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.

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. 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.

Cities 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 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, air passenger services, and air freight services. 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, 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.

Since 2012, risk management firm DNV GL and consultancy firm Menon Economics have identified the leading maritime capitals 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 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.

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. At that time, there was a distinctive correlation between the existence/success of a port and the development of the urban area.  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 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 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.

The 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.

Most 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 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.

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 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.

The 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. 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 2.1 The Changing Geography of Seaports
• Chapter 1.5 Ports and Cruise Shipping
• Chapter 3.6 Cruise Terminal Design and Equipment
• Chapter 4.5 Green Port Governance
• Chapter 8.1 Cruise Ports

References

• AIVP (2018) “Agenda 2030: 10 goals for sustainable port cities”, Association Internationale des Villes et Ports, 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.