The importance of sea ports in the global logistics maritime supply chain and it connectivity is increasing, as is the focus on optimizing daily operational activities and minimizing the negative impact on society. One of the most significant negative externalities for sea ports is air pollution that remain one the main concern and environmental priority for Port Authorities and Government and their strategic policies. The growth of containerization in the shipping industry stimulates the demand for infrastructure development and increased energy use. This paper strives to propose the best alternative sources of energy to transit from traditional fuel to the greener ones for two important container terminals in Italy. The analyses focus on energy consumption of the most important container terminals Voltri and La Spezia in Italy and analysed using alternative sources of energy. Based on the priorities chosen by twelve experts, the cost, societal and environmental criteria are assigned the highest weight respectively. The Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP) and the Technique for Order Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) techniques are used, to identify the best alternative sources of energy.
EriksenSAlduncePBahinipatiCS, et al. When not every response to climate change is a good one: identifying principles for sustainable adaptation. Clim Dev2011; 3(1): 7–20.
2.
BrundtlandGHKhalidMAgnelliS, et al. Our common future. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1987, p.8.
3.
DuKMoniosJWangY. Green port strategies in China. In: Green ports. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2019, pp.211–229.
4.
Rosa-SantosPTaveira-PintoFClementeD, et al. Experimental study of a hybrid wave energy converter integrated in a harbor breakwater. J Mar Sci Eng2019; 7(2): 33.
5.
PoulsenRTPonteSSornn-FrieseH. Environmental upgrading in global value chains: the potential and limitations of ports in the greening of maritime transport. Geoforum2018; 89: 83–95.
6.
LimSPettitSAbouarghoubW, et al. Port sustainability and performance: a systematic literature review. Transp Res D Transp Environ2019; 72: 47–64.
7.
AregallMGBergqvistRMoniosJ.A global review of the hinterland dimension of green port strategies. Transp Res D Transp Environ2018; 59; 23–34.
BergqvistRMoniosJ. Green ports in theory and practice. In: Green ports: inland and seaside sustainable transportation strategies. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier, 2019, pp.1–17.
13.
AcciaroMVanelslanderTSysC, et al. Environmental sustainability in seaports: a framework for successful innovation. Marit Policy Manag2014; 41(5): 480–500.
14.
Peris-MoraEOrejasJDSubiratsA, et al. Development of a system of indicators for sustainable port management. Mar Pollut Bull2005; 50(12): 1649–1660.
15.
ChiuRHLinLHTingSC.Evaluation of green port factors and performance: a fuzzy AHP analysis. Math Probl Eng2014; 2014: 1–12.
16.
AlfredssonEBengtssonMBrownHS, et al. Why achieving the Paris agreement requires reduced overall consumption and production. Sustainability2018; 14(1): 1–5.
17.
TolliverCKeeleyARManagiS. Green bonds for the Paris agreement and sustainable development goals. Environ Res Lett2019; 14(6): 064009.
18.
BoileMTheofanisSSdoukopoulosE, et al. Developing a port energy management plan: issues, challenges, and prospects. Transp Res Rec2016; 2549(1): 19–28.
WilmsmeierGSpenglerT. Energy consumption and container terminal efficiency. In: IAME 2016 Conference, Hamburg, August2016, pp.23–26.
34.
Martínez-MoyaJVazquez-PajaBMaldonadoJAG. Energy efficiency and CO2 emissions of port container terminal equipment: evidence from the Port of Valencia. Energy Policy2019; 131: 312–319.
35.
PuigMWooldridgeCMichailA, et al. Current status and trends of the environmental performance in European ports. Environ Sci Policy2015; 48: 57–66.
36.
BrooksMRCullinaneK (eds). Devolution, port governance and port performance. London: Elsevier, 2006.
37.
MoniosJ. Polycentric port governance. Transp Policy2019, 83: 26–36.
38.
DadashpoorHArastehM. Core-port connectivity: towards shaping a national hinterland in a West Asia country. Transp Policy2020; 88: 57–68.
LazakisIÖlçerA. Selection of the best maintenance approach in the maritime industry under fuzzy multiple attributive group decision-making environment. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering Maritime Environment2016; 230(2): 297–309.
43.
ÖlçerABalliniF. The development of a decision making framework for evaluating the trade-off solutions of cleaner seaborne transportation. Transp Res D Transp Environ2015; 37: 150–170.
GhodsypourSHO’BrienC. A decision support system for supplier selection using an integrated analytic hierarchy process and linear programming. Int J Prod Econ1998; 56: 199–212.
46.
ErensalYCÖncanTDemircanML. Determining key capabilities in technology management using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: a case study of Turkey. Inf Sci2006; 176(18): 2755–2770.
47.
YadegaridehkordiENasirMHNoorNF, et al. Predicting the adoption of cloud-based technology using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and structural equation modelling approaches. Appl Soft Comput2018; 66: 77–89.
48.
ChangD-Y. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy. Eur J Oper Res1996; 95: 649–655.
49.
YangYPOShiehHMLeuJD, et al. A novel hybrid MCDM model combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications. Int J Oper Res2008; 5(3): 160–168.
50.
TzengGHHuangJJ. Multiple attribute decision-making: methods and applications. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2011.
HanHTrimiS. A fuzzy TOPSIS method for performance evaluation of reverse logistics in social commerce platforms. Expert Syst Appl2018; 103: 133–145.
53.
VakiliSÖlcerAIBalliniF. The trade-off analysis for the mitigation of underwater noise pollution from commercial vessels: case study–Trans Mountain project, Port of Vancouver, Canada. Proc IMechE, Part M: J Engineering Maritime Environment2020; 234(2): 599–617.
54.
ZhangW. Handover decision using fuzzy MADM in heterogeneous networks. In: Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), Atlanta, GA, 21–25 March 2004, vol. 2, pp.653–658. New York, NY: IEEE.
55.
ClaeysGTagliapietraSZachmannG. How to make the European Green Deal work. Bruegel Policy Contrib Issue n° 14 2019; 3: 1–21.
56.
StormS. The EU’s Green Deal: Bismarck’s ‘what is possible’ versus Thunberg’s ‘what is imperative’. Working Paper, Institute for New Economic Thinking, 2020, p.117.
57.
IPCC: Climate Change 2014. Mitigation of climate change. In: Contribution of Working Group III to the IPCC Fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
58.
Le VarletTSchmidtOGambhirA, et al. Comparative life cycle assessment of lithium-ion battery chemistries for residential storage. J Energy Storage2020; 28: 101230.
59.
KhanFIHawboldtKIqbalMT. Life cycle analysis of wind–fuel cell integrated system. Renew Energy2005; 30(2): 157–177.
60.
GilbertPWalshCTrautM, et al. Assessment of full life-cycle air emissions of alternative shipping fuels. J Clean Prod2018; 172: 855–866.
61.
IPCC: Climate Change 2014. Synthesis report. In: Core Writing TeamPachauriRKMeyerLA (eds) Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Geneva: IPCC, 2014, p.151.
62.
EyringVIsaksenISBerntsenT, et al. Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: shipping. Atmos Environ2010; 44(37): 4735–4771.
63.
HansenJSatoMKharechaP, et al. Climate change and trace gases. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci2007; 365(1856): 1925–1954.
64.
HowarthRWIngraffeaAEngelderT. Natural gas: should fracking stop?Nature2011; 477(7364): 271–275.
65.
XunminO. Life cycle analysis on liquefied natural gas and compressed natural gas in heavy-duty trucks with methane leakage emphasized. Energy Procedia2019; 158: 3652–3657.
66.
JungingerMHittingerEWilliamsE, et al. Onshore wind energy. In: Technological learning in the transition to a low-carbon energy system. New York, NY: Academic Press, 2020, pp.87–102.
67.
OrioliADi GangiA. The recent change in the Italian policies for photovoltaics: effects on the payback period and levelized cost of electricity of grid-connected photovoltaic systems installed in urban contexts. Energy2015; 93: 1989–2005.
68.
KempenerRBordenE. Battery storage for renewables: market status and technology outlook. Abu Dhabi: International Renewable Energy Agency, 2015, p.32.
69.
StewardDSaurGPenevM, et al. Lifecycle cost analysis of hydrogen versus other technologies for electrical energy storage. Report no. NREL/TP-560-46719, November2009, Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
70.
SchreiberAMarxJZappP. Comparative life cycle assessment of electricity generation by different wind turbine types. J Clean Prod2019; 233: 561–572.
71.
WangLPengCShiW, et al. Carbon dioxide emissions from port container distribution: spatial characteristics and driving factors. Transp Res D Transp Environ2020; 82: 102318.
72.
FahdiSElkhechafiMHachimiH. Green Port in Blue Ocean: optimization of energy in Asian Ports. In: 5th International Conference on Optimization and Applications (ICOA), Kenitra, Morocco, 25–26 April 2019, pp.1–4. New York, NY: IEEE.
