Abstract
European container ports compete in partially overlapping hinterland areas. The objective of this study is to model port choice and obtain insight into port choice decisions for European container imports from Asia. The importance of port choice factors and their impact on port market shares in the hinterland were investigated. Furthermore, sensitivity of the model in predicting the impact of increasing fuel prices on port hinterlands was tested. Containerised imports of 231 European mainland regions were compiled, based on shipping data, port statistics, modal split and gross regional products. Using literature sources, 11 port choice factors were selected; five of these were found to be statistically significant. These factors and their respective weights were used as input for a logit port choice model to analyse container port imports for 31 ports; the most detailed model yet. A varying oil price scenario was used to show the application and sensitivity of the model. Changing oil prices were found to have an impact on modal split and on the average hinterland transport distance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Source: Authors’ illustration. (Color figure online)
Source Mueller (2014)
Source Mueller (2014)
Source Mueller (2014)
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, C.M., J.J. Opaluch, and T.A. Grigalunas. 2009. The demand for import services at US container ports. Maritime Economics & Logistics 11: 156–185.
APL. 2013. Surcharge flyers for Europe Trades.
Aronietis, R., E. Van de Voorde, and T. Vanelslander. 2011. Competitiveness determinants of some European ports in the containerized cargo market. BIVEC/GIBET Transport Research Day.
Ben-Akiva, P.M.E., and S.R. Lerman. 1985. Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Biermann, F., and J. Wedemeier. 2016. Hamburg’s port position: Hinterland competition in Central Europe from TEN-T corridor ports, No 175, HWWI Research Papers from Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI). https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:zbw:hwwirp:175.
Burgess, A. 2008. Final Report TRANS-TOOLS (TOOLS for TRansport forecasting ANd Scenario testing) Deliverable 6. Funded by 6th Framework RTD Programme.
Cariou, P. 2011. Is slow steaming a sustainable means of reducing CO2 emissions from container shipping? Transportation Research Part D Transport and Environment 16 (3): 260–264.
Chang, Y.-T., S.-Y. Lee, and J.L. Tongzon. 2008. Port selection factors by shipping lines: different perspectives between trunk liners and feeder service providers. Marine Policy 32: 877–885.
CMACGM. 2012. Terminal handling charges in Europe. Marseille: CMACGM.
Containerisation-International. 2011. Containerisation International Yearbook 2011. London: Informa UK Ltd.
CPB. 2004. Verruiming van de vaarweg van de Schelde: Een maatschappelijke kosten-batenanalyse. The Hague: Centraal Planbureau (CPB).
DAL. 2012. Terminal handling charges Europe. DAL.
Danielis, R., and E. Marcucci. 2007. Attribute cut-offs in freight service selection. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 43 (5): 506–515.
De Langen, P.W. 2007. Port competition and selection in contestable hinterlands; the case of Austria. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 7: 1–14.
Dekker, S., R. Verhaeghe, and B. Wiegmans. 2011. Development of a strategy for port expansion: an optimal control approach. Transportation Research Part E 47: 204–215.
Drewry Maritime Research. 2011. Container market: Annual container market review and forecast. London: Drewry Maritime Research.
ECORYS. 2013. Intermodal links. Rotterdam: ECORYS.
EIA. 2011. Energy Prices [Online]. http://www.eia.gov. Accessed 29 Jan 2014.
ESPO. 2013. Port Statistics Database [Online]. Leicester: ESPO.
ETISPLUS-CONSORTIUM. 2013. ETISplus [Online]. http://www.etisplus.eu/default.aspx.
European Commission. 2013. Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-1143_en.htm.
EUROSTAT. 2013. Statistics. Brussels: EUROSTAT.
Feo-Valero, M., L. Garcia-Menendez, L. Saez-Carramolino, and S. Furio-Prunonosa. 2011. The importance of the inland leg of containerised maritime shipments: an analysis of modal choice determinants in Spain. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 47 (4): 446–460.
Grosso, M., and F. Monteiro. 2009. Relevant strategic criteria when choosing a container port—the case of the port of Genoa. In proceedings of the international conference on prospects for research in transport and logistics on a regional-global perspective, 299–306, February 2009.
Ha, M.S. 2003. A comparison of service quality at major container ports: implications for Korean ports. Journal of Transport Geography 11: 131–137.
