Spatial Concentration and Functional Homogeneity in Türkiye’s Coastal Logistics System: An Empirical Analysis of the Regional Distribution of Cargo Terminals

Abstract

The aim of this study is to empirically examine the spatial and functional distribution of cargo terminals operating along the Turkish coastline in terms of geographical regions and terminal functions. The analysis is based on data obtained from the database of the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure of the Republic of Türkiye, covering 408 active cargo terminals. Relationships between categorical variables were evaluated using the Fisher Freeman Halton Exact Test due to violations of the expected frequency assumptions required for conventional chi-square analysis. Spatial and functional concentration levels were measured using the Herfindahl Hirschman Index (HHI). The findings indicate that there is no statistically significant relationship between geographical regions and terminal types (p = 0.999). This result suggests that terminal functions do not exhibit a distinct pattern of regional specialization across Türkiye’s coastal logistics system. In contrast, the spatial concentration analysis reveals a highly centralized terminal infrastructure (HHI = 2634.5). The Marmara Region alone accounts for 45.3% of the total terminal supply, making it the principal concentration area within the national system. Functional concentration was found to be moderate (HHI = 2011.5). The dominance of General Cargo and Bulk Cargo terminals demonstrates that traditional cargo categories continue to constitute the core structure of Türkiye’s coastal logistics network. Overall, the results reveal a logistics system characterized by a high degree of spatial concentration but only partial functional diversification.

Keywords

• Coastal logistics
• Cargo terminals
• Spatian concentration
• Fisher Freeman Halton Exact Test
• Herfindahl Hirschman Index

Türkiye Kıyı Lojistiği Sisteminde Mekânsal Yoğunlaşma ve İşlevsel Homojenlik: Yük Terminallerinin Bölgesel Dağılımının Ampirik Analizi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye kıyılarında faaliyet gösteren yük terminallerinin coğrafi bölgeler ve terminal fonksiyonları açısından mekânsal ve işlevsel dağılımını ampirik olarak incelemektir. Bu kapsamda T.C. Ulaştırma ve Altyapı Bakanlığı veri tabanından elde edilen 408 aktif yük terminaline ilişkin veriler analiz edilmiştir. Değişkenler arasındaki ilişkiler, beklenen frekans varsayımlarının sağlanamaması nedeniyle Fisher Freeman Halton Exact Testi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Mekânsal ve işlevsel yoğunlaşma düzeyleri ise Herfindahl Hirschman Endeksi (HHI) kullanılarak ölçülmüştür. Bulgular, coğrafi bölgeler ile terminal türleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmadığını göstermektedir (p = 0.999). Bu sonuç, terminal fonksiyonlarının bölgeler arasında belirgin bir uzmanlaşma göstermediğine işaret etmektedir. Buna karşılık mekânsal yoğunlaşma analizi, terminal altyapısının yüksek düzeyde merkezileştiğini ortaya koymaktadır (HHI = 2634.5). Marmara Bölgesi tek başına toplam terminal varlığının %45.3’ünü oluşturarak sistemin ana yoğunlaşma alanı haline gelmiştir. İşlevsel yoğunlaşma ise orta düzeyde gerçekleşmiştir (HHI = 2011.5). Genel kargo ve dökme yük terminallerinin baskın yapısı, Türkiye kıyı lojistiğinde geleneksel yük türlerinin ağırlığını koruduğunu göstermektedir. Genel olarak sonuçlar, sistemin mekânsal olarak yüksek derecede yoğunlaşmış, ancak işlevsel açıdan kısmen çeşitlenmiş bir yapıya sahip olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• Kıyı lojistiği
• Yük terminalleri
• Mekânsal yoğunlaşma
• Fisher Freeman Halton Testi
• Herfindahl Hirschman Endeksi

References

1. Agresti, A. (2019). An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis (3rd ed.). Wiley.
2. Akgül, E. F. (2018). Cruise ports in Turkey: Analysis of market structure and competitiveness. Turkish Journal of Maritime and Marine Sciences, 4(2): 167–179.
3. Aktuna, A. (2025). The impact of port activities on regional development in Türkiye: A panel data causality analysis. Balkan and Near Eastern Journal of Social Sciences (BNEJSS), 11(1): 132–137.
4. Baird, A. J. (2002). Privatization trends at the world’s top-100 container ports. Maritime Policy & Management, 29(3): 271–284.
5. Bird, J. H. (1963). The Major Seaports of the United Kingdom. Hutchinson & Co.
6. Christopher, M., Peck, H. (2004). Building the resilient supply chain. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 15(2): 1–14. doi: 10.1108/09574090410700275.
7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Cramér, H. (1946). Mathematical Methods of Statistics. Princeton University Press.

