In this study, using global liner shipping schedules, UNCTAD’s Port Liner Shipping Connectivity Index and Liner Shipping Bilateral Connectivity Index, together with bilateral trade-value data for 2022–2024, we construct a multilayer weighted port-to-port network that explicitly embeds port-level cargo-handling and service organisation capabilities, as well as demand-side routing pressure, into node and edge weights. Building on this network, we apply CONCOR-based structural-equivalence analysis to delineate functionally homogeneous port clusters, and adopt a structural role identification framework that combines multi-indicator connectivity metrics with Rank-Sum Ratio–entropy weighting and Probit-based binning to classify ports into high-efficiency core, bridge-control, and free-form bridge roles, thereby tracing the reconfiguration of cluster-level functional structures before and after the Red Sea crisis. Empirically, the clustering identifies four persistent communities—the Intertropical Maritime Hub Corridor (IMHC), Pacific Rim Mega-Port Agglomeration (PRMPA), Southern Commodity Export Gateway (SCEG), and Euro-Asian Intermodal Chokepoints (EAIC)—and reveals a marked spatial and functional reorganisation between 2022 and 2024. IMHC expands from 96 to 113 ports and SCEG from 33 to 56, whereas EAIC contracts from 27 to 10 nodes as gateway functions are reallocated across clusters, and the combined share of bridge-control and free-form bridge ports increases from 9.6% to 15.5% of all nodes, demonstrating a thicker functional backbone under rerouting pressures. Spatially, IMHC extends from a Mediterranean-centred configuration into tropical, trans-equatorial routes; PRMPA consolidates its role as the densest trans-Pacific belt; SCEG evolves from a commodity-based export gateway into a cross-regional Southern Hemisphere hub; and EAIC reorients from an Atlantic-dominated structure towards Eurasian corridors and emerging bypass routes. Functionally, Singapore, Rotterdam, and Shanghai remain dominant high-efficiency cores, while several Mediterranean and Red Sea ports (e.g., Jeddah, Alexandria) lose centrality as East and Southeast Asian nodes gain prominence; bridge-control functions are increasingly taken up by European and East Asian hubs (e.g., Antwerp, Hamburg, Busan, Kobe), acting as secondary transshipment buffers; and free-form bridge ports such as Manila, Haiphong, and Genoa strengthen their roles as elastic connectors that enhance intra-cluster cohesion and provide redundancy for inter-cluster rerouting. Overall, these patterns show that resilience under the Red Sea crisis is expressed through the cluster-level rebalancing of core–control–bridge roles, suggesting that port managers should prioritise parallel gateways, short-sea and coastal buffers, and sea–land intermodality within clusters when designing capacity expansion, hinterland access, and rerouting strategies.
Li et al. (Mon,) studied this question.