Sustainability 15 13502 v2

sustainability
Article
The Development of Green Ports in Emerging Nations:
A Case Study of Vietnam
Son-Tung Le 1, * and Trung-Hieu Nguyen 2
1 Faculty of Economics, Vietnam Maritime University, Haiphong 180000, Vietnam

2 Hai Phong External Affairs Department, Haiphong 180000, Vietnam; [email protected]
or [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]
Abstract: The development of green ports is still limited, especially in developing nations, despite
the fact that they are viewed as a significant answer to the problems of environmental pollution
and climate change. The purpose of this study is to investigate the factors that promote and hinder
the development of green ports in developing countries. Using 248 managers from 12 Vietnamese
container ports as a sample, this study is one of the pioneers in using a quantitative methodology to
investigate the factors affecting the development of green ports. We used SPSS 22.0 and AMOS 22.0
to perform principal component analysis (PCA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and structural
equation modeling (SEM). Our results indicated that cooperation of involved parties and foreign
capital has the most important role in green port development in developing countries, followed
by environmental regulation. Our findings also showed that lack of initial capital and lack of
technological advancement negatively affects the development of green ports in these countries. The
results and implications of the study will be discussed in more detail.
Keywords: green port; environmental regulation; initial capital; cooperation; technical

advancement; sustainability
1. Introduction
Citation: Le, S.-T.; Nguyen, T.-H.
Ports play an increasingly significant role in fostering regional economic growth and
The Development of Green Ports in
international trade as a key hub of the transportation network [1,2]. Ports now provide
Emerging Nations: A Case Study of
cities, regions, and nations with a vital strategic resource for taking part in global economic
Vietnam. Sustainability 2023, 15,
cooperation and competitiveness, in addition to providing space for transportation, logistics,
13502. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su151813502
and a way to connect with the outside world [3,4]. For instance, ports play a significant role in
the Vietnamese economy, contributing to the nation’s positioning as the “new Asian tiger” in
Academic Editor: Shuaian Wang Business Times (Singapore). Vietnamese exports will total around 371.5 billion USD in 2022, up
Received: 27 May 2023
10.5% from 2021, according to information provided by the Ministry of Industry and Trade
Revised: 24 August 2023 of Vietnam at the 2022 overview conference on December 26. The import-export turnover is
Accepted: 27 August 2023 occurring for the first time. Vietnam has exported goods worth more than 700 billion USD.
Published: 8 September 2023 Ports are also locations for the generation of renewable energy, such as solar, tidal, and wind
energy, both onshore and offshore. This renewable energy industry might provide jobs and
add value to ports by building future power-supply infrastructure and clustering associated
firms in port regions, revitalizing the economy of port towns [5].
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. However, ports’ effects on climate change via greenhouse gas emissions, as well as on
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. human health via air pollutants discharged in residential areas, cannot be overlooked [6].
This article is an open access article Vessel emissions at ports are becoming increasingly problematic, particularly for SOx,
distributed under the terms and NOx, and PM, which have a negative impact on local people’s health [7]. In terms of
conditions of the Creative Commons
GHG emissions, the release of CO2 , SO2 , NOx, PM10, PM2.5, HC, CO, and VOC may be
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
extremely harmful to one’s health and has been associated with asthma, other respiratory
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
disorders, cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, and premature death [8]. The World Health
4.0/).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 13502. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813502 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 13502 2 of 23
Organization (WHO) considers air pollution to be a serious environmental danger to health,

estimating that it causes three million deaths per year [9].
Green ports are presented as an achievable solution to the energy issue and environ-
mental degradation. A green port is a port that not only satisfies environmental criteria but
also provides economic benefits. Green ports are an excellent strategy to reduce environ-
mental pollution and ecological harm, as well as to maintain the ports’ water resources and
natural environment [10].
According to the study findings of the criteria of a green port by [11,12], nations in
Europe, the United States, and certain developed countries in Asia such as Singapore
and South Korea have created and applied sets of sustainability standards to port opera-
tions [12–23]. The findings revealed that ports in these nations enhance economic demand
while having no harmful environmental impact. It appears that technology and monetary
advantages have allowed these countries to significantly change their seaports toward
sustainability. In contrast, developing countries confront unique challenges in addressing
the issue of green port development. Many Chinese port authority bodies, for example,
are disappointed by the lack of a fundamental set of rules or criteria for green port evalua-
tion to use in order to finally become ‘green’. Furthermore, due to a lack of information
openness, implementing a holistic approach to Chinese ports’ sustainability standards is
particularly challenging [12]. Although previous studies have shown factors influencing
the development of green ports in developed countries [8,24], there are still relatively few
studies for developing countries that face contradictions in terms of economic development
and environmental protection.
The study’s goal is to investigate the factors influencing the development of green
ports in developing countries, particularly in Vietnam. This is one of the first studies that
employs survey and quantitative methods to explore the factors influencing green port
development. A better understanding of these variables has important implications for the
underlying theoretical framework of green ports, allowing academics to distinguish be-
tween the factors influencing the development of green ports in developed and developing
countries. According to the research findings, there are three drivers and two obstacles,
which adds to the theoretical foundation of green ports. While prior research employed
qualitative approaches to identify important factors, this study added substantial value by
quantitatively assessing these elements. Particularly, our research affirms the importance
of international regulations in the development of green ports [8] and reinforces the im-
pact of national policy on environmental protection through mandatory requirements and
guidelines. National laws and regulations have a substantial influence on port compliance
with environmental criteria, even though the International Marine Organization (IMO)
is the primary maritime transport authority. Furthermore, although prior studies had
demonstrated the role of technological leverage in reducing environmental impact and
supporting the development of green ports in developed nations, our study confirms that
the lack of modern technology will adversely affect the development of green ports in
developing countries.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Green Port
The production of air, oil, and noise pollution, as well as health and ecological dangers,
by ports, has a substantial and often fatal influence on port stakeholders and a long-term and
green port growth plan [25]. The key issue in ecological ports is striking a balance between the
impact on the environment and business interests. As a result, various studies propose that a
sustainable port or green port may be used to address this problem [6,26–28]. According to [28],
a sustainable port (also known as a green port) is one that the port authority, in collaboration
with port users, proactively designs and conducts, relying on an economically sustainable
strategic plan, collaborating with natural philosophy, and engaging stakeholders. Starting from
a long-term goal on the location in which it is positioned and from its position of privilege
within the supply chain, it ensures development that anticipates the needs of the community.
Ref. [27] favored the idea of a green port that produced all of its renewable energy sources
(RES), such as wind turbines or a small solar park, to balance off any energy consumed in
operating the port’s operations. Ref. [6] proposed that a green port is one that has either made
an investment in new machinery with improved environmental performance or has developed
a strategy to reduce emissions, energy consumption in operations, and water pollution. The
three bottom lines of economic growth, social well-being, and environmental preservation
should be controlled and balanced through the active integration of climate change mitigation
and adaptation measures into the green port’s policies and objectives [26]. A green port is
one that aims for environmental preservation, energy savings, safety, and human health in
port operations. A green port is one that has a specific plan or action to prevent negative
environmental consequences and guide people in environmental protection. For example,
the port replaces fossil fuel-powered equipment with electrical equipment to decrease air
pollution, and it uses shore power as an alternative to generators inside ships to reduce air
pollution and noise, using a green prize to motivate people to adhere to the rules. Previous
research has indicated that a green port must meet needs such as air pollution management,
noise pollution management, solid waste pollution management, water pollution management,
human resource training, information technology application, and hazard response [11,12].
Based on the findings of these studies, the Vietnamese government released the “Green Port
Development Program” in 2020, requiring seaports to comply with the requirements voluntarily
by 2025, and mandatorily by 2030.
2.2. The Drivers and Barriers of Green Ports

2.2.1. Environmental Regulations
To safeguard the port environment and lower the danger of pollution, environmental
regulations comprise both international conventions and national policies [8,29–34]. The
International Maritime Organization (IMO) was founded by the United Nations in 1948
to develop and enforce a comprehensive regulatory framework for shipping. It is now in
charge of issues with security at sea, the environment, legislation, technological collabora-
tion, shipping efficiency, and more. The majority of states, including Vietnam, have ratified
the IMO conventions. At the same time, the European Union has established a number of
environmental rules that primarily focus on air pollution, wildlife and biodiversity, water
and marine ecosystems, soil, waste, and other aspects that would reduce environmental
threats. The European directives must be followed by all EU members. Each country must
ratify the European regulation and implement it into its legal system within a reasonable
time limit. According to its needs and obligations, each nation builds its environmental
policy. The nation’s environmental policy combines its obligations and goals [35]. For
instance, by the year 2030, the Vietnamese government wants all ports to operate in accor-
dance with green port standards. We predict that environmental restrictions will have a
significant influence on the development of green port policies based on the justification
given above [8,31,33,34,36].
Hypothesis 1. Environmental regulations are positively related to the development of a green port.
2.2.2. Foreign Capital

Foreign direct investment, loans from multilateral organizations like the World Bank,
or loans from foreign governments are all examples of ways that money from abroad
enters the home nation and is referred to as “foreign capital”. Direct and indirect foreign
investments fall into two different groups [37]. Foreign direct investment (FDI) has driven
remarkable economic progress in a number of emerging countries [37]. In general, FDI
increases the availability of money and, with the proper host-country rules, may also hasten
the transfer of technology. The development of human capital is aided by technology
transfer, which can increase the likelihood of economic growth. In other words, FDI might
both directly and indirectly assist economic growth.
For more than 30 years and even today, capital from foreign direct investment (FDI)
has significantly aided Vietnam’s socioeconomic development. FDI into Vietnam increased
by 9.2% from 2020 to 31.15 billion USD in 2021, notwithstanding the COVID-19 pandemic’s
challenging course of development. This indicates how confident international investors
are about the business climate in Vietnam. The construction of seaport infrastructure has
benefited significantly in recent years from FDI funding. The presence of international
firms in the transport and port sectors, such as Hutchison, PSA, DP World, SSA, Maersk
A/S, and CMA-CGM, has greatly increased FDI in Vietnam [38].
Additionally, indirect investment resources, namely, official development assistance,
are used to upgrade the seaport infrastructure in Vietnam (ODA). Three significant ports—
including Cai Lan, Tien Sa, and Cai Mep–Thi Vai—have had investments completed by the
maritime industry using ODA assistance. Basically, the seaport system has made it possible
for goods to be imported and exported and for linkages to be formed between different
areas of the country by water, favorably impacting economic growth and initially meeting
the demands of the socio-economic development of the country [38].
Vietnam is working to develop a circular economy in which seaports are headed on
the right path for sustainability. Many people are interested in the green port’s building.
The creation of a green port, however, will be quite expensive. In order to implement the
port greening strategy, foreign capital will be a crucial resource.
Hypothesis 2. Foreign capital is positively related to the development of a green port.
2.2.3. Cooperation of Involved Parties (Shipping Firms, Transportation Companies)

The challenge of changing ports toward sustainability and the necessity to include a
wide variety of stakeholders are acknowledged in several publications, both inside and
beyond the scope of this study (e.g., [39–41]). Three kinds of green port environmental
issues may be distinguished, according to the OECD (2011): (1) ship emissions, (2) port
operations, and (3) traffic in the hinterland. Key causes of air pollution brought on by
shipping include sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter, all of
which have an impact on local and regional air pollution. Additionally, the physical and
emotional health of dockworkers as well as residents in coastal regions might be negatively
impacted by noise from ship auxiliary engines during laytime. Due to the enormous
number of cars that go to and from ports, pollution and traffic are the key challenges from
an inland perspective [7]. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations highlighted one of
the major barriers to the sustainable growth of ports in Asia as poor coordination with
shipping companies and other supply chain partners [42,43].
Numerous earlier studies have demonstrated that the concerted effort by multiple
stakeholders to alleviate the burden on the port authority will make the development of
the green port plan more successful [44–50]. First, by deploying more environmentally
friendly ships, such as propulsion improvements and auxiliary engine retrofits [46,48,51],
or slowing down their speed in the port area [44], shipping firms may promote a more
environmentally friendly port strategy. Second, some significant solutions for the inland
transportation system are provided to reduce air pollution, noise, traffic accidents, and
congestion by developing an intermodal rail and road infrastructure and encouraging
shippers to transfer their goods by rail to and from ports [45]. With the assistance of all
parties concerned, the development of green ports will be more successful.
Hypothesis 3. Cooperation of involved parties is positively related to the development of a green port.
2.2.4. Inconsistent Criteria

The absence of uniformity in green port criteria presents another challenge to develop-
ment. Research on the green port criterion is expanding [12–18,52–54]. However, ports will
find it challenging to determine their development direction due to the abundance of green
port requirements. For instance, ref. [55] suggested that adopting an onshore power supply
system (cold ironing) and lowering the ship’s speed while enhancing its landfall are two of
the best ways to a port’s greenness performance.
Ref. [12] proposed sustainable criteria for green ports—such as liquid pollution man-
agement, air pollution management, noise control, marine ecological protection, biological
system preservation, low-carbon and energy-saving management, and establishment of
green port organizational management. On the other hand, six green port performance
indicators have been developed by the majority of port authorities (Shanghai, Hong Kong,
Singapore, Port of L.A. and L.B., and Kaohsiung, 2012) and international organizations
(PPCAC, IAPH): speed reduction after landfall, cold ironing, using electrically powered
equipment, encouraging the use of low-sulfur fuel, a willingness to reuse recyclable re-
sources, and encouraging the development of public transport modes [11].
It appears that there are several varied criteria in the research. This makes it difficult
for ports to decide which factors are crucial for the growth of their green ports. The
development of green ports at ports in underdeveloped countries with limited resources
may be hampered by the requirement to invest significant time and money in determining
which criteria are appropriate for them.
Hypothesis 4. Inconsistent criteria are negatively related to the development of a green port.
2.2.5. Lack of Technical Advancement

The application of cutting-edge technology in the environmentally friendly ship
and port infrastructure is referred to as technical development. A number of cutting-
edge technologies—including cold ironing technology, seawater filters, alternative energy
sources, and monitoring systems—have been suggested for use at green ports in [29]. First,
cold ironing is the practice of providing a ship with electricity from the land while it is
berthed rather than using its auxiliary engines. This corresponds to being able to shut off
every engine. The use of cold iron can lower greenhouse gas emissions but only if the
onshore electricity is generated from renewable energy sources [56]. It has been shown that
cold ironing reduces overall greenhouse gas emissions from transportation by less than
0.5% [57]. Ref. [34] explores the effectiveness of cold ironing as an emissions reduction
alternative and develops a mathematical methodology for assessing the technology’s eco-
nomic viability. Cold ironing, according to ref. [34], can result in local emissions reductions
ranging from 48% to 70% for CO2 , 3% to 60% for SOx, 40% to 60% for NOx, and 57% to
70% for BC of a container terminal’s ship emissions inventory. Additionally, seawater is
pumped, for instance, in the cramped scrubber of a ship. The scrubber receives ship exhaust
gas, which interacts with saltwater there. A rapid and efficient reaction takes place when
SO2 comes into contact with seawater, turning the SO2 and calcium carbonate (CaCO3 ) in
the saltwater into CO2 and calcium sulphate (gypsum), an essential component of regular
seawater [58]. Furthermore, the development of advanced monitoring systems has made it
feasible to locate potential pollution sources and provide timely pollution control actions [8].
In yard operations, the biggest environmental advantages will come from the deployment
of more efficient ship-to-shore cranes, which will improve the number of transfers per
hour and hence shorten the entire turnaround time of large polluting vessels. On the
hinterland side, ITS may be utilized to decrease line formation at the gates. Furthermore,
the ongoing replacement of truck fleets, together with efforts to cut driver idling periods,
will result in significant reductions in emissions at the gate. Last but not least, employing
complementary or alternative energy sources—including wind, solar, and biofuels—can
reduce emissions into the environment and assist in achieving environmental goals [29].
Refs. [29,55,59–62] have demonstrated the importance of advanced technology in achieving
the port’s sustainable goals.
However, the technology employed in green ports poses a big problem for ports today.
Most ports in underdeveloped countries have outdated equipment, which is bad for the
environment. Access to new technologies will be challenging in the near future. Equipment
that requires electricity, onshore power sources, and systems for creating alternative energy all
However, the technology employed in green ports poses a big problem for ports to-
day. Most ports in underdeveloped countries have outdated equipment, which is bad for
the environment. Access to new technologies will be challenging in the near future. Equip-
ment that requires electricity, onshore power sources, and systems for creating alternative
energy all need considerable capital investments over protracted periods of time. Due to
the absence of current technology, adopting a green port plan in poor countries will be
quite difficult.
Hypothesis
need 5. Lack
considerable of technical
capital advancement
investments is negativelyperiods
over protracted related to
ofthe development
time. of aabsence
Due to the green of
port.
current technology, adopting a green port plan in poor countries will be quite difficult.
2.2.6. Lack of
Hypothesis 5. Initial
Lack ofCapital
technical advancement is negatively related to the development of a green port.
All costs related to the facility before, during, and after the green port’s development
2.2.6. Lack of Initial
are included in the Capital
list of financial barriers. In order to satisfy the criteria of decreasing
emissions at the
All costs port,to
related modern technology,
the facility before,such as cold
during, and ironing systems,
after the greenmust port’s bedevelopment
installed.
Diesel-powered equipment must also be replaced with equipment that
are included in the list of financial barriers. In order to satisfy the criteria of decreasing runs on electricity.
Numerous
emissions atstudies
the port,have showntechnology,
modern that the costsuchof implementing
as cold ironing a cold ironingmust
systems, system bemight
installed.
Diesel-powered equipment must also be replaced with equipment that runs onports
be high [63,64]. For instance, it was anticipated that investment expenses at the of
electricity.
Aberdeen and Copenhagen would total £6.6 million and €37 million,
Numerous studies have shown that the cost of implementing a cold ironing system might respectively. Accord-
ing to the World Ports Climate Initiative (WPCI), annual operating and maintenance ex-
be high [63,64]. For instance, it was anticipated that investment expenses at the ports of Ab-
penditures represent 5% of the project’s total investment costs [65]. The cost of powering
erdeen and Copenhagen would total £6.6 million and €37 million, respectively. According
the berthed ships varies greatly depending on the electricity policies of the various na-
to the World Ports Climate Initiative (WPCI), annual operating and maintenance expen-
tions. The shortage of electricity in some cities or areas may also be a barrier. Local grids
ditures represent 5% of the project’s total investment costs [65]. The cost of powering the
frequently cannot handle high-voltage cold ironing systems. This is especially true in
berthed ships varies greatly depending on the electricity policies of the various nations. The
smaller cities. In order to support cold ironing system investments in such areas, further
shortage of electricity
multimillion-dollar in some cities
expenditures or areas
in new may also
electrical be a barrier.
networks Local grids substa-
and transformation frequently
cannot handle high-voltage cold ironing systems. This is especially
tions are required [66]. Additionally, employing electric equipment comes with a high true in smaller cities.
in- In
order to support cold ironing system investments in such areas, further
itial cost. The majority of the machinery at the port is driven by diesel, which produces a multimillion-dollar
expenditures
lot of emissionsin new
and electrical networks
noise pollution. and transformation
Furthermore, resources are substations
needed for are required
the training[66].
Additionally, employing electric equipment comes with a high
of human resources for the management and upkeep of green ports. Port authorities initial cost. The majority
will of
the machinery
thus be under at the port
pressure to is driven
raise by diesel,
a significant which
initial produces
capital sourceaforlotbuilding
of emissions
a green and
portnoise
pollution.
(Figure 1).Furthermore, resources are needed for the training of human resources for the
management and upkeep of green ports. Port authorities will thus be under pressure to
Hypothesis
raise 6. Lack
a significant of initial
initial capital
capital is negatively
source related atogreen
for building the development
port (Figure of a 1).
green port.
Figure1.1.The
Figure Theresearch
research model.
model.
Hypothesis 6. Lack of initial capital is negatively related to the development of a green port.
3. Methodology
3.1. Participants and Procedure
We met with the Vietnamese seaport administration organization, Vietnam National
Shipping Lines Corporation. Vietnam has 34 seaports, of which 2 are special-type seaports,
11 are class I seaports, 7 are class II seaports, and 14 are class III seaports. Among the afore-
mentioned ports, the ones chosen are those with high throughput, significant investment
capital, and pioneers in the application of sustainability criteria in Vietnam. Furthermore,
the ports were chosen because they were in the Northern, Central, and Southern Vietnam,
ensuring the sample was representative. This results in 12 container ports that satisfy
the aforementioned requirements. In the north, there are four ports: CaiLan, HaiPhong,
NghiSon, and CuaLo. There are four ports in the center: DungQuat, QuyNhon, ChanMay,
and VanPhong. The south has four ports: CatLai, TanCang PhuHuu, VICT, and VungTau.
Survey respondents must be knowledgeable about seaport operations and have at
least 5 years of experience in order to be considered for research purposes. Participants
must also be involved in management or activities connected to seaport development. The
seaport directors introduce people that fit the following requirements. We explained the
goal of the study to voluntary participants before beginning the survey. By submitting their
email addresses, survey participants indicated their consent to participate. We performed
the survey from April 2022 to October 2022 after receiving a list of survey subjects’ email
addresses. Because port managers are frequently busy at the beginning and end of the year,
this was a good time to collect data (Appendix A).
We sent emails with links to the online questionnaires and an attached consent letter
ensuring that information was provided voluntarily and that respondents’ confidence
was respected. After consenting to the survey, participants could proceed to complete the
survey questions by clicking on the link. The participants were asked whether the port they
worked in met the sustainable indicators of a green port or whether they were focused on
its growth when they first accessed the questionnaire’s welcome page. If they answer “Yes”,
they continued to receive questions about the factors that promote and inhibit the adoption
of green ports. We sent 380 questionnaires to 12 ports, with an average of 31 questionnaires
per port. There were 132 questionnaires that were invalid for various reasons, such as
answer omission. As a result, 248 valid questionnaires were received, with an average of
21 replies per port, representing a 65.3% effective response rate. Prominent ports like Hai
Phong and CatLai had 23 responses. The ChanMay port had the fewest responses (18).
Detailed information about the participants is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Characteristics of the participants.
Variable Category Frequency Percentage (%)

Bachelor 139 56.05
1 Degree of education
Master 109 43.95
Male 196 79.03
2 Gender
Female 52 20.97
President/Vice
35 14.11
President
3 Position
Division Manager 61 24.60
Senior Leader 152 61.29
5–10 years 59 23.79
11–15 years 102 41.13
4 Working experience
16–20 years 39 15.73
Over 20 years 48 19.35
3.2. Measure
3.2.1. Dependent Variable
In this study, we measure the development of a green port using four criteria: “The
port implements environmental protection strategies over the four years from 2016 to 2020”.
“The port makes improvements to port operations that protect the environment over the
four years from 2016 to 2020”. “The port employees are trained on the green port over the
four years from 2016 to 2020”. “The port offers a green award to encourage individuals to
comply with the rules from 2016 to 2020”.
3.2.2. Independent Variables

Based on literature and expert opinions, the independent variables included drivers
and barriers to adopting green ports [8,24,31,64,67,68]. The degree to which the mentioned
driver and barrier variables to green port development in the target ports were present was
assessed using a five-point Likert scale (1 for strongly disagree, 2 for disagree, 3 for neutral,
4 for agree, and 5 for strongly agree).
We conducted a pilot test in order to assess and enhance the survey questions. In
response to feedback from the 15 replies from management at the 5 ports, a few minor
changes were made to the questionnaire. The last questionnaire was then distributed to
participants. Table 2 presents an overview of the survey.
Table 2. Construct measures.
No. Construct Item Description

The port complies with international conventions to protect the
Environmental1
environment such as IMO and MARPOL.
Environmental2 The port complies with national policies to protect the environment.
1 Environmental regulations
Environmental3 The port has an environmental policy.
Environmental4 The port has an inventory of relevant environmental legislation.
Environmental5 The port has a specific budget for environmental management.
Foreign1 Foreign capital invests in the port.
Foreign2 Foreign capital invests in cold ironing.
2 Foreign capital Foreign3 Foreign capital invests in the infrastructure.
Foreign4 Foreign companies expand their operations.
Foreign5 Foreign companies are interested in the port system.
Cooperation1 The inland transportation meets Euro4 emission standards.
Ships apply strategies to reduce their environmental impact such as
Cooperation2 alternative fuels, slow steaming, improved hull design, and cold
ironing.
3 Cooperation of
involved parties The shipping lines are interested in the discount policy when
Cooperation3
complying with the regulations of the green port.
Cooperation4 When entering the port area, ships reduce their speed to 12 knots.
The inland transportation complies with the environmental policies
Cooperation5
of the port.
Criteria1 There are different criteria for green ports.
Criteria2 Insufficient resources to comply with all criteria.
4 Inconsistent criteria
Criteria3 Having difficulty choosing key criteria.
Criteria4 Spending a lot of money on research and the selection of criteria.
The port lacks alternative energy sources such as wind and solar
Technical1
power.
Technical2 The port lacks equipment that uses electricity.
5 Lack of technical advancement
The port lacks the software to monitor pollution and warn of sources
Technical3
of pollution in real time.
The port lacks an onshore power supply to provide power for
Technical4
hoteling.
Initial1 Need a large amount of money to invest in cold ironing.
Initial2 Need a large amount of money to build an onshore distribution.
6 Lack of initial capital
Initial3 Need a large amount of money to invest in the port equipment.
Initial4 Need a large amount of money to train the employees.
The port implemented environmental protection strategies from 2016
Green1
to 2020.
The port improves the port activities that protect the environment
Green2
7 The development from 2016 to 2020.
of the green port
The port train the employees in the knowledge of the green port from
Green3
2016 to 2020.
The port offers a green award to encourage individuals to comply
Green4
with the rules from 2016 to 2020.
Environmental regulation. Five criteria were utilized to measure this regulation.

The following are two examples: “The port has an inventory of relevant environmental
legislation”. “The port has a specific budget for environmental management”.
Foreign capital. We employed five criteria to measure foreign capital. Examples of
the statements are as follows: “Foreign capital invests in the infrastructure”. “Foreign
companies expand their operations”.
Cooperation of involved parties. This variable was evaluated using five criteria.
Examples of the statements include the following: “Ships apply strategies to reduce their
environmental impact such as alternative fuels, slow steaming, improved hull design, cold
ironing”. “The shipping lines are interested in the discount policy when complying with
the regulations of the green port”.
Inconsistent criteria. To evaluate inconsistent criteria, we used five different criteria.
Some examples are as follows: “There are different criteria for green ports”. “Insufficient
resources to comply with all criteria”.
Lack of technical advancement. Four criteria were used to measure this variable.
Examples include the following: “The port lacks the software to monitor pollution and
warn sources of pollution in real time”. “The port lacks an onshore power supply to provide
power for hoteling”.
Lack of initial capital. We measured this using five criteria. Examples are as follows:
“Need a large amount of money to invest in cold ironing”. “Need a large amount of money
to build an onshore distribution”.
3.3. Analyses
We used SPSS 22.0 and AMOS 22.0 to conduct the statistical analysis for this study.
We conducted the data analysis using a two-stage methodology [69]. Data analysis was
used to first assess the convergent and discriminant validity of the multiple-item scale in
the proposed model. According to [70], construct validation is the presence of certain kinds
of validity, or “the extent to which an operationalization assesses the notion it is supposed
to examine” (p. 142). We employed principal component analysis (PCA) and confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) using SPSS 22.0 and AMOS 22.0, respectively, to investigate the
measurement model. Second, we tested structural models based on the clean measurement
model using structural equation modeling (SEM).
4. Result
4.1. Principal Components Analysis
To begin, we analyze the data utilizing PCA and Varimax rotation. The eigenvalues
of the six factors are all greater than 1.0. Putting all structures together, 66.2% of the total
variance is explained. However, a seven-factor structure with an eigenvalue of 0.70 can be
seen in the screen plot. Then, with the number of discovered components set to seven, we
carried out the PCA once more. The results show that Cooperation5 loads on one aspect of
Foreign, whereas Environmental5 loads on two constructions. We carefully considered the
phrasing of these two items and decided to remove them for further data analysis. Next, all
of the items were put into the specified structures (Table 3). The total variance is explained
by all constructs at 70.8%. Next, the confirmatory factor analysis was performed.
4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is performed using AMOS 22.0. We initially use the
following criteria and indices to check the model’s fit: Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) larger than
0.90; comparative fit index (CFI) greater than 0.90; standardized root mean square residual
(SRMR) less than 0.08; chi-square statistic divided by the degree of freedom (χ2 /df ratio) higher
than 3; and root mean square errors of approximation (RMSEA) less than 0.05 (excellent) or
less than 0.08 (good) [71]. The objective of this stage is to remove the object that stands out
visibly from the other objects [69].
Table 3. Results of factor analysis.
Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Environmental2 0.816
Foreign3 0.834
Foreign4 0.765
Foreign5 0.754
Foreign2 0.717
Foreign1 0.690
Cooperation3 0.903
Cooperation4 0.776
Cooperation2 0.751
Cooperation1 0.744
Criteria1 0.853
Criteria4 0.792
Criteria2 0.761
Criteria3 0.606
Technical1 0.860
Technical2 0.840
Technical4 0.677
Technical3 0.643
Initial2 0.934
Initial1 0.915
Initial4 0.761
Initial3 0.735
Green1 0.990
Green3 0.927
Green2 0.745
Green4 0.688
Note. N = 248, Environmental = environmental regulation, Foreign = foreign capital, Cooperation = cooperation
of involved parties, Criteria = inconsistent criteria, Technical = lack of technical advancement, Initial = lack of
initial capital, Green = development of the green port.
All elements are loaded appropriately on their intended constructions. As a result, the
CFA showed a good model fit with χ2 /df = 1.516, GFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.96, CFI = 0.97, IFI = 0.97,
and RMSEA = 0.039 values.
Two metrics are used to assess the consistency and dependability of the factors:
Cronbach’s alpha (α) and composite reliability (CR). According to [72], two values have
been utilized in place of one another. The values of the CR and Cronbach’s alpha should be
more than 0.7, according to [73].
As shown in Table 4, all of the CR values for environmental regulation (0.84), foreign
capital (0.86), cooperation of involved parties (0.92), inconsistent criteria (0.85), lack of
technical advancement (0.83), lack of initial capital (0.89), and the development of a green
port (0.89), respectively, were greater than the threshold value of 0.7. Additionally, all of
the items’ Cronbach’s alpha values—0.83, 0.87, 0.91, 0.86, 0.83, 0.89, 0.89—exceeded the
threshold value of 0.7 for each of the following: environmental regulation, foreign capital,
cooperation of involved parties, inconsistent criteria, lack of technical advancement, lack of
initial capital, and the development of a green port (Table 4).
Table 4. Results of convergent reliability testing.
Standard
No. Construct Item p-Value Mean Std.d α AVE CR
Loading
Environmental2 0.982 ***
Environmental Environmental4 0.966 ***

1 regulations 4.03 0.86 0.83 0.52 0.84
Foreign1 0.868 ***
Foreign2 0.846 ***
2 Foreign capital 3.35 0.75 0.87 0.53 0.86
Foreign4 0.677 ***
Foreign3 0.618 ***
Cooperation3 0.912 ***
Cooperation of Cooperation4 0.905 ***

3 involved parties 3.96 0.89 0.91 0.60 0.92
Criteria1 0.829 ***
Criteria4 0.792 ***
4 Inconsistent criteria 3.82 0.45 0.86 0.55 0.85
Criteria2 0.779 ***
Criteria3 0.620 ***
Technical1 0.876 ***
Lack of technical Technical2 0.859 ***

5 3.45 0.63 0.83 0.51 0.83
advancement Technical4 0.838 ***
Technical3 0.723 ***
Initial2 0.855 ***
Initial1 0.843 ***
6 Lack of initial capital 4.01 0.75 0.89 0.58 0.89
Initial4 0.669 ***
Initial3 0.638 ***
Green1 0.922 ***
The development Green3 0.901 ***

7 of a green port 3.68 0.41 0.89 0.57 0.89
Green2 0.848 ***
Green4 0.720 ***
initial capital, and Green = the development of a green port. Std.d = standard deviation, α = Cronbach’s alpha,
AVE = average variance extracted, and CR = composite reliability. *** p < 0.001.
Ref. [74] asserts that the average variance extracted (AVE) value should be greater
than 0.5. According to the findings, the AVE values of environmental regulation, foreign
capital, cooperation of involved parties, inconsistent criteria, lack of technical advancement,
lack of initial capital, and the development of a green port are 0.52, 0.53, 0.60, 0.55, 0.51,
0.58, and 0.57, respectively.
These items’ standard factor loadings exceed 0.50 (ranging from 0.61 to 0.98) and are
significant at p > 0.001 [75]. As a consequence, the convergent validity of all constructions
may be trusted. According to the approach of [74], the variables of the model exhibit
discriminant validity if the square root of AVE is higher than the inter-construct correlation
coefficients of the variables. Additionally, the study’s model suited the data well. According
to the research results, the proposed model possesses discriminant validity.
4.3. Common Method Variance

Common method variance (CMV), as described by [76], is the systematic error vari-
ation that occurs when variables are assessed using the same source or technique [77].
Therefore, a bias might result from the systematic error variance. Because respondents
consistently answered all survey items, the anticipated relationship between variables may
be exaggerated or understated [76,77].
In this study, we employed and looked at CMV preventive techniques. We first used a
set of mixed questions to prevent respondents from determining which qualities were related
to which variables [78]. Additionally, to evaluate the CMV in our study, we used the most
well-liked statistical methods, including Harman’s single-factor test and partial elimination of
the general construct. The calculated principal component analysis (PCA) findings showed
that seven separate factors explained 70.8% of the total variance (Table 5). The first unrotated
component explained just 22% (less than 50%) of the variation in the data. No single factor
appears, and the variance is not primarily explained by the first component. Because of this,
data analysis showed that CMV was not present in this research.
Table 5. Results of total variance explained.
Total Variance Explained

Rotation Sums of
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings
Factor Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total
1 6.515 22.465 22.465 6.213 21.424 21.424 3.579
2 3.040 10.484 32.949 2.634 9.084 30.508 4.903
3 2.892 9.971 42.921 2.539 8.756 39.264 4.529
4 2.440 8.415 51.336 2.043 7.044 46.308 2.721
5 2.399 8.271 59.607 2.014 6.946 53.254 3.500
6 1.979 6.823 66.430 1.618 5.579 58.833 2.342
7 1.276 4.401 70.831 1.004 3.463 62.296 2.166
8 0.776 2.677 73.508
9 0.713 2.459 75.967
10 0.643 2.218 78.185
11 0.600 2.068 80.253
12 0.546 1.884 82.137
13 0.531 1.830 83.967
14 0.492 1.696 85.663
15 0.436 1.505 87.168
16 0.409 1.409 88.577
17 0.396 1.364 89.941
18 0.376 1.296 91.237
19 0.349 1.203 92.440
20 0.320 1.104 93.545
21 0.302 1.042 94.587
22 0.278 0.960 95.547
23 0.252 0.867 96.414
24 0.237 0.818 97.232
25 0.214 0.737 97.969
26 0.203 0.700 98.669
27 0.194 0.669 99.338
28 0.114 0.393 99.731
29 0.078 0.269 100.000
4.4. Hypotheses Testing

First, we give an analysis of the structural models. The normed χ2 (χ2 to degrees of
freedom) is 1.516, below the necessary cutoff value of 3 [79]. An adequate fit is shown by
the following values: GFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.96, CFI = 0.97, IFI = 0.97, and RMSEA = 0.039.
Every fit index is considered to be excellent or very near the suggested level. The results
show that the structural model accurately represents the data.
The outcomes of our hypotheses testing are shown in Table 6. Our findings support
Hypothesis 1 by demonstrating that environmental regulations have a positive effect on the
development of green ports (β = 0.182, p < 0.05). Furthermore, according to our findings,
the adoption of green ports is positively influenced by foreign capital (β = 0.241, p < 0.01),
supporting Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 3 is supported by the data from our study, which
show that the parties’ collaboration has a significant and positive impact on the growth of
a green port (β = 0.272, p < 0.01).
Table 6. Hypothesis testing results.
Hypothesis No. Independent Variable Dependent Variable Beta p-Value Support Hypothesis
1 Environmental Green 0.182 0.029 Yes
2 Foreign Green 0.241 0.004 Yes
3 Cooperation Green 0.272 0.002 Yes
4 Criteria Green −0.081 0.159 No
5 Technical Green −0.268 0.011 Yes
6 Initial Green −0.179 0.006 Yes
initial capital, Green = the development of a green port.
However, a variety of reasons can impede the development of green ports. Lack of
technical advancement negatively affects its development (β = −0.268, p < 0.05), supporting
Hypothesis 5. Hypothesis 6 is accepted, which shows that lack of initial capital has a significant
and2023,
Sustainability negative impact
15, x FOR PEER on the growth of green ports (β = −0.179, p < 0.01). Contrary
REVIEW 14 of to
23 our
predictions, Hypothesis 4 is rejected. Inconsistent criteria have no impact on the adoption of
green ports (β = −0.081, p > 0.05) (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Proposed model’s standardized path coefficient.

Figure 2. Proposed model’s standardized path coefficient.
5. Discussion
A green port’s major objective is to continually minimize negative environmental
consequences without affecting economic growth [33]. In order to effectively utilize re-
sources and alternative sources of energy, green ports rely heavily on technological inno-
5. Discussion
A green port’s major objective is to continually minimize negative environmental con-
sequences without affecting economic growth [33]. In order to effectively utilize resources
and alternative sources of energy, green ports rely heavily on technological innovation.
However, there are not many studies in the academic literature that especially deal with
emerging countries, where rising tensions between economic development and environ-
mental conservation exist. Our findings provide some new perspectives on the variables
influencing the growth of green ports. The goal of this research was to investigate all
the factors influencing the expansion of green ports in developing countries, specifically
Vietnam. The study’s findings are particularly noteworthy since they come from a diverse
group of managers who represent 12 container ports, with a focus on Vietnam.
Our findings showed that the effective and targeted approach to pollution manage-
ment and prevention today is environmental regulation, which is supported by prior
research [31]. The government can put the demands of environmental regulation into
practice by developing market-oriented incentive programs, such as the collection of pollu-
tion fines and environmental taxes, or command-and-control policies, such as the passage
of local laws and regulations. According to our study’s findings, which are in line with
those of previous studies, environmental legislation positively affects the implementation
of green ports [31,80,81]. This is because, while not favorable, laws often carry fines for
breaking the rules, which have shown to be a potent inducer to adopt sustainable standards.
As a result, this legislation attempts to comply with environmental standards by imposing
financial and even criminal penalties for behaviors that harm the maritime environment.
Regulation plays an important role in promoting ports in developing nations to meet green
port sustainability criteria, which complement the findings of the previous study [8]. Before
considering anything else, every organization must comply with the law.
A key finding of our research is the role of foreign capital in developing-country green
port development. The expected arrival of a significant foreign source of finance will be a
major motivator for investment and upgrading of port equipment and facilities in an ecolog-
ically friendly direction. The majority of port equipment in developing nations is outdated,
runs on fossil fuels, and produces significant pollution [82]. Replacing obsolete devices
with electric ones will help to create more environmentally friendly surroundings [83].
Furthermore, several port authorities are modernizing their cargo-handling equipment
with quicker and more efficient machinery. This improves the terminal’s energy efficiency
while also reducing vessel turnaround time at berth and, as a result, vessel emissions gen-
erated near the port. Investments in energy generation within the port have been studied
in smaller ports where there is room for the deployment of renewable energy sources [6].
Recognizing the importance of foreign capital for green port development, developing
countries seek to attract foreign capital. According to [84,85], the governments of China
and African countries seek methods to entice foreign investment to improve their ports.
Our analysis has aided the government and port authorities in their attempts to pinpoint
the crucial resources for the long-term development of seaports and to address the tricky
problem of initial investment money. In the transition to green ports, there is a significant
difference between developed and emerging nations. It appears that developing-country
seaports have more difficulty acquiring funding to modernize machinery and equipment
to decrease emissions.
Our research also found the collaborative role of port stakeholders in the development
of green ports, which is consistent with other research [9,86]. Individual efforts by the port
in the development of green ports appear to encounter multiple challenges in the absence
of stakeholder collaboration. The importance of stakeholders’ cooperation is demonstrated
through compliance with environmental protection regulations and changes in polluting
behaviors, which actively contribute to the development of green ports [44,46,47]. For
instance, a variety of methods are already being used by shipping firms to diminish their
environmental impact, mostly in order to abide by international standards that demand
that they reduce emissions. These firms can use an onshore power supply system and
alternative fuels (MGO, LNG), slow down to 12 nm while approaching the port, stop
dumping ballast water at ports, or engage in other cooperative activities that are thought to
help the green port strategy succeed [9].
Our findings revealed that the lack of technical advancements is a major obstacle to the
development of green ports in developing countries. Previous studies have confirmed the
importance of technology in controlling greenhouse gas emissions [9,87]. For example, on
the marine side, this refers to the usage of shore power or cold ironing, which links vessels
at berth to an energy supply and allows the auxiliary engines to be turned off. Ref. [34]
explores the effectiveness of cold ironing as an emissions reduction alternative and develops
a mathematical methodology for assessing the technology’s economic viability. On the
hinterland side, ITS may be utilized to decrease line formation at the gates. Furthermore,
the ongoing replacement of truck fleets, together with efforts to cut driver idling periods,
will result in significant reductions in emissions at the gate. Technology is considered as a
driving force in changing polluting equipment and increasing environmental protection at
developed-country seaports [60–62]. Ports in underdeveloped nations, on the other hand,
have limited access to these technologies due to expensive prices or lack of technology
transfer. According to our findings, advances in technology are a driver of green port
development in wealthy nations [29,60,62] but a barrier in developing countries.
Our findings showed that initial capital barriers have a negative influence on the
adoption of green ports, which is in line with other studies [66,88,89]. Although solutions
for reducing emissions have been found, the high initial financial investment required
to implement these strategies creates a challenge for port authorities. The purchase of
equipment that complies with green port requirements, such as a cold ironing system,
demands significant initial capital. Ref. [89] found that because expensive expenditures are
probably necessary for many different kinds of equipment, they represent a considerable
obstacle to the adoption of cold ironing. For instance, it was expected that investment costs
would come to £6.6 million and €37 million, respectively, for the ports of Aberdeen and
Copenhagen [63,64]. There seem to be very few ports capable of raising this amount of
capital without government help.
Contrary to what we anticipated, the development of a green port was unaffected by
inconsistent criteria. This may be due to the fact that ports are currently developing green
ports and have just recently implemented the primary requirement [11,12]. It will take
additional time to fully apply the green port requirements. The thorough and universal
implementation of the standards, nevertheless, might pose a problem for ports in the future.
Green ports are seen as an efficient way to ensure economic development while also
protecting environmental quality in port operations. This study identifies the factors
that promote and impede green port development. Among these factors, technology is
a great solution for ensuring the port’s long-term growth and balancing the interaction
between environmental impact and economic interests. Ports should make investments in
technology to remove pollution sources, save money, and increase worker productivity.
6. Theoretical and Practical Implementation

Our study has many theoretical implications. First, the research results reinforce the
importance of green ports for sustainable development, in the context of increasing climate
change. Green ports not only meet the need to become an important connection point in the
logistics system but also have the ability to control emissions to the environment, ensuring
environmentally friendly development [6]. Our study emphasized the role of a green port,
such as reducing noise, water, and solid waste pollution, using alternative energy sources,
preserving natural habitats, and training employees in green port knowledge. In addi-
tion to the environmental benefits, green ports also offer economic opportunities through
environment-oriented options such as industrial ecology and renewable energy. Ports have
much potential for ecological industrial plans, which can range from pollution avoidance,
process optimization, and waste management to internalization of environmental costs,
local economic growth, and competitiveness [90]. Several Japanese ports have been trans-
formed into recycling centers [91], and the Port of Rotterdam has promoted the use of waste
heat capacity [92]. Ports are also locations for the generation of renewable energy, such as
solar, tidal, and wind energy, both onshore and offshore. This renewable energy industry
might provide jobs and add value to ports by building future power-supply infrastructure
and clustering associated firms in port regions, revitalizing the economy of port towns [5].
Second, this is one of the first quantitative studies on the factors influencing the adop-
tion of green ports in developing-country ports. According to the research findings, there
are three drivers and two obstacles, which add to the theoretical foundation of green ports.
While prior research employed qualitative approaches to identify important factors [24],
this study added substantial value by quantitatively assessing these elements. Particularly,
our research affirms the importance of international regulations in the development of
green ports [8] and reinforces the impact of national policy on environmental protection
through mandatory requirements and guidelines. National laws and regulations have a
substantial influence on port compliance with environmental criteria, even though the
International Marine Organization (IMO) is the primary maritime transport authority. Fur-
thermore, although prior studies had demonstrated the role of technological leverage in
reducing environmental impact and supporting the development of green ports in devel-
oped nations, our study confirms that the lack of modern technology will adversely affect
the development of green ports in developing countries. The results of our study have
improved the theoretical foundation for green ports in developing countries where the
availability of current technology for development and the requirement for sustainable
development are still in conflict. One of the major achievements of this study is the real-
ization of the significance of stakeholder cooperation in the development of green ports.
According to our research, stakeholders like shipping firms (who use light fuels, do not
discharge ballast water at ports, and reduce speed in RSZ), transport companies (who use
cars that adhere to Euro 4 requirements), and others must work together for the green port
plan to be successful.
This study has a number of practical implications. The first practical implementation
is that port authorities may identify crucial factors in the transformation of their ports
to green ports. Attracting foreign investment capital will assist them in addressing the
financial investment for expensive machinery and access to new technologies. It seems that
technological innovation is the only path to sustainable port development both economi-
cally and environmentally. This study’s findings help port management understand the
critical role of technology in the port greening process. The research also provides port
managers with an approach to developing collaborative relationships with stakeholders in
order to coordinate and implement green port standards. Port administrations may also
implement a variety of other possible measures to encourage stakeholder participation in
the growth of green ports. Using an annual environmental excellence awards program,
port authorities may select the most environmentally friendly businesses across a variety of
operational areas, and they may then reward them with a bonus or a reduction in port fees.
Peak and off-peak hours may be less frequent as a result of effective demand-based pricing
regulations, which would reduce fuel waste and air pollution.
Our findings indicate that legislation significantly affects the adoption of green port
strategies for emerging nations. It indicates that financial penalties, license suspensions, or
criminal prosecutions have altered port authorities’ attitudes and actions. The findings have
significant implementation for the policymaker’s legal decision to impose requirements
on ports in order to protect the environment. Results have been shown in a variety of
nations, including both developed and developing nations. Like the Chinese government,
for instance, others are interested in reducing emissions from port-related activity. The
previous Law on the Prevention and Treatment of Air Pollution was changed by the state
council in 2016, and the newly added No. 63 provision mandates that moored vessels
use onshore electricity as a first resort. Additionally, it was mandated by the Special
Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Pollution from Ports and Ships that 50% of
container ship berths at significant port terminals should be equipped to supply shoreside
electricity to ships. Legislation addressing environmental concerns specific to the port

business is present across Europe. The European Union (EU, Brussels, Belgium) has put
regulations in place that may encourage environmentally aware and green ports and
supports bold international programs addressing methods to prevent global warming (for
example, by easing the transition to a low-carbon economy). Environmental sustainability
in the seaport industry is one of the goals of the EU’s operations in this area (Directives
2012/33/EU, 2012/27/EU, 2014/94/EC; EU Regulation No. 2015/575). Our research offers
recommendations for policymakers on how to encourage ports to voluntarily become green
ports. They should help port enterprises acquire foreign capital for green port development
by building a favorable investment environment. The government may also offer financial
incentives to urge port administrations to comply with green port standards, such as
decreased taxes and electric consumption. Ports may decide to take actions that affect
their emissions and environmental consequences even when their main objective is to save
operational costs. Options include paying ports for their environmentally friendly practices
or spending a considerable amount of money on equipment replacement with a focus on
cargo terminals.
7. Limitations and Future Research

Because the study used self-reported questionnaires to acquire data from participants,
the study’s cross-sectional methodology does not enable inferences about longitudinal, green
port-related changes and causality. Common method variance (CMV) was defined by [76] as
the systematic error variation that occurs when variables are assessed using the same source or
technique [77]. As a result, there may be a bias produced by systematic error variation. The
estimated association between variables, in particular, can be inflated or deflated as a result of
respondents providing consistent replies to all survey questions [76,77]. To eliminate CMV and
show causation factors, future studies might recruit individuals in more than two waves and
from various sources. However, in this study, we used methods to minimize and investigate
CMV. The principal component analysis (PCA) result revealed seven different variables that
accounted for 70.8% of the overall variation. Only 22% of the variation in data was captured by
the first unrotated component (less than 50%). There is no one factor that emerges, and the first
factor does not account for the vast majority of the variance. From the data analysis, it was
determined that CMV did not exist in this study.
Another limitation of our research is that it only includes the 12 main container ports
in Vietnam. These ports have high cargo throughput and high investment capital. As a
result, the factors influencing the successful implementation of the green port strategy for
major ports may differ from those impacting smaller ports with fewer resources. As a
result, future research might look at the differences in factors influencing large and small
container ports throughout the greening process.
8. Conclusions
The green port concept aims to include environmentally friendly adherence in port activi-
ties, operations, and management. Green ports make an effort to use their resources efficiently,
minimize the negative influence on the regional environment, enhance the level of environ-
mental management, and improve the quality of the natural surroundings of the port area.
Green ports have been demonstrated to reduce emissions and safeguard the environment, and
they have been applied in European countries, the United States, and several industrialized
Asian countries. However, green port development in developing countries is still quite limited.
According to this study, there are three drivers and two barriers to green port development in
emerging nations, especially Vietnam. As a result, the two primary factors encouraging port
authorities to apply green port sustainability criteria are cooperation among parties involved
and environmental regulations, followed by foreign capital. In contrast, two factors hinder the
development of green ports in underdeveloped countries: lack of technical advancement and
lack of initial capital. Our findings have significant implications in both theory and practice. This
research not only adds to the theoretical foundation of green ports in developing nations, but it
also gives practical recommendations for port authorities and policymakers in their transition to
green ports.
Author Contributions: Methodology, S.-T.L.; Software, S.-T.L.; Formal analysis, T.-H.N.; Investiga-
tion, T.-H.N.; Writing—original draft, S.-T.L.; Writing—review & editing, S.-T.L.; Supervision, S.-T.L.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by [Vietnam Maritime University] grant number [QD/DHHH]
and the APC was funded by [Vietnam Maritime University].
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: On behalf of all the authors, the corresponding author states that our
data is unavailable due to privacy.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Appendix A. Survey Questions on the Development of Green Ports

The research team conducts research on the factors affecting the development of green
ports. The research team wishes to receive objective answers and correct reflections on
the actual situation of the ports according to the questions in the survey form below. We
appreciate your cooperation, which will shed light on scientific investigation.
PART 1: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS

What is your gender?
a. Male
b. Female
What is your position?
a. President/Vice President
b. Division Manager
c. Senior Leader
How many years of work experience do you have?
a. 5–10 years
b. 11–15 years
c. 16–20 years
d. Over 20 years
What is your degree?
a. Bachelor’s
b. Master’s
PART 2: QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF GREEN PORTS
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
No. Questions Disagree Agree
1 2 3 4 5
1 Foreign capital invests in cold ironing.
When entering the port area, ships reduce speed to 12
2
knots.
The inland transportation complies with the
3
environmental policies of port.
Strongly Strongly
1 2 3 4 5
4 There are different criteria for green ports.
5 Foreign capital invests in the port.
The port complies with national policies to protect the
6
environment.
Need a large amount of money to train
7
the employees.
8 Foreign capital invests in the infrastructure.
Need a large amount of money to invest in
9
cold ironing.
The shipping lines are interested in the discount policy
10
when complying with the regulations of the green port.
11 Foreign companies expand their operations.
12 The port has an environmental policy.
Foreign companies are interested in the
13
port system.
The port complies with international conventions to
14
protect the environment such as IMO, and MARPOL.
Need a large sum of money to build an
15
onshore distribution.
The port has an inventory of relevant environmental
16
legislation.
Spending a lot of money on research and the selection
17
of criteria.
The port develops environmental protection strategies
18
from 2016 to 2020.
Need a large amount of money to invest in the port
19
equipment.
The port develops the port activities that protect the
20
environment from 2016 to 2020.
The port teaches the employees about the green port
21
from 2016 to 2020.
The port lacks of onshore power supply to provide
22
power for hoteling.
The port has a specific budget for environmental
23
management.
24 Having difficulty choosing key criteria.
The port develops a green award to encourage
25 individuals to comply with the rules
from 2016 to 2020.
The port lacks the software to monitor pollution and
26 warn of sources of pollution
in real time.
Ships apply strategies to reduce their environmental
impact such as alternative fuels, slow steaming,
27
improved hull design,
and cold ironing.
Strongly Strongly
1 2 3 4 5
The inland transportation meets Euro4 emission
28
standards.
The port lacks alternative energy sources such as wind
29
and solar power.
30 The port lacks equipment that uses electricity.
31 Insufficient resources to comply with all criteria.
References
1. Tsai, H.L.; Lu, C.S.; Chang, C.C. The influence of organisational green climate on employees’ green behaviours: Evidence from
the Eco Port of Kaohsiung. Int. J. Shipp. Transp. Logist. 2017, 9, 696–723. [CrossRef]
2. Yang, Y.C. Determinants of container terminal operation from a green port perspective. Int. J. Shipp. Transp. Logist. 2015, 7,
319–346. [CrossRef]
3. Bjerkan, K.Y.; Hansen, L.; Steen, M. Towards sustainability in the port sector: The role of intermediation in transition work.
Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2021, 40, 296–314. [CrossRef]
4. Wang, L.; Zhou, Z.; Yang, Y.; Wu, J. Green efficiency evaluation and improvement of Chinese ports: A cross-efficiency model.
Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 88, 102590. [CrossRef]
5. McNeil, C.; Straw, W.; Rowney, M. Pump Up the Volume: Bringing Down Costs and Increasing Jobs in the Offshore Wind Sector; Institute
for Public Policy Research: London, UK, 2013.
6. Zis, T.P. Green Ports; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 407–432.
7. Aregall, M.G.; Bergqvist, R.; Monios, J. A global review of the hinterland dimension of green port strategies. Transp. Res. Part D
2018, 59, 23–34. [CrossRef]
8. Tseng, P.H.; Pilcher, N. Evaluating the key factors of green port policies in Taiwan through quantitative and qualitative approaches.
Transp. Policy 2019, 82, 127–137. [CrossRef]
9. Bergqvist, R.; Monios, J. Green Ports in Theory and Practice. In Green Ports; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019;
pp. 1–17.
10. Anastasopoulou, D.; Kolios, S.; Stylios, C. How will Greek ports become green ports? Geo-Eco-Marina 2011, 17, 73–80.
11. Lirn, T.C.; Wu, Y.J.; Chen, Y.J. Green performance criteria for sustainable ports in Asia. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2013, 43,
12. Chen, Z.; Pak, M. A Delphi analysis on green performance evaluation indices for ports in China. Marit. Policy Manag. 2017, 44,
13. Berechman, J.; Tseng, P.H. Estimating the Environmental Costs of Port Related Emissions: The Case of Kaohsiung. Transp. Environ.
2012, 17, 35–38. [CrossRef]
14. Chin, A.T.; Low, J.M. Port performance in Asia: Does production efficiency imply environmental efficiency. Transp. Res. Part D
Transp. Environ. 2010, 15, 483–488. [CrossRef]
15. Gupta, A.K.; Gupta, S.K.; Patil, R.S. Environmental Management Plan for Port and Harbour Projects. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy
2005, 7, 133–141. [CrossRef]
16. Park, J.Y.; Yeo, G.T. An evaluation of greenness of major Korean ports: A fuzzy set approach. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 2012, 28, 67–82.
[CrossRef]
17. Papaefthimiou, S.; Sitzimis, I.; Andriosopou, K. A Methodological Approach for Environmental Characterization of Ports. Marit.
Policy Manag. 2017, 44, 81–93. [CrossRef]
18. Peng, Y.; Liu, H.; Li, X.; Huang, J.; Wang, W. Machine learning method for energy consumption prediction of ships in port
considering green ports. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 264, 121564. [CrossRef]
19. Portugal, L.D.; Morgado, A.V.; Lima, O.J. Location of cargo terminals in metropolitan areas of developing countries: The Brazilian
case. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19, 900–910. [CrossRef]
20. Tzannatos, E. Ship Emissions and Their Externalities for the Port of Piraeus-Greece. Atmos. Environ. 2010, 44, 400–407. [CrossRef]
21. Wiegmans, B.W.; Louw, E. Changing port-city relations at Amsterdam: A new phase at the interface? J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19,
22. Vaio, A.D.; Varriale, L.; Alvino, F. Key performance indicators for developing environmentally sustainable and energy efficient
ports: Evidence from Italy. Energy Policy 2018, 122, 229–240. [CrossRef]
23. Zhen, L.; Lin, S.; Zhou, C. Green port oriented resilience improvement for traffic-power coupled networks. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
2022, 108569, 225. [CrossRef]
24. Lalla-Ruiz, E.; Heilig, L.; Voß, S. Chapter 3—Environmental Sustainability in Ports. In Sustainable Transportation and Smart Logistics;
Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 65–89.
25. Xie, B.; Zhang, X.; Lu, J.; Liu, F.; Fan, Y. Research on ecological evaluation of Shanghai port logistics based on emergy ecological
footprint models. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 139, 108916. [CrossRef]
26. Lam, J.S.; Yap, W.Y. A stakeholder perspective of port city sustainable development. Sustainability 2019, 11, 447. [CrossRef]
27. Nikitakos, N. Green logistics: The concept of zero emissions port. FME Trans. 2012, 40, 201–206.
28. Vellinga, T. Green Ports, Fiction, condition or foregone conclusion? Delft University of Technology: Delft, The Netherlands, 2011.
29. Cullinane, K.; Cullinane, S. Atmospheric Emissions from Shipping: The Need for Regulation and Approaches to Compliance.
Transp. Rev. 2013, 33, 377–401. [CrossRef]
30. Knudsen, O.F.; Hassler, B. IMO Legislation and Its Implementation: Accident Risk, Vessel Deficiencies and National Administra-
tive Practices. Mar. Policy 2011, 35, 201–207. [CrossRef]
31. Lam, J.; Notteboom, T. The greening of ports: A comparison of port management tools used by leading ports in Asia and Europe.
Transp. Rev. 2014, 34, 169–189. [CrossRef]
32. Lindstad, H.; Eskeland, G. Environmental regulations in shipping: Policies leaning towards globalization of scrubbers deserve
scrutiny. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2016, 47, 67–76. [CrossRef]
33. Pavlic, B.; Cepak, F.; Sucic, B.; Peckaj, M.; Kandus, B. Sustainable port infrastructure, practical implementation of the green port
concept. Therm. Sci. 2014, 18, 935–948. [CrossRef]
34. Zis, T.; North, R.J.; Angeloudis, P.; Ochieng, W.Y.; Bell, M.H. Evaluation of cold ironing and speed reduction policies to reduce
ship emissions near and at ports. Marit. Econ. Logist. 2014, 16, 371–398. [CrossRef]
35. Puig, M.; Azarkamand, S.; Wooldridge, C.; Selén, V.; Darbra, R.M. Insights on the environmental management system of the
European port sector. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 806, 150550. [CrossRef]
36. Sys, C.; Vanelslander, T.; Adriaenssens, M.; Rillaer, I.V. International emission regulation in sea transport: Economic feasibility
and impact. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2016, 45, 139–151. [CrossRef]
37. Anwar, S.; Nguyen, L.P. Foreign direct investment and economic growth in Vietnam. Asia Pac. Bus. Rev. 2010, 16, 183–202.
[CrossRef]
38. News. The investment in construction and development of ports system. 2021. Available online: https://investvietnam.gov.vn/
vi/-80.nd/tinh-hinh-dau-tu-xay-dung-va-phat-trien-he-thong-cang-bien.html (accessed on 26 August 2023).
39. Cheon, S. The Economic-Social Performance Relationships of Ports: Roles of Stakeholders and Organizational Tension. Sustain.
Dev. 2016, 25, 50–62. [CrossRef]
40. Denktas-Sakar, G.; Karatas-Cetin, C. Port Sustainability and Stakeholder Management in Supply Chains: A Framework on
Resource Dependence Theory. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 2012, 28, 301–319. [CrossRef]
41. Lam, J.S.; Ng, A.K.; Fu, X. Stakeholder management for establishing sustainable regional port governance. Res. Transp. Bus.
Manag. 2013, 8, 30–38. [CrossRef]
42. Roh, S.; Thai, V.V.; Wong, Y.D. Towards Sustainable ASEAN Port Development: Challenges and Opportunities for Vietnamese
Ports. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 2016, 32, 107–118. [CrossRef]
43. Zheng, S.; Luo, M. Competition or cooperation? Ports’ strategies and welfare analysis facing shipping alliances. Transp. Res. Part
E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2021, 153, 102429. [CrossRef]
44. Ahl, C.; Frey, E.; Steimetz, S. The effects of financial incentives on vessel speed reduction: Evidence from the Port of Long Beach
Green Flag Incentive Program. Marit. Econ. Logist. 2017, 181, 416–434. [CrossRef]
45. Bergqvist, R.; Egels-Zande’n, N. Green port dues—The case of hinterland transport. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2012, 5, 85–91.
[CrossRef]
46. Geng, P.; Tan, Q.; Zhang, C.; Wei, L.; He, X.; Cao, E.; Jiang, K. Experimental investigation on NOx and green house gas emissions
from a marine auxiliary diesel engine using ultralow sulfur light fuel. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 572, 467–475. [CrossRef]
47. Kong, Y.; Liu, J. Sustainable port cities with coupling coordination and environmental efficiency. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2021, 205,
105534. [CrossRef]
48. Ling-Chin, J.; Roskilly, A. Investigating the implications of a new-build hybrid power system for Roll-on/Roll-off cargo ships
from a sustainability perspective e a life cycle assessment case study. Appl. Energy 2016, 181, 416–434. [CrossRef]
49. Luo, M.; Chen, F.; Zhang, J. Relationships among port competition, cooperation and competitiveness: A literature review. Transp.
Policy 2022, 118, 1–9. [CrossRef]
50. Winnes, H.; Styhre, L.; Fridell, E. Reducing GHG emissions from ships in port areas. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2015, 17, 73–82.
[CrossRef]
51. Eide, M.S.; Endresen, Ø.; Skjong, R.; Longva, T. Cost-effectiveness assessment of CO2 reducing measures in shipping. Marit.
Policy Manag. 2009, 36, 367–384. [CrossRef]
52. Chiu, R.-H.; Lin, L.-H.; Ting, S.-C. Evaluation of Green Port Factors and Performance: A Fuzzy AHP Analysis. Math. Probl. Eng.
2014, 2014, 802976. [CrossRef]
53. Fitzgerald, W.B.; Howitt, O.J.; Smit, I.J. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the International Maritime Transport of New Zealand’s
Imports and Exports. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 1521–1531. [CrossRef]
54. Yap, W.Y.; Lam, J.S. 80 Million-Twenty-Foot-Equivalent-Unit Container Port? Sustainability Issues in Port and Coastal Develop-
ment. J. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2013, 71, 13–25. [CrossRef]
55. Chang, C.-C.; Wang, C.-M. Evaluating the effects of green port policy: Case study of Kaohsiung harbor in Taiwan. Transp. Res.
Part D Transp. Environ. 2012, 17, 185–189. [CrossRef]
56. Green, E.H.; Winebrake, J.J.; Corbett, J.J. Opportunities for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships; Report Prepared for the
Clean Air Task Force; Clean Air Task Force: Boston, MA, USA, 2008.
57. Frey, H.C. Identification and Evaluation of Potential Best Practices for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions in Freight Transportation.
2008. Available online: http://www.northeastdiesel.org/research/seminars/frey/frey.pdf (accessed on 26 August 2023).
58. Andreasen, A.; Mayer, S. Use of seawater scrubbing for SO2 removal from marine engine exhaust gas. Energy Fuels 2007, 21,
3274–3279. [CrossRef]
59. Chou, C.-C. AHP model for the container port choice in the multiple-ports region. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2010, 18, 8. [CrossRef]
60. Hollen, R.M.; Bosch, F.A.; Volberda, H.W. Strategic levers of port authorities for industrial ecosystem development. Marit. Econ.
Logist. 2015, 17, 79–96. [CrossRef]
61. Liu, Q.; Lim, S.H. Toxic air pollution and container port efficiency in the USA. Marit. Econ. Logist. 2017, 19, 94–105. [CrossRef]
62. Ugboma, C.; Ugboma, O.; Ogwude, I.C. An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach to port selection decisions—Empirical
evidence from Nigerian ports. Int. J. Marit. Econ. 2006, 8, 251–266. [CrossRef]
63. Ballini, F.; Bozzo, R. Air pollution from ships in ports: The socio-economic benefit of cold-ironing technology. Res. Transp. Bus.
Manag. 2015, 17, 92–98. [CrossRef]
64. Innes, A.; Monios, J. Identifying the unique challenges of installing cold ironing at small and medium ports—The case of aberdeen.
Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 62, 298–313. [CrossRef]
65. World Ports Climate Initiative. Cost Benefit Calculation Tool Onshore Power Supply; CE Delft: Delft, The Netherlands, 2016.
66. Krämer, I.; Czermański, E. Onshore power one option to reduce air emissions in ports. Sustain. Manag. Forum 2020, 28, 13–20.
[CrossRef]
67. Giuliano, G.; O’Brien, T. Reducing port-related truck emissions: The terminal gate appointment system at the ports of Los Angeles
and Long Beach. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2007, 12, 460–473. [CrossRef]
68. Trellevik, V. Onshore Power Supply for Cruise Vessels. In Assessment of Opportunities and Limitations for Connecting Cruise Vessels to
Shore Power; Semantic Scholar: Seattle, WA, USA, 2018.
69. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol.
Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [CrossRef]
70. Bagozzi, R.P.; Yi, Y.; Phillips, L.W. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Adm. Sci. Q. 1990, 36, 421–458.
[CrossRef]
71. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011.
72. Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Babin, B.J.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective; Upper Saddle River; Pearson:
Hong Kong, China, 2010; Volume 7.
73. Hair, J.J.; Hult, G.T.; Ringle, C.; Sarstedt, M. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM); Sage:
Newcastle, UK, 2016.
74. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res.
1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
75. Cheung, G.W.; Wang, C. Current Approaches for Assessing Convergent and Discriminant Validity with SEM: Issues and Solutions.
Acad. Manag. Proc. 2017, 2017, 12706. [CrossRef]
76. Tehseen, S.; Ramayah, T.; Sajilan, S. Testing and controlling for Common Method Variance: A review of available methods.
J. Manag. Sci. 2017, 4, 142–168. [CrossRef]
77. Richardson, H.A.; Simmering, M.J.; Sturman, M.C. A tale of three perspectives: Examining post hoc statistical techniques for
detection and correction of common method variance. Organ. Res. Methods 2009, 12, 762–800. [CrossRef]
78. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of
the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [CrossRef]
79. Gefen, D.; Straub, D.W.; Boudreau, M. Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Commun.
AIS 2000, 4, 2–76. [CrossRef]
80. Deng, G.; Chen, J.; Liu, Q. Influence Mechanism and Evolutionary Game of Environmental Regulation on Green Port Construction.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 2930. [CrossRef]
81. Vaio, D.; Varriale, L. Management Innovation for Environmental Sustainability in Seaports: Managerial Accounting Instruments
and Training for Competitive Green Ports beyond the Regulations. Sustainability 2018, 10, 783. [CrossRef]
82. Hendricks. Equipment investment and growth in developing countries. J. Dev. Econ. 2000, 61, 335–364. [CrossRef]
83. de la Peña Zarzuelo, I.; Soeane, M.J.F.; Bermúdez, B.L. Industry 4.0 in the port and maritime industry: A literature review. J. Ind.
Inf. Integr. 2020, 20, 100173. [CrossRef]
84. Beresford, K.; Pettit, S.J.; Xu, Q.; Williams, S. A study of dry port development in China. Marit. Econ. Logist. 2012, 14, 73–98.
[CrossRef]
85. Van Niekerk, H.C. Port Reform and Concessioning in Developing Countries. Int. J. Marit. Econ. 2005, 7, 141–155. [CrossRef]
86. Marčeta, M.; Bojnec, Š. Innovation and competitiveness in the European Union countries. Int. J. Sustain. Econ. 2020, 13, 1–17.
[CrossRef]
87. Wiegmans, B.W.; Geerlings, H. Sustainable port innovations: Barriers and enablers for successful implementation. World Rev.
Intermodal Transp. Res. 2010, 3, 230–250. [CrossRef]
88. Radwan, E.; Chen, J.; Wan, Z.; Zheng, T.; Hua, C.; Huang, X. Critical barriers to the introduction of shore power supply for green
port development: Case of Djibouti container terminals. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2019, 21, 1293–1306. [CrossRef]
89. Williamsson, J.; Costa, N.; Santén, V.; Rogerson, S. Barriers and Drivers to the Implementation of Onshore Power Supply—A
Literature Review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6072. [CrossRef]
90. OECD. The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2014.
91. OECD. Green Growth in Kitakyushu, Japan; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2013.
92. Baas, L.W.; Huisingh, D. The synergistic role of embeddedness and capabilities in industrial symbiosis: Illustration based upon
12 years of experiences in the Rotterdam Harbour and Industry Complex. Prog. Ind. Ecol. Int. J. 2008, 5, 399–421. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Sustainability 15 13502 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 15 13502 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Sustainability 15 13502 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

1 Faculty of Economics, Vietnam Maritime University, Haiphong 180000, Vietnam

Keywords: green port; environmental regulation; initial capital; cooperation; technical

Sustainability 2023, 15, 13502. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813502 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Organization (WHO) considers air pollution to be a serious environmental danger to health,

2.2. The Drivers and Barriers of Green Ports

2.2.2. Foreign Capital

Hypothesis 2. Foreign capital is positively related to the development of a green port.

2.2.3. Cooperation of Involved Parties (Shipping Firms, Transportation Companies)

2.2.4. Inconsistent Criteria

2.2.5. Lack of Technical Advancement

Table 1. Characteristics of the participants.

Variable Category Frequency Percentage (%)

3.2.2. Independent Variables

Table 2. Construct measures.

No. Construct Item Description

Environmental regulation. Five criteria were utilized to measure this regulation.

4.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Table 3. Results of factor analysis.

Table 4. Results of convergent reliability testing.

Environmental Environmental4 0.966 ***

Cooperation of Cooperation4 0.905 ***

Lack of technical Technical2 0.859 ***

The development Green3 0.901 ***

4.3. Common Method Variance

Table 5. Results of total variance explained.

Total Variance Explained

4.4. Hypotheses Testing

Table 6. Hypothesis testing results.

Figure 2. Proposed model’s standardized path coefficient.

6. Theoretical and Practical Implementation

electricity to ships. Legislation addressing environmental concerns specific to the port

7. Limitations and Future Research

Appendix A. Survey Questions on the Development of Green Ports

PART 1: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS

PART 2: QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF GREEN PORTS

You might also like