Unveiling the Contemporary Research Direction and Current Business Management Strategies for Port Decarbonization Through a Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The paper addresses a highly relevant topic—port decarbonization—by combining a systematic literature review with thematic and content analyses. The following are my detailed comments and suggestions:

1. Strengths:

   • The paper provides a comprehensive overview of port decarbonization strategies, combining empirical findings with actionable recommendations.
   • The thematic analysis is thorough, and the use of MAXQDA enhances the reliability of the findings.

2. Areas for Improvement:

   • Clarity in Discussion: Some arguments, especially in the discussion, could benefit from clearer linkage to the findings. This would help strengthen the coherence between results and conclusions.
   • Structure: While the methodology and results are well-presented, the introduction and conclusion could be streamlined to better highlight the paper’s unique contributions.
   • Figures and Tables: Adding more detailed analysis or interpretation to figures and tables would improve the readability and impact of the visuals.

3. Content Suggestions:

   • Emphasize how this research contributes to policy-making or practical applications in the port decarbonization process.
   • Include more specific examples of case studies or applications to ground the theoretical findings in real-world contexts.

Overall, this is a valuable paper that, with some minor revisions, could make a significant contribution to the field.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript’s English is generally clear and understandable; however, there are areas where the language could be improved to enhance clarity and flow. Specifically:

1. Complex Sentences: Some sentences are overly long and complex, making them harder to follow. Simplifying these constructions would improve readability.
2. Consistency in Terminology: Ensure consistent use of technical terms (e.g., “decarbonization strategies,” “thematic analysis”) throughout the manuscript.
3. Grammar and Syntax: While there are no major grammatical errors, minor corrections (e.g., article usage and verb agreement) could refine the text.

It is recommended to have the manuscript reviewed by a professional editor or a native English speaker to ensure that the language meets the journal's standards.

Author Response

Answer to the 1st referee

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for your time and valuable recommendations. They are very helpful to improve the quality of our manuscript submission. We updated the manuscript according to your suggestions. Please find our point-to-point responses to your comments below.

Best regards,

(Authors)

 

Comment 1 : Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The paper addresses a highly relevant topic—port decarbonization—by combining a systematic literature review with thematic and content analyses. The following are my detailed comments and suggestions:

Strengths:

The paper provides a comprehensive overview of port decarbonization strategies, combining empirical findings with actionable recommendations.

The thematic analysis is thorough, and the use of MAXQDA enhances the reliability of the findings.

Reply 1: Thank you for your kind comment regarding the strengths of the paper.

Areas for Improvement:

Comment 2:

Clarity in Discussion: Some arguments, especially in the discussion, could benefit from clearer linkage to the findings. This would help strengthen the coherence between results and conclusions.

Reply 2: Thank you for raising this important concern regarding the clarity of the linkages between our findings and discussions in the conclusion section. By considering your valuable insights we have seprated the results and discussion section and have created a new section called discussion. The below paragraphs have been added to the new discussion section:

In this study, several technological advancements and infrastructure improvements crucial to port decarbonization were identified in the reviewed literature. Specifically, technologies such as automation, digitalization, and energy-efficient port equipment were consistently emphasized as key enablers of emission reductions at ports. The findings of our study align with these observations, revealing that digital technologies, particularly those related to port operations, have a significant role in enhancing environmental performance. For instance, automation in cargo handling and the adoption of energy-efficient cranes and port vehicles were frequently noted in our analysis as effective strategies for reducing fuel consumption and emissions. Additionally, infrastructure improvements, such as the implementation of shore power (cold ironing) to replace ship engines while docked, emerged as a widely discussed strategy in both our review and the literature. These findings underscore the real-world applications of technological advancements and infrastructure changes, confirming their pivotal role in achieving sustainable port operations. Moreover, the integration of renewable energy systems, such as solar and wind, into port infrastructure was also noted, aligning with the findings that show growing interest in sustainable energy sources within port environments.

Blockchain technology and its potential application in port carbon trading were also identified as a major trend in both the literature and our findings. Our review found a strong association between blockchain's ability to enhance transparency, traceability, and efficiency in carbon trading systems, which could significantly impact the decarbonization efforts at ports. Case studies from the literature showed that ports employing blockchain for carbon trading have seen improvements in tracking emissions reductions, ensuring compliance with environmental standards, and providing a clear and immutable record of carbon credits. This aligns with our findings, which point to blockchain technology as an emerging tool in the digitalization of port operations. By facilitating carbon credit exchanges and ensuring that the carbon savings are accurately measured and reported, blockchain could play a crucial role in the broader efforts to decarbonize the maritime industry. These technological advancements and strategies suggest that blockchain, along with other emerging digital tools, will be vital in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of port decarbonization programs in the near future.

Comment 3: Structure: While the methodology and results are well-presented, the introduction and conclusion could be streamlined to better highlight the paper’s unique contributions.

Reply 3: Considering your feedback below paragraph has been added to the introduction section:

In recent years, the decarbonization of port operations has emerged as a critical area of research, driven by global efforts to combat climate change and enhance sustainability in the maritime sector. Ports, as pivotal nodes in international trade, face immense pressure to minimize their environmental footprint while maintaining efficiency and economic viability. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of existing decarbonization strategies, integrating insights from a diverse range of literature to identify key themes, methodologies, and regional trends. By synthesizing findings from 75 peer-reviewed studies, this paper not only maps the current research landscape but also highlights underexplored areas, offering a nuanced understanding of the strategies employed to achieve low-carbon port operations. This contribution is particularly significant as it bridges the gap between theoretical advancements and practical applications, laying a foundation for future research and policy development in sustainable maritime practices.

As a response to your valuable feedback below paragraph has also been added to the conclusion section:

This study underscores the growing academic and practical focus on sustainable port operations, emphasizing the dynamic interplay of technological innovations, policy frameworks, and regional initiatives in driving decarbonization efforts. By systematically analyzing the literature, we have identified key strategies, such as the adoption of alternative fuels, renewable energy integration, and blockchain enabled carbon trading, which exemplify the transformative potential of innovative practices. Furthermore, the findings reveal the geographical concentration of research efforts and the increasing publication trends, reflecting a global shift towards prioritizing low-carbon solutions in the maritime sector. These insights not only illuminate current advancements but also provide a roadmap for addressing research gaps and enhancing collaboration between academia and industry, ultimately contributing to the realization of sustainable and resilient port ecosystems worldwide.

Comment 4: Figures and Tables: Adding more detailed analysis or interpretation to figures and tables would improve the readability and impact of the visuals.

Reply 4: Based on your valuable feedback, we have enhanced and refined the interpretations of the tables presented in the data collection and results sections, ensuring a more comprehensive and insightful analysis. (See Page: 8-9  Heading: 310-327) (See Page 9 Heading 329-344). (See Page 10-11 Heading 358-378) (See Page 16-17 Heading 582-615)

Comment 5: Content Suggestions: Emphasize how this research contributes to policy-making or practical applications in the port decarbonization process. Include more specific examples of case studies or applications to ground the theoretical findings in real-world contexts.

Reply 5: By considering your valuable insights we have seprated the results and discussion section and have created a new section called discussion. The below paragraphs have been added to the new discussion section:

To ground our findings in real-world contexts, several case studies illustrate the practical application of technological advancements and infrastructure improvements in port decarbonization. For instance, the Port of Rotterdam has emerged as a leader in integrating cutting-edge technologies aimed at reducing emissions, including automated systems that optimize the flow of goods and renewable energy sources like wind and solar power to power port operations (Bosman et al., 2018). Similarly, the Port of Singapore has leveraged blockchain technology to enhance the transparency and traceability of its carbon trading efforts (Durán et al., 2024). This enables more efficient and verifiable emissions reduction processes, aligning with our findings that technological innovations, such as blockchain and automated systems, are key enablers of sustainable port operations. These case studies demonstrate that the application of technology can significantly contribute to achieving decarbonization goals, making port operations more efficient and sustainable.

In addition to technological innovations, the implementation of alternative fuels, cold ironing, and renewable energy solutions plays a crucial role in minimizing port emissions. The Port of Los Angeles, for example, has been a pioneer in adopting shore power (cold ironing), which supplies electrical power to ships at berth, reducing the need for ships to operate their diesel engines and subsequently cutting emissions (Gibbs et al., 2014; Serra and Fancello, 2020). The Port of Barcelona has also integrated LNG as an alternative fuel for its vessels, highlighting the practical shift towards greener fuel options (Attanasio et al., 2023). Furthermore, the Port of Antwerp utilizes solar energy to power its operations, reinforcing our conclusion that renewable energy is vital to reducing emissions in port activities (Parhamfar et al., 2023). These real-world applications validate the strategies identified in our study and underscore their importance in driving the decarbonization of ports globally.

References:

Durán, C.; Yazdi, A.K.; Derpich, I.; Tan, Y. Leveraging Blockchain for Maritime Port Supply Chain Management through Multicriteria Decision Making. Mathematics 2024, 12, 1511. https:// doi.org/10.3390/math12101511

Bosman, R.; Loorbach, D.; Rotmans, J.; Van Raak, R. Carbon Lock-Out: Leading the Fossil Port of Rotterdam into Transition. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2558. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072558

Gibbs, D.; Rigot-Muller, P.; Mangan, J.; Lalwani, C. The role of seaports in end-to-end maritime transport chain emissions. Energy Policy 2014, 64, 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.024

Serra, P.; Fancello, G. Towards the IMO’s GHG Goals: A Critical Overview of the Perspectives and Challenges of the Main Options for Decarbonizing International Shipping. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3220. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083220

Attanasio, G.; Battistella, C.; Chizzolini, E. The future of energy management: Results of a Delphi panel applied in the case of ports. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 417, 137947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137947

Parhamfar, M.; Sadeghkhani, I.; Adeli, A.M. Towards the application of renewable energy technologies in green ports: Technical and economic perspectives. IET Renew. Power Gener. 2023, 17, 3120–3132. https://doi.org/10.1049/rpg2.12811

 

Comment 6: Overall, this is a valuable paper that, with some minor revisions, could make a significant contribution to the field.

Reply 6: Thank you for your revisions. We addressed them all in our updated manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comment 7: The manuscript’s English is generally clear and understandable; however, there are areas where the language could be improved to enhance clarity and flow. Specifically:

Complex Sentences: Some sentences are overly long and complex, making them harder to follow. Simplifying these constructions would improve readability.

Reply 7: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the complexity of some sentences. We have reviewed the entire paper and simplified several overly long and complex sentences in the manuscript to improve readability while maintaining the accuracy and clarity of the content. We appreciate your thoughtful suggestion.

Comment 8: Consistency in Terminology: Ensure consistent use of technical terms (e.g., “decarbonization strategies,” “thematic analysis”) throughout the manuscript.

Reply 8: The requested revisions have been implemented. Technical terms, such as 'decarbonization strategies' and 'thematic analysis,' have been used consistently throughout the manuscript.

Comment 9: Grammar and Syntax: While there are no major grammatical errors, minor corrections (e.g., article usage and verb agreement) could refine the text.

Reply 9: Thank you for your feedback regarding minor grammatical and syntactical improvements. In response, we have reviewed the entire manuscript and made the necessary adjustments to refine article usage, verb agreement, and sentence structure.

Comment 10: It is recommended to have the manuscript reviewed by a professional editor or a native English speaker to ensure that the language meets the journal's standards.

Reply 10: Thank you for your recommendation. The paper had very little language issues. The entire manuscript was reviwed by a native speaker in the UK. Following the comprehensive revisions made, we are confident that the manuscript meets the journal's language standards and does not currently require further language editing.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Referee comments

Main Content

                                                       

This manuscript focuses on port decarbonization in the maritime industry. A systematic review was conducted to grasp the progress of port decarbonization in both theoretical and practical aspects. Suggestions and recommendations were provided for multiple parties involved.

 

However, I have some questions regarding this manuscript. A major revision is necessary before I can make the final decision.

 

Comments:

 

1.     My first question is on the search strategy part. In Table 1, “Search Strategy for Scopus”, outcomes of the search strategy “4) Article title, abstract, keyword ‘decarbonization’ and article title, abstract, keyword ‘seaport’” should be a subset of those of the third search strategy “3) Article title, abstract, keyword ‘decarbonization’ and article title”. This combination of search strategies seems inappropriate to me.

2.     My second comment is about Figure 3. Result of thematic analysis by comparing number of sub-theme coding references. The boxes in the figure are large enough, but the captions are too small to read. Besides, some of the captions are not fully visible. Can you adjust the captions in this figure? This comment also applies to Figure 4. Code frequencies of port decarbonization strategies. Figure 6 is hard to read.

3.     It is suggested to give more conclusive content on “key barriers and facilitators in the implementation of decarbonization practices at ports” and “future research directions”.

Author Response

Answer to the 2nd referee

Decision:

This manuscript focuses on port decarbonization in the maritime industry. A systematic review was conducted to grasp the progress of port decarbonization in both theoretical and practical aspects. Suggestions and recommendations were provided for multiple parties involved.

However, I have some questions regarding this manuscript. A major revision is necessary before I can make the final decision.

Response:

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate your time and constuctive suggestions. Please find our reply to your comments below. We hope that our responses will meet your expectations.

Best regards,

(Authors)

Comments:

Comment 1.     My first question is on the search strategy part. In Table 1, “Search Strategy for Scopus”, outcomes of the search strategy “4) Article title, abstract, keyword ‘decarbonization’ and article title, abstract, keyword ‘seaport’” should be a subset of those of the third search strategy “3) Article title, abstract, keyword ‘decarbonization’ and article title”. This combination of search strategies seems inappropriate to me.

Reply 1: Thank you for raising this important concern regarding our search strategy in Table 1. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our approach. Considering your comment, below text have been added to the text.

To ensure a comprehensive review, we employed two distinct yet complementary search strategies. Strategy 3 focused on articles explicitly discussing 'decarbonization' in their title, abstract, and keywords, while Strategy 4 narrowed the focus by combining 'decarbonization' with 'seaport' in these same fields. This dual approach was intentional, designed to capture a broader range of relevant studies, including those where decarbonization strategies for ports are discussed within broader contexts such as supply chain management, logistics, or sustainable maritime practices. By using these overlapping strategies, we aimed to balance breadth and specificity, ensuring that no critical insights were overlooked, even if they were tangentially related to the primary focus of our study.

The reason we used the keywords in search strategy 4 separately from search strategy 3 was to ensure we captured all relevant articles that might otherwise be overlooked due to variations in terminology or contextual framing. While strategy 3 focuses on articles explicitly discussing “decarbonization” in their title, abstract, and keywords, strategy 4 narrows the focus by combining "decarbonization" with "seaport" in these fields.

This distinction is deliberate, as not all articles addressing decarbonization strategies for ports may explicitly include the term "port" in the title or main focus. For instance, some studies on decarbonization might embed relevant port-related strategies within broader contexts, such as supply chain management, logistics, or sustainable maritime practices. Including strategy 4 allows us to capture these potentially overlooked insights, ensuring a more comprehensive dataset for our analysis.

By using these overlapping strategies, we aimed to strike a balance between breadth and specificity. While it is true that the results of strategy 4 are a subset of strategy 3, this dual approach ensured that we did not miss any critical studies that contribute to our understanding of decarbonization in ports, even if they were tangentially connected. This meticulous approach supports the robustness of our findings and helps us uncover nuanced decarbonization strategies across diverse contexts.

We hope this explanation clarifies the rationale behind our methodology and demonstrates our commitment to a thorough and inclusive review process.

Comment 2:  My second comment is about Figure 3. Result of thematic analysis by comparing number of sub-theme coding references. The boxes in the figure are large enough, but the captions are too small to read. Besides, some of the captions are not fully visible. Can you adjust the captions in this figure? This comment also applies to Figure 4. Code frequencies of port decarbonization strategies. Figure 6 is hard to read.

Reply 2: Thank you for your attention. Unfortunately, NVIVO software provides the results in that form. However, we added dipnote to the figure 4 for clarity. We also adjusted Figure 4 and increased the size of Figure 6 to impove readablility.

Comment 3: It is suggested to give more conclusive content on “key barriers and facilitators in the implementation of decarbonization practices at ports” and “future research directions”.

Reply 3: We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable suggestion regarding the inclusion of more conclusive content on “key barriers and facilitators in the implementation of decarbonization practices at ports” and “future research directions.” To address this, we have revised the respective sections as follows:

Key Barriers and Facilitators (Discussion):

The implementation of decarbonization practices at ports is fraught with several barriers that demand strategic interventions. One of the most significant challenges is the high initial investment required for green technologies and infrastructure, such as cold ironing systems, alternative fuel facilities, and renewable energy installations. These costs often deter stakeholders, particularly in developing regions where financial constraints are more pronounced. Additionally, the lack of harmonized international regulations creates disparities in port practices and standards, leading to inefficiencies and reluctance to adopt uniform strategies. This regulatory fragmentation can hinder collaboration among ports, especially those serving global trade routes, where uniform decarbonization measures would have the most substantial impact.

Stakeholder resistance is another critical barrier, often rooted in fears of operational disruptions, uncertainty about return on investment, and the reliability of new technologies. This resistance can manifest among port operators, shipping companies, and labor unions, who may be concerned about short-term disruptions outweighing long-term benefits. However, several facilitators can offset these challenges. Supportive government incentives, such as grants, tax breaks, and funding for research and development, play a pivotal role in easing financial barriers. The alignment of international regulations under organizations like the IMO can foster consistency, making it easier for ports to adopt and enforce decarbonization measures.

Furthermore, collaborative frameworks among stakeholders, including public-private partnerships and inter-port alliances, have shown potential in sharing costs, risks, and knowledge. Advances in green technologies, such as cost-effective renewable energy solutions and scalable carbon capture methods, also act as enablers, reducing entry barriers for smaller or resource-constrained ports. A deeper understanding of these dynamics not only underscores the complexity of port decarbonization efforts but also highlights the interplay of regulatory, economic, and technological factors in shaping sustainable port operations. Addressing these barriers and leveraging facilitators will require a concerted effort from policymakers, industry leaders, and researchers to create a cohesive roadmap for achieving emissions reductions in the maritime industry.

Future Research Directions (Conclusion):

Future studies should also focus on quantitative analyses to assess the cost-benefit trade-offs of implementing decarbonization technologies. Exploring region-specific impacts of policies and developing scalable frameworks for integrating digital tools such as blockchain and AI into port operations are key areas of interest. Moreover, conducting longitudinal studies to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of decarbonization initiatives and cross-regional comparative analyses to identify best practices will be critical. These research directions can provide valuable insights to policymakers, port authorities, and stakeholders for achieving sustainability goals effectively.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review article under review presents an analysis of scientific articles covering the topical issue of current business management strategies for decarbonization of maritime activities and ports. The problem is of both scientific and practical interest, since decarbonization of maritime transport and, in particular, seaport activities will have a positive impact on environmental safety and health of the population of nearby cities and on the sustainability of life.

In the abstract, the authors state the relevance of the problem, which is the subject of the review; describe how the review is carried out and what results are obtained. The introduction is devoted to an overview of the main directions in the field of decarbonization of maritime activities, and the authors also formulate the objectives of the review.

In the next section, which the authors called "Conceptual framework", they describe the significance of decarbonization in the maritime industry in general, as well as port decarbonization in particular. Further, Section 3 is devoted to the description of the methodology: the authors describe the approach and process of the study, inclusion-exclusion criteria, and the data collection procedure. Section 4 contains the results (descriptive, thematic and content analysis), as well as a discussion. In the section "Conclusion" the authors present the conclusions of the work, describe the limitations and shortcomings of the proposed method. The article has been prepared in accordance with the instructions for authors, corresponds to the topic it studies and publishes. In our opinion, the article corresponds to the topic "directions of decarbonization of the marine industry" and corresponds to the type of Review article.

Comments.

Despite the importance and relevance of the study, there are a number of shortcomings in the article content.

The review article is devoted to an important and relevant topic, but there are a number of imperfections, that reduce its quality.

1. First of all, it is necessary to more clearly define the scientific component of the article. The authors formulate the goal of the study as the presentation of a comprehensive guide for scientists and practitioners, but this goal is too global. In our opinion, it is necessary to either define a more limited goal, or formulate the tasks to be solved within the framework of the global goal.

2. Further, it is unclear why the authors, when formulating the conceptual framework, identified two areas of decarbonization. It is necessary to explain this choice.

3. Describing the methodology of the study, the authors indicate that when searching, they limited themselves to articles in academic peer-reviewed journals. However, it is not indicated how the journals were selected in the WoS and Scopus databases. If the search was carried out by keywords, then how did the authors take into account the journal rating? It is necessary to dwell on this issue in more detail.

4. The authors write that after screening the titles and abstracts, 88 studies were excluded from the initial sample, and the full texts of the remaining studies were carefully analyzed. It is unclear what “careful analysis” means or what its criteria are.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Answer to the 3rd referee

Decision:

The review article under review presents an analysis of scientific articles covering the topical issue of current business management strategies for decarbonization of maritime activities and ports. The problem is of both scientific and practical interest, since decarbonization of maritime transport and, in particular, seaport activities will have a positive impact on environmental safety and health of the population of nearby cities and on the sustainability of life.

In the abstract, the authors state the relevance of the problem, which is the subject of the review; describe how the review is carried out and what results are obtained. The introduction is devoted to an overview of the main directions in the field of decarbonization of maritime activities, and the authors also formulate the objectives of the review.

In the next section, which the authors called "Conceptual framework", they describe the significance of decarbonization in the maritime industry in general, as well as port decarbonization in particular. Further, Section 3 is devoted to the description of the methodology: the authors describe the approach and process of the study, inclusion-exclusion criteria, and the data collection procedure. Section 4 contains the results (descriptive, thematic and content analysis), as well as a discussion. In the section "Conclusion" the authors present the conclusions of the work, describe the limitations and shortcomings of the proposed method. The article has been prepared in accordance with the instructions for authors, corresponds to the topic it studies and publishes. In our opinion, the article corresponds to the topic "directions of decarbonization of the marine industry" and corresponds to the type of Review article.

Response:

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time and constuctive suggestions. Please find our replies to your comments below. We hope that our poin-to-point responses will meet your expectations.

Best regards,

(Authors)

Reviewer Comments

Despite the importance and relevance of the study, there are a number of shortcomings in the article content. The review article is devoted to an important and relevant topic, but there are a number of imperfections, that reduce its quality.

Comment 1. First of all, it is necessary to more clearly define the scientific component of the article. The authors formulate the goal of the study as the presentation of a comprehensive guide for scientists and practitioners, but this goal is too global. In our opinion, it is necessary to either define a more limited goal, or formulate the tasks to be solved within the framework of the global goal.

Reply 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the scientific component and goal of our study. We appreciate your suggestion to refine the scope of our objective.

Considering your sugesstions we have added related info to the introduction section.

In response, we acknowledge that the initial goal formulation could be perceived as too broad. To address this, we have revised the study's aim to be more focused and actionable. Instead of simply presenting a comprehensive guide, our refined goal is to provide a detailed analysis of decarbonization strategies in port operations, with a particular emphasis on the role of technological innovations and renewable energy solutions. This specific focus will allow us to contribute targeted insights into how port decarbonization can be enhanced through the adoption of advanced technologies and sustainable practices.

Furthermore, to break down the larger objective into manageable components, we have articulated several key tasks that we will address within this framework: (1) a thorough review of existing literature on decarbonization practices at ports; (2) identification of key technologies and strategies driving sustainable port operations; (3) analysis of case studies illustrating the real-world application of these strategies; and (4) recommendations for port authorities and industry stakeholders on how to implement and scale these solutions effectively.

We hope that this more refined approach will clarify the focus and scientific contribution of our work. Thank you again for helping us improve the clarity and precision of our study.

Comment 2: Further, it is unclear why the authors, when formulating the conceptual framework, identified two areas of decarbonization. It is necessary to explain this choice.

Reply 2: We appreciate your comment regarding the need to clarify the rationale behind identifying two key areas of decarbonization in the conceptual framework. In response, we have made explicit additions to the manuscript to address this concern.

Clarification of Decarbonization Areas in the Conceptual Framework:

The Introduction section now includes a revised and detailed explanation of the study's aim and focus. Specifically, we have outlined that the study systematically analyzes contemporary research trends and strategies in port decarbonization, with the following key objectives:

• Identifying the dominant themes and trends in port decarbonization literature.
• Analyzing technological, operational, and policy strategies for effective decarbonization.
• Exploring key barriers and facilitators impacting the implementation of these strategies.
• Proposing future research directions to bridge gaps in current knowledge.

This addition ensures that the study's scope is clearly defined and provides a structured foundation for the subsequent discussion.

Rationale for Selecting Technological and Operational Strategies:

We have included an explanation in the Conceptual Background section under 2.2 Port Decarbonization to justify the focus on technological and operational strategies.

Comment 3: Describing the methodology of the study, the authors indicate that when searching, they limited themselves to articles in academic peer-reviewed journals. However, it is not indicated how the journals were selected in the WoS and Scopus databases. If the search was carried out by keywords, then how did the authors take into account the journal rating? It is necessary to dwell on this issue in more detail.

Reply 3: We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the selection of journals and the criteria used during the keyword search in the WoS and Scopus databases. To address this, we provide the following clarification:

Selection of Journals in WoS and Scopus Databases:

The search for articles was conducted using specific keywords (e.g., “decarbonization” and “port”) within the title, abstract, and keyword fields of the WoS and Scopus databases. These databases were chosen due to their extensive coverage of high-quality, peer-reviewed academic journals across diverse disciplines. However, we did not explicitly restrict the search to journals of a specific rating (e.g., based on impact factor) to avoid excluding potentially valuable contributions from emerging or specialized journals in the field.

Rationale for Not Using Journal Ratings as a Filter:

While journal ratings (e.g., impact factor or Scimago Journal Rank) provide an indication of academic prestige, our focus was on ensuring a comprehensive and inclusive review of the literature. By not restricting the search to specific journal ratings, we ensured the inclusion of a diverse range of studies that address port decarbonization from multiple perspectives, including niche or regionally focused contributions that might otherwise be overlooked.

Addressing Quality Assurance:

To maintain the quality of the reviewed articles, we adhered to a strict inclusion criterion, which required all selected articles to be peer-reviewed and published in recognized academic journals. Additionally, we excluded letters, editorials, and other non-research-based content to ensure the relevance and rigor of the analyzed studies.

We recognize the importance of providing transparency in the methodology and have noted this feedback for future studies. However, the focus of this review was on capturing the breadth of research within the field of port decarbonization rather than limiting the analysis to journals with specific ratings.

We hope this explanation addresses the reviewer’s concern, and we are open to further suggestions for refining this aspect of the study.

Comment 4: The authors write that after screening the titles and abstracts, 88 studies were excluded from the initial sample, and the full texts of the remaining studies were carefully analyzed. It is unclear what “careful analysis” means or what its criteria are.

Reply 4: Thanks for raising this important question regarding the criteria for the "careful analysis" of full texts. To clarify, our careful analysis involved the following steps:

Relevance to Research Objectives:

Each full text was evaluated for its alignment with the research objectives, specifically focusing on decarbonization strategies in ports. Articles that primarily addressed unrelated topics (e.g., general maritime emissions or port management without a decarbonization focus) were excluded.

Thematic Alignment:

We assessed whether the study contributed to the thematic categories identified during the preliminary review (e.g., technological strategies, operational strategies, policy impacts). Articles that did not provide substantial insights into these themes were excluded.

Methodological Rigor:

Only studies with clearly defined methodologies and robust data analysis were included. This ensured the reliability and academic quality of the selected studies.

Practical and Theoretical Contributions:

Articles were prioritized if they provided actionable insights or theoretical advancements relevant to port decarbonization. Papers that lacked significant contributions to either domain were excluded.

By employing these selection criteria, we ensured that the remaining studies were both relevant and of high academic quality. We hope this clarification addresses the reviewer’s concern, and we remain open to further suggestions for improvement.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No more comments.