Seaports participate in hinterland economic development through partnerships with dry ports, and the combined seaport-dry port network serves as the backbone of regional logistics. This paper constructs a location-allocation model for the regional seaport-dry port network optimization problem and develops a greedy algorithm and a genetic algorithm to obtain its solution. This model is applicable to situations under which the geographic distribution of demand is known. A case study involving configuration of dry ports near the west bank of the Taiwan Strait is conducted, and the model is successfully applied. 1. Introduction Rapid development of seaports and intermodal transportation systems under integrated planning has made it necessary for seaports to dynamically assess what constitutes their hinterlands, and the scramble for hinterlands by seaports is heating up. On the other hand, it is increasingly recognized by hinterlands that seaports guide and support regional economic development, and there is a growing need to perform in hinterland locations seaports’ functions except ship loading and unloading. The interactions of these two driving forces have induced rapid development of dry ports as both a means by which seaports vie for hinterland access and a means by which hinterlands stimulate economic growth. Logistics networks, each including a group of seaports and some dry ports, are becoming backbones of regional goods movement. At the end of 2011, there were over 100 dry ports built or being built in China, with the Port of Tianjin leading the development of more than 20 of them. There were also a large number of road and rail transportation hubs which were in many aspects similar to dry ports. The development of dry ports can mitigate problems caused by constraints related to land and others that limit seaports’ growth. Dry ports can also coordinate the operation of the port supply chain and support regional economic development. Consequently, dry ports are changing the dynamics of interaction between seaports and hinterlands. This paper studies the location of dry ports from the perspective of seaport-hinterland interaction and optimizes the configuration of the seaport-dry port system, taking into consideration the relationships between dry ports, seaports, and the regional logistics system. On the evolution of a port, Bird [1] developed the Anyport model describing how port infrastructures develop over time and space and how the relationship between ports and their host cities evolves. Three major steps of port development were identified:
References
[1]
J. H. Bird, The Major Seaports of the United Kingdom, Hutchinson, London, UK, 1963.
[2]
B. Hoyle, Seaports and Development: The Experience of Kenya and Tanzania, Gordon and Breach Science, New York, NY, USA, 1983.
[3]
T. E. Notteboom and J.-P. Rodrigue, “Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port development,” Maritime Policy and Management, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 297–313, 2005.
[4]
J.-P. Rodrigue and T. Notteboom, “Foreland-based regionalization: integrating intermediate hubs with port hinterlands,” Research in Transportation Economics, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 19–29, 2010.
[5]
CEMT, “Land access to sea ports: round table 113,” Tech. Rep., CEMT, Paris, France, 2001.
[6]
V. Roso, J. Woxenius, and K. Lumsden, “The dry port concept: connecting container seaports with the hinterland,” Journal of Transport Geography, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 338–345, 2009.
[7]
T. Heaver, H. Meersman, F. Moglia, and E. van de Voorde, “Do mergers and alliances influence European shipping and port competition?” Maritime Policy and Management, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 363–373, 2000.
[8]
T. Heaver, H. Meersman, and E. van de Voorde, “Co-operation and competition in international container transport: strategies for ports,” Maritime Policy and Management, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 293–305, 2001.
[9]
H. van Arjen Klink and G. C. van den Berg, “Gateways and intermodalism,” Journal of Transport Geography, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 1998.
[10]
T. E. Notteboom, “Consolidation and contestability in the European container handling industry,” Maritime Policy and Management, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 257–269, 2002.
[11]
T. E. Notteboom and W. Winkelmans, “Structural changes in logistics: how will port authorities face the challenge?” Maritime Policy and Management, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 71–89, 2001.
[12]
R. Robinson, “Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: the new paradigm,” Maritime Policy and Management, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 241–255, 2002.
[13]
H. Yang, Dry Port Location Model Under Trans Texas Corridor Concept, The University of Texas, 2005.
[14]
Y. Xu, A Discrete Choice Based Facility Location Modal for Inland Container Depot, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WVa, USA, 1999.
[15]
P. Xi, G. Yan, and H. Cao, “Assumption on establishment of international port in western China—‘xi’an dry port’,” Tangdu Journal, vol. 17, no. 4, 2001.
[16]
F. Guan, Research on Dry Port Development Trend and Size and Structure of Home Port Storage Yard, Dalian Maritime University, 2008.
[17]
Y. Cai and N. Chen, “Research on linkage development of dry port and coastal port,” Port Perspective, no. 10, pp. 26–31, 2009.
[18]
H. Wang, Construction of “Dry Port” and Application of Discrete Choice Theory in Site Selection, Shanghai Maritime University, 2004.
[19]
W. Ma, Strategic Research on Development of Dry Port by Tianjin Port, Tianjin University, 2009.
