International shipping, responsible for moving over 90% of globally traded goods, plays a pivotal role in the world economy. Currently, it contributes about 2–3% of global emissions, a figure projected to rise to 17% by 2050 [1]. The IMO has set crucial milestones for the industry, targeting a minimum 40% reduction in carbon intensity by 2030 and 70% by 2050, compared to 2008 levels. Additionally, a 50% reduction in total annual greenhouse gas emissions from shipping by 2050 is aimed, all underpinned by the adoption of low-carbon fuels to accommodate the sector’s growth [2].

The maritime sector’s intricate nature, characterized by high capital requirements, risks, and specialization, makes ordering new vessels a complex decision. Shipowners must assess market conditions before investment, considering shipbuilding capacity, compliance with conventions, and market competitiveness. Adhering to new emissions standards, however, necessitates significant adjustments that could cost the container shipping industry up to USD 10 billion [3], exerting a substantial influence on shipping companies’ revenue. Approximately 47% of voyage costs in the maritime sector are attributed to bunker costs, contingent upon fuel prices and vessel specifications [4].

Given the shipping sector’s magnitude and reliance on fuel expenditures, even incremental energy efficiency improvements can yield significant outcomes [5]. To align with IMO goals, ships need to transition to low-carbon alternative fuels like liquefied natural gas (LNG), methanol, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), and biofuels, with future adoption of even more environmentally friendly options like hydrogen and ammonia anticipated [6]. While existing research mainly focuses on emissions and fuel performance, a gap exists between academic findings on alternative fuels and shipowners’ practical responses to changing regulations. Meeting the IMO’s 2050 carbon intensity targets prompts shipowners to assess when and whether to invest in vessels powered by alternative fuels.

The urgent need for maritime decarbonization has motivated shipowners to adopt various emission abatement solutions, including improving energy efficiency, slow steaming, using innovative power plants, and renewable fuels [7,8,9,10,11,12]. For newbuilding vessels, adopting alternative fuels could be one of the most important solutions, especially when considering the more stringent carbon emission regulations set to be stipulated by the IMO in the future. Thus, research into alternative marine fuels has gained extensive attention. Previous research has heavily focused on LNG, with growing interest in methanol, ammonia, and hydrogen due to their potential to lower or have zero net carbon emissions [13,14]. LNG served as an interim solution [15,16], while e-fuel, methanol and ammonia will be the source of future fuels [14]. The competitiveness of methanol, compared with conventional fuels, depends mainly on ship productivity and the price difference between methanol and marine diesel oil (MDO) [17,18]. The marginal abatement costs and greenhouse gas (GHG) abatement potential of alternative marine fuels including methanol, ammonia, liquid hydrogen, LNG, LPG and bio-diesel for a newbuilding vessel depend on the cost of carbon capture and storage, electricity cost, and shipping route [19].

Key drivers behind shipowners’ decisions to invest in emission abatement solutions, including alternative marine fuels, have been investigated. Previous research has showed that financial factors, such as investment costs, operational costs, and government support and regulations, all have significant impacts on shipowner decisions [20,21,22]. Furthermore, freight rate index, ship type, and shipowner nationality are all highly correlated with shipowners’ emission abatement solutions [23]. Some authors have argued that for Norwegian shipowners, long-term profitability, company strategy, and financial and intellectual resources serve as significant factors affecting their adoption of alternative fuels [24]. IMO policies have accelerated shipping decarbonization, but some measures still remain uncertain and discrepancies exist between the IMO’s incentives and industry perspectives [25]. Practicality and short-term returns matter in shipowners’ preferences for emission abatement solutions. When fuel oil prices are relatively high, regulations can stimulate shipowners to complete the fuel transition in a more aggressive direction [26].

The well-established multinomial logit model serves as a valuable tool for estimating choice probabilities and discerning influential factors. It has been applied in various contexts to shed light on critical decision-making processes within the maritime industry.

It was used to investigate cruise lines’ compliance decisions with the 2020 sulfur cap, revealing that fuel price fluctuations and government support had a minimal impact, while new vessel orders favored alternative fuels like LNG [27]. It was also applied to assess scrapping probabilities, considering vessel characteristics, market factors, and deviations from average freight rates [28]. Some authors explored shipowners’ vessel selection and size preferences using a multinomial logit model, and synthesized factors including internal company traits, market conditions, and competitor performance [29]. In addition, the model proved instrumental in estimating port-to-port cargo flow. By employing multinomial logit models, one study analyzed the effect of trade volume on ship size choice. It was found that trade volume, voyage distance, and dry bulk shipping index all impacted ship size preferences [30].

The existing literature predominantly focuses on assessing the commercial, operational, and technical viability of alternative marine fuels, as well as their potential for carbon emission reductions on an experimental basis. Notably, little research investigates the practical applications of these alternative fuels in the construction of new vessels. Furthermore, limited attention has been given to investigating the influential factors that shape shipowners’ decisions regarding the adoption of alternative fuels, and the temporal evolution of such choices. This study bridges the gap between academic research on energy choices in building new vessels and the actual responses of shipowners to regulations. It enriches the understanding of emission compliance decisions made by shipowners when ordering new vessels.

4. Conclusions