Research in Transportation Economics 27 (2010) 19–29
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Research in Transportation Economics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/retrec
Foreland-based regionalization: Integrating intermediate hubs with
port hinterlands
Jean-Paul Rodrigue a, *, Theo Notteboom b,1
a
b
Department of Global Studies and Geography, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549, USA
Institute of Transport and Maritime Management, University of Antwerp, Keizerstraat 64, B-2000 Antwerp, Belgium
a b s t r a c t
Keywords:
Intermediate Hubs (Offshore)
Liner Shipping
Hinterland
Foreland
Regionalization
Value-Added Logistics
Development and changes in port hinterlands have received considerable attention as they represent
substantial opportunities to improve the efficiency of global freight distributions. Port regionalization
was a concept brought forward by Notteboom and Rodrigue (2005) to articulate the emerging port
hinterland dynamics in light of containerization, supply chain management and the setting of inland
terminals. This paper expands this concept by focusing on a particular dimension of the regionalization
paradigm concerning the evolving role of intermediate hubs. It is argued that, in addition to hinterlandbased regionalization, there is also a foreland-based regionalization where intermediate hubs capture
a maritime hinterland. This intensity and viability of processes of foreland-based regionalization depend
on multiple geographical, technical and market-related factors, and this paper identifies and analyzes
these underlying parameters. By doing so, it assesses whether foreland-based regionalization is simply
a transitional phase in port development or, alternatively, represents emerging functional characteristics
of contemporary freight distributions.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction: the port regionalization thesis revisited
A seaport (hereinafter known as ‘port’) is defined as a transit
area through which goods and people move from and to the sea. As
such, ports are places of contact between land and maritime spaces,
nodes where ocean and inland transport lines meet and intertwine,
intermodal places of convergence (Hayuth, 1985). Ports are part of
a larger system with specific spatial and functional characteristics.
The concept of the foreland-port-hinterland triptych accentuates
the spatial and functional ties of its seaborne leg and land leg
(Charlier 1982; Vigarié 1979). While geographers have not generally agreed upon the definition of hinterland (or even upon its
meaning), the hinterland of a port in early works has been defined
as the area of which the greater part of the trade passes through the
port (Barke, 1986; Blumenhagen, 1981; Sargent, 1938; Weigend,
1958). Hinterland, as part of the port triptych, is only defined by
a group of locations connected to the port through related goods
flows. In this respect, Hilling and Hoyle (1984) rightly stated that
initially well-defined, even discrete, port hinterlands had become
blurred, as each port generated its own momentum as competitive
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jean-paul.rodrigue@hofstra.edu (J.-P. Rodrigue), theo.
notteboom@ua.ac.be (T. Notteboom).
1
Tel./fax: þ32 3 2655152.
0739-8859/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2009.12.004
forces created intervening opportunities and new linkage
possibilities.
Hence, a shift from captive to shared or contestable hinterlands
is the result of this process. The first definition of ‘foreland’
appeared about 50 years ago, where Weigend (1958) defined it as
the land area which lied on the seaward side of a port, beyond
maritime space, and with which the port was connected by ocean
carriers. Also, later definitions treated foreland as overseas area
with which the port carried out trade (see, for instance, Barke,
1986). The strong interdependency between a port’s foreland and
hinterland is very apparent when considering the rise of containerization and intermodality. Increased supply chain integration has
made that the separation of foreland and hinterland relationships
of a port into two neatly labeled packages representing dichotomy
that is been questioned. The limits of the hinterland and the
characteristics of the foreland are in effect interdependent variables
which cannot be separated. The traditional approach of the port
triptych has therefore been complemented in the last decades by
a renewed approach viewing seaports as turntables in extensive
logistics networks and as crossroads of a multitude of commodity
chains (Notteboom & Rodrigue, 2008; Notteboom & Winkelmans,
2001; Robinson, 2002; Rodrigue (1999); Wang, Olivier, Notteboom,
& Slack, 2007). Lee, Song, and Ducruet (2008) argued such changes
had inevitably influenced the spatial structure of hub port cities,
not only in Europe and North America, but also in Asia.
20
J.-P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom / Research in Transportation Economics 27 (2010) 19–29
Since then, the development and changes in port hinterlands in
relation to wider logistics networks have received a lot of attention,
as they represent substantial opportunities to improve the efficiency of global freight distribution by improving its most costly
segment. In this respect, port regionalization was a concept brought
forward by Notteboom and Rodrigue (2005) to articulate the
emerging port hinterland dynamics in light of containerization,
supply chain management and the setting of inland terminals. The
phase of regionalization brings the perspective of port development
to a higher geographical scale, which is beyond the port’s perimeter.
In discussing the functional development of the port of Rotterdam,
Van Klink (1995) used the term ‘borderless mainport’ to describe
the functional development from port city to port network.
Two main forces have triggered regionalization, one global and
the other local. The first force concerns globalization, where
regionalization enables the development of a distribution network
that corresponds more closely to fragmented production and
consumption systems. Supply chain management can be accommodated on the maritime side with economies of scale and
frequency of service along major pendulum routes linking gateways and hubs. On the inland side, freight has to find its way to (and
from) a variety of locations, which requires spatial deconsolidation
(or consolidation). The second force concerns local constraints such
as congestion and limited amount of land that impact port growth
and expansion and which can partially been circumscribed by
regionalization. Many freight activities, such as storage, that used to
take place in proximity of port terminal facilities can take place
further inland with the establishment of a network of inland
terminals.1 Jointly, these forces are part of two phases that have
transformed port systems in recent decades – the insertion of
intermediate hubs and regionalization.
The port system development model as presented by Notteboom and Rodrigue (2005) can be depicted in Fig. 1. The first phases
(1–4) are well evidenced by the traditional port growth theories
(Barke, 1986; Hayuth, 1981; Taaffe, Morrill, & Gould, 1963). The
subsequent two phases have seen noticeable transformations in the
port-hinterland relationships.
Phase 5 depicts decentralization and the insertion of intermediate hubs. The growth in the volume of containerized traffic since
the 1980s permitted many ports to participate as load centres,
through competing over extended hinterlands when a critical mass
was reached. The outcome was a relative level of decentralization
along several maritime ranges. Additionally, intermediate hubs
were constructed to accommodate modern containership draughts
on sites having lands for future expansions, with lower labor costs
and terminals owned, in whole or in part, by carriers or port
operators. In some cases, intermediate hubs were developed within
offshore location – often on small islands with an implicit local
cargo base. Initially, these terminals solely focused on accommodating transshipment flows, but in time, other freight distribution
activities started to locate in vicinity. Nevertheless, the development of offshore hubs did not exclude transshipment activities at
traditional gateway ports, where an important outcome of such
development was that the amount of cargoes handled by a port was
no longer strictly proportional to the number of clients within the
area surrounding it.
Phase 6 consists of a regionalization phase, i.e., the integration of
inland freight distribution centres and terminals with gateway
ports. The outcome is the formation of a regional load centre
network with an improved efficiency of inland freight distribution.
1
Within the literature, inland terminals are sometimes known as ‘inland ports’
or ‘dry ports’. For further details, see Ng and Gujar (2009), Notteboom and Rodrigue
(2009a) and Rodrigue, Debrie, Fremont, and Gouvernal (2010).
Gateways achieve a higher level of synchronization with their
hinterlands through specialized high capacity corridors of circulation serviced by rail or barges. Within this phase, the port system
consequently adapts to the imperatives of distribution systems and
global production networks while mitigating local constraints.
Also, this phase is characterized by a strong functional interdependency and even joint development of a specific load centre and
(selected) multimodal logistics platforms in its hinterland, ultimately leading to the formation of a regional network of load
centres aimed to meet the requirements of global logistics and
production networks.
In the meantime, the port regionalization model has been
applied to concrete cases (see, for instance, Notteboom, 2006 for an
application to the port of Antwerp). The models on port development portray a high degree of path dependency in the development
of ports at a regional scale. Path dependence implies that port
systems evolve by building on previous phases and ‘memory
effects’, meaning that there is a level of inertia conveyed by existing
infrastructure accumulation and hinterlands. In other words, port
systems follow a similar evolutionary development path. This view
was supported by Ng and Pallis (2007) who noted that, even within
a similar generic solution, variations of political traditions and
culture could result in the embeddedness of strategies within the
institutional frameworks concerned. Apart from path dependency,
Notteboom (2009b) also argued that port development processes
showed certain degrees of contingency, where strategies and
actions of market players and other stakeholders might deviate
from existing development paths. Both path dependency and
contingency explain why port systems around the world do not
develop along similar lines or follow the same sequence of stages as
suggested in the models on port system development. The result is
some level of disparity among port system developments around
the world.
Although Rimmer and Comtois (2009) stated there is no need for
an additional sixth phase, regarding regionalization as nothing more
than decentralization, we hereby argue that the regionalization
phase is more than just simple decentralization which involves the
expansion of the hinterland reach through a number of strategies
linking the port more closely to inland freight distribution centres in
a functional way. However, we do agree with Rimmer and Comtois
(2009) that there is a danger of becoming too pre-occupied with the
land-based network, without incorporating the realities in the
maritime space. Thus, the port regionalization phase focuses
strongly on the hinterland side of the spectrum, i.e., the changing
dynamics between ports and inland centres towards the formation
of regional load centre networks, while the issue of maritime
networks and, in particular, the role of intermediate hubs in the port
regionalization phase have not been thoroughly developed.
Concomitantly with the regionalization phase, transport
terminals have witnessed higher level of integration within freight
distribution systems, either as a buffer where they can be used for
temporary storage or as a constraint inciting various forms of
satellite/inland terminal use and inventory in transit practices
(Rodrigue & Notteboom, 2009). This emerging practice of higher
integration of intermodal terminals in supply chain management
reinforces the regionalization thesis, but also underlines that it
looks at only one side of the maritime/land interface, with the
actual role of intermediate hubs still being unclear.
For understanding this deficiency, this paper extends the
concept of regionalization by looking at a particular dimension of
the paradigm concerning the evolving role of intermediate hubs
that are capturing maritime forelands to create added value. A
distinction is made between hinterland- and foreland-based
regionalization, as suggested in phase 6 of Fig. 1. After this introductory section, the next section discusses the role and
J.-P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom / Research in Transportation Economics 27 (2010) 19–29
21
Fig. 1. A model on port system development, including a revised sixth phase.
vulnerability of intermediate hubs as part of global shipping
networks. After then, the foreland-based regionalization concept is
introduced as a way for intermediate hubs to acquire a more
sustainable position in supply chains and vis-à-vis partner ports in
the networks they serve.
2. The role and function of intermediate hubs
other port systems do not feature any offshore hubs. In the US, for
example, many impediments in American shipping regulations
gravitating around the Jones Act have favored a process of port
system development with limited (feeder) services between
American ports and the absence of US-based transshipment hubs
(Freeport and other ports in the Caribbean to a limited extent take
up this role). In this regard, Brooks (2009) provides a good overview
2.1. General discussion
With globalization, the function of intermediacy has become
increasingly prevalent for long distance transportation, particularly
freight distributions (Fleming & Hayuth, 1994). Intermediate hubs
had emerged since the mid-1990s within many global port
systems: Freeport (Bahamas), Salalah (Oman), Tanjung Pelepas
(Malaysia), Gioia Tauro, Algeciras, Taranto, Cagliari, Damietta and
Malta in the Mediterranean, to name but a few (Fig. 2). In this
regard, an abundant literature exists on the role of intermediate
hubs in maritime hub-and-spoke systems (see, for instance, Baird,
2006; Fagerholt, 2004; Guy, 2003; McCalla, Slack, & Comtois, 2005;
Wijnolst & Wergeland, 2008). These hubs tend to possess excellent
nautical accessibilities, are located in proximities of major liner
shipping routes, with some at the intersection of longitudinal and
latitudinal routes to accommodate interlining/relay flows, and
often possess lands for future expansions. Terminals are typically
owned, in whole or in part, by carriers or multinational terminal
operators which efficiently use these facilities.
Yet, the creation of intermediate hubs does not occur in all port
systems, but around specific regions ideally suited for maritime
hub-and-spoke distribution patterns, thanks to geographical,
nautical and market-related advantages (Fig. 3). Some markets
seem to offer the right conditions for the emergence of more than
one transshipment hub (like the central Mediterranean), while
Fig. 2. World’s Main Intermediate Hubs, 2007.
22
J.-P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom / Research in Transportation Economics 27 (2010) 19–29
stakeholders have not adopted the idea of bringing a North-European offshore hub into reality.
It is clear that the insertion of intermediate hubs within global
shipping networks does not make the mainland load centres
redundant. On the contrary, intermediate hubs multiply shipping
options, which serves as the main reason why their rationale and
dynamics have always been approached from shipping line’s
perspective. As such, they play fundamental roles in the optimization of vessel movements, namely as hubs, relay or interlining
locations within global shipping networks. As hubs, accounting for
about 85% of the global transshipment traffic, they are the points of
convergence of regional shipping, essentially linking separate
hierarchies and interfacing global and regional freight distribution
systems. Both as relay and interlining locations, which account for
15% of the global transshipment traffic, they connect the same
hierarchy levels and improve connectivity within the network.
Some intermediary locations strictly perform cargo-handling
functions and have a non-existent hinterland.
Nevertheless, other benefits of intermediate hubs, such as
linking gateways, improving the connectivity of maritime shipping
and acting as intermediary locations within global systems of
circulation, tend to be underestimated. It is the hubbing function of
intermediate terminals that requires clarification in light of their
role within regional port systems. It thus appears that the regionalization thesis needs to be expanded further to better reflect the
distribution strategies of the hinterland and the foreland that are
connected to a port gateway.
Fig. 3. World’s Main Transshipment Markets, 2007.
of the current status of regulation on maritime cabotage in the
world and its implications on domestic shipping activities. Also,
Northern Europe up to now does not count any real transshipment
hub, let alone an ‘offshore’ hub. Hamburg, the North-European
leader in terms of sea–sea flows, has a transshipment incidence of
45.8%, far below the high transshipment shares in the main south
European hubs (85%–95%, see Fig. 4). It is generally expected that
the transshipment shares in newcomer ports Flushing and Wilhelmshaven might slightly exceed 40%. The only concrete plan for
a real North-European offshore hub relates to a proposed transshipment facility at the natural deep-water harbor at Scapa Flow in
the Orkney Islands, where Baird (2006) argued that alternative port
sites (such as Scapa Flow) could provide a superior and more
competitive location supporting the fast expanding transshipment
markets of northern Europe. Notwithstanding such a plea,
2.2. The role of intermediate hubs in global shipping networks
Intermediate hubs emerge in places where the hub-and-spoke
and interlining/relay solutions offer clear advantages over direct
port calls at mainland ports. They are particularly located along the
equatorial round-the-world route (Ashar, 2002; De Monie, 1997).
The global beltway pattern focuses on a hub-and-spoke system that
allows shipping lines to provide a global grid of east/west, north/
south and regional services. The large ships on the east/west routes
will call mainly at transshipment hubs, where containers can be
shifted to multi-layered feeder subsystems serving north/south,
diagonal and regional routes. Indeed, some containers within such
a system can undergo as many as four transshipments before
reaching the final port of discharge. Much of the discussion on the
Container throughput 2007 in million TEU
11
10
25.4%
Sea-sea transhipment
9
Inland gateway traffic
(road/rail/barge)
8
19.9%
45.8%
7
6
5
4
60.8%
3
19.6%
2
28.7%
34.0%
37.9%
1
0
Antwerp
Zeebrugge Rotterdam Hamburg Bremerhaven Le Havre
Valencia
Barcelona
Fig. 4. Transshipment incidence in some major container ports on the European mainland, 2007.
J.-P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom / Research in Transportation Economics 27 (2010) 19–29
hub port system (and consequently on regional container distribution) has focused on the deployment of large mainline vessels.
Less attention has been paid to feeder vessels and to the hinterland
transport modes, and yet both are fundamental in the dynamics of
intermediate hubs. Part of the problem is that some ports, particularly those which serve as direct port of call, or even cater for some
transshipment traffic, feel that serving feeder vessels means a loss
of status.
Carriers have some feeder options available: direct feeders
between hub and feeder port or indirect feeders via line-bundling
loops including more than one feeder port. The first strategy has
the lowest transit time but typically requires more feeders and
smaller feeder vessels. Alternatively, indirect feeders benefit from
economies of feeder vessel size, but incur longer distances and
longer transit times. Carrier’s choice between one or more direct
calls at mainland load centres with the mother vessel or an indirect
call via a feeder vessel is determined by factors such as the diversion distance, nautical conditions (such as water draught), the
volumes of containers involved, the possibility to combine transshipment activities with strong cargo-generating power of the
port’s regional hinterland, the related costs, port productivity and
the strength of the individual carrier in the markets served (see, for
instance, Zohil & Prijon, 1999).
When point-to-point markets cannot support a direct service in
the container trade, shipping lines need to make decisions about
transshipment locations. A wide range of literature discusses the
location and selection of optimal transshipment locations (see, for
instance, Aversa, Botter, Haralambides, & Yoshizaki, 2005; Baird,
2006; Fleming, 2000; Hayuth & Fleming, 1994; Lirn, Thanopoulou,
Beynon, & Beresford, 2004; McCalla, 2008; McCalla et al., 2005; Ng,
2006; Tai, 2005; Waals & Wijnolst, 2001) and related hub operations (see e.g. Henesey 2006). Hub-and-spoke networks would
allow considerable economies of scale of equipment, but the cost
efficiency of larger ships might be not sufficient to offset the extra
feeder costs and container lift charges involved.
In referring to the Asian hub/feeder restructuring, Robinson
(1998) argues that a system of hub ports as main articulation points
between mainline and feeder nets is being replaced by a hierarchical set of networks reflecting differing cost/efficiency levels in
the market. High-order service networks will have fewer ports of
call and bigger vessels than lower order networks. Increasing
volumes as such can lead to an increasing segmentation in liner
service networks and a hierarchy in hubs.
2.3. The vulnerability of intermediate hubs
Intermediate hubs, as part of elaborate hub-and-spoke
networks, are often vulnerable to market fluctuations. Two developments undermine the position of intermediate hubs as transshipment facilities, namely: (i) container growth or decline, and (ii)
new entrants to the transshipment market.
2.3.1. Container growth and decline
Port systems typically observe an increasing container volume
as a result of worldwide growth in containerization. Particularly,
the Asian and European container port systems have witnessed
strong growth in the last decade, although volumes have plummeted from mid-2008 onwards thanks to the negative impacts
caused by the financial tsunami (since September 2008). Container
port systems typically have to cope with higher volumes on specific
routes, thereby supporting the development of direct end-to-end
or line-bundling services that bypass transshipment hubs. In other
words, the insertion of hubs can turn out to be just an intermediate
stage in connecting a region to the global liner shipping networks.
Once volumes for the gateway ports are sufficient, the utility of
23
hubs diminishes. In extreme cases, a hub can even become
a redundant node in the network.
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 Mediterranean, extensive
hub-feeder container systems and short sea shipping networks
emerged since the mid-1990s to cope with the increasing volumes
and to connect to other European port regions (see Fig. 5). Terminals are typically owned, in whole or in part, by carriers which are
efficiently using these facilities. Here Marsaxlokk on Malta, Gioia
Tauro, Cagliari and Taranto in Italy and Algeciras in Spain act as
turntables in a growing sea–sea transshipment business within the
Mediterranean. These sites were selected to serve continents, not
regions, for transshipping at the crossing points of trade lanes, and
for potential productivity and cost control. They were typically
located far away from the immediate hinterland that historically
guided port selection.
The market share of the transshipment hubs in total container
throughput in the West Mediterranean peaked in 2004 (48.2%) but
since then started to decline to 44.1% as volume growth in mainland ports allowed shipping lines to shift to direct calls (Fig. 6).
While certain shipping lines still rely on the hub-and-spoke
configuration in the Mediterranean, others decided to add new
line-bundling services calling at mainland ports directly. Maersk
Line, MSC and CMA-CGM are modifying their service patterns,
giving increasing priority to gateway ports. In reaction, mainly
Italian transshipment hubs are re-orienting their focuses, now
serving Central and East Mediterranean regions. Algeciras
(stronghold of APM Terminals of the AP Moller Group) relies much
on east-west and north-south interlining and is facing competition
from newcomer Tanger Med where APM Terminals has also
established business recently. The net result of the above developments explains the slight decline in the market share of the West
Mediterranean hubs in recent years.
2.3.2. New entrants
The transshipment business remains a highly ‘footloose’ business mainly because along long distance shipping lanes there are
several site options for intermediate hubs. Commonly, new
entrants beget more competition, which promotes effectiveness,
fair pricing and provides customers with more routing options.
New entrants in the market also inevitably lead to a distribution of
transshipment volumes over more players and nodes. There are
two ways of entry with implications on existing transshipment
facilities. First of all, competing shipping lines may decide, once
volume has reached a certain threshold, to introduce direct services
to gateway ports in the region on those links that support direct
services. Such a cherry-picking strategy can pose negative effects
on cargo volumes on the spokes within the existing transshipment
network which may even lead to the collapse of the whole huband-spoke system. Secondly, new transshipment facilities may be
established in the vicinity of existing hubs by competing terminal
operators, shipping lines or port authorities. The introduction of
a competing network solution undermines established hub-andspoke networks of incumbents in the region.
Consequently, bundling networks, such as hub-and-spoke
systems, are vulnerable to changes in traffic volumes caused by
new entrants in one or more of the spokes. The conversion of one
link out of the hub-and-spoke network to a direct service due to
cherry-picking by newcomers or volume increases within the
network, thus negatively affects the profitability and operational
efficiency within the bundling system. As a consequence, once
a hub-and-spoke network is installed, shipping lines involved are
continuously challenged to shifting to a (downsized) system of
direct calls or line-bundling systems.
24
J.-P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom / Research in Transportation Economics 27 (2010) 19–29
Fig. 5. Gateway ports and transshipment hubs in the Mediterranean.
Recent developments in the liner shipping industry have
revealed the weaknesses of pure hub-and-spoke systems versus
multi-port itineraries. As the feasibility of a hub-and-spoke system
using intermediate hubs only bears fruits at a specific level of cargo
volume, the system lacks flexibility to cope with strong increases in
cargo volumes or a sudden collapse in volumes (due to market
entry or changes in demand). A system of more loops with smaller
vessels can provide an answer to these challenges. Carriers
West-Mediterranean ports with one-way diversion distance > 250 nm
West-Mediterranean ports with one-way diversion distance 100-250 nm
West-Mediterranean ports with one-way diversion distance < 100 nm
100%
Share in TEU throughput West-Med
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
2007
2008
2006
2005
2004
20 0 2
2003
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
19 9 2
1993
1991
1990
1989
1988
1986
1987
1985
1983
1984
1982
1981
1980
1979
1 97 8
1977
1976
1975
0%
Fig. 6. The market shares of ports in the West Mediterranean. Ports grouped according to the diversion distance from the main shipping route, 1975–2008.
J.-P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom / Research in Transportation Economics 27 (2010) 19–29
continuously review their strategy with respect to liner shipping
networks, and this can very well introduce a tendency towards less
transshipment and more direct ports-of-call even for the bigger
vessels. Gilman (1999) rightly stated that the networks operated by
large vessels will continue to be based on end-to-end services. Huband-spoke systems are just a part of the overall scene.
3. Foreland-based regionalization: in search of competitive
advantages
The vulnerability of intermediate hubs is partly the result of the
narrow focus of these nodes on transshipment of containers only.
The terminal operators in hubs mainly compete on basic resources
such as location, nautical accessibility and terminal infrastructure
(post-panamax cranes) and on the terminal productivity they can
offer in terms of short vessel turnaround times. These competitive
sources can rather easily be imitated by competitors in neighbouring locations, thus making it very difficult to create sustainable
competitive advantages. Considering that terminals are capitalintensive assets, being a hub conveys a high level of risk. Basic
terminal handling activities no longer constitute the basis for
competitive advantage as terminals have access to similar terminal
technology (60% of the world’s gantry cranes are provided by ZPMC
in Shanghai, NAVIS is a world leader in IT system for terminal
operations) which makes imitation more feasible. While investigating the container transshipment market in North Europe, Ng
(2006) demonstrated that the opinions of shipping lines in
assessing port attractiveness seemed to be in accordance to their
decisions on transshipment hub choices. By means of a Likert-style
questionnaire, the study revealed that shipping lines did not just
look at revenues when assessing the attractiveness of transshipment facilities, with other attributes, notably, time efficiency,
geographical location and service quality also taken into considerations. In between, the importance of qualitative factors on top of
infrastructure/equipment and pure cost factors was also echoed in
recent studies on port selection criteria (see, for instance, Chang
et al., 2008; Lirn et al., 2004; Wiegmans, Van Der Hoest, & Notteboom, 2008 and Notteboom, 2009a).
Thus, we hereby argue that intermediate hubs have better
chances of consolidating their positions in liner service networks if
they can offer value-added services that go beyond mere transshipment activities. These services should be based on attributes
which are difficult to imitate by competitors, as they rely on
complex processes of continuous improvements and enhancements strongly embedded within supply chain networks. Among
the activities that can be involved, container transloading and
customization offer opportunities to adapt products to regional
market characteristics, while keeping the advantage of mass
production upstream. Depending on the concerned supply chains,
certain intermediate locations may be able to integrate global
production networks more effectively. For instance, a location such
as Algeciras would be able to integrate supply chains having Asian,
African and South American components. The hub or relay transshipment functions are thus multiplied with their closer integration within supply chain management. Also, there is an
opportunity, particularly if transloading is already taking place, to
interface different container leasing markets, enabling better usage
of containerized assets. Hence, shipping companies can maintain
their assets in constant circulation within their networks, while at
the same time regional leasing companies can maintain their assets
within a more bounded, but also more flexible (like demurrage)
market. By doing so, repositioning costs are also consequently
reduced. Another multiplier can be the possibility to custom-clear
cargo bound to a regional market at the intermediate hub,
25
particularly if the hub is within the same trading block such as the
EU, NAFTA or ASEAN.
If a core competence is based on a complexity of technologies
and skills, it will be difficult for competitors to imitate. Therefore, it
will have a higher probability of generating competitive advantages
and less vulnerable position for the intermediate hub concerned.
Depending of regional geographical characteristics, namely deviation from shipping lanes, there are several reasons why intermediate hubs are likely to play more important roles that go beyond
conventional hub-feeder, interlining and relay functions. First of all,
economies of scale in shipping have reached a level seriously
undermining the serviceability of some ports, even those with
significant hinterlands. Hubs offer advantages of consolidation,
while the consolidation of flows in a hub allows the development of
artery routes served by large mainline vessels. In fact, the recent
economic downturn due to the financial tsunami can actually help
hubs, in the sense that shipping lines are looking for considerable
savings (given the nearly-immediate drop in freight rates, so they
have strong incentives for savings through route optimization.
Secondly, intermediate hubs are increasingly aware of the
vulnerability of the transshipment business since bound to the
strategies of shipping lines (cf. Ng, 2009). In essence, transshipment
and relay/interlining traffic are linked to the decisions of shipping
lines with regard to liner service network optimization and in
principle do not take place due to shippers’ requirements. However,
the development of transshipment activities can give incentive to
shippers to re-design their own distribution networks. This leads to
strategies at extracting more values from cargo passing through
stronger anchoring within the regional port system. For example,
the development of distribution networks centered on main
distribution facilities near the hub (value-added logistical activities) generates additional cargo flows to shipping lines. Hubs with
a local cargo base can have additional edges here when compared
to ‘offshore’ locations, as the former are in a position to combine the
transshipment/relay/interlining functions with gateway functions.
On the maritime segment, economies of scale and regional
hinterland access need to be better reconciled. The concept of
foreland-based regionalization refers to the integration of intermediate hubs in regional shipping networks, where the maritime
foreland of the intermediate hub is functionally acting as a hinterland (Fig. 7). For various reasons, for instance, deviation, small
volume and niche hinterland, some ports are not that well-connected to the global long distance shipping network and show
limited opportunities to improve this connectivity, as shipping
companies must consider effective configurations of the networks
that tend to focus on major gateways and intermediate hubs. The
intermediate hub enables a level of accessibility and such accessibility incites them to look beyond their conventional transshipment
role. This includes actions to extract more values of cargo passing
through and, as such, get more economic rents out of transshipment facilities. Such strategies have led to some transshipment
hubs, such as Gioia Tauro and Algeciras, to develop inland rail
services to capture and serve the economic centres in the distant
hinterlands directly, while at the same time trying to attract
logistics sites to the ports. The multiplying effects of being an
intermediate hub in terms of frequency of port calls and connectivity to the global economy can thus be leveraged for developing
hinterland activities.
Theys, Ryoo, and Notteboom (2008) developed a model for
determining seaport-located logistics activities. Their empirical
application to the port of Busan demonstrated that, in case ports
were involved in providing logistics services to transshipment
cargo, hinterland characteristics remained fundamentally important in terms of logistics attractiveness. First of all, if ports were
serving both their own hinterland as overseas markets, the extent
26
J.-P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom / Research in Transportation Economics 27 (2010) 19–29
considering the network configuration of shipping companies.
Shippers must provide a network structure to cope with economies
of scale and intermediate locations minimizing deviation from
major shipping lanes, with geography playing significant roles in
combination with liner network dynamics. Hence, foreland-based
regionalization is a step forward in reconciling the operational
characteristics of forelands and hinterlands.
4. Foreland-based regionalization: reconciling forelands and
hinterlands
to which a corridor was developed would influence the number of
logistics facilities in the port that served their own hinterland
markets. For poorly developed hinterland corridors, the port would
be ideally located for logistics facilities targeted to the hinterland,
on top of the logistics centres that were already based in the port
area for serving overseas markets. On the other hand, in case of
well-developed corridors, logistics facilities for import/export
cargo might move closer to consumption and production areas in
the hinterland. Secondly, the hinterland connections of (smaller)
ports that were served by feeder connections also affected the
location possibilities that companies had for logistics facilities.
When a port transshipped cargoes to smaller ports with a poorly
developed hinterland, economies of scale and scope would make
this port particularly attractive for locating logistics facilities targeted to those overseas areas. Thus, the overseas port and their
hinterlands would likely have relatively few logistics facilities. In
contrast, when the overseas port had strongly developed corridors
serving larger parts of its own hinterland, that port actually
reduced the logistics attractiveness of the port through which it
was feeding. Logistics facilities would then be located either in the
area surrounding the overseas port, or in its hinterland. Over time,
when cargo throughputs in such ports increased, they might be
directly served.
However, ports often tend to prefer direct ship calls within long
distance pendulum networks. Hence, unsurprisingly, some smaller
gateway ports are not eager to become part of foreland-based
regionalization strategies, given the risk of confirming their
secondary or minor role within the global shipping network.
However, it is not always logistically feasible since port volumes
may not justify sufficient frequencies. The positive outcome of
foreland-based regionalization is that it enables the system to
support a level of traffic which otherwise would not be feasible,
Foreland Traffic
Hinterland Traffic
Cost per TEU-KM
Fig. 7. A graphical conceptualization of foreland-based regionalization.
Shipping and inland freight distribution have evolved at two
different momentums, both improving the level of functional and
geographical integration of the global economy. Containerization
has attained a large diffusion within supply chains and several
niche markets, namely commodities, still have potentials for
development. Still, the role of shipping in global supply chains
remains to be further considered within the economic and transport literatures, with the design of liner shipping networks and
hinterland networks are strongly intertwined (Notteboom, 2004).
In the past, shipping lines were able to limit ports-of-call partly due
to advances in large-scale intermodal transportation combined
with absorption pricing systems, but the load centres were only as
competitive as the inland and relay links that connected to it. The
optimal network design is not only function of carrier-specific
operational factors, but also of shippers’ needs (in terms of transit
time and other service elements) and of shippers’ willingness to
pay for a better service. The more cost efficient the network
becomes from a carrier’s perspective, the less convenient that
network could be for the shippers’ needs in terms of frequency and
flexibility. As indicated by Fig. 8, there is a growing disparity
between the maritime and inland sides of the freight distribution
equation as traffic volumes reach a certain level. Economies of scale
of shipping are a logical process, particularly as volumes increase,
leading to larger loads between ports of call. Such a process is less
clear for inland transportation as containerized freight must be
broken into much small loads due to geographical fragmentation of
production/consumption and supply chain management. At some
traffic levels, diseconomies of scale have resulted in congestion,
difficulties to meet expected levels of service and higher costs.
Any change, let it be market or technical, challenges the balance
in terms of capacity and level of service between forelands and
hinterlands. It also forces additional strategies to reconcile them,
particularly if a change has impacted one system more than the
other and thus led to additional imbalances. Over this, the full
Regionalization
Volume
Fig. 8. Cost per TEU-KM for hinterland and foreland traffic.
J.-P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom / Research in Transportation Economics 27 (2010) 19–29
impact of a new class of containerships above the 10,000 TEUs
threshold is subject to much speculation, notably their impacts on
the reducing number of ports-of-call and on the configuration of
shipping networks, certainly not helped by the economic downturn
since mid-2008. While hinterland-based regionalization has
allowed inland freight distribution to keep up with volume and
network configuration changes within shipping, the new imbalances brought by new mega containerships may reinforce forelandbased regionalization.
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 pendulum services calls. Forelandbased regionalization can support export-oriented strategies with
a better connectivity of more marginal (or in their early stage of
growth) ports to global shipping networks and thus international
trade. There are also site constraints, environmental factors or
simple market potentials that 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 with a 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. A better reconciliation between forelands and
hinterlands would help to insure that returns on investments are
higher; subject to less fluctuation and improving competitiveness
of maritime ranges.
The reinforcement of regional economic integration through
trade agreements could lead to a better recognition of intermediate
hubs within a common international trade and transport policy.
The intermediate hub, through foreland-based regionalization,
could become a functional gateway (port of entry) where shipments are cleared through customs before reaching its final ports of
destination by a feeder service. Such a strategy would also help
anchoring added-value activities at intermediate hubs, such as free
trade zones, at a traffic level that would promote the cost effectiveness of regional distributions.
27
While foreland-based and hinterland-based regionalization can
co-exist in the same region, each port system shows a dominance of
one of the two approaches. A few examples can be discussed:
The container ports in the Baltic Sea in Europe rely on a foreland-based regionalization model to get access to major trade
routes. The major container ports along the Hamburg-Le Havre
range, i.e., Hamburg, Bremerhaven, Rotterdam, and to a lesser
extent, Antwerp, Zeebrugge and Le Havre serve as intermediate
hubs. Mainline vessels call at these main ports while the Baltic
ports receive the connecting feeder services. The observed
routing practices are a result of the long diversion distance to
Baltic ports for mainline vessels and the limited nautical
accessibility of the Baltic Sea (Baltimax vessels). As container
volumes within the region grow strongly, major Baltic ports
such as St. Petersburg in Russia (1.66 million TEUs in 2007),
Kotka in Finland (570,000 TEUs) and Gdynia in Poland (614,000
TEUs) are among the ports aiming for direct calls of deep sea
vessels. Up to now, the market continues to rely on the huband-spoke solution centered on the intermediate hubs in the
Hamburg-Le Havre range. The existing model goes hand-inhand with the establishment of major European Distribution
Centers (EDC) in the Benelux countries (near the main ports
Rotterdam, Antwerp and Zeebrugge) and in the northern part
of Germany. These EDCs also serve the Scandinavian and Baltic
markets, mainly via the existing feeder networks. The port of
Aarhus in Denmark and Gothenburg in Sweden, both situated
near the entrance of the Baltic, have ambitions to increase their
intermediacy role, both in maritime services and logistic
activities, between the overseas markets and the Baltic;
Next to their intermediacy vis-à-vis the Baltic port system, the
main ports in the Hamburg-Le Havre range rely heavily on
hinterland-based port regionalization strategies to serve the
hinterland regions in Western-Europe and Central- and
Eastern-Europe. Respective port authorities have established
task forces together with various stakeholders (carriers, shippers, transport operators, labor and government bodies) to
identify and address issues affecting logistics performance and
Fig. 9. Foreland- and hinterland-based regionalization in Pacific Asia.
28
J.-P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom / Research in Transportation Economics 27 (2010) 19–29
to enhance collective actions and coordination (see also Van
der Horst and De Langen 2008; De Langen and Chouly 2004;
Notteboom, 2006, 2008) with port authorities acting as facilitators. Apart from port authorities, other organizations are also
adopting facilitating roles in port regionalization issues
(cf. representative bodies such as Alfaport in Antwerp and
Deltalinqs in Rotterdam);
Among the major trade gateways of Pacific Asia (Fig. 9), two
major port clusters are dominated by hinterland-based
regionalization where transshipment traffic is more limited:
Hong Kong and Shanghai. This conventionally fits the exportoriented strategies of the major manufacturing clusters along
China’s coastline, with facilities located in proximity to port
terminals to insure an efficient access to global shipping
networks, as hinterland’s access tends to be poor. There is also
the emergence of a foreland-based regionalization with three
major intermediary hubs linked to an array of smaller portsBusan, Kaohsiung and Singapore. The intermediary roles of
Busan and Singapore are reinforced by a detour index that the
Yellow Sea and the Gulf of Thailand respectively impose on
pendulum services. Supply chain integration set in place by
FDIs (e.g. Korea/Northern China and Taiwan/Central China) also
favors the use of the national intermediary hub. Also of
significance are the prospects of economic integration, which
can lead to the reconfiguration within certain regional shipping
networks, such as ASEAN. Last but not least, it remains to be
seen if the re-establishment of direct shipping links between
Taiwan and Mainland China (since December 2008) will favor
a foreland-based regionalization with Kaohsiung being the
main hub, but this seems a likely possibility considering the
existing high level of economic integration and the importance
of Taiwanese shipping lines (like Evergreen).
5. Conclusions: an unfolding paradigm?
The evolution of the role and function of intermediary hubs has
resulted in a process that has been defined as foreland-based
regionalization, which is the integration of intermediate hubs in
regional shipping networks, where the maritime foreland of the
intermediate hub functionally acts as a hinterland. Doing so insures
greater traffic stability at the intermediate hub and enables smaller
port to have access to global shipping networks.
In addition to the conventional risk of footloose operators
switching traffic to another intermediate hub, market change risks
(such as lower volumes) underline the need for intermediate hubs
to mitigate these risks through a higher integration with their
feeder ports. Concomitantly, there is growing evidence that
containerization is entering a phase of maturity (Notteboom &
Rodrigue, 2009b), where future volumes are likely to grow at
a lower rate than previously observed, a trend reinforced by global
recessionary forces that have been unfolding since 2008, forcing
carriers to re-consider their shipping networks. Reducing shipping
rates, as well as lower cargo volumes along several pendulum
routes, serve as strong incentives to drop some lower volume portsof-call and place greater emphasis on a hub-feeder structure for
regional freight markets. By doing so, service frequency can
maintained through fewer assets. In this context, foreland-based
regionalization can become a more important strategy of regional
competition within global freight distribution systems than it
currently is.
Several issues remain to be addressed to substantiate the foreland-based regionalization thesis. In particular, smaller ports may
be reluctant players in such a system, as it can be perceived that it
would limit their growth opportunities and capacities. Ports,
whatever their size, aim at direct calls and some could attempt to
also become an intermediary hub. In the present port competitive
framework, smaller, notably container, ports are also frequently
tempted to making speculative investment decisions without any
degree of assurance that traffic will increase and shipping lines will
retain their loyalties. Their only belief is that a lack of investments
will certainly not increase traffic (Slack, 1993). Such supply-driven
strategies could lead to overcapacity and a more vulnerable intermediate hub, since regional competition is more acute to secure
this role. Thus, a good strategy for smaller ports is to link to more
than one hub, providing more robustness in the network with
improved flexibility in freight distribution, as well as a better
synchronization between regional and global traffic flows.
Finally, there is also the question pertaining to if foreland-based
regionalization is simply a transition phase in port system development. There is evidence that it may not be the case and that
foreland-based regionalization would be a distinct phase on its
own. The massification of flows linked to vessel sizes leaves limited
options outside major gateways and hubs and the prospects of
higher energy prices would also favor intermediate locations, as
higher capacity and lower speed would be a characteristic of long
distance shipping. Since shipping companies and port operators are
likely to continue making key asset management decisions, the
emergence of intermediary hubs and the foreland-based regionalization they entail appears to be a conscious decision to establish,
when suitable, such a network configuration linking regional and
global shipping networks. Thus, further research should be done to
measure the performance and efficiency of foreland-based
regionalization. Network-related indicators, such as transshipment
percentage and connectivity via relay/interlining operations, obviously provide first indications of the reliance of a port system on
intermediate hubs. However, empirical work on the foreland-based
regionalization concept demands more and new indicators to
measure the vulnerability of intermediate hubs in the network and
the capacity of the hubs to extract economic rent through the
development of value-added logistics services. The ideas and
concepts proposed in this paper can thus be pivotal in shaping the
direction of port evolution and development patterns in the post2008 world.
References
Ashar, A. (2002). Revolution now. Containerisation International. January 2002.
Aversa, R., Botter, R. C., Haralambides, H., & Yoshizaki, H. (2005). A mixed integer
programming model on the location of a hub port in the east coast of South
America. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 7, 1–18.
Baird, A. (2006). Optimising the container transshipment hub location in northern
Europe. Journal of Transport Geography, 14(3), 195–214.
Barke, M. (1986). Transport and trade. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.
Blumenhagen, D. (1981). Containerisation and hinterland traffic. Maritime Policy
and Management, 8, 176–206.
Brooks, M. (2009). Liberalization in maritime transport, International Transport
Forum. Paris: OECD. 31 p.
Chang, Y. T., Lee, S.-Y., Tongzon, J., Chou, C. C., Chu, C. W., & Liang, G. S. (2008). Port
selection factors by shipping lines: different perspectives between trunk liners
and feeder service providers. Marine Policy, 32(6), 877–885.
Charlier, J. (1982). Arrière-pays portuaires et analyse multivariée des flux de transport:
application aux relations maritimes des regions françaises, allemandes et américaines. Louvain: Université Catholique de Louvain, Institut de Géographie.
De Langen, P. W., & Chouly, A. (2004). Hinterland Access Regimes in Seaports.
European Journal of Transport & Infrastructure Research, 4(4), 361–380.
De Monie, G. (1997). The global economy, very large containerships and the funding
of mega hubs. In Port Finance Conference, London, June 1997 (pp. 26–27).
Fagerholt, K. (2004). Designing optimal routes in a liner shipping problem. Maritime
Policy and Management, 31(4), 259–268.
Fleming, D. K., & Hayuth, Y. (1994). Spatial characteristics of transportation hubs:
centrality and intermediacy. Journal of Transport Geography, 2(1), 3–18.
Fleming, K. (2000). A geographical perspective on the transshipment function.
International Journal of Maritime Economics, 2(3), 163–176.
Gilman, S. (1999). The size economies and network efficiency of large containerships. International Journal of Maritime Economics, 1(1), 39–59.
J.-P. Rodrigue, T. Notteboom / Research in Transportation Economics 27 (2010) 19–29
Guy, E. (2003). Shipping line networks and the integration of South America trades.
Maritime Policy and Management, 30(3), 231–242.
Hayuth, Y. (1981). Containerization and the load center concept. Economic
Geography, 57(2), 160–176.
Hayuth, Y. (1985). Seaports: the challenge of technological and functional changes.
In E. M. Borgese, & N. Ginsburg (Eds.), Ocean yearbook, Vol. 5 (pp. 79–101).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hayuth, Y., & Fleming, D. F. (1994). Concepts of strategic commercial location: the
case of container ports. Maritime Policy and Management, 21, 187–193.
Henesey, L. (2006). Overview of transshipment operations and simulation. Malta:
MedTrade Conference. pp. 6–7 April 2006.
Hilling, D., & Hoyle, B. S. (1984). Spatial approaches to port development. In
B. S. Hoyle, & D. Hilling (Eds.), Seaport systems and spatial change (pp. 1–19).
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Lee, S. W., Song, D. W., & Ducruet, C. (2008). A tale of Asia’s world ports: the spatial
evolution in global hub port cities. Geoforum, 39(1), 372–385.
Lirn, T. C., Thanopoulou, H. A., Beynon, M. J., & Beresford, A. K. C. (2004). An
application of AHP on transshipment port selection: a global perspective.
Maritime Economics and Logistics, 6, 70–91.
McCalla, R. (2008). Container transshipment at Kingston Jamaica. Journal of Transport Geography, 16, 182–190.
McCalla, R., Slack, B., & Comtois, C. (2005). The Caribbean basin: adjusting to global
trends in containerization. Maritime Policy & Management, 32(3), 245–261.
Ng, A. (2009). Port competition: The case of north Europe. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag.
Ng, K. Y. A. (2006). Assessing the attractiveness of ports in the North European
container transshipment market: an agenda for future research in port
competition. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 8(3), 234–250.
Ng, K. Y. A., & Gujar, G. C. (2009). The spatial characteristics of inland transport hubs:
evidences from Southern India. Journal of Transport Geography, 17(5), 346–356.
Ng, K. Y. A., & Pallis, A. A. (2007). Reforming port governance: the role of political culture.
In Proceedings of IAME 2007 conference, Athens, Greece, July 2007 (pp. 4–6).
Notteboom, T. (2004). A carrier’s perspective on container network configuration at
sea and on land. Journal of International Logistics and Trade, 1(2), 65–87.
Notteboom, T. (2006). Port regionalization in Antwerp. In T. Notteboom (Ed.), Ports
are more than piers (pp. 307–328). Antwerp: De Lloyd.
Notteboom, T. (2008). The relationship between seaports and the intermodal hinterland in light of global supply chains: European challenges. Discussion Paper No.
2008-10. OECD-International Transport Forum. 44.
Notteboom, T. (2009a). Complementarity and substitutability among adjacent
gateway ports. Environment and Planning A, 41(3), 743–762.
Notteboom, T. (2009b). Path dependency and contingency in the development of
multi-gateway port regions and multi-hub port regions. In T. Notteboom, P. De
Langen, & C. Ducruet (Eds.), Ports in proximity: Competition and cooperation
among adjacent seaports (pp. 55–72). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Notteboom, T., & Rodrigue, J. P. (2005). Port regionalization: towards a new phase in
port development. Maritime Policy and Management, 32(3), 297–313.
Notteboom, T., & Rodrigue, J. P. (2008). Containerisation, box logistics and global
supply chains: the integration of ports and liner shipping networks. Maritime
Economics and Logistics, 10(1/2), 152–174.
Notteboom, T., & Rodrigue, J. P. (2009a). Inland Terminals within North American and
European Supply Chains. In: Transport and Communications Bulletin for Asia and
29
the Pacific, Vol. 78. United Nations: Economic and Social Commission for Asia
and the Pacific.
Notteboom, T., & Rodrigue, J. P. (2009b). The future of containerization: perspectives
from maritime and inland freight distribution. GeoJournal, 74(1), 7–22.
Notteboom, T., & Winkelmans, W. (2001). Structural changes in logistics: how
will port authorities face the challenge? Maritime Policy and Management, 28(1),
71–89.
Rimmer, P. J., & Comtois, C. (2009). China’s container-related dynamics, 1990–2005.
GeoJournal, 74(1), 35–50.
Robinson, R. (1998). Asian hub/feeder nets: the dynamics of restructuring. Maritime
Policy and Management, 25(1), 21–40.
Robinson, R. (2002). Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: the new
paradigm. Maritime Policy and Management, 29, 241–255.
Rodrigue, J. P. (1999). Globalization and the synchronization of transport terminals.
Journal of Transport Geography, 7, 255–261.
Rodrigue, J.P., Debrie, J., Fremont, A., Gouvernal, E., (2010). Functions and actors of
inland ports: European and North American dynamics, Journal of Transport
Geography, in press.
Rodrigue, J. P., & Notteboom, T. (2009). The terminalization of supply chains:
reassessing the role of terminals in port/hinterland logistical relationships.
Maritime Policy and Management, 36(2), 165–183.
Sargent, A. J. (1938). Seaport and hinterlands. London: Adam and Charles Black.
Slack, B. (1993). Pawns in the game: ports in a global transportation system. Growth
and Change, 24, 579–588.
Taaffe, E. J., Morrill, R. L., & Gould, P. R. (1963). Transport expansion in underdeveloped countries: a comparative analysis. Geographical Review, 53, 503–529.
Tai, H. (2005). Analysis of hub port choice for container trunk lines in East Asia.
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 6, 907–919.
Theys, C., Ryoo, D. K., & Notteboom, T. (2008). Towards a generic framework for the
development of logistics in seaports: lessons from the Busan case. Journal of
International Logistics and Trade, 6(2), 1–22.
Van Der Horst, M. R., & De Langen, P. W. (2008). Coordination in hinterland
transport chains: a major challenge for the seaport community. Journal of
Maritime Economics & Logistics, 10, 108–129.
Van Klink, H. A. (1995). Towards the borderless mainport Rotterdam: An analysis of
functional, spatial and administrative dynamics in port systems. In: Tinbergen
Institute Research Series, Vol. 104. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Vigarié, A. (Ed.). (1979). Ports de commerce et vie littorale. Paris: Hachette.
Waals, F., & Wijnolst, N. (2001). Malacca-max: container shipping network
economy. In Proceedings of the IAME 2001 conference, Hong Kong (pp. 191–207).
Wang, J., Olivier, D., Notteboom, T., & Slack, B. (Eds.). (2007). Ports, cities and global
supply chains. Alderton: Ashgate.
Weigend, G. G. (1958). Some elements in the study of port geography. Geographical
Review, 48, 185–200.
Wiegmans, B., Van Der Hoest, A., & Notteboom, T. (2008). Port and terminal
selection by deep-sea container operators. Maritime Policy and Management,
35(6), 517–534.
Wijnolst, N., & Wergeland, T. (2008). Shipping innovation. Alkmaar: Dynamar.
Zohil, J., & Prijon, M. (1999). The MED rule: the interdependence of container
throughput and transshipment volumes in the Mediterranean ports. Maritime
Policy and Management, 26, 175–193.