Attractiveness of the Region in Connection with Intermodal Transport Development

  • Lilla KnopEmail author
  • Marzena Kramarz
Part of the EcoProduction book series (ECOPROD)


Intermodal transport, as exemplified by numerous studies, is very important for sustainability development of the industry. Individual regions should strive to develop these transport technologies, which use physical resources of the region, geographic shape, communication routes, etc. This matches the concept of sustainable development of the region, particularly through the impact on the reduction of external transport costs. Thus, the purpose of the chapter is to identify and evaluate the criteria shaping the attractiveness of the near-border region from the intermodal transport development point of view. Modified Emerald model was used to study the region attractiveness and the evaluation was based on statistic indicators, description data and estimates of experts. The chapter is an attempt and introduction to wider studies concerning the regions’ attractiveness in the context of development of intermodal transport and determination of its maturity level in cross-border region TRITIA. Future plans involve performing studies within different near-border regions within the scope of TRITIA cooperation and verifying indicators subjected to evaluation.


Sustainability transport Ecosystem Cooperation in regional network Cross-border transport Transport development 


Acts and Reports

  1. Atrakcyjność inwestycyjna regionów (Investment attractiveness of regions). SGH Warszawa (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017)Google Scholar
  2. Awasthi A, Grzybowska K, Hussain M et al (2014) Investigating organizational characteristics for sustainable supply chain planning under fuzziness. In: Supply chain management under fuzziness: recent developments and techniques, vol 313, pp 81–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Council Directive 92/106/EEC (Combined Transport (CT) Directive)Google Scholar
  4. Crainic T, Kap H (2007) Intermodal transportation, handbooks in operations research and management. Science 14:467–537Google Scholar
  5. Entropoland, Ranking of TSL companies.
  6. Feder C (2018) Decentralization and spillovers: a new role for transportation infrastructure. Econ Transp 13:36–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Finger M, Holvad T (eds) (2013) Regulating transport in Europe. Edward Elgar PublishingGoogle Scholar
  8. Godlewska-Majewska H (ed) (2011) Atrakcyjność inwestycyjna regionów jako uwarunkowanie przedsiębiorczych przewag konkurencyjnych (Investment attractiveness of regions as conditioning enterprising competitive edges). SGH, WarszawaGoogle Scholar
  9. Golińska P, Kawa A (2015) Technology management for sustainable production and logistics. Springer, EcoProduction, Berlin–Heidelberg, pp 193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Green Book supplementary guidance: transport. European Union (2013)Google Scholar
  11. Grzybowska K (2011) Supply chain sustainability—analysing the enablers. In: Golinska P, Romano CA (eds) Environmental issues in supply chain management—new trends and applications. Springer, pp 25–40Google Scholar
  12. Grzybowska K, Awasthi A, Hussain M (2014) Modeling enablers for sustainable logistics collaboration integrating—Canadian and Polish perspectives. In: Federated conference on computer science and information systems, vol 2, pp 1311–1319Google Scholar
  13. Hansen KH (2007) Technology, talent and tolerance—the geography of the creative class in Sweden. Rapporter Och Notiser, vol 169. Department of Social and Economic Geography, Lund UniversityGoogle Scholar
  14. Hyard A (2013) Non-technological innovations for sustainable transport. Technol Forecast Soc Chang (Elsevier) 80(7):1375–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Knop L (2015) The process of cluster management. In: Sroka W, Hittmar S (eds) Management of network organizations. Theoretical problems and the dilemmas in practice. Springer, pp 105–119Google Scholar
  16. Kozłowski R, Wiśniewski S, Palczewska A (2018) Dostępność lądowych terminali kontenerowych w Polsce (Availability of land container terminals in Poland). Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 505, pp 359–370Google Scholar
  17. Olko S, Brzóska J (2017) Conception and implementation of regional innovation strategy based on smart specializations of Śląskie Voivodship. Barom Reg 15(1):43–55Google Scholar
  18. Pike A, Rodriguez-Pose A, Tomaney J (2011) Handbook of local and regional development. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London and New York, pp 61–122Google Scholar
  19. Porter M (1990) The competitive advantage of nations. Free Press, Mc MillanGoogle Scholar
  20. Program for Silesia, Warsaw (2017)Google Scholar
  21. Regional Innovation Strategy 2014–2020. Katowice (2013)Google Scholar
  22. Responsible Development Strategy, Warsaw (2017)Google Scholar
  23. Sasson A (2011a) Knowledge-based health. Research report 4. BI Norwegian Business School, OsloGoogle Scholar
  24. Sasson A (2011b) Knowledge-based metals & materials. Research report 7/2011. BI Norwegian Business School, OlsoGoogle Scholar
  25. Sasson A, Blomgren A (2011) Knowledge-based oil and gas industry. Research report 3/2011. BI Norwegian Business School, OsloGoogle Scholar
  26. Sasson A, Reve T (2012) Competitiveness as industrial attractiveness: operationalizing the emerald model. Paper presented at the 2012 microeconomics of competitiveness research workshop, 10 December 2012. Harvard Business School, BostonGoogle Scholar
  27. Smart Specialisation Platform.
  28. Vinje V, Nordkvelde M (2011) Knowledge-based telecom industry. Research report 3/2011. BI Norwegian Business School, OsloGoogle Scholar
  29. White Paper on Transport, European Union (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Silesian University of TechnologyGliwicePoland

Personalised recommendations