| Global city-regions: future territorial platforms of airline connectivity |
|
Airneth Column December 2009 By Prof. Ben Derudder
A variety of concepts has been devised to describe highly interconnected urban agglomerations such as Singapore and the Yangtze River Delta. Perhaps the most commonly used term is ‘global city-regions’ (GCRs). The common denominator of these GCRs is that they constitute dense and vast urban spaces that are bound up in myriad ways in far-flung relationships with other GCRs. They often emerge out of a large ‘national’ metropolitan area or adjoining sets of metropolitan areas, thus absorbing erstwhile hinterlands of uneven extent which themselves may already have been sites of scattered urban settlements. Although GCRs are invariably characterized by large populations, size is not their defining criterion. Rather, it is the strength and the global geography of a city-region’s connectivity with other city-regions that turns it into a GCR. Figure 1 and Table 1 summarizes this unfolding process of GCR formation by plotting/ranking cities according to their level of global connectivity. The latter measure is derived from the insertion of the overall city-region in the office networks of leading business service firms (financial, accountancy, management consultancy advertising and law services, see http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc for more details). The relevance of this evolution for the future of air transport in general may seem both obvious and far from new. After all, air transportation infrastructures have always unquestionably tied to key cities in the global economy., and it is therefore no surprise that Table 1 and Figure 1 broadly replicate rankings of the world’s major airports. There is, however, a twist to this story… In the airline industry, deregulation and liberalization tendencies have resulted in the adoption of hub-and-spoke models because of actual or anticipated economies of scale. As a consequence, airline networks have been increasingly characterized by a more polycentric organization in which secondary cities such as Charlotte, Reykjavik and Cincinnati have come to play a major role as re-routers of traffic. In parallel, the airports of a number of major city-regions have also acquired far more connectivity than based on strict origin/destination demand (e.g. Amsterdam’s Schiphol and Atlanta’s Hartsfield as major hub airports). This boosting of an airport’s connectivity through attracting transfer passengers, in turn, is often part of a more overarching regional development project in which a well-connected airport is seen as a potential source of multiplier effects in the regional economy (cf. the ‘airport city’ concept). There are, however, a number of powerful countertendencies at work. First, the copying of ‘airport city’-like models has led to the vigorous pursuit of hub strategies for and the associated development of business parks near most of the world’s key airports. The net result may well be a zero-sum game in that this implies that no single city-region will have a clear-cut edge over others, making the attraction of hub passengers an irrelevant development strategy altogether. A more generic relation between airport and regional development that starts from their mutual interdependencies rather than mere multiplier effects of the airport seems to be the way forward, then. ![]() ![]() Global City-Regions ranking map and table. Please click on figure to enlarge Ben Derudder |