9. Doğan, M., Alpar, B. (2022). Analysis of spatial concentration in Turkish ports using the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index. Journal of Geographical Thought, 8(14): 112–129.
10. Eroğlu Pektaş, G.Ö., Mersin, K., Ormanlı, F. (2018). Regional and economic impacts of ports: A comparison of Tekirdağ and the Rhine River. Uludağ University Faculty of Arts and Sciences Journal of Social Sciences, 19(35): 757–775. doi: 10.21550/sosbilder.390242.
11. Esmer, S. (2019). Port and Terminal Management. Anadolu University Publications.
12. Esmer, S. (2020). Maritime trade and transportation. In S. Esmer (Ed.), Maritime Transportation and Logistics (1st ed., pp. 1–20). Akademisyen Publishing House.
13. Field, A. (2013). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
14. Filiz, T. (2025). Port Management in Türkiye: Current Status and a 2029 Projection Using a Time Series Approach. Duvar Publishing.
15. Fotheringham, A.S., Wong, D.W.S. (1991). The modifiable areal unit problem in multivariate statistical analysis. Environment and Planning A, 23(7): 1025–1044.
16. Güngör, M., Bulut, Y. (2008). On the chi-square test. Fırat University Journal of Eastern Studies, 7(1): 84–89.
17. Hayuth, Y. (1981). Containerization and the load center concept. Economic Geography, 57(2): 160–176.
18. Herfindahl, O.C. (1950). Concentration in the Steel Industry, Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University).
19. Hirschman, A. O. (1964). The paternity of an index. The American Economic Review, 54(5): 761–762.
20. Langen, P. W. de. (2007). Port competition and selection in contestable hinterlands; the case of Austria. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 7(1). doi: 10.18757/ejtir.2007. 7.1.3370.
21. Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure of the Republic of Türkiye. Directorate General of Shipyards and Coastal Structures, (UAB, 2026). Ports Department, Accessed Date: 12 May 2026, https://tkygm.uab.gov.tr/limanlar-daire-baskanligi is retrieved.
22. Ng, A.K. (2006). Assessing the attractiveness of ports in the North European container transhipment market: An agenda for future research. Research in Transportation Economics, 16, 27–50.
23. Notteboom, T.E. (2006). Traffic inequality in seaport systems revisited. Journal of Transport Geography, 14(2): 85–98.
24. Notteboom, T.E. (2010). Concentration and the formation of multi-port gateway regions in the European container port system: an update, Journal of Transport Geography, 18(4): 567-583. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.03.003.
25. Notteboom, T.E., Rodrigue, J.P. (2005). Port regionalization: Towards a new phase in port development. Maritime Policy & Management, 32(3): 297–313. doi: 10.1080/03088830500139885.
26. Notteboom, T., Pallis, A.A., Rodrigue, J.P. (2022). Port Economics, Management and Policy. Routledge.
27. OECD. (2014). The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: The Case of Rotterdam/Amsterdam – The Netherlands. OECD Publishing.
28. Oğuz, S.C., Kuş, C. (2023). Port development in regional development: The case of İzmir. Journal of Regional Development, 1(3): 312–331. doi: 10.61138/bolgeselkalkinmadergisi.1310438.
29. Openshaw, S. (1984). The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. Geo Books.
30. Slack, B. (1993). Pawns in the game: Ports in a global transportation system. Growth and Change, 24(4): 579–588. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2257.1993.tb00138.x.
31. Taaffe, E.J., Morrill, R.L., Gould, P.R. (1963). Transport expansion in underdeveloped countries: A comparative analysis. Geographical Review, 53(4): 503–529. doi: 10.2307/212959.
32. Türkiye Ports Operators Association (TÜRKLİM), (2025). Turkish Port Sector Report 2025: Safe and Secure Ports. TÜRKLİM Publications.
33. U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC), (2010). Horizontal Merger Guidelines. Washington, DC.
34. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), (1992). Port Marketing and the Challenge of the Third Generation Port, United Nations.
35. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), (2024). Review of Maritime Transport 2024, United Nations.
36. Varan, A., Cerit, G. (2014). Concentration and competition of container ports in Turkey: A statistical analysis. Journal of Dokuz Eylül University Maritime Faculty, 6(1): 91–109.
37. Wilmsmeier, G., Monios, J., Lambert, B. (2011). The directional development of intermodal freight corridors in relation to inland terminals. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6): 1379–1386. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.07.010.
38. Wiradanti, B., Pettit, S., Potter, A., Abouarghoub, W. (2018). Ports, peripherality and concentration – deconcentration factors: a review. Maritime Business Review, 3(4): 375–393.
39. Yeni, K., Esmer, S. (2021). Regulation of ports in Turkey. In The Regulation of Turkish Network Industries, pp. 345–364, Springer International Publishing. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-81720-6_17.