Economic development paths of port-cities: specialization vs.

diversification
OECD Seminar Paris, 14 June 2011
Dr. Csar DUCRUET

CNRS & UMR Gographie-Cits

Brief outline
Introduction Models of port-city evolution Measures of port-city relations Main results of a global analysis Implications for policy and practice Discussion and further research paths

Introduction
Most researches on port cities point at decreasing benefits of port activities and lowering interdependence between ports and cities But there is a drastic lack of evidence in terms of comparative study on a large-scale due to scarcity of relevant data Empirical results drawn from a study on population and container traffic of port cities from 1970 to 2005: diversity of trajectories Ongoing works on the 1890-2010 period for an analysis of the evolution of the global maritime network and port cities: new responses?

Models of port-city evolution

Spatial models: lack of space and congestion at urban core (e.g. upstream), relocation of modern terminals at non-urban locations (Bird, 1963) revitalization of former port areas, waterfront redevelopment (Hoyle, 1989) Economic models port and maritime functions are catalysts at initial stages of urban growth but gradually lose their importance as cities grow other functions and become autonomous (Murphey, 1989) self-agglomeration and lock-in effect depend on the proximity and connection of the port city to another large (non-port) city (Fujita and Mori, 1996)

Many factors: site, situation, respective port and urban performance within their respective networks Port cities as systems within systems of cities AND systems of ports (cf. Berry, 1964)

Measures of port-city relations

Necessity of one single and robust measure but: - limited comparability of impact estimates (e.g. employment in specific sectors, value-added) - no study on longterm evolution; most studies within a single country (Belgium, Italy) - no disaggregated measure of cityrelated port traffic and port-related urban traffic
Types of specialization Description Surface of port areas and other areas (industry, residence, services) Employment in portrelated industries Outcome for port-city studies Possible sources for international comparison 1000 Cities database (Duisburg University)

Land use

Share of port areas in total built-up (urban) areas Share of port-related industries in the local economy

Local economic structure Port hinterland

Eurostat, USA, Gripaios (1999) None

Spatial distribution of freight flows

Modal distribution of freight flows (e.g. sea, air, rail, road, river) Stock indicators of ports and cities Commodity mix of port cargo flows versus urban economy Socio-economic indicators compared with regional-national average

Share of city in total port traffic/hinterland

Share of port in total city traffic Correlation analysis, relative concentration index Relation between port specialization and city specialization Compare port cities with non-port cities (unemployment, GDP, wage levels)

City modal split

None

Weight

See performance indicators

Traffic structure

See performance indicators

Local-regional

See performance indicators

Previous findings on port-city interaction measures

Port traffic often associated with low or decreasing regional economic performance in developed countries (De Langen; Ducruet, Hall; Lever; Grobar) Port traffic not always in accordance with urban size and concentration of service activities (Slack; OConnor; Jacobs et al.) However traffic variety (rather than size) influenced by urban size (Ducruet et al.) Region-specific interactions, maintained correlation between port traffic and urban size in some regions, not in others; hub effect in port systems under pressure Recent work on Chinese port cities showing strong correlation between port growth and urban economic growth

Port traffic variety in Europe

Air & maritime traffic specializations in different subnetworks

Methodology for a global comparison

Relative concentration index (1970-2005) - based on population and container traffic of cities within their region - definition of different types of port cities based on thresholds - takes into account various scales and phenomena: urban size and growth, port size and growth, relative shares, port competition, local contraints, traffics shifts - how has port function stabilized, increased or decreased in a given city compared with other cities and other functions?

Summary of findings: typology of port-city trajectories in the world

1,20

Tokyo / Yokohama

40000 35000 30000

7000000 6000000 5000000 4000000 3000000 2000000 1000000 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Pop. TEUs

1,00 0,80 0,60 0,40 0,20 0,00 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 RCI_reg RCI_world

25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0

4,00 3,50

2500000 2000000 1500000

RCI_reg RCI_world

8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 TEUs Pop.

Oakland

3,00 2,50 2,00 1,50 1,00 0,50 0,00 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

1000000 500000 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

3000 2000 1000 0

10,00

100000 90000 80000

1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 TEUs Pop.

Amsterdam

1,00 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 RCI_reg RCI_world 0,10

70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0

0,01

10,00

5000 4500 4000

700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Pop. TEUs

Liverpool

1,00 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 RCI_reg RCI_world 0,10

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

0,01

1,80 1,60

4500000 4000000

30000 25000

New York

1,40 1,20 1,00 0,80 0,60 0,40 0,20 0,00 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 RCI_reg RCI_world

3500000 3000000 2500000 15000 2000000 1500000 1000000 5000 500000 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 0 10000 20000 TEUs Pop.

2,00

18000 16000 14000 12000

RCI_reg RCI_world

14000000 12000000 10000000 8000000 6000000 4000000 2000000 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
25000000 20000000 15000000 10000000 5000000 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Pop. TEUs

Los Angeles

1,80 1,60 1,40 1,20 1,00 0,80 0,60 0,40 0,20 0,00 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0

Pop. TEUs

9,00 8,00

9000 8000 7000 6000 5000

RCI_reg RCI_world

Hong Kong

7,00 6,00 5,00 4,00 3,00 2,00 1,00 0,00 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

4000 3000 2000 1000 0

1,20

6000 5000

1800000 1600000

Barcelona

1,00 0,80 0,60 0,40 RCI_reg RCI_world

1400000 4000 3000 800000 2000 1000 600000 400000 200000 0 0 1970
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

1200000 1000000 Pop. TEUs

0,20 0,00

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Implications for practice and policy and further research

Limits of the method and results: - Relative concentration index does not account for a precise impact measure but highlights interesting trends while facilitating comparisons - Port performance and traffic may increase relatively to urban size while benefits may decrease: difficult to conclude Towards recommendations: - Large port cities do not always lose their port functions (resilience to regional and global changes) - General cities rarely become hubs, hubs rarely transform into general cities; cityports more likely to diversify or specialize - RCI better indicator than sole traffic to identify turns in specific trajectories: result of a project / strategy to rejuvenate port functions (i.e. betterment of hinterland access, upgrading of facilities, expansion plans) - can point at strengths or weaknesses of port functions in cities beyond sole traffic throughputs: how have certains port cities resisted to external and internal pressures?

Further research: - expand the time frame (1890-2010) - extend to other commodities (general cargo, bulks) - work on regional rather than urban level where socio-economic data is more available (GDP, employment by sectors) - calculate a maritime-dependence index based on the accessibility of port and non-port cities in combined networks (air, road, sea, rail)

Thank you for your attention cdu@parisgeo.cnrs.fr