a stakeholder management approach

Crafting The Integrative Value Proposition For Large Scale Transport Infrastructure Hubs: A Stakeholder Management Approach

Crafting The Integrative Value Proposition For Large Scale Transport Infrastructure Hubs: A Stakeholder Management Approach

By Michaël Dooms Promotor: Prof. Dr. Alain Verbeke Academic Year 2009-2010

Proefschrift ingediend met het oog op het behalen van de graad van: Doctor in de Toegepaste Economische Wetenschappen: Handelsingenieur.

This publication is the commercial edition of the dissertation of the same name. University of Brussels (VUB), Academic Year 2009-2010 Promotor Prof. Dr. A. Verbeke

Print: Silhouet, Maldegem

© Michaël Dooms © 2010 Uitgeverij VUBPRESS Brussels University Press VUBPRESS is an imprint of ASP nv (Academic and Scientific Publishers nv) Ravensteingalerij 28 B-1000 Brussels Tel. ++32 (0)2 289 26 50 Fax ++32 (0)2 289 26 59 E-mail: [email protected] www.vubpress.be ISBN 978 90 5487 713 4 NUR 801/163 Legal Deposit D/2010/11.161/034 All rights reserved. No parts of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the author or the publisher.

“The great end of life is not knowledge, but action. What men need is as much knowledge as they can assimilate and organize into a basis for action; give them more and it may become injurious. One knows people who are as heavy and stupid from undigested learning as others are from over-fulness of meat and drink”. Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95), British biologist and educator. Reflection #121, Aphorisms and Reflections, selected by Henrietta A. Huxley, Macmillan (London, 1907).

FOREWORD ― Transport is Civilization‖, Rudyard Kipling famously wrote.

Professor Willy

Winkelmans, a founding father of modern port economics, always started his introductory transport economics class with this quote. Transport promotes knowledge bundling and fosters mutual understanding. It facilitates the efficient specialization of firms and nations in the global economy. Disparate sets of individuals share their idiosyncratic ideas, skills and values, irrespective of the cultural, economic, geographic and institutional distances separating them. While writing this Foreword to Michaël Dooms‘ book, I am on a transcontinental flight, enjoying the hope-filled voice of Kiri Te Kanawa in Act. 2 of Giacomo Puccini‘s Madame Butterfly. Tomorrow I will give a lecture in Brussels on the micro-level foundations of global corporate success. Management students from at least twenty countries will attend the seminar. As I open the window shade, I look into the pretty golden light of a sunrise in the far distance, somewhat similar to the sunset on this book‘s front cover. The aircraft travels unimpeded over vast landmasses and the ocean, crossing boundaries of space and time. But the music also reminds me that transport alone cannot bridge all distance. Transport may unintendedly amplify distance‘s negative effects, and may disrupt - sometimes destroy - innocent lives, an unfortunate reality painted well in Puccini‘s opera. The 21st century paradox of transport is that the very infrastructure hubs supposed to act as critical connectors between local and global, are under fire. These core pillars of sticky places in slippery space are becoming increasingly difficult to design, build, operate and expand. A superficial analysis would conclude that local stakeholders suffer from the ― Not in My Back Yard‖ or NIMBY syndrome: they are simply delaying economic and technological progress to serve their narrow self-interest and myopic preferences. But the reality is different; it is one of increased awareness of triple bottom line impacts: the simultaneous occurrence of significant economic, social and environmental effects, many of these being externalities. The policy challenge is that most human awareness of these externalities does not arise on the actual transport

7

routes. Externalities become visible mainly - and are often felt most strongly – in large infrastructure hubs. How to respond to this paradox? Michaël Dooms‘ insightful analysis suggests a clear way forward: real stakeholder inclusion. Most individuals and groups affected by transport hubs are not necessarily opposed to any infrastructure development. They actually do understand that in a small open economy such as Belgium, where labor costs and taxes are high, and abundance of natural resources is lacking, large-scale infrastructure is instrumental to economic wealth, social progress and ecological sustainability. Belgium is a bundle of infrastructure hubs, whether the stakeholders involved like this or not. The problem – as compared to other nations in Europe and elsewhere – it that many core hubs in the country are now being seriously underfunded and undermanaged in real stakeholder inclusion terms.

Ill-informed commentators

demonize reasonable efforts at growing – and improving the functioning of – these hubs.

But the inconvenient truth is that Belgium will never again experience an

increase in manufacturing intensity, nor will it maintain its present level of economic wealth per capita if policy makers focus solely on attracting and growing activity classes such as high tech (really meaning high risk) clusters, non-commercial services (e.g., European and international institutions), and various forms of tourism (which, paradoxically, also entail new travel). Michaël Dooms‘ book is unusual in its breadth and scope. Individuals overly interested in managerial practice rarely complete their doctoral work, even if they start with the best intentions to do so. The reason is they can never distance themselves sufficiently from the real-world observation of managerial or policy phenomena, and they are unable to conceptualize what these observations imply for management theory. There are exceptions.

In the management field, names such as Geert Hofstede, Henry

Mintzberg and David Teece demonstrate that in-depth managerial insight and extraordinary conceptual ability can go hand in hand. Michaël Dooms‘ work similarly achieves this rare feat of combining real world managerial relevance and analytical depth.

8

I hope that policy makers, port (terminal) operators, and other relevant stakeholders will read this book carefully and will learn from it. Michaël Dooms‘ work represents much more than a set of descriptive case studies based on action-research. Many ideas and suggestions in the book are truly actionable and can improve substantively the societal decision-making processes for large-scale infrastructure hubs. The four cases Michaël Dooms describes, as expressions of more generic transport infrastructure development processes, are compelling. We owe it to the many stakeholders caught up in these processes, not to mention society at large, to consider which strategies of real stakeholder inclusion can improve our common future.

Alain Verbeke February 21st, 2010 Somewhere above the Atlantic Ocean, travelling to a transport super-hub

9

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Somewhere along the line I came to realize that the stakeholder concept applies to almost every human endeavor. Some of the persons I thank here gave me professional support, others inspiration, and still others friendship and affection. Were it not for the stakeholders I list, this thesis is one enterprise that may well have folded. It is my hope that the finished product will be found worthy of their investment. There is no development without institutions. I must begin then with the University of Brussels, my home away from home for the past thirteen years. On the campus of this institution, first as a graduate student at the Solvay Business School and then faculty member in the Department of Business Economics and Strategic Management, I gained knowledge and began the rewarding process of giving back. If such a prize were given, this work would surely be a contender for the thesis with the greatest number of supporting institutions. I gratefully acknowledge the cooperation and invaluable assistance of Charles Huygens, Geneviève Origer and Valérie Tanghe at the Port of Brussels; Hans Floré with the Flemish Brabant Provincial Authority; Chris Coeck, Jan Blomme and Greet Bernaers at the Antwerp Port Authority; Robert Restiau, Chairman of the Economic and Land Use task force; Paul Nelen and Gustaaf Deckers of the Left Bank Company; Bart Casier and Kris Pieters of the Inter-Municipal Cooperation Waasland; and Frank De Mulder and Hedwig De Pauw of the Province of East Flanders; and many more persons at these organizations who passed on their expertise and hard-won knowledge, and who provided background information and data for this research. Other persons and supporting institutions were Sabine Vande Poele at DHL; Jos Stroobants, Roland Coppin, Tom Goris and Kristoff De Winne at BIAC; Jean-Pierre Merckx and Dirk Neyts at the Flemish Port Commission; the Municipalities of Beveren and Zwijndrecht, Alfaport, VOKA Antwerpen Waasland and other members at the task forces for the strategic plan of the port of Antwerp; Prof. Dr. Jan De Gadt, Prof. Dr. Jacques Charlier, Guy Daher, Didier Depierre, Miel Vermorgen and Prof. Dr. Christian

11

Vandermotten at the scientific committee of the Port of Brussels; Prof. Dr. Lieven Annemans; Paul Clerbaux and Patricia Vroman at BGDA; Hugues Vaillant, Christian Frisque and Jean De Salle at Cooparch-RU; Prof. Dr. Eric Van Hooydonk; Miss Kirsten Schonwetter; (Studiegroep) Omgeving and finally, all other members of stakeholder committees and respondents of interviews not mentioned here by name (including, inter alia, several port users in Brussels and Antwerp and DHL clients). I also want to thank Prof. Dr. Hercules Haralambides and his team, as well as various guest lecturers of the Port of Rotterdam Authority at the Erasmus University Rotterdam – Maritime Economics and Logistics (MEL); Prof. Dr. Theo Notteboom and his team at the Institute of Transport and Maritime Management Antwerp (ITMMA); Patrick Verhoeven at the European Seaport Organisation (ESPO) and Olivier Lemaire and Greta Marini at the International Association of Cities and Ports (IACP), to invite me to share my knowledge on a regular basis during interactive courses in their highly acclaimed master programs (MEL and ITMMA) and to invite me to have active debate and networking with professionals during their conferences (ESPO and IACP). I turn now to those whom I would like to thank on a more personal level. I thank my thesis advisor Prof. Dr. Alain Verbeke, for supervising my thesis. From the many lessons I have learned throughout our collaboration, I particularly remember that during difficult times, his flow of positive energy and ability to challenge really turn things around and bring the best out of people. His continuous moral and intellectual support has been invaluable to rise up to the challenge to bring this PhD project to a good end. Thank you for bringing out the best in me. I am very grateful to Prof. Dr. Cathy Macharis for providing me with indispensable guidance throughout the time I worked on the master plan of the Brussels port, a period during which I embarked on a very steep learning curve. Our collaboration has proved invaluable to me in writing this thesis and has led to several other joint projects of which I am unabashedly proud.

12

I am honored to have Prof. Dr. Joël Branson as the Chair of my thesis jury. I think that it is fair to say that neither of us imagined in 1997 when I was his student – and subject to his notoriously difficult exams – such a turn of events. More than anything else, I learned the importance of being meticulous from him, an indispensable skill in writing a doctoral thesis. I am honored too to have Prof. Dr. Georges Allaert en Prof. Dr. Willy Winkelmans as members of the jury for this thesis. As the founding fathers of strategic spatial planning and (trans)port economics and management in Flanders respectively. Their work has been a formidable source of inspiration. I have benefited greatly from our informal discussions and more formal meetings, and many debates. It has been a privilege to come to know such amazing personalities with strong personal convictions and unwavering principles. I am indebted to Prof. Dr. Elvira Haezendonck, one of my closest colleagues for many years, first at the University of Antwerp, then at the University of Brussels. Our joint passion for strategic management, green management and infrastructure management has led to many joint projects, perhaps somewhat peripheral to the content of this thesis but invaluable in building the necessary skills of academic rigor. It has been a great pleasure to work with her - and even for her - as a teaching assistant. I sincerely thank Sondra Grace to turn a rather impenetrable manuscript into a highly readable book. I am particularly indebted to Prof. Dr. Rosette S‘Jegers, whom I have known since the very beginning of my University of Brussels journey. Her creative administrative skills gave me my first opportunity to teach, in fact, the very course that I took from her in 1996. She taught me the beauty of a well-prepared lecture. At a time when my motivation waned somewhere during 2002, she introduced me to Prof. Dr. Alain Verbeke. This thesis is the direct outcome of her match-making. I am forever in her debt for opening the two doors of academia. I refer here to a small speech I gave on the 5th of September 2009 for a fuller expression of my gratitude. A would be remiss if I did not properly credit several others for my professional and personal development. It has been a great pleasure and privilege to work with Prof. Dr.

13

Georges Wanet over the last five years on a wide range of issues in the context of change management; Luc Lallemand, Luc Vansteenkiste, Jacques Verstreken and their teams at Infrabel, one of Belgium‘s truly great infrastructure management firms, for the opportunities I was given to observe and participate in the change management processes in practice; and Eddy Van Gelder for three years of excellent collaboration during my vice-chairmanship of the board of directors of the University of Brussels. There are a number of other colleagues who deserve my sincere thanks. As a ‗veteran‘ of the Department of Business Economics and Strategic Management, I have fond memories of many persons, but I must mention in particular Paul Brugman, Sarah Vandenbussche, Iris Vanaelst, Marleen Bornauw, Tim Jans and Steven De Schepper for a combination of intellectual, moral, administrative and editing support. I do not underestimate the contribution of my family and friends in any success that I have had, or may hope to have in the future. I am thankful for a very close and dense network of friends on whom I really can count. I especially appreciate the invaluable advice of Gaëtan Mondet, Lionel Depireux, Sophie Ringoot, Hugues Vaillant, Michel Degaillier, Frederik Vanderhoeven and Philippe Vanderbruggen. Above all, I thank my family, my sister Erika and brother-in-law Christophe Jans, and my parents Jean and Liliane Tresignie for their moral support and unfailing affection. Along the long road to this point, with all its twists and turns, successes and setbacks, you have been beside me. This is one of the greatest joys of my life. Michaël Dooms, December 2009

14

Table of Contents 1.

Long term strategic planning for large scale infrastructure hubs and the

management of stakeholder interests ....................................................................... 23 1.1.

Introduction ............................................................................................................23

1.2.

Main contributions .................................................................................................24

1.2.1.

Empirical development of descriptive and analytic stakeholder theory ................24

1.2.2.

The role of publically-owned enterprises in stakeholder theory research .............27

1.2.3.

Stakeholder identification ..................................................................................29

1.2.4.

Application of stakeholder management to cases of long term strategic planning

for infrastructure projects ................................................................................................31 1.2.5. 1.3.

2.

Dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management ...................................37

Research method and general introduction to the case study chapters ................70

1.3.1.

General description of the research method ........................................................70

1.3.2.

Positioning of the case studies in terms of spatial reach and project complexity ..80

Long term strategic planning for the DHL regional super-hub in Europe: a

focus on dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management......................... 85 2.1.

Introduction ............................................................................................................85

2.2.

Description of the research process and sources of information ...........................92

2.3.

The MAMCA method: description of the long term evaluation of the strategic

choices ...............................................................................................................................97 2.3.1.

Introduction .......................................................................................................97

2.3.2.

Step 1: Formulation of the alternatives ...............................................................99

2.3.3.

Step 2: Stakeholder analysis ............................................................................. 100

2.3.4.

Step 3: Define criteria and weights ................................................................... 101

2.3.4.1.

Criteria of DHL .................................................................................................... 102

2.3.4.2.

Criteria of BIAC ................................................................................................... 103

2.3.4.3.

Criteria of government .......................................................................................... 104

2.3.4.4.

Criteria of the local community ............................................................................. 105

2.3.4.5.

Decision tree ......................................................................................................... 105

2.3.5.

Step 4: Criteria, indicators and measurement. ................................................... 106

2.3.6.

Step 5: Overall analysis and ranking ................................................................ 109

2.3.7.

Step 6: Results ................................................................................................. 109

2.3.8.

Step 7: Implementation .................................................................................... 112

2.4.

Summary of stakeholder inclusion and dynamic and spatial aspects ................. 113

15

2.5.

3.

Discussion and conclusion..................................................................................... 115

Long term strategic planning for the port of Brussels: a focus on dynamic and

spatial aspects of stakeholder management ........................................................... 119 3.1.

Introduction .......................................................................................................... 119

3.2.

Strategic port planning and stakeholder management ........................................ 121

3.2.1.

Strategic port planning ..................................................................................... 121

3.2.2.

Strategic planning for port infrastructure development: a task for the port authority ........................................................................................................................ 125

3.2.3.

The time horizon of port planning .................................................................... 126

3.2.4.

Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder management in the port sector . 127

3.2.5.

Inland port and seaports ................................................................................... 129

3.3.

Description of the process and sources of information ........................................ 132

3.3.1.

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 132

3.3.2.

The Port of Brussels ......................................................................................... 133

3.3.3.

The master plan of the port of Brussels ............................................................ 134

3.3.4.

Description of the client system and main sources of information ..................... 136

3.4.

3.3.4.1.

Formal meetings ................................................................................................... 136

3.3.4.2.

Informal meetings ................................................................................................. 139

3.3.4.3.

Interviews ............................................................................................................. 140

Description of the planning methodology and stakeholder involvement ............ 142

3.4.1.

The definition of stakeholders and the introduction of port ‗zones‘ ................... 142

3.4.2.

Description of the planning methodology ......................................................... 144

3.4.2.1.

Introduction .......................................................................................................... 144

3.4.2.2.

Description of the planning methodology .............................................................. 146

3.4.2.3.

Stakeholder inclusion ............................................................................................ 157

3.4.2.3.1.

Stakeholder inclusion with a focus on ex post validation of results.................. 157

3.4.2.3.2.

Stakeholder inclusion with a focus on ex ante inputs for subsequent analysis .. 159

3.4.2.3.2.1.

Introduction ........................................................................................... 159

3.4.2.3.2.2.

Direct inclusion in the formulation of strategic alternatives: a redefinition of

SWOT-analysis for port planning. ................................................................................ 160

3.5.

3.4.2.3.2.3.

Direct inclusion in the evaluation of strategic alternatives ....................... 162

3.4.2.3.2.4.

Direct inclusion in the design of the implementation scheme ................... 164

Results of the application (with a focus on spatial aspects of stakeholder

management) ................................................................................................................... 166 3.5.1.

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 166

3.5.2.

The decomposition in zones ............................................................................. 166

16

3.5.3.

Impact of the characteristics of each zone on the number and nature of

stakeholders and criteria ............................................................................................... 170

4.

3.6.


3.7.


Long term strategic planning for the port of Antwerp: a focus on dynamic and

spatial aspects of stakeholder management ........................................................... 187 4.1.

Introduction .......................................................................................................... 187

4.2.

Long term strategic port planning: towards a new classification of planning types

and the integration of a wider geographic dimension .................................................... 190 4.2.1.

Towards a new classification of port planning types ......................................... 190

4.2.2.

Port regionalization and the extended gateway concept .................................... 197

4.3.

4.3.1.

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 201

4.3.2.

Strategic port planning for the port of Antwerp ................................................ 202

4.3.3.

Description of the research project ................................................................... 204

4.3.4.


4.4.

4.3.4.1.

Formal meetings ................................................................................................... 208

4.3.4.2.

Informal meetings and group interviews ................................................................ 212

4.3.4.3.

Formal studies and documents............................................................................... 215

The port system..................................................................................................... 216

4.4.1.

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 216

4.4.2.

Description of the port system .......................................................................... 217

4.4.3.

Discussion of the results................................................................................... 221

4.5.

5.

Description of the research process and sources of information ......................... 201

The integrative calculation model for the port of Antwerp ................................. 223

4.5.1.

Primary and secondary modules ....................................................................... 223

4.5.2.

Primary modules .............................................................................................. 224

4.5.3.

Secondary modules .......................................................................................... 238

4.6.


4.7.


Long term strategic planning for the “Waaslandhaven”: the impact of past

experience and future expectations on governance change: a stakeholder management approach ............................................................................................ 251 5.1.

Introduction .......................................................................................................... 251

5.2.

Dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management in ports ..................... 254

5.3.

Description of the research process and sources of information ......................... 257

17

5.3.1.

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 257

5.3.2.

Description of the research project ................................................................... 257

5.3.3.


5.3.3.1.

Formal meetings ................................................................................................... 261

5.3.3.2.

Informal meetings and interviews .......................................................................... 265

5.3.3.3.

Formal studies, documents and archival records .................................................... 267

5.4. Historical analysis of stakeholder relations and impacts in the Waaslandhaven..... ............................................................................................................................... 270 5.4.1.

Historical analysis of stakeholders, governance structures and their impact on the

expansion of the Left Bank (Waaslandhaven) (1800-2005) ........................................... 270 5.4.2.

Ex post analysis of projected impacts with regard to the development of the

Waaslandhaven (1960-2005) ........................................................................................ 276

5.5.

5.4.2.1.

Spatial, infrastructural impacts and investment ...................................................... 276

5.4.2.2.

Traffic impacts...................................................................................................... 279

5.4.2.3.

Employment and value added impacts ................................................................... 280

5.4.2.4.

Mobility and environmental impacts...................................................................... 281

5.4.2.5.

Discussion of the results........................................................................................ 282

Projected impacts of the expansion of the Waaslandhaven (up to 2030) ............ 283

5.5.1.

Basis of the calculations of quantifiable impacts............................................... 283

5.5.2.

Results of the calculations on future quantifiable impacts (horizon 2030) ......... 283

5.5.2.1.

Traffic and value added ......................................................................................... 283

5.5.2.2.

Employment ......................................................................................................... 285

5.5.2.3.

Mobility impact .................................................................................................... 287

5.5.2.4.

Port dues and concession fees. ............................................................................... 289

5.5.2.5.

Local taxes ........................................................................................................... 291

5.5.3.

Other, non-quantifiable impacts ....................................................................... 292

5.6. Overall evaluation of variations in impacts and resulting stakeholder attitudes ..... ............................................................................................................................... 293

6.

5.7.


5.8.


Conclusion: formulating the integrative value proposition for long term

strategic planning in the infrastructure management sector ................................ 301 6.1.

Introduction: towards an integrative value proposition ...................................... 301

6.2.

Main contributions: REAL-I approach ................................................................ 303

6.2.1.

Reassessing descriptive/analytical stakeholder theory ....................................... 304

6.2.2.

Extending the dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management ............ 309

6.2.3.

Articulating views of government agency/publicly owned enterprise ................ 312

18

6.2.4.

Leveraging strategic planning through stakeholder involvement ....................... 314

6.2.5.

Inclusion of stakeholders for long term strategic infrastructure planning ........... 315

6.3.

Case analysis: ABCD-P ......................................................................................... 319

6.3.1.

Assessing stakeholders ..................................................................................... 319

6.3.2.

Building bridges .............................................................................................. 321

6.3.3.

Constructing consensus .................................................................................... 322

6.3.4.

Developing actionable plans ............................................................................ 324

6.3.5.

Preparing effective implementation and governance ......................................... 328

6.4.

Limitations: FAIL-S.............................................................................................. 331

6.4.1.

Formulating versus implementing .................................................................... 331

6.4.2.

Action research versus politics ......................................................................... 333

6.4.3.

Integrating locational and spatial (including sectoral) specificities .................... 336

6.4.4.

Limits to repeatability and reproducibility ........................................................ 337

6.4.5.

Stakeholder System Sustainability.................................................................... 339

Appendix 1: List of 26 municipalities within the 70 dB(A) contour of airplane noise ................................................................................................................................. 345 Appendix 2: List of formal studies and administrative documents used for the DHL - case ............................................................................................................... 347 Appendix 3: List of formal studies and administrative documents used to confront the strategic alternatives to external tendencies for the port of Brussels.............. 350 Appendix 4: List of formal studies and administrative documents used during the research process for the port of Antwerp .............................................................. 354 Appendix 5: List of formal studies studies, administrative documents and archival records used for the case of the Waaslandhaven ................................................... 361 Bibliography ............................................................................................................ 367

19

List of figures and tables Table 1.1: Dynamic and spatial aspects in stakeholder management and stakeholder theory literature ............................................................................ 40 Table 1.2: Summary of the presence of dynamic and spatial aspects in stakeholder management and stakeholder theory literature ............................................... 64 Table 1.3: Summary of the cases in terms of initiator, period, client system, and sources of evidence ............................................................................................ 79 Figure 1.1: Positioning of the case studies ................................................................ 83 Figure 1.2: General positioning of planning process outcomes ............................... 84 Figure 2.1: Description of the MAMCA methodology ............................................ 98 Figure 2.2: Decision tree ......................................................................................... 106 Table 2.1: Criteria, indicators and measurement .................................................. 107 Figure 2.3: Overall result – horizon 2012............................................................... 111 Figure 2.4: Overall result – horizon 2023............................................................... 111 Figure 2.5: Stakeholder inclusion and dynamic and spatial aspects in the DHL case study................................................................................................................. 114 Figure 3.1: Evolution of port planning perspectives .............................................. 124 Figure 3.2: Evolution of planning processes based on homogeneity of the port area and number of relevant stakeholder groups .................................................. 143 Figure 3.3: The planning methodology for a separate port zone .......................... 147 Figure 3.4: Example of a hierarchical structure .................................................... 152 Figure 3.5: General outline of a profile chart ........................................................ 154 Figure 3.6: Decomposition of the port of Brussels in six zones ............................. 168 Table 3.1: Stakeholders and criteria used in the MCAs of the port zones ............ 172 Figure 3.7: Stakeholder inclusion and dynamic and spatial aspects in the port of Brussels case study .......................................................................................... 177 Figure 4.1: Adapted classification of port planning types ..................................... 193 Figure 4.2: The concept of port regionalization (Notteboom and Rodrigue, 2005) .......................................................................................................................... 198 Figure 4.3: Potential extended gateways in Flanders (VIL, 2006) ........................ 200 Table 4.1: A systematic approach to decompose the port system ......................... 219

20

Figure 4.4: Simplified structure of the primary modules of the calculation model .......................................................................................................................... 225 Figure 4.5: Traffic forecast for the port of Antwerp (horizon 2030)..................... 227 Table 4.2: Additional port dues per year ............................................................... 228 Figure 4.6: Gross added value (time horizon 2030) ............................................... 231 Figure 4.7: Employment (time horizon 2030) ........................................................ 231 Table 4.3: Potential imbalances between demand and supply for container handling ........................................................................................................... 233 Table 4.4: Land balance port of Antwerp (hectares) ............................................. 234 Figure 4.8: Modal split evolution (in %) ................................................................ 236 Figure 4.9: Modal split evolution (in million tons)................................................. 237 Table 4.5: External cost savings per year (in million euro) ................................... 237 Table 4.6: Extended gateway impacts .................................................................... 240 Figure 4.10: Stakeholder inclusion and dynamic and spatial aspects in the port of Antwerp case study ......................................................................................... 241 Figure 5.1: Map of the port of Antwerp ................................................................. 270 Table 5.1: Investment by public sector stakeholders in the port of Antwerp (19441979), in million Belgian Francs ..................................................................... 278 Figure 5.2: Investment by the Flemish Region in the port of Antwerp (1989-2005), in million euro ................................................................................................. 279 Figure 5.3: Future share of the Left Bank in traffic and value added .................. 284 Figure 5.4: Employment growth and share of the Left Bank (transport-related) 286 Figure 5.5: Employment growth and share of the Left Bank (industry-related) . 286 Figure 5.6: Number of additional trucks per day, horizon 2030 ........................... 288 Figure 5.7: Number of additional barges per day, horizon 2030 .......................... 288 Figure 5.8: Number of additional trains per day, horizon 2030 ............................ 289 Figure 5.9: Port dues from container traffic .......................................................... 290 Table 5.2: Overall evaluation of the future development of the Waaslandhaven and the impact on stakeholder attitudes ................................................................ 295 Figure 5.10: Stakeholder inclusion and dynamic and spatial aspects in the Waaslandhaven case study .............................................................................. 296 Figure 6.1: Integrative value proposition: long term strategic planning for large scale infrastructure hubs................................................................................. 302

21

Table 6.1: Synthesis of identified dynamic and spatial aspects in four case studies .......................................................................................................................... 311 Figure 6.2: Need for hierarchy and feedback mechanisms in long term strategic infrastructure planning ................................................................................... 325 Figure 6.3: Interaction between the governance level and planning process levels .......................................................................................................................... 329

22

1. Long term strategic planning for large scale infrastructure hubs and the management of stakeholder interests

1.1. Introduction

Long term strategic planning is influenced by a number of complex environmental factors, such as economic, social, and political conditions and technological developments. Stakeholders too, be they within the firm, locals or special interest groups, also influence decision makers, traditionally through the media and now also increasingly via the Internet (e.g., Harrison and St-John, 1996; Svendsen, 1998; Mattingly and Greening, 2002; Freeman, Harrison and Wicks, 2007; Carroll and Buchholtz, 2009). Planners who ignore the concerns and interests of stakeholders risk implementation delays, and at times protracted legal battles. As Notteboom and Winkelmans (2002; 2007) and Dooms, Macharis and Verbeke (2003; 2004) have suggested, firms that manage large infrastructure hubs such as airports and seaports as well as the authorities responsible for overseeing them, need to explicitly incorporate stakeholder concerns in their long term planning processes. By increasing their efforts to involve stakeholders in their long term planning processes, those firms and agencies can increase the likelihood of acceptance of current projects and boost their overall legitimacy which can smooth the path to sustainable development. Indeed, firms and agencies that take a ‗triple bottom line‘ approach (Elkington, 1998) consider the social, economic and environmental impacts of large infrastructure projects weighing the ramifications of such projects not only on the persons and locale where they are constructed and operated, but also beyond. Planning for infrastructure takes place at different planning levels (from specific local projects to long term visions for regions) as suited to different stakeholders, and also in light of different time horizons. The planning process for a large stand-alone project on a specific site (e.g., a single expansion project for a multinational enterprise) will be different than one for a more far-reaching project. The process will be different again for a long term project that may

23

Chapter 1: Long term strategic planning and stakeholder management

not even include concrete steps in the present but that planners hope will unfold without constant pressure on the firms or agencies managing the infrastructures to renew licenses to operate. Regardless of the geographic scope or time horizon, the firms and the agencies responsible for oversight will be interested in bringing the infrastructure project or projects to fruition in terms of timely completion as cost-effectively as possible and mitigating as best they can conflicts with stakeholders. Stakeholder objectives and their measurement may differ substantially depending on the geographic scope and time horizon of a project. In this thesis we use case studies to describe and analyze the long term planning process from a stakeholder management perspective. We selected four Belgian infrastructure sector projects each of which illustrates a particular problem, geographic scope, time horizon and expected outcome. The main contributions of this research will be discussed in the next section of this chapter.

1.2. Main contributions

1.2.1. Empirical development of descriptive and analytic stakeholder theory

Several authors (Jawahar and McLaughlin, 2001; Friedman and Miles, 2006; Jones, Felps and Bigley, 2007) highlight the need for empirical research into how managers handle stakeholders in practice, suggesting that such research could provide insights into the validity of the stakeholder concept as a basis for a theory of the firm. We answer their call in this thesis by providing an in-depth description and analysis of the planning process for four actual large scale infrastructure projects. From a theoretical point of view, Donaldson and Preston‘s (1995) taxonomy is considered by many to be the most meaningful contribution to stakeholder theory since Freeman‘s (1984) groundbreaking book. Based on an extensive literature review, they conclude that stakeholder theory is broadly managerial in orientation, and identify three

24


distinct aspects of it: (1) descriptive, how managers actually deal with stakeholders; (2) instrumental, the potential for positive firm performance stemming from stakeholder management; and (3) normative, basically prescriptive. They find the normative component to be the most important one of the three as it alone can confirm stakeholder theory as an alternative to other theories of the firm (e.g., agency theory and transaction cost economics). This is not to say that they reject the descriptive and instrumental aspects of stakeholder theory. Rather, they see those aspects as bolstering a theoretical framework based on property rights that explains the normative core of stakeholder theory. While Donaldson and Preston‘s (1995) assertion that stakeholder theory is broadly managerial in orientation remains largely uncontested, it is fair to say that stakeholder theory research has become somewhat polarized over its other aspects. Some researchers agree with a primarily normative approach in developing stakeholder theory, but make different philosophical assumptions or adopt different theoretical constructs, such as, inter alia, property rights, (integrated) social contract theory, or Kantian and Rawlsian philosophies. Others advocate a more descriptive and/or instrumental approach, sometimes referred to as a positive and/or strategic approach, or in a broader sense, an analytic approach, the term we will use here (see Reed, 2002; Friedman and Miles, 2006). Several subsequent contributions to the literature question the validity of the taxonomy and whether there is a convergent stakeholder theory, or need be one (Jones and Wicks, 1999; Freeman, 1999; Donaldson and Preston, 1999; Gioa, 1999, Trevino and Weaver, 1999). Others rely on the taxonomy, or minor adaptations of it, to frame more sophisticated management and stakeholder theory conceptual frameworks (see Hendry, 2001 and Reed, 2002 for normative theory frameworks; see Friedman and Miles, 2006 for an overview addressing normative as well as analytic components). Finally, meaningful theoretical contributions have been made that (1) address misconceptions about and criticisms on stakeholder theory and/or outline its limitations (Phillips et al., 2003; Freeman et al., 2004), (2) that argue that it is too early to conclude that the normative component is the central element of stakeholder theory (Friedman

25


and Miles, 2006), and (3) that discount a stakeholder theory of the firm (Ambler and Wilson, 1995; Argenti, 1997; Key, 1999). It is likely that abstract and philosophical discussions will continue, as will the controversy between scholars of different disciplines, especially those in organizational science and behavior on one side and philosophy and ethics on the other. Phillips (2003b) and Friedman and Miles (2006) provide good in-depth analyses of the literature and highlight the main controversies surrounding normative stakeholder theory. We do not intend to become involved in any of those debates in this thesis. Rather, what interests us is the lack of consistency in normative stakeholder theory itself. In what follows we will focus on three points made by Friedman and Miles (2006): (1) The analytic approach to stakeholder theory has not yet been sufficiently developed. (2) The analytic basis of normative theory is not adequately recognized in the literature. (3) The development of analytic theory could potentially lead to changes in normative theory. Other work also touches on this interaction between normative and analytic components of stakeholder theory. Jones, Felps and Bigley (2007: 153) write that “the way a firm‟s managers actually respond to stakeholder issues is interwoven with notions of how they should respond.” Carroll and Buchholtz (2009: 94) conclude that in stakeholder management “(…) normative as well as instrumental objectives and perspectives are essential.” Friedman and Miles (2006: 133) underline the need for research on managerial decision-making in developing the descriptive component of analytic theory: “In order to understand the nature and development of stakeholder relations, stakeholder interests, values, beliefs, and identities underlying their own decision-making, processes and outcomes need to be analyzed, not only by managers in focal organizations, but also by stakeholders, stakeholder group strategists, and academic analysts of the stakeholder concept.” This conclusion is in line with the earlier, more broadly formulated arguments of Wood (1994) and Jones and Wicks (1999) on the managerial decision-making aspect of stakeholder theory. More specific recommendations have also been made. Frooman (1999: 192) writes that “(…) to be really useful to a firm trying to manage its stakeholders, stakeholder theory

26


must provide an account of how stakeholders try to manage a firm.” In another contribution Freeman (1999: 233) responds to the Jones and Wicks (1999) position on convergent stakeholder theory: “Furthermore, what we need is not more theory that converges but more narratives that are divergent – that show us different but useful ways to understand organizations in stakeholder terms.” The need for more analytic research rather than “studies that simply declare „managerial oughts‟ from general principles” (Freeman, 1999: 235) has been echoed by other authors since the ‗stakeholder theory convergence debate‘ emerged in 1999, examples include Harrison and Freeman (1999), Hillman and Keim (2001), Phillips (2003b), and Post, Preston and Sachs (2002b). Clearly these leading scholars are calling for the development of the analytic component of stakeholder theory. Our in-depth description and analysis of four recent case studies of stakeholder management applied in practice responds to these calls and in so doing makes a significant contribution to stakeholder theory.

1.2.2. The role of publically-owned enterprises in stakeholder theory research

A considerable amount of quantitative research in stakeholder theory (McWilliams and Siegel, 2000; Hillman and Keim, 2001; Maignan and Ralstom, 2002; Buysse and Verbeke, 2003; Eesley and Lenox, 2006; Julian et al., 2008; Murillo-Luna et al., 2008) and qualitative and case-based research (Savage et al., 1991; Fineman and Clarke, 1996; Frooman, 1999; Winn, 2001; Winn and Keller, 2002; Friedman and Miles, 2002; Post, Preston and Sachs, 2002b; Pedersen, 2006) has been carried out from the point of view of large private or publicly traded companies or from that of NGOs, such as unions and activist groups in their dealings with such companies. It has been convincingly argued that applications to other kinds of organizations are needed if stakeholder theory is to become a widely accepted theory of strategic management and organizational ethics (Suchman, 1995; Barnett, 1997; Rustin, 1997; Phillips, 2003; Friedman and Miles, 2006). The case studies that we present in this

27


thesis make a significant step in that direction. In three of the cases the focal organization is a state or municipality-owned enterprise, and in the fourth the infrastructure management is handled by a semi state-owned enterprise. Consequently, all four cases help in broadening the scope of stakeholder theory research. Winn (2001) underlines the methodological challenges facing stakeholder theorists. In addition to the inherent complexity of decision-making for large scale projects, there are problem specificity challenges, differences between public and private sector planning, and the sheer scope of the impact of decisions with which to contend. Hence, the kind of case-based research we have undertaken is particularly applicable (see also below, section 1.3). In addition, most studies have chosen large private or publicly traded companies, primarily MNEs, as focal organizations. It is important to note that in the stakeholder theory literature, the term ‗focal organization‘ has come not only to refer to the particular organization under consideration, but often to also mean that that organization has a central position in its network of stakeholders, and that dyadic relationships exist between it and the other stakeholders (Rowley, 1997). In some contexts, such as in research on the interaction between MNEs and interest groups on specific issues such as pollution, this latter use of the concept of a focal organization makes it possible to apply existing conceptual frameworks from the analytical stakeholder theory literature (e.g., Savage et al., 1991; Mitchell et al., 1997; Rowley, 1997; Friedman and Miles, 2002; Haezendonck et al., 2010). However, it is less clear whether in the context of long term strategic planning processes the focal organization should be considered as the hub of a network of stakeholders. Since, in complex long term planning processes (1) there are multiple interactions between stakeholders, sometimes without any involvement of the focal organization (2) the would-be focal organization often deals with different stakeholders at different stages of the process and (3) what we might otherwise think of as the focal organization is itself a stakeholder when it comes to other issues (Rowley, 1997). The four case studies that we present in this thesis, we believe, cast new light on the meaning and use of the term ‗focal organization‘ in stakeholder theory.

28


1.2.3. Stakeholder identification

In his seminal work Freeman (1984: vi) writes that ― A stakeholder is any group or individual who can affect, or is affected by, the achievement of a corporation‟s purpose.‖ Since Freeman framed this definition, several authors have argued that defining too broadly who stakeholders are makes it impossible to meet their demands given the time and resources that would be needed to identify and prioritize the relevant ones, and to design, evaluate and implement strategies that would coincide with the goals of the organization (Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Gioia, 1999; Phillips, 2003b; Pedersen, 2006)1. Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) and Friedman and Miles (2006) have provided useful summaries of the considerable theoretical (Mitchell et al., 1997; Friedman and Miles, 2002; Phillips, 2003) and empirical (Savage et al., 1991, Mitchell et al., 1999; Buysse and Verbeke, 2003; Pedersen, 2006) work that attempts to frame a viable definition. While no consensus on a workable definition of stakeholders has been reached, there is wide agreement that addressing the objectives of every interested party is an impossibility. This has led some researchers to distinguish between ‗primary‘ and ‗secondary‘ (Hillman and Keim, 2001; Jawahar and McLaughlin, 2001), ‗internal‘ and ‗external‘ (Freeman, 1984) or ‗normative, ‗legitimate‘ and ‗derivative‘ stakeholders (Phillips, 2003b). Other researchers do not categorize stakeholders per se, but consider ‗normative‘ stakeholders and ‗influencers‘ such as the media and special interest groups (Donaldson and Preston, 1995). Despite the difficulty in reaching a consensus on stakeholder identification, there is almost universal acceptance among stakeholder researchers of the need for selectivity in attempting to meet interests beyond those of the firm itself, and most researchers agree that synthesizing and/or aggregating such interests into a practical framework is an 1

In-depth theoretical discussions on this issue can be found in Donaldson and Preston (1995); Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997); Phillips (2003b); Friedman and Miles (2006) and Carroll and Buchholtz (2009).

29


appropriate solution to the impasse. Phillips (2003b: 134) writes that “more descriptive research on how managers actually make decisions involving stakeholders and stakeholder salience may bear greater (or lesser) similarity between stakeholder prescriptions and managerial actions than hitherto has been found”. Other researchers have strongly supported this conclusion. Walsh (2005) calls for a practice-based sequel to Phillips‘ theoretical book, and Pedersen (2006) has done casebased research and identified ‗filters‘ such as a selection filter (which stakeholders have access to the dialogue?), an interpretation filter (which elements of the stakeholder dialogue are transformed in decisions?) and a response filter (what happens when decisions are implemented?) to be used in practice. As we have said in section 1.2.1, the cases that we analyze provide this kind of descriptive research. Phillips (2003b) and other researchers have proposed a variety of theoretical solutions to the selectivity and aggregation problem, including putting ‗influencers‘, ‗nonstakeholders‘, ‗negative stakeholders‘ or ‗dangerous stakeholders‘ under the umbrella of proxy shareholders. This allows managers to seek commonality between the interests of those whom they perceive to be the primary and most powerful stakeholders and the pooled interests of others. For example, the firms that manage airports and the authorities that oversee them have a vast array of sometimes conflicting objectives to balance. Residents in the vicinity of airports often unite to protest congestion and high noise levels. Because they organize protests and initiate litigation they might be seen as ‗influencers‘ or as ‗negative‘ or ‗dangerous‘. Nonetheless, such groups are frequently the legitimate voice of the local community. While decision-makers may well recognize the validity of their demands they know that blanket acquiescence is not an option as they will face similar NIMBY reactions elsewhere and they must consider the wider community, including the traveling public, airlines, freight operators and so on. The solution may be an aggregation of the demands of various special interest groups, and this may mean the creation of a proxy stakeholder. Such an approach allows decision-makers to incorporate the concerns of those groups into the decision-making process.

30


The in-depth descriptive analyses grounded in managerial practice of the four case studies featured in this thesis reveal insights into the crux of the complex long term planning that incorporates stakeholder interests: ‗Who and what really matters?‘. In particular, we describe and analyze how selectivity was reached in a diverse set of cases and investigate the reasons underpinning stakeholder selection, and the validity and utility of concepts such as naming proxy stakeholders.

1.2.4. Application of stakeholder management to cases of long term strategic planning for infrastructure projects

We develop and test sophisticated methodologies that apply to stakeholder management in long term strategic planning processes and its associated decision-making, based inter alia on multi-criteria analysis (MCA) using the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1987). We find that the application of such methodologies in the context of stakeholder management in long term planning activities may potentially limit the risks associated with long term strategic planning processes and decision-making in the infrastructure sector, particularly in terms of stakeholder attitudes and actions. One of the main purposes of stakeholder management is indeed to limit uncertainty and risk growing out of non-acceptance and hostility on the part of stakeholders vis-à-vis corporate strategies (Freeman, 1984; Harrison and St-John, 1996; Svendsen, 1998). In the previous section, we pointed out that there has been a concerted effort to define stakeholdership. Surprisingly, less effort has been made to define stakeholder management2. Freeman (1984: 53) has defined stakeholder management as “referring to the necessity for an organization to manage the relationships with its specific stakeholder groups in an action-oriented way”. Post, Preston and Sachs (2002a: 9) are

2 The debate over an appropriate definition of stakeholder management is still ongoing: Johnson-Cramer, Berman and Post (2003) argue that existing contributions only partially capture salient aspects of firm stakeholder management, and categorize those definitions in terms of ‗activities‘, ‗orientations‘ and ‗ethics‘. Other authors (Andriof et al., 2002: 9) argue that the term ‗stakeholder management‘ itself is “outdated and corporate centric in the recognition of engagement and consequent mutuality” and favor referring to the management of relationships with stakeholders rather than suggesting that stakeholders themselves are managed.

31


more specific: “The term “stakeholder management” refers to the development and implementation of organizational policies and practices that take into account the goals and concerns of all relevant stakeholders.” Carroll and Buchholtz (2009: 93-94) do not offer a definition per se, but they do provide some complementary insights in describing stakeholder management: (1) “as a challenge to see to it that the firm‟s primary stakeholders achieve their objectives and that other stakeholders are dealt with ethically and are also relatively satisfied”; and a means by which (2) “managers can become successful stewards of their stakeholders‟ resources by gaining knowledge about stakeholders and using this knowledge to predict and take care of their behaviors and actions”; and then by subsequently putting it into perspective by stating that (3) “the important functions of stakeholder management are to describe, to analyze, to understand, and, finally to manage”. These pronouncements share recognition of the importance of firm-stakeholder relationships and the need for action. In other words they share normative as well as descriptive/instrumental elements. Likewise, we take a descriptive/instrumental stance in describing and analyzing cases that showcase stakeholder management during the long term planning process for four large infrastructure hubs. Our objective corresponds closely with the Post, Preston and Sachs (2002a) description of stakeholder management as we develop practices for applying stakeholder management to long term planning processes, designing and testing methodologies that take into account, and balance, stakeholder interests. Before we discuss relevant literature that integrates the strategic planning process, stakeholder management and operational research, we will first look at important contributions to the corporate strategic planning literature, focusing particularly on long term planning. Although the term ‗stakeholder‘ can be traced back to a 1963 Stanford Research Institute3 memo, classic strategic planning literature (Ansoff, 1965) tends to separate stakeholder interests from those of the firm, and to see stakeholders as merely putting social constraints on corporate objectives. While it is fair to say that the 3

“Those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist” (taken from Friedman and Miles, 2006: 5).

32


traditional corporate planning literature has yet to embrace the idea of stakeholder management, Ansoff (1965) acknowledged more than four decades ago that corporate objectives should balance the conflicting claims of various firm stakeholders, so that each stakeholder is satisfied (cf. Friedman and Miles, 2006). In his seminal work, Freeman (1984) identifies the corporate planning literature (Ansoff, 1965), the systems theory literature (Ackoff, 1974), the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) literature (Dill, 1975) and the organization theory literature (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978) as historical sources of the stakeholder concept. He then concludes that soliciting stakeholder concerns is a necessary but insufficient exercise, as the goal of stakeholder management should be the incorporation of stakeholder interests in firm programs and policies. Mintzberg (1994a: 413) has little confidence in the ability of the traditional planning function to incorporate stakeholder interests, calling strategic planning an oxymoron as planning is about analysis and strategy about synthesis: “That planners can rise above the fray and do some kind of objective „stakeholder analysis‟ is, in our opinion (…) sheer nonsense.” Mintzberg (1994a) explicitly states that Freeman‘s stakeholder strategy formulation process is too mechanistic and that stakeholder logic, rather than a solution, is part of the problem. This is reflective of Mintzberg‘s contention that stakeholder analysis comes down to performing calculations of the wants and needs of different stakeholders without formally involving would-be stakeholders themselves, a kind of top-down exercise that he derides as “paving a neat way over all the messy affairs of power and politics” (Mintzberg, 1994a: 141). Nonetheless, in an article synthesizing his seminal work, Mintzberg contends that “plans can also be used to gain the tangible as well as moral support of influential outsiders. Written plans inform financiers, suppliers, government agencies and others about the intentions of the organization so that these groups can help it achieve its plans.” (Mintzberg, 1994b: 113) This is somewhat paradoxical as Mintzberg‘s ‗influential outsiders‘ are analogous to stakeholders. At the minimum it suggests that if firms want to integrate stakeholder management into their planning, they should go about it in a more cooperative way. We will describe in our cases cooperative

33


stakeholder based methodologies that have indeed been successfully implemented in complex long-range planning processes. The lack of attention to stakeholders and stakeholder management in the traditional strategic planning literature (‗traditional‘ as defined by the articles found in the leading management journals) is strengthened by the fact that since Mintzberg‘s book (1994a), we have found few meaningful contributions in the leading management journals with strategic planning as the core of the article, except Hamel (1996) and Grant (2003). We thereby make abstraction of subfields such as the literature on procedural justice of strategic planning processes (e.g., Kim and Mauborgne, 1998). Grant‘s (2003) article is particularly interesting from an analytical point of view as it provides an in-depth case study of the strategic planning processes of major oil companies which, similar to firms that manage large infrastructure hubs, must take into consideration long term capital intensive investments. More specifically, Grant uncovers how increased volatility and uncertainty affected planning within the firm, the planning horizon, and the formality of the process. First, long term plans of major oil companies span between 10 to 20 years, with plans 20 years out based on qualitative scenarios, setting up positions on environment impact for instance, but involving no formal resource commitment. Second, uncertainty leads to a general shortening of the planning horizon, so that long-lived investment projects of 40 years or more are no longer related to short and medium term planning for the coming five years or so. Third, increased uncertainty has a very limited impact on the use of new tools and concepts or on the quality of the strategic planning process. Fourth, stakeholder position analysis, or stakeholder management, is neither used as an evaluation technique, nor decision-supporting tool, nor as the intellectual basis for the planning process. Finally, although responsibility for the planning process is shared within the firm, there is no evidence that stakeholders have any formal involvement in the process. What Grant finds is particularly useful in understanding the impact of increased volatility and external pressure, hence uncertainty, on strategic planning systems.

34


From the above analysis of the traditional strategic planning literature we conclude that there is a weak link between long term corporate strategic planning and stakeholder management. At the same time the literature on public and non-profit organization strategic planning explicitly includes stakeholder analysis 4 as an important source of information and so part of the strategic planning process, particularly in drafting a mission statement and when it comes to the assessment of the external environment (Bryson, 1988; Albrechts, 2001). Allaert and De Klerck‘s (1998) work on strategic spatial planning also finds that governmental departments and agencies solicit information from stakeholders through interviews and workshops in forming their mission statements. Work in the operations research literature and in the stakeholder management literature itself also suggests that stakeholder management and long term strategic planning are explicitly linked to each other: in their case study of a major corporation Emshoff and Saaty (1982) show the application of an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to long range planning that (1) explicitly includes stakeholders in the evaluation of different forward planning process scenarios, and that (2) calls for taking several actors with different points of view and objectives into account to assess future directions. More recently Banville et al. (1998) look at planning processes, stakeholder management and operations research and find theoretical evidence for the contention that stakeholder management and decision-support methods (more broadly defined by Banville et al. (1998) as Multiple Criteria Decision Aid approaches or MCDA) can be closely interrelated, and conclude that a stakeholder approach in MCDA is both appropriate and desirable. Many case-based studies of the interrelation between stakeholder management, MCDA, and strategic planning have since been published using different MCDA methods in a variety of planning contexts including transportation and infrastructure planning (Vreeker et al., 2002; Bojorquez-Tapia et al., 2005; De Brucker and Verbeke, 2007; Macharis, 2007), land-use planning (Henn and Patz, 2007), power and energy 4

Defined as the identification of stakeholders and their stake in the organization, as well as the stakeholder‘s criteria for judging the performance of the organization (Bryson, 1988)

35


management (Vashishtha and Ramachandran, 2006), water, river and sediment management (Hamalainen et al., 2001; Munda, 2004; Linkov et al., 2006; Martin et al., 2007; Hermans et al., 2007), and corporate strategies in the fishing and the forest industries (Winn, 2001; Winn and Keller, 2001). Others have confirmed the validity of the stakeholder approach in using an Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) in strategic planning decision-making (Millet, 1998; Emshoff and Saaty, 1982; Saaty, 1982, 1990a, 1995; Hosseini and Brenner, 1992; BojorquezTapia et al., 2005; Macharis (2000); Macharis (2007); and Lee et al., 2007), or argued that such approaches are appropriate for decision-making in complex planning processes (Banville et al., 1998; Winn and Keller, 2001; Munda, 2003; Henn and Patz, 2007). The research of Winn (2001) and Winn and Keller (2001) is particularly relevant as the methodology used in their Starkist and McMillan Bloedel Ltd. case studies respectively integrates qualitative case-based research coupled with structural modeling approaches used in decision analysis, resulting in a deepening of the methodological foundations of multi-stakeholder corporate decision-making, and thus contributing to closing the research gap in descriptive/analytic stakeholder theory. Clearly there is a need for case studies in other sectors focusing on making organizational decisions in the face of multiple stakeholder interests to improve our understanding of the potential of various decision modeling methodologies for implementing stakeholder management and building stakeholder theory (Winn, 2001). The cases in this thesis make a contribution to this end. Moreover, we offer a more integrated approach in featuring multiple case studies within a single sector but at the same time from different planning contexts. Furthermore, unlike most work, which focuses on only one, or a limited number of cases (e.g., Winn, 2001; Winn and Keller, 2001; Munda, 2004; Bojorquez-Tapia et al., 2005), we test and compare the methodology across several cases.

36


1.2.5. Dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management

The most substantial contribution of this thesis is the in-depth analysis of the dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management, and how these influence long term strategic planning processes and decision-making in general. The analyses presented are based on an extensive literature review of stakeholder theory and stakeholder management literature, which was carried out with a focus on dynamic and spatial aspect content. That body of work is then evaluated for its validity in light of case-based evidence of the selected dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management. We adopted a three-phased approach for the literature review. We began with frequently cited books on stakeholder management and stakeholder theory, including Freeman (1984), Post, Preston and Sachs (2002b), Phillips (2003b), Svendsen (1998), Carroll and Buchholtz (2009) and Friedman and Miles (2006). The article by Donaldson and Preston (1995) is also included in this phase as it contains an analysis of the literature on stakeholder theory up to 1995. In the second phase we compiled a list of articles that appeared in mainstream management journals and in the business ethics literature on stakeholder theory and management. We selected the most frequently cited articles from that list. In the third phase, we combed through these articles looking for references to dynamic and spatial aspects of the stakeholder concept or stakeholder theory. In some cases we found references that are, strictly speaking, beyond the scope of the management and ethics literature, but that are nonetheless worthy of inclusion in our survey. We also included studies that mentioned the word ‗stakeholder‘ either in their title or in their bibliography. A very broad survey was needed as stakeholder theory draws from other fields including resource dependence theory, institutional theory, and systems theory, and also from the corporate social responsibility literature and others. In the end, few of these articles made the final selection as in their arguments they did not explicitly consider either the stakeholder concept or stakeholder theory.

37


As a result, some much-cited articles were not included, including ones on resource dependency theory (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003) 5, institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), corporate social responsibility (Burke and Logsdon, 1996; Gladwin et al., 1995), organization studies and ethics (Victor and Cullen, 1988), and a number of ‗mixed topic‘ articles in which there was an attempt to combine theories, such as Oliver‘s (1991) convergence of institutional theory and resource dependency theory. We constructed a table that contains 60 selected references6 in which we include statements pertaining to dynamic and/or spatial aspects of stakeholder management. We provide an overview in Table 1.1, listing the name of the author or authors, year of publication, type of publication, and either directly quote or paraphrase what was written about dynamic and/or spatial aspects. We also specifically say whether we find implicit or explicit the reference to dynamic or spatial aspects. By explicit we mean for example, that in the case of dynamic aspects, words like ‗time‘, ‗history‘, ‗future‘, etc. were used in combination with the stakeholder concept. For spatial aspects, we scanned for words like ‗geography‘ and ‗location‘ or for references to geographic scope (local, regional, national, and international) in the same sentence as stakeholder concept content. There are cases when statements on dynamic and spatial aspects are made based on another work that is referenced. In such cases, if the other work did not qualify on its own for inclusion in the survey, we clearly state that to be the case. We list books first in Table 1.1, starting with Freeman (1984). The articles that we have selected are listed in chronological order. Table 1.2 provides a summary of Table 1.1. No direct quotes are provided in Table 1.2; it lists the particular aspect of stakeholder theory that is addressed, analytic (N) or normative (N), and indicates whether the contribution is theoretical, empirical (meaning that positive/quantitative research 5

Our three-phased approach can be illustrated by the following example: in the introduction to the Classic Edition of his seminal work with Salancik, Pfeffer writes about challenges and critiques of resource dependency theory that “There is little doubt that geography matters (…) and organizational research would well be served to explore the effects of proximity on numerous phenomena, including interorganizational relationships. However space probably matters more or less depending on the time period, as communication technologies and even norms about economic and social relations at a distance have changed” (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003: xx). This observation appears to be based on work by Palmer (1983), Palmer et al. (1993) and Kono et al. (1998) on directorate interlocks which we concluded in the end has no relation to stakeholder theory or stakeholder management. 6 Some references are treated in one entry, if it concerns articles based on books, books based on earlier published articles as well as books from the same author. This yields 55 entries in Table 1.1.

38


methods were applied) or case-based. Furthermore, any work that did not include dynamic or spatial aspects of stakeholder management was omitted from Table 1.2 to facilitate interpretation.

39

spatial aspects

publication and publisher

Press.

(2007), Book, Yale University

Freeman, Harrison and Wicks

Publishing;

Spatial

Freeman (1984), Book, Pitman Dynamic

Dynamic and

Author, year, type of

Explicit/Implicit

change

depending

on

the

strategic

issue

under

region.”

40

issues for management, and these issues vary from region to

(1)(1984: 16; 2007: 39): “State governments offer a different set of Explicit

stakeholder‟s longer term objective.”

analysis (iii) what the linkage is between the current issue and the

(ii) what the stakeholder wants to accomplish on the issue under

(i) what the stakeholder is trying to accomplish over the long term

(4)(1984: 133): ― The manager (…) may look at objectives in terms of Explicit

consideration.

stakes

(3)(1984: 57; 2007: 64): Stakeholders change over time and their Explicit

to turn new external changes into internal changes.

stakeholder concept must be sensitive to future change, and able

(2)(1984: 46): The strategic management model using the Explicit

in the corporation.‖

relationships of lesser importance, who come to have a stake (…)

emergence of several new groups and the restructuring of old

(1)(1984: 13): ― External change can be understood in terms of Implicit

Short Description

Table 1.1: Dynamic and spatial aspects in stakeholder management and stakeholder theory literature


41

next, and even from person to person.”

(…) vary across cultures, from one historical time period to the

Koehler Publishers

spatial distance between the organization and its stakeholders.

proximity has to be considered as a criterion. It is defined as the

(2) (2009: 90): In addition to legitimacy, power and urgency, also Explicit

local governments.

e.g., the government stakeholder group includes federal, state and

(1)(2009: 87): Each stakeholder group is composed of subgroups: Implicit

12: ― Ideas about the nature and extent of corporate responsibilities Explicit

Spatial

they have changed over time.”

evolved under the rubric of social responsibility to recognize how

(2) (1979: 501): “One need not ponder the social issues that have Explicit

“dynamic, flowing and time-dependent fashion.‖

in time”. Stakeholders move from category to category in a

strategic, environmental) can only be done at ― a particular point

(1) (2009: 88): The division of stakeholders into subsets (core, Explicit

Svendsen (1998), Book, Berrett- Dynamic

Book, South-Western (7 Edition)

th

Carroll and Buchholtz (2009),

of Management Review

Carroll (1979), Article, Academy Dynamic

different geographical levels (national, international).

some and detriment of others, and so interest groups lobby at

interests. Some communities are able to use laws to the benefit of

It includes groups based on a common geography and/or shared

(2)(2007: 35-36): The notion of community is increasingly complex. Explicit


stakeholders.”

Review

Spatial

long term value, is determined by its relationships with critical

Article, California Management

42

the course of its operations.”

locations and linked with numerous other entities and individuals in

„extended enterprise‟, engaged in diverse functions at multiple

(2002b: 25): “The contemporary large corporation has become an Explicit

change over time.”

learning, because stakeholder characteristics and interests

(4) (2002b: 25): “Successful stakeholder management also involves Explicit

a few well-observed cases.

following ― path dependencies‖ and ― complex contingencies‖ in

(3) (2002b: 14): The Stakeholder View is tested by closely Implicit

of a firm to generate sustainable wealth over time, and hence its

(2) (2002b: 9): “The new Stakeholder view posits that the capacity Explicit

critical one at a particular time or on a particular issue.”

(1) (2002b: 8): ― Any stakeholder relationship may be the most Explicit

what constitutes socially responsible behavior.

(2) 13: Even within the same country there may be disagreement on Implicit

communities and even nation states.”

corporations and has diminished corporate ties to local

(1) 9: “Globalization has increased the size and reach of many Implicit

Post, Preston and Sachs (2002b),

Book, Stanford University Press

Post, Preston and Sachs (2002a), Dynamic

Spatial


(1) (2002: 1): Previous literature has led to a lack of appreciation for Explicit

and

Miles

(2006),

Book, Oxford University Press

Friedman

43

(2) (2006: 36): In regard to normative stakeholder theory: ― if ideas

30 year analysis of relations between Greenpeace and firms).

interests of either side. Illustration with the Greenpeace case (ca.

by stakeholders and/or organization (iv) change of material

emergence of contingent factors (iii) change in sets of ideas held

Change can occur through (i) institutional support (ii)

over time” and “how and why such changes occur”. (2002: 11):

(2002), Dynamic

Studies

Miles

None

“the extent to which organization/stakeholder relations change

and

Spatial

still occupy more managerial attention at any given time.”

demands is logically secondary – though these demands may

(3) (2003a: 38; 2003b: 134): ― Attention to derivative stakeholder Explicit

normative stakeholders are affected will vary over time).

activist groups: actual impacts of protests and which groups of

the dynamic nature of stakeholder relations” (Example of

(2) (2003a: 37; 2003b: 133): “Stakeholder legitimacy is sensitive to Explicit

stakeholder status can change across both time and issue”.

between the various categories of stakeholders and that

(1) (2003a: 33; 2003b: 131): It is difficult to “draw clear lines Explicit

Article, Journal of Management

Friedman

Koehler Publishers

Phillips (2003b), Book, Berrett-

Ethics Quarterly

Phillips (2003a), Article, Business Dynamic


(2006), Book, Routledge Spatial

Van Tulder and van der Zwart Dynamic

Spatial

setting;

and

the

impact

of

international

reputation

effects

(…),

the

self-representation

of

44

practices in general and the approach towards specific issues

international companies on CSR issues (…) and environmental

(…),

for codes of conduct (…), environmental reporting strategies

strategies, strong country of origin effects have been identified

(2) 261: “As regards International Corporate Responsibility (ICR) Implicit

stakeholders groups has to be assessed more systematically.”

international

„corporate citizen‟ often acquires a different meaning in an

the status of primary stakeholders and vice-versa; the concept

home and host stakeholders; secondary stakeholders can take

stakeholder management: a distinction has to be drawn between

to consider a number of additional dimensions vis-à-vis national

(1) 261: ― In international stakeholder management, managers have Explicit

None

be presumed to be time and place dependent.”

the good and the right are connected with norms (…) than they can

(2006: 36): In regard to normative stakeholder theory: “if ideas of Explicit

they can be presumed to be time and place dependent.”

of the good and the right are connected with norms (…) than Explicit


and

Shapiro

and

Evan

(1991),

Business Ethics Quarterly

Goodpaster

Economics Spatial

Article, Dynamic

Article, Journal of Behavioral

Preston and Sapienza (1990), Dynamic

Economics Spatial

(1990), Dynamic

Article, Journal of Behavioral

Freeman

Spatial

(1987), Dynamic

Article, Financial Management

Cornell

45

corporate objectives.

(2) 59: Stakeholders are actual or potential means or obstacles to Implicit

responsibilities, etc.

terms of the decision-maker‘s goals, objectives, values,

short- and long term implications for different parties and in

fact-gathering on the options available; and (2) evaluation of the

(1) 56: There should be two steps in a decision-making process: (1) Explicit

None

None

None

None

None

traditional balance sheet).

are included in the extended balance sheet (as opposed to the

7: Organizational liabilities from past as well as future transactions Implicit

such as global warming (…).”


Article,

Academy

of

Spatial

Hill and Jones (1992), Article, Dynamic

Management Executive

(1991),

Savage, Nix, Carlton and Blair Dynamic

Spatial

46

(1) 135: In contrast to what is assumed in agency theory, in Implicit

governments as a stakeholder.

66: Potential distinction between local, state and federal Implicit

stakeholders (…).”

goals for their relationships with current and potential

(2) 72: “To survive in the future organizations should establish Implicit

between the organization and the stakeholder.

depend on the specific context and the history of the relationship

(1) 65: Factors which affect the potential for threat or cooperation, Implicit

None

company.”

will be able to affect in only a minor way the interests of the

“some stakeholders, some of the time, will be affected a lot but

linkage between organizational success and ethical success,

(4) 61: In function of the existence of a pre-established harmony or Explicit

forms of anti-social behavior”.

a time horizon that is relatively long, may well avoid significant

in a highly effective legal and regulatory environment and given

stakeholder analysis “acknowledges that strategy, when placed

(3) 60: Strategic reasoning as the ultimate principle behind Explicit


Spatial

Donaldson and Dunfee (1994), Dynamic

Spatial

47

259: “Where moral rationally bounded, one should expect to find Explicit

None

organizations.”

Society

None

None

national and multinational diversification.”

the power of local communities and the general public by both

(2) 147: Diffusion of stakeholder power: “management may limit Implicit

with a national infrastructure.”

infrastructure, (…). the general public (…) provides the firm

(1) 133: “Local communities provide the firm with (…) local Implicit

stakeholder groups.”

subsequent period may shift the balance of power towards other

“change at one point in time may favor managers; change in a Explicit

93: “Future generations (…) can be thought of as stakeholders of Implicit

Spatial

may

(2) 136: Power differentials are unlikely to be unidirectional:

continue for more prolonged periods of time.

stakeholder-agency theory disequilibrium conditions

Starik (1994), Article, Business & Dynamic

Ethics Quarterly

Langtry (1994), Article, Business Dynamic

Journal of Management Studies


48

(4) 277: It is particularly likely that there will be a need to consider

consequences confined to New Zealand).

New Zealand public auction rules as long as doing so had

other communities” (Example of Lithuanian managers following

even in instances when they are consistent with the norms of

community of origin (…) they should (…) be allowed to stand, Explicit

(3) 269: “When norms have an impact solely within their

exclusively geographic.)

article the definition of community is not explicitly or

members through micro-social contracts. (Note that in this

is that local communities may specify ethical norms for their

(micro-contracts) exists; the first principle of the macro-contract

of specific community-level norms regulating economic activity Implicit

(2) 261-262: A macro-social contract that allows for the generation

negotiation processes and wage levels in developing countries.).

confronted by multinational managers (Examples include

complexity of business situations, e.g., ethical problems often

stakeholder approaches, fail to reflect the context-specific

(1) 254-255: Existing normative concepts and theories, such as Implicit

from system to system, and that they shift significantly over time.”

Review Spatial

that moral norms governing socioeconomic interaction vary widely

Article, Academy of Management


Spatial

Management Review

Spatial

Jones (1995), Article, Academy of Dynamic

Review

article, Academy of Management

Donaldson and Preston (1995), Dynamic

49

opportunism and/or are not perceived as efficient.

certain steps, e.g., locating production overseas, as they may signal

insecurity, and trust and cooperation can be lost when a firm takes

431: Mobile resources can create a sense of instability and Implicit

suppliers is given).

mutually trusting relationships (The example of car parts

(4) 426-427: Long term relationships indicative of cooperative, Implicit

decisions in regard to stakeholders.

(3) 418: The cumulative effect on reputation of firm policies and Implicit

rewards of cooperation (with stakeholders).

(2) 416: The immediate rewards of opportunism versus the distant Implicit

term self-interest which can result in non-efficient solutions.

(1) 414: Potentially efficient choices in the long term versus short Implicit

None

None

identifying norms for different international communities).

especially relevant in global business ethics (e.g., research on

business practices. Integrated Social Contracts Theory (ISCT) is

the norms of several discrete communities in evaluating global Implicit


(1995),

Suchman (1995)

Dynamic

Spatial

Article, Dynamic

Academy of Management Review

Clarkson

50

period of time.”

in rapid succession or are left unaddressed for a significant

(2) 594: Legitimacy can be threatened “if misfortunes either arrive Explicit

long lasting.”

an episodic or transitory basis from those that are continual or

on focus and temporal texture, i. e. “dynamics that operate on

(1) 583: The various types of legitimacy can be categorized based Explicit

employees and costumers.”

concern to (…) communities in which firms have operations,

(2) 99: “Social issues concerning environmental pollution are of Implicit

which firms operate.

relationships with stakeholders, including the communities in

methodology varies depending on how firms manage their

(1) 98: The model measuring corporate social performance and the Implicit

system.”

seek alternatives and may withdraw from that firm‟s stakeholder

time, that it is not being treated fairly or adequately (…) it will

(2) 112: “If any primary group (of stakeholders) perceives, over Explicit

social issue.”

determines, usually over an extended period of time, what is a

(1) 103: “A particular society (municipal, state or national) Explicit


Harrison and St. John (1996), Dynamic

Spatial

728: “(…) the claims of some stakeholders are sometimes being Implicit

51

49: The nature of interdependencies between organizations and Explicit

None

industry‟s history.”

according to the embeddedness of a stakeholder in a particular

(1996), Dynamic

Studies

Clarke

used to resist the claims of others and their prioritization varying

and

desirable, proper or appropriate.”

venue in which otherwise dubious activities appear unusually

setting, managers may attempt to locate to a more amicable

(2) 589: “Rather than conforming to the demands of a specific Explicit

will operate differently in different contexts.”

(1) 573: “The multifaceted character of legitimacy implies that it Implicit

legitimacy-management strategies through (…) time.”

from empirical research on the use and effectiveness of various Explicit

(4) 602: “The understanding of legitimacy might benefit greatly

mortality.

and their impact on short-run performance and long-run

Researchers could examine the dynamics of legitimacy profiles

Article, Journal of Management

Fineman

Spatial

Future research on legitimation dynamics should Explicit

distinguish between stages in the organizational life cycle.

(3) 602:


Spatial

exists if (i) a relationship or claim is ‗time sensitive‘ and (ii) it is

Review

52

and are critical to allow managers to meet legitimate claims and

showing dynamism over periods of time or variation in issues

(5) 882: Power and urgency are dynamic stakeholder attributes Explicit

(ANC example).

change, and “vary from issue to issue and from time to time”

(4) 879: Managers should realize that stakeholder salience can Explicit

relationships or within a single relationship across time.”

(3) 870: “(…), urgency (…) can vary across stakeholder-manager Explicit

“(…) stakeholder-manager relations are (…) in constant flux.”

(2) 868: Stakeholder attributes are a variable state (not steady); 870: Implicit

important or critical to the stakeholder.

of three stakeholder attributes from static to dynamic: urgency

(1) 867: Adding urgency as a stakeholder attribute moves the model Explicit

None

None


Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997), Dynamic

Range Planning

Campbell (1997), Article, Long Dynamic

None

Executive Spatial

external stakeholders can change over time.



Spatial

(1999),

Spatial

Article,

and

Zaheer


Kostova

of Spatial

(1999), Dynamic

Academy

Management Journal

(1999),

Agle, Mitchell and Sonnenfeld Dynamic

Spatial

Article, Dynamic


Frooman

Decision

Key (1999), Article, Management Dynamic


Rowley (1997), Article, Academy Dynamic

Spatial

53

organizations in terms of their legitimacy (…).”

77: ― (…) over time MNEs may become more like domestic Implicit

None

None

None

None

None

None

aggregate into unique patterns of influence.”

890: “(…) each firm faces a different set of stakeholders, which Implicit

None

None

protect legitimate interests.


Spatial

Article,

Academy

Management Journal

(1999),

of Spatial

Berman, Wicks, Kotha and Jones Dynamic

Spatial

None

None

None

54

(iii) the response of external markets to rents.

rights, (ii) the instability of bargaining power profiles over time and

advantage also erodes due to (i) the ambiguous nature of property

Science

None 128: Since competitive advantage erodes over time, appropriated Implicit

Spatial

None

greater extent by some host environments than by others.”

(2) 77: “The overall legitimacy of an MNE may be affected to a Implicit

understand the extent of the adjustment that are required.

correctly interpret local institutional requirements and hence to

institutions of those countries - affects the ability of managers to

difference between the regulatory, cognitive and normative

(1) 68: The institutional distance between countries - defined as the Implicit

Coff (1999), Article, Organization Dynamic

Journal


Harrison and Freeman (1999), Dynamic

Review


(1999), Spatial

Article, Dynamic

Spatial

None

organization: ― At any given time, some stakeholders will be

Review

55

more important than others”.

stakeholders is likely to vary over the life cycle of that

(1) 405: The relationship between an organization and its primary Explicit

None


Jawahar and McLaughlin (2001), Dynamic

Spatial

parties.”

“develops over time in interaction with internal and external

Spatial


Management

44: Reference to Gioia (1998: 45): organizational identity Implicit

Strategic

None

None

None

None

None

Scott and Lane (2000), Article, Dynamic

Review

Article,

McWilliams and Siegel (2000), Dynamic


Jones and Wicks (1999), Article, Dynamic

Journal of Business Ethics

Shankman


Spatial

(2001), Dynamic

Management

Keim

Strategic

and

Society

Spatial

Winn (2001), Article, Business & Dynamic

Journal

Article,

Hillman

Spatial

(2)

(1)

(3)

(2)

(1)

56

158: “(…) the context dependence and situation specificity of Explicit

issue specific and thus temporary.”

136: “Any definition of stakeholder groups is situation and Implicit

management thought (…).” (Emphasis added)

highlight the role of history (…) industry and schools of

Grounded and case-based studies especially have the power to

stakeholder research has not been studied very closely.

158: “(…) the context dependence and situation specificity of Explicit

issue specific and thus temporary.”

136: “Any definition of stakeholder groups is situation and Explicit

culture and history.”

136: “The naming and grouping of stakeholders is bound by Explicit

None

None

None

different strategies to deal with the same stakeholder over time.”

deal with different stakeholders at a given time but (…) use Explicit

(2) 410: “(…) organizations (…) not only use different strategies to


cycle stage. None


Review

“diachronic heterogeneity reflects that the composition of the

Waddock, Husted and Rahman)

Business Studies

Article, Journal of International Spatial

Maignan and Ralston (2002), Dynamic

Spatial

synchronic, diachronic and spatial depending on the context:

chapter in edited book (Andriof,

“(…)

companies based in

different

countries

hold Implicit

57

substantially different perspectives on (i) how important it is to be

509:

None

None

dynamics of stakeholder relationships.”

time would be misleading for the corporation, as it would miss the

single stakeholder set made of the same stakeholder groupings over

stakeholder set to be attended changes over time (…) focusing on a

116-117: Identification of three types of stakeholder heterogeneity: Explicit

Beaulieu and Pasquero (2002), Dynamic

Spatial

117: A firm‘s level of CSR depends on, inter alia, its industry life Implicit

McWilliams and Siegel (2001), Dynamic

schools of management thought (…). (Emphasis added)

highlight (…) country and regional context, industry and

Grounded and case-based studies especially have the power to

stakeholder research has not been studied very closely.


Freeman and

Spatial

Wicks Dynamic

Management

(2002), Dynamic

(2003), Article, Business Ethics

Phillips,

Journal

Strategic

Article,

Verbeke

and

Buysse

or national,

sub-national or local

None

58

context faced by the firm.”

environmental strategy chosen and the relevant institutional

(4) 467: “(…) key stakeholders may vary substantially upon the

governments and public agencies.

suppliers, or rivals,

divided between domestic and international, be they customers, Implicit

(3) 461: The list of stakeholders included in the model is clearly Implicit

affiliates.”

spill-over effects from one affiliate‟s behavior to other

stakeholders dispersed over multiple countries as well as the

additional complexity of a broader institutional field of

(2) 459: Reference to Rugman and Verbeke (2001): “MNEs face the Implicit

does matter, even in a small open economy.”

(1) 454: Research assumption: “(…) the local institutional context Implicit

management in the industry‟s history.”

stakeholder pressures, according to the heritage of stakeholder

463: “(…) industries vary in their perception of – and response to – Implicit

issues are more important to emphasize.”

publically perceived as socially responsible and (ii) which CSR


and

Walsh

(2006),

Business & Society

Pedersen


Spatial

Article, Dynamic

Spatial

Walsh (2005), Article, Academy Dynamic

Spatial

59

(2) 148-150: Novozymes case study: difficulties to balance global Implicit

results of a stakeholder dialogue are implemented.

(1) 144: Local interpretations may influence the way in which the Implicit

definitions.”

times, and new issues can easily be included in existing

139: “CSR means different things to different people at different Explicit

None

None

None

time.”

customers, managers and shareholders all win continuously over

Article, Organization Science

None 365: “Business is about putting together a deal so that suppliers, Explicit

Spatial

None

None

Freeman, Wicks, Parmar (2004), Dynamic

Quarterly

Spatial

(2003); Dynamic

Article, Administrative Science

Margolis

Quarterly


Campbell

(2007),

Article, Dynamic

60

962: “(…) the institutional terrain within which corporations act is Explicit

ethical reasoning within organizations (Victor and Cullen, 1998).

and 144: Reference to ‗locus of analysis‘ dimension of analyzing

140: Reference to the hypernorms of Donaldson and Dunfee (1994) Implicit

Review Spatial

of corporate culture.


different for firms based in other countries.

do state that response rates to stakeholder requests could be

stakeholder requests made against US based firms; the authors

(2) 778: The limitation of the model is that the sample includes only Implicit

international operations.

― geographic scope‖ is defined by having, or not having,

more far reaching political capital (…).” A stakeholder‘s

(1) 772: “A broad geographic scope may give groups access to Explicit

142: Reference to Denison (1996); the time horizon as a dimension Implicit

Spatial

potential revenue stream.”

stream is likely to be more salient than one that is targeting a

(2) 769: ― A stakeholder (…) targeting (…) a firm‟s current revenue Implicit

or less salient.”

firm evolves over time, specific stakeholder groups become more

(1) 766: Reference to Jawahar and McLaughlin (2001): “(…) as a Explicit

Jones, Felps and Bigley (2007), Dynamic

Strategic Management Journal

Eesley and Lenox (2006), Article, Dynamic

standards with adaptation to local conditions.


Spatial

Article,

Management Journal

(2008),

Strategic Spatial

Julian, Ofori-Dankwa and Justis Dynamic


None

None

61

Verbeke (2003).

1227: Reference to the stakeholder classification of Buysse and Implicit

over time, rather than an objective reality.”

perceptions of stakeholders‟ salience comprise a reality shaped

McLaughlin (2001) and Eesley and Lenox (2006): “(…) managers‟

Article,

Riveira-Torres (2008),

targets.

the setting of local environmental standards, benchmarks or

between those local communities and central authorities lead to

corporations and stakeholders at the local community level, and

(2) 961: Reference to US cases in which dialogue between Implicit

understand why.”

across countries and much more research is required to

tendency toward socially responsible corporate behavior varies

(1) 947: Reference to Maignan and Ralston (2002): “(…) the Implicit

1226: Reference to Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997); Jawahar and Explicit

Spatial

causing this terrain to shift over time.”

not static. Instead there are dynamic pressures that ebb and flow

Murillo-Luna, Garces-Aberye and Dynamic



and

Article,

Phillips

without

publication

numbering)

Journal

Article,

(2009),

and

Management

Bosse

Harrison,

Management Journal

(2009),

Bosse,

Spatial

page

(online

Strategic

Phillips Dynamic

Strategic

Harrison Dynamic

62

between events that are significant to stakeholders.”

also explains situations in which significant time elapses

(4) Reference to Wade-Benzoni (2002): “Generalized exchange Implicit

expected to pursue in the future”.

other decisions or actions the firm has pursued in the past or is

(3) A stakeholder might put “a decision or action in the context of Explicit

influence on management decisions.

of fair distribution of value and the history of stakeholder

(2) Relationships with primary stakeholders are based on the history Implicit

trends.”

incumbent firms exiting an industry, and social influences or

factors, including innovations, new firms entering and

(1) “Stakeholder utility functions can change due to a number of Implicit

None

reciprocity‘).

were in prior time periods” (concept of ‗intergenerational

heavily influenced by their perceptions of how fair or unfair parties

bequeath benefits or burdens to actors in future time periods is

conditions, the extent to which actors in the present time period

451: Reference to Wade-Benzoni (2002): “(…) under certain Explicit


Spatial

None

63

of immediate reciprocation.”

stakeholders tend to accrue over time as compared to the effects

(5) “The beneficial effects of generalized reciprocity among Explicit


Theory/Case(s) Theory Theory/Case(s) Theory/Case(s) Theory

Theory Theory

Theory Empirical Theory Case(s)

A, N A A A N A A A N A A N N A A A A A A A A A A

Freeman (1984); Freeman et al. (2007)

Carroll (1979); Carroll & Buchholtz (2009)

Svendsen (1998)

Post, Preston and Sachs (2002a, 2002b)

Phillips (2003a, 2003b)

Friedman and Miles (2002, 2006)

Van Tulder and van der Zwart (2006)

Cornell and Shapiro (1987)

Goodpaster (1991)

Savage, Nix, Carlton and Blair (1991)

Hill and Jones (1992)

Starik (1994)

Donaldson and Dunfee (1994)

Jones (1995)

Clarkson (1995)

Suchman (1995)

Fineman and Clarke (1996)

Harrison and St-John (1996)

Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997)

Rowley (1997)

Kostova and Zaheer (1999)

Coff (1999)

Scott and Lane (2000)

64

Theory

Theory

Theory

Theory

Theory

Theory/Case(s)

Theory

Theory

Theory

Theory/Case(s)

Theory/Case(s)

Theory/Case(s)

Type

Taxonomy

Selected references

X

X

X

O

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

O

X

X

X

X

X

X

Dynamic

Reference(s)

Implicit

Implicit

Implicit

Implicit

Implicit

Implicit

Implicit

Remarks

O

O

X

X

O

O

O

X

O

X

X

O

X

X

O

O

X

X

O

X

X

X

X

Spatial

Implicit, IB

Implicit

Implicit

Implicit, IB

Implicit, IB

Implicit, IB

Implicit

IB

Implicit, IB

Remarks

AMR

OS

AMR

AMR

AMR

AME

JMS

AMR

AMR

AMR

AMR

BS

JMS

AME

BEQ

FM

Book

JMS, Book

BEQ, Book

CMR, Book

Book

AMR, Book

Book

Publication

Table 1.2: Summary of the presence of dynamic and spatial aspects in stakeholder management and stakeholder theory literature


Empirical Theory Empirical

A A A N,A A A A A A A A

Beaulieu and Pasquero (2002)

Maignan and Ralston (2002)

Buysse and Verbeke (2002)

Freeman, Wicks, Parmar (2004)

Pedersen (2006)

Eesley and Lenox (2006)

Jones, Felps and Bigley (2007)

Campbell (2007)

Murillo-Luna et al. (2008)

Bosse, Phillips and Harrison (2009)

Harrison, Bosse and Phillips (2009)

SMJ JIBS JMS CMR OS BEQ BS


Journal of Management Studies

California Management Review

Organization Science

Business Ethics Quarterly

Business & Society

AME

Journal of International Business Studies

AMR


Academy of Management Executive

Journals

Case(s)

A

McWilliams and Siegel (2001)

Theory

A

Winn (2001)

IB

65

Analytical

Normative

Taxonomy

Theory

Theory

Theory

Theory

Empirical

Empirical

Case(s)

Theory

Case(s)

A

Jawahar and McLaughlin (2001)

Reference(s)

Reference(s)

Reference(s)

Reference(s)

Implicit

Implicit

O

O

X

X

X

X

X

O

X

X

X

O

X

O

Reference(s)

Implicit

Reference(s)

IB

Implicit

Implicit, IB

Implicit, IB

Implicit

Based on international business examples or research

A

N

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

O

X

X

X

X


SMJ

SMJ

SMJ

AMR

AMR

SMJ

BSR

OS

SMJ

JIBS

Ed. Book Ch.

AMR

BS

AMR

FM

Financial Management

66

Note: X = Dynamic or spatial aspect is present; O = Dynamic or spatial aspect not present

BSR

Business & Society Review



Our analysis of the literature leads us to make four observations. First, almost all of the books that we include provide elements of dynamic or spatial aspects, sometimes both. This may be because books, in contrast to much shorter journal articles, can cover a wider range of issues and deal with examples and cases in greater depth. Among all of the books, Friedman and Miles (2006) is the only one that identifies dynamic aspects based on empirical research. More specifically, Friedman and Miles (2006) reproduce a Greenpeace case that they had originally published as an article in 2002. Each of the other books only point to dynamic and spatial aspects in a theoretical, somewhat abstract way, supplying no examples or applications of the theory. None of the books including Friedman and Miles (2006) has a chapter, section, or even a paragraph, exclusively on dynamic or spatial aspects. In every case, what is given in Table 1.1 is a ‗by-product‘ of other arguments. The articles included in Table 1.1 are more heterogeneous in this regard. An important number of them mention only one aspect or none at all, the second group being eliminated from Table 1.2. With the exception of Beaulieu and Pasquero (2002), neither the books nor the articles that we list have as their core argument the existence of dynamic or spatial aspects. Beaulieu and Pasquero‘s Chartered Accountants‘ Cooperation of Québec case study takes in four major issues faced by the organization over a long time period (from an issue in 1946 to an issue in 1999). They find, inter alia, that recognizing stakeholder heterogeneity is a crucial element of management processes, and identify three types of heterogeneity, of which two are explicitly linked to dynamic aspects (‗synchronic heterogeneity‘ and ‗diachronic heterogeneity‘) and one linked to the density of stakeholder sets depending on the issue under consideration (which they define in rather abstract terms as ‗spatial heterogeneity‘; this concept does not explicitly refer to a ‗real‘ spatial or geographic aspect). Beaulieu and Pasquero (2002) argue that stakeholder theory needs to include these forms of heterogeneity, concluding that this is “a far cry from the conventional textbook, somewhat botanical, presentation of classifying and attending statically defined stakeholder claims” (2002: 117).

67


Second, we found that the analytic stakeholder theory literature does include some dynamic and spatial aspects (see Table 1.2). In contrast to the normative stakeholder theory literature, an important part of the analytic stakeholder theory literature is grounded in empirical research, whether qualitative, or more descriptive, like studies on how stakeholder management is applied in practice or, to a lesser extent, quantitative with studies on the link between firm performance and the adoption of stakeholder management and/or CSR related activities. Nevertheless, except again Beaulieu and Pasquero (2002), none of the work listed could be said to have dynamic and spatial aspects as part of their core argument. Indeed, other than Beaulieu and Pasquero (2002) and Friedman and Miles (2002, 2006), none of the other sources more than mentions the existence of these dynamic and spatial aspects in their introduction, or briefly deals with them in their conclusion. Furthermore, more recent work, including empirical research appearing in the Strategic Management Journal, not only does not add new elements in terms of dynamic and spatial aspects, but simply references previous work that contains dynamic and spatial aspects. Third, purely theory-building work, or work that deals exclusively with normative stakeholder theory, such as the 1999 convergence debate, does not mention dynamic or spatial aspects. Donaldson and Preston‘s (1995) work for instance, does not contain one reference to dynamic or spatial aspects, and subsequent normative stakeholder theory is also largely devoid of such references. Indeed few meaningful contributions to these areas have been made since the convergence debate, though some authors have written what could be called ‗synthesizing‘ theoretical articles following Jones and Wicks‘ (1999) article on convergent stakeholder theory and reactions to it. Some examples of such ‗synthesizing‘ views are Phillips, Freeman and Wicks (2003), Freeman, Wicks and Parmar (2004), and Walsh (2005). In fact, even though not core to his work, Phillips (2003a, 2003b) offers the most significant examples of normative stakeholder theory containing dynamic aspects. Fourth, among the works selected for the literature review that mention dynamic or spatial aspects, nearly half do so in an implicit way. A significant number of the works included in the review touch on spatial aspects of stakeholder management, using MNE

68


examples or cases to at least show that there is a geographic dimension to stakeholder management. We conclude from these observations that most researchers interested in stakeholder management do not consider the dynamic and spatial aspects of it to be of primary importance, treating them rather as theoretical constructs with no explicit link to managerial activities such as corporate planning. Nonetheless, researchers who do find the dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management worthy of note suggest that further research on those aspects may have an influence on the type of strategies firms adopt to handle stakeholder management issues (Beaulieu and Pasquero, 2002). Winn (2001: 158-159) summarizes best what is lacking in the literature, and what kind of work needs to be undertaken now: “Similar to this inherent fluidity of stakeholder definition, the context dependence and situation specificity of stakeholder research has not been studied very closely. Grounded and case-based studies especially have the power to highlight the role of history, country and regional context, industry, and schools of management thought (…). Although situation specificity has been mentioned in many stakeholder articles, it has been treated more as a handicap to developing broadly applicable, generalizable models than as a potentially constitutive aspect of stakeholder theory – of theoretical value in its own right.” The literature review that we have undertaken from Freeman (1984) onward, leads us to agree entirely with Winn‘s arguments. In response, we follow Winn (2001) and Beaulieu and Pasquero (2002), and look at the contexts and situations of four cases dealing with long term strategic planning for large scale infrastructure hubs to show the importance of the dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management. In the next section we will outline the general research methodology we used and briefly describe the cases and how they relate to one another.

69


1.3. Research method and general introduction to the case study chapters

1.3.1. General description of the research method

We have chosen to conduct multiple case study analyses using qualitative research methods as these allow us to answer a wide range of ‗how‘ and ‗why‘ questions about contemporary phenomena in a real-life context (Yin, 2009). The case study method is particularly applicable to the study of organizational and managerial processes, including decision-making, program development, implementation, and organizational change, among others, as it allows for capturing and encompassing more of the elements of complex social problems than other research methods (Yin, 2009). Thus there is a good fit between the advantages of case study research and the research topic of stakeholder management in the long term planning processes for large infrastructure hubs. In short, this research method fits our criteria and, we believe, will allow us to demonstrate - as no other method would - organizational and managerial processes in a complex setting. Nonetheless, we are aware of the concerns some researchers have about case study analysis, the most important one being perhaps the issue of (lack of) scientific generalization. Several researchers (Yin, 2009; Gibbert et al., 2008; Flyvbjerg, 2006) have warned that an important distinction has to be made between analytical and statistical generalization. In case study research, findings are used to expand and generalize theories (analytical generalization) rather than to generalize them to populations or universes (statistical generalization). This approach implies that random sampling is less appropriate for case study research and that cases should be chosen rather in terms of their validity (Flyvbjerg, 2006). We explain in section 1.3.2 of this chapter how we chose our cases. Cases are often based on real management situations, including interactions between researchers and practitioners (Eisenhardt, 1989; Westbrook, 1995; Gibbert, Ruigrok and

70


Wicki, 2008). In strategic management research, case studies are considered useful in the early phases of development of new theory. Stakeholder theory is a relatively ― young‖ theory of the firm, and a number of significant contributions to stakeholder theory have indeed been based on case study analysis using qualitative research methods (Savage et al., 1991; Frooman, 1999; Winn, 2001; Beaulieu and Pasquero, 2002; Friedman and Miles, 2002). More established theories of strategic planning have also used case study research quite extensively (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985; Langley, 1988; Grant, 2003). Hence, there is considerable evidence suggesting that a qualitative case study approach is a valid method for the study of stakeholder theory and strategic planning. Gephart (2004) has discussed the advantages of qualitative research versus quantitative research, such as: (1) the possibility to broaden concepts and theories through wellsubstantiated conceptual insights; (2) the potential to provide insights not attainable by quantitative research that can contribute to a better understanding of the social processes underlying management; and (3) the enriching of management studies with examples. He sees case studies as one among many research approaches in the larger field of qualitative research that also includes interviews, observations, grounded theory and textual analysis. In this thesis we describe and analyze four case studies of long term strategic planning processes, each of which makes use of the data collection methods identified by Yin (2009) and Gephart (2004): documentation, interviews, archival records and observational methods7. As our research concerns management processes, we believe that this is a valid, and the best approach (see Yin, 2009; Gephart, 2004; Pratt, 2009; Gibbert et al., 2008). In each case, we used participant observation to obtain information. Participant observation “involves social interaction in the field with subjects, direct observation of relevant events, formal and informal interviewing, some counting, collection of documents, and flexibility in the direction the study takes” (Gephart, 2004: 458, based

7

We exclude physical artifacts.

71


on McCall and Simmons, 1969)8. For a topic such as the role of stakeholder management in long term planning processes, this kind of method is indispensable. Access to information pertaining to organizational processes is otherwise very limited. These processes are not conducted continuously or predictably, and there is a degree of confidentiality surrounding them. Participant observation lets researchers play an active role in the collecting of relevant evidence for the cases. This thinking is consistent with the opportunities Yin (2009) sees for accessing what would otherwise be inaccessible. However, there are some bias risks associated with participant observation. Observers may come across situations: (1) that are contrary to the principles of good social science practice; (2) in which the participant might be called on to be less of a researcher and more of a supporter of the subject organization; (3) where calls are made for such a close association with a participant that a reluctance may grow to ask important questions or process important information; or (4) that impose such demands on the participant that observation of significant events becomes impractical/unfeasible, especially if the organization is widely-dispersed geographically (Yin, 2009: 113). Action research, which is gaining in importance as a research method in general and particularly in management research (Eden and Huxham, 1996; Brydon-Miller, Greenwood and Maguire, 2003; Dick, 2006; Reason and Bradbury, 2009), is quite similar to participant observation, but because the observer in action research is closely aligned with the subject organization, perhaps as an employee (Coghlan and Brannick, 2010), the observations are possibly more encompassing than they are in case study qualitative research. Proponents use similar arguments to support both methods, especially the desirability of being on-site to research problems that are actually faced by managers and their organizations. The same main criticisms also apply to both: limited potential for repeatability and generalization, an overall lack of rigor, and intrinsically timeconsuming and costly (Eden and Huxham, 1996; Flyvberg, 2006).

8

This definition is also very similar to what Mintzberg (1979) qualified as ‗direct research‘.

72


The difference between qualitative research by participant observation and by action research lies in the perceived intensity of collaboration between researcher and practitioner, although Yin (2009) considers members of staff and key decision makers also as valid observers9. Whereas most researchers who rely on participant observation use terms like ‗interaction‘ and ‗interviewing‘, action research is based on collaboration, possibly participation or intervention on the part of the researcher in the problemsolving process. Avison et al. (1999: 96) define case study research as ― interviewing and observing people in these real-life situations, without the insight associated with intervention (…). Such research frequently reports what practitioners say they do. In action research, the emphasis is more on what practitioners actually do.” Some researchers consider action research a variant of case study research, but whereas case researchers are considered independent observers, action researchers are participants in system implementation who simultaneously want to evaluate intervention techniques (Westbrook, 1995). This answers some of the concerns of Yin (2009), as obviously the observer-participant is more likely to be able to be present at important events, and there is no possibility of an imbalance between observer and participant. Nonetheless, engaging in action research can increase the risk of the other two potential sources of bias, the possibility of having to take up roles and activities contrary to good social science practice, and of becoming a supporter of the organization at the cost of objectivity. Avison et al. (1999) propose the need for a mutually acceptable ethical framework between researchers and practitioners, as a remedy for these forms of bias.

9 There seems to be some confusion or overlap in terms of definitions of participant observation and action research. Avison et al. (1999: 95-96) show that the academic community has not shown great interest in the action research method, but also that numerous articles that are based on ‗lessons learned‘ or ‗case studies‘ could potentially be classified as being of an ‗action research type‘ (even though they did not find the term ‗action research‘ in those articles). One of the reasons for this according to Avison et al. (1999) is that action research based work is more likely to be published in books than in articles, as action research often deals with large and complex stories that are less suited to the length of journal articles. Schein (2008) includes participant observation as one of several action research type methods, based on researcher and subject involvement; participant observation is the case where researcher involvement is high, but subject participation low, i.e. whereby “the researchers become totally involved, while at the same time, trying to remain objective and to minimize their impact on the participants” (Schein, 2008: 269).

73


Rapoport (1970: 499) sees action research10 as aiming “to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to the goals of social science by joint collaboration within a mutually acceptable ethical framework”. Susman and Evered (1978: 587) quote Rapoport‘s words and add a third goal of their own, namely to develop the “self-help competencies of people facing problems” (Susman and Evered, 1978: 588). One of the central elements of an action research project is what has been called a ‗client system‘, defined as “the social system in which members face problems to be solved by action research” (Susman and Evered, 1978:588). The client system can include face-to-face groups (between researchers and members of an organization), an organization, a network of organizations or a community. The client system assures that the theoretical knowledge and experience of the action researcher is combined with the practical knowledge and expertise of the other members of the client system, the idea being to provide immediate feedback and coproduce solutions. For each of our case studies, we will describe this client system, with particular attention to the role of stakeholders in the system, as well as the feedback mechanisms. Action research can be used effectively in solving practical concerns. It is dynamic in nature and thus, as Susman and Evered (1978) have pointed out, there is a natural affinity with planning processes. Other characteristics of action research include its explicit collaborative character11, the implication of system development (i.e., generating problem-solving procedures), the generation of theory grounded in action, its agnostic nature and the situational specificity. Researchers have suggested refinements that have led to diagnostic, empirical, participant, experimental, technical, mutual collaboration and participatory kinds of action research (Susman and Evered, 1978; Masters, 1995). For our purposes, participant, or participatory, and experimental action research is particularly applicable as we effectively collaborated as a researcher with the client system in all phases of the research process, and were not only active in collecting

10

An analysis of different definitions is found in Masters (1995). Four basic themes are identified in the definitions: empowerment of participants, collaboration through participation, acquisition of knowledge and social change. 11 Although not all authors agree with the necessarily collaborative character of the approach, see Eden and Huxham (1996).

74


data and providing feedback such as in diagnostic action research, but also in the collaborative design of problem-solving methods. Articles have appeared in leading journals such as the Strategic Management Journal and the Academy of Management Journal, in which research guidelines have been proposed for qualitative research in general (Gephart, 2004; Gibbert et al., 2008). However, there is a general lack of agreed-upon guidelines that formally set out how action research should be conducted (Avison et al., 1999). Pratt (2009: 856) even holds that “there is no accepted „boilerplate‟ for writing up qualitative methods and determining quality.” While there may not yet be a set of commonly accepted guidelines, action research does call for clearly stated objectives and outcomes. The action research projects on which the case studies in this thesis are based, all included such objectives, though the methodologies and techniques in some cases were decided upon - or altered - as research progressed. An important feature of all our projects is the expectation on the part of members of the client system, of the likelihood of the development and testing of new techniques which explicitly involved stakeholders in the strategic planning processes. The projects offered some flexibility in terms of the application and development of techniques, in particular concerning strategy formulation and evaluation, and so a certain degree of flexibility was assumed, and some leeway given in devising socio-economic evaluation frameworks to be applied during the planning process. Whereas the notion of flexibility regarding the direction a study might take, is part of the participant-observer method (Gephart, 2004), as far as we are aware, no other researcher has explicitly said the same about flexibility in action research, although it is true that the presence of learning effects, and the fact that action research is in some cases conducted to develop new approaches and methodologies to solve complex problems (Westbrook, 1995), implicitly suggests this. Several researchers (Westbrook, 1995; Eden and Huxham, 1996; Avison et al., 1999; Schein, 2009) have outlined differences and similarities between action research and consulting, and they have all concluded that the clearest difference is that action researchers have broader goals than consultants, and that those goals are not necessarily the same as those of the companies they work for. Some of the researchers who have

75


made action researcher-consultant comparisons have found that as consultants generally are expected to specify in advance detailed project outcomes and the kinds of methods and tasks that will be used to realize them, there is little room for developing new techniques or improving existing ones. Not only are action researchers likely to have more latitude in developing and testing new techniques, but they often have more flexibility in terms of deadlines, attendance at meetings and other events inside an organization, and incurring extra costs (Westbrook, 1995). In an article on action research in the field of management, Eden and Huxham (1996) provide additional insight into the relationship between consulting projects and action research, arguing that good quality research can indeed result from consulting projects and that consultancy skills are important in the process (see below). They also list twelve criteria, six related to the desirable outcomes of such research and six to action research processes that would set the standard for action research. The outcome of action research can be far-reaching. We rephrase Eden and Huxham (1996) that, in the optimal case, outcomes should: (1) provide insights above and beyond those directly related to the project itself; (2) aim to advance theory; (3) use tools, techniques, models and methods that are grounded in theory; (4) contribute to the development of new theory or to incrementally improve existing theory; and (5) provide clearly stated implications for practice. They also write that action research should be conducted: (1) with scrupulous attention to methodology; and (2) in a way that can be replicated. Following the previous seven guidelines should guarantee internal validity and is considered as a criterion on its own. To establish external validity, Eden and Huxham (1996) suggest: (3) explaining why action research was the best approach given the particulars of the case; (4) outlining the distinct opportunities for triangulation offered by the action research method; and (5) critically assessing the history and context of the intervention. They believe that meeting all these criteria is very difficult. Instead they argue that: (6) given the complexity of real-world settings it is more important to maintain “a sense of the standards that make for good action research and evaluating the research in relation to them” (Eden and Huxham, 1996: 84).

76


Over and above these guidelines for action research process and outcomes, given the unique interaction between research and theory building on one hand and consulting activities on the other, Eden and Huxham (1996) point out that researchers, unlike consultants, need not specify the precise outcome, but rather, should remain open to theory building possibilities that might emerge from the consultancy process in unforeseen ways and be mindful of the fact that quality action research demands experience and a good understanding of the methods used in consulting12. The consultancy-based project research that we present in this thesis follows the approaches prescribed by Susman and Evered (1978), Westbrook (1995), Eden and Huxham (1996), Avison et al. (1995) and Schein (2009). The client systems in each case allows for the development of new techniques in a collaborative way, particularly the use of multi-criteria analysis in the DHL and the Port of Brussels case, and integrative impact calculation methods for infrastructure projects in the Port of Antwerp case, with valuable input from colleagues who generously responded to presentations that we made at conferences during the ongoing planning process13. As Eden and Huxham (1996) predict, the opportunity to apply theory and the rigors of academic research have added a dimension to the projects that goes far beyond the scope of the projects themselves. As a conclusion, we could argue that we developed 4 cases, based on a qualitative research process and applying the principles of participant observation and action research methods in this process. Table 1.3 shows a summary of the cases, a general description of the initiator of the research and the set-up of the client system, as well as a general listing of the sources used. We will elaborate on the different methodological characteristics adopted in each case in the dedicated chapters, to show how we tried to comply with the various criteria of good action research. As with any methodological

12 This means that if action research is undertaken with junior or doctoral researchers, an experienced action researcher should be included and team research should be encouraged. 13 Between 2003 and 2005, we submitted several papers for consideration of inclusion at conferences, inter alia the International Association of Maritime Economists (2003, 2004, 2005), the World Conference on Transport Research (2004), and the European Regional Science Association (2004, 2005). The peer-review process and the reactions to our presentations at those conferences were invaluable to our research.

77


approach, our participatory observation/action research-based case analysis has a number of limitations, which we discuss extensively in the thesis' conclusions.

78

Port of Antwerp (2)

Port of Antwerp (1)

Port of Brussels

April

DHL

- Informal meetings

representation)

- Interviews - Formal meetings

committees (with external stakeholder representation)

79

Participant observation / action research through:

- Client system: 2 types of formal

February 2007

Formal studies and evaluations

Administrative documents

Waasland

and Inter-municipal Cooperation

July 2005-

Archival records

- Initiators: Province of East Flanders

- Interviews

- Formal meetings

committees (with external stakeholder

March 2005




Company of the Left Bank

August 2004-


- Informal meetings

- Formal meetings

- Interviews with port users and local community stakeholders


- Initiators: Port of Antwerp and

representation)



March 2006


- Interviews

- Informal meetings with DHL and airport operator

- Initiator: Port of Brussels

time constraints



Brabant - No ‗formal‘ client system given


- Initiator: Province of Flemish

committees (with external stakeholder

2004-September

Sources of information

Initiator and client system

May 2002-

2004

Period

Case

Table 1.3: Summary of the cases in terms of initiator, period, client system, and sources of evidence



1.3.2. Positioning of the case studies in terms of spatial reach and project complexity

Flyvbjerg (2006) distinguishes between two main types of case study selection: random and information-oriented selection. The primary advantage of random selection is that it can help avoid the pitfall of systematic bias, and this bodes well for generalization. Information-oriented selection instead of random selection of cases is most appropriate when the utility of information needs to be maximized and expectations exist about the information content of the cases. Within information-oriented selection, we chose cases based on maximum variance 14, which implies selecting cases that are different on selected dimensions. In our research, the sectoral dimension is kept constant, all the cases being in the infrastructure management sector15. To obtain variation we look at two dimensions: spatial reach and complexity. Spatial reach refers to the geographic scope of the cases, that is, the definition of the geographic area for which the planning process takes place (e.g., planning for one specific site in a large area or region of economic activity versus planning for the entire area or region). In the cases at hand, complexity has to do with the optimal timeframe for project implementation, the number, magnitude and the distribution of impacts across stakeholders, the number of stakeholders themselves, and the criteria to include in the analysis. For the sake of convenience, the four cases that are analyzed are referred to by the name of the focal organization: DHL, Port of Brussels and the Port of Antwerp in two cases. Below they are roughly categorized in terms of spatial reach and complexity (see Figure 1.1 for an overview). The DHL case centers on an evaluation of the socio-economic and strategic dimensions of a proposed expansion of an existing facility at the Brussels National Airport (BNA). 14 Besides maximum-variation cases, other theoretical possibilities in information-oriented selection include (Flyvbjerg, 2006): extreme/deviant cases (to obtain information about unusual cases), critical cases (cases having strategic importance in the context of the general problem) and paradigmatic cases (cases highlighting general characteristics of the societies in question). 15 Some differences in infrastructure exist. There is one case centered on an airport, one on an inland port, and two on seaports.

80


The Province of Flemish Brabant16, which holds the mandate to issue permits for the airport activities, required a 20-year time horizon evaluation to be included in an application filed by the airport infrastructure management company for a particular permit to be granted. This particular permit was related to increasing the ceiling on night flights to make the implementation of the DHL expansion project possible. The granting of this permit would give some legal assurances to firms operating at the airport, including DHL on allowable night flights. The spatial reach of the case is limited, as the project involves only a part of the airport site. The project complexity is also low in terms of timeframe for completion, as the project would be implemented within 3 years of the planning decision. In the case of the port of Brussels the objective was a 10-year master plan including a number of potential port development projects (inter alia port expansion projects). The master plan was also to detail the use of specific sites within the port area during the specified time horizon, based on the formulation and evaluation of broader socioeconomic strategies for each port zone and the implementation steps needed to realize these socio-economic strategies, within the legal, financial, environmental and spatial constraints. We look at the formulation of a socio-economic strategy for each port zone, as those strategies were the main building blocks of the implementation proposals and the part of the process when it was most important to get stakeholders to agree. This case has a larger spatial reach than the DHL case, as it includes multiple sites totaling 70 hectares along ca. 14 kilometers of canal. It is also more complex as the expected timeframe for completion of the projects was up to 10 years with several implementation decisions to be made after the strategic planning process. The third case has a substantial spatial dimension as it deals with the development of a long term vision for the development of the port of Antwerp which has a total area, including water surface, of ca. 14,000 hectares. The case looks at the formulation and evaluation of a long term vision of port development over the coming 25 years (called an Economic Development Study by the client system). The study includes an 16 We use Province when the government actor is meant; we use province when the territory is meant. The same is valid for Port of Brussels versus port of Brussels and Port of Antwerp versus port of Antwerp. The exception is the Right Bank and the Left Bank in the case of the port of Antwerp and the Waaslandhaven, where capital letters are used.

81


integrative calculation model measuring the impact of different long term port development scenarios on the financial, social, economic, environmental, and spatial objectives of stakeholders, and would be one of the basic inputs in a Strategic Environmental Impact Report (S-EIR). The S-EIR would rely on the report to suggest the spatial boundaries of the port area into the future, and to provide a general framework within which future master plans and infrastructure projects would be evaluated. Finally, the fourth case can be seen as a sequel to the third one. The quantitative results of the Economic Development Study for the port of Antwerp led some local, subregional and regional actors to demand a new governance structure for the seaport area. These groups felt that they had been underrepresented previously and they were in a position to oppose the implementation of the long term vision for port development. Although this case does not formally include the definition of vision, master plans or projects, a widely accepted and legitimate governance structure is a necessary condition for the realization of desirable, long term outcomes. As a result, we put this project above the others in Figure 1.1, as it is a necessary precondition for the implementation of any of the strategic planning process outcomes. As observed in this case, demands for modified governance structures can be a result of past strategic planning processes, perceived as unsatisfactory. We performed in this case an ex post analysis of port expansion (from 1960 to 2005) as well as a calculation of future impacts to 2030, in both cases from a stakeholder management perspective, to support the decision-making process on a new or adapted governance model for the seaport. A more detailed analysis of the dispersion and distribution of the impacts on stakeholder objectives was also needed, in particular for stakeholders located outside the port area, increasing the spatial reach. The longer time horizon and the larger number of stakeholders explain the positioning in the top right of Figure 1.1.

82


Figure 1.1: Positioning of the case studies

Note: Components represented by dotted lines suggest the planning hierarchy and the existence/necessity of further downstream planning activity (1) on a project level and/or a master plan level if a long term development vision exists or (2) on a project level if a master plan exists.

83


In general terms, Figure 1.1 can be represented as follows (see Figure 1.2)

Figure 1.2: General positioning of planning process outcomes

Note: Components represented by dotted lines suggest the planning hierarchy and the existence/necessity of further downstream planning activity (1) on a project level and/or a master plan level if a long term development vision exists or (2) on a project level if a master plan exists.

In the following four chapters (Chapters 2 to 5) we will further develop the various points introduced above, and describe and analyze in detail each of the cases, focusing on stakeholder management in the strategic planning process, in particular during the phases of strategy formulation and evaluation. Specific attention is devoted to spatial and dynamic aspects of stakeholder management. After a description and analysis of each case, we will present a case-specific conclusion. In Chapter 6, we will draw crosscase conclusions, outline implications for practice, and suggest further research possibilities in the fields of stakeholder management and strategic planning.

84

2. Long term strategic planning for the DHL regional superhub in Europe: a focus on dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management

2.1. Introduction

The case description, findings, and input included in this chapter result from a comprehensive research study on the social, economic and strategic impacts of the DHL hub at Brussels National Airport (BNA), conducted by a multidisciplinary research team, which included the author of this thesis, who was actively involved in all study phases. In the course of 2003, the multinational logistics provider DHL announced its plans to concentrate all its intercontinental air cargo and express flights, including its large set of night flights, in one European location. DHL provided two main reasons for this concentration strategy. First, in 2003 DHL was the only large, multinational express courier company (the other large multinational express courier companies being UPS, TNT and Federal Express) working with a system of several sub-regional hubs dispersed throughout Europe. DHL viewed the regional concentration of activities in a single European super-hub as critical to generating substantial logistical cost savings, thereby improving its competitiveness. Second, the handling capacity at BNA, which served as the main hub in the regional system, was expected to reach its saturation level in 2007, thereby imposing substantial new investments in handling capacity. Therefore, DHL sent a formal request for capacity expansion proposals to several European airports, including BNA.

85

Chapter 2: Long term strategic planning for the DHL regional super-hub

Interviews with DHL company representatives as well as senior staff from the airport operating company (BIAC - Brussels International Airport Company17) revealed that three airports were ultimately shortlisted by DHL for its expansion plans. First, there was BNA, which already served as the firm‘s European hub at the outset of this decision process. DHL has been historically present at this airport, the main location advantages being excellent weather conditions (BNA has one of the lowest number of closing days per year due to bad weather), proximity to the market, and a highly skilled and productive workforce. BNA‘s main location disadvantage was the growing stakeholder opposition from local communities through action committees and NGOs, as well as from local and regional governments to the perceived negative externalities from the courier activities, especially the noise pollution resulting from flights during the night. BNA is located close to a densely populated area, meaning a strong case could be made to restrict night flights. As a result, various stakeholder groups felt that a ‗hard ceiling‘ had to be placed on the number of allowed night flights per year to be organized by DHL at BNA. Second, DHL considered Vatry airport in the Champagne region in the North-East of France, located approximately 300 kilometers south of BNA. The main location advantages of this airport were the unlimited availability of capacity at night and the proximity to the market from a European perspective, although the airport itself is physically located in one of the less densely populated areas in Europe. The main location disadvantages were the required closure of the airport for an average of 20 days per year due to fog as well as the unfavorable social climate, including the potential difficulty to find qualified labor. Third, DHL also considered Leipzig airport in former East Germany as a credible location for the project. The main location advantages were the absence of stringent restrictions on night flights, the presence of a large workforce (though substantially less skilled and productive than the Brussels‘ workforce) given the relatively high unemployment rate in the region, and a favorable institutional context including the possibility to receive grants and subsidies from several government agencies. The main 17

Now Brussels Airport Company (BAC) or Brussels Airport.

86


location disadvantage of Leipzig was the remoteness of the site, far removed from the present centre of economic activity in Europe. As a result, the distances to be covered by air and land transport to link this hub with various continental spokes in Europe would increase substantially. After a first round of analysis and extensive negotiations, DHL eliminated the Vatry alternative and the choice became one between BNA and Leipzig, with an initial stated preference from DHL to negotiate with BNA, so as to extend its existing hub. If the Pan-European super-hub were to be located at BNA, this would imply a dramatic increase in night flights (from about 13,000 DHL night flights a year in 2003 to approximately 25,000 - 35,000 in the future, depending on the growth scenario). The national press in Belgium initially provided a favorable assessment of DHL‘s request to build new capacity at BNA, given high unemployment numbers in the country, low economic growth figures, and a downsizing trend in firms. The DHL expansion project would create a large number of new jobs in the wider region around Brussels, according to the firm itself, the airport infrastructure manager (BIAC) and an independent study by Sleuwaegen et al., 2003. Immediately after the public announcement of the planned extension, various public agencies started reflecting on the expected societal costs (increasing number of night flights) and benefits (employment and value added) of such a development. Due to a prior, fragile political agreement reached on the night flights schedule (in terms of allowed number of flights and their routes), just months before DHL announced its extension plan, the planned expansion received substantial media attention. At the same time, pockets of resistance against the DHL expansion arose in the local communities surrounding the airport, based on the alleged negative effects of night flights on human health, and the alleged expected increase in healthcare costs and lower worker productivity caused by a lack of peaceful sleep. In January 2004, the Belgian Federal government announced that it would respond to DHL‘s request for capacity expansion in Brussels by September 2004. To that end, the Federal government appointed a special negotiator in February 2004. His assignment

87


was to lead an ad-hoc task force between the different governmental agencies, the airport operating company and DHL. The result of this process was supposed to include, in principle, a feasible extension plan for DHL at BNA. In case a capacity expansion at BNA would not be possible, an alternative location on Belgian territory would be proposed. However, this latter option quickly disappeared, as various feasibility analyses demonstrated that the costs to build a new airport or to transform existing regional or military airports were too high. In addition, the administrative hurdles to overcome in order to allow DHL to function effectively in one of these alternative locations on Belgian territory were considered excessive in each case. A capacity expansion at BNA proved to be the only feasible location in Belgium. However, such an extension also meant that the environmental permit given to the airport operator BIAC, set at a maximum of 25,000 night movements per year, would need to be renegotiated. The Province of Flemish Brabant and the Flemish Regional government are responsible for delivering these environmental permits as well as setting the maximum noise levels around the airport (which influence the number of flights and the types of airplanes that can be flown). By coincidence, this environmental permit was up for renewal during 2004. Furthermore, the Brussels Regional government also needed to be involved in process, as each regional government in Belgium independently determines the maximum noise levels tolerated on, or above, its territory. Though BNA is physically located on the territory of the Flemish region, a substantial part of the airplane flight paths penetrate the Brussels region. As a result, noise levels set by the Brussels Regional government would also heavily impact the feasibility of the DHL expansion at BNA. Finally, the Federal government is responsible for the flight dispersion plans. This complexity of the project from an institutional viewpoint, with several governments involved, suggests the need for an integrated policy approach by the Federal government that would explicitly include the two other regional governments. However, the Federal government acted as the sole political negotiator with DHL, and insufficiently took into account that each decision it would take would also need to be approved and implemented by the regional governments involved (see the next

88


sections). As described above, substantial decision making power was actually held by the regional governments, namely the Brussels government in terms of setting the maximum noise levels, and by that mean influencing the maximum number of night movements, above the Brussels region, and the Flemish government and the Province of Flemish Brabant, responsible for delivering the airport environmental permit and setting the maximum noise levels over the territory of Flanders. The above decision-making complexities meant that in the time span of a few months, a number of important, interrelated planning decisions with long term impacts had to be taken by different governments. In particular the renewal of the environmental permit, with a validity period of 20 years, for the airport operating company BIAC, including a long term fixed ceiling for night flights, was a critical and instrumental decision essential to the implementation of the DHL project. More particularly, this renewal, including the ceiling for the annual number of night flights, was a basic condition for the acceptance of other downstream steps in the planning scheme, such as the building permit for the project. During the process leading up to the environmental permit renewal, a number of partially conflicting objectives could be observed among two focal organizations (DHL and the Federal government), and other stakeholder groups involved, namely: -

DHL‘s main objective was to function within the context of a stable regulatory framework. According to DHL, such a framework would allow the company to organize a sufficient number of night flights, as required by its business plan, thereby ensuring long term growth, especially given the important capital investments in infrastructure to be undertaken by the company.

-

The Federal government‘s main objective was to use the DHL project as a signaling device, to show its effectiveness in attracting foreign direct investment, and in creating value added and employment at a difficult economic time, but also attaching importance to a balanced decision taking into account the health costs.

89


-

The airport operating company‘s (BIAC) main objective was to achieve the same, stable regulatory framework as desired by DHL, and to use the expanded DHL-hub as a tool to signal the airport‘s location advantages to new cargo and passenger operators.

-

The local community‘s main objective was to limit or eliminate entirely the DHL night flights, given the alleged health impact associated with night flights. The local community was represented by action committees, as well as elected representatives in the local municipal councils.

In order to support their own decision process as well as the processes on the various other government levels, the Province of Flemish Brabant, responsible for the initial decision to grant a 20-year environmental permit for the airport activity, commissioned two studies: -

A study on the social, economic and strategic benefits of the expansion project, conducted by a research team of the University of Brussels of which the author of this thesis was part;

-

A study on the health effects (including health costs) of the extension project, conducted by a multidisciplinary team of the University of Ghent, comprising a health economist, a cardiologist, and physics researchers (for the calculation of the flight routes and noise contours).

Both studies led to the identification of a number of benefit and cost categories, including both quantifiable and non-quantifiable impacts. These impacts were assessed over a time period of 20 years, in order to be consistent with the duration of the environmental permit to be delivered. The parameters considered relevant and important were different for each stakeholder group, thereby imposing a stakeholder based evaluation process. The DHL-project was highly controversial and there was a clear perception that (proposals of) government decisions granting DHL an expansion at BNA would not be accepted if a stakeholder management approach was not adopted. In practical terms, the study required stakeholder input from DHL itself, from the airport

90


operator BIAC, and from the government. The complexity of the Belgian institutional model, with several governmental levels involved, turned out to be a key issue in this process. In summary, during the 10-month period following the DHL announcement of its planned extension at BNA (December 2003), the debate metamorphosed into a trial of strength between a large MNE (DHL) and a wide variety of stakeholder groups, including government agencies at various levels, and several pressure groups. On October 20th, 2004, DHL announced publicly that its BNA extension plan had to be canceled due to a lack of government support. This cancellation also implied DHL‘s exit from BNA, at least as far as hub activities were concerned. This exit was expected to lead to a direct loss of 1,700 jobs by 2008, as opposed to a gain of 1,400 direct jobs with the extension. A few weeks later, DHL announced that the planned extension would - instead - take place at the airport of Leipzig, Germany, creating 3,500 new jobs. Leipzig would also receive the status of DHL‘s European hub. The issue of expanding airport related activities must be assessed in the context of a rapid, worldwide air traffic increase during the last decennium and the challenge to find suitable locations for the sustainable growth of the related activities in airport hubs. Public policy makers, as the guardians of the principles of sustainable development, must carefully weigh the various socio-economic and larger societal impacts of such location decisions. They must also attempt to achieve at least some consensus among all stakeholder groups involved, so as to avoid subsequent problems in the implementation stage of the MNE‘s (adapted) project.

91


2.2. Description of the research process and sources of information

In Chapter 1, section 1.3.1, we describe the main methodological research approach adopted throughout this thesis, including the approach's strengths and limitations. We use case studies, whereby the qualitative analysis builds upon participant observation and action research. Table 1.3, in Chapter 1 section 1.3.1, provides a general view of the client system adopted during each action research process, as well as an overview of the different sources of information used and actions undertaken during the different processes, which ultimately led to the case studies. In this section, we provide a detailed description of the client system, the process of information gathering and analysis, and the actions undertaken by the author of this thesis in the context of the DHL case study. The initiator of the study was the Province of Flemish Brabant, responsible for the initial decision of the renewal of the environmental permit, and whose objective was to obtain the necessary impartial information on the long term impacts of the project in socio-economic terms, as well as in terms of health effects, as the airport was located on the territory of the province. The actual study with detailed data analysis has been published by Dooms et al. (2006) as a full-length book18. With regard to the socio-economic benefits, two main categories needed to be analyzed. First, quantitative impacts such as direct and indirect gross value added, tax revenue, and direct and indirect employment resulting from the project needed to be calculated. Second, a number of qualitative impacts needed to be analyzed, such as the impact on regional competitiveness, the impact on the positioning of the airport, the characteristics of the employment (regional embeddedness, skilled/unskilled employment), the international strategy of DHL with regard to location choice, and the potential substitutes for BNA.

18 The book is available from the following publishing house (see: http://recht-enpraktijk.juridischportaal.nl/boek/9789044120097/de-zaak-dhl-het-regional-hub-project-van-dhl-inbrussel-nationaal-een-socio-economische-en-maatschappelijke-evaluatie/ ).

92


In the initial research proposition, submitted in April 2004, the possibility to execute a stakeholder based multi-criteria analysis (MCA) approach was also included, based on academic research performed within the research team (De Brucker et al., 1998; Macharis, 2000 and Macharis, 2007). This approach would allow the integration of the health effects and health cost study (performed by another research team) into one integral analysis. After presenting the proposed methodology, the initiator of the study, represented by two senior staff members assigned to follow-up the research, approved this approach. The research project, to be concluded by the end of June 2004 - as the decision from the Province regarding the environmental permit renewal needed to be taken at the latest on July 16th, 200419 - formally started in the beginning of May 2004, with several face-toface meetings with key stakeholders involved: -

A first meeting under the form of an interview was held at the DHL Global Headquarters in Brussels in the presence of two members of the research team, a senior staff member of the Province, and the corporate regulatory affairs officer of DHL, who was part of the DHL negotiation team with the Federal government and BIAC, and ensured the liaison with the DHL top management. A wide issue list was covered, based on quantitative and qualitative information to be obtained, ranging, inter alia, from beneficial scale effects on operations, the types of employment to be created, and location factors. Furthermore, a first collaborative effort needed to be performed to identify the different strategic choices to be included in the stakeholder based evaluation as well the criteria of DHL to evaluate these strategic choices. An agreement was reached that throughout the course of the research, full cooperation would be given to the research team and that an exhaustive written list of additional questions, as well as a proposal for the relevant strategic choices (alternative scenarios) to be evaluated in the study, would be submitted within the following days.

19 After this date citizens and municipalities around the airport can file an appeal; these appeals have to be treated by the Regional Flemish government, since they ultimately decide on the renewal of the environmental permit if appeals are filed.

93


-

A second meeting took place the same day at the offices of the airport operating company BIAC at BNA, in presence of two members of the research team, a senior staff member of the Province, and three staff members of BIAC, including the Vice President of Strategy and Development and three of his senior staff members of the business development department. Again, a wide issue list was covered, with an emphasis on the strategic choices for inclusion in the analysis as well as the criteria of BIAC. An agreement was reached that throughout the course of the research, full cooperation would be extended to the research team and that an exhaustive written list of additional questions, as well as a proposal for the strategic choices, would be submitted within the following days. A number of internal documents and studies were provided, such as studies on alternative locations for the hub in Belgium, financial impacts of DHL on the airport activity, as well as a strategic note on the positioning of the airport and the importance of DHL.

After exchanges by e-mail and telephone conferences, agreement was reached on the strategic choices, including growth and volume parameters, allowing quantitative research on economic impacts (we refer to Dooms et al., 2006 for more detailed insights). Also, several formal studies and academic research on airport and courier services impact as well as regional competitiveness were sourced for additional literature analysis on quantitative and qualitative economic impacts20. Additionally, based on both an interview with DHL Belgium‘s country manager as well as own research, several firms from different economic sectors (ranging from textile distribution to automotive R&D) were interviewed on the strategic importance of the DHL hub for their activity. After one month, this research was compiled in an interim report in order to receive written feedback from DHL, BIAC and the Province. This feedback cycle also included a final validation of the strategic choices as well as the structure of the multi-criteria analysis for the long term evaluation.

20

A literature list can be consulted in Appendix 2.

94


To receive the inputs for the multi-criteria analysis from the various stakeholders, following procedures were adopted: -

From DHL, we received a written proposal, which was further discussed in an iterative way through several telephone meetings. After each iteration, we confronted DHL‘s analysis with our insights from desk- and interview-based research until a consensus on the weight and ratings for DHL‘s criteria was reached with DHL‘s top management.

-

Three members of the research team engaged in a formal meeting with the researchers of the health effects and health cost study to define, weigh and rate the criteria concerning health effects for the local community and health costs for the government. Differently put, the local community stakeholder groups were not approached directly, but rather indirectly, through the experts measuring health effects. Here, we should mention that the ultimate local community goals (such as no night flights) were widely known from the media attention devoted to them.

-

A formal meeting was held between the Province and one member of the research team to validate the weight and ratings of the criteria of the ‗government‘ stakeholder.

-

With BIAC, after an initial written interaction, a formal meeting was conducted at the offices of the University of Brussels to validate the weight and ratings of their criteria. Three members of the research team and two senior staff members of BIAC attended the meeting.

The results of the multi-criteria analysis were validated with all stakeholder representatives in two steps, based on a preliminary report and subsequent feedback and validation by e-mail or telephone. A final report was delivered to the Province by the end of June 2004, who also sent the study to the different governmental levels involved in the planning process. A formal presentation and press release of the study was done at the Province Council and the mayors of all municipalities at the end of August 2004.

95


With regard to the stakeholder management approach during the process, we observe that there was direct and full contact with two stakeholders, namely DHL and BIAC, and indirect or partial contact with the government (through the Province) and the local community. For the government, the objectives of the Province were taken as a proxy, although representing only an intermediate layer of government (between local and regional/national). In other words, given the potentially conflicting objectives of the different governments involved on a political level, as outlined in the preceding section, we constructed a hypothetical government proxy stakeholder that would be interested in balancing economic growth with ecological and social objectives, extending beyond the spatial reach of the Province (e.g., tax revenues on the Federal level were included). On the level of the impacts (and resulting preferences), this caused no real methodological problem as all impacts were quantified by the underlying socio-economic and health cost studies (except for regional competitiveness, a qualitative impact). For the local community, the researchers of the health effects study mainly acted as a proxy stakeholder, as these effects were the main concern for the local community. Also, given that at least 26 municipalities 21 would have had to be formally included in the process, this would probably have led to inefficiencies in the process, in particular given the time constraints within the process. Furthermore, in terms of the criteria for the local community, with the exception of safety perceptions and local employment, all criteria were already quantified by the health effects study and the socio-economic study. The reasons for not involving the ‗action committees‘ representing local communities, was (1) that they were not formally involved in the planning process, and (2) that there was disagreement amongst them on the issue of dispersion of the flights (and the resulting health effects), so no representative could directly represent them in a univocal way.

21

Based on the 70 DB(A) contour of airport noise, see list in Appendix 1

96


2.3. The MAMCA method: description of the long term evaluation of the strategic choices

2.3.1. Introduction

In Chapter 1, section 1.2.4, we have shown that several authors have applied the ‗stakeholder‘ concept within a multi-criteria analysis framework, an approach that has many advantages over conventional evaluation methodologies when assessing large scale investment projects and policy measures. In this case, we apply a multi-actor, multi-criteria analysis methodology (MAMCA) in the planning process. The MAMCA methodology for this project, applied by members of the research team, consists of 7 steps, as explained in Macharis et al. (2004), as well as Macharis (2007), see Figure 2.1.

