Abstract Innovation driven by technological advancement and digitalization is transforming port operations. This study investigates the influence of the port innovation system, with a focus on optimizing ship and cargo services at the ports of Lisbon and Setúbal. The main dimensions of the Port Innovation System (PIS) include human capital, innovation demand, research cooperation, collaborative structures, incubation services, innovation culture, and governance, all of which influence Port Service Optimization (PSO). Using a mixed-methods approach, the study also explores the role of the strategy of the Port Development Company (PDC) in shaping innovation outcomes. This article contributes to both theory and practice by enhancing the understanding of innovation systems in ports and providing evidence-based guidance for policy and management. It finds that the quality of human capital affects the structures of port cooperation, and that the lack of alignment between innovation demand and research cooperation mechanisms undermines the effectiveness of the port innovation system. The results enable policymakers and industry leaders to focus on developing advanced skill enhancement programs, organizational structures and roadmaps to foster innovation in ports. We also find that the strategy of the PDC has a moderating role in the relationship between PIS and PSO, highlighting the need for tailored innovation strategies of the PDC.

The ‘port managing body (PMB)’ plays a central role in the development of the port. Public funding for investment projects of the port managing bodies is common in the EU as well as most other countries. This paper adds to the body of knowledge on port investments and financing challenges with an analysis of data from two surveys that were carried in 2018 and 2023. This analysis yields the following conclusions. First, the PMBs in the EU have shifted their investments, in response to changing investment drivers. The increasing relevance of the transition to a net-zero economy leads to a shift towards investments in projects that reduce environmental effects and/or allow private investments in new green activities such as the production of zero-emission fuels. Second, financial bottlenecks are the most important bottlenecks for the execution of the projects of PMBs. Third, the PMBs have high aspirations with regard to public funding, both on the EU and national level. Fourth, there is a difference between two types of PMBs: state-owned commercial port development companies and the public sector embedded port authorities; the latter execute less projects without public funding and are more oriented on national public funding than on EU funding. Finally, the societal value creation of the investments of PMBs is used to justify public funding aspirations. The PMBs indicate that the majority of their investments create societal value, often by enabling emission reductions and by reduced local negative externalities.

Port clusters are expected to play a significant role in the transition towards a circular economy, both at the level of facilitating regional and global transport within circular production chains, as well as hosting circular activities in port areas. There is strong evidence that significant investments in the circular economy (CE) are being made in port areas, albeit without much knowledge on their impacts. To ensure an efficient use of port resources in view of this transition, these impacts should be adequately monitored. Research on circular economy indicators for ports is still in an exploratory stage, characterized by an absence of in-depth research on the development of port-related circular economy indicators. This paper focuses on the development of a comprehensive set of relevant and feasible CE indicators, which aim to support port managing bodies (PMBs) as well as port stakeholders to monitor the CE transition taking place. Through multimethod qualitative research, including content analysis, focus groups, a gap analysis and a qualitative survey, an actionable list of CE 12 indicators for ports was developed. Seven of which are highly feasible and five of which have medium feasibility in terms of stakeholder relevance and ease of implementation. Findings related to (1) the overall limited CE ambition levels of PMBs and (2) the difference in the values of some indicators for different port typologies are also discussed. The value of this study for practitioners lies in providing them with an actionable set of KPIs which can support their efforts and communication related to their CE transition.

The term ‘innovation ecosystem’ has become popular among stakeholders involved in innovation. The core idea is that innovation does not thrive through isolated actions of individual companies, but rather depends on a broad array of interrelated actors, institutions and policies. In this paper, we apply the concept of innovation ecosystems to ports by first providing a theoretical overview of its components and then comparing the efforts to build such an ecosystem in the port cities of Rotterdam and Valencia. Our main findings are as follows. First, the importance of innovation for the ability of ports to continue to create ‘value for society’ is widely acknowledged. Second, research and development (R D) activities in both Rotterdam and Valencia are relatively limited and the dominant innovation challenge is the early application of new technologies developed outside the ports industry. Third, a ‘systemic approach’ is required to understand the innovation ecosystem in ports, given the strong interrelations among companies in the port and the need for broad coalitions to implement new technologies. Fourth and fifth, human capital formation and research cooperation, respectively, play a central role in improving the port innovation ecosystem. Finally, the ecosystem in Rotterdam is ‘distributed and connected’ while Valencia is more centralised.

This paper advances the conceptual understanding of strategies of port development companies (PDCs) through applying the business ecosystem perspective. This leads to a distinction between four stylized strategies for PDCs and associated types of services: minimalist (six services), integrator (six services) and ecosystem services (six services). An analysis of the services provided by a PDC reveals which strategy they follow. This approach is tested through a case study of Port of Rotterdam Authority (PoR for short) the state-owned PDC in charge of developing Rotterdam's port complex. This case study yields three important conclusions: first the relevance of the identified service types is confirmed, as PoR is or has been active in providing 15 of the 18 identified service types, more specifically all six 'minimalist services', all six 'ecosystem services' and three of the six 'integrator services'. Second, PoR follows a 'platform provider' strategy. Third, the provision of 'ecosystem services' seems to become a more important part of PoRs activities. The number of provided ecosystem services has grown between 2006 and 2021 and investments in ecosystem services account for an increasing share of PoRs total investments. These results provide a basis for further research, amongst others to better understand factors that may influence the strategies of PDCs.

This paper addresses the effects of state ownership on decisions of port development companies, through a case study of Port of Rotterdam (PoR). This issue is relevant, given the economic impact of port development and the important role of ports in the transition towards a more sustainable economy. The insights from this case study thus can be useful for shaping port (governance) reform. The paper reviews the rationale for state ownership of the port development company, and describes the case of PoR, focused on the public interests that the public shareholders aim to promote through ownership, and mechanisms through which the consideration of the public interests is incorporated in PoR’s decisions. The following conclusions are drawn. First, the two public shareholders of PoR (the city of Rotterdam and the Dutch state) have made an explicit choice to ‘permanently’ use state ownership to achieve public interests. Second, PoR’s shareholders have identified specific public interests and have developed specific mechanisms to secure that PoR takes these public interests into account in decision-making. Third, there are clear indications that PoR’s decisions indeed have advanced the public interests as identified by the shareholders.

Provides an overview of China's port sector, including its size, structure, and evolution over the past 40 years by describing the relationship between the rapid growth of China's economy and international trade and the growth of Chinese ports, discussing the development of special economic zones in proximity to ports, and exploring the emergence, growth, and internationalization of Chinese port companies and the evolution of networks connecting ports with the hinterlands. China's port sector has played a large part in transforming the country's economy by integrating it globally. Since 1978, China has invested heavily in port development, an effort that has gone hand in hand with economic growth. Between 1985 and 2017, throughput at the country's coastal ports increased by an annual average of 11 percent, while container traffic increased at 21 percent. By 2018, the throughput of these coastal ports had increased from 198 million tons at the start of the reform period to 9.5 billion tons.

Appendix A presents information on policies affecting multimodal transport in China, 2011–19, including (1) issue date; (2) policy document; (3) issuing entity; and (4) implications for multimodal transport. Appendix B provides profiles of China's dry ports, including services offered.

No AccessInternational Development in Focus26 Jul 2022Developing China's Ports: How the Gateways to Economic Prosperity Were RevivedAuthors/Editors: Bernard Aritua, Hei Chiu, Lu Cheng, Sheila Farrell, and Peter de LangenBernard Aritua, Hei Chiu, Lu Cheng, Sheila Farrell, and Peter de Langenhttps://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1849-3AboutView ChaptersPDF (7.6 MB) ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Abstract: Many countries in Africa and Asia have coastlines that present opportunities for them to become gateways for trade between the hinterlands and global trading routes. However, policy makers struggle to translate this potential into engines of economic development and social transformation. In the past 40 years, China has taken advantage of its strategic geographical location and its status as one of the world's top manufacturing regions. From a very low position on almost all metrics, today China has become home to more than half of the world's top 50 ports. The rapid development of China's ports was critical for the country's remarkable economic growth. What China achieved can be informative; how and why China revived and modernized its port sector is especially relevant and provides valuable lessons for other countries. This book explores the transformation of China's port sector through four topics and four periods, beginning with China's major economic reforms that started in 1978. The first topic addresses the links between China's macroeconomic and regional development strategies and development of the port sector. During this period—through about 1991—China began decentralizing port management to facilitate development of special economic zones. Thesecond topic—during the period 1992 through about 2001—is more specific about the ports and analyzes changes in port governance, including the way in which essential investments were determined and financed. Thethird topic examines the relationship of ports to the cities where they are located and to the hinterlands on which they depend—coinciding with the period 2002–11. Domestic and international investment resulted in many new export-oriented processing factories during this period. The accompanying boost in trade required further expansion of port capacity. The fourth topic addresses how—from 2011 onward—human resource and innovation policies in the port sector have responded to changing demands as the country looks to become a less resource-dependent and more regionally balanced economy. Previous bookNext book FiguresreferencesRecommendeddetails View Published: July 2022ISBN: 978-1-4648-1849-3 Copyright & Permissions Related TopicsInfrastructure Economics and FinanceInternational Economics & TradeTransport KeywordsINLAND SURFACE TRANSPORTATIONFREIGHTTRANSPORT POLICYPORTS AND LOGISTICSGREEN TRANSPORTMODAL SHIFTMULTIMODALINFRASTRUCTURESUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTGREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONSECONOMIC CORRIDORSINSTITUTIONS PDF DownloadLoading ...

The reduction of Greenhouses gasses (GHG) and other air emissions represents a major challenge for ports. The world over, however, ports vary considerably in their efforts to reduce air emissions, and the causes for this variation remain under-researched. This paper examines the drivers for the adoption of air emissions abatement measures in a sample of 93 of the world's largest ports, covering all continents and mobile emitters. We test five hypotheses with a Linear Probability Model to disentangle the impacts of key port characteristics on the current adoption of abatement measures and identify three key drivers for adoption: Population density, the port landlord business model, and a specialization in servicing container shipping. We also find that ports are more likely to implement specific bundles of measures, in particular combining pricing and new energy sources. Our work has implications for ports, as we suggest that they should coordinate abatement efforts to achieve effectiveness in their work.

Companies related directly or indirectly to ships and international commodity chains and located in the port area can jointly be considered as a port cluster. The colocation of such interrelated companies in ports creates synergies, such as the shared use of infrastructure and services and the availability of specialized knowledge and skills. The port cluster concept has proven to be a useful “lens” for analyzing ports. With the cluster “lens” scholars address research issues that are complementary to the established lens of treating a port as a transport node. A port cluster consists of four components, transport-related activities, logistics and value-added activities, manufacturing activities, and leisure and tourism-related activities. A port cluster is in various ways different from the more widely studied “tech clusters.” This has important implications for the analysis of port clusters. First, port clusters are vulnerable to technological change. Second, the core challenge for port clusters lies in the absorptive capacity. R&D activities in port clusters are limited; the dominant innovation challenge is the (early) application of new knowledge (e.g., regarding digitalization, recycling technologies, bio-based chemicals, and smart grids). Third, contrary to most “tech clusters,” in which governance is rather loose, chaotic, and decentralized, structured governance mechanisms may be critical to enhancing the competitiveness of port clusters. A state-owned commercially run “port cluster developer” often plays a central role.

The maritime industry has witnessed transformational changes due to the structural developments in the competitive landscape among maritime stakeholders. These trends lead to cooperation between ports, particularly those sharing common hinterland. This paper extends the existing frameworks for analysing cases of port cooperation among adjacent ports by exploring the relevance of the presence or absence of a national border, thus proposing an upgraded version of the matrix for classifying cases of port cooperation. We operationalize our theoretical findings with a case study of the North Adriatic (NAPA) ports. We conduct in-depth, semi-structured expert interviews with relevant port stakeholders in order to position the NAPA ports within the matrix, as both a group of ports and individual port-pairs.

There is a gradual but clear transition towards a circular economy (CE) that will potentially have significant impacts on ports, both in their function as transport nodes and as locations for logistics and manufacturing activities. A rough appraisal of new investments in circular manufacturing activities in ports in Europe drawn from organizational reports and official webpages illustrates the (slow) development of circular activities in ports. This paper is to our knowledge the first paper which deals with the implications of CE for the business model of the port development company. We assess if and how the circularity transition affects the role and business model of port authorities as developers of port clusters. We outline a framework for analyzing the consequences of CE on the business model of the port authority. We then apply this framework to get a detailed understanding of the emerging CE ecosystem in the Port of Amsterdam, which is clearly a frontrunner in the transition, and the role of the government-owned Port of Amsterdam port development company (PoA) in developing this ecosystem. In Amsterdam, a CE ‘business ecosystem’ has emerged and continues to evolve with three types of synergies between the companies in this ecosystem: logistics infrastructure and services synergies, input–output synergies and industrial ecology synergies. We find that the spatial scale of the CE value chains in the port varies between segments and that they are generally less international than ‘linear’ value chains. The development of CE activities occupies a central place in PoA’s strategy, and PoA assumes new and active roles in advancing the circular business ecosystem, most notably through developing industrial ecology synergies and nurturing and attracting new, innovative CE companies. Finally, the circularity transition leads to changes in PoA’s business model, with an increasing focus on new services that create synergies, and a decreasing importance of the share of port dues in the total revenue mix.