See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342176174

Understanding the Sustainable Development Goal Approach for Ports of the

Future

Conference Paper · September 2019

DOI: 10.3850/38WC092019-0877

CITATIONS READS

4 326

1 author:

Cor A Schipper
Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment /Rijkswaterstaat
80 PUBLICATIONS 1,198 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Cor A Schipper on 08 September 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 E-proceedings of the 38th IAHR World Congress
September 1-6, 2019, Panama City, Panama
doi:10.3850/38WC092019-0877

UNDERSTANDING THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOAL APPROACH FOR PORTS OF THE FUTURE

COR SCHIPPER(1),

(1)
MINISTRY OF INFRASTRUCTUE AND WATERMANANGEMENT, UTRECHT, THE NETHERLANDS
COR.SCHIPPER@RWS.NL

ABSTRACT

A growing consensus recognises the need to adapt economic, environmental and social structures of ports for
more sustainable models. The fairly new concept of a ‘Port of the Future’ enables policy makers and
companies to identify successful strategies they can adopt, and pitfalls they can avoid, when drafting and
implementing sustainable port growth policies. The uncertainty and potential impacts of climate change are
the primary driving forces behind sustainable actions in coastal protection, port management and operational
planning. This study connects the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the UN and their corresponding
targets to key port performance indicators for several representative port masterplans. Utilizing the Green Port
Policy (GPP) assessment framework, the SDG targets were linked to sustainability achievements according to
the SDGs. The selected SDGs and targets are also used in the critical evaluation of ten port masterplans. A
key challenge is the integration of the SDGs into a relevant, measurable and manageable system of 14
representative targets of moderate to high importance targets.
The port masterplans inter-comparison is utilized to detect key port related SDGs and targets; thereby linking
a subset of 11 SDGs (of the 17 total) to port sustainability. The GPP framework indicators incorporates 24
relevant SDG targets, focusing on globally relevant issues related to port targets. Port service performance
indicators were linked to SDG targets which relate to port policy, port operations, and flood defence
management. Focusing on the 11 selected port SDGs targets in relation to the 10 port plans considered
illustrates a range of sustainability from low to high (e.g. the Port of Ho Chi Minh City and Port of Dar es
Salaam to the Port of Rotterdam and Port of Los Angeles, respectively). Moreover, the port masterplans
contain evidence for the potential of additional contributions to the selected SDGs targets; it may be possible
and indeed applicable to incorporate sustainable goals in the port design processes.

Keywords: Sustainable Development Goals, SDG targets, Port assessment, Port masterplan

1 INTRODUCTION
Ongoing trends such as global trade growth, increasing vessel size, and the need to modernize port facilities
are driving new investments in ports as competition escalates. Port development is often constrained by
scarcity of prime building locations and the need to reduce environmental, social and economic risks and
impacts involved with an uncertain future, e.g. impacts of climate change or dynamic demands (OECD, 2011).
Thus, innovative solutions for port development, supporting the ‘Port of the Future’ mentality, which include
environmental considerations while simultaneously enhancing climate resilience are crucial for the sustainable
growth of ports (Schipper et al., 2015). The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have been signed by
all UN members states as objectives for the period 2015-2030 (UN, 2015; UN, 2016). The SDGs and their
targets focus on a wide range of global issues and are particularly useful for topics related to the coastal zone
such as climate change, and dependent issues such as sustainable economic growth and environmental
degradation of land (UNDP, 2018). A subset of the climate change goals include actions aimed at combatting
climate change directly and also it’s the resultant impacts (UN, 2018b). A collection of the SDGs address the
protection and effective management of ecosystems, explicitly denoting coastal zones within the targets. It is
also possible to use the SDGs to make a relationship to sustainable infrastructure approaches for example
6084
E-proceedings of the 38th IAHR World Congress
September 1-6, 2019, Panama City, Panama

circular economy (Schroeder et al, 2018), smart cities (Ahvenneimi et al. 2017) and sustainable ports or
logistics (Schipper et al., 2017; 2019). The Green Port Policy (GPP) is defined as a ‘Triple P’ (People, Planet,
Prosperity) framework representing an integrated framework for sustainable port development with the
inclusion of many pressing global issues (Schipper et al, 2017). In this study, an assessment framework
combining the GPP and SDG approach which includes a selection of global port infrastructure is developed by
using suitable performance indicators and explicitly linking them to port targets of SDGs.

GPP provides a framework for economic growth that is compatible with environmental and social needs,
including ways to manage the transition process from existing measures and infrastructure to new ones. The
GPP framework identifies the steps and actions to be taken in the process of developing a sustainable port
plan. Economic, environmental, and social aspects are considered from the onset; as such, these three
aspects are based on an integrated and ecosystem-based approach. The GPP framework stipulates ways in
which a port-city can minimize negative social and environmental impacts, considering the current situation in
the port-city and linking the SDG targets for future developments. It is promising to connect the SDGs targets
to the port key performance indicators to focus measurable performance monitoring and investment decisions
for representative port masterplans.

2. METHOD

The GPP approach of sustainable port development is applied to the masterplans of 10 selected ports (Table
1). These ports, varying in size and type, have been selected for our analysis because of their (1) geographic
location on the Asian-African-European maritime route and the North-South America maritime route; and the
(2) online availability of port-city plans. The evaluation is conducted via a comparative analysis of the various
masterplans utilizing numeric open source data and a subsequent comparison of the plan contents to validate
their sustainable development impact.

Table 1. Overview of the masterplans studied based upon clear qualitative SDG targets and useable for many
ports and coastal areas in the world (according to Schipper et al., 2017).

GPP-SDG target performance

The GPP assessment focuses on the socio-economic and (eco)system impact in relation to the SDG targets.
The first stage is to assess the port masterplans in 5 steps, where the sustainability performance of ports is
evaluated based on the GPP framework according to Schipper et al. (2017). In this study, the focus of the
selected indicators is on the (a) social services employment, well-being, and flood preparedness; (b) the

6085
 E-proceedings of the 38th IAHR World Congress
September 1-6, 2019, Panama City, Panama

economic services cargo growth, port investment and tourism and (c) the environmental services greenhouse
gas emission, air quality, biodiversity and coastal erosion.

Firstly, information for each indicator is used on location-specific information related to each masterplan that is
accessible from regulations and guidelines (e.g. accreditation; energy strategy; port management; promoting
accessibility; implementation ‘Green Port’ plan; greenhouse and/or air emission reduction). The sum of the
sustainable social, environmental and economic measures score is expressed as the Sustainable Integrated
Condition Index (SICI) quotient.
At the second stage, the GPP specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) of each link to the selected SDG’s
and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN, 2018a). The SDG targets were applied to
consider the sustainability condition of the ports according to the port masterplans. The output variables from
the comprehensive masterplan results can be compared to evaluate an array of port services qualitatively
based on the SDG’s.

3. RESULTS

GPP- SDG target performance

To explore port development in the context of integrated system operation, the impact of port growth
according to the long-term port plans is based on the SDG targets. The GPP - SDG target relationship is
analysed for each individual SDG (UN, 2007; UN, 2018b) (table 2). Each of the 169 SDG goal-target relations
were considered on port measures, impact or benefit criteria based on:
a). the socio-economic impact from employment, well-being and flood awareness;
b). the measures on coastal flood defence and protection, adaptation of the ecosystem to climate
changes, and coastal erosion;
c). the impact of port investment and economic green growth on environmental impact of greenhouse
gas emissions, air quality and biodiversity.
To get an overall score for all relevant port SDG targets related to sustainable port infrastructures, the 24 -
SDG targets are analysed for all 27 individual indicators (UN, 2018a). Finally, based on the accessibility of
numeric data, a subsection of 11 SDG targets out of the total 24 SDG targets, which moderate or strongly
appropriate relate to port sustainability, we selected to be applied for the purpose of the study. These 11
targets belong to total 10 different SDGs (see Table 2).

Table 2. Summary score of each individual SDG relationship to port sustainable policy that will contribute to
port policy

6086
 E-proceedings of the 38th IAHR World Congress
September 1-6, 2019, Panama City, Panama

Strong
link of
Total SDG Port SDG Port SDG confidenc
Goals
Targets indicators e in
assessme
nt
Targets
Goal 1 6 0 0 Low
Goal 2 8 0 0 Low
Goal 3 13 0 0 Low
Goal 4 10 1 1 Moderate
Goal 5 9 0 0 Low
Goal 6 8 1 2 High
Goal 7 5 4 4 Moderate
Goal 8 12 2 2 Moderate
Goal 9 8 2 3 High
Goal 10 10 0 0 Low
Goal 11 10 3 3 High
Goal 12 11 5 6 High
Goal 13 5 3 3 High
Goal 14 10 1 1 Moderate
Goal 15 12 0 0 Low
Goal 16 12 0 0 Low
Goal 17 19 2 2 Moderate
Total 169 24 27

The ‘Port of the Future’ formulated as part of the assignment uses the SDGs to make a relationship between
sustainable infrastructure approaches and can be used to achieve a long-term sustainable port. The GPP-
SDG framework ranks ports on the various long-term masterplans against a set of specific social, economic,
and environmental performances (Schipper et al, 2017). The ranking of the indicator is used to interpret the
sustainability in accordance with the SDG target as presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Selected SDGs in relation to port SDG targets (UN, 2018) and the linked port indicators of the GPP
(Schipper et al. 2017).
SDG Name of SDG Description of SDG target Linked GPP port Analysed Reference
target indicator
4.4 Quality By 2030, substantially increase the number of Employment + OECD,
education youth and adults who have relevant skills, expressed as 2013
including technical and vocational skills, for amount of jobs
employment, decent jobs and
entrepreneurship.
6.3 Clean water and By 2030, improve water quality by reducing Water purification + Gómez et
sanitation pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing expressed as al., 2015
release of hazardous chemicals and materials, actual renewable
halving the proportion of untreated wastewater water
and substantially increasing recycling and safe resources per
reuse globally. capita (m3 per
person available)
7.2 Affordable and By 2030, increase substantially the share of Not available - Not
clean energy renewable energy in the global energy mix. available
7.3 Affordable and By 2030, double the global rate of Not available - Not
clean energy improvement in energy efficiency. available
8.2 Decent work Achieve higher levels of economic productivity Cargo economic + World
and economic through growth expressed Shipping
growth Council,
6087
 E-proceedings of the 38th IAHR World Congress
September 1-6, 2019, Panama City, Panama

diversification, technological upgrading and as million TEU in 2014

innovation, including through a 2014 in city
focus on high-value-added and labour-
intensive sectors.
8.9 Decent work By 2030, devise and implement policies to Tourism as total + Eurostat,
and economic promote sustainable tourism that creates jobs throughput of Annual
growth and promotes local culture and products. Passengers, reports of
ports
9.1 Industry, Develop quality, reliable, sustainable and Well-being + Bertelsman
innovation and resilient infrastructure, including regional and expressed as n, 2014
infrastructure transborder infrastructure, to support Bertelsmann
economic development and human well-being, index
with a focus on affordable and equitable
access for all.
9.4 Industry, By 2030, upgrade infrastructure and retrofit Green house gas + CDIAC,
innovation and industries to make them sustainable, with expressed as 2013
infrastructure increased resource-use efficiency and greater CO2 in 1000
adoption of clean and environmentally sound tonnes CO2/CAP)
technologies and industrial processes, with all in
countries acting in accordance with their city
respective capabilities.
11.6.2 Sustainable By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita Air pollution + WHO,
cities and environmental impact of cities, including by particulate matter 2014
communities paying special attention to air quality and PM10 in μg/m3
municipal and other waste management.
11.a.1 Sustainable Support positive economic, social and Not available - Not
cities and environmental links between urban, peri-urban available
communities and rural areas by strengthening national and
regional development planning.
12.4 Responsible By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound Not available - Not
consumption management of chemicals and all wastes available
and production throughout their life cycle, in accordance with
agreed international frameworks, and
significantly reduce their release to air, water
and soil in order to minimize their adverse
impacts on human health and the
environment.
12.5 Responsible By 2030, substantially reduce waste Not available - Not
consumption generation through prevention, reduction, available
and production recycling and reuse.
12.6 Responsible Encourage companies, especially large and Number of + Schipper,
consumption transnational companies, to adopt sustainable companies 2017
and production practices and to integrate sustainability publishing
information into their reporting cycle. sustainability
reports
13.2 Climate action Integrate climate change measures into Coastal erosion - Luijendijk
national policies, strategies and planning. et al, 2018
13.3 Climate action Improve education, awareness-raising and Flood + Inform,
human and institutional capacity on climate preparedness 2018
change mitigation, adaptation, impact expressed as
reduction and early warning. Hyogo
Framework
6088
 E-proceedings of the 38th IAHR World Congress
September 1-6, 2019, Panama City, Panama

14.1 Life below the By 2020, sustainably manage and protect Biodiversity + Grida,
water marine and coastal expressed as 2015
ecosystems to avoid significant adverse Number of IUCN
impacts, including by strengthening their categories
resilience, and take action for their restoration marine protected
in order to achieve healthy and productive areas
oceans. number 2004
17.11.1 Partnership for By 2020, significantly increase the exports of Market share for + Schipper,
the goals developing countries, in particular with a view to area productivity 2017
doubling the least developed countries’ share of expressed as fish
global exports. protein
per country

The selected port masterplans are compared based on management plans, port-city activities, port operation,
port infrastructure and port operational management related to the port functions. The period considered in the
masterplans varied with a maximum range of 30 years including the period from 2001 to 2030 and other plans
lacking an explicit time period under consideration. The frameworks highlights the current status of port
sustainability, explicitly linking master plans to port targets related to SDG’s. Figure 1 shows the ranking of the
impact of pressures in each of the long-term port plans and is expressed as a function of all available SDG
target scores (with maximum of 10 points per SDG).

Fig 1 Cumulative scoring of SDG target in the long-term plans of the masterplan. Ten ports expressed as a
Sustainable Integrated Condition Index (SICI) score. (according to Schipper et al., 2017).

6089
 E-proceedings of the 38th IAHR World Congress
September 1-6, 2019, Panama City, Panama

120

100 SDG 17.11.1

SDG 14.1
80
SDG 13.3
60
SDG 12.6
40 SDG 11.6.2
20 SDG 9.4

0 SDG 9.1
SDG 8.9
SDG 8.2
SDG 6.3
SDG 4.4

The SDG assessment distinguishes between the impact of different port operations included in the long-term
future vision of the port. The ports of Rotterdam, Los Angeles, Hamburg, Melbourne and Antwerp accrue the
highest SICI score (above 80). This is the result of a combination of environmental, urban and city planning
alongside optimum sustainable water management and climate change mitigation measures such as
greenhouse and/or air emission reduction. The ports of Shanghai, Istanbul and Valparaiso obtain mid-range
scores. The Port of Dar es Salaam and Port of Ho Chi Minh City accumulate the lowest SICI scores, indicating
only the minor presence of SDG targets within the basic port plans.

The port masterplans of Rotterdam, Los Angeles, Hamburg, Melbourne and Antwerp have the highest score
with respect to SDG 13.3 (flood preparedness), SDG 12.6 (number of companies publishing sustainability
reports) and SDG 11.6.2 (air pollution). Compared to them, the port masterplans of Shanghai, Dar es Salaam,
Ho Chi Minh and Valparaiso score poorly, however, their economic scores are relatively high due to scores
achieved within the targets SDG 8.2 (cargo economic growth) and SDG 8.9 (tourism passengers). This is not
a surprising outcome as the core driver behind these masterplans is economic interest and development.
Ports scoring relatively high on SDG 13.3 have dedicated a specific sections on disaster relief within their
plans, relevant indicators for SDG 13. A reason for these high scores seems connected to the relatively
lengthy amount of time and large sums of money that the Port of Rotterdam has invested into these issues.
The lowest scores across all ports can be found with SDG 11.6.2 (sustainable cities and communities), SDG
13.3 , SDG 14.1 (biodiversity) and SDG 4.4 (employment). For SDG 11.6.2 and 14.1, in the Asian port no
evidence could be found regarding topics such as air quality reduction and a lack of evidence regarding nature
protected areas influencing these two SDGs respectively. Also, no evidence could be found with respect to the
application of ecosystem-based approaches and contributions to global institutional frameworks for
conservation and sustainable use of oceans. The Port of Ho Chi Minh has the lowest SICI score of all ports;
nearly no evidence could be found contributing to any of the SDGs, except for SDG 8 (economic growth) and
SDG 13 (climate action) as the port’s capacity for local employment is presented as a key driver for further
development.

4. DISCUSSION

Sustainability assessments utilizing SDG targets could actively reduce CO2 emissions and promote positive
6090
E-proceedings of the 38th IAHR World Congress
September 1-6, 2019, Panama City, Panama

trends in employment and well-being for coastal port areas while meeting demands for higher utilization rates
from cargo shipping and cruise tourism utilizations. Moreover, in stakeholder discussions, the SDG targets
emphasize the relevance of some SDG targets to port development. Furthermore, such an approach allows for
judgements and conclusions to be distilled from SDG based assessments and incorporated into later versions
of master plans. Such assessments explicitly create the relevant links between theory and practice, providing
justification and criticisms for each of the SDG questions as outlined in the introductory chapter. Using the SDG
targets to assess masterplans is useful to obtain a detailed impression on the degree to which sustainability is
embedded in such documents. By evaluating documents and plans for evidence indicating the presence of
topics raised within SDG targets, it is possible to create a balanced overview of both the strengths and
weaknesses of port development visions in regard to sustainability. One of the challenges of applying such a
SDG assessment is the difference in the level of analysis conducted for each of the ports. To integrate the SDGs
in a relevant, measurable and manageable way is quite challenging; 14 representative moderate or strong
targets for ports are distilled: SDG 4.4; SDG 6.2; SDG 7.2; SDG 8.2; SDG 8.9; SDG 9.1; SDG 9.4; SDG 9.5;
SDG 11.6.2; SDG 12.6.1; SDG 13.2; SDG 13.3; SDG 14.2; and SDG 17.11.1. When applied to long-term port
vision plans, the SDG framework identifies a low (e.g. Port of Ho Chi Minh City) to moderate (e.g. Port of
Rotterdam) sustainability score for the ports considered. The port plans for the Port of Ho Chi Minh City and the
Port of Dar es Salaam alack reference and consideration of many SDG targets as applied within this framework,
therefore, these harbours potentially score low due to a lack of consideration of these performance indicators.
The SDG targets show the lowest target scores of SDG 11.6.2 (sustainable cities and communities), SDG 13.3
(flood preparedness), SDG 14.1 (biodiversity) and SDG 4.4 (employment). In the Valparaiso port, SDG 14.1
also scores low due to the lack of evidence regarding nature protected areas. Low SDG target scores in these
areas are the result of limited measures in low-scoring plans on topics such as climate change or flood and
environmental protection. The analyses of Rotterdam, Los Angeles, Hamburg, Melbourne and Antwerp
masterplans on economic growth show a high SICI related to productivity. Through the analyses, it was found
that port masterplans are developed in a wide variety of writing styles and are generated to achieve different
objectives, requiring additional efforts when conducting cross-comparisons. Differences in social-economic
developments of the countries where the various ports are located also plays a major role in terms of prioritizing
the country’s issues and needs within a masterplan.

5. CONCLUSION
The qualitative analysis of SDG’s shows the importance in making a paradigm shift towards considering
sustainable climate adaptation; searching for peak optimization while considering the balance between PPP
indicators. Using the SDG targets for evaluation of the port management plans illustrated that the implemented
plans show varying degrees of sustainable ambition scenarios to contribute to an adaptive and resilient port,
however, highly sustainable exceptions exist. Port development can be realised in an inclusive way involving
tailored governance and resulting in a vital and modern port that has a ‘sustainable license to operate’.
Summarized to be concluded, SDG assessments:
• Offer a proven and practical approach for transitioning ports towards sustainability master
planning
• Are based upon clear quantitative KPI’s and useable by many ports and coastal areas in the
world
• Helps to formulate clear sustainability goals and objectives with stakeholders
• Ensure that all potentially effective measures towards sustainability transitions in ports are
included
• Are more effective and successful if different varieties of validated data are made publicly
available
• Enable the linking of sustainability achievements to UN-Sustainable Development Goals
• Might be applicable to incorporate sustainable goals in port design processes

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
6091
 E-proceedings of the 38th IAHR World Congress
September 1-6, 2019, Panama City, Panama

We would like to thank the collegial reviewers Alex Ziemba, Jop van Roosmalen and Janneke den Dekker-
Arlain for their time devoted to our manuscript since we feel their comments helped to improve the quality of
the manuscript.

7. REFERENCES
Ahvenniemi H., Huovila A. , IPinto-Seppä, M. Airaksinen (2017). What are the differences between
sustainable and smart cities? Cities 60 (2017) 234–245.

Bertelsmann, 2014. Bertelsmann Transformation Index (2008). Manual for Country Assessment,
München/Gütersloh. www.bti-project.de/index/status-index/ (accessed February 2014).

Brandenburg University (2013). Guidelines on Climate change adapted urban planning and design for Ho Chi
Min City/Vietnam. Future Mega cities. Ports and Nature.

CDIAC, 2013. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2013.cap. Ranking of the world's countries by 2013 per

capita fossil-fuel CO2 emission rates.

Dar es Salaam City Council (2008). Dar es Salaam Transport Policy and System Development Masterplan.
Japan International Cooperation Agency.

Gómez, A.G., Ondiviela, B., Puente, A., Juanes, J.A., 2015. Environmental risk assessment of water quality in
harbor areas: a new methodology applied to European ports. J. Environ. Manage. 155, 77–88.

Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality & Japan International Cooperation Agency (2009). The Study on Integrated
Urban Transportation Masterplan for Istanbul Metropolitan Area in the Republic of Turkey. Summary Report
ALMEC Corporation.

Luijendijk, G. Hagenaars, R. Ranasinghe, F. Baart, G. Donchyts, S. Aarninkhof (2018). The State of the
World's Beaches Sci. Rep., 8 (6641) (2018), 10.1038/s41598-018-24630-6

OECD (2011). Towards Green Growth. Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264111318-en.

OECD (2013). The competitiveness of global port-cities: synthesis report.

Port of Ho Chi Minh City (2013). Guidelines on Climate Change Adapted urban planning and design for Ho
Chi Minh City/Vietnam. Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus.

Port of Istanbul (2007). Istanbul Masterplan. Report Bimtas.

Port of Rotterdam (2008). The sustainable port Rotterdam. Project Organization Maasvlakte 2.

Port of Shanghai (2012). Implementation of the Shanghai Masterplan (2011–2020). AESOP congress Ankara,
2012.

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 57 84–111.

Schipper, C.A., Vergouwen, S., Bel de, B., de Jong, M. (2015). Ports of the Future. Schipper Exploratory
study. Deltares report 1220137-000 45.

6092
 E-proceedings of the 38th IAHR World Congress
September 1-6, 2019, Panama City, Panama

Schipper, C.A., Bolman, B., & Slingenberg, A. (2019). Assessing the sustainability of the Chinese Maritime
Silk Road. In press manuscript.

Schipper, G. Dekker and B. de Visser (2020), Cross cutting implications of sustainable development goal
indicators in coastal natural and nature-based flood defence infrastructures, to consider climate change
resilience and adaptation to rising flood risk, submitted manuscript

Schroeder P, Anggraeni K and Weber U. (2018). The relevance of circular economy practices to the
sustainable development goals. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2, volume 0 number 0

Shanghai (2002). Environmental Assessment for Shanghai Urban Environment Project.

Socialist Republic of Vietnam (2009). Approving the masterplan on development of Vietnamese seaport
system through 2020, with orientations toward 2030, Decision No. 2190/QD-TTg of December 24, 2009.

Tanzania Ports Authority (2016). Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Improvement of Dar es
Salaam port: Phase 1 of Dar es Salaam Maritime Gateway Program (DSMGP). Temeke Municipality, Dar es
Salaam region.

UN (2007). Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies.

UN (2015). The Millennium Development Goals Report.

UN (2018a). Global indicator framework for the Sustainable Development Goals and targets of the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development.

UN (2018b). Why does global clean ports matter?

UNDP. (May 17, 2018). What are the Sustainable Development Goals? [Website]. Retrieved from:
www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html

World Bank (2012). Inclusive Green Growth. The Pathway to Sustainable Development. Washington, USA.
ISBN (paper): 978-0-8213-9551-6.

World Health Organisation (WHO), 2014. Global Health Observatory data repository, City Level 2014.
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/view.main.AMBIENTCITY2014?lang=en.

World Shipping Council, 2014. http://www.worldshipping.org/about-the-industry/global-trade/top-50-world-

container-ports.

6093

View publication stats