Cited by 563Maritime Ports and LogisticsSupply Chain Resilience and Risk ManagementMaritime Transport Emissions and Efficiency

Disruptions and resilience in global container shipping and ports: the COVID-19 pandemic versus the 2008–2009 financial crisis

Open access
Notteboom, Theo, Pallis, Thanos, Rodrigue, Jean-Paul·2021·Maritime Economics & Logistics

Abstract

Economic shocks test the resilience and adaptability of the shipping industry and container ports. Each crisis triggers different ramifications in the container market. This paper investigates the temporal and spatial sequences of the supply and demand shocks of COVID-19 on container ports and the container shipping industry by comparing these events to the 2008–2009 financial crisis. Using operational and financial data from primary and secondary sources, we analyze short-term impacts and their differences, the reasons for these variations, and the evolution in the adaptive capacity and resilience of ports, terminal operators, and carriers. The analysis revolves around several inter-related domains: impacts on global supply chains; impacts on operational aspects, market structure, and strategic behavior of shipping lines and terminal operators; impacts on port activity levels in terms of vessel calls and container volumes handled; and network impacts in terms of changes in aspects of container port connectivity. The changes observed and the strategic behavior of the market players involved reveal that further adaptation mechanisms, such as slow steaming, economies of scale, and capacity management, have been applied differently between the financial crisis and COVID-19, resulting in different outcomes. For an external shock such as COVID-19, impacts are the outcome of how ports and the shipping industry fit within complex supply chains and the cargo composition handled by ports.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1057/s41278-020-00180-5

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The greater manageability of the current crisis is partly explained by the fleet capacity situation, in terms of (un)availability, which was far worse during the COVID-19 disruptions.

    “In a way, this is partly explained by the fleet capacity situation, in terms of (un)availability, which was far worse then (see Notteboom et al. 2021;Cullinane and Haralambides 2021;Cullinane et al. 2023 for a more detailed analysis).”

    From The Red Sea Crisis: ramifications for vessel operations, shipping networks, and maritime supply chains (2024) · cites this paper as Notteboom et al. 2021

    The claim interprets fleet-capacity conditions as far worse during COVID-19. The Conclusions state the opposite comparison: shipping lines could not effectively manage collective capacity during the 2008–2009 financial crisis, whereas capacity management during COVID-19 was more effective. The citing sentence’s word “then” could refer to the earlier financial crisis, but that is not the interpretation given in the claim. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Drewry Global Container Terminal Operators: Annual Review and Forecast 2019 London Drewry
  2. Knowler, G. 2020a. Extent of Chinese Factory Slump Supports Fears over Inventory Levels. Journal of Commerce, March 4, 2020.
  3. Knowler, G. 2020b. Alliances Outline Extensive Blank Sailings for Q3. Journal of Commerce, June 3, 2020.
  4. UNCTAD Review of Maritime Transpot 2020 2020 Geneva UNCTAD

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Notteboom, T., Pallis, T., & Rodrigue, J.-P.
Affiliations
  • University of Antwerp (BE)
  • University of the Aegean (GR)
  • Hofstra University (US)
Corresponding author
Notteboom, Theo
Venue
Maritime Economics & Logistics
Published
2021-01-04
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
179-210
ISSN
  • 1479-2931 (ISSN-L)
  • 1479-294X
OpenAlex
W3120887917
Cited by
521
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 122 · 2025: 83 · 2024: 92 · 2023: 97 · 2022: 97 · 2021: 30
FWCI
40.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Maritime Economics & Logistics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Maritime Ports and Logistics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Supply Chain Resilience and Risk Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Maritime Transport Emissions and Efficiency
Keywords
container shipping, container ports, COVID-19 pandemic, 2008 financial crisis, supply chain disruption, port resilience, slow steaming, economies of scale, capacity management, shipping lines, terminal operators, market structure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review