21 Green Port Indicators: A Review
255
(2), measures to reduce port service time (2), adoption of quality standard (2) and
management of hazardous cargo (2).
21.5 Conclusion
In retrospect, it is easy to comprehend why air pollution management is the most
frequently research green port indicator in the recent years. This is because, it coincides with the current research in green shipping especially on the various initiatives
to adhere to Annex VI of the Marine Pollution (MARPOL) Convention. Besides air
pollution, the other popular indicators or determinants that are commonly studied in
green port research are water pollution, preservation/improvement of marine life and
noise pollution. Water pollution and noise pollution are also two common areas that
are generally studied in environmental research. It is also interesting to note that soil
and sediment preservation, management of solid waste and garbage, the prospect
of utilising more green technology, as well as the preservation and improvement of
coastal habitat have also been considered by many researchers as among the important factors that must be addressed by ports in order to become more sustainable
in the long run. Notwithstanding the preceding arguments, it is worthy to note that
although the other indicators did not receive much coverage in the contemporary
green port literature, it does not in any way signify that those indicators are less
important. In fact, it presents green port researchers with an opportunity to further
explore into those indicators and contribute towards the enhancement of green port
as a body of knowledge.
Acknowledgements This work is supported by The Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia under the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS), Grant Code:
FRGS/1/2018/WAB05/UNIKL/02/1.
References
1. 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-Basel 11(18), 5119
(2019)
2. Wan, C., Zhang, D., Yan, X., Yang, Z.: A novel model for the quantitative evaluation of green
port development. A case study of major ports in China. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ.
61, 431–443 (2018)
3. Pavlic, B., Cepak, F., Sucic, B., Peckaj, M., Kandus, B.: Sustainable port infrastructure, practical
implementation of the green port concept. Therm. Sci. 18(3), 935–948 (2014)
4. Lam, J.S.L., Notteboom, T.: The greening of ports: a comparison of port management tools
used by leading ports in Asia and Europe. Transport Rev. 34(2), 169–189 (2014)
5. Marzantowicz, Ł., Dembi´ nska, I.: The reasons for the implementation of the concept of green
port in sea ports of China. Int. J. Shipp. Transp. Logist. 37, 121–128 (2018)
255
(2), measures to reduce port service time (2), adoption of quality standard (2) and
management of hazardous cargo (2).
21.5 Conclusion
In retrospect, it is easy to comprehend why air pollution management is the most
frequently research green port indicator in the recent years. This is because, it coincides with the current research in green shipping especially on the various initiatives
to adhere to Annex VI of the Marine Pollution (MARPOL) Convention. Besides air
pollution, the other popular indicators or determinants that are commonly studied in
green port research are water pollution, preservation/improvement of marine life and
noise pollution. Water pollution and noise pollution are also two common areas that
are generally studied in environmental research. It is also interesting to note that soil
and sediment preservation, management of solid waste and garbage, the prospect
of utilising more green technology, as well as the preservation and improvement of
coastal habitat have also been considered by many researchers as among the important factors that must be addressed by ports in order to become more sustainable
in the long run. Notwithstanding the preceding arguments, it is worthy to note that
although the other indicators did not receive much coverage in the contemporary
green port literature, it does not in any way signify that those indicators are less
important. In fact, it presents green port researchers with an opportunity to further
explore into those indicators and contribute towards the enhancement of green port
as a body of knowledge.
Acknowledgements This work is supported by The Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia under the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS), Grant Code:
FRGS/1/2018/WAB05/UNIKL/02/1.
References
1. 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-Basel 11(18), 5119
(2019)
2. Wan, C., Zhang, D., Yan, X., Yang, Z.: A novel model for the quantitative evaluation of green
port development. A case study of major ports in China. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ.
61, 431–443 (2018)
3. Pavlic, B., Cepak, F., Sucic, B., Peckaj, M., Kandus, B.: Sustainable port infrastructure, practical
implementation of the green port concept. Therm. Sci. 18(3), 935–948 (2014)
4. Lam, J.S.L., Notteboom, T.: The greening of ports: a comparison of port management tools
used by leading ports in Asia and Europe. Transport Rev. 34(2), 169–189 (2014)
5. Marzantowicz, Ł., Dembi´ nska, I.: The reasons for the implementation of the concept of green
port in sea ports of China. Int. J. Shipp. Transp. Logist. 37, 121–128 (2018)