Search

In recent decades, there has been an increasing demand for policy research focusing on market-based measures for decarbonizing shipping. It is increasingly recognized that more than just technological and operational measures will be needed to achieve the objectives of decarbonizing shipping. This paper presents a quantitative review of the existing research leveraging bibliometric analysis techniques, highlighting the concepts, general trends, research themes and applications within the maritime industry in this field. It sheds light on the evolution of policy and regulations, design details, impacts and methods of quantifying the effects of environmental policies and provides future research directions in this area. The findings and future research agenda may become valuable resources for academic research and industrial practice. • This paper presents a quantitative review on market-based measures towards shipping decarbonization. • A bibliometric analysis on research themes and applications of decarbonization within maritime industry is made. • It sheds light on the evolution of environmental policies and future research directions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Considering the disruption risk and congestion deterioration caused by recurrent outbreaks of COVID-19 in several ports, this study developed a port capacity decision three-stage game model by adopting a sharing approach, which comprised a combined port management committee and a two-port system. The former determines the capacity-sharing rate, and the latter sequentially chooses its terminal handling charge (THC). Through backward induction, the capacity-sharing decisions among multiple extrema are derived, and then the "siphon effect" and "spillover effect" of capacity-sharing are analyzed. A case study of Shanghai and Ningbo Zhoushan Ports is presented to further illustrate the findings. • Three-stage game model is developed by first adopting a capacity sharing approach in the post-COVID-19 pandemic era. • The three-stage game model focuses on the imbalanced capacity and congestion deterioration. • A combined port management committee and a two-port system are considered. • The optimal capacity-sharing decisions among multiple extremums are derived. • "Siphon effect" and "spillover effect" of capacity-sharing are comparatively analyzed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract This review paper investigates and presents generalized answers to the two basic questions of port governance, namely how to govern and for what purpose. The study is based on a total sample of 118 studies on port governance. The results from the analysis of these studies show that port devolution and port re-centralization are the main governance tools at the institutional level. At the strategical level, the main governance tools are port co-opetition, port regionalization, port integration, stakeholder management strategy, and corporate governance. While at the managerial level, the main governance tools are port pricing, port concession, port user/customer relationship management, monitoring and measuring, regulatory control, port security management, and information and communication technologies. The institutional governance tools are generally used by governmental organizations to set the fundamental regulative rules for the port governance system, while strategical tools are applied by port organizations in gaining competitive advantages and increasing market share in the long term. Managerial tools are related to the port business operations and management. Furthermore, The study clearly shows that the main objective of port governance is the improvement of port efficiency and port effectiveness. However, the choice of efficiency-oriented or effectiveness-oriented configuration is largely determined by the port organization's external operating environment, strategies and structures. Highlights • The answer to the question of "how to govern" is related to the governance tools. • Port efficiency and port effectiveness provide the answers to the question of "govern for what purpose". • The question of "how to govern" is about actions, while "govern for what purpose" is about objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]