A tale of Asia’s world ports: The spatial evolution in global hub port cities

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

Geoforum 39 (2008) 372–385

A tale of Asia’s world ports: The spatial evolutionin global hub port cities

Sung-Woo Lee a, Dong-Wook Song b,*, Cesar Ducruet c

a Centre for Shipping, Logistics and Port Research, Korea Maritime Institute, Bangbae-dong, Seoul, Republic of Koreab Logistics Research Centre, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14 4AS, United Kingdom

c Department for Regional, Port and Transport Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Received 28 March 2006; received in revised form 19 March 2007

Abstract

Globalization and transport revolutions, logistics integration, and the consequent expansion of port area and hinterland in the mar-itime industry have redefined the functional role of ports in supply chains and have generated a new pattern of freight distribution. Thisphenomenon again requires a new approach towards port development and related urban planning. Such changes have inevitably influ-enced the spatial structure of hub port cities. As existing models on spatial and functional evolution of ports and cities are mainly derivedfrom European and American cases, this paper attempts to introduce evidence from an Asian perspective, focusing on the particular caseof global hub port cities such as Hong Kong and Singapore.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Spatial evolution; Hub port city; Asian consolidation model

1. Introduction

Globalization and transport revolutions (especially,containerization and its substantive influence on globalcommerce and trade) has become a central issue for almostall segments of industries at a global scale (e.g., Friedman,2005). Consequently, the growing need for logistics integra-tion and the expansion of port areas, such as the forelandand hinterland, have redefined and reshaped the functionalrole of ports in global supply chains. Thus, this phenome-non generates a new pattern of freight distribution and anew approach towards port development and related urbanplanning. For example, Notteboom and Rodrigue (2005)point out that a number of load center ports focus oninland terminals and multimodal networks to preserve theirattractiveness and to exploit fully potential economies ofscale against their rival ports.

0016-7185/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.07.010

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.-W. Lee), D.Song@hw.

ac.uk (D.-W. Song), [email protected] (C. Ducruet).

This change has significantly affected ports (in particu-lar, container ports) in Asia, leading to the developmentof distriparks, logistic centers, free trade zones and othersimilar actions in order to obtain and/or sustain their over-all attractiveness or competitiveness. In this process, thespatial and functional changes in port peripheral areashave had a considerable impact on port cities. A city anda port interplay with each other as a single node in termsof economic and spatial structure. Urban growth affectsport development, while the latter affects urban functionsfrom the economic, cultural, social, and environmentalperspectives.

In accordance with the observation of Notteboom andRodrigue (2005), Asian hub port cities such as Hong Kongand Singapore have maintained their respective eminentpositions without significant hinterland coverage or inlandterminal supporting systems. The rise of hub port citiesclearly illustrates the transport revolution. In this context,Hambleton et al. (2002) argue that globalization encom-passes an enormous range of activities supported by rapidchanges in transportation and communication that have

mailto:[email protected]




S.-W. Lee et al. / Geoforum 39 (2008) 372–385 373

made transmissions across national boundaries much lessexpensive. Countries and cities that are far apart can beclosely connected. Port cities have enjoyed such an advan-tage for a long time, given their ability to connect remoteforelands through maritime transport, as Smith (1776)points out in the case of London and Calcutta.

However, few port cities have become truly global hubport cities. After the early stages of port growth, inducingurban and industrial growth, the symbiosis often declinesas ports and cities follow their own developmental logicthrough spatial and functional separation. Researchershave not yet identified the factors that allow for a contin-uing symbiosis into global hub port cities, notably froman Asian perspective.

Having the aforementioned in mind, this paper providesa conceptual model of port–city relationships in the case ofAsian hub port cities, which are analyzed in light of mod-ern trends among European and American load centers.First, it introduces how the existing literature has explainedport developments in two different contexts (i.e., developedand developing countries) and how such developmentshave influenced port–city relationships. Second, in the con-text of globalization, an Asian deviation from regional anduniversal models of port and port–city development is pre-sented through the cases of Hong Kong and Singapore.

2. Global and regional trends in port development

2.1. Global trends

Stimulated by the decreasing importance of nationalborders and the growing interactions among regions, glob-alization has robustly altered the traditional role of ports asthe center of transport activities. Transportation revolu-tions, such as containerization and intermodalism, havecontributed to such changes. Gateways, the nodal pointsthrough which intercontinental containers are transhippedonto continental axes, could become hub port cities as aresult of such influences (Fleming and Hayuth, 1994).Due to these globalization trends, countries and regionsare competing in one (and only one) global market, whichhas resulted in a dramatic increase of competition in inter-national trade (Song, 2003). As seen in Table 1, changing

Table 1Changing factors affecting port environments

Category Phenomenon

Shippingalliances

Large shipping companies have propelled mergers, take-ovealliances for consolidation of these shipping lines’ leading romarket in order to maximize market shares and minimize rucosts

Larger vesselsize

Larger container ships are mainly built to achieve economies

Intermodality Inland intermodal hubs enable containers to be shipped londistances across continents to establish a connection with a

Source: Compiled from Song (2003, pp. 30–31).

maritime systems have led to competition as well as co-operation in the port industry.

Shipping lines have become increasingly monopolisticplayers in the market as they attempt to consolidate viamergers and alliances. Whereas ports are fixed in space,ships have the ability to move easily. Due to this limitation,ports are dependent on the shipping lines. In addition, car-riers and alliances have reshaped their operation networksby introducing door-to-door, round-the-world, and pendu-lum services, especially on the main east–west trade lanes(Notteboom and Rodrigue, 2005). In order to meet greaterdemands from shipping lines, ports are forced to respondby enlarging back-up areas, with the creation of logisticcenters and new terminals, so as to enhance and/or sustaintheir relative competitiveness.

In these circumstances, a skyrocketing increase in inter-national trade competition leads to greater traffic concen-tration among several hub ports. Such phenomena havetaken place while ports become ‘pawns in the game’ of glo-bal players such as shipping lines (Slack, 1993), seeking toconcentrate their services on a few hub ports to save costand time. This trend is clearly reflected in the rank ofhub ports of container handling cargoes since 1990 asshown in Table 2. Major hub ports are located in Asia,intensively competing against one another within a border-less economy and globalization.

2.2. Ports and regionalization

Before turning to the theoretical aspects of ports’ spatialdevelopment, it is necessary to understand why Western-based or -centric models have been unable to reflect fullythe regional essence of port–city development in Asia. Inparticular, because globalization and regionalization areparallel but interdependent phenomena, Western-based or-centric models of port development are unlikely to be uni-versally relevant. Notably, because most port models areelaborated from European and American experiences, theymay not be sufficient to explain recent and specific changesin other regions, especially in Asia (Arasaratnam, 1992). Inparticular, a vision of the world separating ‘developed’from ‘underdeveloped’ countries is not suitable for under-standing how the unique characteristics of the Newly

Result

rs andle in thenning

Shipping liners now provide global networks, whereby onemega-carrier or an alliance can move goods freely around theglobal market

of scale Due to the depth limits of container ports, fewer ports are ableto serve the giant transoceanic vessels directly

gerport

The hinterland and foreland of the port are expanded. Thisfurther encourages the globalization of port management andoperations.

Table 2World top 20 container ports (Unit: 000 TEUs)

Port 2005 2000 1995 1990

Rank TEUs1 Rank TEUs Rank TEUs Rank TEUs

Singapore 1 23,192 2 17,090 2 10,800 1 5224Hong Kong 2 22,427 1 18,100 1 12,550 2 5101Shanghai 3 18,804 6 5613 19 1527 – –Shenzhen 4 16,197 11 3959 – – – –Busan 5 11,843 3 7540 5 4503 6 2348Kaoshuing 6 9471 4 7426 3 5232 4 3495Rotterdam 7 9288 5 6274 4 4787 3 3666Hamburg 8 8087 9 4248 6 2890 8 1969Dubai 9 7619 13 3059 14 2083 – –Los Angeles 10 7484 7 4879 9 2555 7 2116Long Beach 11 6709 8 4601 7 2834 12 1598Antwerp 12 6482 10 4082 10 2329 14 1549Qingdao 13 6307 19 2120 – – – –Port Klang2 14 5543 12 3207 – – – –New York/New Jersey 17 4792 14 3006 11 2306 9 1898Laem Chabang 20 3765 – – – – – –Bremen/Bremerhaven 21 3735 15 2712 20 1526 17 1163Tokyo3 22 3593 18 2889 12 2177 13 1555Gioia Tauro 26 3160 20 2653 – – – –Felixstowe 29 2700 16 2793 15 1898 15 1417

Notes:

1. TEU refers to a 20 ft equivalent unit, a standard measurement of 20 ft containers.

2. Tanjung Pelepas was ranked No. 19 in 2005.

3. Kobe and Yokohama were of the top 10 ports before 1995, but their rank has diminished since then.

Sources: Compiled from Containerization International Yearbooks.

374 S.-W. Lee et al. / Geoforum 39 (2008) 372–385

Industrialized Countries (NICs) – that is, Hong Kong, Sin-gapore, Taiwan, and South Korea – provide an insight intoWestern port development and management patterns.

Fig. 1 illustrates an idea of how global forces are facingregional specificities that shape port systems into majormarket areas. This figure also has a multi-scalar dimension;it encompasses the spatial pattern of port systems at vari-ous regional scales from the coastal range (e.g., NorthAmerica East Coast) to the continental area (e.g., WesternEurope). There are also local implications, because the sit-uation of a port city in a regional system will directlyimpact port–city spatial and economic relationships atthe local level (Ducruet, 2005a).

We can derive from this figure some important issuesconcerning the principles of port and port–city develop-

Fig. 1. Regional patterns of hinterland conce

ment. As revealed in Fig. 1, inland transportation and itscorollaries are of central concern to European and Ameri-can ports, but this is not the case in Asia. America and Asiashare the common issue of coastal concentration, which isnot obvious in Europe given the inland centrality of themegalopolis (e.g., London–Rome). This might explain alsothe specific situation of European port cities; the depen-dence on inland markets is an advantage for the develop-ment of port functions (i.e., gateways), but it is alimitation for the diversification of urban functions incoastal cities (i.e., specialization in transport-related func-tions) (Rozenblat, 2004; Ducruet, 2005b). Compared withNorth America and Europe, the Asian specific trend of lim-ited inland penetration (Ducruet and Jeong, 2005) is a com-mon feature among island states and former colonial areas

ntrations. Source: Drawn by the authors.


in Latin America, Africa, and Oceania. Thus, strategies inrespect of transport operations must cope with long-terminheritance to serve the markets efficiently in terms of thedifferent geographical, economic, and institutional regimes(McCalla et al., 2004).

A brief review of the literature on port development sys-tems and port–city relationships in two different contexts(i.e., Western and developing countries) allows for furtherinvestigation into an Asian-centric case, namely HongKong and Singapore, the two Asian hub port cities. In orderto build a specific model for hub port city evolution, modelsof port growth in developed and developing countries willbe introduced through common and recurrent issues likeconcentration, deconcentration, and competition.

3. Port development models in Western countries

3.1. Port systems and intermodal transportation

The processes described hereafter have been taking placeover a long period of time. To strengthen our approach, wefirst introduce major research on Western port systems (asillustrated in Fig. 2 and summarized in Table 3) and exam-ine evolving issues like port competition and the relation-ships between foreland and hinterland, within or betweenport cities, and among countries and regions.

3.1.1. Port as concentration point between hinterland and

foreland

Mayer (1957) emphasizes port competition throughinvestigating rail transport costs from ports to hinterlands.A study by Weigend (1958) focuses on the relationshipbetween foreland and port in terms of economic advanta-ges of transport between sea, port, and land; this prefiguresthe port triptych (Vigarie, 1979) defined by the system link-ing foreland, hinterland, and the port node between them.Bird (1963) suggests an anyport model of port spatial evo-lution. It consists of six phases addressing the shift of portfunctions towards deep-sea locations, resulting from thepressure on land space at the upstream port city and fromthe increasing size of ships. In this context, Bird’s studyasks how a port system develops and interacts with its hin-terland and land transport system.

From the beginning of concentration studies in the late1960s, researchers studied the theories of port growth,examining geographical coverage, concepts, and methods.Rimmer (1967a,b) found that the inter-port distributionof traffic became more concentrated as the transport net-work penetrated into the hinterland from a few main portsin New Zealand and Australia. His model explains thechange from scattered ports to high-priority route, portannexes through the interaction between ports, nodes,and transport networks. Kenyon (1970) suggests thatexplanations of port competition have expanded to includeother factors, such as labour costs and productivity, railconnection, port access, and land availability in the UnitedStates.

During the 1980s and 1990s, most studies focused on theinitial phenomena of containerization and globalization,such as port hierarchy, scale economies, and intermodalsystems (Hayuth, 1981; Hoyle and Pinder, 1981; Barke,1986; Hoare, 1986; Slack, 1985, 1990; Starr, 1994). Hayuth(1981) suggests a more radical spatial deconcentration pro-cess on the dynamics within container port systems. Hismodel resulted from research on the US container port sec-tor and is of particular interest to studies on the Europeancontainer port sector.

In his five-phase model, Barke (1986) introduces a pro-cess of port deconcentration, resulting from traffic conges-tion and space limitation within rapidly growing portareas. In spatial terms, this process is also a shift of portactivities from urban centers to less congested suburbanor peripheral sites.

3.1.2. Ports as nodes in intermodal systemsHoare (1986) argues that the concept of hinterland

should be revised and adapted to the changes in advancedsocieties in the context of intermodalism: from area tolinear organization. Through reviewing previous studies(Hayuth, 1981; Slack, 1985), Hoare concludes that hinter-land-based analysis no longer has any relevance. Slack(1990) suggests that the additional stage model is slightlydifferent from Taaffe et al.’s (1963) six-stage model, giventhe fact that redundant nodes situated off the main routeswill be dropped. Consequently, he emphasizes the impor-tance of advancing intermodal systems. Other research(Fleming, 1989; Fleming and Hayuth, 1994) suggests thatdramatic changes in the pattern of freight transport andport competition have resulted from the rise of intermodaltransport in North America since the early 1980s. Kubyand Reid (1992) underline that general cargo ports in theUS show less concentration than in Hayuth’s (1981) modelof container concentration. In addition, they foresee thattechnological innovations are expected to continue theconcentration trend. Starr (1994) points out that portauthorities have initiated and supported the competitionbetween Baltimore and Hampton Road for the positionof mid-Atlantic load center under the changing shippingenvironment. He explains the phenomenon as a result ofmega-ships, minimized vessel costs, and decreased portcalls.

3.1.3. Ports as agents of regionalization and globalizationprocesses

While previous studies illustrated behavior within a sin-gle country, research after 1995 mainly focused on applyingresults to larger regional areas. New concerns that focus onspecific areas have emerged from intensive globalizationtrends. Charlier (1996) illustrates that the developmentstages suggested by Hayuth (1981) are also valid wheninternational ports, such as Rotterdam and Antwerp,compete for load center position. In addition, Notteboom(1997) demonstrates the unique concentration and stagnation

Fig. 2. Evolution of port issues in Western countries. Source: Compiled from various sources.

Table 3A general model of port development in Western countries

Phases Principles

Preconditions for containerization A general equilibrium exists, as the port hinterland remains unchanged and containers are handled with othercargoes in the traditional port system

Initial container port development The changes are concerned notably with local and traditional markets. The potential of containerization as a meansof enlarging tributary areas is not yet fully recognized

Diffusion, consolidation, portconcentration

The large ports reach into further vast areas and have stronger lateral extensions, as lines of penetration beyond thetraditional hinterland boundaries begin to emerge, through transport networks

The load center The ocean carrier enters the inland transport market, and the inland distribution strategy tends to be considered aspart of the entire voyage, a single door-to-door service. Traditional hinterland patterns transformed and trafficconcentrates on favored inland routes, as intermodal transportation system emerge

The challenge of the periphery The changing patterns of points and lines for commodity packaging and consolidating become more practicallysignificant than the traditionally defined hinterlands

Source: Hayuth (1981, pp. 161–165).


in European port competition between 1980 and 1994,which slightly differs from that of previous works. He sug-gests that the future development of the EU container sys-tem will be influenced by technological and organizationalevolutions in the triptych foreland–port–hinterland thatemphasizes the interaction between global and local forces.In this context, Notteboom and Rodrigue (2005) introducea regionalization phase in port and port system develop-ment in terms of port spatial evolution, in contrast withthe limitation of Bird’s anyport model. Although thismay explain the relationship between port and hinterlandin respect to logistics integration, it cannot apply to therelationship between port and city.

3.2. Port–city relationships and industrial changes

3.2.1. Ports in post-industrialized citiesPort–city relationships have changed enormously in

Western countries from industrialization to post-industrial-ization to post-modernism (Norcliffe et al., 1996). Thesephenomena have been identified by researchers within thebroad framework of globalization, scale economies, trans-port revolution, post-industrialization, urban expansion,and waterfront redevelopment. Generally, Western portshave undergone earlier and broader changes than otherports for three main reasons, which are summarized asfollows:

Fig. 3. Interface between city and port in New York (1850–2000). Source:

Modified from Meyer (1999, pp. 58–59).


(i) Location: Economies of scale have influenced trans-port revolutions. The impact can be seen throughmega-ships, mega-terminals (Rodrigue et al., 1997),and containerization (Notteboom, 1997). Thesetrends have altered the location factors of port activ-ities, which increasingly require deep sea, large openspace, and efficient transport, pushing these activitiesout of the city or making them disappear altogether.However, as seen in Table 2, containerization hasprivileged existing port cities, with few exceptions,that are located close to shipping lanes and awayfrom urban settlements and markets (e.g., Laem Cha-bang, Gioia Tauro, Tanjung Pelepas). Some majorcontainer ports are closely located to both maritimecorridors and global cities, such as Felixstowe (Lon-don) and Port Klang (Kuala Lumpur).

(ii) Cost: Economies of scale have influenced the locationpatterns of industries. Particularly, manufacturingindustries need to reduce costs to maintain their com-petitiveness in the world market. However, Westerncounties have already reached high labour, rental,and transport costs. Under these circumstances, man-ufacturing industries have been obliged to move over-seas. The volume of local cargoes has been rapidlyreduced. As a result, ports have decreasing functionswithin their surrounding cities.

(iii) Business environment: Economies of scale have indi-rectly impacted the living conditions in the city envi-ronment. Governmental institutions and independentassociations are increasingly concerned with environ-mental issues and seek to maintain a high standard ofliving in terms of air and water quality, landscape,heritage, and shore amenities. In this respect, water-fronts bring both traffic congestion from ports andunique spaces for daily relaxation and consumption.This has encouraged ports and related industrial orlogistic activities to shift from the inner city to outerareas. Simultaneously, obsolete port and industrialareas provide a good opportunity for use as specialspaces, along with optimal income of waterfrontdevelopment (Hoyle et al., 1988).

For post-industrialized cities, the trend of manufactur-ers moving out and populations moving in occurs in mostglobal port cities of the world. This corresponds to the par-allel shift of industries to developing countries and the de-industrialization of developed countries. As a result, port–city economic relationships are profoundly modified inWestern countries; thus, contradicting definitions arise:are these relationships a reciprocal breed (Vigarie, 1979),an independent phenomenon (Boyer and Vigarie, 1982), aconcomitant but indirect mutual enhancement (Vallega,1983), or a spontaneous interaction (Goss, 1990)?

3.2.2. Port–city interface as a witness of global changesRadical technological changes in the shipping industry

have forced port facilities to relocate from the urban core

to more suitable locations (Hoyle, 1989). These changeshave also led post-industrialized cities to redevelop theirobsolete ports and industrial facilities, leading to a globalphenomenon in waterfront redevelopment (Hoyle, 2000),for example, London’s Dockland and Boston’s Charles-town Navy Yard. This corresponds to new urban policies(Savitch, 1988) concerning physical planning and urbanrenewal in the 1970s and 1980s (Hoyle, 1989; Breen andRigby, 1994, 1996; Gordon, 1997a,b).

Powerful local forces were obliged to overcome globalforces through ports in their related cities as mentionedabove. Local forces have both conflicted and harmonizedwith global forces as seen in the changing spatial structuresof port cities. For example, the growth of New York’s portactivities in the nineteenth century, as well as in severalother American port cities, was made possible by expand-ing port areas along the shoreline (Meyer, 1999, p. 58). Asshown in Fig. 3, the growth period (1900–1950) of portareas was followed by a relative stagnation and a redevel-opment of its waterfront areas into urban areas. The effectsof transport revolutions, post-industrialization, and glob-alization on New York’s port industry are also reflectedin its demographic growth (from 2.3 million people in1850 to 7.5 million people in 1990) and its decline in trans-shipment of goods (from 115 million tons in 1979 to41 million tons in 1995). The case of New York confirmsin some way the model of port–city interface evolutionproposed by Hoyle (1989), suggesting successive stages ofport–city separation and redevelopment. However, thismodel does not include recent stages or differing evolutionin specific regions.

4. Port development models in developing countries

At the starting point of port evolution in industrializedEuropean countries, ports were the gateways to the outsideworld, backing the search for new export markets and


natural resources. During colonization, ports played acrucial role as trading places, but also as centers of techno-logical transfer, starting with the normalization of infra-structures to allow a direct connection to Western ports.

However, general port characteristics were different inadvanced and developing countries (Hoyle, 1983).Advanced ports were usually developed from fishing ornaval harbours, while colonial ports were located inalready established cities, playing a pivotal role betweenimmediate markets and external interests (Murphey1; Basu,1985). Colonialists needed to quickly and efficiently collectnatural resources from colonized countries and sell newlyprocessed goods in their territories. Thus, they soughtaccessible places with deep water, large spaces, and goodconnections between the foreland, or the overseas region,and the hinterland, or the interior region (Kuby and Reid,1992). Consequently, most colonial ports in Asia, Africa,and the Americas were built in places favourable for colo-nial interests. At this first stage, primary colonial cities werealso ports (Jones, 1990), with a similar urban and port hier-archy along trading coasts (Broeze, 1985; Knight and Liss,1991). Counter examples can be found, notably in India,with the continuous decline of the linear correlationbetween port city population and port traffic as well asthe emergence of new ports outside traditional port cities(Kidwai, 1989).

In this context, many researchers have concentrated onthe growth and functions of Western and colonial ports(Hoyle, 1969; Charlier, 1992). Some comparative studieshave examined ports in terms of the geographical spec-trum, notably in the context of globalization processes,which have occurred over a short time period. Fig. 4 andTable 4 illustrate the various foci of previous researcherstogether with their positions and concerns.

Taaffe et al. (1963) suggest an increasing level of portconcentration as the degree to which such networks arerooted, functionally and historically, in the port system.

The resulted port concentration can cause degradationor the disappearance of minor ports in the network.Although Taaffe et al.’s (1963) work is one of the earlieststudies identifying the process of port concentration, itremains conceptual and dependent on a regional scale. Hil-ling (1977) identifies three phases of development: surf-port, lighterage and deep-water port. His model, basedon spatial consolidation and rationalization, is more meth-odological as it measures the changing index of portconcentration.

Further works focus on management issues, like thenecessity for post-colonial port cities to welcome technol-ogy transfers, in accordance to their particular tradingand socio-economic context (Hilling, 1983), and the needfor long-term territorial planning and economic stabilitybased on national plans, as seen in Africa (Hoyle, 1983).

1 Murphey, R., Colonialism in Asia and the Role of Port Cities. Draftversion sent by the author.

The technological spread of containerization observed inIndonesia (Airriess, 1989) shows an interesting continua-tion of exogenous development through penetration pro-cesses between ports and hinterlands, confirmed by Hoyleand Charlier (1995) about the East African port system.In such cases, containerization is another stage of export-led development to serve the interests of industrializedcountries.

Port cities in developing countries have been lessaffected by globalization. Although in former colonial portsystems, containerization is seen as a continuous trend ofexogenous development focused on ports, the Asian caseshows important deviations due to the fact that container-ization has been a tool for endogenous development. Mostdeveloped Asian countries not only welcomed globalnetworks passively but developed a strategy for productiv-ity and innovation through the appropriation of foreigntechnologies. It is thus interesting to investigate the Asiancase to formulate a specific model of port–city interactionin a regional and local perspective focused on hub portcities.

5. New growth pattern of port cities in Asia

5.1. An Asian consolidation model

Hoyle’s model shows the evolution of port–city interac-tion through functional and spatial interface in terms ofWestern port cities. Hoyle’s model has five stages: primitivecity–port, expanding city–port, modern industrial city–port, retreat from the waterfront, and redevelopment ofthe waterfront. This explains the separation between cityand port due to functional and spatial conflicts betweencity and port, highlighting the growth pattern in Westernport cities. However, this model did not foresee differentevolutions in specific regions. This study proposes an Asian

consolidation model mainly inspired by the cases of HongKong and Singapore. As shown in Fig. 5, the two modelsare very dissimilar due to the continuation of port activitiesclose to the urban core.

Fishing coastal village: The Asian consolidation model ismarked by a recent and rapid evolution. Every stage isunder the leitmotiv of port–city symbiosis. Prior to theinfluence of external powers, fishing coastal villages exploita relatively limited area inland and at sea through the sea-sonal activity of local residents and markets.

Colonial Cityport: The Colonial Cityport marks theadjustment of some of these villages to Western shippingstandards, in order to allow pendulum services and exploitclose hinterlands. Small harbours are turned into ports,and a hierarchical structure develops along the coastalurban system. Because of limited inland penetration (seeFig. 1), the Asian port city continuously concentratesindustries and populations around the original core, withport facilities expanding as trade increases. Few studieshave analyzed the inner patterns of port cities in developingcountries (Gleave, 1997). In the Asian case, spatial models

Fig. 4. Evolution of port issues in developing countries. Source: Compiled from various sources.

Table 4A general model of port development in developing countries

Phases Principles

Scattered ports Initial scattered pattern resulting from the competition among seaports and between seaports and inland centersPenetration lines and port

concentrationGateway ports are growing and concentrating in line with main corridors

Interconnection Some big port cities have further agglomerated economies, growing as a result of intensified competition betweencities

High-priority linkages Development of trunk lines and high-priority linkages between the largest centers, which reinforce further maincorridors and linkages, with poorly connected ports becoming more and more isolated

Source: Taaffe et al. (1963, p. 504).


exist for Southeast Asia (McGee, 1967), India (Kosambiand Brush, 1988), and South Asia (Eliot, 2003). However,even if Southeast port cities are similar to colonial port cit-ies, Northeast Asian port cities might not fit the same pat-tern (e.g., Japan, Korea, China).

Entrepot Cityport: The Entrepot Cityport is a continua-tion of the external influence, defined by the improvementof port facilities, the expansion of Western quarters adja-cent to the original urban core, and the rural exodus frominland areas, as port and pre-industrial activities require aconsiderable amount of labour. For instance, the issue offunctional mixture between European colonial quartersand the new CBD formation is not relevant for Northeastport cities and, inversely, the importance of reclamationfrom the sea is not a dominant trend in Southeast Asia,

except in the Singapore case. Such places become impor-tant relays to connect Western countries through maritimetrade.

Free-Trade Port City: The Free-Trade Port City is char-acterised by a series of government policies which aim atpursuing the modernization process according to worldstandards. The important and specific inheritance of theprevious stages has fostered new models of economic devel-opment where ports play a major role. Port facilitiesquickly adapt to international standards like containeriza-tion through drastic measures. The enormous benefits ofindustrial development allow for heavy investment in portmodernization. Port areas continue to concentrate cargosin direct relation with the local economy, reaching high levelsof terminal productivity. Logistics parks (or distriparks),

Fig. 5. Stages in the evolution of Western and Asian port–city interfaces. Sources: Modified from Hoyle (1989, p. 7) and Lee (2005, p. 145).


special economic zones, and mega-terminals (Feng andChia, 2000) altogether form another specificity of the Asiancase. In the 1960s, a wave of free zone development spreadin Asia in places such as Kaohsiung in Taiwan (1966),Masan in Korea (1971), and, of course, Hong Kong andSingapore as free ports and already developed businessenvironments. Resulting from the transport and logisticsrevolution, these components of new generation port citiesstrongly influence port city spatial structures. If on oneside, port–city growth has led to land-use conflict andtransportation congestion at the port–city interface in Wes-tern countries (Hoyle, 1988; Norcliffe et al., 1996), on theother hand, it has urged port and city players to find newforms of governance and planning in Asian port cities(Cheung et al., 2003).

Hub port city: Hub port cities’ development can bedescribed in three respects in terms of the economies ofscale they provide compared to other port cities:

(i) Location: Transport revolution and the economies ofscale have encouraged the development of mega-ports at strategic locations between routes andbetween markets, with accessible and available landreserves.

(ii) Cost: Multi-national corporations (MNCs), affectedby economies of scale and globalization, have lookedfor favorable places to save costs and launch newmarkets (Holly, 1996). This was the case of the Asiandragons, which provided MNCs with market poten-tial and low labor costs for manufacturing. Notably,this trend has been reinforced by China’s Open Door

Policy and its membership of the World Trade Orga-nization (WTO).

(iii) Business environment: A number of Asian countrieshave embraced the neo-liberal model of free tradeand laissez-faire. Their ‘‘economic liberalization’’policy prompts privatization and deregulation (Broh-man, 1997). Thus, many MNCs have gathered inAsian countries where the political environment hasalso stimulated the advancement of port and urbanareas. Such trends are fundamental to understandthe advent of global hub port cities.

The city, which has become a global center not only forindustries but for tertiary and tourism activities, redevelopsthe colonial port through a Western-like waterfront projectthat favors public recreational areas. To sustain port effi-ciency without closing existing port installations, distri-parks and container freight depots are developed in portback-up areas for cargo consolidation. However, contain-erization and urban development keep developing contigu-ously despite very high population density, as public spacesare adjacent to modern port areas. Thus, a major feature ofAsian port cities is the successful management of densitywithin a constrained and diverse environment as a resultof a rapid urban and port growth.

In this respect, it would be expected that efficient portand urban planning result from excellent port and urbanpolicies. Appropriate port policy inside the port and urbanpolicy outside of the port have helped to overcome spacelimitations by maximizing port facilities and compactingland use. These polices have also reduced traffic congestion


through restricting transportation policy and discriminat-ing land use. Such phenomena, observed in hub port cities,seem to constitute an important deviation from traditionalport–city models.

Global hub port city: Global changes have caused thedramatic rise of several Asian cities in the hierarchical sys-tem of urban places (Shin and Timberlake, 2000, p. 2257).The rapid industrialization of the Asia-Pacific economicregion has triggered the globalization of production, sus-tained by substantial capital inflows. This has led to ademand from producers for an integrated global logisticalsystem to handle increasingly containerized cargoes com-prising finished and semi-finished goods moving to andfrom the Asia-Pacific economic region (Rimmer, 1998).Asian cities have raised their economic profile in the world.As Wang (1998) states, port cities are the interface betweenthe developing hinterland and the developed foreland;Asian hub port cities, such as Hong Kong and Singapore,have played a crucial role in such an interface, connectingEurope and North America (i.e., the developed foreland)with China and Southeast Asia (i.e., the developing hinter-land), respectively. As crucial global connections, theseport cities have grown very rapidly as unique positions inthe world.

One common aspect of all Asian ports is the new portformation, away from the original port–city core, withthe latter continuing to exert efficient port functions. Likeother regions of the world, the shift of port facilitiestowards outer areas is caused by a lack of capacity andaccessibility in the context of continued trade growth.Although there is a common trend among Western portcites, a major difference is increasing port activity in origi-nal port areas close to the city center. In Western port cit-ies, traffic at former docks, which has usually ceased, hasbeen the focus of important urban regeneration strategies.In Asia, former port installations are still crucial for inter-national trade. As a consequence, port–city inner areas andnew industrial and port outer areas are emerging as com-plex entities which are still highly interdependent.

In the case of hub port cities, such phenomena also exist,but in two cases the new port is located outside of the City–State borders (Shenzhen, mainland China for Hong Kongand Tanjung Pelepas, Malaysia for Singapore). Aside fromthese exceptions, the new ports are managed by the sameport authorities and financed by the same State, with somelocal- or regional-based administrative frictions: Jaw-aharlal Nehru (Bombay), Port Muhammad Bin Qasim(Karachi), Busan New Port (Busan), Yangsan (Shanghai),and Laem Chabang (Bangkok).

5.2. The experiences of Hong Kong and Singapore

It is common knowledge that Hong Kong and Singa-pore were two fishing coastal villages of a hundred dwellersbefore the intervention of external powers. Their advanta-geous location and nautical accessibility gave them a stra-tegic importance for becoming colonial cityports, but the

main reason differs. For Hong Kong, it is more its potentialas a gateway to China which was the motivation of BritishEmpire to establish there, and start trade negotiations. ForSingapore, the main factor was its intermediate situationbetween East and South Asia, together with its insular con-figuration, a strong factor in establishing a secured Entre-pot function, but the aim of Singapore has never beenthe conquest of the hinterland. Because the conquest ofChina has failed, the development of Hong Kong becamemore and more similar to Singapore, and the two port cit-ies have evolved as Island-States with radically differentinstitutions and functions than those of their neighboringcountries. For a long time, they remain the most advancedport cities of Asia, both in terms of port modernization andurban expansion.

Notably, the similarity between Hong Kong and Singa-pore is crucial when the two cities become hub port cities.For example, Wang (1998) and Slack and Wang (2003)indicate important variations between the developmentstages of Hong Kong, Singapore, and Shanghai comparedto the work of Hayuth (1981). This difference can be attrib-uted to the unique relationship between Hong Kong andsouthern China created under the impact of globalizationand containerization. The rise of Singapore as an ICT-based global container hub is also peculiar as it bringstogether the simultaneous processes of spatial agglomera-tion and dispersion associated with regional MNC produc-tion strategies (Airriess, 2001).

The current situation differs from the developmentstages based on previous studies regarding the models ofport growth. Hub port cities have jumped through twoor three stages of development when compared with themodel of Hayuth (1981). For instance, Wang (1998), Wangand Slack (2000), and Slack and Wang (2003) have sug-gested a three-stage model for Hong Kong based on thespecial trajectory for the load center and its unique rela-tionships with its dramatically dynamic hinterland. Wang(1998) argues that its proximity to underdeveloped Chineseports has allowed Hong Kong to achieve its load centerstatus in a very short period of time. Slack and Wang(2003, p. 164) state ‘‘the factors that give rise to this decon-centration in East and South Asia are only partly in accor-dance with the model explanation. Neither internalcongestion nor inadequate terminals account for the chal-lenges presently being felt by the ports of Hong Kongand Singapore’’.

Rodrigue et al. (1997) suggest that the strong growth inthe Asia-Pacific region creates a high demand for containertransportation. A limited number of container ports, suchas Singapore and Hong Kong, are able to grow rapidlyand exploit their regional niches without much competi-tion. However, transshipment in the two hub port citiesleads to a double counting of containers, handled fromone water carrier to another at the terminal. Consequently,during the 1990s, they retained their positions as theworld’s busiest ports as well as core global cities in Asia.In Busan, the rapid concentration of population and port


growth has not produced a global city, given its depen-dence on Seoul’s centrality in terms of decisional activities(Fremont and Ducruet, 2005). Busan and Kaohsiung (Tai-pei) thus suffer from the ‘‘lock-in effect’’ of centralizedurban systems (Fujita and Mori, 1996), which accentuatetheir specialization in heavy industry. Thus, the hub portcities of Hong Kong and Singapore are specific individual-ized cases within Asia.

However, the symbiotic state of the hub port cities isfacing an increasing number of limitations. Wang (1998)indicates two dimensions for Hong Kong ports regardingthe space problems: first, the lack of stacking space withinthe port; second, the lack of stacking, parking, and repair-ing space outside the port. Hong Kong has taken somemeasures to offset these problems, such as higher port pro-ductivity and efficiency as well as high technical logisticcenters and open space (OS) zones. In the case of Singa-pore, Zhu et al. (2002) argue that conducive businessenvironments and well-developed infrastructures arefavourable destinations for MNCs investments. Singa-pore’s port industries are also located in dense and com-pact distriparks and high technical logistic centers, as aresponse to global and local forces such as the increasingpresence of these in- and outward multi-national opera-tions. This gives Singapore a highly efficient port functionand a wealthy environment for urban functions.

However, Hong Kong and Singapore are not yet fittingin the functional and spatial models of Murphey (1989)

Fig. 6. Hub port city within the matrix of port–city relatio

and Hoyle (1989). Port and city remain strongly linkedand interdependent in the two cases, through a constantrenewal of this dynamic by seeking new opportunities atdifferent levels: hinterland expansion for Hong Kong, glo-bal terminal network construction for Singapore (PSA).

Hong Kong and Singapore might have followed Hoyle’smodel until the early 1980s, but they confronted newchanges due to post-industrialization, globalization, andChina’s Open Door Policy. Such factors have forced themto adapt rapidly in terms of port–city growth, port produc-tivity and efficiency, and urban attractiveness. Under thesecircumstances, Hong Kong and Singapore have created anew urban growth pattern. They had undergone the stageof conflict and co-operation during the 1980s and 1990s,while such phenomena occur during the 1960s and 1970sin Hoyle’s model, where it leads to a total separationbetween city and port. Waterfronts are developed in theold port cities, while the separated port grows with littlechance of becoming a new city.

5.3. Global hub port city defined

Our review of the former works allows us to formulatesome specific characteristics of Asian hub port cities,mainly from the cases of Hong Kong and Singapore. Firstof all, both ports have managed to maintain a doubleleading position in both global urban and port systems,made possible by overcoming traffic congestion and space

nships. Source: Modified from Ducruet (2004, p. 22).

Table 5Specific characteristics of global hub port cities

Port function Urban function Port–city evolution

Global

Serving major searoutes

Financial attractiveness Rapiddiversification

Shipping lineconcentration

Air transport hub Maintain logisticquality

Regional

Hub/feeder function City–state Hinterlandenlargement

New port outsideboundaries

Isolation from mainlandnetwork

Port co-operation

Absence of hinterland Cut from regional urbannetwork

Local

High terminalproductivity

Proximity of port andCBD

Efficient planningpolicy

Cost and congestionthreats

Lack of space

Source: Compiled from various sources.


limitations through dynamic growth over a short period oftime. The development of new ports in their vicinityappears to be a complement rather than a threat for thecontinuous prosperity of hub port cities.

Fig. 6 helps to position the hub port city concept and itsglobal position among other types of port cities and port–city relationships, based on the principles of intermediacy(i.e., transportation systems) and centrality (i.e., settlementsystems) as defined by Fleming and Hayuth (1994). In thefigure, ‘cityports’ are more likely to become ‘general cities’in Western countries, while they continue to expand in Asia.

The global hub port city has specific functions comparedto other port cities as specified in Table 5. With the loosen-ing of port functions, which usually occurs within impor-tant metropolitan economies, hub port cities may turninto maritime cities, where port activities constitute animportant but secondary function of the local economy,and then become general cities, which are similar tonon-port cities in terms of economical structure. In themeantime, new gateways (interfaces between forelandsand hinterlands) and new hubs (strategic relays for theconcentration of shipping lines) will absorb these activitiesin more suitable locations.

6. Concluding remarks

This paper has examined hub port cities in Asia byreviewing the existing literature in terms of port spatialevolution. Asian hub port cities have undergone a uniquemodel of evolution in terms of port–city interface. Thisuniqueness is believed to be induced from simultaneousinternal and external forces. Drastic changes in the regionalenvironment have caused hub port cities to evolve in a spe-cific way that is different from their international counter-parts. To respond to such changes, new policies havebeen implemented, and the city and port have become

more cohesive and closely connected to increase competi-tiveness. The phenomenon of consolidation distinguishesAsian hub port cities from the theory of separation pro-posed by previous contemporary researchers such as Hoy-le, 2000, 1989, 1996, 1983. The unique process of portevolution in Asian hub port cities is referred to as the Asianconsolidation model to give a distinctive identity to the evo-lution of the Asian ports. Future prospects shall insist onthe existence of perhaps different Asian models of port–cityevolution, by enlarging the comparison to other Asian hubport cities.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the editor-in-chief ProfessorAndrew Leyshon and three anonymous referees for theirkind and constructive comments and suggestions whichmade a significant contribution to the current form of thepaper. As always, any errors of interpretation remain theresponsibility of the authors.

References

Airriess, C., 1989. The spatial spread of container transport in adeveloping regional economy: North Sumatra, Indonesia. Transpor-tation Research A 23, 453–461.

Airriess, C., 2001. Regional production, information–communicationtechnology, and the developmental state: the rise of Singapore as aglobal container hub. Geoforum 32, 235–254.

Arasaratnam, S., 1992. Pre-colonial and early-colonial port towns. In:Banga, I. (Ed.), Ports and their Hinterlands in India 1700–1950, NewDelhi, Manohar, pp. 367–372.

Barke, M., 1986. Transport and Trade. Oliver & Boyd.Basu, D., 1985. The rise and growth of the colonial port cities in Asia.

Center for South and South East Asian Studies, University ofCalifornia, US.

Bird, J., 1963. The Major Seaports of the United Kingdom. Hutchison,London.

Boyer, J., Vigarie, A., 1982. Les ports et l’organisation urbaine etregionale. Bulletin de l’association des Geographes Francais 487, 159–182.

Breen, A., Rigby, D., 1994. Waterfronts: Cities Reclaim their Edge.McGraw-Hill, New York.

Breen, A., Rigby, D., 1996. The New Waterfront: A Worldwide UrbanSuccess Story. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Broeze, F., 1985. Port cities: the search for an identity. Journal of UrbanHistory 11, 209–225.

Brohman, J., 1997. Postwar development in the Asian NICs: Does theneoliberal model fit reality? Economic Geography 72 (2), 107–130.

Charlier, J., 1992. Structural change in the Belgian port system. MaritimePolicy and Management 15, 315–326.

Charlier, J., 1996. The Benelux seaport system. Tidjschrift voor Econom-ische en Sociale Geografie 87, 310–321.

Cheung, R., Tong, J., Slack, B., 2003. The transition from freightconsolidation to logistics: the case of Hong Kong. Journal ofTransport Geography 11, 245–253.

Containerisation International Yearbook, various years, London, EmapBusiness Communications Ltd.

Ducruet, C., 2004. Port Cities: laboratories of globalisation. UnpublishedPhD Dissertation in Geography, Le Havre University.

Ducruet, C., 2005a. Spatial structures and trends in port cities: from thelocal to the global, Mappemonde, 77. <http://mappemonde.mgm.fr/num5/articles/art05106.html>.

http://mappemonde.mgm.fr/num5/articles/art05106.html

http://mappemonde.mgm.fr/num5/articles/art05106.html


Ducruet, C., 2005b. Approche comparee du developpement des villes-ports a l’echelle mondiale: problemes theoriques et methodologiques.Cahiers Scientifiques du Transport 48, 59–79.

Ducruet, C., Jeong, O., 2005. European port–city interface and its Asianapplication. Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements,Research Report 17.

Eliot, E., 2003. Chorotype de la metropole portuaire d’Asie du Sud.Mappemonde 69, 7–10.

Feng, C., Chia, K., 2000. Logistics opportunities in Asia and developmentin Taiwan. Transport Reviews 20 (2), 257–265.

Fleming, D.K., 1989. On the beaten track: a view of US West-Coastcontainer port competition. Maritime Policy and Management 16,263–275.

Fleming, D., Hayuth, Y., 1994. Spatial characteristics of transportationhubs: centrality and intermediacy. Journal of Transport Geography 2(1), 3–18.

Fremont, A., Ducruet, C., 2005. The emergence of a mega port: from thelocal to the global. The case of Busan. Tijdschrift voor EconomischeEn Sociale Geografie 96 (4), 421–432.

Friedman, T., 2005. The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.

Fujita, M., Mori, T., 1996. The role of ports in the making of major cities:self-agglomeration and hub-effect. Journal of Development Economics49, 93–120.

Gleave, M., 1997. Port activities and the spatial structure of cities: the caseof freetown, Sierra Leone. Journal of Transport Geography 5 (4), 257–275.

Gordon, D., 1997a. Managing the changing political environment inurban waterfront redevelopment. Urban Studies 34 (1), 61–83.

Gordon, D., 1997b. Financing urban waterfront redevelopment. Journalof the American Planning Association 63 (2), 224–265.

Goss, R., 1990. Economic policies and seaports: part 1 – the economicfunctions of seaports. Maritime Policy and Management 17 (3), 207–219.

Hambleton, R., Savitch, H., Stewart, M., 2002. Globalism and LocalDemocracy: Challenge and Change in Europe and North America.Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Hayuth, Y., 1981. Containerization and the load centre concept.Economic Geography 57, 160–176.

Hilling, D., 1977. The evolution of a port system: the case of Ghana.Geography 62 (2), 97–105.

Hilling, D., 1983. Ships, ports and developing economies. Geojournal 14,333.

Hoare, A., 1986. British ports and their export hinterland: a rapidlychanging geography. Geografiska Annaler 68B (4), 29–40.

Holly, B., 1996. Restructuring the production system. In: Daniels, P.,Lever, W. (Eds.), The Global Economy in Transition. Addison-Wesley, Harlow, pp. 24–39.

Hoyle, B., 1983. Seaports and Development: The Experience of Kenyaand Tanzania. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York,London.

Hoyle, B.S., 1988. Waterfront redevelopment and the cityport economy.Maritime Policy and Management 15, 255–256.

Hoyle, B., 1989. The port–city interface: trends, problems, and examples.Geoforum 20 (4), 429–435.

Hoyle, B. (Ed.), 1996. Cityports, Coastal Zones and Regional Change.John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Hoyle, B., 2000. Global and local change on the port–city waterfront.Geographical Review 90 (3), 395–417.

Hoyle, B., Charlier, J., 1995. Inter-port competition in developingcountries: an East African case study. Journal of Transport Geography3 (2), 87–103.

Hoyle, B., Pinder, D., 1981. Cityport Industrialization and RegionalDevelopment: Spatial Analysis and Planning Strategies. PergamonPress, Oxford.

Hoyle, B.S., Pinder, D.A., Husain, M.S. (Eds.), 1988. Revitalising theWaterfront: International Dimensions of Dockland Redevelopment.Belhaven, London.

Jones, E., 1990. Metropolis: The World’s Great Cities. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford.

Kenyon, J., 1970. Elements in inter-port competition in the United States.Economic Geography 46 (1), 1–24.

Kidwai, A., 1989. Port cities in a national system of ports and cities: ageographical analysis of India in the 20th century. In: Broeze, F. (Ed.),Brides of the Sea: Port Cities of Asia from the 16th to 20th Centuries.University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, pp. 207–222.

Knight, F., Liss, P., 1991. Atlantic Port Cities: Economy Culture andSociety in the Atlantic World, 1650–1850. University of TennesseePress, Knoxville.

Kosambi, M., Brush, J., 1988. Three colonial port cities in India.Geographical Review 78 (1), 32–47.

Kuby, M., Reid, N., 1992. Technological change and the concentration ofthe US general cargo port system: 1970–1988. Economic Geography68, 272–289.

Lee, S.-W., 2005. Interaction between city and port in Asian hub portcities. Unpublished PhD Dissertation in Urban Planning, University ofSeoul.

Mayer, H., 1957. The port of Chicago and the St. Lawrence seaway.Department of Geography Research Paper, No. 49. University ofChicago, Chicago.

McCalla, R., Slack, B., Comtois, C., 2004. Dealing with globalization atthe regional and local level: the case of contemporary containerization.Canadian Geographer 48, 473–487.

McGee, T., 1967. The Southeast Asian City: A Social Geography of thePrimate Cities. G. Bell & Sons Ltd., London.

Meyer, H., 1999. City and Port. International Books, Utrecht.Murphey, R., 1989. On the evolution of the port city. In: Broeze, F. (Ed.),

Brides of the Sea: Port Cities of Asia from the 16th to 20th Centuries.University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, pp. 223–245.

Norcliffe, G., Bassett, K., Hoare, T., 1996. The emergence of postmod-ernism on the urban waterfront. Journal of Transport Geography 4(2), 123–134.

Notteboom, T., 1997. Concentration and load centre development in theEuropean container port system. Journal of Transport Geography 5(2), 99–115.

Notteboom, T., Rodrigue, J., 2005. Port regionalization: towards a newphase in port development. Maritime Policy and Management 32 (3),297–313.

Rimmer, P., 1967a. The changing status of New Zealand seaports, 1853–1960. Annals Association of American Geographers 51 (1), 88–100.

Rimmer, P., 1967b. The search for spatial regularities in the developmentof Australian seaports. Geografiska Annaler 49B, 42–54.

Rimmer, P., 1998. Ocean liner shipping services: corporate restructuringand port selection/competition. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 39 (2), 193–208.

Rodrigue, J., Comtois, C., Slack, B., 1997. Transportation and spatialcycles: evidence from maritime systems. Journal of Transport Geog-raphy 5 (2), 87–98.

Rozenblat, C., 2004. Les Villes Portuaires en Europe, Analyse Compar-ative. CNRS, Montpellier.

Savitch, H., 1988. Post-Industrial Cities. Princeton University Press,Princeton.

Shin, K., Timberlake, M., 2000. World cities in Asia: cliques, centralityand connectedness. Urban Studies 37 (12), 2257–2285.

Slack, B., 1985. Containerization, inter-port competition and portselection. Maritime Policy and Management 12, 293–303.

Slack, B., 1990. Intermodal transportation in North American and thedevelopment of inland load centres. Professional Geographer 42, 72–83.

Slack, B., 1993. Pawns in the game: ports in a global transportationsystem. Growth and Change 24, 579–588.

Slack, B., Wang, J., 2003. The challenge of peripheral ports: an Asianperspective. GeoJournal 56, 159–166.

Smith, A., 1776. The Wealth of Nations. David Campbell, London.Song, D.-W., 2003. Port co-operation in concept and practice. Maritime

Policy and Management 30 (1), 29–44.


Starr, J., 1994. The mid-Atlantic load centre: Baltimore or Hamptonroads. Maritime Policy and Management 21 (3), 219–227.

Taaffe, E., Morrill, R., Gould, P., 1963. Transport expansion inunderdeveloped countries: a comparative analysis. GeographicalReview 53, 503–529.

Vallega, A., 1983. Nodalite et centralite face a la multimodalite: elementspour un relais entre theorie regionale et theorie des transports. In:Muscara, C., Poli, C. (Eds.), Transport Geography Facing Geography,Papers and Proceedings of the Paris Meeting, I.G.U. Working Groupon Geography of Transport, June 26–29, pp. 69–88.

Vigarie, A., 1979. Ports de Commerce et Vie Littorale. HachetteUniversite, Paris.

Wang, J., 1998. A container load centre with a developing hinterland: acase study of Hong Kong. Journal of Transport Geography 6 (3), 187–201.

Wang, J., Slack, B., 2000. The evolution of a regional container portsystem: the Pearl River Delta. Journal of Transport Geography 8, 263–275.

Weigend, G., 1958. Some elements in the study of port geography.Geographical Review 48, 185–200.

Zhu, J., Lean, H., Ying, S., 2002. The third-party logistics services andglobalization of manufacturing. International Planning Studies 7 (1),89–104.

A tale of Asia’s world ports: The spatial evolution in global hub port cities

Documents

Transcript of A tale of Asia’s world ports: The spatial evolution in global hub port cities