cluster to the major rail yards of BNSF and UP near downtown, was opened in 2002. - **Transloading option**. Mainly because of container leasing agreements and a larger inland transportation load unit in North America (the 53-foot domestic container) a significant amount of [transloading activity](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=3074) takes place in the vicinity of the port cluster. Maritime containers are brought to a distribution center (transload center) where the contents of three maritime containers are transloaded into two domestic containers. The maritime containers are then brought back to the port terminals. The domestic containers can either be trucked to their final destination or brought to a rail terminal to be loaded for an inland bound train (e.g. Kansas City or Chicago). In 2009, about 45% of the containers imported through Los Angeles / Long Beach were transloaded into domestic containers. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/ports-los-angeles-long-beach-inland-flows/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/ports-los-angeles-long-beach-inland-flows/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/ports-los-angeles-long-beach-inland-flows/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/ports-los-angeles-long-beach-inland-flows/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Factors behind the Congestion of San Pedro Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/factors-congestion-san-pedro-ports/) **Published:** March 6, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/congestion_san_pedro.png?resize=900%2C376&ssl=1 "congestion_san_pedro | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Factors behind the Congestion of San Pedro PortsThe congestion was exacerbated by the difficult renegotiation of the ILWU west coast longshore contract that expired on July 1, 2014, and the shift in chassis ownership from the ocean carriers to leasing companies. The use of larger containerships by the ocean carrier alliances meant large volumes of containers were being discharged from one vessel. Handling such a large volume of cargo strained the operating efficiencies of the terminals at a time when insufficient chassis were available for truckers to use to remove containers from the terminals. The inability to retrieve the cargo in a timely manner increased the container dwell time in the terminal, further increasing terminal congestion. Many shippers had demurrage charges imposed on their cargo because of their inability to get the cargo removed from the terminal and truckers were frustrated with long delays. This combination of circumstances undermined the reputation of Los Angeles and Long Beach at a critical time as other gateways aggressively were competing to divert cargo away from the US west coast. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/factors-congestion-san-pedro-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/factors-congestion-san-pedro-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/factors-congestion-san-pedro-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/factors-congestion-san-pedro-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Truck Turn Times, San Pedro Ports, 2015](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/truck-turn-times-san-pedro-ports/) **Published:** March 6, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/truck_turn_times_san_pedro.png?resize=786%2C366&ssl=1 "truck_turn_times_san_pedro | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Truck Turn Times San Pedro Ports 2015*Source: Harbor Trucking Association.* The left graph of the above figure shows the average and median truck turn time in minutes across all the 13 container terminals in the ports for the months March through October 2015. The right graph provides the percentage of moves for less than one hour, between one and two hours and over two hours averages over all terminals for the same months. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/truck-turn-times-san-pedro-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/truck-turn-times-san-pedro-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/truck-turn-times-san-pedro-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/competition-between-ports-of-los-angeles-long-beach/truck-turn-times-san-pedro-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Transit Times from Shanghai and North American Routing Options (in Days)](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/transit-times-shanghai-north-american-routing-options/) **Published:** March 7, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/routing_na_landbridge.png?resize=900%2C769&ssl=1 "routing_na_landbridge | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Transit Times from Shanghai and North American Routing Options in Days*Source: adapted from G. Arnold (2009) “Global Supply Chain Trends and the Impact on North American Distribution Markets”, Talking Freight Seminar, US Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration.* Containerized transportation in North America is facing changes that are impacting the volume, the usage of gateways and intermodal options to service the hinterland. Initially, the growth of the transpacific trade had negative impacts on the market share of East Coast ports since the development of Asian outbound logistic chains and the efficiency of intermodal rail favored the use of West Coast ports to service the North American hinterland. However, several emerging trends are shifting this equilibrium: - **Routing options**. For transpacific trade, there are several routing options to service the East Coast, from the landbridge to all-water routes through Panama or the Suez Canals. The intermodal option takes about 18 to 20 days to link Shanghai to Chicago, including 13 to 14 days of maritime shipping and 5 days of rail. A few uncertainties have emerged about the capacity and reliability of landbridge corridors, notably congestion and port and rail labor issues. For supply chains, reliability is commonly a factor as important as time and cost. Supply chains can accommodate longer transit times through warehousing and frequency adjustments, but unreliability is more difficult to cope with. While the all-water route from Shanghai to New York would take about 26 days, the intermodal option would take 22 days while using the Suez Canal would take about 28 days. - **New routing options**. In addition to existing options, two new options to access the North American inland market have come online; Prince Rupert (supported by CN) and Lazaro Cardenas (supported by KCS). From a transit time point of view, the Prince Rupert option appears advantageous, taking about 16 days to reach Chicago along an uncongested rail corridor, entirely controlled by CN. The Lazaro Cardenas option is also attractive because of its proximity to the commercial trade of the South American west coast (e.g. Chile, Peru) and as a gateway to Mexico City and the American heartland through Laredo and Kansas City. KCS has made substantial investments with new intermodal yards at Lazaro Cardenas and in Kansas City. - **Decline in the intermodal share**. There has been a significant drop in the share of intermodal rail servicing the East Coast to the advantage of the Panama Canal route (all-water route). In 1999, intermodal rail accounted for 86% of the container traffic between Northeast Asia (China, Japan, and Korea) and the East Coast, while the Panama and Suez canal routes respectively accounted for 11% and 3% of total container traffic. In 2010, the share of intermodal rail dropped to 30%, while Panama and Suez all-water routes accounted for 45% and 25% of the total traffic. By 2017, the share of intermodal rail dropped further to 22% while the share of the Suez Route increased to 33% of all container trade. The main factor behind this radical shift was that transpacific trade growth made direct all-water services more attractive from economies of scale and frequency of services perspective. There is enough volume to justify inter-range services between a variety of Pacific Asian and East Coast ports. Additionally, the introduction of post-Panamax containerships well above 8,000 TEU for transpacific and Asia-Europe (via Suez) services has relegated Panamax containerships (4,200 TEU) to more secondary routes. By 2016, neo-Panamax ships of about 12,500 TEU were able to transit through the expanded Panama Canal. - **Rectification of trade imbalances**. The export-oriented strategies (neo-mercantilism) followed by several Asian economies are compromised. On the short and medium terms, the transpacific trade is likely to experience much less, if any, growth potential and accordingly limiting the growth prospects of West Coast ports. In addition, several supply chains are shifting to Latin America, which is changing the trade structure and its system of circulation. - **Expansion of the Panama Canal**. The expanded capacity of the Panama Canal is likely to change the configuration of several maritime services to the US East Coast. With a capacity close to parity between the Suez and Panama canals, maritime shipping companies may expand circum-equatorial services using high capacity containerships in the 8,000 to 12,000 TEU range. East Coast ports could either be serviced directly with Neo-Panamax ships or through feeder routes from [transshipment hubs in the Caribbean](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=929). ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/transit-times-shanghai-north-american-routing-options/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/transit-times-shanghai-north-american-routing-options/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/transit-times-shanghai-north-american-routing-options/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/transit-times-shanghai-north-american-routing-options/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Average Tenure of Port Director, American Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/average-tenure-director-american-ports/) **Published:** July 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/tenure_port_director.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "tenure_port_director | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Average Tenure of Port Director American Ports### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/average-tenure-director-american-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/average-tenure-director-american-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/average-tenure-director-american-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/average-tenure-director-american-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Sample Port Power Wheel for a Port Director leading a Locally-Controlled Public Port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/port-power-wheel-port-director-locally-controlled-public-port/) **Published:** July 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_power_wheel.png?resize=900%2C625&ssl=1 "port_power_wheel | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Sample Port Power Wheel for a Port Director leading a Locally Controlled Public PortEvery power wheel is different and needs to be constructed independently. It takes time for the preparer of the power wheel to understand all the relationships and be able to map them. It is not an inconsequential effort to meet with and build relationships with every organization on one’s power wheel. Building a power wheel in a crisis is too late. When conflicts or a crisis occurs, directors with well-maintained power wheels will know immediately who to turn to. A wheel can also assure that no organization has been left “out of the loop.” Power wheels are not static- they need continual refreshing. Organizations change—their leadership changes. A change in political administration triggers a need to refresh the power wheel. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/port-power-wheel-port-director-locally-controlled-public-port/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/port-power-wheel-port-director-locally-controlled-public-port/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/port-power-wheel-port-director-locally-controlled-public-port/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-management-governance-leadership/port-power-wheel-port-director-locally-controlled-public-port/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Container Usage during its Life-Span](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/container-usage-life-span/) **Published:** August 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/container_life_span.png?resize=900%2C422&ssl=1 "Container Usage during its Life-Span | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Container Usage during its Life Span*Source: adapted from Crinks, P. (2000) Container Usage Asset Management in the Global Container Logistics Chain, International Asset Systems.* Containers are built to be durable since they can be exposed to all possible conditions, from tropical to subarctic. They are also subject to potential damage when loaded, unloaded, transshipped, or carried. Additionally, what a container carries could also be damaging to its structure with spills and shocks. The [lifespan](https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=5423) of a container ranges between 10 to 15 years, depending on its level of usage and the conditions it has been exposed to. A well-maintained container not exposed to harsh conditions can even have a lifespan of up to 20 years, but this is uncommon. Still, a container can spend on average 56% of its lifespan, either idle or being repositioned while empty. This represents a non-revenue generating part involving additional costs (such as storage and repositioning) that are assumed either by the shipping or the leasing company. Such a cost is thus part of the leasing rate and of the full transportation cost. Growing trade imbalances can have a notable impact as more containers will spend additional time idle or being repositioned. About 20% of all the containers carried by maritime transportation are empties, implying that they are complex assets to manage effectively. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/container-usage-life-span/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/container-usage-life-span/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/container-usage-life-span/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/container-usage-life-span/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Characteristics of Container Leasing Arrangements](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/characteristics-container-leasing-arrangements/) **Published:** August 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** | **Lease Type** | **Duration** | **Repositioning** | **Maintenance and Repair** | **Other Issues** | |---|---|---|---|---| | Master Lease | Short to medium term | Leasing Company | Leasing Company | Variable number of containers (min/max). Variable lease duration. On hire and off hire credits/debits (depending on location and equipment condition). | | Long Term Lease | 5 to 8 years | Lessee | Lessee | Fixed number of containers. Predetermined delivery schedule. | | Short Term Lease | Short period / trip / round trip | Lessee | Lessee | | *Source: adapted from S. Theofanis and M. Boile (2009) “Empty Marine Container Logistics: Facts, Issues and Management Strategies”, Geojournal, Vol. 74, pp. 51-65.* Leasing a container is more costly than ownership from an operational standpoint, about 60% to 70%. Still, there is a large leasing market, with about 40% of the global fleet of containers owned by leasing companies. This confers flexibility and some leasing arrangements enable the lessee to leave the container back to the leasing company at its destination. If there is a surge in demand, a carrier can lease containers instead of buying them, particularly if the surge is expected to be temporary. Leasing arrangements come into three major categories: - **Master leases**. They are also called full-service leases or container pool management plans and involve a complex and comprehensive leasing arrangement where the leasing company assumes full management. This entails a set of conditions regarding the availability of containers and an accounting system, including debits and credits between contracting parties, depending on the condition of equipment at the time of interchange. The leasing company is responsible for the full management of the container fleet (maintenance and repair) and for repositioning following off-hire and contract termination. In many ways, the leasing company acts as a logistics service provider since it must allocate the distribution of its container assets in view of the transportation strategies of the lessee. Thus, it must ensure that an adequate supply of empty containers is made available for their customers as pick up locations. - **Long term lease**. Also called dry leases and commonly associated with the extended use of the leased container by an ocean carrier. This lease normally follows the purchase of new containers by the leasing company, and they do not involve any management service by the lessor. The goal of the leasing company is to amortize its investment over the lease period, which covers about half of the useful life of a container. - **Short term lease**. Also called spot market leases since the lease price is strongly influenced by current market conditions pertaining to the volatility of supply and demand. Such arrangements commonly take place when there is a temporary surge in demand, either cyclical or unforeseen. Because of its volatility, leasing companies try to avoid having a large share of their equipment on the spot market because of the risk of having idle containers, but realize that such a condition is unavoidable. Still, with careful planning, containers can be positioned to take advantage of local or regional surges in demand. The recent trend has involved a shift from master leases to long term leases, particularly because of acute imbalances in containerized trade flows, such as between Pacific Asia and North America, which required the long-distance repositioning of empty containers. Under a master lease agreement, these repositioning costs have to be covered by the lessor. With a long term lease agreement, repositioning is assumed by the lessee. Leasing a container costs between $0.60 and 0.80 per TEU per day, depending on local conditions of supply and demand. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/characteristics-container-leasing-arrangements/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/characteristics-container-leasing-arrangements/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/characteristics-container-leasing-arrangements/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/characteristics-container-leasing-arrangements/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Geographical Levels of Empty Container Repositioning](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/geographical-levels-empty-container-repositioning/) **Published:** August 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/geographical_empty_repositioning.png?resize=900%2C469&ssl=1 "Geographical Levels of Empty Container Repositioning | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Geographical Levels of Empty Container Repositioning*Source: adapted from Boile, M., S. Theofanis, A. Baveja and N. Mittal (2008) “Regional repositioning of empty containers: A case for inland depots”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.* The repositioning of empty containers takes place at three geographical levels: - **Global repositioning** involves the mitigation of trans-oceanic trade imbalances from a surplus (import-oriented) to deficit (export-oriented) areas using ports as gateways. - **Inter-regional repositioning** concerns the repositioning of containers within extensive areas (such as continents) using intermodal rail or short sea shipping. They concern connections between inland terminals and ports. - **Regional repositioning** mainly concerns drayage operations between intermodal terminals, empty container depots (or inland terminals), and major freight distribution clusters, often within the same metropolitan area. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/geographical-levels-empty-container-repositioning/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/geographical-levels-empty-container-repositioning/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/geographical-levels-empty-container-repositioning/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/geographical-levels-empty-container-repositioning/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Inland Containerized Flows and Inland Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/inland-containerized-flows-inland-ports/) **Published:** August 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/inland_containerized_flows.png?resize=900%2C607&ssl=1 "Inland Containerized Flows and Inland Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Inland Containerized Flows and Inland PortsInland flows of containerized freight present several challenges, namely the repositioning of empty containers. The above figure provides a synthetic representation of the flows between a port and a hinterland composed of importers (consignees) and exporters (consigners). In a standard system, three possible systems of circulation are possible: - **One-way import loop (A)**. A container is trucked from the port terminal to the importer’s facility, unloaded, and then brought back to the terminal empty. - **One-way export loop (B)**. When an export load is available, an empty container is picked up from the port terminal, brought to the facility of the exporter, loaded, and then moved back to the port terminal. - **Cargo rotation (C)**. On some rare occasions, an empty container can be brought directly from the importer to the exporter and then back to the port terminal. This system of cargo rotation is the most efficient but requires close coordination, often lacking for inland freight distribution. The standard system can function well when volumes are relatively low, when there is limited congestion to access the port terminal and when the import and export activities are in proximity. As containerized flows between the port and its hinterland grow, the setting of an inland port or container depot provides additional options with an expanded system. Loaded containers can still be brought to and from the port facility, but empty containers can be brought back to the inland port instead. They are thus more readily available for exporters since the inland facility is closer, has lower storage costs, and is less congested. There are also several options available to link the inland terminal facility and the port, depending on the concerned distance and modal availability. Truck, rail, and barge shuttle services can transport loaded and empty containers back and forth in a time and cost-effective way. An inland port and available cargo for exports can also help expand or secure the market area (hinterland) of a port. For instance, a shipper would prefer to have cargo routed to a port terminal if, on the return trip, an empty container can be filled with export cargo. Thus, a port is called for this cargo not necessarily because it is the best option for the inbound distribution, but because it enables to provide paying cargo for the outbound trip. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/inland-containerized-flows-inland-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/inland-containerized-flows-inland-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/inland-containerized-flows-inland-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/inland-containerized-flows-inland-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Asymmetries between Import and Export-Based Containerized Logistics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/asymmetries-import-export-based-containerized-logistics/) **Published:** August 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/asymmetires_container_logistics.png?resize=900%2C690&ssl=1 "Asymmetries between Import and Export-Based Containerized Logistics | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Asymmetries between Import and Export Based Containerized LogisticsThe long-distance transportation of containers relying on the usage of inland ports is facing an **asymmetry** between import-based and export-based logistics. This is particularly the case in Europe and North America where there is a significant difference between the nature of imports and exports, implying that inbound and outbound logistics are based on different commercial and operational premises: - **Import-based** containerized cargo tends to dominantly concern retail goods, implying that the distribution pattern is a function of the population density. Since the majority of the population is urbanized, the distribution pattern is nodal but spread over the geography. This characteristic incites transloading at the gateways as massification advantages decline rapidly once an inland terminal has been reached; each individual container eventually finds its way to a local or regional distribution center and its broad customer base. Import-based logistics tend to have a high priority as it is the segment that generates the most income for shippers. Due to trade imbalances (high rate on inbound than outbound containers), the value of the cargo, and its timeliness, it tends to carry a higher premium than the backhaul cargo. - **Export-based** containerized cargo tends to concern commodities where the origins are a function of resource density. They have a high level of concentration, but their locational characteristics are very different than import flows (e.g. rural areas for grain and even more remote areas for wood products). As per unit of mass or volume, the cargo has a much lower value than inbound cargo, implying that its capture has a lower priority for shippers managing containerized assets. This cargo has, however, the advantage of being less time-constrained, unless related to the cold chain. The opportunities of export-based containerized logistics are consequently much dependent on the availability of containers inland and their repositioning. Conversely to the above pattern, China is a mirror image with the advantage that the export-based activities (mostly retail and manufactured goods) are along the coast and highly clustered, lessening repositioning issues substantially. Reconciling the availability of containers in a distribution system where imports and export logistics are very different is thus problematic, with an enduring problem to find available maritime containers inland. A hybrid solution involves using conventional bulk transport systems to bring commodities to the gateway where they can be transloaded into maritime containers. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/asymmetries-import-export-based-containerized-logistics/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/asymmetries-import-export-based-containerized-logistics/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/asymmetries-import-export-based-containerized-logistics/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/asymmetries-import-export-based-containerized-logistics/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Economic Significance of Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/economic-significance-ports/) **Published:** October 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/economic_significance_ports.png?resize=900%2C417&ssl=1 "The Economic Significance of Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Economic Significance of Ports### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/economic-significance-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/economic-significance-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/economic-significance-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/economic-significance-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Transport and Cargo Handling Functions of a Port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/transport-cargo-handling-functions-port/) **Published:** October 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/transport_cargo_handling_ports.png?resize=900%2C512&ssl=1 "Transport and Cargo Handling Functions of a Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Transport and Cargo Handling Functions of a Port### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/transport-cargo-handling-functions-port/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/transport-cargo-handling-functions-port/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/transport-cargo-handling-functions-port/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/transport-cargo-handling-functions-port/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Layers to Maritime Logistics Services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/layers-maritime-logistics-services/) **Published:** November 1, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/layers_logistics_services2.png?resize=900%2C531&ssl=1 "Layers to Maritime Logistics Services | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Layers to Maritime Logistics Services### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/layers-maritime-logistics-services/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/layers-maritime-logistics-services/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/layers-maritime-logistics-services/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/layers-maritime-logistics-services/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Shipping Lanes, Strategic Passages and Oil Production in the Middle East](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/shipping-lanes-strategic-passages-oil-production-middle-east/) **Published:** November 5, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Petroleum-Middle-East-1024x598.png?resize=900%2C526&ssl=1 "Shipping Lanes, Strategic Passages and Oil Production in the Middle East | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Shipping Lanes Strategic Passages and Oil Production in the Middle EastConcerning energy trades such as petroleum and natural gas, the Middle East is at a crossroads. First, it is an **intermediary location** as trade routes transit through the strategic passages of the region, particularly Bab el-Mandab and the Suez Canal. Second, it is one of the world’s **largest exporter of energy**, the majority of which is carried by maritime shipping. In addition to geopolitics, the geography of the Middle East creates unique challenges for petroleum distribution. The first is the **concentration of oil fields** around the Persian Gulf (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, and United Arab Emirates) leaving the Strait Hormuz as one of the only viable outlets to export oil using large oil tankers. The second is the **constrained capacity access to the main European markets** through the Suez Canal, implying that a fully laden VLCC (Very Large Crude Carrier) cannot transit through the canal and must round Africa. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/shipping-lanes-strategic-passages-oil-production-middle-east/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/shipping-lanes-strategic-passages-oil-production-middle-east/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/shipping-lanes-strategic-passages-oil-production-middle-east/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/shipping-lanes-strategic-passages-oil-production-middle-east/?share=reddit) - --- ### [A Typology of Warehousing](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/typology-warehousing/) **Published:** November 10, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/typology_warehousing.png?resize=900%2C469&ssl=1 "A Typology of Warehousing | Port Economics, Management and Policy")A Typology of Warehousing### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/typology-warehousing/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/typology-warehousing/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/typology-warehousing/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/typology-warehousing/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Distribution Network Configurations for Containerized Import Cargo](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/distribution-network-configurations-containerized-import-cargo/) **Published:** November 14, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/distribution_network_configurations_containerized.png?resize=900%2C334&ssl=1 "Distribution Network Configurations for Containerized Import Cargo | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Distribution Network Configurations for Containerized Import Cargo### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/distribution-network-configurations-containerized-import-cargo/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/distribution-network-configurations-containerized-import-cargo/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/distribution-network-configurations-containerized-import-cargo/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/distribution-network-configurations-containerized-import-cargo/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Distribution Network Configurations for Containerized Import Cargo in North America](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/distribution-network-configurations-containerized-import-cargo-north-america/) **Published:** November 14, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/distribution_network_north_america.png?resize=900%2C708&ssl=1 "Distribution Network Configurations for Containerized Import Cargo in North America | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Distribution Network Configurations for Containerized Import Cargo in North America### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/distribution-network-configurations-containerized-import-cargo-north-america/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/distribution-network-configurations-containerized-import-cargo-north-america/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/distribution-network-configurations-containerized-import-cargo-north-america/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/distribution-network-configurations-containerized-import-cargo-north-america/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The North American Landbridge](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/north-american-landbridge/) **Published:** November 20, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-NA-Landbridge-1.png?resize=900%2C666&ssl=1 "The North American Landbridge | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The North American Landbridge### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/north-american-landbridge/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/north-american-landbridge/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/north-american-landbridge/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/north-american-landbridge/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Deviation from the Main Shipping Route of Mediterranean Container Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/deviation-main-shipping-route-mediterranean-container-ports/) **Published:** November 22, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Mediterranean-Intermediate-Hubs.png?resize=900%2C592&ssl=1 "Deviation from the Main Shipping Route of Mediterranean Container Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Deviation from the Main Shipping Route of Mediterranean Container Ports*Source: adapted from Rodrigue, J-P and T. Notteboom (2010) “Foreland-Based Regionalization: Integrating Intermediate Hubs with Port Hinterlands”, Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 27, pp. 19-29.* The Mediterranean Sea provides a good example where intermediate hubs have contributed to the repositioning of the region within global trade flows. In the West Med, extensive hub-feeder container systems and shortsea shipping networks emerged since the mid-1990s to cope with the increasing volumes and connect to other European port regions. Terminals are typically owned, in whole or in part, by carriers that are efficiently using these facilities. Marsaxlokk on Malta, Gioia Tauro, Cagliari, and Taranto in Italy, and Algeciras in Spain act as turntables in a growing sea-sea transshipment business in the region. These sites were selected to serve continents, not regions, for transshipping at the crossing points of trade lanes and potential productivity and cost control. They are typically located far away from the immediate hinterland that historically guided port selection. However, the transshipment business remains competitive and footloose. New transshipment hubs in North Africa offer very low [deviations](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3593 "Maritime Deviation"), such as Tangier-Med (Morocco), Djazair, and Djen-Djen (Algeria). Additionally, a maritime shipping company can opt for an additional deviation if it implies additional cargo from hinterland transportation that can be added to discretionary transshipment cargo. Thus, transshipment cargo handled at ports such as Valencia and Barcelona has grown despite higher deviations. Valencia has even been selected to be MSC’s Mediterranean hub. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/deviation-main-shipping-route-mediterranean-container-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/deviation-main-shipping-route-mediterranean-container-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/deviation-main-shipping-route-mediterranean-container-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/deviation-main-shipping-route-mediterranean-container-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Mergers and Acquisitions in the Container Shipping Industry since 2014](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/mergers-acquisitions-container-shipping-industry/) **Published:** November 22, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/m_and_a_container_shipping.png?resize=900%2C316&ssl=1 "Mergers and Acquisitions in the Container Shipping Industry since 2014 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Mergers and Acquisitions in the Container Shipping Industry since 2014 - Mid 2014: Hamburg Süd took over CCNI (Compañía Chilena de Navegación Interoceánica) for 160 million USD; - December 2014: merger between Hapag-Lloyd and CSAV (Companía Sud Americana de Vapores) completed; - Late 2015: NOL/APL and CMA CGM agreed on the sale of APL container division to CMA CGM; - Early 2016: China Shipping and Cosco merged their activities to form China Cosco Shipping Group; - Mid 2016: Hapag-Lloyd and UASC announced their intention to merge; - Late 2016: NYK Line, MOL, and K-Line merged to form a Japanese container carrier ONE (Ocean Network Express). ONE effectively started operations in April 2018; - Early 2017: Hanjin formally declared bankrupt; - Early 2017: Maersk Line started the process of taking over Hamburg-Sud (take-over cleared by EC in April 2017 – take-over finalized in Autumn 2017); - July 2017: COSCO acquired OOCL. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/mergers-acquisitions-container-shipping-industry/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/mergers-acquisitions-container-shipping-industry/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/mergers-acquisitions-container-shipping-industry/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/mergers-acquisitions-container-shipping-industry/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Types of Inter-Range Maritime Routes](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/types-inter-range-maritime-routes/) **Published:** November 22, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/inter_range_maritime_routes.png?resize=900%2C401&ssl=1 "Types of Inter-Range Maritime Routes | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Types of Inter Range Maritime RoutesInter-range maritime services involve a set of sequential port calls along a maritime range, commonly including a transoceanic service to ports in another range and structured as a continuous loop. They are almost exclusively used for container shipping with the purpose of servicing a market by [balancing the number of port calls and the frequency of services](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3597 "Three Major Inter-Range Routes Serviced by Maersk"). For instance, inter-range services between Asia and Europe have on average 8 to 10 containerships assigned involving 8 to 12 port calls. A service between Asia and the US West Coast would have 5 to 7 ships. Most transatlantic pendulum services have 6 to 8 containerships and involve 6 to 8 port calls. An inter-range service is fairly flexible in terms of the selection of port calls, particularly on maritime ranges that have nearby and competing ports (e.g. North American East Coast, Western Europe). This implies that a maritime container shipping company may bypass one port to the advantage of another if its efficiency is not satisfactory and if its hinterland access is problematic. The shipping network consequently adapts to reflect changes in market conditions. The structure of inter-range service networks can take many shapes depending on factors such as the markets being serviced, trade imbalances, and regulations: - **Symmetrical**. Inter-range routes that involve a similar number of port calls on the maritime facades serviced. Such a structure offers a good level of market coverage if the number of allocated vessels is sufficient, but with the drawback of longer cycle times. - **Asymmetrical**. Involves fewer port calls along one of the maritime facades serviced. This reflects several situations, including trade imbalances, market concentration, cabotage constraints, or export-oriented strategies. For instance, a maritime shipping company would be reluctant to offer several port calls along a facade within the same country (such as the United States) if cabotage regulations are present. It won’t be able to carry domestic containers between ports of the same facade, only pick up or drop them off. Trade imbalances also reflect asymmetrical inter-range services as traffic is collected along one facade and unloaded on the other range at a few major gateways accessing inland corridors. - **Inter-hub**. These services are almost similar to charter services as they directly connect major hubs or gateways. Their advantages are high capacity and frequency as well as lower cycle time, which can be offered when there is a substantial demand between the few ports serviced. They tend to involve the largest containerships available. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/types-inter-range-maritime-routes/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/types-inter-range-maritime-routes/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/types-inter-range-maritime-routes/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/types-inter-range-maritime-routes/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Recent Changes in Port Authority Functions](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/recent-changes-port-authority-functions/) **Published:** November 25, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/changes_port_authority_functions.png?resize=900%2C361&ssl=1 "changes_port_authority_functions | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Recent Changes in Port Authority Functions### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/recent-changes-port-authority-functions/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/recent-changes-port-authority-functions/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/recent-changes-port-authority-functions/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-authorities/recent-changes-port-authority-functions/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Main Driving Forces behind the Setting of Inland Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/main-driving-forces-setting-inland-terminals/) **Published:** November 25, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/driving_forces_setting_inland_terminals2.png?resize=900%2C464&ssl=1 "Main Driving Forces behind the Setting of Inland Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Driving Forces behind the Setting of Inland Terminals### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/main-driving-forces-setting-inland-terminals/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/main-driving-forces-setting-inland-terminals/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/main-driving-forces-setting-inland-terminals/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/main-driving-forces-setting-inland-terminals/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Added Value Activities Performed at an Inland Port](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/added-value-activities-performed-inland-port/) **Published:** November 28, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/added_value_activities_perfomerd_inalnd_port.png?resize=900%2C439&ssl=1 "Added Value Activities Performed at an Inland Port | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Added Value Activities Performed at an Inland Port### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/added-value-activities-performed-inland-port/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/added-value-activities-performed-inland-port/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/added-value-activities-performed-inland-port/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/dry-ports/added-value-activities-performed-inland-port/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Ports and Urban Land Use](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/ports-urban-land-use/) **Published:** November 28, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_urban_land_use.png?resize=900%2C573&ssl=1 "Ports and Urban Land Use | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Ports and Urban Land Use*Source: adapted from Hoyle B.S. (1989) “The port-city interface: trends, problems and examples”. Geoforum, Vol. 20, pp. 429-35.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/ports-urban-land-use/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/ports-urban-land-use/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/ports-urban-land-use/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-city-relationships/ports-urban-land-use/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Objectives of Port Authorities Marketing Strategies](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/objectives-port-authorities-marketing-strategies/) **Published:** November 30, 2020 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_authority_marketing_strategy.png?w=900&ssl=1 "Objectives of Port Authorities Marketing Strategies | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Marketing ObjectivesAdapted from: *Parola, F., Pallis, A.A., Risitano, M. & Ferretti, M. (2018). Marketing strategies of port authorities: A multi-dimensional theorisation, Transportation Research Policy and Practice Part A, 111, 199-212.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/objectives-port-authorities-marketing-strategies/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/objectives-port-authorities-marketing-strategies/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/objectives-port-authorities-marketing-strategies/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part9/port-marketing/objectives-port-authorities-marketing-strategies/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Maritime Ranges and the Propensity for Cluster Formation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/maritime-ranges-propensity-cluster-formation/) **Published:** November 30, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/maritime_ranges_cluster_formation.png?resize=900%2C331&ssl=1 "Maritime Ranges and the Propensity for Cluster Formation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maritime Ranges and the Propensity for Cluster Formation### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/maritime-ranges-propensity-cluster-formation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/maritime-ranges-propensity-cluster-formation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/maritime-ranges-propensity-cluster-formation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/maritime-ranges-propensity-cluster-formation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Risks Associated with Terminal Investments](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/risks-associated-terminal-investments/) **Published:** December 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/risks_terminal_investments.png?resize=900%2C576&ssl=1 "Risks Associated with Terminal Investments | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Risks Associated with Terminal Investments### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/risks-associated-terminal-investments/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/risks-associated-terminal-investments/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/risks-associated-terminal-investments/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/risks-associated-terminal-investments/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Sources of Funding and Finance for Port Terminals](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/sources-funding-finance-port-terminals/) **Published:** December 3, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/funding_finance_port_terminals.png?resize=900%2C577&ssl=1 "Sources of Funding and Finance for Port Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Sources of Funding and Finance for Port Terminals### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/sources-funding-finance-port-terminals/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/sources-funding-finance-port-terminals/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/sources-funding-finance-port-terminals/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/financialisation-and-terminal-funding/sources-funding-finance-port-terminals/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The societal status of the dock worker](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/societal-status-dock-worker/) **Published:** December 4, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** - ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Proud-to-be-a-docker.png?resize=900%2C414&ssl=1 "Proud to be a docker | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Societal status of the dockworker The societal status of the profession and professional pride of the dock worker differ a lot from port to port which serves as an example of the role of cultural differences in relation to the social position of a specific job. In some ports, job loyalty, and pride are high. In other ports, dock work is being regarded as a very low-status job and perceived of a temporary nature. The public perception on dock workers can range from “overpaid and over-unionized” to “low level job”. In some port cities, the dock worker profession is only visible to the general public in cases of accidents or strikes, which add to a possible negative connotation of the profession. In other port cities, [artwork](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=4365) in prominent places reminds people of the contribution of dockers to the port. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/societal-status-dock-worker/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/societal-status-dock-worker/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/societal-status-dock-worker/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part4/port-labor/societal-status-dock-worker/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Range of Actions for Green Supply Chain Management in Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/actions-green-supply-chain-management-ports/) **Published:** December 4, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/GSCM-in-ports.png?resize=900%2C409&ssl=1 "Range of Actions for Green Supply Chain Management in Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Range of actions for Green Supply Chain Management in ports*Source: Adapted from Notteboom, T., Van der Lugt, L., Van Saase, N., Sel, S., Neyens, K. (2020) “The role of seaports in Green Supply Chain Management: initiatives, attitudes and perspectives in Rotterdam, Antwerp, North Sea Port and Zeebrugge”, Sustainability, vol. 12, 1688 <https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041688>* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/actions-green-supply-chain-management-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/actions-green-supply-chain-management-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/actions-green-supply-chain-management-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/actions-green-supply-chain-management-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Madrid Maersk](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/madrid-maersk/) **Published:** December 7, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Madrid-Maersk.jpg?resize=900%2C600&ssl=1 "Madrid Maersk | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Madrid Maersk 20568 TEU LOA 399 beam 586m*Photo: Dr. Theo Notteboom.* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/madrid-maersk/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/madrid-maersk/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/madrid-maersk/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/madrid-maersk/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Site of the 2020 Beirut Port Explosion](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/site-2020-beirut-port-explosion/) **Published:** December 8, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/beirut_port_explosion_2020.png?resize=900%2C613&ssl=1 "Site of the 2020 Beirut Port Explosion | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Site of the 2020 Beirut Port Explosion*Source: Background map from Google Earth. Image, February 2020.* The storage of hazardous materials in port areas represents a recurrent risk. On August 4, 2020, about 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate (used for making fertilizers or explosives) stored in a dockside warehouse in the port of Beirut, Lebanon, exploded, resulting in one of the largest non-nuclear blasts in history. Within 1 km of the blast, most of the frontside area of the port was fully or partially destroyed. This included a major grain elevator directly adjacent to the site of the explosion, which held substantial grain reserves. The impacts of the blast were compounded by a serious reduction in the availability of grain for the Lebanese food supply system. The ammonium nitrate that caused the explosion was seized from an abandoned cargo ship in 2014 and stored under inadequate conditions. The risk was further exacerbated by the inability of the customs authority to sell the chemicals on the global or national markets, as the issue was mired in delayed legal decisions to release the cargo. The inability of the legal system to respond to requests from the customs led to a vacuum where no action became the default. Like many ports, the port of Beirut is mainly located in an area immediately adjacent to high density central urban areas. In addition to several port facilities, thousands of buildings were destroyed or damaged, killing more than 200 people and leaving another 300,000 homeless and in need to find housing alternatives in a city that has seen its infrastructures stressed by influxes of refugees from the Syrian Civil War. The economic vitality of the area, a major commercial, touristic and residential nexus has been seriously compromised. The Beirut Container Terminal, which handled 1.3 million TEU in 2017, suffered minor damages and was closed for about one week until operations started to resume on August 14. Still, about half the traffic handled by the port of Beirut concerns transshipment traffic, which can be diverted to other hubs such as Haifa or Piraeus. The port authority will lose substantial revenue while having to deal with large capital investments to repair or rebuild port facilities. The resilience of Beirut as a transshipment hub will be tested in the coming years. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/site-2020-beirut-port-explosion/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/site-2020-beirut-port-explosion/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/site-2020-beirut-port-explosion/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-resilience/site-2020-beirut-port-explosion/?share=reddit) - --- ### [The Port as a Nexus in Global Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/port-nexus-global-supply-chains/) **Published:** December 9, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_nexus_supply_chains.png?resize=900%2C397&ssl=1 "The Port as a Nexus in Global Supply Chains | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Port as a Nexus in Global Supply Chains### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/port-nexus-global-supply-chains/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/port-nexus-global-supply-chains/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/port-nexus-global-supply-chains/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/port-nexus-global-supply-chains/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Spreader technology](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/spreader-technology-2/) **Published:** December 10, 2020 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** - ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Spreader-technology.png?resize=900%2C453&ssl=1 "Spreader-technology | Port Economics, Management and Policy") ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/spreader-technology-2/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/spreader-technology-2/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/spreader-technology-2/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/spreader-technology-2/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Sustainability Dimensions in the Maritime Transport Industry](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/sustainability-dimensions-maritime-transport-industry/) **Published:** December 10, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/sustainability_dimensions_maritime_industry.png?resize=900%2C443&ssl=1 "Sustainability Dimensions in the Maritime Transport Industry | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Sustainability Dimensions in the Maritime Transport IndustryMaritime shipping and port operations have several specific and common environmental issues. Five fields of action can be distinguished to pursue green supply chain management objectives in a port and maritime shipping environment: 1. Green shipping. 2. Green port development and operations. 3. Green inland logistics. 4. Circular economy. 5. Knowledge exchange and development. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/sustainability-dimensions-maritime-transport-industry/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/sustainability-dimensions-maritime-transport-industry/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/sustainability-dimensions-maritime-transport-industry/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/sustainability-dimensions-maritime-transport-industry/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Location Criteria for Distribution Centers](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/location-criteria-distribution-centers/) **Published:** December 16, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/location_design_distribution_centers.png?resize=900%2C372&ssl=1 "Location Criteria for Distribution Centers | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Location Criteria for Distribution Centers### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/location-criteria-distribution-centers/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/location-criteria-distribution-centers/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/location-criteria-distribution-centers/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/ports-and-distribution-networks/location-criteria-distribution-centers/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Main Technologies and Focus on Digital Transformation in Logistics and Ports](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/technologies-focus-digital-transformation-logistics-ports/) **Published:** December 27, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/technologies_digital_transformation_ports.png?resize=900%2C429&ssl=1 "Main Technologies and Focus on Digital Transformation in Logistics and Ports | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Main Technologies and Focus on Digital Transformation in Logistics and Ports### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/technologies-focus-digital-transformation-logistics-ports/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/technologies-focus-digital-transformation-logistics-ports/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/technologies-focus-digital-transformation-logistics-ports/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/digital-transformation/technologies-focus-digital-transformation-logistics-ports/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Functional Model of an Organizational Green Supply Chain](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/functional-model-organizational-green-supply-chain/) **Published:** December 29, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/green_supply_chains.png?resize=900%2C376&ssl=1 "Functional Model of an Organizational Green Supply Chain | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Functional Model of an Organizational Green Supply Chain*Source: Adapted from Sarkis (2002).* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/functional-model-organizational-green-supply-chain/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/functional-model-organizational-green-supply-chain/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/functional-model-organizational-green-supply-chain/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/green-supply-chain-management-ports/functional-model-organizational-green-supply-chain/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cargo Bundling in Port Areas](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/cargo-bundling-port-areas/) **Published:** January 5, 2021 **Author:** Theo Notteboom **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cargo_bundling_multiple_container_terminals.png?resize=900%2C407&ssl=1 "Cargo Bundling in Ports with Multiple Deepsea Container Terminals | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cargo bundling in port areas with multiple deepsea terminals*Source: adapted from Notteboom , T. (2008) Bundling of freight flows and hinterland network development, in: Konings, R., Priemus, H., Nijkamp, P. (eds), The Future of Intermodal Freight Transport, Operations, Technology, Design and Implementation, Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, p. 66-88* ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/cargo-bundling-port-areas/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/cargo-bundling-port-areas/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/cargo-bundling-port-areas/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/cargo-bundling-port-areas/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Costs of Medium and Big size Cruise Vessels](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/costs-of-medium-and-big-size-cruise-vessels/) **Published:** January 4, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Medium-and-Big-size-cruise-vessels-1.png?resize=900%2C421&ssl=1 "Medium-and-Big-size-cruise-vessels-1 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Costs of medium and big size cruise vessels 20000 120000 GTSource: *Chaos, S.R., Pallis, A.A., Marchán, S.S., Roca, D.P. and Conejo, A.S.A., 2020, Economies of scale in cruise shipping. Maritime Economics & Logistics*. doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00158-3. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/costs-of-medium-and-big-size-cruise-vessels/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/costs-of-medium-and-big-size-cruise-vessels/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/costs-of-medium-and-big-size-cruise-vessels/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/costs-of-medium-and-big-size-cruise-vessels/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cruise Ship Costs per Size of Vessel](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-ship-costs-per-passenger/) **Published:** January 4, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Unit-cost-by-size-of-cruise-ship.png?resize=870%2C419&ssl=1 "Unit-cost-by-size-of-cruise-ship | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Unit passenger costs by size of cruise vessel operating time 60 days per year full occupancy Source: *Chaos, S.R., Pallis, A.A., Marchán, S.S., Roca, D.P. and Conejo, A.S.A., 2020, Economies of scale in cruise shipping. Maritime Economics & Logistics*. doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00158-3. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-ship-costs-per-passenger/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-ship-costs-per-passenger/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-ship-costs-per-passenger/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/cruise-ship-costs-per-passenger/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Costs of Small Size Cruise Vessels](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/costs-of-small-size-cruise-vessels/) **Published:** January 4, 2021 **Author:** Thanos Pallis **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Small-size-cruise-vessels.png?resize=900%2C421&ssl=1 "Small-size-cruise-vessels | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Distribution of costs of small size cruise vessels <20000 GTSource: *Chaos, S.R., Pallis, A.A., Marchán, S.S., Roca, D.P. and Conejo, A.S.A., 2020, Economies of scale in cruise shipping. Maritime Economics & Logistics*. doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00158-3. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/costs-of-small-size-cruise-vessels/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/costs-of-small-size-cruise-vessels/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/costs-of-small-size-cruise-vessels/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part7_1/cruises-ports/costs-of-small-size-cruise-vessels/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Rotterdam Maasvlakte Port Expansion Project](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/rotterdam-maasvlatke-port-expansion-project/) **Published:** January 11, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-48-Maasvlatke.png?resize=900%2C541&ssl=1 "Rotterdam Maasvlatke Port Expansion Project | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Rotterdam Maasvlakte Port Expansion Project### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/rotterdam-maasvlatke-port-expansion-project/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/rotterdam-maasvlatke-port-expansion-project/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/rotterdam-maasvlatke-port-expansion-project/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/rotterdam-maasvlatke-port-expansion-project/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Panama Canal: Miraflores Locks](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-miraflores-locks/) **Published:** December 28, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_1566-1-1024x768.jpg?resize=900%2C675&ssl=1 "Panama Canal: Miraflores Locks | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Panama Canal Miraflores Locks*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2013.* The Miraflores Locks are the first locks on the Pacific side of the canal. In the above photo, southbound vessels occupy both the west and east lanes at Miraflores Locks, where they are being lowered 16.5 meters from the level of Miraflores Lake to the sea level of the Pacific Ocean. On the side of the locks are electric locomotives that tow ships through the locks. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-miraflores-locks/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-miraflores-locks/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-miraflores-locks/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/interoceanic-passages/panama-canal-miraflores-locks/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Maritime Deviation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/maritime-deviation/) **Published:** November 22, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/maritime_deviation.png?resize=900%2C516&ssl=1 "Maritime Deviation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Maritime DeviationMaritime shipping lines try to offer the most direct services possible, but the routing this entails must be reconciled with the location of ports. The maritime deviation is the additional distance away from the main shipping routes it takes to service a specific port. The higher the deviation, the more reluctant maritime shipping companies will be to use this port along their major routes, unless the port has a significant hinterland and its associated cargo base. Ports under 100 nautical miles from a main maritime shipping route are considered to be of low deviation. On the above figure, five ports (1 to 5) each have a deviation from the main maritime route (labeled D1 to D5). The deviation is illustrated as the most direct shipping route to the main maritime route. Port number 3 is having the least deviation and could thus be a suitable location for a transshipment hub servicing other ports with high deviation through feeder routes. From a maritime deviation standpoint, port number 5 would be the least suitable to be serviced as a port of call along a deep-sea service. Yet, it is also possible for maritime shipping lines to deviate their own routes in order to minimize the summation of port deviations. In the above figure, an alternate route can be used and results in a reduction of the total deviation. While for ports number 3 and 5, the deviation would not change noticeably, it would improve markedly for ports 2 and 4. Thus, depending on port size and the configuration of maritime shipping routes, shipping lines will either opt for the direct or the deviated route. Those wishing to offer fast and high-frequency services will opt for limited deviations and possibly the usage of offshore hubs along the routes. Those opting for market coverage (at the expense of frequency and speed) will have more deviations. Maritime deviation remains a balancing act between the frequency of service, the number of allocated ships, and market coverage. The configuration of [transshipment hubs along the Mediterranean](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=3587 "Deviation from the Main Shipping Route of Mediterranean Container Ports") is a relevant example of this balancing act. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/maritime-deviation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/maritime-deviation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/maritime-deviation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/ports-and-container-shipping/maritime-deviation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Conventional Intermodal Port Terminal Equipment](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/conventional-intermodal-port-terminal-equipment/) **Published:** December 6, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/conventional_intermodal_port_equipment.png?resize=900%2C488&ssl=1 "Conventional Intermodal Port Terminal Equipment | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Conventional Intermodal Port Terminal Equipment### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/conventional-intermodal-port-terminal-equipment/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/conventional-intermodal-port-terminal-equipment/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/conventional-intermodal-port-terminal-equipment/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/container-terminal-design-equipment/conventional-intermodal-port-terminal-equipment/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Global Coal Market](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/global-coal-market/) **Published:** October 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-Coal-Market.png?resize=900%2C693&ssl=1 "Map Coal Market | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Global Coal MarketCoal comes in three major grades, anthracite (85% carbon), bituminous (50 to 75% carbon), and lignite (40% carbon). Anthracite is the most exploited and most rapidly depleted. Thermal coal represents about 90% of use, mainly in power stations. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/global-coal-market/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/global-coal-market/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/global-coal-market/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part5/ports-and-energy/global-coal-market/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Cargo Rotation](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/cargo-rotation/) **Published:** August 4, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/cargo_rotation.png?resize=895%2C554&ssl=1 "Inland Cargo Rotation | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Cargo Rotation*Source: Notteboom, T. and J-P Rodrigue (2005) “Port Regionalization: Towards a New Phase in Port Development”, Maritime Policy and Management, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp. 297-313.* The movement of empty trucks or containers represents one of the most complex transport problems in freight distribution. Acute imbalances in international trade have expanded the scale of this problem and even impacted on freight transport rates (transpacific rates are usually higher for eastbound flows than for westbound flows). Since transport systems are now more integrated, partially due to logistics, it becomes possible to cope more efficiently with this problem by minimizing empty movements through cargo rotation. On the above figure, it is assumed that there are two inland locations, one which imports more than it exports (location A) and the other that exports more than it imports (location B). In a discontinuous system of supply flow management (for instance, each location is serviced by different transport companies), this situation would generate a large number of empty flows, namely from the import location back to the port terminal and then from the port terminal. However, by integrating the flows, it is possible to re-allocate empty flows from location A to location B and thus to improve the efficiency of distribution. However, this requires a marketplace where container demand can be reconciled with container supply. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/cargo-rotation/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/cargo-rotation/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/cargo-rotation/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/containers-and-ports/cargo-rotation/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Port Centric Logistics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/port-centric-logistics/) **Published:** July 24, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_centric_logistics2.png?resize=900%2C487&ssl=1 "Port Centric Logistics | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Port Centric LogisticsFor accessibility reasons, port-centric activities tend to cluster in areas close to or adjacent to port terminals. A better organization of first and second-tier activities is commonly leading to the setting of port-centric logistics zones. These zones have several advantages, including a better utilization level of transportation and container assets. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/port-centric-logistics/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/port-centric-logistics/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/port-centric-logistics/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part8/port-clusters/port-centric-logistics/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Crossroads Business Park](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/crossroads-business-park/) **Published:** March 7, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/crossroads.png?resize=900%2C570&ssl=1 "crossroads | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Crossroads Business Park*Source: Image courtesy of SEDA.* The users of the Crossroads Business Park (CBP) are major retailers having a network of stores spanning North America: - **Home Depot**. The home hardware retailer Home Depot, with 2,200 stores, was the first major anchor tenant in 1996 by locating the first major deconsolidation center in the Southeast. Deconsolidation requires less footprint as cargo is quickly shipped to regional distribution centers, so the 1.4 million square foot distribution center located in CBP is indicative of the large volumes handled by the retailer. This involves the deconsolidation DC performs a transloading function, moving the contents of maritime containers into domestic containers/trucks. - **Dollar Tree Distribution Center**. A major retailer having about 4,400 stores and is highly dependent on low-cost retail goods that are manufactured abroad in imported in containers. It operates an 800,000 square foot distribution center. - **Pier 1 Imports**. A major retailer with 1,000 stores specializing in imported home furnishings and decor, particularly furniture and decorative accessories. It operates an 800,000 square foot distribution center. The chain declared bankruptcy in 2020 and it remains to be seen what will happen with the distribution center. - **Lowes**. Major home improvement and appliance retailer with 1,700 stores. Two significant manufacturers are also present: - **Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation**. An aerospace manufacturer that designs, develops, manufactures, markets, and services business-jet aircraft. - **Lummus Corporation**. A major manufacturer of machinery and replacement parts for the cotton ginning industry. The corporate headquarters and manufacturing facility is housed in a 250,000 square foot facility. The campuses of two academic institutions are located within CBP: - **Savannah Technical College**. - **Georgia Institute of Technology**. The SEDA Technology and Engineering Campus (TEC) occupies a 170 acres site within the CBP. It was designed as a freight village servicing the logistics activities of the logistics zone with plans for office space for high technology, educational and research activities. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/crossroads-business-park/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/crossroads-business-park/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/crossroads-business-park/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part12/port-of-savannah-logistics-cluster/crossroads-business-park/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Stacked Reefer Storage, Maher Terminal, Newark](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/stacked-reefer-storage-maher-terminal-newark/) **Published:** January 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/IMG_3861.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "IMG_3861 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Stacked Reefer Storage Maher Terminal Newark*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2010.* Reefers can be stacked like regular containers at a dedicated area where electric plugs are available. The above photo displays the reefer stacking area at the Maher Terminal at the Port of New York and New Jersey. Power outlets (poles) are provided for each row and up to 4 stacked reefers can be plugged. The small platform in the front is designed to be elevated by a fork lift so that a yard worker can plug or unplug a stacked reefer as well as monitor the temperature readings. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/stacked-reefer-storage-maher-terminal-newark/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/stacked-reefer-storage-maher-terminal-newark/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/stacked-reefer-storage-maher-terminal-newark/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/stacked-reefer-storage-maher-terminal-newark/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Reefer Power Outlet](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/reefer-power-outlet/) **Published:** January 15, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/2019-06-04-12.45.23.jpg?w=900&ssl=1 "2019-06-04 12.45.23 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Reefer Power Outlet*Photo: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, 2019. Gloucester Marine Terminal, Holt Logistics.* When a reefer is stored at a terminal, it needs to be plugged to a specialized electrical power outlet, usually of 32 amperes and 380/440 volts. To provide power, terminals install within their yards what is known as reefer plugs, which are combined into outlets supplying a related number of reefers. The above outlet contains 10 reefer plugs that are used to power stacked reefers (2 to 3 in height) through extension cables. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/reefer-power-outlet/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/reefer-power-outlet/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/reefer-power-outlet/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part6/port-cold-chains/reefer-power-outlet/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Shanghai Yangshan Port Expansion Project](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/shanghai-yangshan-port-expansion-project/) **Published:** January 11, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-410-Yangshan.png?resize=900%2C541&ssl=1 "Shanghai Yangshan Port Expansion Project | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Shanghai Yangshan Port Expansion Project### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/shanghai-yangshan-port-expansion-project/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/shanghai-yangshan-port-expansion-project/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/shanghai-yangshan-port-expansion-project/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/shanghai-yangshan-port-expansion-project/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Antwerp Deurganckdock Port Expansion Project](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/antwerp-deurganckdock-port-expansion-project/) **Published:** January 11, 2020 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-441-Deuganckdock.png?resize=900%2C541&ssl=1 "Antwerp Deurganckdock Port Expansion Project | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Antwerp Deurganckdock Port Expansion Project ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/antwerp-deurganckdock-port-expansion-project/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/antwerp-deurganckdock-port-expansion-project/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/antwerp-deurganckdock-port-expansion-project/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part3/changing-geography-of-seaports/antwerp-deurganckdock-port-expansion-project/?share=reddit) - --- ### [Chapter 11.2 - Ports and Economic Development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/) **Published:** December 23, 2019 **Author:** Jean-Paul Rodrigue **Content:** #### Authors: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue and Dr. Theo Notteboom > Ports are catalysts for economic development as they enable trade and support supply chains. Port investments have economic benefits that can be direct, indirect, or induced. CHAPTER CONTENTS [Toggle](#) - [1. Direct, Indirect and Induced Benefits of Ports](#1_Direct_Indirect_and_Induced_Benefits_of_Ports) - [2. Assessing the Economic Benefits of Port Investments](#2_Assessing_the_Economic_Benefits_of_Port_Investments) - [3. Employment Effects of Ports](#3_Employment_Effects_of_Ports) - [4. Measuring Employment Effects](#4_Measuring_Employment_Effects) - [5. Global-Local Mismatch of the Economic Benefits of Ports](#5_Global-Local_Mismatch_of_the_Economic_Benefits_of_Ports) - [Related Topics](#Related_Topics) # 1. Direct, Indirect and Induced Benefits of Ports Like other transport infrastructures, port infrastructure investments yield several economic benefits. The port is a **[value proposition](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/port-value-proposition/ "The Port as a Value Proposition")**, with each having economic, social, and environmental value. Economic theory often refers to ports as important economic development factors, particularly from a historical standpoint, when they acted as promoters of commerce and the welfare of nations. It is not surprising that most of the world’s major cities are port cities, since ports are catalysts for urban economic development. The economy, the city, and the port often grow concomitantly. Still, as an economy and its complexity grow, the relationships between ports and economic development may become less significant, even as ports handle much more cargo. The paradoxical outcome is that most direct port activity now plays a smaller role in the regional economic framework, with the exception of very large ports dominating their region. The basic argument is that ports **expand the market opportunity** of both national and international firms by expanding the [port cargo base and hinterland](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/factors-expanding-port-cargo-base/ "Factors Expanding a Port’s Cargo Base"). By expanding the market areas of firms, ports increase competition, resulting in lower prices for port traffic users. These involve all economic activity sectors, including manufacturing firms, heavy industries, resource extraction industries, and retailers. Therefore, the economic benefits of ports depend on the nature of the hinterland they serve. They can be straightforward for hinterlands heavily dependent on resources, since the output is handled directly by the port, or more nuanced when the hinterland involves manufacturing firms producing intermediate goods. The increasing competitiveness brought by port investments can also be a double-edged sword for a national economy. It enables foreign firms to better access a national economy and compete with national firms, with some sectors being put out of business. However, the benefits of having better access to foreign markets and cheaper goods usually far exceed the risk of having inefficient national firms being undermined. Increasing competitiveness promotes positive economic benefits at the aggregate level, but these benefits are **not uniformly distributed among sectors and geography**. Ports can be considered [“funnels” for economic development](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=202) since they act as catalysts and incite development in specific economic sectors and locations near ports or along corridors. The economic benefits of ports are commonly categorized as **direct**, **indirect**, and **induced**. Indirect and induced benefits are far from being clearly identifiable. It is challenging to prove that the economic activity and use of related resources would solely result from the port investment. When a port investment does lead to increased economic activity, the benefit is measured by the net value of the additional output. The direct benefits to the port are financial in nature and would be taken into account in any financial appraisal, as well as in economic appraisals. However, the financial benefits would be valued somewhat differently, with economic appraisals using a social discount rate and, for some inputs, possibly valuing them at shadow prices. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_value_proposition.png?resize=900%2C438&ssl=1 "The Port as a Value Proposition | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Port as a Value Proposition![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_cargo_base.png?resize=666%2C622&ssl=1 "port_cargo_base | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Factors Expanding a Ports Cargo Base![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/port_funnel_economic_development.png?resize=900%2C475&ssl=1 "The Port as a Funnel to Economic Development | Port Economics, Management and Policy")The Port as a Funnel to Economic Development# 2. Assessing the Economic Benefits of Port Investments The economic benefits of ports are usually measured at an **aggregate level** by indicators such as value-added, employment, taxation revenue, and return on investment. These indicators are primordial for the decision to invest in port development and must be taken into consideration: - **Demand forecasts**. Trying to evaluate the expected traffic that the investment will support and facilitate, particularly if new investments relate to additional demand. - **Liner shipping strategies**. How shipping lines service markets and how the port fits within their service configuration in terms of ship capacity and frequency. While some ports are acting as load centers, others are transshipment hubs. The function of transshipment is often the outcome of the regional strategies of shipping lines. - **Hinterland transport capacity and accessibility**. Contingent on the cargo bound to and originating from the port. They define the existing and potential cargo base that could be handled by the port. - **Competition between terminals**. There may be competing terminals within the same port facility. Terminals in a monopolistic situation usually have more pricing power and can be linked with higher returns. - **Financing of investment**. Relates to the capital source and conditions. Large port infrastructure projects are usually financed by bonds issued by port authorities or by investments made by international financial institutions such as development banks, sovereign wealth funds, or pension funds. Assessing this information can involve different methodologies: - **Surveys**. Based on interviews, questionnaires, or microeconomic data on firms. They try to identify and quantify relationships among various port actors, often from a qualitative perspective, but often in terms of employment. These studies have underlined the important relationships between freight forwarders and agents. The economic benefits of ports are reflected in the complex system of transactions of the actors involved. - **Comparative analysis**. Infers economic benefits observed at a reference port, particularly its economic base. This approach seeks to infer the economic changes that have already occurred in a comparable port setting (similar traffic and traffic composition) to the port being investigated. Since local and regional economic conditions differ, such studies do not yield particularly accurate results. Still, they provide guidelines on what could happen to a port and its regional economy after an investment. - **Input-output analysis models**. Aim to identify inter-sectoral multipliers, such as those between port traffic and regional employment. They highlight the agglomerating effects of port activities, both around the port and within the port region. Such studies have highlighted low elasticity between port traffic and service-sector employment. **Input-output analysis** is one of the most commonly used techniques. I-O analysis is based on a set of tables that quantify the linkages and transactions between different sectors of the economy. The quantities of inputs and outputs for a given period are entered in an input-output matrix/table in order to analyze what happens across various sectors of an economy by performing a **multiplier analysis**. > A **multiplier** is an index (ratio) that indicates the overall change in activity level that results from an initial change in activity. It effectively sums all successive rounds of re-spending, assuming that major factors such as input prices remain unchanged and that there are no resource constraints. All sector-based multipliers (including direct, indirect, and induced effects) can be calculated when the matrix is complete and includes private consumption figures. The I-O technique can be used to prepare multipliers for a variety of impact measures, such as output, employment, and income. Multipliers can also be estimated for major components, such as by cargo type. Input-output analysis follows a top-down approach, building on comprehensive data for each sector. Data collection can also rely on a bottom-up approach, in which the overall impact numbers are computed from firm-level data. In the latter case, data collection can be based on the balance sheets or annual accounts of individual firms, or on surveys. The technique and results of an I-O analysis are relatively easy to understand, and the expertise required is readily available. However, the use of the technique also faces some issues: - **Complexity**. An economy is a complex system with a multiplicity of relationships between sectors. Some multipliers could be significant, while others could be limited and even have unintended effects. Multiplier effects and the related I-O tables can be challenging to quantify accurately. At the global level, [economic complexity](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/global-competitiveness-index/ "Economic Complexity Index (ECI) – Trade, 2023") is directly related to the structure of the trade that ports handle. - **Costs**. Input-output base tables at the national and regional levels can be costly to generate and update. As the structure of a regional economy changes over time, using older I-O tables may yield inaccurate results. In many cases, new regional tables are generated using survey methods, or existing tables are updated by incorporating more recent data on regional production and employment. - **Supply constraints**. It does not incorporate any **constraints on the supply side**. For example, port development in a tight labor market can lead to crowding effects or to the shift of employees from one industry (e.g., the chemical industry) to the port sector. In such a case, the net employment effect on the regional economy remains the same (no net gain in total jobs). There are also **integrated modeling** techniques available to measure the economic impact of ports. These approaches combine input-output analysis and econometric techniques to analyze the response of an economy to external shocks over time. A very advanced technique is **computable general equilibrium** (CGE) modeling, which estimates the optimal mix of economic variables (e.g., consumption) in response to an external shock. Integrated and CGE modeling are more sophisticated than multiplier analysis, but their data requirements are very high, and so are the costs of performing the analysis. Port activities have multiplier effects within an economy that are much larger than the port itself. While the economic importance of ports grows, particularly for the sectors they connect to, their relative importance within the regions they serve often declines. This diminishes the total economic benefits of a regional economy as it grows and becomes more complex. The following are the most commonly observed economic benefits of ports for regional employment: - **Port throughput**. In general, it is positively associated with employment in port regions, suggesting that higher throughput is associated with higher employment levels. Employment impacts are more substantial in the industry than in the service sector. - **Employment impacts**. They vary by commodity sector. For instance, container and break bulk traffic usually have **twice the employment impact** of dry and liquid bulk traffic. - **Private ports**. They typically have more regional employment impacts than public ports, as they usually serve commercial supply chains. - **Direct port employment**. Commonly associated with **about three to four indirect jobs**, although such figures vary widely according to the surveys and the context. There is limited empirical evidence about job multiplier figures. However, the economic benefits per unit of port cargo handled, either in terms of employment or economic activity, usually **increase with economic growth**. The lower relative benefits of port investments are thus masked by economic growth, while the economic importance of ports is increasing. The economic benefits are less directly related to port activities but more related to the dynamics of the supply chains they support, which are derived and induced effects. This support becomes operational and functional, a benefit that is crucial to national competitiveness. Therefore, global trends underline a decline in the direct economic benefits of ports but a notable rise in their indirect and induced economic benefits. This trend is challenging because direct economic benefits are readily assessable, whereas indirect and induced effects are difficult to capture. ![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-ECI-Trade-1.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "Economic Complexity Index (ECI) – Trade, 2023 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Economic Complexity Index ECI Trade 2023![](https://i0.wp.com/porteconomicsmanagement.org/wp-content/uploads/Map-TEU-Throughput-2022.png?resize=900%2C555&ssl=1 "World’s Major Container Ports, 2022 | Port Economics, Management and Policy")Worlds Major Container Ports 2022# 3. Employment Effects of Ports Ports are important **job generators**. Shipping, cargo, and industrial activities and services in port areas generate direct employment effects. The logistics and industrial clusters in ports employ a vast labor force linked to cargo ship loading and unloading operations, ship operations and services (agencies, pilotage, towage, and bunkering), land transport, logistics activities, cargo services (freight forwarding and customs broking), industrial production facilities, and government agencies. The emergence of the cruise industry has also generated its own employment effects, such as in the hospitality and restaurant sectors. The skills of port-related employees and their interactions contribute to **seaport competitiveness**. Port activities are also responsible for a wide range of **indirect employment effects** through harbor linkages with other economic sectors and spatial interactions with large logistics and economic poles outside port areas. Job creation in ports is mirrored in employment levels in education and training, tourism, and even in more cultural segments of the economic spectrum, such as maritime museums. All the above activities provide people with wages, salaries, and other earnings, and they are significant sources of tax revenue for governments at different levels. The **employment effects of a port activity** usually extend beyond the initial round of employment generated by that activity. For example, stevedoring companies purchase a part of their inputs from local suppliers. Producing these inputs generates additional employment in the local economy. Suppliers, in turn, purchase goods and services from other local firms. There are further rounds of local re-spending, which generate additional employment. Similarly, households that earn income from stevedoring and related activities spend some of it on local goods and services. These purchases result in additional local jobs. Some of the household income from these additional jobs is, in turn, spent on local goods and services, thereby creating further jobs and income for local households. As a result of **successive rounds of re-spending** in the framework of local purchases, the overall impact on the economy exceeds the initial round of output, income, and employment generated by stevedoring. In essence, seaports create employment impacts in four ways: - **Direct employment**. Includes the jobs local firms provide to support services at the seaport. Seaports create direct port employment through a [range of activities in the port cluster](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/?page_id=258#2_Activities_in_Port_Clusters). These jobs depend on seaport activity and would disappear if it ceased. Typical direct jobs include dockworkers, ship agents, pilots, tugboat operators, freight forwarders, employees of port authorities, ship chandlers, warehouse operators, terminal operators, and stevedores, as well as jobs with railroad, barging, and trucking companies. - **Indirect employment**. Ports also generate indirect jobs through local purchases by port-related companies that depend on seaport activity. Hence, port activities are responsible for a wide range of indirect employment effects through links with other economic sectors and spatial interactions with large logistics and economic poles outside port areas. - **Induced employment**. The employees of port-related companies spend part of their wages and salaries. Induced jobs are those created locally and throughout the wider national or supranational economy due to purchases of goods and services by those directly employed. Induced employment can include grocery stores, local construction industry (housing), retail stores, health care providers, local transportation services, local and state government agencies providing public services and education to those directly employed, and businesses providing professional and business services in support of those directly employed. - **Related employment**. The last group of employment effects consists of related jobs. Manufacturing and distribution firms in and outside the port partly rely on efficient cargo handling operations in seaports. For instance, the steel industry requires cost-efficient imports of iron ore and coal for blast furnaces and needs a port for exporting finished products such as steel blooms and coils. Manufacturers, retail outlets, and distribution centers handling imported containerized cargo rely on efficient port operations. The dependency of related jobs on the port is a function of the location. When industrial activities or distribution centers are located in the port or in close proximity, the low competitiveness of the seaport could lead to job losses. In such cases, it is difficult to make a clear distinction between direct and related jobs. When these activities are located in the more distant hinterland, inefficient operations at one port could lead to a **shift of the cargo flows to a competing port**. A shift of traffic between ports generally preserves employment levels in the related industrial companies and distribution centers in the more distant hinterland. The demand for the final product (e.g. steel products or consumer products) creates the demand for employment with these shippers/consignees that do not involve using a particular seaport or marine terminal. The extent of the employment effects of port activity depends on the **boundaries of the economy being analyzed**. The increasingly international nature of port and shipping activities, along with the characteristics of global production networks and supply chains, extends the employment effects of port activities **beyond the local port level** to a regional or even supranational level. A few examples underline this trend: - **Shipping lines**. While shipping lines operate globally, at the local scale, they generate employment through their liner shipping agencies in the ports of call. However, jobs related to ship management, container fleet management, and investment and commercial strategies are usually concentrated in global or regional headquarters. - **Global container terminal operators**. Operators such as PSA, Hutchison Ports, DP World, or APM Terminals generate many operational jobs at the local port level but centralize some activities, such as equipment purchases, at global or regional headquarters. Terminal operators might purchase terminal equipment not from local operators but from foreign suppliers in Europe (e.g. Kalmar, Gottwald) or overseas (e.g. Shanghai-based ZPMC). For a particular port activity, the flow-on employment effects on the national or international economy will generally be larger than those on the regional economy. # 4. Measuring Employment Effects The appropriate technique for analyzing the economic impact of specific port activity is determined by the characteristics of the activity, the region being analyzed, and the purpose of the analysis. The availability of data is also an important factor. Measuring the employment impacts of ports is not straightforward. There are **several methodological problems** when evaluating port impacts: - **Port employment dependency**. Identifying activities dependent on the port and evaluating their degree of dependency, such as the extent to which local bank employment is linked exclusively to the port. Measuring the degree of dependency is potentially subjective. A lack of precise data can lead to **overestimation of the degree of dependency** and the employment effects. - **Port employment intensity**. Determining the intensity of the employment impact of the port, such as how much of the consumption activities and multiplier effects can be attributed to the existence of the port. Also, estimation bias can occur when exact figures are unavailable. Many of the above problems are structured by the differentiation between **direct, indirect, induced, and related jobs**. However, there is no standard methodology for defining impact types, which makes port comparisons difficult. Benchmarking the employment impacts of ports is further complicated by the wide variety of methodologies used (mostly bottom-up approaches) and a general lack of recent, port-relevant economic input-output data at the macroeconomic scale. Despite the **lack of a uniform approach** to the issue, many port authorities and (national) government agencies produce figures on the economic impact of their respective ports, including the effects on employment. A few European examples are: - Every year, the **National Bank of Belgium** publishes figures on the economic impact of the ports of Antwerp, Ghent, Zeebrugge, Ostend, and, more recently, also for the ports of Brussels and Liège. The studies are part of the Working Papers series of the National Bank. - The Ministry of Transport, Public Works, and Water Management of the Netherlands regularly commissions a **‘Havenmonitor’ report** (Port Monitor). - In 2008, Oxford Economics was commissioned by the Chamber of Shipping, British Ports Association (BPA), and United Kingdom Major Ports Group (UKMPG) to prepare two economic impact studies on aspects of the UK maritime industry. One focuses on ports and the other on the UK shipping industry. These studies are entitled “The economic contribution of ports to the UK economy” and “The economic contribution of the UK shipping industry”. The employment effects are mainly expressed in **full-time equivalent** (FTEs), and a distinction is generally made between direct and indirect/induced effects. Employment impacts are often **disaggregated to the level of individual ports or port regions**, as well as to specific economic activities (e.g., cargo handling, industrial sector). However, the results are often not comparable across countries or even within the same country, as measurement methods vary widely. There are methodological differences, particularly in terms of the definition of the port area and the economic sectors, the terminology used, the level of aggregation of the data, the approach followed (i.e. top-down via an input-output table with sector data or bottom-up based on firm-level data), and the definitions and methods deployed to analyze indirect/induced employment effects. The observed methodological differences can lead to non-transparency and incorrect benchmarking. Stakeholders might still show some mistrust of the results, even if the methodology is made very transparent. The fact that methodologies differ further fuels criticism of employment studies for being overly optimistic about real job creation. Despite the lack of a standardized methodology, some **common conclusions** apply: - **Total employment effects of ports** (direct and indirect/induced). Significant and typically represent between 1% and 5% of the total employment in a country. - **Local employment effects of ports**. In many ports, local direct employment effects of port activity are stagnating or decreasing due to a combination of deindustrialization, containerization, and the increasing use of automated port handling systems and technology. As a result, the growth in direct FTEs in many (but not all) port areas is either negative or close to zero while throughput volumes increase. - **Outside port area employment**. An increasing number of jobs are being created outside the port area. A large variety can be observed in how these processes are materializing in specific individual ports. At one extreme, some ports have succeeded in attracting more businesses and, thus, more jobs in the port area in recent years. At the other extreme, some seaports have become merely transit centers servicing economic and logistics centers in the immediate or more distant hinterland. As employment effects increasingly extend beyond the local port level, ports might be confronted with lower direct employment but higher indirect and related jobs. Potential reasons for fewer direct jobs include productivity gains, outsourcing activities to companies outside the port, or the delocalization of activities to the hinterland. # 5. Global-Local Mismatch of the Economic Benefits of Ports With the setting up of global supply and transport chains, there has been a growing level of **mismatch between the benefits of port activities and their scale and scope**. While at the aggregate level, it is clear that port investments have economic benefits, the spatial and sectoral distribution of these benefits is far less evident. One particular mismatch concerns local (community) versus regional, national, or global benefits. The following points underline this mismatch: - **Labor**. Usually comes from the **local community,** and its benefits (mostly wages) are derived in the region, particularly indirect job multipliers. As port employment decreased due to mechanization, containerization, and automation (more recently), so did the local labor benefits. Yet, several port jobs are remunerated at much higher wages than those usually found in the manufacturing sector. The most important employment multiplier for ports is usually trucking. - **Capital**. Usually does not come from the community but is provided by national and international funding sources, such as investment banks, pension funds, manufacturers, shipping lines, and terminal operators. Thus, the return on this capital (e.g. loan or operational revenues) does not accumulate in the port region but among global financial centers. - **Firms**. They can be locally owned, but commercial trends have underlined **vertical and horizontal integration** in the port industry. For instance, terminal operations at one port are usually part of a portfolio of terminals located in different ports across the region or even the world. Thus, profits derived from terminal operations are not necessarily invested in the port where they were generated. - **Port land use**. Usually regulated by leasing and concession contracts, but land prices are often a tool for attracting investors and usually do not reflect real value. This underlines that the impacts of ports on real estate values are not necessarily fully accounted for. - **Local transport infrastructure**. Usually provided for free (or at a fee lower than real costs), particularly for roads. This represents a form of local or regional subsidy for globally-focused activities. - **Taxes and customs duties**. They are only partly allocated to the port region. They are usually a national source of income used to fund other social and infrastructure programs. - **Environmental externalities**. Externalities such as pollution, noise, and accidents are assumed by the community, while the generators of these externalities usually bear only a fraction of them. Therefore, port benefits are increasingly **distributed across actors** and concern geography that **transcends the local community** and, at times, the region. This trend skews the assessment of the benefits of port investments, where the local economic impacts can be much less significant than those at the regional or national levels. Conflicts or pressures can arise from local communities that may be disappointed if their expectations about the economic benefits of port activities are not met. At the same time, their perception of environmental externalities is present. Despite the complexity of assessing their economic impacts, ports remain fundamental to the economic well-being of the nations, regions, and localities in which they are embedded. --- # Related Topics - [i.2 Seaports: Economic Value](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/introduction/seaports-economic-value/) - [Chapter 1.1 Ports, Maritime Shipping and International Trade](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/maritime-shipping-and-international-trade/) - [Chapter 1.2 Ports and Maritime Supply Chains](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part1/ports-and-maritime-supply-chains/) - [Chapter 2.1 Port Hinterlands, Regionalization and Corridors](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part2/port-hinterlands-regionalization/) - [Chapter 11.1 Ports, Policies and Geopolitics](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/ports-policies-and-politics/) --- ## References - Munim, Z.H., Schramm, HJ (2018) “The impacts of port infrastructure and logistics performance on economic growth: the mediating role of seaborne trade”. *J. shipp. trd.* **3**, 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-018-0027-0 - Slack B., and E. Gouvernal (2015) “Container transshipment and logistics in the context of urban economic development”, Growth and Change, 47(3), pp. 406-415. - Notteboom, T. and W. Winkelmans (2003) “Dealing with stakeholders in the port planning process”, in Dullaert, W., B. Jourquin and J. Polak (eds), Across the border: building upon a quarter of century of transport research in the Benelux (Antwerp: De Boeck), pp. 249-265. - Rodrigue, J-P (2017) “Transport and Development”, in D. Richardson, N. Castree, M.F. Goodchild, A. Kobayashi, W. Liu, and R.A. Marston (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Geography, New York: John Wiley & Sons. - Rodrigue, J-P (2016) “The Role of Transport and Communication Infrastructure in Realising Development Outcomes”, in J. Grugel and D. Hammett (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of International Development. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 595-614. ### Share this: - [ Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/?share=linkedin) - [ Share on X (Opens in new window) X](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/?share=x) - [ Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/?share=facebook) - [ Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit](https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part11/port-and-economic-development/?share=reddit) - ---