Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review analyzes governance adaptations in port-hinterland connectivity, suggesting future research paths.
Port-hinterland relations have changed profoundly due to containerization, globalization, and the growing integration of transport and logistics networks. Yet, the key question if governance has adapted to the evolving port-hinterland relations remains insufficiently answered. Although previous studies document the transformation of port–hinterland relations, existing research has not systematically examined how governance arrangements respond to these spatial and functional changes, leaving fragmented insights across disciplines. To address this gap, our study investigates the governance of port–hinterland connectivity through the analytical lens of what is governed, who governs, how governance is organized, and why particular arrangements are pursued. We do so by conducting a systematic literature review of 49 peer-reviewed articles, analyzing how governance domains, actors, mechanisms, and rationales are conceptualized and how these relate to the evolution of port–hinterland systems. The review shows that governance has diversified in response to system changes, highlights the importance of temporal and spatial context in understanding these developments, and provides a conceptual foundation for future research on port–hinterland governance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rahayu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: