- Networking as necessity - The inland harbour example   22 kb by    Stöckner, Ute | stoeckner@isl.uni-karlsruhe.de    Short Outline Consequences of the city size for the strategic approach to deal with inland harbour areas. Abstract The study is about the differences between the small and middle sized cities with inland ports in contrast to the big ones. This has to have consequences for the strategic approach to deal with the harbour areas: Due to the city size, the big cities are able to concentrate their harbour activities on their own boundary. But the small and middle sized cities are not able to do so because of the smaller harbour dimensions. So they do have the necessity to co-operate, if they also want to improve their harbour areas similarly to the big cities' harbours. For this kind of co-operation there are in one part findings from other surveys available, on the other hand side there are found out further basic conditions. Both parts are merged in a proposed approach for the exposure with the small and middle sized harbour areas. For the implementation of this approach, there are shown two different ways to do: First is the activity of the city itself, which gets in contact with others for improving the harbours in a network. Second is the possibility, that the big city harbours are the actors, what could cause decreasing of the small and middle sized cities' attractivity and gains. The interest of the study for others is the comparison of the expected development, if the small and middle sized cities do not get active for networking with the expected development if they do not. So there can be seen, that networking is not only a new idea of planners to talk about, but a necessity for their future surviving. Keywords Harbour network, co-operation, small and middle sized cities Case Study presented on the ISOCARP Congress 2004: Management of Urban Regions   Click to open the full paper as pdf document   Click to send an email to the author(s) of this paper