Towards a generic framework for the development of logistics in seaports: lessons from the Busan case

Abstract

This paper presents a generic framework on port logistics development and its interaction with hinterland regions. Although earlier work on the topic (e.g. by Ferrari et al., 2006; Kuipers and Eenhuizen, 2004) offers valuable insights in the subject, it contains limitations in geographical applicability. Ports indeed face dissimilarities in, for instance, locational characteristics (a.o. distance from the sea and nautical accessibility) and hinterland connections. Only when a model for determining seaport-located logistics activities takes into account these issues of dissimilarity among ports, the framework could be applied to a variety of seaport ranges worldwide. In this paper we aim to provide a first version of such a framework. More particularly, by means of a survey conducted in the Port of Busan the shortcomings of traditional approaches are illustrated. We then propose a more encompassing model, which seems to explain fairly well the attractiveness of Busan in terms of logistics activities. This framework explicitly adds port and hinterland characteristics to the list of factors decisive in the choice of the location of logistics activities. Finally, we would like to remark that our research on this topic is still ongoing and results for surveys planned in New York and Antwerp will be reported in a later stage.

Location and spatial dynamics of maritime services: A case study of the Yangtze River Delta, China

“…As a result, a number of world-leading maritime service clusters have developed in locations such as London, New York, the Netherlands, and Norway, which are "leaders" in the global maritime service network (De Langen, 2002;Doloreux et al, 2016;Jacobs et al, 2011;Pinto et al, 2015). At the regional scale, due to port congestion, land constraints, improved collection and distribution systems, and inland terminal construction, some maritime service activities that were originally concentrated around hub ports have begun to disperse and selectively reconcentrate in the hinterland, especially low value-added activities (Bowen, 2008;Cheung et al, 2003;Fujita & Krugman, 2004;Notteboom & Rodrigue, 2005;Potter, 2015;Theys et al, 2008;Van den Heuvel et al, 2013;Wang & Cheng, 2010). In addition, since the early 1970s, considerable attention has been given to the location of maritime services in cities (Griggs, 1970;Wong, 1982).…”

“…Based on different perspectives, several attempts have been made to explore the driving mechanisms of the spatiotemporal evolution of maritime services (Cao et al, 2017;Hall & Jacobs, 2010;O'Connor, 2010). Existing studies have documented that transportation infrastructure, such as seaports, dry ports, and freight centers, are key factors, which help enterprises maintain business relationships and respond to market demands in a timely manner (Hesse & Rodrigue, 2004;Roso & Lumsden, 2010;Theys et al, 2008). Ghiara and Caminati (2017) and Jacobs et al (2011) argued that the rapid development of information and communication technologies has reduced the requirements of high-end maritime services including marine insurance, maritime law, and maritime information consulting for space in close proximity to ports.…”