459
1 INTRODUCTION
Ports and cities have historically been strongly linked
and developed in close association with each other [6].
The relationship between ports and cities is strongly
interconnected and supportive, where increased port
activity led to more city activity and increased city
activity led to increased port activity [7]. But on the
other hand, port activity may create problems in
relationships between the port and the city. Noise,
congestion of city traffic and restricted access to
waterfronts are not welcome by citizens. If ports want
to succeed in improving their public image, they
should clearly understand the various societal harms
for which they are held responsible.
Based on literature, the interaction between ports
and cities has mainly been considered from the
perspective of economic benefits and infrastructure
development. The systematic inclusion of soft values in
port development projects is a less well-known area of
research, which allows to broaden the understanding
of the multi-faceted nature of port and urban
development.
This study focuses on the case of Reidi Road
construction in Tallinn from the point-of-view of port-
city relationships. Reidi Road was a building project of
a new road to city harbour in the old town of Tallinn
[20]. The road was mainly intended for lorries
travelling from Estonia to Finland and Sweden in
passenger-car ferries. The outline of the project was
approved in April 2015 and the sources of funding for
the road construction were the European Union, Port
of Tallinn and City of Tallinn [3, 19]. The road was
opened at the end of November 2019. Reidi Road
development project in Tallinn is an attempt to
integrate urban space and the port area. The aim of this
study is to clarify the visibility and impact of soft
assets, often less recognized method in port
Soft Values in Port-city Relationships: Case of Reidi
Road and Port of Tallinn
K. Rauk & U. Tapaninen
Estonian Maritime Academy, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia
ABSTRACT: Ports and cities have historically been strongly linked and developed in close association with each
other. This study focuses on analysing the case of Tallinn Reidi Road. The methodology is based on tangible soft
assets of ports based on framework Soft Values of Ports. The aim of this study is to clarify how cooperation
between Port of Tallinn AS and the City of Tallinn, through the Reidi Road project, has influenced the visibility,
perception, and integration of tangible soft values in port-city relationships. The case study demonstrates how
different stakeholders assess and experience the multidimensional role of a port in society. Results indicate that
the Port of Tallinn and the City of Tallinn acknowledge and value the significance of soft values. In addition,
this study provides practical recommendations and suggestions that can help city and port officials, policy makers
and urban planners to better understand and integrate soft values in future development projects. In particular,
soft value initiatives should be incorporated by port authorities in cooperation with local authorities.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 19
Number 2
June 2025
DOI: 10.12716/1001.19.02.15
460
development, yet essential for creating high-quality
and people-friendly urban spaces.
Port of Tallinn is one of the largest and busiest
passenger ports in the Baltic Sea region, significantly
impacting both the urban and economic landscape of
the City of Tallinn. In 2024, the port handled more than
8,5 million passengers, reflecting its essential role as a
maritime gateway between Estonia and other major
cities in the Baltic Sea area, especially Helsinki and
Stockholm. More than 4500 ferry calls annually
highlight the port's intensive maritime traffic,
underscoring its strategic and economic importance.
Furthermore, the port's passenger flows directly
contribute to the urban economy by stimulating local
businesses, tourism, and the hospitality sector,
reinforcing the port-city integration. The intense ferry
traffic and high passenger volumes also underline the
necessity for effective urban and maritime
infrastructure projects—such as the Reidi Road—to
harmonize port activities with urban life, ensuring
smooth logistics, better accessibility, and improved
quality of urban spaces.
Figure 1. Map of Reidi Road (Estonian Land and Spatial
Development Board, 2025)
The case study of this paper provides practical
recommendations and suggestions that can help city
and port officials, policy makers and urban planners to
better understand and integrate soft values in future
development projects. In particular, soft value
initiatives should be incorporated by port authorities
in cooperation with local authorities.
In general, development projects such as Reidi
Road in Tallinn are designed to improve the city's
infrastructure and public space, but their impact on the
port and urban space and the local community is not
always clear.
The research questions of this study are:
− How has the Reidi Road project influenced
cooperation and perceptions between the City of
Tallinn and Port of Tallinn AS from the perspective
of different stakeholders?
− What is the impact of the Reidi Road project on the
local community, businesses and the general well-
being, and how is it perceived by different
stakeholders?
− How have soft values been integrated into the Reidi
Road project, and how are they perceived by
different stakeholders?
This paper consists of four sections. The first section
is a review of the literature on port-city cooperation.
The second section describes the methodology,
research strategy, stakeholders and their selection.
