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

ARTICLE IN PRESS K.O'Connor/Journal of Transport Geography xxx (2009)xxx-xxx Table 2 Rank of global city logistics regions in two categories of port and airport infrastructure. Multiple sea and airports(with adjusted MasterCard global city rank) Single sea and airport(with adjusted Mastercard global city rank) Global city logistics regions 1 London,SE UK 11 Sydney 4 Rome Tokyo-Yokohama 3 Stockholm Mumbai Hong Kong-Shenzen 14 Amsterdam-Rotterdam 53 Athens-Piraeus 2 Osaka-Kobe Philadelphia Sao Paulo-Santos Los Angeles-Long Beach 8 Boston Beijing-Tianjin Antwerp-Brussels 28 Dublin 63 Buenos Aires Washington DC-Baltimore-Virginia 35 Vancouver 65 St.Petersburg 42 Shanghai-Ningbo 36 Houston 66 Rio de Janiero Dubai-Gulf Barcelona 8 Cairo 40 Melbourne 7 Manila 4 Tel Aviv-Haifa 2 jakarta 4 Lisbon 4 Beirut 46 Santiago sufficient to edge up their share of global traffic slightly over the 180.000 decade. 160.000 Exploring this situation further,the data displayed in Fig.5 was 140.000 re-configured for the four categories of logistics regions used ear- 120.000 lier.This provides the opportunity to establish any change in the 100.000 role played by those places with major sea and airport 80.000 infrastructure 60.000 The data in Fig.5 confirm that the multiple sea and airport city 40.000 regions have become steadily more important over the decade dis- played here.This suggests infrastructure capacity,and its likely 20.000 accompanying hub role,is a critical factor in shaping the location 0.000 of physical logistics activity.As only a few of the places in this cat- 996 1997 199819992000200120022003200420052006 egory are high ranked global cities it would appear the influence of Sea FreightAir Freight Global Logistics Iindex global city functions may be weakening and the sheer capacity to manage logistics activity may be emerging as a key factor in the Fig.4.Global city logistics regions 1996-2006. underlying geography of logistics at a global scale. As noted earlier however,some of that capacity may be related to the skill and breadth of producer service functions in those locations. 60.000 50.000 4.Conclusions 40.000 This research set out first to identify the actual share of logistics activity in global city regions that have both sea and airports.The 30.000 results show that just 44 places,defined as global city logistics re- gions,accounted for almost a half of air freight and two thirds of 20.000 sea freight in 2006,a share that has been steady over the past dec- ade.That importance is underscored by the fact that this research 10.000 did not include some 29 global cities that only had airports:they together handled an additional 15%of global air freight in 2006. That shows the spatial unit surrounding the global city is critical 0.000 19961997199819992000200120022003200420052006 to logistics flows.This has one very important consequence:logis- tics operations will be competing for land use and mobility in what Multiple Seaports and Airports Multiple Seaports Single Airport are some of the most crowded and congested urban regions on the Multiple Airports Single Seaport Single Sea and Airport globe,which in some cases are already,or could become "choke- points"in the "...conduits of commerce"(Leinbach and Capineri Fig.5.Global city logistics regions by type of infrastructure 1996-2006. 2007,p.270) Second,the research explored the role of regions with multiple airports and seaports.It found they did exert a disproportionate in the index value suggests these places have been attracting an in- influence in terms of share of activity,and that share had been crease in the share of global sea and air traffic,and the bars on the rising over time.In effect multiple transport infrastructure now graph confirm that the gains might be stronger in sea traffic that in plays a powerful role in shaping urban and regional transport air freight.That outcome is consistent with the fact that there are a outcomes and will need to be at the heart of the regional plan- number of global city regions with important air freight functions ning initiatives.Addressing the issues surrounding that result will that lie outside the group of cities that are represented in Fig.4.At require new spatial thinking in port and airport development the same time,the data confirm that global city regions have been, This is reinforced by the fact that multiple sea and airport infra- and continue to be,important as sea ports,and that importance is structure in a region is usually dispersed across a wide area.In 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

in the index value suggests these places have been attracting an in￾crease in the share of global sea and air traffic, and the bars on the graph confirm that the gains might be stronger in sea traffic that in air freight. That outcome is consistent with the fact that there are a number of global city regions with important air freight functions that lie outside the group of cities that are represented in Fig. 4. At the same time, the data confirm that global city regions have been, and continue to be, important as sea ports, and that importance is sufficient to edge up their share of global traffic slightly over the decade. Exploring this situation further, the data displayed in Fig. 5 was re-configured for the four categories of logistics regions used ear￾lier. This provides the opportunity to establish any change in the role played by those places with major sea and airport infrastructure. The data in Fig. 5 confirm that the multiple sea and airport city regions have become steadily more important over the decade dis￾played here. This suggests infrastructure capacity, and its likely accompanying hub role, is a critical factor in shaping the location of physical logistics activity. As only a few of the places in this cat￾egory are high ranked global cities it would appear the influence of global city functions may be weakening and the sheer capacity to manage logistics activity may be emerging as a key factor in the underlying geography of logistics at a global scale. As noted earlier however, some of that capacity may be related to the skill and breadth of producer service functions in those locations. 4. Conclusions This research set out first to identify the actual share of logistics activity in global city regions that have both sea and airports. The results show that just 44 places, defined as global city logistics re￾gions, accounted for almost a half of air freight and two thirds of sea freight in 2006, a share that has been steady over the past dec￾ade. That importance is underscored by the fact that this research did not include some 29 global cities that only had airports: they together handled an additional 15% of global air freight in 2006. That shows the spatial unit surrounding the global city is critical to logistics flows. This has one very important consequence; logis￾tics operations will be competing for land use and mobility in what are some of the most crowded and congested urban regions on the globe, which in some cases are already, or could become ‘‘choke￾points” in the ‘‘...conduits of commerce” (Leinbach and Capineri, 2007, p. 270). Second, the research explored the role of regions with multiple airports and seaports. It found they did exert a disproportionate influence in terms of share of activity, and that share had been rising over time. In effect multiple transport infrastructure now plays a powerful role in shaping urban and regional transport outcomes and will need to be at the heart of the regional plan￾ning initiatives. Addressing the issues surrounding that result will require new spatial thinking in port and airport development. This is reinforced by the fact that multiple sea and airport infra￾structure in a region is usually dispersed across a wide area. In Table 2 Rank of global city logistics regions in two categories of port and airport infrastructure. Multiple sea and airports (with adjusted MasterCard global city rank) Single sea and airport (with adjusted Mastercard global city rank) Global city logistics regions 1 London, SE UK 11 Sydney 47 Rome 4 Tokyo–Yokohama 13 Stockholm 48 Mumbai 10 Hong Kong–Shenzen 14 Amsterdam–Rotterdam 53 Athens-Piraeus 19 Osaka–Kobe 17 Philadelphia 58 Sao Paulo–Santos 21 Los Angeles–Long Beach 18 Boston 59 Beijing–Tianjin 27 Antwerp–Brussels 28 Dublin 63 Buenos Aires 34 Washington DC–Baltimore–Virginia 35 Vancouver 65 St. Petersburg 42 Shanghai–Ningbo 36 Houston 66 Rio de Janiero 55 Dubai-Gulf 37 Barcelona 68 Cairo 40 Melbourne 70 Manila 43 Tel Aviv–Haifa 72 Jakarta 44 Lisbon 74 Beirut 46 Santiago 0.000 20.000 40.000 60.000 80.000 100.000 120.000 140.000 160.000 180.000 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sea Freight Air Freight Global Logistics Index Fig. 4. Global city logistics regions 1996–2006. 0.000 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Global Logistics Index Multiple Seaports and Airports Multiple Seaports Single Airport Multiple Airports Single Seaport Single Sea and Airport Fig. 5. Global city logistics regions by type of infrastructure 1996–2006. 6 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 this context,transport planners might draw insight from thought party provider"in logistics analysis)to "fourth party provider" that has already been given to the management and development where the logistics service company becomes fully integrated of these big urban regions (Simmons and Hack,2000).Some evi- into the production process of the client firm,running ware- dence of thinking at this larger scale has been detected by Rodri- houses,in some cases dictating production outputs (from a gue and Hesse (2007).Efforts to refine and expand these ideas knowledge of stock levels)and in other circumstances handling could usefully follow approaches to spatial strategies that have returns and servicing problems.The global city logistics regions been developed by urban planners dealing with the spread of used in this research may be very attractive places for these their metropolitan areas.The assessment of corridor development complex service companies.That is because access to competing versus intensification of existing nodes versus new centres in gateways could provide lower freight and loading cost due to more distant locations that exercise the minds of logistics plan- competition,provide greater flexibility in operations and possibly ners is a sectoral example of the broader urban management ap- ensure a wider set of destinations served.Access to both sea and proaches being applied in these large urban regions.In addition airports would be an additional advantage for those logistics there may be a need for the "creativity in financing new infra- firms with clients needing both sea and air transport at different structure and implementing new technologies and policies"cited times and for different products.Finally,the complex logistics by Leinbach and Capineri (2007,p.270).Both will call for new tasks might begin to draw upon other services just as the finance institutional structures that are now seen as the critical element sector has done as it has become more specialized.Again global in managing modern urban development(Keating 2001;Healey. logistics regions could be attractive as their core business city 2006:Kreukels et al.,2003). will have the array of producer services that might be needed Third,the research was designed to assess whether measures to underpin the operation of logistics.It is these places that of physical logistics activity reflect the level of development of might evolve into what Wang and Cheng(2009)has labeled global city functions.In the absence of data on the actual location "global supply chain management centres".A key question here of firms and details of their functions in each city,the analysis re- is whether these new logistics service providers shape the direc- lied upon the statistical relationship between the rank (and hence tion of physical flows,favouring some ports and airports because the commercial,financial and administrative importance of a glo- of the depth of supporting services,even if their clients may not bal city)and logistics role of each global city region.The research necessarily be in that region.This is a potentially interesting area found that less than 50%of the variance in logistics activity in a of research. global city logistics region was associated with an index measur- The research has provided some additional insight into the ing the rank of the rank of its global city.Exploring those results function and vitality of global city regions,showing not only that for categories of city exposed the infrastructure issue outlined logistics is an important activity,but that levels of that activity above,while at the same time showed that many middle and might be a useful means of differentiating the development of lower ranked global cities with basic infrastructure were impor- these regions.In effect,the acknowledgement of the role of both tant in logistics activity.Hence,infrastructure may be a necessary sea and air freight in a region has confirmed that it makes sense but not sufficient explanatory factor of the performance and con- to think of global cities as logistics cities,as Easterling(2004)sug- centration of freight activity in the main global logistics regions. gested.A further aspect step in this research could involve the Rodrigue and Hesse (2007,p.106)have observed "It is not only analysis of the internal spatial development of these regions.Logis- simple infrastructure provision that makes firms go to a certain tical activities could be creating or re-vitalising some of the nodes area but the ability of regions and cities to cope with the extraor- that Hall(2001)has found contributes to the poly-centric character dinary demand for flexible,timely and cost efficient physical dis- of these regions.Alternatively the transport activities might be dis- tribution".It is may be that the newly-minted and special role persed among fringe green-field sites,so accelerating the spread of that out-sourced logistics companies now play in the handling the region.Local case studies of this aspect are planned as a follow of freight might be a critical part of the link between global city up to this paper. functions and logistics. Finally,this paper set out to utilize sea and air freight data These new roles reflect the way many other services have simultaneously in an innovative effort to capture the breadth evolved and developed over recent years,moving from a position of logistics activity.Apart from the need to bridge two separate as a final step in a production process to a central and innova- sets of thinking and analysis this approach faced serious techni- tive function,one that can shape production outcomes (Bryson cal questions in measurement.The approach used was the Glo- et al.,2004).This change emerged from the outsourcing of func- bal Logistics Index which made it possible to merge sea and tions from firms,which,in turn,created specialist service pro- air freight data into a readily interpretable form,and provide a viders.One effect of this shift has been a geographic foundation for more refined thinking on the patterns that were concentration of service firms.That has been illustrated within detected.It is however a crude summation of two separate data the broad category of producer services,and,in particular,in sets and will need refinement if it is to be applied in other the finance sector.It may well apply to logistics services.If so, issues.That refinement could involve some way to weight understanding the location of out-sourced logistics service com- sea and air freight prior to any merge of their numbers.Drewe panies might provide some new insight into reasons for the un- and Janssen's (1996)efforts to differentiate between tonnage and even nature of freight activity among cities.Just as the idea of a value-added in ranking transport activity could be a useful starting "buzz"has been used to account for the concentration of innova- point here tive activity in the cores of global cities (Storper and Venables. 2004),so the local expressions of the"global 'buzz'that has be- Acknowledgements come logistics"Wang et al.(2007,p.1)might provide insight on the role played by global logistics regions in world freight move- Research reported here was funded by a Small Grant from the ment.Olivier and Slack(2006)have created one path into this Volvo Education and Research Foundation. new perspective by clarifying the role and significance of mul- The author acknowledges the great assistance provided by the ti-national terminal operators as a new dimension in the services research publications listed on Jean-Paul Rodrigue's website of sea freight. (http://people.hofstra.edu/jean-paul_rodrigue/cv_research.htm). This perspective recognizes the steady evolution of logistics This has been a major source of reading material,made easily services through the standard out-sourced model (labeled "third accessible via Pdf copies of journal and conference papers. 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

this context, transport planners might draw insight from thought that has already been given to the management and development of these big urban regions (Simmons and Hack, 2000). Some evi￾dence of thinking at this larger scale has been detected by Rodri￾gue and Hesse (2007). Efforts to refine and expand these ideas could usefully follow approaches to spatial strategies that have been developed by urban planners dealing with the spread of their metropolitan areas. The assessment of corridor development versus intensification of existing nodes versus new centres in more distant locations that exercise the minds of logistics plan￾ners is a sectoral example of the broader urban management ap￾proaches being applied in these large urban regions. In addition there may be a need for the ‘‘creativity in financing new infra￾structure and implementing new technologies and policies” cited by Leinbach and Capineri (2007, p. 270). Both will call for new institutional structures that are now seen as the critical element in managing modern urban development (Keating 2001; Healey, 2006; Kreukels et al., 2003). Third, the research was designed to assess whether measures of physical logistics activity reflect the level of development of global city functions. In the absence of data on the actual location of firms and details of their functions in each city, the analysis re￾lied upon the statistical relationship between the rank (and hence the commercial, financial and administrative importance of a glo￾bal city) and logistics role of each global city region. The research found that less than 50% of the variance in logistics activity in a global city logistics region was associated with an index measur￾ing the rank of the rank of its global city. Exploring those results for categories of city exposed the infrastructure issue outlined above, while at the same time showed that many middle and lower ranked global cities with basic infrastructure were impor￾tant in logistics activity. Hence, infrastructure may be a necessary but not sufficient explanatory factor of the performance and con￾centration of freight activity in the main global logistics regions. Rodrigue and Hesse (2007, p. 106) have observed ‘‘It is not only simple infrastructure provision that makes firms go to a certain area but the ability of regions and cities to cope with the extraor￾dinary demand for flexible, timely and cost efficient physical dis￾tribution”. It is may be that the newly-minted and special role that out-sourced logistics companies now play in the handling of freight might be a critical part of the link between global city functions and logistics. These new roles reflect the way many other services have evolved and developed over recent years, moving from a position as a final step in a production process to a central and innova￾tive function, one that can shape production outcomes (Bryson et al., 2004). This change emerged from the outsourcing of func￾tions from firms, which, in turn, created specialist service pro￾viders. One effect of this shift has been a geographic concentration of service firms. That has been illustrated within the broad category of producer services, and, in particular, in the finance sector. It may well apply to logistics services. If so, understanding the location of out-sourced logistics service com￾panies might provide some new insight into reasons for the un￾even nature of freight activity among cities. Just as the idea of a ‘‘buzz” has been used to account for the concentration of innova￾tive activity in the cores of global cities (Storper and Venables, 2004), so the local expressions of the ‘‘global ‘buzz’ that has be￾come logistics” Wang et al. (2007, p. 1) might provide insight on the role played by global logistics regions in world freight move￾ment. Olivier and Slack (2006) have created one path into this new perspective by clarifying the role and significance of mul￾ti-national terminal operators as a new dimension in the services of sea freight. This perspective recognizes the steady evolution of logistics services through the standard out-sourced model (labeled ‘‘third party provider” in logistics analysis) to ‘‘fourth party provider” where the logistics service company becomes fully integrated into the production process of the client firm, running ware￾houses, in some cases dictating production outputs (from a knowledge of stock levels) and in other circumstances handling returns and servicing problems. The global city logistics regions used in this research may be very attractive places for these complex service companies. That is because access to competing gateways could provide lower freight and loading cost due to competition, provide greater flexibility in operations and possibly ensure a wider set of destinations served. Access to both sea and airports would be an additional advantage for those logistics firms with clients needing both sea and air transport at different times and for different products. Finally, the complex logistics tasks might begin to draw upon other services just as the finance sector has done as it has become more specialized. Again global logistics regions could be attractive as their core business city will have the array of producer services that might be needed to underpin the operation of logistics. It is these places that might evolve into what Wang and Cheng (2009) has labeled ‘‘global supply chain management centres”. A key question here is whether these new logistics service providers shape the direc￾tion of physical flows, favouring some ports and airports because of the depth of supporting services, even if their clients may not necessarily be in that region. This is a potentially interesting area of research. The research has provided some additional insight into the function and vitality of global city regions, showing not only that logistics is an important activity, but that levels of that activity might be a useful means of differentiating the development of these regions. In effect, the acknowledgement of the role of both sea and air freight in a region has confirmed that it makes sense to think of global cities as logistics cities, as Easterling (2004) sug￾gested. A further aspect step in this research could involve the analysis of the internal spatial development of these regions. Logis￾tical activities could be creating or re-vitalising some of the nodes that Hall (2001) has found contributes to the poly-centric character of these regions. Alternatively the transport activities might be dis￾persed among fringe green-field sites, so accelerating the spread of the region. Local case studies of this aspect are planned as a follow up to this paper. Finally, this paper set out to utilize sea and air freight data simultaneously in an innovative effort to capture the breadth of logistics activity. Apart from the need to bridge two separate sets of thinking and analysis this approach faced serious techni￾cal questions in measurement. The approach used was the Glo￾bal Logistics Index which made it possible to merge sea and air freight data into a readily interpretable form, and provide a foundation for more refined thinking on the patterns that were detected. It is however a crude summation of two separate data sets and will need refinement if it is to be applied in other issues. That refinement could involve some way to weight sea and air freight prior to any merge of their numbers. Drewe and Janssen’s (1996) efforts to differentiate between tonnage and value-added in ranking transport activity could be a useful starting point here. Acknowledgements Research reported here was funded by a Small Grant from the Volvo Education and Research Foundation. The author acknowledges the great assistance provided by the research publications listed on Jean-Paul Rodrigue’s website (http://people.hofstra.edu/jean-paul_rodrigue/cv_research.htm). This has been a major source of reading material, made easily accessible via Pdf copies of journal and conference papers. K. O’Connor / Journal of Transport Geography xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 7 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 Appendix 1.Global city logistics regions with component Appendix 1.(continued) seaports and airports Global city Seaport(s) Airport(s) logistics Global city Seaport(s) Airport(s) region logistics region 35 Dubai-Gulf Dubai,Salalah (Oman) Dubai,Sharjah Khor Fakkan(Sharjah) Abu Dhabi, London,SE UK Felixstowe, Heathrow. 36 Sao Paulo- Santos Sao Paulo Thamesport,Tilbury, Gatwick,Stanstead. Santos Southampton,Dover Luton 37 Beijing-Tianjin Tianjin Beijing New York- New York/New Jersey IFK,Newark,La 38 Buenos Aires Buenos Aires Buenos Aires New Jersey Guardia,Hartford 39 St.Petersburg St.Petersburg St.Petersburg 3 Tokyo- Tokyo,Yokohama Narita,Haneda 40 Rio de Janiero Rio de laneiro Rio de Janeiro Yokohama 41 Cairo Port Said Cairo Singapore Singapore,Tanjung Singapore 42 Manila Manila Manila Pelapas,Pasir 43 Jakarta Gundang.Jurong Tanjung Priok Jakarta 44 Beirut Beirut Beirut 5 Seoul Incheon Incheon,Gimpo 6 Copenhagen Copenhagen,Malmo Copenhagen Listed in order of rank on Adjusted Mastercard Worldwide Centers of Commerce 7 Hong Kong- Hong Kong,Shenzen Hong Kong. Index. Shenzen Shenzen Sydney Sydney Sydney 9 Stockholm References Stockholm Stockholm 10 Amsterdam Rotterdam Amsterdam Angel,S..Shepherd.S.C.Civco.D.L.2008.The dynamics of global urban expansion. Rotterdam Transport and Urban Development Department.Washington.The World Bank 11 Philadelphia Philadelphia Philadelphia (accessed 17.07.08) Beaverstock,J.V..Smith,R.G.Taylor,P.J 2000.World-city Network:a new 13 Osaka-Kobe Kobe,Osaka Itami,Kansai metageography?Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90.123- 14 Los Angeles- Los Angeles,Long LAX.Ontario, 134. Long Beach Beach Burbank,Long Bowen,I.T,Slack,B.,2007.Shifting modes and spatial flows in North American freight transportation.In:Leinbach,T..Capineri.C.(Eds.).Globalised Freigh Beach,Santa Ana Transport.Intermodality.E-Commerce,Logistics and Sustainability.Edward 15 San Francisco- Oakland San Francisco, Elgar.Cheltenham,UK,pp.17-53. San Jose Oakland,San Jose Bryson.J.Daniels,P.W..Warf,B..2004.Service Worlds-People.Organisations, Technologies.Routledge,London. 16 Montreal Montreal Mirabel,Trudeau Cole,D..Furst,T..Daboiun,S..Hoemann,W..Meyer,M..Nordahl,R.Parker,M. 17 Antwerp- Antwerp,Zeebrugge Brussels,Liege Penne.L.Stoner.N..Tang.T..2008.Freight mobility and intermodal Brussels connectivity in China.Report FHWA-PL-08-020.Washington DC,FHW-HPP 18 Dublin Dublin Dublin US Department of Transportation.http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/ links/pub_details.cfm?id=561>(accessed 12.09.08) 18 Hamburg- Hamburg. Hamburg Cullinane,K..Teng.Y..Wang.T.-F.2005.Port competition between Shanghai and Bremerhaven Bremerhaven Ningbo.Maritime Policy and Management 32,331-346. Keelung.Taichung Cushman,Baker,Healey.Wakefield,2003.Europ an Distribution Re ort<http:∥ 19 Taipei- Taipei www.vil.be/docs/studies/2003%20European20Distribution20Report.pdf Keelung (accessed 17.05.08). 20 Washington Virginia,Baltimore Dulles,Baltimore Daniels,P.W.,Bryson,J.R.,2002.Manufacturing services and servicing manufacturing:knowledge-based cities and changing forms of production. DC- International Urban Studies 39,977-999. Baltimore- de Neufville,R.,1995.Management of multi-airport systems:a development Virginia strategy.Journal of Air Tran sport Mana nt 2 99-110 21 Vancouver Vancouver Vancouver Drewe.P.Janssen.B.1996.What ports for the future?From"Mainports"to ports as nodes of Logistics networks.Paper presented to 36th ERSA Congress,Zurich. 22 Houston Houston Houston <http://www org/ersaconfs/ers 96/SE SIN.E/e180.pd(01.08.08). 23 Barcelona Barcelona Barcelona Easterling.K.2004.The New Orgman:logistics as an organising principle of 24 Miami-Port Miami,Port Miami contemporary cities.In:Graham,S.(Ed.).The Cyber Cities Reader.London. Routledge.pp.179-184. Everglades Everglades Friedmann.J,1986.The world city hypothesis.Development and Change 17,69- 25 Melbourne Melbourne Melbourne 84. 26 Shanghai- Shanghai,Ningbo Shanghai,Pudong Fuelhart,K..2003.Inter-metropolitan airport substitution by consumers in an Ningbo asymmetrical airfare environment:Ha arrisburg.Philadelphia and Baltimore Journal of Transport Geography 11.285-296. 27 Tel Aviv Haifa Tel Aviv Fuelhart.K..2007.Airport catchment and leakage in a multi-airport region:the 28 Lisbon Lisbon Lisbon case of Harrisburg International.Journal of Transport Geography 15.231-244 29 Santiago Valpariaso Santiago Ginsberg.N.S.,Koppel,B.,McGee,T.G.,1991.The Extended Metropolis.University of Hawaii Pres Honolulu. 30 Rome Civitavecchia Rome Goe,W.R..Lentnek,B..MacPherson,A..Phillips.D..2000.The role of contact 31 Bangkok Laem Chabang. Bangkok requirements in producer services location.Environment and Planning A 32. 131-145. Bangkok Graham,L..Sahling.L,2004.European Warehouse Market Research.Overview of 32 Mumbai Jawaharlal Nehru Mumbai Pan fur ends.Prologis,Amsterdam 33 Kuala Port Klang Kuala Lumpur, Hall,P.2001.Global city regions in the twenty first century.In:Scott,A.(Ed.) Lumpur-Port Subang Global City Regions.Trends,Theory and Policy.OUP.Oxford.pp.59-77. Healey.P..2006.Transforming governance:challenges of institutional adaptation Klang and a new politics of space.European Planning Studies 14.299- 34 Athens- Piraeus Athens 319. Pireaus Henstra,D..Ruijork,C.Tavasszy,L 2007.Globalised trade.logistics and inter rmodality:European perspectives.In:Leinbach.T.R..Capir eri.C.(Eds.) Globalised Logistics Transport.Intermodality.E-Commerce.Logistics and Sustainability.Edward Elgar,Cheltenham,UK.pp.135-163. 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/ jtrangeo2009.06.015

Appendix 1. Global city logistics regions with component Appendix 1. (continued) seaports and airports Global city logistics region* Seaport(s) Airport(s) 1 London, SE UK Felixstowe, Thamesport, Tilbury, Southampton, Dover Heathrow, Gatwick, Stanstead, Luton 2 New York– New Jersey New York/New Jersey JFK, Newark, La Guardia, Hartford 3 Tokyo– Yokohama Tokyo,Yokohama Narita, Haneda 4 Singapore Singapore, Tanjung Pelapas, Pasir Gundang, Jurong Singapore 5 Seoul Incheon Incheon, Gimpo 6 Copenhagen Copenhagen, Malmo Copenhagen 7 Hong Kong– Shenzen Hong Kong, Shenzen Hong Kong, Shenzen 8 Sydney Sydney Sydney 9 Stockholm Stockholm Stockholm 10 Amsterdam– Rotterdam Rotterdam Amsterdam 11 Philadelphia Philadelphia Philadelphia 12 Boston Boston Boston 13 Osaka–Kobe Kobe, Osaka Itami, Kansai 14 Los Angeles– Long Beach Los Angeles,Long Beach LAX, Ontario, Burbank, Long Beach, Santa Ana 15 San Francisco– San Jose Oakland San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose 16 Montreal Montreal Mirabel, Trudeau 17 Antwerp– Brussels Antwerp, Zeebrugge Brussels, Liege 18 Dublin Dublin Dublin 18 Hamburg– Bremerhaven Hamburg, Bremerhaven Hamburg 19 Taipei– Keelung Keelung, Taichung Taipei 20 Washington DC– Baltimore– Virginia Virginia, Baltimore Dulles, Baltimore International 21 Vancouver Vancouver Vancouver 22 Houston Houston Houston 23 Barcelona Barcelona Barcelona 24 Miami–Port Everglades Miami, Port Everglades Miami 25 Melbourne Melbourne Melbourne 26 Shanghai– Ningbo Shanghai, Ningbo Shanghai, Pudong 27 Tel Aviv Haifa Tel Aviv 28 Lisbon Lisbon Lisbon 29 Santiago Valpariaso Santiago 30 Rome Civitavecchia Rome 31 Bangkok Laem Chabang, Bangkok Bangkok 32 Mumbai Jawaharlal Nehru Mumbai 33 Kuala Lumpur–Port Klang Port Klang Kuala Lumpur, Subang 34 Athens– Pireaus Piraeus Athens Global city logistics region* Seaport(s) Airport(s) 35 Dubai-Gulf Dubai, Salalah (Oman) Khor Fakkan (Sharjah) Dubai, Sharjah, Abu Dhabi, 36 Sao Paulo– Santos Santos Sao Paulo 37 Beijing–Tianjin Tianjin Beijing 38 Buenos Aires Buenos Aires Buenos Aires 39 St. Petersburg St. Petersburg St. Petersburg 40 Rio de Janiero Rio de Janeiro Rio de Janeiro 41 Cairo Port Said Cairo 42 Manila Manila Manila 43 Jakarta Tanjung Priok Jakarta 44 Beirut Beirut Beirut * Listed in order of rank on Adjusted Mastercard Worldwide Centers of Commerce Index. References Angel, S., Shepherd, S.C., Civco, D.L., 2008. The dynamics of global urban expansion. Transport and Urban Development Department, Washington. The World Bank. (accessed 17.07.08). Beaverstock, J.V., Smith, R.G., Taylor, P.J., 2000. World-city Network: a new metageography? Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90, 123– 134. Bowen, J.T., Slack, B., 2007. Shifting modes and spatial flows in North American freight transportation. In: Leinbach, T., Capineri, C. (Eds.), Globalised Freight Transport. Intermodality, E-Commerce, Logistics and Sustainability. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp. 17–53. Bryson, J., Daniels, P.W., Warf, B., 2004. Service Worlds-People, Organisations, Technologies. Routledge, London. Cole, D., Furst, T., Daboiun, S., Hoemann, W., Meyer, M., Nordahl, R., Parker, M., Penne, L., Stoner, N., Tang, T., 2008. Freight mobility and intermodal connectivity in China. Report FHWA-PL-08-020. Washington DC, FHW-HPP US Department of Transportation. (accessed 12.09.08). Cullinane, K., Teng, Y., Wang, T.-F., 2005. Port competition between Shanghai and Ningbo. Maritime Policy and Management 32, 331–346. Cushman, Baker, Healey, Wakefield, 2003. European Distribution Report (accessed 17.05.08). Daniels, P.W., Bryson, J.R., 2002. Manufacturing services and servicing manufacturing: knowledge-based cities and changing forms of production. Urban Studies 39, 977–999. de Neufville, R., 1995. Management of multi-airport systems: a development strategy. Journal of Air Transport Management 2, 99–110. Drewe, P., Janssen, B., 1996. What ports for the future? From ‘‘Mainports” to ports as nodes of Logistics networks. Paper presented to 36th ERSA Congress, Zurich. (01.08.08). Easterling, K., 2004. The New Orgman: logistics as an organising principle of contemporary cities. In: Graham, S. (Ed.), The Cyber Cities Reader. London. Routledge. pp. 179–184. Friedmann, J., 1986. The world city hypothesis. Development and Change 17, 69– 84. Fuelhart, K., 2003. Inter-metropolitan airport substitution by consumers in an asymmetrical airfare environment: Harrisburg, Philadelphia and Baltimore. Journal of Transport Geography 11, 285–296. Fuelhart, K., 2007. Airport catchment and leakage in a multi-airport region: the case of Harrisburg International. Journal of Transport Geography 15, 231–244. Ginsberg, N.S., Koppel, B., McGee, T.G., 1991. The Extended Metropolis. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Goe, W.R., Lentnek, B., MacPherson, A., Phillips, D., 2000. The role of contact requirements in producer services location. Environment and Planning A 32, 131–145. Graham, L., Sahling, L., 2004. European Warehouse Market Research. Overview of Pan European Trends. Prologis, Amsterdam. Hall, P., 2001. Global city regions in the twenty first century. In: Scott, A. (Ed.), Global City Regions. Trends, Theory and Policy. OUP, Oxford. pp. 59–77. Healey, P., 2006. Transforming governance: challenges of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space. European Planning Studies 14, 299– 319. Henstra, D., Ruijork, C., Tavasszy, L. 2007. Globalised trade, logistics and intermodality: European perspectives. In: Leinbach, T.R., Capineri, C. (Eds.), Globalised Logistics Transport. Intermodality, E-Commerce, Logistics and Sustainability. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. pp. 135–163. 8 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 9 Hesse,M..Rodrigue,J.-P,2004.The transport geography of logistics and logistics Sassen,S..1991.The Global city:New York,London.Tokyo.Princeton University distribution.Journal of Transport Geography 12.171-184. Press,Princeton.Revised edition. Hodos,I..2002.Globalisation,regionalism and urban restructuring:the case of Sassen,S..1994.Cities in a World Economy.Thousand Oaks,Pine Forge. Philadelphia.Urban Affairs Review 37.358-379. Schebera.J..2006.Development of airfreight hubs in the Southern Chinese Pearl Keating.M.,2001.Governing Cities and regions:territorial restructuring in a global River Delta-a comparative analysis.MA thesis,Free University of Berlin.GRIN. age.In:Scott.A(Ed.).Global City Regions:Trends.Theory.Policy.OUP,Oxford. (accessed 15.10.08) pPp.371-390. Scott,AJ..1998.Regions and the World Economy.The Coming Shape of Global King.B.,Keating.M..2006.The top 50 logistics cities in the United States.Logistics Production,Competition and Political Order.Oxford University Press, Today October. Oxford. (accessed 17.05.08). Scott,AJ.,2008.Social Economy of the Metropolis.Cognitive-Cultural Kreukels,A.Salet,W..Thornley.A (Eds.).2003.Metropolitan governance and spatial planning:comparative case studies of European city-regions.Spon Press, m and the Clobal Resurgence of ciries.ord University Press. New York. Scott,Al Agnew,I.Soja,E.W..Storper.M.,2001.Global city regions.In:Scott.A.l. Leinbach,T.R.Capineri.C.2007.Globalised freight transport:conclusions and (Ed.).Global City Regions.Trends,Theory.Policy.Oxford University Press. future research.In:Leinbach.T.R..Capineri,C.(Eds.).Globalised Logistics Oxford.,pp.11-32. Transport.Intermodality.E-Commerce.Logistics and Sustainability.Edward Simmons.R..Hack.G..(Eds.).2000.Global City Regions:Their Emerging Forms. Elgar,Cheltenham,UK.pp.259-272. E&FN Spon,London. Lo.F-C..Marcotullio.P..2001.Globalization and urban transformations in the Asia Skjoett-Larsen,T,2000.Third party logistics-from an interorganizational point of Pacific region.United Nations University.Tokyo. view.International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management Loo,B.P.Y..Ho.H.W..Wong.S.C..2005.An application of the continuous equilibrium 30.112-127. modelling approach in understanding the geography of air passenger flows in a Song.D.-W..2002.Regional container port competition and co-operation:the case multi-airport region.Applied Geography 25.169-199 of Hong Kong and South China.Journal of Transport Geography 10,99-110. Makukha.K.Gray.R.2004.Logistics partnerships between shippers and logistics Storper,M..Venables,A,2004.Buzz:face to face contact and the urban economy service providers:the relevance of strategy.International Journal of Logistics 7. Journal of Economic Geography 4.351-371. 361-377 Sudjic,D.,1992.The 100 Mile City.Harcourt Brace and Company,San Diego. MasterCard Worldwide,2008.Worldwide Centers of Con ce Index. Cullinane,K.Song.D.-W.(Eds.).Asian Container Ports.Development, (accessed 12.07.08). Competiton and Co-operation.Basingstoke.Uk Mortimer,L.S..2008.Import Slowdown Affecting Warehouse Demand in the Largest Wang.J..Cheng.M.C..2009.From a Hub Port city to a global supply chain Port Markets.CBRE Torto Wheaton Research Industrial Outlook 8(2)January management center:a case study of Hong Kong.Journal of Transport 11. Geography.in press.doi:10.1016/jjtrangeo.2009.02009. Muller,P..1997.The suburban transformation of the globalising American city Wang.J..Oliver,D..2007b.Shanghai and Ningbo:in search of an identity for the Annals.American Academy of Political and Social Science 551.44-58. Chanjiang Delta region.In:Cullinane.K..Song.D.-W.(Eds).Asian Container Notteboom,T.Rodrigue.J.-P.2008.Containerisation,box logistics and global Ports.Development,Competition and Co-Operation.Palgrave McMillan, supply chains:the integration of ports and liner shipping networks.Maritime Basingstoke.UK.pp.183-197. Economics and Logistics 10.152-174. Wang.J.Olivier.D..2007a.Hong Kong and Shenzen:the Nexus in South China.In: O'Connor,K.,2002.Rethinking globalisation and urban development:the fortunes Cullinane,K..Song.D.-W.(Eds.).Asian Container Ports.Development, of second-ranked cities.Australasian Journal of Regional Studies8.35-48. Competition and Co-operation.Palgrave McMillan,Basingstoke,UK.pp.198- O'Connor.K.2003.Global air travel:toward concentration or dispersal?Joural of 212. Transport Geography 11.83-92. Wang J..Olivier,D..Notteboom,T..Slack,B.(Eds.).2007.Ports,Cities,and Global Olivier.D.Slack,B.,2006.Rethinking the port.Environment and Planning A 38. Supply Chains Aldershot,UK.Ashgate. 1409-1427. Webster,D..2004.Bangkok:evolution and adaptation under stress.In:Gugler,I. Pels.E.Nijkamp,P.Rietveld.P.2001.Airport and airline choice in a multiple (Ed.).World Cities Beyond the West.Cambridge University Press,Cambridge. airport region:an empirical analysis for the San Francisco Bay area.Regional pp.82-118. Srudies 35 1-9 Webster.D.,Muller,L.2002.Challenges of peri-urbanisation in the lower Yangtse Priemus,H.,2001.Mainports as integrators of passenger,freight and information Region:the case of the Hangzhou-Ningobo corridor.Discussion Paper Asia networks.From transport nodes to business generators:the Dutch case. Pacific Research Center.Stanford University.Stanford University,Stanford,CA. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 1.143-167. Yeo.G.-T.,Cho.S.-H.,2007.Busan and Gwangyang:one country.two port system. Rodrigue,J.-P.,Hesse,M..2007.Globalised trade and logistics:North American In:Cullinane.K..Song.D.-W.(Eds.).Asian Container Ports.Development, perspectives.In:Leinbach.T.R.Capineri.C.(Eds.)Globalised Logistics Competition and Co-Operation.Palgrave McMillan,Basingstoke,UK.pp.225- Transport.Intermodality.E-Commerce,Logistics and Sustainability.Edward 238. Elgar,Cheltenham.UK.pp.103-134. Zaid Ashai,Z,EI Dahshan,M.Kubba,I Talati,H.,Yousefi,P.,2007.The Transport Rodrigue.J.-P..Notteboom.T.2008.The Terminalization of Supply Chains IAME and Logistics Cluster in the United Arab Emirates.(accessed 20.06. jean-paul_rodrigue/cv_publications.htm>(accessed 02.08.08). 08). 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

Hesse, M., Rodrigue, J.-P., 2004. The transport geography of logistics and logistics distribution. Journal of Transport Geography 12, 171–184. Hodos, J., 2002. Globalisation, regionalism and urban restructuring: the case of Philadelphia. Urban Affairs Review 37, 358–379. Keating, M., 2001. Governing Cities and regions: territorial restructuring in a global age. In: Scott, A. (Ed.), Global City Regions: Trends, Theory, Policy. OUP, Oxford. pp. 371–390. King, B., Keating, M., 2006. The top 50 logistics cities in the United States. Logistics Today October. (accessed 17.05.08). Kreukels, A., Salet, W., Thornley, A. (Eds.), 2003. Metropolitan governance and spatial planning: comparative case studies of European city-regions. Spon Press, New York. Leinbach, T.R., Capineri, C., 2007. Globalised freight transport: conclusions and future research. In: Leinbach, T.R., Capineri, C. (Eds.), Globalised Logistics Transport. Intermodality, E-Commerce, Logistics and Sustainability. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. pp. 259–272. Lo, F-C., Marcotullio, P., 2001. Globalization and urban transformations in the Asia Pacific region. United Nations University, Tokyo. Loo, B.P.Y., Ho, H.W., Wong, S.C., 2005. An application of the continuous equilibrium modelling approach in understanding the geography of air passenger flows in a multi-airport region. Applied Geography 25, 169–199. Makukha, K., Gray, R., 2004. Logistics partnerships between shippers and logistics service providers: the relevance of strategy. International Journal of Logistics 7, 361–377. MasterCard Worldwide, 2008. Worldwide Centers of Commerce Index. (accessed 12.07.08). Mortimer, L.S., 2008. Import Slowdown Affecting Warehouse Demand in the Largest Port Markets. CBRE Torto Wheaton Research Industrial Outlook 8 (2) January 11. Muller, P., 1997. The suburban transformation of the globalising American city. Annals, American Academy of Political and Social Science 551, 44–58. Notteboom, T., Rodrigue, J.-P., 2008. Containerisation, box logistics and global supply chains: the integration of ports and liner shipping networks. Maritime Economics and Logistics 10, 152–174. O’Connor, K., 2002. Rethinking globalisation and urban development: the fortunes of second-ranked cities. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies 8, 35–48. O’Connor, K., 2003. Global air travel: toward concentration or dispersal? Journal of Transport Geography 11, 83–92. Olivier, D., Slack, B., 2006. Rethinking the port. Environment and Planning A 38, 1409–1427. Pels, E., Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P., 2001. Airport and airline choice in a multiple airport region: an empirical analysis for the San Francisco Bay area. Regional Studies 35, 1–9. Priemus, H., 2001. Mainports as integrators of passenger, freight and information networks. From transport nodes to business generators; the Dutch case. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 1, 143–167. Rodrigue, J.-P., Hesse, M., 2007. Globalised trade and logistics: North American perspectives. In: Leinbach, T.R., Capineri, C. (Eds.), Globalised Logistics Transport. Intermodality, E-Commerce, Logistics and Sustainability. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. pp. 103–134. Rodrigue, J.-P., Notteboom, T., 2008. The Terminalization of Supply Chains IAME 2008 Conference – Dalian, China 2–4 April 2008. (accessed 02.08.08). Sassen, S., 1991. The Global city: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Revised edition. Sassen, S., 1994. Cities in a World Economy. Thousand Oaks, Pine Forge. Schebera, J., 2006. Development of airfreight hubs in the Southern Chinese Pearl River Delta – a comparative analysis. MA thesis, Free University of Berlin. GRIN. (accessed 15.10.08). Scott, A.J., 1998. Regions and the World Economy. The Coming Shape of Global Production, Competition and Political Order. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Scott, A.J., 2008. Social Economy of the Metropolis. Cognitive-Cultural Capitalism and the Global Resurgence of Cities. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Scott, A.J., Agnew, J., Soja, E.W., Storper, M., 2001. Global city regions. In: Scott, A.J. (Ed.), Global City Regions. Trends, Theory, Policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford., pp. 11–32. Simmons, R., Hack, G., (Eds.), 2000. Global City Regions: Their Emerging Forms. E&FN Spon, London. Skjoett-Larsen, T., 2000. Third party logistics – from an interorganizational point of view. International Journal of Physical Distribution and Logistics Management 30, 112–127. Song, D.-W., 2002. Regional container port competition and co-operation: the case of Hong Kong and South China. Journal of Transport Geography 10, 99–110. Storper, M., Venables, A., 2004. Buzz: face to face contact and the urban economy. Journal of Economic Geography 4, 351–371. Sudjic, D., 1992. The 100 Mile City. Harcourt Brace and Company, San Diego. Tongzon, J., 2006. Singapore and Tanjung Pelepas: co-operation or competition? In: Cullinane, K., Song, D.-W. (Eds.), Asian Container Ports. Development, Competition and Co-operation. Basingstoke, UK. Wang, J., Cheng, M.C., 2009. From a Hub Port city to a global supply chain management center: a case study of Hong Kong. Journal of Transport Geography, in press. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.02.009. Wang, J., Oliver, D., 2007b. Shanghai and Ningbo: in search of an identity for the Chanjiang Delta region. In: Cullinane, K., Song, D.-W. (Eds), Asian Container Ports. Development, Competition and Co-Operation. Palgrave McMillan, Basingstoke, UK. pp. 183–197. Wang, J., Olivier, D., 2007a. Hong Kong and Shenzen: the Nexus in South China. In: Cullinane, K., Song, D.-W. (Eds.), Asian Container Ports. Development, Competition and Co-operation. Palgrave McMillan, Basingstoke, UK. pp. 198– 212. Wang J., Olivier, D., Notteboom, T., Slack, B. (Eds.), 2007. Ports, Cities, and Global Supply Chains Aldershot, UK. Ashgate. Webster, D., 2004. Bangkok: evolution and adaptation under stress. In: Gugler, J. (Ed.), World Cities Beyond the West. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 82–118. Webster, D., Muller, L. 2002. Challenges of peri-urbanisation in the lower Yangtse Region: the case of the Hangzhou–Ningobo corridor. Discussion Paper Asia Pacific Research Center, Stanford University. Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Yeo, G.-T., Cho, S.-H., 2007. Busan and Gwangyang: one country, two port system. In: Cullinane, K., Song, D.-W. (Eds.), Asian Container Ports. Development, Competition and Co-Operation. Palgrave McMillan, Basingstoke, UK, pp. 225– 238. Zaid Ashai, Z., El Dahshan, M., Kubba, J., Talati, H., Yousefi, P., 2007. The Transport and Logistics Cluster in the United Arab Emirates. (accessed 20.06. 08). K. O’Connor / Journal of Transport Geography xxx (2009) xxx–xxx 9 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