Notteboom 2006c).Liner service design is a function not only of carrier-specific operational factors(i.e.lower costs)but also of shippers'needs (e.g.transit time)and willingness to pay for a better service. In the last two decades,increased cargo availability has led carriers and strategic alliances among them to reshape their liner shipping networks through the introduction of new types of liner services on the main east-west trade lanes (see Figure 2).The largest ships operate on multi-port itineraries calling at a limited number of ports.The Europe-Far East trade provides a good example.Most mainline operators and alliances running services from the Far East to North Europe stick to line bundling itineraries with direct calls scheduled in each of the main markets.Notwithstanding diversity in calling patterns on the observed routes,carriers select up to five regional ports of call per loop.Shipping lines have significantly increased average N 点 vessel sizes deployed on the route from around 4500 TEU in 2000 to over 7500 TEU in early 2010.These scale increases in vessel size have put a downward pressure on the average number of port calls per loop on the Far East-North Europe trade:4.9 ports of call in 1989, N 3.84 in 1998,3.77 in October 2000,3.68 in February 2006,and 3.35 in December 2009 西 Maersk Line,MSC,and CMA-CGM are among the truly global liner operators with a strong presence in secondary routes.Their networks are based on traffic circulation through specific hubs.Productivity has been improved through the use of larger ships,new operational patterns,and cooperation between shipping lines.Container shipping lines have been very 岩 active in securing (semi)dedicated terminal capacity in the strategic locations within their liner service networks.Figure 3 gives an overview of the strategic ports in the worldwide liner network of Maersk Line.Shipping lines also rely on horizontal integration through operating agreements (e.g.vessel sharing agreements,slot chartering agreements,consortia and strategic alliances)and mergers and acquisitions.Alliance structures(cf.Grand Alliance,New World Alliance,and CYKH)provide its members easy access to more loops or services with relatively low-cost implications and allow them to share terminals. 4 The average vessel size increased from 1,155 TEU in 1987 to 1,581 TEU ten years later,2,417 TEU in 2007 and 2,618 TEU in 2009(UNCTAD,2009).In 2006,Maersk Line introduced the Emma Maersk of around 13,500 TEU capacity,the first vessel to move far beyond the 10,000 TEU mark.The total fleet in late 2009 counted 39 vessels in the range of 10,000- 15,500 TEU,and another 168 vessels of above 10,000 TEU unit capacity were on order (Source:Alphaliner, www.alphaliner.com) 6
6 Notteboom 2006c). Liner service design is a function not only of carrier-specific operational factors (i.e. lower costs) but also of shippers’ needs (e.g. transit time) and willingness to pay for a better service. In the last two decades, increased cargo availability has led carriers and strategic alliances among them to reshape their liner shipping networks through the introduction of new types of liner services on the main east-west trade lanes (see Figure 2). The largest ships operate on multi-port itineraries calling at a limited number of ports. The Europe–Far East trade provides a good example. Most mainline operators and alliances running services from the Far East to North Europe stick to line bundling itineraries with direct calls scheduled in each of the main markets. Notwithstanding diversity in calling patterns on the observed routes, carriers select up to five regional ports of call per loop. Shipping lines have significantly increased average vessel sizes deployed on the route from around 4500 TEU in 2000 to over 7500 TEU in early 2010. These scale increases in vessel size have put a downward pressure on the average number of port calls per loop on the Far East–North Europe trade: 4.9 ports of call in 1989, 3.84 in 1998, 3.77 in October 2000, 3.68 in February 2006, and 3.35 in December 2009. Maersk Line, MSC, and CMA-CGM are among the truly global liner operators with a strong presence in secondary routes. Their networks are based on traffic circulation through specific hubs. Productivity has been improved through the use of larger ships, 4 new operational patterns, and cooperation between shipping lines. Container shipping lines have been very active in securing (semi)dedicated terminal capacity in the strategic locations within their liner service networks. Figure 3 gives an overview of the strategic ports in the worldwide liner network of Maersk Line. Shipping lines also rely on horizontal integration through operating agreements (e.g. vessel sharing agreements, slot chartering agreements, consortia and strategic alliances) and mergers and acquisitions. Alliance structures (cf. Grand Alliance, New World Alliance, and CYKH) provide its members easy access to more loops or services with relatively low-cost implications and allow them to share terminals. 4 The average vessel size increased from 1,155 TEU in 1987 to 1,581 TEU ten years later, 2,417 TEU in 2007 and 2,618 TEU in 2009 (UNCTAD, 2009). In 2006, Maersk Line introduced the Emma Maersk of around 13,500 TEU capacity, the first vessel to move far beyond the 10,000 TEU mark. The total fleet in late 2009 counted 39 vessels in the range of 10,000- 15,500 TEU, and another 168 vessels of above 10,000 TEU unit capacity were on order (Source: Alphaliner, www.alphaliner.com) halshs-00538051, version 2 - 15 Jul 2012
Figure 2:Typical examples of liner services on trade routes in relation to Europe Tanger Med CMACGM-FAL service CMACGM -AEX1service IrichevskOdessa constanza Tianjinng Degrad de Canne3 CMACGM-Fren ch Guyana-Brazil CMACGM-BEX Hapag Lloyd-EUM Hapag Lloyd-ATA Source:shipping lines'websites Figure 3:The main strategic ports in the liner service network of Maersk Line Bremer Haven Dalian Kobe New York Shanghai Zeeb rugge Potential Pipavav South Los Atlantic Port sad Angeles (Virginia Algecira East planned) Salalah Tanjung Pelapa Canbbean Ahidjan Kingston Douala West Coast East Coast Europe Middle Far East Americas Americas East Note:Relay/Interlining involves trade route based transhipment at key network ports between deep-sea vessel strings.The aim is to transfer containers between mainline services,thereby adding new service options. Source:based on liner service data from Maersk Line
7 Figure 2: Typical examples of liner services on trade routes in relation to Europe Source: shipping lines’ websites Figure 3: The main strategic ports in the liner service network of Maersk Line Note: Relay/Interlining involves trade route based transhipment at key network ports between deep-sea vessel strings. The aim is to transfer containers between mainline services, thereby adding new service options. Source: based on liner service data from Maersk Line halshs-00538051, version 2 - 15 Jul 2012
In the last few decades,extensive hub-feeder container systems and short-sea shipping networks came into existence to cope with increasing volumes and to connect to other port ranges(Rodrigue and Notteboom,2010).The economics of transhipment and relay/interlining have resulted in the establishment of intermediate hubs with terminals owned,in whole or in part,by carriers or port operators.In some cases,intermediate hubs were developed within offshore locations often on small islands with an implicit local cargo base (Rodrigue and Notteboom,2010).The development of offshore hubs did not exclude transhipment activities at traditional gateway ports such as in the Western Mediterranean port system,where the distinction between hub ports and gateway ports has become blurred(Gouvernal et al.,2005). The position of pure transhipment hubs is generally more unstable than that of pure gateway ports:once traffic volumes for the gateway ports are sufficient,hubs are bypassed and might even become redundant(Wilmsmeier and Notteboom,2010).The location of transhipment 点 hubs remains important,because they lower the deviation distance to/from main trunk lines 三 (Zohil and Prijon,1999).There remains a subtle combination between centrality (proximity to origin/destination markets)and intermediacy (insertion in carrier networks)in nearly every N port(Fleming and Hayuth,1994). 西 3.METHODOLOGY AND LINER SHIPPING NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS -sus] In their recent review of the scientific literature on maritime network analysis,Ducruet et al. 巴 (2010a)stress the scarcity and fragmentation of empirical studies,which are categorized by four main approaches: Geographic coverage of carrier networks:regional or global distribution of the port networks for individual shipping companies based on service data (e.g.Coscon,Maersk) revealing their strategic choices(Rimmer and Comtois 2005;Fremont,2007;Bergantino and Veenstra,2007); Network connectivity:characteristics of a given network based on its topology,with reference to spatial analysis and graph theory,such as the pioneering study of Joly (1999) showing the tripolar organisation of the global maritime system based on Reeds zones,and other works on a regional level(McCalla,2004;Ducruet et al.2010b); 8
8 In the last few decades, extensive hub-feeder container systems and short-sea shipping networks came into existence to cope with increasing volumes and to connect to other port ranges (Rodrigue and Notteboom, 2010). The economics of transhipment and relay/interlining have resulted in the establishment of intermediate hubs with terminals owned, in whole or in part, by carriers or port operators. In some cases, intermediate hubs were developed within offshore locations often on small islands with an implicit local cargo base (Rodrigue and Notteboom, 2010). The development of offshore hubs did not exclude transhipment activities at traditional gateway ports such as in the Western Mediterranean port system, where the distinction between hub ports and gateway ports has become blurred (Gouvernal et al., 2005). The position of pure transhipment hubs is generally more unstable than that of pure gateway ports: once traffic volumes for the gateway ports are sufficient, hubs are bypassed and might even become redundant (Wilmsmeier and Notteboom, 2010). The location of transhipment hubs remains important, because they lower the deviation distance to/from main trunk lines (Zohil and Prijon, 1999). There remains a subtle combination between centrality (proximity to origin/destination markets) and intermediacy (insertion in carrier networks) in nearly every port (Fleming and Hayuth, 1994). 3. METHODOLOGY AND LINER SHIPPING NETWORK CHARACTERISTICS In their recent review of the scientific literature on maritime network analysis, Ducruet et al. (2010a) stress the scarcity and fragmentation of empirical studies, which are categorized by four main approaches: Geographic coverage of carrier networks: regional or global distribution of the port networks for individual shipping companies based on service data (e.g. Coscon, Maersk) revealing their strategic choices (Rimmer and Comtois 2005; Frémont, 2007; Bergantino and Veenstra, 2007); Network connectivity: characteristics of a given network based on its topology, with reference to spatial analysis and graph theory, such as the pioneering study of Joly (1999) showing the tripolar organisation of the global maritime system based on Reeds zones, and other works on a regional level (McCalla, 2004; Ducruet et al. 2010b); halshs-00538051, version 2 - 15 Jul 2012
Network efficiency:modeling of port selection processes and search for the optimal location,for instance,of a transhipment hub lowering overall shipping costs(Zeng and Yang,2002;Song et al.,2005;Tai,2005); Complex networks:description of the network'hierarchical structure on a global level comparing its properties with general models of small-world and scale-free networks (Deng et al.,2009;Hu and Zhu,2009;Kaluza et al.,2010). This paper wishes to further the interpretation of network structure,port hierarchy,and the dynamics influencing them.It gives paramount importance to the visualization of the network as a whole and of emerging regional patterns.This is based on a rarely used data source on daily vessel movements,which is more precise than service data and therefore more representative of the reality and complexity of liner shipping. 点 3.1 Data overview N The methodology used for building the global liner network defines an inter-port connection 西 by the circulation of vessels between the ports through a 365-day sequence of port calls.Thus, nodes (vertices)in the network are the ports,and links (edges)in the network are the connections realized by vessel movements(Table 1).The years 1996 and 2006 were chosen, because 1996 marked the emergence of post-panamax vessels (e.g.the Regina Maersk of 岩 6140 TEU was introduced in 1996)and the start of strategic alliances formation among shipping lines;2006 saw the introduction of the first 10,000+TEU vessels in a period of rapid container growth mainly triggered by the China effect in the world economy.Data was obtained from Lloyd's Marine Intelligence Unit(LMIU)'that ensures most of the world fleet for all types of vessels.The obtained database covers approximately 92%and 98%of the world's fleet of container vessels in 1996 and 2006,respectively.Interestingly,the capacity and size of the fleet as well as the number of vessel movements have grown faster than the number of ports and operators,while the average vessel capacity has grown from 1906 TEU to 2413 TEU.Such evidence confirms the observed limitations for ports accommodating ever- growing vessels and traffic,which remain in the hands of horizontally and vertically integrated companies. 5 http://www.seasearcher.com/lmiu/index.htm(Accessed October 2010) 9
9 Network efficiency: modeling of port selection processes and search for the optimal location, for instance, of a transhipment hub lowering overall shipping costs (Zeng and Yang, 2002; Song et al., 2005; Tai, 2005); Complex networks: description of the network’ hierarchical structure on a global level comparing its properties with general models of small-world and scale-free networks (Deng et al., 2009; Hu and Zhu, 2009; Kaluza et al., 2010). This paper wishes to further the interpretation of network structure, port hierarchy, and the dynamics influencing them. It gives paramount importance to the visualization of the network as a whole and of emerging regional patterns. This is based on a rarely used data source on daily vessel movements, which is more precise than service data and therefore more representative of the reality and complexity of liner shipping. 3.1 Data overview The methodology used for building the global liner network defines an inter-port connection by the circulation of vessels between the ports through a 365-day sequence of port calls. Thus, nodes (vertices) in the network are the ports, and links (edges) in the network are the connections realized by vessel movements (Table 1). The years 1996 and 2006 were chosen, because 1996 marked the emergence of post-panamax vessels (e.g. the Regina Maersk of 6140 TEU was introduced in 1996) and the start of strategic alliances formation among shipping lines; 2006 saw the introduction of the first 10,000+ TEU vessels in a period of rapid container growth mainly triggered by the China effect in the world economy. Data was obtained from Lloyd’s Marine Intelligence Unit (LMIU)5 that ensures most of the world fleet for all types of vessels. The obtained database covers approximately 92% and 98% of the world’s fleet of container vessels in 1996 and 2006, respectively. Interestingly, the capacity and size of the fleet as well as the number of vessel movements have grown faster than the number of ports and operators, while the average vessel capacity has grown from 1906 TEU to 2413 TEU. Such evidence confirms the observed limitations for ports accommodating evergrowing vessels and traffic, which remain in the hands of horizontally and vertically integrated companies. 5 http://www.seasearcher.com/lmiu/index.htm (Accessed October 2010) halshs-00538051, version 2 - 15 Jul 2012
Table 1:Overview of the database on vessel movements,1996-2006 1996 2006 2006/1996 No.Ports 975 1,240 1.27 No.Vessel movements 176,439 390,740 2.21 No.Vessels 1,759 3,973 2.26 No.Operators 497 720 1.46 Total slot capacity (TEUs) 3,352,849 9,590,309 2.86 Share world fleet(%TEUs) 92.15 97.91 +7.75 Source:own elaboration based on LMIU data The global network was modelled based on vessel characteristics,ports of call,and vessel movements.The first result is a global network composed of weighted and non-directed links between ports,which can be analyzed in two different ways.On the one hand,vessel circulations create a graph of direct linkages(GDL)based on the successive ports of calls(i.e. 点 from port A to port B and from port B to port C).On the other hand,it can be argued that two 三 ports are also connected if they belong to the same liner service or loop,although they are not adjacent calls;a graph of all linkages (GAL)thus adds indirect linkages (i.e.from port A to N port C).In the GDL,Le Havre and Tokyo are never connected by a direct link,whereas,in 西 the GAL,this connection might occur inside a pendulum or round-the-world service.The GAL is the overlap of all individual complete graphs created by the circulation of each vessel. These two dimensions of the same reality(GDL and GAL)may exhibit distinct features in terms of network structure and port hierarchy.In order to reveal the structural properties of 岩 the two graphs for each year of observation,we apply conventional measures derived from graph theory,which were originally applied to transport networks by Kansky(1963)and from complex systems theory,referring to the works of Barabasi and Albert(1999)and Watts and Strogatz(1998).This set of measures provides clear evidence about the nature of the network based on topological properties (see Ducruet and Rodrigue,2011 for a review of network measures). One limitation of the data is that it ignores how many full or empty containers were truly handled by ships and ports.In reality,some vessels may not be fully loaded,since their passage in a port does not always include stevedoring activities (e.g.a port visit in the framework of bunkering activities).However,with reference to the observation made by Joly (1999),the linear correlation in our data between vessel traffic and port throughput is very 6Source:Containerisation Intemational 10
10 Table 1: Overview of the database on vessel movements, 1996-2006 1996 2006 2006/1996 No. Ports 975 1,240 1.27 No. Vessel movements 176,439 390,740 2.21 No. Vessels 1,759 3,973 2.26 No. Operators 497 720 1.46 Total slot capacity (TEUs) 3,352,849 9,590,309 2.86 Share world fleet (% TEUs) 92.15 97.91 +7.75 Source: own elaboration based on LMIU data The global network was modelled based on vessel characteristics, ports of call, and vessel movements. The first result is a global network composed of weighted and non-directed links between ports, which can be analyzed in two different ways. On the one hand, vessel circulations create a graph of direct linkages (GDL) based on the successive ports of calls (i.e. from port A to port B and from port B to port C). On the other hand, it can be argued that two ports are also connected if they belong to the same liner service or loop, although they are not adjacent calls; a graph of all linkages (GAL) thus adds indirect linkages (i.e. from port A to port C). In the GDL, Le Havre and Tokyo are never connected by a direct link, whereas, in the GAL, this connection might occur inside a pendulum or round-the-world service. The GAL is the overlap of all individual complete graphs created by the circulation of each vessel. These two dimensions of the same reality (GDL and GAL) may exhibit distinct features in terms of network structure and port hierarchy. In order to reveal the structural properties of the two graphs for each year of observation, we apply conventional measures derived from graph theory, which were originally applied to transport networks by Kansky (1963) and from complex systems theory, referring to the works of Barabasi and Albert (1999) and Watts and Strogatz (1998). This set of measures provides clear evidence about the nature of the network based on topological properties (see Ducruet and Rodrigue, 2011 for a review of network measures). One limitation of the data is that it ignores how many full or empty containers were truly handled by ships and ports. In reality, some vessels may not be fully loaded, since their passage in a port does not always include stevedoring activities (e.g. a port visit in the framework of bunkering activities). However, with reference to the observation made by Joly (1999), the linear correlation in our data between vessel traffic and port throughput6 is very 6 Source: Containerisation International halshs-00538051, version 2 - 15 Jul 2012