上海交通大学：《物流地理学 Geography of Logistics》课程教学资源（教学资料）Global city regions and the location of logistics activity

ARTICLE IN PRESS Journal of Transport Geography xxx (2009)xxx-xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Transport Geography Journal of Transport Geography ELSEVIER journal homepage:www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo Global city regions and the location of logistics activity Kevin O'Connor* University of Melbourne,Faculty of Architecture,Building and Planning.Grattan Street,Melbourne,Victoria 3010.Australia ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: The aim of this paper is to extend and develop research surrounding the links between transport and Logistics urban regions.An understanding of transport activity has long involved the use of spatial frameworks. Air freight seen in the idea of a gateway city(with its surrounding hinterland)and in the identification of hubs or Sea freight nodes.The particular framework used here is the global city region,a build-out from the much Global city regions Airports researched global city,and acknowledged as the most prominent feature of spatial development in the Container ports global economy.As these areas can accommodate important sea and airport infrastructure,the global city Regional strategic plans region can be expected to play a significant role in global logistics.Whether that significance extends just from the physical realm,as reflected in the infrastructure,or whether it is embedded in the scale and complexity of the advanced business services sector within the global city,is the issue that lies at the heart of the research.The research has set out to answer the question:"How important are these regions in logistics activity?".The question has relevance in the context of transport geography as it provides an urban structure perspective on what is commonly seen as separate port or airport activity.Its relevance is enhanced as its answer relies upon a simultaneous analysis of both sea and air freight activity.Results show these regions counted for a substantial and growing share of sea and air freight between 1996 and 2006.In accounting for that outcome the research explores the particular effect of infrastructure (showing that global city regions with multiple seaport and airports play a special role)and also isolates the links with global city functions.The paper concludes with some insight on the special challenge these places create for strategic urban planning policy. 2009 Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved. 1.Logistics activity and global city regions The interpretation and use of the concept of global city was ex- panded once the areas surrounding the global city were acknowl- The approach to understanding global logistics in this research edged as globally integrated along with the city core.Scott is built upon the importance of global cities and the extended area (1998,p.7)argued that integration could be seen in the way the surrounding them,which have come to be called global city re- production systems of both manufacturing and services in these gions.The concept of a global city has been debated and analysed areas were tied together through globally organized interconnec- over an extended period,spanning the time between some initial tivity of component and finished good production.That confirmed ideas expressed by Friedmann(1986).articulated and developed earlier observations of Muller(1997)concerning the global links of by Sassen(1991,1994)and analysed in extensive detail by the pro- suburban areas and was illustrated in case studies of Philadelphia ject associated with the Global and World City project at Loughbor- (Hodos,2002)and Melbourne (O'Connor,2002).Scott saw these ough (for example see Beaverstock et al.(2000)).The essence of spatial units as a part of a"global mosaic of development"and with this perspective is that the global economy can be represented in colleagues later labeled them "global city regions"(Scott et al.. flows or linkages,which are concentrated in some particular cities 2001).Later he defined them as"enormous expanses of contiguous and reflected in employment in advanced business or producer or semi contiguous built-up space...surrounded by hinterlands of services which are located in office buildings in and around their variable extent(and)marked by ramifying local institutions and an core.In turn too this concept recognizes a hierarchy,with a small increasingly distinctive political identity,and,concomitantly,by a number of dominant places,and a larger number of other locations growing self-assertiveness on the global stage"(Scott 2008,p.131). whose influence will be felt just in some parts of the globe,or in These regions spill over 50-70 km from the central city,and make some particular activities up the vast urban regions that can be seen from the air as clusters of light in parts of the US,Europe and Asia(Beaverstock et al. *Tel:+61383447474:fax:+61383445532 2000)and elsewhere (Angel et al,2008).They have also been E-mail address:kevin.oconnor@unimelb.edu.au labeled "100 Mile Cities"by Sudjic (1992)."mega city"Lo and 0966-6923/-see front matter009 Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved. doi:10.1016 jjtrangeo.2009.06.015 Please cite this article in press as:O'Connor.K.Global city regions and the location of logistics activity.J.Transp.Geogr.(2009).doi:10.1016/ j.jtrangeo.2009.06.015

Global city regions and the location of logistics activity Kevin O’Connor * University of Melbourne, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, Grattan Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia article info Keywords: Logistics Air freight Sea freight Global city regions Airports Container ports Regional strategic plans abstract The aim of this paper is to extend and develop research surrounding the links between transport and urban regions. An understanding of transport activity has long involved the use of spatial frameworks, seen in the idea of a gateway city (with its surrounding hinterland) and in the identification of hubs or nodes. The particular framework used here is the global city region, a build-out from the much researched global city, and acknowledged as the most prominent feature of spatial development in the global economy. As these areas can accommodate important sea and airport infrastructure, the global city region can be expected to play a significant role in global logistics. Whether that significance extends just from the physical realm, as reflected in the infrastructure, or whether it is embedded in the scale and complexity of the advanced business services sector within the global city, is the issue that lies at the heart of the research. The research has set out to answer the question: ‘‘How important are these regions in logistics activity?”. The question has relevance in the context of transport geography as it provides an urban structure perspective on what is commonly seen as separate port or airport activity. Its relevance is enhanced as its answer relies upon a simultaneous analysis of both sea and air freight activity. Results show these regions counted for a substantial and growing share of sea and air freight between 1996 and 2006. In accounting for that outcome the research explores the particular effect of infrastructure (showing that global city regions with multiple seaport and airports play a special role) and also isolates the links with global city functions. The paper concludes with some insight on the special challenge these places create for strategic urban planning policy. 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Logistics activity and global city regions The approach to understanding global logistics in this research is built upon the importance of global cities and the extended area surrounding them, which have come to be called global city re￾gions. The concept of a global city has been debated and analysed over an extended period, spanning the time between some initial ideas expressed by Friedmann (1986), articulated and developed by Sassen (1991, 1994) and analysed in extensive detail by the pro￾ject associated with the Global and World City project at Loughbor￾ough (for example see Beaverstock et al. (2000)). The essence of this perspective is that the global economy can be represented in flows or linkages, which are concentrated in some particular cities and reflected in employment in advanced business or producer services which are located in office buildings in and around their core. In turn too this concept recognizes a hierarchy, with a small number of dominant places, and a larger number of other locations whose influence will be felt just in some parts of the globe, or in some particular activities. The interpretation and use of the concept of global city was ex￾panded once the areas surrounding the global city were acknowl￾edged as globally integrated along with the city core. Scott (1998, p. 7) argued that integration could be seen in the way the production systems of both manufacturing and services in these areas were tied together through globally organized interconnec￾tivity of component and finished good production. That confirmed earlier observations of Muller (1997) concerning the global links of suburban areas and was illustrated in case studies of Philadelphia (Hodos, 2002) and Melbourne (O’Connor, 2002). Scott saw these spatial units as a part of a ‘‘global mosaic of development” and with colleagues later labeled them ‘‘global city regions” (Scott et al., 2001). Later he defined them as ‘‘enormous expanses of contiguous or semi contiguous built-up space... surrounded by hinterlands of variable extent (and) marked by ramifying local institutions and an increasingly distinctive political identity, and, concomitantly, by a growing self-assertiveness on the global stage” (Scott 2008, p. 131). These regions spill over 50–70 km from the central city, and make up the vast urban regions that can be seen from the air as clusters of light in parts of the US, Europe and Asia (Beaverstock et al., 2000) and elsewhere (Angel et al., 2008). They have also been labeled ‘‘100 Mile Cities” by Sudjic (1992), ‘‘mega city” Lo and 0966-6923/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.06.015 * Tel.: +613 8344 7474; fax: +613 8344 5532. E-mail address: kevin.oconnor@unimelb.edu.au Journal of Transport Geography xxx (2009) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Transport Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo ARTICLE IN PRESS Please cite this article in press as: O’Connor, K. Global city regions and the location of logistics activity. J. Transp. Geogr. (2009), doi:10.1016/ j.jtrangeo.2009.06.015

ARTICLE IN PRESS K.O'Connor /Journal of Transport Geography xxx(2009)xxx-xxx Marcotullio (2001)and "extended metropolitan area"by Ginsberg times;Pels et al.(2001)explored the outcome in a more closely etal.(1991) spaced set of airports in the San Francisco Bay Area,while Loo There are good reasons to expect that these large spatial units et al(2005)analysed these outcomes for Hong Kong and Shenzen. will play a prominent role in global logistics.One source is the con- There have been less attention to freight movements on this ceptual foundation laid by Scott who established they were inte- scale,although Schebera (2006)refers to linkages of this kind grated internally by the movement of goods(and people)and for Hong Kong-Shenzen.Hence the sea and airport infrastructure externally by world trade,both of which involve logistics activity in a global city region could be a critical factor in shaping its role That foundation is enriched by the thinking on the location of out- in global logistics activity. sourced producer services,a production arrangement central to the As noted earlier.global city regions also provide a foundation understanding of global city activity in the research of Sassen for service activity.This activity could be more mature where (1994)and extended by the research on services of Daniels and complex infrastructure provides the logistics service company Bryson(2002)and Goe et al.,(2000).Outsourcing has recently be- with an array of alternative modal choices,which it can utilize come a very significant part of logistics services as Skjoett-Larsen to meet a client's needs.Wang and Cheng(2009)have extended (2000)and Makukha and Gray(2004)have shown.Hence logistics and developed this thinking,showing that the service functions services could be a significant part of the producer service mix of of major port cities can evolve into "global supply chain manage- global city regions.Their significance might be due to the scale of ment centres"as their service activities look beyond local loading the local market in these major city regions or it might reflect spe- and unloading to include skills in finance,product planning and cial skills in managing transhipment and intermodal functions. management.That outcome could be based in part on a capacity where logistics services are in effect underpinning the hub or gate- to operate in both sea and air freight.Although there are substan- way function of the global city region. tive differences in bulk,speed and type of commodities handled There is a firm empirical base for this expected outcome too. by the two modes,it is possible that logistics service companies Hesse and Rodrigue(2004)suggest that logistics activities are lo- will have some clients who will need sea and air shipments of cated in and around the big physical nodes of seaports and airports, different goods at different times.For example,Henstra et al. but are also found at inland centres in the suburbs and in hinter- (2007)provide details of a case-study of Sony who use both sea land corridors beyond the edge of a metropolitan area.Illustrating and air transport to supply warehouses in Europe,one delivering these outcomes,Rodrigue and Notteboom(2008,p.13)have iden- base load,predicted supply,the other being used to meet unex- tified an"extended gateway"in an area of 100-150 km around the pected demand.Priemus (2001)indicated there was integration port of Antwerp,and links extending over 100 km around Rotter- between the two elements of transport infrastructure in the dam (Notteboom and Rodrigue,2008,p.65),both consistent with Netherlands.Hence logistics activity,involving both physical Rodrigue and Hess's (2007,p.116)observation that "most of the movement and value added supply chain management activity movements"to New York "involve medium distance trucking of might be better developed in a global city region than if operating a few hundred kilometers at most".The role of logistics in the glo- in a smaller city. bal city region can also be seen in the link detected between US To establish the strength of the relationship between global city west coast port traffic and the demand for warehouse space in regions and logistics activity,the research has posed three ques- west coast metropolitan areas,especially the link between the tions.First,what is the actual share of logistics activity in global ports of Los Angeles-Long Beach and the Inland Empire(Mortimer. city regions that have both sea and airports?Second,do regions 2008).That perspective is consistent with observations on the with multiple airports and seaports exert a disproportionate influ- location of physical logistics activity in big urban regions in the ence on this share?Third,to what extent do measures of physical US (King and Keating,2006),Europe (Cushman et al.,2003;Gra- logistics activity reflect measures of global city functions?The re- ham and Sahling.2004)and China (Cole et al.(2008).Hence the search reported here has developed a methodology to address location of major sea and air freight terminals within global city re- those questions. gions means there may well be"a new species of global city......a 24 hour conveyance urbanism of infrastructures,containers and 2.A methodology to link logistics and global city regions specialized vehicles...the global city as Logistics city"(Easterling. 2004.p.182). The methodology to address the issues outlined above was The issue for the research is whether this set of outcomes is developed in four stages. shaped by the location and access to large scale physical infra- structure,or whether the broader service sector in a complex ur- 2.1.Identifying global cities ban region also shapes the flows of activity.The infrastructure effect,felt via large scale sea and airport facilities,is significant The starting point here was the hierarchy of global cities devel- for global city regions as it has been shown that seaports within oped by Beaverstock et al.(2000).This is firmly rooted in a count of close proximity may collaborate in the handling of goods,and producer services in cities.There were two drawbacks to its use might in fact be served by one set of logistics service companies. One was that it was presented in categories,so it was difficult to Song (2002)suggested this outcome might have relevance in the separate out the global city status of individual cities.The second rapidly expanding Asian context where ports within a region that was that the ranking was published in 2001 and it drew upon data were once in competition might begin to co-operate.Exploration from an earlier time period.Though it might be assumed that the of his idea in the case of Shanghai and Ningbo(Wang and Olivier rank of global cities might not have changed much in this period, (2007a),Hong Kong and Shenzen(Wang and Oliver,2007b),Sin- there were some cities where logistics activity is known to be sig- gapore and Tanjung Pelapas (Tongzon,2006)and Busan and nificant,Shanghai and Dubai for example,which were likely to Gwangyang (Yeo and Cho,2007)confirms the relevance of a have become more important since 2001.The drawbacks of the large-scale urban region as a framework for logistics activity.A Beaverstock approach were overcome with the production of a similar perspective on airports was provided by de Neufville hierarchical ranking of individual cities by Mastercard Worldwide (1995).which spawned research on multiple airport regions. (2008)This was developed for a set of 50 cities in 2007,and was Fuelhart (2003,2007)has shown this effect on a small airport up-dated to 75 cities in 2008.This created a minor problem as within the catchment of larger ones in the US,noting that passen- the logistics analysis planned in the current research involved data gers can travel 70-90 miles to use different airports at different up to 2006.However,closer study of the 2008 Mastercard research Please cite this article in press as:O'Connor.K.Global city regions and the location of logistics activity.J.Transp.Geogr.(2009).doi:10.1016 jtrangeo.2009.06.015

Marcotullio (2001) and ‘‘extended metropolitan area” by Ginsberg et al. (1991). There are good reasons to expect that these large spatial units will play a prominent role in global logistics. One source is the con￾ceptual foundation laid by Scott who established they were inte￾grated internally by the movement of goods (and people) and externally by world trade, both of which involve logistics activity. That foundation is enriched by the thinking on the location of out￾sourced producer services, a production arrangement central to the understanding of global city activity in the research of Sassen (1994) and extended by the research on services of Daniels and Bryson (2002) and Goe et al., (2000). Outsourcing has recently be￾come a very significant part of logistics services as Skjoett-Larsen (2000) and Makukha and Gray (2004) have shown. Hence logistics services could be a significant part of the producer service mix of global city regions. Their significance might be due to the scale of the local market in these major city regions or it might reflect spe￾cial skills in managing transhipment and intermodal functions, where logistics services are in effect underpinning the hub or gate￾way function of the global city region. There is a firm empirical base for this expected outcome too. Hesse and Rodrigue (2004) suggest that logistics activities are lo￾cated in and around the big physical nodes of seaports and airports, but are also found at inland centres in the suburbs and in hinter￾land corridors beyond the edge of a metropolitan area. Illustrating these outcomes, Rodrigue and Notteboom (2008, p. 13) have iden￾tified an ‘‘extended gateway” in an area of 100–150 km around the port of Antwerp, and links extending over 100 km around Rotter￾dam (Notteboom and Rodrigue, 2008, p. 65), both consistent with Rodrigue and Hess’s (2007, p. 116) observation that ‘‘most of the movements” to New York ‘‘involve medium distance trucking of a few hundred kilometers at most”. The role of logistics in the glo￾bal city region can also be seen in the link detected between US west coast port traffic and the demand for warehouse space in west coast metropolitan areas, especially the link between the ports of Los Angeles-Long Beach and the Inland Empire (Mortimer, 2008). That perspective is consistent with observations on the location of physical logistics activity in big urban regions in the US (King and Keating, 2006), Europe (Cushman et al., 2003; Gra￾ham and Sahling, 2004) and China (Cole et al. (2008). Hence the location of major sea and air freight terminals within global city re￾gions means there may well be ‘‘a new species of global city. . .. . ... a 24 hour conveyance urbanism of infrastructures, containers and specialized vehicles ...the global city as Logistics city” (Easterling, 2004, p. 182). The issue for the research is whether this set of outcomes is shaped by the location and access to large scale physical infra￾structure, or whether the broader service sector in a complex ur￾ban region also shapes the flows of activity. The infrastructure effect, felt via large scale sea and airport facilities, is significant for global city regions as it has been shown that seaports within close proximity may collaborate in the handling of goods, and might in fact be served by one set of logistics service companies. Song (2002) suggested this outcome might have relevance in the rapidly expanding Asian context where ports within a region that were once in competition might begin to co-operate. Exploration of his idea in the case of Shanghai and Ningbo (Wang and Olivier (2007a), Hong Kong and Shenzen (Wang and Oliver, 2007b), Sin￾gapore and Tanjung Pelapas (Tongzon, 2006) and Busan and Gwangyang (Yeo and Cho, 2007) confirms the relevance of a large-scale urban region as a framework for logistics activity. A similar perspective on airports was provided by de Neufville (1995), which spawned research on multiple airport regions. Fuelhart (2003, 2007) has shown this effect on a small airport within the catchment of larger ones in the US, noting that passen￾gers can travel 70–90 miles to use different airports at different times; Pels et al. (2001) explored the outcome in a more closely spaced set of airports in the San Francisco Bay Area, while Loo et al (2005) analysed these outcomes for Hong Kong and Shenzen. There have been less attention to freight movements on this scale, although Schebera (2006) refers to linkages of this kind for Hong Kong-Shenzen. Hence the sea and airport infrastructure in a global city region could be a critical factor in shaping its role in global logistics activity. As noted earlier, global city regions also provide a foundation for service activity. This activity could be more mature where complex infrastructure provides the logistics service company with an array of alternative modal choices, which it can utilize to meet a client’s needs. Wang and Cheng (2009) have extended and developed this thinking, showing that the service functions of major port cities can evolve into ‘‘global supply chain manage￾ment centres” as their service activities look beyond local loading and unloading to include skills in finance, product planning and management. That outcome could be based in part on a capacity to operate in both sea and air freight. Although there are substan￾tive differences in bulk, speed and type of commodities handled by the two modes, it is possible that logistics service companies will have some clients who will need sea and air shipments of different goods at different times. For example, Henstra et al. (2007) provide details of a case-study of Sony who use both sea and air transport to supply warehouses in Europe, one delivering base load, predicted supply, the other being used to meet unex￾pected demand. Priemus (2001) indicated there was integration between the two elements of transport infrastructure in the Netherlands. Hence logistics activity, involving both physical movement and value added supply chain management activity, might be better developed in a global city region than if operating in a smaller city. To establish the strength of the relationship between global city regions and logistics activity, the research has posed three ques￾tions. First, what is the actual share of logistics activity in global city regions that have both sea and airports? Second, do regions with multiple airports and seaports exert a disproportionate influ￾ence on this share? Third, to what extent do measures of physical logistics activity reflect measures of global city functions? The re￾search reported here has developed a methodology to address those questions. 2. A methodology to link logistics and global city regions The methodology to address the issues outlined above was developed in four stages. 2.1. Identifying global cities The starting point here was the hierarchy of global cities devel￾oped by Beaverstock et al. (2000). This is firmly rooted in a count of producer services in cities. There were two drawbacks to its use. One was that it was presented in categories, so it was difficult to separate out the global city status of individual cities. The second was that the ranking was published in 2001 and it drew upon data from an earlier time period. Though it might be assumed that the rank of global cities might not have changed much in this period, there were some cities where logistics activity is known to be sig￾nificant, Shanghai and Dubai for example, which were likely to have become more important since 2001. The drawbacks of the Beaverstock approach were overcome with the production of a hierarchical ranking of individual cities by Mastercard Worldwide (2008) This was developed for a set of 50 cities in 2007, and was up-dated to 75 cities in 2008. This created a minor problem as the logistics analysis planned in the current research involved data up to 2006. However, closer study of the 2008 Mastercard research 2 K. O’Connor / Journal of Transport Geography xxx (2009) xxx–xxx ARTICLE IN PRESS Please cite this article in press as: O’Connor, K. Global city regions and the location of logistics activity. J. Transp. Geogr. (2009), doi:10.1016/ j.jtrangeo.2009.06.015

ARTICLE IN PRESS K O'Connor/Joumal of Transport Geography xxx (2009)xxx-xxx showed some of its data referred to earlier years;in addition the Table 1 2008 publication added more cities and broadened the data base Shares of sea and air freight at different types of urban locations 2006. considerably,adding more variables,so it was potentially more Location Number of Share of Share of useful than the 2007 publication.It was decided to use the 2008 places air freight sea freight data as it is based on more data and includes more cities.The city Global city logistics region 44 48.8 58.4 ranking is based upon 72 indicators which are merged into seven Global city with airport only 29 15.5 separate dimensions.These are the legal and political framework; Non global cities economic stability;ease of doing business;financial flows;busi- Top 20 in sea or air traffic 20 18.2 19.4 ness centre;knowledge creation and information flow and livabil- Rest of cities in data bases 17.5 222 ity.The business centre dimension contributes 12%to the ranking Total 100 100 It is made up of six variables,four of which in fact measure the Total includes 952 airports,530 seaports logistics activity that is the focus of the current research.These variables are Port TEUs,Air Passenger and Airphone traffic,Air Car- go traffic and International Air Passenger traffic (Mastercard Worldwide,2008,p.13).Hence to use this as measure in a study Rotterdam and Amsterdam,as well as a separate city region in Bel- of logistics activity it was necessary to remove that dimension gium(Brussels and Liege for air and Zeebrugge and Antwerp for from the index.This was done and an Adjusted Mastercard Index sea)are further illustrations of the methodology.Likewise,an ur- for 2008 was used to re-rank the 75 global cities in the data base. ban region labeled London and South East UK stretched the idea by including Flexistowe and Southampton with some smaller ports 2.2.Identifying global city regions and a set of airports serving that region;the availability of road and rail links that allow freight movement across this area justified that The research then needed to identify the global city region of decision.In the case of Shanghai and Ningbo,the combination fol- these cities.Here the approach drew on that used in case studies lowed the research presented by Cullinane et al.(2005)and Wang carried out by Simmons and Hack(2000)and the conceptual think- and Oliver(2007b)and incorporated knowledge of the new bridge ing of Webster and Muller(2002)applied to a study of Bangkok reducing the distance between the two cities.A Dubai-Gulf region (Webster,2004).These approaches suggested global city regions was shaped following the research of Zaid Ashai et al.(2007). were areas up to 70 km from a central city.with both sea and air- In some cases national borders separating near-neighbours port and multi-lane road systems (and rail networks in some (Hong Kong-Shenzhen and Singapore-Tanjung Pelapas for exam- cases).Ideally the identification could be based upon measures of ple)were ignored to provide a regional perspective on known (or the capacity and efficiency of the region's multi-modal transport potential)movement of goods and the spread of logistics manage- systems;that information was not available in a consistent form ment skills between these two places(Wang and Olivier,2007a: in all urban regions across the globe.Hence the approach followed Tongzon,2006;Loo et al.,2005).These did not extend to large geo- O'Connor's(2003)identification of multiple airport cities;it used graphic scale regions(which could link Guangzhou in the Hong local maps to find the location of transport infrastructure within Kong Shenzen case,and Penang in the Malaysian case)as the dis- the 70 km radius from the central city of the places identified in tances were beyond the 70 km limit. the Mastercard list discussed above.For inclusion in the study a The requirement of co-incident sea and airport in the method- global city region had to have at least one sea port and an airport ology meant that several global cities were left out of the analysis: in data supplied from sources identified below These included Paris,Frankfurt,Madrid and Zurich in Europe and Chicago,Dallas,Atlanta and Toronto in North America.Some sig- 2.3.Identifying logistics activity in global city regions nificant seaports and airports have also been excluded as they were not in locations classified as global cities:Kaioshung.Qingdao- The third step involved the measurement of logistics activity. Yantai and Busan-Gwangyang are examples of seaports,while The initial approach aimed to identify both physical and service Memphis,Louisville and Anchorage are examples of air freight dimensions of logistics,but it quickly became apparent that the locations.Given these exclusions it might be expected that the measurement of the service side of logistics(explored via directo- concentration on global cities with sea and airports might provide ries and lists of the head offices of companies)was not going to be a limited view of the logistics scene.The results show otherwise. sufficiently rigourous or comprehensive for the research.Hence the The full data base of cities,with their constituent seaports and air- focus fell back on the physical measures.The sources were Contain- ports is displayed in Appendix 1. erisation International,which provided the number of containers Table 1 provides an overview of the data base developed from moved through 530 ports in 2006;the same data was available this methodology,and a preliminary insight into the significance back to 1996 (though for a smaller number of ports)and Airport of the 44 global city regions that are the focus of the research.As Council International,which showed tonnes of air freight loaded shown in the table,this group accounted for 48.8%of global air at 952 airports in 2006.These data bases were scanned to find freight and 58.4%of global sea freight in 2006.Global cities in all sea and airports that could be assigned to the 70 km radius of the Mastercard ranking that did not have sea ports account for a each global logistics region.The condition that the global city re- further 15%of air freight.A group of the twenty busiest airports gion had to have an airport and a sea port for which data was avail- (led by Memphis,Louisville,Anchorage,and Luxembourg)and sea- able reduced the data set to 44 places which were labeled Global ports (such as Busan-Gwangyang,Kaohsiung.Quingdao and City Logistics Regions. Guangzhou)account for an additional one fifth of air and sea The data set includes some expected locations,like the ports of freight.The significant level of concentration of logistics activity Los Angeles-Long Beach along with airports in the Los Angeles ba- in these 44 global city logistics regions justifies further analysis. sin,while the incorporation of San Francisco (airport).Oakland (port and airport)and San Jose(airport)into one region is another 2.4.Measuring both sea and air freight obvious case.The New York-New Jersey network of airports and a seaport was extended to include Hartford following Bowen and The fourth step in the methodology involved a calculation to ex- Slack's(2007)observation on the latter's role.The location of ports press the scale of physical sea and air logistics activity.The aim and airports in the Tokyo-Yokohama region,the combination of was to find a way to compress the data to simplify the presentation Please cite this article in press as:O'Connor,K.Global city regions and the location of logistics activity.J.Transp.Geogr.(2009).doi:10.1016/ j.jtrangeo.2009.06.015

showed some of its data referred to earlier years; in addition the 2008 publication added more cities and broadened the data base considerably, adding more variables, so it was potentially more useful than the 2007 publication. It was decided to use the 2008 data as it is based on more data and includes more cities. The city ranking is based upon 72 indicators which are merged into seven separate dimensions. These are the legal and political framework; economic stability; ease of doing business; financial flows; busi￾ness centre; knowledge creation and information flow and livabil￾ity. The business centre dimension contributes 12% to the ranking. It is made up of six variables, four of which in fact measure the logistics activity that is the focus of the current research. These variables are Port TEUs, Air Passenger and Airphone traffic, Air Car￾go traffic and International Air Passenger traffic (Mastercard Worldwide, 2008, p. 13). Hence to use this as measure in a study of logistics activity it was necessary to remove that dimension from the index. This was done and an Adjusted Mastercard Index for 2008 was used to re-rank the 75 global cities in the data base. 2.2. Identifying global city regions The research then needed to identify the global city region of these cities. Here the approach drew on that used in case studies carried out by Simmons and Hack (2000) and the conceptual think￾ing of Webster and Muller (2002) applied to a study of Bangkok (Webster, 2004). These approaches suggested global city regions were areas up to 70 km from a central city, with both sea and air￾port and multi-lane road systems (and rail networks in some cases). Ideally the identification could be based upon measures of the capacity and efficiency of the region’s multi-modal transport systems; that information was not available in a consistent form in all urban regions across the globe. Hence the approach followed O’Connor’s (2003) identification of multiple airport cities; it used local maps to find the location of transport infrastructure within the 70 km radius from the central city of the places identified in the Mastercard list discussed above. For inclusion in the study a global city region had to have at least one sea port and an airport in data supplied from sources identified below. 2.3. Identifying logistics activity in global city regions The third step involved the measurement of logistics activity. The initial approach aimed to identify both physical and service dimensions of logistics, but it quickly became apparent that the measurement of the service side of logistics (explored via directo￾ries and lists of the head offices of companies) was not going to be sufficiently rigourous or comprehensive for the research. Hence the focus fell back on the physical measures. The sources were Contain￾erisation International, which provided the number of containers moved through 530 ports in 2006; the same data was available back to 1996 (though for a smaller number of ports) and Airport Council International, which showed tonnes of air freight loaded at 952 airports in 2006. These data bases were scanned to find all sea and airports that could be assigned to the 70 km radius of each global logistics region. The condition that the global city re￾gion had to have an airport and a sea port for which data was avail￾able reduced the data set to 44 places which were labeled Global City Logistics Regions. The data set includes some expected locations, like the ports of Los Angeles–Long Beach along with airports in the Los Angeles ba￾sin, while the incorporation of San Francisco (airport), Oakland (port and airport) and San Jose (airport) into one region is another obvious case. The New York–New Jersey network of airports and a seaport was extended to include Hartford following Bowen and Slack’s (2007) observation on the latter’s role. The location of ports and airports in the Tokyo–Yokohama region, the combination of Rotterdam and Amsterdam, as well as a separate city region in Bel￾gium (Brussels and Liege for air and Zeebrugge and Antwerp for sea) are further illustrations of the methodology. Likewise, an ur￾ban region labeled London and South East UK stretched the idea by including Flexistowe and Southampton with some smaller ports and a set of airports serving that region; the availability of road and rail links that allow freight movement across this area justified that decision. In the case of Shanghai and Ningbo, the combination fol￾lowed the research presented by Cullinane et al. (2005) and Wang and Oliver (2007b) and incorporated knowledge of the new bridge reducing the distance between the two cities. A Dubai-Gulf region was shaped following the research of Zaid Ashai et al. (2007). In some cases national borders separating near-neighbours (Hong Kong-Shenzhen and Singapore–Tanjung Pelapas for exam￾ple) were ignored to provide a regional perspective on known (or potential) movement of goods and the spread of logistics manage￾ment skills between these two places (Wang and Olivier, 2007a; Tongzon, 2006; Loo et al., 2005). These did not extend to large geo￾graphic scale regions (which could link Guangzhou in the Hong Kong Shenzen case, and Penang in the Malaysian case) as the dis￾tances were beyond the 70 km limit. The requirement of co-incident sea and airport in the method￾ology meant that several global cities were left out of the analysis: These included Paris, Frankfurt, Madrid and Zurich in Europe and Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta and Toronto in North America. Some sig￾nificant seaports and airports have also been excluded as they were not in locations classified as global cities: Kaioshung, Qingdao– Yantai and Busan–Gwangyang are examples of seaports, while Memphis, Louisville and Anchorage are examples of air freight locations. Given these exclusions it might be expected that the concentration on global cities with sea and airports might provide a limited view of the logistics scene. The results show otherwise. The full data base of cities, with their constituent seaports and air￾ports is displayed in Appendix 1. Table 1 provides an overview of the data base developed from this methodology, and a preliminary insight into the significance of the 44 global city regions that are the focus of the research. As shown in the table, this group accounted for 48.8% of global air freight and 58.4% of global sea freight in 2006. Global cities in the Mastercard ranking that did not have sea ports account for a further 15% of air freight. A group of the twenty busiest airports (led by Memphis, Louisville, Anchorage, and Luxembourg) and sea￾ports (such as Busan–Gwangyang, Kaohsiung, Quingdao and Guangzhou) account for an additional one fifth of air and sea freight. The significant level of concentration of logistics activity in these 44 global city logistics regions justifies further analysis. 2.4. Measuring both sea and air freight The fourth step in the methodology involved a calculation to ex￾press the scale of physical sea and air logistics activity. The aim was to find a way to compress the data to simplify the presentation Table 1 Shares of sea and air freight at different types of urban locations 2006. Location Number of places Share of air freight Share of sea freight Global city logistics region 44 48.8 58.4 Global city with airport only 29 15.5 Non global cities Top 20 in sea or air traffic 20 18.2 19.4 Rest of cities in data bases 17.5 22.2 Total 100 100 Total includes 952 airports, 530 seaports K. O’Connor / Journal of Transport Geography xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 3 ARTICLE IN PRESS Please cite this article in press as: O’Connor, K. Global city regions and the location of logistics activity. J. Transp. Geogr. (2009), doi:10.1016/ j.jtrangeo.2009.06.015

ARTICLE IN PRESS K.O'Connor /Journal of Transport Geography xxx(2009)xxx-xxx and interpretation of levels of,and changes in,activity.It is obvi- region in this top 10 group.One is made up the commonly cited ously not possible to add sea freight(measured in containers)to cores of the global economy namely London-SE UK.New York air freight(measured in tonnes).However it was considered feasi- and Tokyo:the latter two are recognized generally as important ble to add the shares of total sea or air freight at each global city logistics centres.A second group is made up of what could be la- region as these are measures in a comparable metric.It is a crude beled specialist ports or airports,and include Hong Kong-Shenzen measure as in effect it assumes an equal significance of sea and air Singapore and Amsterdam-Rotterdam.A third sub group in this freight;the need to refine and enhance measures like this are dis- list of ten(Stockholm,Copenhagen and Sydney)are highly ranked cussed in the conclusion.The output from this step was termed a probably because of livability measures along with their commer- Global Logistics Index,a dimensionless variable discussed in terms cial functions but are not associated with modern logistics activity. of points.Its value for a given global city logistics region is the Seoul has not been included in this three way grouping:its logis- sum of that city's port(s)and airport(s)share of all total container tics role in air freight is significant,but its seaport functions are less movements and all air freight loaded in the data bases used.The significant.The analysis just of the top ten cities helps sharpen the index has a total value of 200 points (which corresponds to the analysis.It shows that many of the top ranked cities have acknowl- sum of all shares i.e.100%of sea freight and 100%of air freight) edged logistics functions and as a group they dominate the location This will be used to measure the physical logistics activity at global of this activity.But it also raises the question whether global city city logistics regions. rank alone is an important determinant of the location of this activity. 3.The results Another insight in the data is the index value for the category of cities ranked 31-40.The global logistics index value for this cate- 3.1.The significance of global city logistics regions gory breaks what seems to be a steady downward trend in the activity associated with the rank of city.That suggests global city The data displayed in Table 1 earlier confirms one key in issue roles may be important in logistics even irrespective of rank.To ex- for the research:global city logistics regions are a critical part of plore that issue further,the focus now shifts to the rank of individ- logistics activity.Attention now turns to the effect that the signif- ual cities and their global logistics index score. icance or rank of the global city itself has upon logistics activity. The data for each individual global city's amended Mastercard The analysis of global cities often involves place in a hierarchy Index and Global Logistics Index value has been plotted in Fig.2. and much attention in research is focussed upon the highest That provides a general impression of the link between the two ranked cities,with special attention to cities like London,New variables.Statistically the regression line drawn on the graph York,Tokyo and Paris for example.In that vein,the first step in has an R-square value of 0.46,which means that on average just the analysis was to examine the Global Logistics Index values re- 46%of the variance in global logistics activity is related to global corded for hierarchical categories of city regions.This will provide city rank.It seems there are two broad groups of cities repre- an overview of the link between the level of global city functions sented here.One where transport functions are matched to their (seen in the rank of the global city region)and its share of com- global commercial influence,which are arrayed on or close to the bined sea and air physical logistics activity.The results are dis- regression line and a group where that link is weak.Among the played in Fig.1. former,global city regions marked in italics on Fig.2 and as di- The figure shows that the top ranked category of cities does verse as London,SE UK,New York-New Jersey,Amsterdam-Rot- dominate logistics activity,having double the index value of those terdam,Seoul and Hamburg-Bremerhaven (along with in the next ranked category.The cities ranked in the top ten can be unmarked San Francisco-San Jose,Rome and Sao Paulo-Santos) seen in Appendix 1.These cities have the widest array of business have logistics activity consistent with the rank of their global city and urban development as used in the Mastercard index research. functions. It is possible that the more complex producer service environment, However there are many global cities where logistics functions along with the large market and higher income of these higher are either more important or less important than their global city ranked places may be a significant attractor of freight activity. rank would predict,indicating that other factors have an impor- However not all cities in the top ten category are significant logis- tant role to play in this relationship.The places with strong logis- tics centres.It is apparent that there are really three types of city tics functions are Hong Kong-Shenzen in particular,along with Singapore,Los Angeles-Long Beach,Tokyo-Yokohama,Shang- hai-Ningbo and Dubai-Gulf,locations that figure prominently in 5 0 16 35 14 520 12 10 Shanghal ◆ngp0 15 8 ◆Los Angeles-Long Beach 10 6 ◆Duba☐ ◆Tokyo-Yokohama 4 mburg. S0ow 2 ◆Osaka-Kobe 1to10 11to20 21to30 31to40 41to44 Rank of Global City Logistics Regions 0 0 40 60 Category Aggregate Index Value Global City Rank Fig.1.Rank and level of logistics activity 2006. Fig.2.The relationship between global city rank and global logistics index 2006 Please cite this article in press as:O'Connor.K.Global city regions and the location of logistics activity.J.Transp.Geogr.(2009).doi:10.1016 j.jtrangeo.2009.06.015

and interpretation of levels of, and changes in, activity. It is obvi￾ously not possible to add sea freight (measured in containers) to air freight (measured in tonnes). However it was considered feasi￾ble to add the shares of total sea or air freight at each global city region as these are measures in a comparable metric. It is a crude measure as in effect it assumes an equal significance of sea and air freight; the need to refine and enhance measures like this are dis￾cussed in the conclusion. The output from this step was termed a Global Logistics Index, a dimensionless variable discussed in terms of points. Its value for a given global city logistics region is the sum of that city’s port(s)and airport(s) share of all total container movements and all air freight loaded in the data bases used. The index has a total value of 200 points (which corresponds to the sum of all shares i.e. 100% of sea freight and 100% of air freight). This will be used to measure the physical logistics activity at global city logistics regions. 3. The results 3.1. The significance of global city logistics regions The data displayed in Table 1 earlier confirms one key in issue for the research: global city logistics regions are a critical part of logistics activity. Attention now turns to the effect that the signif￾icance or rank of the global city itself has upon logistics activity. The analysis of global cities often involves place in a hierarchy and much attention in research is focussed upon the highest ranked cities, with special attention to cities like London, New York, Tokyo and Paris for example. In that vein, the first step in the analysis was to examine the Global Logistics Index values re￾corded for hierarchical categories of city regions. This will provide an overview of the link between the level of global city functions (seen in the rank of the global city region) and its share of com￾bined sea and air physical logistics activity. The results are dis￾played in Fig. 1. The figure shows that the top ranked category of cities does dominate logistics activity, having double the index value of those in the next ranked category. The cities ranked in the top ten can be seen in Appendix 1. These cities have the widest array of business and urban development as used in the Mastercard index research. It is possible that the more complex producer service environment, along with the large market and higher income of these higher ranked places may be a significant attractor of freight activity. However not all cities in the top ten category are significant logis￾tics centres. It is apparent that there are really three types of city region in this top 10 group. One is made up the commonly cited cores of the global economy namely London–SE UK, New York and Tokyo; the latter two are recognized generally as important logistics centres. A second group is made up of what could be la￾beled specialist ports or airports, and include Hong Kong–Shenzen, Singapore and Amsterdam–Rotterdam. A third sub group in this list of ten (Stockholm, Copenhagen and Sydney) are highly ranked probably because of livability measures along with their commer￾cial functions but are not associated with modern logistics activity. Seoul has not been included in this three way grouping: its logis￾tics role in air freight is significant, but its seaport functions are less significant. The analysis just of the top ten cities helps sharpen the analysis. It shows that many of the top ranked cities have acknowl￾edged logistics functions and as a group they dominate the location of this activity. But it also raises the question whether global city rank alone is an important determinant of the location of this activity. Another insight in the data is the index value for the category of cities ranked 31–40. The global logistics index value for this cate￾gory breaks what seems to be a steady downward trend in the activity associated with the rank of city. That suggests global city roles may be important in logistics even irrespective of rank. To ex￾plore that issue further, the focus now shifts to the rank of individ￾ual cities and their global logistics index score. The data for each individual global city’s amended Mastercard Index and Global Logistics Index value has been plotted in Fig. 2. That provides a general impression of the link between the two variables. Statistically the regression line drawn on the graph has an R-square value of 0.46, which means that on average just 46% of the variance in global logistics activity is related to global city rank. It seems there are two broad groups of cities repre￾sented here. One where transport functions are matched to their global commercial influence, which are arrayed on or close to the regression line and a group where that link is weak. Among the former, global city regions marked in italics on Fig. 2 and as di￾verse as London, SE UK, New York–New Jersey, Amsterdam–Rot￾terdam, Seoul and Hamburg–Bremerhaven (along with unmarked San Francisco–San Jose, Rome and Sao Paulo–Santos) have logistics activity consistent with the rank of their global city functions. However there are many global cities where logistics functions are either more important or less important than their global city rank would predict, indicating that other factors have an impor￾tant role to play in this relationship. The places with strong logis￾tics functions are Hong Kong–Shenzen in particular, along with Singapore, Los Angeles–Long Beach, Tokyo–Yokohama, Shang￾hai–Ningbo and Dubai-Gulf, locations that figure prominently in 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 1 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 44 Rank of Global City Logistics Regions Global Logistics Index Category Aggregate Index Value Fig. 1. Rank and level of logistics activity 2006. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 20 40 60 80 Global City Rank Global Logistics Index Singapore Hong Kong￾Shenzen Shanghai Los Angeles-Long Beach Tokyo-Yokohama Dubai￾London￾SE UK New York Seoul Hamburg-Bremerhaven Amsterdam-R Osaka-Kobe Fig. 2. The relationship between global city rank and global logistics index 2006. 4 K. O’Connor / Journal of Transport Geography xxx (2009) xxx–xxx ARTICLE IN PRESS Please cite this article in press as: O’Connor, K. Global city regions and the location of logistics activity. J. Transp. Geogr. (2009), doi:10.1016/ j.jtrangeo.2009.06.015

ARTICLE IN PRESS K O'Connor/Joumal of Transport Geography xxx (2009)xxx-xxx most research on logistics activity.It is possible that these places possible that this strong role reflects a hub function at many of have greater significance because their global city regions incor- these city regions,so that traffic is larger than might be the case porate multiple sea and airport infrastructure,an aspect to be ex- for their own market.Of course it is possible that the hub function plored below.In addition it could be that their hub role in global relates to the scale and skills of commercial and financial manage- logistics movements exaggerates their physical logistics activity ment(i.e.their global city role)than simply to the number and lift beyond that associated with their own regional or national mar- capacity of cranes at their seaports and/or runway and storage ket need. space at their airports.That idea is supported by the fact that the At the same time it is apparent that a series of cities plotted 27 places that had single sea and airports together recorded a glo- within the circle drawn on the city rank axis have significant global bal logistics index over 40,(corresponding to a share of all traffic city functions but are not important as logistics centres.These in- around 20%).For this group it might be the scale and complexity clude Copenhagen,Sydney,Stockholm,Philadelphia and Boston, of the global economic functions that account for their role in this which are highly ranked on the Mastercard analysis due to their data scores on financial and business functions and possibly livability. These results suggest that the scale and complexity of infra- The presence of these attributes is not enough to ensure logistics structure is but one part of the story.To elaborate the association functions,confirming that the link between logistics activity and between it and logistics activity it is useful to explore the global global city rank is not straightforward. city rank of places within the two main categories discussed above. These are shown in Table 2. 3.2.The role of port and airport infrastructure This table shows that the multiple sea and airport regions span a wide array of global city ranks,from London at 1 to Du- It is likely that several of the global city logistics regions that bai-Gulf,ranked at 55 in the Mastercard data base of 75 cities.In are prominent in Fig.2 might have more than one sea and air- fact it would seem infrastructure provision seems to be indepen- port.In some cases these might be close together and reflect dent of the scale of global city functions as only three of the nine early history in development (eg.Los Angeles and Long Beach global city regions in this category are ranked among the ten ma- seaports);others could reflect new additions as the region has jor global cities in the data base.In the second category,there grown (Gatwick and Stansted airports in London,Narita Airport are no highly ranked city regions,and the majority make up in Tokyo and Kansai airport in Osaka-Kobe).In other cases regio the middle to bottom end of the set of 75 cities studied here. nal development can lead to the merging of cities to form larger In many of these places their global city role,as well as their city regions,and so add to the transport infrastructure,a case logistics function,is probably associated with their national com- represented by the example of Shanghai and Ningbo.The effect mercial and industrial significance.Fifteen cities in the group (Ja- of this infrastructure outcome was explored by assigning the karta,Manila,Cairo.Buenos Aires,Santiago,Lisbon,Tel Aviv- 44 global city logistics regions to one of four classes based on Haifa,Stockholm,Mumbai,Beijing-Tianjin,Dublin,Amsterdam- the number of their sea and airports.Four classes were created: Rotterdam,Sydney.Mumbai,Sao-Paulo)are capitals or main (1)Multiple sea and airports;(2)Multiple seaports with a single commercial centre of their nations which is reflected in signifi- airport;(3)Multiple airports with a single sea port and(4)Single cant commercial and business service development.Among the sea and airport.The data assembled for these categories included rest are places with strong regional commercial roles (Vancouver. the number of cities,as well as the total value of the global logis- Houston,Boston and St.Petersburg).The commercial and finan- tics index for all cities in that category.The results are displayed cial service development of the global cities in these regions in Fig.3. would seem to underpin their logistics functions.In fact 15 of This figure makes very clear that the small number of global city the 34 cities named in this table are ranked above the half logistics regions that have multiple sea and airports account for the way point on the adjusted Mastercard ranking,confirming again majority of sea and air freight.Just eight cities in this category re- that global city commercial activity seems to have a strong influ- corded a total of over 50 points on the Global Logistics Index, ence upon logistics functions. (which in effect means around 25%of all global sea and air traffic In summary,global logistics activity has a complex interdepen- in 2006).This significance suggests that the concentration of global dence with global city functions that extends beyond infrastruc- logistics activity can in fact be largely associated with the provision ture.In aggregate global city logistics regions are very significant and accessibility of infrastructure in and around a region.It is also as a focus for world sea and air freight.A good part of that signif- icance is associated with a small number of places with substantial air and sea port development and a role as hubs in the movement of goods.In addition however.a wide array of global cities is also significant in sea and air freight.The final stage in the analysis ex- 0 plores the way those relationships have changed in the period 50 1996-2006. 40 3.3.Change in the location of logistics activity 1996-2006 30 eld 1o 20 The aim here was to establish whether the outcome identified in the previous analysis had a longer term foundation or is a recent phenomenon.In particular it was important to establish if the re- gions with multiple sea and airports have played a more important Multiple Seaports Multiple Seaports Multiple Airports Single Seaport and role over the decade under review. and Airports Single Airport Single Sea Airport Fig.4 provides data to explore the first issue.It shows the categories of Infrastructure global logistics index for the global city logistics regions from 1996-2006,with details on the index values for sea and air Global City Logistics RegionsGlobal Logistics Index for Category transport. Fig.3.Transport infrastructure and global logistics role:global city logistics regions This data suggests that the role of the global city logistics re- 2006. gions has changed little over the decade.A small but steady rise Please cite this article in press as:O'Connor,K.Global city regions and the location of logistics activity.J.Transp.Geogr.(2009).doi:10.1016/ j.jtrangeo.2009.06.015

most research on logistics activity. It is possible that these places have greater significance because their global city regions incor￾porate multiple sea and airport infrastructure, an aspect to be ex￾plored below. In addition it could be that their hub role in global logistics movements exaggerates their physical logistics activity beyond that associated with their own regional or national mar￾ket need. At the same time it is apparent that a series of cities plotted within the circle drawn on the city rank axis have significant global city functions but are not important as logistics centres. These in￾clude Copenhagen, Sydney, Stockholm, Philadelphia and Boston, which are highly ranked on the Mastercard analysis due to their scores on financial and business functions and possibly livability. The presence of these attributes is not enough to ensure logistics functions, confirming that the link between logistics activity and global city rank is not straightforward. 3.2. The role of port and airport infrastructure It is likely that several of the global city logistics regions that are prominent in Fig. 2 might have more than one sea and air￾port. In some cases these might be close together and reflect early history in development (eg. Los Angeles and Long Beach seaports); others could reflect new additions as the region has grown (Gatwick and Stansted airports in London, Narita Airport in Tokyo and Kansai airport in Osaka–Kobe). In other cases regio￾nal development can lead to the merging of cities to form larger city regions, and so add to the transport infrastructure, a case represented by the example of Shanghai and Ningbo. The effect of this infrastructure outcome was explored by assigning the 44 global city logistics regions to one of four classes based on the number of their sea and airports. Four classes were created: (1) Multiple sea and airports; (2) Multiple seaports with a single airport; (3) Multiple airports with a single sea port and (4) Single sea and airport. The data assembled for these categories included the number of cities, as well as the total value of the global logis￾tics index for all cities in that category. The results are displayed in Fig. 3. This figure makes very clear that the small number of global city logistics regions that have multiple sea and airports account for the majority of sea and air freight. Just eight cities in this category re￾corded a total of over 50 points on the Global Logistics Index, (which in effect means around 25% of all global sea and air traffic in 2006). This significance suggests that the concentration of global logistics activity can in fact be largely associated with the provision and accessibility of infrastructure in and around a region. It is also possible that this strong role reflects a hub function at many of these city regions, so that traffic is larger than might be the case for their own market. Of course it is possible that the hub function relates to the scale and skills of commercial and financial manage￾ment (i.e. their global city role) than simply to the number and lift capacity of cranes at their seaports and/or runway and storage space at their airports. That idea is supported by the fact that the 27 places that had single sea and airports together recorded a glo￾bal logistics index over 40, (corresponding to a share of all traffic around 20%). For this group it might be the scale and complexity of the global economic functions that account for their role in this data. These results suggest that the scale and complexity of infra￾structure is but one part of the story. To elaborate the association between it and logistics activity it is useful to explore the global city rank of places within the two main categories discussed above. These are shown in Table 2. This table shows that the multiple sea and airport regions span a wide array of global city ranks, from London at 1 to Du￾bai-Gulf, ranked at 55 in the Mastercard data base of 75 cities. In fact it would seem infrastructure provision seems to be indepen￾dent of the scale of global city functions as only three of the nine global city regions in this category are ranked among the ten ma￾jor global cities in the data base. In the second category, there are no highly ranked city regions, and the majority make up the middle to bottom end of the set of 75 cities studied here. In many of these places their global city role, as well as their logistics function, is probably associated with their national com￾mercial and industrial significance. Fifteen cities in the group (Ja￾karta, Manila, Cairo, Buenos Aires, Santiago, Lisbon, Tel Aviv– Haifa, Stockholm, Mumbai, Beijing–Tianjin, Dublin, Amsterdam– Rotterdam, Sydney, Mumbai, Sao-Paulo) are capitals or main commercial centre of their nations which is reflected in signifi- cant commercial and business service development. Among the rest are places with strong regional commercial roles (Vancouver, Houston, Boston and St. Petersburg). The commercial and finan￾cial service development of the global cities in these regions would seem to underpin their logistics functions. In fact 15 of the 34 cities named in this table are ranked above the half way point on the adjusted Mastercard ranking, confirming again that global city commercial activity seems to have a strong influ￾ence upon logistics functions. In summary, global logistics activity has a complex interdepen￾dence with global city functions that extends beyond infrastruc￾ture. In aggregate global city logistics regions are very significant as a focus for world sea and air freight. A good part of that signif￾icance is associated with a small number of places with substantial air and sea port development and a role as hubs in the movement of goods. In addition however, a wide array of global cities is also significant in sea and air freight. The final stage in the analysis ex￾plores the way those relationships have changed in the period 1996–2006. 3.3. Change in the location of logistics activity 1996–2006 The aim here was to establish whether the outcome identified in the previous analysis had a longer term foundation or is a recent phenomenon. In particular it was important to establish if the re￾gions with multiple sea and airports have played a more important role over the decade under review. Fig. 4 provides data to explore the first issue. It shows the global logistics index for the global city logistics regions from 1996–2006, with details on the index values for sea and air transport. This data suggests that the role of the global city logistics re￾gions has changed little over the decade. A small but steady rise 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Multiple Seaports and Airports Multiple Seaports Single Airport Multiple Airports Single Sea Single Seaport and Airport categories of Infrastructure Number of Places, Value of Index Global City Logistics Regions Global Logistics Index for Category Fig. 3. Transport infrastructure and global logistics role: global city logistics regions 2006. K. O’Connor / Journal of Transport Geography xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 5 ARTICLE IN PRESS Please cite this article in press as: O’Connor, K. Global city regions and the location of logistics activity. J. Transp. Geogr. (2009), doi:10.1016/ j.jtrangeo.2009.06.015