Global seaborne container trade accounts for approximately 60% of all world seaborne trade. A container seaport is a key node in maritime transport, where (un)loading operations produce GHG emissions. Therefore, the effective emissions reduction decisions should be taken by the container seaport executives on operational, tactical and strategic levels. This research contributes in developing the decision-making instruments for emissions reduction at a container seaport, namely: (1) a management platform (based on three management levels); (2) a system dynamics model (with the variables that reflect the main sources of emissions from container seaport activities). A management platform consequently leads the executives through the process of emissions estimation and three-level decision-making to reduce the emissions. A system dynamics model serves as the instrument to evaluate the decisions taken and to analyze the container seaport system environmental performance over the defined period. The representation of a seaport as a system, the system dynamics modeling and the case study methods were used in the research. Four “what if” scenarios of emissions reduction decisions were performed using the case study method. The suggested management platform and the system dynamics model can serve as the decision-making instruments for the container seaport authorities on operational, tactical and strategic management levels when they develop the container seaport environmental programs.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
- CO2 :
Carbon dioxide equivalent
Ocean going vessel
Causal loop diagram
Twenty-foot equivalent unit
Abbas KA, Bell MGH (1994) System dynamics applicability to transportation modeling. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 28(5):373–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/0965-8564(94)90022-1
Cartenì A, Luca SD (2012) Tactical and strategic planning for a container terminal: modelling issues within a discrete event simulation approach. Simul Model Pract Theory 21(1):123–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.simpat.2011.10.005
Cimpeanu R, Devine MT, O’Brien C (2017) A simulation model for the management and expansion of extended port terminal operations. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 98:105–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2016.12.005
Crainic TG, Laporte G (1997) Planning models for freight transportation. Eur J Oper Res 97(3):409–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(96)00298-6
Crainic TG, Kim KH (2007) Handbooks in operations research & management science. Intermodal Transp 14:467–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-0507(06)14008-6
Du K, Monios J, Wang YH (2019) Green port strategies in China. Green Ports. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814054-3.00011-6
Elsawah S, Pierce SA, Hamilton SH et al (2017) An overview of the system dynamics process for integrated modelling of socio-ecological systems: lessons on good modelling practice from five case studies. Environ Modell Softw 93:127–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.03.001
Forrester J (1961) Industrial dynamics. Productivity Press, Portland
Hanak E (2012) California coastal management with a changing climate. Clim Change 111(1):45–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0295-2
Hossain NUI, Nur F, Jaradat RM (2016) An analytical study of hazards and risks in the shipbuilding industry. In Proceedings of the international annual conference of the American society for engineering management, pp 1–8
Hossain NUI, Nur F, Hosseini S, Jaradat R, Marufuzzaman M, Puryear SM (2019a) A Bayesian network based approach for modeling and assessing resilience: a case study of a full service deep water port. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 189:378–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.04.037
Hossain NUI, Nur F, Jaradat R, Hosseini S, Marufuzzaman M, Puryear SM, Buchanan RK (2019b) Metrics for assessing overall performance of inland waterway ports: a Bayesian network based approach. Complexity. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/3518705
Hossain NUI, Amrani SE, Jaradat R, Marufuzzaman M, Buchanan R, Rinaudo C, Hamilton M (2020) Modeling and assessing interdependencies between critical infrastructures using Bayesian network: a case study of inland waterway port and surrounding supply chain network. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2020.106898
Hou L, Geerlings H (2016) Dynamics in sustainable port and hinterland operations: a conceptual framework and simulation of sustainability measures and their effectiveness, based on an application to the Port of Shanghai. J Clean Prod 135:449–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.134
IMO (2018) Action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping. International Maritime Organization, London
McIntosh RD, Becker A (2019) Expert evaluation of open-data indicators of seaport vulnerability to climate and extreme weather impacts for US North Atlantic. Ocean Coast Manag. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104911. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-020-09767-y
Mcintosh RD, Becker A (2020) Applying MCDA to weight indicators of seaport vulnerability to climate and extreme weather impacts for U.S. North Atlantic ports. Environ Syst Decis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-020-09767-y
Meadows D, Meadows D, Randers J (1972) The limits to growth. Universe Books, New York
Ng AKY, Zhang H, Afenyo M et al (2018) Port decision maker perceptions on the effectiveness of climate adaptation actions. Coast Manag 46(3):148–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2018.1451731
Oh H, Lee SW, Seo YJ (2018) The evaluation of seaport sustainability: the case of South Korea. Ocean Coast Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.04.028
Port of Los Angeles (2018) Inventory of air emissions. Starcrest Consulting Group, Los Angeles. https://kentico.portoflosangeles.org/getmedia/4696ff1a-a441-4ee8-95ad-abe1d4cddf5e/2018_air_emissions_inventory. Accessed 22 Nov, 2020
Puig M, Darbra RM (2019) The role of ports in a global economy, issues of relevance and environmental initiatives. World seas: an environmental evaluation, 2nd edn. Academic Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805052-1.00034-6
Qiang L, Zhang W, Li H et al (2017) CO2 emission trends of China’s primary aluminium industry: a scenario analysis using system dynamics model. Energy Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.02.046
San Pedro Bay Ports (2019) Emissions inventory methodology report. Starcrest Consulting Group, Los Angeles. https://kentico.portoflosangeles.org/getmedia/3559520c-b85d-45ad-ad68-9947c34b980d/WV_FINAL_SPBP_Emissions_Inventory-_Methodology_4-25-19_scg.
Shepherd SP (2014) A review of system dynamics models applied in transportation. Transp B Transp Dyn 2(2):83–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/21680566.2014.916236
Sim J (2018) A carbon emission evaluation model for a container terminal. J Clean Prod 186:526–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.170
Sun Z, Lee LH, Chew EP et al (2012) MicroPort: a general simulation platform for seaport container terminals. Adv Eng Inform 26(1):80–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2011.08.010
Torres JP, Kunc M, O’Brien F (2017) Supporting strategy using system dynamics. Eur J Oper Res 260(3):1081–1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.01.018
UNCTAD (2014) Port management case studies. Train for trade port training programme 2011–2013. UNCTAD, Geneva
UNCTAD (2018) The Review of Maritime Transport. United Nations, New York and Geneva
Urbaniec K, Mikulčić H, Wang Y, Duić N (2018) System integration is a necessity for sustainable development. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.178
Vaio A, Varriale L, Alvino F (2018) Key performance indicators for developing environmentally sustainable and energy efficient ports: evidence from Italy. Energy Policy 122:229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.07.046
Vis IFA, Koster RD (2003) Transshipment of containers at a container terminal: an overview. Eur J Oper Res 147(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00293-X
Walker TR, Adebambo O, Aguila Feijoo MC, Elhaimer E, Hossain T, Edwards SJ, Morrison CE, Romo J, Sharma N, Taylor S, Zomorodi S (2019) Chapter 27—environmental effects of marine transportation. World seas: an environmental evaluation, 2nd edn. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 505–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-805052-1.00030-9
WPCI (2010) World port climate initiative. Carbon footprinting for ports. Guidance document. WPCI, Los Angeles
WRI (2013) Technical guidance for calculating scope 3 emissions. Supplement to the corporate value chain (scope 3) accounting & reporting standard. GHG Protocol. World Resources Institute. http://www.wri.org/
Xiaoqiao G, Yuanqiao W, Chunhui Z et al (2017) Establishment of the sustainable ecosystem for the regional shipping industry based on system dynamics. Sustainability 9(5):742. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050742
Zhang CJ, Liu J, Wan YW et al (2003) Storage space allocation in container terminals. Transp Res Part B Methodol 37(10):883–903. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-2615(02)00089-9
This work is partially supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 20BGL003), the Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province for Youths, China (Grant No. 2017J05116). We deeply appreciate the organizations mentioned above.
Conflict of interest
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
About this article
Cite this article
Huang, Y., Mamatok, Y. & Jin, C. Decision-making instruments for container seaport sustainable development: management platform and system dynamics model. Environ Syst Decis (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-020-09796-7
- Management platform
- System dynamics model
- Container seaport
- Sustainable development
- Decision-making instruments