Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
geographical proximity and carrier decisions to re-route their services based on
economic factors (time and cost)? Are there resilient historical trade patterns still
visible?
￿
Multilevel maritime dynamics : How do such strongly interconnected groups
of ports evolve over time, given that carrier strategies and port competition
profoundly modified the structure of shipping networks in the 1990s?
In 1996, there is some correspondence between the results from the weighted
analysis and the non-weighted analysis. For instance, Hamburg appears as a key
node in each analysis, although the two clusters are distinguished by the number
of ports contained and by the location of those ports. In the non-weighted cluster,
Hamburg and Rotterdam stand out as the two most central ports of a predominantly
European cluster (Scandinavia, South Europe), while only Belawan and Jakarta
(Indonesia) are included from outside Europe. In the weighted cluster, Hamburg also
has a dominance of its European counterparts (Iberian Peninsula, North), of which
many are similar to the non-weighted cluster, including Jakarta. Some important
ports that were not included in the non-weighted cluster are Port Klang (Malaysia)
and Keelung (Taiwan). Thus, it can be argued that weighted clusters underscore
important corridors on a global level (Europe-Asia), while non-weighted clusters
are better related to the neighboring architecture of a port's network (Europe)
(Fig. 8.3 ).
Conversely, the geographical affinity of some central ports does not change much
from the non-weighted to the weighted clusters. Amsterdam (with Ymuiden) is
the center of a non-weighted cluster with a majority of Latin American ports and
two Australian ports. It also appears in a weighted cluster alongside many Latin
American ports, although in a less central position, due to the inclusion of large
gateways such as Santos (Brazil) and Buenos Aires and some Oceania ports (e.g.,
Fremantle, Auckland). Therefore, taking into account the weight of the links does
not necessarily disturb the pattern. However, some very central ports such as Nagoya
(Japan) and Southampton (UK) that have a strong position in some non-weighted
clusters are not part of any weighted cluster, most likely because of their lower
weight in the network. In addition, some very central ports in some clusters have a
relatively low rank in the usual port rankings: Dakar (Senegal), Damietta (Egypt),
and Szczecin (Poland), while others are strategic places for carriers to develop
gateway strategies, such as Hampton Roads in the United States ( Starr , 1994 ).
In 2006, all clusters show a somewhat stronger geographical coherence than
in 1996. For instance, the non-weighted cluster centered on Antwerp includes
some major European gateways (e.g., Rotterdam, Hamburg) together with a series
of Latin American ports, which highlights the importance of maintained transat-
lantic ties. This is also the case with the non-weighted cluster centered on La
Guaira (Venezuela) linking Western Europe (Genoa, Liverpool) with North Africa
(Morocco) and several Latin American ports. The two other non-weighted clusters
also reveal interesting patterns. The cluster centered on the rapidly growing Black
Sea port of Constantza (Romania) is mostly intraregional, as it concentrates mostly
other North or South European ports. Conversely, the cluster centered on Ashdod
Search WWH ::




Custom Search