Next Article in Journal
Numerical Study on Hydrodynamic Coefficient Estimation of an Underactuated Underwater Vehicle
Previous Article in Journal
Collision Avoidance Decision Method for Unmanned Surface Vehicle Based on an Improved Velocity Obstacle Algorithm
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Port System in Addressing Sustainability Issues—A Systematic Review of Research

by
Katarina Balić
1,
Dražen Žgaljić
2,
Helena Ukić Boljat
3 and
Merica Slišković
3,*
1
University of Split, 21 000 Split, Croatia
2
Faculty of Maritime Studies, University of Rijeka, 51 000 Rijeka, Croatia
3
Faculty of Maritime Studies, University of Split, 21 000 Split, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10(8), 1048; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10081048
Submission received: 23 June 2022 / Revised: 27 July 2022 / Accepted: 28 July 2022 / Published: 30 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Coastal Engineering)

Abstract

:
The aim of this paper is to analyse the main scientific contributions in the field of sustainable seaports, with a particular focus on passenger seaports and passenger seaports’ commitment to sustainability. The focus of this analysis is on the methods used to improve and develop a sustainable seaport. A search of the Web of Science Core Collection that addresses this topic consists of scientific articles published from 2012 to 2022. The articles are divided into seven groups by research area (technical/technological, legal, organisational, economic, social, environmental, and other) and five groups by applied methodology (literature review, theoretical approach, qualitative approach/methods, quantitative approach/methods, and other). The results show that most of the papers were published in the field of the environmental impacts of a sustainable seaport and a sustainable passenger seaport. In addition, most papers used quantitative approach/methods.

1. Introduction

Industries worldwide are facing a new and unprecedented challenge to adapt their operational decisions to a more responsible and sustainable framework. Ports are no exception, as they are fundamental economic ecosystems whose practices have significant environmental and community impacts. Therefore, it is increasingly important to pursue sustainable development in ports, considering the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability [1]. Environmentally sustainable ports must pay special attention to the port’s impact on the environmental future of the surrounding area when achieving their economic and social goals, such as increasing their competitiveness and productivity. This requires the adaptation of logistical operations using innovative technologies that enable and support the management, control, and monitoring of environmental impacts. Regarding all mentioned aspects, this paper provides an overview of innovative technologies and a review of the methods used to improve and develop a sustainable port.
It is also important to note that the International Maritime Organization, (IMO), as a specialised agency of the United Nations, is responsible for global standards for safe, clean, and efficient maritime transport. It plays an important role in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [2]. The Global Port Sustainability Program considers 17 Sustainable Development Goals as a unique and indivisible orientation for sustainable port development [3]. Considering that port management has a great impact on economic growth, crisis management, environmental protection, and gender equality, ports are at the centre of sustainable development [4]. Following the above, the authors provide an overview of the commitment of the 10 largest European passenger seaports to sustainability and the various SDGs.
The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the methods used in articles dealing with sustainable ports and sustainable passenger seaports, with the goal of identifying bases for constructing an assessment model for sustainable port improvements. This review is presented using three approaches: (1) a structured review of the literature examining relevant terms in titles, abstracts, keywords, and scientific articles on sustainable seaports in the Web of Science Core Collection database from 2012 to 2022; (2) a structured review of the literature examining relevant terms in titles, abstracts, keywords, and scientific articles on sustainable passenger seaports in the Web of Science Core Collection database from 2012 to 2022; (3) a detailed review of the annual reports of the 10 largest European passenger seaports.
This review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [5].

2. Evaluation of Scientific Research on Sustainable Seaports

2.1. Review and Classification of the Research

As the review follows the PRISMA guidelines, the methodology used is presented in the PRISMA flow (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
The number of scientific publications dealing with the topic of sustainable ports/sustainable seaports/sustainable harbours/sustainable maritime ports has increased in the last decade. This can be illustrated by searching the Web of Science Core Collection (Figure 3). The search is performed using the string Topic, which searches titles, abstracts, author keywords, and keywords plus. Since the focus of this paper is on sustainable seaports and sustainable passenger seaports, the authors’ general search for abstracts of publications from 2012 to 2022 (15 March), filtered by Web of Science topic search and publication year, found 74 relevant publications on sustainable seaports and 38 publications on sustainable passenger seaports. Furthermore, some of the papers were eliminated by using automatic (WoS) tools, and some by reading the entire publication. This can be seen in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
The articles are classified according to the research area, the geographical position of the port, and the methodology used. Regarding the research area, each article is divided into seven proposed groups: technical–technological, legal, organisational, environmental, economic, social, and other.
Since the aim of this paper is to give an overview of the methods used so far for the purpose of the sustainable development of seaports, the authors grouped the used methods into one of the five proposed categories: literature review, theoretical approach, qualitative approach/methods, quantitative approach/methods, and other (Table 1). Some of the articles used a combination of methods and, therefore, the authors grouped them into more categories. The theoretical approach category includes various methods such as systematised strategies, comparative analyses, framework for the selection measures, an overview of existing documents, and different elaboration of information. The qualitative approach/methods category consists of various questionnaires and interviews. For example, port executives’ structured deep interviews, e-mail questionnaires and interviews with managers, analytic hierarchy process methodology, and online questionnaire using the DRIP score benchmarking model. Various quantitative approaches/methods are used in the papers, such as a multi-objective mixed robust possibilistic flexible programming (MOMRPFP) model, numerical analyses, exploratory factor analysis and one-way ANOVA, dispersion and maximum distribution methods, Kalman filter, regression analysis, indicator selection, Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, Environmental Performance Indicators, data normalisation methods, calculation of ship engine exhaust emissions, network construction, dispersal analysis, graph theory, environmental and economic analysis, analytic hierarchy process, eco-efficiency indicators, a derivation of the procedure used to calculate the Port Sustainability Synthetic Index, THPD model, network analytics, method of complex network, synchrosimulation model, AutoCAD, Excel, and a mixed integer linear programming model. The category ‘‘other’’ denotes the papers that could not be classified into any of the six categories (optimal systems configuration, analysing and assessing, simulating, predicting, and evaluating the degree of effects generated, and carbon footprint (CF) methodology).
Since the focus of this work is on sustainable passenger ports, the published work for the passenger port sector has been considered separately, and the results obtained are presented in Table 2. The proposed methodology in terms of the distribution of papers by research group and their use is the same as in Table 1. Only one article, “A methodological approach for environmental characterization of ports” [6], is included in both tables.
Table 1. Overview of publications that deal with sustainable seaports.
Table 1. Overview of publications that deal with sustainable seaports.
AuthorsOrigin/SeaportResearch Area GroupMethodology Proposed/Used
Tai, HH; Chang, YH [7]Seven international commercial ports in Taiwan (Kaohsiung, Keelung, Taichung, Taipei, Hualien, Anping, and Suao)environmentalquantitative
Lee, Y; Song, H; Jeong, S [8]Busan New Portenvironmental/legal/technical–technologicalqualitative
Chapapria, VE; Peris, JS [9]Valencia Porttechnical–technological/ environmentaltheoretical and quantitative
Jaafar, HS; Abd Aziz, ML; Ahmad, MR; Faisol, N [10]Ports in the southern region of Malaysiatechnical–technological/social/otherqualitative
Liu, JG; Kong, YD; Li, SJ; Wu, JJ [11]China, 21 port cities (Shanghai, Ningbo, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Qingdao, Tianjin, Xiamen, Dalian, Yingkou, Lianyungang, Rizhao, Foshan, Dongguan, Fuzhou, Nanjing, Yantai, Tangshan, Quanzhou, Zhuhai, Haikou, and Jiaxing)economic/social/environmental/technical–technologicalquantitative
Cavalli, L; Lizzi, G; Guerrieri, L; Querci, A; De Bari, F; Barbieri, G; Ferrini, S; Di Meglio, R; Cardone, R; Tardo, A; Pagano, P; Tesei, A; Lattuca, D [1]Port of Livornotechnical–technologicaltheoretical and quantitative
De Martino, M [12] economic/social/organisationtheoretical
Roh, S; Thai, VV; Jang, H; Yeo, GT [13]Koreaeconomic/social/environmentalliterature review and qualitative
Argyriou, I; Sifakis, N; Tsoutsos, T [14]Port of Soudasocialqualitative
Meyer, C; Gerlitz, L; Philipp, R; Paulauskas, V [15]Small- and medium-sized ports (SMSPs) in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR)technical–technological/environmentalqualitative
Othman, MK; Rahman, NSFA; Ismail, A; Saharuddin, AH [16]Malaysian portsorganisationaltheoretical
Barreiro-Gen, M; Lozano, R; Temel, M; Carpenter, A [17]EU portssocialqualitative
Gan, M; Li, DD; Wang, JW; Zhang, JK; Huang, QL [18]Chinese portsenvironmental/legalquantitative
Iris, C; Lam, JSL [19] environmental/organisational/economicquantitative
Shankar, S; Punia, S; Singh, SP; Dong, JX [20] otherquantitative
Gerlitz, L; Meyer, C [21]Small- and Medium-Sized Ports in the TEN-T Networkorganisational/economic/social/othertheoretical
AlRukaibi, F [22]Port of Shuwaikhorganisational/social/environmental/otherquantitative
Hossain, T; Adams, M; Walker, TR [23]Thirty-six seaports were selected from North America (NA), Europe (EU), and Asia Pacific (AP)legal/organisational/other theoretical and quantitative
Kong, YD; Liu, JG [24]China (Hong Kong, Guangzhou, Shanghai, Ningbo, Tianjin, Shenzhen, Qingdao, Dalian, Xiamen)technical–technological/social/environmental/economicquantitative
Holler, L [25]Port of Kirkeneseconomic/environmentaltheoretical
Gu, YM; Loh, HS; Yap, WY [26]China, Indiaeconomic/socialtheoretical
Wang, CX; Haralambides, H; Zhang, L [27]Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Tianjin, Ningbo, Qingdao, Dalian, Xiamen, Yantai, Fuzhou, Quanzhou, Haikou, Sanya, Zhanjiang, and Shantouenvironmental/economic/social/technical–technologicalquantitative
Taljaard, S; Slinger, JH; Arabi, S; Weerts, SP; Vreugdenhil, H [28]South African portsenvironmentaltheoretical
Zhao, CP; Li, R; Wang, YC; Yu, H; Gong, Y [29] Gulf portsenvironmental/otherquantitative
Paulauskas, V; Filina-Dawidowicz, L; Paulauskas, D [30]Klaipeda portenvironmental/other/socialquantitative
Mankowska, M; Kotowska, I; Plucinski, M [31]Port of Szczecintechnical–technological/legal/organisationaltheoretical
Moeis, AO; Desriani, F; Destyanto, AR; Zagloel, TY; Hidayatno, A; Sutrisno, A [32]Tanjung Priok Portlegal/environmentaltheoretical and quantitative
Sinha, D; Chowdhury, SR [33]Indian portslegal/environmental/technical–technological/otherquantitative
Wu, XF; Zhang, LP; Yang, HC [34] environmentalliterature review
Huang, YX; Yip, TL; Liang, C [35]Tianjin Porteconomic/legal/environmentalquantitative
Huda, LN; Sulastri, R [36]Belawan Porteconomic/environmentalquantitative
Zhao, YF; Zhu, QH; Kou, Y; Lun, EN [37]Ports in the Pearl River Delta region in Chinalegal/environmentalquantitative
de Boer, WP; Slinger, JH; Kangeri, AKW; Vreugdenhil, HSI; Taneja, P; Addo, KA; Vellinga, T [38]Tema Porttechnical–technological/economic/environmental/socialtheoretical
Casazza, M; Lega, M; Jannelli, E; Minutillo, M; Jaffe, D; Severino, V; Ulgiati, S [39] technical–technological/environmentaltheoretical
Lawer, ET; Herbeck, J; Flitner, M [40]Ports in Europe and West Africa Tema (Ghana), Lagos (Nigeria), Abidjan (Côte d’Ivoire) in West Africa, and the twin ports of Bremen/Bremerhaven (Germany)environmental/socialqualitative
Tijan, E; Agatic, A; Jovic, M; Aksentijevic, S [41] economic/environmental/socialtheoretical and literature review
Bjerkan, KY; Seter, H [42] environmental/othertheoretical and literature review
de Boer, W; Mao, YJ; Hagenaars, G; de Vries, S; Slinger, J; Vellinga, T [43]Ports in Africatechnical–technological/environmentaltheoretical
Lozano, R; Fobbe, L; Carpenter, A; Sammalisto, K [44]Port of Gävleeconomictheoretical and literature review
Muangpan, T; Suthiwartnarueput, K [45]Thailandeconomicquantitative
Tsao, YC; Thanh, VV [46] economic/social/environmentalquantitative
Nunes, RAO; Alvim-Ferraz, MCM; Martins, FG; Sousa, SIV [47]Ports in Portugal (Leixões, Setúbal, Sines, and Viana do Castelo)environmental/socialquantitative
Wu, XF; Zhang, LP; Dong, YW [48]Xiamen Harborsocial/environmental/economictheoretical
Kotowska, I; Mankowska, M; Plucinski, M [49]Antwerp, Rotterdam, Hamburg, and the Marseilles–Fos port complexenvironmental/economic/legaltheoretical
Li, KX; Park, TJ; Lee, PTW; McLaughlin, H; Shi, WM [50]Busan, Gwangyang, and Incheontechnical–technologicalquantitative
Ignaccolo, M; Inturri, G; Le Pira, M [51] social/organisationtheoretical
Jonathan, CEY; Kader, SBA [52]Port of Tanjung Pelepasenvironmental/legal/technical–technologicalquantitative
Wang, W; Chen, JJ; Liu, Q; Guo, ZX [53]Chinatechnical–technological/environmental/economicquantitative
Yigit, K; Acarkan, B [54]Brazil, United Kingdom, Turkey, India, and Japantechnical–technologicalquantitative
Schipper, CA; Vreugdenhil, H; de Jong, MPC [55] legal/environmental/social/economicquantitative
To, NT; Kato, T [56]Haiphong port, Vietnamenvironmental/socialqualitative
Nebot, N; Rosa-Jimenez, C; Ninot, RP; Perea-Medina, B [57]Spanish Mediterranean portsenvironmental/technical–technological/socialtheoretical
Bandyopadhyay, R; Kaplan, PO; Araujo, R; Dodder, R; Smith, ER [58]SADenvironmental/economictheoretical
Neisingh, WWJ; Taneja, P; Vellinga, T; Verlaan, JG [59]Bay of Havana in Cubaorganisationaltheoretical
Lazaroiu, C; Roscia, M [60]Port of Naplesenvironmentaltheoretical
Papaefthimiou, S; Sitzimis, I; Andriosopoulos, K [6]Hong Kong, Kaohsiung, Shanghai, New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, Long Beach, Oakland, Rotterdam, Piraeus, Aberdeen, Copenhagen, Antwerp, Koge, Elsinore, Bergeneconomic/environmental/socialquantitative
Hou, LJ; Geerlings, H [61]Port of Shanghaienvironmental/legalquantitative, qualitative, and theoretical
Schulte, F; Gonzalez-Ramirez, RG; Ascencio, LM; Voss, S [62]Latin America and the Caribbean (Santos, Brazil; Manzanillo, Mexico; Callao, Peru; Guayaquil, Ecuador; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Valparaíso, Chile; Buenaventura, Colombia)organisationqualitative
Roh, S; Thai, VV; Wong, YD [63]Vietnamese portsorganisation/social/ economic/environmentalliterature review and qualitative
Tseng, PH; Pilcher, N [64]Taiwan’s three main ports: Kaohsiung, Keelung, and Taichungenvironmentalquantitative
Zhou, Y; Wang, WY; Song, XQ; Guo, ZJ [65] technical-technologicalquantitative
Bauk, S; Sekularac-Ivosevic, S; Jolic, N [66]The Adriatic, Aegean, and Black Sea portssocial/economicquantitative
Puig, M; Wooldridge, C; Darbra, RM [67] environmentalquantitative
Hiranandani, V [68]Port of Long Beach (USA), Port of Rotterdam Authority (The Netherlands), Sydney Ports Corporation (Australia), and Transnet Limited, which owns and manages South African portsorganisationtheoretical
Pavlic, B; Cepak, F; Sucic, B; Peckaj, M; Kandus, B [69]Port of Kopertechnical–technological/economic/environmentaltheoretical
Morel, G; Lima, FR; Martell-Flores, H; Hissel, F [70] technical–technological/organisational/social/environmentaltheoretical
Daamen, TA; Vries, I [71]European port cities: Marseilles, Barcelona, Hamburg, and Rotterdamlegaltheoretical
Lirn, TC; Wu, YCJ; Chen, YMJ [72]China, Hong Kong, and Taiwanenvironmentalqualitative
Onwuegbuchunam, DE [73]Nigeriaorganisation/socialquantitative
Hartman, BC; Clott, CB [74] environmentalquantitative
De Langen, PW; Van Den Berg, R; Willeumier, A [75]Port of Rotterdamlegal/othertheoretical and qualitative
Table 2. Overview of publications that deal with sustainable passenger seaports.
Table 2. Overview of publications that deal with sustainable passenger seaports.
AuthorsOrigin/SeaportResearch Area GroupMethodology Proposed/Used
Andrade, MJ; Costa, JP; Jimenez-Morales, E [76]European tourist city portseconomic/social/technical–technologicalliterature review, quantitative and theoretical
Gil-Lopez, T; Verdu-Vazquez, A [77]Spanish portstechnical–technological/environmentalquantitative
Sifakis, N; Tsoutsos, T [78] otherliterature review
Lapko, A; Hacia, E; Wieczorek, R [79]Port of Świnoujścieenvironmental/socialquantitative
Yehia, W; Kamar, L; Hassan, MA; Moustafa, MM [80]The Suez Canal at Port Said City, Egyptenvironmental/economicquantitative
Ignaccolo, M; Inturri, G; Giuffrida, N; Torrisi, V [81]/environmental/legaltheoretical
Mangano, S; Ugolini, GM [82]Italian ports (Civitavecchia, Venice, Naples, Genoa, Savona, Livorno, Palermo, Bari, La Spezia, Cagliari, Messina)socialtheoretical and quantitative
Liu, YH; Dong, EW; Li, SQ; Jie, XW [83]Southern Chinasocial/economicliterature review, quantitative and qualitative
Paiano, A; Crovella, T; Lagioia, G [84]Italian portsenvironmentalother
Mortensen, L; Kornov, L; Lyhne, I; Raakjaer, J [85]Port of Aalborgenvironmental/legaltheoretical
Wondirad, A [86] social/economicliterature review
Perea-Medina, B; Rosa-Jimenez, C; Andrade, MJ [87]Mediterranean portstechnical–technological/environmentalquantitative
Santos, M; Radicchi, E; Zagnoli, P [88]Port of Lisbon and port of Livornoeconomic/environmental/socialquantitative and qualitative
Gamez, MAF; Serrano, JRS; Gil, AC; Ruiz, AJC [89]The port of Malagasocialliterature review, quantitative and qualitative
Ruiz-Guerra, I; Molina-Moreno, V; Cortes-Garcia, FJ; Nunez-Cacho, P [90]Port of Barcelonaenvironmental/socialquantitative
Kishchenko, K; De Roeck, M; Salens, M; Van Maroey, C [91]Port of Antwerptechnical–technological/environmentaltheoretical
Urbanyi-Popiolek, I [92]Baltic Sea Region (Copenhagen, Helsinki, Gdansk, Gdynia, Mariehamn, Rostock, St. Petersburg, Stockholm, Tallinn, Turku)technical–technological/environmental/legaltheoretical
Wilewska-Bien, M; Anderberg, S [93]Baltic Sea portsenvironmentalqualitative
Sakib, N; Appiotti, F; Magni, F; Maragno, D; Innocenti, A; Gissi, E; Musco, F [94]Mediterranean portstechnical–technological/environmental/ legalquantitative
Rosa-Jimenez, C; Perea-Medina, B; Andrade, MJ; Nebot, N [95]183 ports in the Mediterranean and the Black Seatechnical–technologicaltheoretical and quantitative
Grindlay, AL; Martinez-Hornos, S [96]Port of Malagatechnical–technologicalother
Iannello, A; Bertagna, S; Pozzetto, D; Toneatti, L; Zamarini, R; Bucci, V [97] technical–technological/environmentalother
Manginas, V; Manoli, S; Nathanail, E [98]Port of Volos economic/legal/organisationalqualitative and quantitative
Papaefthimiou, S; Sitzimis, I; Andriosopoulos, K [60]Hong Kong, Kaohsiung, Shanghai, New York, Los Angeles, Seattle, Long Beach, Oakland, Rotterdam, Piraeus, Aberdeen, Copenhagen, Antwerp, Koge, Elsinore, Bergeneconomic/environmental/socialquantitative
Laxe, FG; Bermudez, FM; Palmero, FM; Novo-Corti, I [99]Spanish portseconomic/environmentalquantitative
Bianucci, M; Merlino, S; Ferrando, M; Baruzzo, L [100]La Spezia Harbortechnical–technological/environmentalother
Thurau, B; Seekamp, E; Carver, AD; Lee, JG [101]Panama Canaleconomicqualitative and quantitative
Sotaniehha, M; Peric, A; Scholl, B [102]Port of Piraeustechnical–technological/othertheoretical
Urbanyi-Popiolek, I [103]City of Gdyniatechnical–technological/economic/social/environmentalquantitative and qualitative
Dundovic, C; Juric, M; Kovacic, M [104]Port of Splittechnical–technological/economic/social/environmentaltheoretical
Most studies have examined environmental effects (66 of them). The most frequently studied environmental impacts are development, sustainability, exhaust emissions, port waste, energy efficiency, tourist mobility, air quality, and cruise industry impacts. Moreover, 34 articles are classified into the technical–technological group, while the combination of environmental and technical–technological is studied in 25 articles. The legal component is usually studied in combination with other impacts (technical–technological, organisational, environmental, economic, and others). The social component is usually studied in combination with environmental and economic impacts. There are 12 papers in the “other” category (Figure 4). These papers address various issues relevant to this area but may also be directly related to other impacts.
Looking at the geographical distribution of the research including sustainable passenger seaports, it can be concluded that the majority of the research refers to the European area, while the geographical distribution of the research including sustainable seaports covers a wider territory.

2.2. Overview of the Methods Used

A structured review of the literature on sustainable seaports and sustainable passenger seaports reveals that most of the papers are classified in the quantitative approach/methods category, with 41% of the total number of papers. Moreover, 31% of the papers fall into the theoretical approach category, while only 16% of the papers fall into the qualitative approach/methods category (Figure 5). In the structured review of the literature on sustainable seaports, no paper was placed in the “other” category. In the structured review of the literature on passenger seaports, four papers were placed in the mentioned category.
Comparing the literature review on sustainable seaports and the literature review on sustainable passenger seaports, it is noticeable that most of the papers in both reviews are categorised under the quantitative approach/methods group (Figure 5). When reviewing the methods and approaches used, it is clear that some of the methods are repeated in both reviews. For example, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method was used in three papers. The authors of [72], in their paper “Green performance criteria for sustainable ports in Asia”, use the AHP technique and an importance and performance analysis (IPA) model to assess the overall green performance of the three largest Asian seaports and provide port authorities with clear strategies to improve their environmental performance. In their paper, “Enhancing sustainable mobility: A business model for the Port of Volos”, the authors of [98] processed the data using a modified version of the AHP to determine the importance of specific port functions and services.
The Adriatic, Aegean, and Black Sea ports, sharing unique marketing features and target markets, have been analysed by the authors of [66], with the aim of being mutually positioned. The ports considered have similar goals: to achieve a higher level of competitiveness and to attract a larger number of customers based on superior port selection criteria. These circumstances were studied using different quantitative and qualitative criteria by applying the appropriate, well-known, and structured quantitative PROMETHEE and AHP methods.
The majority of the methods used in both studies that fall into the category of qualitative approach/methods are interviews, questionnaires, and surveys.
Considering that the auxiliary objective is to identify the methods used in articles dealing with passenger seaports, it is important to note the following. In reviewing the literature that addresses sustainable passenger seaports, seven papers were categorised as qualitative approaches/methods. It was interesting to note that two papers used the interview method [83,88], two used the questionnaire/surveys method [89,101], and three papers used a combination of interviews and questionnaires/surveys [93,98,103].
The authors used various quantitative approaches/methods to process the data obtained through questionnaires, surveys, or interviews. The authors used cluster analysis in the article “Should Cruise Ports Market Ecotourism? A Comparative Analysis of Passenger Spending Expectations within the Panama Canal Watershed” [101]. The paper “Enhancing sustainable mobility: a business model for the Port of Volos” [98] deals with the investigation of the possibility of introducing a public–private partnership (PPP) in the Port of Volos and finally presents the development of an appropriate business model. This research involved interviews with key staff of the Volos Port Authority and local travel and port agents, as well as the completion of questionnaires by a random sample of 100 passengers during afternoon hours. The interviews focused mainly on the operations of the Port Authority, while the questionnaires targeted the port infrastructure, the services offered, and the passengers’ satisfaction with these factors. The data collected were analysed using a modified version of the AHP to determine the importance of specific port functions and services. In the article “Cruise Passengers’ Intention and Sustainable Management of Cruise Destinations” [89], the authors processed the obtained data using statistical tests adjusted to metric variables (average, standard deviation).
It is also important to point out the article [83], “Cruise Tourism for Sustainability: An Exploration of Value Chain in Shenzhen Shekou Port”, where a quantitative method was applied first (online text analysis using Rost Content Mining 6 software to analyse 2552 Ctrip travel networks) and then another study was conducted through face-to-face interviews.
It is evident that most of the studies in the qualitative approach/methods category use surveys, questionnaires, and interviews to investigate the port’s commitment to sustainability.

2.3. European Passenger Seaports’ Commitment to Sustainability

Sustainable development is the primary global objective of port authorities to maintain and improve their economic activity and attractiveness [105]. Seaports, as the main hub of maritime transport, should also base their operations on principles or aspects of sustainability: the economic principle (efficient provision of seaport services), the environmental principle (efficient use of natural resources, reduction of pollutant emissions and paper consumption), and the social principle (welfare of seaport employees and stakeholders) [40].
The third approach involves the idea of verifying passenger seaports’ commitment to sustainability through their actual work, i.e., by analysing their reports on sustainability (Table 3). Analysing the annual reports for the five-year period (2017 to 2021) of the top 10 European passenger seaports—the Port of Dover, Helsinki, Messina, Tallinn, Reggio di Calabria, Piraeus, Calais, Stockholm, Napoli, and Paloukia Salaminas—their commitment to sustainability and different SDGs was observed. To identify the top 10 ports by the number of passengers, the average (2018, 2019, and 2020) number of passengers that embarked and disembarked at each port was calculated using EUROSTAT data [106].
The Port of Dover is committed to ensuring the best possible protection of the environment within its jurisdiction, consistent with its mission and the aim of sustainable development [107]. They demonstrate their business through six of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: Affordable and clean energy (SDG 7), Decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), Industry, innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9), Sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11), Responsible consumption and production (SDG 12), and Climate action (SDG 13) [108].
The Port of Helsinki reports on the achievement of its responsibility and sustainable development goals as part of its annual reporting. The port achieved its 2021 responsibility targets well: its focus on society’s security of supply was highlighted and its carbon neutrality programme proceeded as planned. The key aspects of the port’s responsibility management model are financial, social, and environmental responsibility. Objectives and decisions are considered from a financial, social, and ethical perspective, taking into account company stakeholders [109].
Tallinna Sadam consistently strives to reduce the negative impacts of its business and activities on the environment [110]. Through its activities, Tallinna Sadam contributes to the achievement of Estonia’s goal of climate neutrality, as well as to the implementation of the European Green Deal and the Sustainable Development Goals of the UN [111].
Piraeus Port Authority supports the United Nations 2030 Agenda, which sets out 17 Sustainable Development Goals for 2030. Its aim is to actively contribute to the achievement of these goals by promoting the well-being and safety of the population, protecting the environment, and fighting poverty. Priority is given to achieving goals directly related to the activities and challenges of the transport sector, as shown in the Corporate Responsibility and Sustainable Development Report for 2020 [112].
The port of Calais has published the latest environmental report of 2014, available on its website. However, the website emphasises its strategic objectives: ensuring the satisfaction of its customers, operators and users; protecting the health and ensuring the safety of property and people; preserving the environment and the way of life of all; ensuring attractiveness; supporting initiative and innovation; ensuring development and well-being to enhance collective performance; adopting ethical, responsible, and civic behaviour. In addition, the port organises its Sustainable Development Action Plan around 10 themes that can be linked to the SDGs. For example,
  • Promoting the reduction of air emissions;
  • Preserving water quality;
  • Promoting the integration of the sites of Boulogne-sur-Mer and Calais in their urban areas;
  • Maintaining ecological continuum and balance;
  • Treating and recycling all waste;
  • Fighting against discrimination;
  • Ensuring satisfactory working, health, and safety conditions;
  • Promoting personal development, skills acquisition, and development;
  • Constituting a port community of goals and means [113].
Reviewing the annual reports, including the financial and sustainability reports, on the top 10 passenger seaports, it can be concluded that all passenger seaports do not have available reports on their websites in the period 2017–2021. Furthermore, this analysis shows that some ports included Sustainable Development Goals in their reports (only some of the goals).

3. Discussion and Conclusions

Considering the importance of sustainable development in all fields, the main purpose of this paper was to provide an overview of the research area and applied methodology dealing with sustainable seaports and sustainable passenger seaports. The authors extracted 74 relevant publications on sustainable seaports and 38 publications on sustainable passenger seaports.
The article “Role of sustainability in global seaports” [22] examines the relationships between the existing sustainability of seaports and the current discussion on sustainability. Thirty-six seaports from North America (NA), Europe (EU), and the Asia Pacific (AP) region were selected for analysis. Considering the top 10 European ports, only the port of Helsinki was included in this research.
The main objective of the paper titled “A methodological approach for environmental [60] characterization of ports” is to propose a collective methodology for port assessment, based on the combination of available economic data and information on environmental and social parameters. The study included 16 ports, of which only one (Piraeus) was included in this study. Moreover, the paper “The Port of Piraeus: Industrial Zone or Urban Continuity” [102] includes the port of Piraeus and its relation to the surrounding urban pattern.
The paper “Challenges for European Tourist-City-Ports: Strategies for a Sustainable Coexistence in the Cruise Post-COVID Context” [76] proposes five different strategies that contribute to a sustainable coexistence between tourist ports and their cities. In this research, the port of Naples was included.
In their study, the authors of [82] explore the potential of diversifying shore excursions offered by cruise lines to reduce pressure on popular destinations. The ports of Messina, Naples, and Calabria were included in the study.
In the research “Managing sustainable practices in cruise tourism: the assessment of carbon footprint and waste of water and beverage packaging”, the authors [84] present an analysis of the carbon dioxide emissions and waste associated with water and beverage packaging. In this research, the port of Naples was included.
A total of 101 papers were included in the literature review, without filtering according to geographic area. Only six papers dealt with the ports listed as the top 10 passenger seaports in Europe. This indicates insufficient research on European seaports in the context of sustainable development. This can be added to the unavailability of data and annual reports from the European seaports.
Regarding the visibility of the sustainability commitment of the top 10 passenger seaports, it can be concluded that most of them had room for improvement in the years observed. Moreover, they should include more sustainable development goals, if necessary.
According to the methodology applied, each article was classified into the five proposed groups: literature review, theoretical approach, qualitative approach/methods, quantitative approach/methods, and other. Some of the articles used a combination of methods, so they were classified by the authors into more categories (usually three). Comparing the literature review on sustainable seaports and the literature review on sustainable passenger seaports, it is noticeable that most of the papers in both reviews were categorised as quantitative approach/methods. Most of the methods used in both studies that fell into the qualitative approach/methods category were interviews, questionnaires, and surveys.
The main contribution of this paper is a summary of the most commonly used tools/methods to evaluate the current sustainable measures of passenger seaports.
The limitations of this research may arise from the number of people reviewing the papers [114], as well as different interpretations of the terms or keywords sought. Some papers addressing this topic may not have been included because they were not published in WoS, or the search was conducted using only the keywords “sustainable seaport” and “sustainable passenger seaport”.
The existing literature identified in this paper will serve as the basis for a deeper analysis of the methods/ways in which the elements that contribute to sustainability in passenger seaports can be determined. Future research can incorporate these findings to create an assessment model for sustainable port improvements. It is necessary to identify all elements of the passenger seaport (economic, social, environmental, legal, technical, technological, organisational, and others) that influence sustainable port development. It is also important to assign a numerical value to all elements of the passenger seaport.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, K.B., D.Ž. and M.S.; methodology, K.B., D.Ž. and M.S.; software, K.B. and H.U.B.; validation, K.B., D.Ž., H.U.B. and M.S.; formal analysis, K.B. and H.U.B.; investigation, K.B. and H.U.B.; resources, K.B. and D.Ž.; data curation, all authors.; original draft preparation, K.B. and H.U.B.; writing—review and editing, all authors; visualisation, K.B.; supervision, M.S. and D.Ž. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cavalli, L.; Lizzi, G.; Guerrieri, L.; Querci, A.; De Bari, F.; Barbieri, G.; Ferrini, S.; Di Meglio, R.; Cardone, R.; Tardo, A.; et al. Addressing efficiency and sustainability in the port of the future with 5G: The experience of the livorno port. a methodological insight to measure innovation technologies’ benefits on port operations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. IMO SDG Brochure. 2015. Available online: https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Documents/IMO SDG Brochure.pdf (accessed on 23 May 2022).
  3. Areas of Interest—World Port Sustainability Program. Available online: https://sustainableworldports.org/areas-of-interest/ (accessed on 3 May 2022).
  4. Why Ports Are at the Heart of Sustainable Development|UNCTAD. Available online: https://unctad.org/news/why-ports-are-heart-sustainable-development (accessed on 23 May 2022).
  5. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, 105906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Papaefthimiou, S.; Sitzimis, I.; Andriosopoulos, K. A methodological approach for environmental characterization of ports. Marit. Policy Manag. 2017, 44, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tai, H.-H.; Chang, Y.-H. Reducing pollutant emissions from vessel maneuvering in port areas. Marit. Econ. Logist. 2022, 1, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lee, Y.; Song, H.; Jeong, S. Prioritizing environmental justice in the port hinterland policy: Case of Busan New Port. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2021, 41, 100672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chapapría, V.E.; Peris, J.S. Vulnerability of coastal areas due to infrastructure: The case of Valencia port (Spain). Land 2021, 10, 1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jaafar, H.S.; Aziz, M.L.A.; Ahmad, M.R.; Faisol, N. Creating innovation in achieving sustainability: Halal-friendly sustainable port. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Liu, J.; Kong, Y.; Li, S.; Wu, J. Sustainability assessment of port cities with a hybrid model-empirical evidence from China. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 75, 103301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. De Martino, M. Value creation for sustainability in port: Perspectives of analysis and future research directions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Roh, S.; Thai, V.V.; Jang, H.; Yeo, G.T. The best practices of port sustainable development: A case study in Korea. Marit. Policy Manag. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Argyriou, I.; Sifakis, N.; Tsoutsos, T. Ranking measures to improve the sustainability of Mediterranean ports based on multicriteria decision analysis: A case study of Souda port, Chania, Crete. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 6449–6466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Meyer, C.; Gerlitz, L.; Philipp, R.; Paulauskas, V. A digital or sustainable small and medium-sized port? Sustainable port blueprint in the baltic sea region based on port benchmarking. Transp. Telecommun. 2021, 22, 332–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Othman, M.K.; Abdul Rahman, N.S.F.; Ismail, A.; Saharuddin, A.H. The Sustainable Port Classification Framework for Enhancing the Port Coordination System. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 2019, 35, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Barreiro-Gen, M.; Lozano, R.; Temel, M.; Carpenter, A. Gender equality for sustainability in ports: Developing a framework. Mar. Policy 2021, 131, 104593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gan, M.; Li, D.; Wang, J.; Zhang, J.; Huang, Q. A comparative analysis of the competition strategy of seaports under carbon emission constraints. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 310, 127488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Iris, Ç.; Lam, J.S.L. Optimal energy management and operations planning in seaports with smart grid while harnessing renewable energy under uncertainty. Omega 2021, 103, 102445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Shankar, S.; Punia, S.; Singh, S.P.; Dong, J. Trajectory of research on maritime transportation in the era of digitization. Benchmarking Int. J. 2022, 29, 194–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gerlitz, L.; Meyer, C. Small and medium-sized ports in the ten-t network and nexus of europe’s twin transition: The way towards sustainable and digital port service ecosystems. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. AlRukaibi, F.; AlKheder, S.; AlMashan, N. Sustainable port management in Kuwait: Shuwaikh port system. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 2020, 36, 20–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hossain, T.; Adams, M.; Walker, T.R. Role of sustainability in global seaports. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2021, 202, 105435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kong, Y.; Liu, J. Sustainable port cities with coupling coordination and environmental efficiency. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2021, 205, 105534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Höller, L. Porous kirkenes: Crumbling mining town or dynamic port cityscape? Urban Plan. 2021, 6, 197–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gu, Y.; Loh, H.S.; Yap, W.Y. Sustainable port-hinterland intermodal development: Opportunities and challenges for China and India. J. Infrastruct. Policy Dev. 2020, 4, 228–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, C.; Haralambides, H.; Zhang, L. Sustainable port development: The role of Chinese seaports in the 21st century Maritime Silk Road. Int. J. Shipp. Transp. Logist. 2021, 13, 205–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Taljaard, S.; Slinger, J.H.; Arabi, S.; Weerts, S.P.; Vreugdenhil, H. The natural environment in port development: A ‘green handbrake’ or an equal partner? Ocean Coast. Manag. 2021, 199, 105390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhao, C.; Li, R.; Wang, Y.; Yu, H.; Gong, Y. Study on the propagation of sustainable development concept among Gulf ports based on complex network. Marit. Policy Manag. 2021, 48, 478–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Paulauskas, V.; Filina-Dawidowicz, L.; Paulauskas, D. The method to decrease emissions from ships in port areas. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mańkowska, M.; Kotowska, I.; Pluciński, M. Seaports as nodal points of circular supply chains: Opportunities and challenges for secondary ports. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Moeis, A.O.; Desriani, F.; Destyanto, A.R.; Zagloel, T.Y.; Hidayatno, A.; Sutrisno, A. Sustainability assessment of the tanjung priok port cluster. Int. J. Technol. 2020, 11, 353–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Sinha, D.; Roy Chowdhury, S. A framework for ensuring zero defects and sustainable operations in major Indian ports. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2020, 1, 1–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wu, X.; Zhang, L.; Yang, H.C. Integration of eco-centric views of sustainability in port planning. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Huang, Y.; Yip, T.L.; Liang, C. Risk perception and property value: Evidence from Tianjin port explosion. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Nurul Huda, L.; Sulastri, R. Economic analysis of port development project (case study: Belawan Port Medan). IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 801, 012113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhao, Y.; Zhu, Q.; Kou, Y.; Venus Lun, Y.H. Quantitative evaluation of dual operational-environmental port performance in the Pearl River Delta. Int. J. Shipp. Transp. Logist. 2020, 12, 212–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. de Boer, W.P.; Slinger, J.H.; wa Kangeri, A.K.; Vreugdenhil, H.S.I.; Taneja, P.; Addo, K.A.; Vellinga, T. Identifying ecosystem-based alternatives for the design of a seaports marine infrastructure: The case of tema port expansion in Ghana. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Casazza, M.; Lega, M.; Jannelli, E.; Minutillo, M.; Jaffe, D.; Severino, V.; Ulgiati, S. 3D monitoring and modelling of air quality for sustainable urban port planning: Review and perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 231, 1342–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lawer, E.T.; Herbeck, J.; Flitner, M. Selective adoption: How port authorities in Europe and West Africa engage with the globalizing “green port” idea. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Tijan, E.; Agatić, A.; Jović, M.; Aksentijević, S. Maritime National Single Window-a prerequisite for sustainable seaport business. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Bjerkan, K.Y.; Seter, H. Reviewing tools and technologies for sustainable ports: Does research enable decision making in ports? Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019, 72, 243–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. de Boer, W.; Mao, Y.; Hagenaars, G.; de Vries, S.; Slinger, J.; Vellinga, T. Mapping the sandy beach evolution around seaports at the scale of the African continent. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Lozano, R.; Fobbe, L.; Carpenter, A.; Sammalisto, K. Analysing sustainability changes in seaports: Experiences from the Gävle Port Authority. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 27, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Muangpan, T.; Suthiwartnarueput, K. Key performance indicators of sustainable port: Case study of the eastern economic corridor in Thailand. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2019, 6, 1603275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tsao, Y.C.; Van Thanh, V. A multi-objective mixed robust possibilistic flexible programming approach for sustainable seaport-dry port network design under an uncertain environment. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2019, 124, 13–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nunes, R.A.O.; Alvim-Ferraz, M.C.M.; Martins, F.G.; Sousa, S.I.V. Environmental and social valuation of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal. J. Environ. Manage. 2019, 235, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wu, X.; Zhang, L.; Dong, Y. Towards sustainability in Xiamen Harbor, China. Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci. 2019, 27, 100552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kotowska, I.; Mańkowska, M.; Pluciński, M. Inland shipping to serve the hinterland: The challenge for seaport authorities. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Li, K.X.; Park, T.J.; Lee, P.T.W.; McLaughlin, H.; Shi, W. Container transport network for sustainable development in South Korea. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Ignaccolo, M.; Inturri, G.; Le Pira, M. Framing stakeholder involvement in sustainable port planning. Trans. Marit. Sci. 2018, 7, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Jonathan, Y.C.E.; Kader, S.B.A. Prospect of emission reduction standard for sustainable port equipment electrification. Int. J. Eng. Trans. B Appl. 2018, 31, 1347–1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wang, W.; Chen, J.; Liu, Q.; Guo, Z. Green project planning with realistic multi-objective consideration in developing sustainable port. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Yigit, K.; Acarkan, B. A new electrical energy management approach for ships using mixed energy sources to ensure sustainable port cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 40, 126–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Schipper, C.A.; Vreugdenhil, H.; de Jong, M.P.C. A sustainability assessment of ports and port-city plans: Comparing ambitions with achievements. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2017, 57, 84–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. To, N.T.; Kato, T. Solid waste generated from ships: A case study on ship-waste composition and garbage delivery attitudes at Haiphong ports, Vietnam. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 2017, 19, 988–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nebot, N.; Rosa-Jiménez, C.; Pié Ninot, R.; Perea-Medina, B. Challenges for the future of ports. What can be learnt from the Spanish Mediterranean ports? Ocean Coast. Manag. 2017, 137, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bandyopadhyay, R.; Kaplan, P.O.; Araujo, R.; Dodder, R.; Smith, E.R. “FREIDA (framework of resources for modeling energy/environmental/economic impacts of development and advancements) in ports”: A portfolio of interactive information resources, and an illustrative energy sector analysis. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), San Jose, CA, USA, 19–22 October 2017; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  59. Neisingh, W.W.J.; Taneja, P.; Vellinga, T.; Verlaan, J.G. Ports in transition. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure 2017, New York, NY, USA, 26–28 October 2017; 2017, pp. 295–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Lazaroiu, C.; Roscia, M. Sustainable port through sea wave energy converter. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE 6th International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Applications (ICRERA), San Diego, CA, USA, 5–8 November 2017; Volume 17, pp. 462–467. [Google Scholar]
  61. Hou, L.; Geerlings, H. Dynamics in sustainable port and hinterland operations: A conceptual framework and simulation of sustainability measures and their effectiveness, based on an application to the Port of Shanghai. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 449–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Schulte, F.; Gonzalez-Ramirez, R.G.; Ascencio, L.M.; Voss, S. Directions for sustainable ports in Latin America and the Caribbean. Int. J. Transp. Econ. 2016, 43, 315–337. [Google Scholar]
  63. Roh, S.; Thai, V.V.; Wong, Y.D. Towards Sustainable ASEAN Port Development: Challenges and Opportunities for Vietnamese Ports. Asian J. Shipp. Logist. 2016, 32, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Tseng, P.H.; Pilcher, N. Exploring the viability of an emission tax policy for ships at berth in Taiwanese ports. Int. J. Shipp. Transp. Logist. 2016, 8, 705–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhou, Y.; Wang, W.; Song, X.; Guo, Z. Simulation-Based Optimization for Yard Design at Mega Container Terminal under Uncertainty. Math. Probl. Eng. 2016, 2016, 7467498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Bauk, S.; Sekularac-Ivosevic, S.; Jolic, N. Seaport positioning supported by the combination of some quantitative and qualitative approaches. Transport 2015, 30, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Puig, M.; Wooldridge, C.; Mari, R. Identification and selection of Environmental Performance Indicators for sustainable port development. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 81, 124–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Hiranandani, V. Sustainable development in seaports: A multi-case study. WMU J. Marit. Aff. 2014, 13, 127–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pavlic, B.; Cepak, F.; Sucic, B.; Peckaj, M.; Kandus, B. Sustainable port infrastructure, practical implementation of the green port concept. Therm. Sci. 2014, 18, 935–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Gilles, M.; Fernando Rodrigues, L.; Hipolito, M.-F.; Francois, H. Tools for an integrated systems approach to sustainable port city planning\rInstrumental para uma abordagem sistêmica e integrada no planejamento de cidades portuárias sustentáveis. Urbe Rev. Bras. Gest. Urbana 2013, 5, 39–49. [Google Scholar]
  71. Daamen, T.A.; Vries, I. Governing the European port-city interface: Institutional impacts on spatial projects between city and port. J. Transp. Geogr. 2013, 27, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lirn, T.C.; Wu, Y.C.J.; Chen, Y.J. Green performance criteria for sustainable ports in Asia. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2013, 43, 427–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Onwuegbuchunam, D.E. Port selection criteria by shippers in Nigeria: A discrete choice analysis. Int. J. Shipp. Transp. Logist. 2013, 5, 532–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hartman, B.C.; Clott, C.B. An economic model for sustainable harbor trucking. Transp. Res. Part D 2012, 17, 354–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. De Langen, P.W.; Van Den Berg, R.; Willeumier, A. A new approach to granting terminal concessions: The case of the Rotterdam World Gateway terminal. Marit. Policy Manag. 2012, 39, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Andrade, M.J.; Costa, J.P.; Jiménez-Morales, E. Challenges for european tourist-city-ports: Strategies for a sustainable coexistence in the cruise post-COVID context. Land 2021, 10, 1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Gil-Lopez, T.; Verdu-Vazquez, A. Environmental analysis of the use of liquefied natural gas in maritime transport within the port environment. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sifakis, N.; Tsoutsos, T. Planning zero-emissions ports through the nearly zero energy port concept. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 286, 125448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Łapko, A.; Hącia, E.; Wieczorek, R. Collection of waste from passenger ships and its impact on the functioning of tourist port city Świnoujście. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Yehia, W.; Kamar, L.; Hassan, M.A.; Moustafa, M.M. Proposed hybrid power system for short route ferries. Nase More 2020, 67, 226–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ignaccolo, M.; Inturri, G.; Giuffrida, N.; Torrisi, V. A sustainable framework for the analysis of port systems. Eur. Transp.Trasp. Eur. 2020, 78, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Mangano, S.; Ugolini, G.M. New opportunities for cruise tourism: The case of Italian historic towns. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Liu, Y.; Dong, E.; Li, S.; Jie, X. Cruise tourism for sustainability: An exploration of value chain in Shenzhen Shekou Port. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Paiano, A.; Crovella, T.; Lagioia, G. Managing sustainable practices in cruise tourism: The assessment of carbon footprint and waste of water and beverage packaging. Tour. Manag. 2020, 77, 104016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mortensen, L.; Kørnøv, L.; Lyhne, I.; Raakjær, J. Smaller ports’ evolution towards catalysing sustainable hinterland development. Marit. Policy Manag. 2020, 47, 402–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wondirad, A. Retracing the past, comprehending the present and contemplating the future of cruise tourism through a meta-analysis of journal publications. Mar. Policy 2019, 108, 103618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Perea-Medina, B.; Rosa-Jiménez, C.; Andrade, M.J. Potential of public transport in regionalisation of main cruise destinations in Mediterranean. Tour. Manag. 2019, 74, 382–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Santos, M.; Radicchi, E.; Zagnoli, P. Port’s role as a determinant of cruise destination socio-economic sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Fernández Gámez, M.; Sánchez Serrano, J.; Callejón Gil, A.; Cisneros Ruiz, A. Cruise Passengers’ Intention and Sustainable Management of Cruise Destinations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Ruiz-Guerra, I.; Molina-Moreno, V.; Cortés-García, F.J.; Núñez-Cacho, P. Prediction of the impact on air quality of the cities receiving cruise tourism: The case of the Port of Barcelona. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  91. Kishchenko, K.; De Roeck, M.; Salens, M.; Van Maroey, C. The antwerp marketplace for mobility: Partnering with private mobility service providers as a strategy to keep the region accessible. Transp. Res. Procedia 2019, 39, 191–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Urbanyi-Popiołek, I. Cruise industry in the Baltic Sea Region, the challenges for ports in the context of sustainable logistics and ecological aspects. Transp. Res. Procedia 2019, 39, 544–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Wilewska-Bien, M.; Anderberg, S. Reception of sewage in the Baltic Sea—The port´s role in the sustainable management of ship wastes. Mar. Policy 2018, 93, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sakib, N.; Appiotti, F.; Magni, F.; Maragno, D.; Innocenti, A.; Gissi, E.; Musco, F. Addressing the passenger transport and accessibility enablers for sustainable development. Sustainability 2018, 10, 903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Rosa-Jiménez, C.; Perea-Medina, B.; Andrade, M.J.; Nebot, N. An examination of the territorial imbalance of the cruising activity in the main Mediterranean port destinations: Effects on sustainable transport. J. Transp. Geogr. 2018, 68, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Grindlay, A.L.; Martínez-Hornos, S. City–port relationships in Malaga, Spain: Effects of the new port proposals on urban traffic. WIT Trans. Built Environ. 2018, 176, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Iannello, A.; Bertagna, S.; Pozzetto, D.; Toneatti, L.; Zamarini, R.; Bucci, V. Technical and economic and environmental feasibility of an innovative integrated system of management and treatment of waste on board. In Technology and Science for the Ships of the Future, Proceedings of the NAV 2018: 19th International Conference on Ship & Maritime Research, Trieste, Italy, 20–22 June 2018; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Volume 1, pp. 762–769. [CrossRef]
  98. Manginas, V.; Manoli, S.; Nathanail, E. Enhancing sustainable mobility: A business model for the Port of Volos. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017, 24, 275–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Laxe, F.G.; Bermúdez, F.M.; Palmero, F.M.; Novo-Corti, I. Sustainability and the Spanish port system. Analysis of the relationship between economic and environmental indicators. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2016, 113, 232–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Bianucci, M.; Merlino, S.; Ferrando, M.; Baruzzo, L. The optimal hybrid/electric ferry for the liguria Natural Parks. In Proceedings of the MTS/IEEE Ocean 2015—Genova Discovering Sustainable Ocean Energy for a New World, Genova, Italy, 18–21 May 2015; IEEE: Piscataway Township, NJ, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Thurau, B.; Seekamp, E.; Carver, A.D.; Lee, J.G. Should Cruise Ports Market Ecotourism? A Comparative Analysis of Passenger Spending Expectations within the Panama Canal Watershed. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2013, 17, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Sotaniehha, M.; Peric, A.; Scholl, B. The Port of Piraeus: Industrial Zone or Urban Continuity. In Urban Transformations: Cities and Water, Proceedings of the 50th IsoCaRP International Congress, Gdynia, Poland, 23–26 September 2014; ISOCARP: Hague, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 1360–1371. [Google Scholar]
  103. Urbanyi-Popiołek, I. Cruise Industry in the City of Gdynia, the Implications for Sustainable Logistic Services and Spatial Development. Procedia -Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 151, 342–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Dundović, Č.; Jurić, M.; Kovačić, M. Optimizing the split port system to promote sustainable development. Pomorstvo 2013, 27, 285–298. [Google Scholar]
  105. Vichos, E.; Sifakis, N.; Tsoutsos, T. Challenges of integrating hydrogen energy storage systems into nearly zero-energy ports. Energy 2022, 241, 122878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Statistics|Eurostat. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/mar_mp_aa_pphd/default/table?lang=en (accessed on 22 June 2022).
  107. Port of Dover Annual Report & Accounts. 2018. Available online: https://www.doverport.co.uk/administrator/tinymce/source/Annual Reports/Annual Report and Accounts 2018_WEB.pdf (accessed on 23 May 2022).
  108. Port of Dover Annual Report & Accounts. 2020. Available online: http://www.doverport.co.uk/port/about/brexit-be-prepared/ (accessed on 23 May 2022).
  109. Environmental Responsibility|Port of Helsinki. Available online: https://www.portofhelsinki.fi/en/responsibility/environmental-responsibility (accessed on 3 May 2022).
  110. Miranville, A. Annual Report. 2021. Available online: https://www.ts.ee/en/investor/annual-reports/ (accessed on 23 May 2022).
  111. Miranville, A. Annual Report. 2020. Available online: https://www.ts.ee/en/investor/annual-reports/ (accessed on 23 May 2022).
  112. Piraeus Port Authority, s.a. Corporate Responsibility and Sustainable Development Report. 2020. Available online: https://www.olp.gr/en/ (accessed on 23 May 2022).
  113. Port Boulogne Calais, Port de Commerce, Plaisance, et Ferry. Available online: https://www.portboulognecalais.fr/en/corporate-social-responsability (accessed on 23 May 2022).
  114. Gartlehner, G.; Affengruber, L.; Titscher, V.; Noel-Storr, A.; Dooley, G.; Ballarini, N.; König, F. Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: A crowd-based, randomized controlled trial. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2020, 121, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) analysis flow, which deals with sustainable ports. * The exclusions correspond to the articles that were removed after reading abstracts. Article does not apply to sustainable ports. ** The exclusions correspond to the articles that were removed after reading full text. Article does not apply to sustainability.
Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) analysis flow, which deals with sustainable ports. * The exclusions correspond to the articles that were removed after reading abstracts. Article does not apply to sustainable ports. ** The exclusions correspond to the articles that were removed after reading full text. Article does not apply to sustainability.
Jmse 10 01048 g001
Figure 2. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) analysis flow, which deals with sustainable passenger ports. * The exclusions correspond to the articles that were removed after reading abstracts. Article does not apply to sustainable passenger ports. ** This study does not apply to passenger ports. *** This paper deals with intermodal passenger terminals. **** This paper deals with methodology/calculation for invasive species input.
Figure 2. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) analysis flow, which deals with sustainable passenger ports. * The exclusions correspond to the articles that were removed after reading abstracts. Article does not apply to sustainable passenger ports. ** This study does not apply to passenger ports. *** This paper deals with intermodal passenger terminals. **** This paper deals with methodology/calculation for invasive species input.
Jmse 10 01048 g002
Figure 3. Comparison of studies of sustainable ports and sustainable passenger ports during 2012–2021, found on Web of Science on 15 March, using Topic search: (1) (TS = (“sustainable port *” or “sustainable maritime port *” or “sustainable harbour *” or “sustainable seaport *”); (2) TS = (“sustainable passenger port *” or “sustainable passenger maritime port *” or “sustainable passenger harbour *” or “sustainable passenger seaport *”).
Figure 3. Comparison of studies of sustainable ports and sustainable passenger ports during 2012–2021, found on Web of Science on 15 March, using Topic search: (1) (TS = (“sustainable port *” or “sustainable maritime port *” or “sustainable harbour *” or “sustainable seaport *”); (2) TS = (“sustainable passenger port *” or “sustainable passenger maritime port *” or “sustainable passenger harbour *” or “sustainable passenger seaport *”).
Jmse 10 01048 g003
Figure 4. Relation of the total number of filtered publications and research area group in the period 2012–2022.
Figure 4. Relation of the total number of filtered publications and research area group in the period 2012–2022.
Jmse 10 01048 g004
Figure 5. Relation of the total number of filtered publications and applied methods in the period 2012–2022.
Figure 5. Relation of the total number of filtered publications and applied methods in the period 2012–2022.
Jmse 10 01048 g005
Table 3. Commitment to sustainability among the top 10 European passenger seaports.
Table 3. Commitment to sustainability among the top 10 European passenger seaports.
Top Ten Passenger PortsOrigin20212020201920182017
Port of DoverUnited Kingdom++++
Port of MessinaItaly
Port of HelsinkiFinland+++++
Port of Reggio di CalabriaItaly
Port of TallinnEstonia+++++
Port of PiraeusGreece+++
Port of NapoliItaly
Port of CalaisFrance
Port of Paloukia SalaminasGreece
Port of PeramaGreece
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Balić, K.; Žgaljić, D.; Ukić Boljat, H.; Slišković, M. The Port System in Addressing Sustainability Issues—A Systematic Review of Research. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1048. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10081048

AMA Style

Balić K, Žgaljić D, Ukić Boljat H, Slišković M. The Port System in Addressing Sustainability Issues—A Systematic Review of Research. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2022; 10(8):1048. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10081048

Chicago/Turabian Style

Balić, Katarina, Dražen Žgaljić, Helena Ukić Boljat, and Merica Slišković. 2022. "The Port System in Addressing Sustainability Issues—A Systematic Review of Research" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 10, no. 8: 1048. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10081048

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop