Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
defined as global pivots, load centers, regional ports and minor ports (
Bichou &
Gray
,
2005
;
De Langen, Van der Lugt, & Eenhuizen
,
2002
). This typology is rarely
verified empirically because of the complexity of liner networks. As explained
by De Langen et al. (
2002
), four main factors contribute to this complexity: the
continuous increase in traffic volume, the increase in the number of connected ports,
the increase in vessel sizes, and the increase in the spatial freedom of ocean carriers.
However, as the authors argue, “the role of different ports in maritime networks has
not been documented, nor has a precise typology that would allow for such a precise
exercise been proposed” (
De Langen et al.
,p.3).
An indirect analysis of ports' insertion into maritime networks through empirical
case studies is more feasible. For instance, research has been performed on the
distribution of seaborne connections of ports of Australia, the United Kingdom,
and France on various scales (
Bird
,
1969
;
Britton
,
1965
;
Von Schirach-Szmigiel
,
1973
). These studies have been complemented by analyses of the number of vessel
calls as a proxy for maritime performance in the United States (Lago et al., 2001
cited in De Langen et al.,
2002
) and worldwide, combined with other port and
urban indicators (
Ducruet
,
2008b
). As mentioned above, relevant data sources and
analytical tools to measure more complex realities based on large maritime networks
are lacking.
In fact, the relative position of ports within a given maritime system is analyzed
either theoretically, through the definitions of hub functions, centrality, and inter-
mediacy (
Fleming
,
2000
;
Fleming & Hayuth
,
1994
) and the formulation of port-
concentration models within a port system, or empirically through the analysis of
traffic distribution and concentration (
Ducruet et al.
,
2009
). However, the latter anal-
yses are based on aggregated individual measures (e.g., port throughputs) that hide
the extent to which ports that handle similar traffic may, in fact, be very different in
terms of seaborne connections and their positions in the networks in terms of vulner-
ability. One good example is Frémont's (
2005
) mapping of the global port network
of Maersk, the world's main liner shipping company; however, it does not include
references to the changes in local performance resulting from global insertion.
Port regions and port systems
Another approach attempts to position ports within a precise port region or maritime
region. Despite the lack of clarity over the definition of such terms
2
, these studies
are similar in that they give more importance to the architecture of the maritime
networks, where ports are only one aspect. An original insight inspired from
2
Ducruet et al.
(
2009
) differentiates between the maritime façade (coastal alignment of ports), the
port region (the inland area smaller than the hinterland but wider than the port city where the port
activities influence the economic structure), the port range (the coastal system of interdependent
ports), the port network (the portfolio distribution of a given carrier), and the port system
(interconnection of ports by shipping networks within a given area).
Search WWH ::
Custom Search