Measure Environmental Performance in Ports

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Juan Felipe Espinosa-Cristia	+ 2907 word(s)	2907	2021-04-19 08:28:49	\|
2	format correct	Nora Tang	Meta information modification	2907	2021-05-13 03:06:49	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su13074035

Oceans, seas, and marine resources are highly relevant for achieving Sustainable Development Goals. Such relevance has given rise to the blue economy approach, where scholars and policymakers see activities carried out in cargo ports from a different perspective. The blue economy approach stresses the emergence of multiple transnational networks in relation to these topics and the development of green ports plus environmental performance measurements at seaports in general.

seaports port authority port company environmental performance in ports

1. Introduction

The ocean regulates the global climate; provides humans with natural resources, such as food, materials, important substances, and energy; and is essential for international trade and recreational and cultural activities. Along with human development and economic growth, free access, and the use of the ocean for resources and services have put strong pressure on marine systems due to practices such as overfishing and increased resource extraction, and disruption of coastal areas by various types of pollution ^[1]^[2]. Moreover, unsustainable practices and practices that are harmful to the marine environment, such as overfishing and illegal fishing, whether undeclared or within the rules, threaten the capacity of developing countries ^[3].

In this context, a specific Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) was developed for oceans, seas, and marine resources to provide guidance in the conservation and use of this environmental resource. Additionally, an initial framework of the agreement was constructed, which contains policies, strategies, and models for sustainable development, installing the challenge of advancing from implementation towards sustainability strategy execution ^[4].

In this regard, the topics addressed by the 14th SDG are diverse. For example, Gifford et al. ^[5] developed a conceptual model of innovative governance practices by integrating sustainability objectives, implemented through two case studies of the Swedish maritime group. For their part, Hermann et al. ^[6] conducted a phosphorus processing study in which they studied the conflicting potentials of targets in the trade-off between low energy consumption and effects at sea. Finally, Arana-Landin ^[7], using a transdisciplinary approach, examined how to enhance sustainable artisanal fisheries through social economy policies to ensure the implementation of the so-called triple bottom line.

Within the fisheries field, it is also important to align SDGs with the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries. This alignment is required because the reciprocity between the scope and nature of the two instruments can help to guide the formulation of appropriate governance tools ^[8]. In addition, the fishing industry can implement practices that, for example, can help to reduce marine contamination or bycatching. However, this requires further work to identify the specific information mechanisms that research companies should use to assess their progress against the set of SDGs ^[9].

Regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) are key institutions in international fisheries management with the potential to play important roles in achieving the 14th SDG. The results of the network evaluation show that RFMOs cooperate primarily with other RFMOs or fisheries-related organizations, while there is a lack of cooperation with other maritime organizations. Therefore, there is great potential to increase the contributions of RFMOs to SDG 14, aligning a greater part of their work with this objective ^[10].

In addition, a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) has the potential to assist in the implementation of SDG support actions. This is because SEA provides a systematic framework for incorporating SDGs into policies, plans, and programs. It is also clear that the SDGs, in turn, could support SEA’s contribution to the implementation of the sustainable development strategy. Therefore, the association of both policy instruments could foster a mutually benefitting relationship ^[11].

Finally, each of the findings identified emphasize the importance of using integrated models to support the planning of SDG strategies and complement the information provided by stakeholder participation in coastal countries ^[12]. According to Mohammed et al. ^[13], although policymakers can use several legal, regulatory, and economic tools to implement SDGs, they should focus more on implementing tax instruments, such as taxes, subsidies, and conditional transfers, to provide the necessary incentives to stakeholders in coastal countries.

2. The Oceans and the Blue Economy

Although variety reigns over-unity; and the term “blue economy” has been present in the common language over the past decade; there is currently no commonly accepted definition for the term blue economy ^[14]^[15]. To bring us closer to a common definition, we use the definition from ^[16], which identifies the blue economy as a “platform for strategic, integrated, and participatory coastal and ocean development and protection that incorporates a low carbon economy, the ecosystem approach, and human wellbeing through advancing regional industries, services, and activities”. In studying the concepts of blue economy and blue growth, and including them in a coherent environmental accounting framework, Mulazzani et al. ^[17] used the United Nations Environmental-Economic Accounting System to propose a set of assumptions for linking the blue economy/growth and ecosystem services, including the creation of an adjusted value-added measure that considers the depletion and degradation of the environment and the value of noncommercial benefits provided by the ecosystem. More specific topics, such as the “blue economy management” concept plus several blue economy cases, are detailed below.

2.1. Blue Economy Management

Through studies conducted in Bangladesh by Sarker et al. ^[18], it was concluded that the achievement of sustainable “blue” growth requires strategic planning focused on sectors with potential within the activities of the blue economy. These sectors are related to ocean research and governance. In addition, the study argues that the improvement of blue growth and the achievement of the SDGs must go hand-in-hand; in this way, there is a balance that does not promote blue growth at the expense of environmental sustainability. In this sense, Voyer et al. ^[19] and Voyer et al. ^[20] indicate that strengthening connections between sectoral management agreements, through the use of border organizations and by sending a message to existing instruments, could be an efficient and pragmatic approach to the implementation of the blue economy.

Improving the management and governance of marine resources requires science and socioeconomics to be united. For sustainable growth of the blue economy, strong scientific information on the marine environment, detailed knowledge of activities occurring in the ocean space, and an integral understanding of environmental impacts are needed (Mallin et al. ^[21]). However, there is now a gap in human understanding dimensions regarding the seas and populated coasts of the world. Knowledge of human dimensions for the seas and coasts is critical for evidence-based decision-making in marine policy areas, including marine conservation, marine spatial planning, fisheries management, climate adaptation, and the blue economy ^[22].

2.2. Blue Economy Cases

In the absence of a settled definition of the blue economy, some recent research exemplified its areas. Research carried out by Katila et al. ^[23] aimed to evaluate blue growth at practical and local levels considering an existing active maritime sector and a relatively pristine environment (Gulf of Bothnia, Finland). To assess this environment, the importance of local economic data was examined, and in this way, the potential of blue economies could be understood. Similarly, studies carried out by Akpomera et al. ^[24] analyzed the positioning of sub-Saharan Africa in the new framework of the blue economy and showed that it accounts for bottlenecks representing maritime insecurity and fragile governance in the coastal states of Africa. The authors considered one of the central factors in the occurrence of bottlenecks and their effects on manage maritime insecurity and weak governance as the lack of financial and technological capacity to collect ocean assets.

Along with the areas already identified, various visions of the blue economy for sustainable development were illustrated by Hassanali ^[25] through case studies conducted in three Caribbean Community countries (CARICOM; Trinidad and Tobago, Belize, and Granada). Hassanali ^[25] stated that discussion, understanding, and engagement among its members is needed to reach an agreed policy and strategy that effectively coordinates and operates the development of the blue economy in the region. Such understanding would enable CARICOM to optimize the collective economic, social, and environmental benefits of the blue economy and allow regional grouping to be an influential player in all aspects of the blue economy discourse on the global stage.

Regarding regional development, Pinto et al. ^[26] provided a timely contribution to fill the knowledge gap on the blue economy. The authors presented the findings and analysis of a survey applied to blue economy organizations in Portugal, Spain, Ireland, and Scotland. This study specified that innovation, human capital, and social capital provide the basis for the creation and consolidation of maritime clusters. In addition, Hoerterer et al. ^[27] added, from the viewpoints of various stakeholders participating in the blue economy of the German coast, an explanation of how synergies and conflicts between stakeholders and political decision-making can influence blue growth in highly disputed regions. Particularly, these authors explained the case of the North Sea basin, which is even more relevant given the effects of climate change. The authors concluded by demanding that public policies be formulated with a more flexible and adaptive approach that considers changes to environmental, social, and economic realities.

3. Green Ports and Environmental Performance in Ports (EPP)

In recent years, people’s awareness of the protection of the environment has increased. While ports promote economic development and the employment level in port cities, ports also have a negative impact on the port city environment; therefore, the sustainability of port activities is becoming increasingly valued ^[28]^[29]^[30].

Specific context port factors have strong influences on the selection and adoption of sustainable practices by the port authority. In consequence, those context factors condition ports' environmental priorities, specific regulations, financial resources, and immediate competition areas, with wide variations occurring between regions and specific ports ^[31]. Variation in the above aspects is important, as corporate sustainability practices have the potential to generate value for port users and, as such, give competitive advantages to port operators and port servicers ^[32]^[33]^[34].

The aim of a port sustainability approach is to conserve natural resources and biodiversity, as the amount of waste generated is becoming a growing problem, both in terms of the inefficient use of resources and the harmful effects produced. Even though large quantities of waste originate on land, a certain amount of waste is also generated at sea as a product of maritime transport ^[35]. Therefore, there have been efforts to promote the improvement of sustainability through eco-ports or green ports ^[36].

The so-called green ports arose from the political discourse of international maritime organizations. Such discourse has focused mainly on explaining the economic aspects and benefits associated with the implementation of environmental policies and the development of green guides and codes of conduct for port authorities ^[37]^[38]. As a result, all stakeholder seaports, including port authorships, policymakers, port users, and local communities, must invest substantial resources to achieve a high level of environmental competitiveness ^[39].

3.1. Clean Energies in Port Environments

Faced with challenges due to the increasing daily rate of environmental pollution and the generation of electricity from fossil fuel sources in different countries, the international technoscientific community has demanded the study of alternative solutions for the generation and distribution of energy ^[40]^[41]^[42]. Such is the case with the electrical interconnections among some of the Egyptian seaports which, for optimal operation, are maintaining a clean and sustainable environment with the use of renewable energy generation units that are composed of photovoltaic power generation systems ^[43]. In the same vein, research by Contestabile et al. ^[44] studied a hybrid wave energy collector, fully integrated into Madagascar’s traditional breakwaters based on a previous development in Italy. In addition, Contestabile et al. ^[45] conducted a study along the south coast of Western Australia involving comparative assessments with different turbine strategy designs compared with the costs of traditional breakwaters. Finally, studies of the offshore wind industry conducted by Esteban et al. ^[46] can also be cited as the foundation for considering the use of these designs for construction in ports.

Li et al. ^[47] analyzed the decisions of ports and power plants on investment in single-engine energy converters, considering the uncertain supply. Studies by Yu et al. ^[48] in this area are also of interest. The authors, through a multi-object model that integrates spatial and temporal dimensions for strategic planning, studied whether and when ships should modernize to use electricity from the coast. They aimed to study energy use, where cruise ships seem to be a relevant case in the blue economy. In fact, cruise ships are one of the fastest-growing and most energy-consuming tourism segments, generating significant greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as well as atmospheric pollutants such as nitrous oxide (NO_x) and particulate matter (PM_2.5) ^[49]^[50]^[51]^[52]. Therefore, there is significant concern about exposure to atmospheric emissions ^[53]^[54] that affect human health and climate change. For this reason, port authorities have developed plans and programs to reduce atmospheric emissions. Programs have been created to monitor and form inventories of atmospheric emissions from the perspective of information systems (e.g., the clean trucks program, emission control systems technology demonstrations, the vessel speed reduction program, the idling reduction program, expansion of shore-side electricity, and the air emissions inventor in several ports: Antwerp, Belgium; Bremerhaven, Germany; Dalian, China; Livorno, Italy; Long Beach, USA; Stockholm, Sweden; Vancouver, Canada) ^[55]. Along this line of research are the works developed by Lee et al. ^[56], Zhu et al. ^[57], and Wang et al. ^[58]. The latter tried to study the problem of integrated allocation of berths and quay cranes considering the payment of taxes on carbon emissions. The cited problem was formulated as a bi-objective integer programming model, intended to minimize the total delay in the completion of all tasks and the total operating costs.

For their part, Mjelde et al. ^[59] investigated differences in port tariffs depending on the environmental performance of ships, as this represents an additional factor in the consideration of cruise owners to invest in green technologies. The authors studied the use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) as fuel for a cruise ship, requiring positive incentives for ports to help to establish research, reduce emissions into the atmosphere, and drive the adoption of ecological technologies.

Finally, Simonsen et al. ^[49] developed and used a model of the amounts of carbon dioxide (CO₂), NO_x, and PM_2.5 emitted at sea and in ports in Norwegian waters, finding that approximately 14.6% of these pollutants are deposited in ports, especially in Bergen, Oslo, and Stavanger. These findings confirm the considerable differences in the environmental performance of cruise ships. These findings could be used to design maritime policies that force cruise operators to introduce cleaner technologies and rethink operative practices.

3.2. Environmental Performance Indicators in the World’s Ports

The economic importance of maritime transport has significant implications for the social and environmental performance of port regions ^[60]^[61]. Through Stankovic’s studies ^[62], composite indices were created as relevant scientifically-based tools that were used to compare and monitor various aspects of sustainability in 37 port regions in seven countries on the European side of the Mediterranean across a five-year period from 2014 to 2018. The results highlight the GDP per capita and population density as indicators of greater relative importance in terms of port region sustainability. Liao et al. ^[63] and Wan et al. ^[64] evaluated the current state of green port development around the world by establishing an evaluation model for quantitative measurement of the development of green ports based on a framework of drivers, pressures, states, impacts, and responses.

Puig et al. ^[65] and Puig et al. ^[66] investigated a list of ports associated with the European Maritime Ports Organization (ESPO) through the self-diagnostic method (SDM; see Appendix C), through which ports can self-assess their environmental management. The results yielded data on a set of management indicators for environmental matters, with an inventory of environmental legislation being the highest implementation indicator (96.7%), followed by the existence of an environmental policy (95.7%). Moreover, Walker ^[67] and Hossain et al. ^[68] assessed sustainability and environmental performance in ports within the framework of Canada’s Green Marine Environmental Program (GMEP; see Appendix D) using predefined indicators to identify operational trends and links to port sustainability.

Through an inductive research approach, Hall et al. ^[69] identified and evaluated the initiation and implementation process behind exemplary innovations in the Vancouver, Columbia, Los Angeles, and Long Beach, California ports. The study included innovation in new technologies and processes for cargo management and movement, mechanisms for policy planning and formulation, as well as the financing, implementation, updating, administration, and operation of infrastructure systems. This relatively new area of competition based on innovation was also studied by Polanco-Pérez et al. ^[70], Valenzuela et al. ^[71], and Seisdedos et al. ^[72] in terms of environmental performance in new engineering works, installation, and coastal interventions.

Finally, studies carried out by Khaslavskaya et al. ^[73] and Kotowska et al. ^[74] emphasized the promotion of modes of transport and transport chains that are more environmentally responsive to the hinterland as alternatives to highway transport. Inland shipping and waterways are environmentally friendly and cheap modes of transport. Therefore, a modal change from highways to inland waterways is one of the elements of the European Union’s sustainable transport policy, and this is gaining importance in the development policies of port authorities as a strategic element in developing green ports.

While there appear to be multiple environmental initiatives in the port area, many of these are contextualized in a context that escapes the boundaries of a seaport or port company and depends on the country and location, including the port authority. Regarding the measurement of port environmental performance, there are similarities in this regard, because measuring the environmental performance of a port region or port city differs from measuring it within the jurisdiction of a port authority, and even within those territorial limits, it can differ between seaports or port companies In this way, the possibility of developing integral and tested measuring instruments is reduced to a more restricted set of possibilities that we analyze, in detail, in this article.

References

Visbeck, M.; Kronfeld-Goharani, U.; Neumann, B.; Rickels, W.; Schmidt, J.; van Doorn, E.; Matz-Lück, N.; Ott, K.; Quaas, M.F. Securing blue wealth: The need for a special sustainable development goal for the ocean and coasts. Mar. Policy 2014, 48, 184–191.
García-Llave, R.; Piniella, F.; Acosta-Sánchez, M. Maritime Interdiction on The High Seas: A Case Study of Spain and The Concept of ‘Universal Jurisdiction. J. Marit. Res. 2015, 12, 77–88.
Okafor-Yarwood, I. Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and the complexities of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) for countries in the Gulf of Guinea. Mar. Policy 2019, 99, 414–422.
Visbeck, M.; Kronfeld-Goharani, U.; Neumann, B.; Rickels, W.; Schmidt, J.; Van Doorn, E.; Matz-Lück, N.; Proelss, A. A Sustainable Development Goal for the Ocean and Coasts: Global ocean challenges benefit from regional initiatives supporting globally coordinated solutions. Mar. Policy 2014, 49, 87–89.
Gifford, E.; McKelvey, M. Knowledge-Intensive Entrepreneurship and S3: Conceptualizing Strategies for Sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4824.
Hermann, L.; Kraus, F.; Hermann, R. Phosphorus Processing—Potentials for Higher Efficiency. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1482.
Arana-Landin, S. Social Economy as the Means to Help Achieve the Targets of Sustainable Development Goal 14. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4529.
Said, A.; Chuenpagdee, R. Aligning the sustainable development goals to the small-scale fisheries guidelines: A case for EU fisheries governance. Mar. Policy 2019, 107.
Haas, B.; Fleming, A.; Haward, M.; McGee, J. Big fishing: The role of the large-scale commercial fishing industry in achieving Sustainable Development Goal 14. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2019, 29, 161–175.
Haas, B.; Haward, M.; McGee, J.; Fleming, A. Explicit targets and cooperation: Regional fisheries management organizations and the sustainable development goals. Int. Environ. Agreem. PoliticsLaw Econ. 2014, 1–13.
González-Del-Campo, A.; Gazzola, P.; Onyango, V. The mutualism of strategic environmental assessment and sustainable development goals. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2020, 82.
Pedercini, M.; Zuellich, G.; Dianati, K.; Arquitt, S. Toward achieving Sustainable Development Goals in Ivory Coast: Simulating pathways to sustainable development. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 26, 588–595.
Mohammed, E.Y.; Steinbach, D.; Steele, P. Fiscal reforms for sustainable marine fisheries governance: Delivering the SDGs and ensuring no one is left behind. Mar. Policy 2018, 93, 262–270.
Garland, M.; Axon, S.; Graziano, M.; Morrissey, J.; Heidkamp, C.P. The blue economy: Identifying geographic concepts and sensitivities. Geogr. Compass. 2019, 13, e12445.
Winder, G.M.; Le Heron, R. Assembling a Blue Economy moment? Geographic engagement with globalizing biological-economic relations in multi-use marine environments. Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 2017, 7, 3–26.
McKinley, E.; Aller-Rojas, O.; Hattam, C.; Germond-Duret, C.; San Martín, I.; Hopkins, C.; Aponte, H.; Potts, T. Charting the course for a blue economy in Peru: A research agenda. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2019, 21, 2253–2275.
Mulazzani, L.; Malorgio, G. Blue growth and ecosystem services. Mar. Policy 2017, 85, 17–24.
Sarker, S.; Bhuyan, A.; Rahman, M.M.; Islam, M.A.; Hossain, M.S.; Basak, S.C.; Islam, M.M. From science to action: Exploring the potentials of Blue Economy for enhancing economic sustainability in Bangladesh. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018, 157, 180–192.
Voyer, M.; van Leeuwen, J. Social license to operate’ in the Blue Economy. Resour. Policy 2019, 62, 102–113.
Voyer, M.; Farmery, A.K.; Kajlich, L.; Vachette, A.; Quirk, G. Assessing policy coherence and coordination in the sustainable development of a Blue Economy. A case study from Timor Leste. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2020, 192, 105187.
Mallin, F.; Barbesgaard, M. Awash with contradiction: Capital, ocean space and the logics of the Blue Economy Paradigm. Geoforum 2020, 113, 121–132.
Bennett, N.J. Marine Social Science for the Peopled Seas. Coast. Manag. 2019, 47, 244–252.
Katila, J.; Ala-Rami, K.; Repka, S.; Rendon, E.; Torronen, J. Defining and quantifying the sea-based economy to support regional blue growth strategies—Case Gulf of Bothnia. Mar. Policy 2019, 100, 215–225.
Akpomera, E. Africa’s Blue Economy: Potentials and challenges for more locally beneficial development. Rev. Afr. Political Econ. 2020, 47, 651–661.
Hassanali, K. CARICOM and the blue economy—Multiple understandings and their implications for global engagement. Mar. Policy 2020, 120.
Pinto, H.; Cruz, A.R.; Combe, C. Cooperation and the emergence of maritime clusters in the Atlantic: Analysis and implications of innovation and human capital for blue growth. Mar. Policy 2015, 57, 167–177.
Hoerterer, C.; Schupp, M.F.; Benkens, A.; Nickiewicz, D.; Krause, G.; Buck, B.H. Stakeholder Perspectives on Opportunities and Challenges in Achieving Sustainable Growth of the Blue Economy in a Changing Climate. Front. Mar. Sci. 2020, 6, 795.
Zheng, Y.; Zhao, J.; Shao, G. Port City Sustainability: A Review of Its Research Trends. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8355.
Norshafinas, B.A.; Mohamad, R.O.; Mohd, S.I.; Saadon, D.A.; Mohamed, N. Sustainable development goal of the recreation port: The case study of the Duyong marina & resort, Terengganu, Malaysia. J. Crit. Rev. 2020, 7, 1449–1454.
Dong, G.; Zhu, J.; Li, J.; Wang, H.; Gajpal, Y. Evaluating the Environmental Performance and Operational Efficiency of Container Ports: An Application to the Maritime Silk Road. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2226.
Lawer, E.T. Transnational networks for the ‘greening’ of ports: Learning from best practice? GeoJournal 2019.
Stein, M.; Acciaro, M. Value Creation through Corporate Sustainability in the Port Sector: A Structured Literature Analysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5504.
Karani, P.; Failler, P. Comparative coastal and marine tourism, climate change, and blue economy in African Large Marine Ecosystems. Environ. Dev. 2020, 100572.
Novaglio, C.; Bax, N.; Boschetti, F.; Emad, G.R.; Frusher, S.; Fullbrook, L.; Hemer, M.; Jennings, S.; Van Putten, I.; Robinson, L.M.; et al. Deep aspirations: Towards a sustainable offshore Blue Economy. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2021, 21, 1–22.
Slišković, M.; Ukić Boljat, H.; Jelaska, I.; Jelić Mrčelić, G. Review of Generated Waste from Cruisers: Dubrovnik, Split, and Zadar Port Case Studies. Resources 2018, 7, 72.
Wu, X.; Zhang, L.; Yang, H.-C. Integration of Eco-centric Views of Sustainability in Port Planning. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2971.
Lawer, E.T.; Herbeck, J.; Flitner, M. Selective Adoption: How Port Authorities in Europe and West Africa Engage with the Globalizing ‘Green Port’ Idea. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5119.
Wooldridge, C.F.; McMullen, C.; Howe, V. Environmental management of ports and harbours—Implementation of policy through scientific monitoring. Mar. Policy 1999, 23, 413–425.
Di Vaio, A.; Varriale, L. Management Innovation for Environmental Sustainability in Seaports: Managerial Accounting Instruments and Training for Competitive Green Ports beyond the Regulations. Sustainability 2018, 10, 783.
Cavagnaro, R.J.; Copping, A.E.; Green, R.; Greene, D.; Jenne, S.; Rose, D.; Overhus, D. Powering the Blue Economy: Progress Exploring Marine Renewable Energy Integration With Ocean Observations. Mar. Technol. Soc. J. 2020, 54, 114–125.
Yigit, K.; Kokkulunk, G.; Parlak, A.; Karakas, A. Energy cost assessment of shoreside power supply considering the smart grid concept: A case study for a bulk carrier ship. Marit. Policy Manag. 2016, 43, 469–482.
Le, X.Q.; Hens, L.; Stoyanov, S. Water management in the framework of environmental management systems in Bulgarian seaports. Phys. Chem. EarthParts A/B/C 2011, 36, 141–149.
Balbaa, A.; Swief, R.A.; El-Amary, N.H. Smart Integration Based on Hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization Technique for Carbon Dioxide Emission Reduction in Eco-Ports. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2218.
Contestabile, P.; Vicinanza, D. Coastal Defence Integrating Wave-Energy-Based Desalination: A Case Study in Madagascar. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 64.
Contestabile, P.; Di Lauro, E.; Buccino, M.; Vicinanza, D. Economic Assessment of Overtopping BReakwater for Energy Conversion (OBREC): A Case Study in Western Australia. Sustainability 2017, 9, 51.
Esteban, M.D.; López-Gutiérrez, J.-S.; Negro, V. Gravity-Based Foundations in the Offshore Wind Sector. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 64.
Li, L.; Zhu, J.; Ye, G.; Feng, X. Development of Green Ports with the Consideration of Coastal Wave Energy. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4270.
Yu, J.; Voß, S.; Tang, G. Strategy development for retrofitting ships for implementing shore side electricity. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 74, 201–213.
Simonsen, M.; Gossling, S.; Walnum, H.J. Cruise ship emissions in Norwegian waters: A geographical analysis. J. Transp. Geogr. 2019, 78, 87–97.
Sanabra, M.C.; Santamaria, J.J.U.; De Oses, F.X.M. Manoeuvring and hotelling external costs: Enough for alternative energy sources? Marit. Policy Manag. 2014, 41, 42–60.
Široka, M.; Pilicic, S.; Milosevic, T.; Lacalle, I.; Traven, L. A novel approach for assessing the ports’ environmental impacts in real time—The IoT based port environmental index. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 120, 106949.
Fazia, C.; Errigo, M.F. The coastal port landscape: New opportunities for tourism and challenges for clean energy. Int. J. Urban Plan. 2017, 10, 57–74.
Cloquell-Ballester, V.; Lo-Iacono-Ferreira, V.G.; Artacho-Ramírez, M.Á.; Capuz-Rizo, S.F. The Carbon Footprint of Valencia Port: A Case Study of the Port Authority of Valencia (Spain). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8157.
Poulsen, R.T.; Ponte, S.; Sornn-Friese, H. Environmental upgrading in global value chains: The potential and limitations of ports in the greening of maritime transport. Geoforum 2018, 89, 83–95.
Cammin, P.; Yu, J.; Heilig, L.; Voss, S. Monitoring of air emissions in maritime ports. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 87.
Lee, T.; Yeo, G.T.; Thai, V. Environmental efficiency analysis of port cities: Slacks-based measure data envelopment analysis approach. Transp. Policy 2014, 33, 82–88.
Zhu, M.; Yuen, K.F.; Ge, J.; Li, K. Impact of maritime emissions trading system on fleet deployment and mitigation of CO2 emission. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 62, 474–488.
Wang, T.; Du, Y.; Fang, D.; Li, Z.C. Berth Allocation and Quay Crane Assignment for the Trade-off Between Service Efficiency and Operating Cost Considering Carbon Emission Taxation. Transp. Sci. 2020, 54.
Mjelde, A.; Endresen, O.; Bjorshol, E.; Gierloff, C.W.; Husby, E.; Solheim, J.; Mjos, N.; Eide, M.S. Differentiating on port fees to accelerate the green maritime transition. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2019, 149, 110561.
Taljaard, S.; Slinger, J.H.; Arabi, S.; Weerts, S. The natural environment in port development: A ‘green handbrake’ or an equal partner? Ocean Coast. Manag. 2021, 199.
Klopott, M. Restructuring of environmental management in Baltic ports: Case of Poland. Marit. Policy Manag. 2013, 40, 439–450.
Stanković, J.J.; Marjanović, I.; Papathanasiou, J.; Drezgić, S. Social, Economic and Environmental Sustainability of Port Regions: MCDM Approach in Composite Index Creation. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 74.
Liao, M.S.; Ding, J.F.; Liang, G.S.; Lee, K.L. Key Criteria for Evaluating the Green Performance of Ports. J. Test. Eval. 2016, 44, 20140354.
Wan, C.P.; Zhang, D.; Yan, X.P.; Yang, Z.L. A novel model for the quantitative evaluation of green port development—A case study of major ports in China. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017, 61.
Puig, M.; Michail, A.; Wooldridge, C.; Darbra, R. Benchmark dynamics in the environmental performance of ports. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2017, 121.
Puig, M.; Raptis, S.; Wooldridge, C.; Darbra, R.M. Performance trends of environmental management in European ports. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 111686.
Walker, T. Green Marine: An environmental program to establish sustainability in marine transportation. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 105, 199–207.
Hossain, T.; Adams, M.; Walker, T. Sustainability initiatives in Canadian ports. Mar. Policy 2019.
Hall, P.; O’Brien, T.; Woudsma, C. Environmental innovation and the role of stakeholder collaboration in West Coast port gateways. Res. Transp. Econ. 2013, 42, 87–96.
Polanco-Pérez, J.; Search, F.V.; Winckler, P.; Ochoa-Muñoz, M.J.; Landaeta, M. Unexpected effects of coastal storms on trophic ecology of two rocky reef fish species. Mar. Biol. 2021, 168, 20.
Valenzuela, V.P.B.; Samarasekara, R.S.M.; Kularathna, A.H.T.S.; Perez, G.C.C.; Norikazu, F.; Crichton, R.N.; Quiroz, M.; Yavar, R.; Izumi, I.; Aranguiz, R.; et al. Comparative Analysis of Tsunami Recovery Strategies in Small Communities in Japan and Chile. Geosciences 2019, 9, 26.
Seisdedos, M.; Carrasco, P. Port Projects in Blue Economy: Port of Motril-Granada. J. Coast. Res. 2020, 95, 940.
Khaslavskaya, A.; Roso, V. Outcome-Driven Supply Chain Perspective on Dry Ports. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1492.
Kotowska, I.; Mańkowska, M.; Pluciński, M. Inland Shipping to Serve the Hinterland: The Challenge for Seaport Authorities. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3468.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Environmental Studies

Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Juan Espinosa-Cristia

View Times: 760

Update Date: 13 May 2021

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm