30 - 11 - 2020 - Port Econo

Transport Reviews
A Transnational Transdisciplinary Journal
ISSN: 0144-1647 (Print) 1464-5327 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ttrv20
Port Economics, Policy and Management: Content

Classification and Survey
Athanasios A. Pallis , Thomas K. Vitsounis , Peter W. De Langen & Theo E.

Notteboom
To cite this article: Athanasios A. Pallis , Thomas K. Vitsounis , Peter W. De Langen & Theo E.
Notteboom (2011) Port Economics, Policy and Management: Content Classification and Survey,
Transport Reviews, 31:4, 445-471, DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2010.530699
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2010.530699
Published online: 31 Mar 2011.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1277
View related articles
Citing articles: 61 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ttrv20
Transport Reviews, Vol. 31, No.4, 445–471, July 2011
Port Economics, Policy and Management: Content

Classification and Survey
ATHANASIOS A. PALLIS*, THOMAS K. VITSOUNIS*, PETER W. DE

LANGEN** AND THEO E. NOTTEBOOM†
*Department of Shipping, Trade and Transport, University of the Aegean, Chios, Greece;
**Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences, Eindhoven University of
Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands; †Institute of Transport and Maritime Management
Antwerp (ITMMA), University of Antwerp, Antwerp Belgium
Taylor and Francis
TTRV_A_530699.sgm
(Received 18 July 2009; revised 4 April 2010; accepted 28 September 2010)

Transport
10.1080/01441647.2010.530699
0144-1647
Original
Taylor
02010
00
Athanasios
apallis@aegean.gr
000002010
&Article
Francis
Reviews
(print)/1464-5327
A.Pallis (online)
ABSTRACT This paper presents a taxonomy and analysis of the content of published
research in port economics, policy and management (port studies). The recent increase of
these publications suggests a growing interest in the study of ports. However, the research
characteristics and directions of this research field are unidentified. This paper provides a
systematic analysis of port studies published during the period 1997–2008. A comprehen-
sive cross-citation and analysis of the themes, approaches and findings of all 395 relevant
journal papers identifies the extent to which the research field is maturing, and the leading
papers. This paper also presents an extensive analysis of the content, based on the classifi-
cation of all port studies into seven research themes. For each theme, research topics,
widely used research questions, concepts and research methods and the most important
research findings are discussed. Finally, we identify emerging research challenges and
research questions that still need to be answered.
Introduction
This paper presents a detailed analysis of the content of research in port econom-
ics, policy and management (hereafter termed ‘port studies’) based on the analy-
sis of all journal papers published during the period 1997–2008. Pallis et al. (2010)1
provide an extensive bibliometric analysis of the 395 relevant papers identified in
51 different journals (see Appendices 1 and 2) and conclude that port studies is an
emerging field that lacks coherence: most port studies are rather localized.
Authors tend to study ports in their ‘home country’. International comparative
research and international cooperation between scholars are still limited, yet
developed in recent years.
The present paper develops a taxonomy for the groups of papers examining
similar themes and surveys the different research themes in detail. The 395 papers
Correspondence Address: Athanasios A. Pallis, Department of Shipping, Trade and Transport, University
of the Aegean, 2 Korai St, Chios 82100, Greece. Email: apallis@aegean.gr
0144-1647 print/1464-5327 online/10/000001-46

© 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2010.530699
446 A. A. Pallis et al.
are classified in seven research themes. Table 1 shows these seven themes and the
total number of studies per theme. Any such classification is to some extend
subjective, especially since some papers address two or more research themes.2
Therefore the following process was followed: each author classified the papers
independently, and results were compared. There was agreement on the vast
majority of the papers. The other cases were discussed in detail and classified
jointly. The resulting classification is a valuable and necessary part of a compre-
hensive overview of port studies.
Table 2 shows the number of citations between the different themes. Relatively
many citations are to other papers that address the same theme. This frequent
‘within theme’ citation suggests that the endorsed content classification is valid
and useful.3
This classification provides the basis for the detailed content survey of the
research output. In the remainder of this paper, we review the main findings and
current research challenges of the seven research themes. This review focuses on
the leading papers, i.e. the most cited by other papers in the database (Table 3).
However, due to a ‘publication time gap’ between submitting a paper and the
final publication—widely accepted in review studies (cf. Macharis and Bontekon-
ing, 2003; Bontekoning et al., 2004; Steenken, et al., 2004; Stahlbock and Voss,
2008), studies published in 2007 and 2008 are discussed in more detail even
though these papers have not been cited yet. A short overview of the less influen-
tial papers (in terms of citations) is also provided.
The analysis of each category discusses: (1) the widely used research questions,
(2) concepts, (3) research methods, (4) the most important research findings, and
concludes on (5) new research challenges.
While the years under scrutiny (1997–2008) have been characterized by a wealth
of papers on port-related themes, there were also valuable contributions to the
field in preceding decades. The much-cited earlier work by Richard Goss (1990a,
1990b, 1990c, 1990d) on port authorities (PAs) is among the most illustrative of
these examples. We refer the reader to the Suykens and Van de Voorde (1998)
review of a quarter of a century of academic publications in the field of port
management in Europe, and Heaver (2006) who provides a literature review of the
evolution of port economics in the past 50 years with references to several papers
published before 1997.
Table 1. Port studies 1997–2008

Total number
Category of papers 2007–2008 2002–2006 1997–2001
(1) Terminal studies 40 10 22 8

(2) Ports in transport and supply chains 56 22 20 14
(3) Port governance 61 15 23 23
(4) Port planning and development 57 10 24 23
(5) Port policy and regulation 67 19 24 24
(6) Port competition and competitiveness 74 22 43 9
(7) Spatial analysis of seaports 40 11 15 14
Total 395 109 171 115
Table 2. Coherence expressed in citation ratios within and between research categories
Cited to
Terminal Ports in transport Port Port planning Port policy Port competition Spatial analysis
studies and supply chains governance and development and regulation and competitiveness of seaports
Cited from (38) (56) (54) (48) (62) (71) (32)
Terminal studies (30) 1.00 0.23 0.15 0.31 0.10 0.40 0.05
Ports in transport and supply chains (34) 0.20 1.00 0.32 0.42 0.14 0.42 0.32
Port governance (46) 0.40 0.58 1.00 0.51 0.20 0.28 0.22
Port planning and development (47) 0.44 0.65 0.48 1.00 0.34 0.43 0.69
Port policy and regulation (48) 0.18 0.43 0.78 0.82 1.00 0.61 0.15
Port competition and competitiveness (52) 0.65 0.35 0.27 0.62 0.11 1.00 0.12
Spatial analysis of seaports (29) 0.19 1.00 0.20 0.34 0.06 0.32 0.92
Note: Ratio = number of times Category A cites a given Category B/number of times that Category A cites the category ‘that is most cited by Category A’.
Port Economics, Policy and Management 447
Table 3. Most cited port studies (1997–2006)
448
Category Author Year Title No of citations
(1) Terminal studies Tongzon 2001 Efficiency Measurement of Selected Australian and Other International Ports using Data 26
Envelopment Analysis
Notteboom et al. 2000 Measuring and Explaining the Relative Efficiency of Container Terminals by means of 22
Bayesian Stochastic Frontier Models
Cullinane et al. 2002 A Stochastic Frontier Model of the Efficiency of Major container terminals in Asia: 15
A. A. Pallis et al.
Assessing the Influence of Administrative and Ownership Structures

Haralambides et al. 2002 Costs, Benefits and Pricing of Dedicated Container Terminals 15
Tongzon and Heng 2005 Port Privatization, Efficiency and Competitiveness: Some Empirical Evidence from 12
Container Ports (Terminals)
Airriess 2001 The Regionalization of Hutchison Port Holdings in Mainland, China 8
(2) Ports in transport Robinson 2002 Ports as Elements in Value-Driven Chain Systems: The New Paradigm 31
and supply chains Heaver et al. 2000 Do Mergers and Alliances Influence European Shipping and Port Competition? 21
Slack and Frémont 2005 Transformation of Port Terminal Operations: From the Local to the Global 14
Peters 2001 Developments in Global Seatrade and Container Shipping Markets: Their Effects on the 14
Port Industry and Private Sector Involvement
Notteboom 2004 Container Shipping and Ports: An Overview 9
De Souza Jn. et al. 2003 Liner Shipping Companies and Terminal Operators: Internationalisation or Globalisation? 7
McCalla 1999 Global Change, Local Pain: Intermodal Seaport Terminals and their Service Areas 7
(3) Port governance Notteboom and Winkelmans 2001 Structural Changes in Logistics: How will Port Authorities Face the Challenge? 37
Heaver et al. 2001 Co-Operation and Competition in International Container Transport: Strategies for Ports 16
Juhel 2001 Globalisation, Privatisation and Restructuring of Ports 14
Notteboom and Winkelmans 2001 Reassessing Public Sector Involvement in European Seaports 14
Paixao and Marlow 2003 Fourth Generation Ports: A Question of Agility? 12
Saudry and Turnbull 1997 Private Profit, Public Loss: The Financial and Economic Performance of UK Ports 11
Cullinane and Song 2002 Port Privatization Policy and Practice 10
Hoffmann 2001 Latin American Ports: Results and Determinants of Private Sector Participation 10
Baird 2000 Port Privatisation: Objectives, Extent, Process and the UK Experience 10
Table 3. (Continued)
Category Author Year Title No of citations
(4) Port planning Suykens and Van de Voorde 1998 A Quarter of a Century of Port Management in Europe: Objectives and Tools 16
and development Wang 1998 A Container Load Center with a Developing Hinterland: A Case Study of Hong Kong 15
Haynes et al. 1997 Regional Port Dynamics in the Global Economy: The Case of Kashsiung Taiwan 12
Sanchez et al. 2003 Port Efficiency and International Trade: Port Efficiency as a Determinant of Maritime 10
Transport costs
Helling and Poister 2000 US Maritime Ports: Trends, Policy Implications and Research Needs 8
Wang and Slack 2000 The Evolution of a Regional Container Port System: The Pearl River Delta 7
(5) Port policy and Haralambides 2002 Competition, Excess Capacity and the Pricing of Port Infrastructure 17
regulation Notteboom 2002 Consolidation and Contestability in the European Container Handling Industry 17
Haralambides et al. 2001 Port Financing and Pricing in the European Union: Theory, Politics and Reality 15
Flor and Defilippi 2003 Port Infrastructure: An Access Model for the Essential Facility 7
Kent and Ashar 2001 Port Competition Regulation: A Tool for Monitoring for Anti-Competitive Behaviour 6
(6) Port competition Martinez-Budria et al. 1999 A Study of the Efficiency of Spanish Port Authorities using Data Envelopment Analysis 19
and competitiveness Coto-Millan et al. 2000 Economic Efficiency in Spanish Ports: Some Empirical Evidence 15
Lirn, et al. 2004 An Application of AHP on Transhipment Port Selection: A Global Perspective 13
Malchow and Kanafani 2001 A Disaggregate Analysis of Factors Influencing Port Selection 12
Fleming and Baird 1999 Some Reflections on Port Competition in the United States and Western Europe 12
Song and Yeo 2004 A Competitive Analysis of Chinese Container Ports Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process 11
Tiwari et al. 2003 Shippers’ Port and Carrier Selection Behaviour in China: A Discrete Choice Analysis 11
Song 2003 Port Co-Opetition in Concept and Practice 10
(7) Spatial analysis Notteboom and Rodrigue 2005 Port Regionalization: Towards a New Phase in Port Development 15
of seaports Notteboom 1997 Concentration and Load Centre Development in the European Container Port System 13
Van Klink and Van de Berg 1998 Gateways and Intermodalism 12
Fleming 1997 World Container Port Rankings 7
Luo and Grigalunas 2003 A Spatial-Economic Multimodal Transportation Simulation Model for US Coastal 6
Container Ports
Content Survey
Terminal Studies
The analysis of methodologies for the measurement of performance of seaport
terminals and new strategies of terminal operating companies (TOCs) are centre
stage in this category. These papers take terminals as the unit of analysis and
examine either the economics of the operations or the economics and manage-
ment of the companies operating them. This category counts only 40 papers, as
our list of terminal studies excludes the abundant literature in the field of opera-
tions research (OR) applied to terminal operations.4
A large number of contributions discuss terminal performance. Most papers in
this category deal with efficiency and productivity issues. In general, a container
terminal is considered efficient or highly productive if it is able to produce a
maximum output for given inputs, or uses minimal inputs for the production of a
given output.
Until late 1990s, studies on container terminal efficiency primarily focused on
partial productivity measures (e.g. vessel turnaround time, crane or yard produc-
tivity). Since then, academics showed a growing interest in methods to examine
the overall terminal efficiency. This search resulted in the application of quantita-
tive techniques offering a more comprehensive approach to efficiency measure-
ment.5 Since ten years or so, an impressive stream of papers that use data
envelopment analysis (DEA) and stochastic frontier models (SFMs) to measure
overall terminal efficiency has emerged: in six of the most cited terminal studies
(Table 3) the authors deploy such techniques.
SFMs are stochastic and parametric methods of analysis. Notteboom et al.
(2000) were the first in the database to introduce a Bayesian approach to SFMs in a
port terminal context with an application to 36 European container ports.6 DEA,
however, remains the most widely applied method to measure terminal effi-
ciency.7 Early full DEA applications include Tongzon (2001) and Cullinane et al.
(2002). Turner et al. (2004) use DEA to measure terminal productivity growth in
North American terminals, along with a Tobit regression to examine the determi-
nants of infrastructure productivity. Their analysis reveals the relationship
between ports and the rail industry as a key determinant. Wang and Cullinane
(2006) use DEA to measure efficiency and scale economies in 104 European
container terminals, concluding that large terminals are in general more efficient.
Other DEA applications can be found in Itoh (2002; Japanese case), Cullinane and
Wang (2006; Asia) and Ramos and Macada (2006; Mercosur region). Lin and
Tseng (2007) apply five different DEA models to container ports in the Asia-
Pacific Region. Cullinane et al. (2004) apply DEA Windows Analysis to container
port production efficiency.
Cullinane et al. (2005) attempt to link DEA with privatization. Tongzon and
Heng (2005) apply SFMs to demonstrate that private sector participation in the
port industry to some extent can improve port operation efficiency, which will in
turn increase port competitiveness. Gonzalez and Trujillo (2008) also looked at
the relationship between institutional (re)forms and terminal efficiency. They esti-
mated a translog distance function to demonstrate that Spanish port reforms
resulted in significant improvements in technological change, but that technical
efficiency has changed little on average. The translog distance function is also
used in Rodrıguez-Alvarez et al. (2007) econometric model, which calculates the
technical and the allocative efficiency in Las Palmas (Spain).
Some papers bring DEA and SFMs together in comparative studies (cf.
Cullinane et al., 2006). Using disaggregated data and explicitly referring to DEA
and SFMs, Cochrane (2008) demonstrates that exogenous market differences can
have a significant effect on the throughput of terminals managed and operated at
similar levels of efficiency. He concludes that output measures should be
disaggregated into separate components.
While efficiency measurement via the above techniques has attracted most
attention, other approaches to terminal efficiency remain important as well.
Bassan (2007) introduces four performance measures in order to establish a
recommended methodology that quantifies the port’s quality of operation. Yi
et al. (2000) suggest a conceptual model of a sharing Container Terminal Resource
Management Center (CTRMC) in order to save operation and investment costs
and improve operational efficiency. Jula et al. (2006) and Olivo et al. (2005) discuss
issues related to empty container management on terminals. The economics of
terminal operations and technical issues are addressed by Ballis et al. (1997) who
examined the operational efficiency of handling systems for low-volume
container terminals. Chen (1998) examines land utilization, storage space and
related terminal problems showing that the land productivity achieved in Asian
terminals is several times higher than in the European and North American termi-
nals. Song and Han (2004) apply a weighted two-stage least squares (WTSLS)
econometric method on simultaneous equations to identify performance determi-
nants of Asian container terminals, and conclude that berth utilization is the most
important performance determinant. Dragovic et al. (2006) focus on the perfor-
mance evaluation of the ship-berth link, and use simulation and queuing theory.
Mennis et al. (2008) deploy Markov theory and reliability models for the estima-
tion of the risks and costs linked to machinery breakdowns in container terminals.
Choi et al. (2003) apply the principles of enterprise resource planning (ERP) to
container terminal operating systems in view of eliminating redundancy and
ensure integration of operational processes.8
Musso et al. (1999) discuss the optimal size of a terminal. They argue that when
terminal size increases, a trade-off occurs between increasing terminal costs and
decreasing ship costs. A link exists between the optimal size of a terminal and
issues of intra-port and inter-port competition. Terada (2002) finds that the over-
capacity problem in Japanese container ports is caused by institutional factors,
more specifically accounting systems of the public PAs.
Researchers also assess the behaviour of TOCs. Haralambides et al. (2002) anal-
yse the implications of dedicated container terminals (DCTs). This is another
study combining OR with economic analysis, as the scholars use a queuing model
to show that DCTs can pose significant barriers to entry in liner shipping. Olivier
(2005) uses a multi-layered network framework to analyse the new inter-firm
partnerships involving ocean carriers and international terminal operators (ITOs)
and links entry of private firms to the emergence of partnerships in the container
terminal industry in Asia. Olivier et al. (2007) expand this work discussing the
emergence of transnational corporations (TNCs) in the terminal industry. Their
paper is particularly interesting since it links the entry of TNCs in foreign markets
to the institutional setting in these markets. Airriess (2001) zooms in on Hutchison
Port Holdings’ dominance in Mainland China.
Few terminal studies address financial and pricing issues linked to terminal
operations. Veenstra and Lang (2004) develop a model allowing the economic
evaluation of a terminal in terms of cash flow generated. The model can serve as a
tool for assessing operational and financial strategies, such as dynamic pricing.
Jara-Diaz et al. (2005) analyse the operation of cargo handling firms through the
estimation of a multioutput cost model. By doing so, they succeed in calculating
product-specific marginal costs, economies of scale and economies of scope,
which help identifying optimal pricing policies and the potential cost advantages
of increasing production. Kim and Kim (2007) develop a method for the optimal
price schedule for storing inbound containers in a container yard. Other terminal
evaluations focus on planning methods (Goodchild and Daganzo, 2007), the use
of modelling (Laik and Hadjiconstantinou, 2008) and the measurement of the
utilization of facilities in container terminals (Wiegmans et al., 2004).
Although terminal studies are well developed (Table 4), there are some chal-
lenges left for future research. First, an abundant literature exists on container
terminals. Other types of terminals (Ro-ro, liquefied natural gas—LNG, dry bulk,
multifunctional, etc.) have hardly received any attention (one of the few excep-
tions being Mattfeld and Kopfer (2003) on the Bremerhaven vehicle transhipment
hub terminal). This is quite surprising since many of these terminals have experi-
enced mounting challenges in recent years.9
Secondly, papers on DEA and SFMs are plentiful, but there is still room for
further methodological advances in the field of: (1) the measurement of the rele-
vant production factors (e.g. labour), (2) multi-stakeholder approaches to effi-
ciency measurement (e.g. operators and shipping lines might have different
efficiency measures), (3) the comparability of terminals, and (4) the practical use
of efficiency scores for market players and policy makers. A promising research
field that needs further attention lies in the combination of efficiency measure-
ment and port governance models, including terminal concession practices and
conditions.
Thirdly, terminal efficiency and terminal capacity are mostly approached in
isolation from broader supply chain (SC) dynamics. Research is needed to embed
Table 4. Terminal studies: widely used approaches

Themes Details
Terminal efficiency Overall efficiency: Mainly based on Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and
Stochastic Frontier Models (SFMs)
Partial efficiency measures
Markov Theory
Translog distance function
Principal component analysis
Link between efficiency and governance models/port reform
Impact of market differences on efficiency
Terminal capacity Land utilization
and size Optimal size of a terminal on the basis of generalized costs
Link between capacity and TOC strategy
Link between (over)capacity and port governance model/policy
Terminal capacity and inter-terminal competition
Strategies of terminal TOCs and dedicated terminals
operating companies Internationalization of TOCs
(TOC) Market entry/market barriers for TOCs
Optimization of Techniques from operations research (OR)
terminal operationsa Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
a
These papers are excluded from the list of the reviewed port papers; for a detailed review of OR stud-
ies, see Stahlbock and Voss (2008); Steenken et al. (2004).
terminal studies in mainstream SC literature. The key questions are how termi-
nals can contribute to optimal SC solutions, and how SC practices impact on the
operational imperatives for (container) terminals. Relevant sub-topics include
terminal network design at the level of TOCs, dwell times at terminals and related
charging policies and the complementarity between deep-sea terminals and
inland terminals in view of accommodating SC.
Fourthly, the specific role of port labour and the human factor in terminal oper-
ations remains under-researched. Ghosh and De (2000) looked at the role played
by port performance indicators (derived from principal component analysis) and
labour endowment in determining port traffic in a comparative static framework.
No other papers have addressed this important issue.
Ports in Transport and Supply Chains

There are 56 contributions that deal with the role of ports in transport and SC that
is a theme with remarkable growth of papers during 2007 and 2008. The main
topics addressed relate to shipping (networks) and its implications for ports; SC
trends and their implications for ports and PAs; logistics activities in seaports;
information flows in SC and their impact on ports and hinterland logistics.
The changing role of ports in SC received some attention in recent literature
(Peters, 2001; Carbone and De Martino, 2003). Bichou and Gray (2005) refer to the
wide variety of operational, organizational and strategic management approaches
to port systems.
Logistics developments created a rapidly changing environment for both liner
shipping and port markets. Shipping lines and terminal operators seek higher
margins and increased customer satisfaction through increases in vessel size, co-
operation, mergers, acquisitions, development of landside logistics services, ratio-
nalizing hub-and-spoke network and a global coverage (Notteboom, 2004).
Vigarié (1999) describes how general cargo handling and port operations were
transformed due to unitization and containerization. Slack and Frémont (2005)
analyse how changes in the logistics industry induced the transformation of
terminal operations from local to global. Midoro et al. (2005), De Souza et al.
(2003), Bichou and Bell (2007), Parola and Musso (2007), Wiegmans et al. (2008),
Parola and Veenstra (2008) and Vanelslander (2008) analyse how shipping lines
and the stevedoring industry are adapting to the new realities. Heaver et al. (2000)
elaborate on the implications of organizational changes in the shipping and termi-
nal industry on port competition. Zan (1999) proposes a model to simulate the
flow of foreign trade container cargo using game theory, and provides a dynamic
method for the analysis of the container cargo transportation market.
In line with the ‘pawns in the game’ approach by Slack (1994), Sletmo (1999)
underlines that in the containerization era and restructuring of SC, ports have lost
their role as dominant players in multimodal systems. In one of the most cited
port studies, Robinson (2002) argues that with the rapid and pervasive restructur-
ing of SC and logistics pathways in which ports are embedded, existing para-
digms no longer offer adequate insights into the functions of ports or PAs. Ports
must be seen as elements in value-driven CS and should as such deliver value to
shippers and third-party service providers. Also Mangan et al. (2008) examine
emerging roles played by ports in the context of logistics and SC management,
with a particular focus on the emerging concept of port-centric logistics. Jacobs
and Hall (2007) provide a case-study on the SC strategy of the port of Dubai.
Several papers stress the importance of agility to the port environment, which
involves being proactive along SC, facilitation of intermodal integration, as well
as organizational integration and partnership between ports and port users.
Wiegmans et al. (2001) address marketing channel flows, while Lee et al. (2003)
present a simulation study for the logistics planning of a container terminal. The
purposes served are the modelling of an SC network and the evaluation of SC
performance based on proposed strategies. Roh et al. (2007) use ‘structured analy-
sis and design technique’ (SADT) to analyse how interrelationships between asso-
ciated companies in the port cluster evolve and how port cluster companies
engage in the port logistics process.
Supply chain practices have resulted in growing volumes and mounting pres-
sures on port regions and inland transport systems in terms of land management,
infrastructure capacity and environmental impacts (McCalla, 1999b; Hesse, 2006).
Solutions to the congestion and environmental issues in Californian ports have
received particular attention (Regan and Golob, 2000; Giuliano and O’Brien, 2007;
Rahimi et al., 2008). Robinson (2006) develops a strategic framework on port-
oriented landside logistics in Australian ports and observes that landside freight
systems are guided by partial policy frameworks or even confronted with a seri-
ous policy vacuum.
Many ports rely on intermodal solutions via rail corridors and inland ports to
cope with volume growth and the imperatives of global SC. Gouvernal and
Daydou (2005) and Woodburn (2007) focus on how the rail freight industry in
north-west Europe adapts to changing markets. Konings (2007) addresses the
logistics need for a further improvement of container barge transport and
handling in Rotterdam, while De Langen (2007) presents a study of port selection
in a contestable hinterland: an area where various ports compete fiercely.
Vernimmen et al. (2007) analyse how the hinterland SC is affected by schedule
unreliability in liner shipping. Notteboom and Rodrigue (2008) argue that the
future is likely to bring attempts to cope with three particular geographical scales:
(1) the continental level (e.g. high-capacity long-distance corridors); (2) the
regional level (e.g. modal shift strategies); and (3) the local level (e.g. on-dock rail
or barge facilities to a nearby inland terminal).
The renewed role of inland ports in a seaport’s logistics strategy is gaining
attention. Walter and Poist (2004) analyse shipper preferences in setting up inland
ports in North America. Roso (2008) looks at the factors influencing the imple-
mentation of dry ports. Rahimi et al. (2008) develop an inland port location-alloca-
tion model for regional intermodal flows in five counties in Southern California.
With the quality of hinterland access depending, inter alia, on the behaviour of
a large variety of actors (such as shipping lines, terminal operators, forwarders,
PAs and the national/regional government), recent papers analyse how market
players and PAs can develop collective action to address relevant problems. De
Langen and Chouly (2004) introduce the ‘hinterland access regime’ concept and
analyse its quality in three port clusters (Rotterdam, Durban, Lower Mississippi).
Van Der Horst and De Langen (2008) take the coordination problem in hinterland
transport chains a step further by distinguishing four main arrangements to
improve coordination in hinterlands transport chains.
A number of scholars also examined regional implications of global maritime
integration (see Lee and Rodrigue, 2006 and Lee et al., 2006 for dynamics in
Asian regional port systems) or the absence of such global integration (see
Ducruet, 2008 on the North Korean port system). Wang and Cullinane (2008)
generate quantitative estimates of individual container port accessibility using

the principal eigenvector method to provide a better understanding of the
current structure of the global liner shipping network. The evolving role of
Mediterranean ports in global liner networks and with it the development of
transhipment hubs in the region received quite some attention (Ridolfi, 1999;
Zohil and Prijon, 1999; Gouvernal et al., 2005). Ferrari et al. (2006) extend the
discussion on the role of Mediterranean ports by elaborating on logistics
networks and the spatial distribution of European distribution centres. The
discussion on the optimal design of liner service networks in view of best meet-
ing the changing logistics challenges is present in Baird’s (2002) analysis of
Northern European ports.
A last topic of interest relates to the role of information technology in facilitat-
ing further integration of ports in SC. Papers in this area have addressed the role
of actors in setting up port information systems (Paik and Bagchi, 2000; Bagchi
and Paik, 2001) and the role of information technologies in the logistics competi-
tiveness of a port/terminal (Kia et al., 2000; Airriess, 2001; Lambrou et al., 2008).
To recap scholars have devoted an increasing number of studies to the role of
ports in transport and SC (Table 5). This research stream fits into a wider move-
ment to focus on value chains and SC, instead of specific parts of these chains.
However, some important challenges remain in this research field.
First, a very strong focus on container flows has been developed without
acknowledging the diverging logistics requirements different types of container-
ized goods might have. A commodity-wise approach of cargo flows and strate-
gies to fulfil the logistics needs of these specific commodities would be a step
forward. The study by Hall and Olivier (2005) on the automotive industry and its
relevant market players (car carriers and automobile importers) is one of the
papers with such a specialized approach.
Table 5. Studies on ports in transport and supply chains: widely used

approaches
Themes Details
Theorising the role of ports in Ports as elements in value-driven chain system

supply chains Core-periphery model
Changing logistics strategies of Market consolidation and its impact on port competition
terminal operators and shipping The place of terminals in vertical integration strategies
lines and its impact on ports Market power of port authorities
The role of seaport terminals Pricing strategies of TOC
Logistics parks near terminals
Hinterland access and supply chains Hinterland access regimes
Coordination problems among actors
Role of inland ports
Role of freight corridors
Local pressures on ports Environmental impacts
Road congestion and solutions
Supply chains and liner service Hub-and-spoke versus direct calls
networks Link between liner service design and the nature of
distribution networks
Schedule unreliability
The role of information technology Port information/community systems
Secondly, the literature on ports and SC is mainly descriptive. Measures and

methods to analyse the role of ports in SC are needed. Valuable attempts are
provided by Song and Panayides (2008) and Panayides and Song (2008) who
propose a conceptualization and empirical evidence of what really is meant by
port/terminal integration in the SC and how such integration can be measured
and quantified, as well as the extent to which different ports/terminals in the
world are integrated in the SC and competitive performance implications arising
thereof.
Port Governance
Several developments have challenged conventional public government led port
governance structures. The number of studies that discuss new models of port
governance demonstrates the interest of the academia in the resulting reforms.
During the early years of the examined period, the focus of studies in this theme
was on the potential of these reforms for improving port operations. In recent
years, the attention shifted to the outcome of port governance reforms, especially
port privatization processes.
Most early studies focus on the reform processes in specific countries and are
primarily descriptive in nature. As new public management philosophy swept
the world reform critiques and policy suggestions, appeared frequently over the
period 1997–2001 (Ircha, 1997; Misztal and Zurek, 1997; Cullinane and Song, 1998;
Everett and Robinson, 1998; Mangan and Furlong, 1998; Shashikumar, 1998;
Goulielmos, 1999; Shin, 2000; Baaj and Issa, 2001) and to a lesser extent more
recently (Llacer, 2006). Since the early 2000s, scientific research also concentrates
on theoretical arguments, producing some of the more influential studies of this
field (Table 3). One of the latter is Juhel’s (2001) review of the implications of
globalization on port restructuring towards a new distribution of roles between
public and private actors. Paixão-Casaca and Marlow (2003) criticize UNCTAD’s
‘port generation model’ suggesting an ‘agile fourth generation’ port model (for a
similar criticism and model development: Beresford et al., 2004).
Other leading studies in the field combine conceptualization development and
empirical research. Notteboom and Winkelmans (2001b) reassess the public
sector’s involvement in European ports. Cullinane and Song (2002) examine
trends in port privatization both conceptually and in practice, to conclude that
tailored privatization policies are essential. Baird (2000) reviews the objectives,
extent, process of port privatization, and creates a Port Privatization Matrix to
examine the UK experience. Saundry and Turnbull (1997) also examined the
British case of port privatization, a case that is unique as it is the only country
where port companies were fully privatized, to conclude that it resulted in
‘private profit, public loss’.
Studies providing comparative approaches of larger global or regional samples
are few but influential. Baird (2002) examines the privatization in the world’s top-
100 container ports; Hoffmann (2001) compares the results and determinants of
private sector participation in Latin American and identifies enough similarities
to suggest the presence of a ‘Latin American’ model. Cullinane and Song (2001)
study the administrative and ownership structure of Asian container ports (also:
Ircha, 2001b).
In the 2000s, the number of studies evaluating specific country-level port gover-
nance policies increased. These either intended to assess results in general
economic terms (Haralambides and Behrens, 2000; Dion et al., 2002; Serebrisky
and Trujillo, 2005; Kim et al., 2008; Castillo–Manzano et al., 2008; Pardali, 2008;
Qiu, 2008), or to assess specific aspects such as port legislation (e.g. Everett, 2003,
2007; Everett and Pettitt, 2006), organizational behaviour (Ircha, 2001a); or finan-
cial performance of (partly) privatized port companies (Pallis and Syriopoulos,
2007).10
An issue that recently generated interest is port labour. Within this stream, the
foci have included the impact of deregulation on dockers’ earnings (Talley, 2004);
the regulatory and ‘contractual insecurity’ in conditions of globalization (Saundry
and Turnbull, 1999); the effects of port lockout due to failing negotiations
between social partners (Farris, 2008); and dockworkers unions bargaining power
in US (Talley, 2002), Europe (e.g. Turnbull and Sapsford, 2001; Barton and
Turnbull, 2002; Turnbull, 2006) and at a global scale (Turnbull and Wass, 2007).
Quite recent is the interest in the relevant role of technological changes (Schwarz-
Miller and Talley, 2002) and ways to enhance port training and education (Ircha
and Balsom, 2005; De Langen, 2008).
Another core research theme is the role of PAs in contemporary port gover-
nance. Based on the matching framework approach of Baltazar and Brooks
(2001), Brooks (2004) illustrates that there is difficulty in using the existing
framework of either Baird (2000) or the World Bank Port Reform Toolkit to
understand the management of port activities. Brooks and Pallis (2008) further
work with this framework suggesting the development of coherent performance
measurements. The public good theory has also been used in order to study the
most appropriate role of PAs in contemporary port governance. This has been
done either explicitly, in order to explore the pros and the cons of public–
private partnerships (Vining and Boardman, 2008), or implicitly, in order to
explore port decision-makers role in advancing new ‘worlds of production’
(Chlomoudis et al., 2003).
In the most influential study of this category, Notteboom and Winkelmans
(2001a) examine paths for PAs to effectively face the challenges posed by the
structural changes in logistics. In a port strategy approach, the scholars suggest
that the PAs scope should go beyond that of a traditional landlord, towards an
active engagement in the development of port-related value-added logistics activ-
ities, information systems and intermodality.
This debate is linked with research on the coordination between firms in a port,
e.g. a container terminal community (Martin and Thomas, 2001; also Cullinane
and Song, 2001). In an additional theoretical dimension, De Langen (2004)
conceptualizes seaports as ‘clusters of economic activities’ and uses the theory of
collective action to examine cluster coordination, and assesses empirically the qual-
ity of collective action regimes (De Langen and Visser, 2005). This research is
linked with the PAs role in hinterland coordination (Research Theme 2). Heaver
et al. (2001) also discuss strategies for ports to achieve co-operation just as De
Martino and Morvillo (2008) and Yap and Lam (2004).
A final theme addressed is port governance in relation to internationalization of
port management practices. Wang et al. (2004) approach developments in China,
in a multidisciplinary way (economic, political, sociological), whereas Jacobs
(2007) focuses on the implications of institutional factors on internationalization.
Other institutional perspectives examine pressures to/from regional governance
(Wang and Slack, 2004), the environment (Burroughs, 2005), and PAs corporate
social responsibility (Grewal and Darlow, 2007).
Table 6. Port governance studies: widely used approaches

Themes Details
Theorising the context of Governance Globalisation; port models (generations;

combine conceptualisations and empirical
research)
Comparative analysis of port governance models Global or regional samples
Port governance reforms at a national scale—results Evaluation of the results (general economic
terms; specific (legislative, financial) terms;
focus on bigger (container) ports)
Port governance reforms at a national scale—potential Descriptive analysis (pre-reform and on-going
reform critiques, policy suggestions)
Industrial relations in ports Impact of deregulation on port labour; trade
unions power; education and training
The role of PAs in contemporary port governance. Strategy and management theories; theories of
public goods
The port community, cooperation in seaports Cluster theories; theories of collective action.
Governance through Cooperation between seaports Strategies; resources and inter-organizational
relationships
Institutional issues Multidisciplinary studies; institutionalism;
governance concepts; corporate social
responsibility
The specific research field has developed well beyond the initial, localized and
descriptive studies of governance reforms (Table 6). Remaining challenges relate
to both the empirical approach and the type of studies conducted. First, research
on port governance is focused on large (container) ports, with the Debrie et al.
(2007) study of secondary ports being a rare (recent) exemption. A better under-
standing of the governance of port systems, rather than of specific major ports, is
wanted. Second, the emerging environmental issues need to be integrated in port
governance research. The third challenge relates to labour issues; with labour
reorganization a key governance theme in several ports, a more focused and
inter-related research agenda would be valuable. Foremost, new theoretical
insights need to allow comprehensive assessments of specific governance
regimes. Towards this end, it would be useful to take stock of studies in other
industries including infrastructure (e.g. airports) and utilities.
Port Planning and Development

A number of papers focus on port planning and provide an overview of port
developments (Table 7). Suykens and Van de Voorde (1998) review the objectives
and tools for port management used during the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s.
Helling and Poister (2000) argue that one of the problems for port development is
the fact that benefits are increasingly dispersed while their adverse impacts
remain localized. De Langen (2005) presents an overview of trends and challenges
for seaports and Moglia and Sanguineri (2003) discuss the need for new
approaches to port planning. All these studies are broad and rather descriptive
(also Maloni and Jackson, 2005a).
These overviews are complemented by more detailed port planning case stud-
ies, the majority of which are also descriptive. The most widely cited are Wang’s
(1998) analysis of Hong Kong and Haynes et al. (1997) study of Kaoshiung. The
Table 7. Port planning and development studies: widely used approaches

Themes Details
Port planning Review papers and detailed studies of developments at port or at national
level; implications of network integration, and technology; only few
forecasting studies
Impact studies Economic impact at a local or regional scale; Input–output analyses, though
criticism exists; study of the relation between port efficiency, maritime costs
and trade flows.
Port development Specific issues analyses (location, size, strategies, investments); studies of
international, national and local (economic, political, geographical) factors
in shaping port development; some terminal development studies;
Dominance of container ports developments
Tendering: concessions Understudies theme but expanding research interest; local, regional
application; recent interest in the theorisation of the economics and the
regulatory framework
Hong Kong case shows the relevance of understanding hinterland networks of

ports. The study of Kaoshiung suggests that more attention needs to be paid to
the attractiveness of port cities and technological change. It also argues that the
traditional approach of providing port land and expect development to take place
is not sufficient to ensure prospective port development (on technological change
and port development, also: De and Ghosh, 2002). A third case that has received
attention is Baird’s (1999) examination of an early examples of private sector
driven port development, that of Felixstowe.
Scholars have started to re-think the port (Olivier et al., 2006) and address
specific issues such as location (Baird, 1997), and size effects (e.g. the econometric
estimation of scale and scope economies—Ircha, 2001c; Tovar et al., 2007). An
extensive number of studies deal with the interplay of international, national and
local (economic, political, geographical) factors in shaping port development
(Todd, 1997; Comtois, 1999; Hoyle, 1999; Marcadon, 1999; Brunt, 2000; Wang and
Slack, 2000; Brodin, 2001; Priemus, 2001; Loo and Hook, 2002; Wood, 2004; Paul,
2005; Wood and Dibben, 2005; Grossmann, 2008). The majority of these studies
focus on container ports analysis.
The growth and resulting congestion in the container segment have spurred
research in container port capacity (Maloni and Jackson, 2005b), strategies for
expansion (Dekker and Verhaege, 2008), optimal investment priorities in
container port development (Koh, 2001; Wiegmans et al., 2002) and risk manage-
ment in the case of large physical infrastructure investments (Ho and Ho, 2006).
Port development studies also include applications of the Frontier cost approach
(Barros, 2003a), the discussion of growth incentives for PAs (Barros, 2005), or the
application of growth-related quality assurance practices by PAs (López and
Poole, 1998).
On top of the more general studies, three key port planning and development
topics are identified: (1) forecasting, (2) economic impact of ports, and (3) plan-
ning and awarding of terminals. Although forecasting demand for port services
would be a powerful tool for governments, PAs, TOCs and port users, relevant
scientific research is limited (see Fung, 2001, who created a forecast model of
container throughput for Hong Kong, by studying various interactive relations
between major ports in East and South-East Asia). This is mainly due to the
complexity of forecasting port traffic. Elaborating a research agenda on this
vital issue is pending, particularly in the light of the recent crisis, which re-
emphasized the impact of exogenous variables on the demand for (trans)port
services.
Economic impact studies are estimates of a port’s contribution to local, national
and regional development. The input–output methodology was used to estimate
the regional economic impact of the ports of Tauranga (Hughes, 1997), Santander
(Castro and Coto Millan, 1998), Associated British Ports (Brayn et al., 2006),
Sardinia (Accario, 2008) and cruise terminals (Guerrero et al., 2008). Musso et al.
(2000) developed a methodology to estimate port-related employment in port
cities (e.g. Genoa) through estimating the probability of relationship between
port-related and non-related industries.
Hall (2004) provides a critique of port impact studies. Motivated by the effects
of a 2002 lockout in the US west coast ports, he claims that they offer very little
useful analysis of the short-run substitution behaviour as well as of long-run
effects such the diversification of patterns of transportation usage (for the latter
Hall, 2003), and concludes that these studies are poorly designed to estimate the
most significant economic impacts of port cargo handling, to the production and
consumption of that cargo in increasingly dispersed hinterlands.
Related to economic impact studies are the studies examining the relations
between port efficiency, maritime costs and trade flows. Sanchez et al. (2003) point
out the relevance of port costs for international trade patterns. Clark et al. (2004)
conclude that lower port costs lead to higher trade volumes. The study of port
infrastructure development as determinants of freight rates and trade costs
(Rettab and Azzam, 2008; Wilmsmeier and Hoffmann, 2008) has been accompa-
nied by attempts to model cargo handling costs (Jara-Diaz et al., 2002, 2008; Diaz-
Hernandez et al., 2008). Such studies are important given the fact that, due to the
reduction of trade barriers, transport costs are in many cases the most substantial
part of total trade costs.
Decisions concerning the number of terminals to be developed in a port and
methods to select terminal operators are increasingly important. Turner (2000)
employed simulation to examine the impact of container terminal leasing on
seaport performance (e.g. terminal utilization and container vessel time in the
system). He concluded that pooling independent carrier demand for terminal
services reduces total carrier costs for a given level of throughput and carrier
assets experience improved productivity through faster turnaround (simulation
is also used to study the relevant port environment: Paixão-Casaca, 2005).
Tendering and concessioning have only recently turned to themes of attentions.
Focusing on developing countries, Defilippi (2004) examines the concession of
Callao port in Peru to find out that a multi-operator scheme is not feasible with-
out a subsidy (another developing countries perspective Fernandez et al., 1999).
Van Niekerk (2005) discusses the regulation needed regarding concessioning (for
a sectoral case (towage) licensing Ergas et al., 2004). Pallis et al. (2008) discuss the
particulars of various concession processes, suggesting that concession proce-
dures may create entry barriers; this debate is associated with the discussion of
‘within port competition’ and regulation (see next section).
Even though general economics literature on concessions is well-developed
insights from established economic theories rarely been applied to terminal conces-
sions. It remains to be seen which kind of awarding procedure would be best for
which type of terminal concession to be granted. Research on issues such as the
allocation mechanisms (to be) used for granting concessions, the determination of
the terms and fees, and the inclusion of special clauses aimed at assuring that the
terminal operator will act in the interest of the PA and the wider community, are
increasingly interesting for both the academia and the port industry.
Port Policy and Regulation

Port policy and regulatory issues, in particular competition, pricing and financ-
ing, environmental, safety and security-related policy practices, are the second
most popular theme of port studies. Scholars examine the relevant developments
at both national and supranational level (Table 8). This group of studies remains,
however, highly fragmented, as indicated by the few influential (in terms of times
cited) studies (Table 3).
The analysis of economic rents by Goss (1999) has been recently followed by
studies on market entry. A common denominator is that such competition is
essential but currently limited in many regions. Notteboom (2002), questions the
contestability of the European container handling industry, given the consolida-
tion and horizontal integration strategies (also Atkin and Rowlinson, 2000).
Research on how limited intra-port competition affects regulatory practices (Kent
and Hochstein, 1998; Defilippi and Flor, 2008) led to the search for appropriate
competition regulation for monitoring anti-competitive behaviour (Kent and
Ashar, 2001). Others use mainstream economic theories (e.g. literature on ‘essen-
tial services’) to ensure access in specific port facilities (Flor and Defilippi, 2003)
and the regulatory conditions to lower the entry barriers (De Langen and Pallis,
2007). Relevant EU initiatives on market opening have also been assessed (Farrell,
2001, Pallis and Vaggelas, 2005).
Supranational policies on pricing mechanisms are a theme explored as a reac-
tion to EU developments. The intention to apply a full cost recovery pricing,
including the requirement of users paying for sunk costs has been the theme of
the Haralambides et al. (2001) study (also Bergantino, 2002; Gardner et al., 2006).
Table 8. Port policy and regulation: widely used approaches

Themes Details
Market access Application of mainstream economic concepts: Economic rent, market

contestability, consolidation, limited competition, entry barriers; interest in EU
developments
Pricing mechanisms Notably popular; inconclusive debate; theories applied: marginal cost
principle, welfare economics, strategic price setting, and services
differentiation; specific user/service/market peculiarities only occasionally
researched
Financing Public good theory; association with pricing mechanisms; recent interest in
implications of congestion
Environmental Fragmented research theme; emerging interest in EU developments
Safety and security Security is an emerging field; problem definition is still missing; first attempts
to estimate the impact of regulations.
Safety is understudied;
Competencies of Descriptive studies and economic and constitutional appraisals; comparisons
policy making- with industry’s perceptions; general approach, rarely based on market or other
levels peculiars; lack of coherence.
Institutional issues National–regional–intergovernmental approaches; few studies; lack of
coherence
The practical difficulties associated with national-level policies regarding port

fees definition (Psaraftis, 2005a) and implementation (Martinez-Budria et al.,
2001) are additional research themes.
The search for ‘best’ pricing mechanisms is popular, without, however, a wide
consensus on the optimum approaches. Haralambides (2002) focuses on marginal
cost pricing of infrastructure (also Goss and Stevens, 2001; Meersman et al., 2003)
as a ‘pricing discipline’ towards cost recovery and fair competition among users
and between ports. The search has also put emphasis on welfare economics and
public enterprise theory moving towards private enterprise pricing in a (quasi-)
commercial setting (Strandenes and Marlow, 2000), the potential of strategic price
setting (Ashar, 2001), the use of services differentiation (Holguin-Veras and Diaz,
1999), cost sharing (Bergantino and Coppejans, 2000) or a posteriori (e.g. official vs.
optimal tariff levels Perez-Labajos and Garcia, 2000) pricing mechanisms.
A maritime-user perspective has occasionally been applied, focusing on opti-
mum vessels’ fee model (Kumar, 2002; Skalberg, 2007), or alternative schemes to
allocate port slots via different pricing schemes (Strandenes, 2004). The same
infrequent presence is observed in the study of the potential competition, and/or
development implications of port pricing based on the particulars of a specific
shipping market (e.g. short-sea shipping Strandenes and Marlow, 2000).
The issue of pricing is closely related to port financing (Haralambides et al., 2001).
Public good theory has been applied to study financing policies (Baird, 2004), with
the issue of ‘taxes vs. user fees’ to finance ports remaining under consideration
(Talley, 2007). Recently, some interest has been in investments and pricing decisions
in the duopolistic port market and hinterland congestion (De Borger et al., 2008).
The study of environmental regulations has been extensive, without again a
coherence regarding theoretical developments. This is a ‘new’ theme rather than
one advancing/challenging previous studies. Scholars examine regulatory issues
associated with particular problems (e.g. dredging: Gibb, 1997; or reception of
ship-generated waste facilities: Ball, 1999; Butt, 2007; De Langen and Nijdam,
2008); environmentally friendly seaport development (Kendra, 1997); institutional
frameworks to apply coastal zone management (Hershman, 1999; Yarnell, 1999);
or monitoring and mapping effective management systems vis-à-vis environmen-
tal protection (Wooldridge et al., 1999). The implications of national (Ierland et al.,
2000) or port level (e.g. the clean truck programme in Los Angeles and Long
Beach Goodchild and Mohan, 2008), environmental regulations on the integration
with intermodal chains are also studied. Policy analysis initially focused on
national policies towards sustainability (Gilman, 2003), but EU developments are
followed by assessments of the industry perceptions (Stojanovic et al., 2006) and
future policies (Psaraftis, 2005b). The economic analyses of port-related safety
issues have been rare (e.g. Yip, 2008).
Security is an emerging theme, especially following the introduction of the
International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code. Up to now, the focus is
on understanding the security incident cycle of a port, in order to achieve preven-
tion and detection responses (Pinto and Talley, 2006), or assess the implications of
such an incident (Park et al., 2008). Scholars have searched for an appropriate
management of the ISPS Code application (Bichou, 2004) and the impact of this
and other initiatives developed by national (Banomyong, 2005; Blümel et al., 2008),
or supranational (Dekker and Stevens, 2007), authorities on the maritime SC.
A last group of studies in this category examines the competencies and
potential intervention of various policy-making levels vis-à-vis constitutional
issues (Newman and Walder, 2003) or industry perceptions at national (Everett,

2005) and supranational (e.g. EU Pallis, 1997; Paixão-Casaca, 2006, 2008) level.
Economic appraisals of national decisions (Asteris and Collins, 2006, 2007), and
the assessment of national authorities legislative limitations to solve problems,
either in general (Pettitt, 2007; Everett, 2008) or in the case of a particular sector
(e.g. coal Robinson, 2007; short-sea shipping: Paixão-Casaca and Marlow, 2007)
add to reviews of national regulatory policies (Goss, 1998; Mak and Tai, 2001;
Pettit, 2008). Port studies start to examine political risks (Tsai and Su, 2005),
and essential institutional adjustments at national (Stough, 2005), suprana-
tional (Ubbels, 2005) and intergovernmental level (e.g. UNCTAD Canamero,
2000).
Port Competition and Competitiveness

With ports around the globe seeking the best ways to adapt effectively to intensi-
fied port competition,11 several port studies deal with port competitiveness and
competition. A distinction can be made between three broadly defined methods
to assess these issues: (1) surveys, (2) analyses of efficiency and productivity
based on port data, and (3) ‘formal’ modelling.
There are also contributions of a more descriptive nature (e.g. Cullinane et al.,
2004 on Hong Kong and Shenzhen; Cullinane et al., 2005a on Shanghai and
Ningbo; Goulielmos and Pardali, 2002 on Mediterranean container ports; Pettit
and Beresford, 2008 on UK ports), and studies focusing on the impact of specific
regulatory developments (e.g. the extended gate operations at Los Angeles and
Long Beach: Giuliano and O’Brien, 2008) and EU policy (Perez-Labajos and
Blanco, 2004). Teurelincx (2000) presents a four-stage method to determine a
port’s strengths and weaknesses, while Haezendonck, Pison et al. (2000) use an
extended version of Porter’s ‘diamond’ approach (also Acosta et al., 2007)
combined with the resource-based view (Haezendonck et al., 2001), to determine a
port’s (Antwerp) competitive position. With the help of principal component
analysis, De and Ghosh (2003) developed a ‘port performance index’ (PPI) in
order to measure the performance of Indian ports.
Marketing tools used by ports are indentified in an empirical study by Pando
et al. (2005) while Cahoon (2007) calls for their further use to attract users. Magala
(2007, 2008) suggests that growth can be achieved through capturing opportuni-
ties deployed over time. The implications of value migration in port-oriented
freight systems and the importance of controlling the endpoints of the chain have
recently gained attention (Weston and Robinson, 2008).
There are also applications of theoretical perspective of port co-opetition (Song,
2002, 2003), intra-port competition (De Langen and Pallis, 2006), and measure-
ments of lean ports performance (Marlow and Paixão-Casaca, 2003). Bichou and
Gray (2004) place ports within SC and logistics performance measurements and
suggest that the multiple linkages have to be taken into account when assessing
performance (also Magala and Simmons, 2008). Cuadrado et al. (2004) assess
benchmarking practises in ports based on geo-strategic location, links to hinter-
land, traditional and complementary logistics services (another benchmarking
effort: Pardali and Michalopoulos, 2008).
The most influential in terms of citations survey-based research is the analytical
hierarchy process (AHP) approach, a multiple criteria decision-making methodol-
ogy has been used to approach container port competitiveness. Yeo and Song
(2006) and Song and Yeo (2004) claim that AHP produces a real picture of those
factors that port management and public authorities should consider towards
being more customer friendly. Lirn et al. (2003, 2004) apply AHP on transhipment
port selection and conclude with a list of relevant factors (also Ugboma et al., 2006,
2007; Wong et al., 2008). Ng (2006) uses data derived from shipping lines to esti-
mate the attractiveness of Northern European transhipment ports. Tongzon and
Sawant (2007) compare stated versus actual choices to indentify port choice deter-
minants. Fewer studies (Pantouvakis, 2006; Pantouvakis et al., 2008) examine
passenger ports quality dimensions, or inland port selection (Poist, 2003).
Tiwari et al. (2003) used a discrete choice analysis to assess shippers and carri-
ers port selection behaviour in China, reporting that Chinese shippers prefer
Chinese shipping lines whereas foreign shippers’ choice is mainly based on their
preferable port of import/export. The multinomial logit model, applied by Nir
et al. (2003), concludes that shippers consider mainly travel time and cost for the
determination of shippers’ port choice elements. Quality-related interviews (Ha,
2003), multi-criteria (Guy and Urli, 2006) and exploratory factor analysis (Chang
et al., 2008) are used for revealing port choice determinants. Mangan et al. (2002)
conclude that the decisive factors in RoRo port/ferry choice are different (e.g.
facilities to have a rest break).
Another stream of research develops measures of port competitiveness,
through the analysis of data such as land area and employment (inputs) and
throughput volumes (output12). These papers maintain a strong link with termi-
nal studies where terminal productivity is addressed but deal with the port as a
whole. The most influential use empirical data from Spain (Martinez-Budria et al.,
1999; Coto-Millan et al., 2000), probably because Spain’s port system is centrally
administered and consequently, detailed data for comparative analysis are avail-
able. Park and De (2004) adopt a DEA method to measure multi-stage efficiency
of seaports with the four steps being: productivity, profitability, marketability
and overall efficiency. Various versions of DEA (in many instances in combina-
tion with other techniques and indices) are used to assess ports efficiency in Spain
(Martinez-Budria et al., 1999; Bonilla et al., 2002; Bonilla et al., 2004), Portugal
(Barros, 2003b), Mexico (Estache et al., 2004), Italy (Barros, 2006), Asian-Pacific
(Liu, 2008) and major world ports (Cullinane et al., 2005b) or to compare ports
(Garcia-Alonso and Martin-Bofarull, 2007) and port systems (Barros and Athana-
siou, 2004). International productivity comparisons were conducted with the
application of the Luenderger Index (Barros and Peypoch, 2007).
Coto-Millan et al. (2000) use a stochastic frontier cost function to estimate the
economic efficiency of Spanish ports through panel data. With the use of stochas-
tic frontier models (also Estache and Gonzalez, 2002; Trujillo and Tovar, 2007),
and benchmarking against UK ports, Cullinane and Song (2003) measure Korean
ports efficiency concluding that in the specific context greater privatization does
not seem to be closely associated with enhanced productive efficiency. The effects
of inter-port competition are also analysed with the use of slot capacity analysis
(Yap and Lam, 2006; Lam and Yap, 2008; Yap et al., 2006) and evaluation of
several competitiveness components (Yeo et al., 2008). Total Factor productivity
was also used (De, 2006) for measuring ports performance. Doi et al. (2001) apply
a general equilibrium model using data from the Japanese economy in order to
estimate the impact of port efficiency on the country’s economy.
The use of ‘formal’ modelling to assess port competition is rather limited. Lam
and Yap (2006) use a modified Cournot’s simultaneous quantity-setting model to
Table 9. Port competition and competitiveness studies: widely used approaches

Themes Details
Port choice Use of AHP methodology, collecting preferences through surveys, port choice
today is relied upon independent shippers and freight forwarders.
Also use of discrete choice analysis, multinomial logit model, triangulated
methodology.
Port competitiveness Adoption of a port wide analysis, extensive use of DEA, SFA, TFP, slot
capacity analysis and PCA methodologies with main differences relied upon
the selected inputs and outputs used.
Modelling port Limited number of papers, efforts to include as much variables as possible
competition into the models.
Use of Cournot’s simultaneous quantity-setting, multinomial, logit, discrete
choice, game theoretic and stochastic choice models.
Theoretical advances Port co-opetition, intra-port competition, lean ports performance,
benchmarking, links with supply chains
Descriptive analysis Through descriptive analysis critical factors determining ports
competitiveness are revealed
derive the overall costs of using a terminal. Game theoretic models are also used
to understand how competing ports respond to developments at a given port
(Anderson et al., 2008) and to optimize the allocation of containerized cargo
volumes (Leachman, 2008).
Veldman and Buckmann (2003) develop a logit model where port choice is
shaped by explanatory variables such as transport cost, transit time, frequency of
service and quality indicators. Veldman et al. (2005) use the same method to advo-
cate that the competitive position of Antwerp is largely dependent upon the deep-
ening of the Schelt river. Malchow and Kanafani (2001) use a multinomial logit
model to explain port selection suggesting that an increase in either the oceanic
distance or the inland distance between the port and the shipment’s origin or desti-
nation served to make a port less attractive, with elasticity being high. In a later
study, Malchow and Kanafani (2004) employ a discrete choice model supporting
that the most significant port characteristic is its location. Stochastic choice models
(Garrido and Leva, 2004) are also used for revealing port choice determinants.
To conclude, surveys, efficiency analysis of seaports and models of port compe-
tition have all added to the understanding of port competition and competitive-
ness (Table 9). The latter is probably the most promising future research avenue,
as data availability limits the analysis of port efficiency and performance, while
(port choice) surveys may not yield detailed additional insights on top of the
existing body of knowledge. Studies focusing on externally generated (e.g. users)
information on port effectiveness might also result in significant knowledge
generation.
Spatial Analysis of Ports

Since 1997, 40 published papers deal with the spatial analysis of ports. The main
sub-topics relate to: (1) spatial change, (2) the spatial study of port systems, (3) the
port-city interface, and (4) the spatial analysis of port hinterlands (Table 10).
The analysis of cargo concentration and deconcentration in port systems is
central.13 Empirical research demonstrated that some port systems and ranges are
getting more spatially concentrated while others are evolving to a more evenly
distributed system. Analysing container flows in Europe, Notteboom (1997) coun-

tered the prevailing assumption that containerization leads to further concentra-
tion, and concluded that deconcentration was not a result of the ‘peripheral port
challenge’ (a concept also used by Slack and Wang, 2002). McCalla (1999a) argued
that green-field port development challenge traditional ports, providing evidence
of container traffic deconcentration in North America. Overman and Winters
(2005) studied how the geography of UK international trade had changed since
UK’s accession to the EU, revealing an overall imports and exports re-orientation
in favour of ports located nearer to the European mainland. Medda and
Carbonaro (2007) analyse the spatial distribution of container traffic in the
Mediterranean basin. Notteboom (2006) uses the Gini coefficient for a better
understanding of the spatial dynamics in port systems.
The models on port systems spatial development remained virtually
unchanged since the 1980s. In 2005, Notteboom and Rodrigue (2005) resuscitated
the discussion by introducing the ‘port regionalization’ concept, a gradual
process where efficiency is derived with higher levels of integration with inland
freight distribution systems. Market forces and political influences gradually
shape regional load centre networks with varying degrees of formal linkages
between the nodes of the networks. ‘Regionalization’ partly builds upon Van
Klink’s (1997) empirical results on port networking between Rotterdam and the
Baltic region and his theoretical findings on port networks (Van Klink, 1998).
Slack (1999) developed ideas on the spatial networking between ports and
inland centres by referring to satellite terminals: that through the careful relevant
site selection and efficient connections between the satellite and the mainline
terminal, hinterland terminals can serve as a means to address traffic expansion
and terminal undercapacity due to site and externalities constraints (the land
shortage issue also receives attention in Pellegram, 2001).
Adding to the debate of what is a spatially relevant unit of analysis, Fleming
(1997) presented an alternative world container port ranking by making some
selective and imaginative combinations to define regional load centres. The loca-
tional relationship to nearby identical traffic hinterlands was one of the criteria
used to cluster adjacent load centres. Slack and Wang (2002) studied the emer-
gence of regional ports and the increase of their competitiveness when located
near a dominant port. They argue that the interactions between PAs, TOCs and
shipping lines lie at the heart of a deconcentration processes, to conclude that ‘a
new geography of terminals needs to be based upon the dynamics of terminal
management as well as the operational factors that have been at the heart of
traditional models’. Hall (2004) adds to that conclusion, calling for a more actor-
centred approach in freight transportation studies. In line with the above observa-
tions, spatial port studies in recent years have undergone a fundamental
epistemological shift in the conceptualization of the port, from a single fixed
spatial entity to a network of terminals operating under a corporate logic.
Ports form the central part in the port triptych ‘foreland-port-hinterland’.
Research has therefore focus on developments in maritime and/or hinterland
networks, and the ways they shape the spatial hierarchy of port systems. Most of
these contributions comprise case-studies. Van Klink and Van den Berg (1998)
tested the hypothesis that gateways are in an excellent position to stimulate inter-
modal transport, as they can create new hinterlands and extend their potential
through the supply of intermodal services. Cullinane et al. (2002) focused on China’s
underdeveloped physical network for international container transportation,
applying a multi-objective programming approach to optimize the long-term plan-

ning of the network infrastructure configuration and flow.
Modelling tools are also used in the search for the optimal port location and
maritime network configuration. Zeng and Zan (2002) developed a model to
allocate the port position in a hierarchized container port network. Fleming (2000)
and Baird (2006) provided empirical answers to the ideal location for tranship-
ment activities in maritime networks. McCalla et al. (2005), McCalla (2008a) and
Veenstra et al. (2005) analyse shipping patterns and flows in the Caribbean.
McCalla (2008b) analyses site and situation factors in transhipment ports. Aversa
et al. (2005) introduce a mixed integer programming model on the selection of a
hub port along the east coast of South America.
In a comprehensive port system modelling exercise, combining maritime, port
and hinterland dimensions Luo and Grigalunas (2003) developed and applied a
spatial-economic, multimodal container transportation demand simulation model
for major US container ports. The underlying economic framework assumes that
shippers minimize the total general cost of moving containers from sources to
markets.
Effects of spatial changes on port cities have received attention as well. Gleave
(1997) challenged urban spatial theory by concluding that although port activities
have been important historically other influences have become more significant.
Hoyle (1999) studied the substantial variance of the degree and nature of commu-
nity group influence on the processes and pattern of urban waterfront change.
Tan (2007) provides a comparative study between Singapore and Calcutta on the
interaction between port cities and their hinterlands.
Ducruet and Lee (2006) bring the discussion of the port city to a global level by
measuring the relative concentration index (RCI), of port–city functions in the
context of globalization. The port–city evolution appears to be gradual rather
than linear or chaotic, and in many cases is largely influenced by regional factors
and local strategies, challenging previous models which consider functional and
spatial separation between the city and its port as an ineluctable process. Examin-
ing the role of port cities in the global economy Wang and Olivier (2006) argue
that port free-trade zone (FTZ) bundles act as interfaces between local and global
spaces and demonstrate that the creation of such enclaves consolidates a spatial
‘splintering’ effect that alienates such enclaves from their surroundings.
The above analysis shows that the spatial port studies are well developed, with
case-study approaches dominating this field. There are, however, some challenges
left in view of future research. First of all, again, the literature mainly focuses on
container seaport systems and networks. There is a need to expand the research
field along two dimensions: (1) towards more commodity-based port systems (e.g.
dry bulk) and cruise/passenger ports (cf. McCalla, 1998 on cruise ports); and (2)
towards the dynamics in major inland port systems (cf. Comtois et al., 1997).
Secondly, the literature refers to processes of spatial deconcentration. Hubs and
large successful gateways have received a lot of attention (e.g. Fremont and
Ducruet, 2005 on Busan; Oosterhaven et al., 2001 on the economic spillovers of
Dutch mainports; Lee et al., 2008 on the spatial evolution in global hub port cities
and Grobar, 2008 on the economic status of areas surrounding major US ports).
There is a gap when it comes to declining ports and smaller ports within seaport
systems (an exemption being the study on the position of upstream river ports by
Guy and Alix, 2007). Not all ports can and should aim for hub status, which leaves
ports with the challenge on how to develop appropriate functional and spatial
Table 10. Studies on the spatial analysis of seaports: widely used approaches
Themes Details
Port city development Waterfront development

Port cities and global supply chains
Stakeholder involvement in port development
Port system development Concentration/deconcentration patterns
Gini coefficient and Gini Decomposition Analysis
The challenge of the periphery
Impact of actors (e.g. shipping line alliances, terminal networks) on
port system dynamics and port hierarchy
Port regionalization
Interaction between port system Gateways and corridors
and hinterland networks Inland ports as satellites to load centres
Modelling optimal port location Minimization of system costs (maritime, port, hinterland)
and optimal port system Mixed integer programming
configuration Hub location models
Regional liner service networks
strategies. Along the same lines, more comparative research is needed on how
seaport systems spatially behave under different market environments (e.g. an
overall traffic decline due to an economic crisis) and different institutional settings
(e.g. the level of ‘centralization’ of port policy and applicable governance models).
Concluding Remarks
In recent years, research in ports has gone through a metamorphosis, caused by
progress in important research domains such as geography, econometrics,
welfare economics, OR, logistics and strategic management. Multidisciplinary
studies have also come to the foreground. In many cases, tools of strategic
management are deployed to give an extra dimension to port studies (e.g. port
clusters, competitive advantage, etc.).
The preceding analysis made evident that the research on ports is continuously
expanding: 48% of the 395 studies identified and reviewed were published in the
last third of the examined period (2005–08). In recent time, ports have extensively
and structurally transformed to adjust to new economic environments. This has
triggered the introduction of new concepts to understand their integration in
supply chains.
We classified the port studies published during the period 1997–2008 in seven
research themes. The expanding themes of port research have led to various links
between them. These links are illustrated in Figure 1 (arrows based on citation to/
from the different research themes).
The expanding themes and methods of port research also demonstrate that this
Figure 1. Relations between the different categories of port studies.
emerging research field is somewhat fragmented and lacks coherence. There are
few really influential studies (e.g. cited extensively by other studies), and in some
sub-fields (e.g. port governance) the number of such studies is remarkably
limited. Even though this finding needs to be treated with some caution (109
studies out of the 395 could not have been cited anyway as a two-year citation
time lag normally exists; and the entire research field is comparatively recent), it
certainly implies challenges with respect to the organization of research in port
economics, policy and management.
Figure 1. Relations between the different categories of port studies.
While the number of true comparative studies on ports around the world using
the same methodology is limited, research collaboration is increasing. Still,
further collaboration is needed to overcome the ‘localization of research’. More
importantly, it will advance the coherence of port studies, enabling them to move
from the pre-paradigmatic phase14 to a mature independent research field marked by:
(1) the presence of a distinct research community which is (2) directed by a
consensus on definitions, concepts, problems to be investigated and methodol-
ogy, and (3) studies relevant issues with a common framework.
Compared to other disciplines, port researchers face a lack of data availability.
The compilation of a port-related databases demands substantial manpower and
time. The gaps in statistical power are too large to be ignored. Many researchers
are no longer investing in own databases, but rely on second-best solutions to the
data problem (often through external private databases, developed for other
purposes). Generally, it is apparent the port industry still has to be convinced of
the value of accessible port-related data and subsequent academic analysis.
Finally, it is worth noting that scholarly port research tends to compartmental-
ize the particular fields of research. Policy-makers are generally interested in the
overall operation of ports, e.g. in economic, land-use planning and environmental
aspects. As such, there is a constant need to monitor port-related research as it
progresses so that the end-product is not too far removed from the needs of those
interested in this research. In line with previous similar endeavours (Suykens and
Van de Voorde, 1998; Heaver, 2006; Pallis et al., 2010) the present study has been
conducted with the aim of contributing towards this end.
Notes
1. The database contains port studies in international journals published in English. Conference
papers, book chapters, research thesis, in-house published journals, etc., have been excluded (for
more details regarding the method followed to build the database, and a discussion of the results
of the cross-citation exercise see Pallis et al., 2010).
2. For instance, a number of papers measure terminal productivity (Category 1: Terminal studies)
and link the results to port governance (Category 3: Port governance). In this case, the papers are
classified in Category 1, as their contribution is mostly in the field of terminal studies.
3. The references from all 395 papers were plotted in a 395 × 395 matrix; self-citations were excluded;
and a two-year ‘publication time gap’ between submitting a paper and the final publication was
assumed; for a discussion of the results of the cross-citation exercise in: Pallis et al., 2010).
4. For an extensive overview of conceptual and practically oriented papers on the optimizations of
logistic operations at port container terminals, we refer to the work of Stahlbock and Voss (2008).
They identified nearly 200 papers dealing with the application of OR-techniques to container
terminal planning and optimization. Much discussed topics in OR include berth allocation, stow-
age planning, crane assignment, crane split (e.g. dual hoist systems), storage and stacking logistics
and landside gate operations (also Steenken et al., 2004).
5. In the mid-1990s, Tongzon (1995) applied factor analysis to assess the efficiency of leading
container terminals, but according to Ashar (1995) with little success.
6. This study was preceded by a study using the SFM method conducted by Song and Cullinane
(1999) that was published in a publication of the Eastern Asia Transport Society containing the
papers presented at the third conference of EASTS. The paper is not included in the database as it
was not published in an academic journal.
7. Hayuth and Roll (1993) were the first to suggest DEA for comparing port performance, but it took
some years before other scholars picked up the technique.
8. In some studies of this group (i.e. Choi et al., 2003; Dragovic et al., 2006, but also the preceding
DEA and SFMs analyses) the dividing line between OR studies and research in economics and
management is very thin. Some OR-based techniques are often used to address economic issues to
the extent that are published in journals that do not cover OR. The decisions of these ‘non-OR’
journals to publish them, along with the fact that reviews of OR studies do not include them in
their analysis (see Stahlbock and Voss, 2008) led to the inclusion of these studies in our database.
9. We refer in this respect for example to capacity issues in export-based coal and iron ore terminals
in Australia and Brazil, the rapid growth of new LNG terminals around the world or the land use
dilemma at car terminals.
10. This debate is associated with research on port performance: see the analysis of Category 6.
11. Fleming and Baird (1999) stipulated that the term ‘port competition’ is a rather puzzling expres-
sion that needs clarification. They outline six sets of factors that influence port competitiveness:
port tradition and organization, port accessibility by land and sea, state aids and their influence on
port costs, port productivity, port selection preferences of carriers and shippers and comparative
locational advantage.
12. Haezendonck, Pison et al. (2000) suggest an alternative port performance indicator (output): value
added generated in ports. They also provide with a method to calculate value added on the basis
of the throughput of a port.
13. A longstanding literature in port geography exists on the spatial development of seaport systems
in relation to maritime and hinterland networks (cf. the models developed in the 1960s and 1970s:
Taaffe et al., 1963; Ogundana, 1970). In the 1980s, scholars introduced a process of port system
deconcentration (cf. Hayuth, 1981).
14. The ‘pre-paradigmatic’ phase of a research field is characterized by: (1) the presence of several
small research communities working on their own problems; (2) little references to other research-
ers (or only within the own research group); and (3) the lack of common problem definitions,
hypothesis, definitions and concepts. The characteristics of both the ‘pre-paradigmatic’ phase and
the ‘mature’ phase are those defined by the science philosopher Kuhn, and applied amongst
others by Bontekoning et al. (2004) in their study of intermodal transportation research.
References
Ashar, A. (1995) Factor analysis and benchmarking ports’ performance, Maritime Policy and Management,
22(4), pp. 389–390.
Baltazar, R. and Brooks, M. R. (2001). The governance of port devolution: a tale of two countries. Paper
presented at the world conference on transport research, Seoul, Korea, July 2001.
Bontekoning, Y. M., Macharis, C. and Trip, J. J. (2004) Is a new applied transportation field emerging?
A review of intermodal rail-truck freight transport literature, Transportation Research Part A, 38(1),
pp. 1–34.
Goss, R. O. (1990a) Economic policies and seaports: the economic functions of seaports, Maritime Policy
and Management, 17(3), pp. 207–219.
Goss, R. O. (1990b) Economic policies and seaports: the diversity of port policies, Maritime Policy and
Management, 17(3), pp. 221–234.
Goss, R. O. (1990c) Economic policies and seaports: are port authorities necessary? Maritime Policy and
Management, 17(3), pp. 257–271.
Goss, R. O. (1990d) Economic policies and seaports: strategies for port authorities, Maritime Policy and
Management, 17(3), pp. 273–287.
Heaver, T. D. (2006) The evolution and challenges of port economics, in: K. Cullinane and W. Talley
(Eds) Port Economics, Research in Transportation Economics No 16, pp. 11–41 (Oxford: Elsevier).
Hayuth, Y. (1981) Containerisation and the load centre concept, Economic Geography, 57, pp. 160–176.
Hayuth, Y. and Roll, Y. (1993) Port performance comparison applying data envelopment analysis
(DEA), Maritime Policy and Management, 20, pp. 153–161.
Macharis, C. and Bontekoning, Y. M. (2003) Opportunities for OR in intermodal freight transport
research: a review, European Journal of Infrastructure Research, 153(2), pp. 400–416.
Ogundana, B. (1970) Patterns and problems of seaport evolution in Nigeria, in: B. S. Hoyle and D.
Hilling (Eds) Seaports and Development in Tropical Africa, pp. 167–182 (London: Macmillan).
Pallis, A. A., Vitsounis, T. K. and De Langen, P. W. (2010) Port economics, policy and management:
review of an emerging research field, Transport Reviews, 30(1), pp. 115–161.
Slack, B. (1994) Pawns in the game: ports in a global transport system, Growth and Change, 24(4):
597–598.
Stahlbock, R. and Voss, S. (2008) Operations research at container terminals: a literature update, OR
Spectrum, 30(1), pp. 1–52.
Steenken, D., Voss, S. and Stahlbock, R. (2004) Container terminal operation and operations research: a
classification and literature review, OR Spectrum, 26(1), pp. 3–49.
Song, D.-W. and Cullinane, K. P. B. (1999) Efficiency measurement of container terminal opera-
tions: an analytical framework, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 3(2),
pp. 139–154.
Taaffe, E. J., Morrill, R. L. and Gould, P. R. (1963) Transport expansion in underdeveloped countries: a
comparative analysis, Geographical Review, 53, pp. 503–529.
Tongzon, J. L. (1995) Systematizing international benchmarking for ports, Maritime Policy and
Management, 22(2), pp. 171–177.
Appendix 1. Publications reviewed along with their journal initials (by research category)

30 - 11 - 2020 - Port Econo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

30 - 11 - 2020 - Port Econo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transport Reviews

A Transnational Transdisciplinary Journal

ISSN: 0144-1647 (Print) 1464-5327 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ttrv20

Port Economics, Policy and Management: Content

Athanasios A. Pallis , Thomas K. Vitsounis , Peter W. De Langen & Theo E.

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2010.530699

Published online: 31 Mar 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1277

View related articles

Citing articles: 61 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Port Economics, Policy and Management: Content

ATHANASIOS A. PALLIS*, THOMAS K. VITSOUNIS*, PETER W. DE

(Received 18 July 2009; revised 4 April 2010; accepted 28 September 2010)

0144-1647 print/1464-5327 online/10/000001-46

Table 1. Port studies 1997–2008

(1) Terminal studies 40 10 22 8

Category Author Year Title No of citations

Assessing the Influence of Administrative and Ownership Structures

Table 4. Terminal studies: widely used approaches

Ports in Transport and Supply Chains

generate quantitative estimates of individual container port accessibility using

Table 5. Studies on ports in transport and supply chains: widely used

Theorising the role of ports in Ports as elements in value-driven chain system

Secondly, the literature on ports and SC is mainly descriptive. Measures and

Table 6. Port governance studies: widely used approaches

Theorising the context of Governance Globalisation; port models (generations;

Port Planning and Development

Table 7. Port planning and development studies: widely used approaches

Hong Kong case shows the relevance of understanding hinterland networks of

Port Policy and Regulation

Table 8. Port policy and regulation: widely used approaches

Market access Application of mainstream economic concepts: Economic rent, market

The practical difficulties associated with national-level policies regarding port

issues (Newman and Walder, 2003) or industry perceptions at national (Everett,

Port Competition and Competitiveness

Table 9. Port competition and competitiveness studies: widely used approaches

Spatial Analysis of Ports

distributed system. Analysing container flows in Europe, Notteboom (1997) coun-

applying a multi-objective programming approach to optimize the long-term plan-

Port city development Waterfront development

Figure 1. Relations between the different categories of port studies.

You might also like

ATHANASIOS A. PALLIS, THOMAS K. VITSOUNIS, PETER W. DE