This study examines the port planning dynamics of the neighbouring ports of Koper (Slovenia) and Trieste (Italy) since the Second World War. Through an analysis of port-related planning documents, it ...offers insights into how geographical proximity, divergent geopolitical circumstances, and a unique border context have shaped the development trajectories of these two ports. We argue that their spatial planning is somewhat idiosyncratic because the presence of a border did not necessarily condition unrelated planning efforts and vice versa. Max Fabiani was the only urban planner to propose a joint development plan for both port cities in the immediate post-war period. The port and local authorities pursued separate planning paths for the two port cities after the Yugoslav-Italian border was established in 1954. As the border became more permeable, a certain relatedness can be seen in the spatial planning of both ports. The port authorities worked toward a unified port system at the turn of the millennium, but the persistence of phantom borders prevented this. In recent decades of European borderless integration, there are fewer obstacles to planning cooperation. Currently, both ports are planning similar development, such as the expansion of container terminals, which is leading to their increased competition.
We investigate the evolution of the container port system of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA), better known as Pearl River Delta (PRD). We analyze the economic drivers that over ...the years have shaped port development in one of the world's most dynamic regions, embracing three of the world's busiest container ports: Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Guangzhou. Three industry concentration methodologies are employed, each with its own distinct advantages: Concentration Ratios; the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index; and Dynamic Shift-Share Analysis (DSSA). Especially through the latter methodology, DSSA, -used here for the first time in the analysis of the evolution of ‘port systems’- we explain not only the shifts in market shares among the three ‘giants’, but also the underlying economic forces responsible for these shifts and for the relocation of economic activity in the hinterlands of those ports. We analyze the foreland and hinterland strategies of the ports, pursued as a result of rising inter-port competition and fuzzy, intertwined, hinterlands. The paper argues for the need of a more system-wide coordination and collaboration among ports, aiming to avoid overcapacity; duplication of scarce resources; low return on investment and, in general, wasteful competition. It is hoped that our analysis and ensuing recommendations will help other countries, port policymakers and stakeholders, to better understand, and thus exploit, the economic levers which shape the evolution of ports in proximity.
Complementarity, existing or targeted, is a necessary condition for effective port cooperation between neighboring ports (Stamatovic et al., 2018). In addition to the development of complementary port functions and possibly the sharing of equipment and services (e.g., tugboats; pilot organizations; port community systems, management knowhow, etc.), an interesting manifestation of complementarity is port regionalization. Here, our recommendations are: a) Hong Kong pursues foreland-based regionalization. It is therefore necessary to consolidate and enhance its status as a leading international shipping center and port cluster and support the development of high-end maritime services. Guangzhou, on the other hand, develops hinterland-based regionalization. It is therefore necessary to enhance its role in domestic trades, further improve its connectivity with other seaports, and improve further its integrated transport network of inland waterways, railroads and highways. Finally, Shenzhen pursues a regionalization model between that of Hong Kong and Guangzhou, advancing both foreland- and hinterland-based regionalization at the same time. Here, our advice to Shenzhen is to spearhead an institutional dialogue with all system-ports, aiming at enhancing the overall international competitiveness of the container port system of the GBA, capitalizing on the region's world-class advantages.
This study simultaneously explores the effects of “consolidation” and “privatization” of ports that are located in proximity to one another. The main benefit of consolidation is assumed to be ...economies of scale due to the aggregation of container cargo in one port, while that of privatization is cost reduction for port management and operations. We employ a multi-agent simulation model to express interactions among stakeholders, such as a port management body, shipping company, and shipper. The model is applied to a case study for the Kobe and Osaka ports in Japan. We find that consolidation has a larger impact than privatization in terms of cargo volume and total surplus. In particular, if future container cargo increases, consolidation accelerates the increase in cargo volume of the Kobe and Osaka ports. Transshipment cargo receives the largest volume in the case of “consolidation and privatization” when future container demand is increasing. However, the Busan port in South Korea, competitor of the Kobe and Osaka ports for transshipment cargo, would remain dominant even after the consolidation and privatization of the Kobe and Osaka ports, since its vessel frequency would be high in all cases.
PDF