Drivers A.p. Van Den Berg Port Devices

  1. Baird, A. J. (2013). Acquisition of UK ports by private equity funds. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 8, 158–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brooks, M. R., & Cullinane, K. (Eds.). (2006). Devolution, port governance and port performance. Research in Transportation Economics, (Vol. 17).Google Scholar
  3. De Borger, B., Proost, S., & Van Dender, K. (2008). Private port pricing and public investment in port and hinterland capacity. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy (JTEP), 42(3), 527–561.Google Scholar
  4. De Langen, P. (2004). Governance in seaport clusters. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 6(2), 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Langen, P. W. (2007). Port competition and selection in contestable hinterlands; the case of Austria. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 7(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  6. De Langen, P. W., & Pallis, A. A. (2006). Analysis of the benefits intra-port competition. International Journal of Transport Economics, 33(1), 69.Google Scholar
  7. Feng, L., & Notteboom, T. (2013). Peripheral challenge by Small and Medium Sized Ports (SMPs) in multi-port gateway regions: The case study of northeast of China. Polish Maritime Research, 20, 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferrari, C., Parola, F., & Morchio, E. (2006). Southern European ports and the spatial distribution of EDCs. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 8(1), 60–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heaver, T. D. (1995). The implications of increased competition among ports for port policy and management. Maritime Policy and Management, 22(2), 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kaselimi, E. N., Notteboom, T. E., Pallis, A. A., & Farrell, S. (2011). Minimum Efficient Scale (MES) and preferred scale of container terminals. Research in Transportation Economics, 32(1), 71–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Liu, L., Wang, K. Y., & Yip, T. L. (2013). Development of a container port system in pearl river delta: Path to multi-gateway ports. Journal of Transport Geography, 28, 30–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Luo, M., Liu, L., & Gao, F. (2012). Post-entry container port capacity expansion. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 46(1), 120–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ng, A., & Yu, K. (2006). Assessing the attractiveness of ports in the North European container transhipment market: An agenda for future research in port competition. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 8(3), 234–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Notteboom, T. (2009). Economic analysis of the European seaport system. Report serving as input for the discussion on the TEN-T policy. Report prepared for European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO). Antwerp: University of Antwerp.Google Scholar
  15. Notteboom, T. E. (2010). Concentration and the formation of multi-port gateway regions in the European container port system: An update. Journal of Transport Geography, 18(4), 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Notteboom, T. E., & Rodrigue, J. P. (2005). Port regionalization: Towards a new phase in port development. Maritime Policy & Management, 32(3), 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Notteboom, T., & Rodrigue, J. P. (2012). The corporate geography of global container terminal operators. Maritime Policy & Management, 39(3), 249–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Notteboom, T., Ducruet, C., & de Langen, P. W. (Eds.). (2009). Ports in proximity: Competition and coordination among adjacent seaports. Ashgate, Surrey.Google Scholar
  19. Rodrigue, J. P. & Notteboom, T. (2009). The terminalization of supply chains: Reassessing the role of terminals in port/hinterland logistical relationships. Maritime Policy & Management, 36(2), 165–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Van den Berg, R., & De Langen, P. W. (2011). Hinterland strategies of port authorities: A case study of the port of Barcelona. Research in Transportation Economics, 33(1), 6–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. van der Lugt, L., Dooms, M., & Parola, F. (2013). Strategy making by hybrid organizations: The case of the port authority. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 8, 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Veenstra, A., Zuidwijk, R., & van Asperen, E. (2012). The extended gate concept for container terminals: Expanding the notion of dry ports. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 14(1), 14–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Verhoeff, J. M. (1981). Seaport competition: some fundamental and political aspects. Maritime Policy & Management, 8(1), 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Verhoeven, P. (2010). A review of port authority functions: Towards a renaissance? Maritime Policy & Management, 37(3), 247–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. World Bank. (1992). Port marketing and the challenge of the third generation port. Geneva: World Bank.Google Scholar

Organ-on-chip devices are intensively studied in academia and industry due to their high potential in pharmaceutical and biomedical applications. However, most of the existing organ-on-chip models focus on proof of concept of individual functional units without the possibility of testing multiple experimenta organ-on-a-chip systems: translating concept into practice. All figure content in this area was uploaded by Albert Van den Berg. Figure 2d represents a P C. A PMMA chip up to a maximal pressure of 2,070 kPa and reliably connected a six port glass.

Sepp Van Den Berg

Van der Weijde; E.T. Verhoef; V.A.C van den Berg (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) Competition in multi-modal transport networks with un priced roads: A dynamic approach PDF. Driving simulators attempt to duplicate the experience of driving in a controlled environment (usually an interactive video image). The advantages and disadvantages of simulated driving studies 3, 4, 5 are largely complementary to those of real driving studies. Rolf Wilhelm van den Berg Page 2 of 115. 5.3 Special interfaces provided by dynamically bound device drivers 6. If null system settings port nr is used.