Maritime Policy & Management

The flagship journal of international shipping and port research

ISSN: 0308-8839 (Print) 1464-5254 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmpm20

Green port project scheduling with comprehensive

efficiency consideration

Wei Wang, Li Huang, Jian Gu & Liupeng Jiang

To cite this article: Wei Wang, Li Huang, Jian Gu & Liupeng Jiang (2019): Green port project
scheduling with comprehensive efficiency consideration, Maritime Policy & Management, DOI:
10.1080/03088839.2019.1652775

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2019.1652775

Published online: 09 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 15

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tmpm20
MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2019.1652775

Green port project scheduling with comprehensive efficiency

consideration
a,b c d b
Wei Wang , Li Huang , Jian Gu and Liupeng Jiang
a
Key Laboratory of Coastal Disaster and Defence of Ministry of Education, Hohai University, Nanjing, China;
b
College of Harbour, Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing, China; cSchool of Public
Administration, Hohai University, Nanjing, China; dDesign Co., Ltd., Shanghai Hydraulic Engineering Group Co.,
Ltd, Shanghai, China

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Ports are an important driving force for world economic growth, but they Green port; comprehensive
consume considerable energy. The marine sector has proposed the efficiency; project
development of green ports to achieve low-carbon sustainable develop- scheduling; energy savings;
emissions reduction
ment. This paper presents a green project scheduling model of port
construction to optimize comprehensive economic and environmental
efficiency. Various realistic constraints are considered, including invest-
ment scale, energy savings, emissions reduction, and project priority.
Comprehensive efficiency involves cost reduction, energy savings, emis-
sions reduction, and other efficiency goals. The problem is formulated as
an integer program and is solved using CPLEX in a general algebraic
modeling system (GAMS). We use a representative port in China as a case
port in solving its green project scheduling. The results show that the
port can save 6,527 tons of standard coal, reduce 40,875 tons of CO2, and
save 49 million yuan per year in the five-year implementation period. The
payback in investing in these green projects is less than six years. From
an economic and environmental perspective, the comprehensive effi-
ciency achieved is significant.

1. Introduction
The transport industry is a major energy-consuming industry. Many governments attach sub-
stantial importance to energy savings and emissions reduction in the transport sector (He et al.
2017). As part of the basic infrastructure of waterway transport, ports are an important part of
a low-carbon transport system (Miluše and Beatriz 2004). Pollution prevention and control in
ports is critical to the development of low-carbon ports and the sustainable development of the
transport industry (Khalid and Richard 2003), which has far-reaching social significance.
In the early development of large ports, the ecological environment was severely damaged, and
resources were excessively consumed to maximize economic benefits. Subsequently, research on
the operation of low-carbon green ports commenced, and many countries have made progress in
applying low-carbon concepts to port development.
Developed countries started to pay attention to ship and port emissions earlier than developing
countries. The United States, the European Union, and Singapore started research on energy
savings and emissions reduction in ports quite early. Previous studies cover the policies and

CONTACT Liupeng Jiang jsjlp@hhu.edu.cn College of Harbour, Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Hohai University,
Nanjing, China
This article is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled ‘Green Port Project Scheduling with Comprehensive Efficiency
Consideration’ presented at The 2018 World Transport Convention (WTC2018), Beijing, China; 18-21 June 2018.
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 W. WANG ET AL.

regulations of green ports (Goulielmos 2000; Birch and Taylor 2002; Ayotamuno and Gobo 2004;
Jones, Stauber, and Apte 2005; Stojanovic, Smith, and Wooldridge 2006; Zheng et al. 2017), the
evaluation of green ports (Abood 2007; Yang and Chang 2013; Lam and Notteboom 2014; Asgari
et al. 2015), the calculation of emissions and emissions reduction of green ports (Odum and
Odum 2003; Miluše and Beatriz 2015; Lee, Lam, and Lee 2016; Yu et al. 2017), the operation
management of green ports (Reinhardt and Pisinger 2012; Islam and Olsen 2014; Liu and Ge
2018), and other topics.
In the policies and regulations of green ports research, Goulielmos (2000) proposed that the
environmental protection of ports should be assessed from the perspectives of the transportation
and marine environments. To study environmental problems in ports and their causes, he
suggested that port cost-accounting should include environmental costs. Ayotamuno and Gobo
(2004) proposed administrative and management suggestions for the worsening solid waste
pollution in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Adopting that port as an example, he constructed a solid-
pollutant management scheme.
In the evaluation of green ports, Asgari et al. (2015) evaluated the sustainable port performance
to rank ports by decision makers. Abood (2007) focused on the treatment of port dredging and
soil disposal and clarified the environmental issues that should be addressed during port con-
struction. He also investigated the application of leadership in energy and environmental design
(LEED) in ports and considered that environmental problems caused by ports have many
similarities with those caused by buildings in general, such as energy efficiency, site selection,
and resource utilization. Therefore, the ‘greenness’ of ports can be evaluated based on LEED and
port characteristics. Lam and Notteboom (2014) aimed at investigating tools for port management
and then analyzed the extent to which the tools are utilized to improve the development of green
port.
To calculate emissions and emissions reduction of green ports, considering the Las Palmas
discharge, Miluše and Beatriz (2015) analyzed the eco-efficiency indicators and external costs of
ports. The study can be used to evaluate emissions reduction in port cities in combination with
port operation data. After ecological engineering research and discussion, Odum and Odum
(2003) added ecological design factors to port planning, construction, and operation to develop
the port environment in coordination with socioeconomic development.
On the basis of the interview on carriers from the container transportation sector, some
researchers conducted the exploratory qualitative study in operation management of green
ports. Islam and Olsen (2014) found that, in a truck-sharing initiative, there exist various technical
issues, which involve the container truck and constraints that could not be controlled, such as
seaport operating hours, driving restrictions, and various container categories pertaining to the
sector.
The United States is the world leader in green port construction and has implemented
several green port projects in recent years, including the Northwest Ports Clean Air Action
Strategy for the Port of Seattle, the Port of Tacoma (and Vancouver, Canada), and the Port of
New York and New Jersey; the New Jersey Clean Air Initiatives and Harbor Air Management
Plan; and the San Pedro Bay Ports Clean Air Action Plan (Gupta, Gupta, and Patil 2005; The
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey 2006; Peris-Mora, Orejas-Diez, and Subirats
2015). These projects have substantially improved the atmospheric quality of the areas in
which the ports are located and have provided experience for the construction of future green
ports. The Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach are world leaders in this regard,
and their energy-savings and emissions-reduction experience and technology are slowly matur-
ing. As early as November 2006, the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach
participated in the San Pedro Bay Port’s Clean Air Action Plan (CAAP) to control the
emission of air pollutants in the port area and achieved positive results. In 2010, the CAAP
was updated, setting a more aggressive goal for energy efficiency and emissions reduction for
the Port of Los Angeles. The 2010 CAAP Update presented port area emissions-reduction
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 3

targets for 2014 and 2023. The effect of energy-saving and emissions-reduction efforts in 2011
has become evident through an analysis and comparison of the emissions data of the Port of
Los Angeles in 2011 and previous years. By categorizing and analyzing the energy consumption
and emissions of various transport vehicles and port equipment, targeted energy-saving emis-
sions-reduction measures can be formulated. To support energy savings and emissions reduc-
tion in the construction of ports, the CAAP provides many corresponding measures for energy
efficiency and emissions reduction in the activities of ocean-going vessels, port vessels, cargo-
handling equipment, railroad cars, and heavy trucks—all of which produce air pollutants. In
addition, tracking the effect of such measures has helped the Port of Los Angeles achieve good
results in energy savings and emissions reduction, and this success has created important
significant returns for the city of Los Angeles.
In addition, a number of European Union port authorities have proposed constructing the
EcoPorts project to address environmental issues in ports. The project not only addresses the
environmental impact of intrasite operations but also considers the optimized combination of the
entire transport system while providing technical support for solving environmental problems.
Singapore’s Jurong Port is performing research on carbon footprints in ports, collecting compre-
hensive data with which to address environmental issues.
However, few researchers have investigated a reasonable planning model for energy con-
servation and emission reduction on a practical scale that balances environmental and eco-
nomic benefits (Chand et al. 2017). However, project planning and scheduling problems have
been studied widely in the literature, which involves problems from different industries such as
surgical scheduling (Wang, Su, and Wan 2015; Anjomshoa et al. 2018), construction project
planning (Lu and Li 2003; Hyari and El-Rayes 2006; Zhang, Shen, and Zhang 2013; Dong and
Ng 2015), manufacturing resource planning (Shen, Wang, and Hao 2006; Wong, Guo, and
Leung 2014; Guo et al. 2015), enterprise resource planning (Olhager and Selldin 2003; Yusuf,
Gunasekaran, and Abthorpe 2004), and others. Many previous studies have been reported and
published in this field. Some scholars provided comprehensive reviews (Herroelen and Leus
2004; Huebner et al. 2017). Multiple objectives usually need to be achieved simultaneously to
handle real-world engineering optimization problems. The weighted sum method (Bruni et al.
2011; Mirjalili et al. 2016) and multi-objective evolutionary algorithms (Sivasubramani and
Swarup 2011; Yeh and Chuang 2011; Ali, Siarry, and Pant 2012; Guo et al. 2018) are utilized
widely. However, the former needs to decide the weight values of different objectives in
advance; however, it is usually hard to decide the values of these weights. A single solution
cannot optimize conflicting objectives simultaneously. The concept of Pareto optimality is used
to manage this problem and find Pareto optimal solutions (Guo et al. 2008; Sivasubramani and
Swarup 2011; Guo et al. 2013). The genetic algorithm (GA) is the most commonly used meta-
heuristic for multi-objective problems (Guo et al. 2018; Wang et al. 2019). The fast elitist
nondominated sorting GA (NSGA-II) (Deb et al. 2002), the decomposition-based multi-
objective evolutionary algorithm (MOEA/D) (Zhang and Li 2007), and the MOEA/D-ACO
algorithm (Ke, Zhang, and Battiti 2013) have attracted increasing attention. However, these
methods cannot be adopted directly to solve the green port project scheduling (GPPS) problem
addressed in this paper since different optimization problems probably need different repre-
sentations and genetic operators. These multi-objective evolutionary algorithms produce the
set of Pareto optimal solutions. However, it is still difficult to select the appropriate solution
from the Pareto optimial set as the final solution in practice.
Thus, this paper draws on the experience of project planning and scheduling problems,
then presents a multi-objective planning model of port energy-saving emission-reduction
projects in port construction, seeks optimal solutions using general algebraic modeling
system (GAMS) software, and proposes a port energy-saving and emission-reduction opti-
mization approach from the perspectives of energy consumption, carbon emissions, and cost
control.
4 W. WANG ET AL.

2. Port optimization model for energy savings and emissions reduction

2.1. Problem description and model assumptions
As for-profit enterprises, when pursuing economic benefits, ports often overlook their adverse
impact on the environment during construction and operation, including the consumption of
nonrenewable resources and large CO2 emissions. China is currently in a period of rapid
urbanization and industrialization. The trend of rapidly increasing energy demand will not change
in the short term. Therefore, the reduction in traditional energy consumption should start with
the construction of a low-energy consumption project and changes to the energy-use structure,
followed by gradually improved energy efficiency and the use of clean energy to partly replace
traditional energy sources, thus achieving energy savings and emissions reduction (Artigues 2017).
From the perspective of energy consumption, carbon emissions, and cost control, this paper
addresses a planning problem for energy savings and emissions reduction in ports. The devices
installed in different energy-saving and emissions-reduction projects are independent. That is, the
device starts to work once it is installed. Projects are classified into separable projects and
inseparable projects. The former are those with an investment period of less than one year
while the latter are those with investment period of at least one year. For simplicity of description,
we assume that the reductions in energy consumption and CO2 emissions of the port are caused
by the implementation of energy-saving and emissions-reducing projects. This is reasonable
because the reductions generated by other factors are usually negligible in the real world.

2.2. Parameter description

2.2.1. Basic parameters
n - device type
N - total number of project types that the port can optimize for low energy consumption: n = 1,
2, . . ., N
j - type of energy consumed by the port: j = 1, 2, 3, for diesel, gasoline, and coal, respectively
J - number of energy types consumed by the port: J = 3
t - year
T - planned number of years of investment in energy-saving and emissions-reduction optimiza-
tion: t = 1, 2, . . ., T

2.2.2. Decision variables

Ct,j - whether energy type j has been partially replaced by clean energy (e.g., electricity, natural
gas) in year t. Ct, j = 0 represents that energy source type j is not or has not been partially replaced
by clean energy (e.g., electricity, natural gas) in year t. Ct,j = 1 indicates that energy source type
j has been partially replaced by clean energy (e.g., electricity, natural gas) in year t
αt,j - the proportion of clean energy (e.g., electricity, natural gas) in energy type j in year t, that
is, the scale of clean energy use
Lt,n - whether project type n has been retrofitted for low energy consumption in year t. Lt,n = 0
indicates that project type n is not or has not been retrofitted for low energy consumption in year
t, whereas Lt,n = 1 indicates that project type n is being or has been retrofitted for low energy
consumption in year t
Xt,n - the scale of retrofitting that is being or has been performed on project type n for low
energy consumption in year t

2.3. Model construction

When sustainable development is promoted, ports that aspire to increased development require
energy optimization. Changing to a low-energy loading project and replacing traditional energy
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 5

sources with clean energy are among the most effective ways to save energy and control carbon
emissions. Energy-saving and emissions-reduction benefits are the focuses of this paper. Both require
capital investments. An effective driving force of energy savings and emissions reduction is economic
cost. Under the precondition of obtaining the maximum benefit from energy savings and emissions
reduction, this paper seeks to limit the cost of the corresponding investment to a minimum and sets
three goals for energy efficiency, environmental benefits, and cost control as follows:
!
XT X J X
N
Minf1 ¼ Et;j  Lt;n  Bn  Xt;n (1)
t¼1 j¼1 n¼1

!
X
T X
J  
Minf2 ¼ 1  Ct;j  αt;j  Et;j  EFj (2)
t¼1 j¼1

!
X
T X
J X
N
Minf3 ¼ Ct;j  Ut;j þ Lt;n  Tt;n (3)
t¼1 j¼1 n¼1

Et,j—original consumption of energy j in year t, converted into standard coal in tons

Bn—energy consumption saved per unit of project type n after low-energy retrofitting of the
unit, converted into standard coal in tons
EF j—CO2 emission factor, in ton/ton
Ut,n—investment cost to transform energy type j into clean energy (e.g., electricity, natural gas)
in year t, in yuan
Tt,n—investment cost to retrofit project type n for energy savings in year t, in yuan
St—maximum total investment amount in energy savings and emissions reduction planned
in year t, in yuan
Equation (1) is an objective function of total port energy consumption from increasing the
number of low-energy loading and unloading facilities and decreasing their energy consumption.
Equation (2) considers the replacement of conventional energy sources with clean energy,
whereby electricity is used as the secondary energy source at ports and the emission of CO2 is
considered, thus obtaining the objective function of port carbon emission. Formula (3) is a cost
function that limits the cost of the corresponding investment input to a minimum.
The energy efficiency (i.e., energy savings) and environmental benefit (i.e., emissions reduc-
tions) objectives can be converted into economic benefits objectives (i.e., cost savings due to
energy savings and emissions reduction). Thus, by turning a multi-objective optimization problem
into a single-objective optimization problem, we can obtain the overall benefit target considering
energy savings, emissions reductions, and cost savings together.

2.4. Constraints
2.4.1. Constraints on capital investment in energy savings and emissions reduction
The ‘low-carbon and green’ aspect of the low-carbon concept is primarily manifested in low-
carbon design, low-carbon production, low-carbon procurement, and low-carbon logistics. For
a port that has been operating for many years, low-carbon production and procurement can be
considered the two most crucial steps. Capital can be invested to optimize a production project,
add low-energy transport projects to reduce energy consumption, and purchase raw materials
(primarily energy resources) that reduce carbon emissions. These measures can effectively achieve
the goal of energy savings and emissions reduction and improve environmental and energy
efficiency. However, we must also consider the actual investment cost and strive to save costs
6 W. WANG ET AL.

and improve the efficiency of energy savings and emissions reduction. Therefore, the total
investment capital is required to meet the following constraint.

X
J X
N
Ct;j  Ut;j þ Lt;n  Tt;n  St (4)
j¼1 n¼1

St—maximum amount of total investment planned for energy savings and emissions reduction
in year t, in yuan

2.4.2. Constraints on energy savings in stages and emissions control targets

The administrative authorities and port enterprises have gradually established the indicator and
assessment system for energy conservation and emission reduction at ports. They have issued the
control indicators and targets for emission reduction and energy conservation at ports in the
coming years (including energy-conservation control indicators and emission-reduction control
indicators). This system will assess and evaluate the emission-reduction and energy-conservation
work. These indicators are mandatory, and the port must comply with them. Therefore, the
following are the constraints for energy conservation as well as emissions reduction for future
green port construction and development:

X
J X
N X
J
Et;j  Lt;n  Bn  Xt;n  Et;j  ð1  βt Þ (5)
j¼1 n¼1 j¼1

X
J
  X
J
1  Ct;j  αt;j  Et;j  EFj  Et;j  EFj  ð1  χ t Þ (6)
j¼1 j¼1

βt—port’s mandatory energy-saving control indicators in year t relative to the baseline year
χt—port’s mandatory emissions-reduction control indicators in year t relative to the
baseline year

2.4.3. Constraints on construction timeframe

If the retrofitting of project type n for lower energy consumption is the premise or foundation of
similar retrofitting of project type m, then

Lt;m  Lt;n (7)

If the retrofitting of project type n for lower energy consumption is the premise or foundation of
the partial replacement of energy source type j with clean energy (e.g., electricity), then

Ct;j  Lt;n (8)

2.4.4. Constraints on the project scale

Project m requires the support of project n of a corresponding scale. For example, a constraint
exists on the scale between the port refueling station reconstruction and vehicle retrofitting, that
is, the scale requirement of a refueling station must cover the scale of the existing vehicles for
retrofitting, and other projects must meet the maximum requirements. Thus,

Xt;m  Xt;n  At;n (9)

At,n—largest scale required for retrofitting project type n in year t

 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 7

2.4.5. Other constraints

8
>
> Ct;j  Ctþ1;j
<
Lt;j  Ltþ1;j
(10)
>
> Ct;j ¼ 0; 1
:
Lt;j ¼ 0; 1

2.4.6. Analysis of model characteristics

The model constructed above includes multiple decision variables and is a kind of nonlinear
multi-objective optimization model and thus increases the difficulty of obtaining solutions from
the model solution; the details are as follows:
(1) The model includes four decision variables: Ct,j, αt,j, Lt, n, and Xt,n, where Ct,j, αt,j are the
decision variables for the replacement of clean energy (electricity, natural gas, etc.), while Lt, n, Xt,n
are those for project construction decision. Of these variables, Ct,j and αt,j are highly related and
can be combined into one decision variable Ct,j; Lt,n and Xt,n also are highly related and can be
combined into one decision variable Xt,n.
(2) The model is a nonlinear planning model. The nonlinearity of the model is mainly due to
the consideration of replacement decision-making of clean energy (electricity, natural gas, etc.),
but the replacement decision is often a market behavior determined by vehicle owners or shipping
companies, and not something that policymakers can plan. Therefore, in reality, the problem
solution does not need to consider this nonlinear relationship.
(3) The model is a multi-objective optimization model, which includes energy efficiency,
environmental benefits, and cost control. According to the World Bank’s relevant estimation
indicators, environmental benefits can be converted into economic benefits, and based on energy
savings and unit energy costs, energy benefits can also be converted into economic benefits.
Ultimately, this multi-objective optimization model can be transformed into a single-objective
optimization problem.
Based on the above three considerations, the model can be simplified in specific case scenarios.

3. Empirical analysis
3.1. Lianyungang port’s energy-saving and emissions-reduction status
This case study starts with the maximization of the overall benefit of energy savings and emissions
reduction. We conducted a survey at Lianyungang Port Authority and Lianyungang Port Group
on the Lianyungang low-carbon port planning and its low-carbon port project. Some relevant
documents and data were obtained, including the report of ‘Lianyungang Low-carbon Port
Planning Implementation Plan’: the construction scale, investment scale, construction period,
and construction period of all the projects in the implementation plan. Detailed research,
calculations and verification of the data on energy efficiency and emission-reduction benefits
were carried out. According to the implementation plan of the low-carbon Lianyungang Port, we
select and schedule eight energy-saving and emissions-reduction projects that have substantial
potential and can be developed at this stage. These projects include docked vessels using power
from the shore, green retrofitting of port lighting, door-machine frequency conversion and
energy-feedback retrofitting, petrol station gas recovery technology, yard transport retrofitting,
improved energy-saving in the scattered ore operation, energy-saving technology for belt con-
veyors, and household heat supply system retrofitting. The total scale of the retrofitting and
energy-saving and emissions-reduction benefits are shown in Table 1.
8 W. WANG ET AL.

Table 1. Planned energy-saving and emissions-reduction projects.

Unit energy-
saving effi- Unit emissions-
Energy-saving and emissions- Construction Unit-scale investment ciency reduction efficiency
No. reduction project cap cost (10,000 yuan) (tce/a) (t/a)
1 Docked vessels using power from 19 berths 628.95 0 1,484.88
shore
2 Eco-retrofitting of port lighting 1,040 lamps 0.26 0.49 0
3 Door-machine frequency conversion 38 machines 17.63 24.23 0
and energy-feedback retrofitting
4 Petrol station gas recovery 2 stations 50.00 8.8 0
technology
5 Yard transport retrofitting 9 berths 1,429.02 27.83 271.80
6 Improved energy savings in scattered 1 set 1,895.00 991.40 2,150.20
ore operation
7 Energy-saving technology for belt 10 belts 29.53 100.77 0
conveyors
8 Household heat supply system 4 sets 131.58 706.78 2,016.48
retrofitting
Note: This paper focuses on CO2 emissions reduction.

3.2. Model determination

Considering the characteristics of the model constructed in Chapter 2 (see 2.4.6), and based on
the specific situation of this case, only the first of the eight proposed projects involves the
replacement of clean energy (electricity, natural gas, etc.). The problem of shore electricity
usage is often a market behavior that decision makers cannot plan. Therefore, the usage rate of
shore power is calculated by the average value of domestic shore power usage, so the two decision
variables Lt,n, Xt,n can be simplified. Since Lt,n and Xt,n are highly related variables, they can be
combined into one decision variable Xt,n. Therefore, the original model can be simplified to have
only one decision variable Xt,n.
Since the two decision variables Lt,n, Xt,n are simplified, the original nonlinear planning
problem is also transformed into a linear planning problem, greatly reducing the difficulty of
solving.
At the same time, in this case, the multi-objective optimization problem is transformed into
a single-objective optimization problem according to the idea described in 2.4.6.
Because investments in the construction of energy-saving and emissions-reduction projects for
ports are characterized by a high investment cost and a long payback period, this paper primarily
considers the overall benefit of energy savings and emissions reduction achieved by project
construction. In the case of an investment period of T years and an evaluation period of
G years, the energy-efficiency (i.e., energy-saving) and environmental-benefit (i.e., emissions
reductions) targets can be converted into economic-benefits targets (i.e., cost savings from energy
savings and emissions reduction). Thus, obtaining the overall benefit target, that is, the objective
function, is as follows.

T X
X N X
N
Max f ¼ Xt;n  ½Bn  P þ ðDn þ D0 n Þ  E þ ðG  TÞ  XT; n  ½Bn  P þ ðDn þ D0 nÞ  E
t¼1 n¼1 n¼1
(11)

P - standard coal unit price in yuan/ton (considering the average coal price in 2010 at 746
yuan/ton)
E - CO2 loss benefit in yuan/ton, 150 yuan of loss per ton of CO2 with a greenhouse effect, as
estimated by the World Bank (Wang et al. 2018)
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 9

Bn - energy consumption saved per unit of project type n after low-energy retrofitting of the
project, converted into standard coal in tons
Xt,n - scale of low-energy consumption retrofit of project type n accumulated in year t

X
T
Xt;n ¼ Yt;n  An (12)
t¼1

Yt,n - scale of low-energy consumption retrofit of project type n in year t; Yt, n is a positive integer
At,n - largest scale required for the retrofit of project type n in year t
Dn - unit-scale direct CO2 emissions reductions after energy-saving and emissions-reduction
project retrofitting, in tons
D’n - unit-scale indirect CO2 emission reductions from energy-saving and emissions-reduction
project retrofitting, in tons
0
D n ¼ K  Bn  EFn (13)

K - control parameter; K = 0 if Dn > 0; K = 1 if Dn = 0

EFn - CO2 emission factor of energy j corresponding to project n, in ton/ton
This paper does not only consider clean energy-replacing traditional energy. After retrofitting,
a portion of the project can enable the replacement of a traditional energy source with a clean one.
Therefore, we only must consider the project investment cost. Project retrofits are independent of
one another. Therefore, the unit-scale investment cost is fixed.

X
N
Yt;n  Fn  St (14)
n¼1

Fn - unit-scale investment cost, in 10,000 yuan

St - maximum amount of planned total investment in energy savings and emissions reduction
in year t, in 10,000 yuan
According to the Twelfth Five-Year Plan for Energy-Saving and Emissions Reduction of Land
and Waterway Transport, compared with 2005, in 2015, the overall energy consumption of port
production units decreased by 8%, and the CO2 emission of the throughput of port production
units decreased by 10%. In this paper, we use 2015 as a node. Comparing 2015 energy-saving and
emissions reduction with the data from 2005, we obtain the energy-saving and emissions-
reduction control targets in stages.

P
N
E2015  Bn  X5;n
n¼1 E2005
 ð1  βÞ  (15)
N2015 N2005

P
N
Pc2015  X5;n  ðDn þ D0 n Þ
n¼1 Pc2005
 ð1χ Þ  (16)
N2015 N2005

E2005, E2015—total energy consumption in 2005 and 2015 (standard coal), in tons
N2005, N2015—port throughput in 2005 and 2015, in 10,000 tons
Pc2005, Pc2015—CO2 emissions in 2005 and 2015 in tons
Β, χ—compulsory energy-saving and emissions-reduction control indicators relative to the
baseline year in year t
10 W. WANG ET AL.

3.3. Model solution

This research adopts GAMS/CPLEX solver to find the model’s optimal solution. GAMS (General
Algebraic Modeling System) is advanced modeling software for mathematical programming and
optimization that can flexibly and effectively construct various types of models and supports
various mathematical models and solution methods (Xu, Liu, and Li 2014). The GAMS/CPLEX
solver can solve complex optimization problems (e.g. linear, quadratically constrained and mixed-
integer program) very quickly by using the minimal user intervention. For integer and mixed-
integer programs, CPLEX uses a branch and cut method that solves a series of linear subproblems.
For the problem investigated, the GAMS/CPLEX solver affirms the decision variables and output
variables and affirms and assigns the basic variables and parameter variables. In addition, it writes,
checks, and runs the programs according to constraints and the objective function in the
simplified model to provide a report.
With an annual investment limit of 58 million yuan and a set evaluation period of 25 years
(including a five-year investment period and a twenty-year operation period), we use the
throughput data for 2005 and 2015 for the dynamic optimization of investments in project
retrofitting for energy savings and emissions reduction at Lianyungang Port. Because the inves-
tigated problem belongs to a class of mixed-integer programs, through the GAMS/CPLEX solver,
we obtain an optimal plan for achieving emissions reduction during the investment period under
the condition of obtaining the maximum overall benefit. After 67 iterations, we can obtain the
solution; the construction timetable is shown in Table 2.
Table 2 lists the construction status of the project subject to energy-saving and emissions-
reduction measures over the years. The annual investment does not exceed the capital constraint,
and the five-year total project construction cost does not exceed the upper limit of the project
construction cost. The annual construction financial requirements are close to the maximum
investment of 58 million yuan, indicating that, in the optimization program, the investment funds
make the fullest use of the construction funds each year and indirectly reveal the credibility of the
optimization results. The construction timeline for projects with high energy-saving and emis-
sions-reduction efficiency is prioritized, such as project 3 in the table (i.e. door-machine frequency
conversion retrofitting and energy-feedback retrofitting), project 7 (energy-saving technology for
belt conveyors), and project 8 (residential heat supply system retrofitting). Similarly, the con-
struction of project 5, with lower energy-saving and emissions-reduction efficiency (yard transport
process retrofitting) is deprioritized and occurs in the second, fourth, and fifth years.
The previously mentioned annual energy-saving and emissions-reduction capacity and the
overall benefit of the optimal plan are summarized in Table 3. As shown in Figure 1, a line chart
of the annual energy savings, emissions reduction, and overall benefit is created based on 2010
data (because energy savings, emissions reduction, and retrofitting had not started in 2010, the
overall benefits of energy savings, emissions reduction, and overall benefit are considered to be 0).

Table 2. Lianyungang port energy-saving and emissions-reduction construction plan.

No. Project title 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total Unit
1 Docked vessels using power from shore 4 6 9 0 0 19 berth
2 Eco-retrofitting of port lighting 0 1,040 0 0 0 1,040 lamp
3 Door-machine frequency conversion and 32 6 0 0 0 38 machine
energy-feedback retrofitting
4 Petrol station gas recovery technology 0 2 0 0 0 2 station
5 Yard transport retrofitting 0 1 0 4 4 9 berth
6 Improved energy-saving in scattered ore 1 0 0 0 0 1 set
operation
7 Energy-saving technology for belt conveyors 9 1 0 0 0 10 belt
8 Household heat supply system retrofitting 4 0 0 0 0 4 set
Actual annual investment 5,767.14 5,707.20 5,660.55 5,716.09 5,716.09 28,567.06 10,000
yuan
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 11

Table 3. Lianyungang port energy-efficiency and emissions-reduction benefits.

Energy-saving Emissions Overall energy-saving and
(tons of stan- Energy-saving ben- reduction Emissions-reduction emissions-reduction benefit
Time dard coal) efit (10,000 yuan) (tons) benefit (10,000 yuan) (10,000 yuan)
2011 5,500.67 410.35 16,155.64 242.33 652.68
2012 6,304.01 470.28 25,336.74 380.05 850.33
2013 6,304.01 470.28 38,700.70 580.51 1,050.79
2014 6,415.33 478.58 39,787.90 596.82 1,075.40
2015 6,526.64 486.89 40,875.10 613.13 1,100.01
2016 ~ 2035 6,526.64 486.89 40,875.10 613.13 1,100.01
Evaluation 161,583.48 12,054.13 978,358.08 14,675.37 26,729.50
period
(2011 ~ 2035)
Note: Because the construction period (2011–2015) has ended, the operation period (2016–2035) no longer involves energy-
saving and emissions-reduction project construction. Therefore, from 2016 onward, the energy-saving and emissions-
reduction capacity and overall benefits are the same as in the fifth year.
energy-saving/Emissions-reduction
benefit (10,000 yuan)

energy-saving benefit
emissions-reduction benefit
overall benefit

year(year)

Figure 1. Yearly energy-saving, emissions-reduction, and overall benefits.

Based on the energy-efficiency and emissions-reduction construction benefits presented in

Table 3, we can obtain the energy savings, emissions reductions, and benefits for each year of
the evaluation period. When the construction period ended, the annual energy savings were
6,526.64 tons, the emissions reduction was 40,875.10 tons, and the overall benefit was
11.01 million yuan. The entire evaluation period also reached an average of 10.691 million yuan
of overall benefit per year, and the overall optimization was good. These outcomes indicate the
effectiveness and feasibility of the optimization program.
Because the energy-saving and emissions-reduction construction plan of Lianyungang Port
has been undertaken and finished, we can compare the yearly overall benefits between the actual
solution and optimal solution. The comparison results are shown in Figure 2. The overall
benefit of the optimal solution is 21,322,910 yuan, which is obviously higher than the actual
benefits from 2011 to 2014. This indicates the advantage and effectiveness of the optimal
solution.
As revealed by Figure 1, the energy-saving, emissions-reduction, and overall benefits have
steeper gradients in the first three years of the construction period. That is, the larger annual
increase indicates that the project with a greater benefit is preferentially chosen for construc-
tion. In the last two years of the construction period, the gradients are smaller. That is, the
smaller annual increase indicates that the project with a smaller benefit is implemented later.
This result indirectly demonstrates that the optimal solution can rationally utilize financial
resources.
12 W. WANG ET AL.

Figure 2. Comparison of yearly overall benefits generated by actual solution and optimal solution.

4. Conclusions
For a long time, a lack of rational and thoughtful planning occurs when achieving energy savings
and emissions reduction in ports. The project construction scale and timeframe are usually
considered from the perspective of investment costs. This paper focuses on two important
environmental impact factors: energy consumption and carbon emissions. It also takes into
account the investment cost. We constructed an optimization model for the construction scale
and timing of energy-saving and emissions-reduction projects and applied the model to analyze
Lianyungang Port’s low-carbon optimization efforts. Using GAMS/CPLEX solver to seek the
optimal solution, we established a construction plan.
Based on the optimization scheme, we found that after the completion of the construction
period, the average annual energy savings were 6,526.64 tons, the emissions reduction was
40,875.10 tons, 49.2238 million yuan each year were obtained, and the overall benefit was
11.01 million yuan. The payback on investing these green projects is less than 5.89 years. From
the economic and environmental perspectives, the comprehensive efficiency is significant.
In this paper, integer programming was performed to optimize the project scheduling solutions
for low-carbon, energy-saving, and emissions-reducing port projects. Gaps remain between the
model results and the actual construction scheme. Additional shortcomings include insufficiently
comprehensive project selection, which will require improvements in future research.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the Jiangsu Social Science Fund [18GLB013]; the Humanities and Social Sciences of
Ministry of Education Planning Fund [18YJAZH092 and 18YJC630054]; Key Laboratory of Coastal Disaster and
Defence of Ministry of Education, Hohai University [201913].

ORCID
Wei Wang http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5873-2384
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 13

Li Huang http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3059-7122
Jian Gu http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4514-5142
Liupeng Jiang http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6478-9854

References
Abood, K. A. 2007. “Sustainable and Green Ports Application of Sustainability Principles to Port Development and
Operation.” Ports 2007 Conference, ASCE: San Diego, California, March 25-28. doi: 10.1061/40834(238)60.
Ali, M., P. Siarry, and M. Pant. 2012. “An Efficient Differential Evolution Based Algorithm for Solving
Multi-objective Optimization Problems.” The European Journal of Operational Research 217: 404–416.
doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2011.09.025.
Anjomshoa, H., I. Dumitrescu, I. Lustig, and O. J. Smith. 2018. “An Exact Approach for Tactical Planning and
Patient Selection for Elective Surgeries.” The European Journal of Operational Research 268: 728–739.
doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2018.01.048.
Artigues, C. 2017. “On the Strength of Time-indexed Formulations for the Resource-constrained Project
Scheduling Problem.” Operations Research Letters 45: 154–159. doi:10.1016/j.orl.2017.02.001.
Asgari, N., A. Hassani, D. Jones, and H. H. Nguye. 2015. “Sustainability Ranking of the UK Major Ports:
Methodology and Case Study.” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics & Transportation Review 78: 19–39.
doi:10.1016/j.tre.2015.01.014.
Ayotamuno, J. M., and A. E. Gobo. 2004. “Municipal Solid Waste Management in Port Harcourt, Nigeria.”
Management of Environmental Quality an International Journal 15: 389–398. doi:10.1108/14777830410540135.
Birch, G. F., and S. E. Taylor. 2002. “Application of Sediment Quality Guidelines in the Assessment and
Management of Contaminated Surficial Sediments in Port Jackson (sydney Harbour), Australia.”
Environmental Management 29: 860. doi:10.1007/s00267-001-2620-4.
Bruni, M. E., P. Beraldi, F. Guerriero, and E. Pinto. 2011. “A Heuristic Approach for Resource Constrained Project
Scheduling with Uncertain Activity Durations.” Computers & Operations Research 38: 1305–1318. doi:10.1016/j.
cor.2010.12.004.
Chand, S., Q. Huynh, H. Singh, T. Ray, and M. Wagner. 2017. “On the Use of Genetic Programming to Evolve
Priority Rules for Resource Constrained Project Scheduling Problems.” Information Sciences 432: 146–163.
doi:10.1016/j.ins.2017.12.013.
Deb, K., A. Pratap, S. Agarwal, and T. Meyarivan. 2002. “A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm:
Nsga-ii.” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6: 182–197. doi:10.1109/4235.996017.
Dong, Y. H., and S. T. Ng. 2015. “A Life Cycle Assessment Model for Evaluating the Environmental Impacts of
Building Construction in Hong Kong.” Building and Environment 89: 183–191. doi:10.1016/j.
buildenv.2015.02.020.
Goulielmos, A. M. 2000. “European Policy on Port Environmental Protection.” Global Nest: The International
Journal 2: 189–197.
Guo, Z. X., E. W. T. Ngai, C. Yang, and X. D. Liang. 2015. “An RFID-based Intelligent Decision Support System
Architecture for Production Monitoring and Scheduling in a Distributed Manufacturing Environment.”
International Journal of Production Economics 159: 16–28. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.09.004.
Guo, Z. X., W. K. Wong, S. Y. S. Leung, J. T. Fan, and S. F. Chan. 2008. “Genetic Optimization of Order Scheduling
with Multiple Uncertainties.” Expert Systems With Applications 35: 1788–1801. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.08.058.
Guo, Z. X., W. K. Wong, Z. Li, and P. Ren. 2013. “Modeling and Pareto Optimization of Multi-objective Order
Scheduling Problems in Production Planning.” Computers & Industrial Engineering 64: 972–986. doi:10.1016/j.
cie.2013.01.006.
Guo, Z. X., D. Q. Zhang, H. T. Liu, Z. G. He, and L. Y. Shi. 2018. “Green Transportation Scheduling with Pickup
Time and Transport Mode Selections Using a Novel Multi-objective Memetic Optimization Approach.”
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 60: 137–152. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2016.02.003.
Gupta, A. K., S. K. Gupta, and R. S. Patil. 2005. “Environmental Management Plan for Port and Harbor Projects.”
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 7: 133–141. doi:10.1007/s10098-004-0266-7.
He, Z. G., P. Chen, H. T. Liu, and Z. X. Guo. 2017. “Performance Measurement System and Strategies for
Developing Low-carbon Logistics: A Case Study in China.” Journal of Cleaner Production 156: 395–405.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.071.
Herroelen, W., and R. Leus. 2004. “Robust and Reactive Project Scheduling: A Review and Classification of
Procedures.” International Journal of Production Economics 42: 1599–1620. doi:10.1080/00207540310001638055.
Huebner, F., R. Volk, A. Kuehlen, and F. Schultmann. 2017. “Review of Project Planning Methods for
Deconstruction Projects of Buildings.” Built Environment Project and Asset Management 7: 212–226.
doi:10.1108/BEPAM-11-2016-0075.
Hyari, K., and K. El-Rayes. 2006. “Optimal Planning and Scheduling for Repetitive Construction Projects.” Journal
of Engineering and Technology Management 22: 11–19. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2006)22:1(11).
14 W. WANG ET AL.

Islam, S., and T. Olsen. 2014. “Truck-sharing Challenges for Hinterland Trucking Companies: A Case of the Empty
Container Truck Trips Problem.” Business Process Management Journal 20: 290–334. doi:10.1108/BPMJ-03-
2013-0042.
Jones, M. A., J. Stauber, and S. Apte. 2005. “A Risk Assessment Approach to Contaminants in Port Curtis,
Queensland, Australia.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 51: 448–458. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2004.10.021.
Ke, L., Q. Zhang, and R. Battiti. 2013. “Moea/d-aco: A Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm Using
Decomposition and Antcolony.” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 43: 1845. doi:10.1109/TSMCB.2012.2231860.
Khalid, B., and G. Richard. 2003. “A Logistics and Supply Chain Management Approach to Port Performance
Measurement.” Maritime Policy & Management 31: 47–67. doi:10.1080/0308883032000174454.
Lam, J. S. L., and T. Notteboom. 2014. “The Greening of Ports: A Comparison of Port Management Tools Used by
Leading Ports in Asia and Europe.” Transport Reviews 34: 169–178. doi:10.1080/01441647.2014.891162.
Lee, T. C., J. S. L. Lam, and P. T. W. Lee. 2016. “Asian Economic Integration and Maritime CO2 Emissions.”
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 43: 226–237. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2015.12.015.
Liu, D., and Y. E. Ge. 2018. “Modeling Assignment of Quay Cranes Using Queueing Theory for Minimizing CO2
Emission at a Container Terminal.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 61 (A):
140–151.
Lu, M., and H. Li. 2003. “Resource-activity Critical-path Method for Construction Planning.” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management (ASCE) 129: 412–420. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)
129:4(412).
Miluše, T., and Beatriz, T. 2015. “Environmental Cost and Eco-efficiency from Vessel Emissions in Las Palmas
Port.” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics & Transportation Review 83 (C): 126–140. doi:10.1016/j.
tre.2015.09.002.
Mirjalili, S., S. Saremi, S. M. Mirjalili, and L. D. S. Coelho. 2016. “Multi-objective Grey Wolf Optimizer: A Novel
Algorithm for Multi-criterion Optimization.” Expert Systems With Applications 47: 106–119. doi:10.1016/j.
eswa.2015.10.039.
Odum, H. T., and B. Odum. 2003. “Concepts and Methods of Ecological Engineering.” Ecological Engineering 20:
339–361. doi:10.1016/j.ecoleng.2003.08.008.
Olhager, J., and E. Selldin. 2003. “Enterprise Resource Planning Survey of Swedish Manufacturing Firms.” The
European Journal of Operational Research 146: 365–373. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00555-6.
Peris-Mora, E., J. M. Orejas-Diez, and A. Subirats. 2015. “Development of a System of Indicators for Sustainable
Port Management.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 50: 1649–1660. doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.06.048.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. 2006. “The Environment.” Accessed http://www.airtrainjfk.com/
Doing Business With/seaport/pdfs/New Environ.PDF
Reinhardt, L. B., and D. Pisinger. 2012. “A Branch and Cut Algorithm for the Container Shipping Network Design
Problem.” Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal 24: 349–374. doi:10.1007/s10696-011-9105-4.
Shen, W., L. Wang, and Q. Hao. 2006. “Agent-based Distributed Manufacturing Process Planning and Scheduling:
A State-of-the-art Survey.” IEEE Transactions on Systems Man Cybernetics-Systems 36: 563–577. doi:10.1109/
TSMCC.2006.874022.
Sivasubramani, S., and K. S. Swarup. 2011. “Multi-objective Harmony Search Algorithm for Optimal Power Flow
Problem.” International Journal of Electrical Power & Energy Systems 33: 745–752. doi:10.1016/j.
ijepes.2010.12.031.
Stojanovic, T. A., H. D. O. Smith, and C. F. Wooldridge. 2006. “The Impact of the Habitats Directive on European
Port Operations and Management.” GeoJournal 65: 165–176. doi:10.1007/s10708-006-0004-2.
Wang, S., H. Su, and G. Wan. 2015. “Resource-constrained Machine Scheduling with Machine Eligibility
Restriction and Its Applications to Surgical Operations Scheduling.” Journal of Combinatorial Optimization
30: 982–995. doi:10.1007/s10878-015-9860-3.
Wang, W., J. J. Chen, Q. Liu, and Z. X. Guo. 2018. “Green Project Planning with Realistic Multi-objective
Consideration in Developing Sustainable Port.” Sustainability 10 (7): 2385. doi:10.3390/su10072385.
Wang, W., J. Yang, L. Huang, D. Proverbs, and J. B. Wei. 2019. “Intelligent Storage Location Allocation with
Multiple Objectives for Flood Control Materials.” Water 11 (8): 1537. doi:10.3390/w11081537.
Wong, W. K., Z. X. Guo, and S. Y. S. Leung. 2014. “Intelligent Multi-objective Decision-making Model with Rfid
Technology for Production Planning.” International Journal of Production Economics 147: 647–658. doi:10.1016/
j.ijpe.2013.05.011.
Xu, X. Y., J. Liu, and H. Y. Li. 2014. “Analysis of Subway Station Capacity with the Use of Queueing Theory.”
Transportation Research Part C 38: 28–43. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2013.10.010.
Yang, Y. C., and W. M. Chang. 2013. “Impacts of Electric Rubber-tired Gantries on Green Port Performance.”
Research in Transportation Business & Management 8: 67–76. doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.04.002.
Yeh, W.-C., and M.-C. Chuang. 2011. “Using Multi-objective Genetic Algorithm for Partner Selection in Green
Supply Chain Problems.” Expert Systems With Applications 38: 4244–4253. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.09.091.
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 15

Yu, H., Y. E. Ge, J. H. Chen, L. H. Luo, and C. Tan. 2017. “CO2 Emission Evaluation of Yard Tractors during
Loading at Container Terminals.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 53: 17–36.
doi:10.1016/j.trd.2017.03.014.
Yusuf, Y., A. Gunasekaran, and M. S. Abthorpe. 2004. “Enterprise Information Systems Project Implementation:
A Case Study of Erp in Rolls-royce.” International Journal of Production Economics 87: 251–266. doi:10.1016/j.
ijpe.2003.10.004.
Zhang, Q., and H. Li. 2007. “Moea/d: A Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithm Based on Decomposition.” IEEE
Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 11: 712–731. doi:10.1109/TEVC.2007.892759.
Zhang, X., L. Shen, and L. Zhang. 2013. “Life Cycle Assessment of the Air Emissions during Building Construction
Process: A Case Study in Hong Kong.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 17: 160–169. doi:10.1016/j.
rser.2012.09.024.
Zheng, S. Y., Y. E. Ge, X. Fu, Y. Nie, and C. Xie. 2017. “Modeling Collusion-proof Port Emission Regulation of
Cargo-handling Activities under Incomplete Information.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 104
(C): 543–567. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2017.04.015.