Advertisement

Measuring value tonnes based on direct value added: a new weighted analysis for the port of Antwerp

  • Elvira HaezendonckEmail author
  • Bruno Moeremans
Original Article
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

The expansion of port hubs in densely populated areas increasingly causes headwinds. Besides the environmental harm, opponents also claim that port growth in terms of traffic, and the necessary capacity to handle cargo, no longer generate the proclaimed value added in their region. Based on two decades of research, value-added measures, including wages, indicate that diversified port hubs should strategically focus on higher value added-creating types of cargo. This paper presents new data for the Antwerp seaport, and a comparative analysis of direct port value added for transshipment and gateway containers. By means of a bottom–up approach using the financial statements of 16 terminal operators, the value added of different types of traffic has been recalculated on 2015 data by transforming nominal tonnes into so-called “value tonnes”. Interestingly, we find that value added coefficients of different cargo types have converged compared to 1995 data, and that gateway containers represent almost twice as much value added than transhipment containers.

Keywords

Seaports Value added Port strategy Weighing rule Port traffic Containers 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors are indebted to Sachira Agussi for her assistance in data collection for this publication.

References

  1. Anderson, C.M., Y.A. Park, Y.T. Chang, C.H. Yang, T.W. Lee, and M. Luo. 2008. A game-theoretic analysis of competition among container port hubs: The case of Busan and Shanghai. Maritime Policy and Management 35 (1): 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benacchio, M., C. Ferrari, H.E. Haralambides, and Musso, E. 2000. On the economic impact of ports: Local vs. national costs and benefits. Proceedings of the Forum of Shipping and Logistics, Special Interest Group on Maritime Transport and Ports International Workshop; June 2000, Genoa, Italy.Google Scholar
  3. Bichou, K. 2006. Review of port performance approaches and a supply chain framework to port performance benchmarking. Research in Transportation Economics 17: 567–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blomme, J. 2014. Value creation in the port of Antwerp. In Port business: Market challenges and management actions, ed. T. Vanelslander and C. Sys, 100–118. Antwerp: Antwerp University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Charlier, J. 1998. Les paradoxes du pôle de croissance industrialo-portuaire anversois. Acta Geographica Lovaniensia 37: 431–453.Google Scholar
  6. Cullinane, K., D.-W. Song, P. Ji, and T.-F. Wang. 2004. An application of DEA windows analysis to container port production efficiency. The Review of Network Economics 3 (2): 184–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Langen, P., M. Nijdam, and M. Van der Horst. 2007. New indicators to measure port performance. Journal of Maritime Research 4 (1): 23–36.Google Scholar
  8. De Tijd. 2017. Noels heeft recht op zijn mening. 8 April, https://www.tijd.be/nieuws/archief/noels-heeft-recht-op-zijn-mening/9881262.html. Accessed 23 Feb 2018.
  9. Dooms, M., E. Haezendonck, and A. Verbeke. 2015. Towards a meta-analysis and toolkit for port-related socio-economic impacts: A review of socio-economic impact studies conducted for seaports. Maritime Policy and Management 42 (5): 459–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ducruet, C. 2009. Port regions and globalization. In Ports in proximity: Competition and coordination among adjacent seaports, ed. T.E. Notteboom, C. Ducruet, and P.W. De Langen, 41–53. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  11. Haezendonck, E., C. Coeck, and A. Verbeke. 2000. The competitive position of seaports: Introduction of the value added concept. International Journal of Maritime Economics 2 (2): 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haezendonck, E. 2001. Essays on strategy analysis for seaports. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.Google Scholar
  13. Heaver, T.D. 2011. Co-ordination in multi-actor logistics operations: challenges at the port interface. In Integrating seaports and trade corridors, ed. P. Hall, R.J. McCalla, C. Comtois, and B. Slack, 155–170. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  14. Kuipers, B., W.J.J. Manshanden, A.C. Muskens, G. Renes, M.J.P.M. Thissen, and J.E. Ligthart. 2003. De maatschappelijke betekenis van doorvoer. Een onderzoek naar de maatschappelijke kosten en baten van de zuivere doorvoer van goederen door de Nederlandse zeehavens. Delft. TNO Inro Report 2003-36.Google Scholar
  15. Li, J.A., S.C. Leung, Y. Wu, and K. Liu. 2007. Allocation of empty containers between multi-ports. European Journal of Operational Research 182 (1): 400–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. National Bank of Belgium. 2017. Economic importance of the Belgian Ports: Flemish maritime ports, Liège port complex and the Port of Brussels—Report 2016.Google Scholar
  17. Roll, Y., and Y. Hayuth. 1993. Port performance comparison applying data envelopment analysis (DEA). Maritime Policy and Management 20 (2): 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Soares, C.G., and T.A. Santos (eds.). 2014. Maritime technology and engineering. Proceedings of the International Conference on Maritime Technology and Engineering; 15–17 October 2014, Lisbon: CRC.Google Scholar
  19. Song, D.W. 2003. Port co-opetition in concept and practice. Maritime Policy and Management 30 (1): 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Talley, W.K. 2006. Port performance: An economics perspective. Research in Transportation Economics 17: 499–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Teng, J.Y., W.C. Huang, and M.J. Huang. 2004. Multicriteria evaluation for port competitiveness of eight East Asian container ports. Journal of Marine Science and Technology 12 (4): 256–264.Google Scholar
  22. Tongzon, J. 2001. Efficiency measurement of selected Australian and other international ports using data envelopment analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 35 (2): 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. van der Lugt, L., J-J. Witte, O. De Jong, and M. Streng. 2017. Havenmonitor: De econmische betekenis van Nederlands zeehavens 2002–2016. UPT Erasmus Report.Google Scholar
  24. Verbeke, A., C. Peeters, and E. Declercq. 1995. De toepassing van de produktportfolio-methode in functie van een zeehavenstrategie. Tijdschrift Vervoerswetenschap 3: 231–242.Google Scholar
  25. Winkelmans, W., and C. Coeck. 1993. Strategic positioning analysis as an evaluation instrument for effective port policy. Planologisch Nieuws 13 (3): 263–270.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Universiteit AntwerpenAntwerpBelgium

Personalised recommendations