Revisiting Port Sustainability As A Foundation For

Alamoush et al. J. shipp. trd.
(2021) 6:19 Journal of Shipping

https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-021-00101-6
and Trade
REVIEW Open Access
Revisiting port sustainability as a foundation

for the implementation of the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs)
Anas S. Alamoush* , Fabio Ballini and Aykut I. Ölçer
*Correspondence:
[email protected] Abstract
World Maritime University, Port sustainability studies are increasing rapidly and are skewed toward environmental
P.O. Box 500, 201 24 Malmö,
Sweden aspects, while at the same time their results are fragmented, making it difficult to col-
lectively assess conclusions. This study, therefore, aims at building a framework which
categorises port actions, measures, and implementation schemes (policy tools to
improve the uptake), utilising the critical literature review method. Additionally, linkage
of port sustainability to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs)
is highlighted. Port sustainability includes internal (port side) and external (ships and
land transport) actions and measures. The study results form 16 homogeneous and
interconnected sustainability categories, including a non-exhaustive list of operation-
alising measures, encompassing the three dimensions of sustainability (environment,
economy and society) while implementation schemes are divided into four groups.
Considering that ports are under scrutiny and perceiving growing pressure to improve
their sustainable pathways, for example by addressing climate change and energy
consumption, the identified ports’ sustainability actions and measures, including the
linkage with the UN SDGs, are overarching and multidimensional and seen as a step in
achieving far-reaching sustainable implementation. The study’s practical implications
guide port policymakers and industry practitioners to go beyond the low hanging fruit
(customary practices), and enable them to take reliable decisions for broader sustain-
ability implementation. Additionally, the identified research implications stimulate
further academic discussions.
Keywords: Ports, Sustainability, Actions and measures, UN SDGs, Implementation,
Triple bottom lines, TBLs
Introduction
Ports play a central role in countries’ economic growth: they are essential to the wellbe-
ing of humankind including the provision of direct and indirect employment (Roh et al.
2016). Ports act as a social caretaker for employees and communities, enhancing and
supporting socioeconomic priorities. In Europe, 2200 port operators employ more than
110,000 workers who are engaged in loading and unloading ships and in port-based ser-
vices such as warehousing and logistics (Van Hooydonk 2014). On the other hand, ports
© The Author(s), 2021. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third
party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the mate-
rial. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Alamoush et al. J. shipp. trd. (2021) 6:19 Page 2 of 40
are inevitable nodes in maritime supply chains (Asgari et al. 2015; Poulsen et al. 2018;
Notteboom et al. 2020).
Considered as gateways to international trade, there exist thousands of seaports han-
dling seaborne trade. As of 2018, some 98,140 ships carried 11 billion tons of seaborne
trade, which is around 80% and 60–70% of world trade volume and value, respectively
(UNCTAD 2019a). Only in 2019, ships of 100 gross tons and above made 4,362,737 port
calls.1 Even in the worst shocks, particularly the recent COVID-19 pandemic, ports and
shipping were at the global transport forefront, maintaining continuous delivery of the
world’s medical supplies, food, energy, and raw materials, as well as manufactured goods
and components (UNCTAD 2020a). However, considering the magnitude of port activi-
ties, ports as nodes in the global supply chains always generate social and environmental
externalities (Darbra et al. 2004; Dinwoodie et al. 2012) vis a vis economic growth. In
general, ports generate environmental impacts through their various functions linked to
cargo handling, connectivity to maritime and land transport networks, industrial and
semi-industrial activities, logistics and distribution activities, and energy production and
distribution (Notteboom et al. 2020). Such external impacts (externalities), both from
port expansion and operations, and from the activities of shipping and land transport,
have severe impacts on the environment (Darbra et al. 2004; Peris-Mora et al. 2005; Din-
woodie et al. 2012; Acciaro et al. 2014). Ports’ impacts extend to oceans and seas, and
worsen marine ecosystems (Darbra et al. 2009), even though oceans are pivotal to global
and national economies by providing food, jobs and recreational activities.
The concepts of minimising port environmental externalities, including steering eco-
nomic growth, and addressing societal needs, are all included in so-called port sustain-
ability (Cheon 2017; Cheon et al. 2017; Laxe et al. 2017). In other words, sustainability
encompasses the triple bottom lines (TBLs), i.e., economic, environmental and social
dimensions (Elkington 1998; Gimenez et al. 2012). This also applies for the port sustain-
ability. Akin to the importance of port sustainability in internal operations is that ports
extend sustainability externally to landside transport and shipping at the sea side (Roh
et al. 2016; Laxe et al. 2017; Oh et al. 2018). It has been demonstrated that ports have
roles to play in greening maritime transport and supply chains (Asgari et al. 2015; Notte-
boom et al. 2020) and in accelerating environmental upgrading (Poulsen et al. 2018). For
example, ports facilitate shipping GHG emission reduction (ITF/OECD 2018; Alamoush
et al. 2020). By doing so, ports move past the customary environmental initiatives (low
hanging fruit) into a more holistic sustainability that plans for TBLs internally and exter-
nally (I2S2 2013; Puig et al. 2014; Acciaro et al. 2014).
The quest for port sustainability has accelerated due to increased scrutiny of ports
and pressure to take actions and decrease externalities through sustainable and cleaner
operations (UNCTAD 2019a). Such pressure motivates and stimulates ports not to
merely focus on economic generation, but also to include resilient sustainable strate-
gies (Lu et al. 2016a). Put differently, ports are required to balance commercial and eco-
nomic growth against environmental and social sustainability (Stein and Acciaro 2020),
and thus to achieve competitive advantage and boost service quality. Pressure on ports
1
https://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=194889.

is driven by, inter alia, local and international regulations (Lam and Notteboom 2014),
local communities and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (Lee et al. 2015; MTCC
Pacific 2017; IMO 2018a), corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Woo et al. 2018), energy
efficiency economic benefits (Acciaro and Wilmsmeier 2015; Wilmsmeier and Spengler
2016), shippers,2 consignees, cargo owners and carriers (Poulsen et al. 2018; Jasmi and
Fernando 2018), environmental awareness and pursuit of a green port image (Notte-
boom et al. 2020). Overall, ports that feature a high pro-environmental attitude improve
economic efficiency (Castellano et al. 2020).
Revisiting research on port sustainability can be justified because there are existing
research and practice issues (gaps). From an academic perspective, the extant literature
provides an array of measures to decrease port externalities, either as a group of meas-
ures in the green port concept (e.g. Lirn et al. 2013; Chiu et al. 2014; Lam and Notte-
boom 2014; PIANC 2014; Davarzani et al. 2016; Bergqvist and Monios 2019), or in the
sustainable port concept (e.g., (I2S2 2013; Asgari et al. 2015; Bjerkan and Seter 2019; Lim
et al. 2019). Single port sustainability measures have also been studied, such as air qual-
ity improvement (Corbett et al. 2007), energy efficiency (Iris and Lam 2019), greenhouse
gas (GHG) emission reduction (Alamoush et al. 2020), renewable energy (PIANC 2019),
alternative fuel (Zhong et al. 2019), electrification of cargo handling equipment (CHE)
(Yang and Chang 2013), noise reduction (Enguix et al. 2019), and climate change adapta-
tion (Wilmsmeier 2020). In view of the above studies, the first gap that can be gleaned is
that sustainability actions and measures are addressed mainly within the environmental
dimensions, e.g., (Darbra et al. 2009; Lirn et al. 2013; Lam and Notteboom 2014; Acciaro
et al. 2014; Davarzani et al. 2016). Ports’ economic and social dimensions are not well
addressed in the literature, though few studies addressed all the three sustainability
dimensions (TBLs), e.g., (Shiau and Chuang 2013; Sislian et al. 2016; Roh et al. 2016;
Laxe et al. 2017; Oh et al. 2018; Lim et al. 2019). Secondly, port sustainability within
internal operations is the centre of attention in many studies while other relevant areas
(e.g., land transport, and shipping) are not widely addressed (Roh et al. 2016; Lim et al.
2019; Castellano et al. 2020; Hossain et al. 2020). Thirdly, the focus remains on port sus-
tainability assessment indicators, and, if addressed, the measures and actions are frag-
mented and available in heterogeneous formats, i.e., not totally aggregated as a one tool.
Addressing these attributes separately could lead to partial analysis and incomplete con-
clusion (Castellano et al. 2020). Fourthly, how to implement ports sustainability actions
and measures—drive and increase the uptake—is not broadly dealt with. Last but not
least, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs)—2030 Agenda—
were introduced in 2015 as a solution to wide-ranging global sustainability (United
Nations 2015). The UN SDGs aim at “eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimen-
sions, combating inequality within and among countries, preserving the planet, creat-
ing sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth and fostering social inclusion”
(United Nations 2015). Ports functions are various, enabling them to have a broader role
in UN SDGs implementation and promotion (WPSP 2020). Zooming out to a global per-
spective, it could be argued that port sustainability actions contribute to sustainability in
2
Many shippers have joined forces together with some carriers in the clean cargo working group with the objective to
better understand and assess the emission footprint of cargo transport (PIANC 2014).

general and more specifically to achieving the UN SDGs due to some commonality in
addressing the TBLs. However, studies rarely shed light on this important association.
From a practice point of view, while some of the above-mentioned port sustainability
actions and measures are mainly implemented by front-runner ports in Europe, North
America, and a handful of ports in Asia (Poulsen et al. 2018; Bjerkan and Seter 2019;
Alamoush et al. 2020; Hossain et al. 2020), some others are only proposed to set ports
on the rightful sustainability track. It could be argued that issues in ports’ economy,
regulations execution, institutional governance, organisational and information barriers,
business models, and geography, among others, may have decelerated implementation
(Alamoush et al. 2021b). In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic negatively influenced
ports and shipping operations, and sustainable projects and performance (IMO 2020a;
Notteboom and Pallis 2020a, 2020b; Alamoush et al. 2021c), and slowed the progress of
implementation of the 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs)
(IMO 2020b). Therefore, the study of how ports improve implementation of sustaina-
bility actions is deemed necessary. Secondly, while seaborne trade growth decreased in
2020, due to the Pandemic (UNCTAD 2020b), it was projected to bounce back relatively
firmly in 2021 signalling further growth (around 4%) to above the 2019 level (Clarksons
Research 2020a). Considering this anticipated increase, it should be borne in mind that
typically, while ports handle seaborne trade (cargo throughput), ecological and environ-
mental issues amplify, and demand for energy increases. As a consequence, the best way
forward is to maintain a sustainable performance during such recovery, i.e., defending
environmental, social, and economic growth (Clarksons Research 2020b; UNCTAD
2020b, 2020c, 2020a). Hence, illustrating port sustainability from holistic approach and
aggregating all actions and measures in a one-stop shop (tool) is advantageous for port
practitioners that intend to integrate sustainability in port operations.
Given the pressure on ports to maintain sustainable performance including having a
broader role in sustainable development, and given the aforementioned academic and
practice gaps, this study aims at building a framework that aggregates the ports’ over-
all sustainability actions and measures, and identifies the implementation schemes that
put into action the TBLs of sustainability in the landside and sea side (i.e. internally
and externally). While at the same time this study aims at identifying ports’ role in the
implementation of UN SDGs. Utilising a critical literature review method, the study is
guided by three questions: RQ1: What are the categories of ports’ actions and measures
to improve overall port sustainability internally in the port side and externally in the sea
side (shipping), and in land transport (trucks)?; RQ2: How port sustainability actions
and measures can be implemented by public and port authorities to drive the uptake of
actions and measures (implementation schemes/tools)?; and RQ3: What is the linkage
between port sustainability actions and measures and the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals (UN SDGs)?
Although there exist various reviews that address port sustainability (e.g., Asgari et al.
2015; Davarzani et al. 2016; Bjerkan and Seter 2019; Lim et al. 2019)), this study builds
on these previous reviews to revisit port sustainability and address current gaps with a
focus of linking port sustainability with UN SDGs. In so doing, this study contributes to
academic research, and policy and practice. Academically, the study integrates develop-
ments in the field of port sustainability by: building categorisation of findings (actions

and measures), developing a conceptual framework that posits new relationships and
perspectives on the topic, and suggesting an agenda of future research that serves as a
ground for further investigation of port sustainable actions and focuses on measures to
reduce ports’ externalities. Additionally, the study contributes to the global sustainable
development implementation. On the practice side, the result of this study is considered
to be a comprehensive tool of wide-ranging sustainability actions and measures which
informs port practitioners and policy makers and assists them to take reliable decisions.
It thus enables them to gauge their advancement or decline in sustainability, and to see
how to improve implementation. As far as authors are aware, this is the first study that
builds up holistic port sustainability measures and actions with such a large scope and
different dimensions while addressing the UN SDGs concept.
While the introduction has provided a background for this study and explained its
relevance, the next Section covers “Materials and methods”, “Literature review: build-
ing a port sustainability framework” Section covers the building of the port sustainabil-
ity framework (literature review), “Internal and external ports’ sustainability actions and
measures and the association with SDGs” Section covers internal and external port sus-
tainability actions and measures, “Linkage of port sustainability actions and measures to
the UN SDGs” Section covers the actions’ and measures’ linkage to the UN SDGs, and
“Discussions and conclusions” Section contains the discussion and conclusions.
Materials and methods

This study uses the critical literature review method to answer the research questions.
The main goal of this research is to categorise sustainability actions in ports along with
essential measures that fulfil and implement these actions. This facilitates the explora-
tion of the linkage between port sustainability and the UN SDGs.
Since there are no standard methods for developing categories (taxonomies) of actions
and measures; previous studies followed different approaches (e.g., an exploratory
review of green port measures (Lam and Notteboom 2014), a systematic review of tech-
nologies and tools of port sustainability (Bjerkan and Seter 2019), a systematic litera-
ture review of ports’ GHG emission reduction measures (Alamoush et al. 2020, 2021b),
and qualitative thematic analysis to build topologies of barriers to the female gender in
shipping (Kim et al. 2019), among others). In this research we utilise the critical litera-
ture review based on guidelines in (Grant and Booth 2009; MacInnis 2011; Snyder 2019;
Jaakkola 2020). A range of studies utilised the critical literature review approach, e.g.,
building typology of circular economy discourses (Friant et al. 2020), and determinants
of online information search (Kulviwat et al. 2004).
The critical literature review approach integrates the literature with the aim of assess-
ing, critiquing and synthesizing the literature on a particular concept so that new frame-
works and perspectives arise (Snyder 2019). The emphasis in the critical literature review
is on the innovative collection of data from sufficient established research in the field,
while not covering every study therein. This leads to a combination of different perspec-
tives and insights (Torraco 2005). For mature topics (i.e., port sustainability), critical lit-
erature review revisits the knowledge base, analytically reviews and potentially revises
concepts and thus expands the theoretical foundation of a continuously developing topic
(Snyder 2019). While critical literature review could be described as a weak tool due to

Fig. 1 Flowchart of the critical literature review steps including inclusion and exclusion criteria and filtering
stages. Note Scientific rigor in the inclusion criteria is determined based on application of proper scientific
methods which guarantee unbiased and well-established design, methodology, analysis, interpretation and
reporting
the subjectivity in selection of included studies, systematic literature review, on the con-
trary, avoids such bias by having criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies (Petticrew
and Roberts 2008; Denyer and Tranfield 2009). However, a systematic review is more
commonly based on academic peer-reviewed studies, and thus excludes grey literature
(e.g., book chapters, proceedings, and technical reports), which are allowed in critical
reviews, by searching Google Scholar for example. Most of reviews in this field are sys-
tematic, and variation of methods is seen necessary to generate new insights and avoid
strict systematic criteria.
While answering the study’s questions entails establishing themes and categories that
bring about broader perspectives, i.e., not investigating in depth specific studies; the
critical literature review method used in this study is seen as suitable, and so helps avoid
integrating repetitive results. Thus, academic peer-reviewed studies are included, in
addition to grey literature such as European and North American technical reports. The
basics of systematic review search have been applied to improve the credibility of search
and studies collection. Figure 1 illustrates the review steps together with inclusion and
exclusion criteria and filtering stages.
As can be seen in Fig. 1, studies were collected by searching various data bases in
March 2021: Scopus, ISI Web of Science in addition to the utilisation of Google and
Google Scholar to retrieve technical reports. The search within titles and keywords
employed iteratively the following search of terms: (port OR seaport OR terminal) AND
(Sustainab*) AND (action OR measures OR policy OR sustainable development goals
OR SDGs), until saturation was achieved. Search results yielded hundreds of studies.
Studies were filtered in two stages based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, and those
that reported repetitive result were excluded. Only abridged studies that are relevant in
answering the study questions, and entailed scientific rigor were included, while there

Fig. 2 Trend of yearly publications
was no restriction on dates. To ensure the quality of the inclusion and exclusion criteria,
20 excluded studies were randomly selected to examine if their inclusion again would
change the result, but no changes in themes were noted. Accordingly, 112 studies were
included.
After included studies were collected, and then pre-explored, the literature was syn-
thesised under various categories (typologies) that authors developed for port sustaina-
bility actions. While some typologies were already established in the field, the guidelines
(Jaakkola 2020) for building typologies in a review paper were followed. The aim of
building typologies is to explain differences between variants of a concept, categorise,
organise fragmented research into common distinct types, and identify critical dimen-
sions of a concept to reconcile conflicting findings from previous research (Jaakkola
2020). Thus, sixteen homogeneous and interconnected sustainability categories, includ-
ing various measures, were identified, encompassing the Triple Bottom Lines (TBLs) of
sustainability, i.e., the social, environmental, and economic dimensions. Additionally, the
implementation schemes were divided into four groups. Also, the United Nation Sus-
tainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) were presented to permit demonstration of the
linkage between these UN SDGs and the port actions and measures in view of three
dimensions of sustainability (TBLs). Whilst the literature is synthesised based on typol-
ogy building, this critical review results in a conceptual framework, which generates new
perspectives on the topic (Torraco 2005; Snyder 2019).
Publications included in the review

This subsection overviews and brings in a summary of the features and characteristics
of included studies. This adds more transparency to the study, enables readers to judge
the coherence and plausibility of inferences, and enables future researchers to compare,
contrast, build on, and update this database.
An amalgamation of 112 studies was included in this review. The trends of studies pub-
lication by year can be seen in Fig. 2. The port sustainability studies have increased sig-
nificantly over the years. A considerable increase is noticeable from 2010 onward. This
review includes different types of studies: 73 peer-reviewed articles (66%), 30 reports
(26%), 5 book chapters (4%), and 4 conference proceedings (4%). Only 4 proceedings

were included because many end up published in Journals and others are weak in con-
text, while reports are mainly from the EU Commission including the European Seaport
Organisation (ESPO), the International Association of Ports and Harbours (IAPH), and
the World Port Sustainability Program (WPSP). The international Maritime Organisa-
tion (IMO) published several environmental-focus studies connoting the importance of
a clean ship-port interface, while the United Nations Conference on Trade and Develop-
ment (UNCTAD) addressed more of the economic aspects. However, the peer-reviewed
articles are published in 32 different journals, and more than 65% of the studies are pub-
lished in the following journals:
• Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment (8)

• Research in Transportation Business and Management (7)
• Maritime Policy and Management (7)
• Ocean and Coastal Management (6)
• Marine Pollution Bulletin (5)
• Sustainability (4)
• Journal of Cleaner Production (4)
• Energy Policy (2)
• Marine Policy (2)
• Maritime Technology and Research (2)
It is very noticeable that Transportation Research Part D, Research in Transporta-

tion Business and Management, and Maritime Policy and Management journals are
publishing much of the research relevant to port sustainability. This aligns with Bjer-
kan and Seter (2019), Davarzani et al. (2016), and Stein and Acciaro (2020), who high-
lighted the same results. The rest of the studies are published by 25 journals, with one
study per journal. These Journals cover a wide variety of topics, such as environment,
transport, management, policy, engineering, sustainability, and energy. Methodologies
utilised in the included journals’ studies vary, i.e., theoretical and conceptual including
reviews (40%), simulation and modelling (24%), and case studies (20%), while only 16%
are empirical (e.g., survey questionnaire and interviews). In terms of regional coverage of
studies, as can be seen in Fig. 3, though 49% of studies are global in nature, the greatest
density of studies is about EU countries (24%), and Asia (14%). This could be attributed
to the strict regulations in EU and the large throughput of goods in Asian ports, which
stimulate research in these regions. Africa, South America, the Middle East, and Oce-
ania, on the other hand, are rarely introduced in studies.
Literature review: building a port sustainability framework

Sustainability and UN SDGs
Sustainability is not a new issue; it was addressed some time ago. In essence, the United
Nations set up the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1972, then the World
Commission on Environment and Development produced a report called ‘Our Com-
mon Future: A Global Agenda for Change’, best known as The Brundtland Commission
Report (1987) (WCED 1987). The report defined sustainable development as “the devel-
opment that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future

Fig. 3 Precentage of studies’ regional contribution
generations to meet their own needs”. Generally, sustainable development includes

three pillars [Triple Bottom Line (TBL)], i.e. economic, social, and environmental sus-
tainability (Basiago 1999). Most academics and practitioners refer to sustainability as a
concept that connotes the improvement and sustainment of environmental (ecological),
economic, and social systems for humans (Stoddart et al. 2011; Mensah and Enu-Kwesi
2018). In other words, sustainability transforms and expands environmentally based
concepts to involve social and economic aspects (trade-off ) (Koberg and Longoni 2019).
All in all, sustainability management systems certifications exists, e.g. environmental
(ISO14001), and social (ISO26000) certifications (Koberg and Longoni 2019).
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs)—2030 Agenda—
include various targets and indicators. The agenda was piloted by the principles of the
United Nations Charter with due consideration of international law. It integrated previ-
ous agendas such as the Millennium Declaration and the 2005 World Summit Outcome
Document. Seventeen SDGs were introduced to incorporate efficient solutions to inher-
ent issues in the previous agenda (Table 1) (United Nations 2015). In this study, associa-
tion between port sustainability actions and measures and these SDGs is introduced.
Port sustainability settings

Port operations include logistics functions (e.g., transport, terminal handling, warehous-
ing and storage activities) in addition to industrial functions (e.g., goods and energy pro-
duction, assembly, and disassembly and recycling activities) (Notteboom et al. 2020). To
fulfil that, ports use various cargo handling equipment (CHE), for example, the ship-to-
shore (STS), rubber-tired gantry (RTG), and rail-mounted gantry (RMG) cranes, yard
trucks and tractors, top picks, side picks, handlers, forklifts, straddle carriers, chassis,
reach stackers, and sweepers for container handling, pumps for liquid bulk ships, and

Table 1 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) of the 2030 agenda. Source:
United Nations (2015)
SDG Objective
Goal 1 End poverty in all its forms everywhere

Goal 2 End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture
Goal 3 Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
Goal 4 Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
Goal 5 Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
Goal 6 Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
Goal 7 Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
Goal 8 Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and
decent work for all
Goal 9 Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
Goal 10 Reduce inequality within and among countries
Goal 11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
Goal 12 Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
Goal 13 Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts*
Goal 14 Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
Goal 15 Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests,
combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
Goal 16 Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all
and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels
Goal 17 Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable devel-
opment
loaders, dozers, cranes, and forklifts for bulk handling (Bailey and Solomon 2004; IAPH
2008; PIANC 2014; IMO 2018a). Furthermore, ports use vehicles and shuttles for local
transfer, and storing cargo in warehouses and storage, and provide nautical services for
calling ships through tug, pilot, and towing boats. Notably, most of these operations
depend on fossil fuel, and consume energy, and thus operations generate environmen-
tal and social (employees, society, community, customers) externalities. In the same
category, interaction of transport chains with ports generates various ecological, envi-
ronmental and social impacts, such as the activities of ships (e.g., inland waterways,
domestic, and oceangoing), inland trucks, railways and locomotives. Liquid bulk ships
may bring the risk of oil spills, while cruise ships generate large amount of sewage and
trash. Such issues would cause environmental deterioration if not monitored, controlled
and treated sustainably.
To minimise port externalities, port sustainable management is the appropriate step.
Port sustainability is defined as the business strategies and activities that meet the cur-
rent and future needs of the port and stakeholders while protecting and sustaining
human and natural activities (Denktas-Sakar and Karatas-Cetin 2012; Oh et al. 2018).
Nevertheless, ports need to recognise that their actions today affect and influence the
lives of future generations and the environment we live and work in. Thus, ports oper-
ate sustainably only when decisions are made based on long-term economic health and
reflecting a profound and comprehensive devotion to environmental stewardship, while
integrating community aspirations into business (I2S2 2013). Therefore, port sustain-
ability covers much more than strictly environmental (planet) issues, i.e. it includes the

triple bottom lines (TBLs) concept which extends the frame of sustainability to include
social (people) and economic (profit) aspects (PIANC 2014; Lim et al. 2019).
Often, differentiation among these TBLs might not be clear. Generally, the economic
sustainability dimension can be easily understood, i.e., generating positive financial
gains. As regards the environmental sustainability dimension, it includes reduction of
environmental externalities, such as waste and pollution reduction, improving energy
efficiency and emission reduction, in addition to decreasing both the consumption of
hazardous/harmful/toxic materials and the frequency of environmental accidents
(Gimenez et al. 2012). Just as importantly, environmental sustainability also reduces
social externalities, e.g., health problems, noise, safety risks—the bad side effects for
communities and societies. The social dimension, on the other hand, focuses on the
good sides for both internal employees and external communities, thereby providing
equitable opportunities, encouraging diversity, improving community connectedness,
and engaging in corporate social responsibility (CSR), among others (Elkington 1994).
Current research introduced the TBLs of port sustainability. Lim et al. (2019) demon-
strated the interaction of TBLs indicating that they all interact together or in pairs. Port
environmental sustainability minimizes the harmful impact that stems from port opera-
tion, ships, and land transport. Social sustainability improves the quality of employees’
lives and of neighbouring communities. Economic sustainability boosts port economic
performance as a consequence of sustainability implementation while maintaining
environmental and social sustainability (Lim et al. 2019). That being said, sustainability
dimensions are interconnected, and thus cannot be pursued separately. Social issues may
be influenced by environmental issues, and environmental aspects might be improved
by ports’ economic support (Shiau and Chuang 2013). A case in point is the modal split
measure3 which targets the reduction of trucks’ emission and congestion; it reduces CO2
emissions and air pollutants (environment), improves efficiency by reducing time and
wasted efforts (economy), and eventually contributes to health and safety by decreasing
accidents and fatalities and improving port employees and community health (social).
Port economic sustainability (financial capability) is considered a driver for better envi-
ronmental and social sustainability. Contrary to smaller ports, large ports which have
economic sustainability are able to implement environmental and social measures due
to funding availability (Kuznetsov et al. 2015). For example, the ports of Antwerp, Ham-
burg, Los Angeles, Rotterdam and Vancouver have accomplished substantial local air
quality advances, even though general cargo throughput has increased (Poulsen et al.
2018).
It should be noted that maritime transport is a nexus of the global supply chains
(Asgari et al. 2015), and it has been shown that ports have a role to play in green sup-
ply and global value chains (Poulsen et al. 2018; Notteboom et al. 2020). It is crucial
that ports implement sustainability measures in collaboration with the key members
of the supply chain (Lu et al. 2016b), i.e. the shipping lines, ocean carriers, freight for-
warders, rail operators, and trucking companies. Collaboration in this case advances
operational efficiencies and improves port sustainability (Seuring and Müller 2008;
3
Involve transferring traffic, currently carried by truck, onto other modes, such as rail or inland waterways.

Fig. 4 Percentage of studies coverage by dimensions of sustainability and internal and external scope
Kang and Kim 2017; Poulsen et al. 2018; Alamoush et al. 2020). On another note,
WPCI members have claimed that ports can influence the sustainability of sup-
ply chains as they occupy a distinctive location and act as key hubs in global sup-
ply chains (WPCI 2010). Hence, the outreach of port sustainability should also be of
consideration; that is, implementing actions and measures to yield sustainable trans-
port and supply chains. While ports take actions internally, i.e. relevant to inland port
operations through the internal sustainable management, external sustainable man-
agement (external actions) including supply and transport chains, is as important as
internal sustainable actions (Lu et al. 2010; Denktas-Sakar and Karatas-Cetin 2012;
Yang and Chang 2013; Lu et al. 2016a; Lu et al. 2016b; Roh et al. 2016). Through exter-
nal sustainability management, ports expand the sustainability concept from the port
itself to the supply chain activities beyond its boundary.
Drawing from the literature review, extant research has actively presented various
aspects of port sustainability, but still various gaps exist. Firstly, as can be seen in Fig. 4,
previous research greatly focused on environmental aspects of sustainability (65%),
and sometimes modestly integrated the economic (14%) and social (3%) aspects. Simi-
larly, only 17% of studies covered the TBLs of sustainability including technical reports.
Although building green ports is now a common practice to enhance environmental
sustainability, the social aspect of sustainability is always addressed less in the literature
(Shiau and Chuang 2013). The important social dimension of port sustainability consid-
ers employee issues, stakeholder relationships (e.g. carriers and stevedoring companies),
ethical issues, and corporate social responsibility (Oh et al. 2018). Only recent research
has demonstrated port sustainability by addressing the environmental dimension includ-
ing the social and economic aspects or alternatively the TBLs (Table 2).
Secondly, the sustainability outreach (scope) (Fig. 4) is included in most cases, i.e.,
either internally for the port side, or/and externally including ships, except the land
transport, while the main focus is still on the internal actions (port side). As can be seen
in Fig. 4, 54% of studies addressed the port side only (internally), followed by port side
and ships (26%), ships (12%), and port side, ship, and land transport (7%), while land
transport alone is rarely included in studies (1%). Another issue in the sustainability
scope from a dimensional perspective is that TBLs do not address the external scope

Table 2 Port sustainability studies, TBLs dimensions, and scope

Study Objective TBLs Scope
Peris-Mora et al. (2005) Studied the potential 63 environmental impacts in Envi Int
ports and established 17 environmental indicators
Darbra et al. (2009) Studied the EU ports environmental issues and pre- Envi/soc Int
sented the self-diagnosis method (SDM)
Lam and Van De Voorde (2012) Built a framework for green port strategy Env/Eco Int/Ext
Lirn et al. (2013) Examined green port performance criteria (externali- Envi & soc Int
ties) and presented 17 green performance indicators
Yap and Lam (2013) Studied container ports’ spatial planning and develop- Env/Soc Int/Ext
ment and presented the impact on port sustainability
Shiau and Chuang (2013) Studied the sustainability indicators (case study of TBL Int
Keelung port-Taiwan) and identified 34 sustainability
indictors
Lam and Notteboom (2014) Presented port authorities’ green tools in leading Asian Envi Int/Ext
and European ports (green ports)
Acciaro et al. (2014) Assessed the success of ports’ innovations in terms of Envi Int
environmental sustainability
Chiu et al. (2014) Studied green port operation and revealed five green Envi & soc Int
priorities
Puig et al. (2015) Studied Environmental issues in European ports and Envi Int
provided a Tool for the identification and assessment of
Environmental Aspects in Ports (TEAP)
Asgari et al. (2015) Ranked the UK ports’ sustainability based on nine Envi & Eco Int
criteria and five sub-criteria
Davarzani et al. (2016) Reviewed green ports and maritime logistics Envi Int
Sislian et al. (2016) Literature reviewed port sustainability TBL Int
Roh et al. (2016) Studied the internal and external management aspects TBL Int/Ext
of sustainable ports based on six management criteria
Lu et al. (2016b) Assessed the ports sustainability criteria and reports TBL Int/Ext
Santos et al. (2016) Investigated sustainability communication practices in Soc Ext
the European seaport sector
Puig et al. (2017) Studied Environmental issues in European ports and Envi Int
Provided a Tool for Identification and Implementation
of Environmental Indicators (TEIP)
Laxe et al. (2017) Development of port sustainability “global synthetic TBL Int
indicators”, based on 9 indicators
Oh et al. (2018) Presented the criteria for assessing sustainability of TBL Int
ports in south Korea, and Identified 27 sustainability
assessment items
Lim et al. (2019) Reviewed and synthesised port operational and TBL Int/Ext
management indicators for sustainability based on 30
indicators
Bjerkan and Seter (2019) Reviewed and structured port sustainability in port Env Int/Ext
management and policies, power and fuels, sea activi-
ties, and land activities
Notteboom et al. (2020) Presented ports’ role in the pursuit of green supply Env Int/Ext
chain management through five actions
Hossain et al. (2020) Investigated global ports’ implementation of sustain- TBL Int
ability initiatives
Castellano et al. (2020) Evaluated the relation between port environmental Env/Eco Int
quality and economic efficiency (Italian Ports)
This study Develops a port holistic sustainability framework that TBL and UN SDGs Int/Ext
integrates TBLs in internal and external actions and
measures while drawing an association with UN SDGs
Int, internal, Ext, external

extensively. Put differently, only very few external actions and measures are presented.
For example, but not limited to, no studies addressed the social aspects of seafarers,
truck drivers, collaboration with supply chain members, partnerships with academic
institutions, and public participations in environmental project planning, etc.
Thirdly, an important note which can be gleaned from reviewed studies is that some
studies mixed the actions and measures (technical and operational) with institutional,
management and policy tools (called implementation schemes in this study). Although
not highly discussed, the implementation schemes are tools introduced as an independ-
ent form of governance to formulate policies that guarantee development and uptake
of sustainability actions and measures (Laxe et al. 2017; Bjerkan and Seter 2019). Fur-
thermore, there is no one study that included all the actions and measures internally
and externally while at the same time integrating the TBLs dimensions. In other words,
results are fragmented, and, if an action appears in one study, it doesn’t necessarily
appear in another.
Fourthly, chief among observations is that no study attempted to link port sustaina-
bility actions with the TBLs dimensions and with the UN SDs (see Table 2). Though, a
few studies briefly pointed out that port sustainability measures are foundations to the
SDGs, e.g., (Alamoush et al. 2020; Notteboom et al. 2020; WPSP 2020). A holistic inves-
tigation of ports’ contribution to UN SDGs is scarce, thus, this is one of the main gaps
this study aims to fill. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that other maritime and marine
research has addressed SDGs. Notable examples are: investigation of marine spatial
planning as a process to achieve SDGs (Pyć 2019), study of coastal and marine conserva-
tion strategies (in Bangladesh) in the context of achieving blue growth and SDGs (Islam
and Shamsuddoha 2018), connecting SDG 14 (life below water) with the other SDGs
from a marine spatial planning perspective (Ntona and Morgera 2018), mapping the
linkages between oceans (SDG 14) and other SDGs (Le Blanc et al. 2017), and devel-
opment of port sustainable supply chain management frameworks to achieve the SDGs
(Alamoush et al. 2021a).
To facilitate locating the relevant literature (peer-reviewed), Table 2 summarises
chronologically key studies that addressed the port sustainability including the scope
(internally and externally), and the TBLs dimensions.
Academic research and the international frameworks that address port sustainability
are equally important. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has established
guidelines regarding measures to reduce ships’ (IMO 2015) and ports’ (IMO 2018b)
emissions, and produced four IMO greenhouse gas studies (ships), the most recent is
the fourth GHG study (IMO 2020c). The World Port Climate Initiative (WPCI) and
the International Association of Ports and Harbours (IAPH) have established guides
on port environmental measures, GHG emission reduction and carbon footprinting,
onshore power supply, and the testing of innovative cargo handling equipment (CHE)
(IAPH 2007, 2008; WPCI 2010). WPCI was expanded in line with World Ports Sustain-
ability Program (WPSP), which is a joint initiative with the IAPH. The WPSP issued the
World Ports Sustainability Report in 2020, which included ports’ contribution to the
SDGs (WPSP 2020). The American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) produced
an environmental management book as a guide for North American Ports, and the Euro-
pean Seaport Organisation (ESPO) is an active regional organization for European ports.

Fig. 5 Study’s conceptual framework
ESPO, based on the EcoPort initiative, listed the common port environmental manage-
ment priorities, i.e. air quality, energy consumption, climate change, noise, relationship
with local community, ship waste, garbage/port waste, port development, dredging
operations and water quality (ESPO 2019). Finally, the World Association for Water-
borne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC)4 (PIANC 2014) and International Institute for
Sustainable Seaports (I2S2)5 (I2S2 2013) produced reports about ports’ environmental
initiatives from a global perspective.
Figure 5 below demonstrates the study’s conceptual framework, which summarises our
findings thus far and illustrates the concept of port sustainability with presumed rela-
tionships, noting that results and discussions in this study are reported according to this
framework. Conceptual frameworks are customarily generated within critical/integra-
tive literature reviews (Yadav 2010; Jaakkola 2020). As can be seen in Fig. 5, port sustain-
ability encompasses the triple bottom lines (TBLs), i.e., by taking actions and measures
to mitigate and eliminate the port environmental externalities (protecting the integrity
of the environment) and improve the social aspects (employees, labour and communi-
ties), while at the same time endeavouring to strengthen port economic benefits. Actions
and measures span the internal port operations, and expand externally to include the
main transport chains (mainly ships and trucks). Furthermore, implementation schemes
work as catalysts that increase the uptake and prompt operationalisation of measures
and actions. Like the linkage with TBLs, port sustainability is proposed to be linked to
4
Presented the port authorities guide for sustainable ports, and identified 13 environmental and sustainability issues
related to port operations and their related logistic chains.
5
Studied the global ports environmental initiatives in ten areas.

UN SDGs, which are also linked with the TBLs. Against this background, this study fills
all the identified gaps in previous studies and adopts and captures broader and more
actions and measures of port sustainability than any previous study by identification 16
actions along with 138 measures that achieves these actions, in addition to four groups
of implementation schemes. The measures are either tabulated or explained within the
text. It is worth noting, however, that not all the actions and measures are implemented
in ports, and thus they are proposed to advance port sustainability. The same is true with
regard to the implementation schemes, they are also proposed to advance implementa-
tions. Last but not least, the linkage between port sustainability and the UN SDGs is
identified.
Internal and external ports’ sustainability actions and measures

and the association with SDGs
This section includes the three dimensions of port sustainability actions (i.e., the envi-
ronmental, social and economic dimensions) in addition to the implementation schemes.
Environmental dimension actions

Ports’ actions to minimise environmental externalities are overarching and highly cov-
ered in the literature. The environmental measures and actions are adopted in environ-
mental management systems, which are accredited and reported in different schemes.
Examples are the ISO14001 environmental management system, the European Union’s
eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS), and ESPO self-diagnosis method (SDM),
and port environmental review system (PERS)—the EcoPort initiative—which incorpo-
rates the generic requirements of the environmental management standards (e.g. ISO
14001). PERS is more common in EU ports than the ISO standards which is common in
Asian ports (Darbra et al. 2009). Some ports have specifically addressed energy manage-
ment and audit through the certification acquired through ISO50001, e.g. Ports of Ant-
werp, Valencia, Rotterdam, Genoa, Dover, and Livorno (ESPO 2018). The environmental
actions aggregated into homogeneous categories follow.
Air pollution management

The air quality issue is a primary port externality, which is worsened by the dusts from
traffic, site clearing, rock excavation and construction activity. Likewise there are the
ambient air emissions (pollutants) from port traffic and operations, i.e. oxides of sul-
phur (SOx), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO),
and volatile organic components (VOC) (Gupta et al. 2002; Ng and Song 2010; Lam and
Notteboom 2014; Roh et al. 2016). The air pollutants in ports generate environmental
and social impacts (externalities) (Dinwoodie et al. 2012). The environmental impacts
include the ocean acidifications, inter alia. Socially, they affect the health of employees
and local communities causing adverse health problems such as respiratory diseases
(asthma), cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, premature death, and birth defects (Bai-
ley and Solomon 2004; Chang and Wang 2012; MTCC Pacific 2017; IMO 2018a). Cor-
bett et al. (2007) estimated that about 60,000 annual cardiopulmonary and lung cancer
deaths along the European, East Asian, and South Asian coastlines are due to particulate
matters (PMs) emissions from commercial ships. Another port, shipping, and truck air

Table 3 Air pollution management actions and measures. Source: Peris-Mora et al. (2005), Darbra
et al. (2009), Ng and Song (2010), Dinwoodie et al. (2012), Chang and Wang (2012), I2S2 (2013), Lirn
et al. (2013), Shiau and Chuang (2013), PIANC (2014), Acciaro et al. (2014), Roh et al. (2016), IMO
(2018b) and Oh et al. (2018)
Areas for action Measures
a
Air emission r eduction Establish emission inventory and energy consumption
Monitoring of CHE, ships’, and trucks’ emissions
Replacement of polluting equipment or engine exchange (with cleaner ones)
Electrification, hybridisation of CHE (e.g., electric RTGs for containers and shore-side
pumps for bulk liquids)
Use of emission reduction/control technology (pre-after treatment retrofit), such as
the Diesel retrofit technologies (Diesel Oxidation Catalysts (DOC), Diesel Particulate
Filters (DPF) or Selective Catalytic Reductor (SCR))
Use of low-sulphur fuel and renewable alternative fuels (hydrogen, LNG, ammonia,
renewable diesel and methane)
Promote public and environment-friendly transport (employees’ sustainable mobility
through shuttle bus, carpooling, cycling)
Onshore power supply (OPS) for ships (e.g., for energy intensive cruise and containers
ships), and tugboats and pilot boats when stationary and idling
Providing power supply (charging stations) for electrified trucks
Provision of alternative fuel bunkering for ships (e.g., LNG)
Reduce truck congestion (e.g., using off-dock staging yards and chassis, building dry
ports and inland depots, manging truck empty return, and utilising the Authorized
Economic Operator System (AEO), automatic clearance and extended gate hours)
Reduce trucks’ emissions through ban of old trucks, terminal appointment system
(TAS), truck identity card, traffic mitigation fees, and off-peak traffic shift
Enforce modal split (from road to rail, inland waterways and pipeline)
Manage motorways of the seas (MoS)
Dust and odour reduction Utilise dust and smoke recycle measures (e.g., for dry bulk ships)
Build physical barriers to stop/reduce dispersion of air pollutant (e.g., tree belts, walls)
Minimise Volatile Organic Components (VOC) emitted during loading and unloading
operations (liquid bulk ships)
a
Air emission reduction measures particularly reduce ambient air emissions; however, they generally reduce GHG
emissions, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation actions—except the DOC, DPF, and SCR that may increase
energy consumption
emission, associated with climate change (global warming) and ocean acidification, is
GHG such as carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (Ölçer et al. 2018; Alamoush et al. 2020).
Therefore, to reduce air pollution—removing the environmental externalities that also
reduce social externalities—ports can take actions (shown in Table 3) to: reduce ambient
air emissions and limit and decrease dust and odour. In the same table, a non-exhaustive
list of measures that operationalise each action is presented. The measures span port
wide related operations in addition to shipping and land transport. It should be noted
that some of the air emission reduction measures may have co-benefits with the reduc-
tion of GHG emissions, but specific measures to mitigate GHG emissions are addressed
separately under the climate change mitigation and adaptation action.
Water pollution and waste management

Ports’ locations and their maritime accesses are typically situated near communities and
natural habitats and species. As mentioned earlier, port operations and related supply
chain activities create multifaceted impacts. Within the port, some operations and activ-
ities degrade the sea’s water quality (pollution), e.g., sewage, bilge wastes, sludge waste,

oil discharges, dredging, and leakages of harmful materials (Gupta et al. 2002; Peris-
Mora et al. 2005; Darbra et al. 2009). On the other hand, port waste contaminates soil
and ground water and poses environmental, health and safety risks, and dredging causes
water quality issues pertaining to turbidity and endangered species (PIANC 2014).
Further water pollution can be caused by ships’ oil spills, ballast water, cargo residue
and garbage discarding (Peris-Mora et al. 2005; Ng and Song 2010; Dinwoodie et al.
2012; Lirn et al. 2013), which damage beaches and soils, and endanger marine habitats
and wildlife. Shipping ballast waters introduce alien species into national waters which
can negatively impact marine ecosystem health, devastate natural species and conse-
quently generate an ecological imbalance, in addition to generating negative impacts on
human health and marine resources economics (loss of profit) (Lirn et al. 2013). Even
ships’ sewage, if disposed into the sea within the port areas, can provoke skin diseases as
well as having impacts on the underwater environment and habitats.
Therefore, ports can prevent and minimise disposal of effluents, and water pollution,
and maintain standard water quality. Measures which can be taken are various, among
others, to control, prevent and monitor spill of cargo and oil during loading and unload-
ing and disconnection of pipelines (liquid bulk ships), and from engine oil and lubricants
(Laxe et al. 2017). Sewage tanks can be sealed and monitored. Stormwater runoff from
cargo handling operations can run directly into adjacent waters, therefore, swales, storm
filters, cyclonic devices and planters can be utilised to improve stormwater runoff qual-
ity (I2S2 2013; Roh et al. 2016). Port low impact design (LID) was included in the storm-
water management programs, e.g., in the U.S ports (I2S2 2013).
Ports’ regular waste needs to be separated and classified along with litter control
mechanisms (Ng and Song 2010). On the other hand, for ships, ports provide ballast
treatment facilities, and reception facilities (sewage treatment), including trash. This
is important for cruise ships as they generate large amount of sewage and trash. Ports
introduce floating or mobile reception facilities with the ability to collect, classify and
separate various types of ship waste (PIANC 2014). In addition, environmentally friendly
services (e.g., ships’ hull and propeller cleaning) can be delivered, while, on the other
hand, care should be taken to observe the standard of ship’s sanitation equipment (Ng
and Song 2010; Dinwoodie et al. 2012). Oil and chemical spills, from liquid bulk ships,
are common within and around ports. In this manner, oil spill contingency plans cover
measures that should be taken to prevent, control, and respond to any spill. Spillages can
be secured by deploying booms and skimmers (I2S2 2013; PIANC 2014).
Noise pollution management

Sound pollution (noise) in ports, through cargo handling, construction, shipping, land
transport and temporary dredging activities, reduces the quality of life and creates health
hazards, in addition to ecological impacts, e.g., the adverse effects on marine mammals
and fish (PIANC 2014; Enguix et al. 2019). The traffic generated around the port by
movements of heavy duty vehicles and railways generates social and health impacts (e.g.,
noise, vibration, road congestion, and accidents) in surrounding communities, who usu-
ally complain about such issues (I2S2 2013; Lirn et al. 2013; PIANC 2014). ESPO rates
noise in ports as one of the top environmental priorities (ESPO 2019). Nonetheless, it is
necessary that ports take actions to monitor, limit, and mitigate noise above and under

water. Measures that can be taken include: building noise maps; zoning of noisy activi-
ties; use of standards for limitation of noise and vibration from CHE and construction
(e.g., isolation of forklifts, trucks, vehicles and tugs); insulation of windows, doors, and
fences; building noise barriers around the port (e.g., concrete, trees, and earthen walls),
and sound absorption materials on buildings and walls; use of silent asphalt and tyres;
and planning of activities on the basis of meteorological conditions (wind direction)
(I2S2 2013; PIANC 2014). Additionally, to protect against underwater noise, fish bubble
curtains can be used to mitigate the noise of dredging (I2S2 2013). On the other hand,
particularly for ships, ships’ noise can be monitored and characterised, using sonars,
echo-sounders, robotics, and hydrophones (Enguix et al. 2019). Thus, ports can dedi-
cate protected areas, buffer zones, and corridors to keep ships away from rich marine
environments. Likewise, ports can implement slow steaming of ships and tugs (cavita-
tion inception speed), and utilise air bubble curtain technology to absorb shipping noise
(Domenico 1982; I2S2 2013; PIANC 2014; Enguix et al. 2019).
Visual pollution (light and aesthetics) management

The unattractive appearance of port buildings, uncovered cargo stockpiles and high
CHE disrupt landscape (visual impacts) and quality of life (PIANC 2014). Ports need to
minimise this by appraising the visual impact of existent landscapes. For example, new
facilities can take advantage of existing topography and maintain low profile infrastruc-
ture and equipment (PIANC 2014). Other measures can be applied, such as changing
buildings’ colour schemes in addition to camouflage or disguise, and planting trees in
landscaping buffer zones (aesthetic areas) (I2S2 2013). On the other hand, light pollution
harms workers and neighbouring residents, but biological spectrum lighting can be used
to mitigate negative impacts (Lirn et al. 2013; Chiu et al. 2014; Oh et al. 2018).
Freshwater management
Water consumption in ports is high, specifically within operations, cleaning and wash-
ing bulk ships and yards, and the supply for highly consuming cruise ships. Measures to
conserve water and protect freshwater resources can be established. For example, ports
may set goals to reduce waste of drinking water, monitor water usage and leakage, treat
and use waste water (on-site), recycle cleaning water for irrigation and cleaning, and
harvest rain water (Lirn et al. 2013; Yang and Chang 2013; Laxe et al. 2017).
Marine biology conservation

Marine biology is highly influenced by port operation, expansion and construction activ-
ities. Therefore, high attention should be paid to decreasing, monitoring and controlling
the impacts on marine biology (flora and fauna). As can be seen in Table 4, ports can
employ measures to limit sediments impact, avoid the destruction caused by dredging,
protect habitat quality in water and above water areas, and control floods (Shiau and
Chuang 2013; PIANC 2014; Roh et al. 2016). Dredging programs—for channel and berth
deepening to accommodate larger ships—require innovative mitigation and stewardship
of natural resources (e.g., sediment management plans) (I2S2 2013).

Table 4 Marine biology conservation actions and measures. Sources: I2S2 (2013), Lirn et al. (2013),
Shiau and Chuang (2013), Yang and Chang (2013), Chiu et al. (2014), PIANC (2014), Roh et al. (2016),
Laxe et al. (2017), Oh et al. (2018) and Lim et al. (2019)
Limit and treat sediment Reuse of dredging sediments

Control port entrance sediment and coastal erosion
Deposit (dispose) sediments in a separated area
Avoid dredging destruction Monitor dredging operations (pre and after dredging sampling)
Source, lease and permit environmentally friendly dredgers
Remediation of contaminated sites and mitigation of turbidity
Protect habitat quality (under- Ecological monitoring and mitigation in port areas for habitat quality, preser-
water and above water areas) vation, and wetland restoration
Expansion of tidal areas for habitat restoration
Creation of local sanctuaries for birds and fish in and around port areas
Soil pollution monitoring
Buying, creating, selling, and banking ecological service credits (i.e., wetland,
grassland, and forest) to offset development impacts on wetlands
Establishment of buffer zones for endangered coral relocation
Fish bubble curtains along harbour entrances to keep fish out of the dredging
area
Monitor and control of ship’s fouling (antifouling), and discharge of effluents
Flood control Prevention of floods by proper training and using innovative technologies
Hazardous cargo management

In addition to following the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code,
ports implement measures for hazardous cargo ships and hazardous cargo handling, for
example, separation of hazardous goods and construction materials, and employment
of licensed contractors to handle hazardous waste (PIANC 2014; Roh et al. 2016; Laxe
et al. 2017). Hazardous cargo negligence, including explosives and chemicals in bulks,
has huge environmental impacts on societies and life below water. The huge explosion
that occurred in Beirut port largely influenced the whole surrounding environment,
which was due to issues in storage and separation of dangerous cargo. The explosion,
in addition, negatively influenced employees, seafarers, ships and the port, socially and
economically. Even recently, relevant to COVID-19, sterilizing and fumigation of car-
goes coming from epidemic areas is an adopted measure to minimise the spread of con-
tagions (Notteboom and Pallis 2020c).
Climate change mitigation and adaptation

While ports are central nodes in global transport chains, they are exposed to climate
change, particularly in view of their locations on coasts and shores, and their access
points. Given their valuable contribution to economies, and the associated valuable
infra/super structure; ports have a crucial role to play in climate change (UNCTAD
2017). Ports’ roles in climate change can be either by preparing to adapt to its future
impact or by reducing its precursor (GHGs), i.e., adaptation and mitigation, respectively.

Table 5 Climate change mitigation and adaptation actions and measures. Sources: Villalba and
Gemechu (2011), I2S2 (2013), Ng et al. (2013), PIANC (2014), UNCTAD (2017), Iris and Lam (2019),
Alamoush et al. (2020) and Wilmsmeier (2020)
Adaptation actions Building walls and beach restoration

Protecting against coastal erosion
Use of climate change monitoring applications
Establishment of natural defences, e.g., planting mangroves, and creating oyster
reefs that grow with sea level rise and protect shorelines and ports from high
waves and erosion
Consideration of climate sensitive designs
Mitigation actions (GHG Establishment of energy consumption inventory and carbon footprinting, includ-
reduction and energy ing shipping and land transport
efficiency) Use of renewable energy technologies (wind, solar, ocean, geothermal)
Energy consumption reduction through insulation, coating, and painting of
buildings, storage, warehouses, and using reefer sheds
Use of the after pre and after treatment technologies in CHE (e.g., Methane
catalyst reductor)
Design of energy efficient infrastructure through adopting the LEED standard for
green building energy efficiency designs (passive house concept), and microcli-
mate models
Use of LED lights and automatic sensors
Use of energy efficiency technologies (e.g., smart grids, microgrids, smart load
management, regenerative energy reclamation, virtual power plants, energy stor-
age systems, energy saving tyres)
Eco driving, idle control and reduction, slow steaming, speed reduction
Control of heat, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
Operational efficiency planning (e.g., cranes and yard planning)
Use of biomasses to generate power and heat
Introducing carbon sequestration, capture and storage projects
While climate change impacts are devastating, e.g., sea level rise6 and storm surges
(cyclone, tornado), intense rainfall, and higher wind speeds, ports in return need to
prepare by taking adaptation actions and measures (see Table 5) to remain operational.
Otherwise, such impacts damage port infrastructure, and degrade port operation, thus
leading to more downtime for cargo handling and clearance, and delays for ships and
land transport (Wilmsmeier 2020). From a mitigation perspective, ports utilise measures
to reduce GHG emissions (decarbonisation), including energy efficiency, in port land-
side operation, and facilitate the reduction of ships and land transport GHG emissions
(see the measures in Table 5).
Ports emit 3% of global GHG emissions (Misra et al. 2017), and shipping emits 2.89%
(1076 million tonnes in 2018) (IMO 2020c). Five percent of shipping GHG emissions
are in ports areas (ITF/OECD 2018), which roughly account for 50% of ports-related
emissions (Winnes et al. 2015). Taking the Port of Rotterdam container terminals as an
O2 emission represents 2% of total C
example, its share of C O2 emissions of Netherlands
freight transport (Geerlings and van Duin 2011). Obviously, unless shipping and ports
6
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted, in 2007, that during the twenty-first century, sea
level would rise between 18 and 59 cm (PIANC 2014).

Table 6 Social dimension actions and measures. Sources: Shiau and Chuang (2013), Lu et al. (2016b),
Sislian et al. (2016), Santos et al. (2016), Roh et al. (2016), Laxe et al. (2017), Oh et al. (2018), Lim et al.
(2019) and IMO (2020b), IMO (2020d)
Employees rights Improvement of employee’s welfare and health

Non-discriminative employment
Ensuring gender equality and diversity in employment
Provision of continuous training and education
Maintaining employees’ job security
Safety and security Monitoring, control and minimisation of accidents and near miss incidents
Improvement of work security and safety
Implementation of ISPS code
Preparation of disasters and incidents contingency plans
Preparation of hazardous and dangerous materials storage plans, e.g. safe cargo handling
according to IMDG C odea
Improvement in safety of infrastructure and roads
Ensuring safe and secure navigation for ships
Collaboration with supply chain members to minimise risks, and improve safety
Community Support of local employment (job opportunities)
Encouragement of public participation in port environmental projects planning
Recognising the requirements of the neighbouring community (e.g., via public opinion
survey)
Managing visual impact and improving city scenerya
Mitigation of value decrease in community real estate because of repellent operations (e.g.
cargo pipelines, stockpiles, noise)a
Expanding corporate social responsibility (CSR) to include communities (e.g. provision of
scholarships, internships, and vocational training for locals, offering local tours, supporting
economically local projects and tourism industry development)
Partnership with academics/research institutions, e.g., for project evaluation
Reporting of port sustainability through (GRI guidelines) and/or in port website
Seafarers Facilitating seafarers’ welfare by permitting port and city calls
Facilitating crew changes and repatriation
Ensuring seafarers rights are well taken care of on board calling ships
a
Discussed earlier within the environmental section, but still, it is essential for safety and security, and community
take measures to reduce emissions, shipping GHG emissions are expected to increase by
90–130% by 2050 compared to 2008 levels (IMO 2020c). The IMO7 has reacted and initi-
ated the Initial GHG Strategy to reduce shipping GHG emissions (IMO 2018c), and even
called for ports to facilitate shipping emission reductions (IMO 2019).
Circular economy
Port operational and industrial activities and infrastructural development use and
generate large volumes of material at sea and on land, which, if not controlled, will
create environmental externalities. Therefore, ports can close the material loop by
introducing recycling, so as to avoid significant waste flows (PIANC 2014). Circular
economy approaches can be significantly adopted in ports, for reducing, recycling,
and reusing waste, and thus reach out to change the supply chain to circular rather
7
The IMO and the International Labour Organization regulate the shipping industry, for clean and safer oceans, and
social aspects of seafarers, respectively.

than linear states (de Langen and Sornn-Friese 2019). The reduce-reuse-recycle meas-
ures, in-house or outsourced through integration with the city, are across-the-board.
Notwithstanding that, the circular economy may offer profitable business cases. Thus,
a port can recycle office waste, paper, dunnage, glass, metals and plastics, engines
oil and lubricants. In addition, ports may reuse construction waste materials, recy-
cle materials to be used for buildings, facilities and construction, and reuse heat and
steam from port industries (Acciaro et al. 2014; de Langen and Sornn-Friese 2019;
Alamoush et al. 2020).
Social dimension actions

Social actions in ports are of paramount importance. While being socially sustainable,
ports take action—internally and externally—to improve issues regarding employees,
community, supply chain members and stakeholders. Social actions have been aggre-
gated (Table 6) to encompass employees’ rights, safety and security, community and sea-
farers. As can be seen in Table 6, various measures can be utilised to realize relevant
actions, thereby improving the welfare of employees, decreasing accidents and socially
engaging and supporting the community. For example, vocational training in port skills
for low-income young people (community) aims at social inclusion and, in so doing,
enhances logistic careers for youth in the region. Furthermore, ports as a hub contrib-
ute to the employment of communities’ personnel. Just in the port of Antwerp in Bel-
gium, 142,348 people were employed in 2015, of which 60,656 were directly employed
(Esser et al. 2020). Open and transparent sustainability reporting is a positive measure
ports take towards showing the community their robust stance in corporate responsibil-
ity (Santos et al. 2016; Hossain et al. 2020). Port sustainability reports exist, and typically
include environmental and social actions and measures, e.g., Port of Antwerp sustain-
ability report (Port of Antwerp 2017).
Notably, seafarers’ social issues should not be neglected in port actions towards social
satiability, as two million seafarers operate the global shipping fleet (IMO 2020b). This
issue of seafarers was brought to the fore during the COVID-19 pandemic: many sea-
farers suffered due to restrictions on travels, ports banning embarkation and disembar-
kation, including city calls, quarantine measures, and limits on the issuing of visas and
passports, leading to a crew change crisis (i.e., 300,000 seafarers were trapped working
aboard ships) (IMO 2020d).
Economic dimension actions

Economic sustainability enhances port economic performance (Oh et al. 2018). While
port economic actions maintain port profitability, and facilitate trade, it goes without
saying that such actions uphold environmental and social sustainability (Lim et al. 2019).
For example, improving efficiency within the port logistics chain decreases C O2 emis-
sions (Alamoush et al. 2020).
Economic actions and measures (see Table 7) are diverse (internally and externally).
Although they are interconnected, an attempt is made to aggregate them into: eco-
nomic growth, trade and logistics facilitation, and digitalisation actions. Measures such
as investment in port infrastructure, and attracting foreign investment improve port

Table 7 Economic dimension actions and measures. Sources: Yap and Lam (2013), PIANC (2014),
Asgari et al. (2015), Lu et al. (2016b), Roh et al. (2016), Laxe et al. (2017), Bjerkan and Seter (2019),
UNCTAD (2019b), Alamoush et al. (2020), Pu and Lam (2020) and Yap and Lam (2020)
Economic growth Investing in port infrastructure

Establishing port development funds
Attracting foreign investment (public private partnership (PPP), concessions)
Investment in research and innovation
Trade and logistics facilitationa Supporting value added logistics activities
Maintaining high quality and cost-efficient business services (e.g. efficient cargo
handling and clearance)
Integration with maritime supply chains
Improving ships Just-In-Time (JIT) and virtual arrival
Supporting JIT import and export
Optimising port-ship-truck operations (e.g., use of terminal operating system
(TOS) for berth planning, and yard and equipment scheduling, planning, and
allocation)
Automation of cranes, including port trucks such as the use of Automated
Guided Vehicle (AGV)
Automation of gates (automated gateway system)
Using automated mooring systems for ships
Streamlining the number of containers moves (throughput)
Improving truck and rail traffic, and inland navigation access
Facilitating and promoting adequate (multimodal) infrastructure
Building and integrating dry ports and inland container depots (ICD)
Digitalisationa Use of a single window and port community system to service ships and land
transport including other stakeholders (one-stop-shop)
Employment of paperless business and operations (e.g. electronic data inter-
change (EDI), E-document program, RFIDs)
Utilising digital connectivity technologies and data analytics (e.g. Internet of
Things (IoT), and big data cloud, and edge computing)
Utilising blockchains (e.g. Digital Ledger Technology, electronic bill of lading
(Bolero))
Cyber security measures
a
Measures within these actions improve air quality as well as climate change mitigation due to reduction of energy
consumption
profitability and maintain competitive advantage (Shiau and Chuang 2013; PIANC 2014;
Asgari et al. 2015). In addition, linked to economic growth, the trade facilitation meas-
ures improve the economic advantages of supply chains and stakeholders, and thus ren-
der their operation cost efficient (Lim et al. 2019) (Yap and Lam 2013). Given the need to
continue trade and facilitate ships’ berthing and handling while keeping social distanc-
ing measures or teleworking during the COVID-19 pandemic; digitalisation measures
(technologies) are considered top priority for ports and the whole of maritime transport.
Digitalisation can help resuming cruise business, for example in checking health certifi-
cates in passengers and cruise ships, considering that handling thousands of passengers’
certificates manually complicates getting back to normal operations. However, the grow-
ing cyber risks due to dependence on Information Communication Technologies (ICT)
has recently increased in ships and ports (UNCTAD 2020b). It should not be ignored
that the cyber risk would disrupt operations and may even shut down the whole port.
Therefore, cyber security measures are essential to advance secure digitalisation.

Port sustainability implementation schemes

While important as a foundation for enhancing sustainability, actions and measures—
operational and technical—don’t work standing alone and are not a silver bullet. Fur-
thermore, as argued in the introduction, some of the actions and measures are mainly
proposed and thus not highly implemented in real world scenarios. It is worth noting
that regardless of ports’ geographical,8 political, operational, regulatory, financial, and
surrounding community settings, which all shape and design sustainability initiatives,
ports can offset their environmental issues and sustain social and economic sustainabil-
ity including maritime supply chains (I2S2 2013; Puig et al. 2014; Acciaro et al. 2014;
Asgari et al. 2015; Poulsen et al. 2018; Notteboom et al. 2020). Particularly, the port
authorities which manage the landside and seaside operation through four key functions
as landlords, regulators, operators and community managers (I2S2 2013; Poulsen et al.
2018), can play influential roles in ecological protection planning and future sustainable
development (Yap and Lam 2013). The port authority can be either under the Hanse-
atic tradition where the local government or municipality have a strong influence in port
governance (the port authority has higher autonomy), or Latin tradition where the cen-
tral government plays a more prominent role (the port authority has less autonomy and
public authorities are stronger) (Notteboom and Lam 2018).
Thus, to implement sustainability actions and measures, either port or public authori-
ties, even in cooperation with the private sector, ensure and drive proper implementa-
tion, i.e., increase the uptake of actions and measures. It is essential to note the difference
between the actions and measures and the implementation scheme as many studies still
use them interchangeably. Previous research referred to such schemes as institutional
aspects (Laxe et al. 2017), and management and policies (Lam and Notteboom 2014;
Bjerkan and Seter 2019). Based on best practices of front-runner ports and literature,
the implementation schemes can be categorised into regulations and standards, incen-
tives and disincentives including grants, voluntary and compulsory agreements, and
training and information sharing. Port or public authorities utilise these schemes toward
port operators and tenants, ships and land transport. While these schemes were mainly
utilised for environmental dimensions, they are compatible with other sustainability
dimensions (Alamoush et al. 2021b).
Regulations and standards

Globally, various conventions, standards, and frameworks exist to support sustainable
development particularly in implementation of the UN SDGs, in that countries play sig-
nificant roles in their implementation. The Paris Agreement, under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Sendai Framework for Disaster
Risk Reduction 2015–2030, contribute to low-carbon and resilient development for cli-
mate change. Moreover, there is a growing United Nations’ concern regarding oceans
and coasts which was manifested in 2017 by the declaration of United Nations Decade
of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development, 2021–2030. The declaration entails
that ocean science will be key in developing effective measures for coastal protection
8
Either a freshwater river system, estuary or saltwater harbour, thus this defines what environmental issues are encoun-
tered and how they are handled (I2S2 2013).

and coastal zone management, as well as climate-risk assessment, adaptation and resil-
ience-building for seaports and other coastal transport infrastructure (UNCTAD 2019a).
Against this background, while countries’ political and economic actions boost imple-
mentation of such global sustainability efforts, definitely this has implications on port
standards and regulations, considering ports as a national identity and under countries’
jurisdiction.
Additionally, other relevant international and national maritime regulations exist,
which could be utilised by ports to implement sustainability measures. The international
regulations related to maritime transport include the UN Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS), particularly those articles requiring states to reduce shipping pollution
(i.e., 192, 194, 211, and 212), in addition to several IMO conventions (e.g., SOLAS for
safety of life at sea,9 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL)10 for the environmental protection, and FAL convention for trade facilita-
tion), Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) for workers’ rights (seafarers), London Con-
vention and Protocol on prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes and other
matters at sea, and World Trade Organization agreements and provisions, among others
(Alamoush et al. 2021a). In line with the Paris Agreement, ongoing IMO work is accel-
erating towards targets for ships’ GHG emissions reduction (i.e., the IMO Initial GHG
strategy (IMO 2018c)). As such many regulations are anticipated to be introduced to
curb shipping emissions (e.g., the new existing energy efficiency design index (EEXI),
and carbon intensity indicators (CCI)) (Clarksons Research 2020b). Consequently, ports
will need to cooperate with IMO and definitely play a regulatory role for the implemen-
tation of such targets.
Furthermore, there exist regional regulations, such as those environmental directives
and regulations in the EU region and countries, e.g., European Commission (EC) direc-
tive No. 2015/757 on monitoring shipping emissions, and EU green deal and climate law.
Likewise are national regulations, e.g., Australian Environmental Protection Act, Singa-
pore Environmental Protection and Management Act (Roh et al. 2016), and Hamburg
Climate Change Act 2020. Various ports implement environmental management sys-
tems and plans (EMS, PERS, EMAS, SDM, ISO 14001, etc.) to maintain national regula-
tory compliance (Hossain et al. 2020).
In brief, maritime administrations and port authorities have a significant role in policy
making (Schröder-Hinrichs et al. 2020). The public and port authorities’ policies and
priorities are derived from the aforementioned international and local environmental,
social, and economic regulations. Port authorities, including port states, enact regula-
tions and make application of measures (by port operators, ships, and land transport)
legally binding through legislation; that is, to minimize ports’ environmental impacts
and embed sustainability in operations (Puig et al. 2014; Acciaro et al. 2014). Exam-
ples of ports’ regulatory power over shipping pollution is the combat of ship-source
pollution and the proliferation of invasive alien species through implementation of the
9
Relevant to ports safety and security are the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code) and the
International Safety Management (ISM) Code under IMO SOLAS. The IMO intends to include the cyber security stand-
ards for shipping and ports within the ISM code by 2021.
10
The IMO MARPOL deals with the prevention of shipping pollution, i.e., air emissions, oil chemicals and other haz-
ardous substances pollution, ballast water treatment, ship recycling, the use of harmful paint (antifouling).

International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and
Sediments (2017). Similarly, the IMO regulation for ships’ sulphur cap (entered into
force 2020), aims at decreasing sulphur in fuel from 3.50% down to 0.05%. Therefore,
under MARPOL responsibility, ports assume a significant role in enforcement, compli-
ance and monitoring of the cap. With regard to efforts toward terminal operators, port
authorities may enforce liability standards and require operators to control emissions by,
for example, banning and restricting CHE using fossil-fuels (Notteboom and Lam 2018).
Additionally, ports may provide guidance documents (what can and cannot be done),
and thus guide tenants to comply with regulations (PIANC 2014). The regulation is the
ultimate backstop for sustainability and technological measures implementation (Bou-
man et al. 2017).
Incentives and disincentives

Incentives, or as regularly called, environmentally differentiated port fees, and grants
(subsidies), are approved by public or port authorities beyond regulatory requirements.
The incentive functions as carrot vis-a-vis the stick of charges (e.g., the environmen-
tal pollution charges and extra tariffs) (Lam and Notteboom 2014). Many authorities
provide funds for operators and tenants; thus, funding and grants are vital to bear the
high costs of technical measures including its operation. Some ports provide ships with
incentives for burning cleaner fuel, connecting to OPS, reducing speed (the case of the
Port of Long Beach) and slow steaming (Roh et al. 2016). Various indices exist, either led
by a ports or by the industry. Indices are used to incentivise ship and port operators who
implement safety, security and environmentally friendly measures, e.g., the environmen-
tal shipping index (ESI), clean shipping index (CSI), green award (GA), and GHG emis-
sion rating (GHG ER), Green Marine, etc. Alternatively, port authorities may modify
the tariff and formulate different rates (pricing mechanisms) for ports operators, ships,
and land transport (PIANC 2014), in order to pay for the externalities and damages they
cause. The extra tariffs on polluters may be used to incentivise those who demonstrate
green performance (COGEA 2017). It is worth noting that incentives, based on indices,
are not common owing to the onerous efforts for registration, little proportion of rebates
against the cost of technology. With regard to disincentives, without uniform application
they can compromise port competitiveness (Alamoush et al. 2021b).
Voluntary and compulsory agreements

With no legal obligations, ports may sign voluntary agreements with polluters, or other
social and economic forums/unions, to transform to more sustainable performance.
For example, ports may sign voluntary agreement with ships for speed reduction while
approaching ports, among others (Gibbs et al. 2014). Volunteering initiatives, including
volunteer planning that involves all stakeholders, such as the public, are also one of the
ways to advance sustainability without compromising port competitiveness. In a simi-
lar fashion, compulsory agreements can be signed with port operators, ships, and land
transport, through concession contracts and licences to operate, to include the sustaina-
bility actions and measures during their operation within the port (Lam and Notteboom
2014; ITF/OECD 2018; Poulsen et al. 2018). For example, concession terms may include
criteria for land use, energy, emissions, water and soil, and biodiversity (PIANC 2014). A

number of European port authorities include environmental requirements in terminal

concession contracts (Notteboom et al. 2012). Furthermore, land transport environmen-
tal measures are also included in contracts with port operators (Gonzalez-Aregall et al.
2018).
Training and knowledge sharing

Port authorities ensure the outreach of sustainability awareness to their employees, port
operators, and even ships and land transport (Acciaro et al. 2014; Gonzalez-Aregall
et al. 2018). Thus, ports may develop training courses and seminars that aim at chang-
ing trainees’ behaviour toward better uptake of sustainability actions—within top-man-
agement and the front-end staff. In view of this, ports may encourage employees to use
environmentally friendly transport such as carpooling, and public transport (I2S2 2013),
provide sustainability training courses and guidelines (Roh et al. 2016) and even improve
employees’ ICT skills and competencies to better handle digitalisation and automation
(Esser et al. 2020). Training needs to include all the identified actions and measures for
relevant employees and stakeholders. Environmental awareness training is used as a
benchmark in the ESPO’s EcoPorts survey (ESPO 2019). Furthermore, ports may dis-
seminate sustainability information (Wilmsmeier 2020), and promote the green port
concept (e.g., green port seminars) within surrounding communities (Roh et al. 2016).
The ports’ sustainable awareness training can create a spillover effect over various supply
chain members and port stakeholders. Nonetheless, port authorities can serve as cen-
tral point of knowledge for sustainability, hence cooperation with research institutes is a
catalyst that enables ports to share knowledge and experiences with operators (including
other ports), tenants, ships, and land transport (PIANC 2014).
Linkage of port sustainability actions and measures to the UN SDGs

Both port sustainability actions and measures, and the sustainable development goals
could be seen as catalysts for global sustainability. As has been shown so far, ports can
implement actions and measures to improve sustainability while considering the TBLs.
While broader in scope, in similar fashion, the UN SDGs address world economic, social
and environmental issues, i.e., the TBLs. Then a question may be raised as to whether
ports’ sustainability measures and actions can be a foundation and contribute to the UN
SDGs. As shown in Fig. 6, and based on matching similarities11 between the two, ports’
actions and measures contribute to achieving the UN SDGs, either directly or indirectly,
and the contribution is vast. On this basis, the following subsections partially shed light
on such contribution.
Linkage with environmental actions

Port environmental actions can contribute to many SDGs. For example, the air emis-
sions reduction action and measures support Goal 3 (good health), for employees, and
surrounding communities,12 and protect against ocean acidification (Goal 14 marine
11
Each SDG has targets that enhance the TBLs of sustainability, which we check and then match the SDG with the pre-
viously identified classification of port TBLs sustainability actions. Three researchers participate in this exercise.
12
More than a billion people live in coastal areas and this number is increasing sharply (IMO).

SDG 12 Responsible Consumption

SDG 9 Innovation Infrastructure
SDG 10 Reduced Inequalities
SDG 11 Sustainable Cities
SDG 14 Life Below Water

SDG 7 Renewable Energy
SDG 16 Peace and Justice

SDG 4 Quality Education
SDG 8 Economic Growth

SDG 5 Gender Equality
SDG 13 Climate Action
SDG 15 Life on Land
SDG 17 Partnerships
SDG 6 Clean Water
SDG 3 Good Health
SDG 1 No Poverty
SDG 2 No Hunger
Air pollution
Water pollution and
waste
Noise pollution
Visual pollution
Fresh water
Marine biology
conservation
Hazardous cargo
Circular economy
Climate change
Employees rights
Safety and security
Community
Seafarers
Economic growth
Trade and logistics
facilitation
Digitalisation
potential direct association potential indirect association
Fig. 6 Potential linkage between port sustainability actions (first column) and UN SDGs (first row). Source:
Authors’ contemplation
life). In addition, lower emissions contribute to Goal 9 (innovation and infrastructure)

by using innovative technologies (e.g., electrification, hybridisations, and alternative
fuels), and Goal 11 (sustainable cities) considering that ports are integrated with cities.
Even port air pollution if not decreased would eventually undermine Goal 15 (life on
land—forest and ecosystem). Though most air emissions measures target the reduction
of ambient air emissions, they still contribute to reduction of GHG emissions (Goal 13
climate actions).
Water pollution and waste actions and measures are important to maintain a good
water quality on land, thereby sustaining Goal 6 (clean water and sanitation). On the
other hand, while ports control and minimise shipping (e.g., the waste reception facilities
in accordance with IMO MARPOL), and port residue, and waste discharge to seas and
oceans; life below water improves (Goal 14). Even health of locals and tourists (swim-
mers), and economics of coastal population, and wildlife ecosystems are protected by
actions to prevent water pollution (e.g., from ballast water, and oil spills), which indicates
association with Goal 3 (health), Goal 1 (poverty), and Goal 15 (wildlife), respectively.
Noise pollution actions protect against deterioration of marine life (Goal 14 life under-
water), and protect the safety and health of port workers, seafarers, and communities
(Goal 3 health and wellbeing). Visual pollution actions such as building colouring and
camouflage and planting trees improve the aesthetics of the city, i.e., Goal 9 (innova-
tion and infrastructure), and Goal 11 (sustainable cities and communities). Measures to

reduce light pollution improve the health of employees and surrounding people (Goal 3
health). Importantly, sustainable water consumption actions definitely preserve drinking
water and thus contribute to Goal 6 (sustainable management of water).
Marine biology conservation actions are various and thus contribute to different goals.
For example, limiting sediments and dredging improve marine life, and stop damage
to biodiversity (Goal 14). Flood control measures protect habitat quality and flora and
fauna (Goal 15 wildlife), and the quality of drinking water (Goal 6). In addition, marine
biology measures protect coastal cities’ economies by not harming fishing stocks and
tourism, thus fighting poverty (Goal 1). Innovation of the circular economy contrib-
utes to many goals. For example, reuse and recycling of materials contributes to Goal
12 (responsible consumption), and Goal 11 (sustainable cities). In addition, reduction of
waste in and around ports protects underwater life (Goal 14), and wildlife and the land
ecosystem (Goal 15), and also protects the health of communities and tourists (Goal 3
good health).
Considering that the world suffered and still suffers from the consequences of the
COVID-19 pandemic, tackling climate change is another eminent global issue (shock) of
immediate concern. Ports can take mitigation and adaptation actions in this regard, and
hence, they all contribute to Goal 13 (climate actions), and once ports improve infra-
structure, they contribute to Goal 9 (innovative infrastructure) and Goal 11 (sustainable
cites). Developing efficient hinterland connections and intermodal links has a similar
impact. Reduction of GHG emission, for example by electrification and onshore power
supply, also protects against ocean acidification and underwater noise (Goal 14). Energy
efficiency measures minimise energy consumption (Goal 12 responsible consumption),
widen the access to renewable energy such as wind, solar, ocean, and geothermal (Goal 7
clean energy), and improve profitability thus contributing to Goal 8 (economic growth)
and Goal 1 (reduction of poverty). Reduction of congestion in and around the port, and
improving mobility of cargo and employees are examples that boost city and community
sustainability (Goal 11), and improve the health by reducing accidents and ambient air
pollutants (Goal 3).
Linkage with social actions

Port workers and employees, in addition to seafarers, truck drivers, customers and sur-
rounding communities all are impacted by port operations, externalities and adminis-
trative decisions. Similar to the environmental dimensions, social actions and measures
also significantly contribute to the UN SDGs. Support of local employment and employ-
ees’ right to good welfare and health are a foundation for Goal 3 (health) and Goal 8
(good jobs and economic growth), which ultimately reduce poverty (Goal 1). The non-
discriminative employment, and gender inclusion contribute to Goal 10 (reduced ine-
quality) and Goal 5 (gender equality), respectively. The safety and security actions and
measures protect ships and ports against terrorism, sabotage and armed robbery, and
provide safe shelter, thus maintaining peace in cities and societies, i.e., Goal 3 (health
and wellbeing), Goal 16 (peace), and Goal 11 (sustainable cities). Collaboration with
communities and supply chains, for example with ships and trucking companies and
other stakeholders, leverage Goal 17 (partnerships). Community actions contribute to
societal health (Goal 3 health), and education (Goal 4 quality education), and city and

community sustainability (Goal 11 sustainable cities), while at the same time integrat-
ing and creating synergies with academic institutions improves collaboration (Goal 17
partnerships). Paying considerable attention to seafarers’ rights and welfare is consid-
ered a catalyst for sustaining their physical and mental health (Goal 3), reducing unequal
treatment (Goal 10), and supporting the collaboration with shipping companies (Goal
17 partnerships). Ports’ actions toward CSR undoubtedly create synergies that open
the space for better collaboration and partnerships (Goal 17). The same is true when
ports share knowledge, expertise and technological innovations. The social programs,
e.g., employees’ welfare, education and training not only improve SDGs but also improve
environmental sustainability, particularly when the training contains ways to enhance
their sustainability adaptation, thereby improving the whole sustainability performance,
i.e., Goal 17 partnership for goals implementation.
Linkage with economic actions

Although economic actions and measures seem to sustain port profitability and enhance
regional economy, they are interconnected with other environmental and social dimen-
sions. Ports implement actions toward attracting foreign funds, and public private part-
nerships (PPPs) (Goal 17 partnership), thus improving infrastructure (Goal 9 innovation
and infrastructure), supporting city economy (Goal 8 economic growth and Goal 1 min-
imising poverty) and contributing to import and export of food and agricultural pro-
duction in a way that minimises hunger in countries (Goal 2). So, too, does trade and
logistics facilitation, i.e., partnerships (Goal 17), economic growth (Goal 8), and respon-
sible consumption and production (Goal 12) through JIT, responsible procurement and
inventory, automation and TOS. Such measures yield trade efficiency and minimise
delays and congestion and thus reduce air emissions, e.g., atmospheric emissions that
influence health (Goal 3), and C O2 that stimulate climate change (Goal 13). Digitalisa-
tion measures facilitate efficient trade and bring about technological innovations (Goal
17 partnership and Goal 9 innovations) and maintain transparent communication, while
addressing cyber security issues thereby contributing to Goal 16 (peace and strong insti-
tutions). Digital technologies minimise human interaction: this is very important during
pandemics (e.g., COVID-19) and thus protects the health of port related workers (Goal
3 health) and maintains continuous maritime trade, given that four fifths of world trade
is seaborne.
Discussions and conclusions

Port sustainability initiatives are sporadic, local in dimensions, and mostly implemented
in large developed countries’ ports. On the other hand, knowledge of port sustainabil-
ity is accelerating rapidly, but at the same time remains fragmented, making it hard to
collectively assess various research. Just as importantly, maritime transport, includ-
ing ports, is under scrutiny and tightening regulations to maintain sustainable opera-
tions, e.g., decarbonisation, climate change adaptation, labour rights, and streamlined
operation through digital technologies. A critical literature review method was utilised
to explore various academic peer-reviewed literature, and technical reports in order to
build a holistic port sustainability framework. The framework includes 16 categorised
actions and a non-exhaustive list of measures (138 measures that are either tabulated or

explained within the text). Actions are spread over the three dimensions of sustainability,
i.e., economic, social, and environmental (TBLs), which include port operations (inter-
nally) while at the same time embracing shipping and land transport (trucks) for further
sustainability outreach (externally).13 Implementation schemes (institutional, policy, and
management measures) were identified and aggregated into four groups, which could be
used by public and port authorities and in cooperation with the private sector as tools
to drive, enforce and increase the uptake of sustainability measures and actions.14 While
a comprehensive framework to improve port sustainability performance was identified,
association of identified actions and measures with the UN SDGs was highlighted, based
on mutual similarities.15
In comparison with other reviews of port sustainability, e.g., (Asgari et al. 2015; Sislian
et al. 2016; Davarzani et al. 2016; Bjerkan and Seter 2019; Lim et al. 2019), this study is
broader and more extensive, and reflects a variety of pragmatic and across-the-board
actions and measures: i) it included more studies, presented and aggregated more port
sustainability actions and measures that are classified in homogeneous categories and
subcategories, ii) it expanded the sustainability dimensions (TBLs) to embrace exter-
nal logistics and the supply chain, iii) it explained how the actions and measures can
be implemented by port and public authorities through the implementation schemes—
pathways to drive the uptake, and iv) it pointed out the roles that ports can play in
advancing the UN SDGs, and, as far as authors are aware, this is the first study in the
field that addresses this topic. Therefore, it can be stated that this review creates a firm
foundation for advancing knowledge on port sustainability and its development. The
findings indicate that there are a variety of actions and measures that enable ports to
maintain sustainable performance within and beyond the boundaries of ports (to supply
chains). While at the same time, ports can still capture the TBLs and align sustainabil-
ity actions with the UN SDGs. Thus, this proposes a change in the way we look at port
sustainability.
While it is argued that a great focus is exerted only on environmental issues, other
dimensions are also important. Environmental actions and measures by far outnumber
the economic and social ones. This can be explained by the focus on green port initia-
tives both in research and practice, e.g., ESPO EcoPort initiative. As most ports are built
around cities, and considering that ports generate externalities and economic benefits,
this study highlighted the importance of integrating communities and the employees
in ports’ social and economic suitability actions. The same is true regarding seafarers,
who are commonly a neglected group in this field. The IMO designated seafarers as key
workers and announced the world maritime day theme as "Seafarers: at the core of ship-
ping’s future", which is a key step in settling the ongoing crew change crisis. This study
suggests that ports have a role to mitigate this issue and need to pay due respect to the
two million seafarers who operate the shipping fleet.
13
This answers RQ1: What are the categories of ports’ sustainable actions and measures to improve overall port sustain-
ability internally in the port side and externally in the sea side (shipping), and in land transport (trucks)?
14
This answers RQ2: How port sustainability measures and actions can be implemented (implementation schemes)?
15
This answers RQ3: What is the linkage between port sustainability measures and the United Nations Sustainable
Development Goals (UN SDGs)?

Considering that most of the actions and measures categorised in this study are mainly
proposed to advance sustainability, their uptake in global ports seems to be far from
complete. This is attributed to different barriers, such as costs, knowhow, and the com-
plexity of port businesses (engaging with various stakeholders in land and sea). Nonethe-
less, the actions and measures identified are still vital in addressing various challenges.
Issues ports have faced during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., teleworking, social dis-
tancing, safety measures, delays, and capacity utilisation issues), and in light of the
fact that seaborne trade is expected to pick up again after the pandemic, sustainabil-
ity actions and measures elucidated in this study will help accommodate the challenges
related to COVID-19, while all together facilitating and streamlining trade, and sup-
porting ports’ long-term sustainable recovery. In line with this, digitalisation, internet
of things (IoT), and big data platform, decrease human interactions and, also advance
paperless trade, and improve data analytics for better decision making and sustainability
performance monitoring. Additionally, many sustainability challenges, such as the cli-
mate change mitigation measures, can be seen as opportunities to improve efficiency
and make some profit, (e.g., through energy efficiency), among other opportunities such
as trade growth, job creation and the adoption of technological innovations.
The fusion of the port sustainability dimensions resulted in forming a well-rounded
view of actions and measures not only relevant for ports per se, but also ships and land
transport (trucks). The inclusion of supply chain members’ responsibility to implement
sustainability throughout their business with the ports widened the concept of port sus-
tainability performance as sustainability challenges have no territorial borders. While
this recognises ports’ key role in maritime supply chains, and their being essential nodes
between the sea and land, sustainability beyond each organisation’s boundaries is rarely
achieved (Poulsen et al. 2018). Ports enforcing shipping and land transport to adopt port-
imposed measures, other than those that combine with port measures, such as emission
reduction and safety measures, is not yet common. This is attributed to shipping being
subject to international regulations and land transport being under varying governance,
e.g., private or public. Against this backdrop, implementation schemes, such as enacting
regulations in accordance with international and national conventions and provisions,
incentives and disincentives, voluntary and compulsory agreements, and training and
knowledge sharing, would greatly help in mitigating such challenges and thus drive and
appeal to shipping and land transport to improve their sustainable performance.
This study addressed the port’s holistic role in sustainability. Though the frame-
work does not provide a set of actions and measures that guarantee success, compre-
hensive insights are generated, which have managerial implications that are relevant
for port policymakers and managers particularly those who are active in sustainability
implementation.
While the framework is holistic in nature, other factors may influence adoption of
its various measures and actions, i.e., different sustainability measures being incorpo-
rated differently in different ports. The reason is that every port is unique in terms of
its geographic, political, governance, community, operational, regulatory and economic
settings. Freshwater river ports and saltwater ports have distinct habitats, and there-
fore different measures are applied. Therefore, it is recommended that ports tailor their
actions and measures based on their circumstances, considering the particularities of

port operation and development undertakings. Examples of different port circumstances

are: type of trade (e.g., cruise, break-bulk, general cargo, container, bulk), emission
focus (SOx, NOx, PM, OVC, CO2), management role (e.g., landlord, operator, hybrid),
model of managed business (terminals, industrial activities, ferries, bridges) and geogra-
phy (fresh or salt water, estuary). A case in point, the Port of Los Angeles’ sustainability
actions focus on health risk reduction, air and water quality, energy and climate change,
relationships with stakeholders, habitat protection, open space and urban greening (Roh
et al. 2016). In the same way, the EU ports have prioritised a different ten environmental
actions (ESPO 2019).
It should be born in mind that just as the presented measures and actions are not one-
size-fits-all, so, too, the implementation schemes are not one-size-fits-all. A balance
among all the TBL aspects is essential for achieving long term sustainability. A mix of
such institutional and policy instruments (optimal implementation schemes) needs to
be considered, based on ports’ national and local circumstances. Nonetheless, ports can
configure their role in sustainability in that the implementation schemes would address
some sustainability implications. Sustainability implications can be in terms of costs
(financing measures), i.e., ports need funds and grants to adopt the measures. The same
is true regarding technical (technology transfer), and capacity building (new capabilities
development) requirements, particularly in developing countries’ ports. Caution should
be exercised to minimise the risk of impacting economic sustainability; in other words,
introduction of strict regulation, extra tariff, taxes and charges may repel a port’s cus-
tomers (chains), and thus the port would lose them to other ports with less strict strate-
gies (port competitiveness issue). Put differently, ports have role to transit the maritime
transport toward sustainability, but these efforts should not impede the flow of world
trade. Along these lines, and against this background, it should be borne in mind though,
that in order to have successful implementation of port sustainability, monitoring of port
sustainability performance is vital to establish a baseline. Also, collaboration, coopera-
tion and coordination (the 3Cs) among all stakeholders is important to facilitate sustain-
ability implementation.
The 17 UN SDGs cover a much wider and global spectrum of sustainability objec-
tives; therefore, a novel attempt was made to identify their potential association with the
port’s sustainability actions and measures. As manifested, ports’ sustainability actions
are associated with all the UN SDGs. Thus, ports can address their sustainability while
associating their actions with all the 17 goals, and in so doing, ports can demonstrate
their sustainability approaches beyond customary practices. Additionally, exploiting the
actions and measure, and aligning them with UN SDGs, ports may prepare sustainabil-
ity reports and as well create Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to assess sustainability
performance. Similarly, regional port organisations and association may use the whole
framework to benchmark ports (comparability).
In terms of contribution, the identified state-of-the-art holistic actions and measures,
and implementation schemes work as a tool that assists port policymakers and manag-
ers, and terminal and logistics operators in different ports regardless of ports’ circum-
stances. At the heart of this, the study provides firm insights and a decision support
system to help ports establish holistic and global sustainability policies, while at the
same time paying consideration to the UN SDGs. This enables: gauging and improving

the port sustainability performance and implementation, positioning ports as stewards

of the environment and society, by eliminating externalities, and creating opportunities
to act ahead of forthcoming strict regulations while being resilient against shocks. Aca-
demically, one considerable weakness of the literature on sustainability is the assump-
tion that ports sustainability actions are treated as implemented, which might not be
the case in many ports. The clarifications of various actions and, importantly, how they
can be implemented (implementation schemes) have provided a new perspective in the
field of sustainability research. The identified actions and measures enable researchers to
have rapid and holistic understanding of port sustainability and thus contribute to aca-
demic dialogues and future research cross-pollination.
Future research may use the framework to examine and test port sustainability imple-
mentation, and the influence of TBLs dimensions on each other. This entails, in addition,
validating the actions and measures through survey questionnaire. It is also desirable to
consider mapping the level of awareness of port managers and policymakers through
case studies and other form of empirical research. Empirical research, based on real
experience, supports port policy and decision makers considering that much of the lit-
erature is hypothetical and conceptual. While it is still argued that the COVID-19 pan-
demic has influenced port sustainability, future research may empirically investigate
COVID-19 impacts using the identified port sustainability actions and measures. Fur-
ther research may investigate what ports require to implement the actions and measures
in terms of capacity building, motivations, funding and technology transfer, in addition
to identification of relevant factors that affect the implementation. Since sustainable
port policies, either internally within ports or externally toward shipping, are relatively
mature, it is useful to further the investigation toward land transport as this topic is
rarely discussed. Ports that implement sustainability measures are not widely addressed
in the literature, except for a few ports in North America, Europe and the Far East of
Asia, thus, investigation of developing countries’ ports sustainability is an important
research agenda.
With respect to limitations, the study focused on port side (terminal operators) and,
for external port sustainability only on the key maritime supply chains (ships and land
transport). Other supply chain members, e.g., stevedoring, freight forwarders, ship-
pers, railways and inland waterways, were not looked into deeply in the analysis. While
it appears that actions and measures in addition to the implementation schemes are
considered applicable to other members of supply chains, future research may thus
include the dynamics of more supply chain members through port external sustain-
ability. Another limitation is that this study is based on critical review, hence, subjec-
tivity of data selected could be argued to pose an issue. Given the progression and the
large throughput of port sustainability actions in the literature, the delineation of num-
ber of included studies maintained relevant applicable studies. Additionally, attempts
were made to check the reliability of all selected studies (see methods) to minimise such
limitation.
Categorisation of actions is generally inclusive though actions might be intercon-
nected, meaning that an action under one category may contribute to other categories,
and therefore different categorisation (aggregation) may appear in different studies.
While the end goal is still similar, i.e., broader port sustainability, this limitation was

mitigated by indicating any other contribution to another actions when there is over-
lap. Although the actions presented address all port sustainability dimensions, it can-
not be claimed that a non-exhaustive list of measures was put together to execute these
actions, and so different measures can be added for further investigations. Finally,
linkage between port actions and measures and the UN SDGs is based on similarities
(extracted from the literature) between the end goal of the two, which is subject to the
authors’ judgment, and thus other interpretations and linkages may exist. Nonetheless,
this opens the space for further investigation of ports’ novel role in contribution to the
UN SDGs, preferably through empirical research.
Abbreviations
CHE: Cargo handling equipment; CO2: Carbon dioxide; CSR: Corporate social responsibility; EMAS: European Union’s
eco-management and audit scheme; EMS: Environmental management systems; ESPO: European Seaport Organisation;
GHG: Greenhouse gas; IMO: International Maritime Organisation; NOx: Oxides of nitrogen; OPS: Onshore power supply;
PERS: Port environmental review system; PM: Particulate matter; SDM: Self-diagnosis method; SOx: Oxides of sulphur; TBL:
Triple bottom line; TOS: Terminal appointment system; UN SDGs: United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals; VOC:
Volatile organic components.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable comments and suggestions of the three anonymous reviewers,
which have improved the quality of this paper. Also, the authors wish to acknowledge the assistance and support of this
journal’s chief editor Professor Kee-Hung Lai.
Authors’ contributions
ASA: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, validation, writing—review and editing, visualization. FB: valida-
tion, supervision. AIÖ: validation, supervision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
Not applicable.
Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.
Declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 31 August 2021 Accepted: 22 October 2021
References
Acciaro M, Vanelslander T, Sys C, Ferrari C, Roumboutsos A, Giuliano G, Lam JSL, Kapros S (2014) Environmental sustain-
ability in seaports: a framework for successful innovation. Marit Policy Manag 41(5):480–500. https://doi.org/10.
1080/03088839.2014.932926
Acciaro M, Wilmsmeier G (2015) Energy efficiency in maritime logistics chains. Res Transp Bus Manag 17:1–7. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2015.11.002
Alamoush AS, Ballini F, Dalaklis D (2021a) Port supply chain management framework: Contributing to the United Nations’
sustainable development goals. Marit Technol Res 3(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.33175/mtr.2021.247076
Alamoush AS, Ballini F, Ölçer AI (2020) Ports’ technical and operational measures to reduce greenhouse gas emission and
improve energy efficiency: a review. Mar Pollut Bull 160(2020):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2020.
111508
Alamoush AS, Ölçer AI, Ballini F (2021b) Port greenhouse gas emission reduction: port and public authorities’ implemen-
tation schemes. Res Transp Bus Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2021.100708
Alamoush AS, Ballini F, Ölçer AI (2021c) Ports, maritime transport, and industry: the immediate impact of COVID-19 and
the way forward. Marit Technol Res 4(1):1–26. https://doi.org/10.33175/mtr.2022.250092
Asgari N, Hassani A, Jones D, Nguye HH (2015) Sustainability ranking of the UK major ports: methodology and case study.
Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 78:19–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2015.01.014
Bailey D, Solomon G (2004) Pollution prevention at ports: clearing the air. Environ Impact Assess Rev 24(7–8):749–774.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2004.06.005
Basiago AD (1999) Economic, social, and environmental sustainability in development theory and urban planning prac-
tice. Environmentalist 19:145–161. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006697118620

Bergqvist R, Monios J (2019) Green ports in theory and practice. In: Bergqvist R, Monios J (eds) Green ports. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, pp 1–17
Bjerkan KY, Seter H (2019) Reviewing tools and technologies for sustainable ports: does research enable decision making
in ports? Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 72:243–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.05.003
Bouman EA, Lindstad E, Rialland AI, Strømman AH (2017) State-of-the-art technologies, measures, and potential for
reducing GHG emissions from shipping—a review. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 52:408–421. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.trd.2017.03.022
Castellano R, Ferretti M, Musella G, Risitano M (2020) Evaluating the economic and environmental efficiency of ports:
evidence from Italy. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122560
Chang CC, Wang CM (2012) Evaluating the effects of green port policy: case study of Kaohsiung harbor in Taiwan. Transp
Res Part D Transp Environ 17(3):185–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2011.11.006
Cheon S (2017) The economic-social performance relationships of ports: roles of stakeholders and organizational tension.
Sustain Dev 25(1):50–62
Cheon S, Maltz A, Dooley K (2017) The link between economic and environmental performance of the top 10 US ports.
Marit Policy Manag 44(2):227–247
Chiu RH, Lin L-H, Ting S-C (2014) Evaluation of green port factors and performance: a fuzzy AHP analysis. Math Probl Eng.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/802976
Clarksons Research (2020a) Shipping market overview. Clarksons Research
Clarksons Research (2020b) Fuelling transition: tracking the economic impact of emission reductions & fuel changes.
Clarksons Research
COGEA (2017) Study on differentiated port infrastructure charges to promote environmentally friendly maritime trans-
port activities and sustainable transportation. Study for the European Commission
Corbett JJ, Winebrake JJ, Green EH, Kasibhatla P, Eyring V, Lauer A (2007) Mortality from ship emissions: a global assess-
ment. Environ Sci Technol 41(24):8512–8518. https://doi.org/10.1021/es071686z
Darbra RM, Pittam N, Royston KA, Dabra JP, Journee H (2009) Survey on environmental monitoring requirements of
European ports. J Environ Manag 90(3):1396–1403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.08.010
Darbra RM, Ronza A, Casal J, Stojanovic TA, Wooldridge C (2004) The self diagnosis method: a new methodology to assess
environmental management in sea ports. Mar Pollut Bull 48(5–6):420–428
Davarzani H, Fahimnia B, Bell M, Sarkis J (2016) Greening ports and maritime logistics: a review. Transp Res Part D Transp
Environ 48:473–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.07.007
de Langen P, Sornn-Friese H (2019) Ports and the circular economy. In: Bergqvist R, Monios J (eds) Green ports. Elsevier
Inc., Amsterdam, pp 85–108
Denktas-Sakar G, Karatas-Cetin C (2012) Port sustainability and stakeholder management in supply chains: a framework
on resource dependence theory. Asian J Shipp Logist 28(3):301–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2013.01.002
Denyer D, Tranfield D (2009) Producing a systematic review. In: Buchanan D, Bryman A (eds) The SAGE handbook of
organizational research methods. SAGE Publications Ltd, Los Angeles, CA, pp 671–689
Dinwoodie J, Truck S, Knowles H, Benhin J, Sansom M (2012) Sustainable development of maritime operations in ports.
Bus Strateg Environ 21:111–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.718
Domenico SN (1982) Acoustic wave propagation in air bubble curtains in water—part I: history and theory. Geophysics
47(3):345–353. https://doi.org/10.1190/1.1441340
Elkington J (1998) Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. New Society Publishers, Stoney
Creek
Elkington J (1994) Towards the sustainable corporation: win–win–win business strategies for sustainable development.
Calif Manag Rev 36(2):90–100. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165746
Enguix IF, Egea MS, González AG, Serrano DA (2019) Underwater acoustic impulsive noise monitoring in port facilities:
case study of the port of Cartagena. Sensors (switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/s19214672
ESPO (2019) Environmnetal report: EcoPortsinSights 2019. European Sea Port Organization, Brussels: Belguim
ESPO (2018) ESPO environmental report 2018: EcoPortsinSights. European Sea Port Organization
Esser A, Sys C, Vanelslander T, Verhetsel A (2020) The labour market for the port of the future. A case study for the port of
Antwerp. Case Stud Transp Policy 8(2):349–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2019.10.007
Friant CM, Vermeulen WJV, Salomone R (2020) A typology of circular economy discourses: navigating the diverse visions
of a contested paradigm. Resour Conserv Recycl 161(April):104917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.
104917
Geerlings H, van Duin R (2011) A new method for assessing CO2-emissions from container terminals: a promising
approach applied in Rotterdam. J Clean Prod 19(6):657–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.10.012
Gibbs D, Rigot-Muller P, Mangan J, Lalwani C (2014) The role of sea ports in end-to-end maritime transport chain emis-
sions. Energy Policy 64:337–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.024
Gimenez C, Sierra V, Rodon J (2012) Sustainable operations: their impact on the triple bottom line. Int J Prod Econ
140(1):149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.01.035
Gonzalez-Aregall M, Bergqvist R, Monios J (2018) A global review of the hinterland dimension of green port strategies.
Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 59:23–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.12.013
Grant MJ, Booth A (2009) A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health
Info Libr J 26(2):91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Gupta AK, Patil RS, Gupta SK (2002) Emissions of gaseous and particulate pollutants in a port and harbour region in India.
Environ Monit Assess 80(2):187–205
Hossain T, Adams M, Walker TR (2020) Role of sustainability in global seaports. Ocean Coast Manag. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105435
I2S2 (2013) Environmental initiatives at seaports worldwide: a snapshot of best practices. International Institute for
Sustainable Seaports (I2S2), VA, USA
IAPH (2008) IAPH tool box for greenhouse gasses. International Association of Ports & Harbours
IAPH (2007) IAPH tool box for port clean air programs. International Association of Ports & Harbours

IMO (2018a) Port Emission Toolkit Guide No.1: Assessment of Port Emission. GloMeep project coordination unit and the
International Maritime Organization, London
IMO (2020a) Circular Letter No. 4204/Add.33—5 November 2020: Joint Statement IMO-UNWTO to support the safe
resumption of cruise ship operations following the COVID-19 pandemic. International Maritime Organization
(IMO), London
IMO (2020b) Circular Letter No. 4204/Add.31—17 September 2020: Joint Statement on the contribution of international
trade and supply chains to a sustainable socio-economic recovery in COVID-19 times. International Maritime
Organization (IMO), London, UK
IMO (2015) Study of emission control and energy efficiency measures for ships in the port area. International Maritime
Organization, London
IMO (2018b) Port Emission Toolkit Guide no.2: development of port emission reduction strategies. GloMeep project
coordination unit and the International Maritime Organization, London
IMO (2020c) Fourth IMO GHG study: reduction of GHG emissions from ships. MEPC 75/7/15. International Maritime
Organization (IMO), London, UK
IMO (2018c) MEPC/72/17/ADD.1. Resolution MEPC.304(72): initial IMO strategy on reduction of GHG emissions from
ships. International Maritime Organization, London: UK
IMO (2019) MEPC/74/18/ADD.1. Resolution MEPC.323(74): inivitation to member states to encourage voluntary coopera-
tion between the port and shipping sectors to contribute to reducing GHG emissions from ships. International
Maritime Organization (IMO), London, UK
IMO (2020d) Allow crew changes to resolve humanitarian crisis, insists IMO Secretary-General. https://www.imo.org/en/
MediaCentre/PressBriefi ngs/Pages/26-Allow-crew-changes.aspx. Accessed 17 Nov 2020
Iris Ç, Lam JSL (2019) A review of energy efficiency in ports: operational strategies, technologies and energy manage-
ment systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 112:170–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.069
Islam MM, Shamsuddoha M (2018) Coastal and marine conservation strategy for Bangladesh in the context of achieving
blue growth and sustainable development goals (SDGs). Environ Sci Policy 87:45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2018.05.014
ITF, OECD, (2018) Reducing shipping greenhouse gas emissions: lessons from port-based incentives. International Trans-
port Forum and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris
Jaakkola E (2020) Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS Rev 10(1–2):18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13162-020-00161-0
Jasmi MFA, Fernando Y (2018) Drivers of maritime green supply chain management. Sustain Cities Soc 43:366–383.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.09.001
Kang D, Kim S (2017) Conceptual model development of sustainability practices: the case of port operations for collabo-
ration and governance. Sustainability 9(2017):2333. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122333
Kim T, Sharma A, Gausdal AH, Chae C (2019) Impact of automation technology on gender parity in maritime industry.
WMU J Marit Aff 18(4):579–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-019-00176-w
Koberg E, Longoni A (2019) A systematic review of sustainable supply chain management in global supply chains. J
Clean Prod 207:1084–1098
Kulviwat S, Guo C, Engchanil N (2004) Determinants of online information search: a critical review and assessment. Inter-
net Res 14(3):245–253. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240410542670
Kuznetsov A, Dinwoodie J, Gibbs D, Sansom M, Knowles H (2015) Towards a sustainability management system for
smaller ports. Mar POLICY 54:59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.12.016
Lam J, Van De Voorde E (2012) Green port strategy for sustainable growth and development. In: Transport logistics for
sustainable growth at a new level, proceedings of the international forum on shipping, ports and airports (IFSPA),
pp 417–427
Lam JSL, Notteboom T (2014) The greening of ports: a comparison of port management tools used by leading ports in
Asia and Europe. Transp Rev 34(2):169–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2014.891162
Laxe FG, Bermúdez FM, Palmero FM, Novo-Corti I (2017) Assessment of port sustainability through synthetic indexes:
application to the Spanish case. Mar Pollut Bull 119(1):220–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.03.064
Le Blanc D, Freire C, Vierro M (2017) Mapping the linkages between oceans and other sustainable development goals: a
preliminary exploration. DESA Working Paper No. 149. ST/ESA/2017/DWP/149
Lee B, Low J, Kim K (2015) Comparative evaluation of resource cycle strategies on operating and environmental impact in
container terminals. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 41:118–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.09.014
Lim S, Pettit S, Abouarghoub W, Beresford A (2019) Port sustainability and performance: a systematic literature review.
Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 72(2019):47–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.04.009
Lirn T, Wu YJ, Chen YJ (2013) Green performance criteria for sustainable ports in Asia. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag
43(5/6):427–451. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-03-2012-0134
Lu C-S, Lai P-L, Chiang Y-P (2016a) Container terminal employees’ perceptions of the effects of sustainable supply chain
management on sustainability performance. Marit Policy Manag 43(5):597–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088
839.2016.1190471
Lu C-S, Shang K-C, Lin C-C (2016b) Examining sustainability performance at ports: port managers’ perspectives on
developing sustainable supply chains. Marit Policy Manag 43(8):909–927. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2016.
1199918
Lu CS, Marlow PB, Lai PL (2010) Sustainable supply chain management for ports. In: Proceedings of the 6th international
Gwangyang port forum and the 3rd international conference, Gwangyang, Korea, pp 189–213
MacInnis DJ (2011) A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. J Mark 75(4):136–154. https://doi.org/10.
1509/jmkg.75.4.136
Mensah J, Enu-Kwesi F (2018) Implication of environmental sanitation management in the catchment area of Benya
Lagoon, Ghana. J Integr Environ Sci 16(1):23–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815x.2018.1554591

Misra A, Panchabikesan K, Gowrishankar SK, Ayyasamy E, Ramalingam V (2017) GHG emission accounting and mitigation
strategies to reduce the carbon footprint in conventional port activities—a case of the Port of Chennai. Carbon
Manag. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2016.1275815
MTCC Pacific (2017) Regional workshop on energy management in ports. Maritime Technology Cooperation Center in
the Pacific, Auckland, New Zealand
Ng AKY, Chen SL, Cahoon S, Brooks B, Yang Z (2013) Climate change and the adaptation strategies of ports: the Australian
experiences. Res Transp Bus Manag 8:186–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.05.005
Ng AKY, Song S (2010) The environmental impacts of pollutants generated by routine shipping operations on ports.
Ocean Coast Manag 53(5–6):301–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.03.002
Notteboom T, Lam JSL (2018) The greening of terminal concessions in seaports. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su10093318
Notteboom T, Van Der Lugt L, Van Saase N, Sel S, Neyens K (2020) The role of seaports in green supply chain manage-
ment: initiatives, attitudes, and perspectives in Rotterdam, Antwerp, North Sea Port, and Zeebrugge. Sustainability.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041688
Notteboom T, Pallis T (2020a) IAPH-WPSP port economic impact barometer: October report. World Ports Sustainability
Program and International Association of Ports & Harbours
Notteboom T, Pallis T (2020b) IAPH-WPSP port economic impact barometer: November report. World Ports Sustainability
Notteboom T, Pallis T (2020c) IAPH-WPSP port economic impact barometer: half year report. World Ports Sustainability
Notteboom T, Verhoeven P, Fontanet M (2012) Current practices in European ports on the awarding of seaport terminals
to private operators: towards an industry good practice guide. Marit Policy Manag 39(1):107–123. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03088839.2011.642315
Ntona M, Morgera E (2018) Connecting SDG 14 with the other sustainable development goals through marine spatial
planning. Mar Policy 93(July 2017):214–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.06.020
Oh H, Lee S-W, Seo Y-J (2018) The evaluation of seaport sustainability: the case of South Korea. Ocean Coast Manag
161:50–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.04.028
Ölçer AI, Kitada M, Dalaklis D, Ballini F (2018) Trends and challenges in maritime energy management. Springer,
Heidelberg
Peris-Mora E, Orejas JMD, Subirats A, Ibáñez S, Alvarez P (2005) Development of a system of indicators for sustainable
port management. Mar Pollut Bull 50(12):1649–1660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.06.048
Petticrew M, Roberts H (2008) Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide, 1st edn. Blackwell Publishing
Ltd, Oxford
PIANC (2014) Sustainable ports: a guide for port authorities. The World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastruc-
ture. PIANC Maritime Navigation Commission, Brussels
PIANC (2019) Renewables and energy efficiency for maritime ports—MarCom WG Report n° 159—2019. The World
Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure. PIANC Maritime Navigation Commission, Brussels
Port of Antwerp (2017) Sustainability report 2017. Port of Antwerp, Belgium
Poulsen RT, Ponte S, Sornn-Friese H (2018) Environmental upgrading in global value chains: the potential and limitations
of ports in the greening of maritime transport. Geoforum 89(2018):83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.
2018.01.011
Pu S, Lam JSL (2020) Blockchain adoptions in the maritime industry: a conceptual framework. Marit Policy Manag.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2020.1825855
Puig M, Pla A, Seguí X, Darbra RM (2017) Tool for the identification and implementation of environmental indicators in
ports (TEIP). Ocean Coast Manag 140(2017):34–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.02.017
Puig M, Wooldridge C, Casal J, Mari Darbra R (2015) Tool for the identification and assessment of environmental aspects
in ports (TEAP). Ocean Coast Manag 113:8–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.007
Puig M, Wooldridge C, Darbra JP (2014) Identification and selection of environmental performance indicators for sustain-
able port development. Mar Pollut Bull 81(1):124–130
Pyć D (2019) Implementation of marine spatial planning instruments for sustainable marine governance in poland.
TransNav 13(2):311–316. https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.13.02.06
Roh S, Thai VV, Wong YD (2016) Towards sustainable ASEAN port development: challenges and opportunities for Viet-
namese Ports. Asian J Shipp Logist 32(2):107–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2016.05.004
Santos S, Rodrigues LL, Branco MC (2016) Online sustainability communication practices of European seaports. J Clean
Prod 112(4):2935–2942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.011
Schröder-Hinrichs J-U, Hebbar A, Alamoush AS (2020) Maritime risk research and its uptake in policymaking: a case study
of the Baltic Sea Region. Mar Sci Eng. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8100742
Seuring S, Müller M (2008) From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain manage-
ment. J Clean Prod 16:1699–1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020
Shiau TA, Chuang CC (2013) Social construction of port sustainability indicators: a case study of Keelung Port. Marit Policy
Manag 42(1):26–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2013.863436
Sislian L, Jaegler A, Cariou P (2016) A literature review on port sustainability and ocean’s carrier network problem. Res
Transp Bus Manag 19:19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2016.03.005
Snyder H (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 104(July):333–339.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Stein M, Acciaro M (2020) Value creation through corporate sustainability in the port sector: a structured literature analy-
sis. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12145504
Stoddart H, Schneeberger K, Dodds F, Shaw A, Bottero M, Cornforth J, White R (2011) A pocket guide to sustainable
development governance. Stakeholder Forum 2011. Stakeholder Forum 2011
Torraco RJ (2005) Writing integrative literature reviews: guidelines and examples. Hum Resour Dev Rev 4(3):356–367.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283

UNCTAD (2019a) Review of maritime transport 2019. United Nation Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva,
Switzerland
UNCTAD (2020a) Ports in the fight against COVID-19. https://tft.unctad.org/ports-covid-19/. Accessed 17 Nov 2020
UNCTAD (2020b) Review of maritime transport. United Nation Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva
UNCTAD (2020c) Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on trade and development: transitioning to a new normal. United
Nation Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva, Switzerland
UNCTAD (2017) Port industry survey on climate change impacts and adaptaion. United Nation Conference on Trade and
Development, Geneva, Switzerland
UNCTAD (2019b) Digitalization in maritime transport: ensuring opportunities for development. United Nation Confer-
ence on Trade and Development
United Nations (2015) Resolution A/RES/70/1, Adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, Transforming
our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development
Van Hooydonk E (2014) Port labour in the EU: labour market, qualification and training, health and safety. European Com-
mission, Brussels
Villalba G, Gemechu ED (2011) Estimating GHG emissions of marine ports—the case of Barcelona. Energy Policy
39:1363–1368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.008
WCED (1987) Our common future. World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press,
Oxford
Wilmsmeier G (2020) Climate change adaptation and mitigation in ports: advances in Colombia. In: Ng AKY, Monios J,
Jiang C (eds) Maritime transport and regional sustainability. Elsevier Inc., Amsterdam, pp 133–150
Wilmsmeier G, Spengler T (2016) Energy consumption and container terminal efficiency. Economic Commission for Latin
America and the Caribian. FAL Bull 6(350):1–10
Winnes H, Styhre L, Fridell E (2015) Reducing GHG emissions from ships in port areas. Res Transp Bus Manag 17:73–82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2015.10.008
Woo JK, Moon DSH, Lam JSL (2018) The impact of environmental policy on ports and the associated economic opportu-
nities. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 110(2018):234–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.09.001
WPCI (2010) Carbon footprinting for ports: guidance document. World Port Climate Initiative
WPSP (2020) World ports sustainability report 2020. World Ports Sustainability Program
Yadav M (2010) The decline of conceptual articles and implications for knowledge development. J Mark 74(January):1–19
Yang Y-C, Chang W-M (2013) Impacts of electric rubber-tired gantries on green port performance. Res Transp Bus Manag
8(2013):67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.04.002
Yap WY, Lam J (2020) Data analytics for international transportation management. Res Transp Bus Manag. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100470
Yap WY, Lam JSL (2013) 80 million-twenty-foot-equivalent-unit container port? Sustainability issues in port and coastal
development. Ocean Coast Manag 71:13–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.10.011
Zhong H, Hu Z, Yip TL (2019) Carbon emissions reduction in China’s container terminals: optimal strategy formulation
and the influence of carbon emissions trading. J Clean Prod 219:518–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.
02.074
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
[email protected]

Revisiting Port Sustainability As A Foundation For

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revisiting Port Sustainability As A Foundation For

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revisiting Port Sustainability As A Foundation For

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alamoush et al. J. shipp. trd.

(2021) 6:19 Journal of Shipping

REVIEW Open Access

Revisiting port sustainability as a foundation

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Materials and methods

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Fig. 2 Trend of yearly publications

Publications included in the review

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

• Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment (8)

It is very noticeable that Transportation Research Part D, Research in Transporta-

Literature review: building a port sustainability framework

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Fig. 3 Precentage of studies’ regional contribution

generations to meet their own needs”. Generally, sustainable development includes

Port sustainability settings

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Goal 1 End poverty in all its forms everywhere

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Table 2 Port sustainability studies, TBLs dimensions, and scope

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Fig. 5 Study’s conceptual framework

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Internal and external ports’ sustainability actions and measures

Environmental dimension actions

Air pollution management

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Water pollution and waste management

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Noise pollution management

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Visual pollution (light and aesthetics) management

Marine biology conservation

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Limit and treat sediment Reuse of dredging sediments

Hazardous cargo management

Climate change mitigation and adaptation

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Adaptation actions Building walls and beach restoration

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Employees rights Improvement of employee’s welfare and health

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Social dimension actions

Economic dimension actions

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Economic growth Investing in port infrastructure

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Port sustainability implementation schemes

Regulations and standards

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.