97


Figure 2.1: Description of the MAMCA methodology

Stakeholder Stakeholder analysis analysis

2 1

StakeStakeholder holderm m

CCC 11 11 C n1 n1

CC C Cnm nm

CC11 11

CC 11 W 11n1 W n1

CC W Wnm nm

CCnm nm

Alternatives Alternatives

3

5

Overall analyses (MCA) Ref. Ref.

Altern Altern

4

StakeStakeholder holder11

W W1111

CC11 11

CCnm W Wnm nm nm

result result

result result

result result

result result

6

Indicators Indicators

Results

ImplemenImplementation tation

7

Mitigation Mitigation strategies strategies +/0/+/0/-

scenarios scenarios

Measurement Measurement methods methods

Deployment Deployment scenarios scenarios

Source: Macharis et al. (2004) and Macharis (2007)

We apply to the DHL case each of the 7 steps included in Figure 2.1 and discuss the outcome. In the next section, we focus on the influence of dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management in the planning process, as well as other relevant characteristics of the stakeholder management approach.

98


2.3.2. Step 1: Formulation of the alternatives

The formulation of the alternatives, named ‗strategic choices‘ in this case, was driven by DHL‘s strategy regarding the choice of a new super-hub in Europe. From DHL‘s perspective, three strategic choices were considered feasible and realistic. We named strategic choice 1 the „super-hub‟ choice, which meant the concentration of all European traffic at Brussels National Airport. In this case, an environmental permit allowing for 35,000 DHL night flights a year would be needed (approximately 140 flights each night). DHL‘s cargo traffic volumes at BNA would rise to about 3,000 metric tons a night. Strategic choice 2 was the „multi-hub‟ choice, which meant the concentration of all intercontinental traffic at Brussels National Airport, combined with continued operations at other existing regional sub-hubs in Europe. In this case, an environmental permit allowing for 25,000 DHL night flights would be needed (approximately 100 flights each night). DHL‘s cargo traffic volumes at BNA would rise to approximately 1,875 metric tons a night. Strategic choice 3 was the „external super-hub‟ choice, which meant the relocation of the DHL hub from Brussels International Airport. This strategic choice implies that Brussels National Airport would be downgraded to assume the role of a spoke in the DHL-network, and would only be used to serve the local market. This strategy would lead to a strong decline in night flights and traffic volume, compared to the actual level of operations (13,000 night movements a year and 1,000 tons a night). In the extreme case of this strategic choice, DHL would completely exit from Brussels (no night flights and no traffic volume at Brussels National Airport).

99


2.3.3. Step 2: Stakeholder analysis

In this case study, we based the selection of stakeholders on their participation in debates regarding the future role of DHL in Brussels prior to the start of the research process. Within this stakeholder context, it is important to realize that two decisions had to be taken in a sequential way: -

First, the Federal government would have to decide on the conditions for expansion (e.g., yearly number of night movements), and would need to communicate this decision to the other stakeholders, in particular for downstream decisions to be taken by Regional governments concerning the environmental permit and other legislative steps.

-

Second, DHL would have to decide on the location of its intercontinental hub.

In addition to the government (as a hypothetical, ‗constructed‘ stakeholder) and DHL, two other stakeholders were included in this study. First, the airport operating company, BIAC, which manages the airport and is the recipient of the environmental permit and also has a stake in DHL‘s ultimate location choice. The impact of DHL‘s choice on BIAC is both financial (in terms of investment and revenues) and on a more ‗strategic‘ level (e.g., positioning of the airport in the international airports network). Second, the local community needed to be included as a stakeholder (at least implicitly, as explained above), as night flights cause noise leading to a possible decrease in quality of life. The last two stakeholders, though lacking formal decision power in the two key decisions noted above, had expressed their interest in the project. BIAC financed a study during 2003, which included a substantial section on courier company flights and night flights, as well as growth scenarios based on DHL‘s presence. The local community represented by various interest groups engaged in street protests, lawsuits against BIAC and the government, and made numerous appearances in the national press.

100


Particular attention needs to go to the ‗constructed‘ nature of the government stakeholder. From the public debate as well as interaction with the Province, we concluded that all governments (Federal, Regional and Province) shared the same concern, i.e., taking a balanced decision integrating socio-economic and health impacts. As a result, unbundling the government into different sub-stakeholders based on the spatial reach of their competences would not offer additional insights, as the main objectives were the same for all governments. We will see below however (section 2.3.8) that this bundling of various governments into one stakeholder, though useful at the initial scenario evaluation stage did not hold anymore at a later stage, when discussing implementation details of the DHL superhub project, thereby demonstrating precisely the importance of spatial aspects, since the Federal government is responsible for project impacts on the entire Belgian territory, whereas Regional governments, when faced with exactly the same project, adopt policy positions solely based on impacts occurring within the geographic confinement of their region. Based on the above, four main stakeholders were included in the long term evaluation: DHL, BIAC, the government and the local community.

2.3.4. Step 3: Define criteria and weights

The decision tree, representing the criteria of each stakeholder, was the result of an iterative interaction process that involved the province of Flemish Brabant (its input was considered to be the most relevant in constructing ‗a‘ government interested in balancing economic, social and ecological considerations), DHL, BIAC, and the researchers of a study on the impact of night flights on health (viewed as relevant to understand DHL‘s effects on the local community) and health costs (relevant to the government and society in general given the public nature of the social security system). The identified stakeholders‘ representatives were contacted separately (albeit the local community only indirectly, as explained above) to define specific stakeholder objectives/criteria.

101


Here, the research team intervened to guarantee consistency in the overall decision tree, and to help the stakeholder representatives in defining the criteria relevant to each stakeholder group (in other words, to help them answering the question: ‗what needs to be measured or assessed?‘). After the final decision on the criteria and their definition, the stakeholder representatives gave weights to the different criteria, using pair-wise comparisons. After a methodological introduction by the research team, in a first instance, the choice of weights was left entirely to the stakeholder representatives. In the case of the local community, we assisted the researchers involved in the health cost study in establishing the trade-off between the economic and health-related criteria. In a second instance, feedback was sought with DHL, BIAC, and the Province, using either formal meetings or written feedback, complemented by telephone contact, as described in section 2.2 of this chapter.

2.3.4.1. Criteria of DHL

DHL adopted three criteria to assess the alternative strategies. The first criterion is geographical in nature and measures how the different strategies contribute to the proximity to the market. For an integrator hub, location plays an important role, as a central position in the market is needed to operate efficiently (Rigas Doganis et al., 1999). The second criterion is related to market share growth in the logistics business. Each strategic choice was likely to affect DHL‘s international competitive positioning, and hence its expected market share growth (or decline) vis-à-vis competitors. The third criterion measures how the different strategies contribute to the internal logistical optimization of the DHL network. This criterion plays an important role in terms of profitability, as the different strategies and the location of the hub strongly influence the synergy between the network and the different country operations. In other words, different locations and different growth strategies influence the logistical pathways (in terms of distances as well as the transport modes used) for the distribution of goods to the different countries affected, and hence, have a positive (or negative) effect on the total logistical cost of the firm.

102


2.3.4.2. Criteria of BIAC

BIAC put forward five criteria in its decision making process with regard to the DHL expansion. The first criterion is financial, as all strategic alternatives influence the profitability of the BIAC. The second criterion takes into account the diversification of the traffic portfolio of the airport (cargo/passengers). In the highly competitive environment in which Brussels National Airport is situated, a balanced spread between cargo and passenger traffic in the traffic portfolio allows to absorb demand shocks in air transport. Moreover, this balanced spread contributes to the attractiveness of the airport for suppliers of airport services, enhancing the diversification of the economic activity around the airport. The presence of suppliers of airport services in turn, contributes to the attractiveness of the airport for new passenger and cargo operators. As a result, each strategic choice will contribute differently to the growth (or decline) of these supply effects. The third criterion refers to the nature of the activities in the airport economic cluster, namely the presence of high added-value activities in the immediate environment of the airport. The presence of these activities contributes to the role of the airport as the source of high quality employment and added value, and supports BIAC in defending the airport activities vis-à-vis the municipalities in the airport region as well as the Regional and Federal government. The fourth criterion is related to balanced growth. This criterion takes into account internal aspects of the firm‘s activities (e.g., efficiency losses due to a mismatch between the short term demand of capacity and the short term supply of infrastructure and technical services), as well as external aspects, such as sudden changes in the regulatory framework concerning the airport activities, which could lead to conflicts with the local community (appeals against permits and other litigation).

103


The last criterion shows the contribution of each strategic choice to the positioning of the airport in its international network. Each strategic choice contributes to the image of the airport, and plays a positive or negative role in attracting incremental traffic, thereby affecting the airports competitive positioning.

2.3.4.3. Criteria of government

The criteria of the government can be split into two sets of objectives: socio-economic and ecological objectives. The socio-economic objective of the government can be split into three sub-criteria. The first sub-criterion measures the creation of added value, as an indicator of economic welfare. The second sub-criterion measures how the different strategic choices contribute to the creation of employment, one of the central objectives of government policy. The third sub-criterion refers to the impact of the different strategies on regional competitiveness of the Flemish and Belgian economy, in terms of cluster- and agglomeration effects of high value activities in the industrial, logistics and ICT sectors. The ecological objective measures the overall health cost for the government associated with each of the strategic choices, as a result of changes in noise levels due to a growing (or declining) number of airplane movements.

104


2.3.4.4. Criteria of the local community

The criteria of the local community can also be unbundled into two main objectives. The first main criterion shows how the different strategic choices contribute to local employment. The boundary of what is ‗local‘ was set based on the noise contour where night movements of 70 dB(A) and higher are measured. The second main criterion measures the different health impacts22 of each strategic choice, namely sleep disturbance, morbidity (diabetes, heart disease, alcohol abuse, depression), mortality, and safety perception.

2.3.4.5. Decision tree

Figure 2.2 shows the decision tree of the MAMCA with all stakeholders and their criteria.

22

We also refer to ‗Quality of life‘ criteria in the analysis.

105


Figure 2.2: Decision tree

2.3.5. Step 4: Criteria, indicators and measurement.

Table 2.1 shows the different stakeholders and their criteria, and how these criteria were

‗operationalized‘.

Further,

we

indicate

the

nature

of

the

criterion

(quantitative/qualitative), the unit of measurement and the principal basis of the evaluation.

106

Euro Added value / Employment

Quantitative Quantitative Qualitative Qualitative Qualitative

Financial

Diversification

High value activity

Balanced growth

Network position

Quantitative

Health costs

Health/Quality of life criteria

Local employment

Quantitative

Qualitative

Local Community

Number of jobs

Quantitative

Employment

Regional competitiveness

107

Number of jobs

Euro

/

Euro

/

/

/

Quantitative

Added value

Economic objective

Government

BIAC

%

Quantitative

Euro

Quantitative

Market share growth

Internal logistics optimization

Unit of measurement**

km

criterion

Type of

Quantitative

Market proximity

DHL

Stakeholder/criterion

BIAC calculation (internal)

BIAC calculation (internal)

DHL forecasts (internal)

DHL forecasts (internal)

DHL calculations (internal)

Basis of the evaluation

Economic Impact Study, DHL employment data

Health cost study

on questionnaires and interviews)

Economic Impact Study (inclusing case studies based

Economic Impact Study

Economic Impact Study

BIAC assessment

BIAC technical service planning and calculation

questionnaires and interviews)

Former studies (including case studies based on

Table 2.1: Criteria, indicators and measurement


Quantitative Quantitative Quantitative

Morbidity*

Mortality

Safety Risk

Number of people-equivalent

Number of cases

Number of people-equivalent

Health cost study

Health cost study

Health cost study

Heath cost study

108

** For DHL, the unit of measurement is indicative, as no documents were shown to the researchers, for reasons of confidentiality.

* Includes diabetes, heart disease, alcohol abuse and depression

Quantitative

Sleep disturbance



2.3.6.

Step 5: Overall analysis and ranking

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method (see e.g., Saaty, 1982, 1988) was used to perform the analysis and rank the alternative strategies. Based on the abovementioned criteria, pair-wise comparisons were performed. In the cases of DHL and BIAC, stakeholder representatives made the pair-wise comparisons themselves, as a substantial amount of commercially sensitive and confidential information was involved. In the case of the government and the local community, the research team itself executed the pair-wise comparisons initially, based on the economic impact study and the study on health costs. Formal feedback activities were organized (see section 2.2 in this chapter). All pair-wise comparisons were used as inputs for Expert Choice, which reworks the pair-wise comparisons into clear graphs and figures. These graphs and figures show how the strategic choices affect each stakeholder, and they also give an overall ranking.

2.3.7. Step 6: Results

In a first step, an equal weight was given to each stakeholder (see Figure 2.3 where the vertical gridlines show the weights). The sensitivity to changes in stakeholder weights was very high: a small positive change in weight in favor of DHL showed that the multi- and super-hub strategies would be much more preferred by the community of stakeholders as compared to the external super-hub. A small positive change in the weight for the local community would rank the external super-hub as the most preferred alternative. This high sensitivity again showed the complexity of the decision problem. A balanced strategy, taking into account all stakeholder objectives, would be difficult to find. Furthermore, the BIAC-criterion of the balanced growth proved to be very important. A super-hub strategy was expected to result, inter alia, in short term capacity bottlenecks,

109


which would lead to inefficiencies, both for DHL and for BIAC. Based on information provided by BIAC‘s engineering department, we were able to determine that a full super-hub would only start to operate efficiently from 2012 on, due to the necessary infrastructure and re-engineering works at the airport, which would only be finished by 2012. As a result, what could be considered as the ‗optimal‘ strategic choice could differ substantially depending on the time horizon considered, specifically an 8-year horizon (the start of an efficient operation in 2012) versus a 20-year horizon (end of the environmental permit in 2023). This dynamic aspect was taken into account and the stakeholders whose preference was expected to change over time (i.e., DHL and BIAC) were asked to make separate assessments on an 8-year horizon and a 20-year horizon. As a consequence, two overall analyses were performed. The results of the analysis with equal weights for all stakeholders showed that on horizon 2012, a multi-hub strategy is the preferred choice. On horizon 2023, a superhub strategy was optimal as the infrastructural constraints would be removed, which makes a super-hub strategy more efficient for DHL as well as for BIAC. On the other hand, sensitivity remained very high to changes in the weights given to each of the stakeholders. The identification of the balanced growth criterion, through the use of MCA, as an important driver of the overall preference in the mid-term, proved to be very valuable information for the community of stakeholders (more specifically DHL, BIAC, government) for implementation purposes.

110


Figures 2.3 and 2.4 show the results on respectively horizon 2012 and horizon 2023. Figure 2.3: Overall result – horizon 2012 Obj

Alt

%

%

,90

,80 ,70

,80 ,60 ,70 ,50

,60 ,50

,40

multihub superhub

,40

,30 External superhub

,30

,20 ,20 ,10

,10 ,00 DHL

,00 BIAC

Government

Local

OVERALL

community

Figure 2.4: Overall result – horizon 2023 Obj

Alt%

,80

%

,9 ,70

0

,8 0

,60

,7 0 ,50 ,6 0

,5

,40

0

multihub

,4 ,30

0

External

,3 0

,20

,2 0 ,10 ,1 0

,0 0

superhub

,00

DHL

BIAC

Government

Local community

111

OVERALL

superhub


2.3.8. Step 7: Implementation As mentioned in the problem description, government had to provide a legalinstitutional framework, through an environmental permit with horizon 2023, capable of securing long term growth of the airport activities, in particular related to night-time operations. Failure to do so would result in a relocation of the hub-activities of DHL to another airport. In the mid-term, towards 2012, the multi-criteria analysis showed that Brussels National Airport could be used as multi-hub in the DHL network. The negotiations between the Federal government and DHL moved in this direction, as the short term development to a super-hub would have led to a veto from specific stakeholders (local communities). During the course of September 2004, a final agreement was reached between DHL and the Federal government that included a strategic choice close to the multi-hub strategy as defined in the MAMCA (25,000 movements per year). However, implementation in practice still required changes in regional regulations on noise levels, as well changes in the dispersion of night flights between the different regions. On that front, no agreement was reached during the implementation phase, leading to DHL‘s decision to exit from Brussels in 2008 (when new facilities in Leipzig, Germany could be ready). The lack of agreement by the regional governments on noise levels, leading to a non-compliance with decisions taken by the Federal government on night flights ceilings, also shows that besides the dynamic dimension in stakeholder based long term evaluation and resulting decisions (changing preferences over time), the spatial dimension also plays a key role in the implementation phase, especially for the stakeholder ‗government‘ (different preferences depending upon the geographic reach of the specific government involved).

112


2.4. Summary of stakeholder inclusion and dynamic and spatial aspects

Figure 2.5 integrates the inclusion of stakeholders in the strategic planning process, the analytical component of strategic planning (in this case the MAMCA method), and the dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management. We make a distinction between two types of stakeholder inclusion. The first type of stakeholder inclusion in the planning process is oriented towards the introduction of validation committees, which represent the different stakeholder categories, and which provide a periodical ex post evaluation and adjustment of the different steps during the research project. In addition to stakeholder inclusion in ex post validation committees or task forces, ex ante stakeholder inclusion has a place in the planning process, as the second type. This type of stakeholder inclusion implies the direct participation of stakeholders in the planning process on an ex ante, rather than an ex post basis. In our planning process, indepth interviews with DHL, BIAC and the Province, as well as interaction with the health cost research study team members, played an important role.

113


Figure 2.5: Stakeholder inclusion and dynamic and spatial aspects in the DHL case study

Figure 2.5 suggests that dynamic aspects played a role in steps 5 and 6 of the planning process, as the pair-wise comparison on the level of the criteria and the results from the multi-criteria analysis showed that a number of stakeholder‘s preferences changed from 2012 on, in particular the preference of BIAC, the manager of the airport infrastructure, as well as the preference of DHL. Spatial aspects played a role in step 2 when we needed to define a hypothetical or proxy ‗government‘ stakeholder, as well as a proxy stakeholder for the local community, due to the spatial dispersion of regulatory competences between different governments on the federal and regional level and the noise contour of the airport, which spanned 26 municipalities. The importance of the spatial aspect of stakeholder management was again revealed during the implementation (step 7).

114


2.5. Discussion and conclusion

The stakeholder based formulation and evaluation of strategic choices in the planning process in this case study highlights the importance of dynamic aspects of stakeholder management in the evaluation of long term development scenarios. In this case, the adopted method (explicit stakeholder involvement as well as a stakeholder based multicriteria analysis) led to the identification of new elements in the process, in particular that (1) a strategic choice implying a strong growth scenario would not be realistic until the 2012 horizon and (2) these would influence the overall preference for the different alternative strategic choices. However, integration of the dynamic effects in the analysis also proved that the midterm optimal strategic choice (2012) would differ from the long term optimal strategic choice (2023), as two important stakeholders, DHL and government, would shift towards other preferential strategic choices in the long term. The evaluation from a stakeholder based perspective showed that the differences in preference between stakeholders would increase in the long term (in particular DHL and BIAC on one side, and the government and local community on the other side), and that as a consequence an agreement between the decision makers (Federal government and DHL) would be hard to reach. Furthermore, the global aggregated preferences over all stakeholder concerns did not differ much (see the right axis on Figures 2.3 and 2.4 which reveals the global aggregated preferences), with a light preference for strategic choices implying expansion over the strategic choice implying delocalization of the hub. With regard to spatial aspects, these were not explicitly integrated into the MAMCA. However, spatial reference frameworks for all stakeholders were different, and these were implicitly taken into account when stakeholder objectives were evaluated, with DHL taking a pan-European perspective as their strategic choice influenced several countries and/or regions as well as European and global network efficiencies; the airport operating company BIAC having a mix of internationally-oriented criteria (such as the positioning vis-à-vis competing airports in the Frankfurt-London-Amsterdam-Paris region, also known as the FLAP-region) as well a locally-bound criteria (such as the

115


balanced expansion and the service offer at the airport); the government adopting a Belgian reference framework (welfare and competitiveness impacts) and the local community (defined as the municipalities within a 70 dB(A) contour) having the contribution of their objectives measured in terms of local impact. Hence, the evaluation did include different spatial perspectives, though the evaluation framework did not explicitly show this dimension. However, the spatial aspects in terms of stakeholder management became explicit during the implementation phase, after agreement was reached between the Federal government and DHL in September 2004. Although on the Federal government level, agreement was reached on a ceiling for night flights for the environmental permit, the affected Regional governments of Brussels and the Flemish region were suddenly not willing anymore to take certain downstream decisions to accommodate the project (in particular regarding the maximum allowed noise levels for airplanes) 23. This observation suggests that despite the adoption of a stakeholder based approach during the stage of formulating and evaluating strategic choices in the planning process, even taking into account dynamic and spatial aspects, as they arise at that point, this does not necessarily solve all stakeholder related problems. New dynamic and spatial aspects may arise that play a role in the downstream strategy implementation process after an optimal strategic choice is agreed upon. Recent applied research (Haezendonck, Dooms and Verbeke, 2010) addressing the same case study, includes an in-depth analysis of dynamic aspects using the stakeholder typology framework of Mitchell et al. (1997) and bases itself on additional information sources describing the period before and after the disagreement between the various governments occurred. This analysis suggests, based on stakeholder attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency, that the changing nature of these stakeholder attributes as well as differences between expected stakeholder behavior before the implementation and

23 One potential reason could be the asymmetrical nature of the government coalitions on the Federal and the Regional levels, resulting from a regional election in June 2004. This was the first time since Regional governments were created (1989), that different political parties were at the helm of the Federal and the Regional governments. This probably changed the power balance, as before, Regional governments had always followed, respected and implemented political agreements reached on the Federal level. Furthermore, within both regional governments, as well as between them, there did not seem to be agreement on the project, in particular after the Federal government and DHL reached an agreement.

116


the actual behavior shown in reality, led to the actual exit decision of DHL. More particularly, in this case a number of government agencies switched from an initial position of favoring expansion to a preference for non-implementation, while DHL consistently favored the extension at BNA, until the political unfeasibility thereof had become clear. The actual failure to implement the project after the agreement between both decisionmakers - DHL and the Federal government - on the strategic level was reached, suggests that even a stakeholder based approach - relying on validated facts and information, grounded in academically sound methodologies and taking into account dynamic and spatial aspects during the strategy formulation and strategy evaluation phases provides no guarantee of success. First, opportunistic political actions within and between different government levels cannot be excluded, largely guided by the specific geographic area for which each government is responsible. Second, newly arising dynamic aspects of stakeholder management need to be monitored closely during the strategy implementation phases, using other tools and methodologies available in the literature (such as Mitchell et al., 1997; Savage et al., 1991; Frooman, 1999). The case study also shows that the use of ‗proxy‘ stakeholders (Phillips, 2003b) or ‗constructed‘ stakeholders may be necessary and useful from a resource and process perspective when applying stakeholder based evaluation methodologies such as multi-criteria analysis, but may also contribute to neglecting to anticipate appropriately evolving dynamic stakeholder preferences, especially in the form of opportunistic behavior during the implementation phase. Finally, this chapter suggests, irrespective of the non-implementation of a super hub in this particular case, that the MAMCA method as described in Macharis et al. (2004) and Macharis (2007) can indeed contribute to the quality of the decision making process in the realm of complex project evaluation on several levels.

117


First, the method makes explicit the objectives of the various relevant stakeholders, thereby leading to a better understanding of the objectives of these stakeholders by all parties concerned. Allowing the stakeholders (be they representatives of business firms or government agencies) to reflect on their own objectives and involving them in the pair-wise comparisons also provides value added in the individual stakeholders‘ internal decision-making processes. The stakeholder based approach forces them to reflect on what they really want and on the rationale for these wants. Moreover, the fact that the stakeholders know they are included in a comprehensive and transparent evaluation, alters their way of thinking, and motivates them to make proper assessments on their own objectives and limit opportunistic behavior. For example, the initial results obtained on the ‗balanced growth‘ criterion led to a change of both DHL and BIAC with regard to short- and long term preferences, and provided decision makers at the various government levels with additional insights on the impacts of their decision. Second, the method shows the essential trade-offs made by all stakeholders, and makes these stakeholders more aware of the dynamic and spatial aspects of the societal decision-making process.

118

3. Long term strategic planning for the port of Brussels: a focus on dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management

3.1. Introduction

The case description, findings and input included in this chapter originate from a comprehensive research project to develop a master plan for the Port of Brussels, whereby the author of this thesis was actively involved in all phases, as part of a multidisciplinary research team. The European Commission (EC), in its White Paper on transport policy (European Commission, 2001), admits that the projected growth of road transport demand could seriously penalize the economy in the long term. As a consequence, the EC wants to stimulate alternative ‗green‘ modes such as rail, short-sea shipping and inland waterway transport in order to reduce congestion and pollution, thereby contributing to the general objective of sustainable economic development. An ambitious action plan, which consists of several concrete projects, was adopted for these purposes. One of the main means to attain a modal shift in freight transport, is the promotion of short-sea shipping and inland waterway transport as energy-efficient, more environmentally friendly transport modes. The EC has also proposed a program (Marco Polo) to support (intermodal) investment projects that offer alternatives to road transport until they become economically viable. In particular projects in the container and short seashipping sector with cross-border impacts are focused upon. This modal shift from road transport to short-sea and inland waterway transport requires that a network of multimodal logistics nodes is established in the hinterland of seaports, which are the main gateways to the European hinterland. Inland ports can play a key role as logistics centers in this network of multimodal logistics nodes by concentrating the infra- and supra-structure needed to support the growth of short-sea and inland

119

Chapter 3: Long term strategic planning for the port of Brussels

waterway transport. Surprisingly, the EC confirmed this only in the beginning of the first decade of the 21 st century, when 210 European inland ports were formally included in the Trans-European Networks (TEN) (European Commission, 2001), and specific guidelines were adopted with regard to infrastructure projects of common interest. It is expected that the role of inland ports will become of key importance, as inland waterway traffic is expected to almost double by 2020 (European Commission, 2001). If inland ports want to maintain and strengthen their role as important logistical nodes in the European multimodal network, they will have to establish strategic plans that effectively deal with the important future challenges ahead. This chapter will therefore focus on the strategic planning process for inland port authorities, taking into account the specific environment where most of these ports are operating in. In most cases this environment will be the centre of large urban regions, or other densely populated regions. It is argued that long term strategic planning has to take into account all stakeholders‘ perspectives and preferences, in order to realize sustainable port development. A major case study, based on the development of a strategic master plan with a 10-year planning horizon for the Port of Brussels, will illustrate this stakeholder based strategic planning process. This chapter is structured as follows. In section 3.2, we discuss the existing literature on strategic port planning and stakeholder management. Attention is devoted to strategic port planning in general, types of planning, the need for a planning authority as well as differences between inland ports and seaports. Section 3.3 describes the characteristics of the action research process that was carried out. Section 3.4 describes the stakeholder based methodology that was developed during the master planning process. Section 3.5 discusses the results of this approach, with special attention to spatial aspects of stakeholder management. Section 3.6 summarizes stakeholder inclusion during the planning process and the presence of challenges relating to dynamic and spatial aspects during the planning process. Section 3.7 provides a discussion of the results, describes the limitations of our stakeholder based approach and provides directions fur further research.

120


3.2. Strategic port planning and stakeholder management

3.2.1. Strategic port planning

As most firms and organizations that operate in a complex, uncertain and highly competitive environment, port authorities have become aware of the need for strategic planning in order to respond to the challenges they are faced with. The main challenge faced by port authority managers implies choosing between different development alternatives, allowing the port authority to seize the opportunities and control the risk and uncertainty inherent to their environment. The interest of academics in strategic planning applied to ports (where ‗ports‘ refers implicitly to seaports) has been limited until recently, and has left open a very interesting research agenda. Until the early nineties, strategic planning frameworks were scarcely adopted by port authority managers to formulate their strategy and assess or evaluate their long term planning objectives in an integrated and systematic way, except general foundations (Frankel, 1987) and analyses of allocative processes, proving structural inefficiency in investment policies (Verbeke, 1986). In recent years, the increased complexity of the environment has stimulated the introduction of more comprehensive strategic management frameworks in the port sector. In particular the resource-based approach, suited to formulate and assess planning within complex organizations, has been applied to serve strategic port planning purposes (Coeck et al., 1996). This resource-based view has since then been further elaborated, with the creation of adapted frameworks and tools, which can contribute to the in-depth analysis of seaport strategies (Haezendonck, 2001). In support of the resource-based view applied to port strategic planning, other conceptual frameworks have been applied to the port sector, more specifically the ‗Porter Diamond‘, presenting the determinants of port competitiveness (Coeck et al., 1997). Furthermore, a ‗Port Strategy Matrix‘ was developed, which was an application of the ‗Corporate Strategy Matrix‘ (Rugman and Verbeke, 1990), presenting four generic strategies that ports could choose to sustain and gain their competitive advantage. It was argued that several dimensions (micro- and macro-economic ones,

121


and related to both the public and private sectors) are intimately linked as determinants of port competitiveness. These linkages express the need for an integrated approach to strategic port planning. Port planning is increasingly influenced by complex environmental forces, including a variety of economic, social, political and technological developments, as well as by a variety of external stakeholders, each pursuing specific objectives. Applied academic research (Notteboom and Winkelmans, 2002) suggests that port authorities need to take into account these external stakeholders‘ objectives in order to increase the implementation potential of long term port development programs. In addition, an increased focus on external stakeholders may increase the port activities‘ legitimacy at the city and regional community levels, and may also contribute to sustainable port development. This new view on port planning implies a more integrated approach, as compared to the mainstream literature on this subject. Specifically, the new approach focuses on how port authorities can integrate the objectives of different stakeholders into their masterplan development processes. Frankel (1989) has suggested that port planning should be performed from a top-down perspective, and the overall objectives of the port authority should guide the planning process, as those objectives are likely to differ from those of other organizations. However, only taking into account narrow port authority objectives may reduce the implementation potential of a port master plan in the long run. The need to take into account external stakeholder objectives was first suggested by Goss (1990c), who argued that a port authority should carefully consider the externalities caused by port activities. More specifically, he focused on the need for spatial integration of the port and its environment. This implies devoting attention to spatial/architectural design, the integration of parks and vistas to attract the local community (e.g., residents) and tourists to the port area, etc. The outcome should be an increased acceptance of port activities and the related externalities thereof24.

24

See also Van Hooydonk (2007) for more recent insights on such ‗soft values‘ of seaports.

122


Coeck et al. (1996) expanded on the approach described above, by integrating external environmental elements in port planning processes, and introducing resource-based thinking, originally developed for conventional business firms in the port context (see Prahalad and Hamel, 1989; Prahalad and Hamel, 1990; Grant, 1991). The proposed planning framework was developed from a port authority perspective (i.e., building upon the ‗strategic intent‘ of the port) and did not explicitly include the objectives (or the ‗strategic intent‘) of the different other actors involved in the port sector, such as government agencies, local community stakeholders and port users. However, it was recognized that this multitude of actors, and their different and sometimes divergent objectives, make port planning (and the related short term and long term implementation schemes) more complex. The difficulty with including various stakeholder objectives in the port planning process is the absence of clear guidelines on which stakeholders and objectives to select as relevant to the port planning process. Notteboom and Winkelmans (2002) attempted to provide a comprehensive description of the port environment, as well as the various stakeholders in that environment and their impact on planning processes/decisions. In addition, these authors provided some insight into the interactions among the different forces shaping the port environment, but they refrained from discussing specific cases of long term port planning processes or the development of port master plans whereby stakeholders are deeply involved in the process. In a paper describing practical applications of stakeholder management in ports, Coeck and Dooms (2007) analyzed 5 recent long term planning processes along two dimensions (economic components and organizational components of planning processes) and concluded that port authorities as well as government agencies are moving towards more involvement of stakeholders in strategic planning processes. Moglia and Sanguineri (2003) confirmed the need for a new approach to port master planning, as they identified important challenges faced by port authorities when developing a master plan. According to these authors, the development of a master plan should take into account a variety of components and interests, inter alia, economic impacts, environmental impacts and the linkages between port and city. They argued that a port authority faces the difficult challenge of having to address simultaneously the

123


needs of local communities, the objectives of government agencies, and the requirements of port users and port operators, whereby the last set of actors is often influenced by international market forces and globalization. The evolution of the various perspectives on port planning, and the increasing complexity of the planning process, is visualized in Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1: Evolution of port planning perspectives

Organisation of the planning proces Scope of objectives

Top-Down

Broad

Narrow

Participative

Present / Future

Past

Figure 3.1 suggests that the port planning process has moved from a top-down approach (i.e., exclusively taking into account the ‗strategic intent‘ of the port authority or another relevant planning authority) to a more participative approach (i.e., taking into account the ‗strategic intent‘ of different stakeholder groups, in addition to the strategic intent of the port authority). Furthermore, whereas in the past, narrow financial and economic considerations dominated the port planning process, the scope of objectives to be taken into account has broadened, to explicitly include elements such as, inter alia, safety and security effects, local mobility impacts, noise and light pollution effects, spatial design impacts, and architectural and visual quality.

124


3.2.2. Strategic planning for port infrastructure development: a task for the port authority

There has been extensive discussion about the necessity of port authorities as a public sector organization (see Goss, 1990b and 1990c). A number of arguments for and against have been presented, whereby an important argument put forward for having a port authority is the need for planning of port facilities (among other arguments were: the provision and regulation of property rights, the provision of public goods and the containment of externalities resulting from port activities). The main disadvantage of not having a port authority would then be the lack of coordination and organization of the planning process, as the planning role would be in the hands of different organizations, each driven by diverse interests and possessing specific capabilities (government agencies, private organizations). The argument of coordination is very convincing, and it seems that nowadays there is a broad consensus that strategic port planning is a task and a responsibility of the port authority25. Recent practical evidence of port planning processes supports this argument (Coeck and Dooms, 2007). Different port authority ‗models‘ exist and these have been described extensively, and are applied throughout the world (World Bank, 2007). Generally, port authorities are public sector bodies responsible to (a) certain level(s) of government (national, regional, local, municipal). The main determinant of a port authority model is the degree of involvement in the diverse port activities (Goss, 1990d). Two extreme models have been presented: the ‗comprehensive‘ port model, where a port authority performs all the port services, and the ‗landlord‘ port authority, which leases or rents infra- and supra-

25

However, in the most recent edition of the Port Reform Toolkit – Volume 3 (World Bank, 2007), it is assumed that the planning function is situated within the Ministry of Transport. Although the government has the administrative power to allocate functions to certain areas, the planning processes preceding these decisions and resulting planning laws are often delegated to port authorities, in particular in case of landlord models with public shareholdership (municipal or regional government). A possible explanation for this inconsistency is that the Port Reform Toolkit is oriented towards port governance and port reform for developing countries, where central governments still have a large operational and strategic control of port development.

125


structure to private firms, who perform almost all other port services (cargo handling, etc.). In this chapter, it is assumed that the port authority is organized under the form of a ‗landlord‘ model, and that it takes responsibility for the strategic planning process.

3.2.3. The time horizon of port planning

When starting a strategic planning process, the time horizon is an important parameter to define different types of port planning. In the case of port authorities, three different types of planning exist (World Bank, 1993), which can be considered independent of the nature of the port (seaport or inland port): (i)

Short term planning serves the purpose of solving current practical problems on the operational level, whereby the time horizon varies from one (also considered as ‗operational‘ planning) to three (also considered as ‗tactical‘ planning) years.

(ii)

Medium term planning, with a time horizon of 3 to 5 years, is characterized by the development of strategic plans in which ‗management by objectives‘, in particular on the marketing and financial level, plays an important role.

(iii)

Long term planning is aimed at the development of port master plans, whereby a time horizon of 10 to 25 years is considered. This requires a visionary approach to the development of port infrastructure for the whole port area.

This chapter focuses entirely on the third type of long term planning, and more specifically on the development of strategic master plans for inland ports.

126


According to Moglia and Sanguineri (2003), a port master plan sets out a 10-year port development option, taking into account different interests. The result of a master plan should be an agreed course of action for the time horizon (10-25 years) as set out by the port authority. Although these authors take a 10-year horizon as the normal or usual time horizon, a master plan may in some cases extend beyond 25 years. However, we think that the extension of the time horizon beyond 25 years makes it difficult to provide the port authority with a concrete port development scheme (which should include credible timelines for implementing plans and selecting options for new infrastructure), though such a scheme should be the end result of the master planning process. Furthermore, the societal legitimacy of a plan that goes beyond 25 years in terms of quantitative measures (i.e., economic variables such as employment, added value, cargo throughput) is very difficult to achieve. Such legitimacy would require a number of assumptions to be accepted by all relevant stakeholders, which is unlikely to occur, as these assumptions will often be perceived as too optimistic from the viewpoint of specific stakeholders. To conclude, it is unlikely that a planning exercise with a time horizon beyond 25 years could serve as a master plan in itself, but it may still be useful as a tool to identify the different options of long term port development, beyond the timeframe of a formal master plan (horizon 10 to 25 years). In Chapter 4 of this thesis, we will provide complementary insights of differences in outcomes between planning processes with a 10-year horizon versus planning processes with longer time horizons, based on the action research process conducted for the port of Antwerp.

3.2.4. Corporate social responsibility and stakeholder management in the port sector

The management literature has been increasingly focusing its attention on stakeholder theory in recent years, as more firms became aware of the need for implementing aspects of stakeholder management in their strategic planning activities. Although empirical results showing that adopting CSR-related behavior leads to superior financial performance are few, it is argued that CSR contributes substantially to the overall

127


performance of a firm and to the objectives of the firm‘s stakeholders, including society (Burke and Logsdon, 1996). These authors also argued that superior CSR performance, which includes attention to the objectives of different stakeholders, can lead to the creation of strategic business-oriented benefits. Therefore, organizations have to take into account multiple stakeholder objectives in the planning process, and more specifically they should (i) identify the critical stakeholders who contribute to the achievement of the mission and strategic objectives of the organization and (ii) identify the policies that can contribute to the objectives of these critical stakeholders. The most important problem that arises is the identification of these critical stakeholders. Many definitions of the ‗stakeholder‘ concept exist, and no universally accepted definition has yet been proposed, which leads to diverse foundations of the ‗stakeholder theory‘ and of ‗stakeholder management‘ (an in-depth discussion is found in, inter alia, Donaldson and Preston, 1995 and Friedman and Miles, 2006, see also Chapter 1 for a discussion of various definitions of ‗stakeholder management‘ in the management literature). The broadest definition of the concept ‗stakeholder‘ is found in the work of Freeman (1984: vi) where a “stakeholder is by definition any individual or group of individuals that can influence or are influenced by the achievement of the organization‟s objectives‖. Attempts to further specify categories of stakeholders are very difficult for several reasons, mostly in relation to the relative importance or equality of the different stakeholders (or the ‗value‘ and the ‗stake‘ of each stakeholder), and the measurement of performance with regard to the objectives of different stakeholders. Furthermore, the objectives of the stakeholders are in most cases very diverse, and even conflicting. Even inside a stakeholder group, there may be conflict between individual entities with regard to the objectives of the group which poses problems with regard to the legitimacy of the particular stakeholder group, more specifically when the performance or the strategy of the organization in which the group has a ‗stake‘ has to be evaluated (see e.g., Hill and Jones, 1992). Due to the argument above, it has been argued that the number of stakeholders is, in fact, infinite (Argenti, 1997). Nevertheless, other views have arisen and these suggest that because of the vagueness of the general stakeholder concept, the types or classes of stakeholders depend on the organization‘s purpose (Campbell, 1997). In our view, this

128


second approach is very appropriate, as the stakeholder concept has initially been developed for business firms, whereas other particular organizations were not included in the discussion (public bodies, not-for-profit organizations). Furthermore, it has been argued that extension to other kinds of organizations leads to confusion, as the environment and situations confronted by these organizations are profoundly different (Donaldson and Preston, 1995). In this chapter‘s context, the objectives of a port authority clearly differ from those of conventional business firms (Frankel, 1989), hence the need for a case-by-case approach, depending on the nature of the organization and its mission and objectives. Stakeholder theory applied to the port sector has appeared only recently in the academic literature, as port activities and port development (mostly driven by port extension programs) experience increasing resistance, in particular by local community groups who oppose the (perceived) negative externalities of port activities. Notteboom and Winkelmans (2002) offer a description of the port environment and identified different categories of stakeholders: internal stakeholders (part of the port authority organization, such as employees), and three groups of external stakeholders i.e., economic/contractual external stakeholders (e.g., port companies or their representative bodies), public policy stakeholders (e.g., government bodies) and community stakeholders. Furthermore, a classification of stakeholders was presented, on the basis of their involvement in the process, and their impact on the process. It was argued that in order to accomplish sustainable port development, the stakeholder approach will become an important determinant of port competitiveness, given the ever increasing complexity of the port environment.

3.2.5. Inland port and seaports

The preceding sections gave a brief overview of strategic port planning and the role of stakeholder theory in the port sector. It was implicitly assumed in most of these findings that a port is a ‗seaport‘ (Frankel, 1987; Coeck et al., 1996; Coeck et al., 1997), making no distinction between inland ports and seaports. Despite the many parallels between

129


both port ‗types‘, relevant differences exist when developing a strategic port planning framework for inland ports. First, there are differences with regard to the spatial reach of the hinterland. The hinterland of most seaports stretches beyond national borders (e.g., the Hamburg – Le Havre range), whereas most inland ports only have a local or regional hinterland, as they are in most cases near the end-points of the logistics chain. In fact, most inland terminals are a part of the hinterland network of seaports, given their role as important inland hubs for collection and distribution of traffic flows, taking potential congestion away from seaports (Notteboom and Winkelmans, 1999). As a consequence, where large seaports often have a clear national and even supra-national functionality, inland ports have a more limited reach. This distinction has important consequences for a stakeholder management approach, as the need and existence for seaports (the so-called ‗license to operate‘) is less contested than the need and existence for inland ports in urban regions from a public policy perspective (assuming that transport policy is in most countries a national or regional competence) as it is generally accepted that the presence (and scale) of seaports contributes substantially to the competitiveness of the national or regional economies. Second, whereas most seaports have historically realized important capacity expansion and have withdrawn most of their port activities from the centre of the urban region (see e.g., developments in Antwerp and Rotterdam), inland port activities are in many cases still located in the centre of densely populated regions or cities, as they play an important role in metropolitan logistics and urban goods distribution. Moreover, the presence of an inland port is an important asset for sustainable urban development, as the presence of the waterway for the transportation of goods can contribute to the reduction of negative transport externalities (CO2-emissions, noise, etc.) in urban regions. Nevertheless, port activities in the centre of urban regions inevitably create environmental pressures on other urban functions, which puts them in a weak position against local community stakeholders and sometimes even the local or municipal government, as these stakeholders experience in a direct way the local negative

130


environmental pressure of port activities, but do not directly perceive the positive effects of the modal shift these activities provide on a regional level. As a result, available sites in the centre (and even the periphery) of urban regions are often considered too costly in terms of land value to justify further port development. Moreover, this scarcity of land further underscores the need for a stakeholder approach to port development, as potential and even current sites26 reserved for port activities, are under immense pressure of waterfront developments aimed at housing, recreation and allegedly ‗more noble‘ economic functions under the form of office space for the service sector or commercial developments (e.g., large shopping centers). The redevelopment to other land uses as housing and recreation is clearly more attractive to local community stakeholders and political movements, but this puts enormous pressure on the remaining, often adjacent port activities and therefore represents a serious threat under the form of a vicious cycle, see e.g., the experience of the Port of London Authority (Pellegram, 2001). As a result, inland ports have to defend their existence continuously against the pressure of these stakeholder groups, hence the need for a collaborative stakeholder approach in order to maintain a broad social basis for having port activities in the urban region, and safeguarding land in order to meet future port extension requirements. Furthermore, when we consider sustainable inland port development as a part of sustainable urban development, it has already been argued that a multitude of actors has to be involved in order to create a broad basis for policy objectives and measures aimed at sustainable urban development (Priemus, 1999). Third, there are differences in the degree of awareness of port activities between inland ports and seaports. The scale of seaport activities could be considered as an advantage, as local community groups and public bodies are aware of the existence of a port, in

26 This could be a another difference between seaports and inland ports, as inland ports face constant pressure due to a scarcity of land, even for present activities, whereas seaports face these problems increasingly when there is a further need for port extension (e.g., the Left bank of the river Scheldt in Antwerp), their present activities are not being threatened. Moreover, some seaports have redeveloped a large part of old port sites situated in the historical centre of the urban region towards serving other functions, such as housing and recreation, thus alleviating pressure from real estate and recreation facility developers.

131


visual terms as the port activities have a clear dominance, but more importantly in economic terms as a large part of employment at the regional level is directly or indirectly generated by port activities. In contrast, inland ports usually have a smaller scale, and their activities are neither omnipresent in visual terms, nor in economic terms, although in some urban regions they account for a relative large share of regional employment and regional value-added. This lack of awareness of a successful port may have a negative influence on the perceived legitimacy of port activities. Here again, inland port authorities have a much more difficult task vis-à-vis external stakeholders, not only in terms of dissemination of information regarding port activities, but also simply in making the general public aware of their existence. In the next sections, we will present and analyze the results of the application of a framework that allows sustainable inland port development, taking into account the specific characteristics of port activities and stakeholders‘ objectives in an urban region.

3.3. Description of the process and sources of information

3.3.1. Introduction

In Chapter 1, section 1.3.1, we described the main methodological research approach adopted throughout this thesis, including this approach's strengths and limitations. We use case studies, whereby the qualitative analysis builds upon participant observation and action research. Table 1.3 in Chapter 1, section 1.3.1, provided a general overview of the client system adopted during each action research process, as well as an overview of the different sources of information used and actions undertaken in the different processes, which ultimately led to the case studies. In the following sections, we provide a detailed description of the client system, the process of information gathering and analysis, and the actions undertaken by the author of this thesis in the context of the port of Brussels case study.

132


3.3.2. The Port of Brussels

The initiator of the research process, the Port of Brussels, is a landlord port authority, which is responsible for the exploitation, management and development of the canal, the port area, port infrastructure, and some superstructure (e.g., buildings for storage). The Port of Brussels serves the public interest, as its principal shareholder is the Brussels Capital Region, and minority shareholders are a number of municipalities. The Port of Brussels manages a waterway of 14 km in the Brussels Capital Region, on which several bridges and two locks are located. The port of Brussels is an inland port, located approximately 50 km south of the port of Antwerp. The port is connected to the sea by a canal that permits access to inland navigation and maritime vessels up to 4,500 tons (9,000 tons for push convoys). The port consists of 12 km of quays, of which 2.8 km are maritime quays. Each year, more than 15,000 vessels use the canal, representing a total cargo load of about 8 million tons. The port area covers 70 ha, on which more than 300 port companies are located. These companies include stevedores, industrial firms, storage and distribution companies, customs offices and other service firms in a dense urban environment. The waterborne traffic handled at the port of Brussels was about 3.8 million tons in 2003, whereas another 4.2 million tons just passes through the canal, most of it to the South (the Charleroi area). Total traffic (including rail and road traffic) was about 20 million tons in 2003 (VUB, 2003). The port infrastructure permits the supply of goods to the Brussels metropolitan region and the regional industry. Furthermore, the port contributes to sustainable regional mobility, as the presence of the port reduces heavy truck traffic in the dense urban region, with ‗savings‘ of about 400,000 lorries of 20 tons a year (including transit traffic in the canal) 27. Furthermore, the port companies provide non-negligible direct employment and added value in the region (see VUB, 2003 for an in-depth analysis). 27

3.8 million tons of port traffic and 4.2 millions tons of transit traffic total 8 million tons of port and canal traffic in 2003 (VUB, 2003). Taking 20 tons as the average load of a truck, yields 400,000 trucks on

133


3.3.3. The master plan of the port of Brussels

In the case of the port of Brussels, the master plan is an ambitious and integrated development plan for the whole port area with a time horizon of 2015. The port authority wishes to use this plan as the foundation of its long term investment and managerial decisions, but taking into account that both unexpected internal changes (e.g., the port authority received 12 hectares of additional land due to an unexpected decision of the Brussels Regional government), and external, environmental changes, require the plan to be flexible, so as permit adjustments. The port authority explicitly wants the master plan to build upon the main elements of its formal mission28: 

Contribution to the creation of regional added value and employment;



Contribution to the sustainability of general mobility in the region;



Contribution to the integration of port and city;



Socio-economic integration of the port activities in the Trans-European Networks (TEN) for transport.

The master plan also influences many activities and areas of city life beyond the narrow scope of the port objectives described above. Therefore, according to the port authority, the master plan also should take into account various other objectives related to such activities and areas of city life, including, inter alia: 

Environmental objectives;



Objectives of various government agencies;



Objectives of local community stakeholders, e.g., residents, affected by port activities.

a yearly basis. We use the 2003 traffic data as these were the most recent data available during the master planning process. In 2008, port traffic amounted to 4.9 million tons, while transit traffic on the canal totaled 3 million tons (http://www.portdebruxelles.be/?node=49&news_id=27 consulted on 5 December 2009). A recent study executed by the University of Brussels (C. Macharis) estimated the number of saved trucks in the Brussels Region at ca. 700,000, based on the traffic data of 2007 (Port of Brussels, 2008). 28 These formal objectives derived were communicated to the research team at the beginning of the research project by the management of the port authority.

134




Security and safety objectives;



Urban planning and architectural objectives.

The master plan was to include this variety of objectives, but taking into account the impact on overall technical and financial feasibility, and the socio-economic return on investment, however broadly defined. In practical terms, the master plan needed to provide the port authority with a decision support tool to evaluate, e.g., each lease at the expiry date, and to redirect the port activity for each site, taking into account the impacts related to the various objectives described above. In section 3.4 of this chapter, the planning methodology adopted for the execution of the research project (i.e., the proactive design of the port master plan for the port of Brussels) will be described. The research project was commissioned to two separate research teams (a socio-economic planning team and an environmental-urban planning team), which included experts on all domains of port activity impacts mentioned above, and which engaged in extensive coordination. This intense coordination and formal cooperation of different research teams was imposed by the port authority. The aim was to facilitate the creation of a coherent plan, integrating the economic and the environmental-urban planning dimension. In the remaining part of this section, as well as sections 3.4 and 3.5 of this chapter, we will describe how the research process addressed these integration challenges, as well as the involvement of the different stakeholders in the process. Section 3.3.4 will describe the main sources of information, particularly those obtained during the participant observation/action research activity; section 3.4 describes the planning methodology and links the various steps in the planning methodology with these sources of information as well as the different ways stakeholders were involved in the planning process.

135


3.3.4. Description of the client system and main sources of information

3.3.4.1. Formal meetings

The formal interaction between the researchers, the port authority and its stakeholders was organized through four formal committees, throughout the duration of the project. The main research was carried out between April 2002 and April 2005. After consultations of the Port with several political representatives, the master plan was formally approved by the board of directors in March 2006. The strategy formulation and evaluation phase, on which we focus on in this chapter, was concluded in November 2003. The complete master plan including the implementation scheme was concluded in April 200529. First, an internal management committee was set up with the members of the management committee of the Port of Brussels, consisting of the CEO of the port, the manager of marketing and development, and according to the importance, content matters and relevance of the meeting, other senior management staff members such as the CFO. During these meetings, intermediate results were presented in order to get direct feedback as well as validation from senior management staff during all phases of the project. The manager of marketing and development, who acted as the internal project leader, decided when these meetings were necessary or responded to a demand from the research team to hold these meetings whenever feedback from senior management staff was deemed necessary.

29 As there was an intense involvement of senior staff and management members throughout the process, the main guidelines as well as the main strategy of implementation were already ‗informally‘ applied by most port authority staff from this moment on. An example were the renewal or negotiations on several concessions during the master planning process, where the staff members responsible for the negotiations already implicitly applied the main principles for renewal as set out by the master plan (such as spatial productivity or traffic objectives).

136


Second, a scientific committee was set up, consisting of members of the academic community and independent practitioners, to validate the methodological approach and the results of each phase, and contribute their knowledge. The members included: -

A professor in transport geography from a Belgian university, with specific knowledge of inland waterway and inland ports development;

-

A professor of economics from a Belgian University, specialized in the economic dynamics of the Brussels region;

-

A professor of social geography from a Belgian University, specialized in the socio-geographic dynamics of the Brussels region;

-

The logistics director of a large Belgian seaport;

-

The director of strategy and development of a large French inland port;

-

An urban architect responsible for several port redevelopment projects in France.

Other members of this committee included the members of the management committee of the port of Brussels and a senior cabinet member of the Minister responsible for the Port of Brussels (from the Regional Brussels government); this committee was chaired by the CEO of the port, or, in his absence, the manager of marketing and development. The scientific committee met five times over the duration of the research project (from April 2002 until April 2005), after each important phase. The four meetings after the start-up included the validation of the methodologies and results of the current description of the port area from a multidisciplinary viewpoint (interim results including benchmarking analysis), final results of the current description as well as the results from in-depth interviews, validation of the SWOT-analysis and the formulation of strategic alternatives, the evaluation of the strategic alternatives and the choices taken, and finally, the implementation scheme of the master plan and the calculation and analysis of socio-economic

and environmental impacts resulting

from the

implementation. Furthermore, a number of field visits were organized with the members of this committee, the research team and members of the management team of the port authority in the Port of Brussels, as well as three foreign visits, one to the inland ports

137


of Basle and Strasbourg; one to the inland port of Paris and one to the inland port of Lille. Third, a large stakeholder committee was set up to give feedback as well as formal validation to (1) the strategy formulation and evaluation phase and (2) the draft master plan and implementation scheme. The stakeholder committee, which met two times after the conclusion of the phases as outlined above, consisted of: -

Representatives of various regional government agencies, such as Mobility and Infrastructure, Spatial Planning, Economy, Environment;

-

Representatives of the cabinet of the Minister responsible for the Port of Brussels (from the Regional Brussels government);

-

Representatives of all municipal governments on whose territory the Port of Brussels performed activities, mainly represented by a senior staff member from the Spatial Planning department;

-

Representatives of the port users, under the form of representatives of branch organizations as well as important individual port users;

-

Representatives of interest groups representing local action committees and inhabitants of the Brussels Region.

Representatives of the research team and members of the management committee of the Port of Brussels were also present on these meetings. The chairman of this committee was the CEO of the port authority. Fourth, a specific management committee was set up to establish a link to the board of directors. This committee consisted of the CEO of the port, the manager of marketing and development as well as the chairman and the vice-chairman of the board of directors, and representatives of the research team. Two meetings of this committee took place during the process, one after the completion of the strategy formulation and evaluation phase, and one after the completion of the draft master plan and the implementation scheme.

138


The secretariat of all these committees was kept by senior staff members of the Marketing and Development department, who organized the meetings and sent the meeting notes to all participants. Finally, during the research process, a number of additional formal meetings were held with the port users. First, a meeting was held to present the results of 33 face-to-face interviews (see below section 3.3.4.3) held with port users and a limited number of local community representatives. All respondents of the interviews were invited to give feedback on the aggregated results and conclusions as well as to provide additional information. Second, a meeting was organized to present the proposed strategies for each port zone as well as the main guidelines of the implementation scheme to the port users, before formal validation at the level of the different committees and the board of directors, in order to receive direct feedback on the options taken in the master plan allowing adaptations if any ‗vetoes‘ with regards to implementation guidelines (e.g., requirements in terms of spatial productivity, relocation principles) would be expressed.

3.3.4.2. Informal meetings We distinguish between two types of informal meetings. First, during the different research phases, an important number of informal meetings with various senior staff and management members of the Port of Brussels took place, in particular: -

For the transfer of knowledge and information, such as maps, financial data, traffic data, data on concession agreements (duration, minimum traffic guarantees), user performance (in terms of cargo handling), infrastructure data and characteristics, internal notes, studies and documents on projects under development.

-

For a collaborative and iterative SWOT formulation for different port zones;

139


-

For a collaborative and iterative formulation of strategic alternatives for different port zones;

-

To define the projects and guidelines for the implementation scheme.

Second, given the demand for an integration between the socio-economic component and the environmental/spatial development component, informal meetings between the research teams were organized, in particular for (1) dividing the port area in separate zones (2) executing an initial integrated SWOT analysis per zone, which would - after this first iteration - be discussed with the senior management of the port authority in following iterations during formal meetings (see above, section 3.3.4.1), and (3) the formulation of strategic alternatives for each zone after the validation of the SWOT analyses. For each zone, a meeting of the research teams was held during the SWOT and the strategy formulation phase, with all members of the research team present, including socio-economic experts, urban development and spatial planning experts, mobility experts, soil pollution experts, environmental impact experts (including noise, odor, light), construction engineers and security experts.

3.3.4.3. Interviews

Before the SWOT analysis and the strategy formulation and evaluation phase, 33 indepth face-to-face interviews with port users were conducted, representing 12,5% of the port users, 26% of employment, 48% of the sales volume and 35,7% of waterway users, distributed evenly over the port territory (VUB, 2003). The initial objective, agreed upon with the Port of Brussels, was to collect 30 to 40 interviews. We proposed an initial list of 100 users, which the management of the Port reduced and structured into three categories: ‗must see‘ firms (24), complementary firms (27) and less relevant firms (40). All ‗must see‘ firms and a selection of 15 complementary firms were contacted. We obtained a response rate of 83% of the ‗must see‘ firms and 87% of the complementary firms. A semi-structured questionnaire was

140


used in order to gain insights on (1) the satisfaction of the firm with regard to its current location and environment, production factors as well as the services of the Port of Brussels and other governmental agencies; (2) current plans for expansion and/or relocation; (3) expected growth (or decline) of the activity; (4) demands for infrastructure; and (5) specific information on cargo flows, spatial productivity and employment. Additionally, we included questions on the existence and nature of the relationships with various actors within the local community (action committees, chamber of commerce, etc.). Some of these elements were also used for a limited number of indepth interviews with local community stakeholders, in particular in port zones with high urban pressure and growing resistance from local residents.

141


3.4. Description of the planning methodology and stakeholder involvement

3.4.1. The definition of stakeholders and the introduction of port ‘zones’

When attempting to involve stakeholders in the port planning process, it is important to identify the most critical stakeholders (or categories of stakeholders). In this context, we should again mention that even the concept of a ‗stakeholder‘ itself is somewhat opaque from a theoretical point of view (see Donaldson and Preston, 1995). For a port, a stakeholder can be defined as any individual or group of individuals that can influence or is influenced by - the achievement of the port‘s (or rather port authority‘s) objectives (based on Freeman, 1984). On the basis of this definition, a variety of stakeholder categories can be identified, as Notteboom and Winkelmans (2002) have done in their work, making a distinction between internal stakeholders (groups inside the port authority) and external stakeholders (groups which are not part of the port authority organization). These external stakeholders consist of three groups, i.e., external stakeholders in the economic sphere, with which formal, contractual relationships exist (e.g., port companies or their representative bodies), public policy stakeholders (i.e., government agencies) and community stakeholders. From the perspective of port planning, the objectives of each of these four categories of stakeholders with regard to development options of the port need to be defined. In this context, an important problem is the spatial dispersion of the port over a large geographical area, which results in the variation of identity and the objectives of the stakeholders over the area. This ‗stakeholder heterogeneity‘, depending upon the port zone considered, should obviously be taken into account. Therefore, if a stakeholder based planning process is to be introduced, a decomposition of the overall port area in separate geographic port ‗zones‘ is appropriate. Figure 3.2 describes this need to evolve from a ‗one stakeholder‘ (the port authority) to a ‗multi-stakeholder‘ approach (taking into account the ‗long term investment and managerial intent‘ of different stakeholders),

142


and from a ‗one zone‘ (i.e., the port area as a single, homogeneous zone) to a ‗multi zone‘ approach (i.e., the decomposition of the port area into different zones). Figure 3.2: Evolution of planning processes based on homogeneity of the port area and number of relevant stakeholder groups

Number of relevant stakeholder groups "Homogeneity" of the port area

One

Many

Multiple zones

One homogeneous area

Present / Future

Past

In the next sections, the planning methodology developed during the research process for the master plan will be discussed, with a focus on the involvement of the different stakeholders in the planning process. In section 3.5 of this chapter, a summary of the empirical results will be provided regarding the idiosyncratic characteristics of each port zone, in terms of relevant stakeholders and objectives to be taken into account in the planning process, in particular when it concerns strategy evaluation through Multicriteria analysis (MCA).

143


3.4.2. Description of the planning methodology

3.4.2.1. Introduction

The planning approach shown in Figure 3.3 starts from the decomposition of the port area in several port zones, each with different characteristics. After this decomposition in several zones, the step-by-step approach shows the planning process for each specific zone. Before discussing the planning methodology and stakeholder inclusion in more detail, the main assumptions and normative foundations of this port planning methodology are described. The main assumptions are: -

It is assumed that the port authority is organized under the form of a landlord model, i.e., it controls land use through granting leasing and renting contracts for infrastructure and superstructure to private firms, which perform all other port services (cargo-handling, storage, etc.). In some cases, the ‗landlord‘ port also supplies general services, such as security, pilotage, etc. to the private sector. The Port of Brussels possesses all these characteristics and can be considered as a landlord port.

-

It is assumed that the port authority has planning responsibility. It has indeed been argued that master planning should be the task of the port authority, and should not be left to individual, commercial firms or government agencies (see e.g., Goss, 1990c). The Port of Brussels operates according to the guidelines provided by five-year agreements with the regional government, whereby the port authority commits itself to achieving specific objectives. One of the explicit commitments made, is the development of a port master plan.

144


-

The time horizon of port master planning usually is 10 to 25 years. The master plan for the Port of Brussels has a 10-year time horizon, extending from 2005-2015.

The remainder of this section discusses three points. First, we develop Figure 3.3 and describe how the methodology was applied during the process (section 3.4.2.2). Second, we focus on stakeholder involvement in the planning process for the master plan of the port of Brussels, with a view to validate (or bring corrections to) each step in the planning process. This can be considered as stakeholder inclusion with a focus on ex post validation, meaning that a committee of different stakeholder representatives is asked to validate elements of the draft master plan, after the research work has taken place, and is provided the opportunity to make amendments to these elements (section 3.4.2.3.1). Third, the stakeholders may also have an ex ante inclusion in port master planning, through participating actively in interviews and meetings conducted during the planning process, before ex post validation steps of the research work are undertaken. We show which steps of the planning methodology were characterized by this type of stakeholder inclusion and how this potentially contributed to effectiveness gains in the formulation and the execution of the implementation scheme (section 3.4.2.3.2).

145


3.4.2.2. Description of the planning methodology

Figure 3.3 gives an overview of the planning process, which was applied during the development of the master plan, with a focus on the strategy formulation and evaluation phase. This framework offers an insight into the planning process that was applied for each distinct port zone. The framework consists of 9 planning process steps, which will be discussed separately in order to explain their contribution to the planning process. The conceptual foundations for this 9-step planning approach are derived from the traditional strategic planning literature (Mintzberg, 1994a) as well as the literature on the conceptual foundations of linking stakeholder management and strategic planning such as Banville et al. (1998), Emshoff and Saaty (1979) and Winn (2001). The approach is also consistent with the approaches and conceptual foundations adopted by Allaert and De Klerck (1998) in the context of spatial and territorial strategic planning.

146


Figure 3.3: The planning methodology for a separate port zone

147


Step 1: Divide the port area in different zones, according to their social, economic, spatial design, regulatory and environmental characteristics and define the main stakeholder categories

The first step of the planning process is multidisciplinary in nature, as the heterogeneous port area has to be divided in separate zones, which are relatively homogeneous in social, economic, spatial design, regulatory and environmental terms. Therefore, an overview of the port area is created following these separate dimensions, after which the resulting separate maps are confronted in an interactive meeting with the members of the research team and different port zones are described and submitted for validation by the internal management committee and the scientific committee. This first step contributes to the consistency (and sustainability) of the planning process as this zonal division takes into account the specific but sometimes very diverse characteristics of the port area components, ensuring that no important characteristic is forgotten at the basis of the planning process. It has to be noted that there are no minimum scale requirements of the ‗port zone‘ concept in terms of cargo traffic volume, employment or other parameters. In some cases, specific port zones may even be devoid of specific, dedicated port activities (at least at this phase). Generally, it is preferred, in case of doubt, to define a greater number of separate zones, which can then easily be merged in a next step (under the condition that they are adjacent and share a number of common characteristics, see below, step 2). As was pointed out earlier, the classification and definition of the stakeholders depends on the purpose of the analysis. We decided to consider four main stakeholders: government, local community, the port authority and the (potential) port users. A main stakeholder can be unbundled in several sub-categories with their own specific criteria (e.g., local community can be unbundled into tourists, residents, adjacent non-port firms and organizations) if the characteristics of a zone necessitate this approach. The applied multi-criteria analysis method (see below, step 8) allows this unbundling of a main stakeholder category. The definition of the main stakeholder categories provides an important input for the questionnaire driving the in-depth interviews, as questions can be more oriented towards stakeholder-sensitive objectives.

148


Step 2: Overall and zonal analysis of the current situation from all different perspectives

In this step, information is gathered for each zone and for the global port area. This allows a detailed description of the current situation at the level of each perspective (social, economic, spatial, security, mobility). These descriptive analyses reveal important information for the in-depth interviews (step 3), as they provide indications as to what should be included in the questionnaire. This step also contributes to the development of the SWOT-matrix (step 4) as strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats are identified for each perspective.

Step 3: Perform in-depth interviews with different stakeholders, both on a quantitative and a qualitative basis

This next step builds upon the previous steps as it incorporates conclusions of the analysis of the current situation, thus providing a complementary source of information when conceptualizing the questions for the in-depth interviews, in particular with regard to sensitive stakeholder objectives. The survey is primarily aimed at port users, but can also partly serve to consult local community stakeholders. Included in the survey are questions to determine overall satisfaction of the port companies and local community stakeholders with regard to several dimensions of firm competitiveness. An important number of questions are answered on a -2 to +2 scale (where +2 represents the highest level of satisfaction), providing quantitative information of port competitiveness. Interviews were held face-to-face, allowing respondents to explain their scores on different questions, which in turn yields relevant qualitative information on specific measures to include in the master plan to improve port competitiveness. These elements, complemented by open-ended questions on specific expansion projects, growth or decline of the activity and other issues of strategic importance (such as conditions for relocation) provide an important source of qualitative information for further steps in the planning process.

149


Step 4: Perform a SWOT-analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats)

The approach as well as the sources of information used for these SWOT analyses is similar to the iterative approach and sources of information of SWOT analysis in strategic spatial planning, as suggested and extensively discussed in Allaert and De Klerck (1998) and Allaert (2009). In this step, a SWOT-analysis for each zone is conducted based on two sources of information: the results of step 2 (analysis of the current situation) and the results of step 3 (analysis of the in-depth interviews). The results of step 3 are represented by strengths and weaknesses primarily derived from quantitative questions and opportunities and threats provided primarily by qualitative information. In a first phase, SWOT-analyses are performed during multidisciplinary workshops with the research teams. In a second phase, these SWOT-analyses are presented to senior staff members of the port authority during multiple interactions, creating an interative process, which results in a sustainable SWOT-analysis. This collaborative approach eliminates the weaknesses of this method, which are the unclear definitions of factors, the lack of prioritization of factors and subjectivity as factors are generated (see e.g., Pickton and Wright, 1998). This SWOT-analysis provides the basis for the definition of the long term strategic alternatives.

Step 5: Define long term strategic alternatives for each zone, using results of steps 3 and 4 and multidisciplinary workshops

After results from the SWOT-analysis are obtained, multidisciplinary team meetings are held to define long term strategic alternatives for each zone. The results of these interactive meetings are then presented to the internal management committee of the port authority, allowing to further specify the content and the objectives of the strategic

150


alternatives. This collaborative approach provides sustainable long term strategic alternatives as qualitative contributions of stakeholders are taken into account, via the results provided by the in-depth interviews of step 3.

Step 6: Define criteria and weights

The definition of objectives, translated into operational criteria for each stakeholder, follows a similar approach as used for the definition of stakeholders: the criteria depend on the purpose, i.e., the characteristics of each zone. This approach is very relevant for all stakeholders, as their objectives change throughout the port area (see section 3.5). For example, in some port zones government objectives will be oriented towards economic development, whereas other port zones will be considered suitable for the development of housing and recreation. The objectives of the port authority and the port companies seem much more stable, although there can be adjustments depending on the port zone, but such adjustments are unlikely to be as significant as for government or local community stakeholders. One reason for this difference is that the port authority can be considered as ‗identical‘ or ‗univocal‘ over the whole port area, whereas the identity of local community stakeholders and sometimes even government (e.g., municipalities) can change depending on the port zone considered. An in-depth analysis of this variability is provided in section 3.5 below. Figure 3.4 shows a hypothetical example of a hierarchical structure for a distinct port zone.

151


Figure 3.4: Example of a hierarchical structure

For each port zone, a proposal for a hierarchical evaluation structure was discussed with the internal management committee of the port authority and validated with the scientific committee. The weight of each stakeholder and each principal criterion was based on expert judgments by the members of the research team. A principal criterion can be unbundled in several sub-criteria (e.g., the ‗strategic objectives‘ criterion for government, see Figure 3.4). However, the applied multi-criteria analysis method and software (see step 8) allow an interactive process with the stakeholders in order to perform sensitivity analyses if no consensus on the weights of the criteria can be obtained.

152


Step 7: Edit profile charts for each stakeholder for each strategic alternative, fill in scores on each criterion, using inputs of steps 2 and 3

This step entails the aggregation of the previous step, and provides the basic input for step 8 (multi-criteria analysis). If the number of stakeholders is n, and the number of strategic alternatives is m, then (m x n) profile charts are created. The criteria on each profile chart are rated on a (--) to (++) scale, where a neutral score (N) is given if a criterion is not relevant for a specific stakeholder (which depends on the content of the strategic alternative). The ratings represent the contribution of that specific criterion to the strategic alternative under consideration. Figure 3.5 shows the general outline of a profile chart, where a hierarchical structure is maintained, in line with the hierarchical approach used in the multi-criteria analysis. This hierarchical structure has the advantage that principal criteria can be decomposed into sub-criteria. E.g., for the port authority, the contribution of planning alternatives to the waterborne cargo throughput objective is an important criterion. However, in the case of the Port of Brussels, this criterion had to be unbundled, depending upon the zone considered, in e.g., ‗contribution to short-sea shipping traffic‘ and ‗contribution to container traffic‘ as one specific zone (characterized by the presence of maritime quays and a container terminal) offers future potential to attract short-sea maritime traffic as well as inland waterway container traffic, thereby diversifying the traffic structure of the port as a whole. Another example of unbundling is one whereby the economic criterion used by the stakeholder ‗government‘, needed to be decomposed into two sub-criteria i.e., ‗contribution to regional employment‘ and ‗contribution to regional value added‘. This hierarchical structure can also be used to decompose a stakeholder category in separate categories. The characteristics of a zone sometimes impose this decomposition. In practice, this decomposition was required in multiple zones for the local community stakeholder category, as this category can consist of several sub-categories with different objectives. In those specific cases, the local community stakeholder was decomposed into ‗residents‘, ‗neighboring, non-port enterprises‘ and ‗leisure seekers‘. This decomposition was very appropriate for port zones in the centre of the urban

153


region, where port activities must co-exist with housing, offices and leisure infrastructure (e.g., restaurants, cycling lanes). Each of these activities can be linked to a specific group of individuals with different objectives, hence the need for unbundling, in order to obtain a correct insight into the contribution of planning alternatives to the objectives of these separate groups.

Figure 3.5: General outline of a profile chart

Principal Criterion 1 Sub-criterion 1 É Sub-criterion n Principal Criterion 2 Sub-criterion 1 É É Sum Of Weights

Weights of principal criteria

++

+

N

-

1

For the port authority, ratings are based on expert information, and can be modified during interactive meetings with representatives of the port authority. For government criteria, ratings are based on government policy documents, which provide insights into the strategic objectives of the government. In other words, ratings are based on the contribution that each criterion could represent in order to realize strategic government objectives, and are validated by government representatives. The ratings of the criteria of the port companies and local community stakeholders are based on the quantitative and qualitative results of the in-depth interviews with these stakeholders, complemented by expert information.

154

--


Step 8: Perform multi-criteria analysis (MCA), by pair-wise comparison of ratings on profile charts.

The MCA method used to assess the different strategic alternatives in the strategy formulation and evaluation phase of the master plan of the Port Brussels is the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), described by Saaty (1982, 1988). The use of MCA in the case of stakeholder based strategic port planning is almost imperative, as the ratings of the majority of the criteria cannot be expressed in monetary terms or on continuous quantitative scales (given the long planning term of 10 to 25 years) and the heterogeneous nature of the criteria. The AHP-method also allows the development of a clear causal and hierarchical structure, transparent for decision makers. The software package that is used to perform the analysis (EXPERT CHOICE) supports this transparency, because clear visualizations are made possible and these are easily interpretable by stakeholder representatives, who are not acquainted with MCA methods. For a more detailed and critical literature overview on the advantages of MCA, and more specifically the AHP method and the use of EXPERT CHOICE, see e.g., De Brucker et al. (1998), Macharis (2000), Vreeker et al. (2002) and Macharis (2007) who successfully applied the method to a wide variety of transport infrastructure planning problems. Section 1.2.4 provides an overview of the use of stakeholder based MCA approaches using the AHP for strategic planning processes as well as transport infrastructure related projects. The basis of the Saaty Method is the pair-wise comparison of the strategic alternatives on the level of the criteria, using a 1-9 ratio scale where 1 signifies no preference between two strategic alternatives and 9 signifies absolute preference of one strategic alternative over another on the objective/criterion under evaluation30. The analysis of the separate strategic alternatives on the profile charts is translated into a multi-criteria analysis where several strategic alternatives are confronted with each other. The type of scale used on the profile charts (++ to -- as well as a neutral score) as a basis for making pair-wise comparisons using MCA methods based on a hierarchy of objectives has been described in other cases in the literature, e.g., the Starkist case as analyzed by Winn and 30

See Saaty (1990) for a concise overview of the method and some basic examples.

155


Keller (2001) where a ‗+‘, ‗-‗, ‗0‘ and ‗?‘31 rating system was used. Eventually, this process leads to a classification of the proposed strategic alternatives. The applied method allows an iterative process, as feedback from different stakeholders can easily be introduced via modifications on the profile charts. The main advantage of this approach is that decision makers and research teams can make separate and more independent judgments on the profile charts, whereas the direct adjudication of relative importance on the Saaty scale would be more difficult, given the broad content of some strategic alternatives, and given that long term planning needs a more visionary approach. With regard to the AHP-method, it must be pointed out that the ranking of different alternatives need not always be followed when decisions are taken. The multi-criteria analysis allows revealing the critical stakeholders and their critical objectives, but does not provide a fundamental assessment of the strategic alternatives (in terms of monetary or other quantifiable terms). Multi-criteria analysis provides a comparison of different strategic alternatives, and supports the decision-maker in making his/her final decision by pointing out for each stakeholder which elements have a clearly positive or a clearly negative impact on the sustainability of the considered strategic alternatives.

Step 9: Implementation

After completing the decision process, steps have to be taken to implement the chosen strategic alternative by creating implementation schemes for the considered zone. This planning process step can be complemented by cost-benefit analysis for well-defined projects, which can be carried out in early stages of the execution of the actual implementation scheme. We provide further insights into this process in the next section as well as the discussion at the end of this chapter (section 3.7).

31

Where the ‗?‘ rating represents a lack of information to rate the contribution of a strategic alternative to an objective in the decision hierarchy.

156


3.4.2.3. Stakeholder inclusion

3.4.2.3.1. Stakeholder inclusion with a focus on ex post validation of results

Stakeholder inclusion with a focus on ex post validation of results in the planning process is oriented towards the introduction of validation committees, which represent the different stakeholder categories (government, local communities, port users), and which provide a periodical evaluation and adjustment of the different steps during the research project. These formal validation moments are also included in Figure 3.3. In the case of the port of Brussels, the main validation committee was composed of (see also above, section 3.1): -

Representatives of the regional government council, representing the stakeholder category ‗government‘. More particularly, in the case of the port of Brussels, representatives of the Minister responsible for regional port policy.

-

Representatives of different government agencies from different functional fields (inter alia mobility, spatial and urban planning, environment), as additional representatives of the stakeholder category ‗government‘;

-

Representatives of different organizations of port users as well as important individual port users;

-

Representatives of local community councils and interest groups, representing the stakeholder category ‗local community‘. In the case of the port of Brussels, representatives of the local municipality councils of

157


the municipalities directly affected by the presence of port activities on their territory were involved. On the basis of the planning framework and the experience obtained during the master planning process of the port of Brussels, a distinction can be made between three important validation/evaluation moments. A first evaluation and validation moment is held after step 3. Step 3 consists of ex ante inclusion of stakeholders in the process, i.e., in-depth interviews with different stakeholder categories, with a dominance of port users. Special attention is devoted to the selection of the sample, as all port zones must be adequately represented in the sample in terms of port users. Here, each user provides insights on the evolution of his activities, and sets out his views on the long term development of the port. To the extent that the analysis of the current situation (step 2) showed great pressure from the urban environment in a specific zone, targeted, in-depth interviews with local community members were also conducted. The results of step 2 and the in-depth interviews in step 3 are presented to all respondents, and to the validation committee consisting of the stakeholder representatives. This evaluation and validation moment provides the research team and the port authority with valuable qualitative information about the point of view of the different stakeholders on the actual strengths/weaknesses of the port, but also on the long term future of the port, in particular in terms of opportunities and threats. This evaluation moment also permits stakeholders to voice their opinion on some general investments that the port should or should not make within the time horizon of the master plan, but with a focus on short term investments. Such short term investments may include, inter alia, general improvements to security in the port area, uniform road signalization, etc., and are usually non-critical components of the master plan. A second evaluation and validation moment is held after step 8, when the substantive components of the formal master-planning process, in terms of strategy formulation and

158


evaluation, have been completed. At this stage, the research team has defined and evaluated long term alternative planning options for each port zone and has defined a tentative set of development plans for each zone. At that point in time, the validation committee can intervene, in particular with regard to the criteria and weights used in the multi-criteria analysis to assess formally alternative port development options (see below). The committee can further amend plans for specific zones in terms of socioeconomic, technical, regulatory, political or environmental feasibility. A third evaluation and validation moment is held after the implementation scheme has been defined, and specific plans for certain port sites are proposed. The validation committee can again amend the implementation scheme in terms of socio-economic, technical, regulatory, political or environmental feasibility. More specifically, time periods foreseen for implementation, and time lags between specific steps in the implementation scheme can be modified, e.g., due to soil pollution of a certain area, or due to other government projects (e.g., public transport projects, residential projects) which could potentially interfere with the implementation scheme that has been proposed. The result is an implementation scheme that permits long term sustainability and robustness in terms of socio-economic, technical, regulatory, political or environmental feasibility.

3.4.2.3.2. Stakeholder inclusion with a focus on ex ante inputs for subsequent analysis

3.4.2.3.2.1. Introduction

In addition to stakeholder inclusion in ex post validation committees or task forces, which are already commonly used at present in many Western-European ports, especially in the context of port expansion or (re)development projects, ex ante stakeholder inclusion should have a place in port master planning. This type of 159


stakeholder inclusion implies the direct participation of stakeholders in the planning process on an ex ante, rather than an ex post basis. In our planning approach, in-depth interviews of port users and members of the local community play a key role in this type of inclusion.

3.4.2.3.2.2. Direct inclusion in the formulation of strategic alternatives: a redefinition of SWOT-analysis for port planning.

Ex ante stakeholder inclusion constitutes an important input for the SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) for each zone. The results of step 3 (analysis of the in-depth interviews) reflect strengths and weaknesses derived primarily from quantitative questions, and opportunities and threats obtained mainly through qualitative information. It is important to include the results of the interviews directly into the master-planning process, more specifically into the SWOT-analysis stage. SWOT-analysis is a key component of the planning process in many organizations as well as in strategic spatial planning (Allaert and De Klerck, 1998; Allaert, 2009), as the detailed study of the internal characteristics and external environment of an organization may provide guidance on the formulation of feasible strategic alternatives. In the case of a port zone, the SWOT-analysis provides the research team and the port authority with a detailed overview of the internal characteristics and external environment of that port zone, as well as early indications on the necessity/feasibility of strategic alternatives. Each of the strategic alternatives considered will have specific, and idiosyncratic impacts on the various external stakeholder groups, including those who would like to reduce the presence or the development of port activities in this zone. In practice, the actual SWOT-analyses are performed in a first stage after gathering inputs from stakeholders, and through the use of multidisciplinary informal meetings involving research teams with different types of expertise. In a second stage, these SWOT-analyses are presented to the port authority in formal meetings, and further finetuned. As argued before (see section 3.4.2.2), such a collaborative approach reduces the

160


methodological problems often associated with this type of planning tools, such as the unclear definition of factors, the lack of prioritization of factors and researcher bias (see e.g., Pickton and Wright, 1998). These SWOT-analyses, which result from participative decision-making, thus provide a rather robust basis for the definition of long term strategic alternatives for each port zone. In the Port of Brussels‘ case, three stakeholder categories had a direct, ex ante inclusion via either interviews (port users and local community) or via an iterative adjustment process (port authority). Government agency representatives did not have a direct, ex ante input in this case, but they could have been involved in the iterative adjustment process, if this had been viewed useful by the port authority. However, as each SWOT-analysis addressed only one, narrowly defined port zone, the port authority felt that any public agency‘s contribution to the port planning process would have been very limited as opposed to the contribution of port users, local community stakeholders or the port authority itself, with the latter having a keen understanding of regulatory requirements and trends relevant to the port. After this step, multidisciplinary informal meetings among researchers are held in order to define long term strategic alternatives for each zone. The results of these workshops are again presented to the port authority in formal meetings, which makes it possible to further specify the content and the objectives of the strategic alternatives. This collaborative and iterative approach32 provides sustainable long term strategic alternatives as contributions of external stakeholders are taken into account in a direct way, as described above. The results of the various meetings with the port authority are then presented to the scientific committee, in order to validate the long term strategic options for each zone.

32 The use of a collaborative and iterative approach for SWOT as well as strategy formulation is also suggested by the scientific literature on strategic spatial planning, see Allaert and De Klerck (1998) and Allaert (2009) for an overview.

161


3.4.2.3.2.3. Direct inclusion in the evaluation of strategic alternatives

A second, ex ante inclusion of the different stakeholders occurs when designing the profile charts, which provide the input for the multi-criteria analysis. Each profile chart consists of a number of criteria (and their weights), representing for each stakeholder the important objectives that have to be taken into account when comparing long term strategic alternatives for a separate zone. For each port zone, the criteria (and weights) are defined, taking into account the specific characteristics of each zone, and taking into account the results of the in-depth interviews (port users, local communities) of step 3. The criteria relevant to government agencies are deduced from regional policy documents, e.g., the different regional development plans. For the Brussels Capital Region, a new regional development plan was approved in 2001, outlining detailed objectives for various policy areas for the region as a whole, but also focusing on the canal area where port activities take place. Finally, the criteria of the port authority are defined and validated in meetings with port authority managers and senior staff members. The weights are defined using the in-depth interviews, and are complemented by expert information from the research team and experts from the port authority. Furthermore, the multi-criteria analysis method allows for sensitivity analysis. The criteria on each profile chart are then rated on a (--) to (++) scale, whereby a neutral score (N) is given if a criterion is not relevant to a specific stakeholder (this depends on the content of the strategic alternatives considered). The ratings represent the contribution of a strategic alternative, if adopted, to that specific criterion. For the port authority, ratings on the profile charts are based on the results of previous steps, expert information, and can be modified during interactive meetings with representatives of the port authority. For government criteria, ratings are based on government policy documents, which provide insights into the objectives of government agencies. Differently put, ratings are based on the contribution that each strategic alternative is likely to make, to achieving government objectives; these ratings are then validated by government representatives.

162


The last step in the evaluation process of the long term planning alternatives for each zone is the execution of a multi-criteria analysis (MCA), using the profile charts as an input. The MCA method used to assess the strategic alternatives is the Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP), see Saaty (1982, 1988). The use of MCA in the case of stakeholder based master-planning is almost imperative, as the ratings on the majority of the criteria cannot be expressed in monetary terms, given the long planning period, in this case 10 years, and the importance of several qualitative scores, in this case for environmental and urban planning variables. The AHP-method also allows the development of a clearly designed, causal and hierarchical structure, transparent to decision makers. The basis of the Saaty method is the pair-wise comparison of the strategic alternatives on the level of the criteria. The evaluation of the separate strategic alternatives on the profile charts is translated into a multi-criteria analysis, whereby the several strategic alternatives are confronted with each other. This eventually leads to a classification of the proposed strategic alternatives. This approach allows a built-in iterative process, as feedback from different stakeholder categories can easily be introduced via modifications made on the profile charts. The main advantage of this profile charts approach is that stakeholders and research teams can adjust scores on the profile charts for each strategic alternative, whereas direct stakeholder influence on determining the relative importance of the criteria themselves, i.e., their weight on the Saaty scale would likely lead to unwanted biases. With regard to the evaluation method used, i.e., the AHP-method, it must be pointed out that the ranking of different alternatives need not necessarily be followed when decisions are made. The multi-criteria analysis builds upon criteria viewed as critical by key stakeholder groups, but does not provide a single, unambiguous, ‗correct answer‘, as to what precise strategic alternative to select for each zone. MCA provides a comparison of different strategic alternatives, and supports the decision-maker in making his final decision by pointing out for each stakeholder the positive and negative impacts of strategic alternatives.

163


Stakeholders have a direct ex ante impact on the evaluation process, as they can intervene with respect to the scores given for each alternative on the profile charts. They can also make suggestions at the level of the relative weights given to the criteria, but only to permit sensitivity analyses, not to change the core of the MCA. In other words, if a particular stakeholder group challenges the weight(s) used by the research team, a sensitivity analysis may provide insights as to the impact of a modification of the weights on the evaluation of the strategic alternatives, from the perspective of that stakeholder group. Finally, the best-ranked strategic alternatives are selected for each port zone, for each stakeholder group separately, and across stakeholder groups.

3.4.2.3.2.4. Direct inclusion in the design of the implementation scheme

The final stage of the planning process is the design of an implementation scheme. It provides the port authority with a tentative sequence of investments and managerial actions to be undertaken until the end of the planning horizon. In the case of the port of Brussels, an implementation scheme was developed, consisting of two interrelated components. First, for each particular port site (section of a port zone, typically utilized by one or a few port customers), an evaluation of the present and expected future activity was performed. This evaluation was then contrasted with the long term strategic alternative adopted for the port zone to which the site belongs. This site-by-site evaluation leads to specific measures to be taken for each port site, within the horizon of the master plan and from the perspective of different objectives pursued. Special attention must go to sites where the expiry date of the lease falls within the planning horizon of the master plan, as the master-plan should provide the port authority with a set of distinct measures to be undertaken at the expiry date of the lease (this may include drastic measures, such as, inter alia, the relocation of the activity within or outside the port area, the attraction of another activity and/or a decrease of the surface area).

164


Second, in each specific port zone, a number of well-defined short term projects (to be realized within 5 years, and within the existing port area), as well as suggestions for long term projects (to be realized after the next 5 years, and often aimed at port expansion) are proposed. This selection can be complemented by cost-benefit analysis in the case of well-defined short term projects. In any case, detailed descriptions of the projects are made, and for each project a separate implementation scheme is constructed. The short term projects are usually related to sites that are not occupied or can easily be put to alternative use as the leases become closer to the expiry date. Nevertheless, the realization of these projects often involves measures that extend to leases with an expiry date in the distant future (sometimes even beyond the horizon of the master-plan). In that case, the master plan implementation scheme should foresee the relocation of these firms within the port area. Furthermore, the elaboration of a comprehensive communication plan for each port user subject to a potential relocation operation is a necessity, in order to convince these firms to relocate. The direct ex ante inclusion of the stakeholders in this stage is realized in two ways. First, senior management staff and experts of the port authority play an important role, in particular the experts responsible for the evaluation and extension of the leases. Their in-depth knowledge of the nature and characteristics of the activities performed by each separate port user, and their particular strategies, constitutes useful information when developing the implementation scheme. Second, the in-depth surveys conducted during step 3 also include questions with respect to the willingness of the firms to relocate, and the willingness to increase/reduce the area they occupy. For individual port users subject to a potential relocation, the answers to these questions again provide a useful input when designing the implementation scheme.

165


3.5. Results of the application (with a focus on spatial aspects of stakeholder management)

3.5.1. Introduction

This section summarizes the empirical results, obtained during the application of the planning methodology as shown in Figure 3.3 (see supra, section 3.4.2.2). The planning methodology was applied six times (i.e., to six different port zones): insights concerning the changing nature of stakeholders and their criteria, according to the port zone considered, are described in section 3.5.3.

3.5.2. The decomposition in zones

Figure 3.6 shows the decomposition of the port area in six zones. The research team originally started from 11 zones (see 1, 2, 3, 4a, 4b, 5, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, 8) for the analysis of the current situation, i.e., each of these 11 zones was analyzed separately. The distinction among 11 zones was consistent with a prior decomposition, used in older studies to analyze the variety in port area characteristics.

166


During the execution of planning steps 2 to 4 (analysis of the current situation, in-depth survey and SWOT-analysis), these 11 zones were brought back to 6 zones: 

Zone ‗Avant-port / Voorhaven‘ (zones 1 and 2 in Figure 3.6);



Zone ‗Marché matinal / Vroegmarkt‘ (zone 3 in Figure 3.6);



Zone ‗Vergote – BILC – TIR‘ (zones 4a and 5 in Figure 3.6);



Zone ‗Béco‘ (zone 4b in Figure 3.6);



Zone ‗Centre / Centrum‘ (zones 6a and 6b in Figure 3.6);



Zone ‗Sud / Zuiden‘ (zones 7a, 7b and 8 in Figure 3.6).

During the execution of the SWOT-analyses for the 11 zones, the research team uncovered a large number of similarities between different adjacent zones, i.e., they showed an important overlap of SWOT-analysis elements. Such adjacent zones with similar SWOT-analysis outcomes, were merged to a single zone with one SWOTanalysis, which provided the basis for the definition of the different long term strategic alternatives.

167


Figure 3.6: Decomposition of the port of Brussels in six zones

5

Building upon Figure 3.6, it is possible to distinguish the characteristics of several zones. Zones ‗Avant-port/Voorhaven‘ and ‗Marché matinal/Vroegmarkt‘ seem to show less pressure from local community stakeholders, as they are not directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The zone ‗Avant-port/Voorhaven‘ has maritime quays, allowing access to coasters up to 4,500 tons. This zone clearly has a strong maritime and seaport-related vocation. Although these zones are not directly adjacent to residential neighborhoods, analysis during steps 2 and 3 of the planning process, in particular the results from the interviews, showed that there are still strong NIMBY

168


(Not In My BackYard) feelings in the broader residential community that need to be taken into account. The zones ‗Vergote-BILC-TIR‘ and ‗Béco‘ are located in the centre of the urban region, and are characterized by the direct proximity of residential neighborhoods, offices and leisure infrastructure. These other functions put substantial environmental pressure on the port activities in this zone (which consist primarily of the metropolitan distribution of construction materials, such as sand, concrete and bricks), and on the TIR-centre (which includes 160,000 m2 of storage space). Spatial functional analysis performed in step 2 of the planning process suggested a large degree of multi-functionality in each of these central zones, potentially indicating high stakeholder pressure. The zone ‗Centre/Centrum‘ is devoid of all port activities and is adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The zone ‗Sud/Zuiden‘ has a double face. On the left bank of the canal, there is a dominant presence of residential neighborhoods and leisure infrastructure. On the right bank, there is a clear economic vocation with the – limited – presence of port activities. However, other economic activities near the canal such as storage and distribution of consumer goods presently do not use the waterway, and there is growing pressure from property developers to build new office complexes. The right bank is also characterized by the presence of one of Volkswagen‘s (German car manufacturer) largest European factories33.

33

Since 2009, after a company restructuring, this factory has become an Audi factory (decision taken in 2007).

169


3.5.3. Impact of the characteristics of each zone on the number and nature of stakeholders and criteria As regards the planning process steps that permitted to identify the stakeholders and their objectives (translated into criteria for purposes of MCA) in each zone, the following observations can be made, based on Table 3.1. First, the criteria of the port authority are relatively stable throughout the whole port area, across port zones. The reason is that the port authority has an overall strategic intent for the development of the entire port area. However, a distinction needs to be made between zones where port activities play an important role, and zones devoid of port activities. In the case of ‗active‘ zones, some general criteria must be unbundled into ‗tailor-made‘ sub-criteria for each separate zone, depending on the characteristics of the zone. For example, in the case of the zone ‗Avant-port/Voorhaven‘, the presence of a container terminal and maritime quays required the decomposition of the ‗contribution to maritime traffic‘ criterion into a ‗contribution to short-sea shipping traffic‘ and a ‗contribution to container traffic‘. Other ‗variable‘ criteria included, e.g., ‗contribution to potential synergies with neighboring activities‘. In the zone ‗Avant-port/Voorhaven‘, the decomposition included rail operators and in the zone Sud/Zuiden, it included specific firms such as Volkswagen. ‗Fixed‘ criteria, which remain stable across port zones for a stakeholder group, include ‗contribution to profitability‘ (in terms of optimizing revenue from leases, quays and infra- and supra-structure), ‗contribution to the creation of value added services‘, ‗contribution to the integration in the TEN-networks‘, ‗contribution to the integration of port and city‘ and ‗contribution to infrastructure optimization‘. In the case of ‗passive‘ zones, which are devoid of port activity, the port authority can still have important interests. This was the case in Brussels, as the canal itself, as a physical entity, is perceived as critical to the image of the port, and therefore should not cause environmental harm to external stakeholders (e.g., waste on the water surface). In

170


addition, the port authority also views improvements to the canal, bridges and locks with the purpose of a better spatial integration of the port in the urban landscape as contributing to the port image, and to the legitimacy of port activities, as perceived by the broader regional community. Second, the criteria of the port users show great stability throughout the whole port area, even more so than the port authority criteria. In fact, there are only limited possibilities for introducing a degree of variability in these criteria, as the port users are mostly profit-oriented companies. Their criteria, when evaluating planning alternatives, therefore include elements such as ‗contribution to profitability‘, ‗contribution to multimodal access‘, ‗contribution to the proximity to the market‘, ‗contribution to institutional support‘ (e.g., grants or subsidies for certain activities‘), ‗ease of access to qualified labor‘ (i.e., the possibility to attract qualified labor). In the case of ‗passive‘ zones, which are devoid of port activity, the port user is omitted as a stakeholder in the analysis. In the Brussels case, this occurred for the zone ‗Centre/Centrum‘. Third, criteria of local community stakeholders vary a lot from zone to zone. This is due to the fact that local community stakeholders are less univocal throughout the port area. In some cases, this category needs to be decomposed into sub-categories of stakeholder groups, e.g., residents in the zone, firms performing other than port activities (e.g., offices) and leisure seekers, which can be considered as making temporarily part of the local community.

171

Government G1. Economic Objectives G1.1. Added Value G1.2. Regional Employment G1.3. Economic Diversification G2. Spatial Integration and Multi-functionality G3. Mobility and Transport Network Efficiency G4. Environmental Performance G5. Development Recreational Network Local Community L1. Inhabitants L1.1. Safety Perception L1.2. Visual/Architectural Quality L1.3. Noise Nuisance L1.4. Air Quality L1.5. Odor Nuisance L1.6. Local Congestion L1.7. Vibrations L1.8. Local Employment L1.9. Local Service Offer L1.10. Neighborhood Revalorization L2. Non-port related businesses L2.1. Quality Of Work Environment

(Stakeholder/Criterium)

172

Voorhaven x x x x o x x x o x x x x x x o x x x o o o o

(Port zones) Vroegmarkt x x x x o x x x o x x x x x x o x x x o o o o

Vergote x x x x o x x x o x x x x x x x x x x o o x x

Béco x x x o o x x x o x x x x x o o o o x x o x x

Table 3.1: Stakeholders and criteria used in the MCAs of the port zones


Centrum x x o o x x o o x x x x x o o o o o o x x x x

Zuiden x x x x o x x x x x x x x x x o x x x o o o o

L2.2. Local Congestion L2.3. Safety Perception L2.4. Complementary with Port Economic Activity L3. Tourists / Leisure seekers L3.1. Visual /Architectural Quality L3.2. Accessibility / Availability Recreation Zone L3.2.1. Internal Accessibility / Availability L3.2.2. External Accessibility / Availability L4. Development Integrated Recreational Offer Port Authority A1. Financial A2. Traffic A2.1. General Traffic Objectives A2.2. Short-Sea Shipping Traffic Objectives A2.3. Container Traffic Objectives A2.4. Rail Traffic Objectives A3. Infrastructure Optimization A4. Spatial Productivity A5. Local Transport Networks Integration A5.1. Synergy Airport A5.2. Synergy Rail A6. Logistics Chain Position A7. Image A8. Zonal Homogeneity A9. Contribution to Strategic Development Axes A9.1. City-Port Integration A9.2. TEN Integration

o o o o o o o o o x x x x x x o x o x x x o o o x x x

173

o o o o o o o o o x o x o o o x x o o o o x o o x x x

x x o o o o o o o x x x o o o o x o o o o o x o x x x


x x x x x x x x o x x o o o o o x x o o o o x x x x x

o x o x x x x x o x x o o o o o o o o o o o x o x x o

o o o x x x x x x x x x o o o o x o o o o x x o x x x

A9.3. Creation of Added Value Activities A10. Synergy with BILC A11. Synergy with Neighboring Activities / Projects A12. Maintain Accessibility Zone South Port User U1. Profitability U2. Multimodal Accessibility U3. Synergy Effects U4. Geographic Position Hinterland / Clients U5. Institutional Factors U6. Employment Market Compatibility U7. Concession Contract Flexibility U8. Extension Possibilities x o TEN BILC

x o o o x x x x x x x o o

x x x o x x x x x x x o o

x o o o x x x x x x x x x

174

Stakeholder/Criterium/Objective present Stakeholder/Criterium/Objective absent Trans-European Networks Brussels International Logistics Center

x o x o x x x x x x x o o


o o x x o o o o o o o o o

x o o o x x x x x x x o o


Each of these stakeholder groups views its own criteria as relevant. In the case of the residents, the criteria can be allocated into two broad categories: economic criteria and environmental criteria. Economic criteria consist primarily of the ‗contribution to local employment‘ (i.e., the extent to which port activities create jobs for the local community). Environmental criteria consist of the contribution to environmental quality such as, inter alia, ‗noise reduction‘, ‗reduction in vibrations‘, ‗reduction in air pollution‘, ‗visual/architectural quality‘, ‗reduction in local congestion‘ and ‗safety perception‘. In the case of firms not performing port activities (e.g., the offices of one of Belgium‘s largest banking groups adjacent to the zone ‗Béco‘), the criteria may include, inter alia, the ‗contribution to the working environment‘ and ‗contribution to employee access‘. In the case of residents, the criteria consist of ‗contribution to interoperability with other leisure networks in the city‘, ‗contribution to visual quality‘, ‗contribution to internal access‘ (i.e., the extent to which the leisure activities are coherently linked within the port zone) and ‗contribution to external accessibility (i.e., the extent to which the leisure zone can easily be reached from outside the region). In the case of the port of Brussels, differences between zones were observed with regard to the extent to which all these stakeholder views needed to be included in the planning process. In the zone ‗Avant-port/Voorhaven‘, which is clearly dominated by port activities and where the degree of multi-functionality in terms of simultaneous presence of office, residential and leisure functions is largely absent, the local community is limited to inhabitants on the left bank of the canal. In the zones ‗Vergote-BILC-TIR‘, ‗Béco‘ and ‗Sud/Zuiden‘, the port environment is characterized by a substantial degree of multi-functionality (or diversity of activities and functions), and the presence and pressure of a large number of different stakeholder groups. In those cases, the local community stakeholders are decomposed into various sub-groups, in order to assess correctly the contribution of planning alternatives to each stakeholder sub-group‘s objectives. Fourth, criteria viewed important by government are relatively stable throughout the port area, but should be interpreted very carefully, as they should not overlap with criteria of the local community stakeholders. The criteria of government represent the contribution to the objectives of government agencies with respect to port activities.

175


Here again, these criteria can be split into two broad categories: economic criteria on the one hand and other strategic criteria on the other hand, including spatial and environmental criteria. The economic criteria consist of the ‗contribution to regional employment‘ and the ‗contribution to regional value added‘. The important difference with local community objectives is that the contribution of a planning alternative to regional employment is measured in more global terms (i.e., the contribution on a regional level), and also includes the compatibility of the planning alternative with the local employment market. The strategic criteria consist of the ‗contribution to environmental performance‘ (i.e., in terms of a reduction of the external costs of transport), ‗contribution to regional mobility and transport network efficiency‘ and ‗contribution to spatial integration and multi-functionality of the region‘. In some cases, specific criteria need to be introduced in individual zones. For example, as the zone ‗Centre/Centrum‘ is characterized by a large number of traders in second hand automobiles, this zone suffers from a poor image and is perceived as an economic ghetto in the middle of the city. In this case, a specific criterion ‗contribution to economic diversity‘ was added to the criteria of government.

176



Figure 3.7 integrates the inclusion of stakeholders in the strategic planning process, the analytical component of strategic planning (in this case the nine-step process described in section 3.4.2.2), and the dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management. Figure 3.7: Stakeholder inclusion and dynamic and spatial aspects in the port of Brussels case study

177


Figure 3.7 suggests that spatial aspects of stakeholder management play a role in three planning process steps. First, in step 1, as the port area needs to be defined in port zones and the relevant stakeholders need to be identified per port zone. Second, in step 3, during the interviews, as per zone a specific interview strategy needs to be set up, in particular for local community stakeholders. Also, an appropriate spatial distribution of stakeholder interviews (in particular port users) needs to be established. Third, in step 6 of the planning process, when the stakeholder objectives need to be defined for the multi-criteria analysis. Table 3.1 in section 3.5 summarized all identified stakeholder objectives during the planning process, and revealed that stakeholder objectives as well as the stakeholders themselves in some cases, change depending on the port zone. We did not identify specific challenges related to dynamic aspects of stakeholder management during the planning process. However, in the next section, we will discuss potential challenges arising from the integration of dynamic aspects in the strategic planning process described in this case study.


This chapter has provided a description of a new approach to port planning that explicitly takes into account the multiple objectives of multiple stakeholders interested in port development. In the case of designing a port master plan, with a time horizon of minimum 10 years, stakeholder involvement can contribute substantially to legitimizing specific planning alternatives, and potentially facilitating their implementation. Although such a process of direct stakeholder involvement can be time consuming, it also enhances the basis for subsequent community support during the implementation stage. In the case of the port of Brussels, the initial planning process duration was

178


estimated by the port authority at 1,5 years. Reality showed that the research process to come to a final document approved in the various committees with stakeholder representation, took approximately 3 years as stakeholders also committed more resources to the project (in terms of feedback and information), which increased the complexity of the whole process. Another year was needed to get political approval of a final document by the board of directors, though the validation in stakeholder committees had already led to the ‗informal‘ applications of some strategies and implementation guidelines in daily practice, without stakeholder opposition. Although the ex ante inclusion of stakeholders in strategic decision making is a timeconsuming activity and requires substantial resources of the port authority and the research teams commissioned to assist the port authority, this cost is compensated by a greater societal acceptance of the chosen planning alternatives for each zone, and the implementation scheme to be validated and executed. Furthermore, this ex ante inclusion in strategic decision making has important implications for the ex post inclusion in validation committees and other task forces, as these committees have to fine-tune the planning alternatives and the implementation scheme, after already having been directly involved in the process. This accelerates the planning process itself, and facilitates the adoption and execution of the implementation scheme. If only ex post inclusion were to occur, there is a substantial risk that the implementation process would be fraught with delays, as disagreement among stakeholders would be more likely, as well as perceptions of lack of procedural justice. As a consequence, the example of the port of Brussels shows that a direct inclusion of stakeholders in the planning process can enrich port planning in the context of developing a port master plan. In order to optimize the value added of stakeholder inclusion, an approach where the port area was decomposed into different port zones seemed appropriate to fully integrate stakeholder objectives into the planning process. In this case, the different strategy evaluations performed for each port zone showed that in terms of spatial aspects of stakeholder management, stakeholders and their criteria with regard to strategy evaluation differed substantially depending on the port zone considered. Based on the analysis in section 3.5, we conclude that the spatial dimension

179


plays an important role when formulating and evaluating strategic alternatives in a port master planning process. We suggest that taking this spatial dimension of stakeholder management into account through a stakeholder based port planning process for each zone, using multi-criteria analysis, contributes to the legitimacy of the planning process and its outcomes from the viewpoint of the different stakeholders. With regard to dynamic aspects at the level of stakeholders and criteria, a possible shortcoming of this framework is that over time, the importance of stakeholders and the criteria they view relevant can change, as well as the preferences for strategic alternatives (as demonstrated by both the DHL case in Chapter 2 and other applications of a multi-objective, multi-stakeholder modeling, such as the Starkist case by Winn and Keller (2001)). Stakeholders can become less important to the planning process and some criteria may potentially be eliminated over time as their relevance decreases (see Chapter 5). We therefore believe that sustainable strategic planning needs a periodical reassessment of the proposed strategic alternatives - or more precisely, of the stakeholders‘ perspectives on these alternatives - and the progress of the implementation scheme. This reassessment can partly be done during the planning process, as the strategic alternatives for each zone can be tested in terms of their feasibility against a number of general development scenarios for the whole port area that take into account factors associated with substantial uncertainty (such as the economy‘s growth and the political situation) and can provide insight into the changing importance of stakeholders and criteria over time. Here again, a collaborative stakeholder approach can be applied in order to determine global long term scenarios. Depending on the situation in the long term, the port authority – if duly taking into account evolving stakeholder views - can easily reassess and make adjustments to the implementation of the proposed alternatives. Further research needs to be done in order to consistently integrate these two planning ‗levels‘ (i.e., the long term planning level of the port zone, and the long term potential ‗futures‘ or scenarios of the port area).

180


Furthermore, an ex post revision of the master plan after e.g., 5 years is also possible, which could lead to the adaptation of certain objectives and stakeholders in the evaluation framework, as well as their preferences vis-à-vis certain strategic alternatives. Although such an approach sounds promising, we acknowledge some problems from both an optimal process design perspective and a practical point of view, including, inter alia (1) the potentially resource intensive, time consuming and lengthy process to achieve this revision, including in-depth interviews and meetings and (2) the influence of part of the realization of the implementation scheme on stakeholder preferences, i.e., the dependent nature between the two evaluations. However, an entirely new planning process following the same procedure after 10 years could include specific methodological attention to dynamic aspects of stakeholder management, in particular the changing nature of stakeholders and their criteria to evaluate port development over time. We also identified a number of other limitations to our approach. First, in addition to achieving increased legitimacy of the planning process, one of the implicit objectives of a stakeholder based methodology to create a master plan is also to improve port competitiveness and port performance, inter alia through a timely implementation of the various projects and measures described in the implementation scheme. Such progress is consistent with an instrumental perspective on stakeholder management, but the possible causal linkage between the stakeholder based approach to port planning processes and indicators of port performance requires further research. Here again, techniques and methodologies need to be developed to make such ex post assessment possible, as these could further strengthen the case for instrumentalist, stakeholder based planning approaches (moving beyond the more descriptive approach, adopted in our research). Second, the proposed framework includes a planning process that allows developing sustainable strategic alternatives for separate port zones. However, a final master plan represents the aggregation of all the zonal results and these partial perspectives should be consistent in terms of contribution to ultimate objectives. More particularly, the proposed strategic alternatives for one zone should not be detrimental to the

181


development of the chosen strategic alternative in another zone. In the case of the port of Brussels, we made a qualitative assessment in terms of consistency between the strategic alternatives, which showed no detrimental effects of one zonal choice vis-à-vis other zonal choices, in terms of inconsistent strategies that could lead to, e.g., unwanted market distortions for certain services. A potential (paradoxical) explanation could be the very diverse characteristics of the port zones in terms of accessibility, availability of land as well as stakeholder pressures (as shown by the analysis of stakeholder criteria to evaluate strategy), which led to a historical specialization in terms of activity in certain port zones, and which determined the idiosyncratic strategic alternatives for each zone. However, the specific situation of this master plan case for the port of Brussels may not be valid in other cases, where inconsistencies or substitution effects among development plans for various port zones (e.g., internal cannibalization) are likely to exist (e.g., in large seaports). As a result, more research is needed to develop techniques and methods that can be integrated into our planning methodology. One particular point of discussion is whether such arbitration of inconsistencies or substitution effects should be made during or after the strategy evaluation process per port zone. Third, our participative, stakeholder based approach does not explicitly take into account external factors such as, inter alia, the effects of globalization, technical developments in waterborne transportation, and intermodal innovations, as we mainly relied on micro-economic forecasts of individual port users as well as SWOT analysis per port zone. In other words, a number of macro-level external parameters that cannot be linked immediately with specific stakeholders and or internal weaknesses and strengths of the port zones or opportunities and threats based on the port zone environment (essentially stakeholder pressures and interaction with projects from other stakeholders), are excluded from the strategy formulation and evaluation process as outlined in this chapter, though macro-level inputs obviously did inform implicitly the micro-level forecasts and expansion projects. In the case of the port of Brussels, we performed a separate analysis based on inputs received from the interviews with port users, elements identified in the SWOT analysis

182


and a scan for best practices in neighboring countries. This led to the identification of seven relevant tendencies which could influence the development of the port of Brussels, and which were analyzed in-depth by using other studies and policy documents34. The tendencies included the effects of containerization and seaport-inland port relations; the dynamics of value-added logistics and distribution concepts; the impact of grouping and bundling of freight flows; new trends in the recycling industry and waste management business; development of roll-on/roll-off concepts for inland waterways; interactions between inland ports and rail operators; and interactions between (inland) ports and airports with substantial freight activity. In a next step, we confronted for each port zone the chosen strategy with the seven tendencies and identified which port zone was influenced by which tendency. This confrontation refined the overall strategy of the master plan in terms of prioritizing the execution of the strategies between the zones as some zones were more captive to these tendencies than others; furthermore, the confrontation suggested some specific ideas for potential projects to be included in the master plan, and gave input towards the implementation scheme (e.g., reservation of certain areas for specific economic activities). Although we managed to include this analysis in the master plan, future research is needed to formally integrate this activity in the planning process as described in this chapter. Again, a particular point of discussion is whether the results of such an analysis should be included before or after strategy evaluation takes place in the planning process. Fourth, the proposed planning process was applied to an inland port (the Port of Brussels). Further research should clarify whether this approach can be usefully applied to other types of nodal points, such as large seaports, airports and other infrastructure hubs, given the existence of a number of important differences between infrastructure hubs, such as the discussion on seaports and inland ports in section 3.2 of this chapter.

34

See Appendix 3 for the list of formal studies and documents that were used to analyze the tendencies.

183


Fifth, the implementation of a master plan requires regular reassessments, as some long term forecasts (in particular regarding the economic and political environments) as well as the identification and impact assessment of external factors (see above) may require substantial adjustments within the typical time horizon (minimum 10 years) of the master plan. Further research should be conducted on the implications of such adjustments for proactive, stakeholder based master plans. Sixth, the empirical evidence from the port of Brussels suggests that each port has an idiosyncratic set of characteristics with regard to economic, social, urban planningrelated, regulatory and environmental variables. The basic set of variables relevant to port planning may be different from port to port (or nodal point to nodal point). However, this does not exclude the possibility that best practices in the area of port or other infrastructure hub planning processes can contribute to a further enhancement of the quality of the planning process, and improve the long term sustainability and acceptance of port and other infrastructure hub‘s activities across regions in the world. Seventh, another shortcoming is that the concept of ‗port zone‘, is not clear as far as inland ports are concerned, because their environment is in most cases more complex than e.g., seaports due to their location in the centre of cities or large urban regions. The main problem is the lack of guidelines concerning the extent to which an area is relevant for inclusion into the planning process, and which characteristics should guide the unbundling process of the port area. A further in-depth analysis of these elements should permit to establish an appropriate definition of the port area and guidelines for the decomposition of this area into distinct port zones. Finally, we used a stakeholder based multi-criteria analysis (MCA) approach to perform the strategy evaluation. More particularly, the technique we applied was the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). Although AHP and the related EXPERT CHOICE software package have been applied by members of the research team to other infrastructure planning related problems (e.g., De Brucker et al., 1998; Macharis, 2000), and have also been validated by other authors (see Chapter 1, Section 1.2.4) as an appropriate technique for stakeholder based strategy evaluation, we must acknowledge that other techniques are potentially available to conduct stakeholder based strategy evaluations.

184


We suggest that it could be interesting to apply and/or develop other operational research techniques and methods, in particular in the field of MCA, and compare their suitability and validity to model complex, multi-stakeholder based strategy evaluations.

185

4. Long term strategic planning for the port of Antwerp: a focus on dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management

4.1. Introduction

The case description, findings and input included in this chapter originate from a comprehensive research study for the Antwerp Port Authority (APA) and the Company for the Management of Land and Industrialization of the Left Bank aimed at the development of a long term vision for infrastructural development with horizon 2030. The author of this thesis was actively involved in all study phases. In the large seaports in the Hamburg-Le Havre range, the demand for new cargo handling capacity, as well as additional land for industrial and commercial use, occurs in a societal context that imposes substantial spatial and environmental constraints on economic growth. In the recent past, the lack of integrative planning, which would take on board such spatial and environmental elements, has caused major delays in the implementation of new infrastructure construction. For example, in the case of the port of Antwerp, a number of interest groups started court procedures on environmental grounds to prevent the approval of building permits for new port infrastructure, e.g., the Deurganckdok (Van Hooydonk, 2006). An interesting complication is that many environmental impacts of seaport expansion now occur outside of the narrow port area, namely in the port‘s hinterland, where the negative effects of port expansion are often felt strongly, but its benefits remain insufficiently understood. As a result, seaports are increasingly attempting to integrate spatial and environmental parameters in the strategic planning process, including the evaluation of impacts outside of the port area.

In Chapter 3 we have argued that long term sustainable port development requires, inter alia: (1) the bottom-up inclusion of different stakeholder groups in the planning process, and (2) a systematic and integrative approach to assessing the long term effects 187

Chapter 4: Long term strategic planning for the port of Antwerp

of alternative port expansion scenarios (Winkelmans and Notteboom, 2002; Dooms, Macharis and Verbeke, 2003; Moglia and Sanguineri, 2003). In the literature, a number of contributions exist on the inclusion of stakeholders in the port planning process (Winkelmans and Notteboom, 2002; Dooms, Macharis and Verbeke, 2003; Moglia and Sanguineri, 2003), but so far, no attempt has been made to design an integrative framework permitting to calculate the economic, as well as the spatial and environmental effects of alternative expansion scenarios for all stakeholders throughout the overall port system. In most cases, only partial studies, i.e., with a limited geographic and a limited functional scope35, are performed in the strategic planning process. These studies usually concentrate exclusively on either the sea leg (e.g., traffic forecasts), the port activity component (e.g., terminal productivity, land use, direct environmental impacts), the hinterland transport component (e.g., modal split and capacity of hinterland transport modes in the port and its immediate environment) or the port network (e.g., terminal capacity and land use of intermodal river terminals, required land use for logistics activities in a wider geographic area around the port). In this chapter, we propose an integrative framework and operational calculation model based on the four above components of the seaport system (sea leg, port activity component, hinterland transport component and broader port network). The operational calculation model is fed with information on alternative long term expansion scenarios and permits: (1) a quantification of the infrastructure capacity needed in each leg of the port system, and (2) an assessment of the economic, spatial and environmental impacts of each expansion scenario on the entire port system. We then apply the model to the case study of the long term development of the port of Antwerp. The model and its results have been integrated in the ongoing strategic planning process within the Antwerp Port Authority (APA) and the Flemish government. We also

35

Examples are a study on the long term demand for (petro)chemical activities in the port area; a study on the environmental impact of container handling in the port; a study on the spatial and infrastructural requirements of logistics activities in the wider port region; a study on the capacity of inland waterway terminals. All these partial studies, used in our integrative approach of long term port planning, are listed in Appendix 4.

188


provide insights on how port authorities and stakeholder groups included in integrative, long term port planning processes, can cooperate with each other to come to broadly accepted long term development visions. More specifically, we suggest that our integrative approach has distinct value added vis-à-vis other, more conventional long term planning approaches that do not fully take into account the wide variety of economic, spatial and environmental impacts of port development. Finally, we identify the critical trade-offs to be made, and pitfalls to be overcome, when applying this integrative approach in practice. In section 4.2, we use the findings and results of Chapter 3 to describe two different perspectives on the need for an integrative approach to strategic port planning. First, we reassess the literature on strategic port planning, and suggest a new generic classification of port planning types. This classification suggests the need for an integrative approach. Second, we describe the concept of ‗port regionalization‘ and the ‗extended gateway concept‘, which illustrate the need to widen the spatial scope of the tools used in strategic planning for long term port development. In section 4.3, we describe the current, long term strategic port planning process in the port of Antwerp, as well as the action research process that was undertaken and the different interactions with the stakeholders involved. In section 4.4, we describe our integrative approach to strategic planning for the port system as the basis of the calculation model. Here, we discuss the different port system components and we identify a variety of parameters, linked to each component of the system, with a view to include them in the calculation model. In section 4.5, we describe the primary modules of the calculation model used in the planning process. In addition, we identify a number of potential secondary modules, and briefly discuss the results. Section 4.6 summarizes stakeholder inclusion and the challenges relating to dynamic and spatial aspects during the planning process.

189


Finally, as a conclusion, we describe in section 4.7 the trade-offs to be made when applying such an integrative calculation model, as well as the implications for port authorities and other stakeholders involved in the planning process.

4.2. Long term strategic port planning: towards a new classification of planning types and the integration of a wider geographic dimension

4.2.1. Towards a new classification of port planning types

The literature and research on long term strategic port planning can be divided into two broad categories. First, the literature describes the various types of port planning and the substantive issues, which the strategic planning activity needs to address (Frankel, 1989; World Bank, 1993; Coeck et al., 1996). Second, the more recent literature focuses on the ‗process‘ of strategic planning, more specifically the need for integration of multiple stakeholders and their divergent objectives into strategic port planning (Winkelmans and Notteboom, 2002; Dooms, Macharis and Verbeke, 2003; Pellegram, 2001; Dooms, Macharis and Verbeke, 2004). In a few cases, both substantive and process aspects of port planning have been discussed in the same paper (Moglia and Sanguineri, 2003). An important issue addressed in almost all papers on the topic is the definition of what constitutes long term planning in terms of time-horizon and outputs of the planning process. Generally speaking, there is a consensus that long term port planning involves planning with at least a 10-year time horizon, and possibly a 25-year horizon. In this context, we can distinguish among three types of planning (World Bank, 1993), see also Chapter 3:

(i)

Short term planning serves the purpose of solving current, operational problems, whereby the time horizon varies from 1 to 3 years.

190


(ii)

Medium term planning, with a time horizon from 3 to 5 years, is characterized by the development of strategic plans, whereby ‗management by objectives‘, in particular on the marketing and financial levels, plays an important role.

(iii)

Long term planning includes the development of port master plans, whereby typically a time horizon of 10 to 25 years is considered. This requires a visionary approach to the development of port infrastructure for the whole port area.

In this chapter, as in Chapter 3 and as the title of this dissertation suggests, we focus on the third type of planning, i.e., long term planning. However, there is more to long term strategic planning than the development of port master plans. A port master plan, such as discussed in Chapter 3, typically describes a 10-year port development trajectory, and ideally includes a widely supported course of action, e.g., under the form of specific infrastructure projects within this time horizon. However, we believe that a significant extension of the time horizon beyond 10 years makes it difficult to provide the port authority with a detailed port development scheme and action plan (which should include specific timelines and milestones, inter alia, for completing new infrastructure projects). The main differences between a master plan with a time horizon of 10 years, and long term strategic planning, typically with a time horizon of 25 years, are the level of detail of the investment projects considered, and the level of site specificity. A master plan typically is the detailed implementation scheme of a long term port strategy, on a siteby-site basis. More specifically, a master plan consists of (1) the description of a coherent set of detailed port development projects and (2) an evaluation of each project, located on a specific site, in terms of contribution to port strategy objectives and consistency with the other planned projects. In contrast, the long term strategic planning process describes more general, alternative port expansion scenarios, and evaluates such scenarios in terms of broad objectives viewed relevant by the community of stakeholders affected by port development. Here, insights are important about the main societal trade-offs to be made when evaluating

191


alternative expansion scenarios in terms of, inter alia, employment and added value versus external costs versus environmentally friendly developments in the port area. Furthermore, for each expansion scenario, the planning process needs to identify the general conditions to be fulfilled regarding the required supply of land for economic activities, the required supply of port infrastructure (inter alia, docks, quays, locks), the required hinterland transport infrastructure (capacity of rail, barge and road connections) and even the required capacity in the port network (supply of land for economic activities in the wider geographical context of the port, e.g., for distribution and value-added logistics – the so-called VAL centers). The main difference between this type of long term strategic planning and a master plan, is the absence of site specificity in the former: here, the port system is viewed as a whole, thereby requiring a more ‗visionary‘ approach. The absence of site specificity, as well as the higher level of uncertainty as to when specific demand and supply levels will be reached, also makes the elaboration of a detailed action plan with specific milestones somewhat less appropriate. The point of the above is that port master plans, with their typical time horizon of 10 years, should be based on the conclusions and insights arising from this long term strategic planning process. Hence, the classification of port planning types suggested by the World Bank (1993) needs to be adapted, as the third type should be unbundled in two separate types. Thus, we propose four generic planning types: (i) Short term operational planning (1 to 3 years); (ii) Short term strategic planning (3 to 5 years) mainly characterized by commercial, marketing and financial goals; (iii)Master planning with a horizon of 10 to 15 years (as defined by Moglia and Sanguineri (2003) and discussed further in Chapter 3), characterized by a detailed action plan with implementation steps for building port infrastructure, with a high degree of site specificity; (iv) Long term strategic planning with a typical time horizon of 25 years (or longer), characterized by the formulation and evaluation of long term port expansion

192


scenarios, with a low degree of site specificity, and building upon a visionary approach to port development. Figure 4.1 shows this adapted classification, with the long term port strategic planning as ‗building block‘, and taking into account the fundamental characteristics of each planning type (time horizon, as well as site specificity). Figure 4.1: Adapted classification of port planning types

Length of planning horizon

Operational or tactical planning

Degree of site specificity

Short-term strategic planning Master planning Long-term strategic planning

The above discussion suggests a key role for the long term strategic planning process (time horizon of 25 years), as it should provide the intellectual basis for subsequent port master plans (horizon of 10 years) and even more downstream planning levels. The classification of planning types suggested by the World Bank (1993) neither explicitly considered nor integrated the role of the long term port strategy in the overall planning process. The above analysis, however, clarifies that master planning should build upon the long term port strategy. Unfortunately, in practice it is often very difficult to establish a formal link between the long term port planning process (assuming such reflection in fact takes place), and the implementation of this long term strategy by means of a port master plan.

193


More specifically, the long term port strategic planning process is typically supported by, and based on, a large number of partial studies, each addressing very specific aspects of the planning process (sectoral, economic development studies; analyses of mobility and hinterland connections; analysis of ecological development issues; studies on maritime infrastructure and accessibility issues, etc.) with a focus on narrow, individual components of the seaport system (sea leg, port activity component, hinterland transport component, port network). Each of these partial studies builds upon specific parameters and each contributes in its own way to the definition and evaluation of port strategies. Usually, these partial studies are not integrated, which may lead to difficulties with regard to the overall evaluation of alternative port expansion scenarios. As a result, conflicting outcomes may undermine the validity and legitimacy of the long term planning process from the perspective of the stakeholders involved. In most cases, the observed response is to commission new partial studies, aggravating the problem and resulting in a long and difficult planning process. An excellent example is the Project Mainport Rotterdam, during which more than 100 studies were commissioned between 1997 and 2004. A final approval of the long term strategic plan, including the Maasvlakte 2 port expansion, was reached only in mid-2004, with government financing pending36, conditional upon the results of specific studies, particularly land requirement analyses, being updated. The above inefficiencies associated with the ‗compartimentalized‘ planning process may negatively affect port competitiveness, as all other planning levels, expecting long term strategic guidance for their decisions, will actually not receive such guidance, thus leading to a lack of coherence and to inertia. Those flaws in the planning process, typically result in port congestion and delays in building new infrastructure, and may lead to the loss of traffic to competing ports as shipping lines divert their traffic (a frequent occurrence in the Hamburg-Le Havre range). Furthermore, the building of new port infrastructure by its very nature is associated with long lead times, and is therefore

36 Actual construction started in September 2008, when financing by various public agencies and private actors was guaranteed, and after the approval of final planning decisions by the municipality of Rotterdam.

194


always characterized by the risk of creating overcapacity (‗lumpy‘ investments, see Heaver, 1995). As a consequence, an integrative approach is beneficial after the partial studies have been completed, especially if this approach can facilitate acceptance of the studies‘ parameters and results by the community of stakeholders. This integrative approach is characterized by seven steps: Step 1: identifying and collecting the key parameters and results of the partial studies in a comprehensive and systematic way; Step 2: building an integrative calculation model, and selecting the most appropriate parameters; Step 3: defining general long term demand-side scenarios (e.g., traffic forecasts); Step 4: calculating the impacts on stakeholder objectives of long term demand scenarios using the integrative calculation model; Step 5: defining alternative long term port expansion trajectories (supply side); Step 6: evaluating the impacts of each alternative expansion trajectory under each long term development scenario using the results of the integrative calculation model, complemented by other techniques (e.g., multi-criteria analysis); Step 7: selecting a long term port expansion trajectory, and determining the conditions under which this strategy can be realized. There is no formal relation with the 9-step process described in Chapter 3, as the objectives of the planning process are different. Here, the main outcome of the planning process should be the achievement of stakeholder consensus on: (1) the potential demand-side economic development scenarios of the port in the long term through the calculation of the financial, socio-economic, infrastructural, spatial, environmental and mobility impacts of these scenarios; and (2) the definition of high-level supply side conditions under which these development scenarios could be realized (such as overall modal split objectives and spatial productivity objectives), i.e., steps 1 to 4. The

195


objective of this part of the planning process is explicitly not to construct a consensus on: (1) spatial development guidelines in terms of distribution of land for different activity types (steps 5 to 7); and (2) concretely defined investment projects (in contrast to what happens in a master plan). In this chapter, we shall largely confine ourselves to describing the integrative calculation model on the demand side, which plays a key role in the evaluation of alternative expansion scenarios and their impact on the port system and stakeholder objectives. In other words, the model measures the long term impacts of each expansion scenario, with given supply-side characteristics (such as, inter alia, long term modal split objectives and spatial productivity objectives), i.e., steps 1 to 4 of the integrative approach. In steps 5 to 7, supply-side elements, which were not agreed upon within the stakeholder community (such as land use for the different sectors), are introduced in a comparative analysis. Here, several land-use strategies, which usually form the core element of future development strategies or trajectories described in master plans, can be described and evaluated using a multi-criteria analysis. The integrative calculation model allowed a much easier, second stage stakeholder management process, as various high-level spatial development alternatives were discussed among the stakeholders (not subject of the analysis in the present chapter); for an in-depth analysis, see Coeck, Merckx and Verbeke (2006, pp. 234-239) and ECSA and VUB (2005). In section 4.3 of this chapter, we provide further insights in how the research project evolved, with brief attention to the way steps 5 to 7 were addressed in the process.

196


4.2.2. Port regionalization and the extended gateway concept

As most large seaports in the Hamburg-Le Havre range have been able to successfully manage the pressures arising from stakeholders interested in environmental sustainability issues in the port area itself 37, much of the debate on seaport expansion has shifted towards the wider regional effects of port development. Here, the focus is often on the development of environmentally friendly logistics linkages between the port and its hinterland. In addition, appropriate infrastructure development and specific transport service strategies in the hinterland may allow the broader port region to create value based upon maritime traffic (especially containers). A particular strategy is the attraction of distribution centers performing VAL with a regional, national and even continental scope (this last category is called European Distribution Centers or EDCs), with due concern for environmental impacts. The extension of the role of the port to include hinterland-related impacts has led to the development of the concept of ‗port regionalization‘ (Notteboom and Rodrigue, 2005). Port regionalization extends the hinterland reach of a port, and establishes closer managerial and infrastructural ties with inland freight distribution centers and other logistics services providers (see Figure 4.2). It can be stimulated by market strategies from the port actors involved as well as public policies. Strategies aiming at the development of such a regional port network can greatly contribute to the port‘s competitive position vis-à-vis other ports, thereby strengthening the regional economy, as well as contributing to more environmentally friendly hinterland transport.

37 However, important issues in terms of overlapping policies continue to exist in the EU, in particular overlaps between transport and environmental law and policy, see Van Hooydonk (2006) for an in-depth discussion.

197


Figure 4.2: The concept of port regionalization (Notteboom and Rodrigue, 2005)

The contribution to environmentally friendly hinterland transport has been a focal issue for the ports in the Hamburg-Le Havre range, as most of these ports serve a hinterland characterized by densely populated areas. Moreover, most ports are situated near large urban regions and the congestion around and inside these urban regions is now considered as the greatest threat to future port development. As a result, ports must not only compete at the foreland level by providing new capacity and improving service quality, but should also focus on the development of efficient and effective hinterland connections. Inland logistics costs are increasingly important as a means to differentiate (Notteboom and Rodrigue, 2005). A well-known example in this context is the conflict between the Dutch and Belgian governments on the reopening of the so-called Iron Rhine, which is a short and direct rail connection between the port of Antwerp and the German hinterland. The reopening of this freight-dedicated line is hindered by the Dutch government on procedural and environmental grounds, but the underlying agenda is that this line could potentially harm the competitiveness of the port of Rotterdam, which has actually built its own government-funded, dedicated freight line to the same hinterland area (the so-called

198


Betuwe line). On the other hand, German stakeholders largely favor the reopening of the line as this would lead to more efficiency in terms of capacity utilization on their rail network, and more environmentally friendly transport from the port of Antwerp to Germany. In an attempt to link the economic and the environmental impacts of the ports, the Flanders Institute for Logistics (a logistics knowledge center, funded by the Flemish regional government), has developed the practical concept of ‗extended gateways of Flanders‘ (VIL, 2006). The concept aims at defining corridors in the ports‘ hinterland that offer multimodal infrastructures and inland terminals, as well as the necessary land to develop inland logistics parks to build distribution centers offering VAL services. By concentrating the spatial development on the extended gateways, a sufficient traffic volume can be created in order to reduce the minimum critical distance (in terms of costs) for the use of alternative transport modes to road haulage (like rail and barge) 38. As a result, the creation of extended gateways allows to: (1) reduce the total logistics costs of the firms involved in the logistics chain by creating optimal linkages between the port and attractive locations in its hinterland; (2) maximize added value and employment through the creation of ‗logistics hotspots‘. Figure 4.3 shows a map of Flanders and the potential ‗extended gateways‘, with the international gateways (seaports and airports) as starting points.

38

See Macharis and Verbeke (2004) for an analysis on minimum critical distances for environmentally friendly transport modes.

199


Figure 4.3: Potential extended gateways in Flanders (VIL, 2006)

The concept of extended gateway covers the implementation of (1) infrastructural strategies (e.g., the building of hinterland transport infrastructure and intermodal terminals, and the provision of land for large logistics services centers), (2) process management strategies (improved coordination of information and goods flows in the system through ICT projects as well as the development of new transport services), as well as (3) projects aimed at educating the labor force to bridge the gap between demand and supply for employees in the logistics sector. Whereas process management strategies and education and training projects have a short term lead-time to implementation and require relatively limited financial resources, the development of hinterland infrastructure (canals, locks, railway lines, inland terminals) requires a long term development approach. This implies subsequent master plans, and consumes large volumes of resources (e.g., realizing the master plan for hinterland transport infrastructure for the Antwerp region alone will cost approximately 3,5 billion euro). 200


Given the inherent uncertainties of long term planning, as well as the methodological complexity to quantify the amount of land and infrastructure capacity requirements in several spatial components of the port system, a need was expressed by several stakeholders in the port of Antwerp for an integrative framework and calculation model. Both the framework and the model should take a port regionalization perspective, and should allow for a comparison of alternative port expansion scenarios.


4.3.1. Introduction

In Chapter 1, section 1.3.1, we described the main methodological research approach adopted throughout this thesis, including this approach's strengths and limitations. We use case studies, whereby the qualitative analysis builds upon participant observation and action research. Table 1.3 in Chapter 1, section 1.3.1, provided a general overview of the client system adopted during each action research process, as well as an overview of the different sources of information used and actions undertaken in the different processes, which ultimately led to the case studies. In the following sections, we provide a detailed description of the client system, the process of information gathering and analysis, and the actions undertaken by the author of this thesis in the context of the port of Antwerp case study.

201


4.3.2. Strategic port planning for the port of Antwerp

The Flemish government, through its government declaration of July 1999, imposed the formulation of long term strategic plans for the four seaports located on its territory (Antwerp, Zeebrugge, Ghent and Ostend), and the development of a long term regional vision (horizon 2030) for seaport policy. Although several preparatory steps had been taken by most port authorities in anticipation of the decision of the government - e.g., by setting general principles for the formal planning processes - the actual planning authority was delegated by the Regional government to an intermediate decision level, i.e., the Provinces (which is a government level between the local, municipal level and the Flemish Regional government). Within each province, a broad central task force39, led by the province‘s governor, guides the process40 and includes, inter alia, members of the relevant departments (infrastructure, mobility, maritime access) in the regional government, the port authority and local communities adjacent to the port area. Other stakeholders, such as private sector organizations, unions and the green movement are also represented, either in the task force itself or in different subcommittees, which prepare the task force meetings. The port of Antwerp faces a particular situation, as the port is located on both banks of the river Scheldt, the Right Bank being situated in the province of Antwerp, the Left Bank being on the province of East Flanders‘ territory. Initially, two separate planning processes took place and two ‗concepts‘ of strategic plans emerged from the process, one for each part of the port. During 2003, a need to integrate both plans was identified and steps were taken to integrate both documents from 2004 onwards. As a result, the central task forces were merged and were co-presided by both province governors.

The objective of the long term planning process is the delineation of the port area, based on demand forecasts for port infrastructure and land, and environmental impacts that 39

Other task forces reporting to the central task forces were set up, see below for a detailed description. The Provinces and port authorities involved had substantial degrees of freedom to structure the process: a two-dimensional positioning of the different planning processes of the ports of Ghent, Antwerp and Zeebrugge in terms of (1) the presence of the economic component in the planning process and (2) the organizational component was discussed in Coeck and Dooms (2007). 40

202


need to be mitigated (noise, air pollution, etc.). A distinction is made among three separate port functions, namely the economic function (e.g., demand for maritime cargo handling, logistics services and industrial activity), the ecological function (e.g., demand for the protection of birds and natural habitats) and the mobility function (e.g., demand for capacity in the hinterland connections). The purpose of this delineation and simultaneous attention to these three functions was to provide a long term, stable planning environment for port development. As a result, conflicts among the different functions within the planning horizon should be avoided, which should lead to sustainable economic, spatial and ecological development. This approach was the consequence of negative experiences in the past, where expansion plans for the port of Antwerp (specifically the Deurganckdock, a new 6,4 million TEU41 facility) had been blocked by legal battles, forcing a complete standstill of infrastructure construction for two years. The delay in completion of this project caused severe congestion in container handling in the port of Antwerp as demand exceeded supply for almost 4 years (2001-2005), resulting in lower growth rates than suggested by the actual potential of the port. In order to avoid such problems in the future, the above-mentioned broad task forces were installed to guide the long term planning process in its different stages. The final output of the planning process is supposed to be a ‗strategic environmental impact report‘ or S-EIR, defining the outer limits of the port area, as well as the definitive allocation of land for different functions, and associated expansion possibilities. More specifically, long term values for a number of key parameters, including infrastructure supply and demand for different functions, environmental effects, land demand and supply for different functions, had to be integrated in the S-EIR, after reaching stakeholder consensus. At the end of the first years of the planning process (1999-2004), it became clear that an enormous volume of partial study material already existed, but prior studies were often characterized by the analysis of very different expansion scenarios, by different estimates for critical parameters (e.g., modal split forecasts) and by widely diverging 41

TEU = Twenty foot Equivalent Unit, a measurement unit for container traffic.

203


outcomes (e.g., in terms of land use in the future). As a result, the planning task force lacked an integrative framework and calculation model to integrate all the partial results from the different prior studies, so as to ‗make sense of the mess‘42. Furthermore, we were asked to engage in intensive stakeholder consultation so as to obtain validation for several parameter values (e.g., spatial productivity of container terminals and its expected evolution in the future). The integrated strategic plan was approved in the central task force in June 2006. The SEIR procedure was concluded in March 2009. Sections 4.3.3 and 4.3.4. provide further insights into the research process and stakeholder interaction in the period August 2004 – March 2005, which contributed to the creation of an integrated strategic plan and were a direct input for the S-EIR procedure.

4.3.3. Description of the research project

The initiators of the research project were the Antwerp Port Authority (APA) and the Left Bank Company (LBC) 43. Both companies manage infrastructures in the area known as the port of Antwerp. On the Right Bank of the river Scheldt, the APA is solely responsible for the management of land and infrastructure44; on the Left Bank, APA and LBC share responsibilities in the sense that the APA manages all ‗maritime‘ land and infrastructure (such as quays, docks and terminals), and the LBC manages the industrial areas. The APA is an autonomous public company, 100% owned by the City of Antwerp; the LBC is also an autonomous public company, owned by the Flemish Region, the APA, the Inter-municipal Cooperation Waasland and the municipalities of Beveren and Zwijndrecht 45.

42 A list of these studies and formal documents is found in the final version of the integrated strategic plan, pp. 16-19 (Province of Antwerp, Province of East Flanders and Studiegroep Omgeving, 2006). 43 For an in-depth insight into the institutional structures governing the area known as the ‗port of Antwerp‘, see Chapter 5. 44 The Antwerp Port Authority performs the typical tasks of a landlord port (see Chapter 3), although some operational services still exist such as the towage department and the crane department. 45 See Chapter 5 for the ownership structure.

204


Although the APA and the LBC were the initiators of this research project, both companies were in fact delegated authority to perform the research by the central task force of the Strategic Plan and needed to formally report on the progress to this task force. As described in section 4.3.2, the need for an integrated strategic planning document for the entire area meant that partial study results of ca. 5 years of separate planning processes (1999-2004) for the Right Bank and the Left Bank needed to be integrated. It was decided by the merged central task force to perform this integration in three components: (1) An economic and land use component (focused on the demand and supply for port and industrial infrastructure and economic impacts); (2) A mobility component (focused on the demand and supply for transport modes); (3) An ecological component (focused on the demand and supply for nature conservation). All components needed to interact with each other and use the same principles, e.g., the traffic forecast of the economic and land use component needed to be used by the mobility component; the land requirements for port and industrial development needed to be integrated in one balance for the demand and supply of land with the demand and supply of land for nature conservation. This required several coordination meetings between the research teams responsible for the execution of the three integrative studies (one for each component). The merged central task force also created three other merged task forces with formal stakeholder representation of both river banks to perform the formal follow-up of the separate research processes: task forces on ‗Economy and Land Use‘, ‗Mobility‘ and ‗Nature‘ were created. The final results of all three processes were simultaneously reported in a meeting of the merged central task force. The outcomes of the three processes needed to provide the main input for the S-EIR in terms of quantitative parameters of growth, land use, socio-economic, mobility and nature impacts of the potential expansion scenarios of the port. The objective was to obtain formal agreement of the different stakeholders represented in the various task forces on these parameters, in order to limit conflicts in the S-EIR phase, where minor conflicts between

205


stakeholders on basic parameters could potentially provoke large delays in the procedure. In addition, non-acceptance of the results of the S-EIR procedure could have a negative impact on the main objective of the planning process, i.e., creating long term legal certainty for port development. This chapter describes the process of the integrative research on the economic and land use component, as we were actively involved in the main research study supporting the conclusions of the merged task force on this element. As described in section 4.3.1., we were asked, given the large amount of existing but partial information, to develop an integrative framework and model, based upon this material, and complemented with study material from other ports as well as recent insights from the port management literature. This integration would allow a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of alternative port development scenarios, including their wider effects on the region. The main underlying objective was to create a general consensus in the community of stakeholders on the future demand scenarios and their potential impacts on various stakeholder objectives, in preparation of the S-EIR. As a result, the principal question to be answered during this phase of the long term planning process was whether the port of Antwerp had a future and if so, how this future could affect different stakeholders, rather than how potential future demands should be absorbed by means of specific development trajectories, strategies or projects46. Even the S-EIR that followed in the planning cycle, would not validate the implementation of specific projects but just provide broad indications on the impacts of the development of the whole port area under different scenarios. Essentially, the execution of the first four steps of the seven-step approach, presented in section 4.2.1, were instrumental for the realization of the main underlying objective of the research project; the methodology and results of these four steps will be described in sections 4.4 and 4.5 of this chapter. Steps 5 to 7 were also developed in the study, as the 46 In this context, it is noteworthy to mention that the initiators of the study changed the formal name of the project during the research process from ‗Economic Development Plan of the port of Antwerp, horizon 2030‘ to ‗Economic Development Study of the port of Antwerp‘, in order to make very explicit the fact that the output would not be an agreed course of action (such as in a ‗master plan‘, cfr. Chapter 3), but rather a description and validation of general development principles on the demand side and their impacts, preceding the development of concrete projects and actions in downstream planning levels.

206


initiators of the study were interested in gaining insights into the wider impacts of certain strategic choices in terms of land use in the port area, ranging from a consolidation trajectory (i.e., no infrastructural expansion in the long term) to expansion trajectories with specialized and diversified infrastructural expansion, see Coeck et al. (2006) and ECSA and VUB (2005) for an in-depth discussion. To this end, a multi-criteria analysis of broadly defined expansion trajectories under the form of land use strategies was proposed in the initial research proposal, but the decision to perform this analysis as well as the inclusion of the results in the final report of the study to the task forces was left open during the first phases of the project. The initiators considered the use of multi-criteria analysis to assess land use strategies merely a ― knowledge broadening‖ exercise as compared to the integrative calculation model and its results, which would need to be formally approved by all stakeholders for integration in the subsequent planning process steps (in particular the analyses performed in the S-EIR). Finally, the results of the multi-criteria analysis 47 were integrated in the final report, but no definitive conclusions on the pursuit of one of the proposed land use strategies were adopted by the community of stakeholders in each of the task forces. In other words, the final report‘s conclusions did not contain definitive normative statements on the preference for a certain land use strategy, but rather a general description of strengths and weaknesses of the proposed land use strategies (Coeck et al, 2006; ECSA and VUB, 2005).

47 The multi-criteria analysis was performed using the AHP method (Saaty, 1990a) and the EXPERT CHOICE software. For the development of the hierarchical structure, based on the main stakeholders (port authority, regional government, port users, local community) and their criteria, as well as the description of the strategic land use choices, stakeholder interaction took place during two task force meetings. Although formal agreement was reached on the hierarchical evaluation structure to be used, it was more difficult to achieve agreement on the alternative land use strategies used in the multi-criteria analysis and no consensus was reached, in particular with the representatives of the industrial sector. Also, all preference ratios on the criteria were based on expert judgments by the authors of the study, building upon (1) a literature review (2) the results of the integrative calculation model and (3) own expertise, i.e. no formal interaction took place on the level of the preference ratios of the criteria (as opposed e.g., to the approach adopted for completing the master plan of the port of Brussels as described in Chapter 3). Although the final results of the multi-criteria analysis were accepted by the task force as valid and valuable knowledge, no direct conclusions of this part of the research were formally integrated in the S-EIR process. The reader interested in the ‗operationalization‘ of the multi-criteria analysis in this case of long term planning can obtain a copy of the total research study (in Dutch) from the author of this thesis.

207




The formal interaction between the research team, the initiators of the study and the community of stakeholders was organized through three formal committees for the duration of the project. The main research was carried out between September 2004 and March 2005. The central committee of this research process was the merged task force ‗Economy and Land Use‘, which consisted of a wide variety of experts and stakeholders: -

Representatives of the APA and the LBC;

-

Representatives of various regional government departments, such as the Mobility and Infrastructure Department, the Spatial Planning Department and the Economy and Innovation Department;

-

Representatives of the Province of Antwerp and the Province of East Flanders (of the economic, environmental and spatial planning departments);

-

Representatives of the Provincial Development Agencies of Antwerp and East Flanders;

-

Representatives of the City of Antwerp and the municipalities of Beveren and Zwijndrecht;

-

Representatives of the Inter-municipal Cooperation Waasland;

-

Representatives of branch organizations of port users (shipping lines, cargo handling and various port service and logistics providers);

-

Representatives of branch organizations of the industrial firms in the port area;

-

Representatives of the unions;

-

Representatives of branch organizations of the agricultural sector48;

48

Some areas for long term port expansion are still in use by the agricultural sector, in particular on the Left Bank of the river Scheldt.

208


-

Representatives of various interest groups for ecology and nature conservation.

-

Representatives of the Belgian railways holding company.

The ‗Economy and Land Use‘ task force was chaired by an independent expert, in this case a retired chairman and general manager of, inter alia, the Antwerp Port Community and several port service firms. The secretariat was organized by senior staff members of the Provinces of Antwerp and East Flanders, since the administrative coordination of the port planning processes had been delegated to the Provinces (see supra). Within the task force, progress reports containing the research results were discussed and validated; stakeholders were able to interact directly with each other and the research team. This task force met 5 times during the duration of the project: -

A first meeting was held at the end of August 2004, as a formal kick-off meeting during which the research method and the objectives of the study were clarified;

-

A second meeting was held at the beginning of October 2004, with presentations and discussions of the first results of steps 1 and 2 of the seven-step process;

-

A third meeting was held at the end of November 2004, with presentations and discussions of the results of steps 3 and 4, as well as elements of steps 5 to 7;

-

A fourth meeting was held at the end of January 2005, with presentations and discussions of the draft final report.

-

A final meeting was held at the beginning of March 2005, with presentations and discussions of the final results of the seven-step process.

A week after the first meeting of the task force, the chairman of the task force and representatives of the APA and LBC met with the research team to (1) ensure that the transfer of all partial studies that had been executed during the planning process was completed49 (2) discuss in detail the methodology of the research and suggest adaptations based on the first stakeholder interaction in the task force the week before50 and (3) set up a formal steering committee to prepare the task force meetings.

49

The references to these studies are included in Appendix 4. During this meeting it was decided to conduct a multi-criteria analysis, but (1) without explicit conclusions to be derived from the multi-criteria analysis in terms of selection of a specific expansion trajectory, and (2) with a sensitivity analysis to be conducted with varying weights attached to the relevant stakeholders. 50

209


This steering committee was the second formal stakeholder committee where the progress of the research and the results would be discussed. The objective of this steering committee was to prepare and guide the subsequent discussions in the task force in a smaller group. As such, the steering committee did not formally validate reports or results of the research conducted, but rather identified the most sensitive topics present in the research results from various stakeholder perspectives, and thus prepared, in cooperation with the research team and the chairman, the agenda for the task force discussions taking these sensitivities into account. The steering committee consisted of: -

One representative of the LBC;

-

One representative of the Inter-municipal Cooperation Waasland;

-

Two representatives of the APA;

-

One representative of the branch organizations of the port users and industrial companies;

-

One representative of the Province of Antwerp;

-

One representative of the Province of East Flanders;

-

One representative of the Flemish Region (from the department Mobility and Infrastructure, Maritime Access);

-

One representative of the Municipality of Beveren.

All members of this steering committee were also part of the task force ‗Economy and Land Use‘. The steering committee met twice during the research process: -

One day before the second meeting of the task force (beginning of October 2004);

-

Two days before the third meeting of the task force (end of November 2004).

Other meetings, before the fourth meeting discussing the draft final report as well as the final meeting of the task force beginning of March 2005, were not held, as there had already been sufficient formal and informal interaction on the research outcomes with various stakeholders during the period December 2004-February 2005.

210


Finally, a third committee was the merged central task force of the strategic plan. The merged central task force differed from the ‗Economy and Land Use‘ task force since (1) it included additional stakeholders as all three components (Economy and Land Use, Mobility and Nature Conservation) were to be represented51 and (2) it included representatives of the cabinets of the different ministries involved (in other words, also political decision makers were present). The central task force was co-chaired by the governors of the Provinces of Antwerp and East Flanders and validated the major steps in the strategic planning process, as well as the formal progress reports of the strategic plan submitted by the administrative coordinators of the strategic plan (i.e., senior directors in the Province‘s administration). The results of the research were presented to this task force in February 2005, during which final concerns from interest groups were received and treated in preparation of the final ‗Economy and Land Use‘ task force. Besides the three formal committees guiding the research process and organizing formal stakeholder interaction, three formal presentations of the approach and the results of the study were given at formal meetings within stakeholder groups or organizations, namely: -

During January 2005, a presentation and interaction with the Management Committee of the APA;

-

During February 2005, a presentation and interaction with the board of directors of the APA52;

-

During February 2005, a presentation and interaction with the board of directors of the LBC.

The formal presentation and interaction before the merged central task force, as well as the presentation for the Management Committee and board of directors of the initiators in February 2005 revealed that an additional meeting of the steering committee for the

51 Additional stakeholders included, inter alia, additional representatives of the railway sector, public transport companies and the Flemish environmental protection agency. A full list of the stakeholders involved can be found in the final version of the integrated strategic plan, pp. 15-16 (Province of Antwerp, Province of East Flanders and Studiegroep Omgeving, 2006). 52 Members of the research team were not present as this meeting; instead, the APA chose to invite the chairmen of the task forces to present the results.

211


final ‗Economy and Land Use‘ task force was not necessary as a general consensus had already been reached in the community of stakeholders on the outcomes.

4.3.4.2. Informal meetings and group interviews

During the research process, several informal meetings and group interviews were organized with a variety of stakeholders. These informal meetings originated from (1) demands of the initiator of the study for intensive coordination between parallel research processes; (2) demands of stakeholders, during or after task force meetings, for formal interaction or (3) demands of the research team to receive specific information from stakeholders. First, meetings with the initiators of the study and experts of other research teams active in the strategic planning process were held to guarantee the transfer of information between the parallel activities in the task forces on ‗Economy and Land Use‘, ‗Mobility‘ and ‗Nature Conservation‘. With the research team responsible for Mobility, two meetings were held to define long term modal split scenarios and ensure the use of identical parameters for long term calculations (such as the number of TEU per freight train). With the research team of Nature Conservation, a meeting was held at the APA with representatives of the Spatial Planning and GIS 53 department of the APA as well as representatives of the LBC to reach agreement on the long term supply of land for economic use in the port in the different nature conservation scenarios. Additional meetings were held with the initiators of the study in order to validate specific data on, inter alia, land supply, infrastructure capacity and financial parameters. Second, we held five group interviews sessions with stakeholders from the private sector. Three group interview sessions were held with a broad representation of the maritime cluster (shipping lines, cargo handling firms, other port service providers) and

53

Geographic Information System

212


the logistics sector, due to a joint demand of the research team and the stakeholders involved. Several issues were discussed during these group interviews such as, inter alia: -

The traffic forecast scenarios;

-

The evolution of specific parameters such as the degree of containerization and the number of tons per TEU;

-

The evolution of parameters of value added and employment per unit of land;

-

The evolution of quay and spatial productivity of terminals;

-

Land use of the present terminals;

-

Delegation of specific economic activities to the port network.

Interaction with the representatives of the maritime cluster and logistics sector took place as follows: -

At the end of October 2004, after the first results of steps 1 and 2 were presented to the task force Economy and Land Use. In this case, a representative of the APA was also present at the meeting. A semi-structured questionnaire was used for this group interview.

-

At mid-November 2004, in order to have upfront data and input from the private sector for the presentation of the results of steps 3 and 4 to the task force, as well as suggestions for conducting steps 5 to 754. A semi-structured questionnaire was used for this group interview.

-

At the end of January 2005, to present the results of the study and receive final comments.

Furthermore, an additional meeting was held at the request of the container terminal operators, in order to interact on the long term evolution of the spatial productivity of container terminals, a parameter deemed very important in the model. This meeting was held at the APA, in presence of senior experts of the APA, members of the branch organizations of port users and several large terminal operators active in the port of 54

More specifically the criteria of the port users to be included in the multi-criteria analysis.

213


Antwerp, to achieve final agreement on the expected evolution of this parameter in the alternative development scenarios. Finally, a group interview was organized in December 2005 with experts of the branch organization of the port industry (in particular the petrochemical sector), to discuss, inter alia, the basic hypotheses of the development scenarios for the industry, the evolution of land use for industrial activities, the evolution of emissions from industrial processes in the port, and the evolution of employment and value added per unit of land. In addition, a discussion was held on the implementation of steps 5 to 755. Third, stakeholder interaction took place with additional stakeholders, who wanted to inform their members on the study outcomes, such as one of the larger worker unions, where the final results of the study were presented during February 2005 and discussions were held on the policy implications of the results. This interaction provided additional insights for the conclusions of the study.

55

More specifically, the criteria of the port industry to be included in the multi-criteria analysis were discussed.

214


4.3.4.3. Formal studies and documents

Throughout the research process, a large number of formal documents and studies were analyzed. These documents had three main origins: First, the initiators of the research provided documents and formal studies on the ongoing strategic planning process, as well as specific data on land use and financial parameters, the so-called ‗partial studies‘. The most important partial studies were (see Appendix 4 for an exhaustive list): -

Afdeling Natuur, Aeolus, Universiteit Antwerpen, 2005. Achtergrondnota natuur - Haven van Antwerpen.

-

Buck Consultants International. 2002. Relevante trends en prognoses op het vlak van maritieme, industriële en logistieke ontwikkelingen in de Haven van Antwerpen. Uitgevoerd in opdracht van: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen.

-

Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen. 2002. Ruimtegebruik haven van Antwerpen. Situatie zomer 2002.

-

Nexant Chem Systems. 2002. Competitive Analysis and Future Development of the Petrochemical Cluster in Antwerp. A report prepared for the Antwerp Port Authority.

-

Ocean Shipping Consultants. 2003. Port of Antwerp: Market Study. Prepared for The Antwerp Port Authority.

-

Studiegroep Omgeving. 2004. Geactualiseerde principes strategisch plan linkerscheldeoevergebied. Werkgroep Strategisch plan Linkerscheldeoever, april 2004.

215


-

Studiegroep Omgeving. 2004. Ontwerp-strategisch plan haven van Antwerpen (rechterscheldeoever). Einddocument juni 2004.

-

Studiegroep Omgeving, 2005. Synthesestudie mobiliteit voor het strategisch plan van de haven van Antwerpen als inputstudie voor de Plan MER.

Second, stakeholder representatives provided the research team with their own studies, analyses and policy documents during or after the task force meetings. Third, the research team itself performed specific searches, as not all necessary information to construct an integrative calculation model was available within the partial specific to the port of Antwerp. One of the main ‗external‘ sources was the library of the Project Mainport at Rotterdam. A full list of all formal studies and documents that were used to construct the integrative calculation model can be found in Appendix 4

4.4. The port system

4.4.1. Introduction

During the early stages of our research, we identified the conditions for the design of an integrative calculation model for port development. First, we needed a coherent structure that would encompass the entire port system, taking into account the impact of port regionalization. Second, we felt that a high degree of aggregation of the analysis would be appropriate, which implies a minimum level of site specificity (e.g., we decided not to make a distinction between the port activities on the Right Bank versus the Left Bank of the

216


river Scheldt), and a minimum level of sectoral disaggregation. More specifically, we decided to consider only the three principal sectors active in the port (maritime cargo handling, logistics services and manufacturing industries). Third, we decided that the calculation model needed to have a high degree of transparency and should be easy to manipulate, so as to allow for fast and reliable simulation. In other words, if asked by specific stakeholders to assess the impact of changes to the values of some key parameters, the model had to allow the easy recalculation of results. Finally, given the multitude of stakeholder representatives involved, each with different educational and professional backgrounds, we decided to construct a model that would be easy to understand by non-experts, i.e., stakeholder representatives lacking a solid background in economics, mathematics, engineering or environmental sciences. We wanted to avoid at all cost that the model would be perceived as too sophisticated, as this would have led some stakeholders to view the results as ‗black box‘ outcomes, which in turn would have harmed the legitimacy of the planning process as a whole. As a result, one of the main methodological challenges throughout steps 1 to 4 was to create a reliable and methodologically sound model, without using sophisticated quantitative methods that could potentially alienate stakeholders from the planning process.

4.4.2. Description of the port system

After a quick scan of the existing literature, it became clear that each of the partial studies we collected could be ‗assigned‘ to a different component of the port system. We unbundled the port system into four parts or ‗legs‘ according to a geographical and functional dimension, namely a sea leg, the port activity component, the hinterland transport component and the port network (i.e., locations outside of the port area, but affected by and affecting the port‘s expansion, cf. port regionalization).

217


For each of these four components we needed to analyze demand parameters, supply parameters as well as the impacts of specific demand and supply evolutions on stakeholder objectives. Interestingly, most of the prior, partial studies concentrated solely on one of these three parts in a single geographical or functional component of the port system, e.g., the demand side as in traffic forecasts, or the supply side as in making available new land for economic development inside the port area or setting air pollution emission ceilings, or the impacts themselves, as in economic effects analyses.

Our framework can be visualized as a 3 by 4 matrix, in which we summarized all prior studies and their parameters/results in one or more of the cells. Table 4.1 shows this systematic approach, and provides some examples of relevant parameters for illustrative purposes. Although this systematic approach implies a geographical and functional decomposition of the port system into different ‗legs‘ of the system, each leg interacts with the other legs, as there are important ― interface‖ parameters, instrumental to developing the integrative calculation model, such as: -

the number of containers/tons per meter quay per year;

-

the number of containers/tons per hectare per year;

-

the modal split percentages (road, rail, barge) excluding transshipment.

It could be argued that these parameters cannot be simply allocated to a single port system leg, but from their definition, it is always clear where they belong. For example, although quay productivity and spatial productivity could be intuitively linked to the sea leg due to the link with maritime traffic handling, these are essentially landside parameters as quays and terminals belong to the landside infrastructure of the port.

218

Impacts

Supply

Demand

- Demand for land for Value Added Logistics (VAL) and

- terminal capacity; - storage capacity; - land and infrastructure for logistics, distribution and industrial activities.

conventional cargo);

- number of ships;

- distribution of ship size.

- rail transport; - barge transport.

length (meters, kilometers); - existing and foreseen terminal capacity;

(capacity and size of locks, tidal

windows, access channel draught)

219

- direct and indirect employment

- direct and indirect employment

Socio-economic:

Socio-economic:

- added value;

- added value.

Socio-economic:

- tonnage dues;

- added value.

- rents from leases;

- port dues;

- added value.

Financial:

Financial:

activities.

distribution and industrial Financial

land for economic activities.

- existing and planned land and

Financial

- existing and planned supply of

infrastructure for logistics,

terminal capacity;

capacity;

- existing and planned intermodal

distribution of network relations):

the port (density and geographical

Supply from the port network to

distribution centers.

terminals;

- Demand for intermodal

distribution of network relations);

- existing and planned storage

- road transport;

- Existing and planned quay

- Components of maritime access

Existing and planned capacity of:

- barge transport.

- rail transport;

network (density and geographical

Demand from the port to the port

categories (bulk, ro-ro,

- road transport;

Demand for:

- quay length (meters, kilometers);

Network

Demand for:

Hinterland transport leg

- traffic forecasts for other

Land leg

- traffic forecasts for containers;

Sea leg

Table 4.1: A systematic approach to decompose the port system


- excess/shortage of hinterland Environment - external effects of hinterland

- excess/shortage of land and infrastructure Mobility Environment - external effects of port activities

Spatial

Mobility

Environment

- external effects of sea transport

and loading/unloading ships

220

Mobility

- direct and indirect employment.

transport.

transport mode capacity

Spatial

- direct and indirect employment Spatial

Socio-economic:


Environment

Mobility

economic activities

- excess/shortage of land for

Spatial


4.4.3. Discussion of the results

From the literature review of partial studies and the systematic approach as presented in Table 4.1, we observed in general terms that (1) there were a number of ‗blind spots‘ in the system, making a calculation starting from the demand side impossible for some specific components of the system; (2) a number of impacts could not be calculated directly in the integrative calculation model, as they had a very high degree of site specificity. First, one of the most important linkages in the model is the ratio between the traffic evolution on the demand side and the land use requirements (in hectares) on the supply side to make this cargo throughput possible, i.e., X million tons of maritime cargo requires Y hectares of land/quays. This is easy to assess for container traffic given the standardized nature of this traffic category, but it is difficult to estimate for the other cargo categories (ro-ro, dry bulk, liquid bulk, conventional cargo). The lack of valid data for these latter categories can be explained by the wide diversity of cargo types they represent (e.g., chemicals, construction materials, scrap, steel, forest products, fresh produce). Information from other ports was not particularly useful for comparison purposes, given their high degree of specialization. For long term planning purposes, we suggest it would be useful to perform these benchmark analyses in the future, in order to have a better assessment of robustness of the selected parameters. Second, where ratios expressing the linkage between traffic and land use exist, as in the case of container traffic, their interpretation remains difficult as hectares (or more generally the unit of land use), can be defined in many ways. From the literature review of the partial studies presenting such ratios, including international benchmarking studies, we were able to conclude that different studies base their results on units that are defined in different ways, depending for example on whether or not the space required for infrastructure such as roads, rail tracks on the sites is included. For future planning purposes, it is imperative to use a clear classification and definition of spatial units, and to use this classification in a consistent way in partial studies addressing land use and spatial productivity parameters. Such classification would increase the

221


understanding and interpretation of the results for non-experts, and also enhance the robustness of calculations and results of the integrative calculation (in other words, it would avoid the criticism that ‗apples and pears cannot be compared‘). Third, economic impacts, more specifically added value and employment, were easily calculated due to the availability of reliable data. In the case of the Belgian seaports, the National Bank of Belgium performs detailed studies every two years, and calculates an important number of economic effects, which enhances the robustness of the parameters. Nevertheless, the challenge is to assess the evolution of these effects over time. For example, the definition of the maritime and non-maritime cluster can change due to particular sectoral trajectories, such as the increased overlap between the transport sector and the logistics services sector. In addition, economic activities conventionally located inside the port area may well be relocated outside this geographic area for efficiency reasons, increasing the importance of the broader port network in the creation of value added and employment (see De Langen, 2004). Finally, the integrative calculation of environmental impacts (noise, odor, dust, visual impact, atmospheric pollution, lack of security, etc.) is very difficult to link to the evolution of maritime traffic demand. More specifically, for most of these impacts, no fixed relationship exists between land use and pollution levels, and the non-linearity of most of these impacts makes it difficult to include them in a simple integrative calculation model. Furthermore, even when environmental performance parameters are available (e.g., dB/square meter for noise levels), they cannot be integrated immediately in the calculation model as noise levels obviously depend on the distance from the source. To properly accommodate these impacts, a high level of site specificity would be necessary, which was incompatible with the principles of the calculation model. Although the inclusion of the above effects in the integrative calculation model is not possible, these impacts resulting from partial studies were integrated in a qualitative fashion in the socio-economic evaluation of port supply strategies (on land use), using other evaluation techniques such as multi-criteria analyis (Dooms, Macharis, Verbeke 2003; Dooms, Macharis, Verbeke, 2004; Macharis, 2007).

222


4.5. The integrative calculation model for the port of Antwerp

4.5.1. Primary and secondary modules

In this section, we briefly describe the principal components of the calculation model, as well as its crucial parameters. We make a distinction between primary and secondary modules of the calculation model. This distinction is very useful in operational calculation terms. First, there are basic linkages among the various components in the port system, which allow some variables to be measured immediately, based upon the evolution of the main demand parameters and a few simple assumptions on the evolution of the linkages with those parameters: this gives rise to the primary modules, shown in Figure 4.1. An example is the linkage between traffic growth, the number of ships calling the port and the financial revenues of the port authority. Second, we also developed a wide array of secondary modules, pegged to the primary module system, which had a more indirect, complex link with the main demand parameters. An example is calculation of the land needed for intermodal barge terminals in the port network, which needs to combine parameters of traffic growth in the port, modal split objectives, general data on origin-destination of hinterland flows, existing use of capacity on intermodal terminals and spatial productivity parameters of intermodal barge terminals. The decomposition of the model in primary and secondary modules keeps the basic structure simple, allowing non-experts to understand the basic model with its primary modules. As a result, stakeholder acceptance of the parameter values and results of the primary modules can be more readily sought, before embarking on a discussion on the parameter values and results of the secondary modules. The secondary modules can thus be constructed after a consensus has been reached on the primary modules, as discrete

223


‗spin-offs‘ of these primary modules, and are in most cases of particular interest to specific stakeholders only. Nevertheless, as all modules are linked, changes in parameter values can be easily integrated, allowing for easy recalculation of results. Our approach proved to be appropriate as the model had to be recalculated several times during the course of the planning process, due to changing definitions and values of several parameters, often after substantial interaction with stakeholders (see section 4.3 for an overview of these interactions). Due to this flexibility of the calculation model structure with primary and secondary modules, this fine-tuning was done efficiently.

4.5.2. Primary modules

Figure 4.4 shows the simplified structure of the calculation model‘s primary modules. As noted above, we adopted a systematic approach to the port system with four legs, ensuring a high level of consistency between the preliminary phase in our study (i.e., the analysis of all existing partial studies following the port system structure described in Table 4.1) and the subsequent design and application of the calculation model. The model represented in Figure 4.4 is simplified, as scale and scope economies (e.g., in terms of the evolution of ship size distribution of the maritime fleet coming into Antwerp) are taken into consideration in the actual calculations, but their inclusion would have complicated the graphical representation of the model.

224

Added value industry-related (€) Flow back to treasury (€) Employment industry-related Land surface requirements industry-related (ha)

Flow back to treasury (€)

Employment transport-related

Land surface requirements transport-related (ha)

Change in spatial productivity (%)

Change in labour productivity (%)

Added value transport-related (€)

Revenues port authority (€)

Number of ships

Industrial development

225

Ra (ton)

IW (ton)

Ro (ton)

Ra (ton)

IW (ton)

Ro (ton)

Modal split containers (%)

Modal split total port traffic (%)

Hinterland

(Environmental impact)

Traffic forecast (tons)

Economic growth


Land side


Sea side


Demand

Land surface requirements delegated to network (ha)

Network

Figure 4.4: Simplified structure of the primary modules of the calculation model


Supply

Impacts




The central component of the calculation model is the traffic forecast, from which other parameters such as number and type of ships, revenues of the port authority, added value, employment, tax revenues, modal split, land demand etc. can be derived. These parameters and the linkages between them form the primary modules of the model and are highly interdependent, i.e., a change in one parameter usually influences all other parameters. With regard to the secondary modules, such as environmental impacts, or demand for land in the port network, the interdependence is less direct/immediate/mechanistic, thus excluding them from the basic, primary model.

The traffic forecast itself was the result of a literature study, which included the analysis of recent traffic forecasts executed by the port authority, independent market analysts (e.g., Drewry Shipping Consultants, Ocean Shipping Consultants) as well as traffic forecasts used in recent social cost-benefit analyses for the port that we conducted ourselves (e.g., the traffic forecast we made for the Dutch Central Planning Bureau for the cost-benefit analysis of the deepening of the river Scheldt). These traffic forecasts were compared in terms of inter alia, time horizon, growth scenarios (taking into account infrastructure developments in other ports) and number and type of traffic categories. Finally, we developed new traffic forecast scenarios, based on the most recent traffic data supplied by the port authority. For a detailed methodological overview of the forecasting approach adopted, see Coeck et al. (2006, pp. 103-106) and ECSA and VUB (2005).

226


Figure 4.5 shows the traffic forecast for the port of Antwerp, horizon 2030. Figure 4.5: Traffic forecast for the port of Antwerp (horizon 2030)

The traffic forecast is the starting point of the calculation model, and affects many other parameters. For the port of Antwerp, which is home to the second largest petrochemical cluster in the world (after Houston, USA), industrial development also needs to be included in the model. For ports without significant industrial activity in their territory, the industrial cluster could be omitted if viewed irrelevant. The evolution of industrial activity is intimately linked to general economic conditions, and to policies of the regional government aimed at attracting international investments. In the case of the port of Antwerp, these investments are mainly linked with the chemical and petrochemical sector. With regard to the maritime traffic forecast, i.e., the starting point of the calculation model, the validation of the different traffic evolution scenarios by the community of stakeholders was a key issue (section 4.3). For the forecast of industrial development,

227


we relied upon sector-based studies (Nexant, 2002) suggesting potential scenarios for new, footloose investments. However, it also appeared imperative to consult the important industrial players, as well as their interest groups, to define demand scenarios for industrial development, as was described in section 4.3. In the case of the port of Antwerp, industrial growth scenarios were based on demand forecasts for additional land in the context of greenfield investments (mobile investment projects) and the expansion requirements of existing firms in the cluster. For the port authority, revenues such as port dues are an important source of financial revenue to finance future port development. From the traffic forecast, combined with the evolution of number of ships as well as the evolution of the distribution of ship sizes, the additional revenues (per year) for the port authority were calculated. The port dues for ship operators consist of tonnage dues (depending on ship size) and mooring dues (depending on the tonnage handled) (see Table 4.2). Table 4.2: Additional port dues per year Tonnage dues

Mooring dues

(million euro)

2015

2030

2015

2030

High growth

21.9

35.7

9.9

18.5

Low growth

13.5

20.9

6.6

12.0

For the calculation of added value, a distinction was made between two clusters, namely the transport related cluster and the industrial cluster. The transport related cluster was further unbundled into the maritime cluster (cargo handling and related activities, shipping agents, etc.), and the logistics cluster, including all companies in those sectors located in the port area (according to the definition of the sectors and the port‘s spatial boundaries as defined by the National Bank of Belgium). As mentioned above, the transport related cluster is assumed to follow traffic volume growth, whereas the industrial cluster is more linked to macro-level parameters in the economy, as well as regional policies to attract new, footloose industrial investments.

228


In order to calculate the added value of the transport related cluster up to 2030, a number of expected changes in parameter values had to be included, such as the decrease of direct added value56 per ton of cargo throughput. Own, original research and analysis of the historical trends revealed a decrease of this parameter for the port of Antwerp to about 22 euro/ton in 2003, and it is believed that a further increase in the containerization of conventional cargo will continue to reduce the direct added value created inside the port area (whereas direct added value outside the port area will probably rise due to port regionalization, see below). Another important parameter is the multiplier of direct added value, taking into account inter-sectoral supply relationships to calculate total added value. A historical analysis showed a high degree of stability of this parameter in the port of Antwerp, for both the transport related cluster and the industrial cluster, see ECSA and VUB (2005). For the industrial cluster, the starting point is a compilation of the demand scenarios for land, taking into account long term strategies and land reserves of existing companies, as well as potential growth scenarios for international, footloose investments (or greenfield development). The parameter adjustments to be made include the evolution of spatial productivity expressed in value added per unit of land, which is generally increasing. The basic calculation for industry starts from current added value per hectare, calculated from the results of several partial studies, see ECSA and VUB (2005). For the calculation of transport cluster related employment and industrial cluster related direct and total employment, we used the same approach as described above. Parameter adjustments, however, were based on sectoral trends, as well as feedback received from the relevant stakeholder groups (private sector representatives as well as government representatives). For the employment parameter in the transport related sector, we used conservative hypotheses in terms of decreases in employment per million ton of maritime cargo.

56

For the distinction between direct and indirect added value (and other economic impacts), see Coeck et al (2006).

229


Employment represents a very important impact of port activities, and is often used (more frequently than added value) to justify and even lobby for port development projects, which in most cases has led to the publication of overestimated numbers (see e.g., Gripaios and Gripaios, 1995). With regard to long term projections (in this case up to 2030), any overestimation should be avoided, as this could jeopardize the entire planning process if stakeholders view the estimates as illegitimate and unreliable. For the industrial cluster, spatial labor productivity is the most appropriate parameter to assess. Recent trends show that increased capital intensity has led to a systematic decrease of employment per unit of land. The ‗paradox‘ observed in the results of the calculation model was a faster decrease of employment per hectare in the case of high economic growth. The explanation is that higher economic growth is likely to spur new investments, leading to sharp increases in labor productivity per unit of land. Figures 4.6 and 4.7 show the results of the socio-economic impact calculations (gross added value and employment).

230


Figure 4.6: Gross added value (time horizon 2030)57

Figure 4.7: Employment (time horizon 2030)

57 ‗A‘ and ‗B‘ scenario‘s (see the legend of the figure) provide different supply side elements in the calculation. A-scenarios are sustainable in terms of evolution of supply parameters, i.e., characterized by high increases in spatial productivity, favorable modal split evolution in terms of use of environmentally friendly transport modes, etc. B-scenarios are non-sustainable, i.e., characterized by low increases in spatial productivity, non-favorable modal split evolution. We refer to Coeck et al (2006) and ECSA and Dooms (2005) for in-depth insights.

231


Based on spatial productivity parameters (at the level of the terminals), as well as information on existing and planned quay length and terminal surface, it is possible to calculate future demand for landside infrastructure in terms of required meters of quay as well as land demand (in hectares) for cargo handling, as well as the moment in time when this additional infrastructure will be needed, for each demand scenario. In the case of the port of Antwerp, traffic forecasts for each demand scenario show that one traffic category will need considerable new capacity, namely the container sector. In order to calculate future land and quay requirements, two basic parameters and their evolution for the whole port area have to be known:

-

evolution of quay productivity for containers TEU/meter/year;

-

evolution of terminal productivity for containers TEU/hectare/year.

Again several sources need to be consulted to define current productivity levels, as well as the expected evolution of these levels. Information from the port authority (terminal surfaces and traffic per terminal), international benchmark studies, combined with academic literature as well as input through the use of group interviews with stakeholders such as local terminal operators and their representative bodies on a sectoral level, combined with interaction with all stakeholders in the formal task force group meetings, such as described in section 4.3, provided the information needed to assess present and future parameter values. The comparison of demand (based on the traffic forecast) and supply (based on the capacity evolution, without new terminal expansion), led to the identification of expected imbalances. We also determined the year when additional capacity would become necessary, as well as the scale of the required developments (expressed in meters and hectares). Table 4.3, included here for illustrative purposes only, shows the results of the analysis for the container capacity planning in the port, see ECSA and VUB (2005) and Coeck et al. (2006) for an in-depth analysis.

232


Table 4.3: Potential imbalances between demand and supply for container handling

Low demand High demand Average

Imbalances

Imbalances

(allowing for terminal

(without allowing terminal

congestion)

congestion)

Imbalance 1: 2013

Imbalance 1: 2011

Imbalance 2: ca. 2045

Imbalance 2: 2032

Imbalance 1: 2010

Imbalance 1: 2009

Imbalance 2: 2026

Imbalance 2: 2020

Imbalance 1: 2012

Imbalance 1: 2010

Imbalance 2: 2035

Imbalance 2: 2026

Besides the landside infrastructure (quays and land) needed for cargo handling, the supportive logistics functions inside the port area (empty depots, stuffing and stripping of containers, inspection, repair, cleaning, specific types of value added logistics) will also exhibit a higher demand for land when traffic grows. Here again, information from the port authority on spatial productivity, international benchmark studies, combined with academic literature as well as input from stakeholders through group interviews with local terminal operators and their representative bodies on a sectoral level (see section 4.3), provided the information needed to assess the link between the surface needed for cargo handling and the land-side demand for supporting logistics activities. This calculation showed that for each additional hectare of cargo handling activities, an additional 0.65 hectare would be required for supporting logistics activities. The estimation of total, additional land demand (transport related, industry related, strategic reserve), confronted with the potential long term supply allows the identification of expected future shortages, and thus the expected number of hectares devoted to specific economic activities that will need to be ‗delegated‘ to the port network (in the case of logistics), to other chemical clusters (in the case of industry) or to other ports (in case of cargo handling). In order to correctly determine the actual supply of land available for new activities, the (legally required) reservation of space for ecological development (birds and habitats) needs to be assessed as a pre-condition for

233


making a sound assessment of real expansion possibilities. As described in section 4.3, we engaged in formal interaction with the experts in nature conservation and matched their demand and supply scenarios with our demand scenarios and land supply parameters. Table 4.4 shows the resulting land use balance (demand versus supply) for the port of Antwerp, taking into account the land to be reserved as environmental buffer, see ECSA and VUB (2005) and Coeck et al. (2006) for an in-depth analysis. The variability of demand for land of economic use is derived from the high and low growth scenarios used in the integrative calculation model. The variability of supply of land for economic use is based on partial studies, interaction between the research team and stakeholders and the demand and supply of land for nature conservation.

Table 4.4: Land balance port of Antwerp (hectares) Sector

Demand 2015 (net)

Demand 2030 (net)

Maritime cargo handling

201 (low) – 328 (high)

275 – 486

Supportive logistics services

306 – 388

354 – 491

Industry (greenfield development)

28 – 113

56 – 225

Strategic Reserve (5-year)

140 - 240

140 - 240

Total net demand

675 – 1.069

825 – 1.442

Total net supply

1.141 – 1.384

1.141 – 1.384

Average net demand

872

1.134

Average net supply

1.263

1.263

The results show that, ceteris paribus, when adopting an intermediate growth scenario, i.e., the average between the high and low scenarios, no substantial land reserves will remain available in the port by 2030 as demand is likely to exceed supply at that stage, given the current boundaries of the port area and the land reserves to be foreseen as environmental buffers. Finally, at the level of the hinterland transportation leg, we calculated the future demand for the different types of hinterland transportation (road, barge and rail). Here, the 234


modal split percentages (after deduction of transshipment) play a crucial role, as several alternative modal split evolution scenarios could be assumed, depending upon the extent to which sustainable development objectives will actually be pursued in society (use of more environmentally friendly transport modes such as rail and barge transport). The evolution foreseen and the final modal split at the end of the planning horizon must still be realistic and take into account the specific position of the port (e.g., in the case of the port of Antwerp, an important cargo generating effect in the immediate surroundings of the port will continue to favor road transport). Interviews with stakeholders such as terminal operators, as well as rail and barge operators can be useful to predict the maximum market share alternative modes such as rail and barge could command in the future. This stakeholder based approach, realized through group interviews, formal interaction in the task force and interaction with other research teams (see section 4.3) complements the results of partial studies, which model the future modal split of hinterland traffic, but do not fully take into account market dynamics or port specific characteristics (e.g., a strong local cargo base). Importantly, these modal split hypotheses have effects on other components of the logistics chain. For example, the land side as terminal infrastructure will need to be adapted for efficient barge handling depending on the modal split scenario (e.g., dedicated barge handling facilities on maritime container terminals, in order to avoid congestion at the maritime quays). After the calculation of the different scenarios, potential savings in external costs can be calculated by comparing the environmentally friendly or sustainable (A-) scenarios (more use of barge and rail) to less environmentally friendly or non-sustainable (B-) scenarios (less use of rail and barge), using data supplied by relevant sources (e.g., European Commission studies on the economic value of negative external effects of road haulage). For the calculation58, we based ourselves on the parameters used by the European Commission in external cost calculations for grant and subsidy purposes (European Commission, 2002), and for the average distance of hinterland transport we based ourselves on Haezendonck (2001). 58

See ECSA and VUB (2005) for an in-depth analysis.

235


Figures 4.8 and 4.9 and Table 4.5 show the results of these calculations (modal split evolution in % and million tons, external cost savings).

Figure 4.8: Modal split evolution (in %)

236


Figure 4.9: Modal split evolution (in million tons)

Table 4.5: External cost savings per year (in million euro) million euro

2015

2030

High - A

39.0

51.6

High - B

16.1

21.3

Low - A

32.3

39.4

Low - B

13.4

16.3

237


4.5.3. Secondary modules

As noted above, the secondary modules exhibit a less direct interdependence with the traffic forecast, and are therefore not included in the basic model. In the case of the port of Antwerp, a limited but relevant number of secondary modules was developed, taking into account the traffic forecast and the modal split evolution. These secondary modules relate explicitly to the extended gateway strategy, and allow calculating the long term impacts of such a strategy. Below, we describe a few of the most relevant examples of impacts, whereby (i) to (iv) are linked explicitly to the port regionalization and the extended gateway concept. In geographical terms, we limited the geographic scope of the extended gateway to the Belgian territory. We calculated59:

(i)

Demand for additional inland intermodal terminal capacity in the port network (meters of quay, hectares of land), based on the modal split, the geographical distribution of flows and the terminal and quay productivity of inland intermodal terminals. This demand was compared with the actual and foreseen infrastructure capacity in order to identify any future imbalances between supply and demand.

(ii)

The economic impacts of (i), i.e., added intermodal terminal capacity, based on added value and employment per TEU, using appropriate spatial productivity parameters resulting from the demand for additional land (after confronting existing and planned intermodal terminal capacity).

(iii)

Demand for additional land for economic activities in the port network (in particular VAL and European Distribution Centres – EDCs), based, inter alia, on the geographical dispersion of flows and spatial productivity (number of tons or TEU per ha per year).

59

See ECSA and VUB (2005) and Coeck et al. (2006) for an in-depth description.

238


(iv)

The economic impacts of (iii), i.e., VAL and EDCs in the port network, based on added value and employment, using appropriate spatial productivity parameters, resulting from the demand for additional land (after confronting existing and planned VAL and EDC capacity).

(v)

Emissions of port activities, based on the expected trajectories of specific parameters (e.g., grams of CO2 per TEU per year). Tentative calculations were made for each main sector analyzed in the model (i.e., maritime cargo handling, supporting logistics, industry).

The estimations of the additional economic impacts in the port network showed that in spite of only a limited potential for additional direct employment in the port area itself (due to continued containerization), a large potential for employment creation in the port network existed within the planning horizon, if the relevant public agencies would create the conditions to allow for such growth (i.e., by making available appropriate transport infrastructure and land). This impact could amount to approx. 66,000 additional jobs (FTEs60), which largely exceeds the additional employment impact inside the port area itself (approx. 35,000 FTE, see above, Figure 4.7). Table 4.6 shows the results of the calculations related to the development of the extended gateway.

60

FTE: Full Time Equivalent

239


Table 4.6 shows the results of the calculations related to the development of the extended gateway. Table 4.6: Extended gateway impacts (Additional impacts in the extended gateway)

High growth

Low growth

Horizon

Horizon

Horizon

Horizon

2015

2030

2015

2030

884,346

1,806.816

732,771

1,381,538

Intermodal capacity demand (in net meters)

2,954

5,902

1,979

3,869

Intermodal capacity demand (in net hectares)

33.7

78.3

23.7

54.0

/

517

/

395

12.7

25.9

10.5

19.8

833

1.218

504

676

44,763

65,448

27,103

36,328

4,102

5,997

2,482

3,329

Intermodal capacity demand (in TEU)*

Employment impact intermodal terminals (FTEs) Added Value impact intermodal terminals (million euro) Land requirements for VAL - EDC Employment impact VAL – EDC (FTEs) Added Value impact VAL –EDC (million euro)

*Including the demand from the port of Rotterdam affecting the Belgian intermodal barge network (approx. 1/3 of total demand).


Figure 4.10 integrates the inclusion of stakeholders in the strategic planning process, the analytical component of strategic planning (in this case the integrative seven step process described in section 4.2.1) and the dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management.

240


Figure 4.10: Stakeholder inclusion and dynamic and spatial aspects in the port of Antwerp case study

Figure 4.10 shows that spatial aspects of stakeholder management play a role in three planning process steps. In step 1, all the parameters and results of the partial studies are compiled and analyzed using the port system structure described in Table 4.1, thereby acknowledging a spatial dimension. The identified impacts on stakeholder objectives from the partial studies are allocated to the different geographic components of the port system. In steps 2 and 4, an integrative calculation model is built, taking into account the spatial dimension to calculate the impacts on stakeholder objectives (see Figure 4.4). In particular the definition of secondary modules in the calculation model is relevant in terms of the spatial dimension of stakeholder management as these modules contain the identification and calculation of the extended gateway impacts (see Table 4.6).

241


We did not identify challenges related to dynamic aspects of stakeholder management during the completion of steps 1 to 4 of the planning process 61. However, in the next section, we will discuss the implicit presence of dynamic aspects of stakeholder management, resulting from the outcomes of the planning process described in this case study.


In this chapter, we have described an integrative framework and operational calculation model for long term strategic port planning, based on a stakeholder based approach. This framework permits a comprehensive evaluation of alternative, long term port expansion scenarios. The model includes the four main spatial components of the seaport system: sea leg, land leg, hinterland leg and the port network. We have applied the framework and model to assess alternative expansion scenarios of the port of Antwerp (with a horizon of 2030). The results of our approach have been used as a key component in the ongoing strategic planning process for the port of Antwerp. We have suggested that our integrative approach to port planning, adopted after a preliminary phase within which a variety of focused, but only partial studies were undertaken, can enhance the validity and legitimacy of the long term port planning process. The integrative approach analyses the overall port system, including all of its spatial components: sea leg, land leg, hinterland transport leg and port network. Specifically, the model allows for the calculation of the impact of changes in demand and supply parameters on each of the individual port system components. In this context, the empirical results of the Antwerp case study reveal the increasing impact of activities in the port hinterland network, or the ‗extended gateway‘, confirming the rise of port regionalization as documented by Notteboom and Rodrigue (2005).

61

The same remark is valid for steps 5 to 7, which are not included in this thesis.

242


The model permits simple but grounded calculations, which highlight critical societal trade-offs with regard to port development impacts for a variety of stakeholders (e.g., port revenues for the port authority, employment and value added for the regional government, atmospheric pollution for local communities and ecological pressure groups). Furthermore, as we explicitly address the interests of each stakeholder group and the impacts on each functional field, the legitimacy of the strategic planning process increases. In addition, each stakeholder is given the opportunity to provide feedback on the outcomes of the initial runs of the calculation model. However, the actual development of the calculation model, the definition of the model parameters and the identification of both present values and future estimates for all parameters, is a time-consuming activity, both for researchers and for the stakeholder groups involved. Several large scale dialogue sessions, involving the entire community of stakeholders need to be foreseen, as well as multiple interaction sessions with individual stakeholder groups, for brainstorming and feedback purposes. Although the process is costly and time consuming, the benefits are considerable, as subsequent implementation will be facilited. For the port of Antwerp, the entire long term planning process, from moment between conducting partial studies to the completion of the strategic environmental impact report (S-EIR), took approximately 8 years (May 2001 62 – March 200963), which is similar to the 9 years of study required to prepare the Project Mainport Rotterdam (PMR) and the Project Maasvlakte 2 (July 1997 64- November 200665) in the Netherlands. The main difference between the two planning processes is that the PMR project was concerned with the realization of specific projects, mainly port expansion through the realization of Maasvlakte 2, creation of nature conservation areas and projects of 62 Restart of the strategic planning processes in the timeline (based on an internal document provided by the APA). 63 Formal approval of the S-EIR in the timeline as provided by the Port of Antwerp. 64 Decision of Parliament to undertake an environmental impact assessment procedure for the PMR (Project Mainport Rotterdam). In fact, this decision followed the identification of more than 50 specific port development projects during a preceding planning phase started in 1993, the so-called ROM project. 65 Approval by Parliament of the main planning decisions regarding project PMR. This decision was not binding for lower government levels such as the municipalities. Their agreement was obtained during the period 2006-2008. In 2009, at the time of drafting this chapter, appeal procedures against implementation features of the project were still possible.

243


optimization of land use, thus showing the characteristics of a master plan with a shorter time horizon rather than a long term development vision, which somewhat flaws the comparison. In the case of the port of Antwerp, during the same period, agreement was reached on a broader long term vision for infrastructural development (horizon 2030) under the form of a strategic plan for the whole port area (approved in 2006), culminating in the form of a S-EIR decision (approved in 2009) giving stakeholders legal certainty for the next 20 years in terms of the realization of potential port development projects. In other words, the existence of the S-EIR and an agreed vision for port infrastructure development on a higher planning level should decrease the lead-time for future developments formulated by port master plans and limit legal procedures by members of local communities and interest groups against specific projects, as they will be in line with the general principles of port expansion as described and agreed in the S-EIR. The results suggest that from an instrumental perspective of stakeholder management, a stakeholder based approach to develop long term development scenarios, including an integrative calculation of the contribution of these long term development scenarios to stakeholder objectives, is beneficial for (1) specific downstream planning processes as well as (2) the going concern of the ‗license to operate‘ of the focal organization in the process, the Antwerp Port Authority. From the perspective of the dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management, the development of the calculation model as well as the numerous interactions with stakeholders confirmed the importance of the spatial dimension in terms of measuring the impacts of long term development scenarios on stakeholder objectives. The calculation of long term spatial and economic impacts within the port network has shown that from a societal point of view, port network stakeholders such as, inter alia, inland terminals and regional development agencies in the Belgian network, should play an instrumental role in realizing the desired long term development scenario for the port, in particular the desired scenario linked to high and sustainable economic growth. The inclusion of these stakeholders will be required during the implementation of the long term development trajectory, inter alia by providing the necessary cargo handling

244


capacity at inland waterway and rail terminals in the port network and providing land for VAL activities and EDCs. The formal introduction of a spatial dimension in the integrative calculation model allowed identifying the critical importance of these stakeholders. In practice, since 2005, the APA has adopted a very active networking strategy with stakeholders outside the port area it manages and who were not explicitly involved in the strategic planning process. Examples include the development of the Antwerp Intermodal Network and the Antwerp Intermodal Solutions project, aimed at creating intense ties with the inland terminal network as well as with rail service operators. Furthermore, a formal participation was taken in the Trilogiport project in the inland port of Liège. Other stakeholders, in particular the five Flemish Provinces in cooperation with the Flemish Institute of Logistics, applied the ‗extended gateway‘ concept by conducting studies in each Province during the 2007-2009 period, in order to increase the logistical competitiveness of the port networks. Each Province created a business plan and a project structure to follow-up the measures suggested by the studies. At least, the research undertaken led to the identification of new critical stakeholders and the development of more intense collaboration with these stakeholders in the wider port network. We therefore suggest that taking spatial aspects of stakeholder management into account in long term planning processes will be instrumental to organizational success. One particular point of attention is that this approach could potentially lead to the formal involvement of public sector and private sector stakeholders from outside the country of origin where the large infrastructure hub is located. This approach could potentially create problems of a legislative nature as well as to issues of competitive strategy, in particular in the European situation where fierce competition exists between infrastructure hubs and networks from different countries. This would probably not be a problem from the perspective of the infrastructure hub manager itself as the Port authorities of Antwerp and Rotterdam have already developed informal and formal

245


relationships with stakeholders outside their country of origin66. However, the inclusion of stakeholders from outside the country in planning processes could be a problematic issue for political decision makers on the various government levels. The dynamic dimension of stakeholder management is implicitly present in this case study as the evaluation of the different long term scenarios through the integrative calculation method provided insights into the timing and the magnitude of the impacts on stakeholder objectives under changing economic conditions and changing supply elements (such as modal split and spatial productivity). The calculations allowed the identification, in dynamic fashion, of general short term and long term priorities in terms of infrastructure needs resulting from imbalances between demand and supply for the different economic sectors inside as well as outside the port and their related stakeholder organizations (e.g., branch organizations of specific port users). More specifically, the research results revealed different land use imbalances for different development scenarios at different times during the planning horizon. In other words, the results of this research suggested that at different times during the planning horizon, attention from the APA in terms of the implementation of a particular land use strategy would probably need to be shifted between the stakeholders representing the principal economic sectors using the port area (maritime cluster, logistics cluster, industrial cluster) in order to either accommodate their growth inside the port area or search for alternative development possibilities outside the port area. The research explicitly showed these dynamic aspects to the community of stakeholders. However, during our research, no normative conclusions were formulated on the short term implementation of a particular land use strategy, taking into account long term imbalances. However, the integrative calculation model highlighted in an objective manner the potential conflicts between spatial demands for the development of the principal sectors during and even beyond the planning horizon, thereby increasing stakeholder awareness of potential future conflicts between the APA and the principal economic sectors active in the port area (see Table 4.4).

66

Another concrete example includes the shareholdership by the inland port of Duisburg (Germany) in the one of Antwerp‘s container terminals.

246


Summarizing the various conclusions of this chapter, we have shown, based on the case of the port of Antwerp, that: (1) stakeholder inclusion in long term planning processes can be effective in practice; (2) a wide variety of public agencies and private sector stakeholders can jointly cooperate and agree on long term development scenarios if a stakeholder based approach is adopted; (3) lead times for the implementation of master plans and specific projects in large infrastructure hubs can probably be reduced if stakeholder consensus is achieved on long term development scenarios and the resulting impacts on stakeholder objectives (4) the formal introduction of spatial dimensions of stakeholder management when designing and applying an integrative calculation model for the evaluation of impacts on stakeholder objectives, leads to the development of new, short term action schemes, including new intense collaborations with stakeholders outside the area managed by the infrastructure manager of the large infrastructure hub. Examples of such short term action schemes are the various networking examples that have been introduced either by the APA (Antwerp Intermodal Network, Antwerp Intermodal Solutions and formal participation in the development of inland ports) or other stakeholders (e.g., application and implementation of the ‗extended gateway‘ concept by the Provinces). See also Coeck and Dooms (2007) for a description of such short term action schemes. Finally, a number of suggestions for further research can be formulated. First, in order to further validate the conclusions of this chapter, more cases should be developed and analyzed, within and outside the sector of seaport infrastructure. We believe that other large infrastructure hubs, such as airports and large railway networks and nodes, are confronted with the same generic problems in terms of managing stakeholders in long term planning processes. A number of specific issues need more clarification, such as: (1) the optimal or maximum number of stakeholders to involve during the different phases of a long term planning process, in particular as the introduction of a spatial dimension in this case has led to the identification of additional critical stakeholders (in the port network), potentially increasing complexity of the process; (2) the measurement of the results of a

247


stakeholder based planning process in terms of the (ex post) reduction of lead times for the construction of specific projects as well as the (ex-post) reduction in appeals procedures and litigation. Here, we should mention that most of these results will depend on the case; e.g., infrastructure hubs with a smaller, local hinterland will probably be characterized by a lesser degree of complexity in terms of the number of stakeholders to include, though the case of the Port of Brussels as described in Chapter 3 suggests the opposite. This hypothesis could also mean that stakeholder inclusion should be organized in different ways according to the position in the diagram of planning types (see Figure 4.1 in section 4.2 of this chapter). More case-based research, including appropriate cross-case comparisons into different planning processes with different time horizons, different degrees of time specificity and for different types of infrastructure hubs could increase the validity of the conclusions of this chapter (although comparisons would remain difficult, see the aforementioned example of the PMR project versus the planning process described in this chapter). Second, as is the case with master plans, long term development scenarios should also be formally reassessed during the planning horizon. In our case, the integrative calculation model presented in section 4 and 5 of this chapter allows an efficient recalculation of the imbalances and impacts on stakeholder objectives. We suggest that these recalculations take place at least every 5 years67, as this seems a reasonable horizon to change certain hypotheses regarding economic development (with an impact on the traffic forecast), technological progress (which has an impact, inter alia, on spatial productivity parameters of economic activities and parameters for the calculation of external costs of transport modes, with new research on these topics frequently becoming available). The main question is whether an identical, time-consuming and costly process with the same amount of active stakeholder involvement is necessary building upon an initial

67 This would appear consistent with suggestions coming from the spatial planning literature, see Bredenoord, Bugel and Veldkamp, 1998, p.12 (taken from Allaert and De Klerck, 1998, p.23) where a 4yearly reassessment is suggested.

248


design and application of a relatively sophisticated, integrative calculation model. In this context, the existence of the calculation model allows for an efficient recalculation without going through the formal evaluation by the community of stakeholders of the model itself. In practice, we have observed that several stakeholders actively use the results and the sensitivities included in the model to alter their viewpoints on priorities within the development of the port. More specifically, the APA has publicly announced through interviews of members of the management committee that it has altered its planning for container terminal development following the recession of 2008-2009. This was even the case before the recession, albeit more implicitly under the influence of other parameters that had changed (inter alia the spatial productivity of container terminals after substantial reengineering investments from existing port users took place). The combination of these elements led to a change in the short term investment planning, as the imbalance between demand and supply for container handling is now expected around 2017 (end of 2009) instead of 2013 in the initial result of the research (March 2005). Therefore, we strongly suggest that formal reassessments are made, and that long term strategic planning processes become an increasingly iterative process, which could result in additional learning effects for all stakeholders involved as well as for the academic community performing research on the characteristics of long term planning processes. An additional suggestion for further research, in terms of demonstrating the instrumental value of the approach suggested in this chapter, is the identification of learning effects for the different stakeholders during the iterative phases of the design of the calculation model, as well as during and after reassessments of the model.

249

5. Long term strategic planning for the “Waaslandhaven”: the impact of past experience and future expectations on governance change: a stakeholder management approach

5.1. Introduction

The case description, findings and input included in this chapter result from a comprehensive research study for the Province of East Flanders and the Inter-municipal Cooperation Waasland (ICW) aimed at an analysis of socio-economic, spatial and environmental impacts resulting from the development of the Left Bank of the port of Antwerp (also called the ‗Waaslandhaven‘) based on past experience and future expectations, through a stakeholder based approach. The author of this thesis was actively involved in all study phases. The port of Antwerp historically developed on the Right Bank of the river Scheldt, within the City of Antwerp‘s territorial boundaries. In the 1960s, the strong demand for industrial land pushed the port towards developing the Left Bank area, located on territory outside the city of Antwerp, in a different province (the province of East Flanders rather than the province of Antwerp). Approximately 10,000 hectares of land were expropriated from the local communities on the Left Bank to allow further port expansion68. A dual structure was set up to manage the Left Bank port area. The Antwerp Port Authority (APA) was given the responsibility by law 69 to manage the port infrastructure (docks, quays and terminal areas, access channels). A new company, the ‗Company for the Management of Land and Industrialization of the Left Bank‘ or in short, the ‗Left Bank Company‘ (LBC), was created by the same law for managing the land where supposedly new industrial activities would be deployed. This company started its activities in 1983 and was set up with a mixed structure of shareholders, 68 The most comprehensive analysis of the Antwerp port‘s industrial expansion can be found in Winkelmans (1973). 69 This law was voted by the Belgian parliament in 1978 and is also known as the ‗Law Chabert‘, named after the Minister responsible for port policy at that time.

251

Chapter 5: Long term strategic planning for the Waaslandhaven

including representation from the APA, as well as from the local municipalities in the Waasland70 area (the name of the sub-region where the Left Bank is situated). In the 1970s and 1980s, industrial growth was slower than anticipated, while in the 1990s, the reverse held true with container traffic growing very fast. These tendencies drastically changed the socio-economic context and stakeholder expectations that had been instrumental to the agreement reached in the 1970s. Furthermore, the development of a long term vision by means of an Economic Development Study during the strategic planning process for the port of Antwerp (see Chapter 4) provided new insights into the potential development of the port and the related impacts on various different stakeholders, such as, inter alia, financial revenues for the APA as well as a substantial increase of transport flows in the total area. As a result, new stakeholder demands arose, in particular from regional and local communities on the Left Bank, which led to strong pressures to change the governance structure of the port of Antwerp, as a growing imbalance was perceived between the beneficial impacts and the nuisances of port development. Importantly, the Economic Development Study discussed extensively in Chapter 4, was the impetus for these new pressures, given that all information on future economic development scenarios was now on the table, in a comprehensive and transparent fashion. The Left Bank stakeholders also felt that the APA would, more than in the past, engage in a constructive dialogue on future governance. In this chapter, we analyze, from a stakeholder management perspective, the historical changes for the period 1960-2005. Furthermore, we assess each stakeholder group‘s shifting perceptions of the expected future impacts of port development for the period 2005-2030. We demonstrate the importance of such shifts for policy makers and port managers, who should take into account the dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management when designing and implementing port governance structures. We argue that without a governance system considered as legitimate by all stakeholders involved, the realization and implementation of the vision for long term infrastructure 70

This is also the reason why an important number of stakeholders, in particular from the Left Bank, call this port area the ‗Waaslandhaven‘ (Waasland port) and not ‗port of Antwerp‘.

252


development (with a horizon of 2030) is highly uncertain. In other words, despite the existence of high-level legal planning decisions under the form of an agreed-upon SIER, the approval of subsequent specific planning decisions leading to the realization of future projects (e.g., the construction of a new dock) could be jeopardized due to a lack of legitimacy of the governance structures. This chapter is structured as follows. Section 5.2 describes the necessity of attending to dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management for port authorities. In section 5.3, we describe in detail the information used during our action research process as well as the client system, which was set up to conduct such research. In section 5.4, we describe the various stakeholders involved, as well as the current physical and governance structure of the port of Antwerp and the linkages between stakeholders, the physical lay-out of the port, and the present governance structure. Also, a brief historical analysis of the port of Antwerp‘s development is included, with a particular focus on the different projected impacts and their (non-)realization, and how these influenced stakeholders‘ attitudes towards port development and port governance over time. Section 5.5 describes how these impacts can change in the future, and how this influences stakeholders‘ attitudes towards the current and planned development of the port of Antwerp, as well as the governance structure. In section 5.6, we combine the results of sections 5.4 and 5.5 to show the link between variations in impacts, their influence on stakeholder perceptions (and resulting attitudes) and the implications for port governance. Section 5.7 summarizes the inclusion of stakeholders in the planning process en the presence of dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management. Section 5.8 discusses the results and provides conclusions.

253


5.2. Dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management in ports

Chapters 3 and 4 have shown that port management and port activities are carried out in a very complex network of spatial, socio-economic, political and ecological interactions with multiple actors. As a result, in daily port management as well as during the process of developing port strategy and executing port planning, port authorities need to take into account a wide array of specific and often diverging goals and opinions of different internal and external groups of stakeholders, whilst pursuing an optimisation of port operations and development. In the port sector in particular, contributions of inter alia Notteboom and Winkelmans (2002), Moglia and Sanguineri (2003), as well as the case studies described in Chapters 3 and 4, have shown how stakeholder management literature concepts can be applied to the port sector and contribute to sustainable port development. In Chapter 1, we concluded that an important aspect that is less prominently treated in the stakeholder management literature is the existence of dynamic and spatial aspects when implementing stakeholder management strategies. First, from a practical point of view, suggestions that spatial aspects are important when implementing stakeholder management are found, inter alia, in the international business management literature (e.g., van Tulder and van der Zwart, 2006). In international business, an interesting concept explicitly linked to spatial aspects of stakeholder management is that of ‗institutional distance‘ (Kostova and Zaheer, 1999). The concept is applied to show the increasing complexity of stakeholder management when a firm decides to invest internationally. Institutional distance in the context of international business is defined, inter alia, by (1) the distinction between ― home‖ environment and ― host‖ environment stakeholders; and (2) the fact that stakeholder groups in different countries have different views on what constitutes ‗corporate citizenship‘. According to Kostova and Zaheer (1999), an increase in institutional distance increases in theory the difficulty to maintain and/or

254


develop organizational legitimacy of multinational enterprises and their subsidiaries in host countries. For large seaports, their historical development suggests that the generic concept of institutional distance has become very important. Although port authorities are in most cases not active in host countries (although the Port of Rotterdam recently invested in a port in Oman as well as in Brazil), the concept of institutional distance clearly plays a role if a port expands away from its historical location, e.g., away from the city centre towards the sea along a river or canal, or into the sea. In most cases, this expansion results in an increasing number of stakeholders affected by the development of the port (e.g., other municipalities/regions – or ‗host municipalities/region‘ - than the municipality/region from where the port initially developed – or the ‗home municipality/region‘). In particular in a landlord governance model71, where the port is owned by a local public authority such as a municipality or city (as is the case for many North-West European ports), port expansion could result in increasing institutional distance and if not managed adequately, jeopardize further port development. In most cases, stakeholder groups in ‗host municipalities/regions‘ hold different opinions on how the port authority should act as a ‗corporate citizen‘ in their local or regional environment, as compared to the stakeholder groups in the ‗home municipality/region‘. New stakeholders have historically (i.e., over a long time period) not been influenced by port activities and development and the resulting positive and negative externalities. As a result, stakeholder expectations towards port activities and port expansion can differ substantially, if spatial dimensions are taken into account. As a consequence, in theory, a tailored approach in terms of stakeholder management and governance structure to achieve organizational legitimacy in the entire port region seems a necessity to assure the ‗license to operate‘ of the port authority. Obviously, this challenge is exacerbated if a port develops an extended gateway strategy, explicitly intended to increase the reach of port activities into the regional hinterland, see Chapter 4. 71

See Chapter 3 for a definition of a landlord governance model.

255


Second, with regard to the dynamic dimension of stakeholder management applied to ports, a first observation is that this dynamic dimension is actually largely linked to spatial aspects, to the extent - as we argued above - that in many cases, stakeholder groups in ‗host municipalities/regions‘ have historically not been influenced by port activities and their development, leading to other beliefs and ideas on how the port authority should act as a corporate citizen. In addition, we refer to the length of port planning processes as well as lead-times for the construction of port development projects (see Chapter 4). More specifically, large scale port development projects are characterized by long term impacts, the realization of which is subject to a high level of uncertainty (e.g., employment impacts, environmental impacts) due to changes in the socio-economic, technological and political environment. Furthermore, as the ports expands, long term impacts can differ substantially from current impacts, e.g., large container terminals outside the historical location will realize their full potential of employment creation in most cases over a long time period; the same argument is valid for the negative externalities such as increasing road traffic. As a result, the dynamic dimension adds to the complexity of managing stakeholder relations. In order to illustrate the importance of these dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management (including institutional distance), and their influence on port management and port governance structures, the case of the expansion of the Port of Antwerp on the Left Bank of the River Scheldt (also called the Waaslandhaven) is analyzed in the following sections of this chapter.

256



5.3.1. Introduction

In Chapter 1, section 1.3.1, we described the main methodological research approach adopted throughout this thesis, including this approach's strengths and limitations. We use case studies, whereby the qualitative analysis builds upon participant observation and action research. Table 3.1 in Chapter 1, section 1.3.1, provides a general overview of the client system adopted during each action research process, as well as an overview of the different sources of information used and actions undertaken during the different processes, which ultimately led to the case studies. In the following sections, we provide a detailed description of the client system, the process of information gathering and analysis, and the actions undertaken by the author of this thesis in the context of the Waaslandhaven case study.

5.3.2. Description of the research project

The initiators of the research project were the Province of East Flanders and the Intermunicipal Cooperation Waasland (ICW). The Left Bank of the river Scheldt (also called the ― Waaslandhaven‖) is mainly72 situated on the territory of the Province of East Flanders, and provides the only available large expansion area73 for the port of Antwerp. The research conducted in Chapter 4, which was used during the long term strategic planning process of the port of Antwerp, showed that significant impacts are expected from potential port development scenarios in the long term (2030). Under the current

72 The Municipality of Zwijndrecht is also located on the Left Bank, but this area has been transferred from the Province of East Flanders to the Province of Antwerp in 1923. 73 Expansion possibilities on the Right Bank exist, but mainly concern strategic reserves owned by private companies in the petrochemical sector, which are needed to expand the petrochemical cluster in the long term. For large scale port and logistics projects, as well as new investments in the industrial sector, the Left Bank or the ― Waaslandhaven‖ offers the only potential location.

257


governance structure of the APA, Left Bank stakeholders do not play an important role as: i.

The APA is responsible for infrastructure management of all the maritime quays, terminals and docks, and is responsible for the planning decisions with regard to these infrastructures74. The APA, 100% owned by the City of Antwerp, also receives all financial revenues (port dues and concession fees) of the exploitation of these infrastructures, including those that are located outside the territory of the City (such as certain areas on the Left Bank). Finally, Left Bank Stakeholders are only to a very limited extent represented in the board of directors of the APA75.

ii.

In the LBC, responsible for the infrastructure management of the industrial and logistics services areas on the Left Bank, the Left Bank stakeholders, represented by the ICW and the municipalities of Beveren and Zwijndrecht, are only a minority shareholder. The Flemish Region and the APA own more than half of the shares of the LBC and also receive dividend flows (though the municipality of Beveren and the ICW have a combined preferential share of one third on the net profit).

The Economic Development Study executed during the strategic planning process (see Chapter 4), with the APA and LBC as initiators, and with intensive stakeholder interaction between Right Bank and Left Bank stakeholders, has led to a broad stakeholder consensus on the potential long term development vision of the port of Antwerp and the resulting impacts. This study was based on a seven-step process described in section 4.2.1 of Chapter 4, of which the results of the first four steps were discussed and analyzed. During the formulation and evaluation of these visions of long term development, the initiators of the study explicitly asked to limit the distinctions

74

Some of which need approval at a higher level of Government; however, new projects for port expansion are mainly initiated and prepared by the APA and submitted to higher government levels if a higher level planning decision is needed; otherwise, the APA has formal spatial planning competences in the port area under its management. 75 At present (2009), 2 of 17 members can be considered to be representatives of the Left Bank stakeholders; one representative comes from the LBC, the other representative is the mayor of the largest city of the Waasland Region.

258


between developments on the Right Bank and the Left Bank. Nevertheless, as argued above, if the long term development scenarios were to be realized in the future, the vast majority of the projects would be accommodated on the Left Bank. Given the formal acceptance of the results of the Economic Development Study by the Right Bank stakeholders, two important Left Bank stakeholders, namely the Province of East Flanders (co-responsible for the strategic planning process) and the ICW (representing the municipalities of the entire sub-region on the Left Bank, and important shareholder of the LBC) judged that sufficient momentum existed to unbundle the study results and perform additional calculations in terms of the distribution of a broad category of impacts (i.e., financial, socio-economic, spatial, environmental) between Right Bank and Left Bank stakeholders, such as: -

The Antwerp Port Authority (APA);

-

The Left Bank Company (LBC);

-

The City of Antwerp and the municipalities of Beveren and Zwijndrecht;

-

The Intermunicipal Cooperation Waasland (ICW);

-

The Province of East Flanders;

-

The Flemish Region.

These calculations were to be made based on the current governance structure of the port area. The research would need to be validated by Right Bank and Left Bank stakeholders in order to ensure a common basis for negotiations on an adapted, more balanced and legitimate governance structure. Such an adapted governance structure should allow an increase of the legitimacy of the role of the port of Antwerp and make the implementation of the long term vision for the port of Antwerp possible. The main objective of the research was the development of a methodologically sound quantitative model, accepted by the community of stakeholders, to ‗allocate‘ the impacts of the long term development of the port to different stakeholder groups. This model needed to be complemented by additional research into more specific information on qualitative impacts of long term port development. This part, preceded by an ex post analysis of port expansion on the Left Bank, was considered the socio-

259


economic part of the research project. We consider these steps to be additional to those of the seven-step process applied in Chapter 4, with the ex post analysis as step 8 (described in section 5.4 of this chapter), the allocation of future impacts (quantitative and qualitative) of port development as step 9 (described in section 5.5 of this chapter), and an integrative step combining the results of qualitative and qualitative and allocation to stakeholder objectives as step 10 (described in section 5.6 of this chapter). Another part of the research project involved an analysis on how to increase the legitimacy of port activities within the current governance structure, as well as exploratory legal research into alternative governance models. This research was carried out by legal experts of the University of Antwerp, active in maritime and port management law. At the end of this part of the research project, feedback was required towards the socio-economic part to analyze whether and how either a legal instrumental approach (using the current governance structure to increase legitimacy) or a legal institutional approach (changing the governance structure) could change the nature and distribution of impacts of long term port development. In addition, it had to be determined how either choice would increase the overall legitimacy of the governance structure of the port of Antwerp for the whole community of stakeholders (including the Left Bank and Right Bank Stakeholders). This part of the study can be considered as step 11. The present chapter does not include the outcome of the legal analysis of alternative future governance mechanisms for the port. However, the socio-economic analysis conducted - especially the unbundling of port development effects over the Left Bank and the Right Bank of the Antwerp port as an expression of stakeholder impact analysis - provided the intellectual basis for a further dialogue between Left Bank and Right Bank stakeholders on possible improvements to the present governance structure. Figure 5.10 (see infra, section 5.7) shows the link between the seven steps identified in Chapter 4 and the subsequent steps (8 to 11) described in this chapter. Negotiations with the project initiators on the content, methodology and objectives of the research project took place between April 2005 and June 2005. The project formally

260


started in July 2005. The research on the socio-economic part of the study was concluded in March 2006, with final validation in October 2006. The legal part of the study was concluded in November 2006, while the interaction between the legal research and the socio-economic research was concluded in February 2007. This chapter only contains the results of the socio-economic part of the study76, as they have a public character. The results of step 11 are confidential, as they are used in ongoing political negotiations between the Right Bank and Left Bank stakeholders.



Formal interaction between the research teams (socio-economic and legal), the initiators of the study and the community of stakeholders was organized through two formal committees, during the socio-economic part of the study. These committees were set up during a kick-off meeting between the research team and the initiators of the project in July 2005. The main research for the socio-economic part (steps 8, 9 and 10 in Figure 5.10, see infra, section 5.7) was carried out between July 2005 and March 2006, with a final validation cycle with specific stakeholders until October 200677. The first formal committee was the steering committee of the research project, with representation from the following stakeholders:

76

A full version of the final report of the socio-economic part is available from the author. In particular the Municipality of Beveren had a long internal decision process to validate the results of our calculations and qualitative impact analysis; this was mainly related to the calculation of expected fiscal revenues up to 2030, which revealed that the Municipality would receive substantial annual financial benefits from the potential port expansion on its territory. 77

261


-

Two representatives of the Province of East Flanders, namely the directors of the Economic Development department and the Environmental and Spatial Planning department.

-

Three representatives of the Inter-municipal Cooperation Waasland, namely the chairman of the board of directors, the general manager and a senior staff member from the research study department.

-

Four representatives of the Left Bank Company, namely the chairman of the board of directors, two other directors and the general manager.

This committee was responsible for the final validation of the research results and the preparation of other formal meetings, in particular the expert and stakeholder committee for the socio-economic part of the project (see below). During the socio-economic part of the research study, this steering committee met four times (end of September 2005, End of October 2005, end of January 2006, mid-March 2006). Three other meetings were scheduled at the beginning of May 2006, mid-June 2006 and at the end of June 2006 to discuss particular points of stakeholder validation as two stakeholders still needed to give formal approval of specific impact calculations 78. There was no stakeholder representation of the Right Bank stakeholders in this committee as this steering committee also validated and discussed the results of the legal part (step 11, not discussed in this chapter), which was considered as strategic information for future political negotiations with Right Bank stakeholders. A second formal committee that was set up by the initiators was an expert and stakeholder committee, which had as its main objective the validation of the methodologies and results of the impact calculations. Here, a large stakeholder representation was set up in order to achieve consensus on the basic elements and arguments underpinning the need for a change in governance structure. Most

78 A final report of the socio-economic part of the research was submitted in October 2006. A final report of the legal research was submitted in December 2006. A final report on the interaction between the socio-economic and legal component of the research was submitted in early February 2007.

262


stakeholder representatives in this committee were also experts in terms of port development impacts. This expert and stakeholder committee consisted of: -

Two representatives of the Province of East Flanders, namely the directors of the Economic Development department and the Environmental and Spatial Planning department.

-

Three representatives of the Inter-municipal Cooperation Waasland, namely the chairman of the board of directors, the General Manager and a senior staff member from the research study department.

-

Five representatives of the Left Bank Company, namely the chairman of the board of directors, three other Directors and the General Manager.

-

One representative from the union with expertise of the historical development of the labor market and employment.

-

Three representatives of the Municipality of Beveren, namely the mayor, the head of the municipality administration (the municipal secretary), and one senior staff member of the service responsible for the Left Bank development.

-

One representative of the municipality of Zwijndrecht, namely the mayor (or his replacement).

-

Two representatives of the Antwerp Port Authority, namely the manager of the strategic planning department and the head of legal affairs.

-

One member of the cabinet of the minister-president of the Flemish regional government.

263


-

Three members of the administration of the Flemish Region, in particular the maritime access department and the finance & budgeting department.

This committee met twice during the study period: -

At the end of October 2006 to discuss interim results and the overall methodology of the calculation model, and to interact on a variety of methodological issues (in particular in terms of disaggregating specific results from the Economic Development Study). This meeting was also used to develop contacts between the research team and specific experts, in order to organize interviews and allow for other informal contacts.

-

At the end of March 2006, to discuss and validate the final results.

Besides the two formal committees guiding the research process and organizing formal stakeholder interaction, other formal presentations of the approach and the results of the study were given at formal meetings organized by stakeholders, such as: -

At the end of March 2006, a presentation of the study results was given, initiated by the governor of the Province of East Flanders, with all relevant political decision makers of the Waasland region (including the mayors of the municipalities and cities).

-

At the end of April 2006, a presentation was given for the board of directors of the Inter-municipal Cooperation Waasland.

-

At the end of October 2006, a meeting was held with the initiators of the research and the governor of the Province of East Flanders discussing the results and policy implications of the research project.

During all these meetings, additional stakeholder interaction took place.

264


5.3.3.2. Informal meetings and interviews

During the research process, several informal meetings and interviews were organized with a variety of stakeholders. These informal meetings originated from (1) demands of the research team to receive specific information from stakeholders; (2) demands of stakeholders, during or after task force meetings, for formal interaction; (3) demands of the initiator of the study for coordination between parallel research processes, in particular between the socio-economic and legal parts of the study. First, several experts/stakeholder needed to be engaged for in-depth face-to-face interviews. These included: -

An interview with the CFO of the APA and senior staff members to receive information and data on the historical development of cost and revenue flows linked to the exploitation of infrastructure on the Right Bank and the Left Bank, as well as validation of parameters (e.g., tariffs applicable for the Left Bank activities) to be used for the calculation of expected impacts.

-

Interviews with several port experts (including the APA and terminal operators) to gain insights into the separate dynamics influencing future traffic development on the Right Bank and the Left Bank.

-

Two interviews with the Municipality of Beveren: o One interview with the head of the service for the development of the Left Bank. This service within the Municipality of Beveren, is considered an expert center on data and information of the historical development of the Left Bank, and is also responsible for the follow-up of the strategic planning process. This service also has in-depth knowledge of specific benefits and costs of port activities for the municipality (e.g., fire brigades, police, administrative services), as well

265


as the benefits and costs as perceived by the local community (e.g., through complaints from citizens). o One interview with the head of the municipal treasury to discuss the historical and future development of financial flows to and from the Municipality resulting from port development. In particular a methodology and parameters for the calculation of fiscal revenues needed to be agreed upon. -

One interview with the Municipality of Zwijndrecht, with the head of the spatial and environmental planning department and the head of the treasury to discuss specific benefits and costs of port activities for the Municipality (e.g., fire brigades, police, administrative services), as well the perception of benefits and costs by the local community (e.g., through complaints from citizens). Also, we discussed the historical and future development of financial flows to and from the municipality resulting from port development.

-

One interview with the general manager of the LBC and a senior staff member of the research studies department of ICW to gain insights into available data necessary for impact calculations.

-

One expert interview with a retired civil servant responsible for the development of the Left Bank, and member of the board of the LBC, to discuss and refine particular study results and calculation methods.

-

One interview with the director of the National Bank of Belgium (NBB) 79, responsible for the annual studies of socio-economic impact of the seaports. Given the characteristics of the input data (annual reports based on localization in the port), the NBB was able to provide us separate data on the socio-economic impact on the municipalities of Beveren and Zwijndrecht, and the city of Antwerp (in terms of value added and employment). An interview, explaining the objectives of the study was requested, as the NBB does not intervene in

79

This interview was held by telephone.

266


(what they consider as) ‗political‘ processes. Therefore, data were not provided as a disaggregation between the Left Bank and the Right Bank, but were disaggregated on the level of the municipalities Beveren, Zwijndrecht and Antwerp. Second, a number of informal meetings with the legal research team were held in order to exchange documents (formal studies and documents), data and other information (e.g., reports of interviews)80.

5.3.3.3. Formal studies, documents and archival records

Throughout the research process, a large number of formal documents and studies were analyzed. There were five main origins of these documents. First, the initiators of the research provided documents and formal studies on the historical development of the Left Bank, as well as specific data on land use and financial parameters. These formal documents included, inter alia, annual reports of the LBC since 1986, policy documents of Left Bank stakeholders, and original research studies of the research department of the ICW, which also served as a regional observatory for demographic and socio-economic statistics. Second, the members of the legal research team had an extensive library of documents with regard to the historical development of the Left Bank. In particular legal texts describing the current governance structure as well as reports from the relevant committees of the Belgian parliament during the 1970s and 1980s were provided. Third, the Antwerp Port Authority provided a large number of formal studies, inter alia all social cost-benefit analyses of projects on the Left Bank.

80

This interaction increased during part 2 of the research project and especially during part 3 where formal confrontation took place between the results of the socio-economic and legal parts.

267


Fourth, we spent one day in the APA archive/library, to source all relevant policy documents, minutes of city council meetings and formal studies with a link to the Left Bank development. This search included documents from 1800 until 2005. Fifth, we used several documents already obtained and analyzed during the research for the Economic Development Study (see Chapter 4), including the Economic Development Study itself from which we used, inter alia, the traffic forecast, the description of the supply of land in the port and the modal split objectives. A comprehensive list of all these formal studies, documents and archival records that were used (1) to analyze the historical development of the Waaslandhaven and the attitudes of the various stakeholders and (2) to provide data on the description and, where possible, calculation of future expected impacts is found in Appendix 5. The most important references used are: - Economische Raad voor Oost-Vlaanderen (EROV). 1966. De ontwikkeling van de Linkerscheldeoever in Oost-Vlaanderen. - ECSA, VUB. 2005. Economische ontwikkelingstudie (EOS) voor de Haven van Antwerpen horizon 2030. Studie in opdracht van het Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen en de Maatschappij voor het Grond- en Industrialisatiebeleid van het Linkerscheldeoevergebied. - Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen. 2002. Ruimtegebruik haven van Antwerpen. Situatie zomer 2002. - Intergemeentelijk Samenwerkingsverband van het Land van Waas. 2004. Sociaaleconomische indicatoren van het Waasland. Studierapport n.a.v. de studiedag ― Wonen en werken in het Land van Waas‖ op 27/1/2005. - Kamer. 1977-1978. Zitting van 14 april 1978. Wetsontwerp betreffende het beheer van het linkerscheldeoevergebied ter hoogte van Antwerpen en houdende maatregelen voor het beheer en de exploitatie van de haven van Antwerpen. Verslag namens de

268


Commissie voor het Verkeerswezen, de Posterijen, Telegrafie en Telefonie door dhr. Bode. Document 233 (1977-1978) - n° 5. - Stad Antwerpen. 1966. Uitbreiding van de haven op de Linkerscheldeoever. Beslissing (en economische verantwoording) van het College van Burgemeester en Schepenen dd. 21 oktober 1966 naar aanleiding van het eindrapport van de ― Ambtenarencommissie voor Uitbreiding van Stad en Haven‖ (ACUSH). - Stad Antwerpen. Havenbedrijf – Algemene Directie – Afdeling Studie en Prospectie. 1980. De toekomst is al begonnen. Beleidsnota. - Stad Antwerpen. Havenbedrijf – Algemene Directie – F. Suykens. 1966. De industriële ontwikkeling van de haven van Antwerpen en de noodzakelijkheid bijkomende industrieterreinen ter beschikking te stellen op de Linkerscheldeoever. Beleidsnota. - Stad Antwerpen. Havenbedrijf – Algemene Directie – F. Suykens. 1965. Enkele beschouwingen

betreffende

vroegere

havenuitbreidingsplannen

op

de

Linkerscheldeoever. Beleidsnota. - Studiecentrum voor de Expansie van Antwerpen vzw (SEA vzw). 1983. Antwerpen en de valorisatie van de linkeroever. Studie in opdracht van AGHA. - Studiegroep Omgeving, 2005. Synthesestudie mobiliteit voor het strategisch plan van de haven van Antwerpen als inputstudie voor de Plan MER.

269


5.4. Historical analysis of stakeholder relations and impacts in the Waaslandhaven 5.4.1. Historical analysis of stakeholders, governance structures and their impact on the expansion of the Left Bank (Waaslandhaven) (1800-2005) Figure 5.1 shows the physical lay-out of the port and the different development phases. Figure 5.1: Map of the port of Antwerp

2 4 3

1 .

Source: Port of Antwerp and own additions. Legend: 1.

Historical location of the port;

270


2.

Port and industrial development of the Right Bank (Accomplished in the 1980s);

3.

First industrial development of the Left Bank (end of 1950s);

4.

Port and industrial development of the Left Bank (started 1960s, still ongoing).

Area 1, 2, 3: Territory of the Province of Antwerp (Zwijndrecht, area 3, since 1923). Area 4:

Territory of the Province of East Flanders.

Double arrow: Potential expansion area

The first plans to expand on the Left Bank (areas 3 and 4 in Figure 5.1), according to the archive of the APA, date back to the Napoleonic era (1800-1815), during which plans were developed to build a maritime city on the Left Bank. During the period 1815-1850, no other concrete plans to develop the Left Bank area into port area are known according to our research of the archives of the APA. In the period 1850-1914 (start of the First World War), several plans to develop the Left Bank, designed and to be financed by private parties (private persons, shipping companies, etc.), were presented to the Antwerp city council, but failed to get approval due to a potential loss of employment and economic activity to the Left Bank community. Furthermore, the city council favored the expansion to the north on the Right Bank (area 2 in Figure 5.1) (Suykens, 1965). From an institutional point of view, it is remarkable that this position could be adopted, as the City of Antwerp did not have the full right of initiative with regard to the development of the port, which at the time belonged exclusively to the Belgian national government. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the different proposals all contained elements such as ‗unity of governance‘ between the ports on the Right Bank and the Left Bank, a formal representation of the State in the governance structure of the port, and also the construction of infrastructural links (tunnels) between the Right and Left Bank. The main argument of the developer to change the existing governance structure and allow representatives of the State in the port‘s governing body, was that the impact of port activities stretched beyond the borders of the city of Antwerp (Suykens, 1965). However, in these documents from the period 1850 - end of the Second World War, there is no mention whatsoever of Left Bank stakeholders to be included in a new

271


governance structure should the expansion be realized. There are also no indications in the archives that Left Bank stakeholders (municipalities, local communities, as well as the Province of East Flanders) were involved or consulted in the discussions. These different attitudes of the city council, the State, as well as the representatives of private developers, clearly suggest that from a historical point of view, the spatial dimension of impacts played an important role in the discussions between the different stakeholders. Eventually, no decision was taken and after the end of the First World War, the port developed on the Right Bank. No new plans for expansion on the Left Bank were discussed between both World Wars 81. Furthermore, a clear evolution can be discerned in the type of economic activity that stakeholders believed to be developed on the Left Bank: whereas in the period just before 1900 the commercial activity of the port (cargo handling and distribution) was thought to be driving a future Left Bank development, this increasingly shifted towards maritime industrial activity, as evidenced by the City of Antwerp‘s proposal of 1920 to the State, concerning the annexation of part of the Left Bank area to locate maritime and industrial firms. In the 1960s, ‗traditional‘ port activities such as pure cargo handling and distribution were explicitly considered as having lower priority vis-à-vis maritime industrial development. Given the long lead times for port development, this change in attitude also suggests that when planning for port infrastructure in the long term, attention should be devoted to the changing nature of stakeholders‘ attitudes over long time periods. In this case, the changing nature of stakeholder preference is found in the type of social-economic strategy to be adopted, and not in the perception of the impacts, as argued in section 5.2. Immediately after the end of the Second World War, most European economies experienced strong economic growth. The port of Antwerp more than doubled its traffic between 1953 and 1965: from 28.3 million tons to 59.4 million tons. This period (19551965) also ended a 10-year development scheme on the Right Bank, after which 81

Although the historical ideas resurfaced from time to time, e.g., in 1923 when the municipality of Zwijndrecht was transferred from the Province of East Flanders to the Province of Antwerp.

272


substantial expansion possibilities on the Right Bank (area 2 in Figure 5.1) was no longer possible. Already at the start of this development program, the port authority had stressed the need for expansion on the Left Bank (Nicqué, 1990). In 1964, the National Bank of Belgium announced in their annual report the plan to reconvert 10.000 hectare of agricultural area on the Left Bank into maritime and industrial area (at the time the biggest proposal for land reconversion in Europe). It is noteworthy that the decisions to expand the port and industrial activity on the Left Bank in 1965, were already preceded, since 1959, by the investment of large multinational industrial firms on the territory of the Municipality of Zwijndrecht (area 3 in Figure 5.1). Since 1968, important steps were taken towards realizing the expansion, as a large amount of expropriations were executed to build the maritime access to the Left Bank area (the Kallo-lock). This led to fierce protests from farmers and local community representatives, as the governmental decisions were unilaterally taken based on analyses executed by Right Bank stakeholders such as the Antwerp Branch of the National Bank of Belgium in 1963 and a special committee of civil servants of the City of Antwerp (ACUSH82 – Committee of Civil Servants for the Expansion of City and Port) in 1965. In the meantime, the Economic Council of the Province of East Flanders, had analyzed the project and formulated several remarks (EROV, 1966), which were not found in the reports of the stakeholders of the Right Bank: -

The project would generate substantial economic benefits (under the form of employment creation) for the region on the Left Bank (the so-called ― Waasland‖) as the labor market on the Right Bank was believed to be saturated. This finding was substantiated by an analysis of commuting patterns, which showed that commuting from the Waasland to the city of Antwerp was unidirectional to Antwerp and concerned 20% of the active male population.

-

From an institutional point of view, the location of Left Bank posed problems as it belonged to the territory of the Province of East Flanders. An adapted

82

In Dutch: ACUSH: AmbtenarenCommissie voor de Uitbreiding van Stad en Haven.

273


governance structure, with participation of Left Bank stakeholders, was considered as a necessity. -

From a social perspective, the report highlighted the need for social guidance given expropriations, the changing face of the region (from agriculture to industry), the housing problems related to the development, the loss of green areas and the loss of river tourism.

-

From a mobility perspective, attention was asked for the commuting flows. It is remarkable that the flow of goods to and from the hinterland was not mentioned as an infrastructural or environmental challenge. Only in the 1980s and 1990s, negative environmental externalities resulting from port and industry freight transport flows such as, inter alia, emissions, noise, road congestion, and accidents come forward in the discussions regarding port expansion on the Left Bank.

During the 1970s, additional studies were carried out and discussions were held on the scale of the expansion as well as the governance structure. For the first time, Left Bank stakeholders were invited to the Belgian parliament to express their concerns in special committees. Based on these discussions, a compromise was reached by the Belgian government and a governance framework was proposed whereby the Antwerp Port Authority (100% owned by the City of Antwerp) would manage all ‗traditional‘ port activities (which basically meant the areas destined for cargo handling terminals without direct link to maritime industry). Simultaneously, a new company was established, which would be responsible for the development of the industrial area. This new company –‗Company for the Management of Land and Industrialization of the Left Bank‘, also called the ‗Left Bank Company (LBC)‘ - has several minority shareholders, such as: -

The Flemish Region (15%);

-

The Antwerp Port Authority (APA) (37,50%);

-

The Intermunicipal Cooperation of the Waasland (ICW), grouping all municipalities of the subregion Waasland (34,60%);

274


-

The Municipality of Beveren (10,40%);

-

The Municipality of Zwijndrecht (2,5%).

As a result, the infrastructure and land management of the Left Bank area is since 1978 divided between two companies: the APA and the LBC. It is remarkable that the APA has a share in the capital as well as representatives in the board of directors of the LBC, while the reverse does not hold. However, during the period between 1978 and 1995, this governance structure, although asymmetrical and a compromise for all parties, was not fundamentally questioned as the infrastructural development of the Left Bank, together with the economic development, progressed much slower than expected (see infra, section 5.4.2), as the economic crisis in the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s had strongly slowed down industrial development in Western Europe. Furthermore, developing countries were competing with industrial clusters around the world to attract mobile investments, resulting in fewer than expected investments in Antwerp. Since 1995, tensions on the lack of formal representation of Left Bank stakeholders in the governance structure of the APA surfaced again, as plans to develop a large container handling facility (the Deurganckdok), were unfolded by the APA. This implied the transformation of development areas once considered as industrial land (under the future governance of the LBC) into traditional cargo handling facilities. Hence, the APA would considerably enlarge its influence in the Left Bank area. In addition, substantial financial revenues would flow to the APA, which is considered a Right Bank stakeholder as it is 100% owned by the City of Antwerp. Eventually, the project was approved in 1998 on all government levels while the governance structure remained unchanged, despite fundamental concerns of Left Bank stakeholders with regard to the legitimacy of the decision, as well as the future legitimacy of the APA in the Left Bank area. The Deurganckdok started operating in July 2005. As a general conclusion, from a historical point of view, it would be fair to state that from a governance perspective, decisions regarding the expansion of the port of Antwerp on the Left Bank have been taken with little or no input from Left Bank stakeholders, as they were not formally represented in port governance structures.

275


Based on the above overview, in the period 1960-2000, two important decisions were proposed by the APA and Right Bank stakeholders and consequently approved by various higher government levels, fundamentally altering the economic future of the region on the Left Bank and substantially increasing the influence of the APA in the host region. First, a decision was taken in 1965 to transform agricultural areas into port and industrial areas. Second, a decision was taken in 1998 to transform what was mainly believed by Left Bank stakeholders to be future maritime-industrial areas (to be managed by the LBC) into maritime cargo handling and distribution facilities (to be managed by the APA). From an institutional distance perspective (see section 5.2), this means that the APA is increasingly faced with opposition of host stakeholders and could lose legitimacy in the near future when new port expansion projects have to be developed on the Left Bank. In section 5.4.2., we analyze historical discrepancies between projected and real impacts on several levels (spatial characteristics, employment, traffic, mobility and environment).

5.4.2. Ex post analysis of projected impacts with regard to the development of the Waaslandhaven (1960-2005)

5.4.2.1. Spatial, infrastructural impacts and investment

For data on the amount of infrastructure in the port of Antwerp, we based ourselves on a study that was carried out in 2004 by the GIS department of the APA. Based on information of the year 2002, approx. 33% of developed port area is situated on the Left Bank, with a remaining 67% situated on the Right Bank. Including docks, canals and other maritime infrastructure (e.g., locks), the Right Bank represents 44%, the Left

276


Bank 56% of the total port infrastructure. With regard to reserves for development, which are readily available, the Left Bank area can provide 757 hectares, the Right Bank 73 hectares. Furthermore, an additional reserve between 302 to 544 hectares, depending on the implementation of nature and habitat directives, is found on the Left Bank for additional expansion. This analysis suggests that the Left Bank area will in the long term represent at least an equal or even a larger importance in terms of spatial and infrastructural impact (measured in hectares). Analyzing the current situation of the Left Bank (analysis executed in 2005), 5.809 hectares have been realized versus the initially projected 6.600 hectares (objective stated in 1978). In general, based on the types of infrastructure, the projected development has been respected to a very large extent, except with regard to the economic function of the area, which is more oriented towards traditional port function rather than maritime industry (such as petrochemical firms). The spatial and infrastructural development analysis is consistent with the investment flow analysis. Table 5.1 and Figure 5.2 respectively show the amount of public investment in the port of Antwerp in the period 1944-1979 and 1989-2005. The year 1973 is used as a pivotal point as construction works of the maritime access to the Left Bank area began in that year.

277


Table 5.1: Investment by public sector stakeholders in the port of Antwerp (19441979), in million Belgian Francs Period

State (RB)

City (RB)*

Total (RB)

Total (LB)**

1944-1973

8.454

4.499

12.953

N/A

1973-1979

3.015

2.468

5.483

N/A

Total

11.469

6.967

18.436

ca. 16.200

(53,5%)

(46,5%)

Notes: * Without expropriations. ** Only an approximate number up to 1979 was available in the sources we consulted in the archives; the majority of the investments has taken place since 1973, approx. 12,3 billion Belgian Francs for infrastructure (lock, docks, etc.) and 3,9 billion Belgian Francs for expropriations. RB = Right Bank, LB = Left Bank

Source: City of Antwerp (1980). Between 1980 and 1989, no specific investment amounts for the Right Bank versus the Left Bank were found. During the 1980s, the competences for port policy and investments were transferred from the Belgian Federal State to the Regional governments (Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels), which probably causes this discontinuity in detailed data. However, the analysis of the City of Antwerp (1980) provides the investment needs until 1985. During the period 1979-1985 a total amount of ca. 6,4 billion Belgian Francs was invested on the Right Bank, and ca. 5,7 billion Belgian Francs used for the Left Bank development. This imbalance would be substantially altered from mid-1995 on, see Figure 5.2.

278


Figure 5.2: Investment by the Flemish Region in the port of Antwerp (1989-2005), in million euro 120,3

100,3

Million €

80,3

60,3

40,3

20,3

0,3 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Right Bank

Left Bank

Note: Calculations based on Flemish Port Commission data (2005), maritime access investments (dredging of the river Scheldt), and connections between right and Left Bank (e.g., tunnels) are excluded as they provide benefits to the whole port.

Figure 5.2 reveals that the importance of the Left Bank in terms of investment volume strongly exceeds the amounts invested in the Right Bank as of 1998.

5.4.2.2. Traffic impacts

Based on official government documents (inter alia reports from the Belgian parliament), a 1975 forecast by the Research Centre for the Expansion of Antwerp (SEA) seems to have had a large acceptance across stakeholders on the Right Bank. This forecast provided an outlook up to 2000, with a division between the Right Bank and the Left Bank. This forecast was heavily questioned by Left Bank stakeholders: unlike the SEA, which believed cargo handling and distribution would be driving

279


growth, the ICW believed industrial developments would be the main catalyst for growth. The Belgian government amended this forecast by taking the average of the SEA forecast and the trend growth between 1950 and 1976, which yielded an expected 155 million tons in 2000 (real traffic in 2000: 130 million tons). The SEA forecast predicted a total traffic of 200 millions tons in 2000, with 95 to 100 million tons on the Left Bank in 2000. According to the same forecast, but taking a 10-year perspective, the Left Bank would handle 15 to 20 million tons in 1985. Ex post analysis shows that 1 million tons were actually reached in 1986 and 10 million tons in 2000, rising to 14 million tons in 2004. The opening of the Deurganckdok in 2005 led to vastly increased growth, with traffic rising to 23 millions tons in 2006. In general terms, traffic forecasts for the Left Bank have been strongly overestimated in the 1970s and 1980s. The reasons were the slower than anticipated infrastructural development, the decrease of the Antwerp region‘s competitiveness for industrial activities, the increasing scale of bulk vessels, and containerization. The discrepancy between project traffic growth and real traffic growth, in particular for the Left Bank, has severely impaired the legitimacy of future expansion projects from the perspective of Left Bank stakeholders. This sentiment was made explicit during the 1990s, when the decision of the Flemish Region and the APA to build the Deurganckdok was seriously questioned in terms of feasibility.

5.4.2.3. Employment and value added impacts

Forecasts of the 1960s and 1970s, and to a large extent those of the 1980s, only focused on the creation of employment. Here, the oil shocks of the 1970s, the slower than anticipated infrastructural development, the strong increase in capital intensity as well as labor productivity in industry, caused strong discrepancies between real and projected impacts. Long term forecasts of the Flemish Economic Council in the 1970s predicted

280


12.500 direct jobs in 1985 and 25.000 direct jobs in 2000 due to the industrial development on the Left Bank. Reality shows that in 1985, the number of direct jobs amounted to 5.501, and in 2000, the direct jobs had increased to 8.967. In 2004, the Left Bank accounted for 16% of direct employment in the port of Antwerp (see ECSA, VUB and Van Hooydonk, 2006 for calculations and in-depth analysis). Again, the discrepancy between projected and real impacts has contributed to the lack of legitimacy of port activities on the Left Bank.

5.4.2.4. Mobility and environmental impacts

Although no quantitative forecasts in terms of the number of trucks, trains, etc. have been made up to the 1980s, mobility in a large sense has been separately treated in various documents regarding port expansion. The focus of the analyses was qualitative and dealt primarily with the efficiency of infrastructure links between the two banks, as a means to reinforce the industrial cluster inside the port, and also for the efficient transport of persons (commuters) to and inside the port area. A discussion on reducing mobility impacts (e.g., road congestion) as well as the problem of external costs of transport, was non-existent in discussions regarding port development and the port governance structure in the 1970s and 1980s. However, since 1995, the problem of mobility impacts (e.g., road congestion) and resulting environmental impacts have been present prominently in the various discussions on port expansion as well as position papers of Left Bank stakeholders since 1995 (first appearance of the Deurganckdok project). Mobility is now treated in a separate stakeholder committee in the strategic port planning process, along with stakeholder committees on economic space use and the problem of nature and habitats (see Chapter 4).

281


5.4.2.5. Discussion of the results

The analyses conducted in the previous sections (5.4.2.1 to 5.4.2.4) have shown that on the level of impacts, the type of impacts to be considered when evaluating port expansion has changed over time. Nowadays, very accurate analyses on e.g., number of lorries, trains and resulting environmental impacts are fundamental, whereas 30 years ago these impacts were considered to be less important in the evaluation of port expansion projects. This observation is also valid for the value added concept, which was added as an important impact in socio-economic evaluation only at the end of the 1980s/beginning of the 1990s. Before then, only employment was considered as a relevant socio-economic impact. Furthermore, with regard to the case of the Waaslandhaven, the combination of (1) the discrepancy between real and projected positive impacts over time (such as employment and traffic growth, see section 5.4.2.2 and 5.4.2.3); and (2) the identification of a new substantial negative impact under the form of increasing hinterland transport and related externalities have further damaged societal legitimacy of the APA on the Left Bank. The perceived unilateral character of the decision to alter the economic vocation of the Left Bank (mobility generating containerization instead of industrialization, which is considered as a less mobility generating activity) has strengthened the case of Left Bank stakeholders to change the governance structure of the APA. Referring to the concept of institutional distance, a potential solution to reduce this distance between the APA and the host stakeholders of the Left Bank, could be to increase the formal representation of Left Bank stakeholders in the governance structure of the APA. With regard to spatial and dynamic aspects of stakeholder management, it is therefore useful to examine how the different impacts that influence stakeholder perception will change in the long term (2030). The potential future impacts of port expansion perceived by the variety of stakeholders will provide insights on the extent to which a formal representation of Left Bank stakeholders is necessary in order to guarantee sustainable and legitimate port expansion on the Left Bank. In other words, the focus

282


should not merely be on past experience, but also on potential future impacts and their influence on stakeholder attitudes.

5.5. Projected impacts of the expansion of the Waaslandhaven (up to 2030)

5.5.1. Basis of the calculations of quantifiable impacts

During the strategic planning process for the port of Antwerp (see Chapter 4), an Economic Development Study was conducted. In this study, we calculated the diverse impacts of the development of the port as a whole until 2030. We based our calculations on traffic forecasts and industrial development scenarios. The results of this study were formally validated by various stakeholders on the Right Bank and the Left Bank, such as the APA, the LBC, the ICW, the Flemish regional government and the Municipalities of Beveren and Zwijndrecht. The results and the overall approach (integrative calculation model) used by the Economic Development Study provided the basis for more detailed calculations for the purposes of this research project.

5.5.2. Results of the calculations on future quantifiable impacts (horizon 2030)

5.5.2.1. Traffic and value added

The traffic forecast of the aforementioned Economic Development Study was split between Left Bank and Right Bank, based on information of various port experts from the APA and terminal operators. Based on the Economic Development Study, additional

283


data obtained from the National Bank of Belgium, and using the Antwerp-weighting rule (Haezendonck, 2001) for added value per traffic category to take into account the type of goods, it was possible to unbundle expected value added growth over the two river banks. Figure 5.3 shows the increasing importance of the Left Bank in the total traffic and the total added value that the port of Antwerp generates. The calculations83 show that the Left Bank will generate approximately 50% of traffic and value added in 2030. Figure 5.3: Future share of the Left Bank in traffic and value added 60,00%

Share Left Bank (in %)

50,00%

40,00%

30,00%

20,00%

10,00%

Share Left Bank in traffic

Share Left Bank in Total Value Added

0,00% 1995

2000

2005

2010

83

2015

2020

2025

2030

In this chapter, we use the high growth scenario from the Economic Development Study as the basis for the calculations and the resulting figures (see Chapter 4)

284


5.5.2.2. Employment

In order to split employment growth, the Belgian National Bank provided data on the historical share of direct employment in the municipalities of Antwerp (Right Bank), Zwijndrecht (Left Bank) and Beveren (Left Bank). Based on the results of the traffic forecast, and the weighting rule of the traffic flows, we were able to calculate the future expected employment impact. The calculation shows that the share of the Left Bank will increase, in particular driven by the growth in the municipality of Beveren (as the Deurganckdok, and other expansion possibilities, are situated on the territory of this municipality). Figure 5.4 shows the results of this calculation for the transport related employment (i.e., maritime cluster including cargo handling, transport and logistics services, etc.). For transport related employment, the share of the Left Bank will increase significantly. For industry-related employment, we based ourselves on the available areas for additional industrial development, as well productivity growth parameters (as labor productivity increases, the number of employees per unit of land decreases). Figure 5.5 shows the calculation for industrial employment growth, based on linear growth forecasts of additional land needed for industrial development. The decrease of employment on the Right Bank is caused by the lack of expansion possibilities combined with high labor productivity gains as in a high growth scenario, whereby companies are expected to invest more quickly in capital-intensive equipment. Figure 5.5 shows that for industry related employment as well, the share of the Left Bank will increase (as there is more land available), but that the main concentration of industrial activity will remain on the Right Bank.

285


Figure 5.4: Employment growth and share of the Left Bank (transport-related) 50.000 45.000

Direct Employment (# FTE) .

40.000 35.000 30.000 25.000 20.000 15.000 10.000 5.000 0 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029

Beveren

Zwijndrecht

Antwerp - Right Bank

* Legend: Beveren and Zwijndrecht = Left Bank

Figure 5.5: Employment growth and share of the Left Bank (industry-related) 35.000

Direct Employment (# FTE) .

30.000

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

0 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029

Beveren

Zwijndrecht

* Legend: Beveren and Zwijndrecht = Left Bank

286

Antwerp - Right Bank


5.5.2.3. Mobility impact

As argued in section 5.4.2.4., the increase of traffic flows to the hinterland and the resulting environmental impact has taken a prominent role in the societal discussion with regard to the expansion of the port of Antwerp as a whole. Therefore, the calculation of the number of additional transports from and to the port area on the Left and Right Banks provides insight into the future negative impacts (in particular of road and rail transport84) that local communities will experience due to port expansion. As in other calculations, the traffic forecast of the Economic Development Study provided the initial input, as well as modal split scenarios. Using infrastructure scenarios (e.g., new links such as a future rail tunnel, which will alter future flows between the Left and the Right Bank, were taken into account) and average loads per unit of transport, the number of additional trucks, trains and barges per day was calculated. Figure 5.6 shows the results of the calculation of the number of additional trucks per day. Under the hypothesis of an increasing share of environmentally friendly transport in the total modal split (see ECSA, VUB and Van Hooydonk (2006) for an in-depth analysis), Figure 5.6 shows that the impact of additional road transport will concentrated on local communities on the Left Bank, whereas on the Right Bank, a temporary decrease will be experienced due to a modal shift. Figures 5.7 and 5.8 show similar conclusions for rail and barge transport, however without significant decreases for the Right Bank as these modes are expected to increase their share in the total modal split of the port of Antwerp.

84

Although rail traffic is considered to be more environmentally friendly than road transport, interviews with representatives from the Municipalities of Beveren and Zwijndrecht revealed severe complaints due to the noise disturbances caused by rail traffic, in addition to the almost constant closure of rail/road crossings. In addition, an important number of rail traffic operations take place during the night and cause sleep disturbances for numerous people in the local community.

287


Figure 5.6: Number of additional trucks per day, horizon 2030

Number of additional trucks per day (22 tonnes, 2 TEU) .

8.000 7.000 6.000 5.000 4.000 3.000

Left Bank

Right Bank

2.000 1.000 0 -1.000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030

Figure 5.7: Number of additional barges per day, horizon 2030 Number of additional barges per day (200 TEU, 11 tonnes per TEU) .

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Left Bank -10 2002 2004

2006 2008 2010

2012 2014

2016 2018 2020

288

Right Bank

2022 2024 2026

2028 2030


Figure 5.8: Number of additional trains per day, horizon 2030

Number of additional trains per day (78 TEU, 11 tonnes per TEU) .

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Left Bank -10 2002

2004 2006

2008

2010

2012 2014

2016

2018 2020

2022

Right Bank 2024

2026 2028

2030

The increase of traffic volumes by transport modes, which causes externalities such as emissions and noise (mainly road and rail traffic) negatively influences Left Bank stakeholders‘ attitudes towards port development, especially because of the lack of formal representation in the port governance structure.

5.5.2.4. Port dues and concession fees.

One of the main sources of opposition by Left Bank stakeholders against the present governance approach, are the expected future financial revenues that the port expansion on the Left Bank will flow completely to the APA (100% owned by the City of Antwerp), which means that the Left Bank stakeholders will suffer from additional activities but will not be compensated. Under the current situation, the port dues

289


generated on the Left Bank are limited, as the Left Bank accounts for approximately only 15% of the total port traffic. However, with the opening and development of the Deurganckdok, a large container handling facility in the Left Bank, this situation is being altered as the large majority of future container expansion will take place on the Left Bank. As container traffic constitutes the largest share in the total traffic, it is relevant to calculate the evolution of the amount of port dues container traffic will generate on both banks of the river Scheldt. This calculation was based on the unbundled traffic forecast, current parameters of port dues, as well as a projected forecast of ship sizes in order to allow a detailed calculation (see ECSA, VUB and Van Hooydonk (2006) for a detailed analysis). The results (see Figure 5.9) show that from 2015 on, the Left Bank activities will contribute more to the result of the Port of Antwerp in the container segment than the Right Bank. In absolute terms, a financial flow of ca. 60 million euro per year is expected in the long term. Figure 5.9: Port dues from container traffic 60.000.000

Total port dues for containers (in €)

50.000.000

40.000.000

30.000.000

20.000.000

10.000.000

Left Bank 0 2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

290

2018

2020

2022

Right Bank 2024

2026

2028

2030


With regard to concession fees, the availability of land on the Left Bank, now developed as port activity in the strict sense (and thus under the governance of the APA according to the current governance framework), will increase the total amount of concession fees of the Left Bank in the total result of the APA. Calculations based on potential future land use show that the share of the Left Bank in the total revenue of concession fees of the APA will increase from 18% in 2005 to between 37% and 43% in 2030, depending on the growth scenario (see ECSA, VUB and Van Hooydonk (2006) for a detailed analysis). Finally, it has to be mentioned that a third financial flow exists, as the APA is shareholder of the LBC. Calculations based on the current business model of the LBC showed that the APA could receive up to ca. 2 million euro of dividends per year (an increase with factor 10 compared to the situation in the period before 2005). These financial flows significantly reduce the legitimacy of the APA in the Left Bank area and the entire Waasland sub-region, as the APA, and by extension the Right Bank community, is considered to be reaping the financial benefits of port expansion (of which, under the finance regime that was applicable up to 2003, most was financed by the Flemish government) under the form of port dues, (allegedly) without suffering from the negative externalities.

5.5.2.5. Local taxes

Both municipalities levy local taxes on economic activity. The growth of the port on the Left Bank will increase the revenues for the municipalities of Zwijndrecht and Beveren. Based on the various economic activities, the databases of fiscal revenue per port company, several interviews with municipal staff members, and the forecast of demand for land from the Economic Development Study, we were able to calculate future fiscal revenue from local taxes. For the municipality of Zwijndrecht, the impact is very limited as there is only limited space available for expansion and maximum tariffs are

291


already levied. For the municipality of Beveren, calculations showed that the fiscal revenues could triple between 2005 and 2030 (see ECSA, VUB and Van Hooydonk, 2006 for a detailed analysis).

5.5.3. Other, non-quantifiable impacts

From the point of view of the municipalities and their inhabitants, a number of nonquantifiable negative impacts were identified, such as: higher operational and capital costs of municipal services, including effects on the demand for the fire brigade, police, administrative services; environmental impacts such as emissions and noise; reduced safety of road traffic; transport of dangerous good by road and rail through densely populated areas; reduced local mobility; risk of polluted soils. This can further induce a negative stakeholder perception from the point of view of inhabitants and their representatives. On the other hand, for the inhabitants, the higher fiscal revenues from the port and industrial activity for the Municipality result in low property and personal income taxes and a more than average supply of public infrastructure (such as sports, education, and cultural infrastructure and services). Furthermore, port and industrial companies support various local initiatives under their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs. However, these benefits are not unique: other municipalities in the Flemish region show the same characteristics (such as the combination of low property and income taxes for inhabitants and a more than average developed public infrastructure), without suffering from the negative externalities.

292


5.6. Overall evaluation of variations in impacts and resulting stakeholder attitudes

In this section, we combine the results of sections 4 and 5 to show the link between variations in impacts, their influence on stakeholder perception (and resulting attitudes) and the implications for port governance. The objective of this overall evaluation is to show the large variety of impacts and complexity in terms of attitudes and perception, rather than compare the relative importance of criteria and/or make normative statements on the significance of impacts. For illustrative purposes, the positive and negative perceptions of impacts were added. The resulting overall evaluation is used here for illustrative purposes only, to provide an overview of how future impacts resulting from port development may be perceived under the current port governance framework. Table 5.2 shows the following overview: (1)

For each impact, the evolution of the share of the Waaslandhaven in the total

impact of the port of Antwerp, in the period 2005-2030, based on quantitative and qualitative analyses; (2)

For each impact and for each stakeholder, the effect of the evolution of the

impact on stakeholder perceptions and attitudes towards the legitimacy of port activity and development in the Waaslandhaven, on a (---) to (+++) scale with 0 as neutral score. Blanks cells in Table 5.2 represent the situation of a specific impact that does not influence the stakeholder attitude towards port activity and development (e.g., the evolution of concession fees has no relevance in term of affecting the attitudes of the Flemish region). The qualitative assessment on the (---) to (+++) scale is based on either quantifiable impacts and/or the contribution of a specific impact to the organizational objectives of a stakeholder.

293


A good example is the following: the development of the Left Bank has caused problems for the Inter-municipal Cooperation of the Waasland (the ICW, a ‗host‘ stakeholder under the framework of institutional distance) as some membermunicipalities such as Beveren benefit from additional economic growth as well as additional revenue from taxes, whereas sister municipalities do not. However, these municipalities undergo similar substantial negative impacts instead, which could lead to imbalances in the subregional economic development, and also jeopardize the functioning of this stakeholder, given the internal conflicts between membermunicipalities. As a result, the development of the Left Bank in the period 2005-2030 is very likely to negatively influence the objectives of this ‗host‘ stakeholder, and thus jeopardize the legitimacy of further port development as this stakeholder may well veto further expansion. Based on the overall evaluation in Table 5.2, it can be concluded that a real risk exists of a future loss of organizational legitimacy of the APA as perceived by Left Bank stakeholders. Both the evolution of the impacts and the resulting influence on (future) stakeholder attitudes towards port development show that the APA (the ‗home‘ stakeholder) will most likely adopt a positive attitude in the future, whereas the ‗host‘ stakeholders will develop a negative attitude. Historically, it has been argued that to increase the legitimacy of the APA and secure future port development of the Waaslandhaven on the Left Bank, changes to the current governance structure are necessary. This can be realized through formal representation of Left Bank stakeholders in the governance structure, or the design of a new governance structure (e.g., merger of the Left Bank Company with the Antwerp Port Authority), to alter the negative attitudes of host stakeholders on the Left Bank.

294

295

Table 5.2: Overall evaluation of the future development of the Waaslandhaven and the impact on stakeholder attitudes




Figure 5.10 integrates the inclusion of stakeholders in the strategic planning process, the analytical component of strategic planning (in this case, this refers to 4 sequential steps of the process applied in Chapter 4, i.e., steps 8 to 11 as described in section 4.3.2 of this chapter) and the dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management. Figure 5.10: Stakeholder inclusion and dynamic and spatial aspects in the Waaslandhaven case study

Figure 5.10 shows that spatial and dynamic aspects of stakeholder management play a role in all planning process steps.

296


In step 8, an ex post analysis for the period 1960-2005 was conducted revealing the changing nature of impacts over time (including the changing perceptions of stakeholders with regard to the importance of particular impacts in the societal discussion on port expansion), as well as differences in the impacts according to the spatial dimension (i.e., between Left Bank and Right Bank stakeholders). In step 9, future expected impacts of port expansion on the realization of stakeholder objectives were calculated and described, integrating the dynamic aspect (future expectations) and the spatial dimension (unbundling between Right Bank and Left Bank, as well as further unbundling in terms of specific Right Bank and Left Bank institutions, such as the APA and the Left Bank municipalities). In step 10, the results of step 8 (in terms of the description of the current situation and not the past experience) and step 9 were integrated, taking into account the changing nature of stakeholder attitudes over time, as well as the specific actors on the local level (Right Bank and Left Bank stakeholders), as well as the regional level (the Regional government).


This chapter illustrates the link between stakeholder management, port development and port governance by applying the concept of ‗institutional distance‘ to port management and development. Based on a historical analysis of socio-economic, spatial and environmental impacts and their influence on stakeholder attitudes (from 1800 to 2005), as well as calculations of future impacts with regard to the development of the Waaslandhaven on the Left Bank of the port of Antwerp, we were able to show that the spatial and dynamic aspects of stakeholder management should be carefully analyzed. Even if a broadly accepted vision for future development of the port area already exists (see Chapter 4), attention for dynamic and spatial aspects is needed to secure sustainable port development in terms of local and regional legitimacy of a port authority.

297


In terms of the spatial aspects of stakeholder management, the historical analysis in this chapter has shown that an enlargement of the geographical area where port activities take place, in this case the development of the port on the other side of a river, can significantly influence the societal legitimacy, and as a result, the long term sustainability of port activities and port development. More specifically, the historical analysis has shown that over the period when port expansion has taken place on the Left Bank (1960-2005), the Antwerp Port Authority has lost to a considerable extent societal legitimacy, because of its relatively limited attention to the influence of the spatial aspects of stakeholder relations. In terms of the dynamic aspects of stakeholder management, the insights provided by the historical analysis in terms of impacts to consider, combined with a quantitative and qualitative assessment of various future impacts of port development on the Left Bank, have shown that the discrepancy in stakeholder attitudes, resulting from the evolution of these impacts over time, between the Antwerp Port Authority and Left Bank stakeholders, will further increase in the future. In this case, it can be argued that under the current governance framework of the APA, the combined loss of legitimacy due to a relative ignoring of the spatial aspects of stakeholder management as well as potential ignoring of the dynamic aspects of stakeholder management in terms of evolution of port development impacts and their future influence on the various stakeholder attitudes, could jeopardize the existence and further development of the port as a whole. One of the solutions that has been identified is to start negotiations between the Antwerp Port Authority (considered as a Right Bank stakeholder) and various Left Bank stakeholders, in order to discuss potential alternative governance structures, which would ensure formal representation and impact on port strategy of Left Bank stakeholders. As a result, negative stakeholder attitudes towards port development on the Left Bank could be altered and mitigated, and the APA as an organization could gain more societal legitimacy on the Left Bank. In addition, an important methodological note has to be added with regard to the type of impacts that are considered over long time periods. The historical analysis has shown that the number and type of impacts that drive stakeholder attitudes towards port

298


activities and port development change over time. Specific examples are impacts that were non-existent in societal discussions in the 1960s, but have strongly influenced stakeholder attitudes since the 1990s, such as the creation of value added (next to employment) and more significantly, mobility and environmental impacts (both on the level of emissions and noise as well as the loss of nature and habitats). Simultaneously, some impacts have lost their significance in stakeholder discussions such as social and demographic impacts such as population growth and the resulting imbalances on the housing market. This observation shows that dynamic aspects of stakeholder management should not only be considered by the stakeholders themselves in port management and decision making, but also by the research community, which often advises governments and other stakeholders in these matters. As a result, the dynamic aspects of stakeholder management should be defined rather explicitly, by taking on board the long term evolution and changing nature of the number and type of impacts to be considered in order to assess past, present and future stakeholder attitudes.

299

6. Conclusion: formulating the integrative value proposition for long term strategic planning in the infrastructure management sector

6.1. Introduction: towards an integrative value proposition

The primary conclusions that may be drawn from this thesis fall into three main areas, each of which we believe could benefit from further research. We outline our conclusions in the following sections and summarize them in a three-component framework illustrated in Figure 6.1. We discuss first the results of the four case studies on which we reported in Chapter 1. We name this component of our framework REAL-I as in it we focus on the real inclusion of stakeholders in the strategic planning process. Next we look at the matrix structure developed in section 1.3.2 of Chapter 1 in which the cases are positioned in terms of project complexity and spatial reach. We carry out a cross-case analysis using the elements of the matrix structure and the conclusions of the case studies, labeling this component ABCD-P for the important steps of assessing stakeholders, building bridges, constructing consensus and developing actionable plans all in preparation for effective implementation and governance. Third, we repeat what we believe are the main limitations of our research, summarizing them as the FAIL-S component in the framework.

301

Chapter 6: Conclusion: formulating the integrative value proposition

Figure 6.1: Integrative value proposition: long term strategic planning for large scale infrastructure hubs

Figure 6.1 illustrates an integrative value proposition for the long term strategic planning of a large scale infrastructure hub. It is also a traditional value proposition as it contains elements to be considered by managers of such hubs that may improve the quality of their planning processes, essentially by mitigating the risks they run if they do not include stakeholders in the process in meaningful ways. However, real stakeholder inclusion (REAL-I) in its own right leads to an integrative value proposition, as infrastructure managers may simultaneously realize their own objectives and those of many different kinds of stakeholders, be they directly impacted or have less immediately perceived interests, by devoting attention to the three primary dimensions shown in Figure 6.1. As governments can trigger economic growth through positive externalities generated by successful projects there is a generalized willingness for them to grant long-term operating licenses when the managers of large scale infrastructure hubs, private developers and infrastructure users can demonstrate the likelihood of success. At the same time it is important that local communities be assured

302


that their objectives will be taken into account, that negative externalities will be mitigated, and that they will retain long term legal control over the expansion possibilities of the infrastructure hubs in their vicinity. In the following sections we provide more in-depth insights into the REAL-I, ABCD-P, and FAIL-S components of the integrative value proposition. We argue that stakeholders, especially focal organizations, can increase the quality of project outcomes by applying the elements of the matrix during the strategic planning processes.

6.2. Main contributions: REAL-I approach

The main contribution of this thesis is that it addresses the issue of real inclusion of stakeholders in strategic planning, hence REAL-I, with a view to improving strategic planning efficiency and effectiveness in the context of large scale investment projects in infrastructure.

303


6.2.1. Reassessing descriptive/analytical stakeholder theory

The literature review which we provide in Chapter 1 identifies the need for more research on the descriptive/instrumental component of stakeholder theory, or what is sometimes called the analytical part, as opposed to the normative part, of stakeholder theory. We start our research with an analysis of four cases, focusing primarily on ‗What is happening and why?‘, and ‗What happens if …?‘, rather than ‗What should happen?‘ Our qualitatively oriented, action-research based approach to developing empirical knowledge on stakeholder management led to the following observations. First, in descriptive terms, our findings confirm that stakeholder management principles are being actively applied by managers of large scale infrastructure hubs as part of their long term planning processes for infrastructural development. The cases used in this thesis also confirm that stakeholder management principles can be applied to different kinds of long term planning challenges ranging from a specific, well-defined project to a set of projects or master plan, to developing a longer term outlook for infrastructural development, including implications for governance change. REAL-I, that is, real inclusion of stakeholders, refers to the conventional input of stakeholder objectives by researchers, decision-makers, domain experts and alike into the analytical component of the strategic planning process, e.g., by including assumed stakeholder preferences and weights in formal evaluation tools such as MCA to assess alternative projects, master plans, and long term visions for infrastructural development and governance structures. Real inclusion also refers to the direct contribution of stakeholders, both in actively providing ex ante inputs to be used in the analytical process and in validating outcomes ex post. In our action-research based work we focused wherever possible on the second component listed above, i.e., ex ante and ex post, direct stakeholder contributions. In the DHL (Chapter 2), Port of Brussels (Chapter 3), and Waaslandhaven (Chapter 5) cases, direct stakeholder contributions were fed into evaluation frameworks such as an MCA. In the Port of Antwerp (Chapter 4) case, inclusion was achieved more implicitly by defining ‗categories‘ of impacts in the evaluation tool, e.g., the social, economic,

304


financial, environmental, spatial and mobility impacts in the integrative calculation model that covers a wide range of stakeholder objectives (also used as an input in Chapter 5).

Second, from the instrumental perspective of stakeholder theory, the case studies show that establishing a causal link between the integration of stakeholder management principles in long term planning processes on one hand, and better overall performance of the focal organizations involved on the other, is not self-evident. Given the actionresearch based character of the empirical methodology, our case studies primarily provide textured descriptions of analytical tools and processes of strategic infrastructure planning. Such tools and processes contribute to achieving, under different spatial reach and project complexity circumstances: (1) better stakeholders understanding of basic information, principles and tools used during the planning process, as well as (2) greater commitment by stakeholders to generating agreed-upon planning process outcomes. Whether the outcomes of the strategic planning processes we observed were superior to others that lack a similar degree of stakeholder inclusion is open to debate. We can say though that in the DHL case clearly the stakeholder management processes that were adopted did not contribute to actual project implementation. Nonetheless, our analysis in Chapter 2, we believe, will prove helpful in preventing such failures in the future. The explicit documentation of failure has often proven instrumental to potentially avoiding similar failures at a later date, see, for example, Baker (December 5 th, 2009), describing how the Obama Administration in the United States tried in late 2009, to learn from mistakes in the Vietnam war when deciding upon a military strategy for Afghanistan85.

85

(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/world/asia/06reconstruct.html?partner=rss&emc=rss):Mr. Obama had read ― Lessons in Disaster,‖ Gordon M. Goldstein‘s book on the Vietnam War. The book had become a must read in the West Wing after Mr. Emanuel [White House Chief of Staff] had dinner over the summer at the house of [a] deputy national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, and wandered into his library to ask what he should be reading. Among the conclusions that Mr. Donilon and the White House team drew from the book was that both President John F. Kennedy and President Lyndon B. Johnson failed to question the underlying assumption about monolithic Communism and the domino theory clearly driving the Obama advisers to rethink the nature of Al Qaeda and the Taliban‖ (Baker, 2009).

305


The testing of the effectiveness of stakeholder management approaches in terms of their contribution to the objectives of focal organizations implies identifying such things as a decline in the number of lawsuits brought in an effort to block or significantly alter projects or a rise in costs caused by construction delays or increases in the lead-times needed to get project approval and licensing. Those benefits and costs would then need to be compared to outcomes of real-life strategic planning processes for similar projects that were carried out without real inclusion of stakeholders. In our conclusions about the port of Antwerp case we argued that measuring reductions in lead times could potentially prove useful but that it is unlikely that any statistical generalization would be possible given that most long term planning processes differ, inter alia, in terms of objectives and socio-political and legal contexts. Furthermore, using reduction in lead time as a key performance indicator could be detrimental to other instrumental objectives, fostering stakeholder community support for instance. Real stakeholder inclusion frequently leads to longer planning processes. There is evidence of substantial lead times growing out of the incorporation of stakeholder concerns in both the port of Antwerp and the port of Brussels cases. The specific characteristics of the planning processes in the typology described in section 1.3.2, building upon the concepts of spatial reach and project complexity undoubtedly determine, in part or together, what might be considered an optimal lead time and optimal overall investment in stakeholder management for strategic planning processes. Further research is needed to unambiguously determine whether stakeholder based planning processes for large infrastructure hubs contribute to better focal firmstakeholder alignment and more commitment on the part of the stakeholder community to decision-making and planning process outcomes. The descriptive and instrumental aspects of stakeholder theory which we have outlined show that both aspects are intimately linked, confirming that the aggregation of the descriptive and instrumental aspects in one ‗analytical‘ perspective makes sense (see Friedman and Miles, 2006). We believe that parallel research taking into account both perspectives would reinforce the validity of our research results.

306


Although the basic research questions in this thesis are grounded in the descriptive, and to a lesser extent the instrumental realm, of stakeholder theory, we believe that a bridge to normative theory can be made. Friedman and Miles‘ (2006) suggestion that better recognition and development of the descriptive basis of normative stakeholder theory is especially relevant in this context, as already proposed in Chapter 1. They argue that normative stakeholder theorists often use examples of how people, even when they are in the minority, actually behave and why such behavior or actions are ‗good‘ or ‗right‘. In other words, they use the results of their investigation into what actually happens to lay out what they believe should happen. Friedman and Miles (2006) call these ― normative theories of the second kind‖86, as they rely on observations and interpretations of past and current social trends, practices and institutions. In the context of normative theories of the second kind, the behavior and actions in the four cases that we presented suggest that managers of infrastructure hubs should actively involve stakeholders in their planning processes for several reasons. First, given that DHL is among the largest corporations in the world, that the port of Brussels is a very large inland port, and that the port of Antwerp is Europe‘s second largest seaport in terms of traffic volume, we can consider our cases to be trendsetting. Second, similar practices in terms of stakeholder involvement were used in all of the cases. Third, the processes we observed in three of the four cases (port of Brussels, port of Antwerp, and Waaslandhaven) include some kind of institutionalized approach. Normative arguments might include, inter alia, that given the large number and broad distribution of both positive and negative externalities, managers of large infrastructure hubs conducting long term, strategic planning processes should formally include stakeholders in their planning processes in light of numerous societal commitments such as environmental law and international treaties like the Kyoto protocol.

86 The ― first kind‖ relies solely on an ethical or moral principle to change practices; the ― third kind‖ relies on identifying the moral responsibility of managers given the current legal and institutional context (Friedman and Miles, 2006).

307


The evidence provided by our cases also supports the view that the descriptive, instrumental and normative aspects of stakeholder theory are inextricably linked. Our research is consistent with the extant literature on which we reported in Chapter 1 that includes definitions of stakeholder management practice that involve elements of all three perspectives. All three perspectives play an essential role in conducting research that aims to fully explore organizations in stakeholder terms, and are in line with the observation of Jones et al. (2007) that the actual, observable response of organizations to stakeholder issues is linked with elements of how they should respond. We have responded to Freeman‘s (1999) call and that of others in the field of stakeholder management theory for more analytical research as opposed to studies based on general normative principles. Finally, this thesis provides insights complementing the highly valuable, conceptually driven research conducted by Notteboom and Winkelmans (2002), by investigating which stakeholders are involved in strategy formulation and evaluation in long term planning processes for sea and inland ports. The port-centered case study analyses using an MCA approach for strategy evaluation reveal that the perspectives of port authorities and other governmental agencies, commercial port users and persons in local communities potentially affected by projects under consideration should be explicitly taken into account. Our results show that the needs of stakeholder subgroups should be unbundled whenever feasible during strategy evaluation. An interesting parallel can be drawn between the main stakeholders in the MCA analyses of the port of Brussels, port of Antwerp and DHL cases as in each of them the infrastructure manager, one or more infrastructure users, governmental agencies and persons in the local community are represented. This suggests that there is a potential for further descriptive research on the use of MCA in the evaluation of large scale infrastructure projects and long term visions for infrastructural development, particularly in terms of: (1) uncovering potential generic similarities in stakeholders and/or criteria; and (2) changes in these stakeholders and criteria, when changes take place in terms of spatial reach and project complexity (see Figure 1.1 in Chapter 1) or

308


in terms of site specificity and time horizon of the planning process (see Figure 4.1 in Chapter 4).

6.2.2. Extending the dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management

As can be seen by our extensive literature review and analysis of the main contributions to stakeholder theory since Freeman (1984), presented in Chapter 1, there has been very little attention paid to dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management. Although the literature has acknowledged their importance, the only article providing empirical evidence is that by Beaulieu and Pasquero (2002), which is based on a case study of four major events within one organization over a long time period. From a theoretical perspective, Winn (2001) identifies the importance of time and place and has explicitly argued, based on her own research, that more grounded and case-based research on context dependence and situational specificity of stakeholder management is needed. The four cases in our study show, either implicitly or explicitly, the existence and the importance of taking into account dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management during the strategy formulation and evaluation phases of long term planning processes for managers of large scale infrastructure hubs. Table 6.1 describes the occurrence and importance of dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management identified during our case study analyses, as shown in Figures 2.5, 3.7, 4.10 and 5.10 along with additional insights provided in the discussion and conclusion of each case study. The implication for managers of large scale infrastructure hubs is that specific attention should be devoted to the dynamic and spatial dimension of stakeholder management during strategy evaluation, strategy formulation, and, based on the ex-post analysis of the DHL case, also during strategy implementation. However, the case studies, especially the DHL case, show that taking these dynamic and spatial aspects into account is no guarantee of successful

309


implementation be it of a specific project, master plan or long term vision for infrastructural development.

310


Table 6.1: Synthesis of identified dynamic and spatial aspects in four case studies Case

DHL

Dynamic aspect(s)

Spatial aspect(s)

Differences in the preference for

(1) High degree of importance attached

strategic alternatives between

to spatial aspects, exemplified by

stakeholders increased during the

idiosyncratic locational preferences on

planning horizon.

the part of stakeholders in the evaluation process. (2) Spatial dispersion of government competences, and divergent goals at different levels of government led to failed implementation.

Port of Brussels

Stakeholder inclusion in master

Stakeholders and their criteria in the

planning led to adaptation of initial

context of strategy evaluation differed

objectives and evaluation model and

substantially throughout the port area.

eventually the elaboration of a mutually agreed master plan.

Port of Antwerp (1)

Port of Antwerp (2)

Integrative calculation model provided

Introduction of spatial dimension in

insights, over time, into shifts in

calculating impact on stakeholder

timing and magnitude of impact on

objectives led to identifying new

stakeholder objectives under changing

critical stakeholders for long term

economic conditions.

organizational success.

(1) The divergence in stakeholder

Past Left Bank expansion has cost the

attitudes between local communities

Antwerp Port Authority considerable

resulting from the evolution of impacts

goodwill as local community

of port development over time will

stakeholders have seen little attention

increase in the future and potentially

devoted to the spatial aspects of

harm the development of the port.

stakeholder management.

(2) The salience of stakeholder objectives changes over long time periods due to context dependency.

311


More research is needed into how ex ante identification of dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management can contribute to quality decision-making and effective implementation of specific projects, master plans and long term visions for large scale infrastructure hubs. Furthermore, as this study has only focused on long term planning (the base and first building block of the pyramid in Figure 4.1 illustrating a 10 to 25 year time horizon), more research is needed into the existence and importance of dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management in short term operational and mid-term business planning.

6.2.3. Articulating views of government agency/publicly owned enterprise

Our literature review shows that stakeholder theory has primarily been developed either from the perspective of large, private sector, publicly listed companies or NGOs, unions and other activist groups, or has focused on the relationships between such groups. Our research shows that publicly-owned or semi-publically owned enterprises like ports and airports, and very large, privately-owned firms such as DHL, actively engage in stakeholder management with private sector organizations (either entire firms or branches of them) as well as with governmental agencies when long term strategic planning is needed. A promising research agenda opens up if one could compare the involvement of stakeholders, the length of planning processes, and the evaluation methodologies used in (semi-)publicly owned enterprises with the long term planning approaches used by large multinational enterprises. There is room for complementary research that builds on the contribution of Grant (2003) to add to our understanding of long term strategic planning in private sector firms (major oil firms in Grant‘s case), in terms of the description and analysis of external stakeholder involvement as well as planning methodology and the use of stakeholder based evaluation tools. It might be especially interesting to look at companies in the automotive industry or the energy sector in a broader sense.

312


As we stated in Chapter 1, in stakeholder theory the term ‗focal organization‘ not only refers to the primary organization under study, but in most cases also suggests that from a social systems viewpoint that organization also has a central position in the network of stakeholders, and furthermore that dyadic relationships exist with each of the stakeholders surrounding the organization (Rowley, 1997). Our case studies show that in the context of long term strategic planning processes for large scale infrastructure hubs the use of the term ‗focal organization‘ (typically referring to the manager of a large scale infrastructure hub) is debatable. Indeed we have demonstrated that: (1) multiple interactions among stakeholders can take place simultaneously, at times even without any formal involvement on the part of the focal organization; (2) the focal organization may interact with different sets of stakeholders over different issues during the course of the same management process; and (3) the focal organization is in most cases itself a stakeholder from the perspective of other actors in the system, confirming arguments made inter alia by Rowley (1997). The above observations provide a promising research agenda building upon the insights and empirical applications developed by Rowley (1997), especially on the mapping of stakeholder networks and the empirical development of the concepts of ‗stakeholder network density‘ and ‗organizational centrality‘ as discriminating variables in determining when to resist stakeholder pressure.

313


6.2.4. Leveraging strategic planning through stakeholder involvement

Although the corporate planning literature is considered one of the historical sources of the stakeholder concept (Freeman, 1984), a review of seminal contributions in the strategic planning literature such as Ansoff (1965) and Mintzberg (1994a, 1994b) and of more recent empirical work such as Grant (2003) indicates that that body of work shows little interest in the stakeholder concept, indeed in some of it the idea of stakeholder analysis is altogether dismissed, despite the contention of Freeman (1984) and of Emshoff and Mitroff (1979) that merely planning in consideration of stakeholder concerns from a technocratic, top-down perspective is not enough. In other words, though sophisticated stakeholder analysis can in principle be conducted through centralized corporate planning inside the organization, a lack of formal stakeholder involvement during project analysis leads in most cases to subjective, incomplete and biased outcomes with little value for the strategic planning process. The stakeholder concept has become more prominent in public sector organization strategic planning and in territorial and spatial planning by governmental agencies. Some researchers explicitly recommend the use of (top-down) stakeholder analysis as an important information source (Bryson, 1988) while others suggest more or less formal involvement through interviews and workshops when coming up with mission statements and formulating strategy (Allaert and De Klerck, 1998). Finally, numerous articles, including practical applications in several different fields, show that researchers interested in stakeholder management and others interested in strategic planning could learn from each other, often using MCA methods and related principles (e.g., Emshoff and Saaty, 1982; Banville et al. 1998; Winn and Keller, 2001; Macharis, 2007). The cases in this study confirm that stakeholder management as part of the strategic planning process is more than a technocratic, top-down process. In all four, formal and informal stakeholder involvement was sought throughout the strategy formulation and evaluation phases of the strategic planning process. Indeed in the port of Brussels and

314


port of Antwerp cases stakeholders were involved after those phases. Such involvement consists of more than ex-post validation. We saw stakeholders making real contributions in the formulation of strategic alternatives and in the evaluation framework. Our evidence shows that formal involvement and concrete contributions by stakeholders can leverage the quality of the outcomes of the strategic planning process. We believe that as stakeholder involvement is evaluated more objectively it will open the door to stakeholder participation that reduces problems of bounded rationality and bounded reliability in strategic planning processes. Recent empirical work on strategic planning, such as Grant (2003), could be complemented with research on ways in which stakeholders can be included in the strategic planning process over a broad sample of organizations, beyond engaging in a comparison between private sector and public sector organizations as we suggested in the previous section.

6.2.5. Inclusion of stakeholders for long term strategic infrastructure planning

We propose a solution to one of the main sources of disagreement among stakeholder scholars, namely the question of stakeholder identification. As we pointed out in Chapter 1, given that resources are always limited to some extent, selectivity is an unavoidable managerial decision-making requirement. We distinguish between two levels of stakeholder identification and look at related selectivity issues. First, in all of our cases formal committees were established that included stakeholder representatives with a variety of interests. Such committees play an important role from a process perspective as they organize the flow of information and manage interaction between various stakeholders, including the focal organization and/or initiator of the process and the persons responsible for strategic planning such as independent researchers and consultants and corporate planners. In none of the cases did the focal organization or initiator perform an analysis based on existing frameworks to identify or to classify stakeholders as suggested in Mitchell et al. (1997), nor did we find any

315


evidence of stakeholders being classified as ‗primary‘ versus ‗secondary‘ or ‗legitimate‘ versus ‗derivative‘. We found rather that the particular stakeholders who were involved in different phases of the long term planning process were selected based either on their recent experience in similar projects in which the initiator had also been involved, sometimes as a participant and at other times as the actor responsible for the process, or they were selected according to some predefined institutional structure, indeed in some cases it was a combination of the two. We were not explicitly told by the project initiators how stakeholders were identified and selected. However, in looking at the stakeholders participating in the port of Brussels case it was evident that a combination of the two kinds of criteria we listed above had been used, whereas in the port of Antwerp case identification and selection was done according to a formal structure predefined by the extant, broader institutional system. In the DHL case, there was no formal committee set up, apparently a consequence of the bottom-up nature of the analytical process initiated at the provincial government level, and because of time and resource constraints. Finally, in the Waaslandhaven case there was some interaction between the researchers and the initiators of the research, but it was the initiators alone who decided on the stakeholders based on recent experience in the strategic planning process as well as the specific objectives of the research. One of those objectives was the intended use of some outcomes as a political negotiation tool vis-à-vis specific stakeholders, thus those stakeholders were deliberately not tapped in some parts of the process. This suggests that from a descriptive point of view, stakeholder identification for process purposes takes place based on (1) past experience; (2) specific planning process objectives; (3) expected outcomes and/or use of outcomes; (4) timing and costs; or (5) predefined institutional structures. In fact, in most cases a combination of one or more of these criteria is used. Based on our observations, we believe that studying the motives of focal organizations and/or initiators of research underlying stakeholder identification for formal involvement in the planning process could lead to an important contribution to the literature, as could an investigation into possible links between those motives and existing conceptual frameworks of stakeholder identification and inclusion,

316


especially with a specific focus on whether those frameworks can provide value for stakeholder management in practice. Second, in all of the cases, evaluation tools measuring the expected contributions of stakeholders were used to gain insight into the strengths and weaknesses of strategic choices, alternatives, and long term visions for infrastructural development. To this end, a methodological challenge was identified in the DHL, port of Brussels, and port of Antwerp cases. Those evaluation tools, although allowing considerable flexibility in terms of stakeholder inclusion, had stringent requirements regarding their maximum acceptable complexity, as well as other methodological requirements, such as ones aimed at avoiding the double counting of impacts. For example, the construction of a decision tree when an MCA was to be conducted which called for deciding whether a variety of stakeholders should be included or not. In the DHL case for instance it would not have been possible to include in the MCA evaluation structure all 26 local municipalities and every action committee. In that case there was one proxy stakeholder for the federal, regional, and provincial governments, and a second proxy stakeholder named ‗local community‘ that grouped the objectives and preferences of many other interest groups. The identification of stakeholders and their objectives was not grounded in existing theoretical frameworks. In some cases, stakeholders were included based on their ‗power‘ (largely in accordance with the definition of power in Mitchell et al., 1997), their active participation in the public debate, or multiple interactions within the formal committees based on a proposals made by independent researchers, or a combination of these sources. Phillips (2003b: 134) calls for more descriptive research on managerial decisions involving stakeholders which might lead to “greater (or lesser) similarity between stakeholder prescriptions and managerial actions than hitherto has been found”. Based on our observations of stakeholder management in practice, it appears that such research is likely to find less similarity rather than more, particularly in long term strategic planning processes. Our cases show that both in terms of process management issues and stakeholder based evaluation issues, mere ― stakeholder identification‖ is too

317


restrictive in terms of the analyses to be performed and to be the basis for actions in a long term planning process. In our cases, the focal organizations, initiators or independent researchers apparently did not rely on theoretical frameworks of stakeholder identification or classification to identify and/or involve stakeholders, but rather took a broader ‗stakeholder inclusion‘ perspective based on instrumental purposes such as (1) the likelihood that certain stakeholders would accept the ultimate outcomes of the planning process; (2) the probability of given stakeholders conforming with specific institutional norms, that is agreeing with what constitutes desirable analytical content (e.g., what variables should be considered) and high quality strategic planning (hence ― revolutionaries‖ were excluded, but not necessarily those disagreeing with the objectives of the project initiator or focal organization); or (3) the expectation of selectees accepting formal evaluation techniques such as MCA in strategic planning. Because resources are limited not all relevant information and societal preferences can be fully captured. This may serve the instrumental objectives of the initiator or focal organization, at least when the stakeholders that cannot be included are peripheral. If they are not, it can lead to major problems. As we saw in the DHL case the use of proxy stakeholders can mean that there is inadequate attention to stakeholder complexity. In that case there were implementation issues related to conflicts between various levels of government. Our overall research recommendations are for more descriptive/analytical research into the optimal degree of selectivity when including stakeholders in strategic planning processes; and for an assessment of the existing frameworks for stakeholder identification, especially in light of the required shift from mere identification of stakeholders towards real inclusion of them in managerial decision processes.

318


6.3. Case analysis: ABCD-P

6.3.1. Assessing stakeholders

As we outlined in the previous section, tailor-made evaluation tools, with both implicit and explicit expected stakeholder contributions built-in, were developed and applied in the strategy evaluation phase of each of our cases. In the DHL and two port cases a multi-criteria approach and other partial evaluation methods were used. We also lay out in that section various issues related to the identification of stakeholders and to selectivity for the purposes of strategy formulation and evaluation. We argued too that the formal involvement of stakeholders is a sine qua non for truly including stakeholders in project analyses. Indeed, as the processes described in our case analyses show, stakeholders were able to provide ex-ante inputs and ex-post validation and feedback on the various process steps. In all of the cases, the impact of strategic alternatives on stakeholder objectives was assessed through MCA and/or other complementary forms of analysis.

319


The process of assessing stakeholders, which actually means identifying and including them - inclusion perhaps being the most critical - poses a number of challenges for independent action researchers during processes such as formulating a proposed evaluation structure, e.g. in the form of an MCA hierarchy. Several tasks need to be accomplished simultaneously. Stakeholders must be given the impression that there is real inclusion, that is that they can believe that ‗no stakeholder objectives are left behind‘. A concerted effort must be made to positively identify genuine representatives of various stakeholder groups, e.g., through steering and validation committees, and that those representatives are given opportunities to articulate the objectives and preferences of their stakeholder group, an especially difficult task in light of the fact that representatives are ultimately proxy stakeholders (see section 6.2.5). A consensus must be reached on the relative weights of different stakeholders and their criteria. Our observations tell us that the setting-up of evaluation structures that explicitly include stakeholders and their objectives for MCA or other frameworks that are able to aggregate and synthesize stakeholder objectives is an iterative and time-consuming process. Nonetheless, we have found evidence that the lengthy nature of some of the processes can be beneficial in building bridges and developing a consensus between stakeholders (see infra, sections 6.3.2 and 6.3.3). We believe that a contribution to the extant body of work could be made with more case based research especially in the form of descriptive ‗development paths‘ of evaluation structures, i.e. from the first proposition of an evaluation structure to the final evaluation structure used. Research grounded in practical applications could potentially lead to useful generic insights into ways to lessen the iterative, and improve the inductive, nature of evaluation processes. Managers could clearly benefit from analyses of cases that show ‗the how and why‘ of building consensus for stakeholder inclusion that might lead to time and resource optimization. Positioning case studies in terms of spatial reach and project complexity in a matrix such as the one we propose in Chapter 1 could lead to resolving interesting research questions such as, ‗Are more resources required to construct a stakeholder based evaluation structure if spatial reach and/or project complexity increase?‘ and, ‗Is there a greater risk of stakeholder conflict when developing evaluation structures for projects that entail greater spatial reach and/or project complexity?‘

320


6.3.2. Building bridges

In all four cases, evaluation structures (e.g., the use of MCA) and specific instruments (e.g., the calculation model for the port of Antwerp) to calculate impacts of strategic choices, alternatives or development visions on realizing stakeholder objectives were applied. In three cases (DHL, port of Brussels and Waaslandhaven) the quantitative and qualitative impact analyses were integrated into an MCA based on a stakeholder approach, i.e., with the interests of stakeholders explicitly integrated into the evaluation hierarchy. As our review of the literature shows, incorporating the interests of stakeholders in MCA approaches has been carried out in a number of different contexts. Some authors have explicitly developed stakeholder based MCA approaches, such as the Macharis (2004) MAMCA, multi-actor multi-criteria analysis, method (see Macharis, 2007; Dooms, Macharis and Verbeke, 2007). In the DHL and port of Brussels cases the application of such methodologies in strategic planning processes proved instrumental in arriving at a consensus among the stakeholders. One of the merits of such approaches is that different stakeholder motivations can be represented in an objective and transparent manner which then makes it possible to use software programs to graphically represent the positions of various stakeholders within the total ‗stakeholder system‘. Methods such as MAMCA are based on formal steps that assure stakeholder involvement. Each step links a different stakeholder objective, and ideally contributes to building a bridge which spans stakeholder views. Nevertheless, as we see in the application of MAMCA in the DHL case, intellectual bridges, though helpful, may not be sufficient in maintaining stakeholder consensus (see infra, section 6.4.1). We also found that the use of MCA does not always lead to sustainable stakeholder consensus. While in some cases the use of methods such as MAMCA may lead to useful insights into the strengths and weaknesses of particular strategic choices, they may fail to help in achieving a final consensus among stakeholders on the strategies

321


which should be adopted in downstream planning processes. We observed this in the port of Antwerp case, where bridges were built, and it appeared that consensus had been reached, but later it became clear that the community of stakeholders was not ready to validate hard decisions relating to long term infrastructural development. In concrete terms, no hard conclusions could be reached on land use. Our analyses lead us to conclude that while MAMCA is applicable throughout our matrix structure, it may be more appropriate in building bridges for project or master planning purposes than for long term vision development. The case of the port of Antwerp shows that whereas during the development of the integrative calculation model stakeholder consensus increased, the application of MAMCA, including the construction of a decision tree, to assess the long term land use strategies, actually amplified divisions and led to a polarization of stakeholder views. It remains to be shown by future research whether such an outcome is inherent to the relevant layer of our matrix structure, i.e., whether this outcome can systematically be expected in cases of higher spatial reach and project complexity, or whether other factors play a deciding role. Irrespective of the negative outcome in the DHL case, as we conclude in Chapter 1, MCA methods, including the Analytical Hierarchy Process as used in the DHL and port of Brussels cases, can act as bridge-builders between stakeholders during strategic planning processes for large scale infrastructure hubs. As we see it, the primary challenge lies in applying methods such as MCA in a rigorous and academically sound manner, and resisting pressure to include objectives that would permit double counting of impacts or scores/weights obtained in a non-transparent fashion. We discuss such problems in 6.4.2. as they are inherent to action research based approaches.

6.3.3. Constructing consensus

Our cases show that if more relevant stakeholders are to be included in strategic planning processes through formal and informal participation there will have to be more

322


time and resources invested in the planning process. Without those investments, building bridges and constructing sustainable stakeholder consensus during strategy formulation and evaluation will be difficult. It appears that the type of planning process plays a role. One would expect a different lead time in handling the phases of strategy formulation and evaluation in the case of DHL as there was a specific project under consideration as opposed to the formulation of development plans including an entire set of different projects as was the case at the two ports. This does not explain however why the formulation and integrative assessment of a strategic vision for long term development, large spatial reach and higher complexity as we would categorize it in our matrix, for the port of Antwerp took less time than the formulation and evaluation of action alternatives in the master plan for the port of Brussels. This suggests that the relative strength of a license to operate, stronger in Antwerp than in Brussels, and historical experience with stakeholder involvement may play a role in the lead times, the resources used, and the time needed for the planning process. More case-by-case research is needed on the relationship between planning process outcomes on one hand, and resources invested in, and by, stakeholders, the length of the planning process, and the strength of the license to operate an infrastructure hub, on the other. While our cases center on long and complex planning processes in the public and semipublic sectors, what we have found may have implications for privately owned firms. Clearly any benefits of shareholder participation will have to be weighed against engaging in a more resource-consuming planning process, and running the risk of losing centrality (see Rowley, 1997) and so potentially losing some control over the strategic planning process itself and its ultimate outcome.

323


6.3.4. Developing actionable plans

We define in the matrix we propose in section 1.3.2 several levels within which planning processes take place, each with different outcomes. Given the need for actionable plans, issues of coordination and consistency of planning levels are of major importance if actions are to be taken without stakeholder opposition. We focus here on the link between project, master plan, and long term vision strategic planning, reserving until later a discussion about governance. None of our cases include a planning process spanning three spatial reach levels simultaneously or sequentially. Such a case would undoubtedly provide valuable insights into the relationship between different types of planning processes. Our intuition is that a stakeholder based planning approach on one level cannot guarantee implementation or outcome success on other levels, therefore formal links should be developed between the levels. However, our current research does not afford us the information or data needed to determine how this might take place. Nonetheless, a hierarchy clearly does exist among planning levels and that leads us to believe that if a stakeholder-based consensus can be achieved on a long term vision for infrastructural development, then master plans and specific projects should be aligned with such a long term vision. It stands to reason that similar hierarchical relationships should exist between the master plan and specific projects. This raises a number of questions and/or methodological issues related to the strategic planning process hierarchy and the need for feedback mechanisms (see Figure 6.2).

324


Figure 6.2: Need for hierarchy and feedback mechanisms in long term strategic infrastructure planning

First, does every manager of a large scale infrastructure hub need a long term vision for infrastructural development to successfully implement specific projects and/or a master plan? Based on our case study experience, it would appear that is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for successful implementation. The highest planning level in the port of Brussels case was the master plan, and it appears that the lack of a truly long term vision for infrastructural development did not hamper efforts to reach stakeholder consensus on the optimal outcomes of that plan. However, other parameters do appear to play a role in whether a long term vision for infrastructural development, a 25-year horizon for instance, is needed. One such parameter is the strength of the license to operate, and another is the infrastructure hub‘s relative position within the economy and spatially. For example, the port of Brussels‘ economic contribution is measured in terms of a percentages of the GRP of the Brussels region and covers about 70 hectares excluding water surface while the port of

325


Antwerp‘s economic contribution is measured in terms of a percentage of Belgian GDP and has a total area of around 14,000 hectares including water surface. Port activities in the Brussels region are continuously kept in check by a number of stakeholders competing for space for other commercial projects, home construction and leisure activities. It is understandable then that the port authorities are reluctant to engage in a process that might lead to a long term vision for infrastructural development, but that might also open the door to their competitors. It is preferable for them to focus on a master plan for the current inland port activities which are inherently based on the license to operate of a going concern. The port of Antwerp on the other hand enjoys a dominant economic position that few stakeholders question. As a result, there is little risk that engaging in discussions about long term infrastructural development will jeopardize the license to operate. This being said, there are stakeholders who are voicing concerns about, inter alia, modal split objectives for hinterland transportation, CO2 emission objectives, noise levels, and spatial productivity requirements. Second, the planning process activities for site specific projects, a master plan, and long term infrastructural development, the different layers of the matrix we have proposed, can be conducted simultaneously, but it is more likely that they will be handled sequentially, and therefore that information gathered at one stage could influence processes and outcomes at others. This implies that managers of large scale infrastructure hubs should attempt to create mechanisms to coordinate information feedback and sequential planning processes. Equally importantly, there should be systematic periodical revision of planning process outcomes, the need for which is confirmed by the conclusions that may be drawn from the port of Brussels and the port of Antwerp cases as well as the literature on spatial and territorial planning (Allaert and De Klerck, 1998). Such reviews will allow for timely consideration of changing conditions and the alignment of planning process outcomes. Third, based on ex post evidence, we conclude that failure at the project level can lead to action at other layers. The contentious port of Antwerp Deurganckdok project, a flagship project reflective of the ambitions of the Antwerp Port Authority (APA) to

326


grow as a hub for container handling, demonstrates specifically that flagship project failures can impact planning processes for the development of a long term vision. Although the Deurganckdok project was approved in 1998, a successful stakeholder appeal brought construction work to a halt in 2001. Eventually, the first phase of the facility was opened in 2005, but not before some important clients threatened to relocate to other ports and some traffic was effectively lost. Since the project did eventually move forward it cannot be considered a failure per se. Nonetheless, the conflicts with stakeholders and delays in implementation undoubtedly triggered costly increases in managerial time and other resources. In the end a Strategic Environmental Impact Report (S-EIR) was required. Real failure of a flagship project did occur in the DHL case. When DHL could not reach a consensus with BNA the result was a decision on the part of the global mail forwarder to leave the airport. Immediately after the formal exit decision in October 2004, the regional government set up the START-project (Strategic Action plan for Reconversion and Employment of the airport region87), the primary objective of which was to develop a long term vision for infrastructural development and that explicitly involved stakeholders in various task forces. Although in this particular case the desired outcome was not an S-EIR, the ‗integration track‘ that was the outcome was similar in scope and included environmental and spatial aspects. These cases lead us to conclude that there is a link between project failure, be it in part or full, growing out of a lack of stakeholder consensus, and recourse to, or intensification of, other planning processes expected to lead to a (new) vision for long term development. At a minimum this suggests that managers of large scale infrastructure hubs should see constructing formal stakeholder consensus on long term visions for infrastructural development as instrumental in avoiding failure on the project level. Finally, turning to considering strategic planning as a whole, more research is needed on stakeholder management across different planning types, i.e. short term operational planning, middle term business planning, and longer term master and infrastructural 87

In Dutch: STrategisch Actieplan voor Reconversie en Tewerkstelling in de luchthavenregio.

327


development planning. Evidence from the port sector (Dooms and Verbeke, 2007; Coeck and Dooms, 2007) suggests that even within the same sector, focal organization or department, the interests of stakeholders differ substantially across different strategic planning types and that this increases the organizational challenges vis-à-vis the stakeholder community. We believe that more applied research is needed to gain deeper insight into: (1) the multiple relationships that managers of large infrastructure hubs need to shepherd their organizations through the different stages of planning; and (2) the organizational structures best suited for consistent management across planning types.

6.3.5. Preparing effective implementation and governance

The port of Antwerp and Waaslandhaven cases have revealed important links between building a consensus on long term infrastructural development visions on one hand and the requirements imposed by governance systems on the other. Such systems are critical to the implementation of long term visions and, as we have shown, by extension to master and specific project plans. These cases show that although Left Bank stakeholders outside the city of Antwerp were actively involved in researching and promoting long term port infrastructure development in East Flanders, that was hardly sufficient in guaranteeing effective implementation. Our conclusion is that temporary institutional arrangements pulling in stakeholders from both the public and private sectors as described in Chapter 4 are simply not enough, and that effective implementation

requires

permanent

institutional

mechanisms.

Moreover,

the

stakeholders most affected by past and future investment decisions have to have a place at the table, see Chapter 5. We have posited that actions taken during one phase of strategic planning can impact what happens in another. Our examples showed this to be the case between the project, master plan and long term infrastructural development phases. The development of a long term vision for the port of Antwerp (see Chapter 4), and a new governance structure for the Waaslandhaven (see Chapter 5) show this also to be true extending

328


into the governance level as research undertaken in relation to the long term vision for infrastructural development led to integrative calculation of stakeholder objectives. Figure 6.3 illustrates that interaction. Figure 6.3: Interaction between the governance level and planning process levels

A potential imbalance in the future distribution of specific costs and benefits, in particular financial and environmental effects, accruing to critical stakeholders combined with a historically-based lack of legitimacy, led to spillover effects and a debate over whether the governance structure for the entire area should be changed. Some key stakeholders threatened to withdraw their support for the long term port development vision unless a consensus was reached at the governance layer within the first years of the planning horizon, effectively making implementation uncertain as stakeholders opposed de facto downstream planning decisions. Impasses of this kind clearly show that managers actively engaged in planning processes need to be aware of the fact that even an open, transparent, stakeholder-based approach can potentially lead to governance changes affecting the structures and objectives of their own organizations.

329


We found no evidence of changing governance structures following the master plan process in the port of Brussels case. There were minor ones in the DHL case though they were not a direct result of intervention in the planning process and took place a year after implementation failed.

The Flemish government did create the Flemish

Airport Commission which was intended to assemble the public and private airport sector stakeholders, an approach similar to the one adopted for seaport policy, the Flemish Port Commission (FPC), which successfully served as an institutionalized stakeholder platform to create consensus and guide seaport policy and investments decisions in Flanders (see Notteboom and Winkelmans, 2002 for a description of the structure and tasks of the FPC). It is fair to say that existing governance structures were not fundamentally changed, but that an additional institution was established to create better stakeholder interest alignment. At the time of this writing in December 2009, it appears unlikely that an additional institution will be created at the port of Antwerp. The expectation is that existing governance structures such as the Antwerp Port Authority and the Left Back Company will be adapted to accommodate the economic reality that the Left Bank will represent the bulk of new traffic growth in the future. We have made a good start in this thesis, but better insights into the impacts of stakeholder based planning processes on governance in the project and master plan layers of our matrix are needed to understand fully the dynamics between strategic planning processes and existing governance structures.

330


6.4. Limitations: FAIL-S

6.4.1. Formulating versus implementing

One limitation of this research is that it focuses on stakeholder management only in the strategy formulation and strategy evaluation phases of the planning process while the planning processes for large scale infrastructure hubs, be they at the project, master plan or long term vision level, are comprised of more than just these two phases. The DHL case for instance shows that a stakeholder based approach to strategy formulation and evaluation does not mean that stakeholders will reach the kind of consensus needed to make downstream decisions and assure implementation. Recent applied research carried out by Haezendonck et al. (2010) using the framework of Mitchell et al. (1997) looks at dynamic aspects of stakeholder management in the implementation phase of the DHL project. That research has provided complementary insights into the reasons for the project‘s failure. They found that the stakeholders whom they had categorized as having particular characteristics such as legitimacy and 331


power did not exhibit the behaviors expected during the implementation phase, in short, preference reversal occurred. In other words, the stakeholders altered their original commitment to outcomes of earlier phases of the planning process. We observed that by applying conceptual frameworks, Mitchell et al.‘s (1997) approach to stakeholder management for instance, to the phase of implementation a number of other stakeholders needed to be included in the analysis, such as the labor unions. These were not explicitly considered among the stakeholders in the strategy formulation and strategy evaluation phases, although the objectives of employment stabilization and creation were explicitly considered as a subset of the government objectives in the decision tree of the MCA. Based on this observation we believe that further case-based research on implementation could lead to: (1) additional insights into the reasons for failure from a stakeholder management perspective, especially in terms of dynamic aspects and the application of frameworks developed in the analytical stakeholder literature such as e.g. Mitchell et al. (1997) and Savage et al. (1991); and (2) a better understanding of the optimal numbers and types of stakeholders to formally activate in different phases. Anecdotal evidence from the Maasvlakte 2 port expansion project in Rotterdam supports this view. During the implementation phase, the port authority was suddenly confronted with ― new‖ stakeholder groups threatening to delay project implementation. The opposition included, inter alia, intense lobbying by kite-surfers who were in danger of losing access to a beach that afforded them the ideal wind conditions they needed to practice their sport. This example shows that stakeholder management in downstream steps of the strategy process, in particular during implementation phases, at times require the application of other stakeholder management frameworks and other management processes to limit the risk of implementation failure. In addition, during the implementation phase, spatial and dynamic aspects of stakeholder management may well increase in complexity as the level of detail in terms of project characteristics increases (as compared to the strategy and evaluation phases, when not all technical features are necessarily yet known). The evolution of such challenges, we believe, may prove to be an interesting topic for further case-based research.

332


6.4.2. Action research versus politics

We discuss in Chapter 1 the main merits, limitations, and requirements for good action research (see e.g., Eden and Huxham, 1996) and for the case-based method (Yin, 2009 and Flyvbjerg, 2006). We consider the action-research based method to be the overall umbrella for our research, and qualitative research methods, including participant observation, its supporting ribs. Our literature review shows that qualitative research methods, in particular participant observation methods, have often been confused with action research and vice-versa. The central characteristic that links both methods is the collaborative and participative character of the relationship between the researcher and the client system, indeed in some cases, the action researcher is actually part of the client system (Coghlan and Brannick, 2010). We carefully lay out for readers the requirements for good action research as identified by Eden and Huxham (1996), and have ourselves satisfied most of these, as our case analyses based on action research projects have provided implications beyond the creation of knowledge for the project itself (see section 6.3) and have explicitly been concerned with theory application and extension using tools and techniques grounded in theory (such as stakeholder-based MCA approaches), the generation of emergent theory and incremental theory development (in particular stakeholder theory) (see sections 6.2 and 6.3). Moreover, our research approach was documented and described in a systematic fashion, and the duplicative character of the processes discussed (see infra, section 6.4.4). Finally, we justified the use of our methodological approach through comparison with other methods and critically assessed the history and context of the intervention (see infra, section 6.4.3). Nevertheless, a number of important limitations arise from the collaborative nature of such research, which amplifies the challenges associated with participant observation, in particular the risk of going against good social science practices and becoming a biased supporter of the organization being studied (Yin, 2009). There is continuous tension between the roles of observer and participant which can lead to a loss of information and valuable arm‘s length interpretations. This tension is probably amplified if the

333


research is client-initiated instead of researcher-initiated. Given that our case studies were conducted on the boundary between the public and the private sectors, we thought that it was particularly important to avoid any involvement in the politics of influence associated with the outcomes of different planning processes in which we played an action researcher role. Somewhat surprisingly, the formal participation of a large number of external stakeholders as well as ― critical friends‖ (e.g., through the establishment of a scientific committee in the case of the port of Brussels), together acted as a brake on shortsighted political intervention in the planning process. Using the distinctions made by Schein (2008) between types of researcher/consultantsubject/client relationships and the characteristics of the action research projects discussed in this thesis which feature high researcher involvement and high subject/client involvement, our approach went beyond what Schein (2008) describes as typical contract research or expert consulting. Our own approach took the form of collaborative research identified by Schein (2008) as process consulting. The main difference being that process consulting is characterized by a much more intense collaboration between the researcher/consultant and the subject/client, since the latter is fully involved in the problem-solving process. One good example of this is the timeconsuming task of designing the evaluation framework within the context of an MCA approach, whereby new objectives emerged and existing objectives were revisited during the iterative process through interventions by the researcher/consultant. Such an approach can lead to an increase in the quality of the evaluation framework, and in the motivation of stakeholders to reveal more fully „what really matters‟ to them, one of the critical issues in stakeholder theory. Without such intense collaboration between stakeholders and the researcher/consultant it is doubtful that such quality would have been achieved. An important feature of the point we make above is the semantic shift from a client system as the venue for action research, to a stakeholder system within which action research is performed. The main critiques of action research are that the research is performed in a collaborative way inside an organization through a client system, leading to: (1) potential ethical issues; (2) a potential bias in favor of the organization; (3) hierarchical problems between researcher and ‗superiors‘, in particular if the action

334


research is performed by an organization insider, sometimes also called practitioner research; and (4) a lack of ‗distance‘, even if the researcher is not part of or hired by the organization. However, the establishment of a stakeholder system instead of a client system somewhat mitigates these limitations of action research in that the participatory and collaborative aspects are kept, and the even more important formal role of outsidership is achieved in the stakeholder system through the presence and inclusion of external stakeholders in the action research process. It is also noteworthy that recent action research literature increasingly uses the term ‗stakeholder‘ and ‗stakeholder identification‘, and strongly suggests to seek stakeholder feedback and/or formal participation to improve the quality and the democratic character of the action research process (Kerr and Anderson, 2005; Stringer, 2007; Reason and Bradbury, 2008). On a cautionary note, moving from a traditional client system to a stakeholder system also poses new challenges as the more parties are formally involved in the process, the more complex it becomes, and the higher the risk of undemocratic political intervention, contrary to the principles of good action research. In addition, the inherent time and costs disadvantages of the action research process could be magnified by the increased volume of information and data generated during the process. While this may in the end lead to an improved quality of the outcomes, it also places an additional burden on researchers and decision-makers in terms of information processing requirements. These observations suggest a need for further research into the functioning of stakeholder systems in action research processes and the optimal governance design of such systems in terms of their potential: (1) to limit undemocratic, shortsighted political interventions and conflicts; (2) to utilize effectively the main skills and competences held by researchers/consultants; (3) to utilize effectively the main skills and competences held by stakeholder representatives; and (4) to determine where the initiator of the research (the former subject/client) fits most effectively. These suggestions provide action researchers with the strands of an ambitious new research agenda, but we make them realizing that the inherent context-dependency of action research will make identifying any general conditions for success particularly difficult.

335


Finally, as we noted earlier, action research and qualitative research including participant observation methods share two other important limitations: (1) a lack of replicability; and (2) diverging situational and locational contexts. In the following sections, we will address further these particular limitations.

6.4.3. Integrating locational and spatial (including sectoral) specificities

Another limitation of the current work is that our cases are restricted to a particular part of the world, namely a small part of a small country in Western Europe, and one particular sector. Research on the complexity of stakeholder management during planning processes in other parts of the world would undoubtedly be interesting. We would like to see case-based research on stakeholder management issues from an international perspective especially if linked to locational parameters such as prevailing institutional systems, e.g. the distribution of planning decision competences over different layers of government, levels of economic development, or different cultures and socio-economic norms. Our cases are situated in an airport, inland port and seaports. Future research might look at cases in other segments of the transport sector. The rail and road infrastructure sectors are particularly promising as these sectors are also confronted with long term planning processes and complex projects such as the construction of sometimes controversial bridges, tunnels and other infrastructure extensions that generate considerable public interest and call for substantial interaction with stakeholders. Still more challenges await outside the scope of the transport infrastructure sector altogether, as other large scale infrastructure projects and sectors could also benefit from the kind of research performed in our thesis looking at projects, master plans and vision-planning for the development in: (1) the energy sector with cases about alternative-energy wind parks, or facilities to produce nuclear energy or dispose of nuclear waste; (2) the leisure and sports sector with large scale leisure and sports infrastructure cases, be they permanent or ‗temporary‘ Olympic or World Cup arenas;

336


or (3) the retail sector with cases looking at mega-stores and shopping malls that compete with struggling downtown retailers. (4) given the increased scarcity of land for nature development in some areas of the world, projects, master plans and visionplanning for the nature conservation sector. Our research could also be linked with other studies, for instance Flyvbjerg, Bruzelius and Rhotengatter (2003) and Priemus, Flyvbjerg and van Wee (2008), that include a large database of cases on ― mega-projects‖ including, inter alia, parameters on cost overruns and benefits shortfalls, information on risk management and decision-making for mega-projects, as well as parameters in the political economy and institutional sphere. One possibility for further research would be to include parameters related to stakeholder management issues when analyzing such mega-projects.

6.4.4. Limits to repeatability and reproducibility

In the previous section we suggested more ex-post analysis of other kinds of projects. Looking at whether such projects were implemented or failed would increase the potential for generalization from our conclusions. Another way to increase that potential and contribute to the validity of our approach is through replication of the methods used in our cases within a participant observant and/or action research setting in the context of: (1) periodic reviews of the same cases, e.g., revisions of the master plan of the port of Brussels; (2) the implementation of similar projects within a master plan or visionplanning for infrastructural development over a period of time; and (3) the application of our methods to new cases. Periodic reviews of the cases that we used in our research along the lines of our own case-based conclusions and in keeping with advances in the spatial planning literature (Allaert and De Klerck, 1998) might prove very enlightening. Such reviews could lead to additional insights into the dynamic and spatial aspects of stakeholder management. For example, it would be interesting to use the port of Brussels case to investigate whether if some years after the approval of the master plan the port zones, the

337


stakeholders, their criteria and the weights of their criteria would have significantly changed. Doing such an update would obviously entail a number of challenges, such as: (1) controlling for the fact that after a number of years the implementation of the master plan could influence what particular subsets of stakeholders think about port development; any perceived change in stakeholder attitudes would therefore be endogenous, and merely reflect the realization of specific elements of the initial planning outcome; and (2) though the stakeholder categories included in the evaluation structure would probably be largely the same, the individuals representing them and responsible for providing inputs, through interviews for example, might have changed. As a result, there might be limits to replicability even if one uses the same situation and data sources. It may be difficult to isolate from the analysis the factors that limit replicability. Similar limitations may arise if stakeholders are asked to voice their views about a sequence of investments within a master plan implementation. Although the location of the projects would be the same, the societal context within which the particular planning process for the project takes place might well have changed and could entail the introduction of additional stakeholders or objectives. In the Waaslandhaven case we saw changes in the environmental regulations over a relatively short period of time. Furthermore, when it comes to duplicating methods and processes, a participatory action research approach would probably lead to modifications or improvements in the methods and processes described is this thesis, given the dynamic nature of the client or stakeholder system, within which the research takes place. All the elements above suggest substantial challenges to replicability and comparability over time. Applying the same methods, processes and frameworks that we used in this thesis to other cases could, in our opinion, lead to interesting additional insights, and test the validity of our conclusions. We would need to pay attention to context dependent factors such as the location and the industrial sector. The application of participatory action research to other cases might require modifications to the processes and methods we used in this thesis, and hence make it more difficult to draw conclusions.

338


6.4.5. Stakeholder System Sustainability

Earlier we introduced the concept of the stakeholder system as a means of increasing the quality of action research process outcomes, inter alia, by increasing the information flow between stakeholders and by improving the description of the various objectives used by stakeholders in evaluation frameworks for strategic planning purposes. Applied to the planning process outcomes described in this thesis, this means that the introduction of a stakeholder system could be instrumental in the effective implementation of planning process outcomes. However, what we observed in the DHL case shows that a stakeholder based evaluation, using a stakeholder system, can lead to failure. Our analysis of the implementation phase of that project revealed that failure occurred as a result of the non-alignment of the different governmental authorities (Federal and Regional) involved, and further analysis through applied research (Haezendonck et al., 2010) also revealed changing positions of those authorities in terms of favoring expansion or delocalization. Although some form of a stakeholder system was present in that particular case, it proved to be non-effective and nonsustainable in terms of project implementation. In other words, the stakeholder system failed. We suggested in section 6.3.4, based on ex post analysis of past project failures, that to avoid project failure at a later date, managers of large scale infrastructure hubs first construct formal stakeholder consensus on a long term vision for infrastructural development. In other words, it appears that it is important for managers of large infrastructure hubs to build stakeholder consensus on the basis of a long term vision for infrastructural development (20-30 years planning horizon), in order to capture downstream economic opportunities on a master plan or a project level, for example a request from a large operator to establish or expand activities, without jeopardizing the license to operate for the entire hub, as was the case at BNA with the DHL project and at the port of Antwerp with the Deurganckdok project, and being forced to forego economic opportunities in the form of macro-economic growth associated with the project(s) involved.

339


One of the main limitations of our research which we have not yet discussed is that even though stakeholder consensus can be reached at the level of a long term vision for infrastructural development, as was the case in the port of Antwerp case, successful implementation cannot be guaranteed. Other factors may influence the implementation process, an economic crisis that results in a very sharp decline in traffic volume, changes in environmental regulations that could mean lawsuits filed against a future port expansion project, or as shown in Chapter 5, growing dissatisfaction on the part of critical stakeholders with the governance structure of an area or region. Does this mean that stakeholder based approaches to planning processes are useless and costly exercises because they do not guarantee implementation success? What about the many large scale infrastructure projects that are instrumental in increasing the economic performance of some regions, even countries? The answer to these questions probably resides in a more sophisticated approach to stakeholder management and the role of institutions in our economic system. In the lecture delivered by Douglas C. North on the occasion of his receiving the Noble Prize in Economics, he said in reference to economic performance through time that “institutions form the incentive structure of a society, and the political and economic institutions, in consequence, are the underlying determinants of economic performance. Time as it relates to economic and societal change is the dimension in which the learning process of human beings shapes the way institutions evolve.” (North, 1994: 359-360). Successful societies are able to change their institutional structures in order to solve new problems, or in other words, they do not get ‗stuck‘ but are able to capture economic growth opportunities (North, 1994). A ‗new‘ problem of our time in developed economies is indeed the realization of large scale infrastructure projects although a large number of private and public sector actors in society appear to be convinced that such projects can contribute substantially to economic growth, as reflected inter alia by an increasing demand for such projects (Priemus, Flyvbjerg and Van Wee, 2008). We found evidence in our research that suggests that, at least from a Belgian regional perspective, our institutional system shows the characteristics of North‘s ‗stuck‘ societies, given recent project failures in the context of large infrastructure hub development.

340


One of the problems associated with large infrastructure hubs and their related long term planning processes is that they are likely to involve decision-making under uncertainty in a very complex environment and at the same time future social, economic, spatial, environmental and technological developments need to be taken into account. Such conditions render the conventional rationality assumption invalid according to North (1994) and require an analytical framework that explains how learning takes place, since “the most fundamental long-run source of change is learning by individuals and entrepreneurs of organizations” (North, 1994: 362). North proposes dynamic structures and mental models that capture the complexity of varied signals and knowledge and that allow for feedback, “including contact with others‟ ideas”. (North, 1994: 363). The concept of ‗stakeholder system sustainability‘ achieved within the prevailing institutional context, as suggested by our cases, provides at least some tentative answers to the challenge of not getting ‗stuck‘ as a society. Societies with the ability to create stakeholder system sustainability are more likely to reduce the following problems: (1) bounded rationality or ‗scarcity of mind‘, as more information will become available within the community of stakeholders affected by projects through formalized interaction with ‗others‘ and (2) bounded reliability or ‗scarcity of making good on open ended commitments‘, as the members of the community of stakeholders will show increased commitment toward communicating and interacting in a constructive fashion. Furthermore, the existence of stakeholder system sustainability could also lead to changes in prevailing institutional structures if such changes are instrumental in capturing opportunities for economic growth. As the governance structure for the Waaslandhaven shows, the stakeholder system can influence existing institutions and can foster institutional change. Not getting ‗stuck‘ in the long run also means that adaptive rather than merely allocative efficiency can be achieved in society. According to North (1994), successful political/economic systems are able to create flexible institutional structures capable of coping with change. An open question in our research agenda is whether such adaptive efficiency, which according to North (1994: 367) “we do not know to create in the short-run” is

341


compatible with the increased dynamics instigated by large multinational enterprises in terms of investment decisions that are in some cases very sudden, and that can generate high impact shocks to economic systems (e.g., the DHL case at BNA). The creation of stakeholder system sustainability could contribute to adaptive efficiency in the short run as the concept does not challenge the existing institutions at the outset but rather provides a platform to create an adaptive form of institutional alignment, thereby reducing problems of bounded rationality and reliability. This approach should increase the chances of not getting ‗stuck‘ and could even lead, when influenced by certain changes and shocks as well as the learning effects in the community of stakeholders, to efficient adaptations in the underlying institutions themselves. When institutional adaptation challenges arise it is critical to avoid stakeholder system failure. Reflecting on the possibility of stakeholder system failure, and the ways to avoid it, might prove more fruitful than the conventional, more traditional polarizing discussions on market versus non-market (or government) failure. Indeed, Wolf (1987) argues that there is no clear-cut choice between markets and governments. Large scale infrastructure projects are particularly interesting in this context. In the hypothetical market for large infrastructure projects, stakeholders from the public sector (governments and regulatory agencies) as well as from the private sector (individuals, project developers, infrastructure managers) play an active role in shaping supply and demand. On the supply side both governments and private sector organizations offer infrastructure (in a particular spatial environment) for economic development, either by owning land and restricting land-use (private developers and public agencies) or by making planning decisions that shape the type of activities and/or projects that can potentially be developed. On the demand side, governments and/or public agencies and private sector developers demands large infrastructure projects, sometimes overlapping in terms of the types of projects (e.g., large sports infrastructures). Given the externalities and the distributional aspects associated with such projects, as well as the different management styles of the stakeholders involved, technocratic versus political management (see Bower, 1983), efficient allocation, if it takes place at all, is difficult to achieve.

342


Instead of a market versus government debate, the construction of stakeholder system sustainability among different public and private institutions involved and throughout the different layers of project planning outcomes (project – master plan – visionplanning), could lead to a more efficient allocation of resources and effective implementation of large infrastructure projects. Hence, productive future research might focus on identifying the conditions and the contextual dependencies leading to the achievement of stakeholder system sustainability, though our experience also shows opportunistic and shortsighted political behavior will sometimes prevent precisely this achievement. “There is no guarantee that the beliefs and institutions that evolve through time will produce economic growth.” (North, 1994: 363) __________________________________________________

343

Appendix 1: List of 26 municipalities within the 70 dB(A) contour of airplane noise Postal code

Municipality

1000

BRUSSEL 1

1020

BR 2 (Laken)

1030

BR 3 (Schaarbeek)

1140

BR 14 (Evere)

1150

BR 15 (St.Pieters Woluwe)

1160

BR 16 (Oudergem)

1170

BR 17 (Watermaal-Bosvoorde)

1200

BR 20 (St.Lambrechts Woluwe)

1780

WEMMEL

1800

VILVOORDE

1820

STEENOKKERZEEL

1830

MACHELEN

1831

DIEGEM

1850

GRIMBERGEN

1851

HUMBEEK

1852

BEIGEM

1853

STROMBEEK-BEVER

1860

MEISE

1861

WOLVERTEM

1910

KAMPENHOUT

1930

ZAVENTEM

1932

SINT-STEVENS-WOLUWE

1933

STERREBEEK

1950

KRAAINEM

1970

WEZEMBEEK-OPPEM

1980

ZEMST

1981

HOFSTADE (BT.)

1982

ELEWIJT

1982

WEERDE

3000

LEUVEN

3001

HEVERLEE

3010

KESSEL-LO

345

Appendices

3012

WILSELE

3020

HERENT

3060

BERTEM

3061

LEEFDAAL

3070

KORTENBERG

3071

ERPS-KWERPS

3110

ROTSELAAR

3111

WEZEMAAL

3118

WERCHTER

3150

HAACHT

346

Appendices

Appendix 2: List of formal studies and administrative documents used for the DHL - case

ACI. 2004. ACI traffic reports for past 12 months. Update May 2004. www.airports.org BIAC. 2004. Night operations @ BRU. 34p. Buck Consultants International. 1999. Sectorstudie distributie. Deloitte Consulting. 2003. L‘impact du secteur du transport express sur l‘économie française. DHL. 2004. Presentatie voor de Vlaamse Regering. Januari 2004. ECSA. 2003. Studie naar de directe baten van de verruiming van de Westerschelde: een logistieke benadering, Interimrapport 1. GTE Consultores. 2004. The Economic Impact of Express Industry in Portugal. Hemp P. 2003. The DHL EuroCup: Shots on Goal. Harvard Business Review November/December 2003: 43-50. Hoge Raad voor de Werkgelegenheid. 2004. Verslag 2003. Idea Consult, NEI. 2001. Ruimtelijk-economische aspecten van de ontwikkelingen in transport, distributie en logistiek in Vlaanderen. Brussel. KPMG. 2003. Economische impact van de Belgische koeriersector. KUL. 2004. Noise map calculation for flight dispersion plan A34 Brussels National Airport.

347

Appendices

Oxford Economic Forecasting, Centro Studi Confindustria. 2004. The impact of express carriers for Italy‘s economy and competitiveness. Oxford Economic Forecasting, The Aviation & Travel Consultancy. 2002. The economic impact of express carriers for UK plc. Rigas Doganis and Associates, The Aviation and Travel Consultancy Ltd, York Consulting Ltd. 1999. The importance and impact of the express industry in Europe. Rome F. 2004. Globalisatie en logistiek: trends, uitdagingen en opportuniteiten. In Logistiek: laatste front in de concurrentieslag, Blauwens G, d‘Haens P, Van Breedam A (eds). Vlaams-Wetenschappelijk Economisch Congres, 25 – 26/03/04. Garant: Antwerpen. Ruimtelijk Structuurplan Vlaanderen (RSV): Deel 2: Gewenste Ruimtelijke Structuur – Richtinggevend gedeelte. SERV, STV – Innovatie en Arbeid. 2001. De koerier en expressesector in kaart gebracht. Brussel. Sleuwaegen L, De Backer K, Van Pottelsberghe B, Nysten S, Gille J, Molemaker, RJ. 2003. Naar een nieuwe balans tussen economie en ecologie. Onderzoek over de economische impact van de luchthaven Brussel Nationaal voor de Belgische economie. Sleuwaegen L, Kestens P, De Backer K, Plaetinck H. 1995. Brussels Airport Zaventem. A strategic centre of growth. Leuven. Sleuwaegen, L, Van Dierdonck, R, Vereecke, A, Vandenbroere, I, Peene B. 2004. Europese distributiecentra en Value Added Activities in Vlaanderen: economische betekenis en concurrentiepositie. In Logistiek: laatste front in de concurrentieslag, Blauwens G, d‘Haens P, Van Breedam A (eds). Vlaams-Wetenschappelijk Economisch Congres, 25 – 26/03/04. Garant: Antwerpen.

348

Appendices

Strategisch

Plan

hoofdstructuur

Ruimtelijke

van

Economie

Vlaanderen:

concept

(SPRE): in

De

ruimtelijk-economische

hoofdlijnen.

(Cabus,

Allaert,

Vanhaverbeke). Startnota 21/08/2001. Verbeke A, Macharis C, Dooms M. 2002. Minimasterplan Carcoke. Brussel. Studie in opdracht van de Haven van Brussel. Universität Köln, KE Consult. 2004. Produktivitäts- und Wachstumseffekte der Kurier-, Express- und Paketdienste für die arbeidstalige Wirtschaft. York Aviation. 2004. The social and economic impact of carports in Europe.

349

Appendices

Appendix 3: List of formal studies and administrative documents used to confront the strategic alternatives to external tendencies for the port of Brussels Agoria. 2002. Vooruitblik: De automobielindustrie in Brussel. Arthur D. Little. 1999. Sectorstudie Containers, PMR. B-Cargo, Newsletter (verschillende exemplaren uit de periode 2000-2003). BCI/NEI, 1993, De relatie tussen Schiphol en de vestigingsplaatsaantrekkelijheid van de Randstad. BIAC. 2002. BRUTrends. BIAC. 2003. Annual Report. Buck Consultants International. 1999. Sectorstudie Distributie. CBS. 2002. Productiestatistieken Milieudienstverlening. Centraal Planbureau. 1999. Een beoordeling van recente containerstudies in het kader van het Project Mainport Ontwikkeling Rotterdam. Consept. 2000. Ronde Tafelbijeenkomsten Containerontwikkelingen, PMR. ECORYS – NEI. 2001. De internationale positie van de Deltametropool. ECSA. 2003. Studie naar de directe baten van de verruiming van de Westerschelde: een logistieke benadering. Interimrapport 1.

350

Appendices

Europese Commissie. 2002. Naar een geïntegreerde Europese spoorverkeersruimte. Mededeling van de Commissie aan de Raad en het Europees Parlement. Brussel, 23/01/2002. Europese Commissie. 2001. Witboek: Het Europese vervoersbeleid tot het jaar 2010: tijd om te kiezen. Bureau voor officiële publicaties der Europese Gemeenschappen: Luxemburg. Europese

Commissie.

2003.

Rail

transport:

a

fascinating

phenomenon.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/rail/overview/fascinating_en.htm (geconsulteerd op: 17/07/2003). Europese Commissie. 2003. Rail transport: the current situation and the Commission‘s initiatives. http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/rail/overview/current_en.htm (geconsulteerd op: 17/07/2003). Gemeente Rotterdam. 1996. Naar een nieuw economisch klimaat. Gemeente Rotterdam. 1997. Actieprogramma Economie. Gemeente Rotterdam. 2002. Kwaliteit werkt door. Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen. 2003. Het containerachterland van de achterlandverbindingen, Strategisch Plan Rechteroever. Govers RC, Clercks MEM. 1997. Logistieke haalbaarheid van snelle binnenvaart ro-ro schepen. Scriptie. Rapport 97.3.LT.4993. TU Delft. Höltgen D. 1995. Terminals, intermodal logistics centres and European infrastructure policy. European Commission, Directorate-General VII – Transport. IAURIF. 2001. L‘airport city et son integrator régionale. Rapport Final.

351

Appendices

IDEA Consult,NEI. 2001. Ruimtelijk-economische aspecten van de ontwikkelingen in transport, distributie en logistiek in Vlaanderen. Inland Navigation Europe. 2002. Newsletter no 1 – December 2002. Inland Navigation Europe. 2003. Newsletter no 2 – April 2003. Konings. JW. 1996. Integrated centres for the transhipment, storage, collection and distribution of goods. A survey of the possibilities for a high-quality intermodal transport concept. Transport Policy 3: 3-11 KPMG Transport en Distributie. 1999. Toekomstverkenningen en consequenties van trendbreuken en structurele veranderingen in het mainport systeem – Rotterdam staat op een keerpunt. PMR. Kreutzberger E, Bontekoning Y. 1998. Could new-generation terminals improve the competitiveness of intermodal transport? New generation rail terminal evaluation. 8th World Conference of Transport Research, Antwerp Macharis C, Verbeke A. 1999. Intermodaal vervoer. Economische en strategische aspecten van het intermodaal vervoer in Vlaanderen. Garant: Leuven. Martens A. 2002. De strategie van de NMBS voor het intermodaal vervoer. In Multimodaal vervoer: zoektocht naar synergie tussen de modi? Blauwens G, Witlox F (eds). Garant: Leuven. NEI. 1995. Voorwaartse Economische Effecten Mainport Rotterdam (VEEM). NEI/BCI. 1993. Project Mainport Schiphol: concurrentie-analyse. Notteboom TE. 1998. Land access to seaports: spatial and functional integration of container port systems and hinterland networks in Europe. ECMT Round Table 113 ‗Land Access to Seaports', European Conference of Ministers of Transport, Paris.

352

Appendices

Notteboom, TE. 2002. The interdependence between liner shipping networks and intermodal networks, IAME 2002 Conference Maritime Economics: setting the foundations for port and shipping policies, Panama City. Notteboom, TE, Winkelmans W. 2000. Inland satellites : regional support for the main hubs. ICHCA 2000 Conference, Rotterdam, May 14-18, 2000. PRC. 2002. Clusterbeleid in Rotterdam. Radojcic D. 2002. New transport concept for the Danube. Danube Project Centre, Belgrade. Scheepvaart en Transport. 2003. Informatieve website door Paul Hoekman. Vereecken L, Macharis C, Verbeke A. 2002. The introduction of ― groupage‖ in Belgian intermodal transport. International Congress on Freight Transport Automation and Multimodality: Organisational and Technological Innovations, Delft, Nederland, 23-24 Mei 2002. VUB. 2002. Minimasterplan Carcoke.

353

Appendices

Appendix 4: List of formal studies and administrative documents used during the research process for the port of Antwerp

ADL. 1999. Toekomstige ruimtebehoefte van de chemische industrie in Nederland. Arthur D. Little International: Rotterdam. ADL/TNO-Inro. 1999. Sectorstudie containers. Arthur D. Little International i.s.m. Rijsenbrij Consultancy en TNO Inro: Rotterdam. Afdeling Natuur, Aeolus, Universiteit Antwerpen. 2005. Achtergrondnota natuur Haven van Antwerpen. Baird AJ. 1999. Container vessels in the new millennium: implications for seaports. Proceedings IAME Conference 1999 ‗Liner Shipping: what‘s next‘, Halifax, 13-14 September, 141-173. Buck Consultants International. 1999. Samenvatting sectorstudie Distributie. In opdracht van Project Mainportontwikkeling Rotterdam. Buck Consultants International. 2001. Bedrijventerreinenstrategie Provincie Antwerpen. Studie uitgevoerd in opdracht van GOM Antwerpen. Buck Consultants International. 2002. Clusteranalyse. Uitgevoerd in opdracht van: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen. Buck Consultants International. 2002. De internationale concurrentiepositie van Antwerpen aan de hand van 3 case studies. Uitgevoerd in opdracht van: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen.

354

Appendices

Buck Consultants International. 2002. Distributieanalyse. Uitgevoerd in opdracht van: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen. Buck Consultants International. 2002. Relevante trends en prognoses op het vlak van maritieme, industriële en logistieke ontwikkelingen in de Haven van Antwerpen. Uitgevoerd in opdracht van: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen. Buck Consultants International. 2003. Zorgvuldig ruimtegebruik Rechteroever Antwerpen. Studie in opdracht van het Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen. Calcoen I. 2003. Analyse capaciteit Vlaamse binnenland containerterminals. CPB, NEI, RIVM. 2001. Welvaartseffecten van Maasvlakte 2. Aanvullende kostenbatenanalyse van uitbreiding van de Rotterdamse haven door landaanwinning. CPB, NEI, RIVM. 2001. Welvaartseffecten van Maasvlakte 2. Kosten-batenanalyse van uitbreiding van de Rotterdamse haven door landaanwinning. CPB, VITO. 2004. Verruiming van de vaarweg van de Schelde. Een maatschappelijke kosten-baten analyse. Samenvatting. Cullinane K, Khanna M, Song DW. 1999. How big is beautiful: economies of scale and the optimal size of containership, Liner shipping: what‘s next? Proceedings of the 1999 IAME conference, Halifax, 108-140. Drewry Shipping Consultants. 2001. Post-Panamax Containerships – The Next Generation. London. European Centre for Strategic Analysis. 2004. Studie naar de directe baten van de verruiming van de Westerschelde: een logistieke benadering. Eindrapport (Deel 1: hoofddocument). Studie in opdracht van ProSes (Projectdirectie ontwikkelingsschets Schelde-estuarium).

355

Appendices

European Centre for Strategic Analysis. 2004. Trafiekprognose en kosten-batenanalyse Royerssluis. Eindrapport. Studie in opdracht van TV SAM. European Commission. 2002. Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system, COM (2002) 54 final, 2002/0038 (COD). European Commission: Brussels. European Commission. 2004. Call for proposals for modal shift, catalyst and common learning actions under the Marco Polo programme. Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen (Coeck C). 2004. Kwantificering van de goederenstromen over de weg – Interimrapport. Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen. 2002. Pijpleidingenproblematiek in de haven van Antwerpen. Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen. 2003. Verordening op het benutten van de kaaien en de afdaken in het havengebied. Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen. 2003. Verordening op het gebruiken van de gronden in het havengebied. Haezendonck E. 2001. Essays on strategy analysis for seaports. Garant: Leuven. Idea Consult. 2001. Ruimtelijk-economische aspecten van de ontwikkelingen in transport, distributie en logistiek in Vlaanderen. Eindrapport. Een onderzoek ter onderbouwing van het locatiebeleid in het kader van het Ruimtelijk Structuurplan Vlaanderen, op verzoek van het Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Afdeling Ruimtelijke Planning. Infras/IWW. 2000. External Cost of Transport. Accident, Environmental and Congestion Costs in Western Europe. Zürich/Karlsruhe.

356

Appendices

Infras/IWW. 2004. External Cost of Transport. Update Study. Zürich/Karlsruhe. Lagneaux F. 2004. Economisch belang van de Vlaamse zeehavens. Verslag 2002. Working paper research n° 56. Nationale Bank van België. Macharis C, Verbeke A. 2004. Economische en strategische aspecten van het intermodaal binnenvaartvervoer in Vlaanderen. Garant: Leuven. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Departement Leefmilieu en Infrastructuur. Administratie

Milieu-,

Natuur-,

Land-,

en

Waterbeheer.

2004.

Emissiereductieprogramma voor het Vlaamse Gewest voor de polluenten SO2, NOx, VOS en NH3 in het kader van richtlijn 2001/81/EG. Nationale Bank van België. 2002. Economisch belang van de zeehavens. Haven van Antwerpen. Boekjaar 2000. NEI i.s.m. DHV – MI. 1999. Sectorstudie Industrie (exclusief chemie en aardolieraffinage). In opdracht van Projectdirectie PMR Den Haag. Nexant Chem Systems. 2002. Competitive Analysis and Future Development of the Petrochemical Cluster in Antwerp. A report prepared for the Antwerp Port Authority. NMBS (Van de Walle E). 2003. Haven van Antwerpen. Conceptnota betreffende de spoorexploitatie in het havengebied. Ocean Shipping Consultants. 2000. North European Containerisation. Ocean Shipping Consultants. 2003. Port of Antwerp: Market Study. Prepared for The Antwerp Port Authority. Policy Research Corporation. 2001. Het economisch, financieel en strategisch belang van de haven van Antwerpen. Huidige betekenis en toekomstvisie. Garant: Leuven.

357

Appendices

Project

Mainportontwikkeling

Rotterdam.

2001.

Milieu-effectrapport

Project

Mainportontwikkeling Rotterdam. Samenvatting en hoofdrapport. Promotie Binnenvaart Vlaanderen, Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen, AGHA. 2003. Mobiliteit containervervoer van en naar de haven van Antwerpen. Savy M et al. 2001. RECORDIT Deliverable 8: Cost reductions possibilities and options. Schmid SA et al. 2001. RECORDIT: Deliverable 4: External cost calculation for selected corridors. IER-University of Stuttgart, Germany. Stopford M. 2002. Is the drive for ever bigger containerships irresistible? Lloyd‘s List Forecasting Conference, April 2002. Studiegroep Antwerpen Mobiel. 2004. Inventarisatiestudie van het ecologisch potentieel: Haven van Antwerpen – linkeroever – Zwijndrecht en het Noordkasteel op rechterooever (deel 1). Studiegroep Omgeving, Buck Consultants International. 2001. Intensief ruimtegebruik op bedrijventerreinen in Gent. Tussenrapportage 1. Uitgevoerd in opdracht van Stad Gent. Studiegroep Omgeving, Haskoning en Buck Consultants International. 2003. Potenties van de industriezone Schelde-zuid tussen Hoboken en Hemiksem. Ontwerp eindrapport. Studiegroep Omgeving. 2002. Strategisch plan Waaslandhaven: raamplan mobiliteit. Studiegroep

Omgeving.

2004.

Geactualiseerde

principes

strategisch

plan

linkerscheldeoevergebied. Werkgroep Strategisch plan Linkerscheldeoever, april 2004. Studiegroep Omgeving. 2004. Ontwerp-strategisch plan haven van Antwerpen (rechterscheldeoever). Einddocument juni 2004.

358

Appendices

Studiegroep

Omgeving.

2004.

Strategisch

plan

linkerscheldeoevergebied.

Vooruitgangsrapport april 2004. Studiegroep Omgeving, 2005. Synthesestudie mobiliteit voor het strategisch plan van de haven van Antwerpen als inputstudie voor de Plan MER. Tebodin. 1999. Milieukentallen. Studie in opdracht van Project Mainportontwikkeling Rotterdam, Samenwerkingsverband Maasvlakte 2 Varianten, Werkgroep Milieu. Technum, Resource Analysis. 2001. Strategisch Plan Waaslandhaven: strategische reserve + noordelijke zone. Studie in opdracht van de Maatschappij voor het Grond- en Industrialisatiebeleid van het Linkerscheldeoevergebied. TV Iris Consulting – DHV MI. 2004. Milieuzonering Linkerscheldeoevergebied. Studie in opdracht van AWZ. Van Hove D, Nijssen D en Meire P. 2004. Opstellen van instandhoudingdoelstellingen voor speciale beschermingszones in het kader van de vogelrichtlijn 79/409/EEG, de habitatrichtlijn 92/43/EEG en eventuele watergebieden van internationale betekenis (Conventie van Ramsar) in de Zeehaven van Antwerpen, poort van Vlaanderen in het Ruimtelijk Structuurplan. Studie in opdracht van Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap Afdeling Natuur. Vanhaverbeke W, Cabus, P. 2004. Strategisch Plan Ruimtelijke Economie (SPRE). Ruimte en Economie in Vlaanderen. Economie en Beleidssuggesties. Onderzoek gefinancierd door en uitgevoerd in opdracht van de Vlaams minister van Economie, Buitenlands Beleid en E-government. Verbeke A, Macharis C, Dooms M, S‘Jegers R. 2004. Economische impactstudie van de uitbreiding van de hubactiviteiten van het koeriersbedrijf DHL op de luchthaven van Zaventem (Brussel Nationaal ; Brussels Airport). Eindrapport. studie in opdracht van de Provincie Vlaams Brabant.

359

Appendices

VUB, Ecorys, BGDA. 2004. Masterplan van de Haven van Brussel. Ontwerp Eindrapport, studie in opdracht van de haven van Brussel. Vlaamse Havencommissie. 2004. Jaaroverzicht Vlaamse havens 2003. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Instituut voor Milieuvraagstukken. 1998. Effecten van een Maasvlakte 2 op het woon-en leefmilieu in de gemeente Westvoorne. WITAB. 1999. Onderzoek naar het huidige ruimtegebruik in de Waaslandhaven. Studie in opdracht van AROHM, Afdeling Ruimtelijke Planning.

360

Appendices

Appendix 5: List of formal studies studies, administrative documents and archival records used for the case of the Waaslandhaven

Blauwens G, Winkelmans W. 1986. Kosten-Batenanalyse Verdieping Westerschelde. Programma 48‘ 43‘. Studie in opdracht van AGHA. Blauwens G. s.d. Kosten-baten analyse van het Verrebroekdok. Blauwens G. 1990. Kosten-baten analyse van renovatiewerken Amerikadok tot Derde Havendok in Antwerpen. Blauwens G. 1986. Kosten-baten analyse van een containerkade aan de Schelde. Studie in opdracht van het ministerie van Openbare Werken. Economische Raad voor Oost-Vlaanderen (EROV). 1966. De ontwikkeling van de Linkerscheldeoever in Oost-Vlaanderen. Werkdocument. ECSA, VUB. 2005. Economische ontwikkelingstudie (EOS) voor de Haven van Antwerpen horizon 2030. Studie in opdracht van het Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen en de Maatschappij voor het Grond- en Industrialisatiebeleid van het Linkerscheldeoevergebied. Gemeente Beveren. 1987. Het beheer van het haven- en industriegebied op de Linkerscheldeoever. Uit: Onze Gemeente, 1987, nummer 4. Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen (Coeck C). 2004. Kwantificering van de goederenstromen over de weg – Interimrapport.

361

Appendices

Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen. 2002. Ruimtegebruik haven van Antwerpen. Situatie zomer 2002. Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen. 2005. Verordening op het gebruiken van gronden in het havengebied. Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen. 2005. Verordening op het benutten van de kaaien en de afdaken in het havengebied. Het Vrije Waasland (zonder auteur). 1991. De industrie bijt zich vast in de Scheldepolders.

Een chronologisch overzicht

van de ontwikkeling

van de

Waaslandhaven. Editie van 5 juli 1991. Intercommunale Vereniging van het Land van Waas S.V. 1973. Administratieve herstructurering van de linkerscheldeoever. Intercommunale vereniging van het Land van Waas S.V. 1974. Nota naar aanleiding van het bezoek van de heer J. Chabert, Minister van Verkeerswezen, bevoegd voor het havenbeleid, aan de Intercommunale Vereniging van het Land van Waas. Intercommunale

Vereniging

van

het

Land

van

Waas

S.V.

1981.

Het

Linkerscheldeoevergebied. In: Regionaal in Waas perspectief. Tijdschrift uitgegeven door de Intercommunale Vereniging van het Land van Waas S.V. Jaargang 7, april 1981, nummer 4. Intercommunale Vereniging van het Land van Waas S.V. ca. 1979. De landbouwproblematiek in het noordelijk LSO gebied. Resultaten van de inventarisatie. Intercommunale Vereniging van het Land van Waas S.V. s.d.. Het beheersstatuut van het Linkerscheldeoevergebied. Beleidsnota naar aanleiding van het wetsontwerp 875 betreffende het beheer van het Linkerscheldeoevergebied ter hoogte van Antwerpen en houdende maatregelen voor het beheer en de exploitatie van de haven van Antwerpen.

362

Appendices

Intercommunale Vereniging van het Land van Waas S.V. s.d. Ontwikkeling van de Linkerscheldeoever. Overheidsstructuren. Beleidsnota. Intergemeentelijk Samenwerkingsverband van het Land van Waas (ICW). Ca. 1987. De Waaslandhaven. Documentatiemap. Intergemeentelijk Samenwerkingsverband van het Land van Waas (ICW). s.d. Havenuitbreiding op de Linkerscheldeoever. Extension of the port on the Left Bank of the river Scheldt. Brochure gerealiseerd in samenwerking met het Ministerie van Openbare Werken. Intergemeentelijk Samenwerkingsverband van het Land van Waas. 2004. Sociaaleconomische indicatoren van het Waasland. Studierapport n.a.v. de studiedag ― Wonen en werken in het Land van Waas‖ op 27/1/2005. Iris Consulting. 2003. Strategisch Plan haven Antwerpen (Rechteroever) – luik mobiliteit. Kaartenbundel uit de studie in opdracht van de Provincie Antwerpen. Kamer. 1977-1978. Zitting van 14 april 1978. Wetsontwerp betreffende het beheer van het linkerscheldeoevergebied ter hoogte van Antwerpen en houdende maatregelen voor het beheer en de exploitatie van de haven van Antwerpen. Verslag namens de Commissie voor het Verkeerswezen, de Posterijen, Telegrafie en Telefonie door dhr. Bode. Document 233 (1977-1978) - n° 5. Maatschappij

voor

het

Grond-

en

Industrialisatiebeleid

van

het

Linkerscheldeoevergebied C.V. 1998. Sterkte-Zwakte analyse in het kader van de werkgroep Strategisch Plan Linkerscheldeoever. Maatschappij

voor

het

Grond-

en

Industrialisatiebeleid

van

het

Linkerscheldeoevergebied C.V. Verschillende jaarverslagen uit de periode 1986-2004. Milieu en Veiligheid vzw. 1996. Milieu-effect-rapport. Containerdok-West. Draftversie. Studie in opdracht van Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Leefmilieu en

363

Appendices

Infrastructuur, Administratie Waterwegen en Zeewezen, Afdeling Zeeschelde & Stad Antwerpen. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Leefmilieu en Infrastructuur, Administratie Waterwegen en Zeewezen, Afdeling Zeeschelde & Stad Antwerpen, Algemene Directie van

het

Havenbedrijf,

Havenbedrijf

Technische

Dienst.

1995.

Startnota

Containerkaai/dok West (Waaslandhaven). Ministerie van Openbare Werken, Bestuur der Waterwegen. Dienst Ontwikkeling Linkerscheldeoever (DOLSO). 1990. Uitbreiding van de Waaslandhaven: voorstel ― Objectief 1995‖. Nicqué

A.

1990.

Economische

Analyse

van

de

Linkerscheldeoever.

Licentiaatsverhandeling Universitaire Faculteiten Sint-Ignatius te Antwerpen – Faculteit TEW. Academiejaar 1989 – 1990. Ocean Shipping Consultants. 2001. Port of Antwerp: Deurganckdok Study. Prepared for the Antwerp Port Authority. Ocean Shipping Consultants. 2003. Port of Antwerp: Market Study. Prepared for the Antwerp Port Authority. Plant Location International. ca.1984. Investment guide for the Waasland Port - Left Bank – Antwerp. Studie/brochure in opdracht van de Maatschappij voor het Grond- en Industrialisatiebeleid van het Linkerscheldeoevergebied C.V. Policy Research Corporation. 1996. Strategische en socio-economische effecten van het 48‘/43‘/38‘ – verdiepingsprogramma. Sociale Kosten-baten analyse en Economische Impact Studie. Eindrapport. Studie in opdracht van het Havenbedrijf Antwerpen. Policy Research Corporation. 2000. Nut en noodzaak verruiming vaarweg van en naar de havens in het Scheldebekken. Eindrapport. Studie in opdracht van het Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Directoraat Generaal Rijkswaterstaat, Directie Zeeland &

364

Appendices

Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Departement Leefmilieu en Infrastructuur, Administratie Waterwezen en Zeewezen. Policy Research Corporation. 2000. Strategische en socio-economische effecten van het 48‘/43‘/38‘ – verdiepingsprogramma. Actualisatie Sociale Kosten-baten analyse en Economische Impact Studie. Eindrapport. Studie in opdracht van het Havenbedrijf Antwerpen. Port of Antwerp. 1989. Dossier Left Bank. In: Hinterland, Quarterly Review, issue XXXVIII, 4th Quarter 1989. Stad Antwerpen. 1966. Uitbreiding van de haven op de Linkerscheldeoever. Beslissing (en economische verantwoording) van het College van Burgemeester en Schepenen dd. 21 oktober 1966 naar aanleiding van het eindrapport van de ― Ambtenarencommissie voor Uitbreiding van Stad en Haven‖ (ACUSH). Stad Antwerpen.

Algemene directie

van het

Havenbedrijf.

ca.

1990.

De

havenuitbreiding op de Linkerscheldeoever te Antwerpen. Beleidsnota verschenen in het Tijdschrift Antwerpen. Stad Antwerpen. Havenbedrijf – Algemene Directie – Afdeling Studie en Prospectie. 1980. De toekomst is al begonnen. Beleidsnota. Stad Antwerpen. Havenbedrijf – Algemene Directie – F. Suykens. 1966. De industriële ontwikkeling van de haven van Antwerpen en de noodzakelijkheid bijkomende industrieterreinen ter beschikking te stellen op de Linkerscheldeoever. Beleidsnota. Stad Antwerpen. Havenbedrijf – Algemene Directie – F. Suykens. 1965. Enkele beschouwingen

betreffende

vroegere

havenuitbreidingsplannen

op

de

Linkerscheldeoever. Beleidsnota. Studiecentrum voor de Expansie van Antwerpen vzw (SEA vzw). 1983. Antwerpen en de valorisatie van de linkeroever. Studie in opdracht van AGHA.

365

Appendices

Studiegroep Omgeving, 2005. Synthesestudie mobiliteit voor het strategisch plan van de haven van Antwerpen als inputstudie voor de Plan MER. Studiegroep Omgeving. 2002. Strategisch Plan Waaslandhaven. Raamplan Mobiliteit. Studie in opdracht van de Provincie Oost-Vlaanderen en A.W.V. Oost-Vlaanderen. Studiegroep

Omgeving.

2004.

Geactualiseerde

principes

strategisch

plan

linkerscheldeoevergebied. Werkgroep Strategisch Plan Linkerscheldeoever. Studiegroep Omgeving. 2004. Strategisch plan linkerscheldeoevergebied. Informatieve kaartenbundel. Studiegroep

Omgeving.

2004.

Strategisch

plan

linkerscheldeoevergebied.

Vooruitgangsrapport april 2004. Technum – ESEG. 1998. Ex-post evaluatie KBA Containerkade Zuid. Studie in opdracht van de Multidisciplinaire Havencel van het Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Departement Leefmilieu en Infrastructuur, Administratie Waterwegen en Zeewezen, Afdeling Beleid Havens en Waterwegen. Technum, Resource Analysis. Strategisch Plan Waaslandhaven. Strategische reserve + noordelijke zone. Studie in opdracht van de Maatschappij voor het Grond- en Industrialisatiebeleid van het Linkerscheldeoevergebied C.V. Teurelincx D, Verbeke A, Declerq E. 1997. De economische betekenis van zeehavenprojecten: de economische evaluatie van de Containerkade-west Antwerpen. Brussel: VUBPress. TV Iris Consulting – DHV – MI. 2004. Milieuzonering Linkerscheldeoevergebied. Studie in opdracht van AWZ. WITAB. 1999. Onderzoek naar het huidige ruimtegebruik in de Waaslandhaven. Studie in opdracht van AROHM, Afdeling Ruimtelijke Planning.

366

Bibliography

Ackoff R. 1974. Redesigning the future. John Wiley and Sons: New York. Agle BR, Mitchell RK, Sonnenfeld JA. 1999. Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal 42(5): 507-525. Albrechts L. 2001. In pursuit of new approaches to strategic spatial planning: a European perspective. International Planning Studies 6(3): 293-310. Allaert G, De Klerck P. 1998. Krijtlijnen voor een betere aanpak van strategische planning en management in Vlaanderen (Reeks Regionale Studies Ruimtelijke Ordening & Regionale Ontwikkeling nr. 3). Academia Press: Gent. Allaert

G.

2009.

Ruimte en Planning:

van planningstheorie tot

Vlaamse

planningspraktijk. Academia Press: Gent. Ambler T, Wilson A. 1995. Problems of stakeholder theory. Business Ethics 4(1): 3035. Andriof J, Waddock S, Husted B, Sutherland Rahman S. 2002. Introduction. In Unfolding stakeholder thinking 1: theory, responsibility and engagement, Andriof J, Waddock S, Husted B, Sutherland Rahman S (eds). Greenleaf Publishing: Sheffield; 916. Ansoff HI. 1965. Corporate Strategy. McGraw Hill: New York. Argenti J. 1997. Stakeholders: the case against. Long Range Planning. 30(3): 442-445.

367

Bibliography

Avison D, Lau F, Myers M, Nielsen PA. 1999. Action research. Communications of the ACM 42(1): 94-97. Banville C, Landry M, Martel JM, Boulaire C. 1998. A stakeholder approach to MCDA. System Research 15: 15-32. Barnett A. 1997. Towards a stakeholder democracy. In Stakeholder Capitalism, Kelly G, Kelly D, Gamble A (eds). MacMillan Press: Houndmills; 82-98. Beaulieu S, Pasquero J. 2002. Reintroducing stakeholder dynamics in stakeholder thinking: a negotiated-order perspective. In Unfolding stakeholder thinking 1: theory, responsibility and engagement, Andriof J, Waddock S, Husted B, Sutherland Rahman S (eds). Greenleaf Publishing: Sheffield; 101-118. Berman SL, Wicks AC, Kotha S, Jones TM. 1999. Does stakeholder orientation matter? The relationship between stakeholder management models and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal 42: 488 – 506. Bojorquez-Tapia LA, Sanchez-Colon S, Flore Martinez A. 2005. Building consensus in environmental impact assessment through multicriteria modeling and sensitivity analysis. Environmental Management 36(3): 469-481. Bosse DA, Phillips RA, Harrison JS. 2009. Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal 30(4): 447 – 456. Bower JL. 1983. Managing for efficiency, managing for equity. Harvard Business Review July-August 1983: 83-90. Brydon-Miller M, Greenwood D, Maguire P. 2003. Why action research?. Action Research 1(1): 9-28. Bryson JM. 1988. A strategic planning process for public and non-profit organizations. Long Range Planning 21(1): 73-81.

368

Bibliography

Burke L, Logsdon J. 1996. How Corporate Social Responsibility pays off. Long Range Planning 29(4): 495-502. Buysse K, Verbeke A. 2003. Proactive environmental strategies: a stakeholder management perspective. Strategic Management Journal 24: 453-470. Campbell A. 1997. Stakeholders: the Case in Favour. Long Range Planning 30(3): 446449. Campbell JL. 2007. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review 32(3): 946-967. Carroll AB. 1979. A three-dimensional model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review 4: 497-505. Carroll AB, Buchholtz AK. 2009. Business & society: ethics and stakeholder management (7th edition). South-Western Cengage Learning: Mason. City of Antwerp – Port Authority. 1980. The future has already started. Policy document. (In Dutch). Clarkson MBE. 1995. A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review 20(1): 92-117. Coeck C, Merckx JP, Verbeke A. 2006. Haveneconomie en –logistiek. Garant: Antwerpen – Apeldoorn. Coeck C, Notteboom T, Verbeke A, Winkelmans W. 1996. A resource-based perspective on strategic port planning. In Proceedings of the 11th Harbour Congress, The Royal Flemish Society of Engineers, Smitz and Thues (eds); 29-41.

369

Bibliography

Coeck C, Notteboom T, Verbeke A, Winkelmans W. 1997. The competitiveness of seaports: business and government agenda‘s in strategic planning. In Volume of Essays in memory of Prof. Em. B.N. Metaxas, Goulielmos (ed). University of Piraeus, Department of Maritime Studies, Piraeus (Greece); 269-287. Coeck C, Dooms M. 2007. The practical application of stakeholder management in ports: a cross-case analysis of best practices in world ports. Conference proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME), Athens, Greece, July 2007. Coff RW. 1999. When competitive advantage doesn‘t lead to performance: the resource-based view and stakeholder bargaining power. Organization Science 10(2): 119 – 133. Coghlan D, Brannick T. 2010. Doing action research in your own organization (3rd edition). Sage Publications: London. Cornell B, Shapiro, AC. 1987. Corporate stakeholders and corporate finance. Financial Management 16: 5-14. De Brucker K, Verbeke A. 2007. The institutional theory approach to transport policy and evaluation. The collective benefits of a stakeholder‘s approach: towards an eclectic multi-criteria analysis. In Transport project evaluation: extending the social cost-benefit approach, Haezendonck E (ed). Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham; 56-94. De Brucker K, Verbeke A, Winkelmans W. 1998. Sociaal-economische evaluatie van overheidsinvesteringen in transportinfrastructuur. Garant: Leuven. De Langen P. 2004. Governance in Seaport Clusters. Maritime Economics and Logistics 6(2): 141-156. Dick B. 2006. Action research literature 2004-2006: themes and trends. Action Research 4(4): 439-458.

370

Bibliography

Dill WR. 1975. Public participation in corporate planning: strategic management in a kibitzer‘s world. Long Range Planning 8(1): 57 – 63. DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW. 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147-160. Donaldson T, Dunfee TW. 1994. Toward a unified conception of business ethics: integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review 18: 252 – 284. Donaldson T, Preston LE. 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review 20: 65 – 91. Dooms M, Haezendonck E. 2004. An extension of green port portfolio analysis to inland ports: an analysis of of a range of eight inland ports in Western Europe. Conference proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Association of Maritime Economists, Izmir, Turkey, July 2004. Dooms M, Macharis C, Verbeke A. 2003. A framework for sustainable port planning in inland ports: a multi-stakeholder approach. Conference Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Association of Maritime Economists 2003, Busan, South-Korea, September 2003. Korea Maritime University: 296-313. Dooms M, Macharis C, Verbeke A. 2004. Proactive master-planning in ports: empirical evidence from the port of Brussels. Conference proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Association of Maritime Economists, Izmir, Turkey, July 2004. Dooms M, Macharis C, Verbeke A. 2007. An application of stakeholder analysis to infrastructure development: the case of the ‗DHL super-hub location choice‘. In Transport project evaluation: extending the social cost-benefit approach, Haezendonck E (ed). Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham; 181-196.

371

Bibliography

Dooms M, Verbeke A. 2007. Stakeholder management in ports: a conceptual framework integrating insights from research in strategy, corporate social responsibility and port management. Conference proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Association of Maritime Economists, Athens, Greece, July 2007. Dooms M, Verbeke A, Macharis C, S‘Jegers R. 2006. De zaak DHL: het regional hub project van DHL in Brussel-Nationaal, een socio-economische en maatschappelijke evaluatie. Garant: Antwerpen – Apeldoorn. Dyer JS. 1990. Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 36(3): 249-258. Eden C, Huxham C. 1996. Action research for management research. British Journal of Management 7: 75-96. ECSA, VUB. 2005. Economic Development Study for the port of Antwerp. Report prepared for the Antwerp Port Authority and the Left Bank Company. (In Dutch). ECSA, VUB, Van Hooydonk E. 2006. Study of the costs and benefits of the Waaslandhaven. Report for the Inter-municipal Cooperation Waasland and the Province of East Flanders. (In Dutch). Eesley C, Lenox MJ. 2006. Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic Management Journal 27: 765-781. Eisenhardt KM. 1989. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review 14(4): 532-550. Elkington J. 1997. Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone Publishing: Oxford. Emshoff JR, Saaty TL. 1982. Applications of the analytical hierarchy process to long range planning processes. European Journal of Operational Research 10: 131-143.

372

Bibliography

EROV (Economic Council of East Flanders), 1966. The development of the Left Bank of the river Scheldt in East Flanders. Working Document. (In Dutch). European Commission. 2001. European transport policy for 2010: time to decide. European Communities: Luxemburg. European Commission. 2002. Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation on the granting of Community financial assistance to improve the environmental performance of the freight transport system. COM (2002) 54 final. 2002/0038 (COD). European Commission: Brussels. Fineman S, Clarke K. 1996. Green stakeholders: industry interpretations and response. Journal of Management Studies 33(6): 715-730. Flyvbjerg B, Bruzelius N, Rothengatter W. 2003. Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Flyvbjerg B. 2006. Five misunderstandings about case study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219-245. Frankel EG. 1987. Port planning and development. John Wiley and Sons: New York. Frankel EG. 1989. Strategic planning applied to ships and ports. Maritime Policy and Management 16(2): 123-132. Freeman RE. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman Publishing: Marshfield. Freeman RE. 1999. Divergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review 24(2): 233-236. Freeman RE, Evan WM. 1990. Corporate governance: a stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Behavioral Economics 19: 337 – 359.

373

Bibliography

Freeman RE, Wicks AC, Parmar B. 2004. Stakeholder theory and ― the corporate objective revisited‖. Organization Science 15(3): 364-369. Freeman RE, Harrison JS, Wicks AC. 2007. Managing for stakeholders : survival, reputation, and success. Yale University Press: New Haven & London. Friedman AL, Miles S. 2002. Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies 39(1): 1-21. Friedman AL, Miles S. 2006. Stakeholders: theory and practice. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Frooman J. 1999. Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of Management Review 24: 191 – 205. Gephardt R. 2004. What is qualitative research and why is it important? Academy of Management Journal 7: 454-462. Gibbert M, Ruigrok W, Wicki B. 2008. What passes as a rigorous case study? Strategic Management Journal 29: 1465-1474. Gioia DA. 1998. The identity of organizations. In Identity in organizations: building theory through conversations, Whetten DA, Godfrey PC (eds). Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks; 40-79. Gioia DA. 1999. Practicability, paradigms, and problems in stakeholder theorizing. Academy of Management Review 24(2): 228-232. Gladwin TN, Kennelly JJ, Krause TS. 1995. Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review 20(1): 171-192.

374

Bibliography

Goodpaster KE. 1991. Business ethics and stakeholder analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly 1(1): 53-73. Goss RO. 1990b. Economic policies and seaports: 2. The diversity of port policies. Maritime Policy and Management 17(3): 221-234. Goss RO. 1990c. Economic policies and seaports: 3. Are port authorities necessary? Maritime Policy and Management 17(3): 257-271. Goss RO. 1990d. Economic policies and seaports: 4. Strategies for port authorities. Maritime Policy and Management 17(3): 273-287. Grant RM. 1991. The resourced-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation. California Management Review 33(3): 114-135. Grant RM. 2003. Strategic planning in a turbulent environment: evidence from the oil majors. Strategic Management Journal 24: 491-517. Gripaios P, Gripaios R. 1995. The impact of a port on its local economy: the case of Plymouth. Maritime Policy & Management 22(1): 13-24. Haezendonck E. 2001. Essays on strategy for seaport analysis. Doctoral Dissertation. Garant, Leuven. Haezendonck E, Dooms M, Verbeke A. 2010. How negative environmental impacts drive MNE exit: stakeholder dynamics in the DHL Europe case. ZeitSchrift für Betriebswirtschaft (ZfB). Special Issue on Corporate Responsibility and Stakeholder Dynamics 1/2010: 69-86. Hamalainen RP, Kettunen E, Ehtamo H. 2001. Evaluating a framework for multistakeholder decision support in water resources management. Group Decision and Negotiation 10: 331-353.

375

Bibliography

Hamel G. 1996. Strategy as revolution. Harvard Business Review July-August 1996: 69-82. Harker PT, Vargas LG. 1987. The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty‘s analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 33(11): 1383-1403. Harrison JS, Bosse DA, Phillips RA. 2009. Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal 31(1): 5874. Harrison JS, Freeman RE. 1999. Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal 42: 479 – 485. Harrison JS, St. John CH. 1996. Managing and partnering with external stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive 10(2): 46 – 60. Heaver TD. 1995. The implications of increased competition among ports for port policy and management. Maritime Policy and Management 22(2):125-133. Hendry J. 2001. Economic contacts versus social relationships as a foundation for normative stakeholder theory. Business Ethics: A European Review 10 (3): 223-232. Henn A, Patz R. 2007. A multicriteria approach for corporate decisions in sustainable planning policy. International Transactions in Operational Research 14: 15-23. Hermans C, Erickson J, Noordewier T, Sheldon A, Kline M. 2007. Collaborative environmental planning in river management: an application of multicriteria decision analysis in the White River Watershed in Vermont. Journal of Environmental Management 84: 534-546. Herr K, Anderson, GL. 2005. The action research dissertation: a guide for students and faculty. Sage Publications: London.

376

Bibliography

Hill CWL, Jones TW. 1992. Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management Studies 29(2): 131-154. Hillman AJ, Keim GD. 2001. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: what‘s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal 22(2): 125 – 139. Hosseini JC, Brenner SN. 1992. The stakeholder theory of the firm: a methodology to generate value matrix weights. Business Ethics Quarterly 2(2): 99-119. Jawahar IM, McLaughlin GL. 2001. Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: an organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review 26(3): 397-414. Johnson-Cramer ME, Berman SL, Post JE. 2003. Re-examining the concept of ‗stakeholder management‘. In Unfolding stakeholder thinking 2: relationships, communication, reporting and performance, Andriof J, Waddock S, Husted B, Sutherland Rahman S (eds). Greenleaf Publishing: Sheffield; 145-161. Jones TM, Felps W, Bigley GA. 2007. Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions: the role of stakeholder culture. Academy of Management Review 32(1): 137 – 155. Jones TM, Wicks AC. 1999. Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review 24: 206 – 221. Jones TM. 1995. Instrumental stakeholder theory: a synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review 20: 404 – 437. Julian SD, Ofori-Dankwa JC, Justis RT. 2008. Understanding strategic responses to interest group pressures. Strategic Management Journal 29: 963-984. Key S. 1999. Toward a new theory of the firm: a critique of stakeholder ― theory‖. Management Decision 37(4): 317-328.

377

Bibliography

Kim WC, Mauborgne R. 1998. Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and the knowledge economy. Strategic Management Journal 19: 323-338. Kono C, Palmer D, Friedland R, Zafonte M. 1998. Lost in space: the geography of corporate interlocking directorates. American Journal of Sociology 103(4): 863-911. Kostova T, Zaheer S. 1999. Organizational legitimacy under conditions of complexity: the case of the multinational enterprise. Academy of Management Review 24 (1): 6481. Langley A. 1988. The roles of formal strategic planning. Long Range Planning 21(3): 40-50. Langtry B. 1994. Stakeholders and the moral responsibilities of business. Business Ethics Quarterly 4: 431-443. Lee DH, Lee KC, Kang S, Baik J. 2007. A priori ordering protocols to support consensus-building in multiple stakeholder contexts. Information Sciences 177: 31293150. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Kiker G, Seager TP, Bridges T, Gardner KH, Rogers SH, Belluck DA, Meyer A. Multicriteria decision analysis: a comprehensive decision approach for management of contaminated sediments. Risk Analysis 26(1): 61-78. Macharis C. 2000. Strategische modellering voor intermodale terminals. Doctoral Dissertation. Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB): Brussels. Macharis C. 2007. Multi-criteria analysis as a tool to include stakeholders in project evaluation: the MAMCA method. In Transport project evaluation: extending the social cost-benefit approach, Haezendonck E (ed). Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham; 115-131.

378

Bibliography

Macharis C, Verbeke A. 2004. Economische en strategische aspecten van het intermodaal binnenvaartvervoer in Vlaanderen. Garant: Leuven. Macharis C, Verbeke A, De Brucker K. 2004. The strategic evaluation of new technologies through multi-criteria analysis: the advisors case. In Economic Impacts of Intelligent Transportation Systems. Innovations and case studies, Bekiaris E J. Nakanishi YJ (eds). Elsevier, Amsterdam; 439-460. Maignan I, Ralston DA. 2002. Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: insights from businesses‘ self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies 33(3): 497-514. Margolis JD, Walsh JP. 2003. Misery loves companies: rethinking social initiatives y businesses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 268-305. Martin C, Ruperd Y, Legret M. 2007. Urban stormwater drainage management: the development of a multicriteria decision aid approach for best management practices. European Journal of Operational Research 181: 338-349. Masters J. 1995. The history of action research. In Action research electronic reader, Hughes I (ed). The University of Sydney. On-Line: http://www.behs.cchs.usyd.edu.au/arow/Reader/rmasters.htm Download date 07/11/2009. Mattingly JE, Greening DW. 2002. Public-interest groups as stakeholders: a ‗stakeholder salience‘ explanation of activism. In Unfolding stakeholder thinking 1: theory, responsibility and engagement, Andriof J, Waddock S, Husted B, Sutherland Rahman S (eds). Greenleaf Publishing: Sheffield; 267-279. McWilliams A, Siegel D. 2000. Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification?. Strategic Management Journal 21: 603609.

379

Bibliography

McWilliams A, Siegel D. 2001. Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review 26(1): 117-127. Millet I. 1998. Ethical decision making using the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Business Ethics 17: 1197-1204. Mintzberg H, Waters JA. 1985. Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal 6: 257-272. Mintzberg H. 1979. An emerging strategy of ― direct‖ research. Administrative Science Quarterly 24: 582-589. Mintzberg H. 1994a. The rise and fall of strategic planning. Prentice Hall International: Hemel Hempstead. Mintzberg H. 1994b. The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business Review January-February 1994: 107-114. Mitchell R, Agle BR, Wood DJ. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principles of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review 22: 853 – 886. Mitroff I, Emshoff J. 1979. On strategic assumption-making. Academy of Management Review 4: 1 – 12. Moglia F, Sanguineri M. 2003. Port planning: the need for a new approach? Maritime Economics and Logistics 5(4): 413-425. Munda G. 2004. Social multi-criteria evaluation: methodological foundations and operational consequences. European Journal of Operational Research 158: 662-677.

380

Bibliography

Murillo-Luna JL, Garces-Ayerbe C, Rivera-Torres P. 2008. Why do patterns of environmental response differ? A stakeholders‘ pressure approach. Strategic Management Journal 29: 1225-1240. Nexant Chem Systems. 2002. Competitive Analysis and Future Development of the Petrochemical Cluster in Antwerp. A report prepared for the Antwerp Port Authority. Nicqué A. 1990. Economic analysis of the Left Bank of the river Scheldt. Master thesis UFSIA – University of Antwerp. Academic Year 1989 – 1990. (In Dutch). North DC. 1994. Economic performance through time. The American Economic Review 84(3): 359-368. Notteboom T, Rodrigue JP. 2005. Port regionalization: towards a new phase in port development. Maritime Policy and Management 32 (3): 297-313. Notteboom T, Winkelmans W. 2002. Stakeholder Relations Management in ports: dealing with the interplay of forces among stakeholders in a changing competitive environment. Paper presented at IAME Panama 2002: Maritime Economics: setting the foundations for port and shipping policies. Panama City, Panama, 13-15 November 2002. Notteboom T, Winkelmans W. 1999. Spatial (de)concentration of container flows: the development of load centre ports and inland hubs in Europe. In Transport Modes and Systems, Selected Proceedings of the 8th World Conference on Transport Research, Meersman H, Vandevoorde E, Winkelmans W (eds); Elsevier, Amsterdam. Oliver C. 1991. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review 16(1): 145-179. Palmer DA. 1983. Broken ties: interlocking directorates and inter-corporate coordination. Adminsitrative Science Quarterly 28: 40-55.

381

Bibliography

Palmer DA, Devereaux Jennings P, Zhou X. 1993. Late adoption of the multidivisional form by large U.S. corporations: institutional, political and economic accounts. Adminsitrative Science Quarterly 38: 100-131. Pedersen ER. 2006. Making corporate social responsibility (CSR) operable: how companies translate stakeholder dialogue into practice. Business and Society Review 111(2): 137-163. Pellegram A. 2001. Strategic land use planning for freight: the experience of the Port of London Authority, 1994-1999. Transport Policy 8: 11-18. Perez J. 1995. Some comments on Saaty‘s AHP. Management Science 41(6): 10911095. Pfeffer J, Salancik GR. 2003. The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. Stanford University Press: Stanford. Originally published in 1978, Harper & Row: New York. Phillips RA. 2003a. Stakeholder Legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly 13(1): 25-41. Phillips RA. 2003b. Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. Berrett-Koehler Publishers: San Francisco. Phillips RA, Freeman RE, Wicks AC. 2003. What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly 13(4): 479 – 502. Pickton D, Wright S. 1998. What‘s SWOT in strategic analysis? Strategic Change 7: 101-109. Port of Brussels. 2008. Annual report. Port of Brussels: Brussels. Post JE, Preston LE, Sachs S. 2002a. Managing the extended enterprise: the new stakeholder view. California Management Review 45(1): 6-28.

382

Bibliography

Post JE, Preston LE, Sachs S. 2002b. Redefining the corporation: stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford University Press: Stanford. Prahalad CK, Hamel G. 1989. Strategic intent. Harvard Business Review. May/June 1989: 63-76. Prahalad CK, Hamel G. 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review. May/June 1990: 79-91. Pratt MG. 2009. For the lack of a boilerplate: tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal 52(5): 856-862. Preston LE, Donaldson T. 1999. Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Academy of Management Review 24(4): 619-625. Preston LE, Sapienza HJ. 1990. Stakeholder management and corporate performance. Journal of Behavioral Economics 19(4): 361 – 375. Priemus H. 1999. Sustainable cities: how to realize an ecological breakthrough: a Dutch approach. International Planning Studies 4(2): 213-236. Priemus H, Flyvbjerg B, van Wee B (eds). 2008. Decision-making on Mega-Projects: Cost-Benefit Analysis, Planning and Innovation. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham. Province of Antwerp, Province of East Flanders, Studiegroep Omgeving. 2006. Strategic Plan for the port of Antwerp. Document approved by the Central Task Force. June 2006. Rapoport RN. 1970. Three dilemmas of action research. Human relations 23: 499-513. Reason P, Bradbury H. 2008. Introduction. In The SAGE handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice, Reason P, Bradbury H (eds). SAGE Publications: London; 1-10.

383

Bibliography

Reed D. 2002. Employing normative stakeholder theory in developing countries. Business & Society 41(1): 166-207. Rigas Doganis and Associates, The Aviation and Travel Consultancy Ltd, York Consulting Ltd. 1999. The importance and impact of the express industry in Europe. SEA vzw (Research Centre for the Expansion of Antwerp nfpo). 1983. Antwerp and the valorization of the Left Bank. Study commissioned by the Antwerp Port Community. (In Dutch). Rowley TJ. 1997. Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review 22: 887 – 910. Rugman A, Verbeke A. 1990. Global corporate strategy and trade policy. Routledge: London. Rustin M. 1997. Stakeholding and the public sector. In Stakeholder Capitalism, Kelly G, Kelly D, Gamble A (eds). MacMillan Press: Houndmills; 72-81. Saaty TL. 1982. Decision making for leaders. Lifetime Learning Publications: Wadtsworth. Saaty TL. 1987. Risk – Its priority and probability: the analytic hierarchy process. Risk Analysis 7(2): 159-172. Saaty TL, 1988. The analytical hierarchy process. McGraw Hill: New York. Saaty TL. 1990a. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 48: 9-26. Saaty TL. 1990b. An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper ― Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process‖. Management Science 36(3): 259-268.

384

Bibliography

Saaty TL. 1995. Transport planning with multiple criteria: the analytic hierarchy process applications and progress review. Journal of Advanced Transportation 29(1): 81-126. Savage GT, Nix TW, Whitehead CJ, Blair JD. 1991. Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive 5(2): 61-75. Schein EH. 2008. Clinical inquiry/research. In The SAGE handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice, Reason P, Bradbury H (eds). SAGE Publications: London; 266-279. Scott SG, Lane VR. 2000. A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of Management Review 25(1): 43-62. Shankman NA. 1999. Reframing the debate between agency and stakeholder theories of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics 19: 319-334. Sleuwaegen L, De Backer K, Van Pottelsberghe B, Nysten S, Gille J, Molemaker RJ. 2003. Naar een nieuwe balans tussen economie en ecologie. Onderzoek over de economische impact van de luchthaven Brussel Nationaal voor de Belgische economie. (Towards a new balance between economy and ecology. Economic impact of Brussels National Airport on the Belgian Economy). Studie in opdracht van BIAC. Starik M. 1994. Essay by Mark Starik. pp. 89-95 of The Toronto conference: Reflections on stakeholder theory. Business & Society 33: 82-131. Stringer T. 2007. Action research – third edition. Sage Publications: London. Suchman MC. 1995. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20: 571-610. Susman GI, Evered RD. 1978. An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly 23: 582-603.

385

Bibliography

Suykens F. 1965. Some considerations about former port expansion projects on the Left Bank of the River Scheldt. City of Antwerp, Port Authority, General Management. Policy Document. (In Dutch). Svendsen A. 1998. The stakeholder strategy: profiting from collaborative business relationships. Berrett-Koehler Publishers: San Francisco. Trevino LK, Weaver GR. 1999. The Stakeholder Research Tradition: Converging Theorists—Not Convergent Theory. Academy of Management Review 24: 222-227. Van Hooydonk E. 2006. The impact of EU environmental law on waterways and ports. Maklu Publishers: Antwerp – Apeldoorn. Van Hooydonk E. 2007. Soft values of seaports: a strategy for the restoration of public support for seaports. Garant: Antwerp. van Tulder R, van der Zwart A. 2006. International business-society management: linking corporate responsibility and globalisation. Routledge, Oxon. Vashishtha S, Ramachandran M. 2006. Multicriteria evaluation of demand side management (DSM) implementation strategies in the Indian power sector. Energy 31: 2210-2225. Verbeke A. 1986. Rationele objectieven, structurele ineffectiviteit en commitment in het Belgisch zeehavenbeleid: een multipele perspectievenbenadering voor het strategisch investeringsbeleid in complexe organisaties. Antwerpse Lloyd: Antwerpen. Verbeke A, Macharis C, Dooms M, S‘Jegers R. 2004. Economische impactstudie van de uitbreiding van de hubactiviteiten van het koeriersbedrijf DHL op de luchthaven van Zaventem (Brussel Nationaal ; Brussels Airport). Eindrapport. (Economic impact study of the expansion of the DHL hub activities - Brussels National Airport: Final Report). Studie in opdracht van de Provincie Vlaams-Brabant.

386

Bibliography

Victor B, Cullen JB. 1988. The organizational bases of ethical work climates. Administrative Science Quarterly 33: 101-125. VIL (Flanders Institute for Logistics). 2006. Annual report 2005. (In Dutch). Vreeker R, Nijkamp P, Ter Welle C. 2002. A multicriteria decision support methodology for evaluating airport expansion plans. Transportation Research Part D 7: 27-47. VUB. 2003. Master plan van de haven van Brussel. Interimrapport 2. Versie 12 Maart 2003. Rapport in opdracht van de Haven van Brussel. Waddock SA, Graves SB. 1997. The corporate social performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal 18(4): 303 – 319. Wade-Benzoni KA. 2002. A golden rule over time: reciprocity in intergenerational allocation decisions. Academy of Management Journal 45: 1011 – 1028. Walsh JP. 2005. Taking stock of stakeholder management. Academy of Management Review 30: 426 – 438. Westbrook R. 1994. Action research: a new paradigm for research in production and operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 15(12): 6-20. Winkelmans

W.

1973.

De

moderne

havenindustrialisatie.

Nederlands

Vervoerswetenschappelijk Instituut: Rijswijk. Winkelmans W, Notteboom TE. 2007. Institutional drivers and impediments in the context of current transport projects. In Transport project evaluation: extending the social cost-benefit approach, Haezendonck E (ed). Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham; 9-22.

387

Bibliography

Winn MI, Keller RL. 2001. A modeling methodology for multiobjective multistakeholder decisions: implications for research. Journal of Management Inquiry 10(2): 166-181. Winn MI. 2001. Building stakeholder theory with a decision modeling methodology. Business & Society 40(2): 133-166. Wolf C. 1987. Market and non-market failures: comparison and assessment. Journal of Public Policy 7(1): 43-70. Wood DJ. 1994. Essay by Donna J. Wood. pp. 101-105 of The Toronto conference: Reflections on stakeholder theory. Business & Society, 33: 82-131. World Bank. 1993. Strategic Planning for Port Authorities. Unctad/Ship/646. World Bank: Washington. World Bank. 1997. Port Reform Toolkit (Second Edition): Module 3: Alternative port management and ownership structures. World Bank: Washington. Yin RK. 2009. Case study research: design and methods (4 th edition). SAGE Publications: London.

388

a stakeholder management approach

a stakeholder management approach

Suggest Documents

A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management

Stakeholder approach in tourism management

Network Approach and Stakeholder Management

Strategic Management: A Stakeholder-Based

PROJECT STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT - A DEVELOPING ...

Stakeholder accountability or stakeholder management: a review of ...

From Stakeholder Management to Stakeholder ... - Springer Link

From Stakeholder Management to Stakeholder Accountability ...

with Stakeholder Management - CiteSeerX

project stakeholder management

Rethinking internal communication: a stakeholder approach - CiteSeerX

Hermann Stakeholder Management

Construction Stakeholder Management

Project Stakeholder Management - SciELO

Rethinking internal communication: a stakeholder approach - CiteSeerX

Rethinking internal communication: a stakeholder approach - CiteSeerX

Communication & Stakeholder Management - Tramstore21

Construction Stakeholder Management - Mosaic

Stakeholder Management: An Approach in CCS Projects - MDPI

stakeholder management and csr approach in italian - Economia

The Stakeholder Approach Revisited - CiteSeerX

The Stakeholder Approach Revisited - CiteSeerX

Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature ...

Download Strategic Management: A Stakeholder ... - Google Sites