Economics Literature Review
Methodology: A review of available economic data and literature was carried out to locate information resources and provide some background, perspective, and motivation to the objectives and findings of the Economic Analysis of Working Waterfronts study. Previous studies published subsequent to 1990 were selected based on relevancy to ocean economic impacts. The review was divided into four categories: Ocean Economics Data, Statistical and Economic Surveys, Economic Impact Studies, and Structural Change and Development Studies.
Ocean Economic Data
National Ocean Economic Program. (2012). Market Data. Available at http://www.oceaneconomics.org/Market/.
The National Ocean Economics Program (NOEP) is a research arm of the Center for the Blue Economy at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. The NOEP compiles, organizes and distributes data on ocean and coastal related economic activity along the U.S. Coasts and Great Lakes. Datasets or reference lists compiled and made available by NOEP include business activity that is directly or indirectly dependent on the ocean, and business activity that is located within the coastal regions of the U.S. Specific data sets include: fish landing weights and values at major fishing ports; tonnage and value of marine shipments moving through coastal ports; and, off-shore oil and gas production and value.
NOAA Coastal Services Center. (2012). Economics: National Ocean Watch (ENOW). Available at http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/enow.
The “Economics: National Ocean Watch” database is maintained by NOAA Coastal Services Center and it contains information on six economic sectors that depend on the oceans and Great Lakes. These include: (1) Living Resources, (2) Marine Construction, (3) Marine Transportation, (4) Offshore Mineral Resources, (5) Ship and Boat Building, and (6) Tourism and Recreation. The ENOW uses two sources of data: (1) Establishments, wages, and employment data are derived from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and (2) Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is based on the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ Gross Domestic Product (GDP)-by-state statistics.
Statistical and Economic Surveys
Adams, Charles M., Hernandez, Emilio, and Cato, James C. (2004). The Economic Significance of the Gulf of Mexico Related to Population, Income, Employment, Minerals, Fisheries, and Shipping. Ocean & Coastal Management 47(11-12): 565-580.
In this study, changes in population, income, employment, minerals, fisheries and shipping from 1991 to 2001 are reviewed for the five Gulf Coast states. The report stresses the importance of balancing the demands of population growth, development, mineral extraction, and ecosystem management so that the value of shared natural resources can be maintained.
Booz Allen Hamilton. (2012). NOAA Report on the Ocean and Great Lakes Economy of the United States. ENOW Final Economic Report. Available at www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/_/pdf/econreport.pdf.
Under a contract from the NOAA Coastal Services Center, Booz Allen Hamilton assembled statistics on economic activity for six ocean related economic sectors within U.S. coastal regions in 2005 and 2009. These results were derived from the ENOW data sets (referenced above). Regional and state summaries for jobs and GDP are provided, with regional and sector differences noted.
U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Marine Fisheries Service. (2010). Fisheries Economics of the United States 2009 (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-188). Available at https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/index.html.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) publishes statistical and economic reviews of the marine fisheries industry on an annual basis. This report includes comprehensive data on landings, revenues, expenditures and the impacts of commercial and recreational fishing by region. Regional business statistics for fisheries related industries are also provided, including Seafood Sales and Processing, Transportation, Support services, and Marine Operations.
U.S. Department of Commerce. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Marine Fisheries Service. (2011). Fisheries of the United States 2010 (Current Fishery Statistics No. 2010). Available at www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/fus/fus10/index.html.
The NMFS publication “Fisheries of the United States 2010” contains extensive data on landings by species and ports for both commercial and recreational purposes. Statistics on world aquaculture production and commercial fishing are also included, along with imports and exports, supply of fish and processed fish products, number of seafood processing plants in the U.S., and U.S. seafood consumption over time.
Economic Impact Studies
Gentner, Brad and Scott Steinback (2008). Economic Contribution of Marine Angler Expenditures in the United States, 2006.National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-94, 2008. Available at st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/marine_angler.html
A comprehensive assessment of expenditures and economic impacts associated with recreational fishing activities for resident and nonresident anglers in the United States, by region and state, was conducted by Genter and Steinback in this study. Results for expenditures were based on a nation-wide survey and economic impacts were estimated using an IMPLAN input-output model.
Carstensen, Fred V., William Lott, Stan McMillen, and Hemanta Shrestha (2001). The Economic Impact of Connecticut’s Deepwater Ports: An IMPLAN and REMI Analysis. Connecticut Center for Economic Analysis, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT. Available at ccea.uconn.edu/studies/Port%20Study.pdf
The impact of commercial deep-water ports in the state of Connecticut was evaluated using both the Regional Economic Models Inc. (REMI) and IMPLAN input-output models REMI is a dynamic model that was run over a 36 year period (2000-35) to model the transition to an equilibrium condition where the State’s ports are shut down. The analyses show that Connecticut’s port system is responsible for approximately $2 billion in GDP and 27,000 jobs for the State.
Colgan, Charles S. (2004). The Contribution of Working Waterfronts to the Maine Economy. Maine's Working Waterfront Coalition, Farm Credit of Maine. Available at maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mcp/downloads/workingwaterfront/workingwaterfronteconomy_feb04.pdf
In this study, Colgan assessed the contribution of working waterfronts to Maine’s state economy in 2001. Maine had been losing commercial and recreational waterfront property to residential development. In this study, it was shown that the economic contributions of working waterfront-related activities usually exceed that of coastal residential development and is more sustainable.
Doorn, David and Peter Lindquist (2009–11). Economic Impact of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway System (GLSLS): Phase I, Phase II and Phase II continued, 2009-11. Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute. Available at glmri.org/downloads/2009Reports/doorn.pdf; glmri.org/downloads/2010Reports/Doorn0910.pdf; glmri.org/downloads/2011Reports/Doorn2011.pdf.
Doorn and Lindquist documented efforts to measure and evaluate the port industry and related economic activities in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway region. The pros and cons of different input-output models used in estimating regional economic impacts were reviewed, including the MARAD Port Kit (U.S. Maritime Administration), IMPLAN (MIG, Inc.), RECON (Rutgers University), and RIMSII (U.S. Commerce Dept.). The investigators initially choose the MARAD Port Kit because it is capable of generating estimates of the direct employment, wage and GDP effects from data on the types and amounts of cargo shipments through the ports. But it was later found that MARAD did not include regional specific multipliers. In addition, the production functions of the MARAD model were outdated due to recent technological change in the industry.
Kildow, Judith, and Charles S. Colgan (2005). California’s Ocean Economy. National Ocean Economics Program, Report to the State of California Resources Agency. Available at resources.ca.gov/press_documents/CA_Ocean_Econ_Report.pdf
Kildow and Colgan assessed the economic impacts of California’s ocean economy regionally within the state for six ocean economic sectors over the period 1990-2000, with comparisons to national statistics and other major coastal regions within the nation. Economic impacts were estimated for employment, earnings, and value-added using IMPLAN. Tourism and marine transportation sectors saw increasing economic activity during the 1990s, while fishing declined.
Kildow, Judith (2006). Florida’s Ocean and Coastal Economies Report, Phase I. National Ocean Economics Program. Available at floridaoceanscouncil.org/reports/Florida_Ocean_&_Coastal_Eco.pdf
Kildow, Judith (2008). Florida’s Ocean and Coastal Economies Report, Phase II 2008. National Ocean Economics Program. Available at floridaoceanscouncil.org/reports/Florida_Phase_II_Report.pdf
Judith Kildow evaluated Florida’s ocean and coastal economy in 2006 and 2008. In Phase I, the author presented an overview of the value and size of Florida’s ocean and coastal economy with comparisons among individual counties and to other coastal states. A number of economic indicators were evaluated from 1990 to 2003. Economic impacts of market based activities were estimated for 2003 using IMPLAN, while non-market use values of recreational and natural resources were estimated based on previous studies and current visitor statistics. In Phase II of this study, more detailed information was presented on ocean related activities between 1990 and 2007 for the passenger cruise industry, commercial and recreational fishing, coastal real estate, marine research and education institutions, coastal construction activities (such as beach re-nourishment and dredging), and, marine transportation and port activities.
Lahr, Michael and Anne Strauss-Wieder (2000). MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit, Volume I: Handbook. Available at
Lahr and Strauss-Wieder developed the MARAD Port Economic Impact Kit in conjunction with the U.S. Maritime Administration and the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA). The Port Kit is a stand-alone microcomputer package with local and national economic impact models to evaluate the value of U.S. deepwater port operations.
Lichtman-Bonneville, Liat, Dennis Leong, and Robert Russell (2010). Economic Impact of Wisconsin’s Commercial Ports. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Bureau of Planning and Economic Development. Available at dot.wisconsin.gov/travel/water/docs/ports-econ-report.pdf
Lichtman-Bonneville, Leong, and Russell estimated the economic impacts of activities related to Wisconsin’s commercial marine ports, including freight and passenger transportation, marine services, cargo handling, commercial fishing, ship and boat building, port administration, and U.S. Coast Guard activities. The study provides profiles of Wisconsin’s eight ports, summarizing the types and volumes of cargo handled in 2008, and the types and capacities of various infrastructure, facilities and equipment available at each port.
Martin Associates (2008). The Local and Regional Economic Impacts of the US Deepwater Port System. Available at aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/MartinAssociates.pdf
In a national study by Martin Associates commissioned by the American Association of Port Authorities, the economic impacts of U.S. ports and port-related activities for all coastal regions of the United States were estimated. Port-related economic activities were broadly defined to include any production processes or activities that involve commodities moving through ports. The direct, indirect and induced employment impacts of U.S ports themselves were estimated at 1.33 million jobs, while the broader port-related activities were estimated to be almost ten times larger, at 13.32 million jobs. The total output (revenue) impacts of U.S. ports in 2007 were estimated at $100 billion, and output impacts of related activities by importers and exporters was estimated to exceed $3 trillion.
Martin Associates (2011). The Local and Regional Economic Impacts of the Port of Portland. 2011. Available at portofportland.com/PDFPOP/Trade_Trans_Studies_Ecnmc_Impact_2011.pdf
Martin Associates analyzed the local and regional economic impacts of the port of Portland, Oregon. This study was unique in that it not only encompassed marine port functions, but also general aviation, international passenger airports, and industrial parks near the port. The combined impacts of these public facilities were estimated at over 26,000 jobs, $4.6 billion in revenues, and $1.7 billion in personal income for 2011.
Strauss-Wieder Inc. and New York Shipping Association Inc. (2011). The Economic Impact of the New York-New Jersey Port/Maritime Industry, 2010. Westfield, NJ. Available at
The economic impacts of the New York-New Jersey maritime port industry on a 31 county region of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania were evaluated for the year 2010. The authors used a customized version of the U.S. Maritime Administration’s Port Economic Impact Kit (MARAD) and the Rutgers RECON model to estimate impacts. Past and expected future impacts of capital investments to the region’s port infrastructure were also analyzed.
Structural Change and Development.
Becker, Gerhard (2010). The Ports of Tampa and Hamburg and the Qualitative Impacts on their Communities. Master’s Thesis, University of South Florida. Available at scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/3578/
An international comparative study that examined the management and development of the Cities of Hamburg, Germany and Tampa, Florida around their ports. It was found that the development and revitalization of the Tampa port area has been slower because the city did not adapt to new technology and never developed a cohesive approach to integrating port business activities with adjacent residential communities or recreational activities. Also, it was noted that a key difference between the two cities is that the Hamburg port authority is locally elected while Tampa Bay has been largely managed at the State level.
Kotval, Zenia and John R. Mullin (2010). The changing port city: Sustainable waterfront revitalization. Journal of Town and City Management, Volume 1, Number 1, June–August, 2010.
The authors reviewed the evolution in port communities and sustainable waterfront revitalization in relation to trade agreements, environmental issues, and consumer preferences. It was concluded that port communities must have strong long-term planning that addresses how water-dependent or water-related activities can be integrated into an overall city design. Factors deemed to be important to future prosperity include land-use compatibility and sustainability, marketing and promotion, an effective regulatory environment, and mutually beneficial trade and international competition.
Rappaport, Jordan, and Jeffery D. Sachs (2003). The United States as a Coastal Nation. Journal of Economic Growth, vol. 8, pages 5-46, 2003. Available at link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1022870216673
Despite its vast interior, economic activity in the U.S. remains overwhelmingly concentrated on its coasts. The authors attributed this to the large contribution that coastal proximity has on productivity and quality of life, based on econometric analysis. They note that coastal economic growth increasingly stems from quality of life.
Sieber, R. T. (1991). Waterfront Revitalization in Postindustrial Port Cities of North America. City & Society, Vol. 5, Issue 2, pages 120–136, December 1991. Available at onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/city.1918.104.22.168/abstract
The process of waterfront redevelopment and revitalization for North American port cities is examined from an economic, anthropologic, and cultural perspective. It was concluded that waterfront revitalization is essentially a phase in a longer evolutionary process resulting from international economic restructuring, technological obsolescence, and privatization.
Slack, B. (1993). Pawns in the Game: Ports in a Global Transportation System. Growth and Change, vol. 24, pages 579–588, October, 1993. Available at onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2257.1993.tb00138.x/abstract
Slack proposed that ports have become handicapped players in the global transportation system. Containerization and increasing economies of scale in shipping lines have put municipal port facilities at a disadvantage in negotiating rates with large international shipping lines. Containerization has also eased the transfer of cargo from one mode of transportation to another, thus making it possible for shippers to deliver cargo to interior destinations from a larger set of coastal ports.