European Port Cities in Transition: Moving Towards More Sustainable Sea Transport Hubs (Strategies for Sustainability) 3030364631, 9783030364632

Citation preview

Strategies for Sustainability

Angela Carpenter Rodrigo Lozano   Editors

European Port Cities in Transition Moving Towards More Sustainable Sea Transport Hubs

Strategies for Sustainability Series Editor Rodrigo Lozano, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden

The series focuses on “implementation strategies and responses” to sustainability problems – at the organizational, local, national, and global levels. Our objective is to encourage policy proposals and prescriptive thinking on topics such as: sustainability management, sustainability strategies, lifestyle changes, regional approaches, organisational changes for sustainability, educational approaches, pollution prevention, clean technologies, multilateral treaty-making, sustainability guidelines and standards, sustainability assessment and reporting, the role of scientific analysis in decision-making, implementation of public-private partnerships for resource management, regulatory enforcement, and approaches to meeting inter-generational obligations regarding the management of common resources. We favour trans-disciplinary perspectives and analyses grounded in careful, comparative studies of practice, demonstrations, or policy reforms. This largely excludes further documentation of problems, and prescriptive pieces that are not grounded in practice, or sustainability studies. Philosophically, we prefer an open-minded pragmatism – “show us what works and why” – rather than a bias toward a theory of the liberal state (i.e. “command-and-control”) or a theory of markets. We invite contributions that are innovative, creative, and go beyond the ‘business as usual’ approaches. We invite Authors to submit manuscripts that:

– Document and analyse what has and has not worked in practice; - Develop implementation strategies and examine the effectiveness of specific sustainability strategies;

– Propose what should be tried next to promote greater sustainability in natural resource management, energy production, housing design and development, industrial reorganization, infrastructure planning, land use, business strategy, and organisational changes; - Prescribe how to do better at incorporating concerns about sustainability into organisations, private action, and public policy; – Focus on trans-disciplinary analyses grounded in careful, comparative studies of practice or policy reform; and – Provide an approach “…to meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” and do this in a way that balances the goal of economic development with due consideration for environmental protection, social progress, and individual rights.

Themes covered in the series are: Sustainability management Sustainability strategies Lifestyle changes Regional approaches Organisational changes for sustainability Educational approaches Pollution prevention Clean technologies Multilateral treaty-making Sustainability guidelines and standards Sustainability assessment and reporting The role of scientific analysis in decision-making Implementation of public-private partnerships for resource management Governance and regulatory enforcement Approaches to meeting inter-generational obligations regarding the management of common resources

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8584

Angela Carpenter Rodrigo Lozano •

Editors

European Port Cities in Transition Moving Towards More Sustainable Sea Transport Hubs

123

Editors Angela Carpenter Faculty of Engineering and Environment University of Gävle Gävle, Gävleborgs Län, Sweden

Rodrigo Lozano University of Gävle Gävle, Gävleborgs Län, Sweden

ISSN 2212-5450 ISSN 2452-1582 (electronic) Strategies for Sustainability ISBN 978-3-030-36463-2 ISBN 978-3-030-36464-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword

In 1992, Brian Hall and I produced our edited volume European Port Cities in Transition. The choice of this title reflected a marked shift in the fortunes of ports and their associated cities that had set in during the previous decade. The triggers for this shift were a cluster of drivers that emerged rapidly after the early 1970s. Previously, the ethos for port and city planning departments alike was economic growth and physical expansion. These assumptions were primarily the product two interrelated factors: the rising prosperity which increasingly characterised the post-war years and major advances in ship design. Initially, these advances chiefly affected bulk liquid shipping, with the escalating scale of oil tankers dominating the headlines. The revolution also extended to other bulk commodities, as diverse as chemicals, ores, coal and grains. Some of these were destined for onward shipment by land. Meanwhile, others—notably oil and ores—commonly attracted large-scale industrial investment, dominantly refineries, petrochemical complexes and steelworks. Meanwhile, the cities also grew apace as port construction work and permanent employment rose; transport systems were elaborated to meet the port’s needs; and other activities were attracted to what were obviously successful places. Impressive though this upswing was, it came at a heavy and multifaceted price: inner-urban docklands dereliction as ports migrated downstream to spacious sites and deeper water; associated community economic and social disruption; the obliteration of large tracts of ecologically rich wetlands by port expansion schemes; oil and water pollution from industries and ships; and, as we now realise, rapid escalation of greenhouse gas emissions. In retrospect, it is clear that the response of the port studies community to these severe externalities was partial. Waterfront revitalisation generated extensive literature, while a sprinkling of studies focused on wetland loss and the need to relieve communities of the burdens imposed by severe pollution. But, in the main, the spotlight remained on growth. Given the benefit of hindsight, it might be expected that environmentalism, reacting to growth’s serious externalities, paid a large part in bringing the post-war upswing to an end, but this was not the case. Instead, it was chiefly the oil crises of mid- and late 1970s which first changed the long-run trajectories of both ports and their cities. Generally speaking, the effect of the first crisis was to put many port v

vi

Foreword

industrial expansion plans on hold; then the second crisis ushered in widespread investment cancellations and disinvestment. The consequences for many ports were far-reaching: loss of income from port traffic; the emergence of surplus development land, often expensively reclaimed from precious wetland; and abandoned industrial sites, mainly closed and cleared by major oil companies as they ruthlessly eliminated loss-making and inefficient refineries, plus their very extensive tank farms. This reversal was one driver redirecting port systems into the transition phase which eventually prompted our 1992 volume. Others were quite different. Containerisation, which had only taken root in Europe in the mid-1960s, became a genuine force from the mid-1970s onwards. In Rotterdam, for example, only 250,000 containers were handled in 1970. Yet as early as 1975 this figure had tripled, and by the time of our book, it had reached 4 million a year. All this, of course, was heavily dependent on a new wave of technological change, echoing that which had brought about the revolution in bulk liquid transport. Meanwhile, the collapse of communism in the late 1980s and early 1990s added a new dimension to the European port system, with particular significance in the Baltic and Adriatic regions. How would these integrate with their much larger and more technologically advanced counterparts? And integration was also rising up the agenda in western Europe, driven partly by European Community policy (as it then was) but also by the growing prosperity and economic interdependence of individual countries. Internationally, the opportunities which this trend opened up for cityports were most significant in the North Sea, Irish Sea and Baltic regions. Nationally, the need was to mitigate the economic and social consequences of geographical fragmentation among islands, especially in Greece and Italy. While this complex set of issues provided the focus for the first half of our book, in the second we returned to docklands decline and subsequent revitalisation, On the one hand, containerisation was offering many ports a lifeline. This was a new source of revenue, replacing losses suffered from the consequences of the oil crises. It also gave value to portland that had been created for planned industrial and transit activities which had failed to materialise as investment programmes were cancelled in the new economic climate. And, as container ships escalated in scale, it put to use deepwater quays created for supertankers which never came. But, conversely, the container revolution greatly intensified the abandonment of older, outmoded, docks, magnifying dereliction and social impact issues. And, because of containerisation’s dramatically different approach to cargo handling, it had other far-reaching impacts on relationships between ports and their associated cities: minimal employment creation, coupled with a strong emphasis on rapid throughput without local processing. Inevitably, as the transit function grew and reinforced the consequences of deindustrialisation, the interests of cities and ports were prised apart. Devoting a substantial part of the book to these phenomena therefore seemed essential. Almost thirty years have elapsed since our European Port Cities in Transition was published. Over this period, containerisation has continued to thrive, despite the 2008 financial crash. Cruising has grown enormously in popularity, providing a new income stream for many ports (but creating serious ‘touristification’ dilemmas

Foreword

vii

for others). The digital revolution has progressed apace, affecting all aspects of port and shipping operations. Yet, such developments have done little to resolve the problems arising from the growing functional separation of cities and ports. As a result, this new volume focuses extensively on cityport relationships, which is extremely welcome. In the twenty-first century, what docklands revitalisation approaches are most appropriate? How can the economic drivers that have withered away be replaced by others offering cities long-term security? How can social tensions best be ameliorated? As ports strive to compete with each other, are there strategies to achieve this without exacerbating existing physical, economic and social friction at the port–city interface? And, not least, how can governance structures be reformed to promote symbiosis between ports and cities? These persistent issues themselves point to a second very welcome feature of this volume: the contributors’ emphasis on questioning, criticising and, equally importantly, proposing new approaches. We attempted to encourage this in our 1992 book, hopefully with some success. However, what is offered here takes the approach much further and can only be commended for doing so. The fact that change is occurring in perhaps difficult circumstances does not necessarily mean that it is leading in the most appropriate direction. Beyond this, the volume’s third outstanding strength is its emphasis on sustainability, broadly defined in terms of the environment, society and cityport economies. Thirty years ago, we sometimes couched our work in these terms, but time has moved on, and it is now essential and urgent to do so. In short, the focus on key issues, addressed by critical approaches, makes this an excellent addition to the literature. It is a pleasure to see the new European Port Cities in Transition reach fruition and to congratulate the editors and contributors for achieving it. Wembury, Devon May 2019

David Pinder [email protected]

Contents

1

Introduction, Chapter Summary, and Conclusions from the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Angela Carpenter and Rodrigo Lozano

1 19

2

Port-City Redevelopment and Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . Paul Fenton

3

Proposing a Framework for Anchoring Sustainability Relationships Between Ports and Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Angela Carpenter and Rodrigo Lozano

37

Port-City Redevelopment and the Circular Economy Agenda in Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reza Karimpour, Fabio Ballini and Aykut I. Ölcer

53

Technological Change and Logistics Development in European Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michele Acciaro, Katharina Renken and Naouar El Khadiri

73

From Planning the Port/City to Planning the Port-City: Exploring the Economic Interface in European Port Cities . . . . . . Karel B. J. Van den Berghe and Tom A. Daamen

89

4

5

6

7

Spatial Restructuring of Port Cities: Periods from Inclusion to Fragmentation and Re-integration of City and Port in Hamburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Dirk Schubert

8

Governance and Planning Issues in European Waterfront Redevelopment 1999–2019 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 José M. Pagés Sánchez and Tom A. Daamen

9

Proposing a Holistic Framework to Assess Sustainability Performance in Seaports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Lea Fobbe, Rodrigo Lozano and Angela Carpenter ix

x

Contents

10 Analysing Port Community System Network Evolution . . . . . . . . . 169 Bening Mayanti, Jussi Kantola, Matteo Natali and Juha Kytola 11 Touristification of European Port-Cities: Impacts on Local Populations and Cultural Heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 María J. Andrade and João Pedro Costa 12 Analysing Organisational Change Management in Seaports: Stakeholder Perception, Communication, Drivers for, and Barriers to Sustainability at the Port of Gävle . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Rodrigo Lozano, Angela Carpenter and Kaisu Sammalisto 13 Integrating Governance and Sustainability: A Proposal Towards More Sustainable Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 María Ángeles Fernández-Izquierdo, Idoya Ferrero-Ferrero and María Jesús Muñoz-Torres 14 The Changing Interplay Between European Cities and Intermodal Transport Networks (1970s–2010s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 Justin Berli, César Ducruet, Romain Martin and Sevil Seten 15 The Separation of Ports from Cities: The Case of Rotterdam . . . . . 265 Carola Hein and Paul Th. van de Laar 16 Integrated Port Cities: The Case of Hamburg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 Michele Acciaro, Katharina Renken and Christopher Dirzka 17 Societal Integration of Ports and Cities: Case Study on Spanish Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Nuria Nebot Gómez de Salazar and Carlos Rosa-Jiménez 18 Socio-economic Costs and Benefits of Seaport Infrastructure Development for a Local Environment. The Case of the Port and the City of Świnoujście . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 Izabela Kotowska, Marta Mańkowska and Michał Pluciński

Contributors

Michele Acciaro Hapag-Lloyd Center for Shipping and Global Logistics (CSGL), Kühne Logistics University (KLU), Hamburg, Germany María J. Andrade Departamento Arte y Arquitectura, Escuela de Arquitectura, Universidad de Málaga, Málaga, Spain; CIAUD, Research Centre on Architecture, Urbanism and Design, Lisbon School of Architecture, Universidade de Lisboa, Pólo Universitário do Alto da Ajuda, Lisbon, Portugal Fabio Ballini Maritime Energy Management Department, World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden Justin Berli Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris, France Angela Carpenter Faculty of Engineering and Environment, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden; School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK João Pedro Costa CIAUD, Research Centre on Architecture, Urbanism and Design, Lisbon School of Architecture, Universidade de Lisboa, Pólo Universitário do Alto da Ajuda, Lisbon, Portugal Tom A. Daamen Department of Management in the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, BL Delft, The Netherlands Christopher Dirzka Hapag-Lloyd Center for Shipping and Global Logistics (CSGL), Kühne Logistics University (KLU), Hamburg, Germany César Ducruet Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris, France Naouar El Khadiri Hapag-Lloyd Center for Shipping and Global Logistics (CSGL), Kühne Logistics University (KLU), Hamburg, Germany Paul Fenton Environment & Health Administration, City of Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden xi

xii

Contributors

María Ángeles Fernández-Izquierdo Sustainability of Organizations and CSR Management’ Research Group, University Jaume I, Castellón, Spain Idoya Ferrero-Ferrero Sustainability of Organizations and CSR Management’ Research Group, University Jaume I, Castellón, Spain Lea Fobbe Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden Carola Hein History of Architecture and Urban Planning, Delft University of Technology, BL Delft, The Netherlands Jussi Kantola Department of Production, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland Reza Karimpour Department of Naval, Electrical, Electronics Telecommunications Engineering, University of Genova, Genova, Italy

and

Izabela Kotowska Faculty of Engineering and Economic of Transport, Maritime University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland Juha Kytola Wärtsilä Finland Oy, Vaasa, Finland Rodrigo Lozano Faculty of Engineering and Environment, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden; Organisational Sustainability Ltd., Cardiff, UK Marta Mańkowska Faculty of Management and Economics of Services, University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland Romain Martin Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris, France Bening Mayanti Vaasa Energy Business Innovation Centre (VEBIC), University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland María Jesús Muñoz-Torres Sustainability of Organizations Management’ Research Group, University Jaume I, Castellón, Spain

and

CSR

Matteo Natali Wärtsilä Italia S.p.A, Trieste, Italy Nuria Nebot Gómez de Salazar Institute for Habitat, Tourism and Territory (iHTT), University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain Aykut I. Ölcer Maritime Energy Management Department, World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden José M. Pagés Sánchez Association Internationale de Villes et Ports, Le Havre, France Michał Pluciński Faculty of Management and Economics of Services, University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland Katharina Renken Hapag-Lloyd Center for Shipping and Global Logistics (CSGL), Kühne Logistics University (KLU), Hamburg, Germany

Contributors

xiii

Carlos Rosa-Jiménez Institute for Habitat, Tourism and Territory (iHTT), University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain Kaisu Sammalisto Faculty of Engineering and Environment, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden Dirk Schubert HafenCity University Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany Sevil Seten Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris, France Paul Th. van de Laar Department of History, Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands Karel B. J. Van den Berghe Department of Management in the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, BL Delft, The Netherlands

Abbreviations

3D AI AIVP AöR BMBF BP CBA CE Ceimar CEP CG CIVITAS CMP CO2 CoC COSO CS CSGL DCTS DCT-Gdańsk EC ECT EDI EMS ESPO EU EV FCFS FDI

Three Dimensional Artificial Intelligence Association International Villes et Ports Public Institution (i.e. Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts) German Ministry of Education and Research British Petroleum Cost–Benefit Analysis Circular Economy Campus de Excelencia Internacional del Mar Circular Economy Package Corporate Governance City VITAlity and Sustainability Copenhagen Malmo Port Carbon dioxide Chamber of Commerce Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission Corporate Sustainability Hapag-Lloyd Center for Shipping and Global Logistics Deepwater Container Terminal in Świnoujście Deepwater Container Terminal in Gdańsk European Commission European Container Terminals Electronic Data Interchange Environmental Management System European Sea Ports Organisation European Union E-Vehicles (electric vehicles) First Come First Served Foreign Direct Investment

xv

xvi

FHH FOD KBO GDP GHG GIS GN GNP GNSS GPS GRI ha HASPS HGVs HHLA HPA HQ IAPH IBA ICT ICT Applications IFS IMO IoT IS ISO ISPS IT ITF ITS JIT JV KLU KPIs LCA LED LISA

LNG LPG M2M M4H M&A

Abbreviations

Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg Federale Overheidsdienst Kruispuntbank van Ondernemingen (Federal Government Services Database of Firms) Gross Domestic Product Greenhouse Gas Geographical Information System Geographical Network Gross National Product Global Navigation Satellite System Global Positioning System Global Reporting Initiative Hectares Holistic Assessment of Sustainability Performance in Seaports Heavy Goods Vehicles Hamburg Port Logistics (i.e. Hamburger Hafen und Logistik AG) Hamburg Port Authority Headquarters International Association of Ports and Harbors Internationale Bauausstellung Information and Communications Technology Information and Communication Technology Applications International Finance Corporation International Maritime Organization Internet of Things Industrial Symbiosis International Standard Organization International Port and Ship Facility Security Code Information Technology International Transport Forum Intelligent Transport System Just In Time Joint Venture Kühne Logistics University Key Performance Indicators Life Cycle Assessment Light-Emitting Diode Landelijk Informatiesysteem van Arbeidsplaatsen en vestigingen (National Information System for Employment Places and Locations) Liquefied Natural Gas Liquefied Petroleum Gas Machine to Machine Merwe-Vierhaven Mergers and Acquisitions

Abbreviations

MIDAS MIT MPET MRC MSOS MuSIC NATO NBB NN NOx NSW NUTS NUTS-3 OCR O-D OECD OPEC OPS PA PASGM PCM PCS PERS PI PM PMC PPRISM PT PV R&D RETE RFID RLI RTLS SAR SDGs SEAs SGM SMART SOx SPL SSDGMs

xvii

Maritime Industrial Development Areas Massachusetts Institute of Technology MSC PSA European Terminal Materials Research Centre More Sustainability-Oriented State Multi-dimensional Sustainability Influence Change North Atlantic Treaty Organization National Bank of Belgium height of water above normal zero Nitrogen oxides National Single Window Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics European Union Level 3 (small regions for specific diagnoses) Optical Character Recognition Origin–Destination Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Organization of Oil Exporting Companies Onshore Power Supply Port Authority Port Authority Sustainability Governance Model Port Community Members Port Community Systems Port Environmental Review System Physical Internet Particulate Matter Port Managing Companies Port PeRformance Indicators: Selection and Measurement project Planned Terminal Photovoltaic Research and Development The Association for Collaboration between Ports and Cities Radio-Frequency Identification Raad voor de Leefomgeving en Infrastructuur (Council for Environment and Infrastructure) Real-Time Location System Sustainability Assessment and Reporting Sustainable Development Goals Significant Environmental Aspects Sustainable Governance Model Sustainable Market Actors for Responsible Trade Sulphur (Sulfur) Oxides SeaLand Project Logistics Sustainable Supply Chain Governance Mechanisms

xviii

SSS STRIA SUMPORT SQ TDW TEIP TEN-T TEU TOS TTOs UK UN UNDG UNEPFI UNESCO VTS WPCD WSN WSPS

Abbreviations

Short Sea Shipping Strategic Transport Research and Innovation Agenda Sustainable Urban Mobility in Port Cities Status Quo Tonnes Deadweight Tool for Identification and Implementation of Environmental Indicators in Ports Trans-European Transport Network Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit Terminal Operating System Transnational Terminal Operating Companies United Kingdom United Nations United Nations Development Goals United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Vessel Traffic Services World Ports Climate Declaration Wireless Sensor Network World Ports Sustainability Program

Chapter 1

Introduction, Chapter Summary, and Conclusions from the Book Angela Carpenter and Rodrigo Lozano

Abstract Currently, European ports, and the cities within which they are located, face significant changing economic circumstances, together with technological, social and cultural pressures for change, as they seek to become more sustainable. Drivers for change include the global United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda and the European Union Circular Economy Agenda. As major players in the cultural, social and economic life of cities, ports can provide economic well-being and support a strong identity for those cities and their local communities. City sustainability requires elements including conservation of resources and minimisation of waste, while supporting and sustaining the local population through the provision of services such as housing and public transport. Ports and cities have therefore come to understand that in order to grow and become more sustainable, they have to work collaboratively to achieve their individual and combined goals.




Keywords Port-city relationship European Union Collaboration and cooperation Port-city identity





Sustainable development


European ports have always been unique and important urban centers—links with the outside world, regional centers for their hinterlands, cultural, economic and social filters and magnifiers. They possess rich historical legacies, but under changing economic circumstances they often have to restructure their facilities and urban fabrics to meet new challenges.

A. Carpenter (&)
R. Lozano Faculty of Engineering and Environment, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] A. Carpenter School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK R. Lozano Organisational Sustainability Ltd, Cardiff, UK © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 A. Carpenter and R. Lozano (eds.), European Port Cities in Transition, Strategies for Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9_1

1

2

A. Carpenter and R. Lozano

This statement, from the dust cover of the original book on European Port Cities in Transition, edited by Hoyle and Pinder (1992), still holds true. In that book, issues such as the move away from traditional heavy industries, containerisation and changes in the way goods were handled (with a consequent loss of traditional port jobs), regeneration of old port areas for new uses, city-port revitalisation to provide leisure resources, and the obsolescence of ports in emerging Eastern European democracies, were just some of the issues examined. Currently, ports, and the cities within which they are located, still face significant changing economic circumstances, together with technological, social and cultural pressures for change, as they seek to become more sustainable sea transport hubs (Carpenter et al. 2018). Drivers for these changes have included the global Sustainable Development Agenda in the last quarter of the 20th century (see United Nations 1992; WCED 1987) and, more recently, the European Union’s Circular Economy Agenda (European Commission 2014a, b). Other factors, such as technological change through the introduction of digitalisation, Internet of Things, and “Block-chain” (see Chap. 5 by Acciaro in this book), have accelerated the speed of information transfer globally. Changes, including the need for deepwater access to ports as a result of containerisation and increasing vessel size, and the need for improved freight transport links, have seen ports moving away from their historical inner-city locations (Grossman 2008; Cullinane and Wilmsmeier 2011). This has often resulted in the dispersal of services and jobs away from cities and into the hinterland. These factors are important since seaports (herein ports), as part of—and connected closely to—urban centers, can provide a source of economic well-being and provide a strong identify for local communities (Pinder 2003). Ports play a major role in the cultural, social and economic life of the cities in which they are located, and through the links they provide to the outside world (Fusco Girard 2013). They are important to economic development, because they facilitate trade and provide added value to the port and city; expanding market opportunities of both national and international firms based in them (Rodrigue and Schulman 2017). Ports are important players in the corporate world, due to their role in global production and distributions systems, by trading over six and a half billion metric tons annually. Half of the goods traded in the European Union (EU) is seaborne (Hall 2007). Ports in the EU Member States play a vital role in the movement of goods and passengers both within the EU and globally, with more than 90% of goods imported into the EU entering through such ports (Eurostat 2018). Ports are under increasing pressure to become more environmentally friendly and ensure safe and successful commercial operations (Carpenter et al. 2018). They are affected by a wide range of environmental issues (releases to water, air and soil, waste production, noise, and dredging, for example) (Darbra et al. 2005; Carpenter and Macgill 2003), together with legislative, technological, financial, and cultural/ social issues that can significantly impact their activities (Carpenter 2005). Due to these reasons, ports need to comply with strict regulatory requirements for environmental protection and are increasingly being held responsible for their

1 Introduction, Chapter Summary, and Conclusions …

3

sustainability performance to ensure community support. At the same time, ports need to respond to economic pressures in a constantly evolving industry to remain competitive (Wooldridge et al. 1999). Sustainability of seaport activities can only be achieved by enacting management protocols that integrate economic, environment, social (including legal and technical) issues (see Chap. 12 by Lozano, Carpenter and Sammalisto). There has been an increasing body of literature focused on the impacts of port and shipping operations on the environment. Examples within European ports include: Port Authority of Genoa’s Port Energy Environmental Plan for the port and its quay electrification of ship-repair docks (Greenport 2012); Port of Antwerp’s cold ironing approach (i.e. making shore power available for barges, as well as the Port Authority’s tug and dredger fleet) (American Journal of Transportation 2009); and Port of Hamburg’s moves towards autonomous vehicles (IAPH Port of Hamburg 2019). Sustainability activities of ports vary according to aspects such as their size, ownership, and the range of activities that take place in them. Ports are strongly influenced by factors specific to the country they are located in, as illustrated in various chapters in this book. Although the European Union has developed specific legislation since 2000 relating to the handling of waste at port estates (for example Directive 2008/98/EC on waste (European Commission 2008); and Directive 2000/59/EC on port waste reception facilities (European Commission 2000—updated in 2015), and a European regulation on the provision of port services and rules on financial transparency (European Parliament and Council 2017), many initiatives at ports go beyond legal requirements, such as the cases of: Biopark Terneuzen of the Port of Zeeland (Port of Zeeland 2015); the Port of Antwerp’s Sustainability Strategy (Port of Antwerp, undated); and vision strategies of the Port of Amsterdam (2014) and Port of Rotterdam (2011). One of the main drivers of these developments has been Port authorities (PA). In spite of the development, there have been many barriers to the implementation of sustainability, such as high upfront investments and risks; economic pressures for ports; and adverse policy incentives for port companies (Lozano et al. 2019). Whilst at the same time, ports also need to consider the challenges set out by the European Union, for example through the European Commission’s communications on a European Ports Policy (European Commission 2007) and on ports as an engine for growth (European Commission 2013). For cities, one of the main sustainability goals has been defined as the “reduction of the city’s use of natural resources and production of wastes while simultaneously improving its livability, so that it can better fit within the capacities of the local, regional and global ecosystems” (Newman 1999). As in the case of ports, there has been a considerable amount of research undertaken since the adoption of the Brundtland Commission’s ‘Our Common Future’ Report (WCED 1987). Sustainability research for urban areas has examined the broad inter-relatedness of social, climatic, geographic, cultural and institutional contexts (Cohen 2017). It has considered concepts such as (but not limited to) Industrial Ecology, Industrial Symbiosis, Circular Economy, Cradle-to-Cradle, Living Machines, Net Zero

4

A. Carpenter and R. Lozano

Building, Sustainable Cities, Smart Cities, Knowledge Cities, Resilient Cities, Eco Cities and Eco-Towns, and Low Carbon Cities (De Jong et al. 2015). Towns and cities have generally developed alongside, or around, ports since ancient times (Hoyle 1989). This is illustrated in Fig. 1.1, which originally only included Stages I to V. Those stages show how the relationship between the city and its port have adapted over time in the face of factors such as industrialisation, technological change, and urban regeneration. Stage VI was added in a subsequent iteration of this figure, to consider factors such as globalisation and inter-modal transport links, for example. The relationship between a city (or town) and its associated port was also discussed by Ducruet (2005), who examined a range of typologies based on size of the city and the volume of traffic moving through its associated port (see Fig. 1.2). Ducruet (2005) identified that the nature of the relationship between ports and port cities is complex and based on three elements: short term changes such as the development of containerisation, long term formation of cities and urbanisation, and intermediate term of clusters ports. More recently, Shan et al. (2014) argued that a port city operates as both a port and a city, each being dependent on the other. They identified that the development of a seaport can help boost the economy of its host city through cargo flows, passenger flows, financial flows, and a range of value-added services, and can also provide the stimulus for the development of infrastructure such as road and rail connections, which also boost the city’s economy. Figures 1.1 and 1.2 show that the relationship between ports and cities has experienced many changes over time. This may have been expansion of one or both entities and, in many cases, a separation as a result of industrial change and a retreat away from the waterfront into hinterland areas and/or a wider port region. This book compiles original research by long-standing and younger scholars from multiple disciplines and builds upon the wider discourse about seaports and sustainability. The book examines the role of modern ports in Europe and considers how port-cities are responding to these major drivers for change. Its release comes just over 60 years since the invention of the shipping container, a major factor in changing the way goods and cargoes are handled in ports, and a driver towards ever increasing vessel sizes. The latter has played a significant role in changing the way ports operate, and even where they are located, since many traditional ports are unable to accommodate these larger ships. Chapter 2 by Fenton on port-city redevelopment and Sustainable Development (SD) presents out an overview of literature on SD in seaports, ranging from socio-economic and environmental impacts of ports on both their urban localities and at a global level, to the mechanisms, instruments, and governance systems used to alleviate negative impacts of ports. The chapter examines different approaches in problem solving that can contribute globally through the reduction of greenhouse gases from ocean-going shipping and locally from measures to improve negative impacts of onward transportation from the port, through the city, to inland areas. Measures, such as a move way from transportation using heavy goods vehicles travelling through a city to short-sea-shipping, inland waterways, and railway

1 Introduction, Chapter Summary, and Conclusions …

5

Fig. 1.1 Different Stages in the traditional port-city interface. Source Merckx et al. (2003). Adapted from Hoyle (1989: 47)

Fig. 1.2 Typologies of City-Port relationships. Source Ducruet (2005; Fig. 1). Note Figure is an English translation of the French original

6

A. Carpenter and R. Lozano

transport, present an opportunity to reduce air pollution in the port and its surrounding urban area. Using the example of the City of Stockholm, the chapter examines the challenges and opportunities presented in port-city redevelopment in the capital of Sweden. These challenges include planning for the sustainable redevelopment of former port areas, providing and maintaining physical infrastructure, managing transport and related impacts, and managing the needs of the various vessels that continue to use the port. Topics such as governance of the current and future operations of the port area and operations, moves towards a fossil-fuel free port city and a climate-smart port-city, and sustainable urban transportation are some of the topics covered in this chapter. Chapter 3 by Carpenter and Lozano presents an overview of literature relating to ports and sustainability and cities and sustainability to illustrate how sustainability activities have been developed to generate positive impacts from, and reduce negative impacts of, ports on their host cities. The chapter highlights that sustainable ports should contribute to the well-being of the urban areas surrounding them, and how, through collaboration between the port and city, they can achieve a dynamic equilibrium between the economic, environmental and social aspects of each entity. In this chapter, a framework of what is a sustainable, and holistic, port-city is proposed, which illustrates how each entity can move individually, or in collaboration, towards such a goal. A collaborative approach can offer the most direct and fastest path towards this end, but the framework recognizes that this is not necessarily the most likely path. For example, ports will generally have a greater focus on economic viability—to remain operational and make a profit— rather than a focus on being environmentally or socially oriented. Cities are likely to be more socially and environmentally oriented, to meet the needs of the people who live within them, with economic viability not being a significant factor. However, while collaboration is important in order for both entities to become more sustainable in the short-, medium- and long-term, a number of questions remain such as what are the key elements that need to be considered and integrated into such a collaborative approach. Chapter 4 by Karimpour et al. examine how the relationship between the port and the city has changed over time. This change may be in response to pressure to become more sustainable, for ports to respond to the physical impacts of increasing vessel size, the change in use of historic port areas, or ports either becoming disassociated from the city, or even no longer operating. The chapter discusses the life-cycle concept of ports to illustrate how they can become obsolete, but also show how they can avoid obsolescence and redevelop in co-operation with the city (see for example the work of Carpenter et al. 2018). The chapter examines a Circular Economy approach, where restoration or regeneration within a system replaces an end-of-life approach and where there is a finite end. This is compatible with the life cycle model of ports, where end of life would equate to obsolescence of the port, and restoration and regeneration equates to port redevelopment. Such redevelopment may be through introduction of new services or activities within the port, that can benefit both the port and the city. This might also include the reuse of waste materials generated within the port that would otherwise go to landfill and

1 Introduction, Chapter Summary, and Conclusions …

7

place a burden on the municipality. A number of specific circular economy approaches in European ports are examined in this chapter, to illustrate how the approaches have been incorporated into ports’ circular economy strategies. The chapter specifically highlights the role of the port and Port Authority in using circular economy approaches to become more sustainable, and how such cases can contribute to multi-level policy development going forward. Chapter 5 by Acciaro et al. highlight the importance that digital technologies can have in the development of European port logistics. Digital technologies have contributed to the development of new business models in port-cities, and to improved cargo-handling and data management systems. Such technologies can contribute to the speeding up of the trans-shipment of goods from ships to the hinterland, reduce inefficiencies in port areas, and help safeguard the well-being of local communities and the environment. The chapter discusses what constitutes a smart port, including various information and communication technologies that are used widely by ports, for example port communication systems, vessel traffic services, automated gate and yard systems, and intelligent transport systems. The authors highlight that while such information an communication technologies can increase the efficiency of port operations, there remains a need to integrate these technologies into existing legacy systems. Other topics covered in this chapter include: how digitalisation can strengthen the relationship between ports and port-cities, for example by catalysing local development through the creation of new jobs; the potential of ports to contribute to the digital revolution (Logistics 4.0, Port 4.0); aspects of the Internet of Things (IoT), such as increasing levels of automation and monitoring real-time performance within the life-cycle; and Block-chain, where IoT and artificial intelligence can be used to speed up all the financial transactions involved in the trans-shipment of goods or to enhance safety and regulation compliance. While little has been documented on how digitalisation can contribute to port-city sustainability, the chapter concludes that a key aspect for adoption of digital technologies is strategic planning to improve port competitiveness, avoid social tensions, and safeguard the well-being of local inhabitants and the environment. Chapter 6 by Van den Bergh and Daamen examines how the role of port authorities (PAs) has developed over the last two decades in order to manage port areas, handle the day to day running of a port, deal with changing logistics, and meet the needs of the port’s customers to remain competitive. At the same time, PAs have to deal with a range of economic, social, and environmental challenges that can lead to (spatial) policy conflicts between the port and the city (port/city), which are often viewed as separate entities, particularly where the port has physically moved away from the city. The chapter aims to better understand conflicts that arise between the port/city, and at the port-city interface (the economic interface between the port and city), and to and (re)direct the policy of ports/cities, and port-cities. Within a broader discussion of spatial planning and human geography, the chapter uses a visualisation method focusing on relational port-city interfaces with the steel manufacturing sector in the port-cities of Ghent and Amsterdam. These empirical cases describe the general properties and patterns that relate to the

8

A. Carpenter and R. Lozano

port-city interface, highlighting that significant networks and strong relationships can exist between the maritime and urban economy in some sectors. However, the authors note that in other sectors no significant relationships exist, and the port-city interface may be weak or non-existent. The chapter highlights the need to better understand each port/city, and the port-city interface, in order to formulate policy recommendations that can have a positive impact on the port-city and overcome conflicts (where and if they exist). Chapter 7 by Schubert presents the specific case of the relationship between the port and city of Hamburg. The chapter examines three historic phases of the port and city: from the port and city as a functioning spatial unit until the beginning of the 19th century; through stages of industrialisation (the introduction of steam ships, increasing ship sizes, the need for larger docks, and more modern transport infrastructure, for example) resulting in growing separation between the two entities; and through to the current millennium when the port and city started to re-integrate to some extent. The historic role of the municipal government is examined in supporting the transformation of Hamburg from an inter-dependent city-harbour to an open-tidal seaport, together with changes such as Hamburg joining the German Reich in 1889, resulting in reduction in size of its Free Port area (an area where goods could be stored and processed duty free; fully abolished in 2013). The separation of the port and city continued in response to factors including industrial developments, the destruction of much of Hamburg and its port during World War II, reconstruction and expansion of the port away from its original location, and the more recent construction of a new container terminal on the River Elbe. The chapter discusses that, since the start of the new millennium, Hamburg has continued to grow and has gained some autonomy from the central government. Hamburg port, as one of the top three in Europe for trade, is controlled by the local government through the Hamburg Port Authority (established in 2005), and occupies around 10% of the area of Hamburg. While in recent years, some older port areas have been redeveloped, implementation of new mixed uses for some areas have also been implemented (HafenCity, temporary musical theatres on the south bank of the Elbe, for example). Hamburg has, therefore, seen a mixing of use, and efforts to re-integrate the city and port in a sustainable way. Chapter 8 by Pages Sanchez and Daamen examines how urban and port policies of European waterfront redevelopment projects have been influenced by SD over the last 20 years. Port-city waterfront zones are seen as focal points of governance where “port and urban actors co-operate, dispute, and pursue their interests“ and where public pressure forces key actors to address a range of economic, social, cultural, and environmental pressures. These waterfront zones are viewed as strategic areas, where the positive impact of ports can be emphasized. An institutionalist approach is presented as a theoretical lens through which the changing port city relationship and waterfront redevelopment practices can be examined. The role of the PA as a key actor is considered, together with the pressures imposed on PAs by formal governance structures and informal social expectations. The chapter is based on an actor-institutional comparison of projects in six port-cities (Oslo, Helsinki, Rotterdam, Hamburg, Marseille, and Genoa), assessing formal governance

1 Introduction, Chapter Summary, and Conclusions …

9

structures and informal social expectations at the port-urban interface. The six cases share a number of common problems and tensions between the economic, social and environmental policy objectives, and the PA in each case played a major role in dealing with them. A comparison of planning documents and legal frameworks for the role of the PA in relation to other key actors was undertaken in each case. By examining how key actors negotiate and attempt to resolve inherent tensions in planning sustainable waterfront redevelopment schemes, this chapter highlights the potential benefits that can be gained by hybrid approaches to such planning. It illustrates that, where the port is viewed as part of the urban environment, and the PA is viewed as an urban actor, innovation of the port city waterfront is possible. Chapter 9 by Fobbe et al. proposes a new holistic framework for assessing sustainability performance in seaports. The SD efforts of PAs have been increasingly examined by academics in recent years, and while an increasing number of ports have assessed and reported their efforts, the focus has mainly been on environmental issues for the port as an individual organisation. In order to develop a holistic assessment framework, the authors examined several sustainability assessment and reporting (SAR) tools, from which they concluded that the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) was one of the best tools available. The review identifies more than 400 port sustainability related indicators which were then compared with GRI guidelines. This chapter presents modified and new assessment categories for ports covering environmental, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability. It also identifies examples of interlinking issues for port sustainability assessment and port system indicators. The indicators were used to develop the “Holistic Assessment of Sustainability in Seaports” (HASPS) framework, covering the four dimensions of sustainability (economic, environmental, social, and time), interlinking issues, and the port systems dimension. HASPS is aimed at enabling ports and PAs to interconnectivity of all port activities, and plan sustainability changes holistically and from a systems perspective. HASPS should be suitable for all kinds of seaports, irrespective of size and business activities, and allows a seaport to assess its sustainability performance at any time, allowing them to analyse their own performance and potentially compare it to that of over ports. Chapter 10 by Mayanti et al. examines the evolution of Port Community System (PCS) network analysis as a tool to enhance communication and simplify administration for seamless data exchange and cooperation across the port value chain. Seaports play a crucial role in the supply chain, connecting diverse stakeholders, and integrated systems are necessary for transparent information exchange between all stakeholders (also discussed in Chap. 5 by Acciaro et al.). The absence, or limited use, of PCS, or relaying information through conventional systems, can result in mistakes from multiple manual entries, missing documents, document duplication, or a lack of real time information, for example. As a result, there is a need for a system that can coordinate across the maritime network, overcome uncertainty, and reduce the administrative burden. PCS, as an open and neutral electronic platform, is such a system, and improves communication for as many as ten parties as port community members. The chapter reviews the literature to identify mechanisms to allow PCS to be developed and implemented within a port

10

A. Carpenter and R. Lozano

community. The chapter also examines two studies, one on technical implementation of PCS, and one on focal organisations necessary for successful PCS implementation, including a study on implementation of PCS in the Mediterranean. The authors conceptualise the evolution of PCS network development for ports in three stages (pre-PCS network, PCS network emergence, and PCS network expansion), and highlight that this is a dynamic process, requiring the acceptance of various actors to use the technology, and that it is a tool that could help accelerate a port’s sustainability transition. Chapter 11 by Andrade and Costa focuses on the impact of global tourism on waterfront regeneration, including the displacement of local inhabitants, gentrification of services and public facilities, and changes to a city’s identity in response to the demands of tourists. The chapter examines the evolution of waterfront regeneration since the late 1960s, where reconstruction of the city has occurred in areas abandoned by port facilities, and where more recently port activities are reintegrated into the day to day life of the city. They also consider how tourism can provide an alternative port activity, compatible with the city; in particular in the case of cruises. The chapter highlights that waterfront regeneration has often come as a result of port-cities investing in revitalisation of their historic centres and improvement in their cultural offerings (e.g. museums and monuments). This makes the city more attractive to tourists, particularly in an era of low cost flights and low cost cruises. However, mass tourism has resulted in conflicts with local inhabitants and created a loss of local identity with cities becoming “theme parks”, where tourists visit for the day but do not sleep in the city. A number of opportunities and threats from tourism are presented, at a time when cruise ships are increasing in size and passenger capacity, the cost of crises are falling, and cities present a range of easily accessible historical and cultural locations (particularly in the Mediterranean). While seeking to maximise the net benefits of tourism in port-cities, there is a need to manage possible conflicts between tourists and local needs (housing, transportation, garbage, for example). Empirical research on the impacts of touristification of port cities is used to highlight the need for planning and management processes that balance the needs of tourists and locals, through collaboration between actors, effective monitoring tools, and strong administrative coordination. Chapter 12 by Lozano et al. analyses the organisational change efforts of the Port of Gävle, Sweden, to become more sustainable. From the literature, five approaches are identified to help ports become more sustainable—legislative, technological, financial, cultural/social, and voluntary initiatives. Most of these efforts focus on technological and policy approaches, with little consideration of organisational change management, a main focus of this chapter. Based on 23 face-to-face interviews of port stakeholders, this chapter presents insights into what those stakeholders perceive sustainability to be, how sustainability is communicated, and what are the drivers and barriers (external and internal) towards the port becoming more sustainable. The chapter examines a range of literature on organisational change management for sustainability, including corporate sustainability drivers and barriers to change. Arising from that literature, those drivers and barriers were

1 Introduction, Chapter Summary, and Conclusions …

11

examined empirically through interviews with internal and external stakeholders, including representatives of the PA, local and regional government, and a range of port users. From the interview results, drivers and barriers were ranked on their frequency of mention to illustrate and explain the inter-relatedness of the port organisational system. The chapter presents what stakeholders perceived their influence on the port to be, what they though sustainability is, whether sustainability was communicated within and outside the port, and what they saw as the main barriers and drivers. The chapter highlights that stakeholders play an important part in addressing sustainability and managing organisational change, particularly considering drivers and barriers to change. Ports can better address sustainability if they consider it holistically, looking at the four dimensions of sustainability (economic, environmental, social, and time) and considering the six approaches identified. Chapter 13 by Fernandez-Izquierdo et al. present a framework for a Port Authority Sustainability Governance Model (PASGM) that integrates sustainability and corporate governance into all the structures, policies, and processes of a port, to ensure that the port is fully committed to SD. The PASGM framework has been developed from a review of literature and best practice related to international corporate governance. Port governance is examined, including five difference port governance typologies. The relationship between corporate governance and sustainability is then discussed, together with the limited literature on sustainable port governance. The PASGM enables ports to become more sustainable, through the internal governance processes of the PA. The framework provides five axes which address critical issues in corporate governance and sustainability: governance foundations; stakeholder engagement, governance structure; Board operations to promote a more sustainable port; and sustainability information and communication. The chapter contributes to the discourse on corporate governance and ports in two ways. Theoretically, PASGM integrates critical issues of corporate governance and sustainability in the proposed framework for the PA. Practically, it provides some guidelines on key governance issues for integrating sustainability within the management system of the port. The authors in particular note that there is no genuine SD without a governance model committed to sustainability. Chapter 14 by Berli et al. analyses the relationship between ports and cities from the perspective of intermodal transport networks that have been developed since the 1970s. Port-cities provide direct connectivity between maritime transport and land-based transport (road, rail). A macro (European-wide) approach is taken to investigate the influence of maritime transport on global trade for both port and non-port cities. This chapter uses for an extended view of Europe, from Iceland to Turkey and from the Canary Islands to the Russian plains. A temporal approach is also taken, which allows for the observation of spatial evolutions in Europe’s maritime centre of gravity and the identification of trends or trajectories in the maritime specialisation of cities. Within this chapter, a model of a European sea-land network of cities is constructed, using shipping data, to model vessel traffic flows (data for the months of March, June, September and December in the years 1978, 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003, and 2008). Other factors included in the

12

A. Carpenter and R. Lozano

model were road networks around ports showing connections between ports and cities, and urban population data. A network analysis of European cities then was undertaken. This chapter combines the planar and non-planar and studies the resulting entity as a single object, echoing early studies of the foreland-hinterland continuum in geography. It also contributes to urban studies by the fact that the European demographic hierarchy remains, overtime, a strong determinant of intermodal centrality. Chapter 15 by Hein and van de Laar examines the separation of ports from cities since the 19th century, in cases where there was room for port activities and infrastructure to move to areas outside the city where there were no restrictions on them created by urban needs. The chapter discusses the case of Rotterdam where separation took place with the port activities moving out along the south of the River Maas, then expanding in response to the needs of the oil industry (pre- and post-World War II). The oil and petroleum industry played a dominant role in planning and allocation of land for the port area throughout much of the 20th century. Changes as a result of the introduction of containerisation in the 1960s ultimately contributed to the Port of Rotterdam expanding some 40 km from the city centre at the second Maasvlakte container area. This chapter highlights that, as such expansions occurred, they required close collaboration between business leaders and the municipality (for example through the regional planning activities of the 1920s) to enable administrative borders to expand as infrastructure expanded away from the city. The chapter illustrates the connectivity of Europe’s port industry by emphasizing the strong relations Rotterdam has with the German hinterland and industrial areas. Expansion along the Maas changed rural spaces to dock areas and specialized industrial spaces. Expansion also led to new governance and planning structures being established to “safeguard the city’s industrial ambitions”. However, changed post 1945 resulted in Rotterdam becoming a “city without a port” and in the 1970’s, they indicate that Rotterdam became a “place of distress”, with noise, pollution and environmental issues having a detrimental impact on port and city relations. However, new developments and Rotterdam becoming Europe’s most sophisticated energy hub, have had a significant impact on port-city-regional relations and planning, including in respect of environmental issues. This highlights the urgency for research into “port-city-regions and their spaces, values and people”. Chapter 16 by Acciaro, Renken and Dirzka examines the case of Hamburg as an integrated port city, with an emphasis on its smart-port and smart-city strategies, illustrating the complexity of managing such cities. This chapter differs from Chap. 7 by Schubert, also on Hamburg, which focuses more on the historic phases of conclusion, fragmentation and re-integration that the port and city went through from the early 19th century onwards. The chapter briefly discusses the evolution of port-city relations and how this changed in response to maritime technological innovations (from fossil fuels to automation and ICT), and how those changes are reflected in the literature on port-city interactions and port-city typologies. The chapter defines the relationship between the port and the city for port-cities, taking into account definitions from a broad range of perspectives; geographic, economic/socio-economic, environmental, competitiveness, smart approaches, and sustainability transition.

1 Introduction, Chapter Summary, and Conclusions …

13

For integrated port-cities, the authors identify that there is a close relationship between the port and city—in the case of Hamburg this closeness is the result of the city being indirectly involved in the management of the port through the Hamburg Port Authority (HPA). The increasing use of Hamburg port by cruise ships, the need to integrate urban structures with logistic operations, issues of traffic congestion, and the introduction of a communications system to manage the flow of truck movements, are some of the topics covered in this chapter. This chapter illustrates that, through close cooperation between Hamburg PMC and the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, there is evidence of reintegration of the port into urban life, in part through waterfront development initiatives. However, such a relationship needs to go beyond urban development, taking into account socio-economic changes, issues of competition between ports in proximity, and economic factors such as changes in export trade growth. It is also necessary to consider changes in European transport networks, global production patterns, and European cooperation in areas including the environment and other policy areas, and regional logistics. Chapter 17 by Nebot and Jimenez focuses on societal integration of ports and cities through a series of case studies on Spanish Ports. The chapter highlights that ports are often segregated places with little or no access by local communities, and limit citizens access to the sea. While, in some places, access has been opened up to a small number of people, for example through the creation of marinas, there is a need to physically improve access, and develop cultural, social and economic activities to meet wider local demands. Social integration of ports is identified as “the relationship of the port with local communities: residents of nearby neighbourhoods, workers, other users, and the general public”. The chapter discusses a range of research related to sustainability and SD of ports, highlighting that the majority of research has focused on environmental and economic aspects, with far less one on social aspects. Existing research on social integration strategies is examined, and a series of examples of good practice in Spanish Mediterranean ports (Ports of Malaga, Cartagena, Valencia, Barcelona, Ginesta, and El Candado port in Malaga) are analysed. These ports include commercial harbours, which fall under the responsibility of the State, and marinas and fishing harbours which are managed by Spanish autonomous regions. The chapter identifies specific cases which fall under a number of broad headings: accessibility; sustainable mobility and modal integration; local demands and diversity of activities; blue employment; the use of ICTs in ports; education and maritime culture; and port heritage and identity. For each topic, one or more examples of good practice are set out. A brief outline is provided on how port SD research, together with research into the economic, environmental and social welfare of local communities, can be advanced in the future. This requires coordination among the large number of participating agents to best manage different initiatives and projects, and the need to implement participatory and cross-cutting governance processes when undertaking social integration projects in ports. Chapter 18 by Kotowska, Mańkowska, and Pluciński examines the socioeconomic costs and benefits of seaport infrastructure development for an environment, using the case of the port and city of Świnoujście, Poland to answer the

14

A. Carpenter and R. Lozano

question “What impact does the implementation of large infrastructural projects in seaports have on the local community and seaport economy?” In order to answer this question, a Seaport’s Social Cost-Benefit Analysis (Seaports’ SCBA) method was developed and applied. The Seaports’ SCBA method is described, with three stages: forecasting transshipment volumes for the planned terminal (PT); identifying socio economic benefits and costs of the PT at a global, national, and local level; and quantifying those socio-economic benefits and costs in both monetary and non-monetary terms. The Seaports’ SCBA method was implemented for a proposed deepwater terminal, taking into account its’ potential impacts on the port of Gdańsk, the only other deepwater terminal in Poland, and cargo flows from/to the port of Hamburg. The method sets out 13 categories of socio-economic benefits and costs of the PT, with characteristics described by range, type, kind and beneficiary. Environmental benefits were also identified associated with decreased transport costs, and increased economic benefits from higher customs duties. Benefits to the PA and other port users are estimated in the model, including who would be the beneficiaries of benefits and who would bear the costs. Possible social costs relating to increased vessel traffic and road transport were included as external costs. Benefits to the municipality would include creation of new jobs in the port and for state administration employees, and increased spending in the local economy. Identifying socio-economic benefits and costs using the Seaports’ SCBA model, and using that information as a basis for dialogue between the port and city, can help to gain approval from the local community for any port spatial development. This book has compiled the work of a range of authors in fields as diverse as spatial planning, port-life cycle assessment, historical studies, and socio-economic research. A number of new frameworks, models, tools, and practical examples are discussed, which can be applied to cases across the European ports sector, and the global ports sector, moving forward. This book demonstrates that, although ports and cities had been drifting apart, in order to grow and become more sustainable, they have to work collaboratively in order to achieve their individual and combined goals.

References Acciaro, M., Renken, K., & Dirzka, C. (no date). Integrated port cities: The case of Hamburg (Chapter 16 in this volume). Acciaro, M., Renken, K., & El Khadiri, N. (no date). Technological change and logistics development in European ports (Chapter 5 in this volume). American Journal of Transportation (AJOT). (2009). Cold ironing project: Port of antwerp and independent container line. Article by AJOT, June 28, 2009. Available at: https://www.ajot. com/news/cold-ironing-project-port-of-antwerp-and-independent-container-line. Andrade, M. J., & Costa, J. P. (no date). Touristification of European port-cities: Impacts on local populations and cultural heritage (Chapter 11 in this volume).

1 Introduction, Chapter Summary, and Conclusions …

15

Berli, J., Ducruet, C., Martin, R, & Seten, S. (no date). The changing interplay between European cities and intermodal transport networks (1970s–2010s) (Chapter 14 in this volume). Carpenter, A (2005). The reduction of ship-generated waste in the North Sea: A contemporary analysis. PhD Thesis. School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, UK, January 2005. Carpenter, A, & Lozano, R (no date). Proposing a framework for anchoring sustainability relationships between ports and cities (Chapter 3 in this volume). Carpenter, A., Lozano, R., Sammalisto, K., & Astner, L. (2018). Securing a port’s future through Circular Economy: Experiences from the Port of Gävle in contributing to sustainability. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 128, 539–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul/2018.01.065. Carpenter, A., & Macgill, S. M. (2003). The EU Directive on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues: current availability of facilities in North Sea ports. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46(1), 21–32. Cohen, M. (2017). A systematic review of urban sustainability assessment literature. Sustainability, 9(11), 2048. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9112048. Cullinane, K, & Wilmsmeier, G. (2011). The contribution of the dry port concept to the extension of port lifecycles. In J. Böse (Ed.), Handbook of terminal planning. Operations research/ computer science interfaces series (Vol. 49). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-1-4419-8408-1_18. Darbra, R. M., Ronza, A., Stojanovic, T. A., Wooldridge, C., & Casal, J. (2005). A procedure for identifying significant environmental aspects in ports. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 50, 866–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.04.037. De Jong, M., Joss, S., Schraven, D., Zhan, C., & Weijnen, M. (2015). Sustainable–smart–resilient– low carbon–eco–knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. Journal of Cleaner Production, 109, 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2015.02.004. Ducruet, C. (2005). Approche comparée du développement des villes-ports à l’échelle mondiale: problèmes conceptuels et méthodologiques. Les Cahiers Scientifiques du Transport, AFITL, 2003, 48, 59–79. Available at: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00459487. European Commission. (2000). Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues—Commission declaration. OJ L 332, December 28, 2000, pp 81–90. Consolidated version of 2015 available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX: 02000L0059-20151209. European Commission. (2007). Communication from the Commission—Communication on a European Ports Policy (COM/2007/0616 final). Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legalcontent/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0616&from=EN. European Commission. (2008). Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives. OJ L 312, November 22, 2008, pp. 3–30. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex: 32008L0098. European Commission. (2013). Communication from the commission—Ports: an engine for growth (COM/2013/0295 final). Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/ HTML/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0295&from=EN. European Commission. (2014a). The circular economy: Connecting, creating and conserving value. Brussels. https://doi.org/10.2779/80121. European Commission. (2014b). Towards a circular economy: A zero waste programme for Europe. Brussels. European Parliament and Council. (2017). Regulation (EU) 2017/352 of the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers establishing a framework for the provision of port services and common rules on the financial transparency of ports. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32017R0352&from=EN.

16

A. Carpenter and R. Lozano

Eurostat. (2018). International trade in goods by mode of transport. Available at: https://ec. europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=International_trade_in_goods_by_ mode_of_transport Accessed 19 November 2018. Fenton, P. (no date). Port-city redevelopment and sustainable development (Chapter 2 in this volume). Fernandez-Izquierdo, M. A., Ferrero-Ferrero, I., & Munoz-Torrez, M. J. (no date). Integrating governance and sustainability: A proposal towards more sustainable ports (Chapter 13 in this volume). Fobbe, L., Lozano, R, & Carpenter, A. (no date). Proposing a holistic framework to assess sustainability performance in seaports (Chapter 9 in this volume). Fusco Girard, L. (2013). Towards a smart sustainable development in port cities/areas: The role of the “Historic Urban Landscape” approach. Sustainability, 2013(5), 4329–4348. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su104329. Greenport. (2012). The port of Genoa reduces CO2 emissions by 20,000 tonnes every year …. etc. Article of 22 May 2012 in Greenport News. Available at: https://www.greenport.com/news101/ Projects-and-Initiatives/genoa-port-environmental-energy-plan. Grossman, I. (2008). Perspectives for Hamburg as a port city in the context of a changing global environment. Geoforum, 30, 2062–2072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.04.011. Hall, P. V. (2007). Seaports, urban sustainability, and paradigm shift. Journal of Urban Technology, 14(2), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630730701531757. Hein, C., & van de Laar, P. T. (no date). The separation of ports from cities: The case of Rotterdam (Chapter 15 in this volume). Hoyle, B. S. (1989). The port-city interface: Trends. Problems and Examples. Geoforum, 29(4), 429–435. Hoyle, B. S., & Pinder, D. (Eds.). (1992). European port cities in transition. London, UK: Bellhaven Press (in association with the British Association for the Advancement of Science). IAPH-Port of Hamburg. (2019). Autonomous vehicles’ impact on port infrastructure requirements. Report available at: https://safety4sea.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/IAPHPort-ofHamburg-Autonomous-vehicles-impact-on-port-infrastructure-requirements-2019_06.pdf. Karimpour, R., Ballini, F., & Őlcer, A. I. (no date). Port-city redevelopment and the Circular Economy agenda in Europe (Chapter 4 in this volume). Kotowska, I., Mankowska, M, & Plucinski, M. (no date). Socio-economic costs and benefits of seaport infrastructure development for a local environment. The case of the port and city of Świnoujście (Chapter 18 in this volume). Lozano, R., Carpenter, A., & Sammalisto, K. (no date). Analysing organizational change management in seaports: Stakeholder perception, communication, drivers for, and barriers to sustainability at the Port of Gävle (Chapter 12 in this volume). Lozano, R., Fobbe, L., Carpenter, A., & Sammalisto, K. (2019). Analysing sustainability changes in seaports: Experiences from the Gävle Port Authority. Sustainable Development, 27(3), 409– 418. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1913. Mayanti, B., Kantola, J., Natali, M., & Kytola, J. (no date). Analysing port community system network evolution (Chapter 10 in this volume). Merckx, F., Notteboom, T. E., & Winkelmans, W (2003). Spatial models of waterfront redevelopment: the tension between city and port revisited. In: Proceedings of IAME 2003 Conference, International Association of Maritime Economics, Busan, Korea (pp. 267–285). Nebot Gomez de Salazar, N, & Rosa Jimenez, C. J. (no date). Societal integration of ports and cities: Case study on Spanish ports (Chapter 17 in this volume). Newman, P. (1999). Sustainability and cities: Extending the metabolism model. In Landscape and Urban Planning (pp. 219–226). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-2046(99)00009-2. Pages Sanchez, J. M, & Daamen, T. A. (no date). Governance and planning issues in European waterfront development 1999–2019 (Chapter 8 in this volume). Pinder, D. (2003). Seaport decline and cultural heritage sustainability issues in the UK coastal zone. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 4, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1296-2074(03)00006-2.

1 Introduction, Chapter Summary, and Conclusions …

17

Port of Amsterdam. (2014). Port of Amsterdam’s Vision 2030: Creating value for people and their environments. June 03, 2014. Available at: https://www.portofamsterdam.com/en/pressrelease/port-amsterdams-vision-2030-creating-value-people-and-their-environment. Port of Antwerp. (undated). Port of Antwerp sustainability strategy. Available at: http://www. sustainableportofantwerp.com/en/content/mission-vision-strategy/strategy. Port of Rotterdam. (2011). Port Vision 2030. December 15, 2011. Available at: https://www. portofrotterdam.com/sites/default/files/upload/Port-Vision/Port-Vision-2030/index.html#108/z. Port of Zeeland. (2015). Biopark Terneuzen project. Available at: http://www.zeelandseaports.nl/ en/the-port-company/projects-and-collaboration/sustainable-seaports.htm. Rodrigue, J.-P., & Schulman, J. (2017). The economic impacts of port investments, Chapter 11. In J.-P. Rodrigue (Ed.), The geography of transport systems. New York: Routledge. Schubert, D. (no date). Spatial restructuring of port cities: periods from inclusion to fragmentation and re-integration of City and Port of Hamburg (Chapter 7 in this volume). Shan, J., Yu, M., & Lee, C.-Y. (2014). An empirical investigation of the seaport’s economic impact: Evidence from major ports in China. Transportation Research Part E, 69, 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2014.05.101. United Nations, & UN. (1992). Agenda 21. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). Rio de Janeiro: United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/ esa/dsd/agenda21/. Van den Berghe, K., & Daamen, T. A. (no date). From planning the port/city to planning the port-city (Chapter 6 in this volume). Wooldridge, C. F., McMullen, C., & Howe, V. (1999). Environmental management of ports and harbours—Implementation of policy through scientific monitoring. Marine Policy, 23(4), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(98)00055-4. World Commission on Environment and Development—WCED. (1987). Our common future (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chapter 2

Port-City Redevelopment and Sustainable Development Paul Fenton

Abstract This chapter presents an overview of recent literature on sustainable development in port cities and highlights particular challenges for port-city redevelopment. These include: the impacts on cities of air or noise pollution; greenhouse gas emissions; infrastructure challenges (including energy supply and inland transportation); urban development in and around port areas; plus formal and informal mechanisms or instruments used to alleviate negative impacts or resolve problems related to these challenges. The chapter then considers the case of Stockholm to illustrate how such challenges are manifested at the local level. The Stockholm case highlights, for example, the challenge of integrating inland waterways and short-sea shipping; diverse challenges related to passenger travel (cruise ships, ferries, small boats, etc.) including energy supply, waste and wastewater, use of chemicals; relocation of cargo terminals and other port operations outside of the city and related impacts on urban infrastructure; and competition for urban space, both in and around port areas and in waterfront areas. Such examples illustrate patterns which are described in wider literature and observed in other cities. The chapter then outlines the City of Stockholm’s approach to handling such challenges whilst aspiring to achieve sustainable development, using the literature review as a framework to indicate potential discrepancies, problems or opportunities for Stockholm and other port cities. The chapter provides some recommendations for port cities working to improve environmental quality and achieving sustainable development.










Keywords Port cities Sustainable development Climate change Governance Transport Stockholm







P. Fenton (&) Environment & Health Administration, City of Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 A. Carpenter and R. Lozano (eds.), European Port Cities in Transition, Strategies for Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9_2

19

20

2.1

P. Fenton

Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of recent literature on sustainable development in port cities and highlights challenges for port-city redevelopment. These include, for example: the impacts on cities of air or noise pollution; greenhouse gas emissions; infrastructure challenges (including energy supply and inland transportation); urban development in and around port areas; and the use of formal and informal mechanisms or instruments to alleviate negative impacts or resolve problems related to these challenges. The case of Stockholm, Sweden, illustrates how such challenges are manifested at the local level, with reference to four topics—governance, urban planning and development, climate change mitigation, and sustainable transportation. The Stockholm case highlights dynamics including diverse challenges related to passenger travel (e.g. cruise ships and ferries), including energy supply, waste and wastewater, use of chemicals, etc.; the relocation of cargo terminals and other port operations outside of the city and related impacts on urban infrastructure; and the competition for urban space both in and around port areas and in waterfront areas. Such examples illustrate patterns which are described in wider literature and observed in other cities. Stockholm’s approach to handling such challenges whilst aspiring to achieve sustainable development is discussed, with the literature review providing a framework to indicate potential discrepancies, problems or opportunities for Stockholm and other port cities. The chapter concludes with some recommendations for port cities working to improve environmental quality and achieving sustainable development. In sum, it is argued that port cities must increase their commitment and action to deliver sustainable development both in their urban areas and at the global scale. Port cities need to make use of existing tools and further develop targets, action plans, programmes, projects, and processes to address sustainability challenges. City administrations can provide port authorities or operators with a clear mandate to do so, whilst port authorities can intensify their efforts to move from words to action. Creative, inclusive and collaborative intra-port and inter-port processes are required, indicating the need to engage diverse groups of stakeholders, in order to demonstrate pathways towards sustainable shipping and port operations in port cities.

2.2

Port Cities, International Maritime Transport and the Sustainable Development Goals: Sustainable Development in Its Global, Sectoral and Local Context

The pursuit of sustainable development is an urgent challenge for humanity, as indicated by the adoption of the 17 global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by world leaders (UN 2015). The SDGs emphasise the need for action to address

2 Port-City Redevelopment and Sustainable …

21

economic, environmental, social, and institutional barriers to sustainable development. Industrialisation and urbanisation are often considered important drivers of unsustainable patterns of development; as such, the pursuit of sustainable development requires the adoption of new approaches and practices to achieve more sustainable forms of industry and urban development (Fenton and Gustafsson 2017; Graute 2016; Meuleman and Niestroy 2015). Port cities can and should play a central role in sustainable development (World Ports Sustainability Programme 2018; Fusco Girard 2013). Ports have a critical strategic role in civilian, commercial and military transport systems, but ports—as points of transit, transfer and transition for information, materials, resources and people—exert a strong cultural influence on both the cities in which they are located or lie close to, as well as regional, national and international “hinterlands” (Fenton 2017a). Ports are, thus, central to urban life, directly in terms of visible, material impacts on port cities, and indirectly in all human settlements, as important nodes in the global supply chains that facilitate trade and consumption (Inoue 2012; Jacobs et al. 2010). As global trade has increased, so have demands on ports and port cities (Ducruet et al. 2018). Many cities have increased their port operations by expansion onshore, through land reclamation into the sea, or both; many more have made significant investments in infrastructure serving port areas, such as enlarged industrial areas, expanded highways, or improved access to intermodal alternatives, such as ship-to-rail terminals (Monios et al. 2018; Vellinga and De Jong 2012). Ports have socio-economic impacts that reach far beyond their localities; the impacts of port operations on for example national economies and labour markets are well-studied (Bernhofen et al. 2016; Bottasso et al. 2013, 2014; Park and Seo 2016). Similarly, the environmental impacts of ports are multi-dimensional and far-reaching, yet until relatively recently, the focus of limited discussion or analysis (Kotowska 2016; Mat et al. 2016; Puig et al. 2015; Schipper et al. 2017). The greenhouse gas emissions of international maritime transportation were unregulated prior to and remain unregulated by the Paris Agreement (UN 2015). This example portrays a tendency of nation states to focus on governance of defined and regulated spaces or activities “onshore”, and to let the complex and fluid world of shipping remain “offshore” in a self-governed regulatory netherworld (Bows-Larkin 2015; Fenton 2017a; Kuramochi et al. 2018). Irrespective of the merits of such a critique, the fact remains that the offshore and onshore worlds are not separate or distinct. The services provided by onshore and offshore transport service companies are similar (in terms of their ultimate objective of moving goods or persons from a point of origin to a place of arrival), and—as the global SDGs make clear—humanity shares one planet (UN 2015; Fenton and Gustafsson 2017). The environmental impacts of human activities are in many cases not confined to specific locations, yet emerge as multi-faceted transboundary problems; the spread of invasive species via ships’ ballast water being an obvious example, the emission of greenhouse gases another (Gerhard and Gunsch 2019; Kuramochi et al. 2018; Puig et al. 2015).

22

P. Fenton

Offshore and onshore meet at the quayside; the sustainable development challenges of international maritime transport and the urban areas of port cities are thus interconnected and require the development of collaborative solutions to contribute to fulfilment of the SDGs (Calabrò et al. 2019). However, challenges and solutions are often discussed in isolation from each other; that is, discussions are often framed in relation to the topic or theme at stake, rather than with reference to a holistic framework to sustainable development in the port city. So, what can port cities do to contribute to sustainable development?

2.3

Moving Together to Move First: Ensuring Local Transformations Are Part of a Global Transition

As sustainable development is a multi-faceted and multi-level challenge, port city authorities may need to adopt a variety of different approaches to problem-solving when planning (Lam and Yap 2019; Schipper et al. 2017; Tichavska et al. 2017). This applies both to redevelopment projects, in which the functions of urban ports change and become more “urban” in character, and to current operations and port development projects (Wiegmans and Louw 2011; Xiao and Lam 2017). The diffuse sustainable development challenges facing port cities have different scopes—in terms of e.g. geography, regulatory framework, socio-economic or environmental impacts, and temporal factors. An indication of this was provided by the thematic content of the World Ports Climate Declaration (WPCD) of 2008 (which has subsequently evolved into the World Ports Sustainability Programme and World Ports Climate Action Programme of 2018). The WPCD identified several areas of action for port cities seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts arising from port operations. These included measures to reduce and monitor emissions from ocean-going shipping (c.f. Gibbs et al. 2014); reduce both the global and local environmental impacts of onshore activities in the port area (e.g. terminal operations, industry and port energy use); and to reduce emissions and other negative impacts from onward transportation from port cities to inland areas (Fenton 2017a; Inoue 2012). Each type of action requires governance systems to ensure effective implementation. In the case of ocean-going shipping, the WPCD envisaged implementation through introduction of a green shipping index, linked to incentives or fee reductions, to encourage green shipping. Any such model requires a common approach and practices for monitoring and evaluation; in other words, it requires international multi-stakeholder collaboration (irrespective of whether a system is voluntary or binding). Individual cities or nations can (and have) “moved first” and established their own forms of environmental index or environmental incentives for clean shipping (Styhre et al. 2017; Wuisan et al. 2012). However, the overall impact of such schemes would increase with upscaling, something that is hard to achieve in the absence of regulation and in a competitive market, as it is relatively

2 Port-City Redevelopment and Sustainable …

23

straightforward to shift operations elsewhere to avoid financial penalties or access restrictions (c.f. Wang and Zhang 2018). Similarly, efforts to influence onwards transportation from ports to inland areas are likely to involve complex webs of stakeholders and require involvement of local and national authorities (Hou and Geerlings 2016; Kotowska et al. 2018). For many port cities, onward transportation manifests itself in the form of large numbers of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) carrying containers, heavy or dangerous loads, with those vehicles travelling through densely-populated or congested areas. In better cases, there may be onward transportation using transshipment to short-sea shipping or inland waterways, or intermodal transport using railways (Kotowska 2016). In both cases, environmental impacts will be reduced if using cleaner fuels or certified green electricity. Nevertheless, and particularly in cases where onward transportation occurs using HGVs, there are wider socio-economic and environmental impacts that port cities should consider when planning for sustainable development (Hall and O’Brien 2018). The presence of large numbers of HGVs on urban roads will generate congestion impacting on all forms of road transport in the city and its hinterland, with resultant impacts on local air quality, noise pollution and increased risks to public safety (Zamboni et al. 2013, 2015). Here, port cities need to adopt packages of measures to ensure that HGV transport occurs in appropriate locations and at appropriate times, and using clean vehicles and fuels (see Sect. 2.4.6; cf. Hall and O’Brien 2018). The introduction of requirements for clean onward transportation implies that port cities should work with stakeholders to ensure inter alia: (a) Necessary refueling infrastructure is installed to enable transport firms to use renewable fuels and electric propulsion in HGVs; (b) That port cities procure clean transport services and work with transport purchasers to encourage them to make similar demands; (c) Port cities actively inform transport firms about available technologies that can reduce emissions (both renewable-fuelled or electric trucks and other equipment); and (d) That distant cities sending or receiving goods make similar demands and enable similar actions. Together, these points address the need to ensure fuel supply, demand for clean transportation, and adoption of clean vehicles and supporting technologies in multiple locations (cf. Larsson et al. 2016; see Sect. 2.4.6). Funding mechanisms may be available for use to offer benefits or discounts that incentivise adoption of clean vehicles or fuels, for example discounts on purchase prices, tax exemptions, fee waivers, preferential access to ports or other urban areas (cf. Mannberg et al. 2014). Cooperation with other cities or municipalities may help develop tools with common standards, such as environmental zones or procurement criteria which, when applied across multiple locations at scale, may help encourage a faster transition to clean transportation (cf. Ammenberg et al. 2018).

24

P. Fenton

This general approach may support implementation of other technological solutions—such as onshore power supply (OPS; see Ballini and Bozzo 2015; Fenton 2017a)—to sustainability challenges in and around ports, which are often complex due to the range of stakeholders and costs involved. Such examples indicate that port cities—due to their status as transport hubs—have a unique opportunity to develop and facilitate processes that speed up the transition to sustainable transportation. Now, we will look more closely at examples of urban sustainable development in the City of Stockholm.

2.4

Port-City Redevelopment in Stockholm: Challenges and Opportunities

The City of Stockholm is the capital of Sweden. Approximately 950,000 people reside within the municipal boundary and around 2.3 million are resident in the 26 municipalities of the Greater Stockholm region. Swedish municipalities are famous for having extensive powers and responsibilities, including a local planning monopoly and in many cases significant stakes or full ownership of municipal utilities or other companies (Lundqvist and von Borgstede 2008; Wollmann 2008). Swedish municipalities have a responsibility for local transport planning and cooperate with the Swedish Transport Administration, which has responsibility for long-term infrastructure planning and construction and maintenance of national road and rail networks (Fenton 2017b).

2.4.1

The Ports of Stockholm

The Ports of Stockholm Group is a company fully owned by the City of Stockholm comprising a parent company and three subsidiaries (in which two have other stockholders, the municipalities of Nynäshamn and Norrtälje respectively). The Ports of Stockholm comprise three main sites in the region, with a fourth site home to a new goods terminal, due to open in 2020. Around 8000 jobs in the region are linked to the Ports, which generate around €500 million in purchasing power in the region (Ports of Stockholm 2017a). The Ports receive around 12 million passengers per year, making them one of Europe’s largest passenger ports, along with over 9 million metric tonnes of goods per annum. The company provides services for ferries, cruise, goods, and local waterborne traffic (including services for the 24,000 islands of the Stockholm archipelago) and is responsible for maintenance and development of inner-city quays (Ports of Stockholm 2017a). As such, the Ports of Stockholm play an important role in urban life, both in the inner-city with its extensive waterways and quaysides, and in the Greater

2 Port-City Redevelopment and Sustainable …

25

Stockholm region. Historically, the role of the ports have changed and shaped periods of urban redevelopment and transformation (Ducruet et al. 2018). In recent decades, industrial activities and the transport of bulk cargo and containers has increasingly moved away from the urban heart of the region and the inner-city quays to peripheral zones. In its place has come an increase in leisure and passenger transport, with increased demand for ferry and cruise, and various programmes of urban regeneration at former industrial areas along the quayside (Ports of Stockholm 2019a).

2.4.2

Challenges for Urban Redevelopment

Stockholm faces a wide range of challenges when working for sustainable development of the port and the port-city-region as a whole. These include—but are not limited to—for example the challenges of: • Meeting the City’s commitment to be fossil-fuel free by 2040 (City of Stockholm 2016); • Planning for sustainable redevelopment of former port areas or along quaysides in a rapidly-expanding urban region; • Providing and maintaining physical infrastructure (in the form of quays, terminals, roads, rails, etc.) to support port operations and transport to/from the ports; • Managing such transport and its related impacts on e.g. air and noise (both at the quayside and for transportation to/from port areas); and • Managing the different needs of a diverse range of large and small vessels and the related range of potential environmental risks associated with each vessel type and function (through e.g. installation of OPS with clean electricity, or different kinds of waste management systems). As the owner of the Ports of Stockholm and in possession of planning and fiscal powers that are strong in relation to many other municipalities in Europe and worldwide, the City of Stockholm is in a strong position to influence urban development. What, then, happens in practice?

2.4.3

Port Operations, Urban Governance

The most obvious form of practice is governance. The management of the Ports of Stockholm is appointed and directed by the City Council and is given clear instructions on how to develop its current and future operations in the form of a management directive. Such directives often combine the objectives of the current council executive with long-term objectives identified in regional development

26

P. Fenton

plans and city masterplans (which may have been drawn up years earlier). For the period 2016–2018, this management directive has three central themes—“A cohesive Stockholm”, “A climate-smart Stockholm”, and “an economically sustainable Stockholm”. The company is required to “work to ensure and develop good conditions for sea transport and regional supply of goods to support the region’s development and sustainable growth” (Ports of Stockholm 2019b). The management directive refers to the important role that the port and maritime transport play in urban life and requires that “operations shall stimulate, and be a good example for, environmentally-friendly transportation” (Ports of Stockholm 2019b). Such work requires cooperation within other ports and stakeholders both in Sweden, the Baltic Sea region, the European Union and beyond. From an economic perspective, the management is required to provide goods conditions for further development of cruise traffic and tourism, whilst also developing, exploiting and increasing the efficiency of the ports’ building stock, and following up on key performance indicators determined by the City Council (Ports of Stockholm 2019b). At the operational level, the management directive includes calls to ensure access for leisure boats and recreational use along the inner-city quaysides whilst guaranteeing the needs of maritime transportation are met. In particular, the directive requires cooperation with other city departments to study the potential to develop existing inner-city quays to “create a living urban environment by the sea” (Ports of Stockholm 2019b). This long-term objective, should it be realised, will be the latest step in the transformation of Stockholm’s inner-city quays to mixed-use districts including residential and commercial areas. In recent years, the City has gained an international reputation for sustainable waterfront developments (see Sect. 2.4.5).

2.4.4

A Fossil-Fuel Free Port City

The management directive notes that maritime transportation has “an important role in the Stockholm region’s climate transition” and calls for use of waterways and railways to minimise transport of goods by road. In particular, the directive notes that “special emphasis should be placed on climate-smart transport at the new port in Norvik” (Ports of Stockholm 2019b). The management directive also identifies a number of other ways to contribute to reduced climate impacts, including a requirement for the Ports of Stockholm to work with the regional planning authority for public transport and facilitate increased use of waterways for public transportation. Another task is for the port company to contribute to the achievement of the City’s plan to be fossil-fuel free by 2040 (City of Stockholm 2016). This means “reducing emissions from ships at dock in the city is therefore urgent” (Ports of Stockholm 2019b). A number of tools to achieve this are mentioned, including:

2 Port-City Redevelopment and Sustainable …

27

• Use of differentiated port fees to reduce emissions and noise (and to achieve responsible waste and wastewater management); • Work to use alternative fuels for ships [e.g. regular traffic includes the ro-ro/ passenger ferry Viking Grace, which is powered by LNG and a rotor sail (Viking Line 2019)]; • Provide OPS to ferries and cruise ships. Another innovation is a trial using the city’s district heating network to replace fossil-fuelled generators on a historic boat (Stockholm Exergi 2018); • Allow environmental inspectors to access facilities to monitor standards; • Participate in international environmental agreements and standards (e.g. the Ports of Stockholm’s combined Annual and Sustainability Report follows the GRI G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines framework); and • Support climate adaptation and the development of a resilient city.

2.4.5

Urban Redevelopment in the Sustainable, Climate-Smart Port-City

Over the past two decades, Stockholm has come to be seen as a forerunner for sustainable urban development, largely thanks to the city’s work on urban regeneration, environmental quality, sustainable transportation, and efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and phase out fossil fuels (Francart et al. 2019). Several large-scale urban regeneration projects have attracted extensive international attention (Wells 2014). Former port and industrial areas have been redeveloped to enable the construction of new urban districts in waterfront locations. Such development schemes include the world-renowned districts of Hammarby Sjöstad and Stockholm Royal Seaport, but also less high-profile developments at, for example, Liljeholmen, Stadshagen or sites in neighbouring municipalities, such as Nacka strand. The redevelopment of old industrial areas along the quaysides of the Hammarby canal has come to be known as “Hammarby Sjöstad”, an urban district including residences and workplaces for around 35,000 people. This regeneration project, originally developed as part of a bid for the 2004 Olympics, was following a council decision in 1996 restyled to focus on environmental quality. The redevelopment has been extensively studied by academics and is visited by thousands of politicians, civil servants and other stakeholders through regular study visits (Pesch et al. 2017). In terms of impact, Hammarby Sjöstad has had a profound influence on waterfront development projects around the world and enshrined environmental “systems thinking” into the consciousness of many politicians and planners, even if the project’s actual results in terms of socio-economic outcomes, energy efficiency and more have been challenged (Wells 2014; Pandis Iverot et al. 2013; Pandis Iverot and Brandt 2011; Svane et al. 2011).

28

P. Fenton

In the shadow of the project emerging in Hammarby Sjöstad, the city administration began planning for a bolder redevelopment project—the Stockholm Royal Seaport. The Stockholm Royal Seaport development area comprises 236 hectares of land east of the city centre and between the National City Park and the sea. This new district was to be constructed on the site of current and former port and industrial premises around the inner city quays of Värtahamnen (Sweden’s largest passenger ferry terminal) och Frihamnen (container traffic). The redevelopment programme includes plans for around 35,000 residences and workplaces, albeit with fewer residences than in Hammarby Sjöstad (Holmstedt et al. 2017; Shahrokni et al. 2015). In 2009, the city council decided that Stockholm Royal Seaport should have an environmental profile and be a global reference point for sustainable urban development. The planning process is governed by a “Programme for Sustainable Urban Development” which in turn is inspired by the City’s vision, masterplan and environmental programme (City of Stockholm 2017a). The “Programme for Sustainable Urban Development” focuses on five strategies and related principles and goals to be achieved during the development of the district. The five strategies are designed to be applied at multiple scales, from the development area to district, building phase or building levels. The strategies aim for an attractive and lively urban environment; dense and accessible urban space; resource-efficient and climate-responsible development; integration of ecosystems to “let nature do the work”; and a social environment that stimulates citizen engagement and influence (City of Stockholm 2017a, b). As part of this regeneration programme, the quays at Värtahamnen were moved further into the sea and new terminal buildings constructed, with the vacant land being freed up for commercial and residential development. For port operations, the new quays were constructed on piers designed to minimise impacts on currents in the waterway and thereby minimise impacts on the local ecosystem. The terminal buildings have received gold-standard environmental certifications for energy, indoor climate and material choice. Green roof terraces provide insulation and rainwater management, and the roofs are also equipped with 270 m2 of solar cells that produce around 10% of the building’s electricity per annum. All electricity used in the terminal is provided by renewable sources (Ports of Stockholm 2017b). Heating and cooling is provided from 62 boreholes under the terminal, and the facilities have been designed to handle large volumes of stormwater and clean rainwater from pollution. Wastewater (black and grey) from vessels can be disposed of and is sent to wastewater treatment plants via the municipal sewer system. Recycling facilities are available for vessels, tenants and visitors to use, and LED lighting reduces energy consumption on the quays. The piers are also equipped with OPS connections meaning vessels with OPS capability can turn off their auxiliary motors when docked, dramatically reducing emissions and noise pollution when in port (Ports of Stockholm 2017b; c.f. Ballini and Bozzo 2015). Another important part of the Stockholm Royal Seaport development is the remediation of polluted land. A significant challenge is posed by the presence of oil storage facilities at the southern end of the development area in Loudden, which

2 Port-City Redevelopment and Sustainable …

29

must be decommissioned and remediated prior to commencement of works. The lease for these operations ends in 2019 and all container terminal operations in the port area will have moved to the new port in Norvik during 2020. Following this and assuming remediation takes place as planned, the city administration aims to redevelop the area and construct around 4000 residences along with commercial premises, schools and other facilities (City of Stockholm 2019a). The aforementioned projects are examples of large-scale urban regeneration programmes in waterfront locations. Another such project—the redevelopment of the critical inner-city node of Slussen—highlights another important task for the Ports of Stockholm, namely the control of sluices between the sea and inland waterways. This task is critical, as the regulation of water levels ensures that seawater does not flow into Lake Mälaren, which provides freshwater to around two million people (City of Stockholm 2019b). Such redevelopments are often the subject of intense debate and, like Hammarby Sjöstad, the development of Royal Stockholm Seaport has been a source of interest to researchers (Holmstedt et al. 2018; Shahrokni et al. 2015). The development has also received international acclaim for the approach used and climate-friendly content of the development programme (C40 2015). However, there are many smaller development projects that also influence the general dynamics of the port-city and the extent to which it can be sustainable and climate-smart.

2.4.6

Sustainable Urban Transportation in a Fossil-Fuel Free Port-City

Cities around the world are struggling with the enormous challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollution caused by use of fossil fuels in urban transportation (Hickman and Banister 2014; Sutton 2015). This challenge is arguably more complex in port cities due to, for example, increased volumes of road freight transport using HGVs; transport of tourists visiting on cruise ships, ferries or other leisure boats; emissions from ships in the port area and at the quayside; and topography (Fenton 2017a; Inoue 2012). Stockholm is located on land and islands, at the meeting point of lake and sea; the city and region’s topography is complex, particularly in the archipelago that vessels must navigate to reach the inner city. As such, transport planning is a significant challenge for the governing authorities of the city and region, and stakeholder collaboration is essential (Paulsson et al. 2017; cf. Isaksson et al. 2017). The city also collaborates with other Swedish municipalities on issues such as public procurement. Such collaboration means major purchasers send common signals to the market and speeds up the transition from fossil fuels to renewable alternatives (e.g. Swedish Transport Administration 2018). For freight transport, an example of local collaboration is provided by the Cleantruck project (2010–2014). Since 1996, the City of Stockholm has used an

30

P. Fenton

environmental zone to place access restrictions on HGVs and buses failing to meet designated Euro standards. Such vehicles were unable to drive in the inner city, and standards were incrementally adjusted as fleets aged and new Euro standards came into force (City of Stockholm 2008). This policy provided an effective tool for enforcement of environmental quality standards such as local air pollution and an incentive for transport firms to upgrade their fleets on a regular basis. However, the “environmental zone” was not designed to address greenhouse gas emissions and a new initiative was required to also address this issue. This initiative, the Cleantruck project, sought to introduce and demonstrate renewable fuels in HGVs operating in the Stockholm region, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollution caused by logistics transport. To do so, the City of Stockholm and two fuel suppliers secured European funding for a project that engaged stakeholders in the logistics branch and aimed to overcome first-mover problems that were slowing the uptake of alternative fuels in the logistics sector (City of Stockholm 2015). By establishing informal networks of cooperation, and using external funding to help incentivize early market adoption, the Cleantruck project led to installation of fuel stations by fuel suppliers, purchasing of alternative-fuelled HGVs by distribution companies, and increased demand for clean transportation by customers purchasing transport services (City of Stockholm 2015). The City of Stockholm has continued with this approach and, at the end of 2017, around 380 “environmentally-friendly” HGVs formed part of a total fleet of 13,885 HGVs registered in the County of Stockholm (meaning the “environmentally-friendly” HGVs operate on sustainable biofuels or electricity; 1141 of such HGVs were registered in Sweden) (City of Stockholm 2019c). Other projects aiming to reduce the impacts of freight transport in the Stockholm region include, for example, an attempt to avoid use of HGVs by consolidating excavation masses on barges in the CIVITAS Eccentric project (CIVITAS Eccentric 2019). Another measure of this project is an extension of the “Off Peak” night delivery trials (CIVITAS Eccentric 2019; c.f. Sánchez-Díaz et al. 2017). Night-time delivery to commercial premises may be necessary in the coming years, partly to reduce congestion but also to manage increased logistic flows in urban areas. This is an important consideration in a port-city or a country such as Sweden, which imports large volumes by sea prior to onward transportation by HGV, rail or inland waterway. Other possibilities could include use of port access restrictions— or city access restrictions—linked to environmental or climate objectives. In other words, the best time slots to access ports or cities could be available to operators demonstrating the best environmental performance (similar practices have been used in e.g. the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and Port of Vancouver to improve air quality standards, c.f. Hall and O’Brien 2018). Other key challenges are the provision of passenger transport for visitors arriving by cruise ship, ferry or other leisure boats, and working to increase use of waterborne transport for residents of the Stockholm region. Here, the Ports of Stockholm, city administration and regional transport authority have worked closely to increase accessibility for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users for journeys in and

2 Port-City Redevelopment and Sustainable …

31

around and to and from port areas and along quaysides. For example, in recent years, a number of new commuter ferry services have been integrated into the public transport system on a trial or permanent basis, the most successful of which operates using electric-powered vessels (Sjövägen 2019). Similarly, during 2018 Stockholm County Council has tested an integrated ticketing service for the public transport operator SL and the county-owned ferry company Waxholmsbolaget, which serves the archipelago. This trial aimed to increase the number of visits to the archipelago, increase use of the ferries during off-peak periods and enable off-road commuter and leisure travel (Waxholmsbolaget 2018). There may be potential to further reduce the environmental impacts of tourist travels’ in the city and region by, for example, working strategically to increase the use of alternative fuels in tourist coaches; to develop mobility-as-a-service tickets (enabling tourists to access a wide range of non-fossil fueled mobility options); or to offer cross-border public transport tickets to facilitate seamless travel for trips from, for example, Finland to Sweden.

2.5

Conclusions

All port cities are unique and face their own contextual challenges and opportunities. Nevertheless, the general challenges of sustainable development in port cities are similar in many contexts and well-illustrated by the case of Stockholm. As discussed, port cities face the challenge of influencing environmental problems arising from shipping operations that lie outside of port cities’ mandate (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions from ocean-going shipping) whilst operating in a competitive market (Bows-Larkin 2015; Fenton 2017a; Styhre et al. 2017). Similarly, port cities must address the local and regional impacts of port operations, including downstream impacts caused by for example transportation (Kotowska 2016; Mat et al. 2016; Puig et al. 2015, Schipper et al. 2017). At the same time, port cities face a multitude of other pressures. These include competition for urban space and the need for sustainable urban development. The case of Stockholm highlights examples of waterfront redevelopment schemes, infrastructure challenges, and other environmental problems that—whilst unique in character—will be familiar to many other port cities (c.f. Francart et al. 2019; Holmstedt et al. 2017; Pesch et al. 2017). Likewise, the challenges faced by Stockholm concerning urban freight transportation with HGVs are common to many other cities (Hall and O’Brien 2018; Hickman and Banister 2014). Addressing such challenges requires both inter-port(city) and intra-port(city) multi-stakeholder collaboration (both within and between countries), and port city institutions can play a variety of roles to facilitate such collaboration. The case of Stockholm reveals the City administration uses a variety of instruments and approaches to promote sustainable urban development. These include for example a Climate Strategy that aims to phase out fossil-fuels by 2040,

32

P. Fenton

and planning processes that aim for comprehensive sustainable development. Focusing on the Ports of Stockholm, the City directs the company to pursue various approaches to reduce the environmental impacts of port operations; in doing so, the City of Stockholm provides the Ports of Stockholm with a fluid mandate, through which the Ports of Stockholm can adapt depending on the process in question (i.e. some of the tasks the port company is directed to undertake are likely to result in more formal operative practices, whereas others may require more informal, facilitative or collaborative approaches). This example shows that port cities that exert control over port authorities or operators can use the governance tools at their disposal to promote and facilitate sustainable development. Port cities must increase their commitment and action to deliver sustainable development both in their urban areas and at the global scale. To do so, port cities need to liaise with one another to identify topics of common concern that are appropriate for collaborative action; and then devise means of action, and implement these (as mentioned above, current examples include the World Ports Sustainability Programme and World Ports Climate Action Programme). At the same time, port cities need to clearly and proactively develop targets, action plans, programmes, projects, and processes to address local or regional sustainability challenges, such as those of urban redevelopment or onward freight transportation. City administrations need to give port authorities or operators a clear mandate to address sustainability concerns, and monitor progress. Port authorities need to follow-up on words with action and clearly demonstrate pathways towards sustainable shipping and port operations. The case of Stockholm illustrates some examples of what can be done; yet, without doubt, all port cities—including Stockholm—can do more, faster, to tackle urgent challenges such as climate change mitigation and adaptation. In all port cities, achieving this will require creative, inclusive and collaborative processes including diverse groups of stakeholders. The complexity of this work—and its urgency—make it perhaps the greatest challenge for port cities to overcome in their pursuit of sustainable development.

References Ammenberg, J., Anderberg, S., Lönnqvist, T., Grönkvist, S., & Sandberg, T. (2018). Biogas in the transport sector—Actor and policy analysis focusing on the demand side in the Stockholm region. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 129, 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. resconrec.2017.10.010. Ballini, F., & Bozzo, R. (2015). Air pollution from ships in ports: The socio-economic benefit of cold-ironing technology. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 17, 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2015.10.007. Bernhofen, D. M., El-Sahli, Z., & Kneller, R. (2016). Estimating the effects of the container revolution on world trade. Journal of International Economics, 98, 36–50. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.inteco.2015.09.001. Bottasso, A., Conti, M., Ferrari, C., Merk, O., & Tei, A. (2013). The impact of port throughput on local employment: Evidence from a panel of European regions. Transport Policy, 27, 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.12.001.

2 Port-City Redevelopment and Sustainable …

33

Bottasso, A., Conti, M., Ferrari, C., & Tei, A. (2014). Ports and regional development: A spatial analysis on a panel of European regions. Transportation Research Part A, 65, 44–55. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.04.006. Bows-Larkin, A. (2015). All adrift: aviation, shipping, and climate change policy. Climate Policy, 15(6), 681–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.965125. C40 Cities. (2015). C40 Cities Award Winners 2015. https://www.c40.org/awards/2015-awards/ profiles. Accessed January 24, 2019. Calabrò, F., Rugolo, A., & Viglianisi, A. (2019). The port-city interface. In F. Calabrò, L. Della Spina, & C. Bevilacqua (Eds.), New metropolitan perspectives: Local knowledge and innovation dynamics towards territory attractiveness through the implementation of Horizon/ E2020/Agenda2030 (Vol. 2, pp. 192–199). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-92102-0_21. City of Stockholm. (2008). Environmental zone for heavy vehicles in Stockholm 1996–2007 (in Swedish). http://www.stockholm.se/PageFiles/1311177/Strategy%20for%20a%20fossil-fuel% 20free%20Stockholm%20by%202040.pdf. Accessed January 24, 2019. City of Stockholm. (2015). CleanTruck: final report. http://www.stockholm.se/PageFiles/169962/ CleanTruck%20Final%20Report_150331%20%5bProjectplace_102237%5d%20% 5bProjectplace_91754%5d.pdf. Accessed January 24, 2019. City of Stockholm. (2016). Strategy for a fossil-fuel free Stockholm by 2040. http://www. stockholm.se/PageFiles/1311177/Strategy%20for%20a%20fossil-fuel%20free%20Stockholm %20by%202040.pdf. Accessed January 24, 2019. City of Stockholm. (2017a). Programme for sustainable urban development (in Swedish). https:// vaxer.stockholm/globalassets/omraden/-stadsutvecklingsomraden/ostermalm-norradjurgardsstaden/informationsmaterial/broschyr-och-dokument/program_for_hallbar_ stadsutveckling_uppslag.pdf. Accessed January 24, 2019. City of Stockholm. (2017b). Our way to work (in Swedish). https://vaxer.stockholm/omraden/ norra-djurgardsstaden/vart-satt-att-arbeta/. Accessed January 24, 2019. City of Stockholm. (2019a). Loudden (in Swedish). https://vaxer.stockholm/projekt/slussen/. Accessed January 24, 2019. City of Stockholm. (2019b). Slussen (in Swedish). https://växer.stockholm/projekt/slussen/. Accessed January 24, 2019. City of Stockholm. (2019c). Number of environmental heavy goods vehicles in traffic in Stockholm (in Swedish). http://miljobarometern.stockholm.se/trafik/miljobilar/antal-miljolastbilar-i-stockhol mstrafiken/. Accessed January 24, 2019. CIVITAS Eccentric. (2019). Stockholm. https://civitas.eu/eccentric/stockholm. Accessed January 24, 2019. Ducruet, C., Cuyala, S., & El Hosni, A. (2018). Maritime networks as systems of cities: The long-term interdependencies between global shipping flows and urban development (1890– 2010). Journal of Transport Geography, 66, 340–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trangeo.2017. 10.019. Fenton, P. (2017a). The role of port cities and transnational municipal networks in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on land and at sea from shipping—An assessment of the World Ports Climate Initiative. Marine Policy, 75, 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.12.012. Fenton, P. (2017b). National infrastructure, small towns and sustainable mobility—Experiences from policy and strategy in two Swedish municipalities. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(9), 1660–1682. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1246998. Fenton, P., & Gustafsson, S. (2017). Moving from high-level words to local action—Governance for urban sustainability in municipalities. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 129–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.07.009. Francart, N., Larsson, M., Malmqvist, T., Erlandsson, M., & Florell, J. (2019). Requirements set by Swedish municipalities to promote construction with low climate change impact. Journal of Cleaner Production, 208, 117–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.053.

34

P. Fenton

Fusco Girard, L. (2013). Toward a smart sustainable development of port cities/areas: the role of the “historic urban landscape” approach. Sustainability, 5(10), 4329–4348. https://doi.org/10. 3390.su5104329. Gerhard, W. A., & Gunsch, C. K. (2019). Metabarcoding and machine learning analysis of environmental DNA in ballast water arriving to hub ports. Environmental International, 124, 312–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2018.036. Gibbs, D., Rigot-Muller, P., Mangan, J., & Lalwani, C. (2014). The role of sea ports in end-to-end maritime transport chain emissions. Energy Policy, 64, 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enpol.2013.09.024. Graute, U. (2016). Local authorities acting globally for sustainable development. Regional Studies, 50(11), 1931–1942. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1161740. Hall, P., & O’Brien, T. (2018). Trucking regulation as a critical chain asset in port complexes. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 26, 122–127. Hickman, R., & Banister, D. (2014). Transport, climate change and the city. Abingdon: Routledge. Holmstedt, L., Brandt, N., & Robèrt, K.-H. (2017). Can Stockholm Royal Seaport be part of the puzzle towards global sustainability?—From local to global sustainability using the same set of criteria. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140(1), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016. 07.019. Holmstedt, L., Nilsson, A., Mäkivierikko, A., & Brandt, N. (2018). Stockholm Royal Seaport moving towards the goals—Potential and limitations of dynamic and high resolution evaluation data. Energy and Buildings, 169, 388–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.03.078. Hou, L., & Geerlings, H. (2016). Dynamics in sustainable port and hinterland operations: A conceptual framework and simulation of sustainability measures and their effectiveness, based on an application to the Port of Shanghai. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 449–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.134. Inoue, S. (2012). Climate initiatives of the world’s ports. In R. Asariotis & H. Benamara (Eds.), Maritime transport and the climate change challenge (pp. 225–240). Oxford: Earthscan. Isaksson, K., Antonsson, H., & Eriksson, L. (2017). Layering and parallel policy making— Complementary concepts for understanding implementation challenges related to sustainable mobility. Transport Policy, 53, 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.08.014. Jacobs, W., Ducruet, C., & De Langen, P. W. (2010). Integrating world cities into production networks: the case of port cities. Global Networks, 10(1), 92–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1471-0374.2010.00276.x. Kotowska, I. (2016). Policies applied by seaport authorities to create sustainable development in port cities. Transportation Research Procedia, 16, 236–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpol. 2016.11.023. Kotowska, L., Mańkowska, M., & Pluciński, M. (2018). Inland shipping to serve the hinterland: The challenge for seaport authorities. Sustainability, 10(10), 3468. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su10103468. Kuramochi, T., Höhne, N., Schaeffer, M., Cantzler, J. Hare, B., Deng, Y., Sterl, S., Hagemann, M., Rocha, M., Yanguas-Parra, P.A., Mir, G-U-R., Wong, L., El-Laboudy, T., Wouters, K., Deryng, D., & Blok, K. (2018). Ten key short-term sectoral benchmarks to limit warming to 1.5 °C. Climate Policy, 18(3), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1397495. Lam, J. S. L., & Yap, W. Y. (2019). A stakeholder perspective of port city sustainable development. Sustainability, 11(2), 447. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020447. Larsson, M., Grönkvist, S., & Alvfors, P. (2016). Upgraded biogas for transport in Sweden— Effects of policy instruments on production, infrastructure deployment and vehicle sales. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112(5), 3774–3784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08. 056. Lundqvist, L. J., & von Borgstede, C. (2008). Whose responsibility? Swedish local decision makers and the scale of climate change abatement. Urban Affairs Review, 43(3), 299–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087407304689.

2 Port-City Redevelopment and Sustainable …

35

Mannberg, A., Jansson, J., Pettersson, T., Brännlund, R., & Lindgren, U. (2014). Do tax incentives affect households’ adoption of ‘green’ cars? A panel study of the Stockholm congestion tax. Energy Policy, 74(1), 286–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.08.029. Mat, N., Cerceau, J., Shi, L., Park, H.-S., Junqua, G., & Lopez-Ferber, M. (2016). Socio-ecological transitions toward low-carbon port cities: trends, changes and adaptation processes in Asia and Europe. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 362–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015. 04.058. Meuleman, L., & Niestroy, I. (2015). Common but differentiated governance: a metagovernance approach to make the SDGs work. Sustainability, 7, 12295–12321. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su70912295. Monios, J., Bergqvist, R., & Woxenius, J. (2018). Port-centric cities: The role of freight distribution in defining the port-city relationship. Journal of Transport Geography, 66, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trangeo.2017.11.012. Pandis Iverot, S., & Brandt, N. (2011). The development of a sustainable urban district in Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm, Sweden? Environment, Development and Sustainability, 13 (6), 1043–1064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-011-9304-x. Pandis Iverot, S., Vernay, A. L., Mulder, K. F., & Brandt, N. (2013). Implications of systems integration at the urban level: The case of Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm. Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clepro.2012.09.012. Park, J. S., & Seo, Y.-J. (2016). The impact of seaports on the regional economies in South Korea: Panel evidence from the augmented Solow model. Transportation Research Part E, 85, 107– 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2015.11.009. Paulsson, A., Hylander, J., & Hrelja, R. (2017). One for all, or all for oneself? Governance cultures in regional public transport planning. European Planning Studies, 25, 2293–2308. https://doi. org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1362376. Pesch, U., Vernay, A.-L., van Bueren, E., & Pandis-Iverot, S. (2017). Niche entrepreneurs in urban systems integration: On the role of individuals in niche formation. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 49(8), 1922–1942. https://doi.org/10.1077/0308518X17705383. Ports of Stockholm. (2017a). Annual report and sustainability report. www.stockholmshamnar.se/ siteassets/trycksaker/ports_of_stockholm_2017.pdf (accessed 15 January 2019). Ports of Stockholm. (2017b). Environment in focus (in Swedish). www.stockholmshamnar.se/ stockholm/hamndelar–kajer/vartahamnen/miljon-i-fokus/. Accessed January 24, 2019. Ports of Stockholm. (2019a). History (in Swedish). www.stockholmshamnar.se/historia/. Accessed January 24, 2019. Ports of Stockholm. (2019b). Ownership and management directive (in Swedish). https://www. stockholmshamnar.se/om-oss/bolagsfakta/agare-agardirektiv/. Accessed January 24, 2019. Puig, M., Wooldridge, C., Michail, A., & Darbra, R. M. (2015). Current status and trends of the environmental performance in European ports. Environmental Science & Policy, 48, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.12.004. Sánchez-Díaz, I., Georen, P., & Brolinson, M. (2017). Shifting urban freight deliveries to the off-peak hours: A review of theory and practice. Transport Reviews, 37(4), 521–543. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1254691. Schipper, C. A., Vreugdenhil, H., & de Jong, M. P. C. (2017). A sustainability assessment of ports and port-city plans: Comparing ambitions with achievements. Transportation Research Part D, 57, 84–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.08.017. Shahrokni, H., Årman, L., Lazarevic, D., Nilsson, A., & Brandt, N. (2015). Implementing smart urban metabolism in the Stockholm Royal Seaport: Smart city SRS. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 19(5), 917–929. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12308. SjöVägen. (2019). SjöVägen. www.sjovagen.nu/. Accessed January 24, 2019. Stockholm Exergi. (2018). Waxholm’s boat will be plugged into Stockholm’s district heating network (In Swedish). www.stockholmexergi.se/nyheter/waxholmsbat-ska-kopplas-in-pa-stockholmsfjarrvarmenat/. Accessed January 24, 2019.

36

P. Fenton

Styhre, L., Winnes, H., Black, J., Lee, J., & Le-Griffin, H. (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions from ships in ports—Case studies in four continents. Transportation Research Part D, 54, 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.04.033. Sutton, J. (2015). Gridlock: Congested cities, contested policies, unsustainable mobility. Abingdon: Routledge. Svane, Ö., Wangel, J., Engberg, L. A., & Palm, J. (2011). Compromise and learning when negotiating sustainabilities: The brownfield development of Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 3(2), 141–155. https://doi.org/10. 1080/19463138.2011.620959. Swedish Transport Administration. (2018). Shared environmental criteria for contractors (in Swedish). https://www.stockholmshamnar.se/siteassets/upphandling/gemensamma_miljokrav_ for_entreprenader_2018.pdf. Accessed January 24, 2019. Tichavska, M., Tovara, B., Gritsenkob, D., Johansson, L., & Jalkanenc, J. P. (2017). Air emissions from ships in port: Does regulation make a difference? Transport Policy. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.tranpol.2017.03.003. United Nations (UN). (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Resolution of the General Assembly, 70(1). 2015 http://www.un.org/ga/search/ view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E (accessed 15 January 2019). Vellinga, T., & De Jong, M. (2012). Approach to climate change adaptation in the port of Rotterdam. In R. Asariotis & H. Benamara (Eds.), Maritime transport and the climate change challenge (pp. 305–319). Oxford: Earthscan. Viking Line. (2019). M/S viking grace. https://www.sales.vikingline.com/find-cruise-trip/ourships/ms-viking-grace/. Accessed January 24, 2019. Wang, K., & Zhang, K. (2018). Climate change, natural disasters and adaptation investments: Interand intra-port competition and cooperation. Transportation Research Part B, 117, 158–189. Waxholmsbolaget. (2018). SL-biljetter slutar gälla i Waxholmsbolagets trafik. https://waxholmsbolaget. se/. Accessed January 15, 2019. Wells, W. (2014). Sweden: The green giant. Planning, 80(2), 27–30. Wiegmans, B. W., & Louw, E. (2011). Changing port-city relations at Amsterdam: A new phase at the interface? Journal of Transport Geography, 19, 575–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trangeo. 2010.06.007. Wollmann, H. (2008). Reformen in Kommunalpolitik und- Verwaltung. England, Schweden, Frankreich und Deutschland im vergleich [Reforms in local politics and administration: England, Sweden, France and Germany in comparison]. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag. World Ports Sustainability Programme. (2018). https://sustainableworldports.org/. Accessed January 15, 2019. Wuisan, L., van Leeuwen, J., & van Koppen, C. S. A. (2012). Greening international shipping through private governance: A case study of the Clean Shipping Project. Marine Policy, 36(1), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.04.009. Xiao, Z., & Lam, J. S. L. (2017). A systems framework for the sustainable development of a Port City: A case study of Singapore’s policies. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 22, 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2016.10.003. Zamboni, G., André, M., Roveda, A., & Capobianco, M. (2015). Experimental evaluation of Heavy Duty Vehicle speed patterns in urban and port areas and estimation of their fuel consumption and exhaust emissions. Transportation Research Part D, 35, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd. 2014.11.024. Zamboni, G., Malfettani, S., André, M., Carraro, C., Marelli, S., & Capobianco, M. (2013). Assessment of heavy-duty vehicle activities, fuel consumption and exhaust emissions in port areas. Applied Energy, 111, 921–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.06.037.

Chapter 3

Proposing a Framework for Anchoring Sustainability Relationships Between Ports and Cities Angela Carpenter and Rodrigo Lozano

Abstract Seaports are important players in the world, with a key role in global maritime trade and the movement of people. Historically, many cities grew up alongside ports, gaining economic benefits from the flow of goods and from migration of people seeking work and improved economic circumstances. Port Cities are some of the most economically strong and competitive cities in the world. However, a weakening of the ties between ports and cities has been identified over recent decades. This chapter analyses how ports and cities might work together, through a collaborative approach, to become a more sustainable port-city. A review of literature on ports and sustainability, cities and sustainability, and collaboration between ports and cities, identified what they can do to become more sustainable. A framework for anchoring sustainability between ports and cities was developed to help them collaborate to become more sustainable as part of a joint system, showing that integration of the sustainability aspects of economic viability, environmental orientation, and social orientation is necessary to achieve a holistic port-city. To become more sustainable, ports and cities should work together in a collaborative way so that both can benefit moving forward. Keywords Port cities communication


Framework for sustainable port-city
Collaboration and

A. Carpenter (&)
R. Lozano Faculty of Engineering and Environment, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] A. Carpenter School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK R. Lozano Organisational Sustainability Ltd., Cardiff, UK © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 A. Carpenter and R. Lozano (eds.), European Port Cities in Transition, Strategies for Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9_3

37

38

3.1

A. Carpenter and R. Lozano

Introduction

Seaports (hereafter ports) are the gateway between the sea and the land and have been hubs for trade, investment, and innovation (Ravetz 2013). The socio-economic role and importance of ports has become ever more significant in recent decades due to developments in transportation, communication technologies, and international trade, with large ports being integrated into global supply chains, and with around 80% of internationally traded cargoes being transported through ports (Ng et al. 2014). Ports and their coastal communities (such as towns and cities) are also centres for new ideas and innovation (European Parliament 2009). Ports can be economic engines for the wider area, while at the same time being the cause of economic deterioration in the areas closest to them (Grobar 2008). This duality is supported by Saz-Salazar et al. (2015), who identified that ports can have both negative and positive externalities affecting the public welfare of the cities with which they have a relationship; where negative externalities can be associated with port expansion, and positive externalities can arise from the transformation of obsolete port areas into recreational facilities, for example. Identifying sustainability activities for ports and cities that will have positive benefits for, and overcome the negative impacts of, ports and their host cities is, therefore, a major issue moving forward. For this chapter, sustainability is to be understood as addressing environmental, and socio-economic issues of this generation and future ones (Hopwood et al. 2005; Lozano 2008a; WCED 1987), as well as their inter-connections through a holistic perspective (Lozano 2008a). In the last half century, ports have changed substantially, particularly with the introduction of containerisation; similarly, cities and regions have also seen a change in their economic circumstances (Hesse 2017). The relationship between the port and city can be considered as being dynamic, multi-scaled, and interconnected cityscapes, that have evolved from the relationship between maritime activities and the associated connections within the port-city through trade and the movement of people (e.g. migration and diasporas) (Hein 2011). The relationship can also be understood in terms of a port-city interface, where different spatial units and different spatial scales are connected by geography (Hesse 2017). While there has been an increased efficiency in ports and the maritime transport sector, there has also been a weakening of the ties between ports and the cities and regions in which they are located, although some strong port-city interdependencies do still exist (Ducruet et al. 2018). The aim of this chapter is to provide a framework for symbiotic sustainability relationships between ports and cities. Section 3.2 reviews the discourses on ports and sustainability. Section 3.3 focusses on cities and sustainability. Section 3.4 discusses collaboration between ports and cities. Section 3.5 proposes the framework on how ports and cities can become more sustainable together. Finally, Sect. 3.6 presents the conclusions.

3 Proposing a Framework for Anchoring Sustainability …

3.2

39

Ports and Sustainability

Ports provide a gateway for the movement of large volumes of freight from maritime transport (e.g. container ships, dry bulk carriers, and liquid bulk carriers) to be transported inland to logistics centres via road and rail networks, and in some cases airports (Higgins et al. 2012). Port activities frequently dominate local and regional economies, providing a source of economic wellbeing and instilling a sense of place and identity for the local and wider communities (Pinder 2003), but also potentially having negative effects on those communities (Sal-Salazar et al. 2015). Port throughput (e.g. the movement of containers, bulk goods, and movement of passengers) has a positively correlated impact on regional employment in Western European regions (Botasso et al. 2013), and the United States an estimated 471,000 direct and 543,000 indirect jobs resulted from seaport activities along (National Association of Counties 2014). Ports also increase GDP in the area where they are located as a direct effect of their activities (Bottasso et al. 2014). However, industry changes, such as containerisation (Hayuth and Hilling 1992; Baird 1996), the increased size of container ships that are unable to access existing facilities (Grossman 2008; UNCTAD 2017), and the need for improved freight transport links to the hinterland (Cullinane and Wilmsmeier 2011), has resulted in some industrial ports being unable to remain fully viable (Carpenter et al. 2018). Ports can have significant environmental impacts due to the types of activities that take place in them, including loading and unloading of cargoes, greenhouse gas emissions from ships, and traffic congestion from rail and road transportation links (OECD 2011). According to Darbra et al (2005) “sea ports are very complex systems with a wide range of environmental issues: releases to water, air and soil, waste production, noise, and dredging among others”. Other activities that may have an environmental impact in the areas around ports include fishing, industrial activities and storage of hazardous materials, the loss or degradation of terrestrial habits, changes in marine ecosystems, and impacts on neighbouring populations. Some Dutch ports are situated at natural transition zones between freshwater habitats and coastal waters, and any expansion of these ports may result in habitat loss (OSPAR Commission 2000). Up to the late 2000s, the literature on sustainability in ports has focused mainly on environmental issues (see Carpenter and Macgill 2003; Hall 2007, Darbra et al. 2005; Wooldridge et al. 1999), with much less being written about economic issues (De Langen and Haezendonck 2012), although in the case of Wooldridge et al. (1999) consideration was also given to social issues such as job loss. Environmental issues, particularly pollution, appear as the main sustainability concern and at the forefront of environmental awareness of port managers in European ports, over many years. From an industry perspective, the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO 2013) highlighted that port development (water) and port development (land) were ranked 1 and 6 respectively in the top 10 environmental priorities for European ports in 1996, while the remaining priorities were all related to pollution

40

A. Carpenter and R. Lozano

(e.g. water quality, dredging disposal, dust). By 2010 port development (water) and port development (land) were ranked 9 and 10 under environmental priorities, and 7 of the remaining 8 again related to pollution (ESPO 2013). The issue of a port’s relationship with the local community (a non-environmental priority) was included in the list of priorities at number 6 in 2010 and 2013 (ESPO 2013). That issue then rose to number 4 in 2016 (ESPO 2016), before falling to number 8 in 2017, behind a range of environmental pollution issues (and only ahead of ships’ waste and climate change) in the top 10 list of European port priorities (ESPO 2017). Climate, and energy, change have, however, been considered more recently in the context of how seaports and the urban communities around them will respond to these profound challenges (Hall 2007), and how port cities can contribute to low carbon strategies in coastal areas (Mat et al. 2016). Recent developments have broadened the purely environmental perspective to a sustainability one, covering a wider range of topics. Some examples include: evaluation of the efficiency of seaports in China (considering the economic, environmental and social dimensions of sustainability towards long-term competitiveness) (Jiang et al. 2018); using a sustainability model to assess the relocation of a container terminal in Kristiansand, a city in southern Norway (Duschenko et al. 2018); development of port sustainability indicators for Keelung Port in Taiwan (Shiau and Chiang 2015); examination of the relationship between economic and environmental indicators within Spanish ports (Laxe et al. 2016); and the application of Circular Economy (CE) principles in the expansion of port facilities in the Port of Gävle, Sweden (Carpenter et al. 2018). Ports face legislative, technological, financial and cultural/social issues which impact on their activities (Carpenter 2005), must respond to developments in global logistics where seaports as key geographic nodes become more important (Dicken 2011), and they need to undertake voluntary initiatives to work towards becoming more sustainable (Carpenter and Lozano 2014). Sustainable ports should contribute to the well-being of the towns, cities and regions that surround them, where dialogue between a port and its urban region can provide a strong relationship between the two (Wakeman 1996). However, a port’s activities can be constrained through a lack of available land to accommodate larger ships and cargo-handling and storage facilities, and industry developments, such as increasing vessel sizes and containerisation (Notteboom and Rodrigue 2005; Hoyle 2000; Grossman 2008; UNCTAD 2017). Ports can also have a negative role within the port city or region (for example Ferrari et al. 2015; Ducruet et al. 2012).

3.3

Cities and Sustainability

Urban (including city) sustainability is, according to Maclaren (1996), a “desirable state or set of conditions that persists over time” while sustainable urban development is “a process by which sustainability can be attained”. Key characteristics of urban sustainability need to include inter- and intra-generational equity,

3 Proposing a Framework for Anchoring Sustainability …

41

protection of the natural environment, minimal use of non-renewable resources and community self-reliance (Maclaren 1996). According to Camagani et al (1998), cities are not passive entities but are actively engaged in sustainable development in areas such as housing, employment, and environmental quality, with urban planning addressing issues across site-specific environmental, economic, political and socio-cultural conditions within those cities. They note that a sustainable city policy must harmonise economic, environmental and cultural interests in taking forward progressive change. Where such harmonisation does not take place, particularly in cities where short-term economic interests are the priority, long-term sustainability is less likely to occur. De Jong et al. (2015) highlighted that there are multiple concepts relating to sustainable urbanisation, and also what constitutes a city, noting that many categories of sustainable cities have been developed, including green cities, digital cities, smart cities, low-carbon cities, eco-cities, and many more. They further indicated that all of these city categories aim to “create the impression that social, economic, and environmental sustainability (or even regeneration) go hand in hand”. Additionally, they indicated that while each of the identified terms capture and conceptualise aspects of urban sustainability, many of the terms are often used interchangeably by policy makers, planners and developers; resulting in the question of whether city categories are, or should be, interchangeable, since this can lead to confusion about how those concepts and categories apply in different circumstances. Kitchen et al. (2015) and Lowe et al. (2015) identified that a large number of urban indicators, together with benchmarking and dashboard initiatives, have been developed to measure and monitor a range of public services such as health and education, and to inform policy in these and other areas. For European cities, for example, the European Commission has, since 2009, undertaken urban audits of cities looking at indicators of population levels by age and sex, population by citizenship and country of birth, fertility and mortality rates, education, culture and tourism, labour market, economy and finance, transport, and environment (European Commission, undated) with those statistics being publicly available. Globally, cities globally face wide range of issues relating to sustainability, with changes in infrastructure and transportation systems, issues relating to food security or health, and the impacts of climate change (including sea level rise and severe weather events), social fluidity, globalisation, and relocation of activities being just a few of the issues facing cities at the current time (Krellenberg et al. 2017; Frantzeskaki et al. 2014; Jabareen 2013). To these issues, the low levels of quality of life and human health and lack of basic services (such as water supply, sanitation and waste management) can be added, especially in third world cities (UNEP, undated), as well as threats for a healthy urban environment, and protection of valuable and vulnerable socio-cultural heritage in European cities (Finco and Nijkamp 2001). While technological innovation and environmental management strategies may help alleviate some of these issues, measures such as abatement of pollution may require additional resources, and resource scarcity may be further exacerbated by

42

A. Carpenter and R. Lozano

population growth and in-migration (the increase in the number of people moving to urban centres) (Finco and Nijkamp 2001). Energy security, energy scarcity, a change towards low carbon energy sources, and the way energy services are provided, are also being considered as a response to climate change impacts and how urban areas need to respond to such threats (see for example Bulkeley et al. 2011; Caprotti 2014). Dempsey et al. (2011) highlighted that it is important to understand urban social sustainability, including both physical and non-physical factors that contribute to socially sustainable urban communities; these factors include decent housing and sustainable urban design on the physical side, and participation in local democracy, community cohesion and active community organizations as non-physical factors (Dempsey et al. 2011, Table 1). Many towns and cities have generally developed alongside, or around, ports since ancient times (Hoyle 1989). According to Fusco Girard (2013), 14 out of the 20 economically strongest cities in the world are port cities, on the basis of factors including GDP per capita and real GDP growth rate, while 36 out of the top 50 most competitive cities, taking into account factors including economic strength, physical capital and financial maturity, are port cities. He also notes that most of the top ranked cities are, according to Human Capital Indicators (for example population growth, working age population, quality of education, and health care), port cities. While for ports, sustainability discourses have gone from economic viability to including environmental issues and, more recently, social-cultural issues and addresses these factors holistically; for cities, much of the debate has focused on technological solutions to environmental issues arising from urban redevelopment. Moving forward towards a sustainable port-city, it is important to develop strong collaborative and communication processes to achieve a positive relationship between the port and the city (see Merk et al. 2011).

3.4

Collaboration Between Ports and Cities

Collaboration is a means to help achieve a dynamic equilibrium among the economic, environmental and social aspects, so that the needs of the present generation are met without compromising the needs of future generations (Lozano 2008b). Collaboration offers benefits to all those involved in it, with those benefits arising from differences in perspectives, knowledge and approaches, and problem solving (Lozano 2007). Some of the collaboration benefits include the ability to optimise financial and human capitals, access markets and knowledge, enrich creativity, avoid confrontation, decrease time needed to accomplish objectives, and make processes more efficient (Fadeeva 2004). Collaboration also helps to reducing or removing conflicts and, in some cases, supports trans-disciplinary learning (Lozano 2007). However, collaboration has inherent difficulties: (1) coordination costs, which refer to operational dependence between the activities of the different actors (Genefke 2000); (2) vulnerability costs, referring to the risk of safeguarding the important and unique resources (Genefke 2000); (3) Information, referring to whom

3 Proposing a Framework for Anchoring Sustainability …

43

gets the benefits and the real, or hidden, agenda; (4) Bargaining, how to split the gains; and (5) Free riding, those who choose not to participate but still get the benefits (Chilosi 2003).

3.4.1

Relationships Between the Port and City

Two-thirds of the worlds’ major ports are located in urban spaces, the majority of those being located in urban agglomerations of 1 million people or more (Hall and Jacobs 2012). While historically ports and cities have been strongly linked, with cities growing up and surrounding historical port locations (see for example Wakeman 1996; Fusco Girard 2013; Pinder 2003), the link between the port and city has changed over time (Hoyle 1989; Merckx et al 2004), as is illustrated in Fig. 3.1. This change has resulted in a weakening of the relationship between some ports and port cities (Zhao et al. 2017), such as Chicago and Paris, for example (Fujita and Mori 1996). Such change can occur as a result of global restructuring of trade and supply chains, or changes in logistic flows, and also from changes within the city itself (Ravetz 2013). The close proximity of housing and other urban functions to a port area can limit any possibility for port-industrial activities to expand and for companies to grow (Daamen and Vries 2013). Over time, this can result in ports moving to other areas (see Ducruet 2009; Carpenter et al. 2018), which separates further the port and the city.

Fig. 3.1 Different Stages in the traditional port-city interface. Source Merckx et al. (2004)

44

A. Carpenter and R. Lozano

Shan et al. (2014) argued that a port city operates as a port and a city, each independent of but dependent on the other. They identify that the development of a port can boost the economy of its host city through cargo flows, passenger flows, financial flows, and a range of value-added services, and can also provide the stimulus for the development of infrastructure such as road and rail connections, which can boost the city’s economy. Therefore, ports need to have strong connections with the regions in which they are located (Hall 2007; Blonigen and Wilson 2008). Ports need to collaborate and communicate with the urban areas surrounding them to reform their own ecologically damaging practices and help those urban areas move towards sustainability, in order to achieve a stronger relationship between coastal cities and their ports (Hall 2007). A strong relationship between all stakeholders (including ports, firms and local and regional governments) is also important to develop common strategies and to achieve a balanced economic vision (Merk et al. 2011). As Wakeman (1996) notes, “it is only by embracing maritime life as an integral part of the urban environment that sustainable port development can best be nurtured”. Lam and Yap (2019) defined a sustainable port city as “the development of a port and the city [that should] meet the present and forecasted needs of various stakeholders (arising from port usage and trade) without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. However, this definition, as with the original Brundtland definition (WCED 1987), is rather vague and is difficult to operationalise (Lozano 2008a). The literature on sustainable development in port cities is limited, according to Xiao and Lam (2017), with empirical studies, generally, assessing port systems and urban systems separately, little research on how the two systems interact, and a focus more on the negative rather than the positive relationships between a port and the city. Some examples of these include the development of tools for an integrated systems approach to sustainability (Morel et al. 2013), a case study on sustainable development in the Port City of Singapore (Xiao and Lam 2017), and a data envelopment analysis approach to sustainability and interactivity between cities and ports (Chen and Lam 2018).

3.5

Development of a Framework for a Sustainable Port-City

From the review of literature discussed in the previous section, a framework for anchoring sustainability relationships between ports and cities was developed (see Fig. 3.2). This framework is based, in part, on Fig. 3.1 (particularly Phase VI, which sees ports and cities renewing their associations and urban redevelopment that enhances port-city integration). It is important to note that the port and the city have to adapt to economic, environmental and social issues and co-evolve in a way that creates an integrated port-city within the wider region, and that collaboration is

3 Proposing a Framework for Anchoring Sustainability …

45

Fig. 3.2 Framework for anchoring sustainability relationships between ports and cities, where A is the most direct route and collaborative route, in B the city’s sustainability efforts are faster, in C the port’s efforts are faster, and D the path is more chaotic

vital in order to solve (or learn) from the problems of the past and become successful in the future. The “Framework for anchoring sustainability relationships between ports and cities” explains how ports and cities can move forward towards sustainability, as separate entities or through a collaborative approach, at a time of global change in the maritime transport sector, as outlined by Hall (2007). The framework illustrates how ports and cities can move towards a holistic sustainable port-city that can contribute to a regions’ sustainability (economic, environmental, and social). In this model the port and the city must work together in a holistic and systematic way, and involve all stakeholders (of the port, of the city, and interconnecting) to achieve long-term security and prosperity. The framework shows that economic viability is the first requirement for the city and the port. Environmentally oriented and socially oriented measures do not necessarily need to take place in the same order; cities may, for example, be more focused on the needs of the people that live in them, with socially oriented measures such as housing and jobs having a higher priority that the environment (see Camagani et al. 1998). For ports, environmentally oriented measures will have greater priority than socially oriented measures (see Carpenter and Macgill 2003; Hall 2007, Darbra et al. 2005; Wooldridge et al. 1999). The framework also shows

46

A. Carpenter and R. Lozano

that progress towards sustainability does not necessarily take place at a similar pace for the port and the city. Path A illustrates a scenario where the city and port are on the same path towards a holistic and more sustainable port-city and this is the most direct and collaborative path possible. Path B illustrates a scenario where the city’s sustainability efforts are occurring more rapidly than those of the port, while Path C shows the port’s efforts occurring more rapidly than those of the city. Ultimately, in both cases, the city and port achieve sustainability, but over a longer time-span than Path A. Path D takes longer than the other paths, showing that sustainability efforts may plateau and certain points in time, and under certain categories (e.g. environmental sustainability), before progress towards the holistic port-city resumes at a future point in time. Multiple other paths can occur within the framework, and will be dependent on the specific circumstances of the city and port being examined. The framework shows that the integration of the sustainability aspects of economic viability, environmental orientation, and social orientation is necessary to achieve that holistic port-city going in the present and moving forward into the future. Collaboration between the port and city, as outlined by Lozano (2007) and Fadeeva (2004), is an important tool in promoting these activities and can help ports and cities to achieve them more rapidly and directly along Path A.

3.6

Conclusions

Ports are the gateway between the sea and the land and, historically, have been hubs for trade, investment, and innovation. Many towns and cities have generally developed alongside, or around, ports since ancient times. In the last half century, ports have changed substantially, particularly with the introduction of containerisation; similarly, cities and regions have also seen a change in their economic circumstance. Ports and cities have, historically, been closely linked; however, in recent decades, they have been drifting apart, whilst they face economic, environmental, and social challenges. In general, ports and cities have addressed sustainability independently and compartmentalised. The framework on anchoring sustainability relationships between ports and cities has been developed in order to help ports and cities collaborate and become more sustainable, as part of a joint system. The framework shows that the integration of the sustainability aspects of economic viability, environmental orientation, and social orientation is necessary to achieve that holistic port-city going in the present and moving forward into the future. The framework also shows different paths for achieving a more sustainable port-city, from a more collaborative one to a meandering path. In order to become more sustainable (economically, environmentally, and socially, and in the short-, medium- and long-term), ports and cities should work together in a collaborative way so that both can benefit. By doing so, they can also work towards: improving their economic security, take advantage of innovations in

3 Proposing a Framework for Anchoring Sustainability …

47

technology and communication; mitigating the negative aspects of their activities through, for example, a reduction in pollution from transportation, in emissions related to climate change, in energy consumption, and in waste generation; and providing jobs for the local population. Some of the questions that arise from the aforementioned discourses include: Where is the port in the process of moving towards sustainability? Where is the city in the process of moving towards sustainability? Do the port and city collaborate in the process of moving towards improved urban sustainability? In what areas do the port and city agree that such collaboration is necessary? What are the key elements that ports and cities should integrate into their sustainability actions moving forward? and, Do the port and city share the same perception of what constitutes sustainability and what are the key elements within their own context? Some alternative to take this research forward include a series of semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, or a Delphi approach.

References Baird, A. J. (1996). Containerization and the decline of the upstream urban port in Europe. Maritime Policy and Management, 23(2), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839600000071. Blonigen, B. A., & Wilson, W. W. (2008). Port efficiency and trade flows. Review of International Economics, 16(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9396.2007.00723.x. Botasso, A., Conti, M., Ferrari, C., Merk, O., & Tei, A. (2013). The impact of port throughput on local employment: Evidence from a panel of European regions. Transport Policy, 27, 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.12.001. Bottasso, A., Conti, M., Ferrari, C., & Tei, A. (2014). Ports and regional development: A spatial analysis on a panel of European regions. Transportation Research Part A, 65, 44–55. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.04.006. Bulkeley, H., Castán Broto, V., Hodson, M., & Marvin, S. (2011). Cities and the low carbon transition. The European Financial Review, August/September, 24–27. Camagani, R., Capello, R., & Nijkamp, P. (1998). Towards sustainable city policy: An economyenvironment technology nexus. Ecological Economics, 24(1), 103–118. https://doi.org/ 10.1016.S0921-8009(97)00032-3. Caprotti, F. (2014). Eco-urbanism and the Eco-city, or, denying the right to the city? Antipode, 46 (5), 1285–1303. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12087. Carpenter, A. (2005). The reduction of ship-generated waste in the North Sea: A contemporary analysis. PhD Thesis, University of Leeds, UK. Carpenter, A., & Lozano, R. L. (2014). Sustainable seaports: Incorporating sustainable development in port redevelopment approaches (working paper). Paper presented at the 20th Annual International Sustainable Development Research Conference, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, June 18–20 2014. Available at: https://www.academia. edu/7668873/Sustainable_Seaports_Incorporating_Sustainable_Development_in_Port_Redevelopment_Approaches_Working_Paper_. Accessed February 25, 2019. Carpenter, A., Lozano, R. L., Sammisto, K., & Astner, L. (2018). Securing a port’s future through circular economy: Experiences from the Port of Gävle in contributing to sustainability. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 128, 539–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j/marpolbul.2018.01.065. Carpenter, A., & Macgill, S. M. (2003). The EU directive on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues: Current availability of facilities in North Sea ports. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 46(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0025-326X(02)00421-6.

48

A. Carpenter and R. Lozano

Chen, C., & Lam, J. S. L. (2018). Sustainability and interactivity between cities and ports: A two-stage data envelopment analysis (DEA) approach. Maritime Policy and Management, 45 (7), 944–961. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2018.1450528. Chilosi, A. (2003). Coordination, cooperation, and the extended Coasean approach to economic policy. Pisa: Facolta di Scienze Politiche. Cullinane, K., & Wilmsmeier, G. (2011). The contribution of the dry port concept to the extension of port life cycles. In Bose, J. (Eds.), Handbook of terminal planning. Operations Research/ Computer Science Interface Series (Vol. 49). Springer, New York. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-1-4419-8408-1_18. Daamen, T. A., & Vries, I. (2013). Governing the European port-city interface: institutional impacts on spatial projects between city and port. Journal of Transport Geography, 27, 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.03.013. Darbra, R. M., Ronza, A., Stojanovic, T. A., Wooldridge, C., & Casal, J. (2005). A procedure for identifying significant environmental aspects in ports. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 50, 866–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.04.037. De Jong, M., Joss, S., Schraven, D., Zhan, C., & Weijnen, M. (2015). Sustainable—smart— resilient—low carbon—eco—knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. Journal of Cleaner Production, 109, 25–38. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.clepro.2015.02.004. De Langen, P. W., & Haezendonck, E. (2012). Ports as clusters of economic activity, Chapter 31. In W. K. Talley (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to maritime economics (1st ed.). Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development: defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19, 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.417. Dicken, P. (2011). Global Shift: mapping the changing contours of the world economy (6th ed.). New York: The Guildford Press. Ducruet, C. (2009). Port regions and globalization. In T. Notteboom, C. Ducruet, & P. de Langen (Eds.), Ports in proximity: Competition and coordination among adjacent seaports (pp. 29– 40). Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Ducruet, C., Cuyala, S., & El Hosi, A. (2018). Maritime networks as systems of cities: The long-term interdependencies between global shipping flows and urban development (1890– 2010). Journal of Transport Geography, 66, 340–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trangeo.2017. 10.019. Ducruet, C., Itoh, H., & Joly, O. (2012). Material flows and local economic structure: port-region linkages in Europe, Japan, and the United States. World Conference on Transport Research (WCTR), SIG-2, May 2012, Antwerp, Belgium. Duschenko, M., Bjorbæk, C. T., & Stefer-Jensen, K. (2018). Application of a sustainability model for assessing the relocation of a container terminal: A case study of kristiansand port. Sustainability, 11, 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010087. European Commission. (undated). Eurostat Cities (Urban Audit) Database (searchable database). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/cities/data/database. Accessed February 25, 2019. European Parliament. (2009). The evolving role of EU seaports in global maritime logistics— Capacities, challenges and strategies. Report of the Directorate General for Internal Policies Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies, IP/B/TRAN/FWC/2006-156/lot5/C1/ SC4 of October 2009. Available at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/ publication/23d9ef6f-9dc8-4aea-97f5-5dd7b54328a6/language-en/format-PDF/source87402012. Accessed February 25, 2019. European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO). (2013). Top environmental priorities of european ports for 2013: An analysis taking port size and geography into consideration. Belgium: ESPO/EcoPorts. Available at: https://www.espo.be/media/espopublications/Analysis_of_top_environmental_ priorities_2013.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2019.

3 Proposing a Framework for Anchoring Sustainability …

49

ESPO. (2016). Top 10 environmental priorities of European ports for 2016 (Postcard). Belgium: ESPO. March 23, 2016. Available at: https://www.espo.be/media/ESP-1842_Postkaart% 20Environment_DEF.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2019. ESPO. (2017). Top 10 environmental priorities of European ports for 2017. Belgium: ESPO. November 27, 2017. Available at: https://www.espo.be/media/ESP-2177%20(Update%20Top %2010%20environmental%20priorities)-FINAL.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2019. Fadeeva, Z. (2004). Promise of sustainability collaboration—potential fulfilled? Journal of Cleaner Production, 13, 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/50959-6526(03)00125-2. Ferrari, C., Parola, F., & Tei, A. (2015). Governance models and port concessions in Europe: Commonalities, critical issues and policy perspectives. Transport Policy, 41, 60–67. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.03.012. Finco, A., & Nijkamp, P. (2001). Pathways to urban sustainability. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 3(4), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/jepp.94. Frantzeskaki, N., Wittmayer, J., & Loorbach, D. (2014). The role of partnerships in ‘realising’ urban security I Rotterdam’s City Ports Area, The Netherlands. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 406–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.09.023. Fujita, M., & Mori, T. (1996). The role of ports in the making of major cities: Self-agglomeration and hub-effect. Journal of Development Economics, 49, 93–120. Fusco Girard, L. (2013). Towards a smart sustainable development in port cities/areas: The role of the “Historic Urban Landscape” approach. Sustainability, 2013(5), 4329–4348. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su5104329. Genefke, J. (2000). Collaboration costs!. Aarhus: Department of Management, University of Aarhus. Grobar, L. M. (2008). The economic status of areas surrounding major U.S. container ports: Evidence and policy issues. Growth and Change, 39(3), 497–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1468-2257.2008.00435.x. Grossman, I. (2008). Perspectives for Hamburg as a port city in the context of a changing global environment. Geoforum, 39, 2062–2072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.04.011. Hall, P. V. (2007). Seaports, urban sustainability, and paradigm shift. Journal of Urban Technology, 14(2), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630730701531757. Hall, P. V., & Jacobs, W. (2012). Why are maritime ports (still) urban, and why should policy-makers care? Maritime Policy and Management, 39(2), 189–206. https://doi.org/1080/ 03088839.2011.650721. Hayuth, Y., & Hilling, D. (1992). Technological changes and seaport development. In B. S. Hoyle & D. A. Pinder (Eds.), European port cities in transition (pp. 40–58). London, UK: Bellhaven Press. Hein, C. (Ed.). (2011). Port cities: Dynamic landscapes and global networks. London: Routledge. Hesse, M. (2017). Approaching the relational nature of the port-city interface in Europe: Ties and tensions between seaports and the urban. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie (Journal of Economic and Social Geography), 109(2), 2010–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg. 12282. Higgins, C. D., Ferguson, M., & Kanaroglou, P. S. (2012). Varieties of logistics centers: Developing standardized typology and hierarchy. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2288, 9–18. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.3141/2288-02. Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: Mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.244. Hoyle, B. S. (1989). The port-city interface: Trends, Problems and Examples. Geoforum, 20(4), 429–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(89)90026-2. Hoyle, B. (2000). Global and local change on the port-city waterfront. The Geographical Review, 90(3), 395–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2000.tb00344.x.

50

A. Carpenter and R. Lozano

Jabareen, Y. (2013). Planning the resilient city: Concepts and strategies for coping with climate change and environmental risk. Cities, 31, 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.05. 004. Jiang, B., Li, Y., Lio, W., & Li, J. (2018). Sustainability efficiency evaluation of seaports in China: an uncertain data envelopment analysis approach. Soft Computing. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00500-018-3559-1. Kitchen, R., Lauriault, T. P., & McArdle, G. (2015). Knowing and governing cities through urban indicators, city benchmarking and real-time dashbords. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2 (1), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2014.983149. Krellenberg, K., Koch, F., & Kabisch, S. (2017). Urban sustainability transformations in lights of resource efficiency and resilient city concepts. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 51–56. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.cosust.2017.04.001. Lam, J. S. L., & Yap, W. Y. (2019). A stakeholder perspective of port city sustainable development. Sustainability, 11(2), 447. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020447. Laxe, F. G., Bermúdez, F. M., Palmero, F. M., & Novo-Corti, I. (2016). Sustainability and the Spanish port system. Analysis of the economic and environmental indicators. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 113(1–2), 232–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.09.022. Lowe, M., Whitman, C., Badland, H., Davern, M., Aye, L., Hes, D., et al. (2015). Planning healthy, liveable and sustainable cities: How can indicators inform policy? Urban Policy and Research, 33(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/1080/08111146.2014.1002606. Lozano, R. (2007). Collaboration as a pathway for sustainability. Sustainable Development, 381 (March), 370–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd. Lozano, R. (2008a). Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(17), 1838–1846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.02.008. Lozano, R. (2008b). Developing collaborative and sustainable organisations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(4), 499–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.01.002. Maclaren, V. W. (1996). Urban sustainability reporting. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(2), 184–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975684. Mat, N., Cerceau, J., Shi, L., Park, H.-S., Junqua, G., & Lopez-Ferber, M. (2016). Socio-ecological transitions toward low-carbon port cities: trends, changes and adaptation processes in Asia and Europe. Journal of Cleaner Production, 114, 362–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2015.04.058. Merckx, F., Notteboom, T. E., & Winkelmans, W. (2004). Spatial models of waterfront redevelopment: the tension between city and port revisited. In Conference Paper, IAME 2004 Conference, Izmir, Turkey, June 30–July 2. Merk, O., Ducruet, C., Dubarle, P., Haezendonck, E., & Dooms, M. (2011). The competitiveness of global port-cities: The case of the seine axis (Le Havre, Rouen, Paris, Caen)—France. OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2011/07, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10. 1787/5kg58xppgc0n-en. Morel, G., Lima, F. R., Martell-Flores, H., & Hissel, F. (2013). Tools for an integrated systems approach to sustainable port city planning. Brazilian Journal of Urban Management, 5(2), 39– 49. https://doi.org/10.7213/urbe.05.002.SE03. National Association of Counties. (2014). Sustainable ports: Strategies for port development and operations—A guide for county leaders. Washington: NACO. June 2014. Available at: http:// www.naco.org/sites/default/files/documents/Sustainable-Ports.pdf (Accessed 25 February 2019). Ng, A. K. Y., Ducruet, C., Jacobs, W., Monios, J., Notteboom, T., Rodrigue, J.-P., et al. (2014). Port geography at the crossroads with human geography: Between flows and spaces. Journal of Transport Geography, 41, 84–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.08.012. Notteboom, T., & Rodrigue, J.-P. (2005). Port regionalisation: Towards a new phase in port development. Maritime Policy and Management, 32(3), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03088830500139885. OECD. (2011). In N. A. Braathen (Ed.), Environmental impact of international shipping: The role of ports. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264097339-en.

3 Proposing a Framework for Anchoring Sustainability …

51

OSPAR Commission. (2000). Quality status report 2000: Region II—Greater North Sea. London: OSPAR Commission. Available at: http://qsr2010.ospar.org/media/assessments/QSR_2000_ Region_II.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2019. Pinder, D. (2003). Seaport decline and cultural heritage sustainability issues in the UK coastal zone. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 4, 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1296-2-74(03)00006-2. Ravetz, J. (2013). New futures for older ports: Synergistic development in a global urban system. Sustainability, 2013(5), 5100–5118. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5125100. Saz-Salazar, S., del Garcia-Menédez, L., & Merk, O. (2015). Port-city relationship and the environment: Literature survey and methodological approach for project appraisal in presence of environmental externalities. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000230. Shan, J., Yu, M., & Lee, C.-Y. (2014). An empirical investigation of the seaport’s economic impact: Evidence from major ports in China. Transportation Research Part E, 69, 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2014.05.010. Shiau, T.-A., & Chiang, C.-C. (2015). Social construction of port sustainability indicators: A case study of Keelung Port. Maritime Policy and Management, 42, 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03088839.2013.863436. UNCTAD. (2017). Review of Maritime Transport 2017. UN Conference on Trade and Development Report UNCTAD/RMT/2017. Available at: https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/rmt2017_ en.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2019. UNEP. (undated). Sustainable cities (webpage). Available at https://www.unenvironment.org/ regions/asia-and-pacific/regional-initiatives/supporting-resource-efficiency/sustainable-cities. Accessed February 25, 2019. Wakeman, R. (1996). What is a sustainable Port? The relationship between ports and their regions. The Journal of Urban Technology, 3(2), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630739608724528. WCED. (1987). Our common future (First). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wooldridge, C. F., McMullen, C., & Howe, V. (1999). Environmental management of ports and harbours—Implementation of policy through scientific monitoring. Marine Policy, 23(4), 413– 425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(98)00055-4. Xiao, Z., & Lam, J. S. L. (2017). A systems framework for the sustainable development of a Port City: A case study of Singapore’s policies. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 22, 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2016.10.003. Zhao, Q., Xu, H., Wall, R. S., & Stavropoulos, S. (2017). Building a bridge between port and city: Improving the urban competitiveness of port cities. Journal of Transport Geography, 59, 120– 133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.01.014.

Chapter 4

Port-City Redevelopment and the Circular Economy Agenda in Europe Reza Karimpour, Fabio Ballini and Aykut I. Ölcer

Abstract In the era of globalisation, our world is in transition and there are challenges every day, such as climate change, and natural resource depletion. These environmental challenges threaten our lives and necessitate taking measures to transition toward resilient and reliable low-carbon developments. In this context, sustainability has recently gained substantial attention across sectors. In the face of increasing growth in the world economy, together with natural resource depletion, there is a need for new economic approaches. As a response for improvement in resource performance, economies have started to explore ways not only to reuse products but also to restore more precious material and energy inputs. The concept of a ‘Circular Economy’ (CE) can promise a move to sustainability in businesses and economies. Sustainable relations between port city stakeholders is one of the emerging sectors. However, globally, port cities are within an economic system that is structured on the linear ‘take-make-dispose’ model, not sustainable models. During the last two decades, ports and their urban areas have been increasingly facing environmental challenges. Ports can have significant environmental impacts due to the types of activities that take place in them, resulting in negative externalities such as air and water pollution that mirror the destructive linear economy models at port-cities. Continual globalisation based on trade liberalisation, with its increasing cargo transport, has resulted in a significant increase in pressures on port infrastructure and city resources, which should be addressed in a sustainable way. A limited number of studies on European port cities’ sustainability have focused on ports under the CE approach, specifically within the ports’ waste management and energy efficiency context. This chapter reviews of ports and development, city and development, and explores Port-City redevelopment within the CE agenda that has been undertaken in the context of European ports. The review identifies what some European port cities have been doing to become more sustainable, with the help of a

R. Karimpour (&) Department of Naval, Electrical, Electronics and Telecommunications Engineering, University of Genova, Genova, Italy F. Ballini
A. I. Ölcer Maritime Energy Management Department, World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 A. Carpenter and R. Lozano (eds.), European Port Cities in Transition, Strategies for Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9_4

53

54

R. Karimpour et al.

CE approach. It discusses challenges and potentials in European port cities and concludes on how ports are currently realising the potential of CE strategies, in particular for redevelopment and also competition in the market. Furthermore, it identifies how EU ports have voiced a need for further regulation to support the transition to the circular economy. Keywords Port cities

4.1


Circular economy
Redevelopment

Introduction

Media frequently highlights challenges like climate change, energy price, and air pollution. The increasing consumption of natural resources along with the impact on the Earth’s climate (e.g. through greenhouse gas emissions) from the human activities, has imbalanced the Earth ecosystem and threatens our lives on the planet, according to the Stockholm Resilience Centre (2019). These threats require actions by all countries, not only to focus on their societies’ prosperity but also to protect the planet. At the international level, the Paris Agreement is a good example of the response to crossing the planetary boundaries. As reported by the Independent newspaper in the UK on 7 March 2018, a letter signed by 20,000 scientists in 2017 states that “The world is facing an existential threat from climate change and if rapid action is not taken, there will be catastrophic biodiversity loss and untold human misery” and that focus needs to switch from encouraging growth to conserving the planet. We are living in an urbanised world where more than half of its population is settled in cities and this trend is expected to rise (UN 2014). Historically, seaports often form the hub of urban population development, as many civilizations and cities having developed around natural harbours (Carpenter and Lozano 2014). According to Girard (2013), 14 out of the 20 economically strongest cities in the world are port cities. Seaports make an essential contribution to globalisation and the world economy, since more than 90% of the world’s trade, in volume, is carried by sea (UN 2018). The simplest definitions converge in defining the port city simply as a city exerting port and maritime activities. The port city is also considered as a communication node between land and maritime networks developing auxiliary activities and having a strong influence on the spatial organisation of the outlying region (Brocard 1994). Port cities are the nodal points connecting countries in a mutually competitive and cooperative process while improving the benefits of their local strategies. Ports are potential places to increase economic wealth, because of their industrial, commercial, logistic, fishing, and touristic activities and services. Port cities link international supply chains and are critical to the global trading system. Port cities function as the gateways for countries because they are the nodes for the flow of raw material, energy, and wastes. Sustainable interaction between port-cities

4 Port-City Redevelopment and the Circular …

55

and shipping-activities is one of the emerging factors in the development of ports and attracted significant attention in recent years (Roh et al. 2016).

4.2

Cities and Their Ports, A Mutual Changing Relation

Many paradoxes characterise the ports and cities relationship. According to Girard (2013), this relationship is becoming a challenging issue within the debate on locally sustainable developments, with port cities being viewed as places of conflict between economy and ecology. The production of their economic wealth implies high ecological, and also social and cultural costs. Often the port becomes a driver of environmental deterioration and reduced well-being for urban life. When the port extends to the sea, dredging, ports’ air emissions, and ports’ waste from port and shipping activities all pose threats to the ecology of the ports-city. However, many of these activities are considered important to for ports’ productivity and competitiveness. Therefore, port activities put pressure on the port city environment and urban lives, while the economic benefits for local communities are not as large as the negative external impacts (SuPorts project partners 2013). Port and city relationships have been weakened recently as the rapid growth in ship sizes and cargo volume transported over the recent decades, resulted in huge growing demands on a ports’ space, not only for new berths to accommodate larger ships, but also for facilities in cargo-handling, storage, and transport to meet the uprising demands. Gradually, many ports have moved out of city areas, leaving the port city with less direct economic benefits, but still posing various negative local impacts, such as air, water, and noise pollutions, and traffic congestion on local areas. According to the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) surveys between 2008 and 2018, environmental challenges such as air quality, energy management, noise, port development, water pollution, and ship waste have been placed as top environmental priorities among European Ports. Therefore, a common challenge of many port-cities is labelled as the local-global mismatch. Another challenge that is left for port cities is the life-cycle of port facilities and areas. Some ports became disassociated from modern urban growth and had reached the dereliction stage in their life-cycle. The final result has been a complete change of use where the port ceased to exist, hence no redevelopment of port facilities. This is illustrated in the linear life cycle set out in Fig. 4.1. In the linear life-cycle, ports usually developed in response to customer/industry needs until they reached maturity with the use of their full potential. At the planning and setting stage, the business opportunity of a port is considered and evaluated. Once a decision has been reached about the port, construction takes place, often through expansion stages, so that the provision of additional capacity can be made in an incremental manner (Rodrigue 2017). At the growth stage, new investments for a wide range of services use the facility and by locating in the port vicinity, which favours not only the development of logistical clusters generating added-value to freight distribution but also creates new jobs. At this point, the

56

R. Karimpour et al.

Fig. 4.1 Linear concept of a port life-cycle. Source Adopted from Carpenter et al. (2018)

market potential of a port is reached and traffic and revenue generation reach a peak —the maturity stage. This is also the period that faces rising costs due to real estate pressures and congestion of the terminal facilities, in addition to the accessibility to the regional transport system (Rodrigue 2017). It is the period of optimised use of the potential of the port. Most of the development zone is occupied and few new users come in, often to replace users that may have left. However, the port is no longer able to change under this approach, due to lack of sustainable strategies which support their growth in the long term. Therefore, ports reach a condition of obsolescence when they lose business to more modern and higher capacity facilities elsewhere. As a result of the slow-down in the economy, the number of ships visiting these ports falls and berths become abandoned, or with a considerable reduction in activities (Carpenter et al. 2018). At this stage of decline, ports are faced with a decision about what, if anything, they can do to continue operating, and should also take into account sustainability in any decisions about how they proceed in the future (Wiegmans and Louw 2011). The harbours of Hashima Island in Japan are an example. They played an important role in the industrialisation of Japan but were later abandoned (Japan-guide 2019). To avoid such a linear lifecycle, ports have to take “Redevelopment” into account, regarding factors such as the cultural heritage of their cities, conservation of historical buildings and markets, finding new uses for abandoned buildings, stores and berths, to identify how to bring economic growth and benefit the local people. Redevelopment can also be as a result of a change in the physical relationship between the port and city—where a lack of space means that a port is no longer able to expand out into the surrounding area while the city needs to find new space to house a growing population, and is expanding into the port area instead (Carpenter and Lozano 2014). As land access becomes increasingly congested, market share is lost to competing ports with overlapping hinterlands. Therefore, ports try to provide redevelopment strategies through recognition of the need to adopt the new market preferences and regulation framework, while also adapting to the climate-change issues in a systematic way, in order to remain competitive in both economic and environmental shift (Coto-Millan et al. 2010). In this respect, the traditional linear life-cycle is suggested to be replaced with the new concept which shows how facilities within a port area, rather than the whole port, progress through five stages of growth, maturity, obsolescence, dereliction, and

4 Port-City Redevelopment and the Circular …

57

redevelopment (Carpenter et al. 2018). Figure 4.2 illustrates the new regenerative concept for the ports’ Life-Cycle. The port-centric character of developments can be explained by the fact that ports occupy specific sites, they act as the engine of economies in port cities, and they perform particular functions dealing with the transfers between vessels (sea) and the shore (land) (Hesse 2011). Therefore, in port cities, the lives of local communities, along with the development of urban area, are linked with the ports’ activities and developments. Through a perspective of sustainability in port cities, the relationship between the port and the urban area around it can be reshaped. The life-cycle of the ports, the core of many port cities, has been the focus of attention for planning the port-city development. In this respect, to have a transition from Linear Ports toward the sustainable ports, a schematic life cycle of a Regenerative Port as illustrated in Fig. 4.2. In particular, in transitioning from the “Dereliction” phase to the “Redevelopment” phase, the port authorities need to respond to the following challenges: the need for a major technological change, marked by the development of cleaner operations in port environments; a reduction of greenhouse gases in the port environment; and the development of a dialogue on performance and development of ports between port stakeholders (European Ports Life Cycle Assessment-LCA4PORTS Project 2015).

Fig. 4.2 Life-cycle of a regenerative port. Source Adapted from Carpenter et al. (2018)

58

4.3

R. Karimpour et al.

Circular Economy: A Solution for Port-City Development

Global trade is increasing mainly due to globalisation and world population increase (UN 2018). In this respect, ports have a substantial role not only as of the gateway of trade for countries but also in the metropolitan cities’ economies. In addition, port cities will be increasingly important to our societies due to the great rates of urbanisation is predicted for coming decades according to the World Urbanization Prospect report of the UN in 2014 (see Fig. 4.3). Along with this rising global trend in urbanisation, significant infrastructure investments will be made in ports cities. According to Adomaitis (2007), among all 126 of the world’s major metropolitan areas, cities that are seaports have experienced faster growth than the inland cities. Cargo loading/discharge, goods storage, and warehousing are not the only ways in which these ports stimulate metropolitan economic growth, since many ports host interlinked manufacturing clusters which benefit from access to raw materials via nearby ports or from cheaper shipping costs. Examples include the petrochemical clusters in Antwerp (Port of Antwerp 2018) and Rotterdam (Port of Rotterdam 2018). Such clusters of manufacturing attached to port activities are often even more important to a city’s GDP growth than port logistics activities (Adomaitis 2007). Since port cities are at the crossroads of materials, passengers, energy, and information flows, they can uniquely contribute to our world transition towards a sustainable era. At a local level, they also can benefit from the outcomes of such a transition. Ports are a driving force for economic wealth, because commercial, industrial, logistics, tourist, and fishing activities are localized there (Girard 2013). Hence, a sustainable port city means the place where the balanced social, economic, and environmental values are reached in an efficient way, over the long-term. Seaports as transport nodes generate remarkable social costs due to the emissions of pollutants gases by ships and operation of the port hinterlands, as well as other

Fig. 4.3 The urban and rural population of the world, 1950–2050. Source UN-Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2014)

4 Port-City Redevelopment and the Circular …

59

externality costs such as road accidents and congestion in urban areas. In this respect, to reduce the burden for port cities inhabitants, many ports began to implement solutions with the purpose of integration into the port city development overall plan, with a focus on the reduction of the transport externalities on local people. To achieve this, ports have taken different measures to be more environmentally, e.g. offering financial incentives for greener ships, smart mobility, and improving energy efficiency in port and logistics activities. On the other hand, some ports also take an active part in initiatives aimed at modal shift, i.e. investments in green infrastructure, and modern waste management (Kotowska 2016). New models, tools, or methods are needed to address the new port city environmental challenges, to improve resilience and sustainability of the port cities, together, from a win-win perspective. These models and methods should reduce the mismatch in port cities’ relations by transforming differences into synergistic cooperation. A new regenerative tool is “circular economy” (CE) that paves the way for port city transition from linear structures to circular models. This concept has recently gained significant attention in ports, due to the reduction of negative externalities of industries and logistics in a systematic way. In 2013, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation defined CE as “An industrial system that is restorative or regenerative by intention and design. It replaces the end-of-life concept with restoration, shifts towards the use of renewable energy, eliminates the use of toxic chemicals, which impair reuse, and aims for the elimination of waste through the superior design of materials, products, systems, and, within this, business models”. As shown in Fig. 4.4, one of the most important principles of CE is optimising resource yields by circulating products, components, and materials in use at the highest utility at all times in both technical and biological cycles. Sustainable port cities contribute to closing the flows of material and energy resources through circularized processes and synergies between stakeholders. As seaports mostly put an added value on all kinds of resources, therefore it can be simulated for wastes and second-hand products as well. As stated by Kyllönen (2017), if seaports are looked at as the “crossing-points” for waste and materials, then it makes sense why the ports are ideal for developing a CE approach. It is even more profitable to execute these activities in port areas because of industrial parks, clustering activities and megacities in the proximity of ports with a huge amount of daily waste production. Some ports independently have applied waste to energy approach, e.g. Port Hedland in Australia (Western Australia Environmental Protection Authority 2018), while others like Copenhagen-Malmö Port (CMP) values sustainability highly by developing recycling sites (CMP 2017). Thus, a port city would appear to be one of the most attractive places for value-added activities. One of the main drivers of a shift from a linear economy to a CE in port cities is the short supply of raw materials and energy resources with its subsequent soaring of commodity prices. The shift towards CE can be a driver in order to protect port businesses and services from market fluctuations and geopolitical risks. A factor that facilitates this transition is consumer-preferences that are also shifting away from the ownership of goods and information towards models where they are willing to share information or use of products in closed loops instead of owning them, according to

60

R. Karimpour et al.

Fig. 4.4 Circular economy system diagram. Source Adopted from EllenMcArthur Foundation

the MacArthur in 2014. However, there are Challenges in the application of CE in port cities are due to wide differences across their profiles. Diversity in range of ports’ size, function, market economic position, and geographical specifications, put a mix of challenges in front of port cities in the application of the CE.

4.4

Port-Cities Challenges: From a Linear Economy to a Circular Economy Approach

Port cities are within an economic system that is structured on the linear ‘take-make-dispose’ model, globally. The linear economy model is characterised by the primacy it gives to economic objectives, with little regard for ecological and

4 Port-City Redevelopment and the Circular …

61

Fig. 4.5 Linear and Circular economy approach in cities. Source Adopted and reproduced from Sauvé et al. (2016)

social concerns (Sauvé et al. 2016). Port and urban economies, with their related environmental problems like water pollutions, air emissions, and the depletion of coastline natural resources, mirror the challenges of the linear destructive model. A growing global population, largely concentrated in the cities along the coastlines of the countries, and recent continual globalisation with its growing cargo trade, have all put increasing pressures not only on port infrastructure but also on city resources (see Fig. 4.5). Because of an increase in public awareness, mostly from the UN framework 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (UNDG 2019), sustainability has attracted significant attention and is increasingly becoming the cornerstone of development in all industries. A substantial dissimilarity between the linear and circular economies is that sustainable development based on circular models emphasises waste and pollution reductions from the initial production phase, and recycling after the consumption, i.e. with the main focus on the downstream processes of production and consumption. According to the European Environmental Agency report in 2015, there has been dramatic growth in the port cities’ consumption of resources. Accelerated with the lack of a holistic approach to an integrated port city management, this is steering to economic losses as a result of structural waste. Structural waste in line with related economic losses means that the major part of the value in used materials in port and their cities is ‘lost’ to landfills. This is amplified in the port context where the significant structural waste in key sectors such as port terminals and cruise shipping industry. For example, in the urban areas near to port gates, congestion resulting from port mobility systems leads to time-lost and traffic with environmental side effects on urban people lives. The waste generated through port activities such as waste-delivery from ships, and cargo dissipation at terminals, causes additional costs to waste management of port cities and places an extra burden on municipality waste management systems. According to an Ellen McArthur Foundation study on “cities in the circular

62

R. Karimpour et al.

economy”, published in 2017, solid waste management and collection costs can sometimes reach 50% of municipal annual budgets. As noted previously, one of the environmental challenges of linear economy models is the impacts of destroying and degrading nature and resources. The externalities of the linear model in port cities are mostly related to the health cost from port activities on city locals. These environmental impacts originate from the air, water, and noise pollution, the toxic substances release, and GHG emissions. Two other examples are dredging activities and overfishing by big ships, both of which reduce biodiversity in the waters off port cities. In order to compete in the global economic system, ports, with the help of their cities, need to facilitate sustainable businesses and expand diversity in their services. However, challenges such as port environmental impacts, with their externality costs, appear to make it difficult to do so. These challenges are in addition to the fragile socio-economic landscape, where many port cities across Europe are experiencing an increasing expansion in their development. These are the signs of a non-efficient economy and the need for a change is quite evident, with port cities on the frontline. Ports have always played an important role in the economy of Europe, and for many years. European ports were the tools for the expansion of European influence, particularly with the territorial discoveries of the 15th century. The control of the sea lanes linking metropolises with their colonial empires also explains the creation of powerful arsenal ports and overseas naval bases in Europe. Over the centuries, the influence of commercial ports followed the evolution of the economic and political power relations of Atlantic Europe (Marnot 2018). European ports act as crucial gateways, allowing the EU transport corridors to be linked to the rest of the world. According to the European Commission (2019), ports play an equally important role to support the exchange of goods within the internal market and in linking peripheral and inland areas with the mainland of Europe. Currently, with 74% of extra-EU goods freight traffic shipped through European ports. Ports not only provide the transfer of the goods and raw material but also constitute energy hubs and place for producing products and services. European ports and cities have developed hand-in-hand, with the ports generating wealth for the cities. The need for changes to adapt to a new era is evident and it is even greater for port cities in the same region as they are banding together to form port metropolises. Port cities are central elements in a great deal of current urban and regional re-planning across Europe, as for example in the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) (European Commission 2013). The EU urban policies can facilitate further joint development of ports and cities while addressing the current challenges, essential for achieving the goals of a smart, sustainable and inclusive society in Europe. In competition with each other to attract global trade flows, European port cities need to prosper and improve the mutual relations of their ports and cities, with a focus on sustainable business models rather than transportation structures. Globalisation is also forcing the transformation of ports into post-industrial European ports cities. In this respect, the principles set by the European strategy for

4 Port-City Redevelopment and the Circular …

63

the adopted “EU Circular Economy Package”, can be a driver for EU port cities to shift toward a sustainable phase (European Commission 2014). Drivers such as rising public environmental awareness, and also competitiveness, are boosting the application of the CE approach in EU port cities. CE strongly supports economic growth and produces job opportunities through new business models and services. In recent years, some European Port Cities have taken serious steps to apply the CE approach (Kuipers 2015). Some northern European ports are leading in new innovations in ports sustainability and new business initiatives like CE. The CE strategies of the ports such as Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Hamburg, and Antwerp have similarities, but also some differences due to the ports’ individual profiles (see Table 4.1 which has been developed from a review of the literature). The core of these port cities circular development strategies is based on moving toward less dependence on fossil fuels by renewables, systematic improvement of energy efficiency energies, and also importantly waste management optimization. Another similarity is stakeholders’ involvement in development planning, in a bottom-up approach. There are also similar challenges like insufficient budget, allocation of sources to transit the linear structure of ports towards circular models, and integration of the port development plans into the city municipality plans. All of these ports also to some extent suffer from lack of experts, professional role, and validated businesses for new circular models. There is no clear balance in responsibilities and gains between the cities’ urban areas and their ports. The Delta Region encompasses the ports of Antwerp (Belgium) and Rotterdam (the Netherlands). Rotterdam is Europe’s largest port with the world’s largest renewable energy cluster. Rotterdam, like Antwerp, also has major petrochemical capacities. These two major players within industry and logistics envision themselves as ideal locations for building pathways to a CE. The region offers leading capacities within agriculture, aquaculture, tech/clean industry, business networks, resource flows, innovation, infrastructure, and finance (Karimpour 2017). Rotterdam, Amsterdam, and Hamburg defined city contact points or platforms for circular ideas, activities and customer support. Antwerp has set up a” Virtual Knowledge Centre” for innovative ideas and Start-Ups (Karimpour 2017). Every port has a different solution to approach waste management due to the different Table 4.1 Circular economy in Europe ports Ports

Existing circular and bio-based economy clusters

Strategies

Rotterdam Antwerp Zeeland

Renewable energy cluster E-waste and recycling Bio-park

Towards 2030 Rotterdam

Ghent Amsterdam

Bio-refinery, bio-park Recycling

Sustainable development strategy Vision 2030 and Circle City Scan

64

R. Karimpour et al.

types of produced waste from the industries within them. This could be due to the type of port profile. For example, Antwerp port hosts the largest integrated petrochemical cluster in Europe, while in the case of the Rotterdam, the main economic clusters are Food, Clean-tech, and Medical. In the policy aspect, Antwerp is leading by a clear “zero-ton residual waste” strategy. Similarly, waste-exchange platforms have been used by both Antwerp and Amsterdam ports. Initiatives are applied by the port of Rotterdam to reserve spots for waste companies, while the port of Hamburg uses some of the recovered materials in road and buildings constructions (Karimpour 2017). The challenges of the application of a consistent CE framework in European ports refers to the fact that there are differences across their profiles and the involved stakeholder in each port. Diversity in range of ports’ size, function, market economic position, organisational structure, and geographical specifications, put a mix of challenges in front of European ports. However, they aimed to increase the net positive impact of their ports and to support the local economy of cities. This policy reinforces a coherent response to the challenges in European urban areas in the proximity of ports, and help to achieve the smart, sustainable and inclusive society. Some practice on mitigating environmental impacts already implemented in European port cities. Shore electricity to ships, reduction on the port fees for cleaner ships, use of electric trucks, modal shift to training, and creating buffer zones between city and port areas which mitigate the impacts. Wider opportunities are introduced by CE in European port cities, like in Rotterdam and Amsterdam, to increase the economic benefits from ports while mitigating the negative impacts on urban surrounding areas. CE can take hold of opportunities for ecological synergies offered by the proximity of different industrial firms such as for heating or waste treatment. In this way, CE development will create linkages between the ports and the city local economy (Karimpour 2017). The city of Amsterdam is leading in environmentally friendly strategies with “2040 Energy Strategy, with a focus on energy savings, maximum use of sustainable, and efficient utilisation of fossil fuels being emphasised (Municipality of Amsterdam 2010). Other port-cities like Amsterdam are stimulating the emergence of innovative circles, places where people bring expertise together around problems to turn them into business opportunities (Jansen 2015). According to the Port Authority of Amsterdam, there will be a commitment to a reduction of 40% of CO2 by the year 2025. For this purpose, in the port’s tries to provide clean electricity to the docked ships in the port. In the transition towards bio-economy models, the port of Amsterdam has a CE vision, named: Vision 2030. In this context, the port tries to find the ways to be “an innovative hub for the energy transition, and a bio-based CE” which produces new jobs and boosts the economic growth. This bio-based economy can be described mainly in using renewable energy, and biological materials for both producing foods and industrial raw feedstock. One of the attractions why ports like Amsterdam are seeking a “bio-economy” is due to the reason that the biomass (a bulky raw material) brings different business opportunities for the port, and some ports already have terminals

4 Port-City Redevelopment and the Circular …

65

to handle it. In the long term, many ports like Amsterdam have planned to replace current fossil-fuel cargos with biomass ones (Berger 2016). In Rotterdam, the port has focused on how crucial it is to recognise the value of waste and residual products (Port of Rotterdam 2016). As Europe’s largest cargo port, tRotterdam is also facing threats from the scarcity of resources which highlights the role of a circular low-carbon economy to secure its’ economic stability (Bye et al. 2017). The “2030 Roadmap” of Rotterdam includes a wide range of stakeholders and also academia (Port of Rotterdam 2016). It sets goals over short, mid, and also long-term within the context of circular businesses. The Roadmap includes the mechanisms to communicate and share topics like policy, real case examples, and the benefits for the citizen (Port of Rotterdam 2016). In phase.1 of the Roadmap (2016–2019), the circular models include the short-term actions of Embed, Act, and Inspire (Gladek et al. 2018). To have an indicator of circular thinking, a city-contact point, and also a budget to facilitate bottom-up initiatives are considered. According to the municipality of the Rotterdam, in the Act plan, a taxing model is considered to be established to support CE, business models. In phase.2 (2019–2030), learnings are incorporated and it is estimated that inserting CE into knowledge centers, business models, and households will provide 3500– 7000 jobs. A number of alternative, or sustainable, business modelss have been proposed to reduce environmental burdens, with a particular focus toward switching from product sales to a service approach, closing loops through recovery, and collaboration with other stakeholders (Lozano 2018). Business models need to be developed in such a way that products and goods will be shared after consumption, or are repaired to be reused, or even to be delivered to the certain sites for the purpose of refurbishment to reach a zero-ton residual waste strategy. Organic food wastes are recaptured to be converted mainly into fertiliser, while waste-water is refined through purifications into potable water (Port of Rotterdam 2016). A raw/recycling material valley is planned to let the private initiatives to collect residual waste. A notable bio-innovation in Rotterdam is the Bio-LPG Neste plant, claimed to be the first of its type worldwide. The purpose is to replace a portion of fossil-fuels consumption, without having modification to the existing gas facilities, as well as the applications of biogas in transport and heating (Lipponen 2015). Rotterdam as a leading port in sustainability facilitates and encourages CE initiatives to contribute to the Sustainability and Waste Programmes of the city (Bye et al. 2017). Hamburg Port Authority (HPA) approaches CE through a platform offered by the port which provides a wide range of information and, more importantly, supports the interested clients and the companies to be familiar with the CE business models. Additionally, it provides information about maritime waste and financing projects regarding recycling waste. HPA wants a modal shift, promoting more sustainable options to make every transport mode more sustainable (Karimpour 2017). For HPA, the energy transition is a crucial strategic topic, and the port authority is committed to the initiative of “SmartPort” for a re-orientation of energy use (Hamburg Port Authority 2015). Within the SmartPort framework, the HPA has established a land-based infrastructure to provide shore power to

66

R. Karimpour et al.

vessels by means of a power barge. HPA has also been constructing a permanent onshore power plant at the cruise ship terminal in Altona since summer 2014. HPA offers some financial incentives such as a discount for nautical ships that a high environmental ship index score (Port of Hamburg 2013). Other initiatives of HPA include the generation of biogas from green waste and grass cuttings, and establishment of land based shore-to-ship power supply infrastructure that provides electrical power to vessels using a power barge to reduce ship related emissions (Hamburg Port Authority 2015). Within the energy consumption context, HPA has achieved to set up an Energy Management System (EnMS) at the port to be one of the rare European ports that are certified by ISO 50001 standardisation. Other measures to reduce air pollution emissions such as regarding E-vehicles for port logistics operations, and EV-electrical charging stations are considered to be expanded (Karimpour 2017). Antwerp is one of the biggest ports across Europe with a lot of companies operating in different port-related industries. As the port hosts an enormous petrochemical cluster, it makes it an attractive and a potential place for recycling activities to close the loops in both technical and biological cycles under CE. As fossil raw materials are still considered as the foremost feedstock for petrochemical factories, transition towards CE, will not only lessen the port industry’s dependence on fossil raw materials but also contribute to boosting the competitiveness of the companies, and will keep Antwerp top-of-mind as an international investment location. This emphasises the port’s ambition to maintain its position as the most sustainable port in the Hamburg-Le Havre range (Port of Antwerp 2016). The synergy between the different sectors like logistics, industrial and maritime activities introduces a multifunctional capacity which results in great added value for the Antwerp city too. From 2010, serious steps have been taken to put the vision of sustainable port management practices, giving considerable attention to harmony and balance between ecological and economic interests (Karimpour 2017). In waste management, Port of Antwerp is leading with the launched the “Virtual Knowledge Centre” aiming to gather circular innovations and initiatives together in the Sustainable Enterprise Guide for companies. In this respect, the waste management in the port of Antwerp mainly focused on recycling, however, the remaining waste that cannot be reused will be incinerated to produce energy, and only the residues end in a landfill. Under the umbrella of CE, there is a strong network of companies acting in synergy in waste-recycling, in line with an industrial symbiosis approach. For ship-originated wastes, by providing shore reception facilities for ships, according to the 2015 ship management plan, ship-operators are motivated to hand over their waste by means of a refund system. This means that they must pay a flat rate charged for waste collection at the beginning, and then they will be refunded part of the payment, whenever they present a waste declaration. This ensures a permanent and sufficient flow of waste for collecting companies (Karimpour 2017). With a sustainability perspective, the Antwerp port community has focused on supporting all port-related companies, in absorbing of sustainable financial investment, appropriate communication among different stakeholders, and to be

4 Port-City Redevelopment and the Circular …

67

trusted as a partner for port customers. The strategy of Antwerp targets it to be the main leading port in the region for sustainable added value through economic diversification and collaboration between logistics entities, maritime section, and land industries to develop new port-related services (Karimpour 2017). The strategy of all above-mentioned European ports have similarities in their main goals, althogh with differences mostly due to the different cargo-profile of each port. The most notable factor in these port policies can be summarised as a transition towards a less fossil fuel -dependent era, with a higher contribution of renewables, improvements in energy efficiency, and last but not least the new models for waste management based on CE. The other important similarity is taking into consideration the contribution of all stakeholders to achieve sustainable development at these ports. There are, to some extent, similar challenges in these ports in developing a CE framework to implement it in port businesses (Karimpour 2017). The main challenges that the port face comes from the integration of CE models into the current developing programmes of the cities. Sufficient budget and allocation of sources to change the economic from a linear structure to a circular one is a big challenge Besides that, ports suffer from lack of experts, academic validated models for new circular businesses, and Public awareness (Karimpour 2017). Another challenge could be setting up a clear balance in responsibilities and gains between the European cities and their ports. To have a bottom-up approach and involve the all engaged actors, Rotterdam (Port of Rotterdam 2018) and Amsterdam defined city contact points while Hamburg has put a platform of wide information to support CE businesses. Antwerp developed a” Virtual Knowledge Centre” for innovative ideas within this context. Regarding the annual reports and outlooks for the future, every port has a non-similar solution for waste management due to different types of port hinterland activities and industrial clusters at the ports. In the long-term, Antwerp is leading with “zero-ton residual waste strategy”. However, other ports also have priorities in recycling and reuse of wastes within a CE approach. The ports of Antwerp and Amsterdam have similar policies in closing the circular loops by providing waste platforms, while the port of Rotterdam reserves spaces for waste companies to expand businesses. Similarly, to all, the port of Hamburg uses a lot of recovered materials in road and buildings constructions. Although there is the successful project in Antwerp port to use Algae to replace raw fossil material to produce energy with biofuels and clean electricity, only Hamburg Port conducted a feasibility study for a port-owned biofuel power plant. There is significant attention on biofuels development for a transition to the bio-based CE in Amsterdam and Rotterdam when compared with other ports (Karimpour 2017). All the selected ports are equipped with shore power supply to vessels, but the type of the shore power supply is different from each other. Hamburg is utilising an LNG-Powered floating power barge for cruise ships, whereas Antwerp facilities are for inland vessels. Similarly, the port of Amsterdam and Antwerp use shore facilities for inland vessels, however, the port of Amsterdam is investigating possibilities for shore-based power for inland cruises as well (Karimpour 2017).

68

R. Karimpour et al.

Ports are increasingly planning to use more environmentally friendly vehicles. The tendency toward the usage of Electric-Vehicles will increase the port demands for electricity. The port of Rotterdam, for example, will be accepting only the cleanest vehicles and electric trains in 2030 (Stratelligence 2016). Among all, the Rotterdam and Amsterdam have innovative solutions to improve air quality within the CE approach. The port of Rotterdam is planning to set up a carbon capture storage facility, and needs to have space reserved for such facilities. This would result in it becoming the number one port in the new commodity, CO2.

4.5

Conclusions and Recommendations

With a world population that is not only growing (reaching nine billion people by 2050) but also becoming more urbanised and affluent, the world is quickly moving beyond planetary boundaries. Sustainable resource management is therefore high on the agenda among decision-makers worldwide. With an increased focus on recycling and resource management, businesses and policy-makers are starting to turn their attention to the opportunities offered by a circular economy in which raw materials circulate in the economy, providing a new model for growth. Supporting such a development is the bio-based economy that aims to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and encourage renewable energy. Around 90% of world trade in terms of volume is transported by sea, which is why port cities can be considered the gateway to globalisation. Ports are ideally equipped to develop pathways to a CE since they offer the space, organisation and infrastructure needed. This chapter discusses how ports—using European cases—are currently realising such potentials and are establishing and implementing strategies and policies having themselves transited towards CE in close synergy with the port cities. Different pathways are being adopted by those selected European port exemplars in this chapter that reflect a number of different profiles. The bio-based economy is emerging in several ports, principally from Rotterdam, Zeeland, and Ghent. Other ports that are starting to implement CE strategies include Antwerp where the emphasis is on waste treatment. Among policy tools that the Port of Antwerp has adopted is creating funding synergies, the pooling of equipment and services, and mediating between the city and industry stakeholders. This chapter identifies how EU ports have voiced a need for further regulation to support the transition to the CE. The EU Commission has made a dedicated effort to promote the CE model, including the adoption of the CE Package (CEP). However, reports by maritime stakeholders have focused on necessary steps to facilitate the transition to the CE. The European Sea Port Organisation has called on the EU Commission to investigate the current restrictions in the use of recycled oil in line with the principles of CE with the aim of facilitating the reuse of ship-generated oily waste (European Parliament 2019). The European Federation of Inland Ports issued a report entitled “The Circular Economy and Inland Ports” (2016) that lists a

4 Port-City Redevelopment and the Circular …

69

number of challenges and requirements. Among these is the need for a common EU interpretation of the end-of-waste criteria and administrative procedures for cross-border shipment of waste. EU standardisation and quality schemes for secondary raw materials are also needed as well as a harmonised EU approach to safety requirements. Finally, this chapter is aimed at identifying how central the role of the port and port authority is in the transition to CE. The added value of this paper is to bring attention to an area of research that has been explored only marginally. It is hoped that the present paper stimulates a new wave of researches associated with the role of port authorities in their efforts having closed the loop of the CE. It is also hoped that the current paper initiates a micro-level analysis, for example, detailed case studies on an individual port or a group of ports, as a way to establish a micro- and/ or macro-level policy development.

References Adomaitis, K. (2007). World’s major port cities are growing faster than inland cities. Berger, J. J. (2016, November 17). The Port of Amsterdam Pursues a Bio-based, Circular Economy. Retrieved February 16, 2017, from http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/ 2016/11/bicycle-friendly-amsterdamaims-for-clean-transport-smarter-buildings-and-a-circulareconomy.html. Brocard, M. (1994). Deux villes frontières portuaires: Le Havre et Southampton. La Revue d’Ici, n, 11, 8–12. Bye, M. V., Vusse, R. V., & Tilborg, C. V. (2017). Roadmap—Circular Economy—Rotterdam. Retrieved June 6, 2017, from Municipality of Rotterdam. Available at: http://www. rotterdamclimateinitiative.nl/documents/2016/roadmap-circular-economy.pdf. Carpenter, A., & Lozano, R. L. (2014). Sustainable seaports: Incorporating sustainable development in port redevelopment approaches (working paper). Paper presented at the 20th Annual International Sustainable Development Research Conference, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, June 18–20, 2014. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/7668873/Sustainable_Seaports_Incorporating_Sustainable_ Development_in_Port_Redevelopment_Approaches_Working_Paper_. Accessed March 2, 2019. Carpenter, A., Lozano, R. L., Sammisto, K., & Astner, L. (2018). Securing a port’s future through Circular Economy: Experiences from the Port of Gävle in contributing to sustainability. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 128, 539–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j/marpolbul.2018.01.065. Coto-Millan, P., Pesquera, M., & Castanedo, J. (2010). Essay on port economics. Heidelberg Dordrecht, London, New York: Springer. ISSN 1431-1933. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-37908-2425-4. CMP. (2017). Copenhagen Malmö Port Sustainability Report 2017. Available at: http://www. cmport.com/*/media/docs/brochures/cmp%20sustainability%20report%202017.ashx. Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2013). Towards the Circular Economy (Rep.). Retrieved September 19, 2017, from Ellen MacArthur Foundation website: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation. org/assets/downloads/publications/EllenMacArthur-Foundation-Towards-the-Circular-Economyvol.1.pdf. European Commission. (2013). The core network corridors. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/ transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-portal/site/brochures_images/b1_2013_brochure_lowres. pdf.

70

R. Karimpour et al.

European Commission. (2014). The circular economy: Connecting, creating and conserving value. Available at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c8cfd1ae6285-40ba-879f-f2e78e4c2b6e/language-en. European Commission. (2019). Mobility and transport. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/ transport/modes/maritime/ports/ports_en. European Environmental Agency. (2015). Technical Report: Urban sustainability issues—What is a resource-efficient city? Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/resourceefficient-cities/file. European Parliament. (2019). Port reception facilities for the delivery of waste from ships: The Commission Communication of 2 December 2015 entitled “Closing the loop—An EU action plan for the circular economy”. Available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ TA-8-2019-0192_EN.html. European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO). (2018). Environmental priorities of EU Ports. Available at: https://www.ecoports.com/publications. Girard, L. F. (2013). Toward a smart sustainable development of port cities/areas: The role of the “historic urban landscape” approach. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/su5104329. Gladek, E., van Exter, P., Roemers, G., Schlueter, L., Winter, J., Galle, N., & Dufourmont J. (2018). Circular rotterdam—Opportunities for new jobs in a zero waste economy. Available at: https:// rotterdamcirculair.nl/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/GemeenteRotterdam_Report_English_15-1118.pdf. Hamburg Port Authority. (2013). The future of the port: Efficient use of energy resources and infrastructure facilities (Rep.). Retrieved February 17, 2017, from Hamburg Port Authority website: http://www.hamburg-portauthority.de/en/smartport/energy/Seiten/Unterbereich.aspx. Hamburg Port Authority. (2015, July). Sustainability Report 2013/2014: Review, evaluate, optimise (Rep.). Retrieved May 12, 2017, from Hamburg Port Authority website: http://static. globalreporting.org/reportpdfs/2015/29f0fe4c203041a275762a91d8ef016a.pdf. Hesse, M. (2011). Ports, cities and global supply chains. In J. Wang, D. Olivier, Notteboom, T., & Slack, B. (Book Review). Area, 43(1), 115–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2010. 00983_1.x. Independent. (2018). 20,000 scientists give dire warning about the future in ‘letter to humanity’— and the world is listening. Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/letter-tohumanity-scientists-warning-climate-change-global-warming-experts-a8243606.html. Jansen, M. (2015, December 29). Ports in the 4th industrial revolution – Learning to think in circles. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from https://mauricejansen.wordpress.com/2015/12/24/ ports-in-the-4th-industrial-revolutionlearning-to-think-in-loops-rather-than-linear-connections/. Japan-Guide. (2019). Abandoned island off Nagasaki’s coast. Available at: https://www.japanguide.com/e/e4414.html. Karimpour, R. (2017). Circular economy modelling to accelerate the transition of ports into self-sustainable ports: A case study in Copenhagen-Malmö Port (CMP). Available at: https:// commons.wmu.se/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1590&context=all_dissertations. Kuipers, B. (2015). Ports as catalysts for change towards a circular economy. Presentation at the ESPO Conference, Athens, May 22, 2015. Available at: https://www.espo.be/media/ESPO% 20Bart%20Kuipers%20Circular%20Economy%20final%202105.pdf. Kyllönen, M. (2017). Can the EU’s circular economy apply to ports? The parliament magazine. Available at: https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/opinion/can-eus-circular-economyapply-ports. LCA4PORTS Project—European Ports Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). (2015). Available at: http:// ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_ id=3934&docType=pdf. Lipponen, K. (2015, October 02). Neste breaks ground on world's first Bio LPG facility in Rotterdam. Retrieved June 6, 2017, from https://www.neste.com/en/neste-breaksgroundworlds-first-bio-lpg-facility-rotterdam.

4 Port-City Redevelopment and the Circular …

71

Lozano, R. (2018). Sustainable business models: Providing a more holistic perspective. Journal of Bussiness Strategy and the Environment, 27, 1159–1166. Available at: https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/bse.2059. Marnot, B. (2018). Ports as tools of European expansion. Available at: https://ehne.fr/en/article/ europe-europeans-and-world/ports-tools-european-expansion/ports-tools-european-expansion. Municipality of Amsterdam. (2010). 2040 Energy Strategy [Brochure]. Author. Retrieved February 15, 2017, from https://www.amsterdam.nl/bestuurorganisatie/organisatie/ruimteeconomie/ruimte-duurzaamheid/makingamsterdam/publications/sustainability-0/2040_energy_ strategy_0/. Port of Antwerp. (2018). Feel the chemistry. Available at: https://www.portofantwerp.com/nl/ node/6472. Port of Rotterdam. (2016, September 20). Circular Economy. Retrieved February 16, 2017, from https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/european-affairs/circular-economy. Port of Rotterdam. (2018). Circular economy—Rotterdam as a circular hub for the raw materials transition. Available at: https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/doing-business/port-of-thefuture/energy-transition/circular-economy. Rodrigue, J-P. (2017). The geography of transport systems (440 pp). New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1138669574. Sauvé, S., Bernard, S., & Sloa, P. (2016). Towards a new taxonomy of circular economy business models. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 487–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017. 09.047. Stockholm Resilience Centre. (2019). The nine planetary boundaries. Available at: https://www. stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries/planetary-boundaries/about-the-research/ the-nine-planetary-boundaries.html. Stratelligence. (2016). The Rotterdam fuel approach final draft. Available at: http://tda-mobility. org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Rotterdam-Fuel-Approach.pdf. SuPorts Project Partners. (2013). Sustainable management for European local ports- final report Interreg IVC project. Available at: http://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/temi/acque-interne-emarino-costiere/impatti-e-gestione-ambientale-nei-porti/file/SUPORTS_maquette05.pdf. United Nations. (UN) Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2014). World urbanization prospects. Available at: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/publications/files/wup2014-highlights.pdf. UN. (2018). IMO profile. Available at: https://business.un.org/en/entities/13. UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2014). World’s population increasingly urban with more than half living in urban areas. Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/ en/news/population/world-urbanization-prospects.html. UNDG. (2019). Building awareness on the 2030 agenda. Available at: https://undg.org/2030agenda/mainstreaming-2030-agenda/building-awareness-link/. Western Australia Environmental Protection Authority. (2018). Boodarie waste-to-energy and materials recovery facility, port hedland. Available at: http://www.epa.wa.gov.au/proposals/ boodarie-waste-energy-and-materials-recovery-facility-port-hedland-s46-2169. Wiegmans, B., & Louw, E. (2011). Changing port-city relations at Amsterdam: A new phase at the interface? Journal of Transport Geography, 19, 575–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo. 2010.06.007.

Chapter 5

Technological Change and Logistics Development in European Ports Michele Acciaro, Katharina Renken and Naouar El Khadiri

Abstract Digital technologies are a key element in the logistics sector development. The so-called digital revolution that began in the 1980s, on the basis of the increasingly widespread use of automation, artificial intelligence and robotics in production processes, is changing the face of world logistics, a change often referred to as Logistics 4.0. Building on the impact of digitalisation on other sectors, port cities are also expected to see the emergence of new business models in the coming years, made possible by the advancement of digital technologies. Some researchers and practitioners even foresee the development of a global cargo handling system similar to the Internet, called Physical Internet (PI), in which goods would be moved seamlessly on an intermodal network at very low costs thanks to state-of-the-art data management technologies. The development of a PI-based logistics model requires new methods of monitoring and managing data, on the physical characteristics of the goods, as well as on the financial flows and traceability of the products; and ports are likely to play a critical role in favouring the uptake of such data collections and use. One of the most promising enablers to this vision is blockchain, a technology that would make it possible to document an increasingly large number of characteristics of a product or a commodity. The shipping sector cannot be caught unprepared, and adequate support is also needed inside ports. This chapter reviews the current technology and digitalisation trends in ports, advancing hypotheses on how they are likely to change port-city cargo—but also people—mobility and influence port logistics.







Keywords Trends and technology: Logistics 4.0 Impact on ports New business models Physical internet Data monitoring and management Traceability Financial flow Blockchain
















M. Acciaro (&)
K. Renken
N. El Khadiri Hapag-Lloyd Center for Shipping and Global Logistics (CSGL), Kühne Logistics University (KLU), Großer Grasbrook 17, 20457 Hamburg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 A. Carpenter and R. Lozano (eds.), European Port Cities in Transition, Strategies for Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9_5

73

74

5.1

M. Acciaro et al.

Introduction

During the last decade, radical changes in international trade, global politics and new technologies have resulted in greater complexity and uncertainty that has added to the inherent contradictions of globalisation. Shipping and the port industry have developed in a context of increasing globalisation and have allowed production processes to enjoy a substantial reduction in transport costs and increase in efficiency, with significant impacts on the growth of the global economy (Hummels 2007). In addition to these macroeconomic developments, endogenous developments within the shipping world have also taken place, characterised by chronic overcapacity, processes of horizontal and vertical integration, tensions in the shipbuilding industry (Cariou 2008) and growing regulation (Cullinane and Cullinane 2013). In the port sector, in addition to the imperative of maintaining the efficiency of loading and unloading operations (Acciaro and McKinnon 2015) and the need to raise capital for infrastructure development, a particularly critical set of issues is related to environmental protection and the relations with local communities (Fenton 2017). Port managers have looked to new and better ways to facilitate the growth of commercial activities in the port minimising negative external impacts and maintaining good relationships with the local communities among other stakeholders. Both industries, shipping and port sector, place great hope in the ability of new technologies to help resolve the conflicts emerging from those endogenous and exogenous developments with the premise that pushing the technological frontiers will increase efficiency levels, achieve greater transparency and traceability of logistics chains and reduce the negative externalities resulting from shipping and port activities. Despite the promises offered by new technologies, digitalisation1 has represented for many ports a major challenge in maintaining competitiveness. Technology alone is not sufficient to foster supply chain competitiveness, that in the case of ports depends to a large extent on the relationships with their hinterland and on their ability to create value across global logistics chains. Digitalisation processes are at most an enabler of port competitiveness, and in the worst case can backfire, either as a consequence of high implementation costs or lacklustre user uptake. Digitalisation processes require particular strategic planning in order, on the one hand, to avoid social tensions and, on the other hand, to favour the development of a port system focused on improving value chains and safeguarding the well-being of local communities and the environment (Heilig et al. 2017). Many port ecosystems are complex, as stakeholders from the private and public sector, with or without mutual business interest, interact on resolving resource use conflicts, primarily space. As not all interests are aligned, port operations often result in information asymmetries making synergy difficult to achieve, especially as 1

Digitalisation is here referred to as the modus operandi followed by organisations and institutions in implementing digital transformation on their existing processes and business models.

5 Technological Change and Logistics …

75

port managers are often lacking complete information on port operations and, yet are seen by the public as responsible for inefficiencies or externalities that take place in port areas. Equally, disparate technological capabilities and governance styles impair the quality and the flow of information across the value chain. Port management is also subjected to various dynamics endogenous to the shipping sector. Increasing vessel size and overcapacity in shipping, horizontal and vertical integration (Cariou 2008), and tightening regulation are putting infrastructure planning and hinterland connectivity under constant pressure to level with ever-changing maritime trade outlook. Likewise, ports are sensitive to exogenous trends, adding layers to their growing complexity. Since the demand for maritime logistics is a derived demand from the movement of goods, phenomena such as e-commerce and customisation contribute to traffic concentration in a small number of hubs that are technologically capable and cost-efficient. Given the fast-changing role of technology in ports, this chapter aims at discussing some of the salient aspects of the relations between ports and cities. In the next section, a brief overview of what technologies and fields of application, generally referred to as smart ports, is presented. It is important to clarify what is intended for industry 4.0 and port 4.0, and this is the subject of the next section followed by a discussion on the most promising areas of application of digital technologies in ports in relation to cities. The subsequent two sections deal with two specific technical developments, namely the internet of things and blockchain, that have the potential of changing how ports operate. The last section provides some concluding remarks and recommendations for future research.

5.2

Smart Ports

Technologies have been an instrumental part of the development of ports, and the use of information and communication technology (ICT) pervades virtually every aspect of port operations and management. The recent hype on new technologies has triggered various ports to enthusiastically portray their ICT activities as “smart ports” including Singapore (Malaysia), Hamburg (Germany), Los Angeles (United States of America), Antwerp (The Netherlands), Barcelona (Spain), and Busan (South Korea), just to mention some of those who have made headlines because of their active promotion of ICT as an integral part of their development strategy. Recently, the main technology applied in ports has been surveyed in the literature (Heilig and Voß 2017) with the aim to identify current developments from an information perspective. The authors reviewed ICT applications in ports and identify a range of technologies that are widespread in ports, namely global navigation satellite systems (GNSS), electronic data interchange (EDI), radio-frequency identification (RFID), optical character recognition (OCR) systems, wireless sensor networks (WSN), real-time location systems (RTLS), and mobile devices. The same review also looked into information systems in port and identified the following key applications:

76

M. Acciaro et al.

• National single window (NSW) that is used to submit information to authorities in compliance with legal and regulatory requirements; • Port community system (PCS) that is deployed to share information among port users and port managing bodies; • Vessel traffic services (VTS), which allow port authorities to control vessel movements approaching the port or within port areas; • Terminal operating systems (TOS) that are used for managing (container) terminal operations; • Gate appointment systems that have been deployed to managed arrivals of trucks at terminals; • Automated gate systems, which facilitate the management of port or terminal gate systems automatically; • Automated yard systems, which allow the automated management of (primarily container) terminal yards; • Port road and traffic control information systems that are used to measure and control the traffic flows into and from the port; • Intelligent transport systems (ITS) that make use of sensors and IT systems to managed transport infrastructure. This information is collected from vehicles and processed to improve the performance of transport networks; and • Port hinterland intermodal systems that endeavour to integrate NSWs with other hinterland transport management systems to improve the intermodality and the efficiency of intermodal transport chains. The authors, thus, show the fundamental role that integrated information systems play in increasing efficient port operations and facilitate the implementation of regulation, and argue that in many areas the uptake of ICT technologies, although promising, still requires effort, especially in integrating, replacing and upgrading legacy systems. Sanchez-Gonzalez et al. (2019) investigated the main applications of ICT technologies in shipping and ports. They structure these technologies in the following groups: • • • • • • • •

Autonomous Vehicles and Robotics; Artificial Intelligence (AI); Big Data; Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Reality; The Internet of Things (IoT); Cloud and Edge Computing; Digital Security; and 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing.

The authors concluded that robotics, AI, and big data are among the most researched areas in ports and shipping. They also argue that ports offer most opportunities in those areas due to their interaction with hinterland transport sectors that make already advanced use of digitalisation. In general, the maturity and knowledge built in this area differs from sector to sector and from region to region.

5 Technological Change and Logistics …

77

One of the main advantages of digitalisation is the ability to monitor, and in doing so, automate operations. The use of sensors, automation, and simulation, are few examples of the technologies available for terminal productivity. To these must be added the operations of mooring and the increase of efficiencies in the management of documentation in port. These applications go further to achieve (semi-) automation and robotics with efficiency gains that can be substantial. An illustration of an application is the use of technologies in infrastructure management in complex systems such as the Port of Hamburg, where the railway network, which is managed by the Port Authority and which has more than 300 km of railways and more than 850 exchanges, allows the departure of more than 200 trains a day, two thirds of which are dedicated to containers. Besides efforts in rail, the Hamburg port also strenghens the use of automation and robotics for both ships and terminals. A second advantage of digitalisation is the possibility to increase the quality of port services by increasing the traceability and transparency of the logistics chains. To this end, the block-chain technology is presented as the key solution to ensure complete visibility of cargo handling, although its use is so far limited to pilot projects only and it is not yet clear how this technology can be used satisfactorily on a large scale. The block-chain issue also raises important questions about information and technology management and the antitrust implications of these developments. An important application of the new technologies is tied to security both in terms of port work, but also and above all of the prevention of illegal activities, such as smuggling or terrorism. New technologies, from the use of drones for the inspections of port areas to identification processes (face-recognition) or data authentication, have a fundamental role in the maintenance of the efficiency of port operations (as, for example, customs operations, security and goods inspections) and can also result in the creation of new services with added value. Finally, a third application of the new technologies concerns the protection of the environment. The need to reduce the environmental impacts of port operations and the presence of ships in ports has been the basis for the most recent developments and various changes in port regulations. Increased rules often contribute to increased operational costs, bureaucratic complications and longer loading and unloading times. For example, the monitoring of emissions and fuel restrictions, the reduction of energy consumption through electrification and automation, certification for waste disposal, or renewable energy would not be permissible to use these energy sources in the port without digitalisation (for example in the implementation of virtual power plants).

78

5.3

M. Acciaro et al.

From Smart Ports to Smart Cities

The influences of digitalisation on everyday life are countless, from mobile phones that allow to move through faraway countries and help translate foreign languages, to people traveling paperless or joining concerts without printed tickets. Communication costs have become a fraction of what they used to be and connectivity with its ever-moving forward technology advancements, such as the 5G possibilities, plays a major role to an increasing portion of world population nowadays. The changes experienced by individuals also find their ways into trade and logistics and further strengthen the relationship between ports, intended as logistics and commercial entities, and port-cities. The core of the relationship between ports and their surrounding cities is connectivity. Ports connect countries and regions, as they are logistic hubs in their very nature. They allow cargo and people to move around and thus favour connectivity. The efficiency improvements achieved in the last century are unprecedented, and the introduction of the maritime container allowed for standardised processes that accelerated growth and lowered transport costs substantially. Ports, thus, play an essential role for international trade, as estimated three-quarters of the international trade volume is moved by ship (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNCTAD 2017), and to the cities around them, by lowering transport costs for goods and people to and from the city (read also Chap. 16 by Acciaro et al. 2019, in this volume). A second meaningful relationship between ports and cities is how ports act as a catalyst for local development, primarily through employment. The port of Hamburg, for example, calculates that 268,689 jobs in Germany can be linked to the existence of the port. Almost 50% of these jobs are in the Hamburg metropolitan area (PLANCO Consulting GmbH, Essen 2015). Activities connected to the port of Vancouver generate over 100,000 jobs (Vancouver Fraser Port Authority 2014). The relationship between city employment and digitalisation is complex and has contributed probably to estrange city inhabitants from port activities, but cities need to be able to attract and educate the talent that is willing to work in a digitally more complex port and logistics environment. They need to create, in collaboration with ports, the right incentives and at the same time educational opportunities for the smart ports of the future to thrive. Three additional aspects play still a central role in the development of port-city relationships: deregulation, competition, and technology. Many ports globally are corporatising, and the involvement of the private sector in the industry does not appear to be decreasing (Ferrari et al. 2015). Through deregulation, ports tend to operate increasingly more like private companies than public organisations and, as such, they are more sensitive to develop a brand and protect such brand from reputational risk. This implies inevitably also ensuring collaboration with their neighbouring cities and local communities and the development of sound communication strategies. Obviously, digitalisation can be an asset in the development of such strategies.

5 Technological Change and Logistics …

79

The second relevant aspect for the relationship between a port and its city is competition. As hinterland connectivity improves, neighbouring ports find themselves competing for the same market, that can extend, as in the case of Europe, beyond national borders. This means cargo owners gain more choices in moving their goods and materials, implying that a prime location close to the product market or natural resource origin does not necessarily guarantee a competitive advantage anymore. It has previously been discussed how efficiency and productivity can be enhanced by ICT, and in addition, they contribute though, for example ITS port hinterland intermodal systems, to improve connections with the hinterland, that has become one of the main determinants of port competitiveness (Parola et al. 2017). The development of such systems requires the active participation of port-cities (and local or national transport authorities), that all need then to become “smart” (Acciaro 2018). The deployment of many smart port technologies inevitably extends from port to cities. Not only ports and cities share the same infrastructure network, whose use can be enhanced by smart technologies, but also the private firms with government institutions often share similar systems that constitute the technological infrastructure of port-cities. Leveraging on new sources of data-driven revenues to overcome market failure in port value chains allows ports and port-related businesses to grow and establish new sources of income by collaborating on ideas and visions for the future. Regulators can take advantage of shared data to monitor, manage and improve port and city activities. Combined activities for a more sustainable use of resources between the private sector and the government are common practice in European ports but also increasingly in other ports. Agile and informed governance requires visibility across the whole value chain, and a well-placed application of new technology solutions can increase transparency— not only within one business boundaries but within all partners and stakeholders (Heilig et al. 2017). Connectivity is growing—between ports and their port cities, people, businesses and countries; enabled by deregulation, competitive forces and smart technologies. This becomes visible in trade activities, as goods and materials are finding their way quicker than ever before. Some have linked this trend to the 4th industrial revolution or Industry 4.0, an aspirational term that more than defining an actual set of technologies, aims at providing a vision for the future. The following chapter will hence allow for a closer look at the concepts of Logistics 4.0 and Port 4.0 that are directly linked to this concept.

5.4

Logistics 4.0 and Port 4.0

While initially introduced in Germany’s national strategy “High-Tech Strategy 2020” (Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) 2010) in 2010, Industry 4.0 has been popularised by a World Economic Forum publication by Klaus Schwab (Schwab 2016). However, the concept seems to be understood in different ways by

80

M. Acciaro et al.

different people. Thus, the following definition is describing what the term stands for from a scientific point of view: “The term Industry 4.0 collectively refers to a wide range of current concepts, whose clear classification concerning a discipline as well as their precise distinction is not possible in individual cases” (Lasi et al. 2014). Those concepts are smart factory, cyber-physical systems, self-organisation, new systems in distribution and procurement, new systems in the development of products and services, adaptation to human needs, and corporate social responsibility (Lasi et al. 2014). Thus, the Industry 4.0 idea includes product development with production (where usually Industry 4.0 is pictured), logistics, and customer use. As pointed out, Industry 4.0 is oftentimes just understood and viewed in the production process, thus viewed as production machinery being connected and communicating with one another. The four industrial revolutions are generally referred to as: • • • •

1st industrial revolution: Mechanisation through waterpower, steam power; 2nd industrial revolution: Mass production through the electric assembly line; 3rd industrial revolution: Computer led robotics and automation; and 4th industrial revolution: Cyber-physical systems.

The processes in the Industry 4.0 concept reach far beyond production. Sectors are growing together by data exchange and logistical developments, and those sectors grow simultaneously with the 4.0 development. Thus, the logistics sector now as well uses the term Logistics 4.0 (ten Hompel and Henke 2014), and new terms such as Port 4.0 (Buxbaum 2018) or Supply chain 4.0 (Stich et al. 2015). All have been used among others to show that these industries are ready to address the challenges associated with the digital revolution. Ports are potentially an imperative player in the digital revolution, as they are critical links in global supply chains and the main international gate to a country or a region. However, as logistics networks become more efficient, cargo owners and logistics service providers are not bound to a specific port. In this perspective, as mentioned by the Head of Strategic and Innovation Projects of the Port of Barcelona: “all ports are very similar, and becoming a commodity for transport”.2 Increasing competitive pressure and regulatory and managerial complexity imply that port managers and administrators are looking for ICT solutions that can maintain efficiency and improve customer relations, and allow for that service differentiation that can generate value for their customers. The world is more connected than ever by physical transport routes and by data transfer. An exchange of the service “transport” becomes easier to do, so ports, as well as many other industry participants, are looking for a competitive advantage (Song and Panayides 2017). On one hand, this can be achieved with high agility and flexibility to meet very specific needs of specialised costumers, which seems to be a good strategy especially for multi-purpose terminals (Brümmerstedt and

2

Carles Rua Costa, Head of Strategic and Innovation projects Port of Barcelona, at Ports & Hinterland Europe on 4th.

5 Technological Change and Logistics …

81

Renken 2018). On the other hand, a competitive edge may be the price. Prices can be reduced by an increase of flexibility, a higher robustness of operation to weather or other disruptive impacts, or a higher efficiency of the resources involved in the process (Jahn et al. 2018). Digitalisation can help with the named tactics. It allows using the available space, personnel, and other resources more effectively by being able to find better optima and by being able to consider more data available than a non-digital port possibly can. A fast turnaround of available data and an increase of transparency in a transport process at the port also allow for the use of machines and equipment to be more effective and more flexible. The connection between stakeholders within the port and outside of the port can be designed in a manner that waiting times, insecurity of data and communication gaps can be reduced. Processes can be redesigned to push information through to partners automatically or to platforms for all users to see, which increases visibility and reduces inefficiencies. In the JadeWeserPort, Germany’s only deep-sea container terminal which opened in 2012, for example, a platform is used where the ship and all ship suppliers, as well as the port authority, can enter and access data independently that are affecting their business. This allows for better planning and better services.3 In a recent report (Capgemini Consulting and MIT Center for Digital Business 2017), it appears that digitally mature companies are 9–26% more profitable than average industry peers. The platform increased the use of digital communication already. Documents are now uploaded and shared electronically while they have been sent via fax beforehand. Costumers and service providers are connected directly and do not need an agent anymore. Waiting times are reduced as the ship can directly communicate delays or other interruptions with all participating parties. The ship now stands in the centre of communication. This development requires a drastic change in processes. Trust has to be built along the chain; standards have to be developed to exchange information and data. The IT solutions that are available today, such as IoT or blockchain, pay into this development, as it makes many of these changes possible (Lasi et al. 2014).

5.5

Internet of Things and Physical Internet

As discussed previously, the transition to Industry 4.0 involves an advanced level of automation and a seamless management of real-time data. Therefore, any digital transformation strategy has to address three themes: smart things (assets, machines or products), connectivity infrastructure, and cognitive systems. To understand these three fields of play, Haller et al. (2009) emphasised that a high resolution

3

See here: https://portal.jadeweserport.de/IPMS/center.htm.

82

M. Acciaro et al.

Table 5.1 The Top 10 IoT Segments in 2018, based on 1600 real IoT projects IoT segment

Global share of IoT projectsa (%)

Details Americas (%)

Smart city 23 34 Connected industry 17 45 Connected building 12 53 Connected car 11 54 Smart energy 10 42 Other 8 50 Connected health 6 55 Smart supply chain 5 49 Smart agriculture 4 39 Smart retail 4 53 a Not including consumer IoT projects, e.g. wearables, home Source IoT Analytics (2018)

Europe (%)

APAC (%)

45 31 33 30 35 34 29 36 26 35

18 20 13 12 19 11 15 12 31 9

management requires real-world visibility and that is ultimately the business value of the internet of things (IoT). In a broader scale, IoT is already revolutionising industries and cities with serious societal ramifications. Operations that involve safety, facility management, energy consumption and urban traffic are all areas, among others, where IoT can enable efficient governance and capture more value for end-users. However, while academia has been vehement about the topic, the pace of industry adoption, although continuously growing, does not match early expectations as can be discern in Table 5.1. Several managerial and technical factors can help understand this trend. For instance, Capgemini4 reports that in some sectors, including transportation, 57% of the management concede not having a data-driven culture in their corporation. This scepticism decrypts the difficulties that companies face to adopt IoT, in its present format, to answer their business need. IoT, as non-mature technology, faces obstacles in scaling up industry adoption. Arguably, the most pronounced limitation is the fragmentation in the communication protocols.5 IoT has a broad field of applications leading to the deployment of a large panel of connectivity options. As each business case comes with a specific set of technical requirements, the disparity in protocols and standards obstructs the potential for a seamless machine-to-machine (M2M) interaction. The new venue of

4

Digital Engineering Survey, April–May 2018 (N = 1013). Such as RFID, cellular, wireless and satellite.

5

5 Technological Change and Logistics …

83

5G technology with promising features6 will significantly attenuate this fragmentation (Palattella, et al. 2016), and will facilitate interoperability among the systems (Wollschlaeger et al. 2017). Likewise, cybersecurity presents another realm of issues for IoT given that most extant technologies suffer from privacy and hacking vulnerabilities (Gubbi et al. 2013). Although IoT encounters structural difficulties in the deployment phase, the digital transformation is afoot. As the European Commission strengthens in its “Factories of the Future” strategy,7 the drives for this dynamic come from market competitivity and consumer behaviour. From a retro-perspective, it has become clearer that IoT is a market reality and a key supporting platform in any customer-centric business model. Take the digital twin technology as an example. The underlying concept is to mimic physical objects using digital replicas connected to real-life sensors. The aim is to monitor real-time performance across the entire life cycle. The gain is substantial not only for R&D but also for industries like shipping, where remote troubleshooting could be managed entirely off-board cutting overhead costs. The IoT paradigm goes beyond sharing the sensor-based data among connected “things”. The aim is to construct a fully digital representation of the physical world where smart things collaborate autonomously to service a better customer experience. To the extreme, this vision could allow for cargo to move seamlessly across multiple modes of transport in what is referred to as Physical Internet (PI). By exploiting the potential of modularised transport containers, the concept of PI envisages a radical paradigm shift where materials and products are handled like data packages on the Internet (Montreuil 2011a, b). This approach will require a substantial improvement in world digital infrastructure, and there is a lot of focus on its potential. The European Union has funded several projects (e.g. SENSE— Accelerating the Path Towards Physical Internet) aimed at exploring the applicability of this concept within the broader framework of its Strategic Transport Research and Innovation Agenda (STRIA) Roadmap on Connected and Automated Transport (European Commission 2019).

5.6

Block-Chain: The Game Changer

In a recent publication, DNV-GL (2018) reports that container vessels were in port/ at anchor roughly 37% of the time in 2017. A substantial productivity loss for liners that could be improved through harmonised port operations and efficient asset allocation. According to the World Bank, in 2016, shippers needed on average 56.25 h to comply with export procedures with an estimated cost of roughly $139.

6

Such as network bandwidth capacity, latency and coverage. To make manufacturing accounts for 20% of GDP by 2020.

7

84

M. Acciaro et al.

If the fees of shipping the bill of lading by air and issuing a letter of credit were to be considered, the total cost of this paper-intensive process would rise substantially. To answer these two needs of process harmonisation and asset allocation, IoT systems alone cannot suffice, and artificial intelligence (AI) and connectivity have to play a broader role. As the efficiency approach goes beyond simple monitoring, the IoT core value as defined by Gubbi et al. (2013) cannot be achieved without the support of automated cognitive systems in the background to improve operations. Uber and Lyft AI-powered algorithms, for instance, can hire and manage drivers, using their GPS positions, just by manipulating the prices to balance supply and demand in any location at any time. With limited to no human interference, Uber and Lyft increase their bottom-line operations while removing all overhead costs. IoT faces scalability issues, and block-chain with its key features has the potential to solve these issues. As many heterogeneous devices are deployed across the supply chain, IoT systems are not all fully integrated, which limits their scope of use. After MSC announced its plan to equip 50,000 dry containers with IoT sensors to improve container allocation and planning distribution, experts pointed out underlying risks of confidentiality breach. Since containers are in a shared resource pool across the multi-modal supply chain, MSC will collect and own data even while a competitor is carrying the containers. In such scenario, individual IoT deployment projects cannot create value, if the connectivity dimension is not considered. In that sense, block-chain technology8 offers the right middleware infrastructure for IoT to share reliable and harmonised data among stakeholders. To understand block-chain, and thereafter extrapolate its potential value for the maritime sector, a concrete definition is needed. Block-chain is a distributed digital ledger that can be public or private. Simply put, block-chain is a database, a bookkeeping record of transactions, that is encrypted and stored through multiple replicas into the network. As no entity has a central nor a privileged control over the network, block-chain uses consensus protocols to ensure that all nodes agree to a unique history of transactions that goes back to the genesis block, called the longest chain. The encryption allows the network to verify and to approve each newly broadcasted block of transactions, before adding it to the longest chain of old blocks. The mechanism is believed9 to be robust against attacks since offenders need to amass 51% of the computing power of the grid to distort the consensus and change the last block—an extremely expensive and technically difficult manoeuvre, especially in public distributed ledgers. Since data integrity is block-chain’s main feature, industries similar to shipping that are lacking transparency and trust, can enable agile and informed governance across their value chain. Aware of the magnitude of the opportunity, many ports launched pioneered projects to implement such technologies. On September 14,

8

Cloud computing is also a possible alternative that is already widely deployed. We refer the interested reader to Rimal and Lumb (2017). 9 Although by the time of writing, several double spending attacks have been recorded on some cryptocurrencies with small-scale deployment.

5 Technological Change and Logistics …

85

2016, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Wells Fargo and Brighann Cotton monitored the ever first transaction using the letter of credit in the form of a smart contract that automated a payment based on the GPS location of a shipment of 88 bales of cotton from Texas in the USA to Qingdao in China (Commonwealth Bank of Australia (Commonwealth Bank), Wells Fargo and Brighann Cotton 2016). Port of Antwerp has also launched several projects with block-chain. One, in particular, provides authentic digital phytosanitary certificates to Belgian authorities for releasing fruit cargo shipped from New Zealand, eliminating the need for paper certificates. More importantly, beyond a pure commercial perspective, block-chain can significantly enhance safety and regulation compliance. Given the growing number of regulations, deploying a public distributed ledger for inspections and surveys with authentic certificates and transparent data, will boost competitiveness and improve pricing mechanisms. Companies that build their reputation on corporate social responsibility business models will prefer to build partnerships with those companies that are able to offer comparable sustainability standards (Acciaro 2011). Block-chain has the potential to revolutionise business conduct as we know it. Although the existing versions suffer from confidentiality and latency10 limitations, several ongoing projects, within academia and the industry itself, are in advanced stages to overcome these shortcomings.

5.7

Conclusions: What to Expect When You Are Expecting Digital Transformation?

Digitalisation has been identified as one of the main game changers for ports in the future. Its role in maritime logistics chains is, however, more complex to assess. The idea of Port 4.0 is tightly connected with the concept of Industry 4.0, that can be seen more as an intent declaration than the actual description of current industry trends. Similarly, also for ports digitalisation should be seen as an enabler and not as an aim in itself. Digitalisation processes need to be stirred in the direction of the strategic goals set by port managers and aimed at resolving the most urgent sectoral challenges. Particular reference should be made in relation to the role of ports in smart cities. The role of new technologies in the port-city relationship is perhaps one of the most prolific areas for the use of new technologies in terms of improving the quality of life, increasing mobility, managing tourist flows, and improving the use of port space. In addition to the availability of advanced data management systems, many cities are carrying out automation projects, traffic management and integrated service provision through online platforms.

10

Bitcoin based blockchain can perform only 3–5 transactions per second (TPS) and Ethereum based blockchain 15TPS compared to 193TPS for Paypal and 1667TPS for Visa.

86

M. Acciaro et al.

While digitalisation can deliver substantial benefits in terms of efficiency and service quality, it can be instrumental in containing environmental costs. As sustainability is perceived as one of the main challenges of port-cities, digitalisation is a particularly welcome development. Although most digital technologies’ proponents make reference to these possibilities, little is documented of their actual impact on advancing port-city sustainability. In the case of smart cities, which is also the subject of this book, it is important to stress, however, the role that new technologies should play in terms of their relationship with ports and logistics in general. In order for new technologies to effectively improve the living conditions in port-cities, it is important that the needs of the inhabitants are at the basis of the technological choice selected. Despite the enthusiasm and persistence of the topic, one of the key aspects for the adoption of new digital technologies, it requires particular attention to the processes of strategic planning for port-cities. Only in this way can the opportunities for improving the competitiveness of a port, or of a logistics chain, associated with the concept of “Port 4.0” be fully realised and avoid, on the one hand, social tensions and, on the other, encourage the development of a port system focused on improving value chains and safeguarding the well-being of local communities and the environment.

References Acciaro, M. (2011). Pricing in sustainable global container transport. International Journal of Decision Sciences, Risk and Management, 3(3–4), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJDSRM. 2011.046151. Acciaro, M. (May 2, 2018). Jusqu’où va l’intelligence des villes portuaires smart? [engl.: How smart are smart ports?] (L. Tribune, Hrsg.). La Tribune. https://www.latribune.fr/opinions/ tribunes/jusqu-ou-va-l-intelligence-des-villes-portuaires-smart-777271.html. Acciaro, M., & McKinnon, A. (May 25, 2015). Efficient hinterland transport infrastructure and services for large container ports. International Transport Forum, 75–101. https://doi.org/10. 1787/9789282107850-5-en. Brümmerstedt, K., & Renken, K. (2018). Nachholbedarf für Mehrzweck-Terminals [engl.: Backlog in Multi-Purpose Terminals]. HANSA International Maritime Journal, 42–43. ISSN: 0017-7504. Buxbaum, P. (February 22, 2018). Port 4.0-hamburg moves toward improved infrastructure and digitalization. Global Trade. http://www.globaltrademag.com/eu-trade/port-4-0. Capgemini Consulting; MIT Center for Digital Business. (2017). The Digital Advantage: How digital leaders outperform their peers in every industry. Capgemini Consulting and MIT Center for Digital Business. https://www.capgemini.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/The_ Digital_Advantage__How_Digital_Leaders_Outperform_their_Peers_in_Every_Industry.pdf. Cariou, P. (2008). Liner shipping strategies: An overview. International Journal of Ocean Systems Management, 1. doi: 10.1.1.627.6624. Commonwealth Bank of Australia (Commonwealth Bank), Wells Fargo and Brighann Cotton. (October 24, 2016). Commonwealth Bank of Australia. Commonwealth Bank, Wells Fargo and Brighann Cotton Pioneer Landmark Blockchain Trade Transation. https://www.commbank. com.au/guidance/newsroom/CBA-Wells-Fargo-blockchain-experiment-201610.html.

5 Technological Change and Logistics …

87

Cullinane, K., & Cullinane, S. (2013). Atmospheric emissions from shipping: The need for regulation and approaches to compliance. Transport Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01441647.2013.806604. DNV GL. (2018). Maritime Forecast to 2050. Energy transition outlook 2018, Past and Present Shipping (p. 25). https://eto.dnvgl.com/2018/maritime. European Commission. (2019). STRIA roadmap on connected and automated transport: Road, rail and waterborne. Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Directorate H—Transport Unit H2—Surface Transport. doi: EUR KI-02-17-940-EN-N. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). (2010). Ideas. Innovation. Prosperity— High Tech Strategy 2020 for Germany. Bonn: Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Innovation Policy Framework Division. Fenton, P. (January 2017). The role of port cities and transnational municipal networks in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on land and at sea from shipping—An assessment of the World Ports Climate Initiative. Marine Policy, 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol. 2015.12.012. Ferrari, C., Parola, F., & Tei, A. (2015). Governance models and port concessions in Europe: Commonalities, critical issues and policy perspectives. Transport Policy, 41, 60–67. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.03.012. Gubbi, J., Buyya, R., Marusic, S., & Palaniswami, M. (2013, September). Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions. Future Generation Computer Systems, 7, 1645–1660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2013.01.010. Haller, S., Karnouskos, S., & Schroth, C. (2009). The Internet of Things in an Enterprise Context. Future Internet Symposium FIS 2008 (pp. 14–28). Berlin Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-642-00985-3_2. Heilig, L., Schwarze, S., & Voß, S. (2017). An analysis of digital transformation in the history and future of modern ports. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences HICSS, (pp. 1341–1350). http://hdl.handle.net/10125/41313. Heilig, L., & Voß, S. (2017). Information systems in seaports: A categorization and overview. Information Technology and Management, 18(3), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799016-0269-1. Hummels, D. (Summer 2007). Transportation costs and international trade in the second era of globalization. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3, 131–154. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.21.3.131. IoT Analytics. (2018). IoT Project List: Database of Enterprise IoT Projects 2018. https://iotanalytics.com/product/list-of-1600-enterprise-iot-projects-2018. Jahn, C., Brümmerstedt, K., Fiedler, R., & Renken, K. (2018). Impact of the megatrend digitalization on maritime logistics—Analysis of opportunities and threats. TRA Transport Research Arena 2018. Vienna. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1486487. Lasi, H., Kemper, H.-G., Fettke, P., Feld, T., & Hoffmann, M. (2014). Industry 4.0. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 239–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-014-0334-4. Montreuil, B. (2011, May). Toward a physical internet: Meeting the global logistics sustainability grand challenge. Logistics Research, 2–3, 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12159-011-0045-x. Montreuil, B. (2011b). Toward a Physical Internet: meeting the global logistics sustainability grand challenge. Logistics Research, 3(2–3), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12159-011-0045-x. Palattella, M. R., Dohler, M., Grieco, L. A., Rizzo, G., Torsner, J., Engel, T., & Ladid, L. (2016). Internet of things in the 5G Era: Enablers, architecture, and business models. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 510–527. https://doi.org/10.1109/jsac.2016.2525418. Parola, F., Risitano, M., Ferretti, M., & Panetti, E. (2017). The drivers of port competitiveness: A critical review. Transport Reviews, 37(1), 116–138. PLANCO Consulting GmbH, Essen. (2015). Fortschreibung der Berechnungen zur regional- und gesamtwirtschaftlichen Bedeutung des Hamburger Hafens für das Jahgr 2014, Schlussbericht [Report: Calculations for regional and national Role of the Hamburg Port for the Year 2014]. https://www.hamburg-port-authority.de/fileadmin/user_upload/PLANCO-Schlussbericht2014_ final.pdf.

88

M. Acciaro et al.

Rimal, B. P., & Lumb, I. (2017). The rise of cloud computing in the era of emerging networked society. In Cloud Computing (pp. 3–25). Cham: Springer. Sanchez-Gonzalez, P.-L., Díaz-Gutiérrez, D., Leo, T. J., & Núñez-Rivas, L. R. (2019). Toward digitalization of maritime transport? Sensors, 19(4), 926–948. Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Song, D.-W., & Panayides, P. M. (2017). Global supply chain integration and competitiveness of port terminals. In J. Wang, D. Olivier, T. Notteboom, & B. Slack (Eds.), Ports, cities, and global supply chains (pp. 43–56). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830701848953. Stich, V., Adema, J., Blum, M., & Reschke, J. (2015). Supply Chain 4.0: Logistikdienstleister im Kontext der vierten industriellen Revolution [engl.: Supply Chain 4.0: Logistic service providers within the fourth industrial revolution]. In Logistik – eine Industrie, die (sich) bewegt (pp. 63–76). Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10609-6_6. ten Hompel, M., & Henke, M. (2014). Logistik 4.0. In T. Bauernhansl, M. ten Hompel, & B. Vogel-Heuser (Eds.), Industrie 4.0 in Produktion, Automatisierung und Logistik [Industry 4.0 in manufacturing, automation and logistics] (pp. 615–624). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-04682-8_32. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNCTAD. (2017). Review of Maritime Transport 2017. United Nations Publication. ISBN 978-92-1-112922-9 Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. (2014). Port of Vancouver. Jobs Infographic: https://www. portvancouver.com/about-us/asr2014_100000jobsa_text/. Wollschlaeger, M., Sauter, T., & Jasperneite, J. (March 21, 2017). The Future of Industrial Communication—Automation Networks in the Era of the Internet of Things and Industry 4.0. IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine, 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1109/mie.2017.2649104.

Chapter 6

From Planning the Port/City to Planning the Port-City: Exploring the Economic Interface in European Port Cities Karel B. J. Van den Berghe and Tom A. Daamen

Abstract In last three decades, planning agencies of most ports have institutionally evolved into a (semi-) independent port authority. The rationale behind this process is that port authorities are able to react more quickly to changing logistical and spatial preferences of maritime firms, hence increasing the competitiveness of ports. Although these dedicated port authorities have proven to be largely successful, new economic, social, and environmental challenges are quickly catching up on these port governance models, and particularly leads to (spatial) policy ‘conflicts’ between port and city. This chapter starts by assessing this conflict and argue that the conflict is partly a result of dominant—often also academic—spatial representations of the port city as two separate entities. To escape this divisive conception of contemporary port cities, this chapter presents a relational visualisation method that is able to analyse the economic interface between port and city. Based on our results, we reflect back on our proposition and argue that the core challenge today for researchers and policy makers is acknowledging the bias of port/city, being arguably a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hence, we turn the idea of (planning the) port/city conflicts into planning the port-city’s strengths and weaknesses.







Keywords Port-cities Spatial policy Relational approach methodology Regional economic development




6.1


Visualisation

Introduction

Increasingly, the landlord role of port authorities (PAs) is being challenged (van der Lugt et al. 2015). As a landlord, the main task of a PA is the basic development and management of its port area. Part of latter is to make (new) land ready for leasing, for example, by making sure that quays, locks and docks meet the requirements K. B. J. Van den Berghe (&)
T. A. Daamen Department of Management in the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, Julianalaan 134, 2628, BL Delft, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 A. Carpenter and R. Lozano (eds.), European Port Cities in Transition, Strategies for Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9_6

89

90

K. B. J. Van den Berghe and T. A. Daamen

(e.g. deep water access) of the maritime firms wanting to rent and use the land (Verhoeven 2010). During last two to three decades, this ability to adapt their infrastructure and port area to the changing requirements of maritime firms became the prime way to remain competitive and, as such, performative (van der Lugt et al. 2013). However, it became clear that this ability required a change of the traditional institutional structure of PAs (Verhoeven 2010). Port affairs used to be one of the many administrative tasks of urban governments or even, in some cases, the responsibility of the mayor-entrepreneur. However, during the second half of the 20th century the maritime industry, as with so many industries, became increasingly global, corporate and was scaling up, vertically and horizontally. Consequently, the available time to implement the required infrastructure changes became too short for the traditional democratic policy process of urban governments, eventually thus, influencing the competitive level of the port itself (van der Lugt et al. 2013). To increase the speed of decision-making in this competitive environment, during last two decades, most PAs became (semi-) independent organizations with a management team and a separate financial and investment budget (Verhoeven 2010). A PA’s business model is commercial in operation, that is that a PA has to be break-even at least, preferable making profit. Income is earned by leasing land or by charging fees to incoming ships. A significant part of the profit is transferred as a dividend to certain stakeholders, in most cases the urban government (de Langen and Heij 2014). Arguably, this started a self-fulfilling prophecy. The logistical maritime sector especially experienced a thorough economy of scale, best illustrated by the container sector, in volume, size of ships and vertical and horizontal M&A (Jacobs and Notteboom 2009; Ng et al. 2014; OECD 2013). Consequently, rapidly the global maritime logistical sector moved towards a polarized hub-and-spoke network, changing the (global) market-shares inevitable with winners (cf. ‘Rotterdamization’ Notteboom 2018), but far more losers among the ports (cf. Ducruet et al. 2018). Especially for these ‘winners’, the question, though, is how far this is a ‘natural’ process or an induced process? Indeed, (implicitly) the dividend based business model of the (semi-) independent PAs favours (financial) growth and a focus on a (short-term) return of (mostly public) investments. The maritime logistics sector proved to be the best candidate as especially this sector needs on the one hand significant storage room for their terminals and on the other hand generates more ship movements, hence thus the self-fulfilling prophecy. As explained by other researchers in detail, the effects of this reciprocal relationship between ‘natural’ market preferences and regional/local institutional settings, is especially true for the port of Rotterdam. Rotterdam was chosen strategically during the 1980s as a key ‘mainport’ within (national) policy documents (Daamen 2010; Huijs and Troost 2014), meaning public investments since then were foremost used to (re)develop and improve the logistical parts of their port areas, within and towards the fore- and hinterland. This was done, for example, by creating new terminals, deepening canals, rivers, docks or building new road- or railways. Three decades of this reciprocal relation between (regional/local) policy and (global) market preferences

6 From Planning the Port/City to Planning …

91

made that port areas grew significantly in spatial terms, and increasingly the revenues of PAs are based on logistical activities (Van den Berghe et al. 2019). This self-fulfilling prophecy—both for ‘winners’ and ‘losers’—is not without a risk. We increasingly observe (negative) consequences of the reciprocal relationship leading to the question: What if the financial short-term rational of the current business model of PAs no longer outweighs its (long-term) negative consequences? This question was put forward by the Dutch Council for Environment and Infrastructure (RLI) in their report ‘Beyond the Mainport’ (RLI 2016). The RLI argues that the basic rationale of the mainport policy, namely that an increase in throughput equals an increase in economic competitiveness [put forward as “the air/ seaports are the economic engines of The Netherlands” (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu 2016)], is not/no longer correct, hence questioning the policy—and thus implicitly also the business model of the PAs—favouring logistical activities. The aim of this chapter is to understand the more abstract background of this debate. To do this, the proposition of this chapter is that the reciprocal relationship between the market preference of the (in particular logistical) maritime sector and the adaption of the institutional structure of the port city (cf. landlord PAs) during last decades, has created a (self-fulfilling) bias of reality: namely that port and city are two different entities. Arguably, this bias is by now taking by granted, not at least within academia. Often, papers’ argument of a separated port and city start by citing Bird (1963) or Hoyle (1989), authors of the functional-morphological sequential Anyport and Port-City interface model, respectively. These models do explain reality. Indeed in (m)any port (-cities) around the world, maritime functions indeed effectively moved out of urban cores. However, during the 20th century, this was also true for many other (former core) urban functions as retail, transport or sport (Ducruet and Lee 2006). The difference between the port and these functions today, is that the latter are still (institutionally) part of the city, while the port is not. Hence, in other words, by speaking of port and city, are we referring to ‘reality’ or are we in fact referring to the bias? It is argued that having this discussion is a necessary one, because today after decades of (implicit) ‘mainport’ policy, the (conflictual) discussion between port and city is on an important tipping point, both in academia (cf. Daamen and Louw 2016; Wiegmans and Louw 2011) as in policy (cf. RLI 2016). The question then arises: “Do we indeed now study and adapt our understanding and policy of this conflict between port and city we encounter1 or do we check first if our—in this chapter proposed—self-fulfilling bias (by now) is the case or not?” By questioning the (biased) view of the port city, this chapter situates itself within a broader discussion within spatial planning (Cooke 2018; Gleye 2015) and human and economic geography (Boggs and Rantisi 2003; Paasi 2010), which

1

A good example of a contemporary conflict following the biased port-versus-city view is Amsterdam, whereas ‘HavenStad’, a full functioning port area, is being appointed by the city authority to be redeveloped as a residential area, based on the idea ‘port out, city in’ (Pliakis 2019).

92

K. B. J. Van den Berghe and T. A. Daamen

arguably can be related to the ‘relational turn’. Also, for port cities, this relational turn first was called upon (cf. Ng et al. 2014), and has recently been explored (Hesse 2017; Van den Berghe et al. 2018). After a short introduction of the relational approach (see Sect. 6.2), this chapter tries to figure out if and how to deal with the bias we encounter ‘between’/’within’ the port city, better known as the (relational) port-city interface (Hoyle 1989; Van den Berghe 2018; Van den Berghe et al. 2018). Therefore, this chapter’s research question is: Is there a better way to understand the port-city interface, and, if so, what policy recommendations does this imply? With this (pro-active) research question, this chapter (modestly) tries to engage in another important contemporary planning debate, namely how to be critical (realist) first (Archer et al. 2013; Næss 2015), but second also be able to (re)construct practical advice and foremost action in the spatial planning field (Cooke 2018; Jessop 2018)? To do so, this chapter develops a new methodological approach, explaining a visualization method that can be used as a tool (Sect. 6.3) to understand and (re) direct the policy of ports, cities, and of course port-cities. After presenting the application of this tool for the steel manufacturing sector in the port cities of Amsterdam and Ghent (Sect. 6.4), we end this paper with a discussion and conclude with some research and policy recommendations (Sect. 6.5).

6.2

The Relational Port-City

Within spatial applied sciences, such as geography or planning, three paradigms can be appointed, defining first how we perceive reality (in this paragraph by referring to ‘the region’), and second how, in particular for planning, we act upon this reality (cf. Bryant et al. 2011). As explained by Paasi (2010), Bathelt and Glückler (2003) or Agnew (2013), the first, and oldest one, is landscape research. Hereby a region (cf. reality) is being constructed by aggregating variables. The construction of regions based on classification involves measurements in all kinds of ways, from for example historical-cultural measurements (e.g. the Hellenistic region), geomorphological measurements (e.g. Köppen-climate zones) to spatial functional measurements (e.g. rural versus urban areas). Within this first paradigm, one can place the work of Bird (1963), Hayuth (1982) and Hoyle (1989)2 among others, being arguably the core papers that ‘established’ a ‘port’ and/versus ‘city’ view. The empirical logic behind these studies is to map ‘out of the blue’ spatial land use (cf. functional-morphological). In this case aggregation then is based on the variable ‘urban’ versus ‘maritime logistics’, resulting thus in the geographically definition of ‘port’ and ‘city’. This method also enables to construct (functional-morphological)

2

Although Hoyle (1989, p. 429) himself criticized the functional-morphological view on port cities stating that the port-city interface is “an interactive economic system” (Van den Berghe et al. 2018).

6 From Planning the Port/City to Planning …

93

timelines. If considering enough case studies, one can (extensively) make abstraction of the context, develop spatial models and in turn try to find general properties and patterns (Bhaskar 2008 [1975]; Sayer 2010 [1984]), cf. the Any Port model or Port-City Interface model (for a more elaborate view on these, see also Chap. 3 by Carpenter and Lozano (2019) in this book). The second paradigm relates to spatial science whereby the region is a given. Landscape as a naturalistic conception of space was replaced by an abstract conception, or a formal geometry. Whereas the first paradigm works towards the construction of a region, within this second paradigm, research starts from the constructed region. In other words, the region is taken for granted and one focusses on explaining its (broad) performance and operation. This positivist influenced paradigm is wide spread following it suits perfectly for the increased demand for applied research on the one hand, and the increasing use of (geographical) data on the other hand. Much of this data is gathered within the framework of statistical Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) regions. Back to the port city, arguably, this paradigm is the main reason of the creation of the (sub)discipline of ‘port geography’. Indeed, the ‘historical-monographic approach’ became increasingly replaced by (econometric) modelling and performance studies, focussing on for example supply chains and management structures (Ng et al. 2014, p. 86). Studies have started gathering data from the institutional-administrative defined port areas, making it on the one hand capable to compare them with each other (cf. ‘list mania’), but on the other hand, also enforcing further the idea that port and city are two separate (economic) entities. In turn, and this is the core of the self-fulfilling prophecy, the basic research design of such studies (logically) recommend towards policy that a dedicated institution will improve the ports’ competitiveness. The third perspective is the relational approach. It finds itself somewhere between landscape research and spatial science. On the one hand, it acknowledges the rationale and influence of regions, on the other hand it acknowledges that these regions are not a given, but are social constructs. In other words, “regions condition and are conditioned by politics, culture, economics, governance and power relations” (Paasi 2010, p. 2297). Back to the port city, this implies two things. First, the port and city exist as a structuralized effect, and hence are a reality defining and influencing our behaviour. In other words, because of mobility and environmental regulations for example, a grain trading firm as Cargill will open its terminal not in the city centre, but in a port area, regulating and thus allowing such functions to develop and prosper. Second, although port and city are structuralized effects, they are not an ‘absolute’ given but only ‘in permanence’. In other words, if no maritime functions, such as Cargill, would operate within port areas, these port areas (ditto for urban areas) stop existing, eventually becoming a (urbanist/architectural) relict (so-called ‘portscapes’) or just disappear in time. Although there are exceptions in studies applying these ideas (cf. for port studies Vance 1970), this third perspective is still little touched upon, especially towards practical (policy) advice (Cooke 2018), and hence a promising starting point to develop our visualization method.

94

6.3

K. B. J. Van den Berghe and T. A. Daamen

A Visualisation Method

Before the method used is explained, it is first necessary to explain three different aspects of networks: (i) its boundaries; (ii) its structure and hierarchy; and (iii) its pluralistic nature.

6.3.1

Networks

First, networks are per definition open and endless, in time as space. From an analytical point of view, this poses a problem, because this entails a network is impossible to examine as one does not know what to include and where to stop. Generally, the chosen ‘moment’ the analytical time is stopped depends strongly on the available data. Even if the data is relatively recent, the outcomes are per definition always dated as reality never stops. To analytically define the relevant extent of networks, Menzel and Fornahl (2009) argued to combine the thematic boundary and the spatial boundary of the network(s) taken into account. In other words, the spatial and relational characteristics of the network are combined to reveal its ‘horizon’ (Van Der Haegen and van Weesep 1974) beyond which the influence and relevance diminishes quickly. The thematic boundary distinguishes a network based on a common definition, for example a financial network, a logistical network, a social network, etc. As such, a network can be isolated from the environment it’s both part of and constitutes (e.g. a society). The spatial boundary isolates the network geographically from the same kind of network located elsewhere. Next, a network has a structure and hierarchy. Both are correlated and give an indication of the differences in importance among the nodes within the network (Denicolai et al. 2010). For example, if one deals with a hub-and-spoke network, the indication is that the central node is more important than the other nodes. To check this, one can apply different kinds of (social) network techniques computing centrality or connectivity figures (Yeung 2000). The third aspect is the pluralistic nature of networks. This is often forgotten, not at least within port studies. Indeed, (quantitative) studies tend to focus on one particular type of network. For example by focussing on container flows to reveal the changing (global) network of container ports (Ducruet 2016), or corporate (HQ-subsidiary) firm relations to find a (global) hierarchy of cities (Sassen 2000; Taylor et al. 2008). However, there is limited analysis on the ‘overall network’ constituted by different types of networks together. The lack of such research is due to the fact that disentangling correlated networks is a difficult exercise (Boggs and Rantisi 2003), although a better understanding of the confluence of different types of networks, their different structures and different hierarchies can help to understand locational differences. For example, Giuliani (2007) analysed the characteristics of the business and knowledge networks for three wine clusters in Italy. Both

6 From Planning the Port/City to Planning …

95

networks have a strongly differing structure and hierarchy. While a business network is homogenous and fairly distributed, connecting fairly all economic actors within a certain region (e.g. rotary club), a knowledge network is very selective, less dense with only a limit of relations, and strong hierarchically. In other words, following the rationales different networks have, in this case respectively information and trust, networks differ in structure and hierarchy (Boschma 2005; Malmberg 2003). How these two—or more—networks relate and interfere with each other, can help to better understand the complex relation between flows and spaces, also for port cities (cf. Ng et al. 2014). Taken into account the network boundaries, the structure and hierarchy of networks, and the plurality of networks at work, in this research, related to our research subject—the port-city interface, we focus on six non-exclusive different types of networks (Table 6.1). First, the physical and linear exchange of (i) commodities and production inputs and outputs through transhipment and cargo handling is one of the main exchange relations within port (city) regions. Goods are bought or sold for storage (cf. speculation) or processing further in the value chain. Second, (ii) the energetic relations differ from commodities as they are input for the production process, and not as input for the production of the product. Third, (iii) R&D deal with knowledge production among actors. Although these can be internalised within one actor—as all relations—we focus in particular on the inter-firm knowledge production (de Langen 2002). Fourth, IT, insurance, engineering, and legal supporting services are known as (iv) advanced producer services (Jacobs et al. 2010). Fifth, (v) associations increase the chance of cooperation, crossovers and possible innovation trajectories (de Langen 2002). Last, we focus on (vi) the shareholder relations, going from full ownership to partial shareholders. Table 6.1 The different networks taken into consideration (Van den Berghe et al. 2018) Relational type

Explanation

1

For the production of goods

Input/output

Examples

Grains, diesel, organic waste 2 Energetic Used as input for support of production of goods Electricity, diesel, heat 3 R&D The (fundamental) research and development of Processes in (lab-) production of goods or production processes environments 4 Advanced Services in support of (maritime) production/ Engineering, IT producer transport activities services, insurance, services legal advice 5 Membership/ Organisation in which companies/institutions meet Association, labour association each other (de Langen 2002) union, chamber of commerce 6 Shareholder Full or partial ownership of shares Mother/daughter companies Source Kuipers et al. (2015), Vandermeulen et al. (2010), annual company reports, company websites, Orbis/Belfirst Bureau van Dijk, LISA database

96

6.3.2

K. B. J. Van den Berghe and T. A. Daamen

Database Model

The database model used for this chapter has a typical two-table From-To structure. In other words, nodal data (the actors involved) is combined with the (6-type) relational data connecting these different nodes. This database model thus creates the network and can be visualised eventually. However, for our visualisation we needed to add a second layer to examine the port-city interface. Indeed, we needed to ‘locate’ the nodes in space, in this case port or city. To do this, we use the institutional-administrative areas of port(s) and city/cities involved. For the nodal data, we relied on several national and international socio-economic databases. For Belgium and The Netherlands respectively, the national datasets used were the Knack Top Trends database and the ‘FOD Economie Kruispuntbank van Ondernemingen (KBO)’ from the National Bank of Belgium (NBB), and the LISA (Landelijk Informatiesysteem van Arbeidsplaatsen en vestigingen) database (van Oort 2004). These databases were completed with the international database Orbis Bureau van Dijk, which publishes trans-national and regional firm data collected from different national databases. The different databases can be connected by the unique settlement number given to every economic actor. The nodal database gives us the possibility to differentiate the economic actors along different variables, such as their (institutional) location (cf. port, city), the number of employees, public/private, (trans)national, profit, (in)tangible assets, etc. Similar to the nodal data, the relational data can be differentiated. The first and most important variable is the general type of relation (Table 6.1). Our database offers the possibility to further differentiate the relational data. Although this data is more difficult to collect plus is more arbitrary, relations can be differentiated based on for example financial data (how much value is transferred), throughput data (tonnage), or shareholder participation (percentage of stocks owned). The database model links the nodal and relational table on a one-to-many relational (e.g. one company can have relations with more than one company) (Fig. 6.1). The obtained database (constructed using Microsoft Access 2016) provides us thus with multiple visualisation options, related to the research question asked. In this research, we have chosen to use a ‘basic’ visualisation option, whereby we differentiate the nodes based on their employment figures on the one hand, and the relational data based on their (cf. #6) type of relation. Latter could be further differentiated, most logically based on their quantitative financial or tonnage data, but the downside is that this makes the overall network more difficult to interpret (cf. difficult to quantify knowledge), and hence (implicitly) devalues some types of network in favour of other.

6 From Planning the Port/City to Planning …

97

Fig. 6.1 The database model design linking the nodal company socio-economic table (left and right) with the relational From/To table (middle) using a one-to-many relation. (cf. key symbols are the primary keys within the Access database)

6.3.3

Visualisation

The next step is to convert and implement the database in ArcGIS ArcMAP 10.3. This gives us two linked shapefiles: a point features shapefile and a polyline features shapefile. These two shapefiles are subsequently transformed to a geographical network (GN). Within ArcMap, this GN can eventually be combined with the institutional-administrative layer to locate the network in space. However, the ‘regular’ Euclidian visualisation gave us an analytical problem (cf. Adams 2014). Some nodes in our network are located on the same location (cf. high rise office building) or closely together, especially within linear port areas. Hence, once the relations are plotted, many of these overlap and become blurred or covered, making important information lost in the visualisation (Fig. 6.2). One needs to make abstraction of the geographical Euclidian distances, without losing its information. To achieve this, we used ArcMAP extension Schematics.3 Frequently used within engineering-electrical analyses, schematics visualises networks by topological spreading the nodes and relations. However, it does not lose the coordinates attached to the nodes, enabling it to group the nodes based on their administrative location. Hence, we can present our visualisation method (Fig. 6.3).

6.4

Results

In this section, the relational port-city interfaces of the steel manufacturing sector in the port-cities of Ghent and Amsterdam is represented.

3

https://www.esri.com/en-us/arcgis/products/arcgis-schematics/overview.

98

K. B. J. Van den Berghe and T. A. Daamen

Fig. 6.2 Euclidian visualisation of the steel manufacturing sector in Ghent, total network and zoom in on the Port of Ghent where involved nodes are closely located to each other, overall visualisation unsuitable for further analysis

Fig. 6.3 Visualisation method combining institutional-administrative information (left) and the structure, hierarchy and direction (From/To) of the involved economic network(s) data (right), example Ghent (Van den Berghe et al. 2018)

6 From Planning the Port/City to Planning …

6.4.1

99

The Steel Manufacturing Sector in Ghent

The steel manufacturing sector in Ghent centres around its main steel plant, ArcelorMittal Ghent. The steel plant was founded in 1962, under the name Sidmar in the port of Ghent, along the canal Ghent-Terneuzen. Characterizing the whole (European and global) steel market (Capron 2003; Mény et al. 1987), also Sidmar experienced several mergers and consolidations. First, it became part of the Luxembourg located Arcelor in 2002. Shortly after, Arcelor merged with the Indian Mittal Steel, forming ArcelorMittal, by far the biggest steel producer worldwide (Kanter et al. 2006). Taking in account this short contextual description of the steel plant in Ghent, we present the relational port-city interface of the steel manufacturing sector in Ghent (Fig. 6.4). The port-city interface represents the overall network of the six (if relevant) different networks, this within, between and beyond the institutional-administrative port city of Ghent.

Fig. 6.4 The relational port-city interface of the steel manufacturing sector in Ghent, 2018

100

K. B. J. Van den Berghe and T. A. Daamen

As shown in Fig. 6.4, the steel plant in Ghent is designed as a maritime integrated plant. This implies that almost all production processes take place within the same factory; from the intake of iron ore and coal bulk ships to the eventual output of steel plates and other steel products by train or ship. In other words, the (i) Input/ Output network is limited, implying we can label the steel plant as a stand-alone actor—reflected also in the number of employees. The only existing inter-firm input/output relations are rather of minor importance for the production of steel and deal with the back-up input of coal, the output of blast furnace slag that is converted to concrete, and the input and output of residual (production and emission) gasses. The latter relates to the only (ii) energetic relation, namely the burning of emission gasses to produce electricity, used for the production process (Van Dyck 2009). The (iii) R&D network reveals an important element of the existing steel manufacturing port-city interface in Ghent. As shown, a rather remarkable regional knowledge network exists between the steel plant and several (semi-)private/public research firms clustered in the science park Zwijnaarde of the Ghent University. The structure and hierarchy of the R&D network, however, shows that not the steel mill itself is central. The R&D network centres around OCAS. To explain this, one has to understand the history of the ‘two’ parts of the knowledge network, the steel mill and the Ghent University. First, OCAS was founded in 1948 as the engineering department within Cockerill-Sambre steel group, a (far) predecessor of ArcelorMittal today. Second, the Ghent University has a long tradition in the academic research of steel, related to its industrial heritage (Boussauw 2014). However, the presence of both (production and research related to steel manufacturing) within Ghent, does not explain the current network. The moment the two strategically coupled (Jacobs and Lagendijk 2014; Van den Berghe et al. 2018) can be appointed to 2004 when the decision was made to change the engineering department of ArcelorMittal— thus OCAS—into a joint-venture (JV) research institution together with the Flemish Government, latter investing 30 million euros. This was intentional and part of the long-term strategic plan ‘Steel-Friendly Flanders’ aimed at strengthening the knowledge relation between the academic part and the industrial part of the steel manufacturing sector (Vlaamse Overheid 2004). Being a JV, OCAS could broaden its research activities beyond ArcelorMittal’s products and interests, and actively participate within partnerships and (academic) research programs, even with competitors of ArcelorMittal as Borit. The establishment of this hub between research and production soon proved to be successful and within a few years, numerous spin-offs were established on the one hand, while also OCAS could increase its research budget to 100 million euros and double its research employees (Mooijman 2006; OCAS 2016). Related to the knowledge network emerged within and around the Science Park of the university, is the network of (v) memberships whereby the research centres are part of the consortium Materials Research Cluster (MRC) joining forces and sharing laboratory space and equipment. Finally, the financial network shows the independent character of the research cluster towards the industrial part, cf. ArcelorMittal. The research cluster is foremost controlled by public shareholders,

6 From Planning the Port/City to Planning …

101

but as explained, the most apparent part is that since its establishment as a JV, regional partners (cf. Flemish Government) have a say in the future of OCAS, and hence the (long-term) build-up knowledge network.

6.4.2

Amsterdam

The steel plant TATA Steel in Amsterdam celebrated recently in 2018 its 100th birthday since it was established in IJmuiden, a small municipality near Amsterdam where the 25 km long North Sea Canal coming from Amsterdam flows in the North Sea. 1918 is no coincidence, because World War I showed the importance of having at least one steel plant within the country when borders closed and import of steel—coming from Belgium/Germany/France prior to the war—stopped and constrained economic and military production processes (Versteegh 1994). Different than in the 19th century, it was no longer necessary to locate the steel plant close to the iron ore and coals mines (cf. Southern Belgium and Ruhr Area), but more strategically to locate the steel plant on a maritime location, where more easily the increasingly cheaper foreign coal and iron ore could be imported; hence the decision to build the Dutch steel plant (‘Hoogovens’) in Ijmuiden along the coast and the North Sea Canal connecting the hinterland (AWN 2006). Starting rather small, during next decades, the steel plant quickly enlarged significantly and became an integrated industrial complex wherein the different input and output of (residual) products is orchestrated. Similar to ArcelorMittal, especially since the 1970s, Hoogovens also experienced subsequent crises and consolidations. After a failed merger with the German Hoesch, Hoogovens eventually in 1999 merged with the—under Thatcher liberalized—British Steel into Corus (Baeten 2007; Wheelan 1999). At its turn, in 2007 Corus was bought by TATA Group and became part of TATA Steel, hence Hoogovens Ijmuiden became TATA Steel Ijmuiden (Fig. 6.5). TATA Steel Ijmuiden functions as an integrated steel plant within the port of Ijmuiden. The complex consists of different companies, creating thus, as shown, an inter-firm (i) input-output network. Although of course the main actor, illustrated by the hub-and-spoke structure, within this network is TATA Steel Ijmuiden, such network implies more interdependent relations within the production network. This interdependency became apparent recently following complains by neighbouring residential areas because of the emission of unhealthy and disturbing clouds of dust coming from the industrial complex. The clouds of dust come from the processing of the residual steel slags by Harsco Metals. Although technically being the fault of a different company, TATA Steel foremost received in national media bad publicity and had to launch a charming offensive (Kreling and Schoorl 2019). Similar to Ghent, the residual emission gasses are converted into (ii) electricity. Recently, TATA Steel installed PV installations to increase the input of solar energy, provided by a TATA subsidiary.

102

K. B. J. Van den Berghe and T. A. Daamen

Fig. 6.5 The relational port-city interface of the steel manufacturing sector in Amsterdam, 2018

The (iii) R&D network shows that TATA has a similar construction as ArcelorMittal prior to 2004. TATA runs its own R&D centre, TATA Steel Technology. Different with Ghent, though, is the connecting R&D network to TATA Steel Technology on the one hand, and second, the lack of connections with the city of Amsterdam. This has to do with historical and context reasons, when Hoogovens in 1939 found it necessary to create its own research and training centre, following the fact Amsterdam doesn’t have a technical university to provide dedicated employees for its factory; still the case today. This also explains why the R&D network extends to Delft University of Technology, some 60 km southwards. Further, relevant is the R&D network existing around the Hisarna project, in which TATA, together with other steel companies, is trying to build a new generation blast furnace, needing less coal and iron ore. As shown, TATA Steel Ijmuiden externalized more (iv) service relations than ArcelorMittal. The involved firms are mostly engineering firms specialized in maintaining machines. No relevant (vi) membership relations were detected. Finally, (vi) financially, one could argue most parts of the overall network are in foreign hands, mostly controlled by the Indian TATA group. This is even more so, because as shown a significant part of the steel output of TATA Steel Ijmuiden goes to TATA’s owned car company Jaguar/Land Rover. TATA controls (in)directly the R&D network in Delft, by being the main sponsor of the research departments.

6 From Planning the Port/City to Planning …

6.5

103

Discussion and Conclusions

Although the two case studies deal with the same economic sector, are relatively closely located, and therefore share a fairly similar path-dependent social, economic and institutional context, for numerous reasons one has to avoid making (simplistic) abstraction of the important differences in these path-dependent contexts. A ‘grand’ theory of the evolution of the port-city (interface) is thus not possible (cf. Rodrigo et al. 2014). However, what we can do is use our method and our empirical results to find general properties and patterns related to the port-city interface. One could argue this is exactly the same as the models of Bird (1963) or Hoyle (1989), which is true if they are critically seen in their descriptive quality, therefore we want to underline our results are descriptive, not explanatory (Sayer 2010 [1984], pp. 163– 164). Related to our proposition of our biased view on the port city, we now can assess if our empirical results based on another method (relational-institutional instead of functional-morphological) indeed provides similarities or differences. First, the results confirm that in relational terms, the port-city interface exists. We found significant networks between the maritime and urban economy that constitute and are constituted by the existence of the port-city interface, at least in reference to the steel manufacturing sector in Ghent. The latter is important to stress out because this result still does not say that the ‘overall’ port-city interface exist, or doesn’t exist, nor if we can label the interface ‘good’ or ‘less good’. As shown by Van den Berghe (2018), different—even numerous—interfaces exist within and around the port city of Ghent. This implies thus that we even cannot make a general statement of one port city. Indeed, for example in Ghent, the car manufacturing sector port-city interface is (almost) non-existent, at least not based on the type of relations considered. Taken this into account, we can state that for the steel manufacturing sector in Amsterdam, the port-city interface is weak—although differs if the urban economy of Amsterdam includes Delft, but this is another discussion -. In this sector, no significant economic relations exist, understood as a significant combination between the maritime and urban economy. However, similar to Ghent, Van den Berghe et al. (2018) also found that for other sectors in Amsterdam, such as the bio-based sector, do significantly constitute the port-city interface. At this point one could say this paper presents a paradox, because the port-city interfaces shown are existing and non-existing at the same time. The visualisation depends on the (specific or general) focus one has—a flexibility the database model offers. However, the plurality of possible visualisations is in essence the added value of the method. The goal was to see if there are other ‘truths’ of the port-city interface, derived from other applied perspectives. Indeed, applying a relational perspective does identify other findings of the port city. The relational geometries show that in contrast to the spatial perspective, (some) port and city (interfaces) did not separate (others did), but are (for some maybe more than ever) connected. Going one step further, and if one finds significant relations, one could argue that in this case (e.g. steel manufacturing interface Ghent), port and city are not/have never been separate entities. However, this in turn is also not true, because even for the

104

K. B. J. Van den Berghe and T. A. Daamen

steel manufacturing interface in Ghent, port and city are structuralized effects (in permanence though), not at least in regulation and institutional-administrative terms. To conclude: port and city are connected, and at the same time also separated (see also chapter by Carpenter and Lozano (2019) in this book). However, this is exactly the point and the main finding. Indeed, the relational geometries provide an example of the reciprocal relation of a region put forward by Paasi (2010, p. 2297), translated in this case: a port-city interface conditions and is conditioned by politics, culture, economics, governance and power relations. Hence, one can reflect on the second part of our research question, the pro-active part aimed at practical (policy) advice (Cooke 2018). First, for numerous reasons it is understandable that in many port cities, during last decades, (semi-)private port authorities were created. Following the spatial and economic changing preferences and context of maritime functions (as many other former core urban functions), it is indeed in terms of economic performance (cf. spatial science) not a bad idea to adapt your governance to the posed challenges, in this case by creating a dedicated institutional entity. Second, however, this new created institutional ‘reality’, based thus on a specific part (foremost spatial and logistical) of the port economy, at least ‘mentally’ can create a new reality, in turn influencing, after a while, our (spatial) policy, eventually thus creating a new ‘reality’. In other words, one could wonder if the observed (spatial) conflicts between port and city (cf. Wiegmans and Louw 2011) are ‘natural’ conflicts or self-fulfilling conflicts, an (implicit) outcome thus of the (landscape research) ‘observation’ decades ago, reinforced by following (spatial science) performance research, that port and city are two separate entities and today create huge problems/challenges (Daamen and Louw 2016). Within political debates regarding port-cities, quickly one can detect spatial ‘pro-city’ or ‘pro-port’ positions (cf. Wiegmans and Louw 2011). In many of these spatial policy discussions, both have legitimate reasons to be chosen for. However, we do want to stress out the self-fulfilling reciprocal relation between the used, and mostly taken for granted, bias towards ‘reality’, and the policy or (academic) research plans we formulate. To formulate one policy recommendation, we conclude therefore that first one has to acknowledge that the perceived conflicts in many port cities are not ‘natural’ ones, but arguably a ‘meta-conflict’. Indeed, for the number of port cities experiencing (spatial) conflicts, one can put a same number of port cities having none. In fact, this already poses the question ‘if the current applied policy strategy by port authorities to (re)improve the port-city relation by building maritime museums or build cruise terminals in the city centre (cf. waterfront) is really the right policy measure to create/improve the relation (what relation?); or in fact is just another aspect further accelerating our bias of the separate port city?’ Therefore, second, to answer such a question, one needs to understand each port city, or in fact each port-city interface. This can only be achieved if one really dives deeply into the case study as a researcher, but more especially as a policy maker. Although not at all perfect, we think our visualisation method has the potential to guide this ‘dive’.

6 From Planning the Port/City to Planning …

105

References Adams, R. E. (2014). Natura Urbans, Natura Urbanata: Ecological urbanism, circulation, and the immunization of nature. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32(1), 12–29. https://doi.org/10.1068/d17012. Agnew, J. A. (2013). Arguing with regions. Regional Studies, 47(1), 6–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00343404.2012.676738. Archer, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A., Lawson, T., & Norrie, A. (2013). Critical realism: Essential readings. London: Routledge. AWN. (2006). Van Hoogovens tot Tata. Archeologische Werkgroep Beverwijk-Heemskerk. (From Hoogovens to TATA. Archeological Working Group Beverwijk-Heemskerk). Baeten, P. (January 19, 2007). Korte historie van Hoogovens in IJmuiden: de ideale lokatie voor een staalbedrijf. Kennislink. (A short history of Hoogovens Ijmuiden: the ideal location for a steel plant. Knowledge Link). Bathelt, H., & Glückler, J. (2003). Toward a relational economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 3(2), 117–144. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/3.2.117. Bhaskar, R. (2008 [1975]). A realist theory of science. London: Routledge. Bird, J. (1963). The major seaports of the United Kingdom. London: Hutchinson. Boggs, J. S., & Rantisi, N. M. (2003). The ‘relational turn’ in economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 3(2), 109–116. Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61– 74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887. Boussauw, K. (2014). City profile: Ghent, Belgium. Cities, 40, Part A(0), 32–43. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.04.004. Bryant, L. R., Srnicek, N., & Harman, G. (2011). The speculative turn: Continental materialism and realism. Melbourne: Melbourne Press. Carpenter. A., & Lozano, R. (2019). Proposing a framework for anchoring sustainability relationships between ports and cities. In A. Carpenter & R. Lozano (Eds.) European port cities in transition: Moving towards more sustainable sea transport hubs. Strategies for Sustainability Series. Berlin: Springer. Capron, M. (2003). La sidérurgie en Wallonie entre Usinor, Duferco et Arcelor. CRISP (Steel manufacturing in Wallonia between Usinor, Duferco and Arcelor). Cooke, P. (2018). Retrospect and prospect: From a new dark age to a new dawn of planning enlightenment. European Planning Studies, 26(9), 1701–1713. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09654313.2018.1499429. Daamen, T. (2010). Strategy as force: Towards effective strategies for urban development projects: The case of rotterdam city ports. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Daamen, T., & Louw, E. (2016). Window on the Netherlands: The challenge of the dutch port-city interface. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie. de Langen, P. (2002). Clustering and performance: The case of maritime clustering in The Netherlands. Maritime Policy & Management, 29(3), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03088830210132605. de Langen, P., & Heij, C. (2014). Corporatisation and performance: A literature review and an analysis of the performance effects of the corporatisation of port of Rotterdam authority. Transport Reviews, 34(3), 396–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2014.905650. Denicolai, S., Zuchella, A., & Cioccarelli, G. (2010). Reputation, trust and relational centrality in local networks: an evolutionary geography perspective. In R. Boschma & R. Martin (Eds.), The handbook of evolutionary economic geography (p. 559). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Ducruet, C. (2016). The polarization of global container flows by interoceanic canals: Geographic coverage and network vulnerability. Maritime Policy & Management, 43(2), 242–260. https:// doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2015.1022612.

106

K. B. J. Van den Berghe and T. A. Daamen

Ducruet, C., Cuyala, S., & El Hosni, A. (2018). Maritime networks as systems of cities: The long-term interdependencies between global shipping flows and urban development (1890– 2010). Journal of Transport Geography, 66, 340–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017. 10.019. Ducruet, C., & Lee, S.-W. (2006). Frontline soldiers of globalisation: Port–city evolution and regional competition. GeoJournal, 67(2), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-006-9037-9. Giuliani, E. (2007). The selective nature of knowledge networks in clusters: Evidence from the wine industry. Journal of Economic Geography, 7(2), 139–168. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/ lbl014. Gleye, P. H. (2015). City planning versus urban planning: Resolving a Profession’s bifurcated heritage. Journal of Planning Literature, 30(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0885412214554088. Hayuth, Y. (1982). The port-urban interface—An area in transition. Area, 14(3), 219–224. doi: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20001825. Hesse, M. (2017). Approaching the relational nature of the port-city interface in Europe: Ties and tensions between seaports and the urban. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12282. Hoyle, B. S. (1989). The port city interface—Trends. Problems and Examples. Geoforum, 20(4), 429–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(89)90026-2. Huijs, M., & Troost, M. (March 2, 2014). Bruggen slaan tussen haven en stad. Rotterdam World Port City 2030. GO (Bridging the port and city). Jacobs, W., Ducruet, C., & De Langen, P. (2010). Integrating world cities into production networks: The case of port cities. Global Networks-a Journal of Transnational Affairs, 10(1), 92–113. Jacobs, W., & Lagendijk, A. (2014). Strategic coupling as capacity: How seaports connect to global flows of containerized transport. Global Networks, 14(1), 44–62. https://doi.org/10. 1111/glob.12035. Jacobs, W., & Notteboom, T. (2009). A theory on the co-evolution of seaports with application to container terminal development in the Rhine-Scheldt Delta. Jessop, B. (2018). Neoliberalization, uneven development, and Brexit: Further reflections on the organic crisis of the British state and society. European Planning Studies, 26(9), 1728–1746. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1501469. Kanter, J., Timmons, H., & Giridharadas, A. (June 25, 2006). Arcelor agrees to Mittal takeover. The New York Times. Kreling, T., & Schoorl, J. (February 25, 2019). Tata Steel zegt sorry voor hinder van aanhoudende stofwolken. Volkskrant (TATA says sorry for the annoyance from persistent dust clouds). Kuipers, B., De Jong, O., van Raak, R., Samders, F., Meesters, K., & van Dam, J. (2015). De Amsterdamse haven draait (groen) door: Op weg naar duurzaam concurrentievoordeel door inzet op de biobased en circulaire economie. (The port of Amsterdam turns green: Towards a sustainable competitive advantage through commitment to the biobased and circular economy). Malmberg, A. (2003). Beyond the cluster—local milieus and global economic connections. In J. Peck & H. W.-C. Yeung (Eds.), Remaking the global economy: Economic-geographical perspectives. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Mény, Y., Wright, V., & Rhodes, M. (1987). The politics of steel: Western Europe and the steel industry in the crisis years (1974–1984). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Menzel, M.-P., & Fornahl, D. (2009). Cluster life cycles—Dimensions and rationales of cluster evolution. Industrial and Corporate Change. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtp036. Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu. (2016). Actieagenda Schiphol. Brief aan de Tweede Kamer. (Schiphol Action Agenda. Lettre to the House of Representatives). Mooijman, R. (April 06, 2006). Het Imec van het staal. Onderzoekscentrum Arcelor Vlaams verankerd. De Standaard. (The Imec of steel. Anchoring the research centre of Arcelor). Næss, P. (2015). Critical realism, urban planning and urban research. European Planning Studies, 23(6), 1228–1244. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2014.994091.

6 From Planning the Port/City to Planning …

107

Ng, A. K. Y., Ducruet, C., Jacobs, W., Monios, J., Notteboom, T., Rodrigue, J.-P., et al. (2014). Port geography at the crossroads with human geography: Between flows and spaces. Journal of Transport Geography, 41, 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.08.012. Notteboom, T. (February 18, 2018). Towards a “Rotterdamisation” of the European container port system? PortEconomics. OCAS. (2015). OCAS: Company history. OECD. (2013). The competitiveness of global port-cities: Synthesis report. Retrieved from Rotterdam. Paasi, A. (2010). Commentary. Environment and Planning A, 42(10), 2296–2301. https://doi.org/ 10.1068/a42232. Pliakis, F. (2019). ‘A New City in the Port’. An actor-centered institutional analysis of the strategic governance and planning process around Amsterdam Haven-Stad. (Master), Delft University of Technology, Delft. RLI. (2016). Mainports voorbij. (Beyond Mainports). Sassen, S. (2000). Cities in a world economy/Saskia Sassen. Pine Forge Press. Sayer, A. (2010 [1984]). Method in social science: A realist approach. London: Taylor & Francis. Taylor, P. J., Evans, D. M., & Pain, K. (2008). Application of the interlocking network model to mega-city-regions: Measuring polycentricity within and beyond city-regions. Regional Studies, 42(8), 1079–1093. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701874214. Van den Berghe, K. (2018). Planning the Port City. A Contribution to and Application of the Relational Approach, Based on Five Case Studies in Amsterdam (The Netherlands) and Ghent (Belgium). Assen: InPlanning. Van den Berghe, K., Jacobs, W., & Boelens, L. (2018). The relational geometry of the port-city interface: Case studies of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and Ghent, Belgium. Journal of Transport Geography, 70(C), 55–63. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.05.013 Van den Berghe, K., Meijers, E., & Witlox, F. (2019). Infrastructuur, ruimte en grenzen: havenontwikkeling en de strijd om de Schelde. In Utopie voor realisten: De (Europese) toekomst van Vlaanderen en Nederland. (Infrastructure, space and borders: port development and the battle for the Scheldt. Utopia for Realists: The (European) future of Flanders and the Netherlands). Van Der Haegen, H., & van Weesep, J. (1974). Urban geography in the low countries. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 65(2), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663. 1974.tb01217.x. van der Lugt, L., de Langen, P., & Hagdom, E. (2015). Beyond the landlord: Worldwide empirical analysis of port authority strategies. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics. van der Lugt, L., Dooms, M., & Parola, F. (2013). Strategy making by hybrid organizations: The case of the port authority. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 8, 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.06.005. Van Dyck, B. (2009). Reststromen in de Gentse Kanaalzone: Onderzoek naar mogelijkheden voor uitwisseling en valorisatie (Residual flows in the Ghent Canal Zone: Research into possibilities for exchange and valorisation). van Oort, F. (2004). Urban growth and innovation: Spatially bounded externalities in the Netherlands. Farnham: Ashgate. Vance, J. E. (1970). The Merchant’s World: The geography of wholesaling. Englewoord Cliffs (N. J.): Prentice-Hall. Vandermeulen, V., Nolte, S., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2010). Hoe biobased is de Vlaamse economie? (How biobased is the Flemish economy?). Verhoeven, P. (2010). European port governance. European Sea Ports Organization (ESPO). Versteegh, A. P. (1994). De onvermijdelijke afkomst?: de opname van Polen in het Duits, Belgisch en Nederlands mijnbedrijf in de periode 1920–1930 (The inevitable origin: the inclusion of Poland in the German, Belgian and Dutch mining company in the period 1920–1930). Vlaamse Overheid. (2004). Beleidsnota Financien en begroting 2004–2009. (Policy memorandum on finance and the budget for 2004–2009).

108

K. B. J. Van den Berghe and T. A. Daamen

Wheelan, S. (June 23, 1999). British steel and hoogovens merge. World Socialist Web Site. Wiegmans, B. W., & Louw, E. (2011). Changing port–city relations at Amsterdam: A new phase at the interface? Journal of Transport Geography, 19(4), 575–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jtrangeo.2010.06.007. Yeung, H. W.-C. (2000). Organizing ‘the firm’ in industrial geography I: networks, institutions and regional development. Progress in Human Geography, 24(2), 301–315. https://doi.org/10. 1191/030913200671984115.

Chapter 7

Spatial Restructuring of Port Cities: Periods from Inclusion to Fragmentation and Re-integration of City and Port in Hamburg Dirk Schubert

Abstract In this chapter three periods of spatial inclusion, fragmentation, and re-integration of port and city functions are analysed with a focus on the Hamburg region and related to corresponding governance structures. First, when port and city had been a functional and spatial unit until the beginning of the 19th century. Second, a later period of separation in several phases until the 1980s began. Since the 1960s, deindustrialisation and containerisation drove ports away from cities, leaving areas along the old waterfront as a challenge to planners for re-integration of urban and port functions. Finally, since the beginning of the new millennium, a third period arose, when options for a re-mix of port and city became possible again. By analysing these historical phases, it becomes possible to more precisely analyse changing interdependencies between city and port. Keywords Port and city relations waterfronts Hamburg




7.1


Fragmentation
Transformation of urban

City and Port a Complex and Changeable Relationship

Many port cities have a long and varied history, where interdependent city-harbour dependencies have formed a complex network of relationships. All seaport cities have structural similarities and peculiarities (Schubert 2016). At the interface between sea and land, they are constantly adapting to the challenges of international and ultimately global traffic. Topographic preconditions, technical capabilities, network links with the hinterland, particular actors and stakeholders, and regulatory regimes all shape port city expansion, restructuring, and redevelopment (Schubert 2011). The interface between the requirements of sea transport and land transport, D. Schubert (&) HafenCity University Hamburg, Überseeallee 16, 20457 Hamburg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 A. Carpenter and R. Lozano (eds.), European Port Cities in Transition, Strategies for Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9_7

109

110

D. Schubert

the docks and the port, had to be planned and organised in a way that enabled adaptation to the ever-changing transportation (Schubert 2016). Ports and port cities had and have an important impact on the local and regional economy. The ports often meanwhile have specialised land uses: ferry ports, fisheries, shipbuilding, ship repairing, trans-shipment, seaport industries, navy and military have specific requirements. At the urban and regional level, discontinuity and inconsistencies are chief characteristics of fractured cities with increasingly amorphous vast infrastructure networks of largely unseen pipes and cables that serve them. These changes in port cities are occurring at a rapid pace and almost faster than we can appraise or analyze (Ducruet 2016; Grossmann 2008). To characterize these changes nowadays a perspective looking back might be useful, that can help to identify fractures, disruptions and continuities in reciprocally port city interdependencies.

7.2

The “Primitive Harbour”—Integrated Spatial Structures of Port and City

Hamburg, as an example, is situated on the Elbe River as well at several smaller rivers lakes, and has so been an amphibious city from the beginning. Since the foundation of Hamburg in the 8th century, waterborne traffic has carried cargo that needed to be loaded and unloaded in ports. Although the sea was generally considered dangerous and remained unexplored, moving cargo across it was often quicker and more reliable than using unsafe and inadequate roads. The city and port formed a unit providing flexible but simple practicability. Protection of this unit, and the ships and goods they housed, became increasingly important to back up a continuous supply of food and goods, so their residents surrounded them with walls (Hein 2016). The strengthening of the maritime trade went hand-in-hand with an upswing in piracy. Later, the Hanseatic period brought Hamburg hitherto unknown wealth. It was used, among other things, for Hamburg to acquire important possessions of persons and institutions from the surrounding area. In addition, a new town hall and a city fortification were built from bricks to protect the city, its people, and ships and goods. Civil, representative residential buildings emerged. The Elbe islands were acquired and diked (Kludas et al. 1988). The Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg is both a river and an open tidal seaport. Hamburg emerged as a free trading city and held a key role in the group of Hanseatic cities due to its position on the river Elbe. For centuries, goods transshipment took place on the river (see Fig. 7.1). With ships anchored in the Elbe or moored on piles, goods were transported brought to smaller vessels and then transported on land to warehouses and merchants’ houses (Teuteberg 1972). The city-state has long been led by the local elite, who were active as shippers and traders as well as politicians. Turnover in the river was the activity of private companies.

7 Spatial Restructuring of Port Cities…

111

Fig. 7.1 City and Port of Hamburg 1589 (Braun-Hogenberg Map)

Later in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Europe’s maritime horizons were widened. With the extensions of trade and new discoveries, the experience of port construction was selectively transferred from Europe to other continents (Osterhammel 2009). A close spatial interdependency of the city, handling of goods, storage, trade and port-related services prevailed, when the magnetic needle and then the compass made possible and plannable longer sea journeys, into the 19th century (Miller 2012). During this period, more seas were mapped, ships got larger, and imperial and colonial networks sent more and more trade and people (including enslaved people) across the ocean. Large seaports became staple markets and trading centers for international high-grade goods like spices, tea and silk (Hein 2011). Lighthouses, breakwaters, a market at the waterfront surrounded by fortifications were integral parts of the ideal port city, where sometimes parts were built on reclaimed land. Buildings housing citizens, companies, offices, and goods proliferated; in the 18th century, special warehouses protected perishable food. These buildings were sited at the water’s edge to facilitate direct unloading of goods from ships; some barges sailed directly from ships into warehouses (Konvitz 1978). Usually merchants independently established their warehouses and quays. In Hamburg the “free port” area extended over the entire city.

112

D. Schubert

These seaports were busy public places, but also were what Hoyle (1989) called “primitive ports”. The city and port remained a combined entity. Numerous paintings, town plans, literature and narratives confirm that moorings, harbours, and warehouses were an integral part of the city. It was a confusing urban landscape, with a mix of people including foreigners and locals, different races, wealthy and poor people (Amenda 2006). Unplanned areas arising next to the port provided internationally-oriented conglomerates with a multitude of functions and services (Rudolph 1979): shops for clothing, beverages, tobacco and souvenirs; sailors’ churches and lodgings; pubs, tattoo studios, dance halls, and brothels (Miller 1969). One literary genre pleasurably narrated the moral history of the harbour (Fischer 1927) from the bourgeois voyeur’s perspective. Others in the city considered these harbour districts dangerous, exotic, and amoral (Phillips and Whiteside 1985). At the same time, these communities were the first stepping stone for newcomers, places which opened informal opportunities and ethnic economies for incomings (Amenda 2006). These quarters, often red-light districts in many seaport cities (Christiansen 2003), later became popular for tourists. Also in the 19th century, a dockworkers’ (sub-)culture spontaneously emerged, remnants of which have continued into the present. In this context, harbour areas can be understood as diasporic sites (Kokot 2008) in which catch-up modernisation processes meet (ethnic) minorities in “backward” milieus.

7.3

Port and City Separation

When the first steamer sailed the Elbe River in 1816, it marked a new era for the medieval port city of Hamburg (Teuteberg 1972). With the onset of industrialisation in Germany since the mid-19th century, and expansion of world trade in the 19th century, disruptions, separations and specialisations, and a change in scale, transformed port-city relations. The steam engine, the railway, and steam ships revolutionised the transport and handling of goods. With the expansion of steam shipping, the timing of departures and arrivals could be calculated. Industrialisation provided new connections between production, transportation, and distribution. By the turn of the 19th century, sailing ships had mostly disappeared from the ports, replaced by iron ships. The sizes of ships increased by several orders of magnitude. To cope with these structural changes, new and larger docks had to be planned and built by municipalities or private companies, modern trans-shipment infrastructure was installed, and the shipping lanes were deepened (Miller 2012). The handling of goods was mechanised with cranes. Each port thus adapted to local geographic needs and had to fit into the urban structure (Meyer-Marwitz 1960). The construction of new docks triggered the expansion and reorganisation of urban areas; in particular, pre-industrial port facilities no longer met the requirements of modern trans-shipment. The close connection of port, work, and everyday life gradually dissolved with industrialisation, varying from countries and seaports. Creative milieus of merchants, entrepreneurs, ship-owners, financing and insurance

7 Spatial Restructuring of Port Cities…

113

institutions had driven exchange and relations internationally and later globally (Osterhammel and Peterssen 2003). Maritime networks had been local and also operated internationally. Now the economic activities of the port changed and implied further adjustments of the allocation of land-uses by private and/or public actors, transforming the previous waterfront. Technical innovations improved transportation over short and long distances. Private and (semi-)public institutions tried to optimize the local infrastructure by constructing new, longer quays and mechanisation of cargo handling. In seaport cities like Hamburg, local publications proudly described the size and growth of “their” port in popular scientific terms (Wendemuth and Böttcher 1928). Against the backdrop of industrialisation and the rapid increase and internationalisation of trade, stakeholders had to make far-reaching decisions under considerable time pressure. Using the terminology of path-dependency, these diverse decision making processes and development paths (“lock in”) taken in seaport cities at the beginning of the 19th century—choices about how to organise harbour operations, what type of harbour development to pursue, how to redevelop port areas, and what kind of housing to build near the docks—had a great impact, and later were often found to be irreversible (Rath 1988). Many of these infrastructures are still effective today in city and port development. The highly controversial but most important decision—until today—was the development Hamburg as an open-tidal seaport, not as a dock port like London (Maass 1990). With changes taking place in maritime shipping, new divisions of labour, risk-reducing structures and new actors emerged. Within a few years, the shipping industry became a new independent, purely capitalist economic sector. The municipal government supported the transformation by carrying out harbour construction as infrastructure measures. In Hamburg, the municipality at first exclusively managed trans-shipment, later on wharves which could be leased (Maass 1990). It also leased and let communal storage facilities, meanwhile private storage also existed. At leased quays, the shipping companies were able to dispose of ships at their own discretion. At the quays operated by the city, there was a space allocation which guaranteed an equal and optimal utilization. The State Quay Administration organised cargo handling on the wharf and the loading of trains, wagons, inland waterway vessels and barges; it also supervised cranes, sheds and quays and collected fees for the use of quays, storage and weighting. Management tasks were performed by official professional staff.1 A new phase in port city development occurred as Hamburg joined the German Reich in 1889 (Eberstadt 1881). Hamburg had been a free port for centuries and thus enjoyed the opportunity to store and process goods duty-free. Only when the goods were exported from Hamburg—usually in small quantities—would customs need to be paid. Although advantageous for merchants and shipowners, this situation posed a considerable disadvantage for other industrial businesses. They had to pay customs and foreign companies if they wanted to sell their goods outside of

1

For further information see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschichte_des_Hamburger_Hafens.

114

D. Schubert

Hamburg. Discussions between Hamburg and the German Reich led to the decision to provide for a smaller free port area within the larger city and port area. Controversial was the financing, size and location of the so-called Free-Port-district. After consideration of various alternatives, the partners agreed that the “Freihafenbezirk” should be as close to the city as possible and not inhabited. Initially, the free port incorporated large disused areas of land, mainly south of the Elbe for further extensions of the port. The spatial transformation introduced a new actor, the city-owned Hamburger Freihafen-Lagerhaus-Gesellschaft in 1885. This required a spatial path change of concentrating the warehouses in one district. A new area had to be built. Finally, local stakeholders agreed on a solution that included an area north and south of the Elbe, with warehouses located on an island (“Wandrahminsel”). The contract between Hamburg and the Reich further provided that the customs administration remained in Hamburg’s hands, the duty-free access across the Lower Elbe to Hamburg was secured, and companies in the Free-port district were allowed to store raw materials or produce semi-finished goods duty-free (Meyer-Marwitz 1960). The Reich subsidised the structural and spatial transformation. To secure the continuity and improvement of shipping, existing buildings in the area—including housing of both elite families and workers—was demolished to make room for new storage. In total, around 20,000 people had to relocate to enable the construction of the so-called Speicherstadt, where valuable goods such as carpets, coffee and spices would be stored (Griem 1982). Seagoing ships would transfer their goods to barges that would deliver them to the warehouses. On the land-side, the goods could be delivered or picked up by wagon or rail (see Fig. 7.2). Increasingly, handling operations were mechanised and goods were moved with cranes (Rath 1988). Following the construction of mono-functional docks throughout the 19th century, administration and housing also separated. Following the general plan of 1908, the Port of Hamburg also extended to include the Prussian areas south of the River Elbe for the construction of new berths, port industries and shipyards. The First World War interrupted the steady growth of cargo handling in the port. Docks emptied as ships were delivered to the

Fig. 7.2 Port of Hamburg in 1925. The dotted line marks the border to Prussia, the yellow line the freeport area

7 Spatial Restructuring of Port Cities…

115

victorious powers. The upswing of the 1920s was immediately followed by the Great Depression with a new slump in trade. In the interwar period, new specialised, mono-structural spaces like rubber factories and refineries in seaports mirrored Fordist industrial production and its key themes of precision, efficiency, economy, reliability and speed. The rhythm of work and life in ports dramatically accelerated (Osterhammel 2009; Rath 1988). The growth of the economy and trade went hand in hand with plans for new planned port extensions and industrial development. The enhancement of crane technology, from steam crane to electric full gantry crane, made possible the mechanisation of increasingly large sectors of trans-shipment. Shipbuilding changed from rivet method construction to welding technology, which sped up work considerably. Seaport industries like metalworks, oil mills and shipyards were established, alongside existing commercial activities, transforming the harbour landscape with silos, cold storage houses, and tank farms. Emerging conflicting claims between extension of the port and claims of the city for housing and other uses had to be solved by negotiations and planning, which became necessary and more important (Senat Denkschrift 1921). The opportunities for expansion were limited, however, because Hamburg was surrounded by Prussian cities including Altona, Harburg, and Wandsbek. The problem of the shortage of port-related housing for those working in and around the port would only be relaxed with the 1937 Greater Hamburg. The inclusion of the former Prussian ports Altona, Harburg and the city of Wandsbek eased urban, regional and port planning in the Hamburg city-state and facilitated a better allocation of residential and workplaces. New residential quarters for German dockers (and camps for forced labourers) were built near the port and the important shipyards, such as in Finkenwerder. During the Second World War, Hamburg and its port were extensively destroyed. By 1945, only about 10% of port facilities remained operational. Although with the division of Germany and Europe large areas of the hinterland were lost, the path of general cargo handling and the harbour soon regained its importance. Reconstruction involved the modernisation of many facilities. Rather than wood and iron, new structures were made with reinforced concrete. Rail connections in the port were improved, road connections expanded, and new electric cranes introduced. The harbour grew, and continues to expand, in southern and western directions. In 1961, a Port Extension Act was passed, stipulating that 2,500 hectares (ha) of land would be used for future (undefined) port uses. However, the construction of the new container terminal Altenwerder would begin only 30 years later (Strupp 2016). The trend for ever-larger vessels after World War II often necessitated further dredging of shipping lanes and constructing special cargo handling facilities (“ships design the port”). Mass motorisation and the switch from coal to oil increased oil consumption, which triggered more shipping of oil, which in turn required additional land for refineries and trans-shipment facilities. The dependency of many western countries on imports of raw materials and fuels from overseas led to a jump in the amount of bulk transport by sea. Seaport regions thus became privileged locations for industrialisation.

116

D. Schubert

The 1960s saw a number of challenges for port and city. In the booming 1950s and 1960s, the world’s largest tankers were built on the Hamburg shipyards. The “Tina Onassis”, built for Greek shipowner Aristotle Onassis, was launched in 1953, due to pioneering work by the shipyard Howaldtswerke. The contemporary narrative underlined the importance of shipbuilding and the petroleum industry. In “Greek weather” 20,000 Hamburg citizens followed the spectacle at the shipyard and another 80,000 from the northern bank of the Elbe River. The launch was stylised into a social event and a public festival that symbolised the performance of Hamburg’s shipyard industry. The ship of superlatives, the turbine tanker had a tonnage of almost 50,000 tons. In 1962, a storm surge stopped the port’s rapid expansion and caused destruction on the entire North Sea coast. During the storm surge, large parts of the port of Hamburg were flooded and more than 300 people died. Immediately, the city raised the dikes, while the city-owned, but independently operating port authority (Amt für Strom-und Hafenbau, later Hamburg Port Authority) increased the area of the port, and forward-looking arrangements made for more resilient structures. Forward planning was necessary to face this future. In 1961, Hamburg had signed a state treaty with the Lower Saxony State government, which enabled Lower Saxony to expand the fishing port in Cuxhaven and gave Hamburg the option of constructing a deepwater port (“Atollhafen”) in the Elbe estuary near Neuwerk (Laucht 1981: 5). When Lower Saxony began to develop Wilhelmshaven as a “national” natural deep-water port, Hamburg’s Senator for Economic Affairs, Kern (1973), became active and had the Federal Minister of Transport set up a deepwater commission in 1969, which also dealt with the construction of a deep water port in Neuwerk/Scharhörn. The Commission found that the potential for expansion of existing German ports, and their accessibility for ships larger than 100,000 tonnes deadweight (TDW), were limited (Bericht der Tiefwasserhäfen-Kommission 1972). Only Wilhelmshaven had the required water depth. If larger tankers, up to 700,000 TDW, were to enter the German Bight, a new port near Neuwerk, or an offshore port near Helgoland would be required. Above all, preparations would have to be made for large tankers, ore freighters and nuclear-powered ships with the appropriate draught (Spilker 1972: 31). The Commission did not consider it expedient to provide state investment in the form of substantial investment “just in case”. This initiative was launched against the background of the “improvement of the regional economic structure” and the “under industrialisation” of the coastal region (Kern 1973). As part of its industrialisation policy, Hamburg had focused on the construction of nuclear power plants in the Lower Elbe region to provide industry with low-priced electricity. The use of ever larger ships would have triggered a “migration to sea” worldwide, for which further precautions had to be taken in order to provide deep water for sea access with good transport links (Strupp 2018). The dynamic of the Hamburg metropolis radiates on the whole region. A symbol for this is also the planned outer harbour Neuwerk-Scharhörn in the Wadden Sea region of the Elbe estuary, directly on the deep water channel to the North Sea (see Fig. 7.3),

7 Spatial Restructuring of Port Cities…

117

Fig. 7.3 Plan for deep water port at the mouth of the River Elbe—not implemented

where one day the “giants of shipping” would unload their cargo (Hamburg Information, no date). The decline in importance of many old ports was concurrent with the de-industrialisation of areas around the harbour (Davis 2003). Many ports lost their significance, not only as places of trans-shipment and trade, but also as locations for seaport industries. Along with the building of new ports, the economy of shipbuilding changed: companies relocated the work to Southeast Asia, simultaneously increasing international competition and decreasing shipbuilding in Europe. Massive unemployment and the dereliction of shipyards ensued. In the 1970s, the oil crisis led to a decline in oil-tanker building and an increase in the use of nuclear power, both of which led to structural changes in the economies of seaport cities (Musso and Ghiera 2011). The trend of extensive energy consuming industries towards the coast had only won a short-term advantage in attracting industry; but soon enough primary industries like refineries and aluminium huts started to relocate instead to countries rich in raw materials, such as Brazil, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, etc. and a new round of separation from port and city began (Spilker 1972). Since the 1970s, seaport cities have been chiefly characterised by changes in transport technologies (Witthöft 2000). The invention of the container by Malcolm McLean, and their introduction from the mid 1950s, heralded a new era of maritime traffic and for its ports (Levinson 2006). Containerisation revolutionised conventional dock labour and brought on the need for new bigger and specialised trans-shipment sites and port facilities. The rationalisation of dock labour became

118

D. Schubert

possible with homogenised and standardised loading units; the container turned into a symbol of global trade. Initially dismissed by some actors as “containeritis” and rated as a fad, it ended up fundamentally transforming seaport cities. The period of time a ship is berthed is no longer measured in days or weeks but in hours. Entire occupation fields are no longer needed in ports, like stevedores, porters, packers, tallymen etc. The container revolution significantly increased productivity and brought with it dramatic job losses in the core operative sector of the port economy, but also presented an opportunity to re-use and transform the industrial waterfront.

7.4

From “City or Port” to “City and Port”

Since the new millennium, Hamburg has been a growing city and a city state in the federal system with relative autonomy from the central government. Urban growth has led to a certain split and imbalance of port and city development paths. The resources and power positions of global players, such as terminal operators and logistics, have increased over recent years (Schubert 2014). Their weight is much stronger than those of the local actors. While the former attempt to optimise global logistics chains and pursue return interest, the (local) cities must consider medium to long-term perspectives of port and city development. The development of the port is no longer a matter of Hamburg genius. Hamburg remains one of the top three ports in Europe and, after the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1991, it became the main port for an expanded hinterland. The local government controls the Hamburg Port Authority (HPA) which was established in 2005. The HPA, which is the planning authority in the port area, is also the owner of most of the land in the port area (7200 ha). It is also responsible for maintenance and management of the territory and water infrastructure. Although publicly owned, the port authority is independent. The port area occupies about 10% of Hamburg. Areas and user-specific infrastructures can be leased for a maximum of 30 years. Ultimately the global shipping companies decide which infrastructures, ports and terminals best optimise their corporate logistics chain. The mission statement of the port development plan for the years leading up to 2025 reflects the priorities of city officials and is called “Hamburg holds course”: it does not suggest a new development path, but rather a plan to “continue as before” (Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg 2012: 4). From the 1960s on, seaport cities saw the increase of differentiation processes. Large container ships only call at a few main ports, while smaller harbours are supplied by feeder services. Hinterland, location advantage, sufficient depths for seafaring ships and accelerated trans-shipment (“only a sailing vessel makes money”) have gained even greater importance than location factors. The phenomenon of demaritimisation is characterised by an increasing disentanglement of port and maritime activities and culture form the territory, through economic, social and technical processes (Musso and Ghiara 2011).

7 Spatial Restructuring of Port Cities…

119

Since the 1980s, port areas have been characterised by the spatio-temporal concurrence of highly modern terminals away from the city and derelict and/or sub-optimally used inner city harbours and waterfront sites. The post-Fordist city disintegrated into a polycentric fragmented structure with aggravated social conflicts between older residential areas of dockers and requirements for modern expensive waterfront condominiums. Cities often further degraded the waterfronts with highways. The cranes of the shipbuilders’ yards, which used to be a characteristic feature of the city silhouette and a symbol for dynamic port economies, have been dismantled, the land left derelict and contaminated (Marshall 2001). Seen in this context, the areas where port and city meet have undergone severe changes in land-use, economic activity and in the built environment. The port infrastructure, with its narrow finger-piers, multi-purpose terminals and quayside warehouses, often based on decisions and development paths from the 19th century, could not work with the new technologies. Quayside storage and warehouses, sheds used for temporary storage and protection from the weather were no longer necessary. With the departure of shipping, they did offer options for innovative plans and new uses. The trans-shipment of containers to other means of transportation requires very large areas of land, and the rapid delivery to overland transport required good railway and road connections with motorway junctions. Older port areas next to the city center could provide none of this. The water side of container trans-shipment requires fewer quays because of reduced berthing periods (Jacobs and Nottebbom 2009: 1), but they have to be always available and of sufficient depth for seafaring ships. In Hamburg, as a latecomer for waterfront redevelopment, a controversial discussion started in the 1980s. Initiated by the city planning department and architects the “hard” borders between city and port were questioned. Supported by the media ideas were developed, and impressive sketches were published for the transformation of a part of the northern shore of the River Elbe (Weinhold 2008: 192). Based on a workshop called “Bauforum” in 1985 later projects, called the “String of Pearls” (see Fig. 7.4), a line of buildings by star-architects was planned to transform the area (Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg and Stadtentwicklungsbehörde 2000). The event received broad media coverage and softened the former seemingly unchanging port limits. The architecture-led incremental approach step-by-step along the northern river bank and was followed by a more complex re-development strategy and a jump in scale with the HafenCity-project (see Fig. 7.5). Here for the first time, a larger area was taken out of the port area, the land owned by the municipality was sold and the revenues from selling the land were used to refinance the new container terminal in Altenwerder and to finance HafenCity’s infrastructure (Kähler 2016: 229). A cycle of decay, neglect, planning, implementation and revitalization of older port areas and the creation of newer port infrastructures has involved a complex network of actors and interests (Schubert 2018). An independent development company (HafenCity Hamburg GmbH), a quango, was established by the municipality to ensure adaptable and resilient conversion. A gradual “discharge” of land

120

D. Schubert

Fig. 7.4 String of pearls—cover of brochure

from port to city took place since the end of the last millenium. The fragmentated governance structures between Hamburg, the boroughs, the Port Authority and HafenCity Hamburg and, on the regional level, four federal states in the Elbe region, require coordinated resilient strategies for the future. Nonetheless, the traditional warehouse district, the Speicherstadt, has proven to be surprisingly resistant to demolition and other radical changes (Schubert 2019). As containers could not be handled there, traditional uses shifted: first came carpet dealers, then galleries, artists and creatives. The Speicherstadt’s designation as a UNESCO World Heritage site ensured preservation, as UNESCO allows only gentle changes (Seemann 2017). In the future, the HafenCity will have to deal more with questions of global climate change and questions of flood protection.2 The strategy of raising parts of the land by means of wharfs allows flood protection without the use of higher dikes. The port in Hamburg remains one of few “city harbours” worldwide, where the latest “peripheral” terminals are still relatively close to the city center (see Fig. 7.6). This is an advantage to attract tourists but a disadvantage for the requirements of the modern port (Lieber 2017). But citizens question this proximity increasingly because of negative externalities mainly in environmental terms. After 15 years of legal disputes, a further deepening of the Elbe has begun in 2018, in order to enable 2

For further information see https://www.hafencity.com/en/concepts/.

7 Spatial Restructuring of Port Cities…

Fig. 7.5 Port of Hamburg 2013—former freeport district (until 2012 light blue)

Fig. 7.6 Map of Hamburg 1909 with shaded area of HafenCity

121

122

D. Schubert

larger and larger container ships to take the tide-independent journey to Hamburg. This deepening may generate higher flow speeds, which can have negative impact on the ecological system. Although there is significant uncertainty in the age of climate change, the current elevation of dikes (to 7.30 NN [height of water above normal zero]) should be adequate until 2020, as scenarios demonstrate. After that, new plans will be needed. Direct port-dependent jobs have been reduced, while jobs that are only indirectly port-dependent no longer require a location in or next to the port. Although the port authority released more than 300 ha of port land for urban development projects, more conflicts between port and city are likely to occur at the waterfront, especially with increasing housing demands. The maritime path dependency is thus continued, the diversification and restructuring towards science, research and digitisation (for digitisation, see Chap. 5 by Acciaro et al. in this book) has yet to happen, and the question remains whether locally and regionally sustainable structures will be created.

7.5

Perspectives

Currently, the distribution of resources and power between terminal operators and logistics enterprises as “global players” and the cities and ports as “local actors” has become more and more unbalanced. Whilst the attention of large logistics companies is increasingly concentrated on investment returns and global optimisation strategies, (seaport) cities must consider local medium- to long-term perspectives for the development of their ports and urban areas. Today, the flow of goods is managed from business locations far from the ports. Important terminal operators act globally with a focus on horizontal and vertical integration, offering their customers bespoke logistics services. The part of global terminal operators (transnational terminal operating companies; TTOs) has significantly increased during past years (Juhel 2001, p. 143). The outdated postulate to stop thinking in terms of “city or port”, but of “city and port” instead, incorporating aspects of sectoral and comprehensive regional planning, collides with harsh reality (AIVP 2015). Merging the terms “competition” and “cooperation” into “co-optition” signifies a joint approach that is, however, still wishful thinking. It is important to abandon romantic and nostalgic views, as the planning of cities and ports will increasingly follow different development parameters. The future development in coastal regions and seaport cities is thus dependant on the interaction and development of the global economy, transport and ship-building, nature and the environment, as well as climate change and, ultimately, the citizens’ interests. The conflicts of interest in coastal regions are similar all over the world—amplified by global development trends in the field of logistics —and are expected to grow rather than lessen in the future. Architects’ visions, as well as the covetousness of the real estate industry and urban developers, egged on by the media to convert harbour and waterfront sites into promenades and attractive housing, offices, and cultural facilities, still clash with the requirements of port logistics and economies.

7 Spatial Restructuring of Port Cities…

123

This, in turn, implies the reversal of centuries of development: cities need their ports, but modern container ports no longer need cities; this outdated structure has become a hindrance to future development. The perception of port cities as one organisational and spatial unit consisting of city and port is replaced through decoupling and spatial specialisation. Today, cities are growing more alike, while ports and shipping have become more specialised. Areas in the ports are turning into secluded high-security zones, separated from the urban context, spatially and mentally severed from the city, with their own employment, operators and administration structures. Over the last few decades, we have seen how those parts of the port dating back from the Middle Ages to the beginning of the nineteenth century, near the city centre, have been (re) integrated into the urban fabric, while the new port infrastructures are separate from the urban structure and situated in areas where deep-water ports and large areas of land are available. Seaport cities and local port authorities will gradually lose the ability to determine the course of “their” ports, whilst logistics firms operating globally will be setting the agenda. In Hamburg, on the one hand, access to port areas is not only difficult or impossible, as is the case with container handling, where the International Port and Ship Security Code (ISPSC) determines the conditions. On the other hand, due to the abolition of the free port status in 2013, areas that had previously been fenced off and only accessible by means of controls became accessible again. In the meantime, a larger area has been reused with HafenCity and as new (mixed) uses have been implemented. Plans for the Olympic Games in Hamburg and the Olympic Village in the port area were not undisputed. For a city state like Hamburg, the land potentials are limited. Also, temporary hybrid uses, such as the musical theaters on the southern bank of the Elbe in the port area have been implemented, and step-by-step transformations have been implemented, such as in the Harburg Inner Port. The harsh perspective “port out, city in” has often been replaced by successive mixing—where possible. However, manifold actors, planning problems and ownership make it difficult to re-integrate and mix the city and the port in a sustainable way.

References Acciaro, M., Renken, K., & El Khadiri, N. (no date). Technological change and logistics development in European ports, Chapter 5. In A. Carpenter & R. Lozano (Eds.), European port cities in transition subtitle: Moving towards more sustainable sea transport hubs. AIVP—The Worldwide Network of Port Cities. (2015). Plan the city with the port. Le Havre. Amenda, L. (2006). Fremde—Hafen—Stadt. Chinesische Migration und ihre Wahrnehmung in Hamburg 1897–1972 [Stranger—Harbour—City. Chinese migration and its perception in Hamburg 1897–1927]. Hamburg: Dölling und Galitz. Bericht der Tiefwasserhäfen-Kommission [Report of the Deepwater Commission]. January 1972. Christiansen, F. (2003). Chinatown Europe. Identity of the European Chinese towards the beginning of the twenty-first century. London: Routledge.

124

D. Schubert

Davis, C. J. (2003). Waterfront revolts. New York and London Dockworkers, 1946–61. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Ducruet, C. (Ed.). (2016). Maritime networks: Spatial structures and time dynamics. London and New York: Routledge. Eberstadt, H. (1881). Hamburgs Anschluss an das deutsche Zollgebiet [Hamburg’s connection to the German customs territory]. Hamburg: Otto Meißner. Fischer, H. E. (1927). Sittengeschichte des Hafens und der Reise. In L. Schidrowitz (Ed.), Sittengeschichte der Kulturwelt und ihrer Entwicklung. Sittengeschichte des Hafens und der Reise [Moral history of the cultural world and its development. Moral history of the port and the journey]. Vienna: Verlag für Kulturforschung. Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg, & Stadtentwicklungsbehörde. (2000). Perlenkette. Hamburgs Hafenrand. Die Revitalisierung des nördlichen Elbufers [String of pearls—revitalisation of the Northern Elbe Shoreline]. Hamburg. Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg—Behörde für Wirtschaft und Innovation—Hamburg Port Authority. (2012). Hamburg hält Kurs. Der Hafenentwicklungsplan bis 2025 [Hamburg holds course. The port development plan]. Hamburg. Griem, A. (Fotographien von Richard Fischer). (1982). Kaufmannsträume. Die Hamburger Speicherstadt [Merchant Dreams. The Warehouse district in Hamburg]. Heidelberg: Edition Braus. Grossmann, I. (2008). Perspectives for Hamburg as a port city in the context of a global changing environment. Geoforum, 39(6), 2062–2072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.04.011. HafenCity. (no date). Flood-secure bases instead of dikes: Safe from high water in HafenCity (webpage). Available at: https://www.hafencity.com/en/concepts/flood-secure-bases-insteadof-dikes-safe-from-high-water-in-hafencity.html. Accessed May 22, 2019. Hein, C. (2011). Port cities. Dynamic landscapes and global networks. London and New York: Routledge. Hein, C. (2016). Port cities and urban waterfronts: How localized planning ignores water as a connector. WIRE’s Water, 3(3), https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1141. Hoyle, B. S. (1989). The port-city-interface: Trends, problems and examples. Geoforum, 4, 429– 435. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(89)90026-2. Jacobs, W., & Nottebbom, T. (2009). A theory on the co-evolution of seaports with application to container terminal development in the Rihne-Scheldt Delta. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME) Conference. Juhel, M. H. (2001). Globalisation, privatisation and restructuring of ports. International Journal of Maritime Economics., 3, 139–174. Kähler, G. (2016). Geheimprojekt HafenCity oder Wie erfindet man einen neuen Stadtteil? [Secret project HafenCity. Or how to invent a new district]. Hamburg: Dölling und Galitz Verlag. Kern, H. (1973). Senator für Wirtschaft und Verkehr der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg. In Ein Modell für die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung der Region Unterelbe [A model for the economic development of the Lower Elbe Region] (Nr. 9, [1970], 3rd ed.). Schriftenreihe der Behörde für Wirtschaft und Verkehr. Kludas, A., Maass, D., & Sabisch, S. (1988). Hafen Hamburg. Die Geschichte des Hamburger Freihafens von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart [Hamburg harbour. The history of the Hamburg Freeport from the binning to the present]. Hamburg: Kabel Verlag. Kokot, W., & Gandelsman-Trier, M. (eds.) (2008). Port cities in transition, transcript urban studies. Bielefeld. Konvitz, J. W. (1978). Cities & the Sea. Port city planning in Early Modern Europe. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Laucht, H. (1981). Hafenprojekt Scharhörn. Eine Planung im Spiegel der Zeit [Harbour project Scharhörn. A planning in the mirrow of time]. Aumühle: Selbstverlag. Levinson, M. (2006). The box—How the shipping container made the world smaller and the world economy bigger. US: Princeton University Press.

7 Spatial Restructuring of Port Cities…

125

Lieber, O. (2017). Hafen versus Stadt. Konfliktanalyse der Flächenkonkurrenz zwischen Hafenwirtschaft und Stadtentwicklung in Hamburg. [Harbour versus city. Conflict analysis of area competition between port industry and urban development in Hamburg]. Wiesbaden: Springer. Maas, D. (1990). Der Ausbau des Hamburger Hafens 1840 bis 1910. Entscheidung und Verwirklichung [The expansion of the port of Hamburg from 1840 to 1910. Decision and realization]. Hamburg: Hansa. Meyer-Marwitz, B. (1960). Hamburgs Weg zum Welthafen [Hamburg’s way to a world harbour]. Hamburg 1960: Verlag Okis. Marshall, R. (2001). Waterfronts in post-industrial cities. New York, London: Routledge. Miller, M. B. (2012). Europe and the maritime world: A twentieth century history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miller, R. C. (1969). The dockworker subculture and some problems in cross-cultural and cross-time generalizations. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 11(3), 302–314. Musso, E., & Ghiara, H. (2011). Reshaping the economic landscape of Port Cities. In J. Alemany & R. Bruttomesso (Eds.), The port and the city of the XXIst century. New Challenges in the Relationship between Port and city (pp. 87–101). RETE: Venice. Osterhammel, J. (2009). Die Verwandlung der Welt. Eine Geschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts. München: C. H. Beck. Osterhammel, J., & Peterssen, N. P. (2003). Geschichte der Globalisierung. Dimensionen, Prozesse, Epochen [History of globalization. Dimensions, processes, epochs]. München: C. H. Beck. Phillips, G., & Whiteside, N. (1985). Casual labor. The unemployment question in the Port Transport Industry 1988–1970. Oxford: Clarendon. Rath, J. (1988). Arbeit im Hamburger Hafen. Eine historische Untersuchung [Work in the port of Hamburg. A historical investigation]. Hamburg: Ergebnisse Verlag. Rudolph, W. (1979). Die Hafenstadt. Eine maritime Kulturgeschichte [The port city. A maritime cultural history]. Erfurt: Edition Leipzig. Schubert, D. (2011). Seaport cities: Phases of spatial restructuring and types and dimensions of redevelopment. In C. Hein (Ed.), Port cities. Dynamic landscapes and global networks (pp. 54–69). London and New York: Routledge. Schubert, D. (2014). Three contrasting approaches to urban redevelopment and waterfront transformations in Hamburg: “String of pearls”, HafenCity and IBA (International Building Exhibition). ISOCARP Review, 10(2014), 124–137. Schubert, D. (2016). Ports and Urban Waterfronts. In C. Hein (Ed.), Routledge handbook of planning history (pp. 338–349). New York and London: Routledge. Schubert, D. (2018). Visionen und Scheitern der Industrialisierung der Unterelberegion, Herausforderungen zwischen Ökonomie und Ökologie [Visions and failures of the industrialization of the Unterelberegion, challenges between economics and ecology]. In A. Martin & N. Fischer (Eds.), Die Elbe. Über den Wandel eines Flusses vom Wiener Kongress (1815) bis zur Gegenwart (pp. 175–203). Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag. Schubert, D. (2019). Hamburg: Careful and flexible conversion of cultural heritage. In PORTUS 37, May. RETEThe Warehouse District. Seemann, A. (Ed.). (2017). UNESCO Welterbe Speicherstadt und Kontorhausviertel mit Chilehaus. Dokumentation des Antragverfahrens [UNESCO World Heritage. Warehouse District and Chilehouse. Documentation of application]. Berlin: Henrik Bäder Verlag. Senat der Freien und Hansestadt Hamburg. (1921). GrossHamburg. Denkschrift des Hamburger Senats [Greater Hamburg. Memorandum of the Hamburg Senate]. Hamburg: Lütcke & Wulff. Spilker, H. (1972). Neuwerk/Scharhörn im Blick der Tiefwasserhäfen-Kommission [Neuwerk/ Scharhörn in view of the deepwater-port commission]. Schriftenreihe der Behörde für Wirtschaft und Verkehr, Nr. 11, Hamburg.

126

D. Schubert

Strupp, C. (2016). “The rhetoric of„ provision: Public and political disputes over port planning in Hamburg in the 1970s and 1980s. In C. Hein (Ed.) History. Urbanisme. Resilience. Change and responsive planning (pp. 135–148, Vol. 03). Delft: International Planning History Society Proceedings. Strupp, C. (2018). Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg? Maritime Pfadabhängigkeiten in Hamburg seit den 1950er Jahren [Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg? Maritime path dependencies in Hamburg since the 1950s]. Moderne Stadtgeschichte, 2, 59–72. Teuteberg, H. J. (1972). Die Entstehung des modernen Hamburger Hafens 1866–1896 [The emergence of the modern port of Hamburg 1866–1986]. Tradition, 4/5, 257–291. Weinhold, J. (2008). Port culture: Maritime entertainment and urban revitalisation, 1950–2000. In M. Heßler & C. Zimmermann (Eds.), Creative Urban Milieus. Historical perspectives on culture, economy and the city (pp. 179–208). Frankfurt/New York: Campus. Wendemuth, L. & Böttcher, W. (1928). Der Hafen von Hamburg [The Port of Hamburg]. Hamburg: Meissner und Christiansen. Witthöft, H. J. (2000). Container: eine Kiste macht Revolution [Container: A box makes a revolution]. Hamburg: Koehler.

Chapter 8

Governance and Planning Issues in European Waterfront Redevelopment 1999–2019 José M. Pagés Sánchez and Tom A. Daamen

Abstract Since the first redevelopment projects appeared in the 1960s in North-America, urban waterfronts in port cities around the world have experienced continuous spatial and functional change. Waterfront redevelopment started as an opportunity to recover brownfields for urban uses and new relations with the water, but rapidly became a target for investors and politicians to leave their mark on the port city landscape. To many planners, waterfronts have, thus, become a symbol of capital accumulation, consumerism, and of cities attempting to economically revive or reinvent themselves. Four decades after the first waterfront projects of this kind in Europe, it is possible to evaluate the results of this post-modern urban refurbishing, and most importantly, reflect on the sustainability of the transition that has taken place. Since the publication of an earlier volume on European Port Cities in Transition (Hoyle and Pinder, in The Dock & Harbour Authority 79(887):46–49, 1992), sustainable development has gradually become an important objective in urban and port policies. The aim of this chapter is to assess how European waterfront redevelopment projects are influenced by this objective across the continent. This has been done by making an actor-institutional comparison of projects in six European port cities, following a renewed trend in planning research that seeks to expose and understand the ‘rules of the game’ in urban governance and planning practices. This institutionalist perspective leads to a fresh understanding of port-city relationships in Europe, and the role of recent waterfront projects therein. This account of the 1999– 2019 period focuses on how key actors negotiate and attempt to reconcile the inherent tensions involved in planning sustainable waterfront redevelopment schemes, and identify the forces that enable or prevent them to do so.




Keywords Port city Port-city relationship Sustainable development Sustainability





Waterfront
Governance


J. M. Pagés Sánchez (&) Association Internationale de Villes et Ports, Le Havre, France e-mail: [email protected] T. A. Daamen Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 A. Carpenter and R. Lozano (eds.), European Port Cities in Transition, Strategies for Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9_8

127

128

8.1

J. M. Pagés Sánchez and T. A. Daamen

Understanding Port-City Relations

It is broadly accepted that the physical separation between ports and cities started with the first industrial revolution, in the 19th century, ending an organic interaction that had evolved over the preceding centuries (Hoyle 1998). However, it was during the second half of the 20th century that this change was intensified and associated to another urban development phenomenon, that of urban waterfronts regeneration (e.g. Bruttomesso 1993; Marshall 2001; Desfor et al. 2010). Ever since, ports and port cities have evolved, and the waterfront has become the stage for tensions and exchanges between different territorial actors, often with conflicting agendas (e.g. Malone 1996; Sairinen and Kumpulainen 2006). While containerisation processes were taking place worldwide, the first studies of port-city relationships started to emerge—first in geography and later in planning. Bird’s (1963) work focused on the physical features of ports and cities and their territorial development. His work was later followed by contributions from Hayuth (1982) and his examination of the term ‘port-urban interface’ as a zone of transition. Hoyle (1989) developed his seminal model explaining the evolution of port-city relations soon after and furthered our knowledge of this phenomenon in Hoyle and Pinder (1992). These authors focused on the territorial evolution of ports and cities, emphasizing their spatial and functional separation. Their explanations were cited by countless other researchers, often without considering possible limitations. In the last twenty years, researchers have pointed out that Hoyle’s model is no longer universally accurate (Kokot 2008; Wang 2014). Other authors have argued that the port-city interface definition from Hayuth (1982) must be updated (Van den Berghe et al. 2018). Merk (2014) and Hesse (2017), define the interface as a multi-layered element, of which its physical territory is only one. This chapter acknowledges this multi-layered-ness, and approach it by perceiving port city waterfront zones as the focal points of governance arenas in which port and urban actors cooperate, dispute, and pursue their interests. This chapter’s perspective of waterfront zones is not new; Olivier and Slack indicated in 2006 that the ‘classic’ model for understanding ports—based on a territorial approach and linear chronological evolution—was outdated. The emergence of global supply chains, the increasing power of transnational corporations, and the transformation of public port authorities into private or corporatised landlords, demanded new approaches. The authors proposed a new conceptualisation of ports, defining them as ‘communities of actors’ both cooperating and competing based on shared and rivalling interest (cf. Daamen and Vries 2013). For port research, Olivier and Slack (2006) identified terminals as the relevant units of analysis, and changed focus towards the relationships between actors, i.e. to governance processes and the rules that guide them. This change opened the door to new analyses of port-city relations and the role of waterfront territories, both in terms of process and outcome.

8 Governance and Planning Issues …

129

Considering that it has been demonstrated that ports still remain in contact with cities (Hall and Jacobs 2012), it is now clear that the port-city relationship—and hence the spatial configuration of urban waterfronts, deserves some re-examination. Although Hoyle (2000) updated his model of the evolution of port-city relations with a new reconnection phase, it is hard for the model to account for the diverse situations in which port cities find themselves and the economic, social, cultural and environmental pressures key actors need to address and resolve. Public opinion often pressures port companies to comply to the highest environmental demands, and to consider the associated long term social and economic benefits (Banawan et al. 2010; Moon and Woo 2014; Carletti et al. 2011). Waterfront zones are often at the centre of such public debates, and it is interesting to examine whether, and if so, how public pressures actually affect (more) balanced outcomes.

8.2

Exploring Institutionalised Processes and Outcomes

Even though ports and cities remain connected in many ways, economic geographers argue that the relationship is unbalanced (Merk and Hesse 2012; Hesse 2017). Urban areas close to the port suffer many negative externalities, mostly environmental ones, while regions throughout a port’s hinterland benefit greatly from its activities (Merk 2013). Researchers have argued that, in some cases, it may be not profitable for a city to invest in its port, since the investment could be (more) beneficial to other cities rather than its own (Hall 2007), or create greater benefits if applied in other urban economic sectors (Grossmann 2006, 2008). This situation has become even clearer since containers became the dominant type of cargo in many ports, increasing the imbalance between local externalities and regional or national positive economic effects (Campbell 1993; Grobar 2008). In these cases, ports are no longer a competitive edge for port cities (Zhao et al. 2017). This is why international organisations such as the OECD (see Merk 2013) and researchers (e.g. Daamen and Vries 2013) have identified the port-urban waterfront as a strategic area—places to increase or emphasise the positive impact of ports. In recent years, following the new conceptualisation of ports, maritime and economic geographers have embraced institutionalism as the lens through which ports can be analysed more insightfully (Hall 2003; Jacobs 2007; Notteboom et al. 2013; Witte et al. 2014). Institutionalist approaches define institutions as the written and unwritten rules that guide the behaviour of actors (Williamson 1998; Salet 2019). Formal rules are often written and considered as laws or regulation that indicate what actions are allowed and which are not, under the risk of legal penalty. Informal rules are often unwritten, such as local traditions and customs, and enforced by social pressures leading to (loss of) reputation or (mis)trust among peers (Scott 2014). Institutions understood as ‘rules of the game’ (North 1991) are not stable but change over time as actors innovate or otherwise adjust their behaviour due to external pressures (Scharpf 1997).

130

J. M. Pagés Sánchez and T. A. Daamen

In this chapter, institutionalism is adopted as a theoretical lens to explore changing port city relationships as expressed in European waterfront redevelopment practices. This means that, following conceptualisations by Olivier and Slack (2006) and similar thinkers, the port city relationship is defined as the governance relations between port and city actors. Instead of focusing on port terminals, the focus of this chapter is on waterfront redevelopment projects, since this is where exchanges between key port and city actors are expected to be intense. In the context of waterfront projects, it can also be expected that institutions expose themselves not only by analysing the governance process—i.e. action and decision patterns—but also outcomes—i.e. tangible investments and building projects situated on the port city waterfront. As Healey (1997) explains in her application of sociological institutionalist theory to urban planning and governance, it is at the local scale where governance action can most clearly induce institutional formation and change. Within the community of actors that shape the port-city relationship around waterfront projects, empirical attention is given to the behaviour of the port authority (in short: PA). This has been particularly concentrated on the rules by which this key actor deploys its resources—expertise, land and finance—in relation to other key actors involved in waterfront planning and redevelopment, such as national and local government, the private sector (port business and/or property investors or developers) and to civic or community actors. PAs often have a dual nature, because they ought to preserve the public good while being obliged to operate as private economic actors (Acciaro 2015; Brooks and Cullinane 2006). PAs have in Europe predominantly become landlords that have the legal obligation to be or become economically self-sufficient; at the same time, they also have the responsibility of seeking for sustainable port-city relationships. Researchers have demonstrated how the role of port authorities is changing, and that this often creates tensions with the institutionalised governance frameworks (Vries 2014; van der Lugt et al. 2015). PAs have difficulties dealing with port-urban conflicts (De Langen 2006), including the growing demands associated with sustainable development (Verhoeven 2010; Lozano et al. 2019). In the context of waterfront projects, it will be possible to see the role of the PA, and examine the pressures imposed on it by its formal governance structure, and the informal social expectations at work in the port-urban interface. Before moving to the six cases, the latter is explained.

8.3

The Waterfront Imaginary as an Informal Social Expectation

The first urban waterfront regeneration projects were implemented in American port cities during the 1960s (Guimarães 2006). Baltimore and Boston are classic examples, which were quickly followed by San Francisco. During the 1980s and

8 Governance and Planning Issues …

131

1990s, there was a growing academic interest on this type of spatial transformation, as it became a model replicated around the world (Hoyle et al. 1988; Schubert and Harms 1993; Bruttomesso 1992; Breen and Rigby 1994, 1996). The model consists of the spatial and functional transformation of a central section of a port city’s waterfront. Initially, such transformation was caused by technological changes in the shipping sector, making inner city docks and quays inadequate for modern port operations, which then turned into so-called brownfield sites. However, after the first projects proved immensely successful, these areas evolved from urban problems to opportunities for virtually every port city to reinvent itself and restructure its economy (Schubert 2008). What emerged was a forceful port-out-city-in rationale among city planners, politicians and property developers alike. Soon, it was perceived as a logical evolution of each and every port-city interface (Wiegmans and Louw 2011). Promoted by global corporations responsible for the first waterfront plans of the 1960s, the model spread rapidly around the globe (Ward 2011). Port cities in different parts of the world followed the above-mentioned rationale, albeit with different local characteristics and planning approaches. In Europe, cases like London’s Docklands in the 1980s or Rotterdam’s Kop van Zuid in the 1990s represented a market-led approach (Schubert 2011), while Mediterranean cities like Genoa’s Porto Antico or Barcelona’s Port Vell—also in the early 1990s—prioritised public spaces and cultural facilities. Later in the same decade, Bilbao became one of the most famous cases, even coining the ‘Bilbao Guggenheim effect’ for similar operations in other cities. Waterfronts became a tool for cities to compete and attract investment (Desfor and Jørgensen 2004; Gordon 1997). Breen and Rigby (1996) see them as success stories, attractive for politicians, real estate agencies and starchitects to gain popular support, earn money or leave their mark in the city (Boland et al. 2017). Other authors such as Charlier (1992) and Norcliffe et al. (1996) have been more critical towards the exclusive, consumption-oriented places often created on the urban waterfront, largely wiping away whatever identity was there before. Following the sequence of the impactful interventions—whether successful or not—and the academic assessments of the waterfront redevelopment, it can be argued that a post-modern waterfront imaginary started to emerge in many if not all port cities around the globe. Here, the concept imaginary refers to the construct of mental images, ideas and concepts that provide meaning that can deeply influence the planning and governance policies (Bianchini 2006; Lindner 2006). Hence, the waterfront imaginary can be perceived as an informal social expectation of port area transformation, leading to a disregard of existing—sometimes still very viable— port activities, and prioritising leisure, high-end residential and office development. The taken-for-granted-ness of the waterfront redevelopment model has thus become a strong informal institution: a pseudo-inevitability that is susceptible to be cherry-picked by politicians and property developers. The consequence is that it reduces attention for the specific history and characteristics of the port areas concerned, and rejects the possibility of following alternative planning and development approaches that may be more sustainable. Repeating the same approach tends to generate urban planning clichés (Diedrich 2013), lacking diversity and

132

J. M. Pagés Sánchez and T. A. Daamen

combinations of different programmes. It often favours complete dockland makeovers, while preservation strategies may also be viable (Marshall 2001; Hein 2016). Authors like Porfyriou and Sepe (2016) go even further, indicating that a complete waterfront transformation actually separates city and water due to its semi-private character and associated gentrification. Despite the pernicious effects the waterfront imaginary can have, it is clear that it has become a social expectation and, in fact, a dominant approach to waterfront planning that has drowned out all alternatives. This influence has changed the stages of waterfront transformation, as Wiegmans and Louw (2011) indicate, from a port-out-city-in rationale to a city-in-port-out logic: operating port functions find themselves pressured out of their waterfront territories by public and private actors that press the waterfront imaginary upon them. This tension affects the port-city relationship in an unsustainable way because the waterfront is not used as a tool for creativity and collaboration, but rather as a site of conflict and competition.

8.4

Six Cases of European Waterfront Change

Six port cities were selected to assess the formal governance structures and the informal social expectations at work in the European port-urban interface over the last 20 years: Oslo, Helsinki, Rotterdam, Hamburg, Marseille, and Genoa (see Fig. 8.1). These six port cities are of different scales and, at first glance, represent different waterfront planning approaches as well as port and city governance models. In these diverse contexts, we also find waterfront redevelopment plans with varying timeframes, and PAs that have specific national laws and local regulations to consider. From this diversity, it can be expected that the processes and outcomes around waterfront projects in these cases will also greatly differ. However, in terms of sustainable development, these port cities share common problems and tensions between the economic, social, environmental policy objectives—problems and tensions in which the PA has a major role. The six cases were studied and compared by analysing planning documents and legal frameworks defining the role of PAs in relation to other key actors. Because planning ideas and social expectations are often not explicit and recorded official documents, consulting other sources was also necessary, such as strategic plans and general media. Finally, semi-structured qualitative interviews with key actors involved in the planning and development process (port authorities, municipalities, and/or urban development agencies) have also given valuable input about social expectations for the respective waterfront areas in each case. It is not possible to describe all six case studies in detail within the reasonable boundaries of this chapter. Please refer to Pagés Sánchez (2016, 2019) for a more expansive presentation of the empirical material. It is worth mentioning that other scholars have also studied (some of) the cases discussed here, although with

8 Governance and Planning Issues …

133

Fig. 8.1 Map of Europe with the selected port cities

differing theoretical perspectives and research questions in mind. Nonetheless, their findings were also studied, and discussions took place with some of them in order to increase the external validity of the research results. Other analyses of this chapter’s cases have been done by De Langen (2004), Dooms et al. (2013), Notteboom et al. (2013), Daamen et al. (2015), Schubert (2014), and Gastaldi (2010). The following sections briefly describe the major aspects and focus on the governance structures and social expectations that, from this chapter’s institutionalist perspective, have great impact on waterfront change and associated port-city relations (Table 8.1).

134

8.4.1

J. M. Pagés Sánchez and T. A. Daamen

Oslo

The Norwegian capital is also one of the main ports of the country. Until recently, the port occupied the majority of the urban waterfront. Things started to change as early as the 1980s, when the struggle that other port cities faced due to the decay of port industrial activities became apparent across Europe. In Oslo, the municipality and other bodies proposed a debate about an alternative future for the waterfront (Bergsli 2008). This part of the city was seen as a potential area for an alternative, post-industrial economic model. After long debate, the municipal assembly chose to redevelop the waterfront emphasizing the connection with the fjord, rather than with the port. A ‘fjord city’ idea was adopted instead of a ‘port city’ concept—one that was proposed by the port authority (Kolstø 2013). The winning planning approach was influenced by previous experiences both in Oslo (the Akker Brygge plan) and other waterfront projects in Europe and around the world. The Fjord City Plan proposed to create 45,000 work places, 9000 apartments, new public spaces and landmark cultural facilities like the Oslo Opera (Kolstø 2013). The plan clearly intended to gentrify central waterfront sections and dedicate them to high-end residential and office functions. The waterfront plans in Oslo were soon dubbed “zombie urbanism” by critics (Aspen 2013), but the underlying debate was not about the design principles but about the role of the PA. The PA was the legitimate owner of the land (Børrud 2007), and even though the port authority is formally controlled by the municipality, the legal framework defines it as an entity focused exclusively on port activities. However, to accommodate the urban functions prioritised in the fjord city concept chosen by the municipal assembly, it was necessary to find an alternative location for port activities. To finance the new port facilities, the port authority was authorised to develop complex real estate operations, using daughter companies. This implied changes to the legal rules that defined the power of the port authority, allowing it to invest in areas outside the port’s scope. However, the changes were only superficial, since the revenues of the waterfront transformation had to be reinvested in port facilities (Børrud 2007). The PAs capacity to contribute to solving urban issues or facilitate investments in the city remains limited. In 2019, the Fjord City plan is currently in an advanced stage of implementation. In the process, most heavy port activities have been relocated, with the exception of those involving passengers. Cruises, and mostly ferries, have become the tension points between port and city, since those activities require access to the urban core. However, as we will see in other cases, such rigorous relocations are not always necessary, as approaches that combine port and city functions can also be feasible. In Oslo and in other port cities, the main issue remains the road traffic and the associated congestion and pollution these activities generate.

8 Governance and Planning Issues …

8.4.2

135

Helsinki

The Finnish capital is similar to Oslo, since the municipality also controls the PA. The difference is that the land is also controlled by the municipality, and the PA is only responsible for managing it while there are port activities. The port of Helsinki used to occupy several waterfront locations, mainly what is known as the West Harbour and Kalasatama. Although there were already waterfront redevelopment projects in the 1990s (Oasmaa 2013), major changes started during the early 2000s. The municipality decided in its masterplans (1992, 2002) that the majority of heavy port activities moved to a new terminal in Vuosaari, 15 kilometres east from the city centre. However, similar to Oslo, ferries and cruise lines remained in central locations, causing tensions due to the associated traffic. The dominant development program on the Helsinki waterfront was housing to answer to increasing demographic pressures. The PA was forced to accept the decisions made by the municipality, and the port-city relationship was reduced to maritime passenger activities. The PA tried to compensate the lack of presence of the port in the city with social programs that gained international recognition (Port of Helsinki 2010). Unlike the Fjord City plan in Oslo, there was no iconic architectural project in the areas transformed from port activities in Helsinki. Instead, the central section of the waterfront, the South Harbour, was designated as the location of the anticipated Guggenheim museum. Despite the major media coverage and hosting an international competition, the project was first socially and later officially rejected (Ponzini and Ruoppila 2018). Interestingly, the PA was not included in the jury or involved in the planning decisions, despite the presence of two main ferry terminals that could have been included in the plans for the redevelopment. The Guggenheim failure was followed by a more cooperative approach to reorganise the area including its ferry activities, and granting more presence of the port in this location. However, it is clear that in this case port activities are not considered as an element that is relevant to the waterfront redevelopment strategy—again with the exception of ferry terminals. The port authority had a weak position, due to the lack of land ownership, legal control, or other significant resources.

8.4.3

Rotterdam

The biggest port of Europe has also been a testing ground for waterfront redevelopment schemes since 1970s. In this case, the publicly owned PA is jointly controlled by the municipality, which holds 70% of its shares, and the Dutch national government (30%). Port land is owned by the municipality, but the PA holds economic control over it due to an agreement signed in 2004, when the PA became a corporatised entity. Although the agreement does not define urban development as

136

J. M. Pagés Sánchez and T. A. Daamen

one of its scopes, recent projects indicate that the strict distinction between port and urban functions in Rotterdam is evolving. According to Aarts et al. (2012), the first waterfront redevelopment operations in Rotterdam were Oude Haven, Leuvehaven and Wijnhaven, but these were of a relatively small scale. Later, during the 1990s, the Kop van Zuid was a first major waterfront redevelopment plan that started in 1994—after years of discussion—in an area no longer suited for modern port activities. This project is almost completed today, and has transformed derelict land across the river and south of the city centre into a high-end area with skyscrapers for offices and housing. While the Kop van Zuid project was underway, the last remaining port areas inside city’s highway rim were also nominated for transformation, in what is known as Stadshavens. The municipality attempted to follow a similar approach as before, but it failed due to the unmanageable scale (1600 ha) and the fact that port activities in the area were still operational and controlled by powerful companies. The location of Stadshavens is also not as central as the Kop van Zuid. The situation forced the municipality to adopt a new approach in 2007, starting with a new collaboration agreement between the PA—that formally controlled the land–and the city administration—that formally owned the land and can adapt land-use designations. A group of port and city planners was assigned to make plans for the transition of the area in the short, medium and long term (Daamen 2010). The changes in the Stadshavens plans implied a hybrid approach towards this waterfront area, combining port and urban activities, public water transport, and experiments like floating housing functions. After a period of debate, the PA took a more active role, engaging in the planning process on different levels, from the general definition of planning principles, to investing in specific projects. The two main areas where this approach is visible today are the RDM Campus1 and the Makers District, also known as M4H (the Merwe-Vierhaven area).2 In the first, the port authority has refurbished a former submarine shipyard and transformed it into an event venue and a start-up cluster, in collaboration with several research institutes and universities (Vries 2014). In the Makers District, there are cheap work spaces for start-ups, but also temporary uses to reactivate the space and create value. Such place-making strategies are also observed in Oslo, but used mainly for public spaces there.

8.4.4

Hamburg

Hamburg is the biggest port of Germany and the second city of the country. Locals assume the port and maritime culture as part of the local identity, visible in many aspects, from the different museums, and marketing campaigns to public art (Kokot

1

See www.rdmrotterdam.nl (visited on August 1st, 2019). See www.rotterdammakersdistrict.com (visited on August 1st, 2019).

2

8 Governance and Planning Issues …

137

2008). However, despite the scale and impact of its port, Hamburg also has a diversified economy. The PA follows the Hanseatic tradition, being controlled by the city. Port areas area mostly located on the south side of the river Elbe, adjacent to the city. Since the 1980s, there have been several small waterfront regeneration projects along the river known as the Perlen Kette (Schubert 2014). The main initiative has been the HafenCity plan, an area of 157 hectares close to the city centre that became obsolete for modern port activities (Schubert 2014; Harms 2007).3 In this project, the port authority received a compensation for releasing the area, and the city administration created a new public agency to manage the redevelopment process with the same name as the plan. The HafenCity development plans prioritise residential and office functions, leaving the port presence limited to the new cruise terminal and renovated port heritage structures. The HafenCity plan separates port and city uses without any hybrid functions. After the agreement to vacate the port from the area, the PA did not have any relevant role in the process in terms of key planning decisions (Daamen and Vries 2013). Municipal plans to redevelop older port terrains were expanded to Wilhemsburg, south of the river, in the 2000s, under the name Sprung über die Elbe (Leap across the Elbe). This area is largely beset by the port of Hamburg and has become the location of an international building exhibition (IBA) (Schubert 2014). After public discussion, the scope of the HafenCity development corporation has recently been expanded into new areas on both sides of the Elbe. This decision will increase the pressure over the PA and the active port functions, to release the land, change the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS) boundary, and introduce urban functions. In the case of Hamburg, a clear separation between port and city thus remains, in spatial, functional as well as in governance terms.

8.4.5

Marseille

Marseille is the second city of France and competing with Le Havre to be the largest port of the country. After a period of decline during the second half of the twentieth century, the city gained a reputation of being dangerous and degraded (Mah 2014). In France, the port authorities of the seven main ports (Grand Port Maritime) are controlled by the state, as is seen in many countries following the Latin tradition. However, the most recent reforms increased the presence of local representatives in PA advisory boards (Debrie et al. 2013). The main waterfront transformation plan in Marseille is part of a broader urban regeneration intervention named Euroméditerranée. This project is managed by an organisation with the same name, backed by the central state (Bertoncello and Dubois 2010).4 The waterfront is one of the main features of the Euroméditerranée

3

See www.hafencity.com (visited on August 1st, 2019). See www.euromediterranee.fr/ (visited on August 1st 2019).

4

138

J. M. Pagés Sánchez and T. A. Daamen

project, which forced a negotiation process with the PA. The process initially started in the 1990s, with first contacts including tense exchanges with the local port community. As indicated by representatives interviewed, there was an initial rejection due to the general understanding that the urban plan would imply relocating port activities from their locations to the west basin of the port in Fos, far from the central waterfront. After many debates, an understanding was reached under the pressure of the central state. This agreement was initially for the Citè della Mediterranèe, the oldest section of the waterfront closer to the city centre, but later encompassed the complete waterfront in the Chartre Ville et Port.5 This official document established a common vision for the waterfront, defined the role of the key actors, and set a principle to find innovative combinations of port city uses. Today, this new principle is visible not only in the Chartre, but also in specific buildings, such as the Silo, the Terrasses du Port and more recently, the J1 warehouse. The port acted as developer of facilities not exclusively dedicated to port activities, as the upper floors contain urban programs such as concert halls and commercial areas. In the Euroméditerranée project, the port authority stretches the rigid legal framework that guides their activities, making the combination of uses possible. International security regulations such as the ISPS6 are often used to motivate a necessity to separate port and city functions or restrict public access to port terminals. However, in this case, the rules were interpreted and applies more creatively, eventually improving the port-city relationship with the projects delivered.

8.4.6

Genoa

Genoa is the main Italian port, placed in the Ligurian coast, in the most industrialised region of the country. The port governance model follows the Latin tradition, in which key decisions are taken in Rome. The city has seen several waterfront redevelopment projects since the 1980s. Porto Antico, planned by Renzo Piano at the end of that decade and executed during the early 1990s, was a paradigmatic case at the time. The principles were mainly the development of new public spaces by the water, improving the connection of the city centre with the sea and creating several cultural and public venues. Porto Antico was later complemented with different interventions, including new museums and attractions like the aquarium (Gastaldi 2013; Gastaldi and Camerin 2017). These projects contributed to the success of waterfront change in Genoa, representing a prime example of how an old port can be turned into a leisure area.

5

Available in http://www.marseille-port.fr/fr/Resources.File.ashx?sn=Private&id=3635&ct=Default &ah=true&ex=2019-08-01T15:37:52&cr=tG/wEWJBfu42da8JwZ8K6g (visited on August 1st, 2019). 6 Available in http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Security/Guide_to_Maritime_Security/Pages/ SOLAS-XI-2%20ISPS%20Code.aspx.

8 Governance and Planning Issues …

139

Table 8.1 Synthesis of the main characteristics of the six port cities that influence the waterfront redevelopment approach Case

Waterfront reg. model

PA engaged in waterfront

Control of the PA

Gov. model

Land release

Financial independence

Oslo

Transformation

Hav Eiendom

City council

Hans.

Total control

Helsinki

Transformation

None

Municipality

Hans.

Rott.

Hybrid approach

Stadshavens

Hans.

Hamburg

Transformation

None

Shareholder meeting (mun.) City parliament

Municipal control Municipal control

Mars.

Hybrid approach

Euroméd.

National government

Latin

Genoa

Hybrid approach

Porto Antico Blueprint

National government

Latin

Stretched framework (real estate) Only port activities Stretched framework (dividends) Only port and environmental initiatives Reduce ind. Only for port projects Reduce ind. Only for port projects

Hans.

Municipal control (Compen.) National control Negotiation National control (Negotiation)

During the first decade of the 21st century, Renzo Piano presented the Affresco (Imbesi and Moretti 2013). This is an overarching vision for the complete Genoa waterfront, restructuring the port, the airport and public areas. After three major reviews, the plan was abandoned but remained an inspiration. More recently, in 2015, Renzo Piano once again led a new initiative, the Blueprint plan (Alberini 2017). This plan focuses on the eastern section of the waterfront, where repair shipyards are close to the urban fabric. The plan proposes to restructure the area without removing port activities, and building new housing and redeveloping the section of the congress hall owned by the municipality. The Blueprint is gradually being translated into legal plans and planning competitions.7 In the case of Genoa, no legal framework needed to be stretched or adapted, since the PA will be responsible for redeveloping port facilities while the municipality does the same in the urban sections. However, the waterfront benefited from the presence of an influential external figure, Renzo Piano, who is a key actor due to his social credit and could propose a persuasive common port-city vision. The Blueprint plan reveals certain innovations, since it insists on the presence of the port in a central location instead of proposing a relocation of these activities—partly because of past failures.

7

www.blueprintcompetition.it/en/blueprint/design-city (visited on August 1st, 2019).

140

8.5

J. M. Pagés Sánchez and T. A. Daamen

Conclusions

In their book on European port cities, Hoyle and Pinder (1992) signalled that urban planners increasingly push for port relocation operations in order to make way for waterfront transformation projects. They did this because urban waterfronts represented perfect opportunities for port cities to reinvent themselves and broaden their economic base. Success stories from the United States inspired European port cities to rediscover their ‘abandoned doorstep’ (Meyer 1999) and initiate large and often very expensive waterfront redevelopment endeavours (Gordon 1997). Although critical analyses soon also appeared, the vast amount of port cities that has adopted waterfront redevelopment schemes since the 1960s proves that few narratives in planning and urbanism have ever been stronger. This defines the above narrative as an institutionalised waterfront imaginary, and related its influence to two other important processes experienced in European port cities in the past two decades. The first concerns the formal governance structures of European port authorities, which have been generally subject to forces of privatisation but are in fact (still) very mixed organisations (Brooks and Cullinane 2006). The second is the increasing attention for the sustainable development of ports. This chapter posed the question to what extent sustainability objectives have influenced waterfront redevelopment outcomes and associated port-city relationships in six prominent—but also very different—European cases. In this concluding section, it is discussed how the first two processes affect the latter, and hypothesise what can be expected in the years to come.

8.5.1

Port Governance Structures and Sustainability

In Europe, there are two dominant port governance traditions: the Hanseatic and Latin (Verhoeven 2010; Pallis and Brooks 2011). The main difference between the two is that local PAs are either controlled by the local (Hanseatic) or by the national government (Latin). This affects the autonomy of a port in deciding its long-term strategy, and how it is allowed to allocate its economic resources. The way a PA attends to the port-city relationship is reflected in the role it takes in waterfront planning. In the Hanseatic tradition, which shows in our central and northern European cases of Oslo, Helsinki, Hamburg and Rotterdam, the PA is controlled by the municipality and is thus influenced by local politics (Verhoeven 2010). In the Latin tradition, the state has a stronger position and controls all key ports of a country, as is apparent in Marseille and Genoa (Ferrari et al. 2015). In the chapter by Fernández Izquierdo et al. (Chap. 13 in this volume), it is argued that in most cases, port management models do not integrate corporate governance and sustainability. When they do, it is from an economic-technocratic approach that focuses on measurable environmental goals, as enforced upon the PAs by legal obligations. The present chapter has also shown that there are key

8 Governance and Planning Issues …

141

differences between the different European port governance models on how they influence the port-city relationship and the capacity of the port authority to act. In the six cases, it seemed likely that port planners of municipally controlled PAs cooperate well with city planners for waterfront plans. Instead, the results of this chapter show that the urban agenda is often imposed upon the port, frustrating potentially innovative solutions that, for example, combine port and urban functions. Conflict over land-use on the waterfront and the (re)location of port activities seems inevitable. On the other hand, in cases where PAs have a stronger position due to the port’s economic significance and/or state control, a more balanced debate between port and urban interests is often quested. The latter implies a longer and harder negotiation, but tends to result in more innovative solutions for the waterfront. In the six cases discussed in this chapter, the legal rules that define the mission of the PA emphasise its logistic and/or economic performance over other dimensions critical to sustainability. Even though port authorities we examined have the responsibility of managing an urban territory that it is publicly owned, its role as an urban actor it is not acknowledged nor potentiated. The outcome is that PAs draw up temporary strategic plans that predominantly address goals of environmental sustainability. Even though sustainable port-city relationships are rhetorically considered a responsibility of PAs, such obligations are not part of a port’s legal obligations and thus not formally institutionalised. In fact, these organisations are widely perceived as entities whose sole responsibility is to manage port activities. Obligations to contribute to the social well-being of urban citizens creates a certain contradiction: between formal legal obligations of the PA on the one hand, and the far less powerful social expectations on the other. Outcomes that support a more sustainable port-city relationship therefore remain rare, and can only be explained as innovative or entrepreneurial actor behaviour, i.e. specific sustainable leadership. Another issue connected to the different governance models as they are defined in law, is the PAs financial independence. As indicated, the PAs in these cases are limited to port activities, including how they invest. However, in the six cases analysed, it is clear that these rules can be challenged and eventually stretched. The case of Rotterdam is the most paradigmatic, since, as other researchers have indicated (Daamen and Vries 2013; Vries 2014), the port authority is stretching the landlord model, going beyond concessions and becoming involved with different investments that are gradually less related to port activities. Oslo is a similar case in this sense, since the port authority became a player in the real estate market, although it could only reinvest its revenues in port facilities. In other cases, such behaviour only occurred in specific Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs or environmental initiatives, as observed in Hamburg and Genoa (Acciaro et al. 2014).

142

8.5.2

J. M. Pagés Sánchez and T. A. Daamen

Sustainability and the Waterfront Imaginary

One of the main issues for innovative waterfront redevelopment plans are the informal social expectations influenced by the post-modern waterfront imaginary previously identified. While urban actors, including municipalities and citizens demand green areas, public spaces, and leisure facilities, port actors defend their locations and needs. As Wiegmans and Louw (2011) indicate, ports are today under pressure from the city to change the waterfront. In this disjunctive, there are two divergent approaches towards waterfront planning. Following the definition of Daamen and Vries (2013), there are hybrid approaches that challenge the dominant imaginary, and business-as-usual approaches that comply with what it is expected. As indicated, the cases of Oslo, Helsinki and Hamburg follow business as usual approaches, separating port and urban activities. In these cases, PAs played different roles. While in Hamburg and Helsinki this organisation remained relatively absent from the major urban planning decisions, in Oslo there was a more open debate, also about the role of the PA. However, in all three cases the dominant waterfront imaginary was implemented, increasing the distance between port and urban functions. In all cases, it was visible that certain port activities must remain in the urban waterfront due to their maritime nature, such as ferries and cruises. The most interesting aspect is that although these are considered ‘soft’ port activities, they do cause considerable negative externalities like pollution and traffic congestion. Nevertheless, these soft port activities can also become an opportunity for strategic coupling (Hesse 2017). This is most clearly visible in new modern cruise and ferry terminals that combine port and urban activities in the same facility, as can be found in Porto, Portugal. In the other three cases, the post-modern waterfront imaginary was also visible, either in past projects (Genoa and Rotterdam) or in a recent planning process (Marseille). In all cases, the business-as-usual approach was abandoned in the most recent waterfront plans, either because it failed or because it was strongly rejected by local port communities. This situation, and the more balanced power struggle between port and urban actors, created conflict, but eventually innovative solutions, leading towards a hybrid approach. Failure, frustration, and conflict seem necessary elements to foster innovation in highly institutionalised practices. However, a challenging vision, advocated by a powerful outsider, and the foundation of a special purpose agency, also seem effective. The first was observed in the cases of Genoa (Renzo Piano’s vision) and Marseille (a vision proposed by the state), and led to formal agreements between all relevant actors and, in fact, a new stage in the port-city relationship. In the case of Rotterdam, dedicated planning agencies for the Stadshavens area became crucial vehicles to steer towards a joint planning process for the waterfront and hybrid port-city outcomes. In Marseille, Euroméditerranée also acted as powerful actor to foster an agreement with the port authority and facilitate private and public investment.

8 Governance and Planning Issues …

143

In conceptual terms, the above organisations enabled an institutional stretching process for the PAs, which allowed more investment freedom in areas beyond the port’s usual scope. Such agencies were also visible in the other cases, albeit with different roles, and less active in the quest for innovative waterfront planning solutions. In Genoa, Port Antico still manages the historic waterfront, with the participation of the PA. HafenCity in Hamburg and Hav Eiendom in Oslo are responsible for planning and real estate strategies for the waterfront areas, but the first is municipality controlled, while the latter is a vehicle for port authority investments.

8.5.3

Ports Remain in Cities, Even if in Different Form

Almost 30 years after publication of Hoyle and Pinder’s 1992 volume, ports still remain in cities, but for different reasons than before (Hall and Jacobs 2012). Even in the cases where the port apparently abandoned the city—as Hoyle once predicted —some port activities still populate the urban waterfront and ships are still a common sight there. At the same time, new ways of planning the port city waterfront are possible. The cases here discussed show that if the port is seen as an urban element and the PA as an urban actor, innovation can be achieved if the governance reflects the will to stretch and defy the institutionalised mandates. Dominant social expectations like the waterfront imaginary exert pressure over the key actors in this process, even though it can compromise the potential of a sustainable port-city relationship. In the past 30 years, the way researchers and practitioners analyse and discuss port-city relations has evolved. Initial analyses emphasised the physical dimensions of the port, the city and the waterfront, while today we reflect on the multi-layered configuration of the port-city interface that touches upon all dimensions of sustainable development, including the temporal. However, new ‘hybrid’ approaches to port-city planning and governance do imply inherent tensions and contradictions that, due to their institutionalised character, are not easily resolved. For this reason, international initiatives, such as the AIVP Agenda 2030 (AIVP 2019) are critical to promote new approaches in governance processes towards sustainable port-city relationships. The question remains if these institutional challenging processes will crystalise into more stable set of rules that give the freedom to key port city actors to act beyond their traditional scope.

144

J. M. Pagés Sánchez and T. A. Daamen

References Aarts, M., Daamen, T., Huijs, M., & de Vries, W. (2012). Port-city development in Rotterdam: A true love story. Urban-e. Departamento de Urbanistica y Ordenacion Del Territorio, 2(3), 1–28. Acciaro, M. (2015). Corporate responsibility and value creation in the port sector. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 183(3), 1367–5567. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13675567.2015.1027150. Acciaro, M., Ghiara, H., & Cusano, M. I. (2014). Energy management in seaports: A new role for port authorities. Energy Policy, 71, 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.013. AIVP .(2019). AIVP Agenda 2030. https://www.aivpagenda2030.com. Alberini, C. (2017). Industrial clusters and waterfront’s regeneration. The Renzo Piano’s “Blueprint” for Genoa. PORTUSplus_the Online Journal of RETE, VII (7). Aspen, J. (2013). The Triumph of Zombie Urbanism. In R. El-Khoury & E. Robbins (Eds.), Shaping the city: Studies in history, theory and urban design (2nd ed., pp. 182–200). London: Taylor and Francis Group. Banawan, A. A., El Gohary, M. M., & Sadek, I. S. (2010). Environmental and economical benefits of changing from marine diesel oil to natural-gas fuel for short-voyage high-power passenger ships. In Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part M: Journal of 244 Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 224(2), 103–113 https://doi.org/10.1243/ 14750902jeme181. Bergsli, H. (2008). Marseille et Oslo: des stratégies entrepreneuriales pour transformer le front de mer. [Marseille and Oslo - Entrepreneurial strategies to transform the waterfront]. Méditerranée, 111, 77–83. Bertoncello, B., & Dubois, J. (2010). Marseille Euroméditerranée - Accélérateur de Métropole. [Marseille Euroméditerranée - Accelerator of Metropolis]. Marseille: Parenthèses. Bianchini, F. (2006). Introduction: European urban mindscapes: Concepts, cultural representations and policy applications. In G. Weiss-Sussex & F. Bianchini (Eds.), Urban mindscapes of Europe (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam, New York: Editions Rodopi B.V. Bird, J. H. (1963). The major seaports of the United Kingdom. London: Hutchinson. Børrud, E. (2007). Across the Fjord City. In N. Berre, C. Kjellsen, & J. Jørgenvåg (Eds.), Stemmer om Fjordbyen—En Artikkelsamling Oom Oslos Framtidige Fjordkant (pp. 35–55). Oslo: TAB. Boland, P., & Bronte, J., Muir, J. (2017). On the waterfront: Neoliberal urbanism and the politics of public benefit. Cities, 61, 117–127. Breen, A., & Rigby, D. (1994). Waterfronts: Cities reclaim their edge. McGraw-Hill. Breen, A., & Rigby, D. (1996). The new waterfront: A worldwide urban success story. London: Thames and Hudson. Brooks, M. R., & Cullinane, K. (2006). Chapter 18 Governance Models Defined. Research in Transportation Economics, 17, 405–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0739-8859(06)17018-3. Bruttomesso, R. (1992). Waterfront. Una nuova frontiera urbana: 30 progetti di riorganizzazione e riuso di aree urbane sul fronte d’acqua [Waterfront. A new urban frontier: 30 projects to reorganize and reuse urban areas on the waterfront]. Venezia -Genoa: Centro Internazionale Città d’acqua. Bruttomesso, R. (1993). Waterfronts: A new frontier for cities on water. Venice: International Centre Cities on Water. Campbell, S. (1993). Increasing trade, declining port districts: Port containerization and the regional diffusion of economic benefits. In H. Noponen, J. Graham, & A. R. Markusen (Eds.), Trading industries, trading region: International trade, American industry, and regional economic development (pp. 212–255). New York: Guilford Press. Carletti, S., Latini, G., & Passerini, G. (2011). Air pollution and port operations: A case study and strategies to clean up. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 155, 391–403. https://doi.org/10.2495/SC120331.

8 Governance and Planning Issues …

145

Charlier, J. (1992). Docklands regeneration for new port uses. In B. Hoyle & D. Pinder (Eds.), European port cities in transition (pp. 137–154). London: Belhaven Press. Daamen, T. (2010). Strategy as Force. Towards effective strategies for urban development projects: The case of rotterdam cityports. Delft: IOS Press. Daamen, T., Aarts, M., Huijs, M., & Vries, W. de. (2015). Rediscovering the waterfront in Rotterdam. Trasporti & Cultura, 68–75. Daamen, T. A., & Vries, I. (2013). Governing the European port-city interface: Institutional impacts on spatial projects between city and port. Journal of Transport Geography, 27, 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.03.013. De Langen, P. W. (2004). Governance in seaport clusters. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 6(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100100. De Langen, P. W. (2006). Stakeholders, conflicting interests and governance in port clusters. In M. R. Brooks & K. Cullinane (Eds.), Research in transportation economics (Vol. 17, pp. 457– 477). https://doi.org/10.1016/s0739-8859(06)17020-1. Debrie, J., Lavaud-Letilleul, V., & Parola, F. (2013). Shaping port governance: The territorial trajectories of reform. Journal of Transport Geography, 27, 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jtrangeo.2012.07.007 Desfor, G., & Jørgensen, J. (2004). Flexible urban governance. The case of Copenhagen’s recent waterfront development. European Planning Studies, 12(4), 479–496. Desfor, G., Laidley, J., Stevens, Q., & Schubert, D. (2010). Transforming urban waterfronts: Fixity and flow. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved from https://books.google.de/books?id= GQLGBQAAQBAJ. Diedrich, L. (2013). Translating harbourscapes site-specific design approaches in contemporary European harbour transformation. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen. Dooms, M., van der Lugt, L., & de Langen, P. W. (2013). International strategies of port authorities: The case of the Port of Rotterdam Authority. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 8, 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.06.004. Fernández-Izquierdo, M. A., Ferrero-Ferrero, I., & Muñoz-Torres, M. J. (no date). Integrating governance and sustainability: A proposal towards more sustainable ports, Chapter 13. In A. Carpenter & R. Lozano (Eds.), European port cities in transition subtitle: Moving towards more sustainable sea transport hubs. Ferrari, C., Parola, F., & Tei, A. (2015). Governance models and port concessions in Europe: Commonalities, critical issues and policy perspectives. Transport Policy, 41, 60–67. Gastaldi, F. (2010). Genova. La riconversione del waterfront portuale. Un percorso con esiti rilevanti. Storia, accadimenti, dibattito. [Genova. The conversion of the port waterfront. A path with relevant results. History, events, debate] In M. Savino (Ed.), Waterfront d’Italia. Piani politiche progetti (pp. 88–104). Milan: FrancoAngeli Editore. Gastaldi, F. (2013). Great events, urban regeneration and gentrification in the historic centre of Genoa. Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal, 7(1), 31–41. Gastaldi, F., & Camerin, F. (2017). El proceso de remodelación del waterfront de Génova y los proyectos de Renzo Piano desde los años 80 hasta el Blue Print. [The remodelling process of the Genoa waterfront and Renzo Piano projects from the 80 s to the Blue Print] ACE. Arquitectura, Ciudad y Entorno, 11(33), 33–64. Gordon, D. L. A. (1997). Financing urban waterfront redevelopment. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(2), 244–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369708975917. Grobar, L. M. (2008). The economic status of areas surrounding major U.S. container ports: Evidence and policy issues. Growth and Change. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2257.2008. 00435.x Grossmann, I. (2006). Three scenarios for the greater Hamburg region. Futures. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.futures.2005.04.002. Grossmann, I. (2008). Perspectives for Hamburg as a port city in the context of a changing global environment. Geoforum, 39(6), 2062–2072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.04.011. Guimarães, F. J. (2006). Cidade portuaria, o porto e as suas constantes mutações. [Port city, the port and its constant changes]. Lisboa: Parque Expo.

146

J. M. Pagés Sánchez and T. A. Daamen

Hall, P. V. (2003). Regional institutional convergence? reflections from the baltimore waterfront. Economic Geography, 79(4), 347–363. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30032943 Hall, P. V. (2007). Seaports, urban sustainability, and paradigm shift. Journal of Urban Technology, 14(2), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630730701531757. Hall, P. V., & Jacobs, W. (2012). Why are maritime ports (still) urban, and why should policy-makers care? Maritime Policy & Management, 39(2), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03088839.2011.650721. Harms, H. (2007). Changes on the waterfront—Transforming harbor areas comparison and evaluation of waterfront developments in two contexts: San Francisco Bay Area and Hamburg, Germany (No. 2008–2). Berkeley. Hayuth, Y. (1982). The Port-Urban interface: An area in transition. Area, 14(3), 219–224. https:// doi.org/10.2307/20001825. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Macmillan Press. Hein, C. (2016). Port cities and urban waterfronts: How localized planning ignores water as a connector. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 3(3), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1002/ wat2.1141. Hesse, M. (2017). Approaching the relational nature of the port-city interface in Europe: Ties and tensions between seaports and the urban. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12282. Hoyle, B. S. (1998). The redevelopment of derelict port areas. The Dock & Harbour Authority, 79 (887), 46–49. Hoyle, B. (2000). Global and local change on the port-city waterfront. Geographical Review, 90 (3), 395. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250860. Hoyle, B., & Pinder, D. (Eds.). (1992). European port cities in transition. London: Belhaven Press. Hoyle, B., Pinder, D. A., & Husain, M. S. (Eds.). (1988). Revitaizing the Waterfront. International Dimensions of Dockland Redevelopment. London: Belhaven Press. Imbesi, A., & Moretti, B. (2013). La città immaginata. Dalle esplorazioni puntuali ad una visione collettiva della città portuale. [The imagined city. From punctual explorations to a collective vision of the port city]. PORTUS: The Online Magazine of RETE, 26(November). Retrieved from http://www.portusonline.org/la-citta-immaginata-dalle-esplorazioni-puntuali-ad-unavisione-collettiva-della-citta-portuale/. Jacobs, W. (2007). Port competition between Los Angeles and Long Beach: An institutional analysis. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie, 98(3), 360–372. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-9663.2007.00403.x. Kokot, W. (2008). Port cities as areas of transition—Comparative ethnographic research. In W. Kokot, M. Gandelsman-Trier, K. Wildner, & A. Wonneberger (Eds.), Port cities as areas of transition ethnographic perspectives (pp. 7–23). Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. Kolstø, S. (2013). Oslo Fjord city course is set, making good speed! PORTUS 25. Lindner, R. (2006). The Gestalt of the Urban Imaginary. Urban Mindscapes of Europe (pp. 33–42). Editions Rodopi B.V.: Amsterdam, New York. Lozano, R., Fobbe, L., Carpenter, A., & Sammalisto, K. (2019). Analysing sustainability changes in seaports: Experiences from the Gävle Port Authority. Sustainable Development, 27(3), 409– 418. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1913. Mah, A. (2014). Port Cities and Global Legacies—Urban Identity, Waterfront Work, and Radicalism (1st ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137283146. Malone, P. (Ed.). (1996). City, capital and water. London: Routledge. Marshall, R. (Ed.). (2001). Waterfronts in post-industrial cities. London: Spon Press. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203166895 Merk, O. (2013). The competitiveness of global port-cities: Synthesis report. Paris: OECD Publishing. Merk, O. (2014), The port-city interface: What is it, and how to improve it? In Paper given at the 2014-Conference of AIVP in Durban, South Africa. Unpublished manuscript.

8 Governance and Planning Issues …

147

Merk, O., & Hesse, M. (2012). The competitiveness of global port-cities: The case of Hamburg– Germany (OECD Regional Development Working Papers No. 06). Paris. Meyer, V. J. (1999). City and Port. Utrecht: International Books. Moon, D. S. H., & Woo, J. K. (2014). The impact of port operations on efficient ship operation from both economic and environmental perspectives. Maritime Policy and Management, 41(5), 444–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2014.931607. Norcliffe, G., Bassett, K., & Hoare, T. (1996). The emergence of postmodernism on the urban waterfront: Geographical perspectives on changing relationships. Journal of Transport Geography, 4(2), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0966-6923(96)00005-1. North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97–112. https://doi. org/10.2307/1942704. Notteboom, T., de Langen, P., & Jacobs, W. (2013). Institutional plasticity and path dependence in seaports: Interactions between institutions, port governance reforms and port authority routines. Journal of Transport Geography, 27, 26–35. Oasmaa, K. (2013). Helsinki converting waterfronts into residential areas. PORTUS: The Online Magazine of RETE, XIII(25). Retrieved from http://www.portusonline.org/helsinki-convertingwaterfronts-intoresidential-%0Aareas. Olivier, D., & Slack, B. (2006). Rethinking the port. Environment and Planning A, 38(8), 1409– 1427. https://doi.org/10.1068/a37421. Pagés Sánchez, J. M. (2016). The port and the city. On board diary. Frankfurt am Main. Retrieved from https://theportandthecity.wordpress.com/ Pagés Sánchez, J. M. (2019). Developing sustainable port-city relationships in Europe an institutionalist analysis of waterfront projects governance in Lisbon. Hafencity University Hamburg. Pallis, A. A., & Brooks, M. R. (2011). Issues in Port Policy: A Look Back to Look Forward. Ponzini, D., & Ruoppila, S. (2018). Local politics and planning over transnational initiatives: The case of Guggenheim Helsinki. Journal of Urban Design, 23(2), 223–238. https://doi.org/10. 1080/13574809.2018.1426987. Porfyriou, H., & Sepe, M. (2016). Port cities and waterfront developments: From the re-actualization of history to a new city image. In Waterfronts revisited (pp. 1–14). Port of Helsinki. (2010). ESPO award on the societal integration of ports: Port of Helsinki. Helsinki: Port of Helsinki. Sairinen, R., & Kumpulainen, S. (2006). Assessing social impacts in urban waterfront regeneration. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2005. 05.003. Salet, W. (Ed.). (2019). The Routledge handbook of institutions and planning in action. London: Routledge. Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real actors play: Actor-centered Institutionalism in policy research. Oxford: Westview Press. Schubert, D. (2008). Transformation processes on waterfronts in seaport cities-causes and trends between divergence and convergence. In W. Kokot, M. Gandelsman-Trier, K. Wildner, & A. Wonneberger (Eds.), Port cities as areas of transition: Ethnographic perspectives. Transcript Verlag. Schubert, D. (2011). Seaport Cities: Phases of spatial restructuring. In C. Hein (Ed.), Port cities: Dynamic landscapes and global networks (1st ed., pp. 54–69). New York: Routledge. Schubert, D. (2014). Three contrasting approaches to urban redevelopment and waterfront transformations in Hamburg: “String of Pearls”, Hafencity and IBA (International Building Exhibition). In S. Nan, J. Reilly, & F. Klass (Eds.), Isocarp Review 10—water and cities managing a vital relationship and cities (pp. 48–61). Schubert, D., & Harms, H. (1993). Wohnen am Hafen. Leben und Arbeiten an der Wasserkante. Stadtgeschichte-Gegenwart-Zukunft. Das Beispiel Hamburg. Hamburg: VSA-Verl. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests and identities (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0263-2373(97)89895-7.

148

J. M. Pagés Sánchez and T. A. Daamen

van den Berghe, K., Jacobs, W., & Boelens, L. (2018). The relational geometry of the port-city interface: Case studies of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and Ghent, Belgium. Journal of Transport Geography. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.05.013. van der Lugt, L., de Langen, P., & Lorike, H. (2015). Beyond the landlord: Worldwide empirical analysis of port authority strategies. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 7(5), 570–596. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSTL.2015.072021. Verhoeven, P. (2010). A review of port authority functions: Towards a renaissance? Maritime Policy & Management, 37(3), 247–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088831003700645. Vries, I. (2014). From Shipyard to Brainyard. The redevelopment of RDM as an example of a contemporary port-city relationship. In Y. Alix, B. Delsalle, & C. Comtois (Eds.), Port-City Governance (ems-Mana, pp. 107–126). Cormelles-le-Royal: ems - Management & Society. Wang, H. (2014). Preliminary investigation of waterfront redevelopment in Chinese coastal port cities: The case of the eastern Dalian port areas. Journal of Transport Geography, 40, 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.02.012. Ward, S. V. (2011). Port cities and the global exchange of planning ideas. In C. Hein (Ed.), Port cities: Dynamic landscapes and global networks (1st ed., pp. 70–85). New York: Routledge. Wiegmans, B. W., & Louw, E. (2011). Changing port-city relations at Amsterdam: A new phase at the interface? Journal of Transport Geography, 19(4), 575–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jtrangeo.2010.06.007. Williamson, O. E. (1998). Transaction cost economics: How it works. Where It is Headed. De Economist, 146(1), 23–58. Witte, P., Wiegmans, B., van Oort, F., & Spit, T. (2014). Governing inland ports: A multi-dimensional approach to addressing inland port-city challenges in European transport corridors. Journal of Transport Geography, 36, 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014. 02.011. Zhao, Q., Xu, H., Wall, R. S., & Stavropoulos, S. (2017). Building a bridge between port and city: Improving the urban competitiveness of port cities. Journal of Transport Geography, 59, 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.01.014.

Chapter 9

Proposing a Holistic Framework to Assess Sustainability Performance in Seaports Lea Fobbe, Rodrigo Lozano and Angela Carpenter

Abstract Seaports have increasingly been pressured by the shipping industry and port communities to increase their sustainability efforts and performance. Sustainability reporting has been proposed as a way to assess performance. Although several frameworks have been developed for sustainability reporting, few focus on performance (for example the Graphical Assessment of Sustainability Performance (GRASP)). For seaports, sustainability reporting has mainly focused on coverage of environmental issues, and on the port as an individual organisation. A critical review of assessment approaches was conducted, resulting in the identification of 424 port sustainability-related indicators; these were categorised, synthesised, and then compared with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines. The findings show differences in the dimensions and number of indicators of the assessment approaches. GRI categories were modified and expanded for the environmental, economic, and social dimensions. Two new assessment categories, ‘port system’ and ‘interlinking issues’, were developed. This chapter proposes the Holistic Assessment of Sustainability Performance in Seaports (HASPS) framework, based on GRASP, and expanding the GRI by the addition of 75 port specific indicators, giving a total of 211 indicators. This will allow seaports to assess their sustainability performance over time, to better communicate their sustainability efforts, and to benchmark against other seaports.




Keywords Seaports Assessment and reporting reports Sustainability performance





Sustainability
Sustainability

L. Fobbe (&)
R. Lozano
A. Carpenter Faculty of Engineering and Sustainable Development, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] R. Lozano Organisational Sustainability Ltd., Cardiff, UK A. Carpenter School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 A. Carpenter and R. Lozano (eds.), European Port Cities in Transition, Strategies for Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9_9

149

150

9.1

L. Fobbe et al.

Introduction

Seaports are one of the drivers for Europe’s welfare and prosperity (European Commission 2017). Seaports are complex organisations that do not operate in isolation but are strongly interlinked with various organisations operating in the port area such as carriers, terminal operators and logistics service providers (Bichou and Gray 2005; Cheon 2017). Seaport operations can have negative impacts on the environment, society, and the economy (Puig et al. 2015b). Such operations are usually managed by a Port Authority (PA) (which may be a government agency, separate legal entity, or privately owned company), that also has responsibility to ensure the integration of sustainability within their operations (Asgari et al. 2015; Carpenter et al. 2018). Since the early 1990s, seaports, and their PAs, have increasingly been pressured by the shipping industry and port communities to increase their sustainability efforts and performance (Alderton 2008; ESPO 2012a; Puig et al. 2015a). Such sustainability efforts are dependent on the local context, ownership structure, size, operations, and interests of the port stakeholders (Denktas-Sakar and Karatas-Cetin 2012; González Laxe et al. 2017). Sustainability performance has to encompass the entire seaport system (Lozano et al. 2018; Lu et al. 2016b), instead of focusing solely on the port through a proxy individual organisation, such as the PA (Verhoeven 2010; Denktas-Sakar and Karatas-Cetin 2012; Van der Lugt et al. 2013). Assessing and reporting is a key element to gain knowledge about sustainability (Bergmans et al. 2014; Darbra et al. 2009; Wooldridge et al. 1999). It has also been recognised as a key driver for sustainability issues (Lozano 2015), and as a way to measure performance (Daub 2007; Schaltegger and Wagner 2006). There has been an increase in sustainability assessment and reporting efforts in seaports (Lirn et al. 2013; Peris-Mora et al. 2005), as evidenced by the number of ports that assess and report about their sustainability performance (Lu et al. 2016b; Port Authority of New South Wales 2006; Puig et al. 2017a). Whilst there have been calls for holistic and comprehensive approach to assess sustainability at seaports (González Laxe et al. 2017; Lu et al. 2016a; Shiau and Chuang 2015), the focus has mainly been on environmental issues (Puig et al. 2015b), and on the port as an individual organisation. This research critically reviews sustainability assessment approaches for seaports in order to propose a holistic framework to assess sustainability performance. The chapter is structured in the following way: Sect. 9.2 discusses sustainability assessment and reporting; Sect. 9.3 presents the methods used; Sect. 9.4 explains the findings; Sect. 9.5 discusses the results; and Sect. 9.6 presents the conclusions of the study.

9 Proposing a Holistic Framework to Assess …

9.2

151

Sustainability Assessment and Reporting

Sustainability assessment and reporting (SAR) has been recognised as an important tool to fulfil the social obligations of all kinds of organisations (Higgins and Larrinaga 2007; Kolk 2003; Szczepankiewicz and Mućko 2016). SAR is a process aimed at supporting decision makers to identify and manage sustainability issues concerning impacts over time, space and different stakeholders (Ness et al. 2007). SAR is an essential element of sustainability management activities comprising the economic, environmental, social, and time dimensions, as well as their interrelations (Lozano and Huisingh 2011; Maas et al. 2016). SAR can help to diffuse sustainability throughout an organisation (Hedberg and von Malmborg 2003). It remains to a large extent a voluntary activity, although the EU Directive 2014/95/ EU on non-financial reporting (European Parliament 2014) requires large organisations to disclose non-financial information, and some national governments have established regulations that require organisations to publish a sustainability report (Sjåfjell 2018; Thijssens et al. 2016). SAR has two main purposes: (1) to assess the current state of an organisation’s progress towards sustainability; and (2) to communicate the efforts and progress to stakeholders (Dalal-Clayton and Bass 2002). Four additional SAR purposes have been identified which are: (3) to assess sustainability performance over time; (4) to benchmark against other companies; (5) to demonstrate how the organisation influences, and is influenced by, expectations about sustainable development (Daub 2007; Schaltegger and Wagner 2006); and (6) to use it as a base for planning changes for sustainability (Adams and McNicholas 2007; Lozano et al. 2016). A comprehensive assessment framework has to be context specific but also broad enough for a wide user group to assess the sustainability efforts of an organisation (Ness et al. 2007; Salzmann et al. 2005). Although sustainability assessment can predict potential impacts when used ex ante, it is mostly used as an ex-post evaluation tool (Pope et al. 2017; Waas et al. 2014). Three main approaches have been proposed to assess sustainability: narrative, accounts, and indicator-based (Dalal-Clayton and Bass 2002). From these three, indicator-based assessments have been recognised as the best way to achieve measurable and comparable data (Lozano and Huisingh 2011), since indicators can be measured and can highlight the performance of a particular system over time (Peris-Mora et al. 2005). Of the different indicator based guidelines, the GRI Guidelines have been recognised as one of the best (Hussey et al. 2001; Lozano 2006; Roca and Searcy 2012). The GRI guidelines are designed to support organisations to prepare a sustainability report independent of its size or sector. The GRI guidelines consist of a set of three topic-specific standards with indicators covering the economic, environmental, and social dimensions (GRI 2016). The GRI guidelines do not consider integrated indicators (Azapagic 2004) or inter-linking issues (Lozano and Huisingh 2011). Assessing sustainability using only one dimension and only one time horizon is not suitable for complex system such as seaports (Munda 2006).

152

L. Fobbe et al.

Although there have been 47 reports published by seaports (see GRI 2019), the GRI has no sector-specific guidelines for seaports (GRI 2018). Only a few studies have focussed on assessing sustainability performance of reports. These include: (1) the analysis of sustainability reports of Greek companies on managerial, economic, environmental, and social issues (Skouloudis and Evangelinos 2009), based on a five-level scale scoring system, where no information mentioned is graded with a 0, a generic statement is graded with a 1, more detailed information is graded with a 2, extensive information graded with a 3, and full and systematic coverage is graded with a 4; and (2) the analysis of coverage and performance of interlinking issues in sustainability reports of European companies using the Graphical Assessment of Sustainability Performance (GRASP) tool, also based on a five-level scale scoring system, where a lack of information being graded with a 0, 25% of the required full information being graded with a 1, 50% graded with a 2, 75% graded with a 3 and full provision of information graded with a 4 (Lozano 2013). As the GRASP tool is based on the GRI guidelines, is based on a holistic approach including interlinking issues, and has been applied European wide (Lozano 2013), the authors decided to use this as a base for this research. Specifically for seaports, González Laxe et al. (2017) proposed a synthetic index to reflect how a PA deals with sustainability issue and Hakam (2015) proposed a framework to monitor the sustainability performance; however, these approaches do not consider the interlinking issues and are country specific. Some of the challenges of SAR include the required experience and understanding of sustainability (Adams and McNicholas 2007), and the extra resources and time needed to gather data and to keep the balance between details and core information (Lozano 2006). In seaports, these also comprise a lack of: available data from the port system (Ferrari et al. 2010); management systems to be able to handle and assess a great amount of data (Roos and Kliemann Neto 2017); and structure and clear goals (Lu et al. 2016a, b; Roh et al. 2016; Saengsupavanich et al. 2009).

9.3

Methods

A critical literature review was conducted to identify and analyse indicators used to assess and report about sustainability at seaports. The search for articles was carried out in two stages. Firstly, major databases were used to conduct a structured keyword search, such as Science Direct, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The keywords included ‘sustain*’, ‘assess*’, and ‘seaport’. The review included articles from peer-reviewed scientific journals and grey literature, written in English and with a focus on SAR. Articles in other languages and with a focus on technical, legal or political issues were excluded from the analysis. Secondly, a snowball sampling strategy was used to enhance the process by reviewing cited references. All articles reviewed for this study follow an indicator-based assessment approach.

9 Proposing a Holistic Framework to Assess …

153

The final selection contained 39 peer-reviewed articles and eight grey literature articles, which resulted in a collection of 424 port sustainability-related indicators, which were then synthesised into 75 indicators. The articles were analysed using the constant comparative analysis (CCA) of Grounded Theory (see Glaser and Strauss 2008). CCA is based on explicit coding to identify and categorise data and to relate concepts (Strauss and Corbin 1998). CCA enables researchers to work with a large amount of data that is often difficult to manage (Olesen 2007). CCA is based on four steps. The first step is to analyse and compare the data and to classify the indicators into meaningful categories. In this study, the categories used as a starting point were taken from the GRI Standard guidelines and literature that includes indicators on interlinking-issues (see GRI 2016; Lozano 2013; Lozano and Huisingh 2011). The second step is to integrate the categories, and interlinkages among the indicators and between the categories were recognised. The third step is to develop new categories or modify existing ones by juxtaposing the data. This step provided insights into how sustainability at seaports can be assessed within the different dimensions and their relationships. The last step is to develop the holistic and comprehensive sustainability assessment framework that can be used by any port, independent of its size or specialisation. The validity in the data collection might have been affected by the decision on whether to include or exclude assessment approaches in the review. Reliability might have been affected through the synthesis process. The validity of the framework may have been affected as all indicators included in the analysis stem from the literature review and have been constructed by others. While GRI guidelines are designed to be used for all kinds of organisations, the developed framework might not be suitable for all seaports, limiting its generalisability.

9.4

Findings

A number of international organisations has been working with sustainability in seaports, mainly focussing on the environmental dimension. In Europe, the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO) encourages its members to assess environmental aspects such as waste, water and noise management, with several codes of practice (European Sea Ports Organization (ESPO) 2007, 2012a). The latest European Port Industry Sustainability Report 2017 considers mainly environmental issues (Portopia 2017). Outside Europe, the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) facilitates the sharing of best practices related to environmental sustainability practices (AAPA 2018), while the Partnership in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA) assist seaports in implementing and improving their environmental management (PEMSEA 2018). Some seaports have developed their own approaches to assess and to report about their sustainability strategies (for example Los Angeles Harbor Department 2008; Port Authority of New South Wales 2006). A number of tools have been developed to support seaports to identify environmental performance indicators,

154

L. Fobbe et al.

such as the Tool for Identification and Implementation of Environmental Indicators in Ports (TEIP) (Puig et al. 2017b), and to assist them in their environmental management (Darbra et al. 2004; PIANC 2014). The EcoPorts network, initiated by a number of European seaports, offers a port-sector specific environmental management standard, the Port Environmental Review System (PERS), based on ISO 14001 (Darbra et al. 2004; EcoPorts 2018a, b). At the port systems level, the Port PeRformance Indicators: Selection and Measurement project (PRISM) enables users to identify indicators for the EU port system (ESPO 2012b). These tools allow seaports to identify significant environmental issues; however, they do not necessarily enable seaports to assess sustainability according to its purpose. A number of authors have discussed and proposed environmental indicators for seaports (such as Antão et al. 2016; Chiu et al. 2014; Özispa and Arabelen 2018; Wang and Zhao 2016). Saengsupavanich et al. (2009) developed 15 environmental performance indicators and five aspects of management, based on the International Standards Organization (ISO) 14001 Environmental Management Systems procedures (ISO 2019). Puig et al. (2014) proposed three operational environmental performance indicators based on ISO 14031. Lirn et al. (2013) developed 17 environmental performance indicators based on their findings from a study of three Asian seaports. Lu et al. (2016b) proposed five environmental performance indicators, based on a case study with three seaports in Taiwan. Gupta et al. (2005), from a review of literature, developed an environmental management plan to monitor and assess environmental impacts of port activities, based on seven indicators. Sislian et al. (2016) identified, from a literature review, four environmental aspects that should be taken into consideration when assessing sustainability at seaports. These different methods may result in disparities in the assessment approaches and varying number of indicators proposed. This can limit the comparability effectiveness of these approaches and indicators as a benchmarking tool. There is a great diversity of indicators used to assess environmental sustainability, and only a small number of seaports indicated the origin of the indicators selected (Puig et al. 2017b; Puig et al. 2014). Following the first step of the CCA (see Glaser and Strauss 2008), the indicators from the literature were compared against the initial categories, and then synthesised (second step of CCA). At the third step of the CCA, four of the eight environmental indicator categories were modified, and nine new indicator categories were added (see Table 9.1). Environmental sustainability has been one of them main areas of interest for port operations; however, PA managers consider economic, environmental, and social issues equally important for operations, as well as for management (Lu et al. 2016b). In regards to the economic dimension, PAs need to ensure successful operations while being increasingly held accountable for their economic and social performance (Verhoeven 2010). Research (see Lu et al. 2016a; Shiau and Chuang 2015; Van der Lugt et al. 2013) has mostly focused on how seaports can create value-added services to keep their competitive advantage, while providing benefits for port users, enabling fair competition, and supporting the development of the local area. The comparison of indicators from the literature with indicators from the

9 Proposing a Holistic Framework to Assess …

155

Table 9.1 Modified and proposed indicator categories for the environmental dimension

Modified GRI categories

Energy

Water

Emissions Effluents and waste

New assessment categories Main sources of noise emission (e.g. noise map and Initiatives to reduce energy acoustic plan) consumption and for Noise renewable energy usage Noise management and noise control initiatives Management and mitigation Dust Water quality in the port of dust area (inner port and Main sources of light around the port) pollution Light Light management and initiatives to mitigate light Water pollution and its pollution prevention Odour emissions Odour Description and management Debris of debris Management of soil and Sewage sediment quality and initiatives to improve the Soil quality Emissions to soil and Air quality in the port area sediment Waste management Management of dredging Dredging operations and dredging Recycling of waste sediment disposal

Accidents

Fuel/Oil

Number traffic/nautical accidents in the port area Impact of environmental damages in port areas caused by the PA or traffic/nautical accidents Description of oil pollution in the port area Description of fuel consumption by the PA and its evolution in the last three years; initiatives to reduce fuel consumption

GRI shows that all indicator categories from the economic dimension are covered (step 1 and 2 of the CCA). Within step 3 of the CCA, two of the six GRI categories have been modified and two additional categories have been added, namely ‘port services and capacity’ including indicators such as total number and percentage of tonnes moved in the port area, but also annual passenger visits or tourism activities;

156

L. Fobbe et al.

and ‘port operations efficiency’ to specifically assess a port’s economic development, and to enable PAs to make strategic decisions on investments, and to create value-added services considering their sustainability impact (see Table 9.2). The social dimension has been, for the most part, neglected in research (as discussed by Denktas-Sakar and Karatas-Cetin 2012), although port relationships with the local community has, since 2009, been constantly ranked high by the ESPO environmental priorities European port sector survey (Portopia 2017; Puig et al. 2017a). For port cities, research has focused on areas such as employment, liveability in areas surrounding the port, security and safety, port area availability

Table 9.2 Modified and proposed indicator categories for the economic dimension Modified GRI categories

New assessment categories

Economic performance

Economic performance and assets

Port services and capacity

Market presence

Description of the situation of the market and the evolution in the last three years (market share, market openness, maritime traffic, traffic growth and forecast)

Port operation efficiency

Annual ship visit, annual passenger visits and evolution in the last three years, floor space of passenger service areas Total number and percentage of tonnes moved in the port area and the evolution in the last three years Port congestion and average ship turn-around time (e.g. time for loading and unloading, average waiting service and waiting time, vessel time at berth, dwell time, TEUs per crane hour) Port service quality Total number of employment created by cargo shipping terminal, passenger maritime stations or companies that provide port services Description of tourism activities Use of the port area (e.g. % of land area for commercial uses/ efficiency of unit per berth length, soil occupation efficiency, use of railway) Evolution of cost for transport, electricity, fuel, shipping, service delivery over the last three years Initiatives to improve efficiency

9 Proposing a Holistic Framework to Assess …

157

for (new) businesses, and stakeholder relationships (Denktas-Sakar and Karatas-Cetin 2012; Lu et al. 2016b; Schipper et al. 2017). The indicators from the GRI guidelines were modified (step 3 of CCA) to make them more suitable for the port sector (e.g. the categories on local communities, and health and safety). From the 19 GRI indicator categories related to the social dimension, 13, including ‘417 Marketing and labelling’ and ‘411 Rights of indigenous people’, were not covered in the literature review. This could be explained due to the focus on seaport activities and the selection of literature used in this study (see Table 9.3). More integrated approaches that include the economic, environmental, and social dimensions have been considered for example in the work of Shiau and Chaung (2015) with Keelung Port, or by Covil (2012) with the Port of Santander. Based on the sustainability reports of Spanish seaports, González Laxe et al. (2017) developed a synthetic port sustainability index that includes the economic, environmental and social dimensions, together with an additional institutional dimension. However, these approaches do not consider interlinking issues nor the time dimension. This might be due to the complexity of the port system and the various stakeholders and organisations involved in port activities, making the gathering of data and its assessment difficult. A number of scholars (e.g. González Laxe et al. 2016, 2017; Lu et al. 2016a; Shiau and Chuang 2015) have indicated that port sustainability should be addressed holistically, i.e. including the four dimensions of sustainability (economic, environment, social, and time) and their interrelations (see Lozano 2008). However, no study covering all these dimensions and interactions was found for seaports. The interrelations between the sustainability dimensions have been mainly discussed implicitly, e.g. the tension between economic growth, increase in emissions, and improved port accessibility (Asgari et al. 2015; Hou and Geerlings 2016). Only one study was found that explicitly included indicators to assess interlinking issues between the environmental and economic dimension (Roos and Kliemann Neto

Table 9.3 Modified indicator categories for the Social Dimension Modified GRI categories Occupational health and safety

Local communities

Description and management of an emergency plan Description and management of port security incidents (number of port security inspections; security meetings with authorities, shipping companies, police forces etc; port security incidents) Security and contingency plans and compliance with ISPS requirements Description of programmes and projects developed to improve the port social impact on the port city and on the region Description of availability of the port for the port community (e.g. accessibility to the shoreline, accessibility to the port surroundings, accessibility to the port area) Description of amenities and services provided by the PA for the port community

158

L. Fobbe et al.

2017). By including a stepwise guidance plan, their assessment approach additionally provided an inter-temporal perspective; that is not present elsewhere in the literature. Therefore, the interlinking issues proposed for this assessment framework (see examples of interlinking issues for seaports Table 9.4) evolved during the analysis process of step 2 and step 3 of the CCA (Glaser and Strauss 2008). The interlinking issues were compared with the interlinking issues suggested from Lozano and Huisingh (2011), and divided into relations within the same dimension, relations with another dimension; and relations with all dimensions. During the analysis process, an additional dimension, ‘port system’, emerged, including indicators beyond the boundaries of a port authority (as discussed by Denktas-Sakar and Karatas-Cetin 2012; Portopia 2016; Van der Lugt et al. 2013; Verhoeven 2010). This dimension consists of three categories (port organisations, infrastructure, and ship management). The first category, ‘port organisations’, is related to the organisations operating within the port area, while the latter two are related to port infrastructure, and to ships entering and leaving the port. The port system dimension enables seaports to analyse activities related to external partners such as terminal and warehousing operators (see Table 9.5). It should be noted that the inclusion of the whole supply chain in a seaport assessment is beyond the scope of this research. Therefore, this framework limits the assessment boundaries to the individual port and its direct port system; this ensures the practicability, transferability and comparability of the assessment approach.

9.5

Discussion

The growing interest in sustainability assessment and reporting at seaports illustrates a lack of consensus on how sustainability at seaports is defined, ergo what should be assessed and reported on. Existing sustainability assessment approaches differ in a number of areas relating to: (1) the method used to develop the approach; (2) the number of sustainability dimensions integrated; (3) the number of indicators included; and (4) the boundaries set for what is to be included in a sustainability assessment (discussed in Sect. 9.4). This resulted in a great diversity of indicators used, some of which overlapped but with differences in scope and perspective (concurring with Puig et al. 2014). The majority of indicators analysed for this study belonged to the environmental dimension and are not connected with a particular framework. They can rather be understood as an ad-hoc list of operational performance indicators and isolated pieces of information developed for a specific port. The lack of a holistic perspective, together with the number and variety of indicators, makes it difficult for complex systems, such as seaports, to use sustainability assessment and reporting (as highligthed by Munda 2006). This might limit the results of SAR in seaports (concurring with Puig et al. 2017b; Santos et al. 2016).

9 Proposing a Holistic Framework to Assess …

159

Table 9.4 Examples of interlinking issues for port sustainability assessment Relation within the same dimension Economic dimension

Environmental dimension

Costs and initiatives to improve the efficiency

GHG emissions and energy consumption

Social dimension Employee training and development with health and safety CSR activities and relationship with port community

Economic performance and Water pollution and effects on market presence biodiversity Sediment pollution and effect on biodiversity Relations between two dimensions Relations between environmental and economic dimension

Relations between economic and social dimension

Environmental accidents and fines

Cost and training of employees (related to health and safety)

Financial resources spent on waste and Evolvement of real estate value of port material disposal and recycling including surrounding e.g. cargo pipelines, investments necessary to comply with infrastructure impact avoidance current legislation Financial resources spent on environmental Economic resources spent on protection training for employees and port community and security issues Emissions of pollutants and annual revenues Financial resources invested in social in the last three years programmes Financial resources spend on emission control and reduction of emissions (including Relations between environmental and investments necessary to comply with social dimension current legislation) Market losses due to non-environmental Training for employees and the port compliance community and environmental issues Cost and investments in the environmental Information available related to safety and protection, biodiversity and environmental area (e.g. for environmental protection) quality Financial resources spent on wastewater treatment (Treatment of wastewater generated by the port, including investments necessary to comply with current legislation) Relation between economic and port system Revenue and infrastructure

Financial resources invested in ship management including investments necessary to comply with current legislation

Financial resources spent on improving the environmental quality within the port area (e.g. green space, sustainable construction material)

Relations among all dimensions Accidents/fatalities and remediation

Interaction and relationship between port authority, port organisations and port-city

160

L. Fobbe et al.

Table 9.5 Port system category indicators New assessment categories and indicators Port organisations

Infrastructure

Ship management

Number of companies that operate in the port Number and provision of facilities for companies Requirements for port service suppliers and carriers to work with sustainability (such as acquire an EMS, reduce impacts, provide written SD specification) Port service providers/carriers that request sustainability efforts Description of current road and railroad access to the port area and future development Description of the role of the PA as provider of infrastructure Description (e.g. length) and number of berths Description and development of a sustainability plan for new constructions Description and management of natural coastline length Description of ship management within the port area Description of ship waste management (ship liquid waste management (MARPOL I–II–IV), ship solid waste (MARPOL III–V), and ship recycling

The comparison and modification of indicators according to steps 1, 2, and 3 of the CCA helped in developing a new assessment framework (step 4 of the CCA), the Holistic Assessment of Sustainability Performance in Seaports (HASPS) framework (see Fig. 9.1). The framework includes the four dimensions of sustainability (economic, environmental, social, and time) and the interlinking issues (as defined by Lozano 2008; Lozano and Huisingh 2011). The additional dimension ‘port system’ offers a more systems-oriented perspective and enables seaports to include the whole port system (as suggested by Denktas-Sakar and Karatas-Cetin 2012; Portopia 2016; Van der Lugt et al. 2013; Verhoeven 2010). As this might increase the complexity of assessment processes (see Ferrari et al. 2010; Peris-Mora et al. 2005), the indicator categories belonging to this dimension are considered as additional for seaports that have already put in place measures to be able to conduct an assessment at this level (such as management system, data collection, administrative resources etc.). The GRI indicator categories regarding managerial issues were included as a core indicator in the framework to minimise challenges (as discussed by Lu et al. 2016b; Roh et al. 2016; Saengsupavanich et al. 2009). Throughout the iterative CCA process, four groups of indicators were identified that build the assessment framework: (1) GRI indicator categories that are supported by the literature; (2) GRI indicator categories that have to be modified to be better suited for seaports; (3) Additional indicator categories that are not part of the GRI but relevant for seaports; and (4) GRI indicator categories that have not been recognised by the literature. PAs may choose to report about these indicators according to their own requirements and may decide which indicators to assess over time, and this adds the temporal dimension to the framework. This might harmonise the sustainability assessment and reporting efforts of seaports and may facilitate the comparison and benchmarking of sustainability efforts of seaports independent of

Fig. 9.1 Illustrative example of a holistic assessment of sustainability performance in seaports (HASPS). Each indicator is graded in a 0–4 scale based on GRASP

9 Proposing a Holistic Framework to Assess … 161

162

L. Fobbe et al.

their size, range of activities, or local context (as discussed by González Laxe et al. 2017; Santos et al. 2016). Figure 9.1 presents a hypothetical example of the average results of an assessment of a seaport. The assessment efforts analysis and the comparison against other seaports was facilitated by including the analysis of the coverage and performance of indicators assessed in the framework design (as proposed by González Laxe et al. 2017; Lozano 2013; Skouloudis and Evangelinos 2009). The GRASP tool was modified to develop the HASPS framework, since the former includes interlinking issues and has been tested on various European companies (see Lozano 2013). This complements the SAR, since it allows PAs to assess the information published in terms of quality and coverage in an ex ante and ex post process (as discussed by Pope et al. 2017; Skouloudis and Evangelinos 2009; Waas et al. 2014). Using the HASPS will enable seaports and their PAs to better understand the interconnections of a port’s activities, and to plan changes for sustainability from a holistic and systemic perspective. HASPS can assist PAs in determining what should be assessed, and is a starting point to identify what port sustainability is about, and how seaports can contribute to sustainable development of the port sector. The assessment of the port system can lead to more sustainable operations and stronger competitive advantage (as discussed by Denktas-Sakar and Karatas-Cetin 2012; Lam and Van Voorde 2012). The wide applicability of the assessment framework might also facilitate co-operation between seaports as suggested by organisations such as the EcoPorts network (EcoPorts 2018a).

9.6

Conclusions

Seaports are one of the drivers for Europe’s welfare and prosperity; however, their activities pose negative impacts on the environment, the social, and the economic dimensions of sustainability. Seaports have increasingly been pressured by the shipping industry and port communities to increase their sustainability efforts and performance. SAR has been recognised as a catalyst in moving seaports towards sustainability. This paper presents the current state of the port sector regarding assessment and reporting, highlighting that most of the assessment approaches for seaports treat sustainability in a compartmentalised way and are designed for specific seaports. Whilst there have been calls for a holistic and comprehensive approach to assess sustainability at seaports, the focus has mainly been mainly on environmental issues and on the port as an individual organisation. This research proposes a Holistic Assessment of Sustainability Performance in Seaports (HASPS), expanding on the GRI guidelines by the addition of 75 newly developed port specific indicators. These indicators include 11 for the economic dimension, 6 for the social dimension, 21 for the environmental dimension, 26 interlinking issues, and 11 port system indicators. In total the framework consists of 211 indicators (GRI indicators, including managerial, plus the newly developed

9 Proposing a Holistic Framework to Assess …

163

indicators). The modification of the GRI guidelines can be beneficial to enable a sustainability assessment that is suitable for all kinds of seaports, independent of the size and the range of activities that occur within them. HASPS is designed to enable seaports to deal with the complex environment they are operating in, reflecting a wide range of possible issues for a wide user group with different circumstances, while being at the same time context-specific to focus on what is relevant for seaports. The HASPS framework can be used as a starting point to take forward discussions on how sustainability in seaports could be defined holistically, taking into account all the dimensions of sustainability. HASPS allows for the assessment of a seaports sustainability performance at any given moment—ex ante and ex post— (and over time if longitudinal data is available), to better communicate their sustainability efforts, and to benchmark against other seaports. Assessing sustainability is more than just ad-hoc lists of indicators and isolated pieces of information; it should enable seaports to assess their sustainability efforts holistically, to analyse their performance, and potentially to compare their performance over time, and against other seaports. Further research should be carried out on the social dimension of port sustainability, in order to develop indicators that are better suited to the port context. Furthermore, multiple case studies of seaports of different sizes, specialisations and different local contexts, using the assessment framework, should be conducted.

References Adams, C. A., & McNicholas, P. (2007). Making a difference. Sustainability reporting, accountability and organisational change. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(3), 382–402. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570710748553. Alderton, P. (2008). Lloyd’s practical shipping guides. Port management and operations (3rd ed.). London: Informa Business. American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA). (2018). Environment & sustainability resources. Retrieved December 20, 2018, from https://www.aapa-ports.org/topic.aspx? ItemNumber=21272. Antão, P., Calderón, M., Puig, M., Michail, A., Wooldridge, C., & Darbra, R. M. (2016). Identification of occupational health, safety, security (OHSS) and environmental performance indicators in port areas. Safety Science, 85, 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.12.031. Asgari, N., Hassani, A., Jones, D., & Hoang, H. (2015). Sustainability ranking of the UK major ports: Methodology and case study. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 78, 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2015.01.014. Azapagic, A. (2004). Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and minerals industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12(6), 639–662. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S0959-6526(03)00075-1. Bergmans, A., Vandermoere, F., & Loots, I. (2014). Co-producing sustainability indicators for the port of Antwerp: How sustainability reporting creates new discursive spaces for concern and mobilisation | Coproduire des indicateurs de sustainabilité pour le port d’Anvers. Comment le rapportage de la susta. ESSACHESS—Journal for Communication Studies, 7(1(13)), 107–123.

164

L. Fobbe et al.

Bichou, K., & Gray, R. (2005). A critical review of conventional terminology for classifying seaports. Transportation Research Part A, 39, 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2004.11.003. Carpenter, A., Lozano, R., Sammalisto, K., & Astner, L. (2018). Securing a port’s future through Circular Economy: Experiences from the Port of Gävle in contributing to sustainability. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 128(February), 539–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.01.065. Cheon, S. H. (2017). The economic-social performance relationships of ports: Roles of stakeholders and organizational tension. Sustainable Development, 25(1), 50–62. https://doi. org/10.1002/sd.1641. Chiu, R. H., Lin, L. H., & Ting, S. C. (2014). Evaluation of green port factors and performance: A fuzzy AHP analysis. Mathematical Problems in Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/ 802976. Covil, C. (2012). SuPort : Appraising port sustainability. Retrieved from http://www.unols.org/ sites/default/files/GW_ap17_SuPort_Arup.pdf. Dalal-Clayton, B., & Bass, S. (2002). Sustainable Development Strategies: A Resource Book (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, ed.). New York: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Darbra, R. M., Pittam, N., Royston, K. A., Darbra, J. P., & Journee, H. (2009). Survey on environmental monitoring requirements of European ports. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(3), 1396–1403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.08.010. Darbra, R. M., Ronza, A., Casal, J., Stojanovic, T. A., & Wooldridge, C. (2004). The self diagnosis method: A new methodology to assess environmental management in sea ports. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 48(5–6), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2003.10.023. Daub, C.-H. (2007). Assessing the quality of sustainability reporting: An alternative methodological approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15, 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro. 2005.08.013. Denktas-Sakar, G., & Karatas-Cetin, C. (2012). Port sustainability and stakeholder management in supply chains: A framework on resource dependence theory. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 28(3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2013.01.002. EcoPorts. (2018a). EcoPorts network. Retrieved January 20, 2018, from https://www.ecoports. com/network. EcoPorts. (2018b). Port Environmental Review System (PERS). Retrieved January 15, 2018, from https://www.ecoports.com/pers. European Commission. (2017). Report on the blue growth strategy: Towards more sustainable growth and jobs in the blue economy. SWD/2017/128 Final, 1–62. European Parliament. (2014). Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups. Retrieved February 13, 2019, from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX: 32014L0095&from=EN095. European Sea Ports Organization (ESPO). (2007). Code of practice on the birds and habitats directives. Retrieved from http://www.espo.be/media/espopublications/ESPOCodeofPracticeontheBirdsand HabitatDirectives2006.pdf. European Sea Ports Organization (ESPO). (2012a). Green guide. Towards excellence in port environmental management and sustainability. ESPO. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejoc.201200111. European Sea Ports Organization (ESPO). (2012b). Port performance indicators : Selection and measurement (PRISM) indicators. Ferrari, C., Morchio, E., & Sanguineti, S. (2010). Port sector sustainability reporting: The case of the port of Genoa. 12th World Conference for Transportation Research, 1–12. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (2008). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualiatative research (3rd ed.). New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2016). GRI 101: Foundation. GRI Standards. Retrieved from www.globalreporting.org. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2018). G4 sector disclosures.

9 Proposing a Holistic Framework to Assess …

165

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2019). Sustainability disclosure database. Retrieved June 6, 2019, from https://database.globalreporting.org/. González Laxe, F., Bermúdez, F. M., Palmero, F. M., & Novo-Corti, I. (2016). Sustainability and the Spanish port system. Analysis of the relationship between economic and environmental indicators. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 113(1–2), 232–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul. 2016.09.022. González Laxe, F., Bermúdez, F. M., Palmero, F. M., & Novo-Corti, I. (2017). Assessment of port sustainability through synthetic indexes. Application to the Spanish case. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 119(1), 220–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.03.064. Gupta, A. K., Gupta, S. K., & Patil, R. S. (2005). Environmental management plan for port and harbour projects. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 7(2), 133–141. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10098-004-0266-7. Hakam, M. H. (2015). Nordic container port sustainability performance—A conceptual intelligent framework. Journal of Service Science and Management, 08(01), 14–23. https://doi.org/10. 4236/jssm.2015.81002. Hedberg, C.-J., & von Malmborg, F. (2003). The global reporting initiative and corporate sustainability reporting in Swedish companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 10(3), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.38. Higgins, C., & Larrinaga, C. (2007). Sustainability reporting. Insights from institutional theory. In J. Bebbington, J. Unerman, & B. O’Dwyer (Eds.), Sustainability accounting and accountability (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Hou, L., & Geerlings, H. (2016). Dynamics in sustainable port and hinterland operations: A conceptual framework and simulation of sustainability measures and their effectiveness, based on an application to the Port of Shanghai. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 449–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.134. Hussey, D. M., Kirsop, P. L., & Meissen, R. E. (2001). Global reporting initiative guidelines: An evaluation of sustainable development metrics for industry. Environmental Quality Management, 11(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem.1200. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (2019). ISO 14000 family—Environmental management. Retrieved February 28, 2019, from https://www.iso.org/iso-14001environmental-management.html. Kolk, A. (2003). Trends in sustainability reporting by the fortune global 250. Business Strategy and the Environment, 291(12), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.370. Lam, J., & Van Voorde, E. (2012). Green port strategy for sustainable growth and development. In Transport Logistics for Sustainable Growth at a New Level, Proceedings of the International Forum on Shipping, Ports and Airports (IFSPA) (pp. 417–427). Retrieved from https://www. polyu.edu.hk/lms/ICMS/ifspa2012/Papers/M25.pdf. Lirn, T. C., Wu, Y.-C., & Chen, Y. (2013). Green performance criteria for sustainable ports in Asia. International Journal of Phyzical Distribution & Logistics Management, 43(5/6), 427–451. Los Angeles Harbor Department. (2008). Port of Los Angeles sustainability assessment and plan formulation. Lozano, R. (2006). A tool for a Graphical Assessment of Sustainability in Universities (GASU). Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(9–11), 963–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.041. Lozano, R. (2008). Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(17), 1838–1846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.02.008. Lozano, R. (2013). Sustainability inter-linkages in reporting vindicated: A study of European companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 51, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013. 01.039. Lozano, R. (2015). A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr. 1325.

166

L. Fobbe et al.

Lozano, R., Fobbe, L., Carpenter, A., & Sammalisto, K. (2018). Analysing sustainability changes in seaports: Experiences from the Gävle Port Authority. Sustainable Development (October), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1913. Lozano, R., & Huisingh, D. (2011). Inter-linking issues and dimensions in sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(2–3), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.004. Lozano, R., Nummert, B., & Ceulemans, K. (2016). Elucidating the relationship between sustainability reporting and organisational change management for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 125, 168–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.021. Lu, C.-S., Shang, K.-C., & Lin, C.-C. (2016a). Identifying crucial sustainability assessment criteria for container seaports. Maritime Business Review, 1(2), 90–106. https://doi.org/10.1108/ MABR-05-2016-0009. Lu, C., Shang, K. C., & Lin, C. C. (2016b). Examining sustainability performance at ports: port managers’ perspectives on developing sustainable supply chains. Maritime Policy and Management, 43(8), 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2016.1199918. Maas, K., Schaltegger, S., & Crutzen, N. (2016). Integrating corporate sustainability assessment, management accounting, control, and reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 136, 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.008. Munda, G. (2006). Social multi-criteria evaluation for urban sustainability policies. Land Use Policy, 23(1), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.08.012. Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., & Olsson, L. (2007). Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics, 60(3), 498–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2006.07.023. Olesen, V. L. (2007). Feminist qualitative research and grounded theory: Complexities, criticisms, and opportunities. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory. Özispa, N., & Arabelen, G. (2018). Assessment of port sustainability indicators in the sustainability reporting process. Beykoz Akademi Dergisi, 6(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10. 14514/byk.m.21478082.2018.6/1.1-28. Partnership in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA). (2018). Our work. Retrieved December 20, 2018, from http://pemsea.org/our-work. Peris-Mora, E., Diez Orejas, J. M., Subirats, A., Ibáñez, S., Alavrez, P., & Alvarez, P. (2005). Development of a system of indicators for sustainable port management. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 50, 1649–1660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.06.048. PIANC. (2014). “Sustainable Ports”: A Guide for Port Authorities. Pope, J., Bond, A., Hugé, J., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2017). Reconceptualising sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. eiar.2016.11.002. Port Authority of New South Wales. (2006). Green port guidelines. Sustainable strategies for port developments and operations. Retrieved from http://www.sydneyports.com.au/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0012/1254/gpg_guidelines.pdf. Portopia. (2016). Portopia deliverables up to now. Retrieved December 19, 2018, from http:// www.portopia.eu/?page_id=1261. Portopia. (2017). European port industry sustainability report 2017. Retrieved from http://www. portopia.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/FINAL-Sustainability-Report-2017.pdf. Puig, M., Michail, A., Wooldridge, C., & Darbra, R. M. (2017a). Benchmark dynamics in the environmental performance of ports. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 121(1–2), 111–119. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.05.021. Puig, M., Pla, A., Seguí, X., & Darbra, R. M. (2017b). Tool for the identification and implementation of Environmental Indicators in Ports (TEIP). Ocean and Coastal Management, 140, 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.02.017. Puig, M., Wooldridge, C., Casal, J., & Darbra, R. M. (2015a). Tool for the identification and assessment of Environmental Aspects in Ports (TEAP). Ocean and Coastal Management, 113, 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.007.

9 Proposing a Holistic Framework to Assess …

167

Puig, M., Wooldridge, C., Michail, A., & Darbra, R. M. (2015b). Current status and trends of the environmental performance in European ports. Environmental Science & Policy, 48, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.12.004. Puig, M., Wooldridge, C., & Darbra, R. M. (2014). Identification and selection of environmental performance indicators for sustainable port development. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 81(1), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.02.006. Roca, L. C., & Searcy, C. (2012). An analysis of indicators disclosed in corporate sustainability reports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 20(1), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011. 08.002. Roh, S., Thai, V. V., Diew, Y., & Port, G. (2016). Towards sustainable ASEAN port development: Challenges and opportunities for vietnamese ports. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 32(2), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2016.05.004. Roos, E. C., & Kliemann Neto, F. J. (2017). Tools for evaluating environmental performance at Brazilian public ports: Analysis and proposal. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 115(1–2), 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.12.015. Saengsupavanich, C., Coowanitwong, N., Gallardo, W. G., & Lertsuchatavanich, C. (2009). Environmental performance evaluation of an industrial port and estate: ISO14001, port state control-derived indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(2), 154–161. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.001. Salzmann, O., Ionescu-Somers, A. M., & Steger, U. (2005). The business case for corporate sustainability: Literature review and research options. European Management Journal, 23(1), 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2004.12.007. Santos, S., Rodrigues, L. L., & Branco Branco, M. C. (2016). Online sustainability communication practices of European seaports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2935–2942. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.011. Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2006). Integrative management of sustainability performance, measurement and reporting. International Journal of Accounting, Auditing and Performance Evaluation, 3(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJAAPE.2006.010098. Schipper, C. A., Vreugdenhil, H., & de Jong, M. P. C. (2017). A sustainability assessment of ports and port-city plans: Comparing ambitions with achievements. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 57, 84–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.08.017. Shiau, T. A., & Chuang, C. C. (2015). Social construction of port sustainability indicators: A case study of Keelung Port. Maritime Policy and Management, 42(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03088839.2013.863436. Sislian, L., Jaegler, A., & Cariou, P. (2016). A literature review on port sustainability and ocean’ s carrier network problem. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 19, 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2016.03.005. Sjåfjell, B. (2018). Redefining the corporation for a sustainable new economy. Ssrn, 45(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/jols.12077. Skouloudis, A., & Evangelinos, K. (2009). Sustainability reporting in Greece: Are we there yet? Environmental Quality Management, Autumn, 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/tqem. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Baiscs of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing Grounded Theory. California: Sage Publications. Szczepankiewicz, E. I., & Mućko, P. (2016). CSR reporting practices of polish energy and mining companies. Sustainability (Switzerland), 8(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020126. Thijssens, T., Bollen, L., & Hassink, H. (2016). Managing sustainability reporting: Many ways to publish exemplary reports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 136, 86–101. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.098. Van der Lugt, L., Dooms, M., & Parola, F. (2013). Strategy making by hybrid organizations: The case of the port authority. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 8, 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.06.005. Verhoeven, P. (2010). A review of port authority functions: Towards a renaissance? Maritime Policy and Management, 37(3), 247–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088831003700645.

168

L. Fobbe et al.

Waas, T., Hugé, J., Block, T., Wright, T., Benitez-Capistros, F., & Verbruggen, A. (2014). Sustainability assessment and indicators: Tools in a decision-making strategy for sustainable development. Sustainability (Switzerland), 6(9), 5512–5534. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su6095512. Wang, D., & Zhao, Y. (2016). Research on quantitative evaluation indicator system of seaport sustainable development. In OCEANS 2016—Shanghai. https://doi.org/10.1109/oceansap. 2016.7485512. Wooldridge, C. F., McMullen, C., & Howe, V. (1999). Environmental management of ports and harbours—Implementation of policy through scientific monitoring. Marine Policy, 23(4–5), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(98)00055-4.

Chapter 10

Analysing Port Community System Network Evolution Bening Mayanti, Jussi Kantola, Matteo Natali and Juha Kytola

Abstract Ports have played an important role in facilitating exchanges among countries since the day when inland transportation was poor. As ports become hubs for global supply chain, they have to maintain their competitiveness not only by reassuring their efficiency, reliability, accessibility to hinterland, and sustainability. In addition, there is a constant challenge from all operational parties of the port to acquire needed information or to trust information received, due to multiple legacy systems and platforms that do not integrate with each other, and to the lack of real time updates. There are differing agendas between parties and, sometimes, distrust within the multi-stakeholder ecosystem leads to working in silos. This jeopardises seamless data exchange and cooperation across the port value chain, resulting in significant inefficiencies. Port community system (PCS) can enhance communication and simplify administrative process resulting economic and environmental benefit for actors in the supply chain. The invisibility of the benefit, actors’ heterogeneity and significant investment to develop the system resulting a reluctance in implementing PCS. This chapter aims to study the evolution mechanism behind the process of PCS network development using lessons learned from industrial symbiosis network development and network trajectories theory. The PCS network development follows a serendipitous and goal-oriented process that can be categorised into three stages: pre-PCS network, PCS network emergence, and PCS network expansion. This chapter contributes to the exploration of network evolution and documents lesson learned to foster PCS implementation. B. Mayanti (&) Vaasa Energy Business Innovation Centre (VEBIC), University of Vaasa, Fabriikki F455A, Yliopistonranta 10, 65200 Vaasa, Finland e-mail: Bening.mayanti@uwasa.fi J. Kantola Department of Production, University of Vaasa, P.O. Box 700, 65101 Vaasa, Finland M. Natali Wärtsilä Italia S.p.A, Trieste, Italy J. Kytola Wärtsilä Finland Oy, Vaasa, Finland © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 A. Carpenter and R. Lozano (eds.), European Port Cities in Transition, Strategies for Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9_10

169

170

B. Mayanti et al.





Keywords Port community system Port community members Network trajectory Goal-oriented Serendipitous network




10.1




Introduction

More globalised economies remove barriers of international trade that eventually prosper from maritime transport. The possibility of transporting goods in high volume emphasizes the importance of maritime transport. Hoffmann and Kumar (2010) categorised transportation as one of four foundations of globalization together with telecommunications, international standardization, and trade liberalization. This trend transforms seaport role into a crucial hub in the supply chain that connects diverse stakeholders who engage in different activities based on their interest. This shows a notable difference compared to seaports’ role in the past as a local institutions assist its own hinterland (Keceli 2011). Seaports face constant challenges in maintaining their competitiveness in serving assorted stakeholders involving in multiple supply chains. Thus, the competition is not between individual stakeholders running business, but between supply chains (De Martino et al. 2008). The main challenge for seaports is due to rapid exchange of information— physical, and financial—among stakeholders, making the study of information exchange important since other processes, including physical exchange, depend on the seamless flow of information (van Oosterhout 2008). Failing to process the information correctly and in a timely manner can cause a delay that is translated into financial loss and a chain reaction affecting other business. A ports’ location becomes less important in the term of competitive advantage; instead the quality of their physical (hardware) and service (software) infrastructure to maintain added value in serving supply chains plays a major role (van Baalen and Zuidwijk 2008; De Martino et al. 2008). This complex port network entails an integrated system service to accommodate a transparent information exchange among all stakeholders involved in the supply chain. A Port Community System (PCS) is explicitly seen as a means to improve seaports operation by reorganising how the information flows. This can decrease the delay in the movement of goods by reducing documentary processing time rather than physically expand the ports area (Long 2009). Physical expansion will only increase the physical, financial and information flow without targeting the main problem and will worsen the condition. The absence, or limited implementation, of PCS and relaying information exchange through conventional system is prone to mistakes. Errors during multiple manual entry, missing documents, documents duplication, or not receiving real time information are some of preventable mistakes in seaports operation. Nonetheless, PCS implementation can be challenging. Some stakeholders may lack the resources to implement PCS and see unequal benefit among them from PCS implementation. In addition, trust to cooperate and disclose information for the common benefit is a

10

Analysing Port Community System …

171

major issue that can hinder stakeholders’ participation. This can be rooted from stakeholders’ multiple roles in the supply chain, where they may see others as partners and competitors at the same time. PCS is not an entirely novel infrastructure in seaports and its development has attracted more scholars to conduct research. Previous multiple studies focus on the benefit gained from PCS implementation, especially in terms of time saving and paperwork reduction (e.g. Keceli 2011; Tijan et al. 2012; Aydogdu and Aksoy 2015). However, the overall study of PCS is still relatively limited, especially on the best practice of PCS implementation. Srour et al. (2008) stated that studies on PCS mostly focus on life cycle of technology deployment of inter-organisational information system (IOS), along with government reports on intermodal technology deployment and PCS implementation. Thus, this chapter will contribute on the network formation in implementing PCS technology, deriving lessons from industrial symbiosis (IS). Although PCS and IS are two different systems, aiming at completely differing objectives, the establishment entails a certain degree of inter-organisational collaboration and information exchange. Moreover, IS is more established and widely studied, providing useful information for network development for PCS implementation. Other insight that will be utilised is network trajectory theory. This chapter conceptualises network evolution in PCS implementation that is built on the insights received from the literature review and experts. The organisation of this chapter is as follows. Section 10.2 presents a general overview of PCS including its brief history and technological aspects such as architecture types, functionalities and modularity. Section 10.3 presents an overview on symbiosis development: a lesson learned from IS development and network trajectories theory. Section 10.4 presents evolution on PCS network development including stages development, type of trajectories, challenges in every stage and determining aspects. Finally, Sect. 10.5 presents conclusions and possible future research direction on PCS network development.

10.2

Port Community System

Ports can be defined as hubs for informational, logistical, financial, and spatial that are entrenched in global supply chains where they provide services to the networks and to the interests of geographical region and nation (van Baalen and Zuidwijk 2008). Within geographical vicinity surrounding ports, economic activities take place among public and private entities that form port community (Wrigley et al. 1994). Various entities surrounding port region are part of the long global supply chain in which their activities require coordination. The importance of ports in the European Union (EU) is mostly for short sea shipping (SSS) that accounts for nearly 60% of all cargo movement within EU (European Commission 2018). Short sea shipping (SSS) in the context of European Union is maritime transport over a short distance which occurs between ports in the

172

B. Mayanti et al.

EU countries (European Commission 2014). Because merchandise movement inside EU countries occurs over relatively short distance, it creates competition among various transportation modes. This resulted in a call from the European Commission (EC) to reduce administrative work in ports, in order to maintain the attractiveness of ports and maritime transport service in competing with other transport modes that requires less control and coordination. The EC launched e-maritime initiative in order to foster the development of a port system that will allow port community to better coordinate, access required service, and reduce administrative burden. The need for a system that can coordinate maritime network, overcome uncertainty, and reduce administrative burden has been recognised since 1980s where the first inter-organisational information system that can centralise messaging system and transcribe various format was materialized and called PCS (Port Community System) (van Baalen and Zuidwijk 2008). This was the time when port of Felixstow planned PCS, FCP80 (Felixstow Cargo Processing for the 80s), due to overload throughput leading to burdensome documentary process related to the clearance and cargoes movement (Long 2009). PCS is defined as an open and neutral electronic platform that links multiple systems operated by assorted organisations that form a seaport community in order to improve competitive advantage (Rodon and Ramis-Pujol 2006; IPCSA 2011). Conventional document handling takes place in the absence of PCS (Fig. 10.1). Tijan et al. (2012) and Aydogdu and Aksoy (2015) provide examples on conventional document handling in Croatian and Turkish Ports. The ports in the aforementioned studies employ paper-based methods through fax, plus voice mail, email or direct handing of documents in which the documents are exchanged multiple times in various transactions, involving as many as ten parties from port community members (PCM). This conventional system will also require daily coordination meetings among PCMs. This process infers high cost, errors, and inefficiency.

Communication without PCS

Communication with PCS

Fig. 10.1 Conventional system (left figure) versus PCS (right figure) (Rodon and Ramis-Pujol 2006)

10

Analysing Port Community System …

(b)

(a)

Bilateral (1:1)

173

(c)

Private hub (1:N)

Central orchestration hub (N:M or N:1:M)

(d)

Modular distributed plug & play (N:M)

Fig. 10.2 Different inter-organisational information system architecture: a bilateral; b private hub; c central orchestration hub; and d modular distributed plug and play (Fig. 10.2d) (Srour et al. 2008)

Prior to Felixstow port applying PCS in 1981, the clearance process would take four to five days, with one out of three declarations having errors (Long 2009). The benefits gained by each stakeholders adapting PCS varies, but these can be optimised by suitable system design, in order to enable a seamless information exchange. Srour et al. (2008) classified four different types of system architectures in PCS (Fig. 10.2). The first type is bilateral type, or one-to-one connectivity. The connection works well between two parties who exchange information heavily and can be considerably cheap since it usually involves basic communication by e.g. phone or fax. Upscaling will be a major problem because point-to-point connectivity among multiple parties will require high number of connections. Private hub is the second architecture type. Connection among multiple parties will be established through a hub that will decrease the number of connections needed. In this type, the dominant party in the community usually initiates and owns the hub. The third type, central orchestration, is similar compared to the second type, except an independent party outside of the network runs the hub. Modular distributed plug and play is the last architecture type. There are no permanent linkages and parties can connect with each other when interaction is required. Connection capabilities and system integration are design to be fast. Other authors (see Carlan et al. 2016) have described PCS design based on its functionality and modularity. Those functionalities cover logistics, navigation, dangerous cargo declaration and customs. Logistics functions provide seamless information exchange throughout the supply chain without compromising data confidentiality. Navigation functions help with planning and optimisation for vessel arrival and departure. Dangerous cargo declaration functionality will assure the efficiency of a hazardous cargo declaration through electronic information exchange. The last function, customs, will simplify the administrative work-related export and import procedure. These functionalities differ from ports to ports. They are affected by the dominant stakeholders, leading to the functionalities that mostly relate to their concerns (Keceli 2011). PCS modularity is an addition to functionality. This is an approach on how each of functionality is broken down into a more specific structure. The vessel that is going to berth needs to submit the information

174

B. Mayanti et al.

through a specific module od the navigation function, meanwhile custom declaration information needs to be submitted on a module under customs function. This set up allows the information to flow through proper channels and be received by related stakeholders who are interested or responsible for such information (Carlan et al. 2016). System modularity is considered an important aspect in PCS development since the number and the needs of port community members can grow. The system needs to be flexible enough to be integrated with other existing information systems, or to be expanded when there is a need in new functionalities.

10.3

Symbiosis Development

In each scheme of PCS implementation, network development among community member is crucial. It implies a symbiosis in which relationship occurs between unrelated entities involving certain extent of support either both-ways and one-way. In the context of IS and PCS, the relationship needs to be beneficial for all parties and the supports are available in the form exchanging material, energy, water, information for IS and information for PCS. The nature of exchange between these two systems are different, as well as their objectives. Nevertheless, there are two common features of IS and PCS, namely network development as prerequisite condition and common benefit as the aim. PCS will need as many as possible PCM to work together in order to gain common benefit that is more substantial compared to the sum of benefits coming from each individual that acts by itself. Thus, the wider the symbiosis network is, the more benefit is reaped from a better functioning PCS. In the IS literature, there are three different mechanism on how IS develops, including self-organisation, facilitated and planned (Baas and Boons 2004; Chertow 2007; Gibbs and Deutz 2007; Hewes and Lyons 2008; Paquin and Howard-Grenville 2009; Chertow and Ehrenfeld 2012). Chertow (2007) provides an explanation of self-organising and planned symbiosis. Self-organising emerges from two or more private companies that already started the exchange and once the interaction and benefit are uncovered, it will require coordinators to organize and scaling up the network. By comparison, planned symbiosis takes a top-down approach following a government initiative to build the system from scratch (e.g. deciding the site and identifying various companies to be located together). Facilitated symbiosis is a mid-point between self-organised and planned-symbiosis, where coordinators will be needed to bring firms together in creating network due to lack of knowledge, experience or connection with other interested firms (Paquin and Howard-Grenville 2009). Facilitators can be a person, private firm or public body. In the context of PCS implementation, two mechanisms of symbiosis development, namely self-organised and facilitated symbiosis, will be studied. These two mechanisms are well-suited with PCS implementation because PCM has always

10

Analysing Port Community System …

175

built some degree of network on exchange or it has the willingness to build the necessary network but is lacking the capability to proceed.

10.3.1 Industrial Symbiosis Network Development Researchers (e.g. Baas and Boons 2004; Chertow 2007; Doménech and Davies 2011; Chertow and Ehrenfeld 2012) have studied assorted IS and conceptualised the stages of IS development. Some parts of those studies can be used as an analogy in PCS network development. Doménech and Davies (2011) studied three different IS and deduced that, in general, IS development consists of emergence, probation, development and expansion. In the emergence stage of IS development, some firms may already have some form of exchange that occurs spontaneously or is facilitated. The emergence can result from constraints faced by firms, realising opportunity for vertical integration. In the second stage, probation, firms are aware by the dynamic of the network and have more knowledge resulting from the experience and feedback in the first stage. Positive experience and feedback bring about trust that will preserve the network. Probation is a crucial phase that determines the continuation or failure in IS. In the development and expansion, the network will grow wider and deeper. More interaction provides more knowledge, trust and opportunity. Study on self-organising IS proposes the development of an IS network following three stages: sprouting, uncovering, and embeddedness and institutionalisation (Chertow and Ehrenfeld 2012). Sprouting is indicated by the exchange occurring between firms randomly and may be followed by others if there is mutual interest and the existing example is proven to be successful. Uncovering is a result from observation by other actors outside the transactional network who recognise the benefit of exchange. Embeddedness and institutionalisation are intentional expansion and development in the network that resulted from trust in the earlier stage. Baas and Boons (2004) studied the possible phases in facilitated symbiosis, using Rotterdam harbour as a case study. The first phase, regional efficiency, involved independent decision making by firms and collaboration between some of the firms. Third parties may facilitate this process. This was followed by regional learning in which a wider exchange occurs, based on the trust built in the first phase resulting in a broader network. The third phase is sustainable industrial district where actors develop a vision on sustainability and act upon it.

10.3.2 Symbiosis Network Trajectories According to Kilduff and Tsai (2003), a network evolves over time and changes following certain trajectories of goal-oriented process or serendipitous process.

176

B. Mayanti et al.

In the goal-oriented trajectory, the network can be formed because of the established common goal and it will require a facilitator to bring actors together and coordinate their activities. The development of this type of network will be relatively fast because of the role of facilitator, but it may not be as stable if the collective goal is not attained. In the serendipitous network, there is no particular goal and the initial interaction often occurs just by chance. This type of network takes a relatively long time to develop but tends to be more resilient because of the trust and likeness created in the initial phase (Gulati and Gargiulo 1999; Uzzi 1996). These two networks process can develop independently as an exclusive trajectory, or can integrate to become a mixed trajectory. In an independent serendipitous process found in self-organizing IS, the symbiosis started by happenstance and is proven to be more successful in the long run (Chertow 2004). The successful future of this symbiosis is caused by trust gained from experience in the initial exchange. In the independent facilitated IS, the network process is more goal-oriented, where the collective is formulated initially and a body is appointed to facilitate interaction among firms. Although this type of network is more prone to a failure, proper management has proven that a goal-oriented network can flourish and be long-lasting. An example comes from facilitated IS in the UK (Paquin and Howard-Grenville 2009). The key success of this network is the attainment of collective goals. Once the collective goals are achieved, a revision to maintain the network becomes necessary. When serendipitous and goal-oriented networks are not completely exclusive, a mixed trajectory occurs. Self-organised IS can take a mixed course of network trajectories. It starts with serendipitous process where random exchange occurs between firms that recognise opportunity. This exchange will continue if they happen to gain mutual benefit and can trust each other. Once actors outside this initial network recognise the benefit that they may obtain, others may join the network and an anchor tenant can emerge. This anchor tenant not only acts as the main driver in the exchange but also as an organiser for the network. Following this course, a more goal-oriented trajectory will emerge. The interaction and exchange will be organised and possible collective goals will be pursued.

10.4

PCS Network Development

Although various studies emphasise the importance of PCS implementation to improve overall supply chain, there is only study on the network build mechanism in establishing PCS. Srour et al. (2008) utilised a framework from deployment process of information system to study the best practice of successful PCS implementation by applying the framework into various IOS. The study took stance from a technical point of view where PCS implementation followed four stages: project initiation, system analysis and design, implementation and adoption, maintenance and growth.

10

Analysing Port Community System …

177

Another study analysed focal organisations as the key for successful PCS implementation through leadership and promotion of PCS benefits (MED-PCS Project 2013). The study identified three types of focal organisation including national or regional government, private firms, and Port Authority. The first type, national or regional government, will promote business-to-government activity in which their direct contribution is limited to financing PCS start-up. Instead, they will push PCS implementation through regulations. The second type of focal organisation is private firms that follow a bottom-up approach. They demand PCS because a complex ports procedure requires advanced information technology (IT) solutions and vertical/horizontal integration. This integration will involve various parties in different stages of particular the supply chain (vertical integration) and various companies will belong to same sector or market (horizontal integration) (van de Voorde and Vanelslander 2009). The last type follows a top-down approach provided by the Port Authority. Private involvement can be voluntarily or obligatory. The former scheme allowing operators to adapt the system or continue to use a conventional paper-based system, the latter one will require operators to adapt PCS system as a required condition to use ports facility. Previous works on identification of the stages in PCS implementation took the course of a goal-oriented trajectory. Project initiation started by formulating collective goals to achieve by applying a PCS-like system (Srour et al. 2008). This type of work will require a facilitator, either from the government, private body or port authority (MED-PCS Project 2013). In this case, goal-oriented trajectories are seen to be applicable because of the urgency of PCS implementation. A goal-oriented trajectory is expected to accelerate PCS implementation by identifying the problems and goals purposely, and increasing participation of PCM by informing and bringing together as many actors as possible. Facilitators will not only coordinate and organise various actors and activities needed to attain collective goals, but they will also take advantages as facilitators if they are a member of PCM because they may steer goal formulation and decision that will favour their own interest. On the other hand, if facilitators are an independent party outside PCM, they will be more neutral toward equal collective goals but may have limitations on the understanding of the existing situation.

10.4.1 Phases of PCS Network Development Based on the lesson learned from IS development and symbiosis network trajectory, this chapter considers how a network development mechanism for PCS implementation is formulated. Instead of formulating the development as top-down or bottom-up, network trajectories theory is used, and the role of facilitators is acknowledged, regardless of their position related to PCM (e.g. private firm, port authority, independent party). This type of formulation will result in a bigger picture on network development in PCS that is expected to contribute to the knowledge development on the best practice in PCS implementation.

178

B. Mayanti et al.

The mix trajectory is seen to be the most proper network development for PCS following the stages of pre-PCS network, PCS network emergence and PCS network expansion. A previous study that suggested the work on PCS development starts with goal formulation did not emphasise sufficiently the existing network as the precursor of PCS network.

10.4.1.1

Pre-PCS Network

Inter-organisational networks occur naturally in many sectors due to the lack of certain resources that can be filled by others. In the maritime supply chain, the lack of certain resource is caused by the complexity of that supply chain that can lead to inefficient moving of goods from one point to another. This complexity creates specialisation from each actor along the supply chain to handle certain issues. Multiple network are then formed from the transaction of multiple actors in which each actor can be in more than one network, or move from one network to another, until mutual gain is realised. This type of network formation is mainly serendipitous with the absence of network strategies. Each actor acts on behalf of itself independently to create a connection with others. This network process tends to be realised based on the potential gains of working together. Actors will decide with whom to work based on the information about other actors or personal relations between key persons in different firms. Trust and likeness are built once the collaboration turns out to be fruitful, leading to more openness toward information exchange. It is illustrated by an example from Johnson and Styhre (2015). In certain ports, the cargo owner will be required to work with a specific agent. Some agents may have a personal preference on a certain shipping company and provide information exclusively. This occurs when multiple vessels approach a temporarily congested port and an agent will share this information to selected a vessel so that the vessel can speed up and arrive in a timely manner to be served. Every actor in the network will expect a stable long lasting partnership built on trust (Dore 1983). By maintaining a stable relationship, it will reduce the search cost spent in the attempt to find other reliable actors to replace older ones (Chertow and Ehrenfeld 2012), and also reduce risk from working with unknown new actors. For example, another stevedore company may use different equipment to unload cargo efficiently resulting in a shorter ship turnaround time. When a long lasting partnership is preferred and trust has been built, a shipping company will not just end the contract and use another company; the shipping line will discuss the matter and even offer help the stevedore to improve their work. This serendipitous trajectory will lead to multiple dense clustering networks built by multiple supply chain in which all actors connect to one or more other actors inside and outside particular network. The fact that one actor may be involved in multiple networks may help other actors to grow their network based on the referral.

10

Analysing Port Community System …

10.4.1.2

179

PCS Network Emergence

Based on the work of Kilduff and Tsai (2003), the last stage on a serendipitous trajectory is the emergence of brokers. These brokers emerge from an active member in particular clustering networks who realize the potential of collaboration across these clustering networks. They then will connect one network with another and enable collaboration across the network. The emergence of the broker is the beginning of the goal-oriented trajectory in the PCS development stage. A broker/ focal organisation/facilitator is usually the one who recognises the necessity of PCS, or the one that is responsible for system change due to legislation. The type of facilitator depends, as well, on the size of the port and its primary activities. Big ports usually host various private operators who may take a role as facilitator in PCS implementation (MED-PCS Project 2013). Alternatively, government may facilitate in big ports too when their primary activity is trading and they have to handle a lot of custom related issues. In the absence of a natural candidate, the Port Authority can take the responsibility as facilitator. As PCS project initiation begins, formulating a strategic vision containing problems formulation and collective goals is a priority (Srour et al. 2008). In the presence of many actors in big ports, it may be more difficult to achieve a common vision and value. Problem formulation can be difficult due to the actors’ heterogeneity, resulting in a heterogenic result on what is the most urgent problem to address. Therefore, the facilitator is required to identify the existing network and its dynamic, existing exchange, how the current exchange is conducted, and the experience and feedback from those process. That information will be the starting point for starting the conversation on strategic vision formulation. Then, in order to attract an interest of PCM toward PCS implementation, the facilitator will be collecting and communicating information about the potential improvement from PCS implementation, data security issues, examples from other ports, and regulations that may and may not support the implementation. It is also important to reach key person(s) in every network in the attempt to convince PCM; later on, those key person(s) are the ones who will deliver the message into their own network. Next, the facilitator can provide a space/platform for actors who develop early interest on PCS to communicate and exchange ideas or information. A goal-oriented network is sensitive to the coherence of the collective goals, and conflicts about them can cause the network to fail (Kilduff and Tsai 2003). The management scheme is another important issue to discuss early in this stage once PCS is successfully implemented. Experience shows that management issues are considered important in the success of PCS implementation around the world; some even stating that PCS implementation is not technological change but “change management project” and emphasise issues related to management change such as pilot user involvement, user training, dissemination with regards to PCS development (IAPH 2011). Following project initiation is system analysis and design, then implementation and adoption (Srour et al. 2008). Although this phase seems to be technical due to the design development of the PCS, the more important factor is assessing the

180

B. Mayanti et al.

functionality needed by the prospective users, based on the collected information in the previous phase. The functionality must provide the users with what they need. Functionality risk is considerably high in the IT system improvement, due to system designers who could not capture users’ needs or the evolution of needs over time (Clemons et al. 1995). System designers of PCS may face problems when there is a significant disagreement among prospective users related to the system functionality and requirements. Although the majority of ports do not outsource their technology development to a data centre and telecom operators (IAPH 2011), reaching outside resources is a possible option to fill the gaps or supplement their work, and what has been done by few ports is a common trajectory in the network-oriented goal (Kilduff and Tsai 2003). An important aspect is supervision from the Port Authority if the work is outsourced, so the results will comply with the legal requirement of multiple government bodies to whom the port are responsible. Pilot testing with pilot users will be followed in the procedure, in order to have first-hand experience of the system and provide feedback for the system evaluation. Pilot users are usually the major stakeholders in the PCM, thus this testing aims as well to incorporate the information from key activities in ports. The primary challenges in this stage are collective goals formulation and system acceptance. The difficulty in collective goals formulation is caused by actors’ heterogeneity, leading to unclear vision regarding the urgency and benefits of PCS implementation. If the major actor happened to be the facilitator, they may subtly direct the goal toward their own interest or even impose it. Caution needs to be taken if collective agreement can not be reached because it may lead to groups forming that will push forward their own collective goals. Another challenge in bringing stakeholders together to formulate collective goals is rooted in the serendipitous process proceeding PCS network emergence. The serendipitous trajectory will create a clustering network that has tight ties between members in a particular network but weak ties across networks (Kilduff and Tsai 2003). Even though a goal-oriented network has a distinctive trajectory, the outcome of the two similar type of networks can be different due to their sensitive nature to the initial condition (Kilduff and Tsai 2003). This is illustrated by examples of how the initial financing scheme could affect the continuation of PCS-like system in Port of Rotterdam and America (Srour et al. 2008; MED-PCS Project 2013). System acceptance is another major challenge. Implementing successful PCS will require incremental technology improvement compared with the current system. Srour et al. (2008) emphasised the importance of resemblance between the existing system and the new system. This is because the users are used to a typical system and radical change only makes them lose trust in the new system. They do not see it as simplification of current system instead it will be perceived as ports’ way to shift their responsibility toward customers. That is why the modular approach in PCS is seen as a key factor to the acceptance of PCS implementation. The modular approach will incrementally improve the PCS functionality without creating extreme change and that help with the users’ acceptance. Moreover, it will also avoid information inundation to the users, since the module will serve a specific purpose. This specific purpose will also ease the evaluation process in

10

Analysing Port Community System …

181

assessing the system benefits or shortcomings in order to make further improvements. Another issue related system acceptance is caused by the information transparency provided by PCS that can reduce the benefit reaped by certain port community members, namely ship owners. Presently, one of the most crucial issues due to lack of transparency is the long idling period of ships’ operations. Ships may need to stay at anchor for days before getting to a berth under the conventional first-come first-served (FCFS) basis. This could be solved by applying just-in-time (JIT) operations under PCS, in which incoming ships will receive the latest information about departing time of the ships that are already on berth, and where dynamic berth slot planning is applied instead of FCFS. The incoming ships may need to switch to slow steam in order to adjust to the new available berthing schedule. Slow steam and shorter idling period will produce environmental and economic benefit due to fuel saving. Nevertheless, challenges persist because it will disrupt the system legacy, change how all operators should work, and reduce important revenue coming from demurrage. Demurrage is a compensation paid by charterers to ship owners when they cannot load or unload cargo within certain period of time that has been agreed contractually. This contractual agreement provides no incentive for ship owners to implement JIT operation; conversely, steam at full speed to arrive quickly to start the laytime period is an attractive option. Thus, a new commercial contractual framework that reassures fair share of benefits between charterers and ship owners is important to support this stage. Transparency will also prevent favoritism, since necessary information will be distributed fairly and prevent illegal activity such as bribery (Keceli et al. 2007).

10.4.1.3

PCS Network Expansion

PCS development does not stop once the system is implemented and early adopters start utilising the system. Constant work will need to be carried out including maintaining and expanding the system and the network. Collective goals needs to be assessed and certain actions must be taken, whether the goals are achieved or not, because the network of a goal-oriented trajectory can collapse either when the collective goals are not achieved or have been achieved (Kilduff and Tsai 2003). The former means failure while the latter implies that there is nothing more to be done. Although PCS can achieve its collective goals, functional risk remains due to the dynamic needs of the users. Therefore, new goals need to be invented and a perpetual system improvement is required. On the other side, achieving collective goals will help the network to be more stable among the users, by providing reassurance that the system works and benefit the users. It will create more trust, leading to willingness to implement innovation that is riskier. PCS success will attract actors who are still outside the system to join, especially through referral. When more actors join, PCS will increase the accuracy on processing the information, the re-utilisation of information and the quality of information services (Srour et al. 2008), which provides more proof and assurance in using PCS and

182

B. Mayanti et al.

creating a positive feedback regarding adoption level of PCS. Naturally, more actors will join voluntarily once the system is stable and widely used because it will leave the actors outside the network with no option to access information their need unless they are in the inside the network. PCS network expansion occurs when new actors join a certain network or multiple PCS across different ports are being connected. Connecting multiple well-established PCS can be a new collective goal from a new wider network comprising inter-PCM. Technology advancement is vital to deal with massive information flows, message standardisation and to contain higher security issues. Nevertheless, PCS integration is a problematic issue because there is competition among ports; therefore a proper competition strategy is required before this can be realised.

10.4.2 Determinant Factors in PCS Development Each different stage of PCS network development has its own determining aspects that can act as barriers as well. Those determining aspects are categorised into social, economy, technology and regulations. Table 10.1 shows the summary and

Table 10.1 Summary and characteristics of PCS network development Pre-PCS network

PCS network emergence

PCS network expansion

Network trajectory

Serendipitous • No collective goals • Based on potential mutual gain • Continuation based on trust and likeness • Slower to develop but more resilient

Beginning of goal-oriented • Facilitator is important • Collective goals formulation • Quicker to develop but less resilient

Goal-oriented • Constant reinvention of collective goals • Long experience deepen trust • Willing to implement more risky innovation

Challenges

• Strong sense solidarity intra-network may lead to hostility across network • Favouritism

• Collective goals formulation • System acceptance

• Constant evolve in defining new collective goals and improving system • Inter-port PCS connection

Determining aspects

Social, regulations

Regulations, economy, technology

Regulations, economy, technology

• Project initiation • System analysis and design • Implementation and adoption

• Maintenance and growth

PCS deployment stages (Srour et al. 2008)

10

Analysing Port Community System …

183

main characteristics of PCS network development including where the deployment stages proposed by Srour et al. (2008) are situated in the network and also the main determination in different stage of the network development. The determining aspect is categorised based on its importance in each of development stages. Although all determining aspects play a role in every stage, the degree of importance is different. Regulations play an important role throughout the stages of PCS network development. At the regional level in Europe, it is shown through EU Directive 2010/65 that aims to harmonise and simplify administrative procedures in maritime transport through information exchange standardisation. PCS development is not always pushed by regulations that specifically targets IT systems in a ports’ administration process. Other regulations, such as environmental standards on air emissions, require a vessel to reduce its emissions. One of the methods to reduce air emission is achieved by reducing vessel speed, especially when ports are congested. This real time and transparent information is only possible to acquire from a PCS-like system. On the other hand, regulations can hinder PCS implementation in the case of the obligation to present certain document in hard copy form, or due to invalidity of a digital signature. Regulations become prominently important in PCS network expansion if two or more PCS system will be integrated across ports, since the PCS utilisation can be country specific especially from a customs perspective. The social aspect of how the relations between individuals or organisations could develop is the basis of how a serendipitous network is built. It usually exhibits certain characteristics, such as the absence of complex technology advancement or transformation; instead social aspects such as cross-communication and interaction will be crucial as a foundation for the partnership. Instead, technology and economy aspects come hand in hand since technological advancement will require financial investment. Financial investment becomes a burden for certain actors. Small firms, with limited resources and activities, will not see the benefit of joining PCS compared to bigger firms that have a bigger share of activity in a port. Thus, cost structuring in PCS will increase the success rate of PCS adoption. In the port of Rotterdam, two cost schemes exist: subscription fee plus payment per transaction, and a slightly higher payment per transaction (MED-PCS Project 2013). Bigger users, with more financial capability, will choose the first scheme because it will create benefits from a lower fee per transaction; on the other hand, less-frequent users can opt for the second scheme, creating a win-win solution for different users. Government subsidies can also ensure more adoption of PCS by financing PCS development e.g. ports of Rotterdam and Hamburg (MED-PCS Project 2013). Technology determines whether PCS network emergence and PCS network expansion will be successful or not. This aspect is not about applying the most sophisticated technology; instead, it is about capturing the users’ needs, user friendliness, and compliance with local/national regulations. One of the reasons of PCS-like early implementation in the port of Kumport failed was caused by software incompatibility that was developed by a foreign company and did not comply with public body requirements (Keceli et al. 2007).

184

10.5

B. Mayanti et al.

Conclusions

Based on IS development and network trajectories theory, this chapter conceptualises the evolution of PCS network development into three stages: pre-PCS network; PCS network emergence; and PCS network expansion. The difficulty on PCS implementation is due to its complex nature and intermeshing aspects—social, economy, technology and regulations. This study shows that PCS implementation is beyond technological implementation; it instead has a strong social side in understanding where the network comes from and convincing various actors to use technology that, to some extent, has abstract and even unequal benefit. Having an understanding of the prevalence of each stage will help related actors to comprehend the dynamic process that occurs and to take precautionary actions at every stage in order to implement PCS successfully. These findings are expected to help accelerate a port’s sustainability transition agenda through the adoption of inter-an organisational information system, since sustainability shall be achieved through a holistic approach and a vision to the future. Yet, many questions still remain and need to be answered, because scholarly studies on PCS itself are still very limited. Many directions need exploration, including the environmental and economic benefit of PCS, PCS implementation and ports competitiveness, and case studies on PCS network development. As a future direction, network development can also be explored on how to expand a PCS network for integration across ports.

References Aydogdu, Y. V., & Aksoy, S. (2015). A study on quantitative benefits of port community systems. Maritime Policy and Management, 42(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2013. 825053. Baas, L. W., & Boons, F. A. (2004). An industrial ecology project in practice: Exploring the boundaries of decision-making levels in regional industrial systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 1073–1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.02.005. Carlan, V., Sys, C., & Vanelslander, T. (2016). How port community systems can contribute to port competitiveness: Developing a cost-benefit framework. Research in Transportation Business and Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2016.03.009. Chertow, M. R. (2004). Industrial Symbiosis. In Encyclopedia of energy (Vol. 11, pp. 407–415). https://doi.org/10.1016/b0-12-176480-x/00557-x. Chertow, M. R. (2007). “Uncovering” industrial symbiosis. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 11(1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1162/jiec.2007.1110. Chertow, M. R., & Ehrenfeld, J. (2012). Organizing self-organizing systems: Toward a theory of industrial symbiosis. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1530-9290.2011.00450.x. Clemons, E. K., Thatcher, M. E., & Row, M. C. (1995). Identifying Sources Of Reengineering Failures: A study of the behavioral factors contributing to reengineering risks. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(2), 9–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1995. 11518079.

10

Analysing Port Community System …

185

De Martino, M., Morvillo, A., & DE Martino, M. (2008). Activities, resources and inter-organizational relationships: Key factors in port competitiveness. Maritime Policy & Management, 35(6), 571–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830802469477. Doménech, T., & Davies, M. (2011). The role of embeddedness in industrial symbiosis networks: Phases in the evolution of industrial symbiosis networks. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(5), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.695. Dore, R. (1983). Goodwill and the spirit of market capitalism. The British Journal of Sociology, 34 (4), 459–482. https://doi.org/10.1145/2484028.2484093. European Commission. (2014). Glossary: Short sea shipping (SSS)—Statistics explained. Retrieved January 18, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/ Glossary:Short_sea_shipping_(SSS). European Commission. (2018). Maritime transport statistics—Short sea shipping of goods— Statistics explained. Retrieved January 18, 2019, from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Maritime_transport_statistics_-_short_sea_shipping_of_goods#Total_ short_sea_shipping. Gibbs, D., & Deutz, P. (2007). Assessment and management of regional ecosystem services: a case study in the Yangtze River Delta Region View project. Journal of Cleaner Production. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.02.003. Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439–1493. https://doi.org/10.1086/210179. Hewes, A., & Lyons, D. I. (2008). The humanistic side of eco-industrial parks: Champions and the role of trust. Regional Studies, 42(10), 1329–1342. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00343400701654079. Hoffmann, J., & Kumar, S. (2010). Globalisation: The maritime nexus. The handbook of maritime economics and business. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi= 10.1.1.466.423&rep=rep1&type=pdf. IAPH. (2011). Port community systems benchmark survey. Retrieved from http://www. porttraininglivorno.eu/sites/default/files/PCSBENCHMARKSURVEYPARTE1A.pdf. IPCSA. (2011). Port community systems. Retrieved January 8, 2019, from https://ipcsa. international/pcs. Johnson, H., & Styhre, L. (2015). Increased energy efficiency in short sea shipping through decreased time in port. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 71, 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.11.008. Keceli, Y. (2011). A proposed innovation strategy for Turkish port administration policy via information technology. Maritime Policy & Management, 38(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03088839.2011.556676. Keceli, Y., Choi, H. R., & Park, N. K. (2007). Analysis of success factors of information systems development in Kumport and implications for other Turkish ports. WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Applications, 4(5), 1041–1047. Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2003). Social networks organizations. Long, A. (2009). Port community system January. World Customs Journal, 3(1), 63–67. Retrieved from http://worldcustomsjournal.org/Archives/Volume3%2CNumber1(Apr2009)/08Long.pdf. MED-PCS Project. (2013). Promotion of “port community system” in mediterranean traffic. Retrieved from http://www.med-pcs.eu/media/com_hwdmediashare/files/c3/e2/28/ f1f4bd272f1858e786f9b8191e957107.pdf. Paquin, R. L., & Howard-Grenville, J. (2009). Facilitating regional industrial symbiosis: Network growth in the UK’s National Industrial Symbiosis Programme. In The Social Embeddedness of Industrial Ecology. Rodon, J., & Ramis-Pujol, J. (2006). Exploring the intricacies of integrating with a port community system. BLED 2006 Proceedings. 9. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/ bled2006/9. Srour, F. J., van Oosterhout, M., van Baalen, P., & Zuidwijk, R. (2008). Port community system implementation: Lessons learned from an international scan. Transportation Research Board 87th Annual Meeting, (August), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.2992/0097-4463-77.4.425.

186

B. Mayanti et al.

Tijan, E., Agatić, A., & Hlača, B. (2012). The necessity of port community system implementation in the Croatian seaports. Promet—Traffic & Transportation, 24(4), 305–315. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84867811057&partnerID=40&md5= ad05c6955bed84b85ce56730fdfdfb3c. Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Association, 61(4), 674–698. van Baalen, P., & Zuidwijk, R. (2008). Introduction. In P. van Baalen, R. Zuidwijk, J. van Nune (Eds.), Port inter-organizational information systems: Capabilities to service global supply chains. Foundations and Trends in Technology, Information and Operations Management, 2 (2–3), 1–20. van de Voorde, E., & Vanelslander, T. (2009). Market power and vertical and horizontal integration in the maritime shipping and port industry. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/ docserver/227458312782.pdf?expires=1547195809&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=CED CD10667E93C00262A74F48BCCCDFA. van Oosterhout, M. (2008). Organizations and flows in the network. In P. van Baalen, R. Zuidwijk, J. van Nune, Port inter-organizational information systems: Capabilities to service global supply chains. Foundations and Trends in Technology, Information and Operations Management, 2(2–3), 93–102. Wrigley, C. D., Wagenaar, R. W., & Clarke, R. A. (1994). Electronic data interchange in international trade: Frameworks for the strategic analysis of ocean port communities. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 3(3), 211–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/0963-8687(94)90027-2.

Chapter 11

Touristification of European Port-Cities: Impacts on Local Populations and Cultural Heritage María J. Andrade and João Pedro Costa

Abstract Touristification of European port-cities is a contemporary process of globalisation in the age of the information society, adding cruise and marine specific dynamics to the promotion of cities as products and destinations for short-breaks, congresses or holidays. Port-cities have a long history of investment on the waterfront, adapting these spaces through at least three cycles since industrialisation, in a 50 years process of waterfront regeneration that started in the late 1960s. Touristification corresponds to a new (fourth) stage in a continuous port/city redevelopment process. Global tourism research reveals several undesirable impacts on cities, for example through gentrification (displacement) of local inhabitants or a change of the city’s identity into a generic image, where living conditions are impacted by higher housing prices. Alongside the negative impacts of cruise tourism is the profile of this type of tourist, e.g. as part of the so-called “low-cost tourism”. Confronted with unlimited growth of touristification and its negative impacts, major port-cities want to control this process. Effective monitoring tools, strong administrative coordination, and agile spatial planning and management instruments are determinant for port-cities to respond to the touristification process. Port-cities have struggled to orientate this process to define which types of tourism they want to promote or limit; cruises are part of the equation. In port-cities, touristification demands highly effective spatial planning answers, with inter-sectoral and trans-scale policy answers occurring simultaneously.

Author’s Note This chapter is based on the empirical research and on the experience of the authors and results from a common research project developed at the Universities of Malaga and Lisbon M. J. Andrade (&) Departamento Arte y Arquitectura, Escuela de Arquitectura, Universidad de Málaga, Campus de El Ejido, 2, 29013 Málaga, Spain e-mail: [email protected] M. J. Andrade
J. P. Costa CIAUD, Research Centre on Architecture, Urbanism and Design, Lisbon School of Architecture, Universidade de Lisboa, Pólo Universitário do Alto da Ajuda, Rua Sá Nogueira, 1349-063 Lisbon, Portugal © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 A. Carpenter and R. Lozano (eds.), European Port Cities in Transition, Strategies for Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9_11

187

188

M. J. Andrade and J. P. Costa




Keywords Port-cities Waterfronts Gentrification Cultural heritage




11.1


Touristification: cruise tourism


Introduction

Touristification is an ongoing process in major European cities, as globalisation, the information society, and aviation market competition and its consequent low cost flights, have contracted physical distances, generalised access to travelling and promoted cities as products in the short-break, congress or holidays destination market. Port-cities are naturally part of these global dynamics (Alemany and Bruttomesso 2011; Hein 2011; Andrade and Prieto 2014; Pallis et al. 2014), adding extra capacities to touristic destinations, as a result of their infrastructure specificities: the waterfront allows the expansion of this phenomenon to port areas, both thought the development of marinas and cruise destinations. As a result, the touristification of port cities generates a more complex discussion, within a theme that is already complex in these urban territories (Stewart et al. 2011; Roca Blanch 2014; Boland et al. 2017; Jones 2017; Papatheochari and Coccossis 2019). Being a relevant financial income, that justifies the development of strategic approaches by city administrations, this phenomenon presents undesirable impacts in growing scales which are proportional to the success of the touristic destination, such as: 1. Gentrification, where local inhabitants are forced to abandon the city centre due to: (i) increased housing prices, in part associated with new forms of hospitality, such as the digital platforms—e.g. Airbnb; (ii) changes in local services—in type and in prices; and (iii) changes in the neighbourhood’s occupancy, with increased presence of tourists, and night-time activity; 2. Gentrification of services and public facilities which, due to the increase prices in central areas, profoundly change the functional dynamics of cities, including phenomena’s such as: (i) the transference of public facilities to other areas in the city, liberating former central plots and buildings to urban renewal; and (ii) the expulsion of traditional economic activities, which are unable to pay rents at the market prices of the central spaces in which they were located; and 3. Changes in the city’s identity, with a tendency towards generalisation of a global image and living conditions, due to: (i) the repetition of international architectural languages, normalising the urban image; (ii) the tendency to replace local activities by global international companies in commerce and restoration—the McDonald’s world; (iii) increased pressure on urban heritage, both due to over use of the major local monuments and the adaptation of several heritage buildings to touristic activities, due to their “charm”; and, (iv) the tendency to welcome global forms of touristic mobility, such as tuk-tuks, and scooters.

11

Touristification of European Port-Cities …

189

As a result, major European cities can contribute to a wider public debate about the impacts of tourism, introducing new agendas and a wide range of local approaches. These agendas and approaches can result in effective local policies which are then undertaken and monitored, in order to observe, simultaneously, their effectiveness in the mitigation of negative impacts and measure possible negative impact on the tourism activity of the city. Cities like Lisbon, Madrid, Barcelona, Venice, Amsterdam, and Berlin, have participated in this contemporary policy debate on touristification issues such as: How to regulate digital renting platforms, such as Airbnb? How to regulate housing prices to avoid a definitive gentrification of local inhabitants? Should cities allow new forms of mobility largely used by tourists, such as scooters? Should cities implement a tourism tax and what should be the amount? How high should the price of a ticket be to a major local monument, to a museum, or extra charges for meals in a restaurant? This latter might take into account physical limitations of the venue, methods to promote a positive benefit to local inhabitants (e.g. discounted prices), which may be needed, without introducing a local-tourist surcharge on services that might be seen as offensive to tourists or even be unconstitutional in law. In addition to these questions, port-cities need to include the specificities of cruise touristification. These cities have invested for decades or centuries in their waterfront transformation (Andrade et al. 2012), developing successive generations of port infrastructure and regenerating abandoned areas, in successive (re)constructions that have been reactive to technological evolution and the transformation of society, requiring some maturation over time.

11.2

The Port-City Territories and the Technological Cycles

Existing literature (e.g. Ascher 2001; Costa 2013) associates the port-city transformation to the distinct cycles in the relationship between port-urban development and the advent of technological progress. In the economic and social sciences, there is some consensus about the definition of four technological generations since industrialization (Rifkin 2011; Schwab 2016; Case 2016); but in its territorial expression on port-cities, the 3rd and 4th industrial revolutions almost overlap in time and can be addressed as one (see for example Acciaro et al. 2019). As such, three moments of waterfront transformation can be identified and associated to the progressive adaptation of these territories to the technological cycles, which were central to support the city’s productive processes and mobility (Costa 2013). Three phases of industrialisation were observed by Costa (2013), corresponding to three cycles in the energy technologies and communications developments, which generated three urban paradigms in relation to the port-city. These phases are:

190

M. J. Andrade and J. P. Costa

1. The waterfront of the first industrialisation [mid to late 19th Century in England; end of the 19th Century in Portugal, for example], was associated with coal as energy source and communication technologies such as the mail, the telegraph and the hand-cranked phone. “The new energy paradigm allowed the exponential development of collective mobility, knowing the advent of the railroad and the development of maritime and fluvial transport by steam, as well as industry, associated with the application of iron and steel” (Costa 2013). As a result of technological developments, waterfronts needed “new landfill areas [new land areas recovered from rivers or the sea] in the immediate vicinity of the city, to accommodate the port and the railroad, but also the industry, power plants and warehousing complexes and customs” (Costa 2013), therefore generating new large, polluted, sealed territory that physically disconnected from the city despite the immediate vicinity; as well as an urban growth supported by a relationship of proximity between the residence and employment. 2. The waterfront of the second industrialisation [early 20th century to World War II], was associated with petrochemicals as an energy source and the generalisation of telephone, radio and television as a means of telecommunication. It allowed the expansion of the collective mobility network, namely maritime/ fluvial and railways, and led to the increase of the territorial reach of collective accessibility through bus routes, reaching areas where railroad tracks did not reach. It also supported the advent of the automobile as an individual means of transportation, progressively broadening to reach any point of the territory, as well as air transportation, which significantly reduced time needed to travel long distances. These technological characteristics allowed, on the waterfronts, for territorial specialisation and the relocation of housing and industry, no longer dependent of the need for immediate neighbourhoods. The port and industry moved to a peripheral location, downstream in the new landfills of the twentieth century. “The reverse of the technological paradigm shift was the decadence of the port and productive areas of the first industrialization, introducing, in different timings, the regeneration agenda” (Costa 2013). 3. The waterfront of the third and fourth industrialisations, still frequently (and not correctly) named as “post-industrial waterfront”, is associated with a new technology-based generational leap. The third industrialisation is generally associated with the computer, globalisation and post-carbon society; while the fourth industrialisation is developments in robotics and artificial intelligence (Ascher 2001), and is accompanied by a technological leap forward in communications and energy sources: the silicon chip and automation generations, promoting “globalization, the exponential development of science in all areas (…) and the emergency of the post-carbon society, supported by the so-called “clean energies”, which are gradually beginning to replace fossil fuels”. This contemporary cycle is associated to phenomena such as: “(i) the relocation of the activities of the second industrialization, liberating vast territories of water front that we do not know how to face (Costa 2007); (ii) the bet on the

11

Touristification of European Port-Cities …

191

new technological industry …; (iii) metropolitan restructuring, supported by networks; (iv) the consolidation of recreational and leisure society, and; (v) the introduction of the climate change adaptation agenda” (Costa 2013). Once again, it is a moment of regeneration of former production areas. Although having a background in the past, associated with the late XIX century maritime passenger transportation, or with recreational uses since the second industrialisation (Craig-Smith and Fagence 1995), it is in the scope of this contemporary waterfront where one can observe the touristification phenomenon of the port-city (White 2016). As part of such regeneration processes, port-cities have invested significantly in waterfront transformation, and simultaneously in the revitalisation of their historic centres, and the improvement of their cultural offerings (Meyer 1999; Casariego 1999), all factors which are decisive today to their competitiveness in main cruise markets. However, the constant increase in the size of cruise ships, together with the incipient growth of low-cost tourism, have resulted in the “invasion” of cities by mass tourism, introducing conflicts with other uses, with local inhabitants, and with local identity (Tremblay and Chicoine 2011; Saidi 2012). In this touristification process, global replaces local, causing a loss of identity, so that the main streets of all these cities offer the same shops of top brands, the same souvenirs, and even the same menus in restaurants. The transformation has been so excessive that previous inhabitants have left these places, which have then been converted into “theme parks”, lacking in local activity and identity. This is a mass cultural tourism experience, where the city is a scene of monuments and museums and the visitor becomes a passive spectator (Pendlebury et al. 2009; Nicholas et al. 2009). In the post-crisis context (following the global economic crises of the late 2000s and early 2010s), there has been limited scope for extensive publicly financed urban regeneration activities such as those that had been developed in the waterfronts during the previous thirty-plus years. Some affected cities have therefore begun to apply low-cost and short-term strategies to try to dispel the negative aspects of tourism for the sake of finding balance, and coexistence, between visitors and residents, to maintain or even maximise the benefits of tourism in the city in which they have invested so much. The “waterfront” recovery movement finds new paradigms, in an evolutionary process of urban regeneration that has lasted for more than 50 years.

11.3

The Evolution of Waterfront Regeneration

To understand the current context, it is necessary to briefly review the evolution of port-cities in recent times. Over the last 50 years, since the waterfront development of Baltimore in the late 1960s/early 1970s, for example, port cities have undergone massive transformations.

192

M. J. Andrade and J. P. Costa

The appearance of the shipping container in the mid-1950s made some ports look for new locations that would allow them to be accessible to large container ships and be more competitive, leaving behind the docks of the old port in the centre of the city. These were then used as places of opportunity to recover the historical centres that, at that time, were in decline. Thus the “waterfront” phenomenon came about, which has evolved since the first American experiences in the late 1960s and 1970s. Although a range of literature has been written about these actions (Breen and Rigby 1994, 1996; Bruttomesso 1991; Marshall 2001; Meyer 1990, 1999; Carpenter et al. 2018), the classification made by Andrade (2012) allow for a general and simple overview of this complex phenomenon, distinguishing four major stages in the evolution of the waterfronts, as illustrated in Fig. 11.1 (Andrade 2012). These are identified below: Firstly, the American experience, since the late 1960s, is viewed as the origin of waterfront transformations (Sieber and Timothy 1991). These early practices were based on a relaunch operation of the historic centre and of the financial district of the city, which were quite degraded. The strategy was based on placing tertiary facilities on those abandoned docks to reactivate the centre, but for that it was considered necessary to clean the place of the remnants of its industrial past, replacing them with shopping centres or leisure activities for example. However, the main success of those initial actions was in restoring the physical connection with the city, through the meticulous study of the immediate surroundings that they had to revitalise. Secondly, European experiences, added a variety of uses to the American model, and emphasised residential use as the main protagonist. Conservation strategies were not enough for those cities to maintain the functions of an urban centre in their

Fig. 11.1 Explanatory diagrams of the waterfront evolution. Source Andrade (2012)

11

Touristification of European Port-Cities …

193

historic core and reuse strategies were activated (Pinder 2003). If, in the American model, the waterfront was an annex to the city of tertiary use, in the European case dock areas served to continue the city to the sea, increasing the miscegenation of uses that characterises the city, by those docks. Thirdly, around the 1990s, the scale of the interventions increased. There was a boom in universal exhibitions and big events. Waterfronts became venues for these major international events, developing from the tertiary waterfront of American model, to mega-tertiary waterfront, which reactivated not only the historic centre, but the entire city. Lastly, in the 21st century, a new stage appeared as a continuation of the previous one in terms of the competitiveness between cities, highlighting differences in their own identity. It prolongs the city to the sea by the docks, but no longer any city: it became a port-city. The port activity was maintained, as possible; the intervention scale was broadened, now encompassing long-term vision with horizons of 30 years; and its repercussion again affected the whole city, giving it back the character of a port-city. For further information on the sustainability relationship between ports and cities, and on port-city redevelopment within the context of Europe’s Circular Economy agenda, see also Carpenter and Lozano (2019), and Karimpour et al. (2019), which appear elsewhere in this volume. By the 1990s, Jauhiainen (1995) suggested that these transformations should have more sensitivity to the local context, hence Falk (1992) and McCarthy (1998) pointing out the problem of the banal transferring of concepts from one city to another. The phenomenon of waterfront reconstruction of the city in areas abandoned by port facilities, providing spaces of extraordinary value for their breadth and position, represented the “peculiar success of the post-industrial city” (Bruttomesso 2004), and is exemplified by many examples of cities that have transformed—and continue transforming—their port spaces, recovering a waterfront that for a long time was hidden by old port warehouses, for example. In all these stages, the importance of actions to improve the urban quality of the city was maintained, each one trying to improve on the previous stage. If in the first, the physical integration of the actions was highlighted, in the second, the American mono-functionalism was broken in search of a miscegenation of uses, and a functional integration. This was improved in the third stage by combining local uses with global uses in response to these great events. In the fourth stage this was completed with the reinsertion of the port’s activities into the lives of citizens through social integration. In this way, these last actions tend to maintain as much port activity as possible on the docks, coexisting with urban activities, both global and daily (auditorium, fish market, blue transport, university, cruises, offices etc.), forming the port part of the day to day lives of the inhabitants of the city (Andrade 2012). With this awareness of the importance of the port as an element of identity of the city, we enter the contemporary port-city, in a period where not only the structure of the port space becomes important, but an absolute value is acquired through the recovery of those soft values of ports (Van Hooydonk 2007); those activities that

194

M. J. Andrade and J. P. Costa

are compatible with urban life. There are numerous port cities that have promoted activities related to tourism as an alternative port activity compatible with the city (McCarthy 1995, 1998). The cruise industry is located halfway between tourism and port activity (Capocaccia 2001). With the interventions carried out both in the port and in the city, these port cities have the necessary infrastructures and the cultural attraction to be part of the cruise routes. In this way we identify a fifth stage of the Waterfront (Perea-Medina et al. 2018), in which these cities assume the role of ‘tourist ports’ (McCarthy 2003), discussed below.

11.4

The Tourist-Port Phenomenon: Opportunities and Threats

The cruise industry is one of the most dynamic and fastest-growing tourism sub-sectors (Sun et al. 2011), especially in the Mediterranean area, where cities present a large range of easily accessible and attractive assets for historical and cultural tourism (Gui and Russo 2011; Rodrigues and Notteboom 2013; Soriani et al. 2009; Castillo-Manzano et al. 2014). As cruise tourism has increased in a rapid way in these cities, its impact on local development deserves special attention. As a result, over recent years, the literature on the negative and positive impacts of cruise tourism in port-cities at the economic, environmental, political and socio-cultural levels has increased significantly (Papathanassis and Beckman 2011; Bonilla-Priego et al. 2014; Brida and Zapata 2010; Klein 2011; MacNeill and Wozniak 2018). Cruise ships are getting bigger, increasing the number of tourists that disembark in cities, attracted by their rehabilitated historic centres and their media museums. According to Legoupil (2013), a stronger port-city connection has been achieved, particularly in this direction, as the historic centre became a continuation of the waterfront and part of the “terrestrial itinerary” of thousands of people in a short period of time. Throughout the different stages of the waterfront redevelopment, the predominant direction in port/city integration was the approach of the citizen to his/ her port, supported by its local and global uses and the extension of the urban transport network, with the port being part of the daily life of the citizens. However, today this reality has changed, due to the thousands of tourists who daily walk the waterfront towards the historical centre, taking over the historical fabric of the city. Cruise tourism can offer great benefits for the city, not only economically (Figueira de Sousa 2001) but also in the three port-city dimensions (Andrade 2012): (i) the physical dimension—continuity of trips from the terminals to the historic centre (Triay 2001); (ii) the functional dimension—mix of uses in terminals with uses focused on citizens that generate synergies (Bruttomesso 2001; Matvejevic 2001); and (iii) the social dimension—generation of new jobs and cultural activities. Simultaneously, cruise tourism is growing the number of cities where the effort

11

Touristification of European Port-Cities …

195

to clean up the city and turn it into an attractive cultural repository has reversed negative impacts, while the emergence of the touristification phenomenon, especially in the Mediterranean basin (due to the scale of the network of its port-cities and to the natural, historical and cultural context) has allowed the city to strengthen its position in the cruise market (Rodrigues and Notteboom 2013). Much has been written about the negative aspects of cruise tourism (Figueira de Sousa 2001; Shaw 2001; Marshall 2001; Rosa-Jimenez et al. 2018; McCarthy 2018), mainly about the vagueness of the real economic impact in the city, the pollution of ships, congestion or danger of the built heritage, among others. Additionally, critiques of the consumption profile of this type of tourist, who looks for specific and intensive touristic products and does not sleep on the city, are opposed to the impacts of the other types of touristification on the housing market, inflating market prices and affecting significantly the local residents. The cruise industry is a complex tourism product and its management is equally complicated (Castillo-Manzano et al. 2014), generating conflicts with the city and its inhabitants while contributing to its economy with a lower income generated compared to other types of tourism or to the citizen himself (Legoupil 2013), since passengers tend to sleep, eat, drink and spend on board the cruise-ship. Over many decades, cruise ships have greatly increased in size and capacity, and cities had to receive several cruise ships at once, making it easy to find cities with 20,000 cruise passengers disembarking in unison. This, together with the growth of low-cost tourism, has resulted in an increasing number of European port-cities which have a wide cultural offer and attractive, rehabilitated and easily accessible historic centres, being “invaded” by mass tourism, putting in danger the identity of these places (Bruttomesso 1999; Alemany 2006; Grindlay et al. 2018). These specific waterfront negative aspects, as identified previously, refer to the general process of major city’s touristification, generating a scale increase of impacts in port-cities. Through such excessive transformation due to mass touristification, cities are confronted with the danger of becoming “theme parks”, displacing local inhabitants and activities and lacking local identity: a fabricated cultural tourism where the city becomes a scene of monuments and museums and the individual becomes a passive spectator (Zukin 1996). While almost twenty years ago this danger was anticipated in the built heritage (Marshall 2001), it has today been amplified to the city itself. The tourist interest of a city is no longer only in its built heritage, but also in its inhabitants, its customs, its gastronomy, its local culture, and the daily activity of the citizens in the urban space. Mass tourism is contributing to the death of this essence, leaving only a scenario of a life that no longer exists; and the lives of its local residents and its daily activities are progressively being displaced to other locations. Simultaneously, this same cruise industry is transforming ports in “non-places”, global transit spaces serving their function as it happens in airports, metro stations or shopping centres (Augé 1995). It is increasingly necessary to propose a series of measures that can maximise the benefits of cruise tourism on port-cities, while mitigating its negative impacts and achieving coexistence between visitors and residents.

196

11.5

M. J. Andrade and J. P. Costa

The Tourist-Port in the Port-City Planning and Management

As McCarthy (2008) stated, to maximise the net benefits of tourism development in port-cities, it is necessary to carefully manage possible conflicts between tourism and local development, such as housing inflation, heritage conservation, transportation services, garbage, and such conflicts must be considered in decision-making, which should include a wide range of interests, including the local communities’ ones. In a period of rapid change (Ascher 2001), effective monitoring tools, strong administrative coordination, and agile spatial planning and management instruments are determinant for port-cities to adapt to new realities in time. The changes generated by the touristification process are happening at a rapid rate, and the conscience on what is really happening is needed to support weighted policies, in order to simultaneously defend the local communities from its negative impacts, and promote the positive synergies of the quality tourism. From the empirical research undertaken for this chapter, it has been identified that the common touristification processes of major cities may have major negative impacts resulting in the displacement of local inhabitants and in the change of living habits and activities. These occur as a result of (i) the inflation of housing prices; (ii) the changes in the local services and in the neighbourhood’s frequency; (iii) the gentrification of services and public facilities; (iv) the change in the city’s identity; and (v) the welcoming of global forms of touristic mobility. In port-cities these impacts are increased. Very frequently, the impact is not so much relevant to the waterfront territory, where it tends to result from the regeneration of former port and/or industrial areas located by the river or by the sea; but directly on the city central areas, which welcome these specific “tourists per hours” in addition to the regular ones. In this case, the pressure is mainly places on the transport system—public, car (taxis, Uber, etc.) and tourist buses—, on the most relevant services, museums and monuments and on the services—shopping and some restoration. Specifically, port-cities that can achieve a position at the start or at the end of cruises routes can benefit from one-night or longer hotel stays, although this situation demands an international airport, well connected and with an sufficient capacity. In port-cities, touristification demands, therefore, highly effective spatial planning answers, with inter-sector and trans-scale policy answers occurring simultaneously. Some examples (among many) include: 1. Port infrastructures needs to quickly be adapted to the specific demands of the cruise industry, in quantitative and qualitative terms, with the most competitive ports offering anchorage to cruise ships at the city centre and side-by-side with the most attractive urban areas, generating possible conflicts with the city— mobility volumes, breaking of viewpoints, negative impacts on the city/water visual connections, introduction of “walls of steel” where before the city used to have the water;

11

Touristification of European Port-Cities …

197

2. International airport planning and works are directly linked to the city position as a starting or ending point on the cruise routes; 3. The most important monuments and museums are limited in terms of capacity and the city needs to diversify, by promoting new attractions to capture the tourist attention, preferably also diversifying its local and regional location; 4. The most relevant local services for the city’s identity (traditional shops, restaurants, etc.) should be protected, particularly the historical ones, and become object of public policies, enlarging the contemporary heritage concept, but also the demands for public financing, which must result from tourism taxation—a classical contemporary policy debate on major tourist cities today; 5. The public transport system management have to integrate this specific tourist demand, particularly on the specific routes linking the cruise terminals to the most important tourist destinations, answering to the conflicts generated with local users; 6. Traffic management, frequently already a local problem for cities at peak hours, needs to integrate specific routes for tourist buses and the demand for taxis, Uber and others, exactly at the same period of time—when the cruise ship arrives and leaves the city; 7. Over-population of city centres generated by the cruise passengers, which is not only a pedestrian problem of density of public space occupation in a specific time, but also is one of the causes of gentrification, generating the transformation of the uses of places which changes the focus totally towards the tourist and eliminates its use by local residents; 8. All the types of gentrification due to the increase of prices (housing, shopping, restoration, public services, etc.) must be addressed by the port-city, in order to retain the local inhabitants’ access to them—and, with that, promote a local feeling of antipathy against tourism; and 9. Local housing policies became a major political topic in local elections and needs to be directly coordinated with tourism land use regulations, for example for as accommodation through Airbnb, in hostels and other non-conventional hospitality regulation. Therefore, it is no longer sufficient to ensure that a specific sector spatial plan includes the tourism-related activities. The dynamic of planning and management itself may become central to the problem. None of the described impacts is stable in time; neither can they be addressed by a single plan or by a single entity. On the contrary, each of these problems verifies a different evolution every day; and the answer to each one is no longer isolated, but must be considered as part of the system; this implies that the larger vision of the entire system should never be lost, and obliges compromise by multiple institutional, associative and private actors, at different territorial levels. A primary objective is the maintenance of the distinctive character of the city, enhancing local identity and culture (Richards 1996; Urry 1990). An identity is

198

M. J. Andrade and J. P. Costa

physical (referring to buildings, streets or services), and also human (referring to the specific habits of local inhabitants); it cannot obviously be frozen in time. The right balance between the natural evolution of the city, which is desirable, and the control of the negative impacts of touristification, is the most difficult point to achieve. It is crucial to effectively combine policies focusing on the local population and their well-being, implying a physical, functional and socioeconomically benefit, with others focused on the correct orientations for competitiveness of tourism (Del Chiappa et al. 2018; Fadeeva 2005; Hritz and Cecil 2008; Jamal and Stronza 2009; Vernon et al. 2005). It is a sensitive balance that, if well addressed, can produce sustainable benefits for the city in general. These policies cannot lose the focus on the local, for their appropriate conservation and protection (not excessive but not insufficient), while allowing for the viability of tourist activity in the long term (Dimitrovski and Crespi Vallbona 2018). Supporting local identity allows the creation of a specific brand that enhances the identification and differentiation of the destination as a memorable tourist experience (Ritchie and Crouch 2003), but also defends the local inhabitants. In scenarios where the demand for cruise tourism continues to grow, alternatives to address its impacts on the port-city can be synthesized through two opposite extreme policies: (i) to limit the number of passengers disembarking on the city (Johnson 2002), by defining a limit capacity to the port-city; or, (ii) to diversify, promoting alternative tourist resources accessible from the destination ports in coordination with local interests. In the context of the post-economic crisis (from around 2013–2015 onwards, depending on country or region), when our societies cannot repeat the large and profound urban regeneration waterfront operations that occurred in the 1990s, new forms of intervention are taking place; they are more participatory, reusing spaces initially not qualified as heritage. In different cities, industrial buildings that have been embedded in the urban fabric and devoid to use are being occupied for local activities, guaranteeing a living memory of urban life in the area. They are interventions requiring low financial investment in existing spaces and structures, with realistic expectations, and offer local solutions to the challenges of urban planning. This is an example of a neighbourhood-building approach that uses short-term, low-cost, controlled-scale interventions and policies to catalyse long-term change (Glick 2012). Attending to the industrial past of these threatened port-cities, it is still common to find these old industrial buildings in disuse. In the post-crisis economic situation of western countries, with the lack of public and private financial resources to implement large urban regeneration operations in the port-city interface spaces, the existent situation provides an opportunity, and the reuse of buildings is becoming a form of redevelopment. It is a way to value local identity and to protect the city and port heritage, by counteracting the destructive effect of gentrification (displacement of local inhabitants and activities) that the contemporary phenomenon of tourism provokes in port-cities. New heritage approaches to the existing urban spaces might be a form to ensure the identity of port-cities through local activity, surpassing classical concepts such as the monument or the thematic park and (re) creating more genuine spaces,

11

Touristification of European Port-Cities …

199

simultaneously achieving a better coexistence between local inhabitants and visitors and their interest activities; an approach that can be extended to public spaces, as life among buildings is richer, more stimulating, and more rewarding than any combination of architectural ideas (see Gehl 1987).

11.6

Conclusions

Touristification of European port-cities is a contemporary process of globalization in the age of the information society, adding the cruise and marine specific dynamics to the promotion of cities as products in the short-break, congress or holidays destinations. These cities have to manage its infrastructure specificities along the waterfront and its urban surroundings and accessibilities; but also, to manage its local impacts, generating a complex discussion. Global tourism reveals several undesirable impacts in major cities, such as: (i) the gentrification of local inhabitants (as proposed by Stewart et al. 2011), due to the inflation of the housing prices and the changes in the local services, and changes in the neighbourhood’s make-up; (ii) the gentrification of services and public facilities; and (iii) the change in the city’s identity into a global image and living conditions, generating an over pressure urban heritage. As a result, an intensive public debate occurs about the impacts of tourism, creating pressure to the development of local policies to mitigate the negative impacts of touristification, although not killing the touristic activity itself, which is still understood as a very desirable economical pillar of development. Port-cities add to this reality the extra specificities of maritime touristification. These cities have a long history of investment on the waterfront, adapting these spaces to at least three cycles since industrialization (as discussed by Costa 2013), in successive (re)constructions of (re)new(ed) port infrastructure and regenerated urban areas. Today’s port-city touristification takes part, therefore, of a 50 years process of waterfront regeneration which can be understood through five periods, as described above (see Andrade 2012). It corresponds to a new stage on a continuous port/city process. As the cruise industry is one of the fastest-growing tourism sub-sectors, especially in the Mediterranean area, its local impacts deserve special attention. However, they cannot be addressed in isolation, in the light of the general touristification process of those cities. Cruise ships are growing continuously in size and number, while increasing numbers of tourists disembark in cities; as a consequence new port-city connections area also growing, expanding the waterfront to the city centre as part of the “terrestrial itinerary” of thousands of people in a short period of time. Along the negative impacts of cruise tourism, such as the vagueness of the real economic impact in the city, the pollution of ships, the congestion or danger of the built heritage, the profile of this type of tourist entered the core of the discussion. This type of tourist looks for specific and intensive tourism products and does not sleep in the city; although in the opposite perspective it can be argued that such a

200

M. J. Andrade and J. P. Costa

tourist does not contributes to the inflating market prices that strongly affect local residents. The argument here is that this type of tourism might be part of the so called “low-cost tourism”, which charges the city facilities and infrastructures and amplifies the negative impacts without generating the adequate financial incomes, can shift the discussion orientation. Confronted with the unlimited growth of touristification and of its negative impacts, major port-cities want to control this process, in order to not become the new Venice, a “theme park” of original buildings without local inhabitants and local life. That is when the planning and management process of the tourist port-city enters into the scene, with the main objective of maximising the net benefits of tourism development, while carefully managing the existing conflicts with local development and local population through collaborative policies. Effective monitoring tools, strong administrative coordination and agile spatial planning and management instruments are necessary for port-cities to respond to the touristification process. Port-cities may struggle to orientate this process according to their specific circumstances; namely by defining which types of tourism they want to promote, and which type they want to limit, and cruises are part of the equation. In port-cities, touristification demands highly effective spatial planning answers, with inter-sector and trans-scale policy answers occurring simultaneously, as the several examples referred to above illustrate. Contemporary problems need answers with contemporary methods and techniques. However, ultimately, everything is about people and the economy. To guarantee the sustainable development of a port-city under a touristification process is a very difficult task. Every one of those cities are trying in their own way. The process requires a collaborative policy between all the involved agents, working together to plan and manage the development of tourism, but also to defend the interests of local inhabitants with appropriate policies, and to reduce the community’s concerns; to collaborate with destination communities to promote attractions, new itineraries, local identity and the authenticity of the destination and educate passengers on how to minimize the negative impacts that their behaviour might generate in the host destination. Acknowledgements The research outlined in this chapter arises from a project developed at the universities of Malaga and Lisbon (hosted at CIUAD—Research Centre on Architecture, Urbanism and Design, ref. CIAUD_UID/EAT/04008/2013), on the contemporary port-city identity.

References Acciaro, M., Renken, K., El Khadiri, N. (2019). Technological Change and Logistics Development in European Ports. Chapter 5. In European Port Cities in Transition, etc. (Eds.), Carpenter and Lozano. Springer Series: Strategies for Sustainability. Alemany, J. (2006). Rehabilitar, Reconvertir, Revitalizar pero Mantener el Puerto en la Ciudad [Rehabilitate, reconvert, revitalize but maintain the port in the city]. In Neutra (N. 14). Sevilla.

11

Touristification of European Port-Cities …

201

Alemany, J., & Bruttomesso, R. (2011). The Port City of the XXIst century. New challenges in the relationship between Port and City. Venice: Ed. RETE. Andrade, M. J. (2012). Sea in view. The transformations of the Port of Malaga in the discussion of the Waterfronts. Malaga: Phd Thesis, University of Malaga. Andrade, M. J., Blasco, J., & Marin Cots, P. (2012). Puerto-Ciudad: Estudio Comparativo de Buenas Practicas (Puerto-Ciudad: Comparative Study of Good Practices). Málaga: Ed. Servicio de Proyectos Europeos. Andrade, M. J., & Prieto, A. (2014). Driving force and trends for change of the Port-City. Mapping 2035. Reflections. In Portus (n. 27). Venice: Ed. RETE. Ascher, F. (2001; Original publication in French. This edition published 2010). Novos princípios do urbanismo/Novos compromissos urbanos [New principles of urbanism/New urban commitments]. Lisbon: Livros Horizonte. Augé, M. (1995). Non-places: Introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity. London: Verso. Boland, P., Bronte, J., & Muir, J. (2017). On the waterfront: Neoliberal urbanism and the politics of public benefit. Cities, 61, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.08.012. Bonilla-Priego, M. J., Font, X., & Pacheco-Olivares, M. (2014). Corporate sustainability reporting index and baseline data for the cruise industry. Tourism Management, 44, 149/160. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.03.004. Breen, A., & Rigby, D. (1994). Waterfronts cities reclaim their edge. New York: McGraw-Hill. Breen, A., & Rigby, D. (1996). The new waterfront. A worldwide urban success story. London: Thames and Hudson. Brida, J. G., & Zapata, S. (2010). Cruise tourism: Economic, socio-cultural and environmental impacts. International Journal of Leisure and Tourism Marketing, 1, 205–226. https://doi.org/ 10.1504/IJLTM.2010.029585. Bruttomesso, R. (Ed.). (1991). Waterfront: una nueva frontiera urbana, 30 progetti di riorganizzazione e riuso di aree urbane del sul fonte d’acqua [Waterfront: a new urban frontier, 30 projects of reorganization and reuse of urban areas on the water source]. Venice: Conzorzio Autonomo del Porto di Genova. International Centre Cities on Water. Bruttomesso, R. (1999). Water and industrial heritage. Venice: Marsilio Editori. Bruttomesso, R. (2001). Complexity on the urban waterfronts. In R. Marshall (Ed.), Waterfronts in post-industrial cities (pp. 39/49). London: Spon Press. Bruttomesso, R. (2004). Complejidad en la relación puerto-ciudad [Complexity in the port-city relationship]. In: Ingeniería y Territorio (n.°67). Carpenter, A., & Lozano, R. (2019). Proposing a framework for anchoring sustainability relationships between ports and cities, Chapter 3. In: European Port Cities in Transition, etc. (Eds.), Carpenter and Lozano. Springer Series: Strategies for Sustainability. Carpenter, A., Lozano, R., Sammalisto, K., & Astner, L. (2018). Securing a port’s future through circular economy: Experiences from the port of Gävle in contributing to sustainability. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 128, 539–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.01.065. Capocaccia, F. (2001). Cruising in the mediterranean. In: Portus. Venice (September 2001). Case, S. (2016). The third wave. New York: Simon & Scuster. Castillo-Manzano, J. I., Fageda, X., & Gonzalez-Laxe, F. (2014). An analysis of the determinants of cruise traffic: An empirical application to the Spanish port system. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 66, 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2014. 03.008. Casariego, J. (1999). Waterfronts de nuevo: transformaciones en los frentes urbanos de agua [Waterfronts again: transformations in urban waterfronts]. Las Palmas: Ayuntamiento de las Palmas de Gran Canaria Concejalía de Urbanismo. Costa, J. P. (2007). La Ribera entre Proyectos. Formación y transformación del territorio portuario, a partir del caso de Lisboa [The Riverfront between Projects. Formation and transformation of the port territory, from the case of Lisbon]. Ph.D. Thesis presented at the ETSAB/UPC, 3 Volumes, Barcelona.

202

M. J. Andrade and J. P. Costa

Costa, J. P. (2013). Urbanismo e Adaptação às Alterações Climáticas, as Frentes de Água [Urbanism and adaptation to climate change, the waterfronts]. Lisbon: Livros Horizonte. Craig-Smith, S., & Fagence, M. (Eds.). (1995). Recreation and tourism as a catalyst for urban waterfront redevelopment. London: Praeger. Del Chiappa, G., Lorenzo-Romero, C., & Gallarza, M. (2018). Host community perceptions of cruise tourism in a homeport: A cluster analysis. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2016.08.011. Dimitrovski, D., & Crespi Vallbona, M. (2018). Urban food markets in the context of a tourist attraction—La Boqueria market in Barcelona, Spain. Tourism Geographies, 20. Fadeeva, Z. (2005). Development of the assessment framework for sustainability networking. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-6526(03) 00126-4. Falk, N. (1992). Turning the tide: British experience in regenerating urban docklands. In: P. Hoyle (Eds.) European port cities in transition. London: Belhaven. Figueira de Sousa, J. (2001). The tourist cruise industry. Portus, Venice (September 2001). Gehl, J. (1987/2006). Life between buildings: Using public space. Barcelona: Ed. Reverte. Glick, D. (2012). Bottom-up urbanism—A survey of temporary use in Europe. New York: Hart I Howerton Community Fellowship. Grindlay, A. L., Bestué-Cardiel, I., Rodriguez-Rojas, M. I., & Molero-Melgarejo, E. (2018). Port heritage in city-port transformations: Opportunities or constraints? In Heritage 2018: 6th International Conference on Heritage and Sustainable Development. Granada. Gui, L., & Russo, A. P. (2011). Cruise ports: A strategic nexus between regions and global lines— Evidence from the Mediterranean. Maritime Policy Management, 38, 129–150. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/03088839.2011.556678. Hein, C. (Ed.). (2011). Port cities: Dynamic landscapes and global networks. New York: Routledge. Hritz, N., & Cecil, A. (2008). Investigating the sustainability of cruise tourism: A case study of key west. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16(2), 168–181. https://doi.org/10.2167/jost716.0. Jamal, T., & Stronza, A. (2009). Collaboration theory and tourism practice in protected areas: Stakeholders, structuring and sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669580802495741. Jauhiainen, J. (1995). Waterfront redevelopment and urban policy: The case of Barcelona, Cardiff and Genoa. European Planning Studies, 3. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654319508720287. Johnson, D. (2002). Environmentally sustainable cruise tourism: a reality check. Policy, 26, 261– 270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(02)00008-8. Jones, Andrew L. (2017). Regenerating urban waterfronts—Creating better futures—From commercial and leisure market places to cultural quarters and innovation districts. Planning Practice & Research, 32(3), 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2016.1222146. Karimpour, R., Ballini, F., & Őlcer, A. I. (2019). Port-City redevelopment and the circular economy agenda in Europe, Chapter 4. In A. Carpenter & R. Lozano (Eds.), European Port Cities in transition. Strategies for Sustainability. Berlin: Springer. Klein, R. A. (2011). Responsible cruise tourism: Issues of cruise tourism and sustainability. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 18, 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1375/jhtm. 18.1.107. Legoupil, T. (2013). Los confictos que genera el turismo de cruceros en Barcelona y otros puertos mediterráneos [The conflicts generated by cruise tourism in Barcelona and other Mediterranean ports]. Biblio 3 W. Rev. Biblográfica Geogr. y Ciencias Soc. 18, Online. MacNeill, T., & Wozniak, D. (2018). The economic, social, and environmental impacts of cruise tourism. Tourism Management, 66, 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.11.002. Marshall, R. (Ed.). (2001). Waterfronts in post-industrial cities. London: Spon Press. Matvejevic, P. (2001). Mediterranean Cities between past and present. In Portus. Venice (March 2001). McCarthy, J. (1995). The Dundee waterfront: A missed opportunity for planned regeneration. Land Use Policy, 12(4), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/0264-8377(95)00029-D.

11

Touristification of European Port-Cities …

203

McCarthy, J. (1998). Reconstruction, regeneration and re-imaging: The case of Rotterdam. Cities, 15(5), 337–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0264-2751(98)00029-8. McCarthy, J. (2003). The cruise industry and port city regeneration: The case of Valletta. European Planning Studies, 11(3), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310303634. McCarthy, J. (2008). Is all tourism beneficial? The impacts of port-city regeneration initiatives. Conference on the waterfront: Culture, heritage and regeneration. Liverpool. McCarthy, J. (2018). Responsible cruise tourism and regeneration: The case of Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada. International Planning Studies, 23(3), 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13563475.2018.1428539. Meyer, H. (1990). Waterfront renewal, an international phenomenon. The discrete charm of port and city, a seductive combination. In: J. Vanreusel (Ed.), Antwerp-Reshaping a city. Antwerp: Blondé Art Printing International. Meyer, H. (1999). City and port: Urban planning as a cultural venture in London, Barcelona, New York and Rotterdam. Rotterdam: International Books. Nicholas, L. N., Thapa, B., & Ko, Y. J. (2009). Residents’ perspectives of a world heritage site. The pitons management area, St. Lucia. Annals of Tourism Research, 36(3), 390–412. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.03.005. Pallis, A. A., Rodrigue, J. P., & Notteboom, T. E. (2014). Cruises and cruise ports: Structures and strategies. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 13, 1–5. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.rtbm.2014.12.002. Papathanassis, A., & Beckman, I. (2011). Assessing the ‘poverty of cruise theory’ hypothesis. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(1), 153–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2010.07.015. Papatheochari, T., & Coccossis, H. (2019). Development of a waterfront regeneration tool to support local decision making in the context of integrated coastal zone management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 169, 284–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.12.013. Pendlebury, J., Short, M., While, A. (2009). Urban world heritage sites and the problem of authenticity. Cities [s. l.], 26(6), 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2009.09.003. Perea-Medina, B., Andrade, M. J., & Rosa-Jimenez, C. (2018). Turismo de cruceros en la interfaz puerto-ciudad mediterránea: nueva época del waterfront, con beneficios en un Smart Destination [Cruise tourism in the Mediterranean port-city interface: new era of the waterfront, with benefits in a Smart Destination]. In Cuaderno de Turismo. Universidad de Murcia. Pinder, D. (2003). Seaport decline and cultural heritage sustainability issues in the UK coastal zone. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 4(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1296-2074(-3) 00006-2. Richards, G. (1996). Cultural tourism in Europe. Wallingford: CAB International. Rifkin, J. (2011). The third industrial revolution: How lateral power is transforming energy, the economy, and the world. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Ritchie, J. R., & Crouch, G. I. (2003). The competitive destination: A sustainable tourism perspective. London: CABI. Roca Blanch, E. (2014). Urban intervention on the coastline of Catalunya. A new understanding of tourism. Architecture, City and Environment, 25, 327–348. Available at: https://upcommons. upc.edu/handle/2099/14912. Rodrigues, J.-P., & Notteboom, T. (2013). The geography of cruises: Itineraries, not destinations. Applied Geography, 38, 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.11.011. Rosa-Jimenez, C. Perea-Medina, B., Andrade, M. J., Nebot, N. (2018). An examination of the territorial imbalance of the cruising activity in the main Mediterranean port destinations: Effects on sustainable transport. Journal of Transport Geography, 68, 94–101. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.trangeo.2018.02.003. Saidi, H. (2012). Capital cities as open-air museums: A look at Québec City and Tunis. Current Issues in Tourism, 15(1–2), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2011.634896. Schwab, K. (2016). The fourth industrial revolution. Genève: World Economic Forum. Shaw, B. (2001). History at the water’s edge. In R. Marshall (Ed.), Waterfronts in post-industrial cities (pp. 160–172). London; Spon Press.

204

M. J. Andrade and J. P. Costa

Sieber, R. T. (1991). Waterfront revitalization in post-industrial port cities of North America. City and Society, 5(2), 120–136. https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1525/city. 1991.5.2.120. Soriani, S., Bertazzon, S., Cesare, F. D. I., & Rech, G. (2009). Cruising in the mediterranean: Structural aspects and evolutionary trends. I Marit. Policy Manag., 36, 235–251. https://doi. org/10.1080/03088830902861128. Stewart, E. J., Dawson, J., & Draper, D. (2011). Cruise tourism and residents in Arctic Canada: Development of a resident attitude typology. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 18(1), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1375/jhtm.18.1.95. Sun, X., Jiao, Y., & Tian, P. (2011). Marketing research and revenue optimization for the cruise industry: A concise review. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30, 746–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.11.007. Tremblay, R., & Chicoine, H. (2011). Floribec: The life and death of a tourism-based transnational community. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift (Norwegian Journal of Geography), 65(1), 54–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2010.549953. Triay, F. (2001). The reorganization of the port of Palma de Mallorca. In: Portus. Venice (September 2001). Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze. London: Sage. Van Hooydonk, E. (2007). Soft values of seaports. A strategy for the restoration of public support of seaports. Antwerp/Apeldoorn: Garant. Vernon, J., Essex, S., Pinder, D., & Curry, K. (2005). Collaborative policymaking: Local sustainable projects. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(2), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. annals.2004.06.005. White, J. T. (2016). Pursuing design excellence: Urban design governance on Toronto’s waterfront. Progress in Planning, 110, 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2015.06.001. Zukin, S. (1996). The cultures of cities. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Chapter 12

Analysing Organisational Change Management in Seaports: Stakeholder Perception, Communication, Drivers for, and Barriers to Sustainability at the Port of Gävle Rodrigo Lozano, Angela Carpenter and Kaisu Sammalisto

Abstract Ports are under increasing pressure to become more sustainable. While, some ports have been including sustainability into their operations; in general, this has been mainly addressed from economic and environmental perspectives, and technological or policy-related approaches. There has been little research on organisational change management for sustainability in ports. This chapter analyses organisational change efforts for sustainability at the Port of Gävle. Twenty-three face-to-face interviews were conducted with various stakeholders. The chapter presents the findings and results on a stakeholder materiality matrix, insights on the perception of sustainability by the port stakeholders, the coverage and performance (measured through) ranking of drivers for and the barriers to sustainability of the Port of Gävle. The chapter also shows that stakeholders are important when addressing sustainability and managing organisational changes, where it is important to know the coverage and the performance of drivers for and barriers to change. This way ports can better address sustainability through a holistic approach that encompasses the four dimensions of sustainability (economic, environmental, social, and time), stakeholders, and the six approaches (legislative, technological, financial, cultural/social, voluntary initiatives, and organisational change management).










Keywords Organisational change management Sustainability Port of Gävle Coverage and performance of drivers for sustainability Coverage and performance of barriers to sustainability




R. Lozano (&)
A. Carpenter
K. Sammalisto Faculty of Engineering and Environment, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden e-mail: [email protected] R. Lozano Organisational Sustainability Ltd., Cardiff, UK A. Carpenter School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 A. Carpenter and R. Lozano (eds.), European Port Cities in Transition, Strategies for Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9_12

205

206

12.1

R. Lozano et al.

Introduction

Ports facilitate trade and add value through the economic activities that take place within their industrial complex (Carpenter et al. 2018). Ports in the EU Member States are key in the movement of goods and passengers within the EU and globally, with more than 90% of goods imported into the EU entering through such ports (Saxe and Larsen 2004). Ports are affected by a wide range of environmental issues (e.g. releases to water, air and soil, waste production, noise, and dredging) (Dinwoodie et al. 2012) and social issues (Wooldridge et al. 1999). During the last two decades, ports have been under increasing pressure to become more environmentally friendly (Dinwoodie et al. 2012; Wooldridge et al. 1999), whilst remaining competitive in a constantly evolving industry. There has been an increasing body of literature focussed on the impacts of port and shipping operations on the environment, including: the Port Authority of Genoa’s Port Energy Environmental Plan for its port and its quay electrification of ship-repair docks; Port of Antwerp’s cold ironing (i.e. shore power available for barges, as well as the Port Authority’s tug and dredger fleet); Port of Singapore’s Green Port Programme to reduce the emission of pollutants, like sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxide and its Green Technology Programme; Port of Zeebrugge’s operation of 71 windmills; Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach’s vessel speed reduction program to reduce air emissions, and its Clean Truck Program to reduce port-related vehicle emission by 50%; and Port of Hamburg’s electrification of autonomous guided vehicles (Acciaro, et al. 2014). Some of the sustainability initiatives in seaports include publishing sustainability reports, although there are only about 20 reports worldwide. Most of the reports focus on environmental indicators in the EU (Peris-Mora et al. 2005; Puig et al. 2015) and in the South East Asian region (Lirn et al. 2013; Saengsupavanich et al. 2009). Sustainability of seaport activities can only be achieved by integrating economic, environmental, and social (including legal and technical) issues (Dinwoodie et al. 2012; Wooldridge et al. 1999). Nonetheless, sustainability activities of ports vary as they differ in size, ownership, and the range of activities that take place in them, since these are strongly influenced by the culture of the country in which they are located (Acciaro 2015; Bichou and Gray 2005). There have been five approaches to help ports become more sustainable: Legislative (political developments, expansion of EU, existing legislation, and environment); Technological (change of land use, new technology, waste reduction and recovery, and environmental issues), Financial (globalization, competition, wealth distribution, and population movement), and Cultural/Social (demographic change, employment issues, social inequality, societal values, and communication) (Carpenter 2005), and Voluntary Initiatives (new management techniques, environmental management systems, corporate social responsibility, sustainability reporting) (Carpenter and Lozano 2014). Most efforts have focussed on technological and policy

12

Analysing Organisational Change Management in Seaports …

207

approaches, mainly on environmental issues, with little or no consideration of organisational change processes. Despite the high potential of ports to contribute to advancing sustainability, there has been little research on exploring the drivers for and barriers to becoming more sustainable. The aim of this chapter is to analyse organisational changes, particularly drivers for and barriers to sustainability in seaports, focussing on stakeholder’s perceptions of the activities undertaken by the Port of Gävle Authority. The paper is structured in the following way: Sect. 12.2 reviews organisational change management for sustainability; Sect. 12.3 presents the methods; Sect. 12.4 explains the findings and discusses the results; and Sect. 12.5 presents the chapter conclusions.

12.2

Organisational Change Management for Sustainability

Although many sustainability categorisations can be found, most of them address only three dimensions: economic, environmental, and social; however, as stated explicitly in the Brundtland report, a fourth overarching dimension is time, i.e. a holistic perspective of sustainability (Lozano 2008), with four dimensions and their inter-relations. Most sustainability efforts have had a ‘techno-centric’ approaches (Doppelt 2003; Linnenluecke et al. 2009); however, sustainability changes need to also address ‘soft’ organisational issues (Doppelt 2003; Dexter Dunphy et al. 2014). In recent years, a new body of literature has appeared that has focused on organisational change management for sustainability, including values, visions, philosophies, policies, employee empowerment, and change management practices (Doppelt 2003; Dunphy et al. 2014); drivers to change (Lozano 2015; Lozano and von Haartman 2017) ; and barriers to change (Lozano 2012a). Long-lasting change towards sustainability requires, in addition to changes to management (Doppelt 2003), changes in mental models, incremental changes in the organisational structure and operations (Diesendorf 2000), the development of sustainability visions for the future (Doppelt 2003), and proposals on how to achieve these (Hodge et al. 1999; Robèrt et al. 2002). Lozano (2012b) proposed an ‘Orchestrating Change for Corporate Sustainability’ model to help explain the dynamics of organisational change for Corporate Sustainability (CS). The framework proposes that an orchestrated planned change can disrupt the status quo (SQ) and help move towards a more sustainability-orientated state (MSOS), in a continuously iterative process (since change is seldom a once-for-all phenomenon). As a result, the whole system and its elements need to be addressed. In this process, it is important to recognise and foster the drivers to change and apply the appropriate strategies to overcome the barriers to change, which act as change leverage for sustainability. Because of the dynamism of sustainability, the process is iterative.

208

R. Lozano et al.

When addressing sustainability change, companies, such as seaports, are influenced by internal and external stakeholders (Freeman 1984). In general, companies have more control over changes undertaken by internal stakeholders (through constantly reassessing objectives and policies) than over stimuli from external stakeholders (DeSimone and Popoff 2000; Lozano 2012a; Freeman 1984). The sustainability activities of ports are increasingly determined by the objectives of its stakeholders (Denktas-Sakar and Karatas-Cetin 2012). Lozano (2015) compiled a number of corporate sustainability drivers, divided into internal, connecting, and external, which offers a more holistic perspective. Some of the main internal drivers for sustainability are proactive leadership, moral and ethical obligation to contribute to sustainability, and reputation, while other important internal drivers include risk management and protection of business reputation, reducing resource use or waste, improvements in economic values, sustainability reporting, and enhancements in corporate image. The importance and ranking of drivers for sustainability was analysed by Lozano and von Haartman (2017). Organisational changes that threaten the status quo, such as moving away from unsustainable practices towards more sustainable ones, are bound to face resistance at some level, the individual, groups, organisations, sectors and society (Kotter and Schlesinger 1979; Maurer 1996). Resistance to change is a common phenomenon to planned changes (Gill 2002; Lorenzi and Riley 2000). It slows or stops movement (Maurer 1996). Sustainability changes are bound to face barriers (Langer and Schön 2003). Several authors (see Doppelt 2003; Maurer 1996) have recognised a large number of barriers to change that affect the different organisational levels. Lozano (2009) provided a compendium of barriers to change for sustainability and divided them into: individuals, groups, organisational, and external. The organisational ones are sub-divided into: Managerial (including leadership, departmentalism, strategy and planning, and empowerment), Organisational (how the organisation is structured and aligned, and measurement and assessment), Supportive (support given or denied to the employees), and Historical (related to the evolution of the organisation or the changes attempted within). The barriers were also categorised into informational, emotional, behavioural, and systemic. Most of the barriers belong to the managerial category and to the emotional attitude. Lozano (2013) provided examples of three companies where the internal barriers to change were organisation behavioural, individual emotional, and individual behavioural for one; organisation informational, organisation emotional, organisation behavioural, individual informational, and individual emotional for another; and organisation informational, organisation behavioural, group emotional, group behavioural, individual informational, individual emotional, individual behavioural, and systemic for the last one. External barriers to corporate sustainability include pressure from competitors (Rosner 1995) , regulation and legislation (C.E.C. 2002; DeSimone and Popoff 2000) , lack of knowledge about impacts on and from suppliers and customers (DeSimone and Popoff 2000; Rosner 1995) , and lack of interest from consumers or

12

Analysing Organisational Change Management in Seaports …

209

investors (C.E.C. 2002) . In general, companies have limited ability to overcome external barriers to change (Lozano 2013). The study of these factors and processes aforementioned is a fairly new topic (Linnenluecke and Griffiths 2010; Lozano 2009), with little research undertaken in seaports.

12.3

Methods

The Port of Gävle is one of Sweden’s largest deep-water ports. It provides trade and transport for the Gävleborg region, mainly importing raw materials and fuel for the region’s wood, paper, and steel industry and exporting products from Central Sweden’s heavy industry. The jet fuel for Stockholm Airport in Arlanda is also imported via the port and delivered by train. The largest container terminal on the Swedish East coast is located in Gävle and there are ongoing development projects that will further increase its current container flows by doubling the capacity of the terminal by 2019. The Port covers large logistic areas and warehouses, almost 10 km of sea fairway and has links to an extensive rail and road network. There are around 40 separate companies located within the logistic hub of the port (Carpenter et al. 2018). Gävle Hamn AB, the Port Authority, has, as its mission, to lead and coordinate ship calls and traffic flows within the fairway and the port land areas and to engage in coordinating port traffic flows with hinterland flows in the region (Port of Gävle 2018). The Port Authority acts as landlord for and coordinator of the different terminals and logistic companies within the port. The Port Authority focuses on promoting sustainable, safe and efficient port services and traffic flows to and from the region. Some of the ongoing sustainability projects include: implementing ISO 14001; collaborating with the University of Gävle on several projects; using contaminated dredged materials to create new land using principles of Circular Economy; and elaborating new indicators for follow up on climate footprint and environmental performance for whole port area.

12.3.1 Data Collection Twenty-three face-to-face interviews were conducted with various stakeholders (nine internal ones and fourteen external ones), as shown in Table 12.1. The external stakeholders were from companies (nine), government (four), and civil society (one). The interviewees were asked questions about: • Sustainability meaning; • Port of Gavle’s sustainability efforts and plans;

210

R. Lozano et al.

Table 12.1 Interviewee details Job

Organisation

Years in the org.

Years in position in org.

Stakeholder type

Infrastructure manager CEO Finance officer Board member Environmental engineer Foreman Manager of the port authority Human resource manager Chairman Marketing manager Global freight and customs manager CEO CEO Manager CEO Terminal manager Site manager Capacity planner Strategic and infrastructure manager Strategist

Port Port Port Port Port Port Port

15 11 2 17 3 16 10

2 11 2 17 3 2 2

Internal Internal Internal Internal Internal Internal Internal

15 7 9 10

5 1 5 0.5

Internal Internal External External

11 8.5 27 9 18 9 37 1.5

11 8.5 9 9 2 5 12 1.5

External External External External External External External External

*

*

External

14

9

External

27 7.5

10 1

External External

Pilot area manager Head Chairman *No response was obtained

• • • •

Authority Authority Authority Authority Authority Authority Authority

Port Authority Port Authority Thyr Sandvik SMT Logistics Stadshus AB Ernst Express Billerud Korsnäs Yilport Yilport Setra Green cargo Region Gävleborg Region Gävleborg Maritime Administration Coast Guard Marina

Port of Gavle’s sustainability communication; Stakeholders involvement and importance in sustainability in the port; Drivers for sustainability in the port; and Barriers to sustainability change in the port.

The interview responses were transcribed and translated for analysis using NVIVO 10 (QSR 2014). The sustainability drivers to change were analysed using the Corporate Sustainability model (Lozano 2015), see Fig. 12.1. The drivers were ranked according to how many times they were mentioned by the interviewees (based on Lozano and von Haartman 2017). The barriers to sustainability were analysed using the Multi-dimensional Sustainability Influence Change (MuSIC)

12

Analysing Organisational Change Management in Seaports …

211

Fig. 12.1 Corporate sustainability drivers (Lozano 2015; Lozano and von Haartman 2017), yellow drivers indicate internal ones, green is for connecting drivers, and blue for external ones

memework (Lozano 2012a), which helps illustrate and explain the inter-relatedness of the company’s organisational system and its respective attitudes (see Fig. 12.2). The MuSIC is designed to help leaders to understand how decisions and change implementation at any level can have positive or negative effects at the same or at other levels, throughout all organisational levels. The barriers to sustainability were also ranked according to how many times they were mentioned by the interviewees (based on Lozano and von Haartman 2017). The barriers to sustainability were compared against barriers to sustainability change from the literature (see Table 12.2) to obtain the percentage in the MuSIC memework.

12.3.2 Methods Limitations The findings for this research are not fully representative for all seaports, given the location, size, and throughput of the Port of Gävle. The number of external stakeholders interviewed may also not be fully representative of their potential influence on the port. Reliability for this research may have been affected by: • Subject or participant error: the limited time available for the interviews, which may not have allowed to expand upon some of the questions;

212

R. Lozano et al.

Fig. 12.2 Updated MuSIC memework example of barriers to change relative percentages (Lozano et al. 2019)

Table 12.2 Total barriers to sustainability and their classification according to the MuSIC memework Individuals Informational 7 Emotional 25 Behavioural 19 Systemic 1 External Source Lozano et al. (2018)

Groups

Organisation

0 1 4 1

18 21 28 18

External

15

12

Analysing Organisational Change Management in Seaports …

213

• Subject or participant bias: the interviewees might have provided answers that were guided by the semi-structured interview, or by the attitudes of the interviewer. The subjects were, in general, positive towards sustainability; • Observer error: The interviews were conducted in Swedish and then translated into English for the analysis. The interviews and analysis were carried out by two different researchers, which may have led to some misunderstanding or misinterpretation; and • Observer bias: The shared concern of this paper’s authors and the interviewees to sustainability might have resulted in positive findings.

12.4

Findings and Discussion

A list of 111 people from different stakeholders was provided by the Port and complemented with suggestions from the literature and interviewees. Figure 12.3 provides examples of the type of organisations that can be considered as

Fig. 12.3 The Port of Gävle stakeholder map

214

R. Lozano et al.

stakeholders of the Port. Upon recommendations from the Port and the researchers, 30 stakeholders from different organisations were contacted, and 23 responded positively to having an interview. The colours in Fig. 12.3 indicate the type of stakeholder: Olive green—logistics; Mid green—main types of orgs e.g. trade orgs; Lime—subsets of above e.g. EU agencies; Dark blue—Education e.g. University of Gävle, Pale blue—examples of environmental standards; Pink—examples of customers; Pale yellow—regional government; Purple—Swedish National government bodies; and White—activities around the Port of Gävle.

12.4.1 Stakeholder Sustainability Materiality Matrix The interviewees were asked about the stakeholders’ influence on the Port and how they are influenced by the port, i.e. how the Port affects stakeholders and how stakeholders may affect the Port in regard to sustainability. Figure 12.4 shows this in a materiality index, where it can be seen that customers were the highest stakeholders affecting (thirteen interviewees mentioned it) and affected (five interviewees) the port. Eleven interviewees indicated that government affects the Port and four that it is affected by the Port. These two stakeholders were the most frequently mentioned. Suppliers were mentioned by two interviewees as affecting and being affected by the port. Management, employees, road users, board were

Fig. 12.4 Stakeholder materiality matrix

12

Analysing Organisational Change Management in Seaports …

215

mentioned by two interviewees as affecting the port, but not affected by it. Owners, and communities and public were indicated as affecting the Port by one interviewee as affecting the port, but not affected by it. The materiality matrix shows that, according to the interviewees, the port is affecting more stakeholders than being affected by them. This could point to a disconnection between the port and its community.

12.4.2 Sustainability Perceptions The analysis of the interviewees’ perception of sustainably resulted in six sustainability perspectives: (1) Economic approach, e.g. through the business case (9 interviewees) for sustainability and customer relations (3 interviewees); (2) Environmental approach (12 interviewees) and efficient use of resources (11 interviewees); (3) Social approach, through work environment and human resources (4 interviewees); (4) Time dimension approach (7 interviewees); (5) Balanced approach of economic, environmental, and social issues (3 interviewees); and (6) Holistic and integrational approach, encompassing economic, environmental, social, and time perspectives (2 interviewees). As noted above, the environmental and economic (use of resources) approaches were the most mentioned (by 12 and 11 interviewees respectively). The findings show that the port’s stakeholders tend to understand sustainability in different ways. The findings indicate that the environmental and economic perspectives towards sustainability are still dominant (this concurs with Darbra et al. 2005; Puig et al. 2015; Roos and Kliemann Neto 2017) and the focus of ports in developing sustainability practices mainly related to the reduction of environmental impacts (see Acciaro et al. 2014 for examples). However, an increasing number of scholars recognise the need for a holistic understanding of sustainability underlining the importance of integrating the four dimensions of sustainability (economic, environmental, social, and time) in the port sector (e.g. Dinwoodie et al. 2012; Lu et al. 2016; Shiau and Chuang 2015; Wooldridge et al. 1999). The differences in sustainability perceptions could have an impact when moving forward to a port becoming more sustainable.

12.4.3 Communication of the Port’s Sustainability Efforts The research asked whether sustainability was being communicated internally (i.e. in the port) and externally (to external stakeholders). According to the interviewees, there is slightly more internal communication than external (see Fig. 12.5). This could be one of the reasons that stakeholders consider that the port influences them more than they influence the port. The external communication of the port could be improved by better engaging with stakeholders and developing a sustainability

216

R. Lozano et al.

Fig. 12.5 Sustainability communication as perceived by all the interviewees

report that goes environmental indicators in the EU (as mentioned by Peris-Mora et al. 2005; Puig et al. 2015).

12.4.4 Sustainability Drivers Figure 12.6 shows the coverage of the sustainability drivers mentioned by the interviewees, where it can be seen that there roughly the same amount of internal and external drivers, eight and seven respectively; and two connecting ones. Figure 12.7 shows the ranking of the drivers, i.e. performance, in a relative scale from one to eight times mentioned by the interviewees. Figure 12.8 illustrates that government and the business case were the most highly ranked, followed by society’s raising awareness, then by customer satisfaction, international treaties, regulation and legislation, employees’ shared values, and Board of Directors, and finally by markets expectations, competitors benchmarking, reputation, stakeholders’ expectations, unions, profits and growth, leadership, personal engagement, and shareholder value. The rest of the drivers were not mentioned by the interviewees. The assessment of the sustainability drivers shows the importance that stakeholders assign to them, which can be used to better foster sustainability in ports. The findings indicate a relatively similar recognition of sustainability drivers by the stakeholders (concurring with Lozano 2015; Lozano and von Haartman 2017). Some differences in the drivers’ ranking were noticed when compared against the literature. Leadership, moral and ethical obligation to contribute to sustainability, and reputation as one of the main drivers towards sustainability (see Lozano and von Haartman 2017) have been ranked in the lowest group or were not mentioned by the interviewees. Other drivers, such as partnerships and collaboration, generation of trust, and market expectations (see Lozano 2015) were not mentioned by

12

Analysing Organisational Change Management in Seaports …

217

Fig. 12.6 Sustainability drivers mentioned by the interviewees

Fig. 12.7 Sustainability drivers ranking according to number of times they were mentioned by the interviewees

218

R. Lozano et al.

Fig. 12.8 MuSIC memework of the perceived barriers to sustainability by the interviewees when compared against all the barriers to change in the literature

the interviewees. The high ranking of government as a driver could be explained through the strong international focus of the port and the magnitude of policies and regulations ports need to comply with (see Carpenter 2005; Verhoeven 2009).

12.4.5 Barriers to Sustainability Change The barriers to change recognised by the interviewees were: • On the individual level: ignorance of sustainability (mentioned twice); lack of awareness of sustainability; considered likely to incur cost/price premiums; lack of commitment; and “why do something if we’re not doing anything wrong?”, all mentioned once;

12

Analysing Organisational Change Management in Seaports …

219

• Organisational: Short-term and discounting perspectives focusing on economic aspects (four times); Investment in equipment (mentioned thrice); Status quo, and Economic focus that disregards environmental and social aspects or consider them as costs (twice); and Board decisions, Purely economic focus, Purely managerial change efforts, Lack of incentives, Vision of the future, and No clear business case (once) • Systemic: Processes taking too long (twice); and lack of time of bad timing, Lack of holistic focus in operations, Lack of measurement, Difficult to measure the effectiveness of the implementation, Lack of systems, tools and instruments for operationalisation and implementation, Existing infrastructure, and New infrastructure (once); and • External: Economy (nine times), Customers decisions or interest (five times); Competitors, and Political interest (three times); Industry pressures, Deregulation; and Laws and regulation (twice); and Timing related to external events, Suppliers decisions or interest, Forcing tenants to engage with sustainability, Uncertainty in long term contracts with customers, Other transport systems, and Market requirements. The findings show a holistic understanding of the internal and external barriers to change, as discussed in the literature (as discussed by Lozano et al. 2018). Figure 12.8 illustrates the barriers to change mentioned by the interviewees when analysed with the MuSIC memework against all the barriers to change from the literature, i.e. the coverage of the barriers to change (see Lozano et al. 2018). The barriers to sustainability are external (80%), systemic (40%), individuals’ informational (29%), organisation behavioural (21%), organisation informational (11%), individuals’ behavioural (11%); organisational emotional (10%), and individuals’ emotional (4%). This provides an understanding of the coverage of the barriers to sustainability change in the port, which is comparable to other companies; however, group barriers to change were not recognised in the port. This may be due to the size of the port, where groups are not as clearly defined as in larger companies (see Lozano 2013). Figure 12.8 illustrates the barriers to change mentioned by the interviewees when analysed with the MuSIC memework against all the barriers to change from the literature but assessed as a rank according to the number of times the interviewees mentioned them, i.e. from the ten external barriers to change recognised they were mentioned thirty-two times. This shows the coverage of the barriers to sustainability change. This resulted in external (100%), systemic (28%), organisation behavioural (25%), organisation informational (16%), organisational emotional (9%), individuals’ informational (9%), individuals’ behavioural (6%), and individuals’ emotional (3%). Figure 12.9 illustrates the ranking of the internal barriers to sustainability when ranked against each other, as ranked by the number of times the interviewees mentioned them where the maximum of barriers to change was nine. The rank, in decreasing order, was: systemic, organisation behavioural, organisation informational, organisation emotional, individuals’ informational, individuals’ behavioural,

220

R. Lozano et al.

Fig. 12.9 MuSIC memework of the perceived barriers to sustainability by the interviewees when compared against all the barriers to change in the literature including external barriers to change

and individuals’ emotional. The figure shows that, in the case of the port, the external barriers are considered much more important by the interviewees. Figure 12.10 shows the coverage of barriers to sustainability change in the port; however, this shows only the barriers that were mentioned and not their importance. A new perspective on the assessment of barriers to sustainability change is proposed that provides ‘depth’, i.e. a relative performance, to the barriers to change, which can be done through all the barriers (Fig. 12.10) or just on the internal barriers to change (Fig. 12.10). These results can help ports to better focus their efforts in searching way to overcome resistance to change, e.g. focussing on systemic, organisation behavioural and informational barriers to change. In general, companies can address their internal changes easier than external ones (see Lozano 2013).

12

Analysing Organisational Change Management in Seaports …

221

Fig. 12.10 MuSIC memework of the perceived barriers to sustainability relative to each other, considering only internal barriers to change

12.5

Conclusions

Ports are under increasing pressure to become more sustainable and some ports have started initiatives to include sustainability in their operations. In general, sustainability at ports has been mainly addressed from economic and environmental perspectives, and technological or policy-related approaches. In general, there has been little research into organisational change management for sustainability in ports. This chapter goes beyond technical and policy issues by providing a stakeholder materiality matrix, insights on the perception of sustainability by the port stakeholders, the coverage and performance (measured through) ranking of drivers for and the barriers to sustainability for the Port of Gävle. This chapter highlights that organisations are influenced by stimuli and objectives from internal and external stakeholders and stresses the importance of

222

R. Lozano et al.

addressing and balancing internal and external factors (i.e. drivers and barriers) in managing organisational changes for sustainability. The chapter also shows that stakeholders are important when addressing sustainability and managing organisational changes, where it is important to know the coverage and the performance of drivers for and barriers to change. This way ports can better address sustainability through a holistic approach that encompasses the four dimensions of sustainability (economic, environmental, social, and time), stakeholders, and the six approaches (legislative, technological, financial, cultural/social, voluntary initiatives, and organisational change management). Further research should be carried out on: ports of different sizes, ownership structures, and activities taking place, which could provide more information on the influence of stakeholders; the importance of drivers for and barriers to sustainability; and how to overcome the barriers to change in ports. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Hannah Hjerpe for her hard work in undertaking the interviews used as a basis for this chapter, and the Gävle Port Authority for funding and participating in this research.

References Acciaro, M. (2015). Corporate responsibility and value creation in the port sector. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 18(3), 291–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13675567.2015.1027150. Acciaro, M., Ghiara, H., & Cusano, M. I. (2014). Energy management in seaports: A new role for port authorities. Energy Policy, 71, 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.013. Bichou, K., & Gray, R. (2005). A critical review of conventional terminology for classifying seaports. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.tra.2004.11.003. C.E.C. (2002). Corporate social responsibility: A business contribution to sustainable development. Commission of the European Communities. Carpenter, A. (2005). The reduction of ship-generated waste in the North Sea: A contemporary analysis. Leeds, UK: University of Leeds. Carpenter, A., & Lozano, R. (2014). Corporate sustainability in European seaports. In 17th European roundtable on sustainable consumption and production. Portoroz, Slovenia. Carpenter, A., Lozano, R., Sammalisto, K., & Astner, L. (2018). Securing a port’s future through circular Economy: Experiences from the port of Gävle in contributing to sustainability. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 128, 539–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.01.065. Darbra, R. M., Ronza, A., Stojanovic, T. A., Wooldridge, C., & Casal, J. (2005). A procedure for identifying significant environmental aspects in sea ports. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 50, 866– 874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.04.037. Denktas-Sakar, G., & Karatas-Cetin, C. (2012). Port sustainability and stakeholder management in supply chains: A framework on resource dependence theory. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 28(3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2013.01.002. DeSimone, L. D., & Popoff, F. (2000). Eco-efficiency. The business link to sustainable development. Cambridge: MIT Press. Diesendorf, M. (2000). Sustainability and sustainable development. In D. Dunphy, J. Benveniste, A. Griffiths, & P. Sutton (Eds.), Sustainability: The corporate challenge of the 21st century (Vol. 2, pp. 19–37). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

12

Analysing Organisational Change Management in Seaports …

223

Dinwoodie, J., Tuck, S., Knowles, H., Benhin, J., & Sansom, M. (2012). Sustainable development of maritime operations in ports. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.718. Doppelt, B. (2003). Leading change toward sustainability. A change-management guide for business, government and civil society. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing. Dunphy, D., Griffiths, A., & Benn, S. (2014). Organizational change for corporate sustainability (Third). London, UK: Routledge. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: Stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman. Gill, R. (2002). Change management—Or change leadership? Journal of Change Management, 3 (4), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/714023845. Hodge, R. A., Hardi, P., & Bell, D. V. J. (1999). Seeing change through the lens of sustainability. Costa Rica: The International Institute for Sustainable Development. Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review. Langer, M. E., & Schön, A. (2003). Enhancing Corporate Sustainabiliy. A framework based evaluation tools for sustainable development. Vienna: Forschungsschwerpunkt Nachhaltigkeit und Umweltmanagement, Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien. Linnenluecke, M. K., & Griffiths, A. (2010). Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. Journal of World Business, 45(4), 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2009.08.006. Linnenluecke, M. K., Russell, S. V., & Griffiths, A. (2009). Subcultures and sustainability practices: The impact on understanding corporate sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18, 432–452. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.609. Lirn, T. C., Wu, Y.-C. J., & Chen, Y. (2013). Green performance criteria for sustainable ports in Asia. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 43(5/6), 427– 451. Lorenzi, N. M., & Riley, R. T. (2000). Managing change: An overview. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 7(2), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.2000.0070116. Lozano, R. (2008). Envisioning Sustainability three-dimensionally. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(17), 1838–1846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.02.008. Lozano, R. (2009). Orchestrating organisational change for corporate sustainability. Strategies to overcome resistance to change and to facilitate institutionalization. Cardiff, UK: Business School. Cardiff University. Lozano, R. (2012a). Are companies planning their organisational changes for Corporate Sustainability? An analysis of three case studies’ resistance to change and their strategies to overcome it. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/csr.1290. Lozano, R. (2012b). Orchestrating organisational changes for corporate sustainability. Greener Management International, 57, 43–64. https://doi.org/10.9774/GLEAF.3062.2007.sp.00005. Lozano, R. (2013). Are companies planning their organisational changes for corporate sustainability? An analysis of three case studies on resistance to change and their strategies to overcome it. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(5), 275– 295. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1290. Lozano, R. (2015). A holistic perspective on corporate sustainability drivers. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr. 1325. Lozano, R., Fobbe, L., Carpenter, A., & Sammalisto, K. (2019). Analysing sustainability changes in seaports: Experiences from the Gävle Port Authority. Sustainable Development, 27(3), 409– 418. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1913. Lozano, R., & von Haartman, R. (2017). Reinforcing the holistic perspective of sustainability: Analysis of the importance of sustainability drivers in organizations. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1475. Lu, C., Shang, K., & Lin, C. (2016). Examining sustainability performance at ports: port managers’ perspectives on developing sustainable supply chains. Maritime Policy and Management, 43(8), 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2016.1199918.

224

R. Lozano et al.

Maurer, R. (1996). Beyond the wall of resistance. Unconventional strategies that build support for change. Austin, Texas: Bard Book Inc. Peris-Mora, E., Diez Orejas, J. M., Subirats, A., Ibáñez, S., & Alavrez, P. (2005). Development of a system of indicators for sustainable port management. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 50, 1649– 1660. Port of Gävle. (2018). Our mission. https://gavlehamn.se/EN/our-mission. Puig, M., Wooldridge, C., Michail, A., & Darbra, R. M. (2015). Current status and trends of the environmental performance in European ports. Environmental Science & Policy, 48, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.12.004. QSR. (2014). NVIVO 10. Retrieved from http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx. Robèrt, K.-H., Schmidt-Bleek, B., Aloisi de Larderel, J., Basile, G., Jansen, J. L., Kuehr, R., … Wackernagel, M. (2002). Strategic sustainable development—Selection, design and synergies of applied tools. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10, 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/s09596526(01)00061-0. Roos, E. C., & Kliemann Neto, F. J. (2017). Tools for evaluating environmental performance at Brazilian public ports: Analysis and proposal. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 115(1–2), 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.12.015. Rosner, W. J. (1995). Mental models for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 3(1–2), 107–121. https://doi.org//10.1016/0959-6526(95)00057-L. Saengsupavanich, C., Coowanitwong, N., Gallardo, W. G., & Lertsuchatavanich, C. (2009). Environmental performance evaluation of an industrial port and estate: ISO14001, port state control-derived indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(2), 154–161. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.001. Saxe, H., & Larsen, T. (2004). Air pollution from ships in three Danish ports. Atmospheric Environment, 38, 4057–4067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.03.055. Shiau, T. A., & Chuang, C. C. (2015). Social construction of port sustainability indicators: A case study of Keelung Port. Maritime Policy and Management, 42(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03088839.2013.863436. Verhoeven, P. (2009). European ports policy: Meeting contemporary governance challenges. Maritime Policy and Management, 36(1), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/0308883080 2652320. Wooldridge, C. F., McMullen, C., & Howe, V. (1999). Environmental management of ports and harbours—Implementation of policy through scientific monitoring. Marine Policy, 23(4–5), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(98)00055-4.

Chapter 13

Integrating Governance and Sustainability: A Proposal Towards More Sustainable Ports María Ángeles Fernández-Izquierdo, Idoya Ferrero-Ferrero and María Jesús Muñoz-Torres Abstract Ports are under increasing pressure to become more sustainable. A fundamental requirement to integrate sustainability into all structures, policies, and processes of an organisation, such as a port, is to have a corporate governance fully committed to sustainable development. However, sustainability frameworks in the port industry deal mainly with the economic and environmental dimensions, as well as operations and logistics issues, and technological and policy-related approaches, without addressing explicitly governance aspects. In addition, there has been limited research in the field of port sustainability and governance, with studies paying attention to how ports address sustainability from an operational perspective. This chapter is focused on the role of ports’ corporate governance to integrate sustainability into their management systems in order to fill this gap. The objective of this chapter is to define a framework that integrates both sustainability and corporate governance into port authority policies, strategies and activities, as a necessary condition to achieve a more sustainable organisation. The proposed framework has been developed based on the results of a literature review and on the best practices included in international corporate governance references. The framework for Port Authority Sustainability Governance Model (PASGM) places sustainability at the center stage and establishes five action areas aligned with sustainability principles. This chapter contributes to improving the understanding of internal governance elements of a port authority and clarifies the links of corporate governance with sustainability. It also provides some guidelines on key issues of governance that should be considered to integrate sustainability in the management system from a strategic perspective.




Keywords Sustainability Corporate governance sustainability governance model (PASGM)


Port authority
Port authority

M. Á. Fernández-Izquierdo (&)
I. Ferrero-Ferrero
M. J. Muñoz-Torres Sustainability of Organizations and CSR Management’ Research Group, University Jaume I, Campus del Riu sec - Avda. Vicent Sos Baynat s/n, Castellón 12071, Spain e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 A. Carpenter and R. Lozano (eds.), European Port Cities in Transition, Strategies for Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9_13

225

M. Á. Fernández-Izquierdo et al.

226

13.1

Introduction

Ports play a crucial role as facilitators of trade, economic activity, employment, innovation and environmental protection (COM 2013; OECD 2011). The European Commission describes seaports as key elements for trade development in the European Union (COM 2013) and their transport-related services has led to demand a sustainable management of port activities main due to their potential environmental impacts (OECD 2011). However, sustainable management is not a new concept in seaports, and has weighty responsibility in promoting sustainable development as a result of the important role that ports perform in the local, regional, and national development (COM 2007). In this context, a number of international initiatives [World Ports Sustainability Program (WPSP), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), International Maritime Organization (IMO), and European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO)] have recognised the necessity of integrating sustainability practice into port management to contribute to sustainable development and face worldwide, regional and local challenges. For instance, the International Association of Ports and Harbour (IAPH) have promoted sustainable port development and operations, and have suggested a guideline and offered strategic advice towards port sustainability practices. Initiatives designed to work on sustainability indicators (ESPO 2018), on the inventory of significant environmental aspects (SEA) have been developed; and many ports have defined objectives and targets for environmental improvement, development of environmental training programmes for port employees, environmental monitoring programmes and environmental responsibilities of key personnel, and publicly available environmental sustainable reports. Sustainability of ports is understood as the comprehensive ability of the port itself, as well as to the port city, its economy, resources, and environment (Wang and Zhao 2016). Consistent with this definition, Doerr (2010) proposed that Sustainable Port Development seeks a balance among economic growth, social cohesion, the institutional environment and respect for the environment, through integrated management in the four areas that Doerr (2010) mention. In this sense, ports can be considered to be nodes for sustainable growth (European Sea Ports Organisation—ESPO 2018). In addition, The International Association of Ports and Harbours (IAPH 2013) defined a sustainable port from a stakeholder perspective where it is necessary to consider proactive and responsible operations to engage ports authorities with the rest of actors in the port logistics supply chain. These frameworks focus mainly on economic and environmental perspectives, operations/logistics issues and technological and policy-related approaches, while governance aspects are not explicitly addressed. An important factor to understand how sustainability is integrated into management is governance. Corporate Governance (CG) is the system by which an organisation is managed and controlled; hence, integrating Sustainability and CG is both prudent and necessary (Unepfi 2014). There is limited literature dealing with sustainability in ports from the point of view of governance and its institutional impulse. The sustainable governance model

13

Integrating Governance and Sustainability …

227

should integrate sustainability at all levels and in all the decision-making processes of the organisation, by defining a governance structure that enables an appropriate governance process, aligned with sustainability principles (Sjåfjell and Muñoz-Torres 2018). As port institutions and companies are showing growing concerns for developing a sustainable strategy, in which sustainability principles and issues are integrated into the core of the business model, the need for a sustainable governance model which may oversee the formulation and execution of such a strategy arises. The sustainable governance model sets sustainability at the heart of governance and corporate board strategic agendas. This combination of governance and sustainability should consider the complete supply chain management context, given that ports are regarded as critical nodes of global trade and supply chains, which have a complex organisational structure (Kang and Kim 2017). Ports play a key role in the maritime supply chain since they are located as the central link between land and sea transportation for international trade. The objective of this chapter is to develop a model for integrating governance of the ports and their sustainability strategies. The proposed framework for Port Authority Sustainability Governance Model (PASGM) will enhance port sustainability. From the outputs of the H2020 SMART Project model of sustainability assessment (Muñoz-Torres et al. 2018), managers will be able to make informed decisions that follow the design of the government model from the sustainable supply chain management perspective. After this introductory section, Sect. 13.2 reviews the relevant literature on sustainable port governance. Section 13.3 then presents our proposed sustainable governance framework for more sustainable ports. Finally, the conclusion gives a brief summary.

13.2

Port Governance, Sustainable Governance and Sustainable Port Governance

This section includes a review of literature on port governance and sustainability. First, the studies about port governance are presented. Second, the most advanced developments about corporate governance and sustainability are highlighted. Finally, research based on sustainability and corporate governance in port industry is discussed.

13.2.1 Port Governance Corporate governance refers to structures and processes for the direction and control of companies (Cadbury 1992). Corporate governance concerns the relations

228

M. Á. Fernández-Izquierdo et al.

among the management board of directors, controlling shareholders, minority shareholders, and other stakeholders. According to OECD (1999), the corporate governance structure specifies the distribution of rights and responsibilities among the different participants in the organisation such as the board, managers, shareholders and other stakeholders, and lays down the rules and procedures for decision-making. In the context of port governance, two levels can be distinguished: the port itself and that related to the Port Authority. At the port level, governance refers to a set of economic, social and political agents linked to it; at the second level, the Port Authority, governance refers to the internal corporate management (Verhoeven and Vanoutrive 2012). Considering the latter, governance is defined based on the interaction between the competent body of the general administration and each port authority, which is responsible for designing the structure and strategy of the port, taking into account that the port will develop its activity in a risky, and not always controlled, context (Brooks and Pallis 2008). In practice, port governance consists in establishing a set of rules that are simultaneously compatible with the facility past and its future objectives (Brooks 2004). Following González Laxe (2013), the fundamental elements of governance are the institutions, mechanisms and processes. The term port governance is, in essence, related to the ownership of a port area and the operations of a port terminal (González Laxe et al. 2016). The owner of a port can, but may not be, the port authority. In this context, port facilities are categorised into infrastructure and suprastructure (Gue-Ngl 2016). Port infrastructure comprises the physical and fixed technical structures which enable seaside transport, ship handling, cargo storage and hinterland transport. The port infrastructure provider is mainly responsible for investment and maintenance of navigational channel, locks, quay walls, terminal sites, rail tracks and road connections in the port area. The responsibilities might differ due to contractual terms between port owner and operator. In contrast, port suprastructure comprises surface equipment which supports the operation of port services (Gue-Ngl 2016). The World Bank developed a guide (World Bank 2007) in which four basic models of port administration are designed, although within each of them there may be differences according to the legal status of port authorities (Ferrari et al. 2015). These four models are: service (service port); tool (tool port); owner (landlord); and private service provision (private service port). This taxonomy could be redesigned taking into account that ownership and management can be reconnected by seeking a balance of power between public and private sectors when it comes to the ownership and management of infrastructure-superstructure, operations and service provision (Brooks 2004); which enables the establishment of five port governance typologies: (1) Public service port: where ownership and management is under public control; (2) Tool port: this relies on public infrastructure, public suprastructure, and private port operations management. This governance type holds a central position

13

Integrating Governance and Sustainability …

229

between public service port and landlord port, such as the ‘Ports Autonomes’ in France; (3) Landlord port: this governance model is prevalent in Europe. Its main characteristics are public infrastructure, private suprastructure, and private port operations management. A Public Authority owns the infrastructure and the suprastructure is owned by a company or organisation with public-private ownership which also operates the port. In this model, the public authority owns the land and the infrastructure and leases these assets to private operators as a concession, with equipment and operations in the hands of the private sector. For instance, the big container ports of Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg, and the Spanish port system; (4) Corporate port: this represents ports which are almost entirely privatised but whose ownership remains public. The port authority acts as private enterprise. Ownership and control are separated. For example, the ports of Kiel and Amsterdam; and (5) Private service port: this concentrates on private interest with private infrastructure, private suprastructure, and private port operations management. A private company owns and operates the port, such as the ports of London, Liverpool, Dover, or Brunsbüttel. The landlord port model is the dominant structure today in Europe, e.g. the port of Rotterdam Authority is an unlisted public limited company with two shareholders - the Municipality of Rotterdam with a share of approximately 70%, and the Dutch government with a share of approximately 30% (information available at: https://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/asia/why-rotterdam). The Rotterdam port suprastructure and terminal areas are leased to other companies. ESPO (2016) argued that most seaport authorities in Europe remain publicly owned. Full state or municipality ownership remains predominant. Only very few port authorities combine ownership of different government levels (e.g. state-municipality, province-municipality). Mixed public-private ownership is still very rare and exists only in a few countries. Full private ownership, where the port authority is fully owned by one or more private parties, is characteristic of some ports in the UK. Brooks (2001, 2004) concluded that regardless of the public/private structure of the port, the governance model is an essential element for the organisational structure. In fact, Ports can be defined as quasi-public organisations that should not only achieve business purposes and operational performance, but also support positive economic and social responsibility (Cheon et al. 2010). The fully public service port and the fully private port, both characterised by sharing of little responsibility between public and private actors can be found at the two extremes of ownership; this means that to cover all these alternatives, there are many possibilities in the governance model design. However, ports are, in all cases, under increasing pressure to become more sustainable and some ports have already been including sustainability into their operations.

230

M. Á. Fernández-Izquierdo et al.

13.2.2 Governance Model for Sustainability One of the key studies that explore the relationship between corporate governance and sustainability is offered by E-Vahdati et al. (2018), who carried out a systematic literature review on corporate governance and sustainability integration and their insights of governance reflection for sustainability framework were classified in the following four key issues: (i) Vision, mission, objectives and strategy; (ii) board composition and leadership; (iii) transparency and active public engagement; (iv) and a stakeholder system model. These key aspects are aligned with other conceptual frameworks that address key elements of governance for sustainability (e.g. Kemp et al. 2005; Martin et al. 2016). Farrell et al. (2005) stressed the differences between ‘governance and sustainable development’ and ‘governance for sustainable development’ and explored how sustainable development has been interpreted and pursued in different policy/ governance systems. The objective was to identify and prescribe what governance systems should be employed to make sustainable development not only a reality but also ‘in a way that is true to the gravity and complexity of the task’. Unepfi (2014) proposed a new governance model, the ‘Integrated Governance’ model, which is defined as ‘the system by which companies are directed and controlled, in which sustainability issues are integrated in a way that ensures value creation for the company and beneficial results for all stakeholders in the long term’. Integrated governance combines bringing sustainability oversight in the boardroom together with addressing some of the identified current governance weaknesses that prevent boards from operating in the most effective manner (Ceres 2018). Few papers were identified from the literature review which covered governance and sustainability in the supply chain. Among the limited studies, this section highlights the work of Formentini and Taticchi (2016) which emphasises the need for broadening the knowledge of governance mechanism from the supply chain perspective when considering sustainability. They defined sustainable supply chain governance mechanisms (SSCGMs) as ‘practices, initiatives and processes used by the focal firm to manage relationships with i) internal functions and departments and ii) their supply chain members and stakeholders with the aim of successfully implementing their corporate sustainability approach’. They referred to internal governance mechanisms and external governance mechanisms to differentiate between actions inside corporate boundaries and actions extended at the supply chain level; findings include the characterisation of three sustainability profiles, namely sustainability leaders, sustainability practitioners and traditionalists; a classification of the governance mechanisms on the basis of their level of collaboration and formalisation and the identification of factors that enable governance mechanisms. Sjåfjell and Muñoz-Torres (2018) proposed a Sustainable Governance Model (SGM), which it has as a primary objective to integrate sustainability at all levels and in all the decision-making processes of the organisations. This governance model is based on sustainability principles and should promote the development of

13

Integrating Governance and Sustainability …

231

sustainable management structures into the corporate decision-making bodies, which will help them to make decisions based on the goals and strategies the organisation has set, and their sustainability impacts on the whole global value chain. Remarkably, the sustainable governance model must be embedded into the corporate board, in order to redefine the purpose of the company and the role and duties of the board. This is directly connected with the overarching responsibility for risk company management. The key point in the SGM and the sustainable management adopted by the board is the purpose of creating ‘sustainable value’, through more sustainable business models which could contribute effectively to achieving a sustainable development.

13.2.3 Sustainability, Governance and Ports An important factor to understand how sustainability is integrated into management is governance, i.e. the structure within which management occurs. Governance in ports could be explored from two main levels: (i) corporate governance of the main actor in a port (e.g. Port Authority); and (ii) cluster governance focused on the relationships among the different actors in a port. Several studies have been made to contribute to port governance (e.g. Brooks 2004; De Langen 2007; Merk 2014; van Leeuwen 2015); however, further research should be done to understand the relationships between ports and their main actors of the ecosystem. Zhang et al. (2018) explore who governs and what is governed in port governance. From an empirical perspective, Treib et al. (2007) focus on the appearance of what are often referred to as ‘new modes of governance’. Governance ultimately affects everything a corporation does; hence, making sustainability an integral component of corporate governance is both prudent and necessary (Unepfi 2014). Traditionally, good corporate governance has been seen as a contributor to sustainable economic development since it enhances performance of companies and increases their access to outside capital (IFC 2018). This impact should be extended to other pillars of sustainability and it could be said that good governance is a necessary condition to integrate sustainability into all structures, policies and processes of an organisation. In the governance model, integrating sustainability principles is the best way to manage and control the organisation. in the functional structure, good governance is necessary as a preventive discipline to manage risk; in the high-level managerial structure, it is necessary for a true and complete implementation of Sustainable Governance Model. The literature on the importance of sustainable development for ports is limited and far too little attention has been paid to sustainable port governance. In general terms, the variable governance is considered and analysed as additional sustainability dimension, such as economic, social and environmental ones, and not as the fundamental driver for the sustainable development of corporations. In this respect, a number of studies on port sustainability explored in this chapter mainly focus on qualitative aspects of the sustainable development of a port,

232

M. Á. Fernández-Izquierdo et al.

port-city hub, or on sustainability of green-ecological ports (Wang and Zhao 2016) or conceptualizing the structure of sustainability practices (Kang and Kim 2017). Another group of studies draw on sustainability practices in ports in order to promote sustainability in port operations from a green sustainability perspective (Kang and Kim 2017) and on stakeholder management for establishing sustainable regional port governance (Lam et al. 2013). Finally, other studies (Asgari et al. 2015; Schipper et al. 2017) evaluate sustainability port performance to propose a ranking system of port sustainability. In this regard, Asgari et al. (2015) considers only the environmental and economic aspects of sustainability while Schipper et al. (2017) take into account a set of social, economic, and environmental key performance indicators, without explicating corporate governance variables. Ports are under increasing pressure to become more sustainable (Lozano et al. 2018). Some ports have been including sustainability into their operations. Not only does the sustainable development of ports show the comprehensive ability of port itself, but it is also closely related with port city economy, resources and the environment. The literature shows that the main focus of sustainable development of ports is connected with the development and the construction of sustainable ports (Wang and Zhao 2016). Carpenter (2005) states that there are five approaches to help ports become more sustainable: (i) legislative; (ii) technological, (iii) financial, (iv) cultural/social and (v) voluntary initiatives. Ports are considered as critical nodes of global trade and supply chains, which have a complex organisational structure (Kang and Kim 2017; Asgari et al. 2015) but results are scarce regarding the quantitative or qualitative evaluation of sustainability and/or the role that governance occupies in making ports more sustainable. De Langen (2007) analyses stakeholders and conflicting interests as part of governance in ports; however, to our knowledge, an integrated model of sustainable governance has not yet been developed.

13.3

A Sustainable Governance Framework for More Sustainable Ports

The aim of this section is to propose a framework which, by focusing on the corporate governance system, brings sustainability into spotlight when it comes to port strategy in order to achieve a more sustainable performance, the Port Authority Sustainability Governance Model (PASGM). The scope of this proposal is the internal governance of a port authority. A port authority is considered as the key institution that manages the port activity (Verhoeven and Vanoutrive 2012). The framework has been developed based on the results of the literature review discussed in the previous section and on the best practices included in international corporate governance references. The structure of the framework is divided into five basic axes which address the critical issues in corporate governance and sustainability in the current research (e.g. E-Vahdati et al. 2018; Martin et al. 2016). Each

13

Integrating Governance and Sustainability …

233

basic axis is analysed considering the recent international references regarding models of governance for sustainability (e.g. Unepfi 2014; Ceres 2018), for improving organisational performance (e.g. COSO 2014) and for port industry (e.g. Department of Transport in UK 2018), and with the most advanced developments from the academia (e.g. Sjåfjell and Muñoz-Torres 2018). Figure 13.1 shows the proposed framework for PASGM contextualizing the five basic axes (action areas) in the port authority management system. The five basic axes (action areas) of the proposed framework are described as follows. 1. Governance foundations. The starting point of a governance model for sustainability is to show a true commitment of the highest-level positions to the sustainability concept. In this regard, the port authority should state its sustainability commitment in its mission and in the rest of elements that define and implement the rules of internal management such us: the articles of association, vision, board agenda, port strategy and consequently in the management cycle. The management cycle, which COSO (2014) defined as business planning, execution, monitoring and adapting and which is consistent with the accepted approach of ‘plan, do, check and act’, should be adopted in order to integrate sustainability risk and opportunities into all the elements of the dynamic

repr esenta tiv es Other elected

Port User s Com m ercial

G ov er nm ent Local

G over nm ent Cent ral

Users Leisur e Por t

Central Governm ent

Com m unit ies Loca l

U nions Trade Boar d of Director s

3 Ov ersig ht

3

3

Definit ion St rat egy

Other elected representatives

A ccount abilit y

W ork f orce

Com m ercial Port Users

4 U pdat ed

S t ra teg y Por t

2 A dapting

E ngag em ent S t ak eholder

Planning Operations Por t

1

5

F oundat ions Gov ernance SA T A naly sis Hotspots

Leisure Port Users

4

Com m unication Inform ation &

M onitoring E x ecution

4

Local Governm ent

SAT A ssessm ent S ust ainability

Local Com m unities

Trade Unions

Board of Directors Accountability

repr esenta tiv es Other elected

G over nm ent Cent ral

3

Strategy Definition

G ov er nm ent Local

Users Leisur e Por t U nions Trade

Boar d of Director s

3

Ov ersig ht

3

Definit ion St rat egy

Workforce

3

3

Port User s Com m ercial

Oversight

Com m unit ies Loca l

3

A ccount abilit y

W ork f orce

4 U pdat ed

S t ra teg y Por t

2 A dapting

E ngag em ent S t ak eholder

Planning Operations Por t

1

5

F oundat ions Gov ernance

Com m unication Inform ation &

M onitoring E x ecution SAT A ssessm ent S ust ainabilit y

Stakeholder Engagement

4

2

SA T A naly sis Hotspots

Port Strategy

4

4 Updated

Adapting

represent ativ es Ot her elect ed

Information & Communication

Gov ernm ent Local

Gov ernm ent Centr al

User s Leisure Por t

Monitoring

Unions Tr ade Board of D irect ors

Ov er sig ht

3

3

D efinition S t rateg y

Execution

3

A ccountability

W ork for ce S tr a teg y Updat ed Por t

2 A dapt ing

1

E ng ag em ent S ta k eholder

Planning Oper ations Port

5

F oundations G ov er nance SA T A naly sis H otspot s

Com m unication Inf orm at ion &

M onit oring E x ecution

4

SA T A ssessm ent S ustainability

PORT AUTHORITY

Sustainability Assessment SAT

4

4

4

Hotspots Analysis SAT

Com m unities Local

4

5

Por t U sers Com m ercial

Port Operations 1 Planning Governance Foundations

SUPPLY CHAIN

Fig. 13.1 Proposed framework for Port Authority Sustainability Governance Model (PASGM)

234

M. Á. Fernández-Izquierdo et al.

process. Sustainability depicts a broad and complex concept which proves to be difficult to operationalise. For this reason, this framework adopts the four principles of sustainability defined by Muñoz-Torres et al. (2018) to implement sustainability into the corporate management. These four principles are: (i) sustainability dimensions and the balance among them; (ii) intergenerational perspective; (iii) stakeholder approach; and (iv) life cycle thinking. 2. Stakeholder engagement. The port authority should ensure that the stakeholder’s views are included in the port management. This framework defines the effective engagement with stakeholders by means of two types of involvements: at a board and at a port operation level. At the board level, the stakeholder’s expectations should be included, which will encourage their active participation at the highest level of the port authority. In this respect, depending on the type of ownership of the port authority and the model adopted, the mechanisms for the participation may be different. An option could be a multi-stakeholder board; this is the case of the Spanish port authorities (landlord model) since the board of directors is made up of representatives from the Spanish Ministry of Development, the regional governments, the city councils, the chambers of commerce, industrial and shipping agents, business associations and trade unions, among others. Other best practices are: (i) to establish stakeholder advisory panels or committees; (ii) to define non-executive directors that represents stakeholder views; (iii) to select non-executive directors on the basis of their special knowledge or experience of the local community and local economy; or (iv) to arrange an annual open meeting for stakeholders in order to put questions to the board (for further detail see: Department of Transport in UK 2018). At the port operational level, this framework seeks stakeholder engagement in the management cycle, implementing informal pre-consultations, dialogues or consultation processes. In particular, the stakeholder contribution could be made to the four management phases: (i) in the planning phase, port operation planning could be discussed with the stakeholders in order to obtain stakeholder feedback from the beginning of the process and to work together for a greater social acceptance; (ii) in the execution phase, some stakeholders could also be partners and they could share resources with the port authority; (iii) in the monitoring phase, stakeholders may contribute to oversee the execution of the port operations with the aim of ensuring that ports are managing extra-financial risks; and (iv) in the adapting phase, stakeholders may be a valuable source of new ideas to improve port sustainability. 3. Governance structure. Governance structure is understood as the architecture that supports the process of making decisions to manage the company and oversee the port affairs. This structure should show a clear division of sustainability duties and responsibilities that are in keeping with power hierarchy and incentive systems. This involves that each internal actor of the port authority (board of directors, executive managers and the rest of workers) should know what their duties and responsibilities are and who they should be accountable to. The board of directors, as the highest-level positions at the port authority, must

13

Integrating Governance and Sustainability …

235

bear great responsibilities for defining the sustainable strategic plan; for overseeing the sustainable management process, including the integrity of the sustainability information; for being held accountable for its decisions to the stakeholders. With the aim of enhancing effectiveness, members of the board, who must set the example to the all the port authority (Unepfi 2014): (i) should have knowledge of sustainability; (ii) should actively participate in the meetings to defend the interests they represent; (iii) should have access to the information required, or external expertise if necessary, before coming to decisions; and (iv) should be diverse, to achieve a fair balance of interests and to guarantee an independent decision-making process. With respect to incentive systems, business planning should define sustainability key performance indicators (KPIs) and risk indicators in order to set sustainability targets and, consequently, to align this targets with the performance-based compensation system. The port authority should include monetary and non-monetary remunerations in the remuneration system, so as to improve the quality in the work environment and job satisfaction. In addition, incentive system also should lead to a shift to a more sustainable port culture. Finally, with the aim of ensuring the management of sustainability risks and the port long-term success, this framework recommends the use of claw-back mechanisms for the highest-level positions in case of materialised sustainability risks. 4. Board operations to promote a more sustainable port. The board of directors should clearly define its role in addressing sustainability to make ports more resilient. In order to provide proper supervision, boards should adopt a technical results-oriented approach. Tools like SMART-Sustainability Assessment Tool provides accurate indicators (footprint methodologies), aligned with the latest scientific developments and consistent with the sustainability principles (Muñoz-Torres et al. 2017, 2018). To exert an effective control to make ports more sustainable, boards should assess whether or not sustainability hotspots are addressed in the ‘adapting phase’ to be included in next step in the updated port strategy. This should be done on a regular basis in order to promote a continuous improvement culture in the board. 5. Sustainability information and communication. A port authority should make information about sustainability available to stakeholders regarding material issues and the details to assess the materiality. The sustainability information should be comparable and consistent with sustainability principles (Muñoz-Torres et al. 2018) in order to provide a true and fair view. The reported information should contain: (i) how the board operates to integrate sustainability into the management and the supervisory process; (ii) the sustainability objectives; (ii) the sustainability risks that ports face and the operation strategies to mitigate those risks; (iii) appropriate indicators to assess sustainability performance to know about the position ports adopt on sustainability in the industry and their evolution over years; and (iv) the results of internal and external quality information assurance.

M. Á. Fernández-Izquierdo et al.

236

13.4

Conclusions

The main objective of this chapter is to develop a model for integrating governance of the ports and their sustainability strategies. In reviewing the literature on port management, no frameworks that integrate corporate governance and management were found. Ports are showing growing concerns for developing a sustainable strategy; however, it is difficult to put sustainability at the core of the business without a governance model that supervises the formulation and execution of such a strategy. To overcome this and to contribute to literature this paper suggests a Port Authority Sustainability Governance Model (PASGM) for creating more Sustainable Ports and contributing to better understanding of governance in seaports. This framework is composed of five basic axes: (i) governance foundations, to define the elements of internal management consistent with sustainability principles; (ii) stakeholder engagement, to set an effective involvement and active participation in the management cycle and at board level; (iii) governance structure, to specify a clear division of sustainability duties and responsibilities aligned with power hierarchy and incentive systems; (iv) board operations to promote a more sustainable port and (v) sustainability information and communication, to make sustainability information available and to operate in a transparent way. The contribution of this chapter to corporate governance and ports is twofold. From a theoretical point of view, this chapter integrates the critical issues of corporate governance and sustainability in the proposed framework for port authority. This framework helps to better understand the internal governance elements of a port authority. From a practical point of view, the framework provides some guidelines on key issues of governance that should be considered to integrate sustainability in the management system. The proposed framework lays sustainability at the heart of governance and corporate board strategic agendas since there is no genuine sustainable development without a governance model committed to sustainability.

References Asgari, N., Hassani, A., Jones, D., & Nguye, H. H. (2015). Sustainability ranking of the UK major ports: Methodology and case study. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 78, 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2015.01.014. Brooks, M. R. (2001). Good governance and ports as tools of economic development: Are they compatible? In Proceedings of the International Association of Maritime Economists Annual Conference, Hong Kong, July, 1–19. Brooks, M. R. (2004). The governance structure of ports. Review of Network Economics, 3(2), 168–183. https://doi.org/10.2202/1446-9022.1049. Brooks, M. R., & Pallis, A. A. (2008). Assessing port governance models: Process and performance components. Maritime Policy & Management, 35(4), 411–432. https://doi.org/10. 1080/03088830802215060.

13

Integrating Governance and Sustainability …

237

Cadbury, A. (1992). Report of the committee on the financial aspects of corporate governance. London: Gee. Available at: http://www.ecgi.org/codes/documents/cadbury.pdf. Last accessed March 22, 2019. Carpenter, A. (2005). The reduction of ship-generated waste in the North Sea: A contemporary analysis. UK: University of Leeds. Ceres. (2018). System rule: How board governance can drive sustainability performance. Available at: https://www.ceres.org/systemsrule. Last accessed March 13, 2019. Cheon, S., Dowal, D. E., & Song, D. (2010). Evaluating impacts of institutional reforms on port efficiency changes: Ownership, corporate structure, and total factor productivity changes of world container. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 46(4), 546–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2009.04.001. COM—Commission of European Union. (2007). Communication on a European Ports Policy, COM/2007/0616 final. Brussels, October 18, 2007. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0616&from=EN. Last accessed March 13, 2019. COM—Commission of European Union. (2013). GREEN PAPER 2030 framework for climate and energy policies, COM/2013/0169 final. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0169&from=EN. Last accessed March 13, 2019. COSO—Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. (2014). Improving organizational performance and governance: How the COSO frameworks can help. Available at: https://www.coso.org/Documents/2014-2-10-COSO-Thought-Paper.pdf. Last accessed March 3, 2019. De Langen, P. W. (2007). Port competition and selection in contestable hinterlands: The case of Austria. European Journal of Transport Infrastructure Research, 7(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/ 10.18757/ejtir.2007.7.1.3370. Department of transportation UK. (2018). Ports good governance guidance. Moving Britain Ahead. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment_data/file/684839/ports-good-governance-guidance.pdf. Last accessed March 3, 2019. Doerr, O. (2010). Sustainable port policies. Available at: https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/ handle/11362/36271/1/FAL-299-WEB-ENG_en.pdf. Last accessed November 15, 2018. European Sea Ports Organisation—ESPO. (2016). Trends in EU ports Governance 2016. Available at: https://www.espo.be/media/Trends_in_EU_ports_governance_2016_FINAL_ VERSION.pdf. Last accessed March 3, 2019. European Sea Ports Organisation—ESPO. (2018). ESPO environmental report 2018. EuroportsinSights 2018. Available at: http://www.espo.be/media/ESPO%20Environmental% 20Report%202018.pdf. Last accessed March 3, 2019. E-Vahdati, S., Zulkifli, N., & Zakaria, Z. (2018). Corporate governance integration with sustainability: a systematic literature review. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society. forthcoming, https://doi.org/10.1108/cg-03-2018-0111. Farrell, K., Kemp, R., Hinterberger, F., Rammel, C., & Ziegler, R. (2005). From *for* to governance for sustainable development in Europe’. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8, 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2005.007379. Ferrari, C., Parola, F., & Tei, A. (2015). Governance models and port concessions in Europe: Commonalities, critical issues and policy perspectives. Transport Policy, 41, 60–67. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.03.012. Formentini, M., & Taticchi, P. (2016). Corporate sustainability approaches and governance mechanisms in sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112(3), 1920–1933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clepro.2014.12.072. González Laxe, F. (2013). Experiencias internacionales sobre el rol del estado para el desarrollo de sistemas portuarios en ambientes de competencias (International experiences on the role of the state for the development of port systems in competency environments). Coruña, Spain: Working Document of the Division of Natural Resources and Infrastructure (DRNI) of CEPAL. Available at: https://repositorio.cepal.org/. Last accessed March 3, 2019.

238

M. Á. Fernández-Izquierdo et al.

González Laxe, F., Sánchez, R. J., & Lorena Garcia-Alonso, L. (2016). The adaptation process in port governance: The case of the Latin countries in South America and Europe. Journal of Shipping and Trade, 1(14), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-016-0018-y. Gue-Ngl. (2016). CML report port cooperation. Available at: www.guengl.eu/uploads/ publications-documents/CMLReportPortCooperationvFINAL.PDF. Last accessed March 3, 2019. IAPH. (2013). Our ports of the future-developing the potential, is based on the underlying question: How can we ‘meet’ each other economically, nautically and technically and strengthen one another? International Association of Ports and Harbors Conference Africa/ Europe Regional Meeting. November 2013. IFC. (2018). Why corporate governance? Available at: https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/ 3fdab3004ee41d95bd20ff3eac88a2f8/Why_Corporate_Governance.pdf?MOD=AJPERES. Last accessed March 13, 2019. Kang, D., & Kim, S. (2017). Conceptual model development of sustainability practices: The case of port operations for collaboration and governance. Sustainability, 9(12), 2333. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su9122333. Kemp, R., Parto, S., & Gibson, R. B. (2005). Governance for sustainable development: Moving from theory to practice. The International Journal of Sustainable Development, 12, 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1.1.506.2286. Lam, J. S. L., Ng, A. K., & Xiaowen Fu, X. (2013). Stakeholder management for establishing sustainable regional port governance. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 8, 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.06.001. Lozano, R., Fobbe, L., Carpenter, A., & Sammalisto, K. (2018). Analysing sustainability changes in seaports: Experiences from the Gävle Port Authority. Sustainable Development, forthcoming,. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1913. Martin, G., Farndale, E., Paauwe, J., & Stiles, P. G. (2016). Corporate governance and strategic human resource management: Four archetypes and proposals for a new approach to corporate sustainability. European Management Journal, 34(1), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj. 2016.01.002. Merk, O. (2014): The effectiveness of port-city governance. In Y. D. Alix & B. Comtois (Eds.), Port city governance (pp. 233–245). Editions EMS. Muñoz-Torres, M. J., Fernández-Izquierdo, M. Á., Rivera-Lirio, J. M., Ferrero-Ferrero, I., & Escrig-Olmedo, E. (2017). SMART Deliverable. D5.1. Lifecycle thinking: Issues to be considered. Available at: https://www.smart.uio.no/publications/reports/. Last accessed March 3, 2019. Muñoz-Torres, M. J., Fernández-Izquierdo, M. A., Rivera-Lirio, J. M., Ferrero-Ferrero, I., Escrig-Olmedo, E., Gisbert-Navarro, J. V., et al. (2018). An assessment tool to integrate sustainability principles into the global supply chain. Sustainability, 10(535), 1–20. https://doi. org/10.3390/su10020535. OECD. (1999). OECD Principles of Corporate Governance (SG/CG(99)5). Paris: Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (April). Available at: https://www.oecd.org/ officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=C/MIN(99)6&docLanguage=En. March 3, 2019. OECD. (2011). Environmental impacts of international shipping. The role of ports. OECD Publishing. Available at: https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/environmental-impacts-ofinternational-shipping_9789264097339-en#page3. Last accessed March 22, 2019. Schipper, C. A., Vreugdenhil, H., & de Jong, M. P. C. (2017). A sustainability assessment of ports and port-city plans: Comparing ambitions with achievements. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 57, 84–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.08.017. Sjåfjell, B., & Muñoz‐Torres, M. J. (2018). Innovating the corporation for sustainability: A SMART sustainable governance proposal. Working Paper presented at the “Fourth International Workshop of Daughters of Themis: International Network of Female Business Scholars‐Innovating Business Models For Sustainability” Kea. Greece. June 2018.

13

Integrating Governance and Sustainability …

239

Treib, O., Bahr, H., & Falkner, G. (2007). Modes of governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/135017606061071406. Unepfi. (2014). Integrated governance: A new model of governance for sustainability. Available at: https://www.unepfi.org/publications/investment-publications/integrated-governance-a-newmodel-of-governance-for-sustainability-2/. Last accessed November 15, 2018. Van Leeuwen, J. (2015). The regionalization of maritime governance: Towards a polycentric governance system for sustainable shipping in the European Union. Ocean and Coastal Management, 117, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.013. Verhoeven, P., & Vanoutrive, T. (2012). A quantitative analysis of European port governance. Maritime Economics and Logistics, 14(2), 178–203. https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2012.6. Wang, D., & Zhao, Y. (2016). Research on quantitative evaluation indicator system of seaport sustainable development. IEEE. World Bank. (2007). Port reform toolkit (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Available at: https://ppp.worldbank.org/public-privatepartnership/library/port-reform-toolkit-ppiaf-world-bank-2nd-edition. March 3, 2019. Zhang, Q., Geerlings, H., El Makhloufi, A., & Chen, S. (2018). Who governs and what is governed in port governance: A review study. Transport Policy, 64, 51–60. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.tranpol.2018.01.019.

Chapter 14

The Changing Interplay Between European Cities and Intermodal Transport Networks (1970s–2010s) Justin Berli, César Ducruet, Romain Martin and Sevil Seten

Abstract European cities, like most of the world’s cities, are to some degree dependent upon maritime transport for their development, as more than 90% of seaborne trade volume is carried by sea. This also applies to Europe’s external trade. While cities possessing ports play a crucial role in the distribution of goods traffic in such a context, the maritime influence exerted by global trade on non-port, inland cities have not been so far studied from a combined sea-land perspective. The results show a differentiation of the European territory in terms of modal specialisation, core-periphery, polycentricity, and intermodal centrality/accessibility. We map the maritime specialisation of European cities in recent decades, showing that combined sea-land centrality has stable but different relationships according to the type of place considered. The conclusion discusses the outcomes of our results for policy and further research on coupled networks and urban studies.




Keywords Europe Geographical information system (GIS) transport Network analysis Port cities




14.1





Maritime

Introduction

The relationships between ports and cities have been analysed from numerous perspectives in the academic literature and beyond. Although “maritime and land transportation modes play a vital role in the growth of urban places” (Lugo 2015, p. 322), the differences between port cities from non-port cities remains scantily debated. Despite a consensus that port cities are specific due to their coastal location, direct connection to commodity trade through maritime transport, and the presence of related economic activities, they underwent spatial and functional separation. Many scholars (e.g. Slack 1989; O’Connor 1987; McCalla et al. 2001; J. Berli
C. Ducruet (&)
R. Martin
S. Seten Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), UMR 8504 Géographie-Cités, 13 rue du Four, 75006 Paris, France e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 A. Carpenter and R. Lozano (eds.), European Port Cities in Transition, Strategies for Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9_14

241

242

J. Berli et al.

Jacobs et al. 2010, 2011) have discussed that cities, rather than ports, attract tertiary maritime firms. In developed countries, cities and regions hosting ports often perform below national average in terms of wage levels and economic impacts (Fujita and Mori 1996; Lemarchand 2000; De Langen 2007; Grobar 2008; Hall 2009). Such evidence has been confirmed through a number of models and case studies about the physical and functional separation between ports and cities in the last decades (Bird 1963; Hoyle 1989; Norcliffe et al. 1996). Other studies have demonstrated the temporal and geographic variability of such a phenomenon (Brocard 1988; Lee and Ducruet 2006; Lee et al. 2008; Ducruet and Itoh 2016), echoing earlier critiques of the central place theory ignoring the port function, using the concept of gateway (Burghardt 1970; Bird 1973). In Europe, port cities were found to be demographically larger (Lee 1998) and economically richer (Lever 1994) than other cities. In the case of Mexico, Lugo (2015, p. 328) highlighted that “port locations are significant nodes in the spatial network because they affect transport logistics to cities”. Other authors have argued in favor of more invisible relationships stronger than the urbanistic changes taking place on the waterfront, such as: political science; economic and political geography (Clark and Hall 2010); transport geography (Charlier 1992); and urban geography (Slack 1989; Lee and Ducruet 2009; Van den Berghe et al. 2018). While such relationships may be measured, they were also often approached qualitatively and theoretically (Hesse 2010; Hall and Jacobs 2012; Monios et al. 2018) or through case studies. This has also been confirmed by a vast number of collective works about the past, present, and future of European port cities (Hayot 1988; Hoyle and Pinder 1992; Lawton and Lee 2002; Warsewa 2006). This chapter contributes to a better understanding of port-city relationships based on the macro-level and intermingling of continental and global networks. Traditionally, European cities have been studied based on: networks of roads (Dupuis and Stransky 1996; Gutiérrez and Urbano 1996; Bruinsma and Rietveld 1998; Vickerman et al. 1999); railways and airlines (Dobruszkes et al. 2011), multinational firms (Rozenblat and Pumain 1993); and scientific collaborations (Comin 2009). While urban networks in Europe (and elsewhere) constitute an ancient topic (Pumain 1996), one of the first analyses of European and world cities from a maritime network perspective is very recent (Ducruet and Berli 2018). Such study was ambitious by its temporal scope (1890–2010) and geographic scale (world). This study of cities linked by water using inter-city shipping data demonstrated a declining port-city relationship overtime for cities hosting ports, but a growing one for cities distant from nearby ports at the level of the extended city-region. One of the main explanations given by the authors was that the increased importance of land transport (trucking) was the key to understand the actually unchanged port-city correlation except from expanded spatial distance between place of cargo handling and place of production and/or consumption. It was thus demonstrated that, in Europe, port concentration and road network configuration motivated important shifts of export flows (see Hoare 1986). This confirms the need to combine landward and maritime aspects in the study of port cities.

14

The Changing Interplay Between European Cities …

243

Only a few studies have considered both road and maritime networks despite the paramount importance of intermodalism today (e.g. Van Klink and Van den Berg 1998), but also in the past (Marnot 2005; Bretagnolle 2015). Spatial models combining foreland and hinterland such as the port triptych (Vigarié 1979) as well those depicting port system evolution have depicted the inland shift of port activities in Europe and elsewhere (Van Klink 1998; Notteboom and Rodrigue 2005; Rodrigue and Notteboom 2010; Monios and Wilmsmeier 2012). Other works documented the rise of dry/inland ports (Raimbault et al. 2016) and the expanding territorial embedding of shipping lines through vertical integration. Rarely has the city been the unit of analysis, as in the more quantitative studies of Chapelon (2006) on the regional accessibility of European ports, and Guerrero et al. (2017) on European NUTS-3 regions’ maritime and landside connectivity. Other studies (e.g. Nelson 2008; Tavasszy et al. 2011) combined sea-land networks at the world scale but without combining their results with specific urban indicators. Other research has been conducted at the national level such as in the case of Spain, but also with regions rather than cities as the unit of analysis (see Zanon Moura et al. 2018). Only recently, port cities have been analysed based on their situation in maritime and road networks, in Australia (Berli et al. 2018) and the British Isles (Ducruet and Berli 2018). The latter studies demonstrated that the intermodal or sea-land centrality of cities was better related to urban population than single (i.e. land or maritime) centrality, suggesting that a single network was not sufficient to understand urban development patterns and dynamics. Their choice of island countries was motivated by the absence of border effects to run first tests with assumption that in such territories, port and urban hierarchies are quite overlapped. The European-wide perspective has the potential to provide new evidence about the relative importance of each network in the combined centrality of port and non-port cities, and the possible relationship between composite centrality and the urban and port hierarchy. The temporal approach allows to observe spatial evolutions in Europe’s maritime centre of gravity and to identify trends or trajectories in the maritime specialisation of cities. Europe as a whole offers a fertile ground to further test the linkage between maritime flows and (non-port) urban development as it is mainly a continental market served by coastal ports (Fig. 14.1). Such a specific configuration explains fierce port competition to catch “contestable hinterlands”, such as Austria (De Langen 2004) and Northeastern France (Guerrero 2014), while local and continental economic linkages vary across ports and across regions (Merk et al. 2013; Marquez-Ramos 2016). Beyond European and transport/urban issues, combining a global maritime network and a continental land network raises questions of a different nature. Some questions that arise from the previous arguments include: How do planar (road) and non-planar (maritime) networks interact? Which are the key and common nodes and how do they benefit from this coupling? Is the merged network more robust? How should or could the European port system be organised according to simple rules of accessibility and centrality and can such results provide room for further debate? For cities, does this intermodal analysis stand in line with wider trends such as the relationship between size and diversity as observed in urban geography and regional

244

J. Berli et al.

Fig. 14.1 Spatial patterns of main economic regions. Source Lee et al. (2008)

economics? In other words, our main hypothesis is that cities’ centrality is more significantly related to urban hierarchies in a combined rather than in a single network. The remainder of this chapter is as follows. Section 14.2 introduces the methods necessary to construct and model a European sea-land transport network to which are assigned harmonised population data for cities over the period 1978–2008. This period was chosen given the recent character of the road network but possibilities for deeper historical perspectives are discussed in conclusion. Section 14.3 is the core of the chapter, delivering our main results in terms of the relationship between cities and sea-land centrality. The last and concluding section draws the lessons taken from such an exercise and proposes avenues for further research and policy.

14.2

Modelling a European Sea-Land Network of Cities

This chapter uses for an extended view of Europe, from Iceland to Turkey and from the Canary Islands to Russian plains, even considering North Africa as suggested by earlier studies on world regionalisation (Didelon et al. 2008). Such a choice has the advantage of avoiding the arbitrary cut of the road network and the urban system based on political borders. Taking into account the whole Mediterranean and Black seas was also encouraged by critical works in area studies about seas and oceans as vectors rather than obstacles or barriers (Lewis and Wigen 1999). Shipping data used in this chapter is rather unusual as it condenses the inter-port movements of most of the world fleet. Vessel calls between adjacent ports led us to create a global O-D matrix within which “Europe” and its ports is only one part of the whole. Links (or edges) are weighted due to the inclusion of vessel tonnage during four continuous months of navigation for each of the retained years: 1978, 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003, and 2008 (i.e. March, June, September, and December). This was made possible due to the existence of one untapped data source, namely Lloyd’s List

14

The Changing Interplay Between European Cities …

245

Intelligence, thereby allowing the application of several complex network measures. The global maritime network was built as a graph, where ports are nodes and voyages between them are linked, summing the full capacity of vessels to both of them at each call. Such maritime flows were, in addition, assigned to a maritime grid in order to represent its’ spatial distribution within Europe and its evolution overtime. In this section it is briefly explained how the grid was constructed, with regard to the combination of maritime links and road links.

14.2.1 The Maritime Grid Modelling vessels’ paths throughout the globe has been an important part of our work as it allows us to visualise real maritime flows. The detailed workflow of the grid’s creation has already been discussed in previous publications (Bunel et al. 2017; Ducruet and Berli 2018). It should be noted that the grid is the result of an iterative process that divided the earth into rectangular meshes—keeping a higher density around shorelines—while their centroids (i.e. centre of gravity) were linked to one another (Fig. 14.2). This automatic generation of a maritime graph represents every potential route a vessel may use to sail from its departure port to its destination port. A new feature has been incorporated for this analysis, and will be explained in a more detailed fashion; indeed, we decided to manually enhance the grid to ensure that its sections follow the natural shape of the shorelines and avoid overlapping continents. Those modifications allow visualisations at greater scales (e.g. coastal shipping flows), while preserving the lightness of the grid; such an exercise removed unnecessary links in dense areas and increased their amount in scarce areas. As such, connections between ports and the grid got closer to reality.

14.2.2 The Road Graph Modelling a road network implies determining the nodes of the final graph. Each port was categorised by its direct belonging to an urban area and/or its (potential) use as a maritime gateway for a distant city (see Ducruet and Berli 2018 for a deeper explanation of this method). In the latter case, certain cities do not have direct sea access (e.g. Athens vs. Piraeus/Perama) or developed modern port facilities away from their historical centre (e.g. Marseilles vs. Fos-sur-Mer). Nevertheless, those cities were added to the graph, along with continental ones, based on the Natural Earth1 dataset. Thus, ports and cities are considered as being nodes of the graph, thereby necessitating their connection with one another.

1

https://www.naturalearthdata.com/.

246

J. Berli et al.

Fig. 14.2 Manual enhancements of the maritime grid along the shoreline

To achieve that goal, it was decided to use the powerful spatial indexes provided by a PostgreSQL/PostGIS database as it bears the most potential in terms of time-efficiency concerning large tables of spatial entities. A rather straightforward Python script allowed us to automatically create those links until manual corrections were applied. We used OpenStreetMap2 road sections due to their detailed information about the global road network including the categorisation of segments. To alleviate intensive queries that often reached computational limitations, we used a quadtree to divide the Earth into evenly-dense tiles in terms of cities and ports, thus ensuring an equally dense road network in each tile. As such, every following step describing a process on a given tile will induce the use of the surrounding tiles as the road network is often continuous across continents (Fig. 14.3). From raw data to a routable graph, five different steps were followed. The first two mainly aimed sparsification (i.e. density reduction); we decided to discriminate the main road network, or structural backbone connecting cities, by keeping only higher rank road sections (motorway, trunk, and primary). This network was converted into polygons that represent each area enclosed by the main road system. Then, each area overlapping the ocean space was considered coastal, and was thereby used to extract low-ranked road sections along the shore. The second step was the extraction of low-ranked road sections surrounding ports; this depended on the rank of the ports’ closest road as well as on its distance from the main road network. It allowed us to keep only the roads which connect each port to the main network and, consequently, to cities. The third step is the creation of a routable network based on the density-reduced OpenStreetMap dataset. Costs were calculated according to speed limits and sections length; when the speed limit was

2

https://www.openstreetmap.org/.

14

The Changing Interplay Between European Cities …

247

Fig. 14.3 The road network’s creation workflow

missing, it was added in consideration to its rank. Then, the fourth step used Dijkstra’s shortest path algorithm to extract road sections that are necessarily used to connect each port and city to one another. A weighted minimal road network was to be used for visualisation but mainly to create an actual graph to allow calculating accessibility indices (see Rodrigue and Ducruet 2018 for a review). The last step is crucial as it transforms the concrete network into an abstract graph consisting of nodes representing cities or ports, linked together by weighted arcs. Rough buffers were first created around cities and ports, intersected them with continents to avoid sea overlapping, and calculated once again shortest paths between each node and kept those which only intersected two buffers. Using this method aimed to keeping direct links between cities and ports while avoiding links passing through (or close to) a third one. As the road network substantially depends of specific features of the territory (topography, coastline, deserts, rivers, etc.), every created arc was thoroughly checked: some of them removed where the shortest path was considered too close to a city—taking into consideration its size— to lighten the graph while keeping its coherence. Lastly, we included the Channel Tunnel as a road link only for the years post-1994. In the end, such a hybrid network comprising no less than 4,900 nodes allowed us calculating fundamental network indices using TULIP software3 (Auber 2004) as follows:

3

http://tulip.labri.fr/TulipDrupal/.

248

J. Berli et al.

(1) Clustering coefficient: Cv ¼

Nv , i.e. the actual proportion of connected ðdv ðd2v 1ÞÞ neighbors in the total possible number of connected neighbors; P , i.e. the number of occurrences (2) Betweenness centrality: CB ðvÞ ¼ s6¼v6¼t2V rstrðvÞ st on shortest paths throughout the network; P1 k k (3) Degree centrality: k¼0 AR b , i.e. the number of adjacently connected neighbors.

For an explanation of the formulae used in this chapter, please see Ducruet and Lugo (2013).

14.3

Constructing a European Urban Population Database

14.3.1 Harmonising Urban Population Overtime Our urban population database is the outcome of the merger and harmonisation of four different world urban population databases, namely Citypopulation4 (1990– 2015), Populstat5 (1880–2005), World Gazetteer6 (2010), and Geopolis7 (1950– 1990). We chose the definition of the city as an economic and morphological entity, beyond administrative boundaries, thus including adjacent localities. European cities were selected in two ways: (a) as important nodes in the modeled road network (see previous section), and (b) nodes hosting (and being closely located to) ports. Population was collected whenever possible from the aforementioned sources for 2794 cities every five years. The closest year to matching traffic data were selected, as follows: 1980 for 1978, 1985 for 1983, 1990 for 1988, 1995 for 1993, 2000 for 1998, 2005 for 2003, and 2010 for 2008. The main goal of population data selection and harmonisation had been to provide time series as complete as possible, leave a minimum of unfilled cells. Such a process has faced, however, several issues. First, each source defines the “city” as an administrative (i.e. communes, district) or economic, morphological (agglomerations, urban area) unit, so that population data varied dramatically between years and between sources. In this chapter and with reference to the work of Ducruet and Berli (2018) on cities connected by water, we kept the later definition whenever possible. Otherwise and mainly for smaller cities, those having long-term information on its inhabitants were kept according to their administrative definition,

4

https://www.citypopulation.de/. http://www.populstat.info/. 6 Discontinued website. 7 Moriconi-Ebrard (1994). 5

14

The Changing Interplay Between European Cities …

249

Fig. 14.4 Illustration of interpolation methods. Sources maplesoft.com (left) and quantmacro.wordpress.com (right)

because the agglomeration or urban area is often restrained to—or overlaps—such an entity. Second, certain cities witnessed sudden fall or rise of population even within the same source. In some cases, this is explained by important events such as wars, migrations, epidemics, etc. In others, true reasons may relate to changes in census definition and data collection methods or to other unknown reasons. Third, numerous places with less than 500 inhabitants often were not recorded in the aforementioned sources, such as tiny villages or small islands notably around the Baltic Sea. Third, we had difficulty with assigning the right nationality to certain border cities, since the urban area extends across two countries; this was checked by a quick search to assign the actual country. Lastly, several names suffered from distortions due to the presence of specific characters within place names, such as «Mérida» (Merida) in Spain or «Jyväskylä» (Jyväskylä) in Finland. We thus made another check when comparing sources to find the proper spelling based on English standards.

14.3.2 Estimating Missing Population Data Interpolation methods were used to estimate missing urban population data along the whole 1880–2015 period, although this chapter focuses on the recent period 1978–2008. Such methods could not be applied to cities having only one or a few values. Two methods were used: Cubic Spline and Akima. The first method is a polynomial interpolation by segments. A different polynom is used between each existing value to interpolate the missing ones. Cubic splines are thus continuous functions formed by a maximum of three degrees. However, the disadvantage of such a method is that cubic splines tend to oscillate around extreme or aberrant values (e.g. peak values), as in the case of population data is affected by sudden shocks such as humanitarian crises or large migration flows (Fig. 14.4). The Akima method is an optimisation of the b-splines method which does not suffer from such oscillations. This is due to the fact that interpolation functions used

250

J. Berli et al.

for the data interval [Xi, Xi + 1] solely depends on functions at intervals between data i − 2, i − 1, i, i + 1 and i + 2 therefore five points.8 Our choice had been to run two variations of each of those two methods. First, we applied the two methods on a dataset where missing data between adjacent years were averaged, based on the hypothesis that in the absence of a major change or shock, population evolved regularly overtime. Interpolation methods allow estimating unknown population data between two known dates. Yet, over a one-year interval the method does not work and provides aberrant results, thus motivating us to adopt extrapolation methods. In the case of population growth, the simplest method consisted in applying a growth rate to t − 1 value year in order to unravel the t value year. If Pt is the population data at year t, the growth rate formula (in percentage) at year t is as follows: (4) Ct ¼ 100 :

Pt Pt1 Pt1 .

Population at year + 1 is calculated by multiplying year t population by this growth rate [Ct] as follows: (5) Pt þ 1 ¼ Pt : Ct . We calculated population growth rates during the 20 years preceding the missing population data. Because our population database was built on a 5-year basis, we calculated growth rates over the previous five, ten, fifteen, and twenty years. The growth rate five years prior to the unknown population data is considered as the reference rate, while other rates 5% over this value were excluded. We then calculated the average of the remaining rates to obtain an overall growth rate. Because such a choice is arbitrary as it supposes that population evolved the same than the latest known rate, averaging growth rates allows a reasonable overview of variations that may have occurred between several quinquennia. We ran a model validation test to make a choice between our two interpolation methods. We selected sixteen cities and their population over the longer time period 1880–2015 and intentionally suppressed known data at strategic dates to retrieve it before running the methodology on the whole sample of European cities. The four methods (i.e. Cubic Spline, Akima, and their respective variants) were thus applied to selected cities and our results were compared with real (known) data. By calculating the sum of Euclidean distances between each original population data and its corresponding estimated population data, it appeared that the Akima method, by filling missing data through averaging, was the most significant. We then calculated the average population size of cities along the chosen study period (1980–2010) by types of cities, showing that river (port) cities dominate by far other city types. This can be explained that in Europe in particular, upstream and inland river cities are favored due to their historical role in dominating with landward and maritime networks (see Vance 1970; Brunet 1986; Brocard et al. 1995). River ports and cities are historically favored by their multimodal nature: canals, rivers, upstream estuaries, and road networks. 8

These methods were applied using the opensource library Alglib: http://www.alglib.net/.

14

The Changing Interplay Between European Cities …

14.4

251

A Complex Network Analysis of European Cities

14.4.1 Port-City Specialisation and Hierarchy Based on the constructed methodology on networks and cities, our objective was to test the mutual influence of population and sea-land centrality throughout Europe (Fig. 14.5). Overall, we observe a slight decline of correlation overtime. This suggests that the urban hierarchy had become a less important determinant. In addition, most correlations exhibit a relatively low significance, the maximum value being 0.332. Despite such rather disappointing results, a clear logic underlies Table 14.1. For betweenness centrality and degree centrality, a common trend is a higher significance for maritime cities, i.e. coastal cities hosting a port. Yet, degree centrality being a more local measure, river (port) cities exhibit superior correlation with population, especially for the period 1993–2003; while all cities taken together exceed the score of continental cities (without port) except for the years 1988 and 1998–2008. Such results are in line with geographers’s works such as Brocard (1988), for whom port cities are “exceptions to the organization rules of urban networks”: continental port cities (river, upstream) “cumulate land-based centrality and regional distribution while performing less on the deep-sea side (e.g. Rouen, Antwerp), while coastal port cities “cannot dominate the urban system but have the advantage of the maritime function (e.g. Le Havre, Halifax)”. The inverse clustering coefficient, a local measure of “hub power”, is the lowest for maritime port cities, the highest for river (port) cities, and continental (non-port) cities surpass the score of all cities for the years 1988, 1993–2008. Traffic volume measured in deadweight tons (DWTs) is another facet of port city activity. Compared with centrality scores, the correlation is slightly more significant with total traffic, especially for maritime cities for which the coefficient always surpasses 0.3 and sometimes 0.4. Yet, it is between total traffic and centrality scores where the highest significance is obtained, with the exception of the clustering coefficient that remains below average. Betweenness centrality in relation to DWTs is nearly close to 1 (perfect correlation) for river cities, around 0.7 for maritime cities, while for degree centrality the same pattern can be observed although with slightly lower coefficients. Such results suggest that the urban dimension of nodes is much less determinant than their overall traffic when it comes to explain their combined centrality. Another way to testing the interplay between sea-land centrality and urban hierarchy is the calculation of average centrality per city size classes (Fig. 14.6). Cities were ranked according to the method of percentiles (or quantiles) using Wessa (2018) software, resulting in classes containing an equal number of cities, from the smallest (class 1) to the largest (class 5) cities. Class 6 is conserved to comparing cities’ scores to non-urban places (ports) on average along the study period.

252

J. Berli et al.

Fig. 14.5 Average centralities per city types and city size classes, 1978–2008. N.B. class 6 corresponds to non-urban ports; classes 1–5 are increasingly populated

14

The Changing Interplay Between European Cities …

Table 14.1 Average centrality differentials by city type and port, 1978–2008

253

City type

Change

1978

1988

1998

2008

Continental

Loss Gain All Loss Gain All Loss Gain All Loss Gain All Loss Gain All

0.1714 0.0002 0.1328 0.2404 0.0003 0.1380 0.2792 0.0047 0.0909 0.2140 0.0027 0.1080 0.2074 0.0014 0.1052

0.1463 0.0002 0.1151 0.1987 0.0006 0.1089 0.2879 0.0060 0.0924 0.2023 0.0047 0.1017 0.1929 0.0024 0.1014

0.1325 0.0008 0.1075 0.2067 0.0011 0.1239 0.2894 0.0097 0.1082 0.1997 0.0066 0.1098 0.1996 0.0049 0.1136

0.1406 0.0005 0.1147 0.2055 0.0014 0.1184 0.3022 0.0089 0.1121 0.2082 0.0070 0.1137 0.2142 0.0031 0.1153

River

Maritime

All

Port

In many ways, our results confirm the work of Ducruet and Berli (2018) on the world’s cities connected by shipping networks, although in the present case centrality scores include continental, road networks. The common feature is that the bigger the cities, the higher the average centrality all scores included. In addition, what is striking is that non-urban places (class 6) nearly always exhibit a lower score than all other categories. This demonstrates the role of urban places in enhancing trade and shipping activities, as cities provide ports with labor, skills, value-added activities, and specific experience as well as a community of actors that cannot be found in isolated ports (see Hall and Jacobs 2012). The progression from smallest to largest cities is nearly mathematical. This leads us to formulate a kind of stylised fact whereby cities are at the center of multiple flows and networks as already observed in the wider academic literature on cities and flows (Derudder and Witlox 2010; O’Connor 2010; Hall and Hesse 2012). In terms of intermodal or multiplex structure of the network, such results also confirm the fact that more diversified ports in general develop larger centrality and traffic size than other, more specialised ports, especially when aggregated into urban areas (Ducruet 2013). A closer look at our results was performed by dividing each city type ratio by all cities ratio. Such an exercise could highlight the fact that continental (non-port) cities always performed better than all cities taken together on average, especially for the inverse clustering coefficient. This can explain the strong effect of planar structure (road) over sea-land (hybrid) structure since these cities have a dominant position continentally. In comparison, inland (port) cities located on rivers exhibit the same behavior but mainly at the top of the hierarchy, and even in a stronger way

254

J. Berli et al.

Fig. 14.6 Linear correlation (Pearson) evolution between urban population, traffic volume, and types of centralities in the land-sea network by city type, 1978–2008

than continental (non-port) cities, for the inverse clustering coefficient. The two other indicators, contrary to continental cities, reach values over “1” for the class of the largest cities, meaning that such intermodal crossroads are stronger due to their hosting of one or more ports and their demographic size. Maritime (port) cities are even stronger especially for betweenness and degree centrality as they surpass the score of all cities by 7–10 times, suggesting that maritime networks are their advantage over other cities. The same occurs for the inverse clustering coefficient, but without such a gap as their score is equivalent to the one of inland (river, port) cities. In terms of degree centrality, maritime non-urban ports perform 2 times more on average than inland (port) cities.

14.4.2 Mapping the Combined Centrality of European Cities Before analyzing the distribution of centrality across European ports and cities, it is necessary to have an overview on how have different or all nodes reacted to the merger between road and maritime networks (Table 14.1). The results correspond to the ratio between sea-land centrality and road centrality, with gains or losses. In all cases, for cities and ports, losses have been, on average, higher than gains

14

The Changing Interplay Between European Cities …

255

although one may witness a slight increase of gains overtime and a rather stable value for losses depending on the category. This would suggest that as a continental market, Europe in general does not benefit from being connected to maritime trade networks as it has already a strong internal, landward connectivity. Cities such as Dusseldorf, Madrid, Paris, and Moscow, as mentioned earlier, are better connected by airline networks, and because they use multiple maritime gateways for the rest of their trade, the maritime connectivity does not seem to provide them with a stronger position. Continental (non-port) cities have the lowest gain among all categories given their “central place” situation. There is a wide diversity of cases behind those aggregated and averaged numbers, as seen in the following Figs. 14.7, 14.8, 14.9 and 14.10. At first sight, we observe a strong opposition between coastal (gains) and inland nodes (losses) as mentioned earlier. Yet, many nodes with high absolute centrality are coastal port cities, while the highest gains can be observed for island ports and cities. This result is realistic but, at the same time, is an artificial effect by which small or medium-sized islands such as Corsica, Sicily, Balearic Islands, Crete, Cyprus, the British Isles, Gotland, Aland, and parts of Estonia have such a minor road network that connecting maritime flows inevitably witness highest centrality gains. It also applies to enclaves such as Ceuta. Several large port cities, whatever their location, exhibit high absolute centrality, being very central in both sea and land networks, such as the Le Havre-Hamburg range, London, Gothenburg, St. Petersburg, Porto, Lisbon, Barcelona, Marseilles, Genoa, Venice, and Piraeus, all of them gaining from becoming connected to maritime flows. What is more interesting is the “outlier effect” by which certain large (port) cities lose centrality contrary to what could have been expected, such as Oslo, Bordeaux, Seville, Valencia, Riga, and Istanbul. Oslo, Bordeaux and Seville have in common to be upstream estuarine (or fjord) cities being less accessible to largest vessels, while Riga and Istanbul may still not have sufficiently developed as maritime nodes so that their road centrality remains their main strength. The case of Valencia remains rather unique in this respect. Interestingly however, numerous nodes around the Black Sea and Baltic Sea exhibit low but positive gains, suggesting that such relatively closed seas remain a key advantage to their European and global accessibility. The pattern in 1988 is nearly overlapped with the previous one, notwithstanding a deeper inland concentration of maritime gains around southern Germany/Switzerland and in Eastern Europe. Le Havre is still the port of the Northern Range with the highest centrality gain, probably revealing its inland or hinterland deficient connectivity. However, Paris changed from gain to loss between 1978 and 1988. In 1998, the same happened to London compared with previous years, as well as to many other Great Britain cities, partly due to the opening of the Channel Tunnel in 1994. Malta joins, since the development of Mediterranean transshipment hubs in the 1990s, the category of high gains for island ports and cities. The inland penetration of maritime centrality has remained rather constant, and nodes with high sea-land centrality remain more or less the same. Some nodes are figured only for the needs of cartography, such as Tarifa (Spain) and Brunsbuttel (Germany) as they are considered passage points rather than ports in the Lloyd’s database. Lastly in 2008, we clearly observe that

256

J. Berli et al.

Fig. 14.7 Sea-land centrality and specialisation of European ports and cities, 1978

Ireland is much more advantaged than Great Britain in terms of relative gains, as it has remained an island. What has increased overtime is the density of higher absolute centralities around the “blue banana” area, i.e. the European megalopolis between London and Milano where most of Europe’s economic wealth, population, and infrastructure concentrate. Yet, largest centrality inland cities within this megalopolis remain negatively affected by the connection with maritime flows, as they are already prominent in the road network. The European core-periphery pattern, even excluding the island effect, keeps being an essential feature of the whole territory as seen in Fig. 14.1.

14.5

Conclusions

This chapter investigated for the first time the ambivalence between maritime centrality and landward centrality for both port and non-port cities in the case of Europe. This exercise started with the hypothesis that the historical concentration of economic wealth should have an influence on our results, based on a well-known core-periphery spatial structure. Thanks to the collection and harmonisation of both urban, maritime, and road data, we calculated the global centrality (or accessibility)

14

The Changing Interplay Between European Cities …

257

Fig. 14.8 Sea-land centrality and specialisation of European ports and cities, 1988

of selected European places in this bi-layered network. These necessitated heavy development efforts on the geomatics side to building a worldwide maritime grid and to modelling a European road network. Another main motivation of our study was to evaluate the maritime and sea-land centrality of port and non-port cities overtime, from the late 1970s to the late 2000s. Such analysis has implications in many domains. In network science for instance, it is one rare empirical analysis of a hybrid network, both planar and non-planar, especially its evolution and its geographic features. Most of the time, the planar and non-planar dimensions keep being separated although it is at center stage when it comes to concrete applications such as intermodalism and specialisation. Therefore, this chapter combines those two dimensions and study the resulting entity as a single object, echoing early studies of the foreland-hinterland continuum in geography (see Ng and Ducruet 2014 for an extensive review). It also contributes to urban studies by the fact that the European demographic hierarchy remains, overtime, a strong determinant of intermodal centrality. This was not so obvious to find out since many ports have been developed outside cities and at the contrary, many cities have seen their port function declining if not vanishing in the last decades (Hoyle 1989). The average correlation between centrality and urban population was stronger for maritime cities, in particular for betweenness and degree centralities, due to their connectivity to overseas markets.

258

J. Berli et al.

Fig. 14.9 Sea-land centrality and specialisation of European ports and cities, 1998

Further research is envisaged in multiple ways. First, a deeper historical depth is possible given the time scope of Lloyd’s shipping data (since 1880), but what remains lacking is a printed or already vectorised road network for Europe. Second, our tools and data will make it possible to run the same and/or complementary analyses at the world scale, but again, maps of global road networks before the 1980s are hard to obtain. It would also be useful to also refine the road network by weighting its links depending on the changing pavement rate of countries, and perhaps, run multi-level analyses using other national-level indicators such as GDP or population to better explain the results. Third, we restricted this chapter to the ratio between combined centrality and road centrality using only one main indicator, betweenness. We may complement such an approach by the ratio between combined centrality and maritime centrality as well, and use additional indicators such as the Shimbel index (or closeness centrality). Arcs may be weighted in terms of travel time or distance to get closer to spatial network analyses (Barthelemy 2015), to avoid an analysis based on mainly topological features (i.e. binary graph: presence or absence of links). Running the same analyses excluding islands may refine the results and make more evident the inland penetration of maritime circulations, which are blurred by islands’ exceptional values. Qualitative discussions on certain nodes and regions will be more and more necessary to verify the fitness

14

The Changing Interplay Between European Cities …

259

Fig. 14.10 Sea-land centrality and specialisation of European ports and cities, 2008

of our results compared with the reality of European and global logistics patterns, the presence of specific socio-economic activities such as port clusters and other. Acknowledgements The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007–2013)/ ERC Grant Agreement n. [313847] “World Seastems”.

References Auber D. (2004). Tulip: A huge graph visualisation framework. In P. Mutzel, M. Junger (Eds.), Graph drawing software (pp. 105–126). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, Mathematics and Visualization. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18638-7_5. Barthelemy, M. (2015). Spatial networks: Tools and perspectives. In C. Ducruet (Ed.), Maritime networks: Spatial structures and time dynamics (pp. 50–60). London & New York: Routledge. Berli, J., Bunel, M., & Ducruet, C. (2018). Sea-land interdependence in the global maritime network: The case of Australian port cities. Networks and Spatial Economics, Online First. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-018-9403-4. Bird, J. (1963). The major seaports of the United Kingdom. London: Hutchinson. Bird, J. (1973). Of central places, cities and seaports. Geography, 58, 105–118.

260

J. Berli et al.

Bretagnolle, A. (2015). City systems and maritime transport in the long term. In C. Ducruet (Ed.), Maritime networks: Spatial structures and time dynamics (pp. 27–36). London & New York: Routledge. Brocard, M. (1988). Les relations fonctionnelles entre le port et la ville [The functional relationships between the port and the city]. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference Cities and Ports, Le Havre, France. Brocard, M., Lecoquierre, B., & Mallet, P. (1995). Le chorotype de l’estuaire européen [The chorotype of the European estuary]. Mappemonde, 3, 6–7. Bruinsma, F., & Rietveld, P. (1998). The accessibility of European cities: Theoretical framework and comparison of approaches. Environment and Planning A, 30(3), 499–521. https://doi.org/ 10.1068/a300499. Brunet R. (1986). La carte modèle et les chorèmes [Model-maps and chorems]. Mappemonde, 4. http://www.mgm.fr/PUB/Mappemonde/M486/p2-6.pdf3. Bunel, M., Bahoken, F., Ducruet, C., Lagesse, C., Marnot, B., Mermet, E., et al. (2017). Geovisualizing the sail-to-steam transition through vessel movement data. In C. Ducruet (Ed.), Advances in shipping data analysis and modeling. Tracking and mapping maritime flows in the age of big data (pp. 189–205). London and New York: Routledge Studies in Transport Analysis, Routledge. Burghardt, A. F. (1970). A hypothesis about gateway cities. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 61(2), 269–285. Chapelon L. (2006). L’accessibilité, marqueur des inégalités de rayonnement des villes portuaires en Europe [Accessibility as a marker of disparities of influence among port cities in Europe]. Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography, 345. https://cybergeo.revues.org/2463, https://doi. org/10.4000/cybergeo.27810. Charlier, J. (1992). The regeneration of old port areas for new port uses. In B. S. Hoyle & D. A. Pinder (Eds.), European port cities in transition (pp. 137–154). London: Belhaven Press. Clark, A., & Hall, P. V. (2010). Maritime ports and the politics of reconnection. In G. Desfor, J. Laidley, D. Schubert, & Q. Stevens (Eds.), Transforming urban waterfronts: Fixity and flow (pp. 17–34). Abingdon: Routledge. Comin M. N. (2009). Réseaux de villes et réseaux d’innovation en Europe: Structuration du système des villes par les réseaux de recherche sur les technologies convergentes [Urban and innovation networks in Europe: Structuring city-systems through research networks on convergent technologies] (Unpublished PhD dissertation in geography). University of Paris-I Panthéon-Sorbonne. De Langen, P. W. (2004). Port competition and selection in contestable hinterlands; The case of Austria. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 7(1), 1–14. https://doi. org/10.18757/ejtir.2007.7.1.3370. De Langen, P. W. (2007). The economic performance of seaport regions. In J. J. Wang, D. Olivier, T. E. Notteboom, & B. Slack (Eds.), Ports, cities, and global supply chains (pp. 187–202). Aldershot: Ashgate. Derudder, B., & Witlox F. (2010). Commodity chains and world cities. Wiley-Blackwell. Didelon, C., Grasland, C., & Richard, Y. (2008). Atlas de l’Europe dans le Monde [Atlas of Europe in the world]. Paris: Reclus/La Documentation française. Dobruszkes, F., Lennert, M., & Van Hamme, G. (2011). An analysis of the determinants of air traffic volume for European metropolitan areas. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(4), 755– 762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.09.003. Ducruet, C. (2013). Network diversity and maritime flows. Journal of Transport Geography, 30, 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2013.03.004. Ducruet C., & Berli J. (2018). Measuring land-sea interactions at ports and cities: insights from geomatics and network analysis. Portus Online, 35. https://portusonline.org/measuring-landsea-interactions-at-ports-and-cities-insights-from-geomatics-and-network-analysis/. Ducruet, C., & Itoh, H. (2016). Regions and material flows: Investigating the regional branching and industry relatedness of port traffic in a global perspective. Journal of Economic Geography, 16(4), 805–830. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbv010.

14

The Changing Interplay Between European Cities …

261

Ducruet, C., & Lugo I. (2013) Structure and dynamics of transportation networks: Models, concepts, and applications (Chapter 20). In: J.P. Rodrigue & T. E Notteboom, & J. Shaw (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of transport studies (pp. 347–364). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Dupuis, G., & Stransky, V. (1996). Cities and highway networks in Europe. Journal of Transport Geography, 4(2), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/0966-6923(96)00004-X. Fujita, M., & Mori, T. (1996). The role of ports in the making of major cities: Self-agglomeration and hub-effect. Journal of Development Economics, 49, 93–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/03043878(95)00054-2. Grobar L. M. (2008). The economic status of areas surrounding major U.S. container ports: Evidence and policy issues. Growth and Change, 39(3), 497–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1468-2257.2008.00435.x. Gutiérrez, J., & Urbano, P. (1996). Accessibility in the European Union: The impact of the trans-European road network. Journal of Transport Geography, 4(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10. 1016/0966-6923(95)00042-9. Hall, P. V. (2009). Container ports, local benefits and transportation worker earnings. GeoJournal, 74(1), 67–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-008-9215-z. Hall, P. V., & Hesse, M. (2012). Cities, regions and flows. London & New York: Routledge. Hall, P. V., & Jacobs, W. (2012). Why are maritime ports (still) urban, and why should policy makers care? Maritime Policy and Management, 39(2), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03088839.2011.650721. Hayot, A. (1988). The relationship between the port and its town. In Prospects for Urban Development in Port Towns in Europe. International Colloquy, Piraeus, 29th September–02nd October 1986, Final Report, Council of Europe, Urban Renaissance in Europe Study Series, Strasbourg, no. 34. Hesse, M. (2010). Cities, material flows and the geography of spatial interaction: Urban places in the system of chains. Global Networks, 10(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374. 2010.00275.x. Hoare, A. G. (1986). British ports and their export hinterlands: A rapidly changing geography. Geografiska Annaler B, 68(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/490915. Hoyle, B. S. (1989). The port-city interface: Trends, problems and examples. Geoforum, 20(4), 429–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(89)90026-2. Hoyle, B. S., & Pinder, D. A. (1992). European port cities in transition. London: Belhaven Press. Jacobs, W., Ducruet, C., & De Langen, P. W. (2010). Integrating world cities into production networks: The case of port cities. Global Networks, 10(1), 92–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1471-0374.2010.00276.x. Jacobs, W., Koster, H. R. A., & Hall, P. V. (2011). The location and global network structure of maritime advanced producer services. Urban Studies, 48(13), 2749–2769. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0042098010391294. Lawton, R., & Lee, R. (2002). Population and society in western european port cities, c. 1650– 1939. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Lee, R. (1998). The socio-economic and demographic characteristics of port cities: A typology for comparative analysis. Urban History, 25(2), 147–172. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S096392680000078X. Lee, S. W., & Ducruet, C. (2006). Waterfront redevelopment and territorial integration in Le Havre (France) and Southampton (UK): Implications for Busan, Korea. Ocean Policy Research, 21 (2), 127–156. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00459369. Lee, S. W., & Ducruet, C. (2009). Spatial glocalization in Asia-Pacific hub port cities: A comparison of Hong Kong and Singapore. Urban Geography, 30(2), 161–184. https://doi.org/ 10.2747/0272-3638.30.2.162. Lee, S. W., Song, D. W., & Ducruet, C. (2008). A tale of Asia’s world ports: The spatial evolution in global hub port cities. Geoforum, 39(1), 372–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007. 07.010.

262

J. Berli et al.

Lemarchand, A. (2000). La Dynamique des Ports: Mesures de la Valeur et des Emplois, Emplois et Valeur des Mesures [Port dynamics: Measures of value and employment, use of values and measures]. Paris: DATAR. Lever, W. F. (1994). Regional economic growth and port activities in European cities. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference Cities and Ports, Dakar, Senegal, pp. 309–316. Lewis, M. W., & Wigen, K. (1999). A maritime response to the crisis in area studies. The Geographical Review, 89(2), 161–168. https://doi.org/10.2307/216084. Lugo, I. (2015). Interplay between maritime and land modes in a system of cities. In C. Ducruet (Ed.), Maritime networks: Spatial structures and time dynamics (pp. 322–329). London & New York: Routledge. Marnot, B. (2005). Interconnexion et reclassements: L’insertion des ports français dans la chaîne multimodale au XIXe siècle [Interconnection and ranking change: The insertion of French ports in the 19th century multimodal chain]. Flux, 59(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.3917/flux. 059.0010. Marquez-Ramos, L. (2016). Port facilities, regional spillovers and exports: Empirical evidence from Spain. Papers in Regional Science, 95(2), 329–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12127. McCalla, R. J., Slack, B., & Comtois, C. (2001). Intermodal freight terminals: Locality and industrial linkages. Canadian Geographer, 45, 404–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064. 2001.tb01190.x. Merk, O., Manshanden, W. J. J., & Dröes, M. I. (2013). Inter-regional spillovers of seaports: The case of Northwest Europe. International Journal of Transport Economics, 40(3), 401–417. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42747959. Monios, J., Bergqvist, R., & Wovenius, J. (2018). Port-centric cities: The role of freight distribution in defining the port-city relationship. Journal of Transport Geography, 66, 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.11.012. Monios, J., & Wilmsmeier, G. (2012). Giving a direction to port regionalisation. Transportation Research Part A, 46(10), 1551–1561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2012.07.008. Moriconi-Ebrard, F. (1994). Geopolis: pour Comparer les Villes du Monde [Geopolis: comparing the world’s cities]. Paris: Economica. Nelson, A. (2008). Travel time to major cities: A global map of accessibility. Ispra, Italy: Global Environment Monitoring Unit, Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. Ng, A. K. Y., & Ducruet, C. (2014). The changing tides of port geography (1950–2012). Progress in Human Geography, 38(6), 785–823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513516178. Norcliffe, G., Bassett, K., & Hoare, T. (1996). The emergence of postmodernism on the urban waterfront. Journal of Transport Geography, 4(2), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/09666923(96)00005-1. Notteboom, T. E., & Rodrigue, J. P. (2005). Port regionalization: Towards a new phase in port development. Maritime Policy and Management, 32(3), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03088830500139885. O’Connor, K. (1987). The location of services involved with international trade. Environment and Planning A, 19(5), 687–700. https://doi.org/10.1068/a190687. O’Connor, K. (2010). Global city-regions and the location of logistics activity. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(3), 354–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.06.015. Pumain, D. (1996). Urban networks in Europe. John Libbey Eurotext. Raimbault, N., Jacobs, W., & van Dongen, F. (2016). Port regionalisation from a relational perspective: The rise of Venlo as Dutch international logistics hub. Tijdschrift voor Sociale en Economische Geografie, 107(1), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12134. Rodrigue, J. P., & Ducruet, C. (2018). Graph theory: definition and properties. The Geography of Transport Systems, Paper 10. https://transportgeography.org/?page_id=5976. Accessed October 2018. Rodrigue, J. P., & Notteboom, T. E. (2010). Comparative North American and European gateway logistics: The regionalism of freight distribution. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(4), 497– 507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.03.006.

14

The Changing Interplay Between European Cities …

263

Rozenblat, C., & Pumain, D. (1993). The location of multinational firms in the European urban system. Urban Studies, 30(10), 1691–1709. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420989320081671. Slack, B. (1989). The port service industry in an environment of change. Geoforum, 20(4), 447– 457. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(89)90028-6. Tavasszy, L. A., Minderhoud, M., Perrin, J. F., & Notteboom, T. E. (2011). A strategic network choice model for global container flows: Specification estimation and application. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6), 1163–1172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.05.005. Van den Berghe, K., Jacobs, W., & Boelens, L. (2018). The relational geometry of the port-city interface: Case studies of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and Ghent, Belgium. Journal of Transport Geography, 70, 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.05.013. Van Klink, H. A. (1998). The port network as a new stage in port development: The case of Rotterdam. Environment and Planning A, 30(1), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1068/a300143. Van Klink, G. A., & Van den Berg, G. C. (1998). Gateways and intermodalism. Journal of Transport Geography, 6(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6923(97)00035-5. Vance, J. E. (1970). The Merchant’s world. The geography of wholesaling. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Vickerman, R., Spiekermann, K., & Wegener, M. (1999). Accessibility and economic development in Europe. Regional Studies, 33(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00343409950118878. Vigarié, A. (1979). Ports de Commerce et Vie Littorale [Trading ports and coastal life]. Paris: Hachette. Warsewa G. (2006). The transformation of European port cities. Final Report on the New EPOC Port City Audit, Bremen University. Wessa P. (2018). Free statistics software. Office for Research Development and Education, version 1.2.1. https://www.wessa.net/. Accessed December 2018. Zanon Moura, T. G., Garcia-Alonso, L., & del Rosal, I. (2018). Influence of the geographical pattern of foreign trade on the inland distribution of maritime traffic. Journal of Transport Geography, 72, 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.09.008.

Chapter 15

The Separation of Ports from Cities: The Case of Rotterdam Carola Hein and Paul Th. van de Laar

Abstract Since industrialisation began in the 19th century, some ports have been moving away from the cities that once hosted them. That separation was only possible if land was available where new port basins, industries, and other infrastructure could be constructed and where port activities could prosper without being restricted by urban functions. The port of Rotterdam represents an extreme example of port-city separation. This chapter shows how the port of Rotterdam transformed from a staple port into a transit port. Port activities moved towards the North Sea in four steps that were related to technological, institutional, and trade pattern changes and changes in port-city relations. Such transitions highlight the close relationships between trade patterns, technological innovations and changing governance patterns. Each expansion required close collaboration between business leaders and the municipality, because administrative borders needed to be expanded and infrastructure constructed. The growth also created friction among the various stakeholders in the region. The merchants of the staple markets protected their trades and traditions, whereas the harbour barons that benefited most from the high-volume trans-shipment of bulk commodities pushed the expansion of the port. To illustrate these steps in the separation of port and city, the chapter takes the case of petroleum as a key example. While beneficial for the economic development of the port –and to some degree the city–the separation of port and city has led to a loss of connection between port and city institutions. The chapter concludes by briefly examining the challenges and opportunities of port and city separation in terms of economic, spatial and cultural development. Keywords Rotterdam


Port-city relations
Petroleumscape
Planning

C. Hein (&) History of Architecture and Urban Planning, Delft University of Technology, Julianalaan 134, 2628, BL Delft, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] P. Th. van de Laar Department of History, Erasmus School of History, Culture and Communication Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 A. Carpenter and R. Lozano (eds.), European Port Cities in Transition, Strategies for Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9_15

265

266

15.1

C. Hein and P. Th. van de Laar

Introduction

Port-city relations have changed profoundly since the industrial revolution began forcing cities to make changes to port location and infrastructure (Bretagnolle 2015; Hein 2011, 2013, 2016a, b, c). Successful port cities invested in new water and railway linkages and their ports became international gateways for industrial commodities. Such transitions have involved fundamental changes to port regimes, including the rules and regulations, socio-technological landscape and routines which direct the behaviour of port stakeholders (Schot and Kanger 2018). The 19th century, according to Jürgen Osterhammel (2014) became the golden age of ports and port cities, particularly the ones that were big enough to handle the huge volumes of goods and passengers in the expanding world economy. Port cities played a fundamental role in global transformation as vital transition points between countries and continents. Successive stages in port development have been linked to challenges that are often similar around the world. City-based social, political, institutional, governmental and economic conditions have set the context for effective adaptations (Hein 2011). In 1850, most port cities could change maritime techniques at the same time they adapted waterfronts. The new maritime spaces in most cases remained part of a city and of existing urban functions (Konvitz 2013). However, the increasing sizes of steam vessels and changes in cargo-handling technologies challenged existing port-city relations, fostered new spatial realignments, and created monofunctional areas (Hein 2016a, b, c). Starting in the 19th century, new planning and urban design models reshaped the governance of port areas and industrial districts and port cities’ relationship to that governance. During the 20th century, especially after the Second World War, most cities became dissociated from any distinctive port area. Port-city relations, as noted by many scholars, have become more difficult since the post-1960 development of containerisation ushered in an era of complete separation of port areas from the city and of waterfront renewal (Meyer 1999; Schubert 2018; Porfyriou and Sepe 2016; Schubert 2018). Rotterdam showcases the transformation in port-city regions through the extreme separation that has taken place. Beginning in the late 19th century, Rotterdam developed as a transit port that served the needs of the German hinterland. During this time, Rotterdam had to negotiate territorial claims with its immediate neighbours and to adapt its port system to the New Waterway of 1872, the shipping canal that connected the city with the sea. Neighbouring cities were annexed and rural areas were transformed into a transit port cityscape (Hein 2016a, b, c). From an urban governance perspective, the city had to meet the demands of technical and maritime developments within a limited and shared space. The ongoing increase of scale in shipping and the development of specialised ports and cargo-handling devices put tremendous pressure on an area that became dominated by its port economy (Meyer 1999). Until the mid-1930s, annexing land, neighbouring towns and villages was an acceptable legal way of consolidating territorial claims for port expansion. Then port expansion through the annexation of

15

The Separation of Ports from Cities …

267

neighbouring cities reached its limits and new governing models had to be developed to safeguard immediate port expansion without formal annexation. In particular the post-war development of modern industrial areas proved a test case for port-city relations. Transnational petrochemical industries led decision makers in the port-city region to remake an even larger agrarian and rural region as an industrial landscape. Port-city relations transformed in four evolutionary stages. These transitions resulted from technological-maritime and industrial developments and had a lasting impact on spatial contexts and on port-city governance relations. We identify four steps in port-city relationships that are related to the growth of the port. (1) Starting in the 1860s, the city government created separate docklands on the south bank of the River Maas that facilitated Rotterdam’s transit economy and created a port system specialised in the handling, storage and transport of bulk commodities (grain, coal, iron ore and oil). (2) New docks and canals were extended into a system of “wet-docks” (1885–1940s) and a new port landscape emerged (1910– 1940) to facilitate the booming oil industry. The extension of the transit port during the inter-war period transformed port-city relationships, resulting in the city’s expansion to the west, particularly when the industrial oil port started to develop in the period leading up to the Second World War. (3) The Second World War and the re-industrialisation of the port region produced maritime industrial development areas (MIDAS) (1940s–1970s). The post-war modern industrial areas were dominated by further expansion of the oil and petrochemical industries with major consequences for the port region. (4) The post-war expansion of Rotterdam, finally, stretched over a distance of 40 km, including the reclaimed Maasvlakte area into the North Sea (1970s–2000s). Understanding these historic transitions and their link to changing port-city relations provides insight into changes to come.

15.2

The End of a Merchant Ideology: The Emergence of the Transit Port South of the Maas 1860s–1910s

Changes in the organization of trade and transport, the shift from sailing ships to steamships, and a new international geo-political order dominated by Britain and Prussia challenged the Rotterdam business community between 1830 and 1870. The geopolitical uncertainties about the future of Rotterdam provided a climate where local elites were reluctant to accept a change of traditional commercial, maritime and trade regimes. Members of the Rotterdam Council and representatives of the Chamber of Commerce came together to protect a merchant ideology rooted in pre-industrial staple market traditions. They welcomed attempts to measure and improve existing port practices, but they opposed ideas that conflicted with their staple market interests (Fig. 15.1). It took some time for local players to embrace new infrastructures and create the port spaces needed for a transit port.

268

C. Hein and P. Th. van de Laar

Fig. 15.1 First plan of Rotterdam in 1839, much more accurate than older maps, based on measurements taken by the land registry prepared by Leonard Temminck. Source City Archives Rotterdam

Rotterdam’s focus on the staple market tradition conflicted with Germany’s state and economic policies. Railways, at that time, were not considered a viable alternative to relatively cheap waterborne transport, but they proved a profitable alternative means of moving luxury goods and passengers over long distances. Once competing companies arrived and the railway network expanded internationally, railroads became attractive for the transport of commodities. The rail link between Antwerp and Cologne–the Iron Rhine (1843)–and the Cologne-Minden railway (1847), connecting the Rhineland with the German port of Bremen, were effective instruments to end the monopolistic position of the Rhine as the only route towards the sea (Klemann and Schenk 2013). Throughput of petroleum shipped from the United States after 1862, for example, could reach the German hinterland via Antwerp as well as via Rotterdam. The interests of strong players in the Rhine basin effectively reduced the power of local elites in Rotterdam to control the function of the port. The improvement of hinterland connections went hand in hand with plans for better access to the North Sea from the winding Maas through a forty-kilometrelong canal. The merchants embraced the opening of the Nieuwe Waterweg (New Waterway) in 1872, the shipping canal that connected Rotterdam directly to the North Sea. They supported it not because they were anticipating a regime shift based on steam and transit trade that would change the practices of their trades, but to grant access to larger sailing vessels. They opposed all kinds of new developments, such as the abolishment of Rhine tolls that would stimulate transit functions

15

The Separation of Ports from Cities …

269

of the port, and modern railroads that could jeopardise the distributive function of the old staple market. Paradoxically, in the view of Rotterdam merchants, the greatest disadvantage of free trade was the possibility that the port of Rotterdam would become a transit port and thus lose its staple market position (Van de Laar 2000). The merchants also realised the need for new docks and trade facilities, but Rotterdam’s urban planning history shows that spatial concepts were still based on pre-industrial port concepts and the construction of port spaces close on the waterfront near the city. Around 1870, the Rotterdam Chamber of Commerce, once a body that acted on behalf of the staple market interests, turned toward a new policy that would end the hegemony of the old network (Callahan 1981). The city government needed private partners to spread the financial risks, but local merchants and traders were careful investors. Not just because of the involved business risks, but also because the new port layout would have a major impact on their practices. The national government (responsible for the new railroad and railroad bridge), the city of Rotterdam and Pincoffs’ joint-stock company Rotterdamsche Handelsvereeniging (the Rotterdam Trading Association) opted for a public-private partnership in 1873. The Rotterdam Trading Association built docks based on the London dock system. Notwithstanding their modern appearance, the docks constructed by the Rotterdam Trading Association represent the last convulsions of the staple market era; their spatial typologies suited pre-industrial waterfront developments, which were a combination of commercial, residential, and monumental functions. By 1870, Rotterdam dethroned Amsterdam as the leading port city in the Netherlands. By then, the more dynamic trading network that resulted from the industrial revolution had replaced the rather passive organization of the Dutch staple trade. Rotterdam built a port infrastructure that serviced the German hinterland and became the most important Rhine-traffic and transit port for coal, ore, grain and oil on the European continent before World War I. Almost 70% of Rotterdam’s throughput consisted of transit goods (Van de Laar 2000). As early as 1862, several hundred barrels and crates of petroleum from the United States arrived in the Rotterdam port (Loohuis 1952; Janssen 1999). Oil firms were small at the time and focused on transport, storage, and resale as they searched for the fastest and safest transportation chains and refining processes. In these early years, Antwerp held the dominant position. Demand in the German and Swiss hinterland spurred the import of oil through Rotterdam in competition with these other ports. In 1870, the Provincial Executive agreed to extend the Rotterdam municipality against the opposition of the municipalities of Charlois and Katendrecht (Van der Schoor 2013; Loohuis 1952). The storage of oil was transferred to Charlois by 1876 near Sluisjesdijk, a location fully in control of Pakhuismeesteren (De Klerk et al. 2008, pp. 140–142; Van de Laar 2000). After several years of negotiations, on February 28th, 1895, Charlois officially became part of Rotterdam and the central location for oil storing and trading (Van der Schoor 2013). By that time, the Randstad, where railways had first connected the main cities on the Western shore, saw the construction of railway lines towards the border, lines that would also come

270

C. Hein and P. Th. van de Laar

to serve the oil industry. These choices created the foundation for the long-term development of Rotterdam as an oil port at a time when new global players in oil were emerging (Fig. 15.2). At the turn of the twentieth century, Rotterdam’s urban form and port-city scape had changed drastically. The port transformed the area south of the River Maas starting with the area of Feyenoord. Gerrit Johannes de Jongh, Director of Municipal Works of Rotterdam (1879–1910), became recognised as the author of the transformation. His new spatial layout for the port city on the south bank of the river Maas differed in many aspects from the docks that the Rotterdam Trading Association had developed. This genius engineer pioneered the construction of docks with an open access from the river to facilitate the trans-shipment of bulk goods. De Jongh realised that Rotterdam needed docks suitable for quick dispatches. From the mid-eighties onward he developed three river docks—Rijnhaven, Maashaven and Waalhaven (Rhine, Meuse and Waal docks)—that reshaped the river landscape south of Rotterdam. The docks were based on the concept of ‘wet docks’ and large basins: huge docks easily accessible to sea-going ships, where ships moored to buoys could be loaded and unloaded ‘midstream’, from or into inland vessels moored alongside. The creation of new spaces for trans-shipment coincided with the addition of industrial spaces in the port area itself. Notably, the petroleum industry became a key user of these sites. The petroleum site in the then-independent municipality and former fishing village of Pernis, which had stored petroleum since 1887, became the heart of the new development. In 1902, the predecessors of Royal Dutch Shell were ready to jump into the new oil age centered around automobiles and built a gasoline refinery near Pernis. In 1907, the company installed a trial distillation facility for petroleum sent from Borneo, and a trial facility for asphalt followed in 1918. These new industrial facilities required extensive areas in proximity to the water. These could only be found outside the city, leading to further expansion westwards (Fig. 15.3). The port’s layout on the right bank served the interests of general cargo trans-shipment firms and a majority of shipping lines concentrated their business there. Rotterdam South was primarily an area where Rotterdam worked for the German hinterland. Rotterdam’s major stakeholders believed that rationalising maritime power and technology would safeguard Rotterdam’s future. The port’s successes stimulated the city to embrace a port-city identity distinguishing Rotterdam from cities like the Dutch capital Amsterdam and The Hague, the latter the Netherlands’ seat of government. Rotterdam as a working city was part of a port culture marked by an exceptional drive to modernise. The port expanded westwards and the Waalhaven, built in three stages and completed in 1931, became the main petroleum hub.

15

The Separation of Ports from Cities …

271

Fig. 15.2 The emergence of the global petroleumscape in The Rotterdam The Hague area 1850– 1910. Source Carola Hein, Arnoud de Waijer, Otto Diesfeld, Iskandar Pané

272

C. Hein and P. Th. van de Laar

Fig. 15.3 Map of Rotterdam’s harbor area around 1907. Source City Archives Rotterdam

15.3

The Growth of the Oil, Annexation and Port Extension to the West: 1910s–1940s

Before the First World War Rotterdam celebrated its port’s successes. In 1913 the tonnage transmitted by Rotterdam to Germany was almost eight times higher than in 1890. It had risen from about 2 million tons to 16 million tons, with an average annual growth rate of 9%. Rhine barges carried to the hinterland steel, iron, cereals and oil, which accounted for approximately 74% of total transit trade. The annual growth rate for trans-shipment from Germany to Rotterdam was about 13%, from half a million to 7 million tons in the same period. Coal was the major bulk good sent to Rotterdam. Initially, Rotterdam did not have a very strong position in oil-trans-shipment compared to Antwerp and Bremen. However, Rotterdam’s successful transformation into a transit port made it a place of interest for transnational oil firms entering the European market selling new products. Lighting oil had been replaced by other petroleum products like petrol and car owners would soon emerge as important consumers (Hein 2018). Before the outbreak of the First World War, Rotterdam faced many transitions in a limited and shared space. The city region needed a port vision that would safeguard further expansion, which meant that the city had to renegotiate relationships with its neighbours. De Jongh’s successor, A. C. Burgdorffer, wanted to prevent other cities and boroughs in the Waterweg area developing independent harbours to compete with the port metropolis. As a consequence, Rotterdam annexed the village of Hoek van Holland in 1914. The Chamber of Commerce acknowledged the need to expand Rotterdam’s petroleum facilities, but was less enthusiastic about port developments at such a great distance from the city centre. The City Council was reluctant to accept the plan, which according to a large majority was full of questionable assumptions about Rotterdam’s potential growth, particularly considering how the port economy suffered from the effects of the First World War. After 1918, the city was forced to rethink the economics of its port. The Rhine economy had almost collapsed and the city government hoped to reduce dependence on the German hinterland. Leading business officials, politicians and the

15

The Separation of Ports from Cities …

273

Chamber of Commerce tried to increase the industrial output of the Rotterdam region. However, the region was not successful in attracting non-maritime related industries other than the petroleum business. Its importance is even captured in an oil painting (Fig. 15.4). Petroleum industries needed dedicated harbours and large facilities with ample space for refinery and storage, including advanced railway and shipping connections. The restructuring of the oil industry also impacted port-city relations and this would continue after the Second World War. The complexities of port-city-region relations can be illustrated by the development of Rotterdam’s regional planning perspectives. During the 1920s, new planning and urban concepts were introduced. W. G. Witteveen, who became the leading urban developer of Rotterdam in the inter-war period and a city planner during the Second World War, realised new planning ideas were needed to improve living, urban and economic conditions impacted by Rotterdam’s port and industrial developments. He used scientific research methods to optimise the different functions and his port-city regional perspective aimed to expand Rotterdam’s territories (Mens 2007). Witteveen’s regional plan of 1928 was based on an annexation plan which the city submitted to the provincial authorities in 1927, intending to annex eight surrounding cities and villages in order to safeguard Rotterdam’s plans to expand. The ambitions for “Large Rotterdam” faced considerable opposition, in particular among residents of the old cities of Schiedam and Vlaardingen. They were not inclined to encourage Rotterdam’s land hunger or its treatment of the region as a port commodity. Schiedam reproached Rotterdam as engaging in

Fig. 15.4 Petroleum storage at the port areas of Pakhuismeesteren in Charlois around 1930. Willem van Dort (1905–1996). Source Collection Museum Rotterdam

274

C. Hein and P. Th. van de Laar

imperialistic behaviour aimed at erasing the independence of regional entities in order to create a united Rotterdam stretching towards the sea (Rotterdam 1927; Van de Laar 2000). Although the Province of South-Holland rejected the annexation plan, Rotterdam was able to annex Pernis, which allowed the city to expand its industries in 1934. This was particularly relevant for the development of the petroleum industry (Fig. 15.5). Until the mid-1930s the major oil companies’ refining capacities and oil storage activities were concentrated near the Waalhaven (Fig. 15.6). Since the mid-1920s, Witteveen had been working on new regional plans, which enabled him to integrate the major infrastructural and port developments into a more balanced growth scenario. From De Jongh’s early port expansion plans and Burgdorffer’s much debated port schemes, Witteveen had learned that the city should take a leading role in an integrated port-city-region plan. According to Witteveen, the river Maas was the lifeblood for an urbanised port region, a meandering infrastructure defined by port activities, both those already realised and those planned, on both riverbanks, flanked by existing and planned neighbourhoods. Spaces of work, leisure, living and so forth had to be connected by an extensive network of railroads, roads and new river crossings. These infrastructures formed an essential framework for connecting the different parts of the port region and integrating them in an overall plan. Other options were discussed as well,

Fig. 15.5 Map of Rotterdam, showing the extensions to its territory from 1870 to 1941, with the years in which the relevant laws were passed. Adapted by C.A.A. de Graaf, Rotterdam Department of Public Works. Source City Archives Rotterdam

15

The Separation of Ports from Cities …

275

Fig. 15.6 The Petroleumscape in the Rotterdam The Hague Area 1910–1940. Source Carola Hein, Arnoud de Waijer, Otto Diesfeld, Iskandar Pané

276

C. Hein and P. Th. van de Laar

including the possibility of bringing all ports along the Maas and New Waterway under the heading of a central authority, a Port District, a semi-public legislative body which would operate all ports in the city-region. Before the Second World War, neither the city of Rotterdam, the city’s neighbours or supra-municipal bodies were able to come up with a governance structure that would satisfy all major stakeholders. Rotterdam’s post-war expansion and industrial development, however, would reset the port-city agenda again.

15.4

The Functional and Spatial Characteristics of the Industrial (Petroleum) Port Areas: 1940–1970

On the 14th of May 1940, Rotterdam’s historic inner city was erased by a German bombardment. Although the port infrastructure was still intact when the Dutch surrendered the following day, in September 1944 the Germans destroyed almost 42% of the quays and other port facilities (Van de Laar 2000). During the German occupation, plans were being made for a large post-war reconstruction and industrialisation programme. The pre-war transit docks planned by De Jongh had created a new waterfront, but although urban planning was secondary to port planning, the working port was still integrated with urban neighbourhoods. Large-scale industrialisation of the port called for a different type of transit port, separating port activities from other urban-based maritime services. In the post-war period, the oil industry brought new demands and opportunities to Rotterdam as the port expanded with the municipal boundaries of the city (Figs. 15.7 and 15.8). Most of the oil started coming from the Middle East. With the nationalisation of oil there and the creation of OPEC (Organization of Oil Exporting Countries) in 1960, demand increased, supply was reduced, and prices rose (Bauer and Boer 1981). The expansion of oil industry operations reached a new level. Cargo ships grew in size and could no longer be accommodated by ports such as Antwerp, which were accessible only through an estuary (or Amsterdam, a port accessible only via locks). Among ports, Rotterdam stood out with its direct access to the sea. Beginning in the 1960s, the chemical industry blossomed, indicating another major change in the petroleum industry. According to Dutch historian De Goey (1990), the construction of refining compounds (petrochemical complexes) made the biggest difference between the pre- and postwar periods (De Goey 1990; Loyen and Van de Laar 2004). The post-war period saw the development of a different kind of industrial area, so called Maritime Industrial Development Areas (MIDAS), where the separation between city and port was complete. The Rotterdam port grew in size and Pernis, Botlek and Europoort emerged as the main areas controlled by six multinational oil companies (Hein 2018). The demands of the oil industry continued to dominate planning and land allocation in the Rotterdam area. The national government advocated preserving

15

The Separation of Ports from Cities …

277

Fig. 15.7 The Petroleumscape in the Rotterdam—The Hague Area 1940–1970. Source Carola Hein, Arnoud de Waijer, Otto Diesfeld, Iskandar Pané

278

C. Hein and P. Th. van de Laar

Fig. 15.8 Europoort Plan in 1957. It consisted of new petroleum docks, petroleum storage areas, including a new inland waterway. Additionally, a new shipyard was planned, a steel works, a rolling mill for shaping metal and a blast furnace. Port of Rotterdam Authority. Source City Archives Rotterdam

land in the port for companies that needed access to deep water and letting other companies relocate (Hajer and Zonneveld 2000). A regional plan for West Brabant established around 1969 allowed for a new Shell refinery in Moerdijk—accessible by pipeline—and provided space for future expansion (Van der Cammen 2012). Opening this land for the oil company was in clear conflict with national spatial planning policy and the parliament decided that such ‘flexibility’ should be curtailed by statutory planning decisions. The port continued to grow in ways that separated it from the city. From the 1970s, pipelines became the main carrier for oil (cheaper than train or ship), notably crossing borders towards Antwerp in Belgium and the Germany Ruhr area long before the Schengen agreement allowed people to circulate freely (Boon 2014; Fig. 14). The construction of the pipeline from Rotterdam to the Rhine, instead of from Wilhelmshaven in Germany (a proposal made by Exxon), was influenced by Shell Netherlands’ intervention and reflected the battle between the two oil giants. The first containers arrived in Rotterdam in 1965. The Port of Rotterdam Authority recognised the importance of container development and stimulated the concentration of Rotterdam stevedore companies, Dutch Railways and the leading Dutch shipping firm Nedlloyd into what would become Rotterdam’s major terminal operator, ECT. The Port of Rotterdam Authority was convinced that to ensure its position as a container port, the city needed to construct docks to optimise the accommodation and handling of containers. In 1967, plans were presented to construct the Rijnpoort (Rhinegate dock) between the villages of Maassluis and Hook of Holland on the right bank of the river Meuse. The plans emphasised roll-on/roll-off facilities combined with a cruise terminal and an enlarged space dedicated to container handling and storage. In 1975, a changing international, national and local political climate made the authorities postpone the construction of the Rijnpoort dock. In the 1980s, the Maasvlakte, once designed as an industrial outpost, was transformed into a high-tech service center, home to the largest European bulk trans-shipment and container center.

15

The Separation of Ports from Cities …

279

By the mid-1970s, Rotterdam was called a “city in doubt” in a report by the Dutch Economic Institute (Nederlands Economisch Instituut 1974) which argued that it needed to change its economic structure, reducing its dependence on industrial output and the trans-shipment of bulk goods, thereby increasing the relative contribution of service industries to GNP. A complicating factor was that the public-private partnerships that had been successful in the post-war era had dissolved. Rotterdam’s post-war industrial development had become a matter of public discussion as well. By the 1960s, the Rotterdam region had become the most polluted area of the Netherlands. Environmental problems called for a drastic reorientation of industrial port policies and thus a halt to any further expansion of polluting industries like the petrochemical, shipbuilding, and metal industries (Van de Laar 2013). A shift in local politics encouraged a more social and welfare orientated urban programme and growing resistance to an industry agenda. Large-scale port industrialization was no longer a viable option. Rotterdam did not have a competitive edge in the general cargo sector. Establishing large concentrated peripheral container terminals would not add a significant number of new jobs. New, less polluting, high value-added industries, such as optical, medical and upcoming creative industries and those offering specialised services were the best option, but Rotterdam found them difficult to attract. These, often innovative, industries needed better trained and qualified staff than Rotterdam was able to supply. In addition, Rotterdam’s urban and working-class image and civic climate (housing and living conditions) proved to be a formidable obstacle in realising these goals. The Rotterdammers’ image as hard-working citizens in a newly built modern port city had lost appeal. Rotterdam was no longer the model city of the Netherlands or the workhorse of the Dutch economy.

15.5

The Expansion of the Port Into the Sea: 1970s–Present

The 1970s oil crises, when major industrial countries faced oil shortages, could have challenged the ability of petroleum actors to continue shaping the built environment. Car-free Sundays in the Netherlands allowed citizens to reclaim highways. However, after the crises passed, the memory of the public was short and few long-lasting changes occurred. In the 1970s, Rotterdam was firmly established as a leading oil port, serving consumers particularly in the German hinterland. Refineries continued to grow. The BP refinery in Rotterdam, which started production in 1967, and which includes 480 acres of facilities at Europoort and Pernis (The Netherlands Rotterdam Refinery Facility Fact Sheet 2011), has a production capacity of 400,000 barrels of crude per day, with a storage capacity of 4.5 million cubic meters. It illustrates the growth of the industry, but that growth is visible only through dedicated mapping (British Petroleum in the Netherlands 2015). The

280

C. Hein and P. Th. van de Laar

production sector is huge in scale (with some 5300 ha for industrial sites and 1500 km of pipelines within the port) and its impact on planning decisions is high, but it tends to be invisible to the general public (Port of Rotterdam, Netherlands 2015) The pipeline network that links Rotterdam with Antwerp (where the big ships can no longer dock and where the petrochemical industry needs petroleum) and with Germany is largely out of sight.1 Oil companies share other parts of the infrastructure such as important rail and highway networks with passengers who rarely recognise them as part of oil networks. In the face of global changes in the energy landscape, climate change and the emergence of new green energies, the petroleum landscape in Europe is changing. Today, with refinery closures looming in northwestern Europe, scholars of the Clingendael Institute expect that the refineries of the Rotterdam and Antwerp port will be among the last ones standing (Van den Bergh et al. 2016). Changes in the refining business will affect ports, cities, and transportation infrastructure, and those entities will have to formulate planning strategies in response (Fig. 15.9). The construction of the Second Maasvlakte was the first new major expansion of the port. since the 1970s. 2000 ha of newly created land allowed the port of Rotterdam the possibility of doubling the trans-shipment of containers. Rotterdam´s Port Authority and the maritime business lobby-groups, supported by the city government, defended Rotterdam’s newest port expansion because of the new jobs it would create. However, the sophisticated, high-tech and capital-intensive container terminals will generate less job opportunities, particularly for less-qualified workers. In this respect, since the 1970s the port economy has been losing its importance as a job engine. The Second Maasvlakte is in fact an extension of the port-philosophy that depended on the Rhine-transit model. Containers became the new growth factor, instead of oil, but even though containers are looked upon as part of the emerging global network of the 1990s, the container business has not changed Rotterdam’s dependence on the Rhine (Koppenol 2016). Hans Smits, former CEO of the Port of Rotterdam Authority, claimed in 2013 when he stepped down from office that a Maasvlakte III would be an unlikely option.2 According to him, the Second Maasvlakte offered enough space to fulfil Rotterdam’s ambitions (Fig. 15.10). He expected the port of Rotterdam to reach a level of throughput of 600 million tons in 2030. In the past, Rotterdam’s port officials have been overly optimistic about the port’s growth potential. Smits’ public announcements about the Third Maasvlakte came at a time when Rotterdam was basing its future strategy on climate change and energy transition and since 2015 debates on the energy transition have accelerated rapidly. Debates about the future of port-city relations follow the pattern set by earlier conversations. The energy transition will foster another regime shift in the port of

1 There is also an extensive NATO pipeline system (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_ 49151.htm?selectedLocale=en) (accessed 15.7.2015). 2 “Derde Maasvlakte niet nodig’ Trouw,” 21.4.2011, https://www.trouw.nl/home/-derdemaasvlakte-niet-nodig-*acf8fc54/, 21-4-2011, accessed 16-04-2019.

15

The Separation of Ports from Cities …

281

Fig. 15.9 The Petroleumscape in the Rotterdam The Hague Area 1970–2000. Source Carola Hein, Arnoud de Waijer, Otto Diesfeld, Iskandar Pané

282

C. Hein and P. Th. van de Laar

Fig. 15.10 The plan for the Second Masvlakte in 2008. Source https://beeldbank.rws.nl/ Rijkswaterstaat

Rotterdam. Since the Port of Rotterdam published its vision document in 2011 (Port Vision 2030 2011), the world has changed rapidly, because of geo-political, social, technological and, in particular climate change impacts (Halim et al. 2016). Innovation is again necessary as we face several transitions, but the OECD claims that the vision should be “imaginative rather than technocratic” (OECD 2014). This will be a major challenge for Rotterdam since the port’s regime is still based on scale and volume and its success is measured in throughput (Bosman et al. 2018). Since the 1950s, the port’s infrastructure has developed to meet the requirements of the petrochemical industry, which has made it very difficult to change focus. The most fundamental strategy changes thus far proposed are the Bio Port initiative and the Rotterdam Climate Initiative,3 but the major challenge is, according to scholars on transition, “how to transform from a linear to a circular port economy, from fossil to bio-based and from a monoculture based on three isolated pillars (logistics, maritime industry, energy and chemistry) to a diverse and flexible industrial ecosystem” (Bosman et al. 2018, p. 9).

3

Port of Rotterdam, Port of Rotterdam C02 Neutral, https://www.portofrotterdam.com/sites/ default/files/port-of-rotterdam-co2-neutral.pdf, 2017, accessed 16-12-2018.

15

The Separation of Ports from Cities …

15.6

283

Conclusions

Over the last century and a half, Rotterdam’s port development and port-city relations have been heavily determined by Germany’s hinterland connections and industrial dependencies. The Maas area turned into a port landscape, reconverting a rural space to an area dominated by wet docks and specialised industrial estates. The emergence of the transit port led to expansion to the south, the expansion of industry in the inter-war period and the construction of refineries in the post-war era pushed the port towards the sea. The expansion to the west had a major influence on port-city relations, notably following annexation plans. Intended to safeguard the city’s industrial ambitions, especially the promising development opportunities of the major oil companies, the port’s development needed new governance and planning structures. The prevailing concepts and mindset were, however, influenced by the war and post-war developments. After 1945, Rotterdam developed an industrial port cityscape that created a ‘city without port’ (Hoyle and Pinder 1992). The iron and steel industry, oil refineries, petrochemical complexes, power plants—in short the major raw material-using factories—relocated to new industrial areas. Oil had become the most important bulk good. Rotterdam floated on oil. Major Maas adaptations, tank storage parks, and a network of pipelines became a critical linkage that pushed forward the petroleumscape and refineries, serving the growing demand for oil and petrochemical products in the Rhine-Ruhr area (Hein 2018). The port network underwent another radical change with containerization and the gradual implementation of new thinking in the field of information and communication. The container became an essential chain in a new philosophy of modern logistics. Containers were revolutionary, not because of the fact that general goods could be stored and transported in efficient boxes, but because of the changes in international logistics they brought about. This rotation of the logistics network coincided with a reorientation of the Western European transit economy caused by the economic recessions of the 1970s. The construction of the Second Maasvlakte (Maasvlakt II) was the first new major expansion of the port since the 1970s, granting the port of Rotterdam the possibility of doubling its trans-shipment of containers. After 1970, Rotterdam lost its primacy as economic engine of the Netherlands. Once the proud city of the post-war era, Rotterdam became a place of distress, a reputation it shared with other European ports. It remained an important port, thanks to the oil and petrochemical industries. However, the port’s noise, pollution, and other environmental problems have strained the relationship with the city. The planning process of Maasvlakte II has shown how environmental issues have had a major impact on existing port-city-region relations and planning decisions, including the vital element that this would be the last extension into the sea (Koppenol 2016, p. 155). Further planning strategies and port-city relations will be dominated by the energy transition. Despite this, there remains the paradox that Rotterdam still depends on the oil and petrochemical industries.

284

C. Hein and P. Th. van de Laar

New port scenarios are aimed at safeguarding Rotterdam’s future position as a major port and Europe’s most sophisticated energy hub. In order to do that, the port city region of Rotterdam has to develop an imaginative and creative vision which is intimately connected to that of its surrounding region. During a century of port extension and growth to the West, the port has physically detached from the city. Environmentally it remains related to the surrounding area and the larger port-city-region ecosystem. Post-oil scenarios must attend to the many scales of the port cityscape including its material and non-material flows, its infrastructure, the historic city and the dispersed city. Rotterdam’s port history—as a case of extreme separation between port and city—shows the urgency of a research agenda on port-city regions and their spaces, values and people.

References Anne, V., & Sel, S. (2009). World maritime cities: From which cities do container shipping companies make decisions? Transport Policy, 16(5), 240–250. Bauer, C., & Boer, M. (1981) Energie. Shell. Boon, M. (2014). Oil pipelines, politics and international business: The Rotterdam Oil Port, Royal Dutch Shell and the German Hinterland, 1945–1975. Ph.D. Dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Bosman, R., Loorbach, D., Rotmans, J., & van Raak, R. (2018). Carbon lock-out: Leading the Fossil Port of Rotterdam into transition. Sustainability, 10, 2558. Bretagnolle, A. (2015). City-systems and maritime transport in the long term. In C. Ducruet (Ed.), Maritime networks spatial structures and time dynamics (pp. 27–36). London and New York: Routledge Studies in Transport Analysis. Hoyle, B. S., & D. A. Pinder (Eds.), European port cities in transition (pp. 1–19). London. Callahan, M. (1981). The harbor barons; Political and commercial elite’s and the development of the port of Rotterdam. Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University. De Goey, F. (1990). Ruimte voor Industrie. Rotterdam en de Vestiging van Industrie in de Haven 1945–1975, [Space for industry. Rotterdam and the Establishment of Industry in the Port, 1945–1975]. Ph.D. Dissertation, Rotterdam. De Klerk, L., van de Laar, P., & Moscoviter, H. (2008). G.J. De Jongh: Havenbouwer en Stadsontwikkelaar in Rotterdam, [G.J. de Jongh: Harbour builder and city developer in Rotterdam]. Bussum: Thoth. Hajer, M., & Zonneveld, W. (2000). Spatial planning in the network society-rethinking the principles of planning in the Netherlands. European Planning Studies, 8(3), 337–355. https:// doi.org/10.1080/713666411. Halim, R. A., Kwakkel, J. H., & Tavasszy, L. A. (2016). A scenario discovery study of the impact of uncertainties in the global container transport system on European ports. Futures, 81(2016), 148–160. Hein, C. (2011). Port cityscapes: A networked analysis of the built environment. In C. Hein (Ed.), Port cities. Dynamic landscapes and global networks (pp. 1–24). London and New York: Routledge. Hein, C. (2013). Port cities. In Peter Clark (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cities in world history (pp. 809–828). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hein, C. (2016a). Port cityscapes: Conference and research contributions on port cities. Planning Perspectives, 31(2), 313–326.

15

The Separation of Ports from Cities …

285

Hein, C. (2016b). Writing port cities. PORTUS: The Online Magazine of RETE, n. 31 June. http:// portusonline.org/writing-port-cities/. Hein, C. (2016c). Port cities and urban waterfronts: How localized planning ignores water as a connector. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 3(3), 419–438. Hein, C. (2018). Oil spaces: The global petroleumscape in the Rotterdam/The Hague Area. Journal of Urban History. 1–48. Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/ 0096144217752460. Janssen, J. H. M. (1999). Het petroleumvertier: Rotterdams ongemakkelijke kennismaking met de aardoliehandel [Petroleum activity: Rotterdam’s uneasy acquaintance with the petroleum trade]. Rotterdamsch jaarboekje, 7, 289–311. Klemann, H., & Schenk, J. (2013). Competition in the Rhine delta: Waterways, railways and ports, 1870–1913. Economic History Review, 66(3), 826–847. Konvitz, J. (2013). Contemporary urban history: What the study of port cities implies for evidence, methodology, and conceptualization. Journal of Urban History, 801–806. Koppenol, D. (2016). Lobby for Land. A historical perspective (1945–2008) on the decision-making process of the Port of Rotterdam land reclamation project Maasvlakte 2. Ph.D. Dissertation, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Loohuis, J. G. (1952). Rotterdam als Petroleumhaven in de Negentiende Eeuw, [Rotterdam as petroleum port in the nineteenth century] Rotterdam. Donker Uitgever: Rotterdam, AD. Loyen, R., & van de Laar P. (2004). Cargo-handling technology and competition during the interwar years. In F. De Goey (Ed.), Comparative port history of Rotterdam and Antwerp (1880–2000): Competition, cargo and costs (pp. 77–98). Amsterdam: Aksant. Mens, N. (2007). WG Witteveen en Rotterdam [WG Witteveen and Rotterdam]. 010 Publishers. Merk, O., & Notteboom, T. (2013). The competitiveness of global port-cities: The case of Rotterdam, Amsterdam—The Netherlands. OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2013/08. OECD Publishing. Meyer, H. (1999). City and port: Urban planning as a cultural venture in London, Barcelona, New York, and Rotterdam: Changing relations between public urban space and large-scale infrastructure. Utrecht: International Books. Nederlands Economisch Instituut. (1974). Rotterdam een stad in twijfel [Rotterdam a City in Doubt]. Rotterdam. OECD. (2014). The competitiveness of global port-cities. OECD Publishing. Available at: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264205277-en. Osterhammel, J. (2014). The transformation of the world: A global history of the nineteenth century. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Paardenkooper-Suli, K. (2014). The Port of Rotterdam and the maritime container: The rise and fall of Rotterdam’s hinterland (1966–2010). Ph.D. Dissertation. Erasmus University, Rotterdam. Porfyriou, H., & Sepe, M. (Eds.). (2016). Waterfronts Revisited: European ports in a historic and global perspective. London, New York: Routledge. Port Vision 2030: Port Compass (December 15, 2011). Direct the future start today. City Council of Rotterdam. Available at: https://www.portofrotterdam.com/sites/default/files/upload/PortVision/Port-Vision-2030.pdf. Rotterdam. Het groote Annexatieplan. (1927). [Rotterdam, The Grand Annexation Plan]. De Maasbode. Rotterdam, October 03, 1927. Available at: https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn= MMKB04:000195324:mpeg21:a0046. Accessed March 20, 2019. Schot, J., & Kanger, L. (2018). Deep transitions: Emergence, acceleration, stabilization and directionality. Research Policy, 47(6), 1045–1059. Schubert, D. (2009). Ever-changing waterfronts: Urban development and transformation processes in ports and waterfront zones in Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai. In A. Graf & C. B. Huat (Eds.), Port Cities in Asia and Europe. London and New York: Routledge. Schubert, D. (2018). Ports and urban waterfronts. In C. Hein (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of planning history. New York, London: Routledge.

286

C. Hein and P. Th. van de Laar

The Netherlands Rotterdam Refinery Facility Fact Sheet. (2011). Available at: http://www.bp.com/ content/dam/bp/pdf/abp_wwd_netherlands_rotterdam_fact_sheet_june_2011.pdf. Last accessed July 14, 2015. Thissen, J. (2013). Representing the industrial city: Rotterdam, 1880–1970. Industrial Cities: History and Future, 2, 307–323. Van de Laar, P. (1995). Rotterdam en zijn buren. Annexeren zonder frustreren’ [Rotterdam and his Neighbours. Annexation without Frustration]. Rotterdams Jaarboekje 208–245. Van de Laar, P. (2000). Stad van formaat. Geschiedenis van Rotterdam in de negentiende en twintigste eeuw [City of size. The history of Rotterdam in the nineteenth and twentieth century]. Waanders Uitgeverij Zwolle. Van de Laar, P. (2013). Modernism in European reconstruction policy and its public perception: the image of rebuilding Rotterdam, 1945–2000. In G. Wagner-Kyora (Eds.), Wiederaufbau der Städte: Europa seit 1945/ Rebuilding European Cities: Reconstruction-Policy since 1945 (PP. 202–231). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Van den Bergh, R., Nivard, M., & Kreijkes M. (2016). Long-term prospects for Northwest European refining. Asymmetric change: A looming government dilemma? The Hague: CIEP. Van der Cammen, H. (2012). The selfmade land: The culture of urban and regional planning in The Netherlands. Spectrum. Van der Schoor, A. (2013). De Dorpen van Rotterdam: van Ontstaan tot Annexatie [The villages of Rotterdam: From origin to Annexation]. Ad Donker Uitgeversmaatschappij Rotterdam. Vigarié, A. (1981). Maritime industrial development areas: Structural evolution and implications for regional development. In B. S. Hoyle & D. A. Pinder (Eds.), Cityport industralisation and regional development. Spatial analysis and planning strategies (pp. 23–36). New York: Oxford. Zitting 1972–1973—12 00 6. Openbaarheid bij de voorbereiding van het ruimtelijk beleid: Brief van de minister van Volkshuisvesting, en Ruimtelijke Ordening. Nr. 4 (De vroegere stukken zijn gedrukt in de zitting 1972). [Meeting Parliament Ministry of Housing and Spatial Development].

Chapter 16

Integrated Port Cities: The Case of Hamburg Michele Acciaro, Katharina Renken and Christopher Dirzka

Abstract Many cities around the world are port cities, and yet, industrialisation of port activities and changes in port operations have resulted in the separation between the city and its port is becoming more evident. Some ports have moved away from urbanised areas, while in others fences and security barriers are being erected to separate a city from the water areas. Space is contested, and tension is increasing between urban and industrial use of the waterfront areas. In some port-cities, however, the proximity of city spaces to industrial activities is unavoidable, and managing the relations between port operations and the city becomes one of the main priorities of the port managing companies (PMC). The governance structure and relation of the PMC to the municipalities near the port defines the organisational framework within which the PMC needs to operate in order to find ways to reconcile the tension between urban spaces and the port. This tension requires careful management of port stakeholders, a well-thought communication strategy and the development of specific initiatives aimed at reducing negative external effects associated with port activities. Through the analysis of the case of the port-city of Hamburg, particularly its smart-port and smart-city strategies, this chapter illustrates the complexity of successfully managing integrated port-cities. The closely-knit collaboration between the Hamburg City-State Municipal Government and its Port Authority have allowed it to overcome some of the issues that emerged in the past, but as port operations change the question is how long the conflict of resource use between a growing city and the third-largest European port can be kept at bay.




Keywords Port cities Port city relationship Port stakeholders Port of Hamburg





Port managing companies


M. Acciaro (&)
K. Renken
C. Dirzka Hapag-Lloyd Center for Shipping and Global Logistics (CSGL), Kühne Logistics University (KLU), Großer Grasbrook 17, 20457 Hamburg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 A. Carpenter and R. Lozano (eds.), European Port Cities in Transition, Strategies for Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9_16

287

288

16.1

M. Acciaro et al.

Introduction

Ports are an integral part of the ‘maritime network eco-system’ and are instrumental to global trade (e.g. Ducruet 2011). Since the 1950s, rapid industrialisation and the containerisation revolution forced such eco-systems to adapt rapidly. It also caused a shift in port-city relations, in particular in relation to geographic proximity (Wang et al. 2007). As conflict, primarily on the use of space, heightened, the management of externalities became more complex and port activities moved out of cities. This is the case for most port cities, but in some circumstances, such as Hong Kong (China), Hamburg (Germany) or Singapore (Malaysia), port relocation is constrained by the administrative boundaries of the port city. In such circumstances, port relocation or migration takes a different form and the proximity of port infrastructure to urban spaces requires particular attention to port-city integration strategies. Using the case of Hamburg as an illustration, this chapter revises the relationship between ports and their cities and highlights the potential offered by close port-city governance, sustainable development (SD), and digitalisation to resolve—or at least soften—conflicts among urban and commercial or industrial uses of port spaces. The chapter is structured in the following way in addition to this brief introduction: Sect. 16.2 looks at the evolution of the relationship between ports and cities, making reference to the extensive literature on the subject; Sect. 16.3 focuses on the conflicts inherent to this relationship, highlighting that the governance perspective has been given limited consideration in the literature; Sect. 16.4 presents the case of the port of Hamburg; while Sect. 16.5 analyses the relationship between the port managing company (PMC) and the city. Section 16.6 provides some conclusions.

16.2

The Evolution of Port-City Relations

Ports facilitate the exchange of goods and services between regions and countries, offering substantial economic benefits to traders and producers, local communities and society by and large. Ports generate employment thorough their value-adding activities (Merk 2013) and are innovation clusters (Acciaro et al. 2018; Arduino et al. 2013; Witte et al. 2018). The ITF/OECD report ‘Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: Synthesis Report’ (Merk 2013) showed on average that for every tonne of port throughput 100 USD of added value are created. For every million tonnes of port throughput, about 300 jobs are created in the port region. Notwithstanding the positive effects of port activities, port operations also cause undesirable consequences on the environment, city life and waterfront usage (Schipper et al. 2017; Chap. 3 in this volume from Carpenter and Lozano 2019; and Chap. 8 in this volume from Sanchez and Daamen 2019). Specifically, areas in the proximity of

16

Integrated Port Cities: The Case of Hamburg

289

ports are particularly vulnerable to noise, poor air quality, light pollution, congestion and deteriorating water quality (e.g. Bergqvist and Monios 2019). From a historical perspective, port-cities mirrored the shifts in ecological, technological and urban demands (Hoyle 1989). Over the centuries, the executive authorities in the cities acquired the means to enlarge their power structures and extend into geographical areas beyond their land-based reach. The attempt to enhance wealth creation processes in port-cities, tied these two entities in a reciprocal relationship, i.e. the rise or decline of the city affected the port and vice versa, as in the case of the Maritime Republics and the Cities in the Hanseatic League. These command centres supported the establishment of new societal classes and firms, such as traders, bankers and international businesses (Schubert 2008). This phase lasted until the 19th century when industrialisation in the western world forced a significant change on port-cities. Maritime technological innovations, e.g. fossil fuel engines and novel hull types, accelerated ports economic growth, enhancing not only their cities and countries wealth, but also causing massive environmental and social external effects (Konvitz 1994). The fast expansion of port industrial areas, often unsuitable for living, and the growth of economic activities in the cities, also enabled by the port, meant a gradual separation between port and city. Since the 1950s, the linkage between cities and ports has become thinner in spatial, socio-cultural and institutional terms. Such shifts led to ‘ports without ships, empty warehouses, derelict storage sheds, disused docks and deserted neighbourhoods’ (Schubert 2008, p. 25), dominating the waterfronts at various port cities. The functional and spatial relationship between ports and their neighbouring city became less and less tangible from the end of the 1960s onwards, as port economic drivers became more globalised, and also as a result of the increasing role of cargo transhipment. The profitability of port activities became less dependent on city economic activities, while the pursuit of efficiency spurred a wave of deregulation practices and technological developments, such as automation and ICT, further rendering the port-city employment relationship more tenuous (Musso et al. 2000). The port-city system, in general, was underpinned by a relatively constant progression, characterised by close spatial association, until the industrial revolution in the 19th century, which constituted as a disruptive force for the port-cities. Shipping was marked primarily by general cargo loads, stowed on pallets or in drums, and involved (throughout the loading and discharging procedure) intensive labour investments. Significant technological developments in regard to containerisation, increasing vessel sizes, and specialised cargo requirements, demanded novel port-city structures to overcome such changes (Schubert 2008). This era heralded the beginning of the port-city separation. In particular, the containerisation revolution offered a solution to over the ‘problems of the port as the bottleneck for general cargo’ (Browne et al. 2017, p. 3). This period overlapped with the increase in industrial production, reducing importance of the port-cities (Hoyle 1992).

290

M. Acciaro et al.

Growing trade volumes required new cargo handling facilities and space for stacking containers, together with extensive road infrastructure and railway lines (e.g. UNCTAD 2018). During this time, ports faced the strategic decision to establish themselves outside the city’s boundaries, essential breaking up the port-city structure, or to grow within the city area. Another trend, the decline of shipyards within occidental economies and their shift to Asian nations, provided for other port- and urban structures (Brooklyn Navy Yard 2018) space to grow within the city limits. Port development affected the hinterland and shifted the port-city interaction (Hoyle 1992) fundamentally. The model, developed by Hoyle, traces such interaction of the port-city interface until the renewal of the port-city links. It should be stated that the change in interface applies differently to different countries (Van den Berghe 2015). The balance between port and city on a global scale is different (Hoyle 1989) and is located in different phases of Hoyle’s model. Hence, the study by Lee et al. (2008), outlined different typologies of the port-city across continents. Abandoned or inefficiently used port areas have been increasingly repurposed for urban uses. Port-cities around the world channelled significant resources into port real estate developments and waterfront renewal projects, among which are many European cities, such as Marseille, Barcelona, Rotterdam (Daamen and de Vries 2013), and Amsterdam (Wiegmans and Louw 2011), London (Church 1990) and Hamburg (Merk and Hesse 2012). Port literature characterised this cycle as ‘dilapidation, blight, neglect, planning, implementation and revitalisation’ (Schubert 2008, p. 25) and it should be understood in the context of globalisation, deregulation, changes in port labour characteristics and the evolution of the spatial structure of port-cities. The redevelopment of waterfronts has intensified the discussion on suitable and sustainable strategies to mitigate conflict between industrial and urban use of port spaces (Tanis and Erkok 2016; Carpenter and Lozano 2019). It should be noted that the cycle, outlined above, is the result of the global structure of international trade and production, so that while some port-cities engage in waterfront revitalisation, others are still building or abandoning port areas. This is important, especially in understanding the context of waterfront redevelopment in western countries versus expanding port industrial estates in others, primarily in the developing world (Wang et al. 2007). In generic terms, these shifts are underpinned by an ever-reducing number of significant global market stakeholders in the transport chain, i.e. shippers, port operators and freight forwarders (Wang et al. 2007). The crisis in 2008, heightened the interest in smart and sustainable cities as SD coupled with advanced ICT is seen as an opportunity for economic growth and improving social and living conditions (Girard 2013).

16

Integrated Port Cities: The Case of Hamburg

16.3

291

Defining the Relationship Between Port and City in Port-Cities

The relationship between a port and its neighbouring city has been the subject of an increasing number of literature contributions over the last five decades (Monios et al. 2018). Research in this area became more intense as many port-cities were losing their port activities and, in part, their identity (Ducruet 2011), this book addresses these challenges as well from different angles, focussing on the European viewpoint. The term port-city has not yet been clearly defined in the literature, arguably as the two concepts of port and city have been evolving overtime and as a result of the many disciplinary approaches that have been used to look at it (Ducruet 2007). A port-city can be defined as a city with a maritime hub, thus acting as a connection node between onshore and offshore transport networks. Ducruet (2011) distinguished between the ‘French school’, that focuses on the foreland (offshore transport networks) and the ‘Dutch school’, which places more emphasis on the hinterlands (onshore transport networks). Under such notion, ports are perceived as the nodal points between the city/hinterland and the sea (Jacobs et al. 2010). In this concept, globalised trade starts from the hinterland and ports are the arrival and departure points. Ports clearly strengthen the competitive position of the city and enhance the region’s economic wealth as in the case of Hong Kong (Wang and Cheng 2010) or Rotterdam (Witte et al. 2018). Port-city studies have adopted multiple perspectives including logistics (Jacobs et al. 2010), tourism (McCarthy 2003; and Chap. 11 in this book by Andrade Marquez and Costa 2019), racial, economic, and environmental justice (De Lara 2018), sustainability transition (Ernst et al. 2016), and circular economy (Gravagnuolo et al. 2019), to mention a few. One of the main areas of investigation relates to the study of socio-economic impacts of port activities on the city and of urban activities on the port (e.g. Xiao and Lam 2017), including Foreign Direct Investment (Zhao et al. 2017), and employment (e.g. Acciaro 2008). Cities invest in efficient port organisations to create added value towards SD. An innovative city’s organisational structure links technologies to mitigate waste creation, thus enabling smart approaches (Hua 2016; Girard 2013). SD approaches in ports depart from the local resources and combine the port’s economic, logistic- and urban lifestyle requirements. Efficient organisation of cities provides added value to the SD of ports. Due to their diverse functions as economic engines and magnets for human capital, port-cities are described as ‘laboratories of creativity’, which are impacted by their specific geographical- and cultural environment (Girard 2013; p. 4330). The port-city separations and typology, in geographical terms (Ducruet and Lee 2006, p.112), demands in the initial stage an outline of the constraints, which both entities face by constantly shifting global seaborne maritime supply chains (Notteboom and Rodrigue 2005). The study by Wang et al. (2007), pointed out four trends/levers: (i) transport chains become ever more concentrated, which puts a

292

M. Acciaro et al.

strain on port infrastructures and hinterland logistics activities in general; (ii) the separation between foreland- and hinterland-transport chains, which demands higher organisation management tools to maintain efficient port operations; (iii) the proximity in port-cities confronts the strive for an economy of scale, as space is finite, although on the other hand, efficiency demands close links to minimise the distance the cargo moves from origin via intermodal transport modes to the vessel; and (iv) demand by urban systems of production and consumption oppose the negative consequences of logistic activities. The approach proposed by Hoyle (1989) in the classic port-city interface model— an approach that has been recently revisited (Notteboom et al. 2019)—assumes that port activities always have the possibility of relocating i.e. migrating from cities to other areas. However, in many cases, because of historical, geographical or political reasons, as in the case of city-states such as Singapore or Hong Kong or Hamburg, some ports have limited possibilities to relocate far away from the city. It is not surprising that these ports will either reclaim land from the sea, restructure their port areas, or else face increasing port-city tensions. Port managers and city administrators need to find innovative ways for port-cities to develop. An avenue that has often been used requires smart approaches to deal with port operational demands, use port-city land more efficiently and allow breathing space for the city. Smart approaches need collaboration (see also Chap. 3 from Carpenter and Lozano 2019), the right to manage port and city areas and a focus on ‘economic, social and environmental values’ (Girard 2013, p. 4333) in order to activate synergies among stakeholders in the city and the port. An aspect that has only partially been addressed so far in the literature is what port-city governance model is best suited for the case of integrated port cities, although the question has been partially addressed in the cases of Stockholm (Chap. 2 in this book by Fenton 2019) and for major Chinese ports (Wang et al. 2004), for example. While, on the backdrop of the port-city interface model, the port and the city can operate as independent entities, at least until port areas are returned to the city for redevelopment—an eventuality that is unlikely in the case of fully privatised port facilities—in the case of integrated port-cities, i.e. port-cities where the administrative boundaries of the port and the city are such to prevent migration/relocation of port activities far away from the city, it is valuable to consider governance models based on a more close relationship between the two. This theory offers a possible explanation to the specific case of Hamburg, among other ports, where the city is indirectly involved in the management of the port through the Hamburg Port Authority (HPA) that it directly controls. Before discussing the case in detail, it is valuable to look at the characteristics of the port of Hamburg (for more detailed analysis of the examination of the historical evolution of the port of Hamburg see also Schubert (2019), in this book).

16

Integrated Port Cities: The Case of Hamburg

16.4

293

The Port of Hamburg

Hamburg is the main German maritime hub for the country exports and a major engine in regional wealth creation. The port serves all major global trade routes, such as Asia, South- and North-America and West Africa, in addition to European countries. It is connected via the river Elbe to the North Sea (Dohrn 2005). The last two centuries significantly changed the Port of Hamburg. The Great Fire of Hamburg in 1842 and the World War II bombing contributed to the city and port transformation that culminated in the post-war reconstruction efforts. Over the 70s and the 80s, the growth of the port led to a slow migration of commercial and industrial activities downstream the river Elbe, leaving considerable port areas in the proximity of the city available for redevelopment. As Hamburg is a city-state, however, port expansion is constrained by the state boundaries and relocation of port activities outside the Hamburg state territory is not possible. Since the late 1990s, the semi-abandoned warehouses and quays in the Hafencity area have been going through a functional change towards the development of housing and recreational activities. Other districts in the port, such as Oberhafen are being transformed into creative and cultural hubs while the Elbbrücken neighbourhood will embrace a ‘mix of offices, residential and shopping facilities’ (Tanis and Erkok 2016). The city has planned to redevelop the waterfront areas by not only carefully planning real estate projects, but also ensuring that these areas are attractive, habitable and, to a certain extent, offer a mix of affordable and high-quality housing and offices as not to jeopardise real estate developers’ profitability. Mobility across the two sides of the Elbe is facilitated by bridges upriver and ferries, which also constitute a major tourist attraction for the city (Dohrn 2005). Due to its major shift throughout history, the port of Hamburg exemplifies the separation and re-integration of port-cities globally, that can in part be framed within the stages in the Hoyle model. Post-industrial revolution, space requirements for the cargo handling technology grew extensively, forcing the terminals and docks to move to the southern banks of the Elbe. The containerisation and the gantry cranes to load the ever-growing vessels required further space. Thus, driving port operations to areas south-west of the city since the 1960s until now, while former port-occupied areas transformed since the 2000s to urban living space (Dohrn 2005). In Hamburg, similarly to other European ports, the geographical proximity of the port to the city has required port and city administrators to carefully account for environmental and social aspects in port management, while global competition puts pressure on efficiency and value creation. To manage the port-city relations appropriately, three areas traditionally need to be addressed, namely: – Environmental aspects, and in particular port externalities such as air and water pollution, habitat preservation, noise and congestion; – Social aspects, specifically employment, use of port areas including waterfront redevelopment, transport connectivity, social cohesion; and

294

M. Acciaro et al.

– Economic aspects, primarily efficiency, reliability and transit time, value creation and revenue generation. Environmental issues have been a priority in Hamburg for at least two decades given that the port is built next to urbanised areas and as a result of the position of Hamburg about 100 km upstream the river Elbe. The main environmental issues related to the port of Hamburg can be grouped into pollution (primarily air, but also water and noise), Elbe River deepening, and port congestion. Other issues that are also relevant for Hamburg are waste management, biodiversity and carbon emissions. Air emissions include common air contaminants, such as particular matter (PM), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and sulphur oxides (SOx), which have impacts on human health, the built environment and nature. While shipping is an important emitter of greenhouse gases (GHG) such as CO2 (Smith et al. 2014), port activities are a relatively small source of GHG, as a percentage of total city emissions or of global shipping emissions. For example, in a study of the pot of Barcelona (Villalba and Gemechu 2011), the authors are able to attribute about half of the 331,390 t of GHG (CO2 eq.) emissions in 2008 in the port to ship movements alone. Similar percentages have been confirmed for other ports [Sydney (Australia), Gothenburg (Sweden), Osaka (Japan), Long Beach (USA)] (Styhre et al. 2017). As a reference, emissions for the city of Barcelona were estimated at 3.8 million tons CO2 eq. in 2006 (Kennedy et al. 2009), less than 1% of the national total for the same year using World Bank figures. In consequence, shipping-related emissions contribute a significant share to the port-cities total pollutant emission balance but a smaller portion of GHG emissions. Water quality and riverine habitat preservation is a particularly debated topic in Hamburg, as a result of the decade long debate on the deepening of the Elbe river, e.g. as discussed in Kerner (2007) or in Li et al. (2014). Notwithstanding stringent regulation in port areas, oil spills, due to accidents, illegal dumping or unloading and loading procedures of crude or product tankers, contribute negatively to the water quality. Merk (2013) states that even though tanker-related oil spill significantly affects waterways, normal shipping operations contribute 70% to the oil entering the water via seaborne transportation services. Additionally, to spills, the discharge of ballast water, which is used to stabilise vessels, can transfer foreign aquatic organisms to local waterways, and the pollution from slop, from tank and hull cleanings, mitigate the water quality. Waste produced onshore by fuel silos and dry-dock operations, such as toxic sludges, pollutes the water in the port. Other non-liquid waste by cruise ship operations, which comprise 1% of the merchant fleet, produce 25% of the waste in oceans and hinterland channels (p. 34). In particular, the Elbe River is a particularly sensitive ecosystem exposed to climate change and intensifying urbanisation (Hesse and Krysanova 2016). The evolution of port activities and city activities has implied a reduction of the overall benefits directly associated with the port. Port throughput growth has been limited, and even in the event of an increase of volumes transiting through the port might not be sufficient to guarantee that job and value creation will increase. Studies, as reported in Grossmann (2008), also indicate losses of 20% of

16

Integrated Port Cities: The Case of Hamburg

295

port-dependent jobs between 1991 and 2001 (from 142,524 to 113,926) although more recent figures of the Port Authority indicate a modest increase to 129,761 for 2014. A similar trend can be observed for value added generated by port activities (Grossmann 2008). Notwithstanding the complexity of such measurements, these figures seem to indicate that the overall role of traditional cargo activities for the port of Hamburg is still sizable, but declining. In this context, the emergence of conflict between logistic activities and urban life in terms of land usage and externalities is not surprising. Urban economic growth sets forward a high job density and population growth, which demands space to develop and might be constrained by the large port areas (Merk 2013). Additionally, visual impacts, such as cargo stockpiles, port-related landfills might have an adverse effect on real estate values. In connection with particle pollution from vessels in the air, which contribute to the smog in cities, businesses might shy away from investments, without mentioning the adverse effects of noise and air pollution on urban populations. In cities where affordable housing is limited, the presence of the port can exacerbate tension (Buchholz 2016). The interaction between port and urban activities can diminish the residents’ life quality and hamper port development (see also Chap. 11 in this book by Andrade Marquez and Costa 2019). Effective managerial and governance approaches are needed to integrate economic, environmental and social demands (Girard 2013). Ports and cities should not decouple the ecological dimension of port-city management from economic wealth production, instead of considering an integrated port-city governance model.

16.5

Collaboration Between Hamburg City and HPA

The Port of Hamburg is an integral component of Hamburg’s economy, and notwithstanding a decade of slow growth, it is the third-largest European port in terms of throughput and among the top-20 ports globally (Hamburg Port Authority 2015). The Port of Hamburg is operated by the HPA, which traces its origins back to the 17th century when it was founded as an organisation to manage the growing trade volumes. The port, however, dates back to mid-12th century, with commercial activities originally located not far from the HafenCity, in areas that were still used for port activities until about a decade ago. Using the city-port separation model (Hoyle 1989) as a reference, in the period 1189–1870 the Port of Hamburg went through a phase of wealth accumulation mostly thanks to the Deutsche Hanse (stage 1). In the following 20th century, the expansion of trades to the Americas and the industrial activities required gradual expansion of the port that proceeded very rapidly, also as a result of the post-war reconstructions. In these processes the developments and reconstructions were guided by the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg. The decision by the Hamburg City Senate to reacquire the more central port areas and construct the HafenCity in 1997, coincided with the need to expand

296

M. Acciaro et al.

the port in the area of Altenwerder further. In 2002, the Altenwerder terminal was inaugurated and supported Hamburg’s growth with three other container terminals. The HafenCity, which connects the River Elbe to the city centre and is located next to the Warehouse District, has been the first project of its kind to urbanise former port areas, dedicated to logistic activities to other than port-related uses. It has been developed by HafenCity GmbH, who is responsible for the area and its sustainable project implementation. The land is in ownership by Hamburg’s city-state (Schubert 2008). The entity responsible for managing the port is the HPA, which is an entity under public law (AöR—Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts in German), fully controlled by the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg, which appoints its board members and interacts with HPA through the Senator (Ministry) of Economic Affairs, Transport and Innovation, that also included harbour affairs in its portfolio. Further, the city has an interest in terminal and logistics activities though its majority shares of HHLA (Acciaro et al. 2020). HPA and the City of Hamburg work together in various areas, such as mobility, energy transition and renewables, logistics efficiency and transport network management, and digitalisation. They oversaw the elaboration of the port’s spatial development strategy and smart integration of the port into the urban life. HPA aimed to use advanced digital technologies to channel traffic and information flows to enable efficient port operations (Hamburg Port Authority 2015). The adoption of smart approaches can be separated into two strategies: smartPort Energy and smartPort Logistic, which comprise the efficient management of ‘energy resources, infrastructure facilities, traffic control and property management’ (Hamburg Port Authority 2015, p. 1). As a leading consumer of energy, the HPA in connection with the Hamburg city supported the compliance with Germany’s energy transition targets, thus enabling a more sustainable energy future (Acciaro et al. 2014). Collaboration between the port and the city aims to offer a cleaner urban environment (see also Chap. 2 by Fenton 2019, and Chap. 3 by Carpenter and Lozano 2019, in this book), improving the efficiency of transport and logistics within the city, hence also maintaining the competitiveness of the port. One major development has been the growth of the cruise industry and the increasing number of cruise ships calling the Hamburg port. To facilitate the growth of this sector, HPA constructed a third cruise terminal in Hamburg-Steinwerder. Based on the smartPort energy project, emissions by these vessels were reduced via land-side supply power infrastructure. The first LNG hybrid barge situated near the cruise terminal in Altona is also used for energy supply to cruise ships and can contribute to emission reduction. The floating liquefied natural gas power plant emits no sulphur oxides, approximately 80% fewer nitrogen oxides than conventional diesel-powered generators while allegedly cutting carbon emissions by 20% (Hamburg Port Authority 2015, p. 7). Such a system enables cruise ships to switch off their diesel engines and enhance the air quality for the port and city. Without such shore infrastructure a cruise liner’s auxiliary diesel engine, which has an energy demand equivalent to a town with 75,000 inhabitants, would raise the carbon dioxide and noise pollution significantly. Due to the novel concept, public

16

Integrated Port Cities: The Case of Hamburg

297

live benefits from such suitable solution and assistance to supply a healthy environment to the port-city, raising its attractiveness to urban life in particular in the HafenCity (Lepore et al. 2017). Another pillar of the HPA’s strategy is to integrate urban structures with logistic operations. Growing cargo and traffic volumes require efficient port supply chains, which has been acknowledged via the smartPort Logistics project. It aims to merge the ecological and economic requirements of a port-city. Based on its goals to manage existing and establish intelligent new infrastructure efficiently and to optimise information flows, the project strives to enhance trade flow on one side while reducing the damaging impact on the environment on the other side. Traffic congestion is also a major cause of reduced urban life quality, therefore the HPA introduces the communication system Sealand Project Logistics (SPL), to manage the flow of over 40.000 truck movements (Hamburg Port Authority 2015, p. 11). The web application distributes relevant transport and logistics information in real-time to port-operating businesses. Additionally, it enables the user to receive a status update about port traffic movements and can communicate with the schedulers of the HPA directly to channel transportation flows efficiently. As a centralised information platform, it allows port operators and authorities to locate truck drivers and minimise waiting times. It optimises traffic flows and diminishes lead times, in consequence supporting the strive for reduced noise and environmental pollution. The Hamburg port railway, as the largest hub of its kind, ensures efficient freight operations and reduces the impact of road transport. In quantitative terms, approximately 12% of the total railway transport volumes departs or arrives at the Port of Hamburg (Hamburg Port Authority 2015, p. 15). Rail transport offers an environmentally friendly, which is managed by the HPA, in regard to scheduling operations. In line with the smartPort projects, information technology is used to optimise the port railway’s ecological and maintenance elements. The port’s location in proximity to the city offers a direct connection to various transport logistics providers and other businesses, while challenging sustainability criteria. The collaboration between Hamburg city and HPA enables the port-city via the smartPort projects to overcome these conflicting aspects (Hua 2016). Ecological benefits, in terms of waterfront property management and reduced pollution by logistic activities, require full renewal of the port-city links (Lepore et al. 2017) (stage 6 in the Hoyle model).

16.6

Conclusions

This chapter has discussed the port-city evolution stages, making reference to the case of close collaboration between Hamburg PMC and the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg. The analysis of the port-city intrinsic potential conflicts has been outlined, and the saliency of environmental, social and economic issues is discussed in the general and specific Hamburg context. Recent developments indicate that the

298

M. Acciaro et al.

reintegration of the port into the urban life is in part illustrated by waterfront redevelopment, but, notwithstanding the success of such strategies, port-city relationships need to be beyond urban redevelopment. This is exemplified in the case of Hamburg and its recent smartPort strategy, which encompasses logistics, sustainability, energy transition and digitalisation. Socio-economic shifts in Hamburg will determine in the forthcoming decade the limits to port growth. Depending on GDP per capita growth, competition by ports in proximity and Germany’s export capabilities, the port-city relationship will need to evolve too. GDP per capita and export trade growth are likely to be slower than port volume growth, which will require the port to find novel ways to generate value for the city and remain profitable. The less pronounced employment impacts of port activities will require in the future PMC to find alternative arguments to remain relevant in city policies. In addition, the future of the Port of Hamburg will increasingly depend on European transport networks, global production patterns, the development of European cooperation on environmental issues, infrastructure and other policy areas, and regional logistics networks. The close relationship between the port and the city will need to remain strong if Hamburg is to remain a global port, and its importance is to be still perceived locally.

References Acciaro, M. (2008). The role of ports in the development of mediterranean Islands. International Journal of Transport Economics, 35(3), 295–324. Acciaro, M., Ferrari, C., Lam, J. S., Macario, R., Roumboutsos, A., Sys, C., et al. (2018). Are the innovation processes in seaport terminal operations successful? Maritime Policy & Management, 45(6), 787–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2018.1466062. Acciaro, M., Ghiara, H., & Cusano, M. I. (2014). Energy management in seaports: A new role for port authorities. Energy Policy, 71, 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.013. Acciaro, M., Stemmler, L., Renken, K., & Ahting, J. C. (2020). Regulation and finance in the port sector: current practices in Germany. In H. E. Haralambides, A. Tei, & S. Prete, Regulation and Finance in the port sector: current practices and future port development. London: Palgrave. Andrade Marquez, M., & Costa, J. (2019). Touristification of European Port Cities: Impacts on local populations and cultural heritage. In A. Carpenter & R. Lozano (Eds.), European port cities in transition. Arduino, G., Aronietis, R., Crozet, Y., Frouws, K., Ferrari, C., Guihéry, L., et al. (2013). How to turn an innovative concept into a success? An application to seaport-related innovation. Research in Transportation Economics, 42(1), 97–107. Bergqvist, R., & Monios, J. (2019). Green ports in theory and practice. In R. Bergqvist, & J. Monios (Eds.), Green Ports (pp. 1–17). Elsevier. Brooklyn Navy Yard. (2018). Development at the Yard. Retrieved from https://brooklynnavyyard. org/about/development-at-the-yard. Browne, M., Woexenius, J., Dablanc, L., Cherrett, T., & Morganti, E. (2017). Port cities and urban logistics. The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport. Buchholz, T. (2016). Struggling for recognition and affordable housing in Amsterdam and Hamburg: resignation, resistance, relocation. Groningen: University of Groningen.

16

Integrated Port Cities: The Case of Hamburg

299

Carpenter, A., & Lozano, R. (2019). Proposing a framework for anchoring sustainability relationships between ports and cities. In A. Carpenter & R. Lozano (Eds.), European port cities in transition. Church, A. (1990). Transport and urban regeneration in London Docklands: A victim of success or a failure to plan? Cities, 7(4), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/0264-2751(90)90027-5. Daamen, T. A., & de Vries, I. (2013). Governing the European port–city interface: Institutional impacts on spatial projects between city and port. Journal of Transport Geography, 27, 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.03.013. De Lara, J. (2018). “This Port Is Killing People”: Sustainability without Justice in the Neo-Keynesian Green City. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 108(2), 538– 548. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1393328. Dohrn, R. (2005). A view from port to city: Inland waterway sailors and city-port transformation in Hamburg. In Port cities as areas of transition—ethnographic perspectives (pp. 99–110). Ducruet, C. (2007). A metageography of port-city relationships. In J. Wang, D. Olivier, T. Notteboom, & B. Slack (Eds.), Ports, cities, and global supply chains (pp. 157–172). Aldershot: Ashgate. Ducruet, C. (2011). The port city in multidisciplinary analysis. Hal-SHS. Ducruet, C., & Lee, S. (2006). Frontline soldiers of globalisation: port-city evolution and regional competition. GeoJournal, 67(2), 107–122. Ernst, L., de Graaf-Van Dinther, R. E., Peek, G.-J., & Loorbach, D. (2016). Sustainable urban transformation and sustainability transitions; conceptual framework and case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2988–2999. Fenton, P. (2019). Port-city redevelopment and sustainable development. In A. Carpenter & R. Lozano (Eds.), European port cities in transition. Girard, L. (2013). Toward a smart sustainable development of port cities/areas: The role of the “Historic Urban Landscape” approach. Sustainability, 4329–4348. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su5104329. Gravagnuolo, A., Angrisano, M., & Fusco Girard, L. (2019). Circular economy strategies in eight historic port cities: Criteria and indicators towards a circular city assessment framework. Sustainability, 11(13), 3512. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133512. Grossmann, I. (2008). Perspectives for Hamburg as a port city in the context of a changing global environment. Geoforum, 39(6), 2062–2072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.04.011. Hamburg Port Authority. (2015). HPA goes smartPORT. Hamburg Port Authority. Hesse, C., & Krysanova, V. (2016). Modeling climate and management change impacts on water quality and in-stream processes in the Elbe River Basin. Water, 8(2), 40. https://doi.org/10. 3390/w8020040. Hoyle, B. (1989). The port-city interface: Trends, problems, and examples. Geoforum, 20(4), 429– 435. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(89)90026-2. Hoyle, B. (1992). European port cities in transition. London: Belhaven Press. Hua, P. (2016). Port of Hamburg—smartPORT and partner in green logistics. Port of Hamburg Representative Office Shanghai. Jacobs, W., Ducruet, C., & De Langen, P. (2010). Integrating world cities into production networks: The case of port cities. Global Networks, 10(1), 92–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1471-0374.2010.00276.x. Kennedy, C., Steinberger, J., Gasson, B., Hansen, Y., Hillman, T., Havranek, M., Pataki, D., Phdungsilp, A., Ramaswami, A., & Mendez, G. V. (2009). Greenhouse gas emissions from global cities. 43(19), 7297–7302. https://doi.org/10.1021/es900213p. Kerner, M. (2007). Effects of deepening the Elbe Estuary on sediment regime and water quality. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 75(4), 492–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss. 2007.05.033.

300

M. Acciaro et al.

Konvitz, J. W. (1994). The crises of Atlantic port cities 1880 to 1920. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 36(2), 293–318. Lee, S., Song, D., & Ducruet, C. (2008). A tale of Asia’s world ports: The spatial evolution in global hub port cities. Geoforum, 39(1), 372–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.07.010. Lepore, D., Sgobbo, A., & Vingelli, F. (2017). The strategic approach in urban regeneration: The Hamburg model. UPLanD-Journal of Urban Planning, Landscape & Environmental Design, 2 (3), 185–218. https://doi.org/10.6092/2531-9906/5415. Li, M., Ge, J., Kappenberg, J., Much, D., Nino, O., & Chen, Z. (2014). Morphodynamic processes of the Elbe River estuary, Germany: The Coriolis effect, tidal asymmetry and human dredging. Frontiers of Earth Science, 8(2), 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-013-0418-3. McCarthy, J. (2003). The cruise industry and port city regeneration: The case of Valletta. European Planning Studies, 11(3), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310303634. Merk, O. (2013). The competitiveness of global port-cities: Synthesis report. OECD port-cities programme. Merk, O., & Hesse, M. (2012). The competitiveness of global port-cities: The case of Hamburg, Germany. Paris: ITF/OECD. Monios, J., Bergqvist, R., & Woxenius, J. (2018). Port-centric cities: The role of freight distribution in defining the port-city relationship. Journal of Transport Geography, 66 (January), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.11.012. Musso, E., Benacchio, M., & Ferrari, C. (2000). Ports and employment in port cities. Maritime Economcis and Logistics (International Journal of Maritime Economics), 2(4), 283–311. https://doi.org/10.1057/ijme.2000.23. Notteboom, T. E., & Rodrigue, J.-P. (2005). Port regionalization: Towards a new phase in port development. Maritime Policy & Management, 32(3), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03088830500139885. Notteboom, T., Rodrigue, J., & Hall, P. (2019). The drivers, impediments and outcomes of container ports migration and relocation: Analysis of a global sample of ports. In Proceedings of the International Association of Maritime Economists Annual Conference (p. 187). Athens: IAME. Sanchez, J., & Daamen, T. (2019). Governance and planning issues in European waterfront redevelopment 1999–2019. In A. Carpenter & R. Lozano (Eds.), European port cities in transition. Schipper, C. A., Vreugdenhil, H., & De Jong, M. P. (2017). A sustainability assessment of ports and port-city plans: Comparing ambitions with achievements. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 57(December), 84–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.08.017. Schubert, D. (2008). Transformation processes on waterfronts in seaport cities—causes and trends between divergence and convergence. In Port cities as areas of transition (pp. 25–46). https:// doi.org/10.14361/9783839409497-002. Schubert, D. (2019). Spatial restructuring of port cities: Periods from inclusion to fragmentation and re-integration of city and port in Hamburg. In A. Carpenter & R. Lozano (Eds.), European port cities in transition. Smith, T.W.P., Jalkanen, J.P., Anderson, B.A., Corbett, J.J., Faber, J., Hanayama, S., O’keeffe, E., Parker, S., Johanasson, L., Aldous, L. and Raucci, C. (2014). In Third IMO GHG study. London: International Maritime Organisation. Styhre, L., Winnes, H., Black, J., Lee, J., & Le-Griffin, H. (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions from ships in ports–case studies in four continents. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 54, 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.04.033. Tanis, F., & Erkok, F. (2016). Learning from waterfront regeneration projects and contemporary design approaches of european port cities. In 17th IAPHS Conference. TU Delf. UNCTAD. (2018). Review of maritime transport 2018 (pp. 63–80).

16

Integrated Port Cities: The Case of Hamburg

301

Van den Berghe, K. (2015). Beyond geographic path dependencies: Towards a post-structuralist approach of the port-city interface. In Differences & connections: beyond universal theories in planning, urban, and heritage studies (pp. 11–12). Palermo, Italy: AESOP Young Academics Coordination Team. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Karel_Van_Den_ Berghe/publication/281818614_Beyond_geographic_path_dependencies_Towards_a_Post-/ links/55f9680f08aec948c491db84/Beyond-geographic-path-dependencies-Towards-a-Post.pdf. Villalba, G., & Gemechu, E. D. (2011). Estimating GHG emissions of marine ports—the case of Barcelona. Energy Policy, 39(3), 1363–1368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.008. Wang, J. J., & Cheng, M. C. (2010). From a hub port city to a global supply chain management center: A case study of Hong Kong. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(1), 104–115. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.02.009. Wang, J. J., Ng, A. K.-Y., & Olivier, D. (2004). Port governance in China: A review of policies in an era of internationalizing port management practices. Transport Policy, 11(3), 237–250. Wang, J. J., Olivier, D., Notteboom, T., & Slack, B. (2007). A metageography of port-city relationships. In Ports, cities, and global supply chains (pp. 157–172). Wiegmans, B. W., & Louw, E. (2011). Changing port–city relations at Amsterdam: A new phase at the interface? Journal of Transport Geography, 19(4), 575–583. Witte, P., Slack, B., Keesman, M., Jugie, J.-H., & Wiegmans, B. (2018). Facilitating start-ups in port-city innovation ecosystems: A case study of Montreal and Rotterdam. Journal of Transport Geography, 71, 224–234. Xiao, Z., & Lam, J. S. L. (2017). A systems framework for the sustainable development of a port city: A case study of Singapore’s policies. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 22, 255–262. Zhao, Q., Xu, H., Wall, R. S., & Stavropoulos, S. (2017). Building a bridge between port and city: Improving the urban competitiveness of port cities. Journal of Transport Geography, 59, 120–133.

Chapter 17

Societal Integration of Ports and Cities: Case Study on Spanish Ports Nuria Nebot Gómez de Salazar and Carlos Rosa-Jiménez

Abstract Ports are, frequently, segregated places and fairly inaccessible to local communities. In some cases, the industrial activity is incompatible, for security reasons, with citizens’ uses. In other cases, privatisation of port space has restricted access to a very small part of the population, for example some marinas. In this sense, many ports are considered barriers that hinder citizens’ access to the sea. A way to address this is through social integration of ports. Port authorities and administrations are becoming increasingly more aware of the need to incorporate the demands of the local communities, and to develop activities and services that foster the use of the port, rapprochement with the sea and, generally, foster the maritime culture among the citizenry. Previous research regarding the social integration of ports has allowed examples of good practices to be put forward at a European level. This chapter seeks, on the one hand, to discuss different social integration strategies at ports using indicators and parameters from other previous studies; and, on the other hand, to showcase some recent port initiatives as examples of good practices for the port-city social integration along the Spanish Mediterranean coast. The chapter proposes seven strategies to structure the research content, each of which are discussed and related to a real initiative or project implemented at ports. The analyses comprise an inventory of innovative solutions that can be implemented at other ports. The aim of the seven strategies is to provide inspiration for other port areas that wish to bring the port and maritime culture to the citizenry and local communities.







Keywords Social integration of ports Local communities Maritime culture Port identity Functional diversity Blue employment New technologies













N. Nebot Gómez de Salazar (&)
C. Rosa-Jiménez Institute for Habitat, Tourism and Territory (iHTT), University of Malaga, Malaga, Spain e-mail: [email protected] C. Rosa-Jiménez e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 A. Carpenter and R. Lozano (eds.), European Port Cities in Transition, Strategies for Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9_17

303

304

17.1

N. Nebot Gómez de Salazar and C. Rosa-Jiménez

Introduction

Ports are, frequently, segregated places and fairly inaccessible to local communities. In some cases, the industrial activity itself is incompatible, for security reasons, with citizens’ uses. However, in many other cases, there has been a privatisation of port space, restricting access to a very small part of the population, as in the case of marinas for example. In this sense, many of the ports are considered barriers that hinder citizens’ access to the sea. A way to address this is through social integration of ports, which refers to the relationship of the port with local communities: residents of nearby neighbourhoods, workers, other users and the general public. Previous research work (Nebot et al. 2017) discussed the social integration of ports to a number of aspects, such as physically improving port accesses and boundaries in the natural and/or urban environment and, above all, to the development of cultural, social and economic activities meeting certain local demands (see Fig. 17.1). If ports increase and diversify their range of activities and services for local communities, the use of those activities and services by citizens will be greater and, at the same time, the port and maritime culture will be promoted among the population. According to Alemany-Llovera (2015), “the most successful port renewals from a social perspective would be those with greater social demand and those that have created and safeguard more jobs” (see Fig. 17.2). There has been a considerable amount of research related to the sustainability and sustainable development of ports, which mainly analyses environmental aspects

Fig. 17.1 Malaga’s port combines a mix of cultural and commercial uses with maritime activities

17

Societal Integration of Ports and Cities: Case Study …

305

Fig. 17.2 The port of Malaga as a reference public space for the local communities

and, in some cases, economic factors; however, far less research has taken social aspects into consideration. Asgari et al. (2015) conducted a comprehensive literature review in which none of these studies on sustainable development of ports considered social aspects. This review focussed on environmental and economic indicators to establish a sustainability ranking among UK ports, but authors have already argued for the need for social parameters to be included. Other authors introduce the social condition for a sustainable port development in their researchers (see Table 17.1). Peris-Mora et al. (2005) focussed on the development of an environmental indicator system, in which they already introduce the social image concept of the port. Schipper et al. (2017) proposed a series of social indicators to assess port sustainable development, including employment and social wellbeing. The European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO 2019) has undertaken work in relation to port-city social integration, by fostering innovation among member ports. The implementation of certain innovative projects has led to a code of good practices for port social integration and which has become a benchmark for other many European ports (Verhoeven and Backx 2010). The ESPO code sets out specific recommendations for three inter-related themes: general public support and image; education and labour market; and port-city relationships. The code also showcases actual experiences and initiatives implemented. The “Good Practices” report (ESPO 2016) provided an update of exemplary initiatives by different ports in Europe and which seeks to be a source of inspiration

306

N. Nebot Gómez de Salazar and C. Rosa-Jiménez

Table 17.1 Social indicators and aspects for port sustainable development according to prior studies and research Prior research that consider social aspects for sustainable port development

Types of aspects or indicators

Peris-Mora et al. (2005) Verhoeven and Backx (2010)

Social image of the port Supporting the citizenry and image; education and job market, port-city relationship Port-city relationship; mix of social demand-uses, job creation, maintaining the heritage-maritime activity Port-city relationship (accessibility, sustainable mobility); diversity activities—social demand Employment; social wellbeing Blue employment; education; tourism and local customs; citizen empowerment, maritime culture— identity; diversity of socio-cultural activities Accessibility, sustainable mobility, local demands and diversity of activities, blue employment, new emerging technologies, education and maritime culture, port heritage and identity

Alemany-Llovera and Bruttomesso (2011) Alemany-Llovera (2015) Nebot et al. (2017) Schipper et al. (2017) ESPO (2016)

This research

Source Prepared by the authors

for other cases. Many of these are aimed at fostering the relationship between port agents, administrations and local communities. Among those initiatives and objectives are: promoting of blue employment and professional opportunities; implementing educational programmes through the relationship with educational institutions and/or companies of the port sector; fostering tourism and local customs; involving resident associations in the decision-making process through meetings with different port agents and administrations; and promoting the maritime culture and cultural activities at the ports. In order to foster relations between port and city through innovative initiatives, ESPO has awarded an international “Societal Integration of Ports” prize since 2009 to the ports working on this line of action (Max et al. 2017). After the first two years, ESPO decided to associate each annual award to a specific theme or aspect to foster social integration. So far, the themes have provided significant information on aspects to be taken into account to foster that social integration: Themes have covered: Creative Strategies to Communicate the Port to the Wider Public (2011); Youth (2012); Heritage (2013); Innovative Environmental Projects (2014); Relationship with Schools and Universities (2015); Nature in Ports (2016); Art and Cultural involvement of the port (2017); and Ports as a good work environment for everyone (2018). The Association for Collaboration between Ports and Cities (RETE) has studied and published actual experiences of port and waterfronts. Many of these recent Urban Port Waterfronts can be consulted in the Portus journal (Alemany-Llovera

17

Societal Integration of Ports and Cities: Case Study …

307

and Bruttomesso 2011) and the digital paper called Portusplus (RETE, undated). In an examination of different studies on the renewal of waterfronts, and specifically on the Tagus Estuary in Portugal, Figueira de Sousa (2011) stressed the importance of the social aspects resulting from the renewal actions; he highlighted the ability of recovered waterfronts as new leisure infrastructures to improve the quality of life of the local communities, which will allow a sense of collective identity and appropriation of the new scenarios by the citizens to be reinforced.

17.2

Objectives and Methods

This chapter seeks, on the one hand, to discuss different social integration strategies at ports using indicators and parameters from other prior studies; and, on the other hand, to showcase some recent port initiatives in the area of the Spanish Mediterranean. The ultimate goal of the chapter is to become a source of inspiration for other port areas that wish to bring the port and maritime culture to the citizenry and local communities. Seven general strategies were therefore selected, based on the social aspects and analysis that other earlier research had considered and also adding some new ones (see Table 17.1). These 7 lines of action structure the content of the articles and the discussion framework: (1) accessibility; (2) sustainable mobility; (3) local demands and diversity of activities; (4) blue employment; (5) new emerging technologies; (6) education and maritime culture; and (7) port heritage and identity. In tandem, a series of port projects in the area of the Spanish Mediterranean are examples of good practices related to social integration strategies between ports and local communities was selected. In the discussion section, and in relation to each of the strategies, those projects will be outlined and analysed.

17.2.1 Case Studies In the case of the Spanish ports, it is helpful to differentiate between the commercial harbours (General Interest Harbours) and the marina and fishing harbours, since they have different functions and size, different environmental impact on the Spanish coast, and different policies and management. The commercial harbours are the State’s responsibility, while the marina and fishing harbours are managed by the autonomous regions. The selected port areas are: Port of Malaga (commercial harbour); Port of Cartagena (commercial harbour); Port of Valencia (commercial harbour); Port of Barcelona (commercial harbour); expansion of Port Ginesta (marina), Catalonia; and El Candado Port (marina and fishing harbour), Malaga. The selection of ports came about, on the one hand, from previous knowledge obtained through other research works by the authors, in the area of the Spanish Mediterranean ports (Nebot et al. 2017). On the other hand, a double search on the

308

N. Nebot Gómez de Salazar and C. Rosa-Jiménez

internet was conducted in order to contrast and update all the information relating to: (A) the most recent initiatives carried out by Spanish ports, related to the proposed parameters or strategies (from 1 to 7 as it has been previously classified); and (B) the review of the websites of the ports in the Spanish Mediterranean area. The ports selected to be case studies as examples of good practice are listed below, with the brief descriptions provided based on text available at each port’s website. (i) Port of Barcelona (Barcelona Barcelona 2019): This is a State-owned commercial harbour located in the north-east of the Iberian Peninsula, in the Catalan Autonomous Region. It is located between the new mouth of the River Llobregat and the Barceloneta neighbourhood of the city of Barcelona. Apart from its commercial activity, it is a cruise and passenger terminal and has become the largest port of the Mediterranean in terms of cruise ship traffic. (ii) Port of Valencia (Valencia 2019a, b): This is a State-owned commercial harbour, located in the Autonomous Region of Valencia, and is the leading port with most traffic in Spain and the Mediterranean basin (El País 2013). In addition to its commercial activity, it is a cruise terminal, which has grown tourism in the city in recent years. Furthermore, it has a large marina with over 800 moorings for sailing boats and was the venue for two America’s Cups. (iii) Port of Malaga (Malaga 2019): This is a State-owned commercial port, located in the Autonomous Region of Andalusia, in the south of the Iberian Peninsula. It is a commercial, passenger and cruise port, a marina and fishing harbour. In 2011, two docks were opened at the port for citizen use and which marked the start of a port-city integration process that is still to be completed. The opening of those first docks have turned the port into a reference public space for the people of Malaga and visitors alike. (iv) Port of Cartagena (Cartagena 2019): This is a State-owned commercial port, located in the Autonomous Region of Murcia, in the east of the Iberian Peninsula. It is a commercial, passenger and cruise port, a marina and fishing harbour. It is the fourth port in Spain in terms of freight traffic, after Algeciras, Valencia and Barcelona. The Port of Cartagena has become an international benchmark as a passenger port of call. In 2012, it was a finalist in the international Seatrade Insider Cruise Awards, behind New York (Seatrade Cruise 2012). (v) Port Ginesta, Barcelona (Port Ginesta 2019): Port Ginesta is a marina that is part of the Catalan port system, managed by the Catalan Autonomous Region. It is located 30 km from Barcelona, next to the Garraf Natural Park, in an area of high ecological value. It is used for water sports and has 1442 moorings, along with some leisure facilities and hospitality services.

17

Societal Integration of Ports and Cities: Case Study …

309

The closest urban area is 3 km away, even though there is a residential development next to the nearby beach. The expansion of the port is relatively recent and stands out for its clever integration with the surrounding landscape, which is the work of Bet Figueras, the landscaper. This type of ports in tourist and natural settings can be found along the whole of the Spanish Mediterranean coast and has thus become a benchmark for many other port areas. (vi) Candado Port, Malaga (El Candado Port 2019): This is a small marina that is part of the Andalusian Ports system, managed by the Autonomous Region of Andalusia through a private concession. It is located at one end of the city of Malaga, close to low-density residential areas. It is used for water sports with just 288 moorings.

17.3

Results and Discussion

17.3.1 Accessibility The concept of accessibility is generally understood from a broad point of view, as referring to physical characteristics, as well as social or economic ones, which promote the integration of local communities. However, the bringing together of the port area and the citizenry is in response, first of all, to a physical function on which the discussion in this section is focused. Facilitating access to the port from the immediate vicinity implies re-thinking the limits that separate port and environment, whether urban or natural. Some authors (e.g. Pavia 2006; Chapapría 2008) stated the need to work on the physical continuity between the port infrastructure and that setting. In the case of urban ports, the main objective is to connect the port with the urban fabric. In the case of many of the ports on the Spanish Mediterranean cost, the challenge is to connect the port and the surrounding nature. This type of ports becomes a gateway to the landscape and natural environment. As highlighted in previous research (e.g. Nebot 2012; Nebot Gómez de Salazar 2013), this relationship must consider landscape and/or urban actions, in the port area, and outside it. That means undertaking landscape and urban planning projects in city spaces, or transition areas at those ports that are away from the urban framework. Some regional authorities with jurisdiction over the ports consider that to be the case and act accordingly, by establishing the fostering the synergy between the port and the territory, improving accessibility and territorial integration among their priority lines (Barcelona 2016). The commitments agreed upon by many European countries to develop integrated coastal management stress the need to integrate port policies with the territorial and urban policies (Zamora Rosalló 2014). Two recent initiatives are given as examples of good practices related to this territorial and urban integration. These are the special plan for the southern zone of

310

N. Nebot Gómez de Salazar and C. Rosa-Jiménez

the Port of Valencia and the plan to expand Port Ginesta, in Catalonia, with the first being a commercial harbour within the urban environment and the second a marina in a natural setting.

17.3.1.1

Special Plan for the Southern Zone of the Port of Valencia

A good example of integrated management in urban and port policies can be found in the city of Valencia. The port authority and local council are working on a port-city integration project by means of a special plan for the southern zone of the port, next to the Nazaret neighbourhood, after which the Nazaret Plan is named (Valencia 2019a, b). The project envisages a new park next to the former course of the River Turia, car parking, a green cycle route, a large sport area, and an area for commercial and tertiary purposes. Therefore, the port authority awarded a concession for over 230,000 m2 of service land in connected to the Nazaret urban centre (Valencia 2019b). The project, which is still in the process of being designed, is the outcome of a partnership between the different stakeholders and local authorities: the port authority, Valencia City Council and the Nazaret neighbourhood residents’ association. This shows how accessibility to ports has to be approached and developed based on actions not only in the port complex, but also in the surrounding area. On the other hand, the success of the port integration with its city depends, to a great extent, on the range of activities, amenities and urban spaces being adapted to meet local needs and citizen demands.

17.3.1.2

Expansion of Port Ginesta, Barcelona

The expansion of Port Ginesta in Catalonia was the work of the Bet Figueras’ office and is considered to be a ground-breaking project in port integration with the natural environments along the Catalan coast (Pie Ninot et al. 2012). This project was implemented ensuring utmost respect of El Garraf, the protected park, and can be a benchmark for other ports in non-urban areas. The port expansion project focused on seeking a dialogue between the artificial infrastructure—the new dock—and the natural park. The requirements set out by the environmental impact study itself conditioned and shaped the proposal by means of a project that avoided direct contact and occupancy of the coastline within the sphere of the Park Protection Special Plan and ensured a natural outlet for water coming from the park (Reventós i Rovira et al. 2010). The new dock has become a gateway to the lower part of the park. The landscape’s project restored the existing and lost Cala Ginesta beach— which is now a new dock—located at the foot of the massif. Artificial sand dunes with native plants, and protected from passers-by by hurdles, were designed to stabilise the “new beach”; a “soft” solution far from the traditional infrastructures built with a high environmental and landscape impact. The value of this type of

17

Societal Integration of Ports and Cities: Case Study …

311

solution shows a new way of approaching relations between ports and their natural environment, of the need to understand the ecological and natural processes in order to include them in the design proposals (Verzone 2006), and, in short, of the need to design with nature (McHarg 2000).

17.3.2 Sustainable Mobility and Modal Integration Some recent research has incorporated the idea of integrating the port infrastructure and the general transport system as a fundamental aspect in the sustainable development of ports (Nebot et al. 2017). This inter-modal integration allows the optimisation of commercial traffic and increases the flow of people and visitors (Castillo-Manzano et al. 2013). Experts use the regionalization concept to refer to the development of the port outside the strictly port sphere, basing it on the connection with the existing transport network (Notteboom and Rodrigue 2005). This idea illustrates the need to integrate urban, territorial and port policies (Notteboom and Winkelmans 2001). In the case of Spain, the Mediterranean rail corridor, approved by the European Parliament in 2013, will allow, once completed, the main Spanish ports (Barcelona, Tarragona, Valencia, Valencia, Almería, Malaga, and Algeciras) to be connected to Northern Europe (European Comission 2019). Its full track layout is expected to improve connectivity between ports and with the territory, increase commercial and industrial activity at the ports, create jobs, and significantly cut CO2 emissions by replacing heavy vehicles and road freight by more sustainable mobility (Nebot et al. 2017). At the local level of cities and municipalities, it is fundamental for local governments and port authorities to work together towards integrated and sustainable mobility in urban environments. The Port of Valencia has again been chosen due to its involvement in the SUMPORT project to foster sustainable mobility in port environments.

17.3.2.1

Sustainable Mobility at the Port of Valencia: SUMPORT Project (Sustainable Urban Mobility in MED PORT Cities)

The Port of Valencia (through the Valencia Port Foundation, the Port Authority and Valencia City Council’s Las Naves Innovation Centre) is part of a project to improve sustainable mobility in port environments along with other European cities (Durres, Limassol, Kotor, Igoumenitsa, Koper and Valencia). This project aims to implement pilot actions and specific measures such as bike lanes, share-use cycle systems, carpooling or ICT applications for public transport systems in port cities (Naves and Las 2017). In the case of Valencia, the focus has been on two initiatives, consisting of developing a fleet of solar powered electric bicycles for passengers

312

N. Nebot Gómez de Salazar and C. Rosa-Jiménez

(ValenciaPort 2018), and a mobile application for port workers to share their vehicles. The Nazaret plan, as indicated in the above section, includes a green cycle corridor in the vicinity of the port that follows the former course of the River Turia, and which will improve cyclist mobility, not only in neighbouring districts, but all for all citizens as it links up with the general bike lane system in the city.

17.3.3 Local Demands and Diversity of Activities Jacobs (2011) proposed mixing uses and activities as generators for a diverse and lively neighbourhood in cities. In that vein, two of the three core functions— residential, productive and leisure—must coexist in the same environment. When Jacobs’s ideas are transferred to port areas, the coexistence of different types of activities in the ports alongside the port activity itself is raised. According to Alemany-Llovera (2015), “the most successful port renewals from a social perspective would be those offering more social demand and which have created and preserved the greatest number of jobs”. In his opinion, social demand is accomplished by an adequate mix of uses and services throughout the year that must be aimed at different types of users: local demand, by the city and, above all, nearby neighbourhoods, and demand by visitors. Therefore, port renewal projects should not be undertaken without considering the demands of residents, workers, citizens and stakeholders involved in general (Ravesteijn et al. 2014). Maintaining port and maritime activities as hallmarks that allow a rapprochement between the citizens and the sea and maritime culture is of vital importance among all these activities (Nebot et al. 2017). Hospitality, commercial, markets and street markets, educational, leisure and culture activities can be given as examples, along with others linked to the sea and port activity. The latter include presence of ships at the docks, water sports, sailing schools, cruise ships, boat trips, fishing, along with the industrial activity inherent of commercial harbours. In general, ports offer certain sailing and water sports only for members and sailors, and the high prices for such activities make those ports unaffordable for local communities. Special mention should be made of some very specific cases such as the municipal sailing school at the Barcelona’s Olympic Harbour, the sailing school at the Juan Carlos I marina in Valencia, and the recently-opened municipal sailing school at the Benalmádena marina, in Malaga. In all those cases, there is a clear desire by the local authorities and port institutions in question to encourage water sports, and to get local residents and communities involved.

17.3.3.1

The Port of Malaga: Urban Activity Wharves

After more than 25 years of negotiations between the authorities involved, the growth of the Port of Malaga has meant that two of the wharves closest to the city’s

17

Societal Integration of Ports and Cities: Case Study …

313

old town have been opened up to be used by the public (Andrade and Peralta 2013). The transformation of those wharves has allowed citizens to re-connect with their port and its port activity. Therefore, there is a high degree of social demand and acceptance of this new public space, even though the port-city integration process has not been completed in other parts of the port complex. The success of this social demand is also related to the diversity of activities and services offered: from leisure and commercial activities, educational and cultural activities, and coexistence with the different port activities. Wharf 1 is home to shops, commercial areas, restaurants, coffee shops, children’s play areas and street markets next to the ship moorings. Wharf 2 is used for areas to walk and rest, children’s playgrounds, an educational area featuring the maritime culture—the Sea Classroom, and as the cultural centre or Pompidou Museum at the corner where both meet. All these activities are run simultaneously with the characteristic activities of the port; vessel moorings, boat trips or cruise ships docking. It should be noted that it is an offering aimed not only at residents and nearby neighbourhoods, but rather to the general public, and it has become a new public space that is a point of reference for the people of Malaga. Moreover, the port has become an attraction for visitors and tourists, and where the strong growth in cruise ships in recent years has led to significant growth in tourism (Fernández Morales and Martín Carrasco 2014). On the other hand, this situation requires reflection and action by the local authorities to manage the great growth and possible overcrowding (Rosa-Jiménez et al. 2018). As the local residents in the centre have already called for, it will be necessary to design and plan how to distribute tourism throughout the city and create new tourist attractions (Martínez 2015). In this regard, completing the port-city integration process and opening up the wharves as planned in the western part of the port, in the Soho and San Andrés neighbourhoods, are needed.

17.3.4 Blue Employment Ports are logistic, industrial, and productive centres with a great ability to generate jobs, attract investment and energise local economies. The operations of the Spanish state-owned port system generates direct employment with over 35,000 jobs and around 110,000 indirect ones (Muñoz Leonisio et al. 2017). The diversity of activities and services at commercial ports require many different types of professions and a high degree of specialisation: stevedores, traders, warehouse personnel, port authority staff, tug operators, harbour pilots, boatmen, ship builders and repairers, fuel suppliers, waste collectors, State Control Officers, etc. (ESPO 2016). This diversity refers to all the activities that arise outside of industrial main activity, such as sailing, fishing, tourism, leisure and recreation among others. Ports are highly complex areas with a diversity of stakeholders, companies, associations and citizens, and good governance between them all is essential. Port authorities, in this regard, can undertake on the role of interlocution and coordination between the

314

N. Nebot Gómez de Salazar and C. Rosa-Jiménez

different interests. As regards the work sector, that coordination between port companies, workers and other stakeholders is fundamental. One of the problems existing at many ports is the low skills and lack of specialisation of their employees (ESPO 2016). First of all, the areas and professions need to be identified that require training or specific needs; and, on the other hand, measures and specific actions implemented, such as coordinating between different stakeholders and/or developing programmes relating port companies with educational centres, as initiative that has already been introduced in some port cities, such as Barcelona and Malaga.

17.3.4.1

The Port Challenge Barcelona Programme, Port of Barcelona

The Port Challenge Barcelona programme is an interesting initiative given its degree of innovation. It is a technology company accelerator programme led by the Port of Barcelona. The aim is to find innovative ideas that, by means of the use of new technologies, allow the fabric of port-linked companies to be developed, and highly-skilled jobs generated at the industrial cluster of the port. Four out of the eight finalist start-ups in 2017 were selected for their commitment to optimising management of the logistic chain, while the others focused on shipping, sailing, training and safety. It is the first Spanish port behind a programme to foster entrepreneurship and innovation in the port environment (Diario La Vanguardia 2017).

17.3.4.2

Blue Employment Programme, Collaboration Between the Andalusian Marine-Maritime Cluster and Malaga University

The Blue Employment Programme is a job orientation programme to provide university students with some opportunities related to sea-based companies, maritime resources and the new professional profiles being sought by the sector’s companies. The high diversity of professions and jobs within the maritime and port sector was reflected in a programme implemented in 11 different faculties and subject areas: Law, Industrial Engineering, Tourism, Sciences, Economics, Telecommunications and ICT, Humanities, Communication, Fine Arts and Architecture (Blue Employment Sessions at Malaga University 2017).

17.3.4.3

Platform for the Blue Economy Cei-Mar Foundation

The Blue Economy concept implies the use of the sea and its resources in a sustainable manner for economic development (World Wide Fund for Nature 2018). In the case of Andalusia, with nearly 1000 km of coast, the maritime and marine sectors making up the Blue Economy are an essential part of its development (Ceimar 2019). The interest of this platform is that it has representatives from

17

Societal Integration of Ports and Cities: Case Study …

315

different institutions, port authorities such as Cadiz, Algeciras and Motril, different companies of the sector, and research centres related to the sea in Andalusia, thus offering the possibility to share information, knowledge and experience.

17.3.5 The Use of ICTs in Ports The application of the information and communication technologies (ICTs) that has recently occurred in the cities—leading to the Smart Cities concept—has been transferred to ports, which has led to a new concept, the Smart ports. If the new technologies at city level facilitate a digital, efficient and sustainable cities, they also foster sustainability at port level by means of the search for environment quality and organised and efficient logistics in the traffic of passengers and freight (Executive Forum 2019), and facilitating the rapprochement of the port and the local residents and communities. The Smart Ports initiative is relatively recent and is directly related to two ideas: efficiency and use of resources. The European Commission has actively supported the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) to enhance the competitiveness of maritime transport and the efficient and optimised use of existing resources (Morrall et al. 2016). Europe’s E-maritime initiative is in charge of defining European strategic lines regarding the use of ICTs and has established, among its priorities, the fostering “Smart Ports”. Traditionally, ports have sought to improve their infrastructures by means of automating the processes, but the emphasis has always been on searching for and increasing profitability from an economic perspective. Currently, other aspects are considered such as reducing the environmental impact, the intermodal connection, the interoperability of systems and the interaction between port agents and the port with the city (Joubert 2017). The great challenges being faced to achieve those objectives include: the automation of the processes; the Internet of Things or BIG DATA, involving using sensors to obtain a great deal of information (leading to other problems such as security and cybersecurity); and the interoperability or connection between the different stakeholders of the port, including the interaction with the city (Rodés 2017). Many ports have begun to implement the use of new technologies, with the most usual being cameras installed at the port entrances and exits, energy monitoring using sensors, new software to manage the port zones and facilities efficiently, or the use of ICTs to forecast storms, among others (Sayol 2019). In Europe, there are some important examples of ports implementing ICTs in their management, such as Rotterdam (Netherlands) and Hamburg (Germany). In Spain, some ports such as Seville, Vigo, Valencia and Barcelona have begun to work actively in this line.

316

17.3.5.1

N. Nebot Gómez de Salazar and C. Rosa-Jiménez

Smart Strategies at the Port of Barcelona

The Port of Barcelona has been a pioneer in implementing technological solutions in different areas of its port management. Some of the actions are in response to the search for environmental sustainability and energy efficiency, such as vessels moored in the ports being connected to the electricity grid so that they can shut down their engines and stop emitting carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere; or installing electricity generating solar panels on the roofs of warehouses and car parks. In order to optimise and improve the performance of the different port activities, a monitoring system has been installed throughout the port, at sea and on land, while mobile sensors (drones) are used to measure parameters and be ready to act in the case of incidences, or store information to ensure forward planning (Sayol 2019).

17.3.6 Education and Maritime Culture Educating citizens and knowledge of the setting by local communities is fundamental to foster a collective identify and respect towards that environment and own resources. Lerner (2005) thus envisages it when discovering that “you can only love what you respect, and only respect what you know” (Lerner 2005). Showcasing the values of a place is necessary so that its users know, respect, love and care for it. This idea can also be applied to the port and maritime sphere. Alemany Llovera (2005) posited the need to bring the maritime culture to the citizens and the important role that ports can play in that regard. Fernández et al. (2013) highlighted the importance of educating and raising the environmental awareness of local communities in port areas. Many ports have become aware of the importance of rolling out their activity among local communities, and the majority of those ports offer the option of organising guided visits for school communities, groups and individual visits that can be arranged through their websites. In addition to these guided visits, there are a large variety of activities organised around the need to bring the maritime culture to the public, including environmental awareness and training workshops, exploration and research sessions, and discussions. Ports, and their port authorities, thus become drivers of that educational work. Occasionally, other stakeholders such as local authorities, entities and/or associations are involved in that training. Governance between different participants is fundamental when developing and coordinating the different activities. This task and range of services to bring the sea closer has to meet local needs and demands. Ports implementing participation processes to involve local communities in port and maritime life achieve greater diversity of activities in general and, above all, a greater alignment with real needs. This all leads to greater citizen participation in the planned programme of events and activities.

17

Societal Integration of Ports and Cities: Case Study …

17.3.6.1

317

Sea Classroom, Port of Malaga

For nearly 30 years, the work of the Malaga Sea Classroom has been exemplary in relation to interpreting, disseminating and preserving the marine environment. Based in the Port Malaga, it has used this port space to pass on knowledge about the marine environment to the local communities in the vicinity of the port and its visitors. As set out in its mission, one of its objectives is to foster communication and citizen participation in solving and preventing environmental problems. The range of activities within its educational programme is very diverse. It includes technical courses on areas to do with the environment, fisheries, aquaculture, etc. for different university collectives, teacher centres, the unemployed, coastal surveillance officers or fishermen. It also includes visits to the Alboran Sea thematic museum; school visits to the endangered marine species recovery centre located in the port; and environmental advisory services and research.

17.3.7 Port Heritage and Identity The rapid transformation of the industrial activity at ports over the last 20 years (or more) has made many existing port facilities obsolete. Many of them are part of the history of the cities and, above all, of the collective memory of their local communities (Girard 2013; Hoyle 2000). Caring for and preserving that social, architectural and historical heritage is, undeniably, a fundamental part of the port social integration processes. However, protecting those heritage elements often leads to controversy surrounding the port expansion plans and instead of being seen as an opportunity, they are considered obstacles to development. Many of those architectural elements have been demolished, thus losing an opportunity to recover part of the history and memory of the cities. There are not always the necessary resources for their protection and refurbishment, and it is therefore necessary to find alternative uses that allow those costs to be covered (Alemany 2012). The idea of transforming and updating the use of that heritage, without the authenticity and essence being lost, is, nowadays, a mainstream approach. We have found highly successful European examples, such as those of the ports of Liverpool, Hamburg, Antwerp, Rotterdam, and Marseille (Grindlay et al. 2018). In many cases, the importance and social demand of the cultural activities in the transformation of the port areas can be seen, along with their ability to attract visitors. In the Mediterranean area, and specifically along the Spanish coast, due to its tourist capacity and development, the recovery of the port heritage can find its grounds and sources of funding in the tourist and cultural activity. The port heritage has become an opportunity to provide cities with new public spaces, new amenities and, above all, an own identity and personality. The port and maritime identity in local communities can be protected and reinforced, on the other hand, by means of caring for and protecting customs, trades and practices, which leads us to talk about a maritime intangible cultural heritage.

318

N. Nebot Gómez de Salazar and C. Rosa-Jiménez

Intangible cultural heritage (ICH) is clearly defined in the text of the Convention for the Safeguarding of the ICH held in Paris, 17 October 2003, as “the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge and skills that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognise as part of their cultural heritage”. That document also reveals the importance of the intangible heritage as a tool that instils in communities a sense of identity and continuity fostering the respect of cultural diversity and human creativity. Ports are the scenario of some of these own representations of maritime communities, including processions, celebrating festivities, or of maritime trades such as specific fishing techniques, weaving nets for fishing, etc. Identifying and preserving that heritage as an element to create a link of identity and cohesion in the local communities is fundamental.

17.3.7.1

Port of Cartagena. “Dive Into the Heritage of a Historical Port” Programme

The city and port of Cartagena have a long history dating back over 3000 years, and a rich cultural and historical heritage. In the 1980s, the Port Authority embarked on a policy to preserve, restore, improve and showcase the port heritage. The “Dive into the heritage of a historical port” programme was therefore started (ESPO 2013) with part of the land and facilities being assigned to construct the National Underwater Archaeological Museum. This commitment of the Port Authority to showcase its heritage has led it to work with other institutions, such as the ARQVA Museum and the Port of Cultures Cartagena Tourist Board. The different institutions have collaborated in the restoration of buildings such as the lighthouses or, even, in the renovation of the older machinery. The interest and effort involved has directly benefitted the local community and can be seen in the increase in visitors who consider the port a tourist attraction. The Port of Cartagena actions have on several occasions been finalist of the ESPO awards for the social integration of ports and, undoubtedly, are an example of good practices and inspiration for other Spanish ports.

17.3.7.2

El Candado Port. Malaga. Maritime Intangible Cultural Heritage

One of the most traditional festivities in the coastal towns of the Spanish Mediterranean is the procession of “Virgen Carmen”, the patron saint of sailors and seafarers. Many Spanish ports, and particularly fishing harbours and marines, are the scene of this seafaring festivity, which enjoys great social acceptance. This festivity generates a sense of identity and cohesion in maritime communities, in addition to be an important tourist attraction for visitors. The smaller ports can likewise play an important role in preserving the maritime intangible cultural heritage, as is the case of El Candado port in Malaga.

17

Societal Integration of Ports and Cities: Case Study …

17.4

319

Conclusions

The research on sustainable development of ports advances the need to consider, together with the economic and environmental issues that this type of studies normally addresses, other parameters focused on the social welfare of local communities. However, there is a number of limited studies on indicators of such social welfare in the areas of ports. The seven proposed social integration strategies are intended to be a basis for discussion and reflection that will allow advancement in this line of work: (1) Accessibility. One of the first requirements to be solved in a port-city integration process is the physical connectivity between the port area and its surroundings, whether urban or natural environments. This relationship between both should consider the development of urban and/or landscape actions, not only in the port area but in areas outside it. The selected examples of the Port of Valencia (urban environment), or the expansion of Port Ginesta (natural environment) show this condition of physically exceeding the limits out of the port area towards its immediate surroundings; (2) Sustainable mobility and modal integration. The idea of integrating the port infrastructure and the general transport system stands out as a fundamental aspect in the sustainable development of ports. From this discussion the need to work at different scales is revealed: the regional scale and the local urban scale. The selected example of the port of Valencia shows, firstly, the interest in integrating the port with the public transport network and network of bicycle lanes in the city. And secondly, it shows the willingness to promote sustainable mobility through measures to encourage the use of electric bicycles and reduce the use of private vehicles; (3) Local demands and diversity of activities. An adequate mix of uses within the port environment allows it to respond to the local needs of the city and, above all, of nearby neighbourhoods, in addition to satisfying the demands of visitors. Along with this idea, the importance of maintaining maritime and port activities together with the leisure, trade and restoration activities (that are normally included in port-city integration projects) is also highlighted. This type of activities allows to promote maritime identity and culture, and bring citizenship to the sea; (4) Blue Employment. One of the main problems identified in the area of the port labour sector is the lack of qualification and specialisation of employees. It is fundamental to identify those areas or professions that require specific training, and to establish relationships between ports and educational institutions that guide their training programs towards these specific needs. Faced with this generalised problem of lack of skilled jobs, the Port Challenge Barcelona Program—aimed at accelerating technology-based companies linked to port activity—seeks to generate highly qualified jobs;

320

N. Nebot Gómez de Salazar and C. Rosa-Jiménez

(5) The use of ICTs in ports. The concept of Smart Ports is relatively recent. The use of Information and Communication Technologies, ICTs, allows the improvement of maritime transport competitiveness and the optimised and efficient use of existing resources. In Europe, some relevant examples of ports that are implementing ICTs in their management, such as Rotterdam (Holland) and Hamburg (Germany) stand out. In Spain, some ports such as Seville, Vigo, Valencia and Barcelona have begun to work actively in this respect; (6) Maritime education and culture. There is a general consensus on the part of local administrations and port institutions regarding the need to bring maritime culture and environmental education closer to citizenship, as well as the important role that ports can play in this regard. The success and participation of citizens in this offer of activities depends, in part, on the fact that the offer is adapted to the real needs and demands of local communities. Ports that implement participatory processes to involve citizens in port and maritime life reach a greater diversity and degree of people participation. The example of the entity ‘Aula del Mar’ in the port of Malaga has become an engine of this educational work and environmental awareness for the conservation of the marine environment; and (7) Port heritage and identity. Port heritage presents an opportunity to provide cities with new public spaces, new facilities and, above all, their own identity and personality. However, the recovery of some of these elements are sometimes considered obstacles to development. Many of them have been demolished or at other times there are no resources for their recovery and conservation. Faced with this lack of awareness of this heritage value, as well as the non-consideration of the benefits that this heritage can bring to local communities, the example of the port of Cartagena shows how the effort to promote heritage has directly reverted to the local community and increased the number of visitors in the port. The study of the different strategies of social integration and recent initiatives carried out in Spanish ports illustrates a new reality of the port areas: the enormous complexity in terms of the type of activities, users and administrations that coexist in them. This reality of great complexity requires a management in which a big number of agents participate, and therefore, the need for coordination among all of them. The different initiatives of good practices point to the need for good governance among port authorities, entities, local administrations and local communities. Table 17.2 shows the high number of agents that interact in the different initiatives and projects analysed, and it shows, in the end, the need to implement participatory and governance processes in the social integration projects of the ports. This chapter postulates that governance between all agents involved is fundamental for the social integration of ports, and that should cut across all the proposed strategies.

17

Societal Integration of Ports and Cities: Case Study …

321

Table 17.2 Port social integration strategies, case studies and interaction between stakeholders and local communities Social integrations strategies for sustainable port development

Case study/initiatives

Interaction between port, other stakeholders and local communities

1. Accessibility and physical continuity

Special Plan for the southern zone of the Port of Valencia

Valencia City Council—Valencia Port Authority—Nazaret Neighbourhood Residents Association Port Ginesta Port Authority— Autonomous Government of Catalonia Valencia Port Authority—Valencia City Council—Las Naves (Valencia City Council)—ValenciaPort Foundation Malaga Port Authority—Malaga City Council Port of Barcelona—entities (Founder Institute Barcelona, Barcelona Tech City, Barcelona Activa, Barcelona Chamber of Commerce, Cataluña Emprende initiative, business angels networks) —innovative companies in the sector Andalusia Marine Maritime Cluster —Malaga University

Expansion of Port Ginesta, Barcelona 2. Sustainable mobility and modal integration

Sustainable mobility at the Port of Valencia: SUMPORT project

3. Local demands and diversity of activities 4. Blue Employment

The Port of Malaga: urban activity wharves The Port Challenge Barcelona programme, Port of Barcelona

5. The use of ICTs in ports 6. Education and maritime culture 7. Port heritage and identity

Blue Employment Programme, Malaga University Platform for the Blue Economy Cei-Mar Foundation Smart Strategies at the Port of Barcelona Sea Classroom, Port of Malaga Port of Cartagena: “Dive into the heritage of a historical port” programme El Candado Port. Malaga. Maritime intangible cultural heritage

Port authorities, institutions, companies, research centres Barcelona Port Authority— technology companies Sea Classroom cooperative—local communities Cartagena City Council, Chamber of Commerce, Employers’ Confederation, Port Authority and Politécnica University Concessionary company—local community

322

N. Nebot Gómez de Salazar and C. Rosa-Jiménez

References Alemany-Llovera, J. (2015). Incidencia del puerto en la ciudad. La experiencia latinoamericana de renovación de los waterfronts. [Incidence of the port in the city. The Latin American experience of renewing water fronts]. Transporte y Territorio, 12, 70–86. Alemany-Llovera, J., & Bruttomesso, R. (2011). Urban Port waterfronts a new generation of urban projects and activities (p. 22). Portus: Portus. Alemany, J. (2012). Revitalización del patrimonio portuario [Revitalization of port heritage], Portus, 12, pp. 2–3. Available at: http://retedigital.com/wp-content/themes/rete/pdfs/portus/ Portus_12/Revitalización_del_patrimonio_portuario.pdf. Alemany Llovera, J. (2005). Marinas and ports in Spain. Portus, 9, 34–49. Andrade, M. J., & Peralta, A. (2013). la integración puerto ciudad [Integration port city]. Málaga. Available at: http://www.omau-malaga.com/agenda21/subidas/archivos/arc_97.pdf. Asgari, N., Hassani, A., Jones, D., & Hoang Nguye, H. (2015). Sustainability ranking of the UK major ports: Methodology and case study. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 78, 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2015.01.014%0A. Barcelona. (2016). Les línies estratègiques del Pla de Ports de Catalunya. Horitzó 2030 [The strategic lines of the ports plan of Catalonia]. Barcelona. Available at: http://territori.gencat.cat/ web/.content/home/01_departament/plans/plans_sectorials/mobilitat/linies_estrategiques_pla_ ports_2016_2030.pdf. Barcelona. (2019). Port website. Available at: http://www.portdebarcelona.cat/. Accessed June 11, 2019. Blue Employment sessions at Malaga University. (2017). Universidad de Málaga. Available at: http://factor-e.uma.es/index.php/empleo-azul/. Cartagena. (2019). Port website. Available at: http://www.apc.es/webapc/!ut/p/z1/dY1BC4IwGIZ_ jdd933KldVsesgijILRdQmVNSTeZq0G_PjsG9d5eeB4eEFCA0OWzVaVrjS676V_E4hrRb ZymDLPNeRkhz8JkfTyx2SFByEGAmBD8M46wA9FWPfF1T5BEGNIwRqQUGWM4_ xS4rsJYgbDyJq205GGncOPcMK4CDNB7T5QxqpOkNn2Av5TGjA6KbxKGu37tZc7f8 WVYZA!!/dz/d5/L0. Accessed June 11, 2019. Castillo-Manzano, J., González-Laxe, F., & López-Valpuesta, L. (2013). Intermodal connections at Spanish ports and their role in capturing. Ocean Coastal Management, 86, 1–12. Ceimar. (2019). Plataforma por la Economía Azul [Platform for the Blue Economy]. Available at: http://www.campusdelmar.com/es/plataforma-la-economia-azul/. Chapapría, V. E. (2008). La adaptación de la forma de los puertos al abrigo natural [Adaptation of the shape of the ports to natural shelter]. Ingeniería y Territorio, 84, 10–17. Convenio de colaboración entre el Excelentísimo Ayuntamiento de Valencia y la Autoridad portuaria de Valencia para la formulación del plan especial del área este del barrio de Nazaret [Collaboration agreement between the City Council of Valencia and the Port Authority of Valencia for the formulation of the special plan for the eastern area of the Nazareth district] (2018). Valencia. Diario La Vanguardia. (2017). Port Challenge Barcelona. Available at: https://www.lavanguardia. com/vida/20170322/421093824020/la-startup-bound-for-blue-gana-el-port-challengebarcelona.html. El Candado Port. (2019). Port website. Available at: https://www.puertosdeandalucia.es/en/ puertos/malaga/puerto-de-el-candado. Accessed June 11, 2019. El País. (2013, August 23). El puerto de Valencia es el primero de España y el trigésimo del mundo. Available at: https://elpais.com/ccaa/2013/08/23/valencia/1377256256_866958.html#comentarios. Accessed January 21, 2019. ESPO. (2013). ESPO Award 2013 shortlisted project: Dive into the Heritage of a Historical Port, ESPO Award 2013. Available at: https://www.espo.be/news/espo-award-2013-shortlistedproject-dive-into-the.

17

Societal Integration of Ports and Cities: Case Study …

323

ESPO. (2016). Code for Good Practices for cruise and ferry ports. Available at: https://www.espo. be/media/espopublications/Good Practices.pdf. ESPO. (2019). Available at: https://www.espo.be/organisation#key-objectives. Accessed June 12, 2019. European Comission. (2019). Mobility and Transport. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/ modes/rail/ertms/corridors_en. Accessed January 22, 2018. Executive Forum. (2019). Smartports2019, JORNADA SMART PORTS 2019: Inmersos en los Puertos 4.0. Available at: http://www.smartports.es/Inicio/. Fernández Morales, A., & Martín Carrasco, Y. (2014). Seasonal impact and concentration of cruise tourism in Malaga. Revista de Estudios Regionales, 101, pp. 43–70. Available at: http://www. revistaestudiosregionales.com/documentos/articulos/pdf-articulo-2449.pdf. Fernández N., Kim, Z., Morsy, V. M., & Novak, K. S. (2013). Improving urban resilience in coastal eco-cities: System integration.In Lloyd’s Register Foundation (Ed.), Southampton, UK: Southampton University. Figueira de Sousa, J. (2011). Reflections on the port-city relationship: models and new interpretative approaches. In R. Brutomesso & J. Alemany (Eds.), The port city of the XIX century. New challenges in the relationship between Port and City (pp. 118–130). Brussel: RETE. Girard, L. F. (2013). Toward a smart sustainable development of port cities/areas: The role of the “historical urban landscape” approach. Sustainability, 5, 4329–4348. Grindlay, A. L., Bestué-Cardiel, I., Rodríguez-Rojas, M. I. (2018). Port heritage in city-port transformations: opportunities or constraints? In HERITAGE 2018—6th International Conference on Heritage and Sustainable Development. Granada, Spain. Hoyle, B. (2000). Global and local change on the port-city waterfront. The Geographical Review, 3, 395–417. Jacobs, J. (2011). Death and life of great American Cities. Capitán Sw. Navarra. Joubert, C. (2017) Tendencias de I + D+i en los puertos’ [R + D + i trends in ports]. In Jornada Los puertos del futuro—Smart Ports [Conference on The ports of the future—Smart Ports]. Oviedo: Máster en Transporte y Gestión Logística de la Universidad de Oviedo; Autoridad Portuaria Ovied. Available at: https://www.prodevelop.es/tendencias-idi-puertos-smart-port. Lerner, J. (2005). Acupuntura Urbana [Urban acupuncture]. Barcelona: Instituto. Malaga. (2019). Available at: https://www.puertomalaga.com/en/. Accessed June 11, 2019. Martínez, P. (2015). El auge turístico obliga a Málaga a pensar un modelo para evitar la saturación [The tourist boom forces Malaga to think about a model to avoid saturation]. Diario El Sur, 28 April. Available at: https://www.diariosur.es/turismo/201504/27/como-vivir-turismo-morir20150427191547.html. Max, C., Ryckbost, I., & Vancompernolle, H. (Eds) (2017). ESPO Award 2017 Art and Cultural Involvement Of The POR. Brussels. Available at: https://www.espo.be/media/ESP-2112 (ESPOAward2017)-FINAL.pdf. McHarg, I. (2000). Proyectar con la naturaleza [Design with nature]. Barcelona: Gustavo Gi. Morrall, A., Rainbird, J., Katsoulakas, T., Koliousis, I., & Varelas, T. (2016). e-Maritime for automating legacy shipping practices. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 143–152. Muñoz Leonisio, M. M., Coronado Guerrero, D., & Martínez Navarro, M. A. (2017). Impacto económico portuario: revisión de la literatura [Port economic impact: review of the literature]. In Comercio Internacional y Empleo: una perspectiva regional. Sevilla. Available at: https:// old.reunionesdeestudiosregionales.org/sevilla2017/media/uploads/2017/10/05/Regional_Science. pdf. Naves, C. de I. Las. (2017). València desarrolla el proyecto SUMPORT que integra el puerto y la ciudad y mejora el transporte sostenible en la zona portuaria, Centro Innovación Las Naves [València develops the SUMPORT project that integrates the port and the city and improves sustainable transport in the port area, Las Nave Innovation Center]. Available at: https://www. lasnaves.com/movilidad/valencia-desarrolla-el-proyecto-sumport-que-integra-el-puerto-y-laciudad-y-mejora-el-transporte-sostenible-en-la-zona-portuaria/?lang=es. Accessed January 22, 2019.

324

N. Nebot Gómez de Salazar and C. Rosa-Jiménez

Nebot, N. (2012). El tour de las marinas. De la invención a la regeneración de un paisaje [The tour of the marinas. From the invention to the regeneration of a landscape]. Universidad de Málaga. Nebot Gómez de Salazar, N. (2013). Génesis y evolución de la marina turística’ [Genesis and evolution of the tourist marina]. In C., P. i N. R.. R. J. (Eds.), Turismo Líquido. Instituto. Barcelona: Iniciativa Digital Politécnica. University Polytecnique Catalunia. Nebot, N., Rosa-Jiménez, C., Pié-Ninot, R., & Perea-Medina, B. (2017). Challenges for the future of ports. What can be learnt from the Spanish Mediterranean ports? Ocean and Coastal Management, 137, 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.12.016. Notteboom, T. E., & Rodrigue, J. P. (2005). Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port development. Maritime Policy and Management, 32(3), 292–313. Notteboom, T. E., & Winkelmans, W. (2001). Structural changes in logistics: How will port authorities face the challenge? Maritime Policy and Management, 28(1), 71–89. Pavia, R. (2006) ‘The port as a park’, Urbanística, 131. Peris-Mora, E., Díez Orejas, J. M., Subirats, A., Ibañez, S., & Alvarez, P. (2005). Development of a system of indicators for sustainable port management. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 50(12), 1649–1660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.06.048%0A. Pie Ninot, R., Nebot, N., Rosa-Jiménez, C., & Fernández Contreras, R. (2012). Marinas and network ports on the Spanish Mediterranean Coast. Portus Plus. Port Ginesta. (2019). Available at: http://www.portginesta.com/en/. Accessed June 11, 2019. Ravesteijn, W., He, J., & Chen, C. (2014). Responsible innovation and stakeholder management in infrastructures: The Nansha Port Railway Project. Ocean Coastal Management, 100, 1–9. RETE. (no date). Portusplus the journal, Portus Plus the journal. Available at: https:// portusonline.org/portusplus/. Accessed April 15, 2019. Reventós i Rovira, M., García Arribas, O., Berglund Viladevall, P., & Comellas i Ponsa, A. (2010). Puertos deportivos. Los condicionantes ambientales como valor añadido’ [Sport ports. The environmental conditions as added value]. In IV Congreso de Ingeniería Civil, Territorio y Medio Ambiente. Málaga. Rodés, E. (2017). Los puertos del futuro—Smart Ports’ [The ports of future-Smart Ports], in Autoridad Portuaria de Avilés; Máster en Transporte y Gestión Logística de la Universidad de Oviedo (Ed.), Estrategia Smart del puerto de Barcelona. Avilés. Rosa-Jiménez, C. J., Perea-Medina, B., Andrade Marqués, M. J., Gómez, Nebot, & de Salazar, N. (2018). An examination of the territorial imbalance of the cruising activity in the main Mediterranean port destinations: Effects on sustainable transport. Journal of Transport Geography, 68, 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.02.003. Sayol, I. (2019). No Title, Smart ports, un futuro muy presente. Available at: https://ignasisayol. com/es/smart-ports-un-futuro-muy-presente/. Schipper, C. A., Vreugdenhil, H., & De Jong, M. P. C. (2017). A sustainability assessment of ports and port-city plans: Comparing ambitions with achievements. Transportation Reserach Part D, 57, 84–111. Seatrade Cruise. (2012). Seatrade Cruise Awards, 2019. Available at: https://www. seatradecruiseevents.com/awards/2012-winners. Valencia. (2019a). Available at: https://www.valenciaport.com/en/ (Accessed: 11 June 2019). Valencia, A. P. (2019b). Valenciaport. Available at: https://www.valenciaport.com/el-puerto-devalencia-destina-230-000-metros-cuadrados-para-usos-ciudadanos-frente-al-barrio-de-natzaret/. Accessed January 21, 2019. ValenciaPort. (2018). Hoy comienza el nuevo servicio de bicicletas eléctricas para cruceristas en el Puerto de Valencia, Fundación Valencia Port [Today begins the new service of electric bicycles for cruise passengers in the Port of Valencia, Valencia Port Foundation]. Available http://www.fundacion.valenciaport.com/Schedule-news/News/Hoy-comienza-el-nuevoat: servicio-de-bicicletas-elect.aspx. Accessed January 22, 2019. Verhoeven, P., & Backx, N. (Eds) (2010). Code of practice on societal integration of port. Brussel. Available at: https://www.espo.be/media/espopublications/ESPOCodeofPracticeon SocietalIntegrationofPorts2010.pdf.

17

Societal Integration of Ports and Cities: Case Study …

325

Verzone, C. (2006). Interview with Beth Figueras. Barcelona. Available at: https://player.fm/ series/terragrams/bet-figueras. WWF. (2018). Principles for a sustainable blue economy. Available at: http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k. cloudfront.net/downloads/15_1471_blue_economy_6_pages_final.pdf. Zamora Rosalló, M. R. (2014). La protección y uso sostenible del litoral español a la vista de las previsiones comunitarias’ [The protection and sustainable use of the Spanish coast in view of the Community provisions]. In IX Congreso de la Asociación Española de Profesores de Derecho Administrativo. Santiago de Compostela.

Chapter 18

Socio-economic Costs and Benefits of Seaport Infrastructure Development for a Local Environment. The Case of the Port and the City of Świnoujście Izabela Kotowska, Marta Mańkowska and Michał Pluciński

Abstract The positive changes in the relations between a port city and its port, as manifested in sustainable development policies for port cities and seaports, have not managed to eliminate conflicts connected with spatial aspects of seaport development. The conflicts are, to a large extent, connected to an uneven distribution of socio-economic benefits and costs that port operations generate for the local environment. The research in this chapter provides an answer to the question: What impact does the implementation of large infrastructural projects in seaports have on the local community and seaport economy? A comprehensive Seaport’s Social Cost-Benefit Analysis (SCBA) method was developed for estimating the socio-economic benefits of seaport development, based on the case study of the planned deepwater container terminal in the Świnoujście seaport (in Poland). The results show that 97% of direct benefits are generated for the national economy (global/national level), whereas only slightly above 3% remain in the port city (local level). The main beneficiaries are cargo shippers who consume nearly 90% of the benefits. Concurrently, the full social costs of seaport operations development are borne by the local environment. The balance of the socio-economic benefits and costs, expressed in monetary terms, is nevertheless positive at the local level. The benefits are additionally improved when non-monetary values are (e.g. investment, innovation, transport accessibility, demographic change) are taken into account. The benefits are achieved indirectly and over a long-time horizon, but eventually they have a positive effect on the structural changes in the local economy and

I. Kotowska (&) Faculty of Engineering and Economic of Transport, Maritime University of Szczecin, H. Pobożnego 11, 70-507 Szczecin, Poland e-mail: [email protected] M. Mańkowska
M. Pluciński Faculty of Management and Economics of Services, University of Szczecin, Cukrowa Street 8, 71-004 Szczecin, Poland © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 A. Carpenter and R. Lozano (eds.), European Port Cities in Transition, Strategies for Sustainability, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9_18

327

328

I. Kotowska et al.

community. In particular, this impacts the cities and regions with less-developed economies, which cope with negative changes in the demographic structure of their local communities—this are exemplified in the case of the Świnoujście seaport.




Keywords Container terminal Port’s development Social cost-benefit analysis Port of świnoujście




18.1


Sustainable transport


Introduction

Until recently, seaport operations were associated with economic benefits for the local economy and community, and with a degradation of the natural environment, a negative impact on the port city attractiveness for tourists, and deterioration of the local communities’ life quality (Kendra 1997; De Langen 2006). This was connected with the functioning of onerous production facilities in the port industry and transhipment operations connected with bulk cargo handling. Conflicts between a port city and its seaport have been mainly related to the spatial expansion of the port into the municipal areas (Daamen 2007). The development of containerisation, changes in the spatial development policies implemented by seaports (relocation of the operations to less urbanised areas, and reclamation of land from the sea, waterfront development), as well as the technical and technological progress in transport and logistics (automation of transhipment operations) have contributed to reducing the negative impacts of seaports on the local environment. Despite this positive change, the conflicts between the port and the port city have not been fully eliminated (Parola and Maugeri 2013). In order to gain an advantage over competitors, seaports strive to develop their connections with the foreland, to increase the quantity and effectiveness of port operations and to improve the quality of connections with the hinterland (Moglia and Sanguineri 2003; Lobo-Guerrero 2012). In many occasions, this means that there is a need to expand the port infrastructure leading to spatial expansion of the port (Notteboom and Rodrigue 2005; Lee et al. 2008; Daamen and Louw 2017). This leads to conflicts between the city and the port, even if the spatial expansion involves the areas already earmarked for port functions. The basis for the dialogue between the port and the city should be an objective assessment of the costs and benefits for the local environment, which will be generated as a result of new port facilities operation. On the other hand, it is also perceived that positive economic impacts of ports tend to move away from the local environment to national and international levels (Benacchio et al. 2001; Jung 2011). The main purpose of the study presented in this chapter is to provide an answer to the following question: What impact does implementation of large infrastructural projects in seaports have on the local community and seaport economy? To this end, we developed a comprehensive method for estimating the socio-economic benefits, at the local and the national level, resulting from implementation of infrastructural projects in seaports. The method made it possible to identify the

18

Socio-economic Costs and Benefits of Seaport Infrastructure …

329

main categories of socio-economic benefits and costs generated by development of new infrastructural facilities in seaports, and to specify their character (social, economic), the level of the economy structure on which they are consumed (global/ national, local) as well as their main beneficiaries. The study also applies the case study of the port and the port city of Świnoujście, Poland in the context of the planned construction of a deepwater container terminal.

18.2

Literature Review

Port–city interdependence and the port-city interface are widely discussed in the academic literature. The studies have shown that the traditional, strong functional and spatial relationships between port cities and ports, as known in the past, have weakened (Hoyle 1989; Norcliffe et al. 1996), and their character has also been changing. Some authors (e.g. Merk 2013; Hall and Jacobs 2012) point out that the reason for the weakening dependency of the city from the port is the development of containerisation, the resulting increased automation of port operations processes and the fact that port cities became less dependent on seaports playing the role of local economic growth centres. The evolution of the port-city relationship has been taking place gradually and to a large extent depends on regional factors and local strategies (Ducruet and Lee 2006; Wang and Liu 2018). Wiegmans and Louw (2011), using the example of the port of Amsterdam, point to a new phase in the port-city development, characterised by a distinct slowdown in the port’s spatial expansion into urban areas (new terminals are located outside the urbanised areas), accompanied by accelerated development of urban functions within the port premises (urban waterfront developments in old port areas such as housing, commercial functions, and offices), (Hall 1991; Hoyle 2000; Bruttomesso 1993; Marshall 2004; Desfor et al. 2010; Schubert 2010; Hesse 2018 and others). The problems and conflicts between the city and the port, connected with the spatial aspects of seaport development have become topical again, and they are entering a new phase. Along with the development of sustainable spatial policies in modern port cities (Daamen 2007; Daamen and Vries 2013; McManus 2007; Zazzara et al. 2012), the conflicts increasingly affect the implementation of new infrastructural projects in seaports, even if they are implemented in the areas to which port functions have been assigned. The conflicts are to a large extent connected with the uneven distribution of the socio-economic benefits and costs that port operations generate in the local socio-economic environment. With regard to seaports, there are three main categories of port operations impacts on the local environment: the spatial development, transport infrastructure development, employment (Ducruet 2007; Merk 2013), at the same time it is also necessary to point out the significance of negative externalities in the form of external costs of seaports functioning (Kotowska 2013; Viana et al. 2014; Rodrigue et al. 2006). On the other hand, research studies prove that the positive relationships between the port and the city far outweigh the

330

I. Kotowska et al.

negative relationships (Xiao and Lam 2017; Derudder and Witlox 2016; Mańkowska and Pluciński 2018). The aforementioned arguments with regard to socio-economic effects generated by new, large-scale investment projects are focused predominantly on their impact on the local environment in the context of creating new jobs and generating new incomes (Dimitriou et al. 2015). Evaluating the socio-economic benefits and costs connected with development of seaport infrastructure is rarely addressed; however, some significant knowledge in this respect has already been produced. The studies of Benacchio et al. (2001) highlighted that the contemporary port industry is less labour intensive and more capital deepening (direct employment is decreasing). Port-related activities tend to move to inland locations, but the relevant payback does not necessarily stay in full within the port region. The research by Dimitriou et al. (2017), based on Greek ports, focused on evaluation of the economic benefits of seaports development on the national economy, analysing the benefits on two levels: (a) macro-level in terms of economic growth; and (b) micro-level in terms of business sector distribution. To some extent, the research study addressed the impact of the port on the local environment. The results obtained by Benacchio et al. (2001) were confirmed by the studies of Urbanyi-Popiołek and Klopott (2016), which analysed the impact of the existing container terminals located in the Polish seaports of Gdańsk and Gdynia on the labour market (labour market associated with seaports) and on creating the city’s added value. The study has shown a general decrease in employment at all the terminals, accompanied by a growth in the demand for employees in the industries cooperating with and supporting the terminals. Also, it was found that the port and maritime industries generate a significant amount of added value. Considering the lack of comprehensive studies evaluating the scale of the socio-economic benefits and costs in monetary terms, it seems reasonable to obtain some deepened knowledge in this area.

18.3

Methods

The research study was done using the original method of evaluating the socio-economic benefits and costs of the functioning of a new infrastructural element of the port (a container terminal), applying Cost-Benefit Analysis tools (Seaport’s SCBA method). The basic assumption of the method structure is the expected shifting of cargoes from the existing transport chains running through the port terminals (CP) that are competitive to the planned terminal (PT), to the new transport chain created after commissioning of PT. This method distinguishes 3 main stages of the research study: Stage 1: Forecasting the transhipment volumes in the planned terminal (PT) taking into account the shift of cargo flows from the existing transport chains;

18

Socio-economic Costs and Benefits of Seaport Infrastructure …

331

Stage 2: Identification of the socio-economic benefits and costs of the PT functioning on the global/national and local level; and Stage 3: Quantification of the socio-economic benefits and costs of the PT functioning (in monetary units and other units) as well as the descriptive analysis of non-measurable benefits and costs. The detailed structure of the research process, showing the main and supplementary stages, is presented in Fig. 18.1. Implementation of stage 1 must take into account:

IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING CARGO FLOWS FROM/TO THE HINTERLAND OF THE PLANNED CONTAINER TERMINAL

LONG-RANGE FORECAST OF DEMAND FOR THE SERVICES PROVIDED FROM/TO THE HINTERLAND OF THE PLANNED CONTAINER TERMINAL

STAGE 1 LONG-TERM FORECAST OF TRANSHIPMENT VOLUMES IN PT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SHIFT OF CARGO FLOWS FROM THE EXISTING TRANSPORT CHAINS.

TRANSHIPMENT CAPACITY OF PT

FORECAST OF THE MODAL SPLIT IN THE HINTERLAND TRANSPORT

IDENTIFICATION OF AVERAGE CARRIAGE DISTANCES FROM/TO THE PLANNED TERMINAL, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE KIND OF TRANSPORT

STAGE 2 IDENTIFICATION OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC COSTS ON GLOBAL/NATIONAL AND LOCAL LEVEL

IDENTIFICATION OF MEASURABLE BENEFITS AND COSTS

IDENTIFICATION OF NON-MEASURABLE BENEFITS AND COSTS

SELECTION OF TOOLS AND DATA SOURCES

SELECTION OF TOOLS AND DATA SOURCES

STAGE 3 QUANTIFICATION OF BENEFTIS AND COSTS EXPRESSED IN MONETARY UNITS

STAGE 3 QUANTIFICATION OF BENEFTIS AND COSTS EXPRESSED IN OTHER UNITS

CBA

Fig. 18.1 Seaport’s SCBA method framework

STAGE 3 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

332

I. Kotowska et al.

1. Identification of the existing cargo flows from/to the PT hinterland—based on the analysis of the hinterland depth (the geographical range) and of the modal split of the CP hinterland; and 2. Long-range forecast of the demand for services provided from/to the PT hinterland—on the basis of the statistical data regarding the transshipments at CP and the economic potential of its hinterland (GDP). Implementation of Stage 1, the result of which is the developed forecast, constitutes the basis for determining the annual transhipment capacity of PT (in TEU). The transhipment capacity subsequently serves as the basis for estimating the maximum costs and benefits of the PT functioning, the PT modal split and the depth of the PT hinterland (in order to estimate the average carriage distances to/from PT, taking into account the modes of transport). The conclusions resulting from reviewing the current academic literature related to the subject as well as the expert knowledge of the authoring team helped to identify the main categories of the socio-economic benefits and costs of the PT functioning (Stage 2). A significant element of this stage was to select appropriate tools and source (statistical) data that enable quantification of the individual cost categories. Stage 3 is the application. On the basis of the data sourced in the previous stages, and by applying elements of the CBA method, the socio-economic benefits and costs were estimated in monetary terms, in other units and also in a descriptive manner.

18.4

Results. Case Study of the Planned Deepwater Container Terminal in Świnoujście (DCTS)

18.4.1 DCTS Project Background The developed method was applied for the purposes of evaluation of the socio-economic benefits and costs of expanding the port infrastructure to include a deepwater container terminal in Świnoujście (DCTS). The seaport in Świnoujście along with the seaport in Szczecin constitute a port complex managed as one entity by Szczecin and Świnoujście Seaport Authority. Both of them are important seaports for the Polish economy. The two seaports are connected by a 70 km fairway. Both ports are located within the Baltic-Adriatic transport corridor (TEN-T). In the direct vicinity of the Świnoujście port and the location of the planned terminal, there is S3 expressway being part of European route number E65, as well as E-59 and C-E railways. The Szczecin-Świnoujście port complex also has access to the Oder Waterway (Fig. 18.2). According to the plans, the container terminal is to be located in the outer port in Świnoujście, and it will be situated east of the LNG terminal, on an artificial peninsula being 1.5 km long and 0.6 km wide. The terminal is planned to handle

18

Socio-economic Costs and Benefits of Seaport Infrastructure …

333

ŚWINOUJŚCIE

Fig. 18.2 The port location in Świnoujście. Source Based on http://openstreetmaps.org/

150 the world’s biggest container ships and ca. 250 smaller vessels, and its transhipment capacity will be 1.5 m TEU per annum. The estimated cost of construction is ca. EUR 480 m (Maritime economy 2018) and it may be partially financed with public funds. Residents of the adjacent areas are very much concerned by the project implementation. The port city of Świnoujście boasts a health resort status (Dryglas 2013; Sawinska 2018). The thriving tourist sector dominates the city economy structure and the local labour market. Constructing the terminal will for example take up a part of the beach (Fig. 18.3).

Fig. 18.3 Location of the planned DCTS. Source Based on http://openstreetmaps.org/ and SSSA (2017)

334

I. Kotowska et al.

The construction of the terminal and development of its activity will generate specific socio-economic benefits. The concerns of the local community and engaging public funds in the DCTS project implementation are important reasons for providing an objective and comprehensive evaluation of the project implementation legitimacy. From the point of view of the local community, it is particularly important to specify the structure of those benefits and costs within the framework of the spatial structure of the global/national economy. This will additionally enable identification of those categories of benefits and costs which are generated on the local level, and estimation of their share in the total costs and benefits of the project implementation. As a result, the conclusions derived from the analysis will make it possible to obtain an answer to the question whether the benefits generated on the local level will compensate the social costs incurred by the local communities.

18.4.2 Estimation of Costs and Benefits of DCTS Development In stage 1, the existing cargo flows from/to the potential hinterland of the planned terminal were identified. The terminal will be functioning in a specified competitive environment. DCTS’s direct competitors are: the port in Gdańsk which is equipped with the only deepwater container terminal in Poland (DCT Gdańsk), with regard to handling cargo flows from/to the central and eastern parts of Poland, and the port of Hamburg with regard to handling cargoes coming from western Poland. According to the forecasts, in 2020 the national (Polish) market may generate from 3.3 to 4.3 m TEU per year. Moreover, the Polish ports could handle ca. 1.3 m TEU of containers in transhipment and ca. 400 k TEU of transit cargo predominantly between Slovakia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Belarus and Ukraine. This means that in 2020 the Polish seaports could handle even 5.2 m TEU (Matczak et al. 2013). At the moment, the Polish ports are not ready to handle such volumes. If new terminals are not built, containers will be handled by the ports in Western Europe, in particular the port in Hamburg. In view of the aforementioned forecasts and the market conditions in the competitive environment, the following assumptions were made. Firstly, there will be a modal shift of cargoes from the transport chain going through the port in Hamburg to the planned DCTS (Fig. 18.4). In this case, the socio-economic benefits result from the difference between the costs generated in the transport chain going through the port in Hamburg (W0) and the transport chain involving the port in Świnoujście (W1), see Eq. 18.1: B ¼ Cw0  Cw1

ð18:1Þ

18

Socio-economic Costs and Benefits of Seaport Infrastructure …

335

Fig. 18.4 Modal shift diagram. Source Own study

where: B social/economic benefits Cw0 social/economic costs generated in option W0 [in EUR] Cw1 social/economic costs generated in option W1 [in EUR] The adopted assumption has a significant impact on the final quantification of the socio-economic benefits and costs of the DCTS project implementation. Poland is a country with a less developed economy than Germany, as a result all the costs of e.g. services or external costs, the level of which is dependent on the country’s GDP, will be lower. This makes it possible to account for additional economic benefits which would not exist in case of shifting cargoes from another Polish port. Secondly, there will be a change regarding the size of handled container ships in the Szczecin-Świnoujście port complex. So far, some of containers coming from the hinterland of the planned terminal were handled within the chain: ocean vessel— container hub in Hamburg—feeder vessel—feeder terminal in Szczecin—hinterland transport. The ports in Szczecin and in Świnoujście constitute one port complex. It should be expected that a considerable part of cargo that so far was brought to Szczecin by feeder ships will be handled in the planned DCTS. Based on the aforementioned assumptions, we distinguished 13 categories of socio-economic benefits and costs connected with DCTS functioning (Table 18.1). The categories were described by the range, type, kind, and beneficiary. The vast majority of the identified categories of benefits were successfully expressed in monetary terms (EUR): benefits from 1 to 8 (apart from 7c). Benefits 9-11 and 7c were characterised in a descriptive manner, using qualitative research tools (case study, benchmarking).

336

I. Kotowska et al.

Table 18.1 Characteristics of socio-economic benefits and costs of the deepwater container terminal functioning Range

Category of costs/benefits

Type of benefits/costs

Kind of benefit/ cost

Beneficiary

1. Benefits for the environment on account of decreasing the external costs of transport

a. Decreasing the greenhouse gases emissions

Social

Society

Economic

Cargo shippers

Benefits National and/or global

b. Reduction in pollutant emissions c. Decreasing the number of road accidents d. Reducing the congestion e. Reducing the noise

2. Benefits on account of reducing the total transport costs

a. Lower freight for the hinterland transport b. Cheaper freight for the sea part of transport c. Longer free-storage period at the terminal d. Lower port costs and cheaper customs clearance

Local

3. Benefits resulting from the increased proceeds for using the transport infrastructure

a. Lower fees for accessing the road and rail infrastructure

Economic

Administrators of transport infrastructure

4. Benefits resulting from the increased proceeds on account of customs duties

a. Customs duties (20% of the amount remains in the state where the customs border was crossed)

Economic

The state budget

5. Benefits for the Port Authority on account of increased port traffic

a. Port fees—tonnage, Wharfage

Economic

Port authorities

6. Benefits for other port users, related to large vessel calls

a. Revenues of entities offering port services, e.g. towage, pilotage

Economic

Enterprises offering port services, e.g. towage companies, port pilots

7. Benefits for the municipality on account of creating new jobs

a. Increased proceeds on account of personal income tax as a result of an increased number of new jobs

Economic

Municipality

b. Decreased money transfers for unemployment allowances

Economic

c. Stopping the city population ageing, improving the age structure, preventing young people from moving away

Social

Local and regional community,

(continued)

18

Socio-economic Costs and Benefits of Seaport Infrastructure …

337

Table 18.1 (continued) Range

Kind of benefit/ cost

Beneficiary

Category of costs/benefits

Type of benefits/costs

8. Benefits for the local economy on account of increased spending

a. Local spending of employees newly hired at the terminal

9. Increase in investment attractiveness and innovativeness of the port city and the region

a. Resulting from the inflow of innovative solutions and technologies in the transport and logistics sector and human capital development, an increase in investment in the logistic sector in its broad sense

Economic

Local and regional community, municipality, region

10. Increase in tourist attractiveness of the port city and the region

a. Resulting from creating a new tourist product for the port city featuring the container terminal

Economic

Local and regional community, municipality, region

11. Improved transport accessibility of the city and the region

a. For the purposes of cargo handling: resulting from improved condition of the infrastructure that ensures access to the port from the land side

Social

Local and regional community, municipality, region

a. Environmental costs resulting from the air pollution caused by port facilities and mechanized equipment

Social

Direct vicinity of the terminal

b. Environmental costs caused by the hinterland transport on the access roads to the port

Social

Local community

a. Putting a part of the beach and adjacent areas out of use

Social

Local community

Local community

b. For the needs of serving the passenger (business) traffic: resulting from intensification of business contacts between the region and its hinterland Costs Local

12. External costs resulting from the terminal operation

13. Land occupancy

Subsequently, the social costs were evaluated, of which: • In monetary terms: external costs (12)—originating both at the terminal itself (operating the port facilities and equipment) and as a result of increased vehicle traffic entering the terminal; where part of the costs generated on the local level (12b) was accounted for in monetary terms (EUR) in the global environmental benefits (1) as a result of the shift between the transport chains; and • In a descriptive manner: land occupancy (13)—taking up the beach for the purposes of the terminal construction leading to permanent limitation of the natural qualities and tourist value of the port city areas located in the vicinity of the planned DCTS.

338

I. Kotowska et al.

In order to quantify the socio-economic benefits and costs of the DCTS construction in monetary terms, the following tools and statistical data were applied: DG MOVE (2014) (Table 18.1, item 1, 12), information obtained directly from forwarders (Table 18.1, item 2), Journal of Laws (2011) and Calculation PKP PLK software (2018) (Table 18.1, item 3), statistical data from the Analysis Centre of the Customs Administration Table 18.1, item 4), Szczecin-Świnoujście Port Tariff (2010) and price lists of other ship hauling and piloting services providers (Table 18.1, items 5 and 6), data of the Central Statistical Office (Table 18.1, items 7a, 7b, 8). The calculation of the socio-economic benefits and costs of the planned DCTS functioning, in monetary terms, is presented in Table 18.2. The categories were estimated according to beneficiaries: cargo shippers, society, infrastructure administrators, state, port authority, port users, municipality, local entrepreneurs and citizens. The environmental benefits associated with decreasing the external costs of transport result from a reduction of the road/railway distance covered by containers on the port-hinterland route, and lower fuel consumption per TEU of oceanic vessels compared to feeder ships. The benefits due to the total transport costs, similarly as the environmental costs, result from shortening the land route, using oceanic rather than feeder ships, and additionally from lower costs of transport services (including port services) provided in Poland, compared to Germany. Benefits resulting from the increased proceeds for using the transport infrastructure are due to shifting the hinterland transport from Germany to Polish roads and railways. The benefits resulting from the increased proceeds on account of customs duties are connected with transferring to the state budget 20% of the customs duties for cargoes crossing the EU customs border. The benefits for the port authority and other port users as a result of increased port traffic include, predominantly, the benefits resulting from the passive (tonnage and wharfage) and active services such as e.g. piloting and hauling fees. It should be noted that in the case of the port management, the construction of a container terminal will bring benefits in the form of additional revenues. Authorities of Polish seaports are non-profit institutions and all revenues must invest in the development of infrastructure. The possible social costs related to increased vessel traffic and road transport were included in the external costs item. The benefits for the municipality arise from the creation of new jobs, resulting in increased personal income tax proceeds and decreased expenses related to unemployment allowances. The benefits for the local economy, as a result of increased spending, are the effect of local spending on the part of the employees working directly at the container terminal and in the port sector (new jobs generated by the DCTS functioning, including state administration employees connected with the maritime-land cargo handling at the container terminal). The analysis of the benefits and costs expressed in monetary terms has shown that nearly 97% of the benefits are generated for the national economy (global/ national level), whereas only slightly above 3% of those benefits remain in the port city (local level). This translates into the structure of the main beneficiaries of those benefits. Nearly 90% of the benefits stay with cargo shippers, whereas the social costs of the planned DCTS operation will be perceptible mainly on the local level (Fig. 18.5).

18

Socio-economic Costs and Benefits of Seaport Infrastructure …

339

Table 18.2 Estimation of socio-economic benefits and costs of DCTS development Categories Socio-economic benefits Benefits for cargo shippers on account of reducing the total transport costs Environmental benefits for the society on account of decreasing the external costs of transport Benefits for hinterland transport infrastructure administrators, resulting from the increased proceeds for using the transport infrastructure Benefits for the state budget, resulting from increased proceeds on account of customs duties and taxes Benefits for the port authority on account of increased port traffic Benefits for other port users, related to large vessel calls Benefits for the municipality on account of creating new jobs and personal income tax proceeds Benefits for the local entrepreneurs on account of increased spending Social costs External costs for the local citizens resulting from the container terminal operation

Value EUR per year 1,097,500 25,169 8159 42,857 7624 36,267 2810 1825 711

In addition to the social costs calculated in monetary terms, in the case of the analysed DCTS project, the land occupancy is of the key importance. The implementation of the DCTS project will lead to taking a part of the beach and adjacent areas out of use. This means that for the residents of the city district neighbouring with the planned terminal the distance to the beach will increase to ca. 1 km. This may lead to reducing the natural qualities and tourist value of the area and, consequently, to reducing the value of the residential properties located in the vicinity of the planned DCTS. On the other hand, it should be noted that currently the location in question is not intended for tourist functions, it is situated in the port district of the city, at a considerable distance from the tourist centre and the main city beach. The identified costs will to a large extent be compensated for by social benefits. In addition to the above indicated benefits expressed in monetary terms, there are also other benefits which it is hard to estimate in monetary terms, and which were quantified descriptively and in units other than monetary, such as: • • • •

Increased investment attractiveness and innovativeness; Increased attractiveness for tourists; Improved transport accessibility of the port city and the region; and Stopping the port city population ageing process, improving the age structure, and preventing the productive population from moving away.

The report developed by The Economist titled The Economist Intelligence Unit (2012), picturing the competitiveness of global metropolises applying the criteria such as cities’ economic strength, cities’ competitiveness rank, cities’ human

340

I. Kotowska et al.

capital and global appeal, proves that port cities are ranked high in terms of all the analysed criteria. Port cities are: • 14 out of 20 most economically powerful cities in the world (“cities’ economic strength”); • 36 out of 50 most competitive cities in the world (“cities’ competitiveness rank”); • 14 out of 20 greatest cities ranked by human capital index (“cities’ human capital”); and • 7 out of 9 most “globally attractive” cities in the world (“global appeal”). The experience of other Polish port cities (e.g. Gdańsk) shows that operation of DCTS may stimulate development of modern logistic centres which will attract new technologies and increased innovativeness (modern warehousing and transport systems based on ICT solutions). Regardless of the social costs connected with the land occupancy related to DCTS, the project implementation may contribute to increasing the city’s attractiveness for tourists. Due to innovative technical and technological solutions as well as appropriate spatial planning, port activity becomes less and less onerous for the environment and constitutes an element of the tourist attractions of the port city. Examples of many port cities have shown that container terminals function successfully in the direct vicinity of metropolitan centres. For instance, walking trails, cycling paths, and observation towers are designed around such facilities, and there are trips and study visits organised on their premises (e.g. container terminals in Lisbon, Rotterdam, Hong-Kong, Botany (Sydney) and many others). These solutions are also stipulated in the DCTS project design (constructing cycling paths around DCTS, a car park for tourists, observation tower, etc.). An argument for making DCTS an element of the city’s tourist attractions is also the considerably large interest shown by tourists in the newly built LNG terminal in Świnoujście (which operates in the direct vicinity of the planned DCTS).

Fig. 18.5 Beneficiaries of socio-economic benefits in the spatial structure of the economy

18

Socio-economic Costs and Benefits of Seaport Infrastructure …

341

The project implementation will contribute to improved road transport accessibility for the city and the region, as a result of improving the condition of the infrastructure ensuring access to the port from the land side. The functioning of the terminal may also contribute to increasing air connectivity, as a result of intensified business contacts between the port city/region and its hinterland, following the economic development of the area, stimulated by DCTS operations. In the case of the port city of Świnoujście, the labour market development will also bring an additional important social benefit (non-measurable in monetary terms): stopping the port city population ageing process. That is because the analysis of the demographic structure of the city of Świnoujście has shown it is a city with a progressive negative rate of natural increase (−3.8% in 2016), which is rather low in view of the national average rate of −0.2. Creating new jobs at the terminal, and consequently in the port-related transport and logistics sector characterised by a high level of innovativeness and technological advancement, may contribute to bringing the productive population emigration to a halt, and also to attracting workers from other parts of Poland.

18.5

Conclusions

The spatial development of the port is not possible without gaining approval from the local community. The basis for the dialogue between the city and the port should be an objective quantification of the costs and benefits that the port development will be generating to the local environment. The developed Seaport’s Social Cost-Benefit Analysis (SCBA) method made it possible to identify the socio-economic benefits and costs and to categorise them in terms of their impact type (economic, social), impact scale within the spatial structure of the economy (global/national, local) and recipients of the benefits and costs. The obtained results have confirmed the outcome of studies done so far (e.g. by Benacchio et al. 2001; Dimitriou et al. 2017; Urbanyi-Popiołek and Klopott 2016) and at the same time they broadened the knowledge in this regard. The vast majority of the identified costs and benefits was quantified in monetary terms, including the environmental benefits, benefits for cargo shippers, benefits for the state budget, benefits for the port authorities and administrators of the hinterland transport infrastructure, and benefits for port enterprises and for the local environment (the economy of the port city and its community). Based on the obtained research results it was proved that development of new, innovative, and technologically advanced deepwater container terminals in seaports generate a stream of socio-economic benefits, and its scale significantly exceeds the incurred social costs. Nevertheless, the benefits distribution is extremely uneven. In the case of DCTS, the results have shown that 97% of direct benefits are generated for the national economy (global/national level), whereas only slightly above 3% of those benefits remain in the port city (local level). The main beneficiaries tapping into the benefits are cargo shippers who consume nearly 90% of the

342

I. Kotowska et al.

benefits. The benefits are derived as a result of changing the route of the transport chain and shortening the carriage time due to the possibility of using a deepwater container terminal that offers direct transoceanic container ship connections. The benefits quantified in monetary terms on the local level account for slightly under 3% of the total amount, and they include benefits for port enterprises on account of increased port traffic, benefits for the city and local community on account of creating new jobs, and benefits for the local economy on account of increased spending resulting from an increased number of local employees. Concurrently, the full social costs of the seaport operations development are borne by the local environment. The most important category of socio-economic costs, which is difficult to quantify in monetary terms, is the cost of land occupancy. As the area taken up by the port expands, there is an increasing competition between the users of the port grounds and the residents of the neighbouring residential districts. The balance of socio-economic benefits and costs related to development of the seaport infrastructure, expressed in monetary terms, is nevertheless positive on the local level. The benefits are additionally enhanced when we take into account the categories that are non-measurable in monetary values, such as: increased investment attractiveness and innovativeness of the port city, increased attractiveness for tourists, and improved transport accessibility and connectivity. A very important socio-economic benefit is also stopping the port city population ageing process, improving the population age structure, and preventing the productive population from moving away. The benefits are achieved indirectly and over a long time horizon, but eventually they have a positive effect on the structural changes in the local economy and community. In particular this regards the cities and regions with less developed economies, which cope with negative changes in the demographic structure of their local communities—this can be exemplified in the analysed study of the Świnoujście seaport. Acknowledgements We would like to thank all the reviewers and editors who provided suggestions to improve this chapter.

References Benacchio, M., Ferrari, C., Haralambides, H. E., & Musso, E. (2001, July). On the economic impact of ports: Local vs. national costs and benefits. In Forum of shipping and logistics, special interest group on maritime transport and ports international workshop (pp. 8–10). Bruttomesso, R. (Ed) (1993). Waterfronts: A new frontier for cities on Water. Venice: International Centre Cities on Water. Calculation PKP PLK. (2018). https://skrj.plk-sa.pl/kalkulacje/2018w2.0/. [in Polish]. Daamen, T. (2007, June). Sustainable development of the European port-city interface. [In:] ENHR-conference. June (pp. 25–28). Daamen, T., & Louw, E. (2017). Sustainable development of the European port-city interface: evolving insights in research and practice (No. eres2017_304). European Real Estate Society (ERES).

18

Socio-economic Costs and Benefits of Seaport Infrastructure …

343

Daamen, T. A., & Vries, I. (2013). Governing the European port–city interface: Institutional impacts on spatial projects between city and port. Journal of Transport Geography, 27, 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.03.013. De Langen, P. W. (2006). Stakeholders, conflicting interests and governance in port clusters. Research in Transportation Economics, 17, 457–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0739-8859(06) 17020-1. Derudder, B., & Witlox, F. (2016). European Port cities: Embodiments of interaction–knowledge and freight flow as catalysts of spatial development. In Hub cities in the knowledge economy (pp. 111–136). Routledge. Desfor, G., Laidley, J., Stevens, Q., & Schubert, D. (Eds) (2010). Transforming urban waterfronts: Fixity and flow. Routledge. DG MOVE. (2014). Update of the handbook on external costs of transport. DG MOVE. https://ec. europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/handbook_on_external_costs_of_transport_2014_0.pdf. Dimitriou, D. J., Mourmouris, J. C., & Sartzetaki, M. F. (2015). Economic impact assessment of mega infrastructure pipeline projects. Applied Economics, 47(40), 4310–4322. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00036846.2015.1026591. Dimitriou, D. J., Mourmouris, J. C., & Sartzetaki, M. F. (2017). Maritime ports economic effect on regional development: estimations for the major maritime ports in Greece. International Journal of Decision Support Systems, 2(4), 210–220. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijdss.2017. 092250. Dryglas, D. (2013). Spa and wellness tourism as a spatially determined product of health resorts in Poland. Current Issues of Tourism Research, 2(2), 30–38. Ducruet, C. (2007). A metageography of port–city relationships, In J. Wang, D. Olivier, T. Notteboom, & B. Slack B (Eds.), Ports, cities, and global supply chains, chapter 11 (pp. 157– 172). England: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Ducruet, C., & Lee, S. W. (2006). Frontline soldiers of globalisation: Port–city evolution and regional competition. GeoJournal, 67(2), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-006-9037-9. Hall, P., (1991). Waterfronts: A new urban frontier. Institute of Urban and Regional Development. Berkeley: University of California (working paper 538). Hall, P. V., & Jacobs, W. (2012). Why are maritime ports (still) urban, and why should policy-makers care? Maritime Policy & Management, 39(2), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03088839.2011.650721. Hesse, M. (2018). Approaching the relational nature of the port-city interface in Europe: Ties and tensions between seaports and the urban. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 109(2), 210–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12282. Hoyle, B. S. (1989). The port—City interface: Trends, problems and examples. Geoforum, 20(4), pp. 429–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7185(89)90026-2. Hoyle, B. (2000). Global and local change on the port-city waterfront. Geographical Review, 90 (3), 395–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2000.tb00344.x. Journal of Low. (2011). Rozporządzeniu Rady Ministrów w sprawie wykazu dróg krajowych lub ich odcinków, na których pobiera się opłatę elektroniczną oraz wysokości stawek opłaty elektronicznej, (Dz.U. 2011 nr 80 poz. 433). Jung, B. M. (2011). Economic contribution of ports to the local economies in Korea. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 27(1), pp. 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2092-5212(11) 80001-5. Kendra, J. M. (1997). Seaport development versus environmental preservation: The case of Sears Island, Maine, USA. Marine Policy, 21(5), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0308-597x(97) 00004-3. Kotowska, I. (2013). Method of assessing the impact of polish container terminals in reducing the external costs of transport. PROMET-Traffic & Transportation, 25(1), 73–80. https://doi.org/ 10.1504/ijstl.2016.079290. Lee, S. W., Song, D. W., & Ducruet, C. (2008). A tale of Asia’s world ports: The spatial evolution in global hub port cities. Geoforum, 39(1), 372–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007. 07.010.

344

I. Kotowska et al.

Lobo-Guerrero, L. (2012). Connectivity as the strategization of space–the case of the Port of Hamburg. Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory, 13(3), 310–321. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1600910x.2012.697860. Mańkowska, M., & Pluciński, M. (2018). Wpływ portu morskiego na lokalne otoczenie. Studium przypadku przedsiębiorstwa portowej sfery eksploatacji, Problemy Transportu i Logistyki 4/2018. Maritime Economy. (2018). Webpage: http://www.gospodarkamorska.pl/Porty,Transport/koncepcjaterminalu-kontenerowego-w-swinoujsciu-gotowa.html. [In Polish]. Marshall, R. (Ed) (2001). Waterfronts in post-industrial cities. London: Spon Press. Marshall, R. (Ed) (2004). Waterfronts in post-industrial cities. Taylor & Francis. Matczak, M., Ołdakowski, B., & Rozmarynowska, M. (2013). Analiza warunków funkcjonowania i perspektyw rozwoju polskich portów morskich o podstawowym znaczeniu dla gospodarki narodowej, Actia Forum. McManus, P. (2007). The changing port-city interface: Moving towards sustainability. In State of Australian cities national conference, 3. (pp. 427–433). Merk, O. (2013). The competitiveness of global port-cities: Synthesis report. OECD Regional Development Working Papers, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/20737009. Moglia, F., & Sanguineri, M. (2003). Port planning: the need for a new approach?. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 5(4), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100089. Norcliffe G., Basset K., & Hoare T. (1996). The emergence of postmodernism on the urban waterfront. Geographical perspectives on changing relationships. Journal of Transport Geography, 4(2), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0966-6923(96)00005-1. Notteboom T., & Rodrigue J. (2005). Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port development. Maritime Policy and Management, 32(3), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 03088830500139885. Parola, F., & Maugeri, S. (2013). Origin and taxonomy of conflicts in seaports: Towards a research agenda. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 8, 114–122. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.rtbm.2013.07.005. Rodrigue, J.-P., Slack, B., & Comtois, C. (2006). The geography of transport systems. New York: Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, England. Sawinska, A. (2018). Recreation as a segment of the silver economy-the case study of the health resort Kołobrzeg, Poland. In Economic and Social Development (Book of Proceedings), 35th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development. Schubert, D. (2010). Waterfront revitalizations: from a local to a regional perspective in London, Barcelona, Rotterdam, and Hamburg. In Transforming Urban Waterfronts (pp. 90–114). Routledge. SSSA. (2017). Construction of a container terminal at the outer port in Świnoujscie. Data of Szczecin and Świnoujście Seaports Authority In www.eswinoujscie.pl. Szczecin-Świnoujście Port Tariff. (2010). www.port.szczecin.pl. The Economist—Economist Intelligence Unit (2012). In Fusco Girard, L. (2013). Toward a smart sustainable development of port cities/areas: The role of the “Historic Urban Landscape” approach. Sustainability, 5(10), 4329–4348. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5104329. Urbanyi-Popiołek, I., & Klopott, M. (2016). Container terminals and port city interface–a study of Gdynia and Gdańsk ports. Transportation Research Procedia, 16, 517–526. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.trpro.2016.11.049. Viana, M., Hammingh, P., Colette, A., Querol, X., Degraeuwe, B., de Vlieger, I., & van Aardenne, J. (2014). Impact of maritime transport emissions on coastal air quality in Europe. Atmospheric Environment, 90, 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.03.046. Wang, B., & Liu, J. (2018). Quantitative analysis of the relationship between Port and city in China. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 189(6), 062036. IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/189/6/062036.

18

Socio-economic Costs and Benefits of Seaport Infrastructure …

345

Wiegmans, B. W., & Louw, E. (2011). Changing port–city relations at Amsterdam: A new phase at the interface? Journal of Transport Geography, 19(4), 575–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jtrangeo.2010.06.007. Xiao, Z., & Lam, J. S. L. (2017). A systems framework for the sustainable development of a Port City: A case study of Singapore’s policies. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 22, 255–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2016.10.003. Zazzara, L., D’Amico, F., & Vrotsou, M. (2012). Changing port–city interface at Corinth (Greece): Transformations and opportunities. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 48, 3134–3142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1279.