Hair, J.F., W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, and R.E. Anderson. 2014. Multivariate data analysis, 7th ed. New York: Pearson.
Hapag-Lloyd. 2010. Terminal handling charges. Hamburg: Hapag-Lloyd.
Hapag-Lloyd. 2013. Surcharges from http://www.hapag-lloyd.com/en/news/news_page_29444.html.
Haralambides, H.E. 2019. Gigantism in container shipping, ports and global logistics: a time-lapse into the future. Maritime Economics and Logistics 21: 1–60. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-018-00116-0.
Hausman, W.H., H.L. Lee, and U. Subramanian. 2005. Global logistics indicators, supply chain metrics and bilateral trade patterns. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper.
ISL. 2014. North European Container Traffic Model [Online]. https://www.isl.org/en/nectm. Accessed 15 Jan 2014.
Karlaftis, M.G., K. Kepaptsoglou, and E. Sambracos. 2009. Containership routing with time deadlines and simultaneous deliveries and pick-ups. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 45: 210–221.
Kemme, N. 2013. Design and operation of automated container storage systems. Berlin: Springer.
Lam, J.S.L., and W.Y. Yap. 2006. A measurement and comparison of cost competitiveness of container ports in Southeast Asia. Transportation 33 (6): 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-006-7474-4.
Lirn, T., H. Thanopoulou, M. Beynon, and A. Beresford. 2004. An application of AHP on transhipment port selection: a global perspective. Maritime Economics and Logistics 6: 70–91.
Maersk. 2009. Global Maersk Line Terminal Handling Charge (THC) levels. Copenhagen: Maersk.
Maersk. 2013. Surcharges from: http://www.maerskline.com/link/?page=lhp&path=/europe/belgium/Surcharges. Copenhagen: Maersk.
Malchow, M., and A. Kanafani. 2001. A disaggregate analysis of factors influencing port selection. Maritime Policy and Management 28: 265–277.
MSC. 2013. Import local charges from http://www.mscbelgium.com/import/localcharges.html.
Mueller, M.A. 2014. Container port development. Master Thesis, TU Delft.
NEA. 2009. Modaliteiten Vergelijker, Zoetermeer. Singapore: NEA.
Nir, A.S., K. Lin, and G.-S. Liang. 2003. Port choice behaviour—from the perspective of the shipper. Maritime Policy and Management 30: 165–173.
Notteboom, T.E., and J.-P. Rodrigue. 2008. Containerisation, box logistics and global supply chains: The integration of ports and liner shipping networks. Maritime Economics and Logistics 10: 152–174.
Notteboom, T., and B. Vernimmen. 2009. The effect of high fuel costs on liner service configuration in container shipping. Journal of Transport Geography 17 (5): 325–337.
Nugroho, M.T., A. Whiteing, and G. De Jong. 2016. Port and inland mode choice from the exporters’ and forwarders’ perspectives: case study—Java, Indonesia. Research in Transportation Business and Management 19: 73–82.
OECD. 2010. Transcontinental infrastructure needs to 2030/2050: Port of Rotterdam case Study. Paris: OECD.
OOCL. 2009. European terminal handling charges/port security charges all trade lanes. Hong Kong: OOCL.
Ortuzar, J.D.D., and L.G. Willumsen. 2011. Modelling transport. Hoboken: Wiley.
Oum, T.H. 1989. Alternative demand models and their elasticity estimates. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 23: 163–187.
Parola, F., M. Risitano, M. Ferretti, and E. Panetti. 2017. The drivers of port competitiveness: a critical review. Transport Reviews 37 (1): 116–338.
Preston, J. 1996. The economics of British rail privatization: an assessment. Transport Reviews 16 (1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441649608716930.
RETRACK. 2012. Potential for Eurasia land bridge corridors & logistics developments along the corridors. European Commission DG TREN: RETRACK.
Rodrigue, J.-P., and T. Notteboom. 2010. Comparative North American and European gateway logistics: the regionalism of freight distribution. Journal of Transport Geography 18: 497–507.
Rodrigue, J.-P., C. Comtois, and B. Slack. 2009. The geography of transport systems. New York: Routledge.
Rodrigue, J.-P., J. Debrie, A. Fremont, and E. Gouvernal. 2010. Functions and actors of inland ports: European and North American dynamics. Journal of Transport Geography 18: 497–507.
Song, D.W., and K.-T. Yeo. 2004. A competitive analysis of Chinese container ports using the analytical hierarchy process. Maritime Economics and Logistics 6: 34–52.
SteadieSeifi, M., N.P. Dellaert, W.Van Nuijten, T. Woensel, and R. Raoufi. 2014. Multimodal freight transportation planning: a literature review. European Journal of Operational Research 233: 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.06.055.
Tavasszy, L., M. Minderhoud, J.F. Perrin, and T. Notteboom. 2011. A strategic network choice model for global container flows: specification, estimation and application. Journal of Transport Geography 19: 1163–1172.
TML. 2010. The competitiveness of European short sea freight shipping compared with road and rail transport. Brussels: European Commission DG Environment.
Tongzon, J.L. 2009. Port choice and freight forwarders. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 45: 186–195.
Tongzon, J.L., and L. Sawant. 2007. Port choice in a competitive environment: from the shipping lines’ perspective. Applied Economics 39: 477–492.
Ugboma, C., O. Ugboma, and I.C. Ogwude. 2006. An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach to port selection decisions—empirical evidence from Nigerian ports. Maritime Economics and Logistics 8: 251–266.
UNCTAD. 2018. Review of Maritime Transport 2018. Geneva, United Nations Publication. UNCTAD/RMT/2018. ISBN 978-92-1-112928-1.
Veldman, S. 2011. On the ongoing increase of containership size. In Advances in maritime logistics and supply chain systems. Singapore: World Scientific.
Veldman, S.J., and E.H. Buckmann. 2003. A model on container port competition: an application for the West European container hub-ports. Maritime Economics and Logistics 5: 3–22.
Veldman, S., E. Buckmann, and R. Nistal Saitua. 2005. River depth and container port market shares: The impact of deepening the Scheldt river on the West European container hub-port market shares. Maritime Economics and Logistics 7: 336–355.
Wiegmans, B., and J.W. Konings. 2015. Intermodal inland waterway transport: modeling conditions influencing its competitiveness. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 31 (2): 273–294.
Wiegmans, B.W., A. Van de Hoest, and T.E. Notteboom. 2008. Port and terminal selection by deep-sea container operators. Maritime Policy and Management 35: 517–534.
Wilmsmeier, G., J. Monois, and B. Lambert. 2011. The directional development of intermodal freight corridors in relation to inland terminals. Journal of Transport Geography 19: 1379–1386.
Witte, P., B. van Wiegmans, F. Oort, and T. Spit. 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.
World Shipping Council. 2013. Trade Statistics [Online]. Washington, DC: World Shipping Council.
Zhang, M., B. Wiegmans, and L. Tavasszy. 2013. Optimization of multimodal networks including environmental costs: a model and findings for transport policy. Computers in Industry 64 (2): 136–145.
Zondag, B., P. Bucci, P. Gutzkow, and G. De Jong. 2010. Port competition modeling including maritime, port, and hinterland characteristics. Maritime Policy and Management 37: 179–194.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Simme Veldman for supporting this paper and for his contributions to the study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Table with port data
Port | Water depth (m) | Number of port calls (per week) | Number of hinterland rail services | Number of hinterland IWT services | Number of short sea services | Port cost (€/TEU) | Modal split road (%) | Modal split rail (%) | Modal split IWT (%) | Port import scope (TEU) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Antwerp | 16 | 13 | 38 | 33 | 19 | 131 | 56 | 11 | 33 | 1,805,057 |
Zeebrugge | 16 | 5 | 24 | 0 | 11 | 131 | 55 | 44 | 1 | 497,468 |
Varna | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 125 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 33,715 |
Bremen | 16 | 8 | 19 | 0 | 10 | 160 | 51 | 45 | 4 | 1,076,466 |