The third section presents the main findings of the
research and offers recommendations for further
action. In the final section, the conclusions are
drawn and future research discussed.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Most of the world's important and large cities have
developed in coastal areas or in areas with well-
developed water connections. Transport facilities led
to the initial development of many large metropolitan
areas [17]. Ports enabled small towns to grow into large
cities, stimulating the urban development associated
with the boom in trade [15]. Ports created cities and
large ports created metropolitans [17]. Historically,
every coastal city had a port, and the port fed the city
[7].
Spatial changes at the interface between port and
city have always been preceded by changes in port
development. Looking at the development of British
ports, Bird’s (1963) Anyport model describes port
infrastructure development over time and space [1].
Notteboom (2010), expanding Bird’s model with global
economic and supply chain perspectives, distinguishes
four phases of port evolution: location, expansion,
specialization, and regionalization [18].
The concept of the port-city interface concept was
first introduced by Hayuth (1982). He pointed out that
technological advances and the modernisation of port
activities have increased public interest in coastal areas
[9]. This change accelerated the process whereby ports
moved away from urban cores, downstream, causing a
weakening of the relationship between cities and ports
and reducing the traditional uses of urban fringe.
Hayuth stressed the importance of port-urban interface
areas from both a spatial and functional perspective,
describing them as geographical boundaries between
port areas and urban areas, or the temporal transition
between port and urban areas. Already before Hayuth,
the port has been described through the social
transformations of the port-urban relationship [21].
Hoyle's model of port-city development adopts a
chronological approach to port-city relations and, in
the final stage, highlights the renewed cooperation that
we see today between port and city as waterfront zones
are revitalised [12].
Port areas are some of the most urbanised and
complex places on the planet, with the highest levels of
entrepreneurship and diversity, while providing the
best conditions for cities and industries to thrive and
create economic and social prosperity [4]. Daamen
argues that today's major seaport-urban mix is
evolving differently from that of some 20 years ago,
and a new interpretation is needed to support
sustainable development. This calls for an
interdisciplinary approach to the contemporary port-
urban interface, encompassing not only its spatial but
also its economic, socio-cultural and environmental
characteristics.
The concept of a port city has been defined in a very
vague way, with varying definitions and content. The
function and economic structure of a port city depends
on several elements, ranging from the physical
conditions of the location to global trade trends [2]. For
this reason, different types of port cities are
distinguished. According to Vigarié, cities with port
461
functions (e.g. Le Havre) are characteristically
differentiated from regional industrial cities, which are
more land transport oriented (e.g. Rouen, Manchester,
Szczecin), and from large cities, which provide services
and are often located on the coast (e.g. New York,
London, Hamburg, Copenhagen).
Ducruet has drawn up a matrix of the relationship
between ports and cities, which depicts nine different
types of port-city relationship and is based on the
concepts of centrality and intermediary, developed
earlier by Hayuth [5]. The matrix considers that
centrality is the functional dimension of the city, and
intermediacy is the functional dimension of the
maritime domain.
Three concepts have been defined in the literature -
city and port, city port and port city - to describe the
interaction between a city and a port. The concept of
port-city is not always clearly defined, as the functions
of port and city are rarely fully balanced. These
concepts emphasise the interdependence of port and
city and the importance of their joint development in
an economic and cultural context.
Table 1. Definitions of city and port, urban port and port
city (Rauk, 2024)
Concept
City and
port
City port
Seaport
city
It is important to understand that the relationship
between port and city changes over time, going
through several stages from economic dependence to
diversification, where the city can develop
independently of port activities. Murphey, for
example, argues that a seaport city is destined to
become a general city through successive stages of
economic diversification. The first stage is defined by
the city's economic dependence on maritime and port
functions, the second stage marks the addition of
complementary activities (e.g. industry) and the third
corresponds to the development of a service economy,
which allows the city to free itself from port
dependency [16].
Port city territories have been built and
administrated to facilitate flows of goods, people, and
ideas between a maritime foreland and what is often a
transnational hinterland. These flows depend on
carefully curated tangible and intangible borders to
guide the formation of spaces and social patterns that
enable specific kinds of movement [11].
Jansen has similar ideas as Van Hooydonk [10].
Jansen states that we need to embrace a holistic,
inclusive approach to port city development, based on
ecosystems values, embedded in various layers of
capital: natural, cultural, social, human, industrial and
creative [13]. Port-city symbiosis requires an ecosystem
approach, emphasizing spatial, social, economic, and
cultural interconnections between port territories,
urban space, and coastal ecosystems. Such an
integrated approach ensures that ports can serve as
catalysts for sustainable urban development,
promoting inclusivity and resilience [14].
Van Hooydonk has classified the soft values that are
important for the functioning and development of
ports, but not always at the forefront of the port's
activities. According to Van Hooydonk, port areas
need to be visible, accessible and attractive to maintain
public interest in and support for port development.
His concept aims to propose ideas for a more efficient
use of the port's diverse assets and functions and to
generate interest and inspiration for local port and city
authorities on how to regain public support for their
activities. It will also increase the interest of the public,
and in particular ordinary people, in seaports and the
attractiveness of port cities as some of the most
influential places in the world.
Van Hooydonk’s theory of Soft Values
Management for Seaports develops relationships
between port and port-cities based on non-economic
values. These include historical, sociological,
psychological, artistic, cultural and even moral and
religious sub-functions, which together form the soft
function of ports. Soft values help to understand the
wider impact of ports on society and culture, beyond
their economic and operational functions. The soft
values of ports are divided into two main categories:
spiritual and material soft values.
Spiritual soft values of seaports are:
− the seaport as an object of worship, myth and
legend;
− the seaport as a place of refuge;
− the seaport as a gateway between historical eras;
− the seaport as an international conduit for free trade
and merchandise;
− the seaport as a breeding ground for human
intelligence;
− the seaport as a specific cosmopolitan community;
− the seaport as an artistic theme;
− the seaport as a source of civic pride.
Tangible soft of seaports are:
− the seaport as a sensory stimulant;
− the seaport as a collection of immoveable heritage;
− the seaport as a unique man-made landscape;
− the seaport as an experimental field for urban
planners and architects;
− the seaport as a tourist attraction and recreation
resort.
This study focuses on analysing the case of Reidi
Road in Tallinn is based on tangible soft values of the
port. Reidi Road project is a good example where
tangible soft assets - such as promenade design, traffic
management innovations and public space aesthetics -
462
are of key focus. This case study is practically valuable
in helping to better understand and shape port-city
cooperation and the quality of public space. The
analysis provides practical recommendations on how
to integrate port and urban space.
3 RESEARCH METHODS
The focus of this study was the impact of the
cooperation between Port of Tallinn AS and the City of
Tallinn in the context of the Reidi Road development
project focusing on tangible assets of soft values of
ports. The study employs a qualitative case study
approach focused on the Reidi Road development
project. The primary method used to collect data was
semi-structured stakeholder interviews in order to get
a more comprehensive understanding of the views,
experiences and opinions of different stakeholders and
to capture in-depth insights regarding perceptions and
experiences related to the cooperation between Port of
Tallinn AS and the City of Tallinn in the context of the
Reidi Road development project. Stakeholder
interviews were tailored specifically to each
stakeholder group's unique perspective and expertise.
The study focuses on the impact of the cooperation
between AS Tallinna Sadam and the City of Tallinn in
the context of the Reidi Road development project,
focusing mainly on the soft values of the ports.
A total of purposefully selected 16 people took part
in the survey: 2 representatives of Port of Tallinn; 3
representatives of the City of Tallinn; 4 architects/city
planners and 4 representatives of citizens; 3
representatives of tourism sector. Selection was based
on their direct involvement, professional expertise, and
experience with the project, ensuring diversity in
perspectives. Port representatives are employees of
Port of Tallinn responsible for the port's operations and
strategic development, who influence the relationship
between the city and the port through their operational
and strategic decisions.
City representatives include specialists from the
Tallinn City Government and experts involved in
urban planning and development, playing a key role in
city governance and the formulation and
implementation of urban development policies.
Architects and urban planners were selected as one
stakeholder group because their expertise significantly
influences how port areas are integrated within the
urban structure. The involvement of local residents
was extremely important, as they directly benefit from
or are affected by the Reidi Road development project.
All residents participating in the survey were selected
based on their direct experience with or proximity to
the Reidi Road area. Representatives of the tourism
sector, especially cruise tourism, were involved due to
the importance of tourism in connecting city planning
and port development. Their views help shape future
strategies to promote sustainable city-port tourism.
Each stakeholder questionnaire contained 6 open-
ended questions adapted to the specificity of the
stakeholder group, one similar question with multiple-
choice answers and one similar question on agreement
with statements.
Based on Van Hooydonk’s framework,
stakeholders' assessments of the port's tangible soft
values were analysed, based on five aspects: 1. port as
a sensory stimulus; 2. the port as a real estate asset; 3.
the port as a unique human landscape; 4. the port as an
experimental testing ground for urban planners and
architects; 5. the port as a tourist and recreational
destination.
4 RESULTS
4.1 Tangible assets
The following chapter analyses the assessments of
various stakeholder groups regarding the tangible soft
values of the port. Results of the interviews are as
follows (see also Figure 2).
Figure 2. Tangible soft values, average estimates of
stakeholders (Rauk, 2024).
4.1.1 Seaport as a sensory stimulant (sensory sensations:
the sound of seagulls, the roar of ships' engines, the
special smell of the harbour, dining places
complemented by a lively nightlife, visual
sensations)
City representatives give a very high evaluation
(5.00) to the visual and sensory appeal of the port,
seeing it as an attractive element for drawing visitors
and enhancing the city's reputation. The image of the
port as a vibrant and diverse place can be highly
valuable for the city's representatives, helping to create
an appealing and positive impression. Architects and
port representatives also give a relatively high
evaluation (4.00). Architects, who work with designing
spaces and environments, may appreciate the port's
aesthetic and functional versatility, finding it a source
of inspiration and professional interest. For port
representatives, the sensory stimuli of the port are
everyday experiences. Their relatively high evaluation
may stem from the positive and dynamic work
environment. Representatives of tourism sector
acknowledge port's potential to attract tourists, but
their relatively low evaluation (3.33) may reflect
concerns about certain aspects of the port, such as noise
and smells, which may not always be appealing to
visitors. Citizens, in their daily lives, may be more
sensitive to and affected by the less attractive aspects
of the port environment, such as noise, odours, and
crowds, which could explain their low evaluation
(3.25). The low evaluations from citizens and tourism
sector representatives may also indicate that they do
not consider sensory stimuli to be a priority.
Overall, each group interprets and evaluates the
port differently, based on their own experiences,
professional interests and expectations. As a
recommendation, the positive sensory experiences of
the port area could be enhanced by:
− investing in the visual appeal of the port;
− developing innovative lighting solutions;
463
− supporting and developing dining options in the
port area that offer local flavours;
− organizing cultural and entertainment events in the
port.
4.1.2 Seaport as a collection of immoveable heritage (port
buildings; monuments of port-related architecture;
statues, pillars and other sculptures)
The maximum rating from city representatives
(5.00) likely reflects an understanding of the port’s
heritage as an inseparable part of the city’s identity and
history. Architects, whose work is often closely linked
to aesthetics and historical value, give a fairly high
rating to the port’s real estate heritage (4.50). They
appreciate the architectural legacy of the port as an
important part of the city’s architectural history. The
relatively high rating from tourism industry
representatives (4.33) indicates recognition of the role
of the port’s heritage in making the city more attractive
to visitors. However, while they see its potential, a
better presentation may be needed. Port
representatives value the port’s real estate heritage
highly (4.00). This may indicate awareness of its
historical and cultural significance, yet with a practical
approach to port development, they also see room for
improvement. Citizens give the lowest rating (3.25),
which may indicate that the presence of port heritage
is not perceived as a key factor in their everyday lives.
In conclusion, the port's heritage is generally highly
valued. However, to further enhance its significance,
there is a need for better awareness and presentation.
Some recommendations for strengthening the value
of the port’s real estate heritage:
− develop tourism programs that offer guided tours
and activities in the historical areas of the port;
− encourage local artists and craftspeople to create
and sell works that reflect the history and culture of
the port;
− integrate elements of the historic heritage into new
developments, creating a bridge between the past
and the future.
4.1.3 Seaport as a unique man-made landscape (evert port
is unique due to its distinctive natural conditions
and the human decisions shaping it, influenced by
technological advancements in shipping)
City representatives give the highest rating (5.00),
indicating that they see the port as an essential part of
the cityscape and identity. They recognize the unique
value of the port in aesthetic, social, and economic
terms. The high rating from port representatives (4.50)
reflects their appreciation of the port’s uniqueness and
significance.
Architects also give a strong rating (4.25), which
may reflect their professional interest in the port’s
landscape and functional aspects. They acknowledge
the complexity of port planning while also seeing
opportunities for improvement.
Citizens and tourism industry representatives give
a slightly lower rating (4.00) compared to other
stakeholder groups. For citizens, the port’s value may
be less visible or not directly relevant in their daily
lives. Tourism industry representatives may recognize
the port’s uniqueness as a selling point but might also
feel that its full potential has not yet been realized.
In conclusion, different stakeholder groups have a
generally positive attitude toward this perspective.
Some recommendations for the port and the city:
− make greater use of the port's unique natural
features to strengthen its identity and
distinctiveness;
− launch initiatives that support biodiversity and the
preservation of natural habitats in the port area (e.g.
creating of nature parks, ecological corridors for
safe animal movement between different parts of
the port);
− develop infrastructure that highlights the port's
uniqueness, such as improving promenades and
viewing platforms;
− organise port days or open house events that allow
visitors to experience port activities.
4.1.4 Seaport as an experimental field for urban planners
and architects (reorganizing port areas and
transforming the port district into a vibrant,
multifunctional space can revitalize urban areas and
significantly help ports regain public support for
their activities.)
The city representatives have given the highest
rating to this statement (4.67), highlighting their strong
belief in the positive impact of port area redevelopment
on urban development. They see the port as a valuable
resource that can revitalize urban space and contribute
to city planning goals. The high rating from port
representatives (4.50) reflects their openness to new
uses and multifunctionality in port areas, recognizing
the importance of innovation and development.
Similarly, architects (4.50) view the port as a
potential hub for innovative solutions and appreciate
the opportunity to apply new design ideas to create
diverse spaces. Tourism industry representatives
acknowledge the potential of port areas for tourism
and leisure, but their rating (4.33) suggests a degree of
caution, as redevelopment could impact existing
tourist attractions. Citizens have given the most
reserved rating (4.00), indicating that while they
recognize the significance of the port, it may not be
their primary concern. Overall, the ratings reflect a
broad appreciation of the port as a platform for urban
planning and architectural experimentation.
Some recommendations for the city and the port to
shape port areas into an innovative and dynamic
environment:
− organise international competitions to attract new
ideas for port area redevelopment;
− involve the community and local businesses at an
early stage to ensure broad support and a clear
understanding of needs;
− collaborate with universities and other research
institutions to establish ports as centres of
innovation and scientific research;
− design port areas to be easily adaptable to future
needs, rapidly evolving technologies, and societal
trends;
− ensure strong connectivity between port areas and
other parts of the city by offering diverse transport
options (pedestrian paths, bicycle lanes, public
transport, etc.);
− develop port areas to support a range of economic
activities, including craftsmanship, commerce,
leisure, and entertainment opportunities.
464
4.1.5 Seaport as a tourist attraction and recreation resort
(the port is a destination for tourism and leisure
activities, including sightseeing, fishing and visit to
maritime museums and marinas, as well as a hub
for excursions, entertainment and educational
initiatives)
The maximum rating given by port representatives
(5.00) indicates a strong belief that the port is, and
should remain, a key tourist attraction, with high-
quality activities and services that appeal to visitors.
City representatives rate the port at (4.33), recognizing
its role in tourism and leisure within the city. They see
the development of the port as a tourism destination as
an important factor in enhancing the city’s overall
attractiveness and economic well-being. Architects
give a rating of (4.00) to the port’s potential as a tourist
attraction, which likely reflects their appreciation of its
aesthetic and functional possibilities while also
acknowledging room for further development.
Citizens provide a lower rating (3.00), suggesting that
they may not perceive the port as an attractive leisure
destination for their own use.
The lowest rating comes from tourism industry
representatives (2.67), which is significant and may
indicate a need to further develop the port’s
recreational and tourism offerings to better meet their
expectations. This could suggest perceived
shortcomings in tourism infrastructure, services, or
marketing efforts.
The ratings reflect varying perceptions of the port
as a tourist attraction and leisure destination. The high
ratings suggest significant potential and support, while
the lower ratings indicate a need to address certain
shortcomings. In particular, tourism industry
representatives should be more actively involved in the
port’s development to enhance the overall tourism
appeal of the area and ensure that the experiences
offered by the port meet visitors' expectations.
Some recommendations for the city and the port to
enhance the port area as a tourist attraction and leisure
hub:
− create a vibrant meeting place in the port area by
offering entertainment, dining, and cultural
experiences (e.g. organizing street music
performances, temporary markets, festivals);
− make historic port buildings accessible to tourists
by transforming them into galleries or museums;
− engage local schools and communities in
educational programmes focused on maritime
history and marine biology to increase interest in
the port and raise awareness of local maritime
heritage;
− develop active leisure packages offering various
activities such as sailing, kayaking, diving and
fishing tours;
− launch a strong marketing campaign that highlights
the port's unique features and attractions;
− establish partnerships with tourism businesses to
create tailored visitor experiences that meet the
expectations and needs of specific target groups.
Overall, the ratings reflect how each stakeholder
group perceives the value of the port from their own
perspective and interests. While there is clear support
for the port’s development in a various roles, the
differences in the ratings indicate areas that could be
improved to fully realize the port’s potential for both
local residents and tourists.
4.2 Future development of port-city relationships
Representatives from various stakeholder groups, a
total of 16 individuals, provided ratings on five
different statements regarding ways in which the city
of Tallinn can further strengthen its role as a bridge
between the city and the sea. Respondents could
express their agreement with each statement by
marking an 'X' in the table.
Figure 3. Responses on the role of the City of Tallinn in
strengthening the relationship between the city and the sea
(Rauk, 2024)
Transport and accessibility received the strongest
support from respondents. All 16 respondents
considered this statement important, as it plays a key
role urban planning and has a direct impact on people's
daily lives. A well-functioning transport system and
good accessibility directly influence the city's vitality,
economic development, and people's ability to move
and interact. The daily need for fast and efficient
transport holds practical value, which is why it
received strong support from various stakeholder
groups. Port representatives emphasized that smart
traffic management and a shuttle bus service around
the Old Town would further improve the transport
connection between the city and the port. City
representatives highlighted the expansion of the tram
network, which will make public transport between
the port and the city more convenient and faster.
The development of port districts and public spaces
received broad support from all stakeholder groups,
with 14 respondents considering it important. This
type of development is not just about aesthetic; it also
enhances functionality, making these areas more
attractive for living, working and leisure. Port districts
and public spaces are central to the city’s visual
identity and daily life, offering opportunities for
community gatherings and social interaction.
However, some respondents did not consider this
aspect as a priority, as they believe there are even more
critical areas for development that require attention.
Additionally, concerns were raised about
gentrification, as port district redevelopment could
lead to rising living costs and the displacement of local
residents. Furthermore, large-scale development
projects along the coastline or in environmentally
465
sensitive areas may have negative environmental
impacts.
Collaboration and community engagement were
considered important by 13 respondents. The success
of cities increasingly depends on community
participation and involvement in decision-making
processes. Active community engagement fosters
stronger connections between residents and local
authorities, leading to better solutions that address the
needs of all stakeholders. It is also essential for
ensuring sustainable urban development. Moreover,
involving the community reduces resistance to new
initiatives, as people feel included in the process.
Respondents emphasized that early involvement is key
to securing broad support and understanding
community needs. Additionally, they highlighted the
importance of gathering feedback on completed
developments and changes to assess their impact on
residents' daily lives and whether they have met
expectations. This was seen as particularly crucial
when making traffic management adjustments or
planning new development projects.
The organisation of cultural events and educational
programmes received slightly less support (11
respondents agreeing with the statement) because,
although they have a positive impact on the quality of
urban life and the image of the city, their direct impact
on daily life and the city's infrastructure may be less
visible compared to, for example, transport. The
impact of cultural events and educational programmes
are often long-term and less tangible, making their
immediate value harder to recognize. Respondents
highlighted the Tallinn Maritime Days, considered
Estonia’s largest maritime and family festival. The
event is organized by the City of Tallinn in
collaboration with AS Tallinna Sadam, the Estonian
Maritime Museum, Noblessner, and various other
partners. In 2024, instead of the traditional maritime
festival, The Tall Ships Races Tallinn 2024 will take
place, offering an even grander maritime celebration.
Additionally, the Seaplane Harbour (Lennusadam)
and Noblessner regularly host diverse music and
theatre events, attracting large numbers of visitors to
the waterfront.
The promotion of sustainable tourism received the
least votes (10 respondents). This may reflect a more
niche interest, primarily relevant to specific
stakeholders (such as tourism businesses) but not
necessarily a priority for others. For example, citizens
who did not consider this important may be more
focused on improving the daily life of the local
community rather than enhancing visitor experiences.
It may also have remained a misunderstood concept,
requiring specific knowledge or further clarification.
Sustainable tourism aims to actively reduce the
negative impact of travel on both people and the
planet. Some respondents also pointed out limited
resources should be prioritized for more urgent needs,
such as urban infrastructure or social services.
Suggestions were made to increase greenery in public
recreational areas and create small parks to improve
the overall quality of urban leisure spaces.
These statements highlight priority areas to
addressing the dynamics between the city and the sea.
They provide an overview of different stakeholder
interests, emphasize the need for sustainable
approaches in culture, tourism, transport, and
accessibility, and underscore the importance of
collaboration and community engagement in urban
planning and strengthening local identity. These
insights offer valuable information for developing
action plans and policies that are based on the specific
assessments and expectations of various stakeholder
groups.
As conclusion the following general
recommendations can be made to improve the
situation:
− organise open forums and workshops to involve the
community in urban planning and port
development projects;
− improve feedback collection mechanisms and
ensure that citizens input is considered in actual
urban planning initiatives;
− develop and renovate public spaces to make them
more attractive and comfortable for recreation,
living, and working;
− organise cultural events and educational
programmes that elevate the city's cultural profile
and provide educational entertainment;
− implement environmentally sustainable solutions
to reduce the negative impacts of development
projects and improve the overall environmental
quality;
− continue efforts to improve accessibility and
mobility for pedestrians, cyclists and public
transport users, creating a more people-friendly
and safer urban space;
− encourage and promote eco-friendly transport
options, such as cycling and walking, to reduce
traffic congestion and improve air quality.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The Reidi Road development project is an important
example of how infrastructure development can
improve the relationship between the port and the city,
enhancing the quality of life for local communities,
businesses, and urban life as a whole. The development
project emphasises the importance of soft values in the
integration of the port and the city, serving as a cultural
and social space that shapes perceptions, relationships
and collaboration.
The aim of this study was to analyse the success
story of the Reid Road development project as a port
and urban space integration project, focusing on its
impact on the local living environment, community
well-being, and cultural and historical heritage from
the perspective of managing soft values in ports.
In summary, the development project has
significantly influenced the relationship and
cooperation between the Port of Tallinn and the City of
Tallinn, mostly in a positive way, although some
challenges have emerged.
The analysis of the case study carried out shows
how the multidimensional role of the port in society is
assessed and experienced by different stakeholders.
Citizens' assessments directly reflect the local
community's perspective, illustrating how port
activities and developments influence daily life and
overall quality of living. Architects, often involved in
shaping port areas, provide insights into the
466
significance of aesthetic and structural aspects in port
development. Port representatives' perspectives help
identify the impact of the port’s soft values on business
strategies of port operators and how port activities
affect the wider social and cultural landscape. Tourism
industry representatives offer valuable input on how
the port could be better marketed and developed as an
attractive destination, thereby increasing visitor
numbers and economic revenue. City officials and
public sector views play a crucial role in securing
political support and funding for port-related projects.
Responses from city and port representatives reveal
several key differences and similarities. Both
stakeholder groups acknowledge that the Reidi Road
development project has improved cooperation and
relationships between the city and the port. They
confirm that the development project has improved the
quality of life and increased the attractiveness of the
public spaces.
Port representatives highlight their willingness to
cooperate with the city but also point out collaboration
challenges. They highlight the project's positive impact
on port operations, particularly in traffic flow
management and improved access. However, they are
more critical of the increased traffic noise and
congestion, which negatively affect quality of life. Port
representatives focus on existing and future
collaboration projects and infrastructure
improvements that support sustainable tourism.
City representatives focus on the project's broader
impact on urban space and the community. They
emphasize improvements in the living environment,
the expansion of leisure opportunities, and positive
changes in urban planning and strategies resulting
from the project. Additionally, they acknowledge the
project’s contribution to cultural heritage preservation
and awareness-raising, as well as its role in promoting
environmental and sustainability goals.
The architects' evaluations reflect broad
appreciation for the positive aspects of the Reidi Road
development project, including the attractiveness of
the pedestrian areas and the waterfront promenade.
Some concerns remain regarding environmental
solutions and community engagement practices within
the project.
Citizens' assessments focus more on changes in
daily life and living environment. Although the project
has not had a significant impact on their quality of life,
they see room for improvement, especially in terms of
community involvement and expanding leisure
opportunities.
Tourism industry representatives recognize the
opportunities created by the Reidi Road development
project, but they also see a need for better cooperation
and involvement in port and city planning, especially
in the early stages of projects.
As a result of the analysis, it can be said that Port of
Tallinn and the City of Tallinn are aware of the
existence of soft values and recognize their importance.
Based on the above-mentioned theory, they have not
systematically mapped, analysed, or applied these
values, but they emphasise their necessity and
integrate them into their daily projects.
As a summary of the analysis, it can be concluded
that all stakeholder groups acknowledge the sensory
impact of the port and its importance as a cultural and
social space; recognize the importance of the port’s
historical and architectural heritage, which adds value
to the area; agree on the port’s uniqueness and its role
in the urban landscape; appreciate the port’s potential
as a part of innovative urban planning; and
acknowledge the port as a key destination that attracts
both locals and tourists.
Overall, it appears that while different stakeholders
have different expectations and concerns regarding the
project, they all share a common recognition of its
contribution to improving urban space and community
quality of life.
The limitations of the case study are primarily due
to the reserved attitude of interviewees. They
expressed preconceived opinions about the Reidi Road
development project, which may have hindered their
full openness and willingness to provide detailed
explanations. More extensive questionnaires and a
larger number of interviews could have helped
uncover new perspectives and enriched the study.
A recommendation for future research involves
applying the theory of soft values in ports through
comparative studies. Given the qualitative nature and
limited scope of the study, the findings presented here
should be interpreted as illustrative and exploratory
rather than comprehensive or generalizable. Future
research employing mixed-methods approaches,
including quantitative surveys and multi-criteria
indicator analyses, would further enhance
understanding and validate the insights gathered in
this study. The aim is to analyse the practices of ports
around the world to understand how cultural, social
and environmental contexts influence the integration
of soft values in ports. This approach will help gather
insights into best practices and innovative methods for
enhancing the integration between ports and cities.
Based on the findings of this study, the following
recommendations can be made for the future: continue
and expand the involvement of local communities,
businesses and stakeholders in port and urban
development projects, emphasising transparency and
inclusiveness; increase awareness of the soft values of
ports through educational initiatives, information
boards, and guided tours to enhance public recognition
and appreciation.
REFERENCES
[1] Bird, J. H. (1963). The major seaports of the United
Kingdom. London: Hutchinson.
[2] Cartier, C. (1999). Cosmopolitics and the maritime world
city. Geographical Review, 89(2), 278–289.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-0846.1999.tb00219.x
[3] City of Tallinn. (2023). Reidi tee ehitus [Construction of
Reidi Road]. https://www.tallinn.ee/et/reidi-tee-ehitus
[4] Daamen, T. A. (2007). Sustainable development of the
European port-city interface. ENHR Conference
“Sustainable Urban Areas,” 25–28 June 2007, Rotterdam,
the Netherlands.
[5] Ducruet, C. (2010). A metageography of port-city
relationships. In J. Wang, D. Olivier, T. Notteboom, & B.
Slack (Eds.), Ports, Cities, and Global Supply Chains (pp.
157–172). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
467
[6] Fujita, M., & Mori, T. (1996). The role of ports in the
making of major cities: Self-agglomeration and hub-
effect. Journal of Development Economics, 49(1), 93–120.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3878(95)00054-2
[7] Hall, P. V., & Jacobs, W. (2010). Shifting proximities: The
maritime ports sector in an era of global supply Chains.
Regional Studies, 44(9), 1103–1115.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400903365110
[8] Hall, P. V., & Jacobs, W. (2012). Why are maritime ports
(still) urban, and why should policy-makers care?
Maritime Policy and Management, 39(2), 189–206.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2011.650721
[9] Hayuth, Y. (1982). The Port-Urban Interface: An Area in
Transition. Area, 14(3), 219–224.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20001825
[10] Van Hooydonk, E. (2007). Soft values of seaports: A
strategy for the restoration of public support for seaports.
Antwerp, Belgium: Garant.
[11] Hein, C. (2021). Port city porosity: Boundaries, flows,
and territories. Urban Planning, 6(3), 272–284.
https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v6i3.4663
[12] Hoyle, B. (2000). Global and local change on the port-city
waterfront. Geographical Review, 90(3), 395–417.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2000.tb00344.x
[13] Jansen, M., & Hein, C. (2023). Port city symbiosis:
introduction to the special issue. Maritime Economics &
Logistics, 25(2), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-
023-00257-x
[14] Jansen, M. (2025). Ports as a force for positive change? An
ecosystems approach to inclusive port development
(ISBN 978-94-6506-722-3).
[15] Merk, O. (2010). The Competitiveness of Global Port-
Cities | OECD READ edition. 184.
http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-
Management/oecd/urban-rural-and-regional-
development/the-competitiveness-of-global-port-
cities_9789264205277-en#page4
[16] Murphey, R. (1989). On the evolution of the port city. In
F. Broeze (Ed.), Brides of the Sea: Port Cities of Asia from
the 16th to the 20th Centuries (pp. 223–245). Honolulu:
University of Hawai‘i Press.
[17] Norcliffe, G., Bassett, K., & Hoare, T. (1996). The
emergence of postmodernism on the urban waterfront:
Geographical perspectives on changing relationships.
Journal of Transport Geography, 4(2), 123–134.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0966-6923(96)00005-1
[18] Notteboom, T., & Rodrigue, J. (2005). Port
regionalization: Towards a new phase in port
development. Maritime Policy and Management, 32(3),
297–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830500139885
[19] Port of Tallinn. (2020). Port of Tallinn opened a seaside
Pikksilm promenade. https://www.ts.ee/en/port-of-
tallinn-opened-a-seaside-pikksilm-promenade/
[20] Rajangu, V. (2020). Reidi tee ehituslugu [The story of
building Reidi Road].
[21] Vigarie, A. (1979). Ports de commerce et vie littorale.
Annales de Géographie, 90(501), 603–607.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23450298.