1

Port-city relationship and climate change: actions for resilience

Alexandra TSATSOU,

Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS), EUR, Netherlands

Abstract

Ports cities need to build climate resilience due to their high exposure to climate extremes, and the high value of assets at risk in their premises. Synergies between the port and the city are crucial to achieve this goal, and ensure the economic development of the port city system. However, although the synergy between port and city is usually perceived as a fact, these two components have been developing separately, both spatially and functionally. Following this rationale, the objective of this research is to explore how the port-city relationship is linked to the adoption of distinct types of adaptation actions by the port authorities (PAs) and the local governments (LGs) in some of the most exposed port cities globally. By identifying and classifying the climate change adaptation actions of 40 port cities, and correlating them with the Relative Concentration Index (RCI) which describes the relationship between port and city, the results of the research reveal the dependence of the city’s adaptation response on the port-city relationship, as well as opportunities for multi-level and multi-scale collaborations between ports and cities.

1 Background

Globally, the awareness for climate change and urbanization is growing, as their consequences become increasingly apparent. Coastal areas are specifically threatened by the consequences of both: 40% of the global population lives within 100 Km of the coast, in coastal areas “between the 1950s and 1990s, there was a 50 percent increase in extreme weather events associated with global warming” (UN Habitat 2008).

Port cities are on the frontline of climate change and urbanization due to two reasons, their location on the coast and the concentration of population and economic activity. Currently, 16 of the 20 most populated cities in the world are port cities. According to Hanson et al. (2010) “40 million people (in port cities) […] are currently exposed to a 1 in 100 year coastal flood event”, while “by the 2070s, the total population exposed could grow more than threefold due to the combined effects of sea-level rise, subsidence, population growth and urbanization”. The assets exposed in port cities globally could increase more than tenfold by that time (Hanson et al. 2010). As more than 80% of the global trade is seaborne (Becker et al., 2013) port cities are the main recipients of trading activity worldwide. Their importance for the economy of the regions is crucial, as they are key nodes in the global supply chain networks.

2 Problem formulation

For the aforementioned reasons, the need for climate adaptation in port cities is urgent, with an emphasis on the importance of synergies that should be developed between the port and the city. Synergies arise when the combination of elements has a greater effect than each element individually, a fact that highlights the comparative advantage of port cities, if port and city collaborate with each other. Due to this specific and complex nature which involves spatial, economic and institutional characteristics, port cities are studied in literature with increasing interest. However, their response to climate risk (adaptation actions) has not been extensively identified, and the factors that are connected to it have not been explored. The

2

dual nature of the port city (figure 1) and the relationship between its two components are two examples of factors that could be explored in relation to the adaptation response of the port city. A possible explanation for this gap in literature is provided by Hanson et al. (2010), “data on [port city] defenses is sparse and no systematic analysis is possible”.

The aim of this research is to identify the adaptation actions of port cities as a system consisting of a port and a city, make the association of the port-city relationship to adaptation response and explore factors that affect it. The objectives include the identification and classification of planned and implemented adaptation actions in 40 of the most exposed port cities around the world. The main objective is to explore the relation between the several action categories and port-city relationship levels. Therefore, the main research question is: “How is the port-city relationship linked to the adoption of distinct types of adaptation actions by the PAs and the LGs respectively”? Through exploring climate adaptation in the port city system and by relating adaptation response to the port-city relationship, the study aims to identify benefits of and opportunities for synergies between the port and the city and ways to optimize and capitalize on the adaptation processes.

3 The port city as a concept

3.1 The port city in literature

As Ducruet and Lee (2006) argue, the port city is seldom being approached holistically in literature, but only unilaterally: either by the architect/urban planner’s perspective, focusing on land use and urban design issues, ignoring the port area activity, or by the port specialist’s perspective, focusing on port management, performance and economics -dismissing the urban environment that provides the ground for port activity to evolve. Moreover, according to the same authors, most port city related research addresses specific case studies, the scope of which is led by the existence of the port and not by the port-city coexistence in a wider perspective. They identify a literature gap regarding the relationship between the port and the city, at the same time arguing that these two aspects should be studied separately, as they require specific attention, but always under the port city concept.

Figure 1: The port city system, comprising of two components (source: author)

3

Throughout the various study fields, the economic importance of port cities attracts more attention in relation to the rest of their attributes. Due to the increasingly interconnected nature of the world economy and supply chains, the role of port cities as connectivity nodes in the global networks enhances their economic profile continuously. They are logistics hubs, maritime sector clusters and nodal points for tourism (Hanson et al. 2010); (İleri & Mansel 2012). As İleri et al. (2012) mention, even in the past port cities used to be referred to as “cities of commerce” while nowadays, Merk (2013) refers to them as “facilitators of trade”.

3.2 Economic growth and constraints for the port-city relationship

The main drivers of port city economic growth during the last decades have been containerization and globalization. These aspects have shifted the focus of ports on efficiency and performance, in order to be competitive in the global markets. The prioritization of port performance and port competitiveness is justified by the fact that ports play a strategic role for the economic growth of cities, regions and global networks. However, a consequence of this focus is the increasing expansion of the port, while it specializes and moves away from the city.

Along these trends, port cities have mainly been studied within the spectrum of port throughput and revenues, city population changes and waterfront redevelopment at abandoned port areas in the port-city interface (Ducruet & Lee 2006). Ducruet & Lee utilized two of these characteristics, city population and the port’s performance (total container throughput), to create the Relative Concentration Index (RCI), a matrix of port-city interdependence that illustrates the evolution of port cities from 1975 (when the processes of globalization and containerization began) until 2005.

The growth or decline patterns of the port and the city and the dynamics between them have been varying and constantly changing throughout the years, as captured by the RCI index. The relationship between them is neither continuous nor temporary, their mutual influence can be stronger or weaker and they sometimes are two totally independent entities – at least for a specific period of years. This ambivalence is the indication of the port city being deemed to a constantly undefined balance between its land-based and its marine functions (Ducruet & Lee 2006). But as Ducruet (2006) overall explains through the RCI index, the interdependence between port and city has been since the 1970’s generally decreasing. The intensity of this port-city relationship decline varies between different world regions, but the trend remains global (Ducruet 2007).

One of the main determinants that affect negatively the port-city relationship can be the steep increase of seaborne trade, while other aspects include the environmental degradation of port cities due to the port’s activities and the view of port cities as busy, industrialised and polluted due to the existence of a port. As has been confirmed in recent research, the negative effects of ports are usually localized, while their benefits reach out to the regional and global level (Merk 2013). Circumstances like this force the equilibrium between port and city functions to become “increasingly unbalanced” (Ducruet & Lee, 2006).

3.3 Climate change as an additional challenge of port cities

According to Nursey-Bray et al. (2013) climate change puts additional pressure on the port city system, with impacts on environmental, economic and social dimensions. The vulnerability of the port to these challenges results to the vulnerability of the surrounding settlements, adding an extra constraint on the port-city relationship. The five port sectors mostly affected by climate change are identified by Nursey-Bray et al. (2013) as environment, infrastructure, ports and people, occupational health and safety, supply chain and logistics.

4

The same authors mention that the impacts of climate change on cities can be indirect, or not immediately evident. An example is hurricane Katrina that occurred in New Orleans, in 2005. Although the overall costs of the disaster was initially calculated to be 81 billion USD, later the amount reached 130 billion USD, with further yearly increments of 100 billion USD/year to recover from the damage, as only later the impacts became apparent. The importance of adaptation and building of adaptive capacity, regardless of their cost, is underlined.

3.4 Port cities at the forefront of climate change

The research of Hanson et al. (2010) reveals the specific importance of climate change for port cities. The authors calculate the exposure cost of the 136 most vulnerable port cities worldwide, using future scenarios for climate change, socio-economic conditions, natural and human-induced subsidence. As has already been mentioned, port cities are arenas of urbanization and main nodes for local and global economic activity, two factors that lead to a high concentration of assets at risk at port city locations. An additional risk factor is that in port cities the land is often more susceptible to erosion as a result of port activities (UNCTAD 2011) while the seabed is disturbed by dredging, disrupting the natural environmental processes (Becker et al. 2011). As a result, the risk of human-induced subsidence is increased. These factors and the resulting risks are analyzed in detail and quantified by Hanson et al. (2010).

In total, the cost of exposed assets in port cities was calculated to be 3000 billion USD in 2005, corresponding to 5% of the global GDP of that year, expected to grow more than eleven times by 2070. An important argument that Hanson et al. (2010) raises, is that by taking into account the time requirements of implementing coastal infrastructure, which is estimated to 30 years, as well as delays in planning and implementation that arise from policy, governance and socio-economic factors, immediate action is necessary in order to avoid disasters from extreme climate events that can occur by the middle of this century.

To confront these risks and challenges, Hanson et al. (2010) suggests that there should be close cooperation of the national government, LGs, stakeholders and decision makers in order for more resources, expertise and engagement to be available for port city adaptation action. The research emphasizes that the willingness of governments and authorities to act effectively in order to protect the population and infrastructure is related to financial issues but it is not depended on the country’s wealth. For example, a motivated and proactive governing authority can identify and utilize other sources of financing in order to reach its adaptation and mitigation targets. Therefore, the role of institutional synergies is crucial and more important than the availability of (financial) resources.

4 Methodology

As a result of literature review, the research divided conceptually the port city into the port, the city and the port-city relationship variables. This division, and especially the availability of data and data sources for each of the variables influenced the port city sample selection and also the data collection and data analysis methods.

Initially, a sample of 40 port cities were selected according to the availability of city adaptation actions and RCI values for all cities in secondary sources (carbonn Climate Registry and Ducruet & Lee, 2006, respectively). The 40 selected port cities are also among the list with the 136 most exposed globally as identified by Hanson et al. (2010). Subsequently, the port adaptation actions were identified as primary data collected through an online survey sent to the PAs via email. The survey was structured after literature review on port adaptation actions. The response rate of the survey was 50%, therefore the conclusions related to the ports’ adaptation actions are inevitably based on a smaller sample

5

on port cities. The port-city relationship is represented in the analysis by the RCI values of 2005, as this is the most recent calculation in the index. As mentioned before, the RCI describes the port-city relationship (the dependence of the city on the port), therefore higher RCI values indicate a strong port-city relationship in terms of a prevailing port and a city influenced by the port’s performance.

Overall, statistical analysis was performed in order to reach conclusions for the correlations between the indicators. The port-city relationship and adaptation actions analysis was conducted by correlating the RCI of the selected port cities to the adaptation actions of the port and the city respectively. Correlation analysis was performed on the total number of adaptation actions, as well as on the number of actions per category. In total, the RCI was correlated to eight types of port actions and eight types of city actions, and also to the totals of port and city actions. All data used in the correlation analysis can be found online at http://port-cities-climate-change.blogspot.nl (a channel also open to comments and interaction).

The selected research methods exposed the study to specific challenges such as restrictions regarding the cities that can be included in the research, missing data entries in the databases, information available in various languages, different timeframes of data sources, accessibility and availability of specific people within the PAs. These challenges were met with additional data collection from more sources and data triangulation. Moreover, due to the sample selection method, key port cities with ports of global importance such as Shanghai, Singapore, Rotterdam, Guangzhou and Antwerp, are not part of the research as they were not included in the selected databases, and the required data were not available for these port cities. However this provides the opportunity to focus on a variety of port cities which have not been extensively studied before.

Figure 2: Map showing the 40 port cities of the research (source: author)

5 Analysis of results: port-city relationship and port city adaptation actions

The results from the correlation analysis (table 1) indicate that the relationship between the RCI and the total of port adaptation actions is not significant. However, the correlation of the RCI with the total of city adaptation actions, and also with specific action types (such as action plans and reports, infrastructure, terrestrial ecosystems actions) is positive and significant according to a Spearman correlation. What can be inferred is that the higher the dependence of the city is to the port (higher RCI index value), the more adaptation actions are taken by the LG. This was especially confirmed for action plans and reports,

6

infrastructure and terrestrial ecosystems actions: cities with higher RCI values tend to adopt more actions of these types.

Although the rest of the correlations do not indicate high statistical significance, we can mention the trends observed. Five out of eight of the port action types generate a negative trend line when related to the RCI (namely, the following port action categories: technological, soft and hard engineering, management, policy actions, action plans). These types of actions appear less frequently in port cities with higher RCI in the sample. Similarly, city action categories like early warning systems / disaster management appear less frequently as RCI values increase. All of the other city action types (coastal zones / marine ecosystems, food security, health, water resources) increase in frequency along with the RCI values, even if there is no statistical significance observed within their correlations.

Port city actions

Types of actions RCI

Pearson correlation Significance (p)

Port actions

Total port actions 0.048 0.876

Technological -0.058 0.850

Soft engineering -0.025 0.935

Hard engineering -0.036 0.907

Design & maintenance 0.122 0.692

Planning 0.317 0.292

Climate mapping and risk assessment 0.214 0.482

Management -0.014 0.965

Policy and action plans -0.126 0.681

City actions

Total city actions 0.527 *** 0.000

Action plans and reports 0.540 *** 0.000

Coastal Zones / marine ecosystems 0.230 0.153

Early warning systems / disaster management -0.107 0.509

Food security 0.228 0.157

Health 0.029 0.857

Infrastructure 0.363 ** 0.021

Terrestrial ecosystems 0.468 *** 0.002

Water Resources 0.203 0.210

Table 1: Results of the correlation analysis: port and city actions correlated to RCI. The strong correlations are highlighted (* p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01).

Overall, despite the context specific nature of adaptation and the wide geographical and socioeconomic range of the port cities examined, an overarching difference between the “sensitivity” of the port and the city to their relationship is observed. Regarding the port, the relation of the actions with the RCI is weak and lacks a clear direction. However, regarding the city, the correlations of the total actions quantity but also of specific action typologies are positive, strong and significant.

This observation leads to two conclusions. To start with, the result indicates that the more the city depends on its port, the more adaptation actions it adopts. This may reveal an underlying inability of the LG to realize the climate risk of the city, unless there are eminent economic risks and possible consequences on its main economic asset, namely the port that is

7

involved. However, it can be inferred that the more dependent the city is on its port, the more its attention is inevitably focused on the quality of infrastructure, on actions with local environmental co-benefits (for example, terrestrial ecosystems actions) and on plans for sustainability and resilience. Therefore, the competitive development and global trading perspectives of the port could affect positively the overall adaptation response of the city.

Regarding specifically city action types with more “social” character such as health-related actions, they appear as the least correlated to the RCI. However, we can assume that the increase of general adaptation awareness in the city through other adaptation actions can gradually extend to more sectors (such as health), and it is certainly positive that the performance of the port, which is the main priority of ports worldwide, can trigger adaptation activity for port cities.

Although the interdependence of the port and the city regarding climate change adaptation indicates the positive outcomes that the collaboration between them may entail, part of the data collection (for example specific questions in the questionnaire regarding the relationship between the PA and LG) as well as the data analysis confirm the literature review, which indicated that this collaboration is not happening at a confident level yet.

6 Discussion

6.1 Port-city relationship redefined

The equilibrium between the port and the city regarding climate change adaptation leans towards the side of the port, as the results of this analysis indicate. There is a considerable interdependence between the two components in the port city system, evident mainly from the perspective of the city, which seems sensitive to the dependence on the port in ways that affect its climate adaptation response. Nevertheless, as Merk & Dang (2013) note, the prosperity of the port city seems to be highly related to port activity.

This confirmed relationship between port and city is the opportunity on which port cities can focus and capitalize on, through partnerships between port and city. Although the importance of synergies seems to be identified and some institutional relations and collaboration between PAs and LGs already exist, in depth analysis regarding institutional structures and the different types of PAs and LGs in their local contexts is required in order to reach robust conclusions on this subject.

Moreover, the attention drawn to the port from the city through demands for sustainability and integration with the local community constitutes an opportunity that port cities could seize, by firstly identifying possibilities of collaboration regarding environmental issues. On a wider perspective, this would provide benefits in terms of both urban competitiveness and quality of life. The combined environmental and climate resilience of the port city could form the basis for social and institutional resilience, with the aim of facilitating the processes to achieve infrastructural and economic resilience (World Bank 2012). Particularly for port cities, establishing the foundations for a resilient city could bring outstanding advantages.

The need for partnerships between different parties and stakeholders (UNCTAD 2011), collaboration of the port with the local / regional / national governments (Hanson et al., 2010; Nursey-Bray et al. 2013), and the knowledge exchange at the international level (Nursey-Bray et al. 2013, UNFCCC 2007) in order to approach climate change adaptation in a holistic and significant manner are also underlined throughout the literature. As Pesquera & Ruiz (1996, p. 15) mention, “the durability of city ports calls for a new commitment between ports and cities”. The special identity of port cities should be conserved and remain obvious in order for their dynamics to be utilized and the port city system to function competitively. The same authors recommend the following regarding the relationship between the port and the city: “the reformulation of the existing parameters of their relationship and understanding, the

8

alteration of predetermining equilibria and the construction of a new framework for their relationship” (Pesquera & Ruiz 1996, p. 15).

6.2 Port-city synergy opportunities

Synergies can be introduced through policies, planning, and financing and investment mechanisms. As climate change is a multidisciplinary and complex issue, it can only be addressed successfully with alliances that cut through various scales and levels of the human – environment interactions (Cash et al. 2006). Interactions deriving from the overlaps of the spatial, temporal, jurisdictional, institutional and managerial scales could be utilized and lead to close collaborations within the port city system and effectiveness in decision making and implementation processes, while addressing institutional bottlenecks.

Alignment of the local, national and international governments and organizations, synchronization of actions, projects and strategies, and reforms of laws and regulations would enable the implementation of climate change adaptation and enhance its impact on both the local and global level. Multi-level and multi-scale collaborations in the port city system could take advantage of the close relationship between the port performance and the city adaptation response, as was identified in the analysis of results, and built on this mutual interest (Cash et al., 2006).

Synergies on planning, climate change adaptation in both port and city could be addressed more efficiently. For example, planning for improved and well-connected infrastructure can advance the port as a supply chain hub, as well as reduce the negative spillovers of traffic within the urban environment. This would provide local environmental co-benefits (such as reduced air pollution) that would reflect on the quality of the life and health of the population, providing the city with sustainability and resilience advantages.

Sustainability and resilience can also be built through port and city synergy on resource management through coastal zones, marine and terrestrial ecosystems actions. Green and blue infrastructure could help in protecting or restoring the city’s coasts and natural resources, bringing environmental, economic and social co-benefits (World Bank & IHS, 2015). According to literature a competitive urban environment with a strong port city identity can lead to additional economic development. The cautious blending of urban and maritime functions, such as introducing urban functions closer to the coast and port, or water and maritime elements in the city through green and blue infrastructure, could provide a wider interface between port and city for building new frameworks of understanding and collaboration.

6.3 Future research

Resulting from the conducted research and its results, specific aspects would prove valuable for future consideration, for the variables examined.

Regarding the port-city relationship, indices based on multiple indicators would provide better insight to the connection between the port and the city. Additionally, frameworks describing the institutional structure of the port city as a system, elaborating on the several PA and LG types as well as the institutional connections between them would be very helpful for future research on port-city relationship. Regarding climate change adaptation, the collection of evidence on existing port-city (PA-LG) collaborations on specific actions or planned / implemented programs would be a valuable basis for further exploration of the port-city synergy possibilities.

As far as the port adaptation actions are concerned, the creation of a database or platform that collects, classifies and describes port adaptation actions could raise awareness on the subject and facilitate future research while providing useful information for the adaptation

9

response of ports around the world. Such an initiative would encourage PAs to define their climate adaptation response and could provide visibility to synergy opportunities between ports and cities.

Apart from the aforementioned points considered for future research, specific attention can be paid to the tendencies identified through the correlation analysis, focusing also on how climate adaptation awareness can be created through the development of close port-city relationship through climate change adaptation actions.

7 Conclusions

This study explored the port-city relationship as described by the RCI index and its correlation to the adaptation actions by PAs and LGs in 40 of the most exposed port cities in the world. Additionally, it discussed how these correlations could lead to port-city synergies.

As an overall conclusion, strong port-city relationships, where the city depends a lot on its port, seem to affect the adaptation response of LGs –while on the other hand ports tend to be more “independent” concerning their adaptation response. However, the need for the establishment of synergies between port and city on several levels is recognised throughout the research, and climate change adaptation is understood as a strong entry point which extends to risk reduction and urban resilience.

In an increasingly competitive and interconnected world, port cities owe to capitalize on their unique structure and assets, as well as on their unique risks, and proceed toward synergies which promote their economy, provide competitive living environments and contribute to innovative practices for urban development.

Note

The research on which this paper is based was conducted in the context of a master’s thesis on Urban Management and Development at the Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS) Erasmus University Rotterdam in May-September 2014, supervised by Stelios Grafakos. The thesis included an analysis of additional port city attributes (climate exposure in monetary terms, TEUs, city GDP per capita, population, port size, type of port authority). The current paper focuses on the port-city relationship aspect, while upcoming publications will present the climate change exposure and other aspects. The data used in the research can be accessed online at http://port-cities-climate-

change.blogspot.nl. References

Becker, A. et al., 2011. Considering climate change: a survey of global seaport administrators, Stanford: CIFE Stanford University.

Becker, A. et al., 2013. A note on climate change adaptation for seaports : a challenge for global ports, a challenge for global society. Climatic Change, 120(4), pp.683–695.

Cash, D.W. et al., 2006. Scale and cross - scale dynamics : governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and society, 11(2).

Ducruet, C., 2007. A metageography of port-city relationships. In J. J. Wang, T. E. Notteboom, & B. Slack, eds. Ports, cities, and global supply chains. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 157–172.

Ducruet, C. & Lee, S-W. 2006. Frontline soldiers of globalisation: port–city evolution and regional competition. GeoJournal, 67(2), pp.107–122.

10

Hanson, S. et al., 2010. A global ranking of port cities with high exposure to climate extremes. Climatic Change, 104(1), pp.89–111.

İleri, N. & Mansel, P., 2012. Rewriting the history of port cities in the light of contemporary global capitalism. New perspectives on Turkey, 47, pp.185–209.

Merk, O. 2013. The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities : Synthesis Report, Paris. Available at: www.oecd.org/regional/portcities.

Merk, O., Dang, T. 2013. The Effectiveness of Port-City Policies : A comparative approach. OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 25.

Ng, A.K.Y. et al., 2013. Climate change and the adaptation strategies of ports: the Australian experiences. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 8(2013), pp.186–194.

Nursey-Bray, M. et al., 2013. Vulnerabilities and adaptation of ports to climate change. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56, pp.1021–1045.

Pesquera, M. & Ruiz, J., 1996. Sustainable development strategies for cities and ports. In UNCTAD monographs on port management, New York and Geneva: United Nations.

Scott, H. et al., 2008. Climate change adaptation guidelines for ports. Enhancing the resilience of seaports to a changing climate report series, National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Gold Coast.

UN Habitat, 2008. Meeting the urban challenges. Seville: UN Habitat.

UNCTAD, 2011. Information note by the UNCTAD secretariat. In Ad Hoc expert meeting on climate change impacts and adaptation: a challenge for global ports. Geneva: UNCTAD.

UNFCCC, 2008. Investment and financial flows to address climate change: an update, technical paper, FCCC/TP/2008/7, Bonn: UNFCCC.

World Bank, 2012. Building urban resilience: principles, tools, and practice, Washington DC: World Bank

World Bank and Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS). 2015. Sustainability Benefits Assessment for Green Growth Projects in Urban Areas: a Handbook, Washington DC (in press): World Bank.