Hamburg | 16.5 | 26 | 38 | 6 | 21 | 160 | 62 | 36 | 2 | 1,833,445 |
Talinn | 14.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 101 | 99 | 1 | 0 | 43,164 |
Bilbao | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 129 | 99 | 1 | 0 | 127,675 |
Barcelona | 16 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 7 | 133 | 92 | 8 | 0 | 406,852 |
Valencia | 16 | 9 | 8 | 0 | 5 | 133 | 80 | 20 | 0 | 910,115 |
Algeciras | 18.5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 133 | 99 | 1 | 0 | 182,046 |
Le Havre | 15.5 | 13 | 16 | 2 | 4 | 142 | 87 | 6 | 7 | 536,715 |
Marseille | 14.5 | 7 | 32 | 0 | 7 | 145 | 82 | 12 | 6 | 212,149 |
Thessaloniki | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 100 | 99 | 1 | 0 | 76,548 |
Pireaus | 18 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 104 | 99 | 1 | 0 | 123,698 |
Rijeka | 10.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 124 | 90 | 10 | 0 | 29,843 |
Genova/Le Spezia | 15 | 11 | 3 | 0 | 10 | 127 | 75 | 25 | 0 | 629,479 |
Venezia | 10.5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 129 | 97 | 3 | 0 | 73,796 |
Triest | 17.5 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 4 | 129 | 60 | 40 | 0 | 61,340 |
Livorno | 13 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 129 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 120,570 |
Napoli | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 129 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 118,994 |
Taranto | 15 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 129 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 36,731 |
Gioia Tauro | 16 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 129 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 179,966 |
Klaipeda | 12.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 86 | 75 | 25 | 0 | 83,776 |
Riga | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 97 | 99 | 1 | 0 | 82,649 |
Rotterdam | 19.5 | 28 | 37 | 45 | 24 | 148 | 57 | 10 | 33 | 2,511,095 |
Gdansk/Gdynia | 16.5 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 16 | 79 | 60 | 40 | 0 | 163,011 |
Leixoes | 12 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 13 | 120 | 95 | 5 | 0 | 127,614 |
Lisboa | 14 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 8 | 120 | 95 | 5 | 0 | 119,190 |
Sines | 17.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 120 | 95 | 5 | 0 | 83,203 |
Constanta | 15.5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 94 | 48 | 47 | 5 | 121,224 |
Koper | 11.5 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 114 | 40 | 60 | 0 | 135,407 |
Appendix 2: Screenshot of OD-matrix
Hinterland region | Antwerp | Zeebrugge | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Country | NUTS code | ETIS code | NUTS-2 region | Road | Rail | IWT | Road | Rail | IWT |
Austria | AT | 1010000 | |||||||
AT11 | 1010101 | Burgenland (AT) | 22.6 | 763.8 | 1353.3 | 7.4 | 367.1 | 60.4 | |
AT12 | 1010102 | Niederösterreich | 211.5 | 2972.2 | 4571.2 | 69.3 | 1428.7 | 236.7 | |
AT13 | 1010103 | Wien | 103.0 | 3277.3 | 6663.2 | 33.9 | 1575.7 | 327.9 | |
AT21 | 1010201 | Kärnten | 58.5 | 757.3 | 0.0 | 21.2 | 364.1 | 0.0 | |
AT22 | 1010202 | Steiermark | 216.5 | 2176.7 | 0.0 | 69.1 | 1046.4 | 0.0 | |
AT31 | 1010301 | Oberösterreich | 586.3 | 3524.9 | 5356.6 | 197.1 | 1693.9 | 367.5 | |
AT32 | 1010302 | Salzburg | 248.8 | 1949.2 | 0.0 | 90.1 | 937.5 | 0.0 | |
AT33 | 1010303 | Tirol | 512.8 | 1786.3 | 0.0 | 195.4 | 858.8 | 0.0 | |
AT34 | 1010304 | Vorarlberg | 682.9 | 1933.8 | 0.0 | 329.5 | 929.3 | 0.0 | |
Belgium | BE | 1020000 | |||||||
BE10 | 1020100 | Région de Bruxelles-Capitale | 10969.8 | 3445.1 | 11452.6 | 6235.0 | 2155.4 | 3937.1 | |
BE21 | 1020201 | Prov. Antwerpen | 15422.9 | 3808.7 | 10457.1 | 6576.7 | 2005.6 | 3873.8 | |
BE22 | 1020202 | Prov. Limburg (BE) | 8254.9 | 2329.8 | 5864.4 | 2772.2 | 1101.5 | 1363.4 | |
BE23 | 1020203 | Prov. Oost-Vlaanderen | 10200.6 | 2728.5 | 7745.0 | 8662.7 | 2192.6 | 4204.0 | |
BE24 | 1020204 | Prov. Vlaams-Brabant | 10588.7 | 2744.5 | 7307.7 | 5454.3 | 1702.6 | 2536.8 | |
BE25 | 1020205 | Prov. West-Vlaanderen | 6135.8 | 1983.9 | 5906.6 | 10973.6 | 2396.9 | 5931.5 | |
BE31 | 1020301 | Prov. Brabant Wallon | 5249.7 | 1668.6 | 4629.1 | 2669.8 | 1038.8 | 1800.1 | |
BE32 | 1020302 | Prov. Hainaut | 9440.1 | 2832.2 | 5474.4 | 9084.0 | 2334.8 | 3233.8 | |
BE33 | 1020303 | Prov. Liège | 9573.5 | 2966.3 | 6270.5 | 3885.1 | 1632.9 | 2033.6 | |
BE34 | 1020304 | Prov. Luxembourg (BE) | 6502.9 | 2242.4 | 0.0 | 3140.4 | 1352.8 | 0.0 | |
BE35 | 1020305 | Prov. Namur | 6968.7 | 1909.7 | 2547.2 | 3760.8 | 1188.6 | 1020.6 | |
Bulgaria | BG | 1030000 | |||||||
BG31 | 1030301 | Severozapaden | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
BG32 | 1030302 | Severen tsentralen | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
BG33 | 1030303 | Severoiztochen | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
BG34 | 1030304 | Yugoiztochen | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | |
BG41 | 1030401 | Yugozapaden | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | |
BG42 | 1030402 | Yuzhen tsentralen | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | |
Hinterland region | Varna | Bremen | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Country | NUTS code | ETIS code | Road | Rail | IWT | Road | Rail | IWT |
Austria | AT | 1010000 | ||||||
AT11 | 1010101 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 101.7 | 1161.0 | 46.3 | |
AT12 | 1010102 | 2.3 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 762.3 | 4516.5 | 181.7 | |
AT13 | 1010103 | 2.6 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 508.1 | 4985.4 | 251.6 | |
AT21 | 1010201 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 55.9 | 1073.1 | 0.0 | |
AT22 | 1010202 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 213.4 | 3307.2 | 0.0 | |
AT31 | 1010301 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 551.4 | 5355.9 | 281.9 | |
AT32 | 1010302 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 262.8 | 2671.1 | 0.0 | |
AT33 | 1010303 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 343.4 | 1977.7 | 0.0 | |
AT34 | 1010304 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 216.2 | 1463.3 | 0.0 | |
Belgium | BE | 1020000 | ||||||
BE10 | 1020100 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 223.1 | 302.3 | 509.9 | |
BE21 | 1020201 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 400.0 | 422.5 | 540.3 | |
BE22 | 1020202 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 389.4 | 359.0 | 328.9 | |
BE23 | 1020203 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 221.1 | 245.7 | 383.2 | |
BE24 | 1020204 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 211.0 | 238.5 | 281.9 | |
BE25 | 1020205 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 133.9 | 179.1 | 263.0 | |
BE31 | 1020301 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 95.6 | 145.7 | 233.1 | |
BE32 | 1020302 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 197.1 | 257.5 | 298.2 | |
BE33 | 1020303 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 498.5 | 593.3 | 452.8 | |
BE34 | 1020304 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 296.7 | 381.8 | 0.0 | |
BE35 | 1020305 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 186.2 | 251.4 | 157.5 | |
Bulgaria | BG | 1030000 | ||||||
BG31 | 1030301 | 75.4 | 29.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | |
BG32 | 1030302 | 170.8 | 35.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
BG33 | 1030303 | 787.5 | 199.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
BG34 | 1030304 | 1122.0 | 271.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | |
BG41 | 1030401 | 715.4 | 255.7 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 3.0 | 0.0 | |
BG42 | 1030402 | 811.1 | 243.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.0 | |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mueller, M.A., Wiegmans, B. & van Duin, J.H.R. The geography of container port choice: modelling the impact of hinterland changes on port choice. Marit Econ Logist 22, 26–52 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-019-00142-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-019-00142-6