Advertisement

Green Ports

  • Thalis P. V. ZisEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Sustainable shipping involves not only ships but ports as their extension. This chapter examines the issues associated with a green port operation. These include technologies such as cold ironing; market-based practices such as differentiated fairway dues, speed reduction, and noise and dust abatement; and others. The legislative framework in various countries is explained, and various environmental scorecards are discussed. This chapter starts with a brief review on recent academic research in the field of environmental management of ports and presents the status quo in leading ports around the world. The chapter emphasizes on the implementation of speed reduction programmes near the port, the use of cold ironing at berth, and the effects of fuel quality regulation, considering the perspectives of the port authority and the ship operator. The emerging environmental and economic trade-offs are discussed. The aim of this chapter is to be a starting point for researchers seeking to work on green ports. Insights of this chapter may also be useful for stakeholders seeking to select the best emissions reduction option depending on their unique characteristics.

Abbreviations

AGV

Automated guided vehicles

AMP

Alternative marine power

BPA

British Ports Association

CO

Carbon monoxide

CO2

Carbon dioxide

ESPO

European Seaport Organization

ETS

Emissions trading system

EU

European Union

IAPH

International Association of Ports and Harbors

IMO

International Maritime Organization

ITS

Intelligent transport systems

LNG

Liquefied natural gas

NOx

Nitrogen oxides

OPS

Onshore power supply

POLA

Port of Los Angeles

POLB

Port of Long Beach

RMG

Rail mounted gantry

RTG

Rubber-tired gantry

SOx

Sulfur oxides

UNCTAD

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

VSRP

Vessel Speed Reduction Programme

Notes

Acknowledgments

Work presented in this chapter draws heavily from the author’s PhD Thesis. The doctoral work was co-funded by the Greek State Scholarship Foundation to which the author is grateful. The author would like to thank Michael G.H. Bell, Kevin Cullinane, and Harilaos N. Psaraftis for fruitful discussions over the last years on the topic of green ports.

References

  1. Alderton, P. (2013). Port management and operations. London: Informa.Google Scholar
  2. Angeloudis, P., & Bell, M. G. (2010). An uncertainty-aware AGV assignment algorithm for automated container terminals. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 46(3), 354–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aregall, M. G., 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berechman, J., & Tseng, P. H. (2012). Estimating the environmental costs of port related emissions: The case of Kaohsiung. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 17(1), 35–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buhaug, Ø., Corbett, J., Endresen, O., Eyring, V., Faber, J., Hanayama, S., Lee, D., Lindstad, H., Mjelde, A., Palsson, C., Wanquing, W., Winebrake, J., & Yoshida, K. (2009). Second IMO greenhouse gas study. London: International Maritime Organization.Google Scholar
  6. California Air Resources Board. (2012). Ocean-going vessels – fuel rule. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/marinevess/ogv.htm. Accessed Jul 2017.
  7. Cao, M., & Golias, M. M. (2013). Evaluation of the effect of gate strategies in drayage related emissions. Final report. National Center for Freight and Infrastructure Research and Education. CFIRE 04-19Google Scholar
  8. Cariou, P. (2011). Is slow steaming a sustainable means of reducing CO2 emissions from container shipping? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16(3), 260–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlo, H. J., Vis, I. F., & Roodbergen, K. J. (2014). Storage yard operations in container terminals: Literature overview, trends, and research directions. European Journal of Operational Research, 235(2), 412–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen, G., Govindan, K., & Golias, M. M. (2013). Reducing truck emissions at container terminals in a low carbon economy: proposal of a queueing-based bi-objective model for optimizing truck arrival pattern. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 55, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Colombaroni, C., Fusco, G., Isaenko, N., Quadrifoglio, L. (2017). Optimization of container operations at inland intermodal terminals. In Models and technologies for intelligent transportation systems (MT-ITS), 2017 5th IEEE International Conference on (pp. 69–74). IEEE.Google Scholar
  12. Cullinane, K., & Bergqvist, R. (2014). Emission control areas and their impact on maritime transport. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 28, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cullinane, K., & Khanna, M. (2000). Economies of scale in large containerships: optimal size and geographical implications. Journal of transport geography, 8(3), 181–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cullinane, K., Tseng, P. H., & Wilmsmeier, G. (2016). Estimation of container ship emissions at berth in Taiwan. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10(5), 466–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Meyer, P., Maes, F., & Volckaert, A. (2008). Emissions from international shipping in the Belgian part of the North Sea and the Belgian seaports. Atmospheric Environment, 42(1), 196–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dragović, B., Tzannatos, E., Tselentis, V., Meštrović, R., Škurić, M. (2018). Ship emissions and their externalities in cruise ports. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 61, 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Drake, J. M., & Lodge, D. M. (2007). Hull fouling is a risk factor for intercontinental species exchange in aquatic ecosystems. Aquatic Invasions, 2(2), 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. El-Naggar, M. E. (2010). Application of queuing theory to the container terminal at Alexandria seaport. Journal of Soil Science and Environmental Management, 1(4), 77–85.Google Scholar
  20. ESPO. (2012). European port performance dashboard. Available at: http://pprism.espo.be/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=sWk5lsdRFI8%3D&tabid=3555. Accessed Jan 2018.
  21. European Commission. (2013). Alternative fuels for transport: Parliament committee vote supports roll-out of refuelling infrastructure. [Press release]. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1168_en.htm.
  22. Giuliano, G., & O’Brien, T. (2007). Reducing port-related truck emissions: The terminal gate appointment system at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 12(7), 460–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Golias, M., Boile, M., Theofanis, S., & Efstathiou, C. (2010). The berth-scheduling problem: Maximizing berth productivity and minimizing fuel consumption and emissions production. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2166, 20–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greene, D. L., & Wegener, M. (1997). Sustainable transport. Journal of Transport Geography, 5(3), 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Imai, A., Chen, H. C., Nishimura, E., & Papadimitriou, S. (2008). The simultaneous berth and quay crane allocation problem. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 44(5), 900–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liao, C. H., Tseng, P. H., & Lu, C. S. (2009). Comparing carbon dioxide emissions of trucking and intermodal container transport in Taiwan. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 14(7), 493–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Linder, A. (2018). Explaining shipping company participation in voluntary vessel emission reduction programs. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 61, 234–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marr, I. L., Rosser, D. P., & Meneses, C. A. (2007). An air quality survey and emissions inventory at Aberdeen Harbour. Atmospheric Environment, 41(30), 6379–6395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mooney, H. A. (2005). Invasive alien species: A new synthesis (Vol. 63). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nikitakos, N. (2012). Green logistics: The concept of zero emissions port. FME Transactions, 40(4), 201–206.Google Scholar
  31. Ng, S. K., Loh, C., Lin, C., Booth, V., Chan, J. W., Yip, A. C., Li, Y., & Lau, A. K. (2013). Policy change driven by an AIS-assisted marine emission inventory in Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta. Atmospheric Environment, 76, 102–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Passet, R. (1979). L’économique et le vivant (Vol. 23). Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
  33. POLA. (2018). Port of Los Angeles Inventory of air emissions - 2017. Available at: https://kentico.portoflosangeles.org/getmedia/880bc597-84bc-4ae6-94e2-59a2e6027f42/2017_Air_Emissions_Inventory
  34. Port of Los Angeles. (2017). Inventory of air emissions for calendar year 2016. Available at: https://www.portoflosangeles.org/environment/studies_reports.asp. Accessed Mar 2018
  35. Psaraftis, H. N. (2016). Green maritime logistics: the quest for win-win solutions. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 133–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saxe, H., & Larsen, T. (2004). Air pollution from ships in three Danish ports. Atmospheric Environment, 38(24), 4057–4067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schinas, O., & Butler, M. (2016). Feasibility and commercial considerations of LNG-fueled ships. Ocean Engineering, 122, 84–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, T. W. P., et al. (2014). Third imo ghg study 2014. London. http://www.iadc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MEPC-67-6-INF3-2014-Final-Report-complete.pdf: International Maritime Organization (IMO).Google Scholar
  39. Steenken, D., Voß, S., & Stahlbock, R. (2004). Container terminal operation and operations research-a classification and literature review. OR Spectrum, 26(1), 3–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Song, S. (2014). Ship emissions inventory, social cost and eco-efficiency in Shanghai Yangshan port. Atmospheric Environment, 82, 288–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stopford, M. (2009). Maritime economics, Vol. 3. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Talley, W. K. (2009). Port economics. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tzannatos, E. (2010). Ship emissions and their externalities for the port of Piraeus–Greece. Atmospheric Environment, 44(3), 400–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. UNCTAD (2017). Review of Maritime Transport 2017. New York and Geneva, October 2017.Google Scholar
  45. Zeng, Q., & Yang, Z. (2009). Integrating simulation and optimization to schedule loading operations in container terminals. Computers & Operations Research, 36(6), 1935–1944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhao, W., & Goodchild, A. V. (2010). The impact of truck arrival information on container terminal rehandling. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 46(3), 327–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhou, P. F., & Kang, H. G. (2008). Study on berth and quay-crane allocation under stochastic environments in container terminal. Systems Engineering-Theory & Practice, 28(1), 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zis, T. (2015). The implications and trade-offs of near-port ship emissions reduction policies. PhD ThesisGoogle Scholar
  49. Zis, T. P. (2019). Prospects of cold ironing as an emissions reduction option. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 119, 82–95.Google Scholar
  50. Zis, T., & Psaraftis, H. N. (2017). The implications of the new sulphur limits on the European Ro-Ro sector. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 52, 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zis, T., Angeloudis, P., Bell, M. G., & Psaraftis, H. N. (2016). Payback period for emissions abatement alternatives: Role of regulation and fuel prices. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2549, 37–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DTU Management EngineeringTechnical University of DenmarkKongens LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations