See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/274350027

Hub port potential of Marmara region in Turkey by network-based modelling

Article  in  Transport · January 2014

DOI: 10.1680/tran.13.00043

CITATIONS READS

3 86

2 authors:

Nil Guler Firat Bolat

Istanbul Bilgi University Istanbul Technical University
7 PUBLICATIONS   49 CITATIONS    25 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Directorate General of Coastal Safety of Turkish Republic - Istanbul Technical University (ITU) NOVA Educational Management Project View project

Maritime Education for Energy Efficiency (MARED) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nil Guler on 25 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Transport Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Hub port potential of Marmara region in http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/tran.13.00043

Turkey by network-based modelling Paper 1300043
Bolat and Guler Received 13/06/2013 Accepted 04/01/2014
Keywords: mathematical modelling/ports, docks & harbours/transport
planning

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Hub port potential of Marmara

region in Turkey by network-
based modelling
j
1 Firat Bolat j
2 Nil Guler
Flag, Port and Coastal State Surveyor, Ministry of Transportation, Dean, Istanbul Technical University Maritime Faculty, Istanbul, Turkey
Maritime Affairs and Communications of Turkish Republic, Tuzla
Headquarter, Istanbul, Turkey

j
1 j
2

The increase in the efficiency of main hub ports is a result of home base theory. Put another way, a network
comprising linked nodes that are in collaboration is the issue of concern. In a sense, the bases and facilities of the
main hub port serve as the trans-shipment and assembling centres for the departure destination flows. Based on this
theory, this study puts forth the main hub port potentials for the Marmara region ports in Turkey by analysing the
connection-rich nodes in the region through a transition from a random graph network structure to a non-scaled
network structure using the port connectivity index and the port collaboration index.

Notation Istanbul, Izmit and Tekirdag), is a promising region for analysis

Cij competitiveness index between port i and port j
ni number of major ports that are accessible from port i
n ij common nodes that can be accessed via port i and port j
nj number of major ports that are accessible from port j
Si connectivity index of port i
1. Introduction
A hub port differs from other types of ports in terms of location-
logistics, trans-shipment volume and hinterland properties. With
the evolution of linear shipping network structures, the hub port
concept has become prominent. The main factors that triggered
hub ports to come to the fore also shed light on why countries
actually need hub ports. In this respect, it is crucial to realise the
relationship between globalisation and containerisation, which
impacts on today’s commercial development: the urge to globalise
has created a highly suitable environment for containerisation and,
in turn, containerisation provided access to globalisation. With the
transition from open-sea shipping to total logistics shipping, the
accretion of trade routes towards ports that can handle containers,
the globalisation of manufacturing plants and the emergence of
the supply chain as a discipline, the relationship between
globalisation and containerisation has increased even further. As a
result of this relationship, the efficiency of the main hub ports has
increased, shifting towards a ‘hub-and-spoke’ structure.
In these circumstances, the Turkish Straits region, which accom-
modates the Marmara Sea ports (principally Ambarli, Gemlik,
from the perspective of hub–spoke potential. The Turkish Straits
region has a vessel transit 164 nautical miles ( 300 km) long,
comprising the Istanbul Strait (17 nautical miles ( 31 km)), the
Bosporus and the Canakkale Strait (37 nautical miles
( 300 km)) in the Dardanelles. This unavoidable maritime route
is of great importance to the economies of the countries border-
ing the Black Sea. Considering factors such as
j the very high density of maritime traffic
j the increase in maritime accidents
j increases in size and tonnage of ships
j increases in the transit of vessels carrying hazardous cargo
j complex and difficult trafficking
j adverse weather
j sea, current and climate conditions
j regional dangers
j national and international developments
j other maritime activities in the Bosporus region
it appears obvious that there is a great need for a hub port that
can distribute container cargo to other ports in the Sea of
Marmara and to ports in the Black Sea without transiting the
Bosporus (i.e. leaving the cargo in the Sea of Marmara).
Predicating on this need, this study aims to define and analyse
features of container-handling ports in the Marmara region in
terms of their potential to be a hub port, and determine their
current status and predict their future potential in a scientific way.

1
Transport
Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com
Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
Accordingly, this study assesses the hub port potential of the
Marmara region ports by analysing the connection-rich nodes in
the region through a transition from a random graph network
structure to a non-scaled network structure. The port connectivity
index and the port collaboration index, which can be defined as
an accessibility index and a sustainability index respectively
(Low et al., 2009; Taylor et al., 2006), are used as driving
variables to obtain the network structure. These indices are
explained in the paper in detail while focusing on the network-
based hub port assessment (NHPA) model, one of the scientific
analysis and prediction methods for port selection and analysis.
The analysis and prediction using the aforementioned method
was based on container cargo movements at container-handling
ports in the Marmara region between 2004 and 2008. The
connections between the ports were then calculated and the
network structure between these ports defined. The data obtained
were analysed using the NHPA model and the features of the
ports in terms of their potential to be a hub port were defined and
forecasts made of their future situation.
The results of the study enable construction of a non-scaled
network structure. Therefore, the primary analysis focused on
network structure of the ports rather than their capacity, and the
notions of home base theory (the starting point of the main hub
port concept) and non-scaled networks were applied accordingly
2. Literature review
Generally, a hub port is part of a regional port system comprising
a supply port and some secondary ports and their hinterlands.
Hub ports have been a basic research interest in transportation
studies. Studies on this topic can be categorised into two classes.
The first class investigated how a port system develops and how
it interacts with its hinterland and land transportation systems.
The preliminaries of this class of studies are exemplified in
Rimmer (1977) and Taaffe et al. (1963). The main ports in these
studies were located in developing countries with a history of
colonisation and these ports had become hub ports for their
regions. Therefore these studies focused, naturally, on the func-
tions of the ports as a transit point.
The second class of studies, including the current study, is
interested mostly in the evolution of the port system – namely
how ports compete to become the hub port and how new
technologies, such as container transport, change the area. Indeed,
the development inclinations of container port systems may
change according to regional conditions. These kinds of variances
can be accepted as the results of sea transport cycles that do or
do not fit into the context of regional economic development and
growth included in a global economy (Rodrigue et al., 1997). The
selection criteria of the main hub/loading centrals are variable
due to the variance of the criteria of being a hub port. When the
studies on port selection processes are examined, it can be seen
that the early studies were survey studies that attempted to obtain
2
Hub port potential of Marmara region in
Turkey by network-based modelling
Bolat and Guler
information on the factors that affected the selection process
(Low et al., 2009). Although these studies defined and listed the
factors important for linear transportation companies, they could
not reveal how these factors affected the selection of ports. As an
extension of these studies, the analytic hierarchy process model
was used in analysing the survey data. Song and Yeo (2004)
combined the data obtained from surveys with various factors in
port selection. In recent studies, multi-nominal logit models have
been used to show the effects of important factors in port
selection. A logit model is a statistical regression model that
analyses tabled or raw data sets to enable classification fitting in
probability rules by calculating the probability of the estimated
value of the dependent variable (Inal et al., 2006; Ozdamar,
1999). The multi-nominal logit model is used when the dependent
variable is nominal and comprises more than two categories. For
instance, Tiwari et al. (2003) investigated port selection beha-
viours using this model and fitted data obtained from a survey,
conducted on the shipper party, onto a multi-nominal logit model.
They found that distance and port intensity were the primary
factors that affect port selection. In addition to this, Malchow and
Kanafani (2004), again using the multi-nominal logit method,
argued that the inland distance and the intensity of transportation
was inversely proportional to the probability of shipper and port
selection.
When the studies are examined, it is obvious that even the multi-
nominal logit cannot be used as a discrete selection model. The
fact that the multi-nominal logit models ignore the service
network structure, which is the main element of the maritime
industry, especially the container port industry, is their major
disadvantage and has caused the model to remain limited (Low et
al., 2009). Therefore, more recent studies on port selection have
begun to include network-based models for port selection in the
international transportation industry. For instance, Taylor et al.
(2006) introduced the network-based heuristic selection model in
which a connectivity index was developed and used, which
supports the acceptability of a transportation network concept.
This model was supported by revealing the important dimensions
in port management by factor analysis (Lattin et al., 2003). Low
et al. (2009), in the network-based holistic selection model, used
the port collaboration index in addition to the port connectivity
index and put forth the NHPA model.
3. Methodological approach
3.1 NHPA model
The NHPA model can be seen as an extension to studies that
revealed the reasons supporting regional or nationwide port
competition or collaboration and port competitiveness – or
keeping it in the background. In previous studies, various ports
were compared in terms of competition or collaboration in the
selection of main hubs. These comparisons varied regionally or
from one nation to another. For instance, in a study on the USA
and Western Europe, Fleming and Baird (1999) explained why
some ports were inevitably superior in terms of competitiveness.
Transport Hub port potential of Marmara region in
Turkey by network-based modelling
Bolat and Guler

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

Cullinane et al. (2002) investigated the ports of Shanghai and
Ningbo for China and scrutinised the competitiveness of these
two ports in terms of port costs and service quality. Song (2003)
surveyed Hong Kong and Shenzen ports in terms of collaboration
of neighbouring ports. While these studies aimed to reveal the
important aspects for main hub selection, the importance of
network structure was discarded. This shows that the NHPA
model fills in the missing parts of these studies via the port
connectivity and collaboration indices it contains. Thus, the
NHPA model as a holistic model has some advantages over other
models (Low et al., 2009). These advantages are as follows.
(a) The NHPA model bases its results not on some subjective
survey data but on the activities of users of the ports.
(b) It is used in order to determine how much various port
features contribute to the port being a focus of selection and
adopting a network approach ensures that the relationship of
one port to another is taken into consideration.
(c) The connectivity index in the NHPA model can be interpreted
as a measure of port competitiveness as the logistic main hub.
This is because the linear transport companies are the main
users of the ports and the connectivity index is calculated as
a result of the itinerary data used by the linear transport
companies for their maritime cargo.
The process of the NHPA model, presented schematically in
Figure 1, comprises the assessment of the two network-based
indices, namely the connectivity index and the collaboration
index. These indices are evaluated in order to dynamically assess
a port’s hub performance and potential in the model.
The port connectivity index is evaluated by counting the line
pairs on which the ports serve as points of departure and
destination, and by evaluating the network structure that then
arises. Direct investigation of the connectivity indices of ports
enables us to comprehend the competition between these ports
and measures the probability of a port in terms of the aspects of
being a global or regional main hub for container transport (Low
et al., 2009). The connectivity index is also an indicator of the
degree of potential of a hub, as a container port’s main duty is to
carry the cargo of the carrier from the point of supply to the
point of demand in maritime lines (Wang and Cullinane, 2006).
Furthermore, the relation between connectivity index and the
observed crucial aspects of port competitiveness is presented in
terms of its effects on the connectivity index by conducting a
factor analysis as an extension to the multi-nominal model by
Malchow and Kanafani (2004) and Tiwari et al. (2003), which
discarded the network structure.
In addition to the port connectivity index for assessing main hub
performance, the port collaboration index should also be ob-
tained. The degree of the collaboration index is used as a
criterion for the sustainability of the current network connection.
Low et al. (2009) assessed global and regional main hubs using
these indices. For this study, we degraded global hubs to regional
ones and regional hubs to national ones. This kind of reduction is
valid since any observation made on the minimal element of a
system would be valid for the maximal element in that system
according to chaos and complexity theory. On the other hand, an
observation on the maximal element enables one to better under-
stand the minimal element. This set of relations between bigger
systems and the smaller systems they contain is the mappings
that constitute the framework of uniformity (McMaster, 1996).

Port network
Port accessibility Service
schedules

Port connectivity index and port collaboration

index

NHPA model (hub port assessment model)

Key operating dimensions of port

Monitored port statistics

Factor analysis
Port attributes

Figure 1. NHPA modelling process

3
Transport Hub port potential of Marmara region in
Turkey by network-based modelling
Bolat and Guler

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

Based on these mappings, there is no problem in performing the connectivity index of port i as Si , in other words as a dividend of
mentioned reductions on the assessments of Low et al. (2009). the Dep–Des pairs served by port i, as

As seen in Table 1, ports with a high connectivity index are taken P

as regional hubs, but the sustainability of these ports depends on j 2(ni þ nij )(nj þ nij )
Si ¼ P P
the collaboration index. Ports with a low connectivity index but a 1: j i 2(ni þ nij )(nj þ nij )
high collaboration index are considered national hubs.

The calculation methods for port connectivity index were pre-

The port collaboration index, which refers to the competitiveness
sented by Low et al. (2009). In accordance with these calcula-
index between port i and port j can be calculated by the equations
tions, as shown in Figure 2, when a hub–secondary port network
given in the model proposed by Low et al. (2009). The intensity
comprising two independent ports i and j is taken into considera-
of the competitiveness between port i and port j can be expressed
tion, two different point of departure and point of destination
as the ratio of the Dep–Des pairs they obtain, independently from
pairs (Dep–Des) are designated.
each other in the combined network (Low et al., 2009). There-
fore, the competitiveness index between port i and port j can be
The accessibility of port i is calculated by the expression
P calculated as
j 2(ni þ nij )(nj þ nij ), which is a variation of the integrated
accessibility index defined by Taylor et al. (2006); n i and n j are
given as the number of major ports that are accessible from port i nij (ni þ nj þ nij )
C ij ¼
and port j (including the ports themselves). There is a certain 2: (ni þ nij )(nj þ nij )
number of common nodes that can be accessed via port i and port
j, represented as n ij . Therefore, we express the accessibility or
In this study, these two indices were calculated for ports in the
Marmara region based on the NHPA model. The assessment of
Connectivity index the connectivity index and collaboration index was conducted
through a comparison of port features for evaluating the potential
Low High of the Marmara region ports to be a hub.

Concentration High Sustainable Sustainable 3.2 Marmara region ports and networks
index national port, regional hub In this study, the term ‘port’ is treated as a port area in order to
potential for port status obtain a commercial framework. There are five different ports in
regional hub status the Marmara region – Ambarli, Gemlik, Istanbul, Izmit and
Low Unstable Unstable Tekirdag – as illustrated in Figure 3. These ports include a total
national hub regional hub of nine container-handling terminals that are operated by public
port port and private entities. Information about the ports is given in the
appendix.
Table 1. Assessment of port using collaboration and connectivity
indices
3.3 Data collection
The empirical analysis of the Marmara region ports was con-
ducted using vessel movement data obtained from the Under-
secretariat of Maritime Affairs of Turkish Republic (UMATR).
The data sets in this study were from the income–procedure
inventories of the UMATR. The data cover the departure and
destination ports used by carriers each year between 2004 and
2008. Information on whether there were service lines between
these ports and container ports in the Marmara region (Ambarli,
Port i Port j Gemlik, Istanbul, Izmit and Tekirdag) for the years 2004–2008
were inserted into the data sets and the networks obtained are
illustrated in Figures 4–8. The number of arrows indicates the
number of destination points from the departure port, enabling
determination of n i , n j and n ij for Equations 1 and 2.

4. Results
Figure 2. Hub–secondary port configuration of port i and port j Based on the aforementioned data, all ports were compared with
each other with regard to connectivity and collaboration indices

4
Transport Hub port potential of Marmara region in
Turkey by network-based modelling
Bolat and Guler

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

Black Sea

Istanbul Strait
Tekirdag port
Ambarli port
Istanbul port

Marmara Sea
Aegean Sea
Izmit port

Canakkale Strait Gemlik port

86 km

Figure 3. Marmara region ports (# Googlemaps)

2004

Finland

Norway Poland Ukraine

United Kingdom Netherlands Russian Federation
Slovenia Bulgaria Romania Georgia
Belgium
Albania
Germany
Trabzon
Greece AMBARLI
France TEKIRDAG ISTANBUL
Canada Italy
China
Spain IZMIT
Karabiga
Israel
USA
Izmir GEMLIK Malaysia
Syria
Malta Mersin
Brasil Lebanon Hong Kong
Liberia
Tunisia Algeria Saudi Arabia
Libya Egypt
Bahamas
Singapore

Figure 4. Network structure of Marmara region ports in 2004

given by Equations 1 and 2. For example, to compare Ambarli
with the other ports, three variables were required
j the number of destinations from only Ambarli port (n i ¼ N(I))
j the number of destinations from only the compared port
(Izmit, Gemlik, Istanbul or Tekirdag) (n j ¼ N(J))
j the number of common destinations of Ambarli and the
compared port (n ij ¼ N(I, J)).
After obtaining these parameters for each port (Table 2), the port
connectivity index and collaboration index were calculated for
each port between the years 2004–2008 by using Equations 1 and
2. The calculated results are presented in this paper via radar
plots and graphics.
The radar plot of port connectivity weighted indices of the ports,
shown in Figure 9 for each year, is a key indicator of the

5
Transport Hub port potential of Marmara region in
Turkey by network-based modelling
Bolat and Guler

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

2005

Ukraine
United Kingdom Russian Federation
Slovenia
Yugoslavia Bulgaria Romania Georgia Mongolia
Belgium
Germany Albania
Trabzon Sri Lanka
Greece AMBARLI
France TEKIRDAG
Canada ISTANBUL China
Italy
Spain IZMIT
Karabiga South Korea
Israel
USA
Izmir GEMLIK
Portugal Syria
Malta Mersin
Lebanon
Hong Kong
Tunisia Algeria Saudi Arabia
Libya
Egypt
Equador Singapore

Figure 5. Network structure of Marmara region ports in 2005

2006

Netherlands Ukraine
United Kingdom Russian Federation
Slovenia Romania
Bulgaria Georgia
Belgium Croatia
Germany Albania Turkmenistan China
Trabzon
Greece AMBARLI
France TEKIRDAG ISTANBUL
Canada Italy South Korea
Spain IZMIT
Karabiga
Israel
Sri Lanka
Izmir GEMLIK
USA Portugal Syria Malaysia
Malta
Mersin
Lebanon Hong Kong
Argentina Tunisia Saudi Arabia
Algeria
Libya
Egypt
Singapore

Figure 6. Network structure of Marmara region ports in 2006

accessibility. The port collaboration indices for the five ports are
presented in Figure 10.
Investigating the Marmara region ports areas using Figures 9 and
10 and Figures 11–15 shows that Ambarli has the highest
connectivity index for most years, but its low collaboration
indices indicate that collaboration of this port with other ports is
not productive in terms of sustainability. Istanbul, Izmit and
Gemlik are in a rather stable state in terms of both collaboration
and connectivity indices. Tekirdag port area was a port where
container handling was low until 2008, but then container
amounts received from other ports increased in 2008. Therefore,
while the collaboration index was high before 2008 (i.e. the need
for lines with other ports was high and it seemed that it could
overcome more lines in the future), in 2008 there had been a
direct fall in the collaboration index. On the other hand, Tekirdag
gained the potential to become a main hub due to the increase in
its connectivity index.
Investigation of the 2004 data indicates that the Ambarli port

6
Transport Hub port potential of Marmara region in
Turkey by network-based modelling
Bolat and Guler

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

2007
Sweden

Netherlands Ukraine
United Kingdom Slovenia Russian Federation
Bulgaria Romania
Belgium Slovak Republic Georgia China
Germany Kazakhstan
Trabzon South Korea
France
Greece TEKIRDAG AMBARLI
Canada Italy ISTANBUL
IZMIT Sri Lanka
Spain
Karabiga
Israel
Portugal
USA
Izmir GEMLIK Syria Malaysia
Malta Antalya Mersin Japan
Lebanon
Hong Kong
Tunisia Algeria Saudi Arabia
Libya Senegal Egypt
Equador Singapore

Figure 7. Network structure of Marmara region ports in 2007

2008
Finland

Netherlands Norway Poland

Ukraine
United Kingdom Russian Federation
Slovenia
Croatia Bulgaria Romania
Belgium Georgia
Turkmenistan
Germany Albania China
Trabzon
Greece AMBARLI
France TEKIRDAG South Korea
Canada Italy ISTANBUL
Sri Lanka
Spain IZMIT
Karabiga
Israel Philippines
Portugal Antalya
USA
Izmir GEMLIK Syria Malaysia
Colombia Malta Mersin
Lebanon
Venezuela Liberia Hong Kong
Morocco
Tunisia Algeria Saudi Arabia
Libya Equador
Bahamas Egypt Singapore
South Africa Sudan UAE

Figure 8. Network structure of Marmara region ports for 2008

region shows regional hub potential rather than national hub
potential. The connectivity index is higher than that of the other
ports but its collaboration index is lower. A low collaboration
index signals that it is not sustainable and the property of being a
regional hub will be lost in the future in terms of capacity.
Although the potential to be a regional main hub increased in 2005
and 2006, the sustainability decreased as the collaboration index
remained the same or decreased. The 2007 and 2008 data indicate
that the potential of Ambarli to be a regional main hub decreased
gradually, but its sustainability potential remained the same.
Conversely, the connectivity and collaboration indices of Gemlik
were stable over the years. The mid-level connectivity and
collaboration indices show that this port has a higher potential
to become a regional hub than a national one. The stability of
this port has been proven in terms of sustainability and, by
increasing the collaboration index and pegging the connectivity
index, the port increased its potential to become a sustainable
regional hub.
When the connectivity and collaboration indices of Istanbul port

7
Transport Hub port potential of Marmara region in
Turkey by network-based modelling
Bolat and Guler

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

Ports Years
N(I)
N(J) 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
N(I, J)

Ambarli–Gemlik
N(Ambarli) 9 12 14 11 12
N(Gemlik) 5 2 4 2 5
N(Ambarli, Gemlik) 27 23 24 28 30
Ambarli–Istanbul
N(Ambarli) 14 14 13 17 16
N(Istanbul) 4 3 1 1 1
N(Ambarli, Istanbul) 22 22 25 22 26
Ambarli–Izmit
N(Ambarli) 19 19 24 20 11
N(Izmit) 3 3 1 1 9
N(Ambarli, Izmit) 17 16 14 19 31
Ambarli–Tekirdag
N(Ambarli) 29 30 36 37 26
N(Tekirdag) 1 1 1 1 1
N(Ambarli, Tekirdag) 7 5 3 3 16
Gemlik–Istanbul
N(Gemlik) 12 9 9 13 12
N(Istanbul) 7 7 7 6 4
N(Gemlik, Istanbul) 19 17 19 17 23
Gemlik–Izmit
N(Gemlik) 16 12 17 13 11
N(Izmit) 6 5 3 3 15
N(Gemlik, Izmit) 15 14 11 17 24
Gemlik–Tekirdag
N(Gemlik) 26 22 27 28 20
N(Tekirdag) 3 2 2 1 2
N(Gemlik, Tekirdag) 5 4 2 3 15
Istanbul–Izmit
N(Istanbul) 11 13 15 10 5
N(Izmit) 6 7 4 7 17
N(Istanbul, Izmit) 15 12 12 14 22
Istanbul–Tekirdag
N(Istanbul) 21 22 25 21 14
N(Tekirdag) 3 3 2 1 4
N(Istanbul, Tekirdag) 6 3 2 3 13
Izmit–Tekirdag
N(Izmit) 16 14 14 18 23
N(Tekirdag) 3 1 2 1 1
N(Izmit, Tekirdag) 6 5 2 3 17

Table 2. Three variables of the ports for calculation of port

connectivity and collaboration indices

between 2004 and 2008 are analysed, it can be seen that this port
has the potential for being both a regional and national hub. That
is, when the 2004 and 2005 data are examined, both indices
increased, and Istanbul therefore had more potential for being a
sustainable regional hub. However, as the sustainability and
connectivity index of Izmit increased after 2006, the potential of
Istanbul being a regional hub gives way to potential of being a
national hub. The connectivity and collaboration indices in 2008
indicate that Istanbul had the potential of being an unstable
national main hub.

8
Transport Hub port potential of Marmara region in
Turkey by network-based modelling
Bolat and Guler

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

2004 2005
Ambarli Ambarli
0·30 0·30
0·25 0·25
0·20 0·20
0·15 0·15
0·15 0·15
Tekirdag 0·10 Gemlik Tekirdag 0·10 Gemlik
0·05 0·05
0 0

Izmit Istanbul Izmit Istanbul

2006 2007
Ambarli
Ambarli
0·30
0·4 0·25
0·3 0·20
0·15
0·2 0·15
Tekirdag Tekirdag 0·10 Gemlik
0·1 Gemlik 0·05
0 0

Izmit Istanbul Izmit Istanbul

2008
Ambarli
0·25
0·20
0·15
0·10
Tekirdag Gemlik
0·05
0

Izmit Istanbul

Figure 9. Network characterisation with port connectivity index

Izmit had the potential of being a national main hub with
unstable sustainability between 2004 and 2007. However, the
situation changed in 2008 since the connectivity index of Ambarli
decreased and a direct rise was seen in the connectivity indices of
Tekirdag and Izmit. Izmit gained the potential of being a
sustainable regional main hub by 2008; the authors do not have
full data for the following years to understand whether this
situation is permanent or not and therefore cannot state that Izmit
could be a sustainable regional hub. Tekirdag port appears to have
potential for being a national hub with high sustainability be-
tween 2004 and 2007. The high sustainability can be inferred
from the high collaboration index compared with the other port
areas. Therefore, it can be said that this port area was under
capacity between 2004 and 2007: it has the capacity to serve
more container transport and its potential for being a national
hub can increase. The data from 2008 seem to support this
argument.
5. Conclusion and future scope of work
The main aim of this study was to assess whether Ambarli,
Gemlik, Istanbul, Izmit and Tekirdag port regions have the
potential to be hub ports using the NHPA model. Container ship
activities in the ports that handle containers in the Marmara
region were investigated using scientific methods. Their current

9
Transport Hub port potential of Marmara region in
Turkey by network-based modelling
Bolat and Guler

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

2004 2005
Ambarli Ambarli
1·0 1·0
0·8 0·8
0·6 0·6
0·4 Tekirdag 0·4
Tekirdag Gemlik Gemlik
0·2 0·2
0 0

Izmit Istanbul Izmit Istanbul

2006 2007
Ambarli Ambarli
2·0 1·0
1·5 0·8
1·0 0·6
Tekirdag Gemlik Tekirdag 0·4 Gemlik
0·5 0·2
0 0

Izmit Istanbul Izmit Istanbul

2008
Ambarli
0·30
0·25
0·20
0·15
Tekirdag 0·10 Gemlik
0·05
0

Izmit Istanbul

Figure 10. Network characterisation with port collaboration

index

conditions were determined, their activities were assessed using
the network-based model and port regions with the potential of
being main hubs were identified. Evaluation of the Marmara
region ports in terms of connectivity and collaboration indices is
shown in Table 3.
By examining the Marmara region ports in order to select hub
area, the port area that would be the most productive hub can be
determined by evaluating port connectivity indices in terms of
both network structure and port features. In terms of scale
economy, activity and convenience, Ambarli comes out first in
the Marmara region. The high connectivity index for this port as
calculated by the network structure shows that the criteria consid-
ered in this study have a direct effect on the connectivity index.
In addition, the constant low level of the port’s sustainability,
namely its low collaboration index, agrees with the arguments put
forward by Barke (1986).
Barke (1986) argues that port areas that expand and develop
rapidly begin to suffer from overload; some port services will

10
Transport Hub port potential of Marmara region in
Turkey by network-based modelling
Bolat and Guler

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

Ambarli Izmit Ambarli Izmit

Gemlik Tekirdag Gemlik Tekirdag
Istanbul Istanbul
1·2 1·0
0·9

Collaboration index
Collaboration index

1·0 0·8
0·7
0·8 0·6
0·6 0·5
0·4
0·4 0·3
0·2
0·2 2004 0·1 2007
0 0
0 0·05 0·10 0·15 0·20 0·25 0·30 0 0·05 0·10 0·15 0·20 0·25 0·30 0·35
Connectivity index Connectivity index

Figure 11. Connectivity and collaboration indices of Marmara Figure 14. Connectivity and collaboration indices of Marmara
region ports in 2004 region ports in 2007

Ambarli Izmit
Gemlik Tekirdag
Ambarli Izmit
Istanbul
1·2 Gemlik Tekirdag
Collaboration index

1·0 0·35 Istanbul

Collaboration index

0·8 0·30
0·6 0·25
0·4 0·20
0·15
0·2 2005 0·10
0 0·05
0 0·05 0·10 0·15 0·20 0·25 0·30 2008
Connectivity index 0
0 0·05 0·10 0·15 0·20 0·25 0·30
Connectivity index
Figure 12. Connectivity and collaboration indices of Marmara
region ports in 2005 Figure 15. Connectivity and collaboration indices of Marmara
region ports in 2008

Ambarli Izmit
Gemlik Tekirdag
Istanbul
1·8
1·6 Connectivity index
Collaboration index

1·4
1·2 Low High
1·0
0·8
0·6 Concentration High Tekirdag port Gemlik port
0·4 index Low Izmit and Istanbul Ambarli port
0·2 2006
0
ports
0 0·05 0·10 0·15 0·20 0·25 0·30 0·35
Connectivity index Table 3. Evaluation of Marmara region ports in terms of port
collaboration and connectivity indices
Figure 13. Connectivity and collaboration indices of Marmara
region ports in 2006
increased, but its connectivity index decreased, while the
connectivity indices of Izmit and Tekirdag increased. There-
then leave the city centres and move to suburban port systems fore, Ambarli does not have the features of being a productive
or other port systems in the area. Examining Ambarli, its national or regional main hub. Istanbul has been gradually
connectivity index was too high and its sustainability too low decreasing in terms of connectivity. The port shares its
between 2004 and 2007. In 2008, the sustainability of Ambarli operational volume with other ports and the decrease in the

11
Transport
Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com
Author copy for personal use, not for distribution
annual number of Port calls directly affected the connectivity
index.
It is also possible to see the effects of the Belde port and
Nato Marmara Ereglisi port projects on Ambarli and Istanbul.
In Belde, Liman Co. has completed 450 m of port area in
Dilovasi, and the annual capacity is 350 000 containers per
year. The planned length is 960 m and the planned capacity
of the port is 750 000 containers per year; it is estimated to
be the second biggest port in the eastern Mediterranean
outside Italy and to replace Istanbul. The port in Marmara
Ereglisi, where construction started in the beginning of 2000
with a request from Nato which was later retracted, still
remains idle but could be reactivated via a build–operate
transfer model. This port could handle half the load of
Istanbul and would thus have a great influence on logistics
and container transport.
There is the possibility that the rapid increase in the connectivity
and collaboration indices of Izmit port in 2008 was related to an
increase in scale economy. However, this could be a one-year
situation and the unstable condition of Izmit port between 2004
and 2008 means it cannot be defined as the most convenient port
as a main hub. Regarding Tekirdag, its prospects are better if
evaluated by container activity in 2008. Increases in activity and
scale economy were reflected in the connectivity index as a result
of the increase in container handling. The connectivity index
increased and the collaborative index decreased as a result of
instant and active use of this port. Tekirdag port will develop its
21·7 km
Figure 16. Hinterland of Ambarli port (# Googlemaps)
12
Hub port potential of Marmara region in
Turkey by network-based modelling
Bolat and Guler
potential to be a national main hub, but its improvement depends
on the possibility of it increasing its connectivity index and
sustainability.
For Gemlik, the stability of its scale economy, activities and its
convenience status were reflected in the port’s connectivity and
collaboration indices. Gemlik had the properties of being a
sustainable regional hub between 2004 and 2008. The increase in
its collaboration index in 2008 while its connectivity index
remained the same shows that the port expanded its capacity. The
scale economy, activity and convenience of the port have increased
and the port has gained a high potential to increase collaboration.
Gemlik, however, lacks combined links with its hinterland. If
combined links to the hinterland were to be added to the current
condition, Gemlik’s connectivity index would increase and its
potential to be a sustainable main hub would further increase.
Acknowledgements
This work was completed at the Institute of Science and
Technology at Istanbul Technical University and is part of the
first author’s doctoral dissertation work. The authors appreciate
the guidance provided by Professor Dr Ilhan Avci of Istanbul
Technical University.
Appendix: Ports of the Marmara region
Ambarli port is the biggest port area in Istanbul, with three main
container-handling terminals – Kumport, Mardas and Marport. It
has an effective hinterland, shown in Figure 16, home to
20 million people. The location of Ambarli is an advantage for a
Transport Hub port potential of Marmara region in
Turkey by network-based modelling
Bolat and Guler

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

Kumport Mardas Marport

Port operator (public/private) Private Private Private

Container berth length: m 1930 910 1950
Port area: m2 400 000 194 224 409 000
Coordinates 408589N, 288419E 408579N, 288409E 408599N, 288329E
Maximum port draught: m 15.5 15.0 14.5
Container dock equipment capacity: teu/yeara 1 000 000 550 000 1 700 000
Realised handling in 2008: teu 660 989 387 447 1 203 101
Capacity utilisation rate: % 66.1 70.4 70.1
2008 port handling: % 29.0 17.2 53.4

teu ¼ twenty-foot equivalent unit (20 ft ¼ 6.1 m).

Table 4. Techno-economic data for Ambarli port

port area as it is a key point in the intersection of trade routes
and highways. Technical and economic data for Ambarli port are
given in Table 4 (UMATR, 2009).
Gemlik port hosts the two container-handling terminals of
Gemport and Borusan. Gemlik is a natural gate for the north-
eastern part of Turkey where population and asset levels are
high. Accordingly, it is an effective port area for Marmara,
Anatolia and the North Aegean. Additionally, its location is
favourable as it is linked to the national highways strategically
reinforcing north-east Anatolia and the North Aegean. The
hinterland of Gemlik port is illustrated in Figure 17 and techno-
economic data for the port are given in Table 5 (UMATR,
2009).
Haydarpasa is the only container-handling terminal of Istanbul
port that is publicly owned. Railway transportation is combined
with road and sea transportation modes in this port. Due to space
constraints, delays in container service occur. However, the num-
ber of containers in Istanbul has increased in recent years because
ships have been directed to Istanbul instead of Ambarli, as
Ambarli port frequently reaches peak levels. The hinterland of
Istanbul port is shown in Figure 18 and Table 6 gives techno-
economic data (UMATR, 2009).

17·2 km

Figure 17. Hinterland of Gemlik port (# Googlemaps)

13
Transport Hub port potential of Marmara region in
Turkey by network-based modelling
Bolat and Guler

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

Borusan Gemport

Port operator (public/private) Private Private

Container berth length: m 780 845
Port area: m2 54 547 700 000
Coordinates 408259N, 298059E 408259N, 298079E
Maximum port draught: m 11 36
Container dock equipment capacity: teu/year 300 000 600 000
Realised handling in 2008: teu 132 383 310 510
Capacity utilisation rate: % 44.1 51.8
2008 port handling: % .
28 6 67.0

Table 5. Techno-economic data for Gemlik port

18·3 km

Figure 18. Hinterland of Istanbul port (# Googlemaps)

Izmit port has two container terminals, namely Evyap and

Port operator (public/private)
Container berth length: m
Port area: m2
Coordinates
Maximum port draught: m
Container dock equipment capacity:
teu/year
Realised handling in 2008: teu
Capacity utilisation rate: %
2008 port handling: %
Table 6. Techno-economic data for Istanbul port
Haydarpasa Yilport. These terminals are located 80 km east of Istanbul Strait
and they have links to highways. Izmit port is in the centre of the
Public
biggest industrial region of Turkey. It is also the closest port to
1142
Ankara, Turkey’s capital. The hinterland of Izmit port is shown in
398 420
Figure 19 and techno-economic data are presented in Table 7
408599N, 288579E
(UMATR, 2009).
12
300 000
Akport is the only container-handling terminal of Tekirdag port.
As Tekirdag is the closest port to Bulgaria and Greece, it will
342 519
gain importance in the event of an increase in its capacity. The
100
main service area of Tekirdag port lies in industrial areas in the
99.5
Thrace region of Turkey and Istanbul. The hinterland of Tekirdag
port and its techno-economic indicators are shown in Figure 20
and Table 8 respectively (UMATR, 2009).

14
Transport Hub port potential of Marmara region in
Turkey by network-based modelling
Bolat and Guler

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

13.9 km

Figure 19. Hinterland of Izmit port (# Googlemaps)

Evyap Yilport

Port operator (public/private) Private Private

Container berth length: m 830 325
Port area: m2 214 000 202 500
Coordinates 408469N, 298429E 408469N, 298329E
Maximum port draught: m 16 30
Container dock equipment capacity: teu/year 615 000 300 000
Realised handling in 2008: teu 108 204 93 656

Table 7. Techno-economic data for Izmit port

19·6 km

Figure 20. Hinterland of Tekirdag port (# Googlemaps)

15
Transport Hub port potential of Marmara region in
Turkey by network-based modelling
Bolat and Guler

Offprint provided courtesy of www.icevirtuallibrary.com

Author copy for personal use, not for distribution

Akport Malchow M and Kanafani A (2004) A disaggregate analysis of

port selection. Transportation Research Part E 40(4): 317–
Port operator (public/private) Private 337.
Container berth length: m 2000 McMaster MD (1996) The Intelligence Advantage: Organizing for
Port area: m2 130 000 Complexity. Butterworth-Heinemann, Newton, MA, USA.
Coordinates 408579N, 278309E Ozdamar K (1999) Paket Programlar ile İstatistiksel Veri Analizi.
Maximum port draught: m 14 Kaan Kitabevi, Eskişehir, Turkey (in Turkish).
Container dock equipment capacity: 250 000 Rimmer PJ (1977) A conceptual framework for examining urban
teu/year and regional transport needs in South-East Asia. Pacific
Realised handling in 2008: teu 30 186 Viewpoint 18: 133–147.
Capacity utilisation rate: % 12 Rodrigue JP, Comtois C and Slack B (1997) Transportation and
2008 port handling: % 98.7 spatial cycles: evidence from maritime systems. Journal of
Transport Geography 5(2): 87–98.
Table 8. Techno-economic data for Tekirdag port Song DW (2003) Port competition in concept and practice.
Maritime Policy and Management 30(1): 29–44.
Song DW and Yeo KT (2004) A competitive analysis of Chinese
REFERENCES container ports using the analytic hierarchy process. Maritime
Barke M (1986) Transport and Trade. Oliver & Boyd Press, Economics and Logistics 6(1): 34–52.
Edinburgh, UK. Taaffe EJ, Morrill RLY and Gould PR (1963) Transport expansion
Cullinane K, Song DW and Gray R (2002) A stochastic frontier in underdeveloped countries: a comparative analysis.
model of the efficiency of major container terminals in Asia: Geographical Review 53(4): 503–529.
assessing the influence of administrative and ownership Taylor MAP, Sekhar SVC and D’Este GM (2006) Application of
structures. Transportation Research Part A 36(8): 743–762. accessibility based methods for vulnerability analysis of
Fleming D and Baird AJ (1999) Some reflections on port strategic road networks. Networks and Spatial Economics
competition in the United States and western Europe. 6(3–4): 267–291.
Maritime Policy and Management 26(4): 383–394. Tiwari P, Itoh H and Doi M (2003) Shippers’ port and carrier
Inal EM, Topuz D and Ucan O (2006) Doğrusal olasilik ve logit selection behaviour in China: a discrete choice analysis.
modelleri ile parametre tahmini. Sosyoekonomi 2: 47–72 (in Maritime Economics and Logistics 5(1): 23–39.
Turkish). UMATR (Undersecretariat for Maritime Affairs of Turkish
Lattin J, Carroll DJ and Green PE (2003) Analyzing Multivariate Republic) (2009) Kabotaj Taşimaciliği Saha Etüdü. UMATR,
Data. Duxbury Press, Pacific Grove, CA, USA. Ankara, Turkey (in Turkish).
Low JMW, Lam SW and Tang LC (2009) Assessment of hub status Wang TF and Cullinane KPB (2006) The efficiency of European
among Asian ports from a network perspective. container terminals and implications for supply chain
Transportation Research Part A 43(6): 593–606. management. Maritime Economics and Logistics 8(1): 82–99.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as a
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and students.
Papers should be 2000–5000 words long (briefing papers
should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate illustra-
tions and references. You can submit your paper online via
www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you
will also find detailed author guidelines.

16
View publication stats