Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Transportation Business & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rtbm

Port greenhouse gas emission reduction: Port and public authorities’

implementation schemes
Anas S. Alamoush *, Aykut I. Ölçer , Fabio Ballini
World Maritime University, Malmö, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Ports are unavoidable hubs of anthropogenic emissions owing to the dependence of landside and seaside op­
Seaports erations on fossil fuels. Additionally, designing and implementing decarbonisation measures to mitigate climate
Greenhouse gas reduction change by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in ports and beyond is a difficult issue. Therefore, this study
CO2 emissions
aims to identify and analyse policy instruments and tools – implementation schemes – which ports implement to
Climate change mitigation
Measures
reduce GHG emissions, ultimately assisting in driving the uptake of technical and operational measures by port
Implementation schemes polluters, i.e. port, land transport, and shipping operators. This study was conducted by means of a systematic
literature review (112 studies), and informed by a four-dimensional conceptual framework, i.e. port policy­
makers, port polluters, uptake of GHG emission reduction technical and operational measures, and the imple­
mentation schemes. The study differentiated between the technical and operational measures on one hand, and
implementation schemes on the other. In addition to collating the schemes under five homogenous groups and
nine categories; their characteristics, best practices, limitations and key issues, including opportunities, were
discussed. Findings indicate that despite there being various challenges and issues in the implementation
schemes, port policymakers, either public or port authorities, can utilise a variety of measures to reduce pol­
luters’ GHG emissions while at the same time maintaining business integrity. Nevertheless, monitoring of
emissions, and identification of best performing combinations of implementation schemes along with inter-port
and maritime stakeholders’ and port policymakers’ collaboration are the suggested way forward to better
implement the measures and create a level playing field. While the results of this study contribute to improving
the understanding of implementation of port GHG emission reduction, and enable port policymakers to make
reliable decisions, it also contributes to academic knowledge and provides aspiring researchers with a fertile
future research agenda.

1. Introduction inventories in different countries ports. For examples, emissions were

Fossil fuel combustion accounts for 80% of global carbon dioxide
(CO2)1 emissions, of which 30% is generated by transport (Kotowska,
2016), and owing to its dependence on fossil fuels, maritime transport
contributes to transport emissions. While international shipping emis­
sion was accounted for by the International Maritime Organization
(IMO), as emitting 2.2% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) (Smith et al.,
2014), up until now, total global ports GHG emission is not yet
accounted for. The reported port GHG emission is based on specific
estimated as 280,558 (CO2e)2 tonnes yearly in Port of Chennai-India
(Misra, Panchabikesan, Gowrishankar, Ayyasamy, & Ramalingam,
2017), 331,390 (GHG) tonnes in Port of Barcelona (2008 inventory) –
half of which was attributed to shipping activities (Villalba & Gemechu,
2011), 548,075 (CO2) tonnes in five major UK ports (2008) (Gibbs,
Rigot-Muller, Mangan, & Lalwani, 2014), 6172 (CO2) tonnes in Port of
Limassol-Cyprus (Erdas, Fokaides, & Charalampous, 2015), 580,128
tonnes in Port of Shenzhen (2013) – 40% of which was attributed to port
activities (Yang, Cai, Zhong, Shi, & Zhang, 2017), and 15,814 (CO2e)

* Corresponding author at: Maritime Energy Management, World Maritime University, P.O. Box 500, SE 201 24 Malmö, Sweden.
E-mail addresses: asa@wmu.se (A.S. Alamoush), AIO@wmu.se (A.I. Ölçer), fb@wmu.se (F. Ballini).
1
CO2 accounts for 70% of GHG emissions, hence, due to its abundance, it is the main subject in GHG studies (Chang & Jhang, 2016; Styhre, Winnes, Black, Lee, &
Le-Griffin, 2017).
2
CO2 equivalents (CO2e) is a common unit that converts all GHG emissions based on their global warming potential thus signifies the amount of CO2 which alone
would have the equivalent global warming impact.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2021.100708
Received 18 September 2020; Received in revised form 14 July 2021; Accepted 1 September 2021
2210-5395/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Anas S. Alamoush, Research in Transportation Business & Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2021.100708
A.S. Alamoush et al.
tonnes in port of Port of Valencia (2011) (Martínez-Moya, Vazquez-Paja,
& Maldonado, 2019). Inventory results vary from one port to another
due to differences in scopes, outreach, and calculations approaches of
the inventory, and cargo throughput, among others. Nonetheless, port
GHG emission is large considering that there are thousands of ports all
over the world. However, it is not higher than that emitted by shipping
and land transport in the port areas. Ships’ emission (intensity) in ports
increases to five times higher compared to the underway emission
(Cullinane & Cullinane, 2019), which could reach to 5% (ITF/OECD,
2018) or even up to 15% of shipping total GHG emissions (Mjelde et al.,
2019), thereby amounting to ten times higher than emissions of port
operation (Cui & Notteboom, 2017). Likewise, land transport (trucks)
CO2 emission is higher than that of ports, e.g. it is double the amount of
port operation emission – in Port of Felixstowe (Gibbs et al., 2014). Since
cargo handled at ports has to be transported to the hinterlands, port land
transport generates high GHG emissions as well.
Seaborne trade is expected to increase, hence shipping GHG emis­
sions are expected to increase by between 50% and 250% by 2050
(Halim, Kirstein, Merk, & Martinez, 2018; Smith et al., 2014). The same
is true regarding port GHG emissions due to increasing demands for port
and associated land transport services. Consequently, this intensifies
climate change, and thus global warming, which stimulates floods,
hurricanes and drought, causes the sea level to rise and changes oceanic
circulation patterns. Climate change is a global phenomenon, which also
causes port infrastructure and operations to deteriorate (Ng, Chen,
Cahoon, Brooks, & Yang, 2013; Wilmsmeier, 2020). Although public
authorities and policymakers consider climate change and sustainability
in their discussions (Geerlings & van Duin, 2011; Grundmann & Stehr,
2010), reduction of GHG emissions in ports is still a laborious issue due
to the high intensity of energy consumption, and to ports being hubs of
anthropogenic emissions (GHG/CO2) from port, shipping and hinterland
operations, coupled with institutional, economic, and political
complexities.
Climate change mitigation regulations, whether national, regional,
or international, apply to ports (Poulsen, Ponte, & Sornn-Friese, 2018).
While ports recognise the environmental externalities, their role in the
reduction of GHG emissions is essential to achieve the Paris agreement
target of limiting the global temperature rise to between 1.5 ◦ C and 2 ◦ C
(Halim et al., 2018). To achieve this target, all sectors, including mari­
time transport, need to decarbonise (Bouman, Lindstad, Rialland, &
Strømman, 2017). Generally, maritime stakeholders, communities, and
customers demand reduction of port GHG, and increase pressure on
ports to address and express their environmental credibility (Puig,
Michail, Wooldridge, & Darbra, 2017; Wilmsmeier, 2020). Hence, ports
are subject to tight scrutiny to address climate change (Du, Monios, &
Wang, 2019; Lam & Notteboom, 2014). Consequently, to maintain their
licences to operate, ports have initiated and developed green port pol­
icies to reduce total emissions (de Langen & Sornn-Friese, 2019). For
instance, Port of Los Angeles (POLA) and Port of Long Beach (POLB)
introduced the Clean Air Action Plan in response to local community
pressures and the Climate Action Plan in response to states’ regulations
(OECD, 2011). As a response to institutional pressure to decrease the
carbon footprint and mitigate climate change, European (EU) ports have
put energy consumption (second) and climate change (third) as top
environmental priorities (ESPO, 2019).
Ports are driven to address climate change now more than ever, as
GHG emission is a matter that concerns all ports (Gibbs et al., 2014).
Thus, implementation of GHG emission reduction measures is justified
because it fortifies port image and contributes to numerous attributes.
Ports thus strengthen their corporate social responsibility (Moon, Woo,
& Kim, 2018), and improve their green reputation (image) (Kang & Kim,
2017), so enhancing trust in ports. Via energy efficiency measures,
which decrease their carbon footprint, ports also improve energy secu­
rity (Ramos, Carballo, Álvarez, Sánchez, & Iglesias, 2014) and decrease
energy costs (Wilmsmeier & Spengler, 2016). The undertaking of GHG
emission reduction and energy efficiency (saving) measures are
2
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
recognised as one of the pillars for planning and achieving the notable
concepts of green (Davarzani, Fahimnia, Bell, & Sarkis, 2016; Lam &
Notteboom, 2014) and sustainable ports (Asgari, Hassani, Jones, &
Nguye, 2015; Bjerkan & Seter, 2019). Port green and sustainable path­
ways, specifically climate change mitigation, promote the environ­
mental dimension of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals
(UN SDGs, 2030 agenda) (United Nations, 2015), in particular: Goal 7
(access to renewable energy), Goal 12 (sustainable consumption and
production), Goal 13 (actions to mitigate climate change), and Goal 17
(strengthen means of implementation and revitalise the global part­
nership for sustainable development) (Alamoush, Ballini, & Dalaklis,
2021).
While ports reduce their GHG emission utilising various technical
and operational measures such as electrification and hybridisation of
cargo handling equipment, and energy efficiency measures (Acciaro,
Ghiara, & Cusano, 2014a; Alamoush, Ballini, & Ölçer, 2020; Iris & Lam,
2019); the ports’ role in GHG emission reduction is not only restricted to
port operations but also encompasses oceangoing vessels (OGVs) and
land transport. Extant literature addressed the port’s role in reducing
GHG emission for portside (Martínez-Moya et al., 2019; Misra et al.,
2017; Y. T. Tsai et al., 2018), hinterland transport (Gonzalez-Aregall,
Bergqvist, & Monios, 2018), OGVs (Tichavska, Tovar, Gritsenko,
Johansson, & Jalkanen, 2019; Winnes, Styhre, & Fridell, 2015), and
supply chains (Gibbs et al., 2014; Poulsen et al., 2018). In the same way,
ports facilitate land transport and shipping emission reduction by
providing various technical and operation measures such as onshore
power supply (OPS) (Mjelde et al., 2019). Within this context, ports
facilitate and support shipping GHG emission reduction, along with
supranational regulation from the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) (Notteboom, Van Der Lugt, Van Saase, Sel, & Neyens, 2020). This
bolsters the IMO commitment (initial GHG strategy) to halve interna­
tional shipping GHG emissions by 2050 compared to 2008 while
attempting to phase them out completely (IMO, 2018a). The IMO,
additionally, adopted a resolution that encouraged voluntary coopera­
tion of member states’ ports to facilitate shipping GHG emissions
reduction (IMO, 2019).
While maritime GHG emission reduction – through innovative
technical and operational measures – have gained momentum as a result
of increasingly mature technology readiness level and of tightening
regulations, amplified by the abovementioned drivers and motivations;
the reduction of GHG emissions in maritime transport is still slow and
the desired targets have not yet been accomplished, in shipping (Smith
et al., 2014), ports (Sifakis & Tsoutsos, 2021) and land transport
(Bergqvist, Macharis, Meers, & Woxenius, 2015). It could be also argued
that issues such as associated high costs and low perceived contribution
of technology (Notteboom & Lam, 2018), and organizational, institu­
tional, and information barriers (Johnson & Andersson, 2014), have
decelerated the adoption the measures. Given the high GHG emissions
generated in port areas by port, land transport and shipping operators,
the technical and operational measures to reduce GHG emissions within
the port and beyond are considered inadequate. Port policymakers
should not rely entirely on polluters to adopt technical and operational
measures. Rather, vigorous efforts should be made to incorporate policy
instruments and management tools to increase their implementation
(Alamoush et al., 2020; Bjerkan & Seter, 2019; Johnson & Andersson,
2014). Such practices can be viewed as implementation schemes, i.e.
policies and tools port policymakers can use to drive and improve the
uptake of and investment in technical and operational measures.
Nonetheless, once these implementations are viewed from the port
standpoint, especially regarding GHG emission reduction, various issues
and challenges exist from practical and academic perspectives.
First, regardless of location and even if they share similarities, ports
are neither standardised nor homogeneous in terms of business and
management models, size, functions, financial circumstances, and reg­
ulatory power (Acciaro et al., 2014; COGEA, 2017; I2S2, 2013). In
addition, ports typically prioritise preserving their business by
A.S. Alamoush et al.
increasing their economic profits over sustainability planning (Bjerkan
& Seter, 2019). Therefore, utilisation and types of implementation
schemes adopted vary considerably. Second, due to health concerns,
ports extensively use different implementation schemes in their green
approaches to address air pollutants, particularly Sulphur Oxides (SOx)
and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) emissions (Gibbs et al., 2014; Poulsen et al.,
2018). While these schemes could have been reasonably successful in
achieving their goals, it is necessary to identify their applicability within
the GHG context. Third, many ports still lack awareness of how to
implement sound strategies to reduce both GHG emissions and energy
consumption (Spengler & Wilmsmeier, 2019). Thus far, a specific port
GHG emissions reduction strategy, including implementation schemes,
rarely exists, although it should be simple to include one in ports envi­
ronmental strategies (IMO, 2018b). From an academic perspective,
research on port measures to reduce GHG emissions has been discussed
in a mixed and fragmented fashion, in that technical and operational
measures, and implementation schemes have been described inter­
changeably. Some implementation schemes have been discussed but
have not been collated under a unifying theme. In addition, although
many studies have conducted inventory of ports GHG/CO2 emissions, e.
g. (Martínez-Moya et al., 2019; Misra et al., 2017; Styhre et al., 2017;
Zhang et al., 2017), and have suggested technical and operational
measures to reduce emissions; implementation schemes have been
lacking. These are various gaps this study aims to fill.
To this end, given the introduced drivers, challenges, and relevancy
to ports, by means of a systematic literature review, this study aims to
collate and analyse port implementation schemes based on features they
share and real-world application, that is to facilitate the reduction of
GHG emissions in the portside, including the shipping and land trans­
port. Therefore, this study is guided by three central questions: Q1: What
are port implementation schemes, including technical and operational
measures, that can be used to reduce GHG emissions in portside, ship­
ping and land transport operations (port polluters)? Q2: How are the
implementation schemes best practiced considering the interplay be­
tween implementers and polluters (target groups)? Q3: What are the key
issues and challenges within the implementation schemes and how can
port policymakers seamlessly turn these issues and challenges into op­
portunities to reduce polluters’ GHG emissions while at the same time
maintain business integrity?
As far as we are aware, there are no prior studies which have
reviewed and analysed port GHG emission reduction measures from
policy and management perspectives while considering such large scope
and different dimensions. Previous reviews focused mainly, for example,
on general port sustainability (Bjerkan & Seter, 2019), and port tech­
nical and operational measures to reduce GHG emissions (Alamoush
et al., 2020) and improve energy efficiency (Iris & Lam, 2019). There­
fore, answering the study questions could inform port policymakers
about various GHG emission/reduction implementation pathways
including its pros and cons vis a vis opportunities. This enables better
evaluation and prioritisation of implementation schemes’ effectiveness,
thereby improving the capability to draw reliable conclusions. While
this study contributes to climate change mitigation efforts (Paris
agreement target), and sustainable development, it also contributes to
academic knowledge by improving the understanding of this topic and
providing aspiring researchers with fertile future research agenda.
Section 1 of this paper explained the relevance of this study. Section
2 outlines the methods and materials, including the conceptual frame­
work to facilitate analysis and discussion. Section 3 presents the analyses
and results, including the technical and operational measures, with a
focus on implementation schemes. Section 4 is the discussions and
conclusions.
3
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Systematic literature review
A systematic literature review (SLR) method is utilised to answer this
study’s questions and deliver a rational understanding of port GHG
emission reduction pathways. The SLR approach is considered an un­
biased method that starts with selecting appropriate keywords for
searching and retrieving the literature from different databases and
credible resources, then based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, data
and key findings from different studies are extracted and synthesized to
present an analysis of the literature, classification of main themes, and
future research agendas (Palmatier, Houston, & Hulland, 2018; Tran­
field, Denyer, & Smart, 2003). The SLR in this study is conducted ac­
cording to the guidelines in (Denyer & Tranfield, 2009; Petticrew &
Roberts, 2008; Snyder, 2019). Thus, the transparent procedures fol­
lowed in this SLR allow future researchers to replicate and update the
review. The flowchart of literature review steps and result of filtering are
illustrated in Fig. 1, and the following subsections elucidate these steps.
2.1.1. Searching
The search terms were divided into three main categories (Table 1).
The first category recognizes the port as the core interest, the second
category exhibits the GHG emission as the major issue addressed in this
study, while the third category reflects the interest in identification of
various measures related to reduction of GHG emissions. The Boolean
operator (OR) was used to link search terms within each category, while
the categories were linked by Boolean operator (AND). In March 2020,
with no restriction on dates, combinations of search strings were used to
search for titles and keywords in leading databases, i.e. ISI Web of Sci­
ence, library database, and EBSCO. After merging the results, the search
yielded 837 studies.
2.1.2. Filtering stages
To sharpen the review, minimize the number of studies and include
only relevant literature; two stages of filtering were executed based on
inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 2). The first stage filtering,
through reading of titles and abstracts, applied criterion one (inclusion)
and thus only abridged studies that answer the study questions were
included. Then in the second stage filtering, criterion two (exclusion)
was applied and all studies were filtered and screened for relevancy
through full-text reading. Thus, duplicate and repetitive studies, and
those that did not answer the study’s questions were excluded. In the
second stage filtering, new themes and studies were identified while
reading full text and references, such studies may not appear through
SLR search’s results, for instance, port incentives, green dues, and
Fig. 1. The flowchart of literature review methodology and result of filtering n
= number of included studies.
A.S. Alamoush et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1 Definitions take account of the realisation of tasks and interactions

Categories of combinations of search terms and strings. among policy components. Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983) defined the
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 implementation as carrying out basic policy decisions that are usually
incorporated in a statute including executive orders and court decisions.
Port CO2 Polic*
OR OR OR According to Mazmanian and Sabatier, the implementation of a policy
Seaport AND Carbon AND Action* includes the problem definition, pursued objectives, and the structure of
OR OR OR implementation process. The process goes through various stages that
Terminal Greenhouse gas Implementation identify policy outputs (tools and instruments) for the implementing
OR OR
GHG Reduction
agencies to utilise and assess compliance of and intended/ unintended
OR OR influence on target groups with respect to the outputs. Practically,
Emission* Measure* Wittrock (1985) defined implementation as “translating policy com­
OR mitments and societal aspirations into real world effects”. On the other
Strateg*
hand, Hill and Hupe (2002) defined implementation as “the stage in the
OR
Energy efficiency policy process concerned with turning policy intentions into action”.
Nonetheless, designing a policy, to be implemented, is not just sim­
Used to broaden the search by finding words that start with the same letters
ply declaring a course of action, but also comprises an array of goals,
preceding the the asterisk
combinations of instruments for achieving these goals, a designation of
governmental or non-governmental bodies tasked to apply instruments,
Table 2 and the allocation of resources for the needed tasks (May, 2003). Thus,
Inclusion and exclusion criteria. as an interactive and dynamic process, implementation contains various
components. On the top level, there exist the policy makers (imple­
Criterion one (Inclusion) Criterion two (Exclusion)
menters) and their implementing actors such as federal, regional, state
Language English Other languages and local government actors who play important role in success or
Peer- Relevant to answer the study General macro concept of
reviewed questions and particularly sustainability, green ports, and
failure of implementation (Winter, 2003b). On the bottom level,
articles address the aspects of port GHG air pollutants articles, which do implementing actors engage enforcers who are called the intermediaries
emission reduction not thoroughly discuss the port and street-level bureaucrats (frontline enforces) (Meyers & Vorsanger,
GHG emission reduction. In 2003). It is worth noting that implementing a policy requires setting a
addition to repetitive studies
goal to be perceived, which leads to an outcome achieved by the
Grey High quality conference Repetitive studies and those of
literature proceedings, book chapters and low quality, and/or those compliance of policy’s target groups, i.e. citizens or firms whose
technical reports that add extra covered by peer-reviewed behaviour the implementation policy aims to change in order to have a
useful knowledge and ensure articles good outcome that serves the end goal (Winter, 2003a). The outcome of
diversity of opinions policy implementation should be distinctively differentiated from the
output. While the outcome explains the behaviour of target groups, the
market based measures. Therefore, snowballed papers were added to the output characterizes the performance of the implementers in enforcing a
included studies, in addition, an iterative search for these keywords in policy or delivery of services to target groups (Winter, 2003b). The
the same databases was conducted until saturation was achieved. output, thus, entails fashioning instruments and implementation ap­
Markedly, a triangulation of references was ensured to improve research proaches (means to implement the policy), which are consistent with the
reliability and validity of results (Jesson et al., 2011). The most policy objectives (goal) at a much more operational level than a law
important delineating factor is the second stage filtering. Next, the (May, 2003).
included and excluded studies were documented. Afterwards, according From 1970 to 1990, implementation research shifted to studying the
to Kitchenham and Charters (2007), the quality and reliability of in­ policy instruments or tools, rather than policy content as a whole,
clusion and exclusion were checked by second and third authors, thereby providing a solider basis for theorising policy design and
agreement and disagreement were recorded and measured by the Cohen implementation (May, 2003). These instruments and tools form the
Kappa statistic,3 giving the result of 0.8. Nonetheless, disagreements building blocks of policies and thus combine diverse means to realise the
were resolved between the two. Eighty six studies were included and policy objectives, which includes mandates, incentives and inducement
considered within the scope of this study, i.e. 75 academic peer- (e.g. grants, subsidies, loans), penalties and coercive programs (e.g.
reviewed articles, 8 book chapters, and 3 proceedings. Finally, further sanctions, fines, taxes), and provisions for sharing of information (May,
data and information were collected from 26 identified international 2003). Vedung (1998) and Salamon (2002) devised dozens of in­
projects and technical reports, and 6 credible websites. The result is 112 struments typologies that incorporated public information, contracting,
included studies. purchase-of-service contracting, vouchers and tort liability, among
others. This shift indeed provides a strong platform on which to
analytically unpack policies, but scholars rarely agree on policy in­
2.2. The conceptual framework struments typologies, relevancy, and number. In addition, insights about
interplay and combinations of tools, trade-offs, and contradictions, are
Measures to decarbonise maritime transport are seen as a panacea to not highly addressed.
the climate change problem, but insights about how to implement and Overall, it is worth noting that implementation studies mainly follow
apply these measures are often not considered. Policy implementation is two approaches, i.e. top-down and bottom-up, in addition to a hybrid of
the key component for policy formulation process; however, it is a the two. The predominant top-down research (forward mapping) pays
lengthy process that begins with designing the contents and ends up special interest to higher level decision makers with a focus on specific
with accomplishing desired objectives. political decision from above order while taking into consideration the
Implementation researchers developed several definitions of imple­ policy instruments and resources (Schofield, 2001). On the other hand,
mentation specifically looking at policy application and design. the bottom-up approach (backward mapping) focuses on implementing
actors with most direct contact with target groups who have problematic
situations (Winter, 2003a, 2003b). Such approaches model crucial var­
3
Statistical test for assessing judges’ degree of agreement about the inclusion iables of implementation. Commonly, the achievement of policy goal
or exclusion of studies. (objectives) is considered the dependent variable, while independent

4
A.S. Alamoush et al.
variables are either outputs in terms of implementers’ performance or
outcomes in terms of target groups’ compliance (Winter, 2003b). A large
volume of different variables has been identified by implementation
theory researchers: for instance, O’Toole (1986) presented hundreds of
variables viewed as important in the implementation literature. None­
theless, it is unrealistic to incorporate all variables. Therefore, drawing
from the previous discussion and building on identified research, a
conceptual framework is developed (see Fig. 2). The framework includes
critical variables and the main components of hybrid implementation
approach and at the heart are the policy instruments and choices (out­
puts) that potentially influence the policy implementation. The policy
making and design of implementation as a process, i.e. how choices are
made and carried out when designing policies, and policy formulation,
are all out of the scope of this study. It is worth to note that the
framework (Fig. 2) is holistic and multidirectional, and contains onto­
logical, epistemological, and methodological assumptions (Guba &
Lincoln, 1994). In addition to assisting in answering the study questions,
the framework puts together and establishes the contours of the study’s
main concepts, and entails analytical rigor that is a prerequisite for high
quality theorization (Jaakkola, 2020; Palmatier et al., 2018). Thus, it is
utilised as an attempt to provide an overview of port decarbonisation
(GHG emission reduction) implementation for both academia and for
port policymakers and managers.
Casting the framework (Fig. 2) as an overlay over the port setting, it
could be illustrated that achieving the main goal of decarbonisation
requires ports to include the GHG emission reduction – in ports areas –
within their emission reduction strategy. It is recommended that ports
incorporate the GHG emissions in their environmental strategy in sup­
port of the international climate change mitigation efforts (IMO, 2018b).
As can be seen in the framework (Fig. 2), four dimensions are incorpo­
rated, which can be considered the essential components for port GHG
emission reduction strategy implementation. Dimension one is the im­
plementers and implementing actors, i.e. port policymakers. Dimension
two is the target groups (port GHG emission polluters). Dimension three
is the outcome of this strategy which entails the uptake of GHG emission
reduction technical and operational measures by port polluters in
response to the port policy makers’ implementation schemes. Such
measures that port target need to be identified by port policymakers in
advance based on emission inventory. And finally, dimension four is the
instruments and tools (output) that port policymakers employ to facili­
tate and drive the reduction of polluters’ GHG emission (target groups),
i.e. the implementation schemes. These instruments aim at supporting
the investment in and increasing the uptake of the technical an opera­
tional measure. Particularly, the implementation schemes synthesis and
typologies are developed (Section 3.4.) in accordance with guidelines of
conceptual designs outlined by Jaakkola (2020), which resulted in a
range of tools available for port policymakers to utilise. What each
dimension entails within the port context is included in the framework
(red fonts), and further explanation of these findings are presented in the
following sections, i.e. Section 3.1. implementers (port policymakers),
Section 3.2. target groups (port polluters), Section 3.3. technical and
operational measures (outcomes), and Section 3.4. the implementation
schemes (outputs). The framework dimensions are used to facilitate and
guide the analysis, and report study results and discussions, along with
identified global best practices.
3. Results and analysis
3.1. Implementers (port policymakers)
The implementers (Dimension 1 in Fig. 2) are the port policymakers
who generate and execute the implementation schemes to drive the
polluters (target groups) to uptake GHG emission reduction technical
and operational measures. However, due to varying port business and
management models (governance); port revenues, implementation of
regulation, and allocation of funds to environmental and climate
5
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
measures are handled by different authorities. Within this context, the
port governance, based on different business models and management,
can either be public (government-run), mixed public-private partnership
(landlord), or private (private company), and thus, port or public au­
thorities, e.g. municipal, central, and federal government, lead the
regulatory functions in all these models (Brooks, 2004). Public models
are common in developing countries, whereas many ports, particularly
in developed countries, tend to transform to the mixed model (landlord).
Considered as the key policymakers, the Port Authorities (PAs) may
perform one or various port functions: i) provide basic infrastructure to
operators (landlord), ii) fix tariffs, environmental standards and regu­
lation for tenants and operators (regulator), iii) own and run the cargo
handling equipment (CHE) and operations (operator), and iv) collabo­
rate with port stakeholders to improve performance and operation
(community manager) (Acciaro, Vanelslander, et al., 2014). Addition­
ally, PAs may act as developers, drivers of innovation, and centres of
knowledge sharing (PIANC, 2014). While the PAs are important in ports
policymaking, the public authorities such as the municipal or central
governments can also play major roles in port management and gover­
nance. They are commonly a key in developing and implementing port
emission reduction measures (Cui & Notteboom, 2017). Therefore, one
can conclude that port policy makers (implementers) are either port or
public authorities. Stated differently, when the local government or
municipality has strong control over the port (Hanseatic tradition), the
port authority – particularly in the mixed public-private service model –
has higher autonomy in governing the port. On the other hand, when
public authorities, i.e. regional, central, federal or national government,
have strong control over the port (Latin tradition) – particularly in the
public service model or private service model – the port authority has
less autonomy, and the public authorities govern the port to a greater
extent (Brooks, 2004; Notteboom & Lam, 2018).
3.2. Target groups (port polluters)
Operations of port operators involve various logistics functions, e.g.
terminal handling, transport, warehousing and storage activities,
including industrial functions, e.g. goods and energy production, as­
sembly and disassembly, and recycling activities (Notteboom et al.,
2020). On the other hand, port operations involve interaction with
transport chains such as inland waterways, domestic, and oceangoing
vessels, and land transport such as trucks, railways and locomotives
(IMO, 2018b). Most of these activities depend on fossil fuel, and also
consume large amount of energy, thus generating considerable GHG
emissions. These port polluters i.e. ports, oceangoing vessels, and land
transport operators, are called the target groups (Dimension 2 in Fig. 2).
Notably, polluters are generally reluctant to adopt technical and
operational measures since they are businesses driven to focus on short-
term profit maximisation, while environmental sustainability plans (the
GHG emission reduction for example) could be secondary within long-
term goals (Bjerkan & Seter, 2019). Therefore, as argued in the intro­
duction and the framework of this study, there is a need for management
and policy tools or instruments to drive the uptake of and support the
investment in the polluters’ technical and operational measures, i.e. by
the implementation schemes. Overall, ports implement sustainability
measures in collaboration with the key members of the supply chains
(Lu, Shang, & Lin, 2016; Roh, Thai, & Wong, 2016). Hence, ports play an
essential and holistic role in environmental upgrading in seaside and
landside operations. This aligns with various studies that highlight the
role and influence of ports in greening of not only the portside, but also
shipping and hinterland transport operations at the local and global
level (Asgari et al., 2015; Bergqvist & Egels-Zandén, 2012; Cullinane &
Cullinane, 2019; de Langen & Sornn-Friese, 2019; Notteboom et al.,
2020; Poulsen et al., 2018). In a similar fashion, the world port climate
initiative (WPCI) segmented the landlord port GHG emission into three
scopes, which encompassed emission and energy consumption (elec­
tricity) of PAs, including those of tenants and the port, ship, and land
A.S. Alamoush et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 2. The study conceptual framework.

transport operators (WPCI, 2010). Furthermore, the World Port Climate

Table 3
Initiative (WPCI) members have claimed that ports can influence the
Categories of port GHG emission reduction technical and operational
sustainability (CO2 emission reduction) of maritime supply chains as
measures.
they occupy a distinctive location and act as key hubs in global supply
chains (Fenton, 2017). Scope Measures categories

Portside Information
Equipment
3.3. Technical and operational measures to reduce GHG emissions (the Energy
outcome) Energy efficiency
Operational measures
Land transport Truck emission reduction
There exist various technical and operational measures to reduce Truck congestion reduction
GHG emissions and improve energy efficiency for port, ships and land Modal shift/split
transport. The uptake of these measures by polluters is the pursued Ship-port interface Onshore Power Supply (OPS)
Alternative fuels bunkering
outcome in the implementation of port GHG emission reduction strategy
Miscellaneous services
(Dimension 3 in Fig. 2). On this basis, ports adopt measures for portside Ship turnaround time reduction
operation (i.e. for mobile emission sources such as CHE, and stationary Vessel Speed Reduction (VSR)
ones such as buildings), land transport (trucks) and oceangoing vessels Virtual and Just-In-Time Arrival
(OGV) in the ship-port interface. Various measures to reduce port GHG
emissions were reviewed and analysed, e.g. tools for port sustainability
methanol, ammonia and renewable fuels (biofuel) (Winnes et al., 2015),
(Bjerkan & Seter, 2019), energy efficiency measures (Iris & Lam, 2019),
and ii) alternative power supply, such as equipment electrification (Lirn,
European ports energy efficiency best practices (Sdoukopoulos, Boile,
Wu, & Chen, 2013), and hybridization (Wei, Gu, & Chu, 2018), and the
Tromaras, & Anastasiadis, 2019), and ports’ technical and operational
utilisation of renewable energy to provide green electricity (e.g. solar,
measures to reduce GHG emissions (Alamoush et al., 2020).
ocean, geothermal energy) (PIANC, 2019).
Following the categorisation of Alamoush et al. (2020), compiled in
Fourth is the energy efficiency measures that aim at reducing the
Table 3, ports can first reduce GHG emissions in the portside by adopting
energy consumption of CHE (e.g. energy-saving tyres), buildings (e.g.
information measures, which are vital to monitor emissions and energy
automatic lighting control and sensors), vehicles (e.g. eco driving),
consumption, and establish a baseline (inventory4) (Acciaro, Vanels­
warehouses (e.g. white painting), and harbour craft (e.g. slow steaming)
lander, et al., 2014; Lam & Notteboom, 2014). Second is equipment
(Schmidt, 2019). Ports may establish energy management plans to
measures, which involve the physical change of emission sources for
reduce port total GHG emissions (Boile, Theofanis, Sdoukopoulos, &
newer, cleaner, and energy-efficient engines (e.g. vehicles, CHE, and
Plytas, 2016) and thus may gain certification under the ISO 50001
tugboats) (IMO, 2018b). Third are energy measures, within which ports
standard (Acciaro, Ghiara, and Cusano, 2014a). In addition, energy ef­
provide cleaner energy, other than fossil fuels, to energy consumers
ficiency technologies such as smart grids, microgrids, energy storage
(emitters) through i) cleaner alternative fuels such as liquefied natural
systems (batteries, supercapacitors and flywheels), and smart load
gas (LNG) (Yun, Xiangda, Wenyuan, Ke, & Chuan, 2018), hydrogen,
management (peak shaving and shedding) (Alasali, Haben, Becerra, &
Holderbaum, 2016; Green Efforts, 2014; PIANC, 2019) can be utilised in
4 ports. The fifth is the port operational measures such as digitalisation,
See the IMO’s guidelines for ports, ships, and trucks emissions inventory
advanced intelligent logistics (Wang, Huo, & Ortiz, 2015), container
(IMO, 2018b).

6
A.S. Alamoush et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx

terminal automation and operation system (Lee, Low, & Kim, 2015; Xin, Table 4
Negenborn, & Lodewijks, 2015), engine maintenance (Cuilian & Baojun, Utilised implementation schemes and environmental objectives.
2010), green purchasing and procurement, circular economy and port Environmental objective Schemes categories Study
city integration to improve recycling and carbon capture, storage and
Green port management tools Pricing (penalty and (Lam & Notteboom,
utilisation (Acciaro, Ghiara, & Cusano, 2014a; Acciaro, Vanelslander, incentives) 2014)
et al., 2014). Monitoring and
With respect to land transport, ports can decrease truck emissions by measuring
implementing clean truck programs (replacement of older trucks or their Market access control
Environmental
engines), emission monitoring programs, and congestion reduction regulations
through terminal appointment systems (TAS), peak shifts, and modal Environmental instruments Standards and (Notteboom & Lam,
shifts/split (Acciaro, Vanelslander, et al., 2014; Gonzalez-Aregall et al., for port concession regulations 2018)
2018; Norsworthy & Craft, 2013). In the ship-port interface, ports can contracts Bans and limitations
Permission
improve shipping operational and energy efficiency and reduce GHG
requirements
emissions by providing OPS (Hall, 2010), preferably from renewable Tradable emissions
energy, alternative fuels bunkering (Styhre et al., 2017), and miscella­ Pollution charges and
neous services such as hull cleaning and propeller polishing (IMO, liability
2015). In addition, ports can reduce ship turnaround time (Winnes et al., Authority’s subsidies
and discount
2015), utilising automated mooring systems and mid-stream operations Technical assistance
(IMO, 2015). What is more is the port facilitation of vessel speed Administrative Terminal lease and (IMO, 2018b, 2018c)
reduction (Zis, North, Angeloudis, Ochieng, & Bell, 2014), and virtual implementation schemes agreement
and just-in-time arrival (IMO, 2020; Poulsen et al., 2018). While ship­ for ports and shipping modification
emission reduction Tariff changes
ping emission at berth is larger than port emission, as manifested in the
Incentives and
introduction, ship-port interface measures may contribute to 1% disincentives
reduction of shipping GHG emissions in addition to another 3% reduc­ Voluntary agreements
tion by the provision of OPS (Halim et al., 2018). Shipping air emissions Administrative (Christodoulou,
Equally important, independent of those of offered by ports, the reduction measures measures Gonzalez-Aregall, Linde,
(regulations, Vierth, & Cullinane,
polluters (land transport and OGVs) may also adopt a wide variety of
standards) 2019)
technical and operational measures to reduce their GHG emissions, Economic measures
which ports would also target in their emission reduction strategy (fees, incentives)
(through the implementation schemes). The OGVs’ technical and oper­ Informative measures
(eco-labelling/
ational measures to reduce GHG emissions include advanced design and
indices)
speed for efficient fuel consumption, use of alternative fuel (LNG), and Research measures
energy saving technologies, among others (Cullinane & Cullinane, 2019; (techniques
IAPH, 2007; IMO, 2015). The OGVs’ measures were reviewed including evaluation)
their reduction potentials (Bouman et al., 2017; Halim et al., 2018; Infrastructure
measures (OPS)
Smith et al., 2014; Winnes et al., 2015). Studies suggest that OGVs
Port actions to green supply Actions for green (Notteboom et al., 2020)
technical and operational measures could reduce GHG emissions by 40% chains shipping
to 70%. Green port
development and
operations
3.4. Implementation schemes (the output)
Green inland logistics
Seaports and the
Port authorities (PAs) utilise environmental management tools, in­ circular economy
struments, and policies to implement environmental measures to reduce Knowledge
air pollution (Notteboom & Lam, 2018; Woo, Moon, & Lam, 2018). The development and
information sharing
policy and management tools are utilised to improve the uptake of air
emission reduction measures by ships (IMO, 2015), and ports and land
transport (Bjerkan & Seter, 2019; IMO, 2018b, 2018c). The imple­ schemes, it was included because of its potential to change awareness
mentation schemes in this study (Dimension 4 in Fig. 2) are defined as and improve the knowledge of polluters (target groups). Likewise, port
policy instruments and tools which port and public authorities (policy­ planning is added to the implementation schemes modalities as port
makers) utilise to encourage the uptake of and investment in technical plans would, apart from their economic focus, need to include port
and operational measures to reduce GHG emissions in ports. Addition­ sustainability measures when developing ports. The significance of this
ally, implementation schemes are utilised by port policymakers to category lies in the fact that ports can plan to include various technical
guarantee that land transport and OGVs accommodate operational and and operational measures in addition to implementation schemes in the
technical measures to reduce GHG emissions, i.e. beyond ports in the future.
supply chains. A broad analysis of implementation schemes’ categories and char­
As can be seen in Table 4, utilised implementation schemes mainly acteristics with a focus on how they influence GHG reduction within the
focus on environmental objectives, i.e. air pollution. While studies in port domain follows. Best practices are reported in Table 5 for all the
Table 4 follow environmental discourses (encompassing sustainability), implementation schemes and in accordance with the dimensions of the
they are general, and none has specifically considered GHG/CO2 as the study’s conceptual framework (Fig. 2).
central theme. Therefore, we build upon these studies, and group and
categorise the port implementation schemes, and thus illustrate their 3.4.1. Regulation and standards
suitability for implementing GHG emission reduction measures (Fig. 3). PAs as regulators adhere to and implement international, regional,
As shown in Fig. 3, the main groups are regulations and standards, and local regulations and policies, e.g. national air quality and climate
economic incentives and disincentives, voluntary and compulsory change regulation (Poulsen et al., 2018). PAs address climate change
agreements, capacity building, and port plans. While capacity building and GHG emissions reduction by implementing the provisions of the
is not widely associated with traditionally discussed implementation

7
A.S. Alamoush et al.
Groupings
GHG Intensive
uptake of GHG emission reduction technical and operational
Utilisation of various implementation schemes to drive the
disincentives
measures
Reduced GHG
Paris agreement in pursuit of the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and Kyoto Protocol. Ports domesticate
environmental regulations (conventions) and make their implementa­
tion by port operators, tenants, and land transport legally binding
(Acciaro, Vanelslander, et al., 2014; Boile et al., 2016; PIANC, 2014),
and effectively monitor and guarantee compliance (Lam & Notteboom,
2014). Regulations may require operators to use specific technical
measures to control emissions, ban and restrict fossil-fuels-run CHE, and
enforce liability standards (Notteboom & Lam, 2018).
On the other hand, international and local regulations exist to pre­
vent OGVs’ air pollution and GHG emissions. The United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), particularly articles 212(1)
and 222, require parties to adopt and enforce regulations to prevent
shipping pollution. The IMO regulates the shipping emissions, and flag
and port states enforce the IMO regulations. Further, PAs implement the
IMO International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL) (Notteboom et al., 2020). The MARPOL Annex VI ‘regula­
tions on energy efficiency for ships’ includes the Energy Efficiency
Design Index (EEDI) for all new-builds, and the Ship Energy Efficiency
Management Plan (SEEMP) for operating ships which incorporates the
Energy Efficiency Operator Indicator (EEOI) as a voluntary operational
benchmark for CO2 emissions. Importantly, steered by PAs, port state
control is the effective enforcement mechanism while ships are in ports
(OECD, 2014; Poulsen et al., 2018). For example, port states ensure
compliance with SEEMP by checking ships’ international energy effi­
ciency certificates.5
Emission reduction regulations drive the shipping industry to inter­
nalize the cost of CO2 emissions, both in investment in technologies and
in operational improvement (Mellin & Rydhed, 2011; Tseng & Pilcher,
2018). The regulation and policies are the ultimate backstops to reduce
the shipping GHG emissions, and ports are a pivotal player in
5
Issued by flag states for ships of more than 400 gross tons.
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
Implementation schemes’ categories
Regulations: enforcement of local, national, regional, and international
Regulation
and regulation for low carbon emissions inland and seaside. Thus,
standards polluters/target groups (port, ship, land transports operators) adopt
technical and operational measures to reduce their GHG emissions
Economic Incentives and grants: polluters are given incentives for adopting
incentives technical and operational measures to reduce carbon emissions.
and Additionally, funds are granted for polluters to invest in carbon
reduction measures
Tariff change: polluters are required to pay a large amount in charges
and dues; thus, they attempt to adopt technical and operational measures
to avoid the extra charges
Market based measures: polluters pay tax for carbon emissions based
on fuel consumption; eventually, they may adopt measures to reduce
emissions, and thus tax
Voluntary Voluntary agreements: agreement (beyond regulations) signed with
and polluters to adopt technical and operational measures to reduce carbon
compulsory emissions
agreements Concessions and licences requirements: terms to adopt technical and
operational measures (by operators) are included in concession
agreements and lease contracts
Capacity Training programs and awareness raising: polluters are trained to
building reduce their carbon emissions particularly in operations
Knowledge sharing and support: ports disseminate and share (with
polluters) knowledge and information about carbon reduction measures
Planning Port Plans: ports include the sustainability targets, particularly the
reduction of GHG emission of polluters in their long-term development
planning, strategies and master plans
Fig. 3. Implementation schemes’ groupings and categories.
enforcement (Christodoulou et al., 2019; Cullinane & Cullinane, 2019;
Notteboom et al., 2020). Bouman et al. (2017) claimed that regulations’
enforcement of measures will lead to a reduction of 75% of shipping
GHG emission by 2050, thus giving a chance to meet the IMO GHG
strategy goals.
Intergovernmental regulatory frameworks exist in the EU, e.g. di­
rectives on renewable energy (2009) to reduce GHG emissions, energy
efficiency (2012/27/EU), and clean power transport (2014/94/EU) to
build LNG refuelling infrastructure and OPS. Hence, EU PAs develop
plans to achieve the directives’ requirement (Christodoulou et al.,
2019). On the other hand, numerous international policy frameworks to
facilitate the reduction of ports, OGVs and land transport CO2 emissions
already exist, e.g. the International Association of Ports and Harbours
(IAPH) and the World Port Climate Initiative (WPCI) guides on emission
reduction and carbon footprinting, the World Port Sustainability Pro­
gram (WPSP) guidelines, European Sea Port Organization (ESPO) green
guide including the ECOPORT initiative, the most recent European
Green Deal,6 the Baltic Port Organization environmental policy frame­
works, the American Association of Port Authorities environmental
management handbook, and the World Ports Climate Action Program.
Table 5 exhibits examples of regulatory best practices as an imple­
mentation scheme.
3.4.2. Incentives and grants
Climate change requires urgent policy responses and the deployment
of port incentives to decarbonise maritime transport (ITF/OECD, 2018).
Incentives (environmentally differentiated port fees) and grants (sub­
sidies) are given beyond regulatory requirements. These promote sus­
tainability and internalize social and environmental externalities
(Gonzalez-Aregall, Bergqvist, & Monios, 2019), and thus stimulate the
6
By 2030, ships’ CO2 emissions at berth should be reduced by 50%; thus,
OPS should be encouraged, among others.
8
A.S. Alamoush et al. Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 5
Best practices of the implementation schemes.
Implementation Implementers (programme) Target group/ Purpose (measure) Reference
schemes Beneficiary

Regulations and Spanish PAs (regulation) PO Emissions reduction (Bermúdez, Laxe, & Aguayo-Lorenzo,
standards 2019)
SPBPs authorities (California clean air action plan) PO Idling restrictions, and exchange of (SPBP, 2017)
older tugs and CHE
SPBPs authorities (trucks clean, and mandatory TRO Near-zero-emission engine standards (SPBP, 2017)
retirement programs)
South Carolina PA (clean truck certification) TRO Ban of access to old (pre-1993) (Gonzalez-Aregall et al., 2018)
trucks
POLA, POLB, Oakland, San Francisco, San Diego OGVs OPS (at-berth emission control (de Langen & Sornn-Friese, 2019;
(California Air Resource Board regulation (2014)) requirements) SPBP, 2017)
Rotterdam municipality (Climate initiative) PO 50% reduction of CO2 emissions (Lam & Notteboom, 2014)
Vancouver Port (British Colombia Air Action PO, TRO Reduction of GHG emissions by use (OECD, 2011)
Program) of alternatives fuels and energy-
efficient operations
Busan Port (government’s Comprehensive Plan for PO, TRO, CO2 emission reduction technical, (OECD, 2011)
Response to Climate Change in National Land and national & operational and energy efficiency
Ocean) OGVs measures
Incentives POLB and POLA authorities PO Use alternative biofuels and LED (SPBP, 2017)
lights
SPBPs authorities (clean transportation program) PO Use hybrid vehicles and retrofit (SPBP, 2017)
engines
The Chinese government (Shenzhen incentive PO Build OPS (Becqué, Fung, & Zhu, 2017)
scheme)
Japanese PAs PO Electric RTG conversion (Y.-C. Yang & Chang, 2013)
Tokyo PA Barges Modal shift container transfer (OECD, 2014)
Hamburg PA Railways Use low emission locomotives (Kotowska, 2016)
PA of New Orleans (Truck Replacement Program) TRO Replacing trucks with cleaner (Gonzalez-Aregall et al., 2018).
models
PAs of NYNJ, POLA, Rotterdam, Antwerp, Hamburg, OGVs Reduce CO2 based on reporting (ESI, 2020)
Gothenburg, Le Havre, Busan, Tokyo, Dubai EEOIa
(Environmental Ship Indexb)
PAs of Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Yokohama, OGVs Reduce current emissions level a (GA, 2020)
Vancouver, Sohar (Green Award)
PAs of Vancouver & Prince Rupert, Gothenburg OGVs Reduce CO2 emissions compared to a (CSI, 2020)
(Clean Shipping Index) reference shipa
PAs of Vancouver and Prince Rupert EcoAction and OGVs Low EEDI or EVDI, and GHG (GHG ER, 2020; Sköld, 2019)
Green Wave Programs (GHG emission rating and emissions reduction measuresa
Green Marine Environmental Program)
Singapore Maritime Green Initiative (Green Port/ National & Exceeding IMO EEDI and use of low (MSGI, 2020)
ship program) OGVs carbon fuel
POLB and POLA authorities (California Green Flag OGVs Vessel speed reduction (ITF/OECD, 2018)
Incentive Program)
a
Bergen Port (Norway government environmental Cruise ships Reduce CO2 emissions (EPI, 2020)
port index)
Grants POLB and POLA authorities (Technology PO Develop and demonstrate emissions (SPBP, 2017)
Advancement Program) reduction measures
Singapore maritime green initiative (green energy PO Develop new solutions for CO2 (MSGI, 2020)
and technology program) reduction (ships and ports)
PA of Busan PO Electric RTG conversion (Y.-C. Yang & Chang, 2013)
PA of NYNJ (truck replacement program federal TRO Replacing trucks with cleaner (Gonzalez-Aregall et al., 2018)
fund) models
Tariff change PAs of Rotterdam, Antwerp, and Singapore PO & OGVs Emission reductiona (Lam & Notteboom, 2014)
Swedish PAs TRO Emission reductiona (Vierth, Karlsson, Linde, & Cullinane,
2019)
POLA and POLB authorities TRO Congestion and idle emissions (Kotowska, 2016)
reduction
Spanish PAs TRO Modal shift (OECD, 2014)
Market based Chinese government (Emission Trading Scheme- Chinese PO & Pay for or reduce CO2 emission (Halim et al., 2018)
measures Shanghai) ships
Voluntary agreement Spanish PAs PO Good environmental practices (Bermúdez et al., 2019)
California state authorities TRO Replacement of old trucks (Norsworthy & Craft, 2013)
Rotterdam PA PO & TRO Modal shift (Lam & Notteboom, 2014)
PA of San Diego OGVs Vessel speed reduction (Becqué et al., 2017)
Concessions and EU PAs PO & TRO Environmental and modal split (ESPO, 2019)
leases contracts clauses
EU PAs PO Use of OPS and electric or hybrid (Notteboom & Lam, 2018)
CHE
Rotterdam PA PO Inclusion of sustainability, (Du et al., 2019; Hollen, Van Den
environmental criteria, and modal Bosch, & Volberda, 2015) (Van Den
shift obligations Berg & De Langen, 2014)
POLA PA PO Emission reduction measures (Poulsen et al., 2018)
Spanish PAs PO Emission reduction measures (Bermúdez et al., 2019)
Tokyo Port Terminal Corporation PO GHG emission reduction (Fahdi, Elkhechafi, & Hachimi, 2019)
(continued on next page)

9
A.S. Alamoush et al.
Table 5 (continued )
Implementation Implementers (programme) Target group/
schemes Beneficiary
POLB and POLA PAs TRO
Training programs SPBPs PAs PO
Metro Vancouver PA PO & TRO
Singapore PA (Green awareness programme) PO & TRO
Busan PA (National Green Port Project) PO
Knowledge sharing POLB and POLA PAs (Technology Advancement PO & OGVs
Program)
Port plans Rotterdam PA PO
POLA PA (Citywide Climate Action Plan and the PO
Climate Action Registry)
PO = Port Operator, PA = Port Authority, OGVs = Oceangoing Vessels, TRO = Truck Operator, SPBPs = San Pedro Bay Ports, POLB = Port of Long Beach, POLA = Port
of Los Angeles, NYNJ = New York and New Jersey, EEOI = Energy Efficiency Operational Index, EEDI = Energy Efficiency Design Index, EVDI = Existing Vessel Design
Index.
a
Among other environmental criteria.
b
See the most recent full map of ESI ports in (WPSP, 2020).
reduction of GHG emissions and assist ports, OGVs, and land transport
operators to offset measures’ costs (Geerlings & van Duin, 2011; Not­
teboom et al., 2020; Notteboom & Lam, 2018; OECD, 2014; Poulsen
et al., 2018). The incentive works as carrot vis-a-vis the stick of the
environmental pollution charges and extra tariffs (Lam & Notteboom,
2014). Incentives and grants are given to the port operator, and truck
transport (Table 5). For example, port operators may receive incentives
for electrification projects and CHE upgrades such as Rubber Tyred
Gantry (RTG) cranes (Y.-C. Yang & Chang, 2013). The grants and in­
centives could be partially from the PAs, or Public, i.e. governmental,
international, and intergovernmental programmes.
More commonly, shipping economic incentives are used, accounting
for 48% of the measures to reduce shipping emissions, and mainly
applied by PAs (Christodoulou et al., 2019). It could be argued that ports
use incentives for ships (i.e. rebates or discounts on port dues, tonnage
tax, and registration fees) as a reaction to the slow environmental reg­
ulatory progress in the IMO. Notably, shipping incentive schemes may
not attract ship owners/operators to invest in measures for operating
ships because the whole port dues account for as little as 1% of voyage
cost; thus, incentives may only influence the decisions to invest in green
technologies in new-build ships (COGEA, 2017; ESPO, 2019; ITF/OECD,
2018). Whilst incentives reward ships and give them a better market
reputation, many ships cannot meet the requirement of the incentive
programs. Schemes are then seen as a marketing programme for PAs and
as a tool that raises the environmental awareness of shipping (Lam &
Notteboom, 2014; Poulsen et al., 2018).
The incentives impact remains limited to a few ports and their
operational areas (Table 5); it does not influence the whole of shipping
operations (Poulsen et al., 2018). Still, port incentives could facilitate
greening maritime supply chains (Notteboom et al., 2020). For example,
the Norwegian Ports’ incentive to promote LNG-driven cruise ships
(Table 5) proved to lead to increased technology uptake and decreased
GHG emissions in port and at sea (Mjelde et al., 2019). Most incentive
schemes are launched and utilised in Europe, with a few others in North
America and Asia. Around 56% of EU ports offer incentives for ships,
34% of which encourage the reduction of GHG emissions (ESPO, 2019).
The port incentives for ships are mainly based on ships’ environ­
mental indices and certifications, for example: environmental shipping
index (ESI), clean shipping index (CSI), green award (GA), and GHG
emission rating (GHG ER) (Table 5), among others. However, the GHG
or CO2 is not the primary determinant in most incentives except for the
GHG ER criteria; thus, incentive schemes contribute only partially to the
reduction of GHG emissions. Furthermore, the number of ships
10
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
Purpose (measure) Reference
Deploy trucks that meet the US (SPBP, 2017)
environmental protection agency’s
standards
Emission reduction and energy (SPBP, 2017)
efficiency
Trucks idling reduction (APEC, 2014)
Improve carbon accounting and (MSGI, 2020)
reporting
Education and training of port- (OECD, 2011)
related labour
Feasibility of emission reduction (IMO, 2018c)
measures
CO2 emission reduction in expansion (Acciaro, Vanelslander, et al., 2014)
projects
GHG emission tracking program (Schipper, Vreugdenhil, & de Jong,
2017)
qualifying for ports’ incentives is low compared to the total number of
certified calling ships, e.g. only 7% of ships calling at the Port of Rot­
terdam qualify for incentives (ITF/OECD, 2018). This is a result of ships
not meeting the minimum score of incentive schemes/index.
On the other hand, incentives for vessel speed reduction (VSR) are
utilised in POLB and POLA, and reduced CO2 by 29% (between 2002 and
2007) (Ahl, Frey, & Steimetz, 2017; ITF/OECD, 2018). Hence, Chang
and Jhang (2016) suggested that VSR, 20 nautical miles before entering
Kaohsiung Port, significantly reduces CO2 emissions. Ships with no po­
tential for ports incentives, based on environmental indices and certi­
fication, can be incentivised by PAs for adoption of other operational
efficiencies (Winnes et al., 2015), e.g. incentives of Ports of Rotterdam
and Singapore (LNG), Vancouver (OPS), Antwerp (energy audits) (Lam
& Notteboom, 2014), and Stockholm (ships’ OPS subsidies) (Cullinane
& Cullinane, 2019). Additionally, ports provide an electricity tax
exemption for ships that use OPS, e.g. Sweden, Germany, Denmark, and
Spain (Kotrikla, Lilas, & Nikitakos, 2016). Other ports may incentivise
OGVs, for environmental commitments, by discounts on the purchase of
bunker fuel (Ng & Song, 2010).
The ITF and OECD report reviewed the port-based incentives and
demonstrated their impacts, challenges and opportunities (ITF/OECD,
2018). The port incentives and grants are addressed and recommended
in the extant literature, for port, OGV and land transport operators, e.g.
(Becqué et al., 2017; Christodoulou et al., 2019; COGEA, 2017; Du et al.,
2019; Fenton, 2017; Gonzalez-Aregall et al., 2018; Mellin & Rydhed,
2011; Psaraftis, 2012; Sköld, 2019; Tichavska & Tovar, 2015; Tseng &
Pilcher, 2018).
3.4.3. Tariff change
Ports are business ecosystems with multiple users, hence, to offset air
pollution, differentiation of charges should be implemented based on
customers’ environmental performance (Van Den Berg, De Langen, &
Van Zuijlen, 2017) and on port green priorities (Lam & Notteboom,
2014; Notteboom & Lam, 2018). PAs should offer not only green rebates
but also charge polluters (the polluter pays principle) (ITF/OECD,
2018). Thus, PAs may change the tariff and prepare different rates
(pricing) to ports’ tenants, operators, ships, and land transport (Table 5).
Although penalty pricing can be a form of punishment for higher
pollution (Tseng & Pilcher, 2018), it is considered a useful tool that
prompts tenants and port users to improve their environmental (carbon)
footprint and use green technologies in their operations. Tariff change
(pricing) is commonly used for shipping traffic, and to a lesser extent for
industrial activities at ports.
A.S. Alamoush et al.
In its green guide, ESPO encourages differentiated port charges in
respect of port environmental management and sustainability (Puig
et al., 2017). In Ports of Rotterdam, Antwerp, and Singapore, penalty
pricing and incentives are used simultaneously (Lam & Notteboom,
2014). Typically, the extra tariffs on polluters would be used to incen­
tivise those who demonstrate green performance. Transferring money
from charging heavier polluters to lighter polluters, the ‘malus princi­
ple’, is being discussed at EU ports to create revenue neutrality (COGEA,
2017). As regards land transport, increasing its port dues leads to a shift
to environmentally friendly modes (rail and inland waterway), and
hence lower GHG emissions (Bergqvist & Egels-Zandén, 2012; OECD,
2014). Bergqvist et al. (2015) suggested various tools to improve port
hinterland transport environmental sustainability; port additional
handling charges were highly favoured. Swedish ports’ fees and taxes, e.
g. trucks gate fees, decrease the freight transport GHG emissions (Vierth
et al., 2019). The POLA and POLB PierPass programme charges extra
fees (USD 50) for handling containers brought to the terminals by trucks
in peak hours, i.e. to avoid congestion and idling emissions (Kotowska,
2016). The proceeds compensate for off-peak operational expenses, yet
the program shifted 35% of containers to night hours after six months of
its application.
3.4.4. Market based measures
PAs, or usually governmental bodies, may charge port operators,
trucks, and OGVs for their carbon emissions through the emission
trading scheme and carbon tax. These measures create funds to foster
adoption of cleaner technologies, and manage and offset GHG emissions
elsewhere. This motivates ships and ports to act and implement emission
reduction measures and increase energy efficiency to avoid paying for
carbon emissions. Maritime market based measures (MBM) proposals
were submitted to the IMO and the definition and architecture of such
MBMs were reviewed (Nikolakaki, 2013; Psaraftis, 2012). The emission
trading scheme (ETS) (cap-and-trade system) stipulates a cap (ceiling)
on carbon emissions, so ships buy credits (quotas) if they cannot reach
the cap, otherwise, sell credits in a carbon market if they emit below the
cap. With this allowance system, authorities set the emissions limit, and
the price of CO2 will vary according to a trading system. On the other
hand, the carbon tax (bunker levy) is a fixed charge on carbon emitted
based on ship’s fuel consumption; thus the tax varies depending on how
the operators react to tax obligations (Halim et al., 2018; Mellin &
Rydhed, 2011).
Various studies have analysed the impact and prospect of MBMs on
ports and shipping, and GHG/CO2 emission reduction, e.g. (Cui &
Notteboom, 2017; Franc & Sutto, 2014; Homsombat, Yip, Yang, & Fu,
2013; Kosmas & Acciaro, 2017; Mellin & Rydhed, 2011; Tseng &
Pilcher, 2016). Gu, Wallace, and Wang (2019) studied regional and
global Maritime Emissions Trading Schemes (METS) to reduce fleet CO2
emissions, suggesting that METS does not lead to emission reduction in
the short term, contrary to the bunker levy scheme.
Although the main focus is on the shipping side, PAs may deploy
carbon emissions MBM, which allows tenants or port operators to sell or
buy credits (emission cap) or pay a fixed amount for each unit of
pollution (emissions tax) (Notteboom & Lam, 2018). A key point in the
success of such schemes is having a robust and feasible emission moni­
toring system. The MBM mechanism is not widely implemented in ports,
though China has an ETS that includes the port sector (Table 5). How­
ever, its current carbon ETS does not stimulate container terminals to
reduce carbon emissions (Zhong, Hu, & Yip, 2019).
The MBM is one of the economic measures least used to reduce
shipping emissions (Christodoulou et al., 2019). At the national level,
Shanghai has an ETS for domestic shipping (Halim et al., 2018)
(Table 5). Furthermore, it should be noted that the EU indicated that
shipping would be included in the EU ETS from 2023 onwards unless the
IMO includes a similar scheme by 2021. Thus, although shipping MBMs
have not been adopted yet, the IMO recently included MBMs under the
initial GHG strategy discussions (IMO, 2018a). The IMO and maritime
11
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
stakeholders started considering the MBMs, which include a GHG
emission fund, ETS, and energy efficiency credits based on EEDI. How­
ever, stakeholders feel MBMs are excessive, and they strongly oppose
their introduction (Cullinane & Cullinane, 2019). Nonetheless, with the
introduction of the EU monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV)
(2018)7 for ships calling at EU ports, and the IMO fuel consumption
reporting requirement (Data Collection System - 2019); ports will
inevitability play a pivotal role in facilitating MBMs and sustaining
cooperation with IMO and national and regional authorities (Cullinane
& Cullinane, 2019).
3.4.5. Voluntary agreements
PAs encourage polluters to implement emission reduction measures
voluntarily, i.e. no legal obligations or compensations. Driven by their
corporate social responsibility to minimize their air emissions, some port
tenants and ships sign a voluntary agreement with PAs to transform into
energy-efficient and near-zero emission operations (CARB/EPA, 2015c;
SPBP, 2017). PAs sign voluntary agreements with ports, OGVs and truck
operators, which leads to GHG emission reduction (Table 5). Voluntary
tools have more chance of being successful. Gibbs et al. (2014) recom­
mended vessel speed reduction and virtual arrival as voluntary measures
to reduce ship emissions, in addition to their being as promotional for
green shipping.
Ports may certify and recognise operators who voluntarily chose
environmentally friendly pathways (Gonzalez-Aregall et al., 2018). Port
of Seattle issues an annual environmental excellence award for best
environmentally performing port operators. In addition, the POLB and
POLA clean air action plan award is issued for clean trucking; such
award may guarantee some incentives (Tseng & Pilcher, 2018). OGVs
are recognised (certificate of appreciation) for voluntary speed reduc­
tion in Port of San Diego (Table 5). The POLB green flag environmental
achievement award is issued for OGVs that comply with speed reduction
for one year. Likewise, Port of Metro Vancouver created the blue circle
award to recognise OGVs that participate in the Eco-action program
incentive scheme (Table 5) (Becqué et al., 2017). Moreover, the US
Coast Guard issues records for environmentally friendly OGVs, holders
may be subject to less port state control inspection for two years (OECD,
2014).
While PAs involve port, ship, land transport operators and tenants in
environmentally friendly voluntary agreements that target the reduction
of GHG emissions, the public can also be engaged in such voluntary
planning in an initiative that is called a volunteer planning/program.
Within this initiative, a group of volunteers is trained by the PAs to be
involved in port environmental planning. In addition, volunteers may
engage with the community to educate the public about port operations
and introduce the port environmental performances and climate actions,
among others. For example, Fremantle Ports in Australia has a volunteer
programme that contributes to and is involved in various port envi­
ronmental issues (Fremantle Ports, 2020).
3.4.6. Concessions and licences requirement
Concession agreement designs are established to fulfil the public/
port authority’s priorities (Lam & Notteboom, 2014). WPCI engaged in
developing sustainability criteria for leases and concession contracts
(Poulsen et al., 2018). While discussing terminal concession contracts,
amending and modifying leases and agreements, and issuing ‘licence to
operate’ certification8 (ITF/OECD, 2018), PAs can negotiate the inclu­
sion of technical terms that require port operators and tenants to utilise
measures to limit their environmental impact (Acciaro, Vanelslander,
et al., 2014; Bermúdez et al., 2019; Van Den Berg & De Langen, 2014).
7
A result of EU Regulation (2015/575) concerns the MRV of CO2 emissions
from maritime transport.
8
Licence to operate: granting authorization to operate for being recognized
as environmentally friendly.
A.S. Alamoush et al.
For example, PAs specify technologies, ban and limit the amount of
emissions, and facilitate the transition to green marine services that
reduce carbon-intensive dredging, tugging and towage operations
(Notteboom & Lam, 2018; PIANC, 2014). However, the inclusion of
GHG emission reduction measures is rarely the focus, which is typically
the ambient air pollutants (ITF/OECD, 2018).
Generally, the inclusion of environmental requirements in terminal
concession contracts is already in place (Table 5), particularly by Eu­
ropean PAs (Notteboom, Verhoeven, & Fontanet, 2012). Furthermore,
PAs incorporate land transport environmental goals when contracting
port operators, e.g. truck and rail idling reduction measures (Gonzalez-
Aregall et al., 2018). Similarly, terminal operators may be obliged to
participate in shipping emission reduction programs. This requires op­
erators to address shipping GHG emissions reduction through VSR and
provide OSP and alternative fuels bunkering (IMO, 2018c).
3.4.7. Training programs and awareness raising
PAs build programs to educate and train tenants, stakeholders, and
employees (Cuilian & Baojun, 2010; Di Vaio & Varriale, 2018). As
community managers, the PAs ensure that their employees and port
operators are environmentally aware (Acciaro, Vanelslander, et al.,
2014). The training courses and seminars aim to change trainees’
behaviour by focusing on the importance of efficient use of energy
sources and climate change mitigation. Employee empowerment is
beneficial for machines operators, particularly on the shop floor (Pavlic,
Cepak, Sucic, Peckaj, & Kandus, 2014). Environmental awareness
training is one of the benchmarks of the ESPO survey for Ecoports
(PORTOPIA, 2017; Puig et al., 2017), and thus is positively related to
employees’ green behaviour (Tsai, Lu, & Chang, 2017), ultimately
prompting them to take action to reduce GHG emissions. For example,
ports encourage and motivate employees and tenants to use carpooling,
van pooling, public transportation, and cycling (I2S2, 2013; IAPH, 2008;
Wilmsmeier, 2020). Training is not only limited to portside, but
educational programs can be held for land transport (trucks) (Table 5)
(Gonzalez-Aregall et al., 2018), and ships. EU projects have conducted
training programs, e.g. the GreenCranes training for cranes operators
(Hippinen & Federley, 2014), Green EFFORTS awareness training
(Green Efforts, 2014), and the e-harbours stakeholders’ awareness
raising (Verbeeck et al., 2014).
3.4.8. Knowledge sharing and support
The port authority may serve as the central point of knowledge for
environmental issues; thus, knowledge can be shared in cooperation
with research institutes (PIANC, 2014). The cooperation is key to create
a proper research and development platform. Ports disseminate infor­
mation on the vulnerability of surrounding communities and other
stakeholders to GHG emissions and on reduction of such emissions
(Wilmsmeier, 2020). To influence their behaviour, ports can share good
practices guides (information) with operators (Notteboom & Lam,
2018), and other ports (Sdoukopoulos et al., 2019). Sharing of experi­
ence and lessons learned among ports, particularly measures’ imple­
mentation, facilitates transferability of successful implementation (Boile
et al., 2016). Ports share and communicate knowledge and information
on environmental protection (Pavlic et al., 2014), through formal con­
versation, sustainability reports, face to face meetings, telephone con­
versation, e-mail, SMS, banners and social media such as WeChat, Line,
Twitter, and Facebook (H.-L. Tsai et al., 2017). Furthermore, ports share
their successful projects through the world port sustainability program
(WPSP), which focuses on the UN sustainable development goals
(climate change and energy) (WPSP, 2020). PAs can develop knowledge
about environmental and energy management systems, and feasibility
studies, then share them with port stakeholders (Table 5). Thus stake­
holders understand their energy consumption (emissions) and better
plan for implementing emission reduction strategies (Notteboom et al.,
2020).
12
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
3.4.9. Port plans
The port plans category involves strategic and long-term develop­
ment planning for various future port activities (Bjerkan & Seter, 2019),
which could encompass environmental targets (Schipper et al., 2017),
particularly climate change mitigation plans (GHG reduction). By so
doing, ports define and monitor development strategies while at the
same time avoid societal resistance. It could thus be argued that nearly
all implementation schemes categories can be potentially included
under port plans, that is to develop and transit ports in a sustainable
direction. It is seen to be necessary that ports incorporate sustainability
consideration in planning stages, for example in expansion projects
(Lam & Notteboom, 2014). However, not all ports incorporate sustain­
ability in planning. Ten case studies of port-city long-term plans were
evaluated, half of the ports’ urban and master plans were lacking in­
formation about GHG and climate regulation (change), the other half
were legally bound – to include sustainability – by regulations (Schipper
et al., 2017).
Generally, when present, port plans include designs for green and
sustainable port (Acciaro, Vanelslander, et al., 2014; Asgari et al., 2015),
environmental and energy management systems (Acciaro, Ghiara, &
Cusano, 2014b; Boile et al., 2016; Lam & Notteboom, 2014), shipping
emission reduction in ports (Gibbs et al., 2014), and CO2 emission
reduction in expansion projects (e.g. port of Rotterdam expansion
project Maasvlakte II) (IMO, 2015). Nonetheless, the technical and
operational measures (Section 3.3) can be included in future port plans.
This efficiently facilitates integration of these measures in various
implementation schemes in addition to generating opportunities to ac­
quire funds and technical assistance if needed. For instance, many ports
in the EU plan for OPS and alternative fuel bunkering (Alamoush et al.,
2020), and San Pedro Bay Ports in the USA (Clean Air Action Plan) plan
for replacement of some older CHE with new cleaner engines over a
specific period (SPBP, 2017). Additionally, ports may have plans to
integrate with their cities for renewable energy production, carbon
capture, storage and utilisation, circular economy and recycling, waste
management, and recovery and reuse of heat and steam from industrial
activities (ecology of scale), for example, in Ports of Amsterdam, Rot­
terdam, Antwerp and Hamburg (Acciaro, Ghiara, & Cusano, 2014b;
Acciaro, Vanelslander, et al., 2014; Lam & Notteboom, 2014; Poulsen
et al., 2018; Woo et al., 2018). Like the specific port plans, international
frameworks also call for port planning. The World Port Climate Decla­
ration revealed that ports need to plan and explore how CO2 emission in
ports, ships, and land transport can be reduced in the future (Fenton,
2017). By the same token, the WPSP encourages ports to develop plans
to pursue sustainable development goals (climate change and energy)
(WPSP, 2020).
4. Discussion and conclusions
The novelty is that implementation schemes not only help in
reduction of ports’ GHG emission, but also augment the international
efforts to reduce OGVs and land transport GHG emissions. Insights about
the implementation schemes can be gleaned in accordance with best
practices retrieved from the sample of included studies9 (Table 5).
Around 60% of the schemes’ implementers are port authorities (PAs),
while 40% are public authorities such as municipality, state, and central
government. PAs still manage and run ports, as 44% of EU PAs manage
more than one port, and 38% are facilitators for renewable energy
production (PORTOPIA, 2017). The regulations are commonly managed
by public authorities (governments) due to their jurisdiction over PAs, as
are incentives that require government funds, particularly when port
revenues are publicly managed. Furthermore, corresponding to findings
in (Alamoush et al., 2020; Poulsen et al., 2018), several developed
9
Though some schemes maybe implemented but not reported in this sample
of studies.
A.S. Alamoush et al.
countries ports in North America, Europe, and the Far East of Asia are
seemingly making headway with their implementation of GHG emission
reduction measures, while measures implementation within ports of
developing countries are lacking, i.e. South America, Africa, Oceania.
Institutional settings and overlapping governance may influence
developing countries implementation, in addition to issues with finance
and cost, and technical and capacity requirements. While this may be the
case in implementation gap, the full range of technical, operational, and
implementation tools collated in this study is relevant to small or large
ports in developing and developed countries, and if utilised, would
facilitate smooth transition to decarbonisation.
On the other hand, land transport measures are common in North
America. This is due to strict regulations and standards on trucks in the
San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (CARB/EPA, 2015a; CARB/
EPA, 2015b; SPBP, 2017). The plan responded to California’s State
Climate Action Plans. Moreover, concession contracts and leases are
utilised more in EU ports (Notteboom & Lam, 2018). In support of
concession contracts, ESPO has initiated a good practice guide to help
ports in this area (Notteboom et al., 2012). As regards the target groups
and implementation schemes, most of the schemes targeted port oper­
ators (45%) mainly by concessions and regulations, then land transport
(31%) mainly by regulations and tariff change, followed by OGVs (24%)
mainly by incentive programmes. This could be attributed to port and
land transport operators being under countries’ national/local regula­
tions, whereas OGVs are international, and their emissions are subject to
control of the port state only within the port area and territorial sea.
MBMs are not widely utilised due to some key issues (see Section 4.1),
and training and knowledge sharing are less exercised with OGVs and
land transport.
4.1. Implementation schemes: key issues and opportunities
Many implementation schemes are easy to utilise at low cost (e.g.
concession contracts, voluntary agreements, knowledge sharing,
training programmes, and port plans). Port policymakers should favour
such schemes and widen their implementation to OGVs and land
transport. Other schemes present challenges and require rational
implementation.
Regulations and standards are considered the foundation (enforce­
ment tool) for port GHG reduction, and in many cases, they exist.
However, setting environmental regulations and localizing policies by
PAs has bounds, i.e. dependent on countries’ geopolitical culture.
Accordingly, port regulations can be imposed by the national govern­
ment (e.g. Singapore), municipality (e.g. Rotterdam), and port authority
(e.g. Antwerp) (Lam & Notteboom, 2014). Developing achievable reg­
ulations is challenging as many PAs lack sufficient information on pol­
luters’ emissions. Hence, ports need to identify possible methods to
alleviate the challenge of incomplete information (emission inventory)
and the cost of regulations (Zheng, Ge, Fu, & Xie, 2017). It should be
stressed that uniform regulation always reduces total emissions
compared to unilateral regulation, as the latter may influence port
competitiveness (Sheng, Li, Fu, & Gillen, 2017), and increases cost to
OGVs and shippers. In this sense, analytical models to investigate
optimal port emission regulation in a duopoly port environment are
necessary for decision-making (Park, Chang, & Zou, 2018).
Incentives are various, and with different aims. However, they are
not entirely free from criticism. The administration by ports and cost of
registration for both ports (as incentive provider) and ships are onerous
(Becqué et al., 2017). The more complex the index, the fewer ships are
involved (Sköld, 2019). Further, it is hard to say which incentive scheme
suits specific ports; it all depends on each port’s environmental foot­
print, institutional and regulatory structure, geography, type of calling
vessels, and costs (Van Den Berg et al., 2017). Therefore, characteristics
of ideal port incentives for environmental ship indices, explained in
(COGEA, 2017; Mjelde et al., 2019; Sköld, 2019), should be considered
when introducing or modifying incentives. Ideal incentives may include
13
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
many types of ships, be applicable by many ports, and differentiate
between worst and best performers (ITF/OECD, 2018). While the
incentive schemes focus strongly on ambient air pollutants, further
prioritisation of GHG is highly recommended as ambient air pollutants
are well taken care of by many strict regulations, such as SOx and NOx
emission control areas (ECAs) and the IMO, 2020 sulphur cap. Overall,
port economic incentives and grants are powerful tools to transit to
decarbonisation, beyond climate regulations and standards, and at the
same time they help maintain port competitiveness. Thus, they need to
be encouraged, and promoted. For example, ports may seek finance from
public funds.
Disincentives create a rebound effect if used in isolation (one port),
though there is no current and explicit port tariff and dues changes
targeting GHG emissions, except the present focus on air pollutants, e.g.
Swedish PA differentiated port dues for ships’ excess SOx and NOx
emissions. It should be noted that ports are reluctant to initiate disin­
centives, simply because shippers and OGVs oppose tariff changes due to
cost increase to OGVs, passed on to shippers and consignees until the end
customers. Therefore, maritime stakeholders should apply pressure on
ports to introduce differentiated green (GHG focus) port dues (Bergqvist
& Egels-Zandén, 2012). On the other hand, MBMs influence port oper­
ators and shipping lines, i.e. they may impact port competitiveness, and
cargo may shift to roads or other ports. Therefore, it is fundamental for
the government and PAs to recognise the consequence of setting proper
MBMs. Nonetheless, to succeed, emission trading schemes/tax need to
be extended to a global scale or complemented with national or regional
schemes (Halim et al., 2018).
4.2. The way forward
While there are various challenges and key issues identified within
the implementation schemes, they can still be successfully used by port
policymakers, either public or port authorities, to reduce GHG emissions
of polluters within the port and beyond. As gleaned from the analysis of
literature and best practices, the success of implementation schemes can
be threefold, i.e. monitoring, cooperation, and incorporation of various
combinations. Port authorities need to enforce and guide target groups
(polluters) to conduct GHG inventories (information measure). The
monitoring and measuring of polluters’ GHG emissions (Lam & Notte­
boom, 2014; Tseng & Pilcher, 2018) is the first step to give visibility over
emissions and thus motivate ports to devise appropriate schemes for
implementing technical and operational measures. Sharing information
about monitoring is another important step to mobilise polluters’
attention. Cooperation with land and seaside polluters, on the one hand,
and public sector agencies, stakeholders, and governmental and non-
governmental organizations, on the other hand, is a key catalyst in the
operationalisation of implementation schemes, leading to broader GHG
reduction. Port authority cooperation with port, ship, and land transport
operators leads to the success of green port strategies and emission
reduction (Bjerkan & Seter, 2019; Gonzalez-Aregall et al., 2018; Moon
et al., 2018; Sdoukopoulos et al., 2019). Regulation setting, incentives,
tariff change, and MBM require local, multilateral, and regional coop­
eration. Broadly, regional cooperation among ports (inter-port) and with
regional stakeholders is also essential to harmonize and make uniform
the implementation schemes (GHG reduction requirements), and thus
maintain a regional level playing field. This protects port competitive­
ness, attract ships, and prevents cargo shift, free riders, and emission
leakage.10 Therefore, collective actions are necessary to have a win-win
situation to mitigate and adapt to environmental and climate problems
(Fenton, 2017). Furthermore, to contribute to global environmental
agenda setting, particularly climate change, ports are recommended to
establish a cooperation and lobbying platform at the IMO through IAPH
membership (Poulsen et al., 2018; Tichavska & Tovar, 2015).
10
Carbon emission leaks to other ports that have no measures enforced.
A.S. Alamoush et al.
Apart from regulation, it is worth noting that most implementation
schemes work on a case-by-case basis. Globally, there is no one-size-fits-
all. The challenge remains that of choosing an appropriate imple­
mentation scheme and weaving it into the current environmental pol­
icies (strategy). On the basis of the framework four dimensions (Fig. 2),
port policymakers (implementers) may consider various combinations of
schemes, thus ports retain redundancy in implementing measures
should a single approach fail to be applied. Therefore, a generic view,
identifying the best combinations, is demonstrated in Fig. 4, and
numerous possible best combinations can be identified. Rather, the
implementation schemes are best used in combinations. For example,
POLB and POLA have stated in their clean air action plan that they
effectively included a mix of lease requirements, tariff changes, in­
centives, grants, and voluntary agreements with an ultimate backstop of
regulatory requirements (IMO, 2015, 2018c). Similarly, as regards
shipping, it is always recommended that a combination of measures is
considered to achieve maximum decarbonization (Bouman et al., 2017;
Halim et al., 2018).
While consideration of the best combinations is important, the
formulation of optimal schemes is not a straightforward issue; polluters’
(target groups) ability to achieve the technical and operational measures
in question should not be neglected. More exactly, port policymakers
(implementers) need to consider measures’ issues, such as feasibility and
complexity (e.g. technology readiness and verification) (Alamoush et al.,
2020). A case in point, the modal split measure is less popular because it
is constrictive and reduces port stakeholders’ flexibility (Bjerkan &
Seter, 2019). The priorities and preferences of stakeholders should be
taken into account to figure out policies that would be more effective to
reach the environmental objectives (Martínez-Moya et al., 2019). In
addition, implementers are better off considering measures’ abatement
potential, co-benefits and dis-benefits with other air pollutants (NOx,
SOx, PM), and capital, operational and administrative costs (Alamoush
et al., 2020). The inconsistency between cost effectiveness of technical
and operational measures and the implementation schemes is vital to
consider, to allow polluters to achieve GHG reduction and meanwhile
fulfil customers’ requirements, thus maintain their competitiveness,
locally and regionally, compared to other modes of transport (road and
aviation).
Fig. 4. Generic view to identifying best combinations.
14
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
4.3. Limitations and future research
Although the conceptual framework aims to advise port policy­
makers on what schemes to utilise to effectively implement GHG emis­
sion reduction measures (technical and operational), the conditions for
the success of such a framework may lack concrete practicality. How­
ever, this study framework provides consideration for policymakers to
develop implementation rather than just a set of schemes that guarantee
success. Empirical validation and testing (weight of importance) of re­
lationships among the implementation schemes, and identification of
best combinations are a fertile research area. The framework can be
examined by multiple criteria decision making (MCDM), in which
various alternatives can be assessed concerning multiple factors and
subfactors. The study excluded the policymaking process; therefore,
consideration of the institutional setting of implementers, implementing
actors, and the target groups (top-down and bottom-up) is important to
clarify enablers and inhibitors (determinants) that challenge imple­
mentation. Furthermore, this assists in clarifying how to overcome the
resistance of stakeholders, as the change in institutional context may
change the way of implementation. Thus, political, social, and economic
changes (costs) of implementers (public and port authorities) should be
considered in future research. Just as importantly, there is a need to
quantify port GHG emissions as this helps in building a baseline of
emissions for the port sector, and on the other hand helps facilitate
gauging future improvements in measures implementation, among
other contributions. Therefore, future research may attempt to aggre­
gate finalised and public inventories, in addition to estimation of
emissions of the rest of ports (surrogate inventory for example), at least
major international ports.
On the other hand, there are limitations to the proposed catego­
risation of schemes; firstly, port GHG emission reduction is an emerging
concept in academia and practice, and thus dispersed data in multiple
themes of studies is an inherent issue. Therefore, a snowballing and an
iterative search were executed to ensure broad coverage in addition to
exploration of regional reports and studies. Secondly, although subject
to different interpretations, attempts were made to group and categorise
the schemes in a mutually exclusive way. Categories are not claimed to
be completely exhaustive, but rather as emerging and established
A.S. Alamoush et al.
solutions.
The study is a first attempt to highlight the importance of the port
role in GHG emission reduction (low carbon transformation), and it
seems likely that this field of research will expand significantly; hence,
opportunities to adopt GHG reduction measures will be sought after in a
world characterised by tightening regulations, social pressure, and
worsening climate change impacts. Findings show that a large volume of
studies focuses on developed countries’ ports, and limited attention is
given to developing countries ports (South America, Africa, Oceania) in
research and practice. Although it could be argued that some port
implementation initiatives, particularly in developing countries, are not
known or rigorously reported due to being sporadic and local in di­
mensions, there is still a need for research that investigates these ports’
practices and status of implementation, in addition to exploring what
capacities, funding, and technology transfer they require to implement
GHG reduction measures. Implementation schemes focused on typical
technical and operational measures, e.g. alternative power and fuels.
Innovative port technical measures such as renewable energy, smart
grids, microgrids, and energy storage systems, in addition to measures
related to reducing land transport GHG emission, are recommended to
be included in the implementation schemes from a research and practice
viewpoint. Future research may look at pathways to translate GHG
emission reduction measures into economic profits and competitive
advantages. On the whole, this study, as a systematic literature review,
constructed a solid platform for future researcher to conduct reviews in
the same field or even extend its key insights into other areas.
4.4. Conclusions
The technical and operational measures define the ports’ ability to
reduce GHG emissions and thus embed sustainability in maritime
transport. While important, they are insufficient to deliver and achieve
lower GHG emissions without proper implementation schemes. The
contributions of this study are manifold. The added value is that we have
broadly and systematically reviewed 112 studies that resulted in dif­
ferentiation and categorisation of port GHG emissions reduction mea­
sures into technical and operational measures and implementation
schemes. Viewed as a starting point to broaden and unify sustainable
research agenda; the categorisation (taxonomy) fuses dispersed contri­
butions in literature and practice and extends the body of knowledge.
Besides, the implementation schemes’ characteristics, strengths and
limitations (key issues), opportunities and exemplars from global prac­
tices have been thoroughly elucidated. Chief among contributions is that
the study highlights how port policymakers can fundamentally and
effectively implement (through schemes) GHG reduction – technical and
operational measures, in so doing, improve the capability to take reli­
able decisions.
On the other hand, the conceptual framework that has been devel­
oped circumscribes what falls within the review and draws a connection
among ports’ GHG emission reduction implementation components. The
framework dimensions include the interplay between: i) port policy­
makers (implementers), i.e. public and port authorities, ii) port polluters
(target groups), i.e. port, ship, and land transport operators, iii) tech­
nical and operational measures uptake (the outcome), and iv) imple­
mentation schemes (output). Thus, the framework serves as a conceptual
foundation that contributes to scholarly discussions and further research
on port GHG emission reduction. On the other hand, it accommodates
various implementation schemes that can be utilised regardless of ports’
geography, governance, business model, and economy. The technical
and operational measures categories can be used to properly quantify
GHG abatement potential with no overlap or double counting of results,
and thus enable the identification of best performing packages. It should
be noted that the technical and operational measures and implementa­
tion schemes are not only applicable to the GHG emission per se, but
they are still applicable to other environmental sustainability discourses,
e.g. water and noise pollution, ambient air pollutants, and biodiversity
15
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
issues.
This study addressed ports’ holistic role, by port and public author­
ities, in GHG emission reduction in landside and seaside operations.
Comprehensive insights were generated, which have implications for
port policymakers and authorities in different regions, particularly those
that aim to review, evaluate, formulate, and implement port GHG
emission reduction measures and policies. The implementation schemes
incorporate various aspects and principles to maximise the GHG emis­
sion reduction transition in ports, accordingly, providing a foundation
for policymakers to rethink their policies, and thus select diverse path­
ways to change the behaviour of polluters and improve their compli­
ance. In this study, looking at the scheme’s pros and cons, applicability,
and how they reinforce and/or contradict each other; various attributes
have been identified as being consistent with port GHG emission
reduction strategy. It is important to note that choosing a single
implementation scheme may impact the dynamics of the implementa­
tion, thus implementing one scheme may require implementing another
scheme, e.g. charging polluters to incentivise none-polluters. Despite
there being various challenges in the implementation schemes, it is
apparent that ports have a key role in the transition to decarbonisation
of the maritime transport sector. Thus, port policymakers, either public
or port authorities, need to take into account that such transition, uti­
lising implementation schemes, should always go along with stream­
lined (balanced) economic growth. Nonetheless, regulation, particularly
uniform and multilateral, is a discernible scheme for fulfilling most of
the technical and operational measures. Hence, enacting regulations for
signed conventions is a vital step forward.
Although it is difficult to assess whether an implementation scheme
succeeds or fails because it is ineffective or not well carried out, this may
have serious implications. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that, when
implementing a scheme, policymakers focus on and take into consider­
ation the achievability of execution (by polluters). On the other hand,
strengthening capacities of port authorities (implementers) through
funding, training, technology transfer, etc., are fundamental steps that
ensure successful implementation. While each scheme can be applied
alone, different schemes can be combined (Fig. 4), and sustained by
wide cooperation and collaboration between polluters, port stake­
holders, and other regional ports. Finally, monitoring polluters’ GHG
emissions and uptake of technical and operational measures is a
fundamental step to inform best practices; this provides grounds to
benefit or hold polluters accountable with respect to the implementation
schemes.
Acknowledgment
The authors are very grateful for the constructive comments and
suggestions from the anonymous reviewers and the Journal editor, and
for their time. Their insights greatly assisted in enhancing the quality of
the study.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Acciaro, M., Ghiara, H., & Cusano, M. I. (2014a). Energy management in seaports: A new
role for port authorities. Energy Policy, 71, 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2014.04.013.
Acciaro, M., Ghiara, H., & Cusano, M. I. (2014b). Energy management in seaports: A new
role for port authorities. Energy Policy, 71, 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2014.04.013.
Acciaro, M., Vanelslander, T., Sys, C., Ferrari, C., Roumboutsos, A., Giuliano, G., …
Kapros, S. (2014). Environmental sustainability in seaports: A framework for
successful innovation. Maritime Policy & Management, 41(5), 480–500. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03088839.2014.932926.
A.S. Alamoush et al.
Ahl, C., Frey, E., & Steimetz, S. (2017). The effects of financial incentives on vessel speed
reduction: Evidence from the Port of Long Beach green flag incentive program.
Maritime Economics and Logistics, 19(4), 601–618. https://doi.org/10.1057/
mel.2016.12.
Alamoush, A. S., Ballini, F., & Dalaklis, D. (2021). Port supply chain management
framework: Contributing to the United Nations’ sustainable development goals.
Maritime Technology and Research, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.33175/
mtr.2021.247076.
Alamoush, A. S., Ballini, F., & Ölçer, A. I. (2020). Ports’ technical and operational
measures to reduce greenhouse gas emission and improve energy efficiency: A
review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 160(2020), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2020.111508.
Alasali, F., Haben, S., Becerra, V., & Holderbaum, W. (2016). Analysis of RTG crane load
demand and short-term load forecasting. International Journal of Computing,
Communications & Instrumentation Engineering, 3(2), 448–454. https://doi.org/
10.15242/IJCCIE.EAP1216012.
APEC. (2014). Study on the reduction of energy consumption and prevention of harmful
exhaust emissions from international shipping in the APEC region. Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation. APEC Transportation Working Group.
Asgari, N., Hassani, A., Jones, D., & Nguye, H. H. (2015). Sustainability ranking of the UK
major ports: Methodology and case study. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics
and Transportation Review, 78, 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2015.01.014.
Becqué, R., Fung, F., & Zhu, Z. (2017). Incentive schemes for promoting green shipping.
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
Bergqvist, R., & Egels-Zandén, N. (2012). Green port dues - the case of hinterland
transport. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 5, 85–91. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2012.10.002.
Bergqvist, R., Macharis, C., Meers, D., & Woxenius, J. (2015). Making hinterland
transport more sustainable a multi actor multi criteria analysis. Research in
Transportation Business and Management, 14, 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rtbm.2014.10.009.
Bermúdez, F. M., Laxe, F. G., & Aguayo-Lorenzo, E. (2019). Assessment of the tools to
monitor air pollution in the Spanish ports system. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health,
12(6), 651–659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-019-00684-x.
Bjerkan, K. Y., & Seter, H. (2019). Reviewing tools and technologies for sustainable ports:
Does research enable decision making in ports? Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 72, 243–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trd.2019.05.003.
Boile, M., Theofanis, S., Sdoukopoulos, E., & Plytas, N. (2016). Developing a port energy
management plan: Issues, challenges, and prospects. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2549, 19–28. https://doi.org/10.3141/
2549-03.
Bouman, E. A., Lindstad, E., Rialland, A. I., & Strømman, A. H. (2017). State-of-the-art
technologies, measures, and potential for reducing GHG emissions from shipping – A
review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 52, 408–421.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.03.022.
Brooks, M. R. (2004). The governance structure of Ports. Review of Network Economics, 3
(2), 168–183. https://doi.org/10.2202/1446-9022.1049.
CARB/EPA. (2015a). Heavy-duty technology and fuels assessment: Overview. USA:
California Air Resources Board & Environmental Protection Agency.
CARB/EPA. (2015b). Technology assessment: Heavy-duty hybrid vehicles. USA: California
Air Resources Board & Environmental Protection Agency.
CARB/EPA. (2015c). Technology assessment: Mobile cargo handling equipment. USA:
California Air Resources Board & Environmental Protection Agency.
Chang, C. C., & Jhang, C. (2016). Reducing speed and fuel transfer of the green flag
incentive program in Kaohsiung port Taiwan. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 46(2016), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trd.2016.03.007.
Christodoulou, A., Gonzalez-Aregall, M., Linde, T., Vierth, I., & Cullinane, K. (2019).
Targeting the reduction of shipping emissions to air: A global review and taxonomy
of policies, incentives and measures. Maritime Business Review, 4(1), 16–30. https://
doi.org/10.1108/mabr-08-2018-0030.
COGEA. (2017). Study on differentiated port infrastructure charges to promote
environmentally friendly maritime transport activities and sustainable
transportation. Study for the European Commission. https://doi.org/10.13140/
RG.2.2.14895.59041.
CSI. (2020). Clean Shipping Index. Retrieved February 13, 2020, from http://www.clea
nshippingindex.com/.
Cui, H., & Notteboom, T. (2017). Modelling emission control taxes in port areas and port
privatization levels in port competition and co-operation sub-games. Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 56, 110–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trd.2017.07.030.
Cuilian, L., & Baojun, G. (2010). Analysis of energy-saving measures in ports. Asia-Pacific
Power and Energy Engineering Conference, 2010, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/
APPEEC.2010.5449395.
Cullinane, K., & Cullinane, S. (2019). Policy on reducing shipping emissions: implications
for “Green Ports”. In R. Bergqvist, & J. Monios (Eds.), Green ports (pp. 35–62).
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814054-3.00003-7.
Davarzani, H., Fahimnia, B., Bell, M., & Sarkis, J. (2016). Greening ports and maritime
logistics: A review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 48,
473–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.07.007.
de Langen, P., & Sornn-Friese, H. (2019). Ports and the circular economy. In R. Bergqvist,
& J. Monios (Eds.), Green ports (pp. 85–108). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
814054-3.00010-4.
16
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. Buchanan, &
A. Bryman (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods (pp.
671–689). Retrieved from http://www.econis.eu/PPNSET?PPN=624285359.
Di Vaio, A., & Varriale, L. (2018). Management innovation for environmental
sustainability in seaports: Managerial accounting instruments and training for
competitive green ports beyond the regulations. Sustainability, 10(783). https://doi.
org/10.3390/su10030783.
Du, K., Monios, J., & Wang, Y. (2019). Green port strategies in China. In R. Bergqvist, &
J. Monios (Eds.), Green ports (pp. 211–229). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-
814054-3.00011-6.
EPI. (2020). Environmental Port Index - Bergen. Retrieved April 3, 2020, from http
s://bergenhavn.no/cruise/epi/.
Erdas, C., Fokaides, P. A., & Charalampous, C. (2015). Ecological footprint analysis based
awareness creation for energy efficiency and climate change mitigation measures
enhancing the environmental management system of Limassol port. Journal of
Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.07.087.This.
ESI. (2020). Environmental Ship Index. Retrieved March 2, 2020, from https://www.
environmentalshipindex.org/.
ESPO. (2019). Environmnetal Report: EcoPortsinSights 2019. Retrieved from European
Sea Port Organization website https://www.espo.be/media/Environmental
Report-2019 FINAL.pdf.
Fahdi, S., Elkhechafi, M., & Hachimi, H. (2019). Green port in blue ocean: Optimization
of energy in Asian ports. In 2019 5th International Conference on Optimization and
Applications (ICOA) (pp. 1–4). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOA.2019.8727615.
Fenton, P. (2017). The role of port cities and transnational municipal networks in efforts
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on land and at sea from shipping – An
assessment of the World Ports Climate Initiative. Marine Policy, 75, 271–277.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.12.012.
Franc, P., & Sutto, L. (2014). Impact analysis on shipping lines and European ports of a
cap- and-trade system on CO2 emissions in maritime transport. Maritime Policy &
Management, 41(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2013.782440.
Fremantle Ports. (2020). New volunteer program for Fremantle Ports. Retrieved July 6,
2021, from https://www.fremantleports.com.au/news/new-volunteer-program-for-
fremantle-ports.
GA. (2020). Green Award Certification and Incentive Program for Shipping. Retrieved
February 1, 2020, from https://www.greenaward.org/.
Geerlings, H., & van Duin, R. (2011). A new method for assessing CO2-emissions from
container terminals: A promising approach applied in Rotterdam. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 19(6), 657–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.10.012.
GHG ER. (2020). Rightship’s GHG Emission Rating. Retrieved March 2, 2020, from htt
ps://www.rightship.com/.
Gibbs, D., Rigot-Muller, P., Mangan, J., & Lalwani, C. (2014). The role of sea ports in end-
to-end maritime transport chain emissions. Energy Policy, 64, 337–348. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.024.
Gonzalez-Aregall, M., Bergqvist, R., & Monios, J. (2018). A global review of the
hinterland dimension of green port strategies. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 59, 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.12.013.
Gonzalez-Aregall, M., Bergqvist, R., & Monios, J. (2019). Port-driven measures for
incentivizing sustainable hinterland transport. In R. Bergqvist, & J. Monios (Eds.),
Green ports (pp. 193–210). Elsevier.
Green Efforts. (2014). Green and effective operations at terminals and in ports - deliverable
12.1- recommendations manual for terminals. European Commission.
Grundmann, R., & Stehr, N. (2010). Climate change: What role for sociology? Current
Sociology, 58, 897–910. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392110376031.
Gu, Y., Wallace, S. W., & Wang, X. (2019). Can an emission trading scheme really reduce
CO2 emissions in the short term? Evidence from a maritime fleet composition and
deployment model. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 74
(August), 318–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.08.009.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In
N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Halim, R. A., Kirstein, L., Merk, O., & Martinez, L. M. (2018). Decarbonization pathways
for international maritime transport: A model-based policy impact assessment.
Sustainability, 10(7), 22–43. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072243.
Hall, W. J. (2010). Assessment of CO2 and priority pollutant reduction by installation of
shoreside power. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 54, 462–467. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.10.002.
Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2002). Implementing public policy. Sage Publications.
Hippinen, I., & Federley, J. (2014). Fact-finding study on opportunities to enhance the energy
efficiency and environmental impacts of Ports in the Baltic Sea region. Helsinki, Finland:
Motiva Services Ltd.
Hollen, R. M. A., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2015). Strategic levers of
port authorities for industrial ecosystem development. Maritime Economics and
Logistics, 17(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2014.28.
Homsombat, W., Yip, T. L., Yang, H., & Fu, X. (2013). Regional cooperation and
management of port pollution. Maritime Policy and Management, 40(5), 451–466.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2013.797118.
I2S2 (2013). Environmental Initiatives at Seaports Worldwide: A Snapshot of Best
Practices. doi.https://doi.org/10.1061/40680(2003)95.
IAPH. (2007). IAPH tool box for port clean air programs. International Association of Ports
& Harbours.
IAPH. (2008). IAPH tool box for greenhouse gasses. International Association of Ports &
Harbours.
IMO. (2015). Study of emission control and energy efficiency measures for ships in the port
area. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
A.S. Alamoush et al.
IMO. (2018a). MEPC/72/17/ADD.1. Resolution MEPC.304(72): Initial IMO Strategy on
Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships. London: UK: International Maritime
Organization.
IMO. (2018b). Port emission toolkit guide no.1: Assessment of port emission. UK: London:
GloMeep Project Coordination Unit and the International Maritime Organization.
IMO. (2018c). Port emission toolkit guide no.2: Development of port emission reduction
strategies. London: UK: GloMeep Project Coordination Unit and the International
Maritime Organization.
IMO. (2019). MEPC/74/18/ADD.1. Resolution MEPC.323(74): Inivitation to member states
to encourage voluntary cooperation between the port and shipping sectors to contribute to
reducing GHG emissions from ships. London, UK: International Maritime Organization
(IMO).
IMO. (2020). Just in time arrival guide – Barriers and potential solutions. In , Vol. 42.
GEF-UNDP-IMO GloMEEP Project and members of the GIA. https://doi.org/10.1017/
CBO9781107415324.004.
Iris, Ç., & Lam, J. S. L. (2019). A review of energy efficiency in ports: Operational
strategies, technologies and energy management systems. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 112, 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.069.
ITF/OECD. (2018). Reducing shipping greenhouse gas emissions: Lessons from Port-Based
Incentives. Paris: International Transport Forum and Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development.
Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Review, 10
(1–2), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0.
Jesson, J. K., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional
and systematic techniques. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Johnson, H., & Andersson, K. (2014). Barriers to energy efficiency in shipping. WMU
Journal of Maritime Affairs, 15(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-014-
0071-z.
Kang, D., & Kim, S. (2017). Conceptual model development of sustainability practices:
The case of port operations for collaboration and governance. Sustainability, 9(2017),
2333. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122333.
Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature
reviews in software Engineering. EBSE Technical Report. Retrieved from University
of Durham website https://www.york.ac.uk/crd/guidance/.
Kosmas, V., & Acciaro, M. (2017). Bunker levy schemes for greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission reduction in international shipping. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 57(October), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trd.2017.09.010.
Kotowska, I. (2016). Policies applied by seaport authorities to create sustainable
development in port cities. Transportation Research Procedia, 16, 236–243. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.11.023.
Kotrikla, A. M., Lilas, T., & Nikitakos, N. (2016). Abatement of air pollution at an Aegean
island port utilizing shore side electricity and renewable energy. Marine Policy, 75,
238–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.01.026.
Lam, J. S. L., & Notteboom, T. (2014). The greening of ports: A comparison of port
management tools used by leading ports in Asia and Europe. Transport Reviews, 34
(2), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2014.891162.
Lee, B., Low, J., & Kim, K. (2015). Comparative evaluation of resource cycle strategies on
operating and environmental impact in container terminals. Transportation Research
Part D: Transport and Environment, 41, 118–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trd.2015.09.014.
Lirn, T., Wu, Y. J., & Chen, Y. J. (2013). Green performance criteria for sustainable ports
in Asia. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 43(5/6),
427–451. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-03-2012-0134.
Lu, C.-S., Shang, K.-C., & Lin, C.-C. (2016). Examining sustainability performance at
ports: Port managers’ perspectives on developing sustainable supply chains. Maritime
Policy & Management, 43(8), 909–927. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03088839.2016.1199918.
Martínez-Moya, J., Vazquez-Paja, B., & Maldonado, J. A. G. (2019). Energy efficiency
and CO2 emissions of port container terminal equipment: Evidence from the Port of
Valencia. Energy Policy, 131, 312–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2019.04.044.
May, P. J. (2003). Policy design and implementation. In B. G. Peters, & J. Pierre (Eds.),
Handbook of public administration. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315127705.
Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1983). Implementation and public policy. Glenview,
Illinois: Scott and Foresman.
Mellin, A., & Rydhed, H. (2011). Swedish ports’ attitudes towards regulations of the
shipping sector’s emissions of CO2. Maritime Policy & Management, 38(4), 437–450.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2011.588261.
Meyers, M. K., & Vorsanger, S. (2003). Street-level bureaucrats and the implementation
of public policy. In B. G. Peters, & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315127705.
Misra, A., Panchabikesan, K., Gowrishankar, S. K., Ayyasamy, E., & Ramalingam, V.
(2017). GHG emission accounting and mitigation strategies to reduce the carbon
footprint in conventional port activities – A case of the Port of Chennai. Carbon
Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2016.1275815.
Mjelde, A., Endresen, Ø., Bjørshol, E., Gierløff, C. W., Husby, E., Solheim, J., …
Eide, M. S. (2019). Differentiating on port fees to accelerate the green maritime
transition. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2019.110561.
Moon, D. S. H., Woo, J. K., & Kim, T. G. (2018). Green ports and economic opportunities.
In L. Froholdt (Ed.), Vol. 5. Corporate social responsibility in the maritime industry.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69143-5_10.
MSGI. (2020). Maritime Singapore Green Initiative. Retrieved March 7, 2020, from http
s://www.mpa.gov.sg/web/portal/home/maritime-singapore/green-efforts/mariti
me-singapore-green-initiative.
17
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
Ng, A. K. Y., Chen, S. L., Cahoon, S., Brooks, B., & Yang, Z. (2013). Climate change and
the adaptation strategies of ports: The Australian experiences. Research in
Transportation Business & Management, 8, 186–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rtbm.2013.05.005.
Ng, A. K. Y., & Song, S. (2010). The environmental impacts of pollutants generated by
routine shipping operations on ports. Ocean & Coastal Management, 53(5–6),
301–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.03.002.
Nikolakaki, G. (2013). Economic incentives for maritime shipping relating to climate
protection. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 12(1), 17–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13437-012-0036-z.
Norsworthy, M., & Craft, E. (2013). Emissions reduction analysis of voluntary clean truck
programs at US ports. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 22,
23–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.02.012.
Notteboom, T., & Lam, J. S. L. (2018). The greening of terminal concessions in seaports.
Sustainability, 10(3318). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093318.
Notteboom, T., Van Der Lugt, L., Van Saase, N., Sel, S., & Neyens, K. (2020). The role of
seaports in green supply chain management: initiatives, attitudes, and perspectives
in Rotterdam, Antwerp, North Sea Port, and Zeebrugge. Sustainability, 12(1688).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041688.
Notteboom, T., Verhoeven, P., & Fontanet, M. (2012). Current practices in European
ports on the awarding of seaport terminals to private operators: Towards an industry
good practice guide. Maritime Policy and Management, 39(1), 107–123. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03088839.2011.642315.
OECD. (2011). Environmental impacts of international shipping: The role of ports. https://
doi.org/10.1787/9789264097339-en.
OECD. (2014). The competitiveness of global port-cities: Synthesis report. https://doi.org/
10.1787/9789264205277-en.
O’Toole, L. (1986). Policy recommendations for multi-actor implementation: An
assessment of the field. Journal of Public Policy, 6(2), 181–210. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0143814X00006486.
Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., & Hulland, J. (2018). Review articles: Purpose, process,
and structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(1), 1–5. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11747-017-0563-4.
Park, H. K., Chang, Y.-T., & Zou, B. (2018). Emission control under private port operator
duopoly. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 114,
40–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.03.010.
Pavlic, B., Cepak, F., Sucic, B., Peckaj, M., & Kandus, B. (2014). Sustainable port
infrastructure, practical implementation of the green port concept. Thermal Science,
18(3), 935–948. https://doi.org/10.2289/TSCI1403935P.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical
guide. In Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide (1st ed.). https://
doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887.
PIANC. (2014). Sustainable Ports: A guide for port authorities. Brussels: Belguim: The World
Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure. PIANC Maritime Navigation
Commission.
PIANC. (2019). Renewables and energy efficiency for maritime ports - MarCom WG
Report n◦ 159–2019. Retrieved from The World Association for Waterborne
Transport Infrastructure. PIANC Maritime Navigation Commission website
http://www.pianc.org.
PORTOPIA. (2017). European port industry sustainability report 2017. EU Comission.
Poulsen, R. T., Ponte, S., & Sornn-Friese, H. (2018). Environmental upgrading in global
value chains: The potential and limitations of ports in the greening of maritime
transport. Geoforum, 89(2018), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geoforum.2018.01.011.
Psaraftis, H. N. (2012). Market-based measures for greenhouse gas emissions from ships:
A review. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 11, 211–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13437-012-0030-5.
Puig, M., Michail, A., Wooldridge, C., & Darbra, R. M. (2017). Benchmark dynamics in
the environmental performance of ports. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 121(1–2),
111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.05.021.
Ramos, V., Carballo, R., Álvarez, M., Sánchez, M., & Iglesias, G. (2014). A port towards
energy self-sufficiency using tidal stream power. Energy, 71, 432–444. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.04.098.
Roh, S., Thai, V. V., & Wong, Y. D. (2016). Towards sustainable ASEAN port
development: Challenges and opportunities for Vietnamese Ports. Asian Journal of
Shipping and Logistics, 32(2), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2016.05.004.
Salamon, L. (2002). The new governance: An introduction. In L. Salamon (Ed.), The tools
of government: A guide to the new governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schipper, C. A., Vreugdenhil, H., & de Jong, M. P. C. (2017). A sustainability assessment
of ports and port-city plans: Comparing ambitions with achievements. Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 57, 84–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trd.2017.08.017.
Schmidt, J. (2019). Action plan for sustainable and low-carbon port of Bar. SUPAIR
Sustainable Ports in the Adriatic-Ionian Region.
Schofield, J. (2001). Time for a revival? Public policy implementation: A review of the
literature and an agenda for future research. International Journal of Management
Reviews, 3(3), 245–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00066.
Sdoukopoulos, E., Boile, M., Tromaras, A., & Anastasiadis, N. (2019). Energy efficiency in
European ports: State-of-practice and insights on the way forward. Sustainability
(Switzerland), 11(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184952.
Sheng, D., Li, Z.-C., Fu, X., & Gillen, D. (2017). Modeling the effects of unilateral and
uniform emission regulations under shipping company and port competition.
Transportation Research Part E-Logistics and Transportation Review, 101(2017),
99–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2017.03.004.
A.S. Alamoush et al.
Sifakis, N., & Tsoutsos, T. (2021). Planning zero-emissions ports through the nearly zero
energy port concept. Journal of Cleaner Production, 286, 125448. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125448.
Sköld, S. (2019). Green port dues — Indices and incentive schemes for shipping. In
R. Bergqvist, & J. Monios (Eds.), Green ports (pp. 173–192). https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-12-814054-3.00009-8.
Smith, T. W. P., Jalkanen, J. P., Anderson, B. A., Corbett, J., Faber, J., Hanayama, S., …
Pandey, A. (2014). Third IMO GHG Study 2014. London, UK: International Maritime
Organization (IMO).
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and
guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104(July), 333–339. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039.
SPBP. (2017). San Pedro Bay Ports clean air action plan update. USA: Port of Los Angeles
and the Port of Long Beach.
Spengler, T., & Wilmsmeier, G. (2019). Sustainable performance and benchmarking in
container terminals — The energy dimension. In R. Bergqvist, & J. Monios (Eds.),
Green Ports (pp. 125–154). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-814054-3.00007-4.
Styhre, L., Winnes, H., Black, J., Lee, J., & Le-Griffin, H. (2017). Greenhouse gas
emissions from ships in ports – Case studies in four continents. Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 54, 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trd.2017.04.033.
Tichavska, M., & Tovar, B. (2015). Port-city exhaust emission model: An application to
cruise and ferry operations in Las Palmas Port. Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice, 78, 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.05.021.
Tichavska, M., Tovar, B., Gritsenko, D., Johansson, L., & Jalkanen, J. P. (2019). Air
emissions from ships in port: Does regulation make a difference? Transport Policy, 75,
128–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.03.003.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British
Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375.
Tsai, H.-L., Lu, C.-S., & Chang, C.-C. (2017). The influence of organisational green
climate on employees’ green behaviours: Evidence from the Eco Port of Kaohsiung.
International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 9(6), 696–723. https://doi.
org/10.1504/IJSTL.2017.10006988.
Tsai, Y. T., Liang, C. J., Huang, K. H., Hung, K. H., Jheng, C. W., & Liang, J. J. (2018).
Self-management of greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions in Taichung Port,
Taiwan. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 63, 576–587.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.07.001.
Tseng, P.-H., & Pilcher, N. (2016). Exploring the viability of an emission tax policy for
ships at berth in Taiwanese ports. International Journal of Shipping and Transport
Logistics, 8(6), 705–722. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSTL.2016.079289.
Tseng, P.-H., & Pilcher, N. (2018). Evaluating the key factors of green port policies in
Taiwan through quantitative and qualitative approaches. Transport Policy. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.12.014.
United Nations. (2015). Resolution A/RES/70/1, adopted by the general assembly on 25
September 2015, transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development.
Van Den Berg, R., & De Langen, P. W. (2014). An exploratory analysis of the effects of
modal split obligations in terminal concession contracts. International Journal of
Shipping and Transport Logistics, 6(6), 571–592. https://doi.org/10.1504/
IJSTL.2014.064903.
Van Den Berg, R., De Langen, P. W., & Van Zuijlen, P. C. J. (2017). Revisiting port
pricing; a proposal for seven port pricing principles. WMU Journal of Maritime
Affairs, 16(3), 421–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-017-0127-y.
Vedung, E. (1998). Policy instruments: Typologies and theories. In M.-L. Bemelmans-
Videc, R. C. Rist, & E. Vedung (Eds.), Carrots, sticks and sermons: Policy instruments
and their evaluation (pp. 21–58). New Brunswick and London: Transaction
Publishers.
Verbeeck, J., Kuijper, F., Welbrock, P., Gray, D., Skog, D., & Kooistra, S. (2014). The e-
harbours journey: Point of arrival; smart energy networks in the North Sea Region.
Retrieved from Robert Gordon University website http://eharbours.eu/wp-co
ntent/uploads/e-harbours-report-Point-of-Arrival-Final.pdf (Accessed).
Vierth, I., Karlsson, R., Linde, T., & Cullinane, K. (2019). How to achieve less emissions
from freight transport in Sweden. Maritime Business Review, 4(1), 4–15. https://doi.
org/10.1108/MABR-09-2018-0032.
18
Research in Transportation Business & Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
Villalba, G., & Gemechu, E. D. (2011). Estimating GHG emissions of marine ports - the
case of Barcelona. Energy Policy, 39, 1363–1368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2010.12.008.
Wang, H., Huo, D., & Ortiz, J. (2015). Assessing energy efficiency of port operations in
China — A case study on sustainable development of green ports. Open Journal of
Social Sciences, 03(05), 28–33. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2015.35005.
Wei, H. L., Gu, W., & Chu, J. X. (2018). The dynamic power control technology for the
high power lithium battery hybrid Rubber-Tired Gantry (RTG) crane. In 2018 IEEE
transactions on industrial electronics. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2018.2816011.
Wilmsmeier, G. (2020). Climate change adaptation and mitigation in ports: Advances in
Colombia. In A. K. Y. Ng, J. Monios, & C. Jiang (Eds.), Maritime transport and regional
sustainability (pp. 133–150). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-819134-7.00008-3.
Wilmsmeier, G., & Spengler, T. (2016). Energy consumption and container terminal
efficiency. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribian. FAL Bulletin, 6
(350), 1–10. Retrieved from https://www.cepal.org/en/publications/list/date/20
16?search_fulltext=container+terminal.
Winnes, H., Styhre, L., & Fridell, E. (2015). Reducing GHG emissions from ships in port
areas. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 17, 73–82. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rtbm.2015.10.008.
Winter, S. C. (2003a). Implementation introduction. In B. G. Peters, & J. Pierre (Eds.),
Handbook of public administration. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315127705.
Winter, S. C. (2003b). Implementation perspectives: Status and reconsideration. In
B. G. Peters, & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public administration. https://doi.org/
10.4324/9781315127705.
Wittrock, B. (1985). Beyond organizational design: Contextuality and the political
theoryof public policy. In K. Hanf, & T. A. J. Toonen (Eds.), Policy implementation
infederal and unitary systems: Questions of analysis and design (pp. 17–28). Dordrecht,
the Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Woo, J. K., Moon, D. S. H., & Lam, J. S. L. (2018). The impact of environmental policy on
ports and the associated economic opportunities. Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice, 110(2018), 234–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tra.2017.09.001.
WPCI. (2010). Carbon Footprinting for Ports: Guidance document. World Port Climate
Initiative.
WPSP. (2020). World Ports sustainability report 2020. Retrieved from World Ports
Sustainability Program website https://sustainableworldports.org/reference-d
ocuments/.
Xin, J., Negenborn, R., & Lodewijks, G. (2015). Event-driven receding horizon control for
energy-efficient container handling. Control Engineering Practice, 39(2015), 45–55.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conengprac.2015.01.005.
Yang, L., Cai, Y., Zhong, X., Shi, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2017). A carbon emission evaluation for
an integrated logistics system: A case study of the port of Shenzhen. Sustainability, 9
(242). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9030462.
Yang, Y.-C., & Chang, W.-M. (2013). Impacts of electric rubber-tired gantries on green
port performance. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 8(2013),
67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.04.002.
Yun, P. E. N. G., Xiangda, L. I., Wenyuan, W. A. N. G., Ke, L. I. U., & Chuan, L. I. (2018).
A simulation-based research on carbon emission mitigation strategies for green
container terminals. Ocean Engineering, 163, 288–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
oceaneng.2018.05.054.
Zhang, Y., Peng, Y. Q., Wang, W., Gu, J., Wu, X. J., & Feng, X. J. (2017). Air emission
inventory of container ports’ cargo handling equipment with activity-based “bottom-
up” method. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 9(7), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1687814017711389.
Zheng, S., Ge, Y., Fu, X., Marco-Yu, N., & Xie, C. (2017). Modeling collusion-proof port
emission regulation of cargo-handling activities under incomplete information (pp. 1–25).
Transportation Research Part B: Methodological. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trb.2017.04.015.
Zhong, H., Hu, Z., & Yip, T. L. (2019). Carbon emissions reduction in China’s container
terminals: Optimal strategy formulation and the influence of carbon emissions
trading. Journal of Cleaner Production, 219, 518–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.02.074.
Zis, T., North, R. J., Angeloudis, P., Ochieng, W. Y., & Bell, M. G. H. (2014). Evaluation of
cold ironing and speed reduction policies to reduce ship emissions near and at ports.
Maritime Economics & Logistics, 16(4), 371–398. https://doi.org/10.1057/
mel.2014.6.