A Multiscale Diagnostic Framework for Sustainable Port Performance: Evidence from a Systematic Review

Abstract

Global seaports play a pivotal role in international supply chains; however, prevailing port performance evaluation frameworks remain predominantly intraport-oriented, limiting their capacity to support sustainability transitions and the integration of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria. Although ports are increasingly conceptualised as multiscale systems embedded within maritime and inland networks, existing approaches remain fragmented across intraport, foreland (seaside connectivity) and hinterland dimensions. Using a systematic literature review following PRISMA 2020, combined with bibliometric mapping through VOSviewer and covering 2019–2024, this study adopts a two-stage analytical design. First, a broad corpus of 238 peer-reviewed articles is used to develop a six-category port performance framework. Second, this corpus is refined to 95 articles focused on container ports, examined by integrating six methodological approaches with three spatial scales. This layered design ensures that the broad corpus defines the categories, while the refined corpus supports the multiscale application of the matrix. The findings reveal a persistent dominance of intraport-focused and efficiency-oriented approaches, alongside limited integration across spatial scales. Sustainability and governance perspectives are increasingly present but remain weakly connected to logistics network performance and rarely operationalise ESG criteria. The study develops a Multiscale Diagnostic Matrix that synthesises the literature and diagnoses fragmentation in port performance evaluation.

1. Introduction

Global seaports are critical infrastructures in the world economy, facilitating approximately 80% of international trade by volume [1]. Their role as interfaces between inland production systems and global maritime networks positions them as essential nodes within supply chains and key drivers of economic development and competitiveness [2,3]. In recent years, however, ports have evolved beyond their traditional operational functions, becoming increasingly strategic assets in global trade systems characterised by intensifying competition for investment, efficiency, and market positioning [4,5].

At the same time, the maritime sector is undergoing profound transformation driven by sustainability imperatives, digitalisation, and growing environmental pressures. Ports are now expected to balance operational efficiency with environmental protection and social responsibility, as the expansion of global trade amplifies negative externalities such as emissions, congestion, and resource consumption [6,7].

This shift reflects a broader transition towards sustainable and resilient logistics systems, in which ports play a central role in enabling low-carbon supply chains and supporting the green transition.

In response, recent research has increasingly emphasised the need for systemic and multidimensional approaches to port development, integrating operational, environmental, and technological dimensions. The growing adoption of digital technologies and smart port solutions is transforming the way ports operate, enhancing efficiency and enabling more sophisticated monitoring and decision-making processes [8,9].

Furthermore, these digital advances play an important role in supporting port sustainability by reducing manual processes, promoting paperless operations, and enabling emissions monitoring [10].

Within this evolving context, port performance has become a central concept, extending beyond its traditional role as a technical evaluation tool. It now constitutes a strategic mechanism for aligning trade flows, supporting investment decisions, and guiding policy development towards sustainable growth. However, despite its growing relevance, the assessment of port performance remains conceptually and methodologically fragmented.

A growing body of review studies has examined port performance from specific perspectives, including sustainability, environmental indicators, energy efficiency, and multi-stakeholder evaluation frameworks [11,12,13]. More recent contributions have adopted broader systematic approaches to synthesising the literature [14,15]. However, these studies tend to focus on dimensions or methodological perspectives, often lacking structured integration across spatial scales. In particular, the interaction between intraport operations, maritime foreland (seaside connectivity), and hinterland logistics systems remains insufficiently addressed, limiting the ability of existing reviews to capture the systemic nature of port performance.

Historically, port performance evaluation has been predominantly grounded in operational and efficiency-based metrics, with early studies focusing on productivity, infrastructure utilisation, and benchmarking approaches [16,17]. While these approaches provide valuable insights into intraport efficiency, they often fail to capture the broader systemic interactions between ports, maritime networks, and hinterland logistics systems. As a result, performance is frequently assessed in isolation, neglecting the interdependencies that characterise modern supply chains.

This reductionist perspective leads to a form of scalar fragmentation, whereby operational, strategic, and sustainability dimensions are treated separately rather than as interconnected components of a unified system. Such fragmentation limits comparability across ports, constrains integrated decision-making, and weakens the alignment between port operations and broader sustainability objectives. It hinders the effective integration of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria into performance assessment frameworks.

Beyond these methodological limitations, a critical gap persists in the operationalisation of sustainability within port performance evaluation. Although recent studies increasingly acknowledge the importance of sustainability, this dimension is often insufficiently embedded in existing analytical models. Moreover, the lack of integration across spatial scales—namely intraport, foreland (seaside connectivity), and hinterland—restricts the ability of performance frameworks to reflect the full complexity of port–logistics systems and to align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

This gap is further reinforced by the lack of comprehensive and structured approaches capable of integrating multiple performance dimensions. As highlighted in the recent literature, there remains a shortage of studies that systematically address the interplay between performance indicators, spatial scales, and sustainability considerations within a unified analytical framewor [18]. Consequently, existing approaches often fail to provide robust support for decision-making in increasingly complex and dynamic port environments.

In light of these challenges, this study aims to investigate and map the evolution of methodological approaches to port performance evaluation over the period 2019–2024. The research systematically analyses the analytical focus and spatial orientation of existing approaches, identifying the extent to which they address intraport, foreland (seaside connectivity), and hinterland dimensions. To achieve this objective, a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) is combined with bibliometric analysis, enabling both qualitative and quantitative examination of the literature.

Building on this analysis, the study proposes a Multiscale Diagnostic Matrix that integrates six methodological approaches with three spatial dimensions, providing a structured framework for assessing port performance in a more comprehensive and coherent manner. This approach advances beyond traditional review studies by identifying critical gaps, revealing potential synergies across spatial scales, and supporting the integration of sustainability considerations into performance evaluation.

The contribution of this research is twofold. From an academic perspective, it consolidates fragmented lines of inquiry into a unified analytical framework, offering a foundation for future research on port performance and sustainable logistics systems. From a managerial perspective, it provides a practical tool to support the evaluation and comparison of performance approaches, facilitating the transition from fragmented assessments to integrated, multiscale decision-making.

Ultimately, this study highlights that port performance evaluation is not merely a technical exercise but a critical component of sustainable development, economic competitiveness, and governance. By adopting a multiscale perspective, it contributes to strengthening the alignment between port operations and sustainability objectives, supporting more resilient and future-oriented logistics systems.

This study differs from existing review papers by systematically linking methodological approaches with spatial dimensions, thereby providing a structured framework to analyse fragmentation in port performance evaluation.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature on port performance. Section 3 outlines the methodology. Section 4 presents the results and discussion, including the analysis of methodological approaches and spatial coverage. Section 5 discusses limitations and future research directions.

2. Literature Review

The role of ports has expanded significantly, reflecting their evolution into complex systems encompassing multiple logistical, territorial, and institutional functions [19]. From operational units, ports have evolved into strategic agents embedded within highly interconnected global logistics chains, playing a pivotal role in international trade and economic development [2,3,20]. In this transition, ports have ceased to be treated as isolated infrastructures and are now understood as integral components of interdependent transport and logistics systems [21].

This integration requires coordinated responses across multiple stakeholders, focusing on continuous improvement and service orientation [22].

In this context, contemporary ports are increasingly oriented towards clients and the broader logistics community, while simultaneously becoming critical arenas of competition for investment, efficiency, and strategic positioning [4,23]. Such repositioning reinforces the centrality of port performance and justifies the need to critically review recent approaches and the scope of evaluation in the literature.

The concept of port performance emerged in contexts characterised by demands for productivity and technical efficiency, highlighting the relevance of operational indicators [24]. Early studies primarily focused on physical and operational aspects, such as cargo handling and berthing duration [25] with theoretical developments centred on benchmarking and efficiency comparisons. While these foundational contributions remain relevant, more recent studies emphasise that broader economic, environmental, and systemic considerations increasingly shape port performance [16,17].

Neely et al. [26] defined performance as the assessment of both efficiency and effectiveness, incorporating qualitative dimensions into the analysis. Building on this perspective, Bichou [27] identified three main domains of evaluation—quantitative metrics, economic impact, and technical efficiency—linking them to logistics and supply chain dynamics. More recent contributions extend this understanding by incorporating sustainability, governance, and technological innovation as integral components of performance evaluation [15,28].

According to Rezaei [21], port performance is closely linked to its strategic role within global logistics chains, significantly influencing competitiveness and port choice decisions. From this perspective, performance is central to both strategic and operational decision-making in the port sector [20]. It also plays a key role in continuous improvement processes and resource management [22]. Despite its increasing relevance, the concept remains fragmented, reflecting the coexistence of multiple research traditions and methodological approaches [19,20].

From a competitive standpoint, port performance is shaped by multiple criteria and stakeholders with often conflicting objectives [23]. Key determinants such as cost, efficiency, and service quality influence logistics performance and broader economic outcomes [21,29]. At the same time, performance serves as a basis for benchmarking, resource allocation, and strategic planning [30].

However, as a latent construct, it requires carefully designed indicators capable of capturing its multidimensional nature [19,22]. Port performance also functions as a strategic instrument supporting investment and expansion decisions [23]. Through systematic evaluation, it enables comparability across ports, enhancing competitiveness and attracting cargo flows [20].

In addition, performance increasingly serves as an accountability mechanism, particularly in relation to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) dimensions [31]. This reflects a broader shift towards sustainability-oriented port management, in which environmental performance, energy efficiency, and resilience are becoming central evaluation criteria [6,7].

Recent research highlights the growing importance of digitalisation and smart port development in shaping performance outcomes. The integration of digital technologies enables more efficient operations, improved monitoring, and enhanced decision-making capabilities [8,32]. Therefore, digital transformation in maritime systems strengthens the resilience of maritime supply chains by improving the quality of forecasting, planning, and risk management, increasing readiness for disruptions [10].

At the same time, sustainability-oriented approaches emphasise the need to incorporate environmental and social indicators into performance frameworks, reflecting the transition towards greener and more resilient logistics systems [29].

Despite these advances, important limitations persist. A significant proportion of studies continue to focus on inter-port comparisons, often neglecting the broader systemic and contextual factors that influence performance [22]. Moreover, the literature reveals a lack of structured and integrated approaches capable of capturing the multidimensional and multiscale nature of port systems. As highlighted by [18], there remains a gap in the systematic analysis of performance dimensions and their interactions.

This fragmentation is further reinforced by the separation between operational and strategic perspectives. Operational approaches primarily focus on productivity and efficiency metrics, whereas strategic approaches emphasise governance, logistics integration, sustainability, and institutional relationships [33,34]. Although both perspectives provide valuable insights, their lack of integration constrains the development of comprehensive frameworks capable of addressing contemporary port challenges.

In response to these limitations, recent studies call for more robust and integrative theoretical frameworks that incorporate sustainability, innovation, and resilience as core dimensions of port performance [15]. There is also a growing need for performance assessment models that account for uncertainty, multiple attributes, focus specifically on environmental performance indicators and stakeholder framework for performance evaluation, reflecting the complexity of modern port systems [23,35,36,37].

3. Materials and Methods

This study adopts a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) complemented by bibliometric analysis to examine the evolution of research on port performance evaluation. The review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement (PRISMA 2020), ensuring methodological transparency, consistency, and reproducibility.

3.1. Study Selection

The review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement (PRISMA 2020) [38], ensuring methodological transparency, consistency, and reproducibility.

A completed PRISMA 2020 checklist is provided as Supplementary Materials, and the study selection process is presented in the PRISMA flow diagram. The review protocol was not formally registered; however, the search strategy, eligibility criteria, screening procedures, and analytical framework were defined before the final selection and classification of the studies.

The analysis is guided by the following research question: how do prevailing methodological approaches and spatial perspectives in port performance assessment address or neglect different spatial scales, and what methodological pathways can be developed to overcome these limitations and support sustainable and resilient governance? To address this question, the study integrates qualitative synthesis with quantitative bibliometric mapping, enabling both structural and thematic analysis of the literature.

The initial search was conducted in Scopus and Web of Science using Boolean expressions combining terms related to port performance, evaluation, indicators, approaches, container terminals, foreland, and hinterland. The search was restricted to peer-reviewed articles and review articles published in English between 2019 and 2024. The search strings, fields, filters, document types, language restrictions, and subject/research areas applied in each database are reported in Supplementary Table S2. This stage resulted in an initial dataset of 1098 records. A screening process based on titles and abstracts was then applied using predefined inclusion criteria, namely: peer-reviewed journal articles, focus on port performance evaluation, and consideration of spatial, logistical, or sustainability dimensions. The review was restricted to publications between 2019 and 2024 and limited to English-language journal articles to ensure relevance and consistency. Records outside the scope were excluded, and duplicate entries were removed, resulting in 238 unique articles.

These 238 articles were used to establish the classification framework of Port Performance Evaluation Approaches. All selected studies addressed sustainability-related aspects in port management, although not all were specifically focused on container ports.

This broader sample was intentionally retained at this stage to ensure a sufficiently comprehensive and conceptually consistent basis for identifying and structuring the methodological categories.

The bibliometric analysis was conducted using VOSviewer (version 1.6.20), Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands), to support the quantitative dimension of the research. Bibliographic data were extracted from the selected studies and processed to ensure consistency. Keyword co-occurrence analysis was performed using author-defined keywords, applying a minimum threshold of five occurrences to enhance analytical clarity. Additionally, overlay visualisation was used to examine the temporal evolution of research themes by assigning colours based on the average publication year of keywords. This approach enables the identification of emerging trends and shifts in research focus within the field of port performance evaluation.

Following this stage, an additional level of refinement was applied to ensure alignment with the specific objectives of the study. The analysis was ultimately restricted to container ports to ensure comparability and consistency across studies, given their dominant role in global logistics and the availability of standardised performance indicators. The remaining studies underwent full-text assessment to confirm consistency with the proposed multi-scale perspective, encompassing intraport, foreland (seaside connectivity), and hinterland dimensions.

During this stage, 125 articles were excluded based on title and abstract screening, followed by an additional 18 exclusions after full-text analysis. Exclusion criteria included the absence of a multi-scale perspective, lack of relevance to port performance evaluation, insufficient empirical or methodological grounding, and the absence of a clear link to port management or decision-making contexts. The classification was conducted through an iterative and consensus-based process among the authors, ensuring consistency in the assignment of dominant methodological approaches and spatial dimensions. In cases where studies covered multiple approaches or scales, classification was based on the predominant analytical focus, defined by the primary objective, methodology, and contribution of the study.

Following the rigorous application of these criteria, 95 articles were included in the final analytical corpus. The entire selection process is summarised in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 1), which provides a structured overview of the identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion stages, including the corresponding number of records at each phase.

The final dataset of 95 articles was used for both qualitative and quantitative analysis. A dual analytical approach was adopted, combining thematic classification with bibliometric mapping. Each study was classified according to its dominant methodological approach and primary spatial scale of analysis: Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), or Hinterland.

This systematic literature review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement (PRISMA 2020). The review process followed the PRISMA stages of identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. A completed PRISMA 2020 checklist is provided as Supplementary Materials, and the study selection process is presented in the PRISMA flow diagram. The review protocol was not formally registered; however, the search strategy, eligibility criteria, screening procedures, and analytical framework were defined before the final selection and classification of the studies.

The classification process was conducted through informed expert judgement by the authors, based on the predominant thematic emphasis and analytical focus of each study. In cases where multiple approaches or spatial dimensions were present, the classification prioritised the most explicitly developed perspective to ensure analytical consistency.

This procedure enabled the development of the Multiscale Diagnostic Matrix, which constitutes the main analytical contribution of this study. The analysis is descriptive rather than inferential, and no statistical significance tests were applied. The results are intended to identify patterns and tendencies rather than test statistical differences.

3.2. Results Main Characteristics of the Studies Included in the Systematic Review

Table 1. Main characteristics of the studies included.

Study	Country	Associated Keywords	Approach	Spatial Scale
Nong (2023) [3]	Vietnam	DEA; Delphi; KAMET; Performance efficiency; Port	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport
Danis and Acar (2024) [4]	Turkey	Port competition; Concentration; Container ports; Black sea basin Maritime	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity)
Liu et al. (2022) [9]	Republic of Korea	Container terminal; Pearl river delta; SBM-DEA model; Undesirable DEA; Efficiency evaluation	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport, Hinterland
Bucak et al. (2020) [16]	Turkey	Port performance; Performance dimensions; Performance measurement; Operational performance; Sustainable performance	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport
Martínez-Moya et al. (2024) [17]	Spain	Port efficiency; Berth time; Time efficiency; Port competitiveness; Port productivity; Mediterranean ports; Metafrontier; Transshipment ports;	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport
Chen et al. (2024) [28]	China	Sustainable development; port city; super-efficiency SBM model; Malmquist Index Model	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport
Li et al. (2022) [29]	China	Container terminal; Operational efficiency; Super-efficiency DEA–SBM model; Malmquist total factor productivity index	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport, Hinterland
Moschovou and Kapetanakis (2023) [39]	Greece	Container port terminals; Data envelopment analysis; Terminal efficiency; Mediterranean	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport
Wang et al. (2022) [40]	Taiwan	Efficiency; Forecasting; Seaport terminal; DEA; Malmquist; Resampling; Vietnam	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport
Mohd Rozar et al. (2022) [41]	Malaysia	Port performance; Port competitiveness; Scheduling algorithms; Hierarchical cluster	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport
Nguyen et al. (2021) [42]	Republic of Korea	Container terminal; Southern Vietnam; DEA slack-based measure; DEA Malmquist; DEA undesirable output; Efficiency evaluation	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport
Pabón-Noguera et al. (2024) [43]	Spain	Container terminal; Multi-criteria decision model; PCA; TOPSIS; Ranking of ports	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport
Wang et al. (2023) [44]	China	Eco-efficiency; the Yangtze River Delta port cluster; Super-EBM; the GML index; spatial; Eco-Efficiency: Case Study from the; temporal evolution; Yangtze River Delta in China	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport, Hinterland
Karagkouni and Boile (2024) [45]	Greece	green seaports; green port practices; port performance; green port strategy; green practices classification	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport
Yu et al. (2023) [46]	China	Data envelopment analysis; Social network analysis; Port efficiency; Context dependence	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport
Danladi et al. (2024) [47]	EUA	Container ports; Benchmarking; Port efficiency; Data envelopment analysis; Lower-middle-income countries; Port performance; Port productivity	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport
Chang and Tovar (2022) [48]	Peru	Two-stage DEA non-convex metafrontier; Fractional regression models; Bootstrap truncated regression; Port terminals; Technological gap ratio; Efficiency drivers	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Bartosiewicz et al. (2024) [49]	Poland	Maritime container terminal; Efficiency; Baltic Sea region; Data envelopment analysis	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Dong et al. (2019) [50]	China	Container port; Environmental performance; Operational efficiency; SBM-DEA; Maritime Silk Road	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity)
Kuo et al. (2020) [51]	Taiwan	Data envelopment analysis; Forecasting; Port industry; Attractiveness; Progress; Vietnam	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport
Yen et al. (2023) [52]	Taiwan	Smart port; DEA-Tobit; Data envelopment analysis; Tobit regression; Analytic hierarchy process; Operating efficiency	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity)
Nikolaou and Dimitriou (2021) [53]	Cyprus	Container Port Terminals; Data Envelopment Analysis; Benchmark Analysis; Tobit Regression Model	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Aronietis et al. (2023) [54]	Belgium	Port and maritime data; port benchmarking; connectivity; cost; efficiency; environment; regulation	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Li et al. (2021) [55]	Republic of Korea	China; Data envelopment analysis; Container terminal; Port efficiency; Super-efficiency DEA	Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	Intraport
Al-Fatlawi and Motlak (2023) [5]	Indonésia	Automated guided vehicles; Internet of things; Smart container; Smart port; Smart ship	Digitalisation, Automation, and Intelligent Systems	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Fahim et al. (2022) [23]	UK	Port performance evaluation; Port selection; Physical Internet; Intelligent agents; multi-criteria decision-analysis; Best-worst method	Digitalisation, Automation, and Intelligent Systems	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Fancello et al. (2023) [56]	Italy	Mediterranean container terminals; port accessibility; Port performance indicators; container terminal competitiveness.	Digitalisation, Automation, and Intelligent Systems	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity)
Song et al. (2024) [57]	China	Sixth generation ports (6GP); Port performance; TOPSIS; VIKOR; Consistent fuzzy preference relations (CFPR); Chinese container port	Digitalisation, Automation, and Intelligent Systems	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Makkawan and Muangpan (2023) [58]	Thailand	Maritime transport, Smart port performance, Smart port indicators, Smart port environment, Smart port safety, Smart port operation	Digitalisation, Automation, and Intelligent Systems	Intraport
Wang et al. (2024) [59]	China	Digital twin; Safety management; Decision support; Port operations; Port logistics	Digitalisation, Automation, and Intelligent Systems	Intraport
Othman et al. (2022) [60]	Egypt	Smart port practices; Sustainable performance; Technology; Egyptian ports	Digitalisation, Automation, and Intelligent Systems	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Park and Lee (2020) [61]	Republic of Korea	Container terminal operation; Port performance indicator; Port monitoring platform	Digitalisation, Automation, and Intelligent Systems	Intraport
Caldeirinha et al. (2020) [62]	Portugal	Port community system; Port performance; Effectiveness; Efficiency	Digitalisation, Automation, and Intelligent Systems	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Mthembu and Chasomeris (2023) [2]	South Africa	Marine services; Privatisation; Port governance; Port pricing; Port productivity; Investment	Governance and Multidimensional Integration	Intraport
OConnor et al. (2019) [19]	Ireland	Seaport; Performance measurement; Policy; Stakeholder; Systematic review	Governance and Multidimensional Integration	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Vaggelas (2019) [20]	Greece	Port performance, User’s perspectives, European ports	Governance and Multidimensional Integration	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Rezaei et al. (2019) [21]	The Netherlands	MCDA, Best-Worst Method, BWM, Multi-criteria decision analysis, Port performance measurement	Governance and Multidimensional Integration	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Laxe et al. (2022) [30]	Spain	Port-city relationships; Key performance indicator; Good practices; Port strategy	Governance and Multidimensional Integration	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
de Oliveira et al. (2021) [33]	Brazil/EUA	Port; Port governance; Shipping; Transportation; Policy process; Advocacy Coalition Framework	Governance and Multidimensional Integration	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Kurniawan et al. (2024) [63]	Jordan	Container terminal; System dynamics; Berthing time; Performance; Emission; Social; Governance.	Governance and Multidimensional Integration	Intraport
Duru et al. (2020) [64]	Sigapore	Port performance; Port stakeholders; Quality function deployment;	Governance and Multidimensional Integration	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Karakas et al. (2020) [65]	Turkey	Container terminal; Supply chain; Logistics; Sustainability; ANP; Performance measurement	Governance and Multidimensional Integration	Intraport
Castelein et al. (2019) [66]	The Netherlands	Container ports; Port competition; Port choice; Port competitiveness;	Governance and Multidimensional Integration	Intraport
Longaray et al. (2019) [67]	Brazil	Maritime ports; efficiency; fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process.	Governance and Multidimensional Integration	Intraport
Sahraoui et al. (2023) [68]	France	Information and communication technology; innovation; port operations; terminal operations management; port performance	Governance and Multidimensional Integration	Intraport
Nanyam and Jha (2023) [69]	India	Major ports of India; Challenges; Performance; Malmquist productivity index; Interpretive structural modelling; MICMAC; Hierarchy model	Governance and Multidimensional Integration	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity)
Sunitiyoso et al. (2022) [70]	Indonesia	Maritime logistics; Motorways of the sea programme; Systems thinking approach; Causal loopdiagram; Stock and flow diagram	Governance and Multidimensional Integration	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Ha et al. (2019) [71]	Republic of Korea	Port performance; Container transport; Stakeholder management; Terminal operating companies; Importance-performance analysis, Maritime transport	Governance and Multidimensional Integration	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Ben Haj Ahmed et al. (2023) [72]	Tunisia	Port infrastructure, logistics performance, economic growth, PLS regression	Governance and Multidimensional Integration	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Liu et al. (2022) [32]	China	Smart port; container terminal operation system; quantitative evaluation model; adversarial interpretive structural modelling; directed topology; ANP	Logistics Performance, Terminals and Supply Chains	Intraport
Pourmohammad-Zia et al. (2023) [73]	The Netherlands	Platooning; Automated ground vehicles; Port hinterland corridors; Bi-objective optimisation; Robust optimisation; Emission reduction	Logistics Performance, Terminals and Supply Chains	Intraport, Hinterland
Svanberg et al. (2021) [74]	Sweden	Supply chain disruption; Port conflict; Port performance; Port choice; container port; AIS; Gothenburg	Logistics Performance, Terminals and Supply Chains	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity)
Zagloel (2019) [75]	Indonesia	Strategic alliance; port strategy; port alliance; port performance	Logistics Performance, Terminals and Supply Chains	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Li et al. (2022) [76]	China	Coastal port; hinterland; coupling synergetic model; dual circulation; development pattern; fixed asset allocation; Social commerce circulation	Logistics Performance, Terminals and Supply Chains	Intraport, Hinterland
Wan et al. (2021) [77]	China	Containership; Emission reduction; Shore power; Low-sulfur marine fuel; Economic benefit	Logistics Performance, Terminals and Supply Chains	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity)
Abu-Aisha et al. (2024) [78]	Canada	Sea-rail intermodal, Simulation, Port capacity, General cargo port	Logistics Performance, Terminals and Supply Chains	Intraport, Hinterland
Li et al. (2022) [79]	China	Coastal ports; logistics efficiency; DEA; Tobit model	Logistics Performance, Terminals and Supply Chains	Intraport, Hinterland
Jamain et al. (2023) [18]	Malaysia	Systematic review; Asia; Port; Port efficiency; Data envelopment analysis; Determinants	Port Operations and Productivity	Intraport
Eilken (2019) [80]	Germany	Maritime industry; Container terminal; real-time scheduling; Crane scheduling; Non-crossing constraints	Port Operations and Productivity	Intraport
Mazibuko et al. (2024) [81]	Southern Africa	Container terminal; productivity; Key performance measures; multiple regression analysis; regression analysis	Port Operations and Productivity	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Nikghadam et al. (2023) [82]	The Netherlands	Port performance; Vessel services; cooperation; Information sharing; simulation	Port Operations and Productivity	Intraport
O’Connor et al. (2019) [83]	Ireland	Mixed methods; Total factor productivity; Case study; Seaports	Port Operations and Productivity	Intraport
Ricardianto et al. (2023) [84]	Indonesia	Accessibility; Cargo transport regulations; Logistics effectiveness; Operational performance; port	Port Operations and Productivity	Intraport, Hinterland
Stojakovic and Twrdy (2023) [85]	Slovenia	Container terminal operations; Berth productivity; Yard utilisation; Shuttle carriers; Perpendicular layout	Port Operations and Productivity	Intraport
Mazloumi and Van Hassel (2021) [86]	Belgium	Container transportation; Container stacking strategy; Agent-based model; Overall equipment effectiveness	Port Operations and Productivity	Intraport, Hinterland
Li et al. (2024) [87]	China	Efficiency evaluation; Container terminal; Data envelopment analysis; Tobit regression	Port Operations and Productivity	Intraport
Jo and Kim (2020) [88]	Korea	Container terminal; ship-to-shore crane; Performance assessment; Key performance indicator; Mean move between failure; Mean time to repair; Man-hour	Port Operations and Productivity	Intraport
Mathias et al. (2024) [89]	Japan	Container terminal; Big data; Cargo-handling analysis; Logistics shipping Simulation	Port Operations and Productivity	Intraport
Nanyam and Jha (2022) [90]	India	Indian container terminals; Qualitative comparative analysis; Operational performance; Conceptual model	Port Operations and Productivity	Intraport
Notteboom et al. (2023) [91]	Italy	Transhipment; Container shipping; Financial performance; Operational performance	Port Operations and Productivity	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity)
Talley and Ng (2024) [92]	EUA	Port choice; maritime; maritime economics; Equilibrium; Port congestion	Port Operations and Productivity	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Kim et al. (2022) [93]	Korea	COVID-19 pandemic; supply chain; automated container terminal; port performance; AIS data analysis	Port Operations and Productivity	Intraport
Vrakas et al. (2021) [94]	Australia	Port technology; AutoStrad; Process optimisation; Operational performance; Patrick Terminals; Container ports	Port Operations and Productivity	Intraport
Feng et al. (2020) [95]	China	Automatic identification system; Space-time trajectory; Time efficiency; Port performance	Port Operations and Productivity	Intraport
Zerbino et al. (2019) [96]	China	Automatic identification system; Space-time trajectory; Time efficiency; Port performance	Port Operations and Productivity	Intraport
Chen et al. (2020) [97]	China	Matching framework theory; Port performance; Event study; Ownership structure	Port Operations and Productivity	Intraport, Hinterland
Bulak (2024) [6]	Turkey	Eco-efficiency; maritime economy; sustainable development goals; frontier approach; maritime transportation	Sustainability and Resilience	Intraport
Bielenia et al. (2024) [7]	Poland	Seaports; Energy efficiency; Green strategy; Environmental performance; Green investments; Energy consumption; Renewable energy sources; CO2 emissions; Economic growth	Sustainability and Resilience	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Jiang et al. (2024) [8]	China	Container-terminal equipment; Different alternative fuel; pathways; Well-to-wheels Quantitative evaluation framework Policy analysis	Sustainability and Resilience	Intraport
Lim et al. (2019) [11]	UK	Port sustainability; Performance evaluation; Pontainer port; Seaport; Sustainability; Sustainable development; Green; Performance; assessment; Performance measurement; Environmental; Social; Economic; Performance assessment	Sustainability and Resilience	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Puig et al. (2020) [12]	Spain	Environmental performance; Environmental management; Sustainable development; Port management	Sustainability and Resilience	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Lyer and Nanyam (2021) [98]	India	Container terminals; Grounded theory approach; Enabling factors Inhibiting factors; Operational performance	Sustainability and Resilience	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Sheikh et al. (2023) [99]	Bangladesh	Maritime Logistics; Logistics Performance; Sustainability; Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)	Sustainability and Resilience	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Siroka et al. (2021) [100]	Croatia	Port activities; Environmental impacts; Environmental aspects; Port Environmental Index (PEI); environmental Key Performance Indicators; (KPIs); IoT	Sustainability and Resilience	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity)
Li et al. (2020) [101]	China	CO2 emission performance; Non-radial directional distance function; Meta-frontier; Data envelopment analysis; Port enterprises	Sustainability and Resilience	Intraport
Teerawattana and Yang (2019) [102]	Taiwan	Green Port; Entropy; Port Performance; Laem Chabang Port; Environmental Performance Indicator (EPI)	Sustainability and Resilience	Intraport
Jo and Chang (2023) [103]	Korea	SBM–DEA; Environmental efficiency; Weak disposability; Bootstrap; Sub-sampling	Sustainability and Resilience	Intraport
Wang et al. (2020) [104]	China	Ports; Green efficiency; Cross-efficiency model; Competition and cooperation; Tobit analysis; Green development strategy;	Sustainability and Resilience	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Zhao et al. (2021) [105]	China	MAGDM; green port; supply chain management; performance evaluation; intuitionistic fuzzy set; IFS; evidence theory.	Sustainability and Resilience	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Özispa (2021) [106]	Turkey	Port sustainability; Sustainability performance measurement, Multicriteria decision making	Sustainability and Resilience	Intraport
Lin et al. (2019) [107]	China	Inverse DEA; container ports; Efficiency evaluation; Investment analysis; Undesirable output	Sustainability and Resilience	Intraport
Poo et al. (2024) [108]	China	Climate change; port resilience; Chinese ports; Supply chain disruption; Adaptation strategies	Sustainability and Resilience	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Ülker et al. (2023) [109]	Turkey	Marine pollution; Port reception facilities; Ship-generated pollution; Waste management; MARPOL	Sustainability and Resilience	Intraport
Milošević et al. (2023) [110]	Greece	Port environmental performance; Key environmental performance indicators (eKPIs); Ports; Pollution; environmental aspects; Port Environmental Index	Sustainability and Resilience	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland
Batalha et al. (2020) [111]	Australia	Corporate social performance; Seaports; Qualitative analysis; Port performance	Sustainability and Resilience	Intraport, Foreland (seaside connectivity), Hinterland

provides a consolidated overview of the 95 studies included in the final analytical corpus, ensuring full traceability between the PRISMA 2020 selection process and the evidence base used in this review. By reporting the reference number, publication year, country, associated keywords, approach, and spatial scale addressed, the table clarifies the analytical role of each article within the proposed framework.

4. Results

This section presents the results of the study, structured in accordance with the dual analytical approach outlined in the methodology. The analysis is based on a two-stage process.

First, a broader corpus of 238 articles was examined to identify prevailing research patterns and to support the development of the Port Performance Evaluation Approaches framework. This stage provides a comprehensive overview of the intellectual structure of the field, capturing dominant themes, methodological trends, and emerging research directions.

Second, a refined subset of 95 articles, specifically aligned with container port contexts and the proposed multiscale perspective, was analysed in greater depth to validate and further refine the framework. This second stage enables a more focused and context-specific interpretation of the relationships between methodological approaches and spatial dimensions.

The results are organised into two complementary components. The first presents a bibliometric analysis conducted using VOSviewer, which maps research clusters, thematic structures, and the evolution of key topics within the field. The second provides a structured literature analysis, examining the evolution of port performance evaluation approaches and identifying patterns of analytical fragmentation, particularly in relation to multiscalarity and the interaction between methodological perspectives and spatial scales.

This combined analysis supports a more comprehensive understanding of how port performance has been conceptualised and assessed in the recent literature. It also enables the identification of methodological gaps and inconsistencies, particularly concerning the integration of sustainability and spatial dimensions.

4.1. Comparative Positioning of Existing Review Studies

A growing number of review studies have examined port performance from different perspectives, including sustainability, energy efficiency, and multi-stakeholder evaluation frameworks.

More recent contributions, such as Refs. [14,15] adopt broader systematic approaches to reviewing port performance literature.

Table 2. Comparative Overview of Review Studies on Port Performance Evaluation.

Study	Main Focus	Scope of Analysis	Methodological Approach	Key Limitation	Contribution of This Study
Lim et al. (2019) [11]	Port sustainability and performance	Environmental and operational dimensions	Systematic literature review	Limited integration of spatial dimensions	Introduces multiscale integration: Intraport– Foreland (seaside connectivity)–Hinterland
Puig et al. (2014) [36]	Environmental performance indicators	Environmental dimension	Indicator-based analysis	Focus restricted to environmental metrics	Expands to ESG and systemic performance
Iris and Lam (2019) [13]	Energy efficiency in ports	Energy and operations	Review of technologies and strategies	Narrow focus on energy systems	Integrates energy within a broader performance framework
Ha et al. (2017) [37]	Port performance measurement	Multi-stakeholder perspective	Conceptual framework	Limited spatial differentiation	Introduces spatial multiscalarity
Carvalho et al. (2024) [14]	Port performance evaluation	Multiple dimensions	Systematic review	Limited integration across scales	Provides structured mapping across spatial dimensions
Kishore et al. (2024) [15]	Port performance literature review	Broad performance dimensions	Systematic review	Lack of a unified analytical framework	Develop an integrative diagnostic matrix

provides a comparative overview of previous review studies on port performance evaluation, emphasizing their scope, methodological approaches, limitations, and how the present study advances the existing literature.

Despite these valuable contributions, existing reviews tend to focus on specific dimensions of performance or methodological perspectives, often lacking a structured integration across spatial scales. In particular, the interaction between intraport operations, maritime foreland (seaside connectivity), and hinterland logistics systems remains insufficiently addressed. This limitation restricts the ability of existing frameworks to capture the systemic nature of port performance in contemporary logistics networks.

In contrast, this study advances literature by introducing a multiscale analytical framework that systematically integrates methodological approaches with spatial dimensions. By combining bibliometric analysis with a structured, systematic review and by explicitly linking six methodological approaches to three spatial scales, this research provides a more comprehensive and operational perspective on port performance evaluation.

4.2. Bibliometric Analysis

Figure 2 presents the network visualisation generated using VOSviewer, based on the co-occurrence of keywords extracted from the analysed articles. The map identifies six distinct clusters, each representing complementary thematic domains within the field of port performance evaluation. This structure provides insights into the intellectual organisation of the literature, highlighting both dominant research streams and emerging areas of investigation.

The purple cluster corresponds to port operations, maritime transport, and performance assessment, representing the Port Operations and Productivity approach. This cluster is characterised by a strong focus on technical efficiency and operational performance, emphasising indicators such as time, reliability, and throughput. The predominance of this cluster confirms the traditional orientation of port performance research towards internal operational metrics.

The blue cluster, labelled Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency, is centred on Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), benchmarking techniques, and efficiency evaluation. It reflects a methodological focus on comparative analysis, best-practice identification, and performance ranking across ports and terminals. This approach relies heavily on standardised quantitative metrics to assess relative efficiency.

In contrast, the yellow cluster represents the Governance and Multidimensional Integration approach, encompassing themes such as multicriteria analysis, decision-making processes, and institutional frameworks. This cluster highlights the growing importance of stakeholder coordination and policy-oriented evaluation, reflecting a transition from isolated operational perspectives towards more integrated and systemic approaches to port performance.

The red cluster captures the Sustainability and Resilience domain, incorporating themes related to environmental management, emissions, and sustainable development.

The increasing density and centrality of sustainability-related keywords indicate a strengthening research agenda focused on environmental performance, climate impacts, and resilience. This trend reflects the growing influence of international regulatory frameworks and the need to integrate environmental considerations into port performance evaluation.

The green cluster corresponds to Logistics Performance, Terminals and Supply Chains, emphasising the role of ports as nodes within broader logistics networks. This cluster reflects a systemic perspective, recognising that port performance extends beyond terminal operations to include interactions with supply chains, transport corridors, and logistics systems.

Finally, the light blue cluster represents Digitalisation, Automation, and Intelligent Systems. Although relatively peripheral, this cluster exhibits strong connections with other domains through themes such as system dynamics, which methodologically model and simulate data capable of aggregating and reinforcing digital technologies to provide intelligent decision support in digitally enabled port environments.

The category encompasses not only digital technologies and port applications, but also systems-oriented and simulation-based approaches, which are increasingly employed in studies to analyse performance and support intelligent decision-making in complex port-logistics environments. This reflects an emerging research area focused on integrating digital technologies and systems to enhance operational efficiency and enable more sophisticated performance monitoring.

Figure 3 presents the overlay visualisation of keyword occurrences over time, allowing for the identification of temporal trends in the literature. The results indicate a progressive shift from traditional efficiency-oriented approaches towards more integrated perspectives incorporating governance, sustainability, logistics, and digitalisation. While early research is dominated by benchmarking and operational performance analysis, more recent studies increasingly address systemic interdependencies and multidimensional performance criteria.

Systemic and digital approaches, such as governance, regionalization, connected logistics, and digital transformation, are replacing technical productivism. This movement uses indicators like CPPI and LSCI as a common language, and yellow nodes indicate the next round of metrics, networks, and technology integration. The overlay implies process efficiency and logistical centrality as comparative goals.

Overall, the bibliometric analysis reveals a clear evolution of the field. Although operational and efficiency-based approaches remain dominant, there is a growing transition towards more holistic and integrated perspectives. This shift reflects the increasing recognition of ports as complex, interconnected systems requiring multidimensional evaluation frameworks.

Table 3. Port Performance Evaluation Approaches Category.

Approach Category	Associated Keywords (Network)	Domain Focus
Port Operations and Productivity	port operations, shipping, maritime transportation, performance assessment, port industry	Technical efficiency, operational reliability, capacity and times
Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	DEA, benchmarking, efficiency evaluation, comparative study, stochastic frontier, port efficiency, port competition, port productivity	Comparative efficiency, best practice frontiers, ranking and productivity benchmarking
Governance and Multidimensional Integration	multicriteria analysis, governance, decision-making, institutional frameworks, risk assessment	Prioritisation of trade-offs, stakeholder coordination, policy design
Sustainability and Resilience	sustainability, environmental management, environmental performance, carbon dioxide, pollution, sustainable development	ESG, mitigation and adaptation, social and environmental performance
Logistics Performance, Terminals and Supply Chains	efficiency, performance evaluation, containers, port terminals, ports and harbours, supply chains, operational efficiencies	Systemic competitiveness, service level, hinterland-foreland integration
Digitalization, Automation and Smart Ports	digitalization, automation, smart port, logistics, ranking, system dynamics, simulation	Digital transformation, interoperability, analytics, and process orchestration

consolidates the primary clusters and approaches of the map, delineates a framework for reading and assessment by specifying comparative criteria and cluster connections:

4.3. Framework Development

This section examines the different domains of port performance by applying the analytical framework previously developed through the combined bibliometric and systematic review process. Building on the initial analysis of the broader corpus, the framework is here operationalised using the refined subset of 95 articles, specifically related to container port contexts and aligned with the proposed multiscale perspective.

To enable a structured investigation, a dual categorisation framework was implemented. Each study was first classified according to one of six principal methodological approaches identified in the literature: Operational/Productivist, Benchmarking, Governance and Multidimensional Integration, Sustainability and Resilience, Integrated Logistics and Supply Chain, and Digitalisation, Automation, and Intelligent Ports. Subsequently, each article was concurrently categorised according to its dominant spatial scope, following the established triad of Intraport, Foreland (Seaside Connectivity), and Hinterland.

This dual classification enables a systematic mapping of how different methodological approaches engage with spatial dimensions in port performance evaluation. By applying the framework to a more focused and context-specific dataset, it becomes possible to assess the consistency, coverage, and limitations of existing approaches in relation to multiscalarity.

4.3.1. Port Performance Evaluation Approaches

The evolution of port performance evaluation reveals significant inflection points, as well as the coexistence of multiple approaches reflecting different perspectives on the role of ports, measurement objectives, and scales of analysis. Six main approaches summarise this evolution, highlighting changes not only in indicators and methods, but also in the underlying theoretical and epistemological foundations.

Table 4. Distribution of References by Research Approach.

Approach	References
Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	[3,4,9,16,17,28,29,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55]
Digitalisation, Automation, and Intelligent Systems	[5,23,56,57,58,59,60,61,62]
Governance and Multidimensional Integration	[2,19,20,21,30,33,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71]
Logistics Performance, Terminals and Supply Chains	[32,73,74,75,76,77,78,79]
Port Operations and Productivity	[18,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97]
Sustainability and Resilience	[6,7,8,11,12,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111]

presents the classification resulting from the analysis conducted in this study, in which each publication was assigned to its predominant approach based on its dominant focus, keywords, and abstract. The “References” column provides a comprehensive list of representative studies within each category, offering a detailed view of the academic contributions associated with each thematic strand.

The bibliographic analysis enabled the categorisation of the 95 selected articles into six distinct macro-approaches, as detailed in Table 4.

Table 4 highlights the predominance, both internally and comparatively, of approaches centred on technical efficiency and productivity. Port Operations and Productivity (19 studies) and Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (24 studies) represent the dominant paradigm in the literature.

This predominance is reflected in operational contributions such as Eilken, Jo and Kim, and Nanyam and Jha [80,88,90] as well as benchmarking-oriented studies by Danladi et al. and Pabón-Noguera et al. [43,47]. These works have consolidated robust methodological tools, such as Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA), enabling objective efficiency measurement and the identification of best practices.

However, this strong focus on operational performance presents clear limitations. As noted by [14], such assessments tend to be predominantly one-dimensional and compartmentalised, limiting their ability to address broader strategic challenges, such as capacity underutilisation and congestion. Similarly, Ref. [86] raise concerns regarding the applicability of global benchmarking models in context-specific settings.

In contrast, the emergence of more comprehensive approaches reflects an effort to overcome these limitations. The Governance and Multidimensional Integration approach (16 studies), including contributions from de [33,65], and Ref. [112] expands the analytical scope by incorporating stakeholder perspectives and integrating social and institutional dimensions. To capture interdependencies, this approach employs advanced methodologies such as DEMATEL and ANP.

In parallel, the Sustainability and Resilience approach (19 studies), exemplified by [104] and [113] reflects a clear transition towards the integration of environmental, social, and economic dimensions. This shift is supported by the development of tools such as Port Environmental Indices and the application of technologies including the Internet of Things and simulation-based models.

More recent approaches further extend the analytical scope of port performance evaluation. The Integrated Logistics and Supply Chain approach (8 studies), including contributions from [75,78], emphasises multiscale analysis by conceptualising ports as nodes within complex logistics networks.

Finally, the Digitalisation, Automation, and Intelligent Systems approach (9 studies), represented by studies such as [23,59] underscores the increasing role of advanced technologies—artificial intelligence and 5G systems—in transforming port operations. This evolution is supported by the proliferation of information-sharing platforms (e.g., blockchain), serves as a mechanism that enhances visibility across the maritime supply chain, directly contributing to improved performance [10], though the comprehensive adoption and integration of these solutions across multiple scales remain limited. Despite its potential, this approach still faces challenges related to standardisation and data integration.

In summary, this analysis confirms the evolution of literature from a predominantly operational perspective towards more multidimensional and sustainability-oriented approaches, while also mapping the distribution of academic contributions across the different strands.

Despite this evolution, the predominance of operational and efficiency-oriented approaches reveals a persistent imbalance in the literature, particularly in the limited integration of intraport, foreland (seaside connectivity), and hinterland dimensions within a unified multiscale perspective.

To further examine this imbalance, the following section applies the multiscale analytical framework to assess how different methodological approaches engage with spatial dimensions and to identify patterns of fragmentation and integration across the literature.

4.3.2. Port Performance Spatial Scope Evaluation

A study was considered multiscale if its primary analysis explicitly examined the interconnections, trade-offs, synergies, or causal relationships between at least two of the three spatial dimensions: intraport, foreland (seaside connectivity), and hinterland. Studies that merely listed or measured indicators across multiple scales without integrating them into a relational analysis were not classified as multiscale and were coded only according to the individual dimensions addressed.

This distinction ensures that the classification reflects a genuinely systemic and integrative perspective on port performance.

Table 5. Summary of approaches x scope.

		Multiscale
Approaches	References	Intraport	Foreland (Seaside Connectivity)	Hinterland
Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency (DEA/SFA)	[39]	✓
	[40]	✓
	[41]	✓
	[42]	✓
	[43]	✓
	[44]	✓		✓
	[17]	✓
	[45]	✓
	[46]	✓
	[16]	✓
	[47]	✓
	[48]	✓	✓	✓
	[9]	✓		✓
	[49]	✓	✓	✓
	[50]	✓	✓
	[29]	✓		✓
	[28]	✓
	[4]	✓	✓
	[51]	✓
	[52]	✓	✓
	[53]	✓	✓	✓
	[54]	✓	✓	✓
	[3]	✓
	[55]	✓
Digitalisation, Automation, and Intelligent Systems	[56]	✓	✓
	[57]	✓	✓	✓
	[58]	✓
	[59]	✓
	[60]	✓	✓	✓
	[61]	✓
	[23]	✓	✓	✓
	[5]	✓	✓	✓
	[62]	✓	✓	✓
Governance and Multidimensional Integration	[2]	✓
	[63]	✓
	[64]	✓	✓	✓
	[65]	✓
	[66]	✓
	[67]	✓
	[68]	✓
	[30]	✓	✓	✓
	[33]	✓	✓	✓
	[20]	✓	✓	✓
	[69]	✓	✓
	[19]	✓	✓	✓
	[70]	✓	✓	✓
	[71]	✓	✓	✓
	[21]	✓	✓	✓
	[112]	✓	✓	✓
Logistics Performance, Terminals and Supply Chains	[73]	✓		✓
	[74]	✓	✓
	[75]	✓	✓	✓
	[76]	✓		✓
	[77]	✓	✓
	[78]	✓		✓
	[32]	✓
	[79]	✓		✓
Port Operations and Productivity	[80]	✓
	[18]	✓
	[81]	✓	✓	✓
	[82]	✓
	[83]	✓
	[84]	✓		✓
	[85]	✓
	[86]	✓		✓
	[87]	✓
	[88]	✓
	[89]	✓
	[90]	✓
	[91]	✓	✓
	[92]	✓	✓	✓
	[93]	✓
	[94]	✓
	[95]	✓
	[96]	✓
	[97]	✓		✓
Sustainability and Resilience	[6]	✓
	[98]	✓	✓	✓
	[99]	✓	✓	✓
	[100]	✓	✓
	[101]	✓
	[102]	✓
	[103]	✓
	[8]	✓
	[104]	✓	✓	✓
	[105]	✓	✓	✓
	[106]	✓
	[107]	✓
	[12]	✓	✓	✓
	[11]	✓	✓	✓
	[108]	✓	✓	✓
	[7]	✓	✓	✓
	[109]	✓
	[110]	✓	✓	✓
	[111]	✓	✓	✓

Note: The symbol “✓” indicates that the approach/reference includes or considers the corresponding scope dimension: Intraport, Foreland (Seaside Connectivity), or Hinterland.

presents the distribution of the 95 analysed studies across the six methodological approaches and the three spatial dimensions identified in the literature.

Table 6. Percentual approach × multiscale.

Approach	Total Studies	Intraport %	Foreland (Seaside Connectivity) %	Hinterland %
Operational/Productivity	19	100.0	31.6	36.8
Benchmarking	24	100.0	37.5	25.0
Sustainability/Resilience	19	100.0	63.2	47.4
Governance and Multidimensional Integration	16	100.0	62.5	68.8
Digitalisation, Automation, and Intelligent Systems	9	100.0	55.6	44.4
Logistics Performance, Terminals and Supply Chains	8	100.0	62.5	100.0
TOTAL/% GERAL	95	100	49.5	47.4

categorises the studies by dominant methodological approach and spatial scope. For each approach, summing up to 100%, indicating the proportion of studies prioritising each spatial dimension. These percentages reflect primary analytical focus and are not mutually exclusive across the dataset, enabling a comparative assessment of how comprehensively each approach addresses intraport, foreland (Seaside Connectivity) and hinterland dimensions.

The results reveal clear and consistent patterns across literature. The predominance of the intraport dimension is evident across all approaches, confirming the continued emphasis on internal operational efficiency. This pattern reflects a longstanding focus on terminal productivity, operational optimisation, and performance measurement within port boundaries.

In contrast, the foreland (seaside connectivity) dimension appears with varying levels of representation, particularly within the Sustainability and Resilience and Governance and Multidimensional Integration approaches. This trend suggests an increasing recognition of the maritime interface, including ship–port interactions, emissions, and external environmental impacts, especially in studies incorporating strategic and sustainability-related variables.

However, the hinterland dimension remains the least represented across most approaches. Its more balanced presence within the Integrated Logistics and Supply Chain approach highlights the importance of viewing ports as nodes within broader logistics systems. Nonetheless, the overall limited consideration of hinterland interactions indicates that port performance evaluation still insufficiently captures the role of inland transport connections and logistics networks.

This relative neglect of the hinterland dimension reveals a persistent disconnect between port operations and wider supply chain performance, constraining a comprehensive understanding of port–logistics system efficiency.

A more detailed examination of each approach reinforces these findings. The Operational/Productivist approach (19 studies) is entirely centred on intraport performance, with only partial consideration of foreland (seaside connectivity) (31.6%) and hinterland (36.8%) dimensions. This indicates a limited attempt to relate internal productivity to external logistical interfaces.

Similarly, the Benchmarking approach (24 studies) is fully focused on intraport efficiency (100%), with moderate attention to foreland (seaside connectivity) interactions (37.5%) and limited incorporation of the hinterland (25%). This suggests that comparative efficiency analyses rarely extend beyond port boundaries.

The Sustainability and Resilience approach (19 studies) also maintains a strong intraport focus (100%), but demonstrates a higher engagement with the foreland (seaside connectivity) (63.2%) and a moderate inclusion of the hinterland (47.4%). This pattern reflects the growing relevance of environmental impacts and emissions in maritime operations, while still indicating incomplete integration across all spatial dimensions.

In contrast, the Governance and Multidimensional Integration approach (16 studies) presents the most balanced spatial distribution, with significant representation of both Foreland (Seaside Connectivity) (62.5%) and hinterland (68.8%) dimensions. This suggests a more systemic perspective, incorporating institutional coordination and interactions across the entire port–logistics system.

The Integrated Logistics and Supply Chain approach (8 studies) explicitly recognises the port as a node within a broader logistics network, showing strong engagement with both foreland (seaside connectivity) (62.5%) and hinterland dimensions. This approach provides one of the clearest examples of multiscale integration within literature.

Finally, the Digitalisation, Automation, and Intelligent Systems approach (9 studies) remains primarily focused on intraport processes (100%), while also extending to the foreland (seaside connectivity) (55.6%) and, to a lesser extent, the hinterland (44.4%). This reflects the growing role of digital technologies in enhancing coordination across the port–logistics interface, although full multiscale integration remains limited.

Overall, the distribution of spatial focus across approaches highlights a clear structural pattern in the literature: while there is increasing recognition of external dimensions, particularly in sustainability and governance-oriented studies, the integration of intraport, foreland (seaside connectivity), and hinterland perspectives remains partial and uneven. This confirms the persistence of scalar fragmentation in port performance evaluation and reinforces the need for more comprehensive multiscale frameworks.

4.3.3. Multiscale Framework

To capture the fragmented nature of port performance evaluation, this study cross-references the six dominant methodological approaches with the three spatial scopes most frequently identified in the intraport, foreland (seaside connectivity), and hinterland.

Table 7. Multiscale Framework: Approach x Spatial Scope.

Approach	Intraport	Foreland (Seaside Connectivity)	Hinterland
Port Operations and Productivity	Predominant focus on internal metrics (berth time, equipment productivity, cargo throughput).	Rarely considered; some links to vessel turnaround times.	Limited; occasional mentions of inland congestion or modal choice.
Benchmarking and Frontier Efficiency	Core focus; DEA/SFA models benchmarking internal terminal efficiency.	Considered in comparative analyses of shipping–port interfaces.	Marginal; hinterland is often excluded from efficiency models.
Governance and Multidimensional Integration	Strongly emphasises stakeholder coordination and institutional frameworks within port operations.	Increasing attention to maritime connectivity, ship calls, and network effects.	Substantial focus on hinterland integration, regional corridors, and governance structures.
Sustainability and Resilience	Focus on energy use, emissions, and ESG indicators inside ports.	Strong attention to shipping emissions, IMO GHG targets, and environmental performance.	Moderate but growing inclusion of hinterland (land transport emissions, modal shift, resilience of logistics chains).
Logistics Performance and Supply Chains	Treats port as part of an integrated node in the logistics chain.	Considers vessel frequency and maritime connectivity in supply chains.	Strongest scope coverage of hinterland, highlighting corridors, intermodally, and systemic logistics integration.
Digitalisation, Automation, and Intelligent Systems	High concentration on terminal automation, PCS, and digital twins.	Expanding focus on berthing management, maritime scheduling, and vessel–port integration.	Emerging focus on hinterland ICT integration (rail/truck coordination, smart corridors).

compiles the results presented in Table 5 and Table 6, providing an integrated overview of the relationship between methodological approaches and spatial dimensions. It presents a qualitative synthesis of the reviewed literature, offering an interpretative assessment of the relative emphasis of each methodological approach across spatial dimensions. The descriptors (e.g., “marginal”, “moderate”, “substantial”) are grounded in the systematic thematic analysis of the selected studies and reflect consistent patterns identified across the dataset.

This framework (Table 7) serves as a diagnostic tool to map how different evaluative traditions prioritise spatial dimensions and where critical gaps persist. By aligning approaches with scales, it becomes possible to highlight areas of analytical convergence, identify underexplored dimensions, and reveal opportunities for developing comprehensive multiscale frameworks.

The proposed matrix reveals several important patterns in the literature on port performance evaluation. First, there is a strong convergence at the intraport level, as all approaches predominantly emphasise internal operational metrics. This confirms the historical predominance of efficiency-based analyses centred on terminal productivity, equipment utilisation, and berth times.

Second, the foreland (seaside connectivity) dimension is moderately represented, particularly within the sustainability and governance approaches. In these cases, the foreland (seaside connectivity) emerges through studies of maritime connectivity, vessel turnaround, and shipping emissions, often in response to international environmental regulations such as the IMO GHG targets.

However, Foreland (Seaside Connectivity) considerations remain largely secondary when compared to intraport measures.

Third, the hinterland dimension is the most consistently neglected. Apart from the logistics performance and supply chain approaches—which explicitly integrate hinterland corridors, intermodal transport, and systemic chain efficiency—and certain governance models, the hinterland is rarely addressed. This omission creates a substantial gap, as hinterland connectivity is essential for capturing the full systemic role of ports within global supply chains.

Finally, the matrix underscores the absence of holistic frameworks that simultaneously integrate intraport, foreland (seaside connectivity), and hinterland perspectives. Although recent approaches signal a paradigmatic shift toward multidimensionality, truly multiscale models remain scarce. This fragmentation underscores the need for comprehensive evaluation frameworks that can bridge operational, environmental, and governance dimensions, aligning port performance with long-term strategic, sustainability, and policy objectives.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

Port performance evaluation has traditionally been dominated by an intraport perspective, in which ports are assessed primarily as isolated operational entities through efficiency and productivity indicators. Although the recent literature increasingly recognises ports as complex, multi-scale systems embedded within maritime and inland logistics networks, this study demonstrates that such recognition has not yet been consistently translated into integrated assessment frameworks.

This finding is consistent with recent studies indicating that port performance research remains predominantly centred on operational and efficiency-based metrics [16,17]. The results confirm the persistence of scalar fragmentation across prevailing methodologies, particularly at the interfaces between intraport operations, foreland (seaside connectivity) connectivity, and hinterland logistics.

This challenge is further intensified by the increasing complexity of port logistics systems, characterised by intermodal interactions and interdependencies across multiple actors and spatial levels [78,101].

Based on a systematic analysis, the review was organised into two sequential stages to ensure that the final matrix was both conceptually comprehensive and analytically robust. First, a broader set of 238 articles was used to identify the main approaches to port performance evaluation (Figure 1), based on inclusion criteria centred on explicit evaluation frameworks, operational methodologies, and performance-oriented decision-support systems. Second, this set was refined to 95 articles focused on container ports and on the relationships between intraport, foreland (seaside connectivity), and hinterland scales, to apply and assess the proposed matrix.

In this structure, the broader corpus defines the analytical categories, while the refined corpus supports the multiscale application of the matrix. This layered approach provides conceptual breadth without compromising analytical precision.

The systematic analysis shows that intraport metrics are consistently present across all methodological approaches, whereas foreland (seaside connectivity) and hinterland dimensions remain only partially incorporated and are rarely analysed as interdependent components of the wider port–logistics system.

Even emerging approaches centred on sustainability, governance, and digitalisation tend to reproduce this fragmentation, limiting their capacity to capture systemic interactions and to support comprehensive performance assessment. Although digitalisation and smart port technologies are increasingly recognised as key drivers of performance, their integration within multiscale evaluation frameworks remains limited [8,9].

This study demonstrates that current port performance frameworks remain insufficient to effectively support sustainability transitions, as they continue to prioritise intraport efficiency while neglecting the systemic integration required across foreland (seaside connectivity) and hinterland dimensions.

Such limitations constrain the operationalisation of ESG principles and weaken the capacity of ports to contribute meaningfully to broader sustainability agendas. This limitation becomes particularly critical considering the growing sustainability pressures faced by the port sector, especially in relation to environmental performance and the ongoing energy transition [6,7].

Moreover, despite the increasing recognition of sustainability as a key dimension of port performance, it remains insufficiently operationalised within existing evaluation models, particularly in terms of measurable and comparable indicators [28].

From a policy perspective, these findings highlight the need for integrated evaluation systems capable of aligning port performance metrics with regulatory frameworks, climate targets, and sustainable transport strategies. Advancing towards genuinely sustainable port systems therefore requires a shift from fragmented and scale-specific assessments to systemic, multiscale approaches that embed ESG considerations and support coordinated decision-making across the entire port–logistics network.

The main theoretical contribution of this study lies not only in consolidating a fragmented body of literature into a coherent analytical framework, but also in providing a structural diagnosis of how port performance evaluation remains segmented across spatial dimensions. By systematically linking methodological approaches with intraport, foreland (seaside connectivity), and hinterland perspectives, the proposed Multiscale Diagnostic Matrix advances existing review studies and offers a more integrative understanding of performance assessment.

This contribution directly addresses the recognised lack of structured and integrative frameworks capable of capturing the multidimensional nature of port performance [18]. From a sustainability perspective, the findings underscore that green transition objectives cannot be effectively addressed through intraport efficiency metrics alone. The internalisation of environmental externalities, alignment with ESG principles, and enhancement of resilience require performance frameworks that integrate operational, maritime, and territorial dimensions. Fragmented assessment models constrain both strategic decision-making and the formulation of coherent policy responses in increasingly interconnected port–logistics systems.

In this context, the relevance of the multiscale diagnostic matrix lies precisely in its dual functionality: conceptually organising the literature and acting as a strategic and diagnostic governance tool. The framework promotes a more integrated interpretation of port performance, enabling the prioritisation of sustainability-oriented investments, the alignment of ESG strategies with multiscale operational indicators, and the incorporation of intelligent monitoring and decision-support mechanisms in digitally enabled port environments.

From a practical–managerial perspective, the framework offers concrete contributions to port authorities, logistics operators, and public decision-makers by facilitating the implementation of integrated approaches to performance monitoring, coordination, and governance. For port authorities, it enables the identification of performance gaps and the alignment of operational indicators with higher-order logistical and sustainability objectives. For policy-makers, it provides a structured basis for designing performance evaluation systems that integrate transport, environmental, and regional development policies.

Thus, the study transcends mere descriptive synthesis by providing an interpretive and diagnostic instrument capable of revealing structural weaknesses in the literature and supporting the construction of more integrated and sustainability-oriented evaluation frameworks. The framework also allows for the systematic assessment of performance at the intraport, foreland, and hinterland scales, the identification of coordination gaps, and the prioritisation of interventions. Its operationalisation can be achieved through performance scorecards, digital dashboards, or multicriteria analysis, contributing to more integrated, resilient, and data-driven port governance.

This study has limitations, including the subjectivity of classification, the defined temporal scope (2019–2024), and the focus on container terminals. Although formal inter-rater reliability metrics were not applied, the classification process followed a structured and iterative consensus approach among the authors to ensure consistency. Future research should validate the proposed framework through empirical applications, extend it to other port contexts, and explore digital tools for multiscale performance monitoring.