Ports in a World Maritime System: A Multilevel Analysis - Methods for Multilevel Analysis and Visualisation of Geographical Networks - page 125

Fig. 8.2 Visualization of the world maritime system, 2006 (Source: realized by the author based
on LMIU and TULIP)
Although it does not correspond to the daily preoccupations of port authorities or
carriers, it helps to distinguish the positioning of ports in the overall pattern of
circulations on various scales. A Gem-Frick layout is applied to situate the most
central ports in the center and the least central ports in the periphery (Fig. 8.1 ).
The results confirm that very few ports dominate the hierarchy of centrality:
“European gateways” (Rotterdam, Hamburg, Antwerp, and Bremerhaven as the
northern range) and “Asian hubs” (Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Busan
as the Asian corridor). Despite the lower score of Asian hubs in general compared
with the most central European ports (Rotterdam and Hamburg), we see many more
Asian ports with a relatively high centrality: Port Klang (Malaysia), Jakarta and
Surabaya (Indonesia), Kaohsiung (Taiwan), and Shenzhen, Ningbo and Qingdao
(China). Thus, the measure of betweenness centrality seems to provide more
advantage to hub ports upon which numerous smaller ports depend. Scandinavia
and the British Isles tend to depend on Rotterdam and Hamburg, while Southeast
and Northeast Asia tend to depend on their respective Asian hubs. In comparison,
ports that usually rank high in traffic volume such as New York or Yokohama have
a limited centrality. Outside the two cores of the system, only Miami scores high,
most likely because of its strategic position as a hub between the Caribbean and the
North Atlantic regions (Fig. 8.2 ).