# A Cost-Optimized Model for Dynamic Port Hinterland
## 2 Literature Review
### Evolution and Conceptualization of Hinterland  
The concept of port hinterland has undergone significant evolution since its initial formulation by [PERSON] in 1908 [7]. Early contributions from [PERSON] introduced commodity-based hinterland differentiation [8], while [PERSON] established fundamental principles of hinterland delimitation and hierarchy [9]. A paradigm shift emerged with [PERSON] and [PERSON]'s introduction of discontinuous hinterlands and port regionalization, moving beyond traditional geographical determinism to recognize the dynamic nature of port influence zones [10], which was later expanded through their work on foreland-based regionalization and intermediate hub integration [2].  
Recent decades have witnessed increased sophistication in hinterland analysis. [PERSON] and [PERSON] expanded the regionalization concept [4], while [PERSON] demonstrated containerization's transformative impact on hinterland patterns [11]. [PERSON] et al. bridged port geography with human geography, establishing a more comprehensive analytical framework [12]. [PERSON] et al. contributed significant insights through their analysis of European containership and cargo port forelands [13], while [PERSON] et al. developed a governance perspective through their Port Hinterland Impact Matrix [14].  
Subsequent research has expanded our understanding of port system dynamics and hinterland measurement. [PERSON] et al. provided crucial insights into port system evolution patterns in developing regions [15], while [PERSON] et al. advanced the field by introducing a quantitative methodology for precise hinterland boundary delimitation [16]. The field's theoretical development culminated in [PERSON] and [PERSON]'s comprehensive review, which synthesized over a century of hinterland research evolution [17].  
Modern empirical studies have enriched our understanding of hinterland dynamics. [PERSON] et al. examined competition through accessibility metrics [5], while [PERSON] et al. identified key determinants in port choice decisions [18]. [PERSON] et al. developed a framework for identifying market areas in port-centric logistics [19], while [PERSON] et al. introduced methods for measuring hinterland accessibility quality [3]. These contributions collectively demonstrate the transition from static geographical definitions to dynamic, market-driven approaches that better reflect contemporary port competition realities.  
In Table 1, the contribution of these authors is summarized schematically.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Author(s)** & **Year** & **Key Contribution** \\ \hline [PERSON] [7] & 1908 & First established the concept of hinterland as a geographical area of port influence \\ \hline [PERSON] [8] & 1938 & Introduced the concept that hinterlands vary by commodity type \\ \hline [PERSON] [9] & 1948 & Developed the first comprehensive framework for hinterland hierarchy \\ \hline [PERSON] [10] & 2005 & Introduced the concept of discontinuous hinterlands and port regionalization \\ \hline [PERSON] and [PERSON] [2] & 2010 & Expanded hinterland on foreland-based regionalization and intermediate hub integration \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [3] & 2011 & Introduced methods for measuring hinterland accessibility quality \\ \hline [PERSON] and [PERSON] [4] & 2012 & Expanded port regionalization theory to include institutional aspects \\ \hline [PERSON] et al. [13] & 2013 & Investigated European containership and cargo port forelands \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: References about Evolution and Conceptualization of Port Hinterland.