- Email: [email protected]
Environmental Performance Indicators for Green Port Policy Evaluation: Case Study of Laem Chabang Port
The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 35(1) (2019) 063-069
Contents lists available at Science Direct
The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ajsl
Environmental Performance Indicators for Green Port Policy Evaluation: Case Study of Laem Chabang Port Rattaporn TEERAWATTANAa, Yi-Chih YANGb a b
National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan (R.O.C.), E-mail: [email protected] (Corresponding Author) National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan (R.O.C.), E-mail: [email protected]
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Going green is a trend of seaport for all over the world and environmental management becomes a critical role in a port operation. The advantages of environmental management are not only for customer satisfaction and corporate image but also for cost saving and environment protection. The paper reviewed the development of green port in Thailand and used case study of Laem Chabang port (LCP) to figure out the green port assessment criteria and to set up the Environmental Performance Indicators. The paper conducted entropy approach to analysis environmental performance indicators (EPIs) of LCP based on secondary data from 2011 to 2014. Main findings of this paper indicate the top 5 rank EPIs including TKN in wastewater, Chromium in soil and sediment, TSP in the air, Phytoplankton biodiversity, and Zooplankton biodiversity respectively.
Received 12 July 2018 Received in revised form 2 February 2019 Accepted 18 February 2019 Keywords: Green Port Entropy Port Performance Laem Chabang Port Environmental Performance Indicator (EPI)
Copyright © 2018 The Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. T h i s i s a n o p e n a c c e s s a r t i c l e u n d e r t h e C C B Y - N C - N D l i c e n s e (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1. Introduction Ports are connected ocean and land transportation which they are keynote of international logistic and supply chains. Port management becomes complicated system refer to the various purposes such as hub/ mega port, feeder port, transit port, domestic and international port. Several pollution sources are resulted from port operations such as waste water pollution, solid waste pollution, noise pollution and air pollution. In 2015, Port Authority of Thailand (PAT) published the latest Annual Report, which concludes all activity and operation have done through
year 2014 and project future strategic plan for port operation of all statedown port in Thailand. “Green Port Project” was specified as one part in PAT environmental operations under the PAT Enterprise Plan No. 11 for fiscal year 2015 – 2019. From the report, it can be concluded that there are 4 significant work plans and projects supporting Green Port Project including the decreasing of Carbon dioxide (CO2) emission, increasing of PAT environmental quality, comparing CO2 emission with Year 2013 as baseline and monitoring environmental quality related to Environmental
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2019.03.009 2092-5212/© 2018 The Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. Peer review under responsibility of the Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc.
64
Environmental Performance Indicators for Green Port Policy Evaluation: Case Study of Laem Chabang Port
impact assessment (EIA) report. The goal of Green port Project is CO2 emission reduction and energy saving from port activities by 10 % within fiscal year 2019 when compare with year 2013 as a baseline (Thailand, 2015). The aforementioned is clearly indicated that it is needed to set up the clearly EPIs for supporting Green Port Project of PAT. Since there is no research had done about seaport’s EPI in Thailand before, Apai and Thammapredee (2014) reported the improvement program in term of safety, health, and environment at LCP. They claimed that after LCP implemented the Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Sea of East Asia (PEMSEA) code, LCP’s safety and health parameters have been improved. While there were some shortcomings related to environmental aspect have been recognized such as are pollution emission, waste management, and energy management. This research aims are addressed in the following (1) to define green port and review green port policy of LCP port; (2) to figure out EPIs and set up EPIs for LCP; (3) to provide appropriate suggestions to LCP and PAT. In particular, this research discusses in development of green port and focuses in LCP. In this research, it is organized as Literature reviews of green port performance and EPIs effecting the green port management are presented. Next section, development of green port in Thailand is analyzed. Therefore, related environmental data of LCP was gathered. The descriptions of LCP and data collection are explained in the methodology part. Then, the empirical results and analysis are shown. Consequently, we proposed EPIs for Green port assessment. The last section is conclusions.
2. Literature Review According to the Third IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2014, in 2012 international shipping emitted 796 million tons of CO2, which account for more than 2.2 % of the total CO2 emission volume (Smith et al., 2014). Consequently, environmental management has become one of practical activities of port operation (Puig et al., 2015).
investments in the environmental area, environmental training, wastewater treatment, disposal of solid waste, and recycling. Second part is 5 advance indicators including opportunities and threats due to global climate change, energy consumption by type, market losses due to nonenvironmental compliance, environmental rates, and emission control. Staff from agencies of the national public port sector and some port authorities from the southern part of Brazil were interviewed. The results showed that environmental indicators used are appropriated for its objective while economic and financial factor can be considering in the future research. Normally, green port is verified by measurable indicators for example the reduction of CO2 emission reduction, energy consumption, waste generation by comparing before and after action taking in port area. In next section, EPIs were reviewed and grouped into two dimension including environmental and social dimension 2.2. Environmental performance and environmental indicator A recent review of the literature found that there is various EPIs used for assess the environmental performance related to port such as EPIs for seaport and its area (Saengsupavanich et al. 2009; Chin and Low 2010; Barnes-Dabban et al. 2017; Antão et al. 2016; Puig et al. 2016, Puig et al. 2014; Puig et al. 2015) and inland port (Seguí et al. 2016). While some research focused only port performance including EPIs as one part of port performance indicators (Ha, Yang, and Heo 2017). Most of them have been done their research in European ports, Chinese port, and Korean port. As shown in Table 1, various EPIs used to evaluate the environmental performance of port. In this study, EPIs are divided into two dimensions as environmental and social dimension. Environmental dimensions included water consumption, water quality, carbon footprint, energy consumption, energy management, air quality, soil and sediment quality, waste generation, waste recycling, waste management, noise control, health and safety, pollution emission, odor, ecosystem, safety and security officer and facilities, review and audit, and port development. In addition, social dimensions included Communication (open access information) and quality of life in the communities.
2.1. Green Port Table 1
Green port is well-known in European country more than decade. In 1994, European Sea Ports Organization (ESPO) published the First edition of The ESPO Environmental Code of Practice (1994), updated the Second edition in 2003 and the Latest edition in 2012 which is called “ESPO Green Guide; towards excellence in port environmental management and sustainability” (ESPO, 2012). In East Asia, there’re several port have been certified the green port such as port of Shanghai, Port of Hong Kong, Port of Singapore, Port of Tokyo, Port of Busan…etc. Previous researches have been completed on specific topic of green port management such as ship emission (Dragovic et al., 2015; Tzannatos and Ernestos, 2010), environmental policy (Galeotti et al., 2018), CO2 emission/ reduction (Bin et al., 2014; Ratanavaraha and Jomnonkwao, 2015; Yang, 2017), green port (Barnes-Dabban et al., 2017; Gonzalez et al., 2018), and port emission (Tichavska and Tovar, 2015). Roos and Kliemann (2017) compared different models for port environmental performance evaluation and suggested indicators for public port in Brazil. They found limitation of lack of data. Then, they developed the 12 indicators for environmental evolution. There are two main parts as simplify and advance indicators. First part is 7 simplified indicators including energy consumption, environmental fines, costs and
Overview of Environmental Performance Indicators (EPIs) for Green Port EPIs Sources Environmental Dimensions Water consumption Roos and Kliemann Neto 2017; Antão et al., 2016; Puig et al., 2017; Puig et al,. 2014; Ha et al., 2017a; Seguí et al., 2016; Ha and Yang, 2017 Water quality Saengsupavanich et al. 2009; Antão et al. 2016; Puig et al. 2017; Puig et al. 2014; Bae 2017; Seguí et al. 2016; Pilouk and Koottatep 2017; Ha et al., 2017b Carbon footprint Antão et al., 2016; Puig et al., 2014; Ha et al., 2017a; Seguí et al., 2016; Ha et al., 2017b; Ha and Yang, 2017 Energy consumption Roos and Kliemann Neto, 2017; Antão et al., 2016; Puig et al., 2017; Puig et al. 2014; Ha et al., 2017b; Seguí et al., 2016; Ha and Yang, 2017 Energy management Pilouk and Koottatep, 2017 Air quality Chin and Low, 2010; Antão et al., 2016; Puig et al., 2017; Puig et al., 2014; Bae, 2017; Seguí et al., 2016; Pilouk and Koottatep, 2017 Soil and sediment quality Antão et al., 2016; Puig et al., 2017; Puig et al., 2014; Seguí et al., 2016 Waste generation Roos and Kliemann Neto, 2017; Puig et al., 2017 Waste recycling Ha et al., 2017a; Ha et al., 2017b; Ha and Yang, 2017 Waste management Antão et al., 2016; Puig et al., 2014; Bae, 2017; Seguí et al., 2016; Pilouk and Koottatep, 2017 Noise control Antão et al., 2016; Puig et al., 2014; Bae, 2017; Seguí et al., 2016; Pilouk and Koottatep, 2017 Health and safety Pilouk and Koottatep, 2017 Pollution emission Roos and Kliemann Neto, 2017; Chin and Low, 2010
65
Environmental Performance Indicators for Green Port Policy Evaluation: Case Study of Laem Chabang Port
Odor Ecosystem
Puig et al., 2014 Roos and Kliemann Neto, 2017; Antão et al., 2016; Puig et al., 2017; Puig et al., 2014; Seguí et al., 2016 Safety and security officer Ha et al., 2017b; Ha and Yang, 2017 and facilities Review and audit Saengsupavanich et al., 2009; Puig et al., 2014; Puig et al., 2017 Port development Puig et al., 2014; Puig et al., 2017; Judge and Douglas, 1998 Social Dimension Communication Antão et al., 2016; Puig et al., 2014; Puig et al., 2017; (open access information) Puig et al., 2015; Ha et al., 2017a; Ha et al., 2017b; Ha and Yang, 2017; Judge and Douglas, 1998 Quality of life in the Pilouk and Koottatep, 2017 communities
3. Development Status of Green Port in Thailand Thai ports under the governance and organize of PAT including of BKP, LCP, Chiang Saen Commercial Port, Chiang Kong Port, and Ranong Port. These ports are funding supported the infrastructure, utility, and facility by PAT. The customs clearance service had been provided only at BKP and LCP for custom facilitation by using custom X-ray machines (Rudjanakanoknad and Suksirivoraboot, 2012). 3.1. Green Port Project in Thailand PAT (Thailand, 2015) announced the first environmental policy of Thai port on 2011. LCP was set as a pioneer port for “Green Port Project”. The Key Performance Indicator for the initial “Green Port Project” is to reduce the CO2 emission at 10 % when compared with CO2 emission in 2013. As mentioned in section I Introduction, previous research confirmed that LCP has been needed to improve environmental management system. Then BKP is the second chosen port to apply “Green Port Project”. Table 2 indicates the total fleet development, container port throughput, and Liner shipping connectivity index (LSCI). Since 2014, the number of Thai flag vessels is increasing more than double. While the percentage of world flag of registration is quiet stable. The gross tonnage is fluctuated from 2011 to 2017 and number of ship has the same trend. Container throughput of Thai seaport is continual increasing almost every single year. There was a big jump of growth rate from 7,546,523 TEUs in 2013 to 8,119,271 TEUs in 2014. The LSCI supports the container throughput trend. LSCI is at 38.3 in 2013 and speeds up to 44.9 in 2014. Table 2 Overview statistics of Thai seaport Year
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Flag of registration Total fleet Vessel Gross % of Number share of in Number total of vessels world Tonnage of ship thousands world total (%) 3,212 769 0.361 2,811 746 0.289 2,936 747 0.285 339 0.3 3,160 767 0.298 749 0.84 3,324 776 0.305 782 0.86 3,328 786 0.296 781 0.84 3,320 781 0.298
Container port throughput (TEU)
LSCI
6,520,905 7,036,492 7,323,881 7,546,523 8,119,271 8,359,455 8,239,363 -
43.8 36.7 37.7 38.3 44.9 44.4 47.3 41.0
vessel size; (d) the number of services; and (e) the number of companies that deploy container ships on services from and to a country’s ports. The data are derived from Containerization International Online. 3.2 Comparison of green port policy between LCP and BKP LCP is the largest seaport in Thailand. LCP located on east side of the gulf of Thailand. It’s organized by PAT while sub-contractors manage the berth operation. Customs operation is under the customs office of LCP. LCP area is 10.1 km2 (including basin 1 and 2), 7.7 km berth length, and 14 – 16 m water depth. Type of goods operated at LCP is container, bulk carrier, and Ro/Ro. PAT reported that LCP is now developing the third basin with 450 m width and 1,600 m length. The LCP Third basin can be supported Panamax size vessel. LCP is also building the railroad connected to the Third basin (Thailand, 2015). While BKP as known as Klong Toey Port, is the second large seaport in Thailand. It located on the Chao Phraya River. Total area is 3.8 km2 but only 1.6 km2 is using, 2.5 km berth length, and 8.2 m water depth. Type of goods operated at BKP is container and general cargo. Access mode to BKP is as local road, Expressway, and River terminal while LCP consists of highway, railroad, and Coastal terminal. Although BKP is closer to Bangkok province than LCP. But BKP was hit its carrying capacity. On the other hand, LCP is still having more available area for developing in the future. Table 3 Container throughput volume of BKP and LCP (Unit: TEU) Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
BKP 1,460,713 1,309,891 1,452,829 1,454,893 1,154,581
LCP 5,240,077 4,621,632 5,068,076 5,658,030 5,830,431
2013 2014 2015 2016
1,495,988 1,518,613 1,558,763 1,505,835
5,974,715 6,458,616 6,779,705 7,060,698
Source: Thailand 2017
Table 3 shows the comparison of Container volume between BKP and LCP. There is a big gap in term of through capacity between them. In 2008, LCP was more than triple of BKP throughput. LCP was 5,240,077 TEU while BKP was only 1,460,713 TEU. Then, 8 years later, LCP is more than 4 times of BKP throughput. As shown in Fig. 1. LCP throughput trend is gradually increasing while BKP is stable.
Source: UNCTAD 2017
LSCI is generated from five components: (a) the number of ships; (b) the total container-carrying capacity of those ships; (c) the maximum
Fig. 1. The comparison of container throughput between BKP and LCP Source: Thailand 2017
66
Environmental Performance Indicators for Green Port Policy Evaluation: Case Study of Laem Chabang Port
Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM), Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan set up the study project at BKP (City of Yokohama, 2016). This project aims to realize the sustainable port management focusing on environmental management in port. There are 2 action plans for BKP as follows: 1. Introducing renewable energy to apply to port devices and save the energy by install LED light in port area. 2. Merge the current power supply from the Electricity Generating Authority and existing electricity generator by using renewable energy to make sure that the electricity used in port are is stable, low cost, and less CO2 emission. The city of Yokohama (2016) set up the Yokohama Partnership of Resources and Technologies (Y-PORT) to enhance the international technical operation and collaboration. Thailand is one of countries that Yport had cooperated with. In 2016, Y-PORT reported the feasibility study of CO2 emission of “Green Port Project” in Thailand. The report divided “Green Port Project” in Thailand into 3 phases as Phase 1 (2015 – 2019), Phase 2 (2020 – 2024), and Phase 3 (2025 – 2029). Phase 1 has started to kick off at 2015 and will finish in 2019. This phase is at Bangkok Port and consists of 5 activities as 1) install Solar panels on cold-formed steel (CFS) roof; 2) install indoor LED light in CFS roof; 3) purchasing electrical forklifts and use under the CFS roof; 4) using Hybrid rubber-tired gantry (RTGs) crane; 5) using LED light for container yard. Phase 2 is between 2020 and 2024. These 5 activities will be applied both BKP and LCP as 1) install LCD light along the road at LCP; 2) using hybrid cargo handling equipment at Lat Krabang Inland Container Depot (organized by PAT); 3) develop high efficiency transformers to substations in BKP; 4) develop the shore connection system both BKP and LCP; 5) develop the hybrid tugboats. Phase 3 is a future study between 2025 and 2019. The example activities are Carbon reduction at local ports (organized by PAT), introduce hydrogen energy technology to apply at LCP. 3.3 Green port assessment criteria of LCP Section 46 of the Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act 1992, said that large scale projects which will cause significant impacts must be submitted Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report to the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP). Then LCP needs to submit the EIA report to ONEP. As shown in Table 4, LCP has continued to monitor its environment but only selected parameters are used as concerned parameters. Thai Environmental Technic Limited co., Ltd. (2016), certified firm from ONEP, concluded the LCP environmental corrective and preventive action for EIA monitoring report of LCP in seven main points as follows: 1. There is no installation of oxidation pond for wastewater treatment, which ONEP had recommended before. While LCP installed Activated Sludge system instead. 2. The policy of land expropriation is not announced. Some local people was moved out of LCP are after they had got funding. While some of them did not move out. 3. Suggested expending the single-track railway to be the double tract railway and promoted the railway transportation. 4. Suggested separating the route between container car and empty
container car. 5. Suggested to increasing the potential of locomotive for expand the capacity of its own. 6. There is no wastewater system to support wastewater from vessel. Local people did not move out of LCP area. Therefore, LCP cannot construct the new wastewater treatment. 7. There is no leader of moved local people. The leader can support the developing project of LCP and can convince his people. Moreover, LCP has an annual systematically environmental monitoring as shown in Table 4 (Apai and Thammapredee, 2014; Thai Environmental Technic Limited Co., 2016). With regard to EPIs for Green port policy evaluation, it is important to note that some EPIs in Table 1 were removed due to the limitation of data assessing. The environmental dimension of EPIs in Table 4 including water quality (pH, suspended solid, BOD, COD, oil and grease, and TKN), air quality (Total suspended particles, Carbon monoxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur Dioxide, and Hydrocarbons), soil and sediment quality (Lead, Mercury, Chromium, Total organic carbon, and Petroleum Hydrocarbon), Noise (Leq24 and Lmax), and Ecosystem (Phytoplankton, Zooplankton, and Marine Benthos Biodiversity). Unfortunately, there was some unavailable index data in year 2013 including Carbon monoxide, Sulfur Dioxide, Leq24 and Lmax. Table 4 LCP related environment data EPIs 2011 2012 1. Water quality (after treated) 1.1 pH 7.88 7.28 1.2 Suspended solid (SS) (mg/ L) 5.01 10.55 1.3 BOD (mg/ L) 17.33 12.73 1.4 COD (mg/ L) 35.75 46.50 1.5 Oil and Grease (OG) (mg/ L) 0.80 0.60 1.6 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (mg/ L) 66.23 39.09 2. Air Quality 2.1 Total suspended particles (TSP) (mg/ m3) 0.03 0.09 2.2 Carbon monoxide (CO) (ppm) 0.20 2.3 Particulate matter (PM10 (mg/ m3) 0.02 0.05 2.4 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) (mg/ m3) 0.001 2.5 Hydrocarbons (HC) (mg/ m3) 4.71 3.057 3. Soil and sediment quality 3.1 Lead (Pb) (mg/ kg wt) 14 10.20 3.2 Mercury (Hg) (mg/ kg wt) 0.21 0.002 3.3 Chromium (Cr) (mg/ kg wt) 6.80 6.65 3.4 Total organic carbon (TOC) (mg/ kg wt) 46.60 69.07 3.5 Petroleum Hydrocarbon (PH) (mg/ kg wt) 1.12 0.545 4. Noise Control 4.1 Leq24 (dB (A)) 57.86 4.2 Lmax (dB (A)) 92.79 5. Ecosystem 5.1 Phytoplankton Biodiversity (PP) 1.96 1.09 5.2 Zooplankton Biodiversity (ZP) 0.31 1.36 5.3 Marine Benthos Biodiversity (MB) 0.35 0.00 Source: Apai and Thammapredee (2014) and Thai Environmental Co. (2016)
2013
2014
7.31 11.85 14.50 54.25 0.93 51.29
6.80 14.40 7.50 62.00 1.25 4.54
0.03 0.16 0.07 0.001 4.43
0.17 0.53 0.05 0.0004 8.64
5.2 0.348 3.65 59.45 0.48
4.3 10.95 0.63 56.33 0.54
59.10 88.39
61.00 91.15
0.41 0.54 0.22 Technic
1.05 1.04 0.86 Limited
4. Methodology The EPIs used in this study were instituted by literature review from recent related research. Then, secondary data based on accessible data from year 2011 - 2014 to complete and develop appropriated EPIs for Thai container seaport by using Entropy.
67
Environmental Performance Indicators for Green Port Policy Evaluation: Case Study of Laem Chabang Port
Entropy concept is to evaluate the weight of factor. It is a measures of the amount of uncertainty represented by discrete probability distribution, where a broad distribution represents more uncertainty than a sharply peak one (Yang and Shen 2013). The theory of Entropy was founded by Clausius in 1865, and can be used for evaluating weights. Entropy has a useful meaning in information theory, where it measures the expected information content of a certain message. Entropy in information theory is a criterion for the amount of uncertainty represented by a discrete probability distribution, which agrees that a broad distribution represents more uncertainty than does a sharply peaked one. The calculation procedure is presented below:
environmental aspect of port management but Green port achievement is still a big challenge for LCP. Interestingly, TKN represented decreasing ratio of 93.15% from 66.230 in 2011 to 4.540 in 2014. This concurs well with Kang et al. (2018) that the removal of TKN in wastewater is affected by assimilation of TKN into algae and abiotic stripping of NH3. Moreover, Chromium showed decreasing ratio of 90.74% from 6.8 in 2011 to 0.63 in 2014. Shahid et al. (2017) explained that soil microbes play a big role in governing Chromium speciation and behaviour in soil. It can be said that the decreasing of Chromium in soil and sediment is affected by microbial community in soil.
4.1. Calculating entropy Deciding matrix D of m alternatives and n attributes (criteria) ݔ ݔଶ ݔ ڮ ܣଵ ۍଵ ݔଵଵ ݔଵଶ ݔ ڮଵ ې ێ ܣ ۑ D = ଶ ݔ ێଶଵ ݔଶଶ ݔ ڮଶ ۑ ڭ ڭ ڭ ڭ ڰ ێ ۑ ܣ ݔ ۏ ଵ ݔଵଶ ݔ ڮଵ௫ ے
(1)
Then, defined the attribute j, Pij
ܲ ൌ σࣾ ೕ
సˍ ೕ
(2)
ǡ
where ܺ represents data at alternative i and attribute j the entropy Ej of the set of attribute j is ܧ ൌȂ ݇ σ ୀˍ ܲ ݈݊ܲ ǡ where k represents a constant: k =
ଵ ୍୬ࣾ
, which guarantees that
0Ej1. 4.2 Calculating the weight of entropy The degree of diversification dj of the information provided by the attribute j can be defined as (4) dj = 1 - Ej , then the best weight set he can expect, instead of the equal weight is ௗೕ
ݓ ൌ σ
ೕసభ ௗೕ
ǡ
Fig. 2. LCP related environmental index
(3)
(5)
4.3 Port policy and EPI In general, entropy can be used as an approach for ranked the uncertainty index. EPIs are considered to provide the most needed to solve problem from environmental issue in the port. The first top five ranking is straightforward to verify environmental problem from port activities. Then, the recommended green port policy will be introduced to PAT and can be used as a tool to evaluate Green port policy in the future.
Environmental data in 2011 – 2014 were used for the entropy calculation. As shown in Table 5, the entropy weighting value method indicates that EPIs for LCP green port assessment are top 5 ranked as TKN in wastewater (0.148), Chromium in soil and sediment (0.130), TSP in the air (0.073), Phytoplankton biodiversity (0.067), and Zooplankton biodiversity (0.066). It is clearly to indicate that wastewater quality (TKN), soil and sediment (Chromium), air quality (TSP), and ecosystem (PP and ZP biodiversity) affected the environmental performance of port. Finding from this study match with Puig et al. (2015) that air quality, waste generated from port, and energy consumption are three major environmental priorities of European port in 2013. The last 5 rank EPIs in the entropy results include OG (0.044), COD (0.042), TOC (0.040), and pH (0.039) in wastewater, and Pb (0.039) in soil and sediments, respectively. Although they are the last 5 rank EPIs, the importance of COD cannot be overlooked. Refer to previous paragraph; COD is one of important parameters of wastewater treatment performance. Moreover, port environmental performance is needed to review and systematically monitor to ensure that green port performance is maintained. Table 5 Summary of green port criteria of LCP port ranked by entropy
5. Empirical Results and Analysis Fig. 2 shows the significant increasing of COD and SS in treated wastewater from 2011 to 2014. Normally, COD have been used as indicators of treatment performance (Kawai et al., 2016). Moreover, suspended solids are known to play an important role in biogeochemical processes between water, sediments and microorganisms (Aminot et al., 2018). This confirms previous study (Apai and Thammapredee, 2014; Thai Environmental Technic Limited Co., 2016) that LCP need to install more wastewater treatment system. Even LCP has been concerned in
EPIs
2011
2012
2013
2014
pH SS BOD COD OG TKN TSP PM10 HC Pb
7.88 5.01 17.33 35.75 0.80 66.23 0.03 0.02 4.71 3.52
7.28 10.55 12.73 46.50 0.60 39.09 0.09 0.05 3.06 3.32
7.31 11.85 14.50 54.25 0.93 51.29 0.03 0.07 4.43 3.16
6.80 14.40 7.50 62.00 1.25 4.54 0.17 0.05 8.64 3.42
0.86 0.80 0.83 0.85 0.84 0.47 0.74 0.78 0.82 0.86
0.14 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.53 0.26 0.22 0.18 0.14
0.04 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04
Rank order 15 8 10 13 12 1 3 6 9 16
Hg
14.00
10.20
5.20
4.30
0.80
0.20
0.06
7
ej Value 1-ejValue rk Value
68
Environmental Performance Indicators for Green Port Policy Evaluation: Case Study of Laem Chabang Port
Cr TOC PH PP
6.80 46.60 1.12 1.96
6.65 69.07 0.55 1.09
3.65 59.45 0.48 0.41
0.63 56.33 0.54 1.05
0.53 0.86 0.84 0.76
0.47 0.15 0.17 0.24
0.13 0.04 0.05 0.07
2 14 11 4
ZP
0.31
1.36
0.54
1.04
0.76
0.24
0.07
5
From the aforementioned paragraph, it is confirmed that wastewater quality, soil and sediment quality, air quality, and biodiversity in ecosystem are needed to pay more attention. LCP is recommended that to carefully design, update and adopt the environmental policy, define the measurable environmental objectives, and set up the practicable EPIs and environmental action plan. Such as “Recover and Maintain Port Environment” policy, the environmental objective is to improve the wastewater quality by using the decreasing of TKN level in wastewater and chromium in soil and sediment as EPIs. Then, the new wastewater treatment installation is set as action plan. After that TKN level in wastewater and chromium in soil and sediment are planned to monthly monitoring. In order to achieve the green port at LCP, the following port environmental policy implications were proposed. 1. Improvement of wastewater quality by install the oxidation pond for wastewater treatment due to the continual increasing of COD level from 2011 to 2014. 2. Even though TKN, TSP and chromium level complied with Thai environmental standard, it is necessary to continuous follow up the concerned environmental indicators. 3. Annual internal audit and review the environmental indicator to ensure that the action plan is on time and if there is a problem found, it will immediately solve. 4. Implementing the Environmental Management System (ISO 14001) is not only support LCP comply with legal requirement but also enable quicker improvement of port activities.
Finally, it is needed for LCP to adopt the clearly environmental policy and environmental action plan in order to get the effective environmental management in port area. Such as, 1. Set EPIs as CO2 reduction and install Alternative Maritime Power (AMP) for container vessel berthed to reduce the usage of diesel energy. 2. Annual review and audit are needed to define in the environmental action plan. 3. The implementation of ISO 14001 can be narrowed to the green port achievement as European ports have been succeeded before. 4. Open data access such as monthly email and provide the existing environmental data on the website 5. Include the green port issue as one of topics of orientation and annual training to ensure that all of port staff understands and ready to support Green port project. However, this study has a limitation. The data accessibility is limited. Further research is required to expand the related environmental data to not only the various parameters such as energy consumption, carbon footprint, waste generation, and review and audit but also social dimension such as communication and quality of life in the community.
References Aminot, Y., Fuster, L., Pardon, P., LeMenach, K., and Budzinski, H. (2018), “Suspended solids moderate the degradation and sorption of waste waterderived pharmaceuticals in estuarine waters”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 612, pp. 39–48. Antão, P., Calderón, M., Puig, M., Michail, A., Wooldridge, C., and Darbra, R. M. (2016), “Identification of Occupational Health, Safety, Security (OHSS) and Environmental Performance Indicators in port areas”, Safety Science, Vol. 85, pp. 266–275. Apai, B., and Thammapredee, T. (2014), “Safety, Health, and Environmental
6. Conclusion This paper proposes the EPIs to access the environmental aspect related to container seaport. Green port becomes trendy activity for seaport and EPIs are significant to evaluate the environmental criteria. In Thailand, green port is promoted by PAT. Since there is no research have been done on EPIs for Thai container seaport. This paper intends to define green port and review green port policy of LCP port, to figure out EPIs and set up EPIs for LCP and to provide appropriate suggestions to LCP and PAT. There are several conclusions could be summarised in the following: First of all, the results demonstrate that TKN in wastewater, Chromium in soil and sediment, TSP in the air, Phytoplankton biodiversity, and Zooplankton biodiversity ranked top 5. Secondly, PAT needs to pay more attention on environment protection in port area by focusing on wastewater treatment by installation the waste water treatment system, air pollution by monitoring air pollutant emission and ecosystem by set up the “Zero discharge” program from port activities. Thirdly, PAT could set up more EPIs on TKN reduction from wastewater, control Chromium level in soil and sediment by focusing in leachate from port activities which also affect ecosystem. Fourthly, the EPIs can be used as a tool for green port assessment which it could be applied not only for LCP but also for every container seaport that interested in Green port.
Improvement Programs in a Rapidly Growing Port: Laem Chabang”, Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA), Vol. 4, No.1, pp. 1–8. Bae, H.S., (2017), “The Effect of Environmental Capabilities on Environmental Strategy and Environmental Performance of Korean Exporters for Green Supply Chain Management”, The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, Vol. 33, pp. 167–176. Barnes-Dabban, H., vanTatenhove, J. P. M., vanKoppen, K. C. S. A., and Termeer, K. J. A. M. (2017), “Institutionalizing environmental reform with sense-making: West and Central Africa ports and the ‘green port’ phenomenon”, Marine Policy, Vol. 86, pp. 111–120. Bin, O. Y., Wang, L., Feng, Z. H., and Guo, J. (2014), “Study on Green and Low-Carbon Port Evaluation Index System: Case Study of Guangzhou Port”, Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 1010–1012, pp. 1918–1923. Chin, A. T. H., and Low, J. M. W. (2010), “Port performance in Asia: Does production efficiency imply environmental efficiency”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 15, No.8, pp. 483– 488. City of Yokohama. (2016), Feasibility study for assisting ports in Thailand to reduce
CO2
emission
to
become
smart
city,
Available
at:
https://www.iges.or.jp/files/research/sustainablecity/PDF/20170123/06_Y okohama.pdf, [accessed 11th December, 2017]. Clausius, R., (1965), “11 - On a Mechanical Theorem Applicable to Heat**Originally published under the title “Ueber einen auf die Wärme anwendbaren
mechanischen
Satz”,
Sitzungsberichte
der
69
Environmental Performance Indicators for Green Port Policy Evaluation: Case Study of Laem Chabang Port
Niedderrheinischen Gesellschaft”, Bonn, pp. 114-19 (1870); English
Puig, M., Wooldridge, C., Michail, A., and Darbra, R. M. (2015), “Current
translation in Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 40, pp. 122-7 (1870), pp. 172-
status and trends of the environmental performance in European ports”,
178.
Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 48, pp. 57–66.
Dragovic, B., Tzannatos, E., TSELENTIS, V., Mestrovic, R., and Skuric, M.
Ratanavaraha, V., and Jomnonkwao, S. (2015), “Trends in Thailand CO2
(2015), “Ship emissions and their externalities in cruise ports”,
emissions in the transportation sector and Policy Mitigation”, Transport
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. Vol. 61, pp. ESPO. (2012), “Green Guide - Towards Excellence in Port Environmental Management
Policy, Vol. 41, pp. 136–146. Roos E. C., and Kliemann Neto F. J. (2017), Tools for evaluating
289–300. and
Sustainability”,
Available
at:
https://www.espo.be/media/espopublications/espo_green%20guide_octob er%202012_final.pdf, [accessed 11th December, 2017]. Galeotti, M., Rubashkina, Y., Salini, S., and Verdolini, E. (2018), “Environmental policy performance and its determinants: Application of a
environmental performance at Brazilian public ports: Analysis and proposal. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 115, No. 1, pp. 211-216. Rudjanakanoknad, J., and Suksirivoraboot, W. (2012), “Comparison of Trade Facilitation at Four International Ports in Thailand”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 48, No.0, pp. 215–221. Saengsupavanich,
C.,
Coowanitwong,
N.,
Gallardo,
W.
G.,
and
three-level random intercept model”, Energy Policy, Vol. 114, pp. 134–
Lertsuchatavanich, C. (2009), “Environmental performance evaluation of
144.
an industrial port and estate: ISO14001, port state control-derived
Gonzalez Aregall, M., Bergqvist, R., and Monios, J. (2018), “A global review of the hinterland dimension of green port strategies”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 59, pp. 23–34. Ha, M. H., and Yang, Z., (2017), “Comparative analysis of port performance indicators: Independency and interdependency”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 103, pp. 264–278.
indicators”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 154–161. Seguí, X., Puig, M., Quintieri, E., Wooldridge, C., and Darbra, R. M. (2016), “New environmental performance baseline for inland ports: A benchmark for the European inland port sector”, Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 58, pp. 29–40. SHAHID, M., SHAMSHAD, S., RAFIQ, M., KHALID, S., BIBI, I., NIAZI, N.
Ha, M. H., Yang, Z., and Heo, M. W. (2017), “A New Hybrid Decision
K., DUMAT, C., and RASHID, M. I. (2017), “Chromium speciation,
Making Framework for Prioritising Port Performance Improvement
bioavailability, uptake, toxicity and detoxification in soil-plant system: A
Strategies”, The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 105–116. Ha, M. H., Yang, Z., Notteboom, T., Adolf K.Y. Ng, and Heo, M. W. (2017), “Revisiting port performance measurement: A hybrid multi-stakeholder framework for the modelling of port performance indicators”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 103, pp.1–16. Judge, W.Q. and Douglas, T.J., (1998), “Performance Implications of
review”, Chemosphere, Vol. 178, pp. 513–533. Thai Environmental Technic Limited Co., L. (2016), Final report of EIA monitoring
report:
Transportation
part,
Available
at:
http://eia.onep.go.th/index.php?leftmenu=true&get_tid=6, [accessed 11th December, 2018]. Thailand, P. A. (2015), Annual Report 2014 Port Authority of Thailand., Available
at:
http://www1.port.co.th/AnnualReport/en/2014/Annual
Report 2014.pdf, [accessed 11th December, 2017].
Incorporating Natural Environmental Issues into the Strategic Planning
Thailand, P. A. (2017), “Vessels, Cargo and Container Passed Statistic”,
Process: An Empirical Assessment”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol.
Available at: http://www.port.co.th/sitenew/en/sathiti.php, [accessed 15th
35, No. 2, pp. 241–262.
March, 2018].
Kang, D., Kim, K., Jang, Y., Moon, H., Ju, D., and Jahng, D. (2018). “Nutrient
Tichavska, M., and Tovar, B. (2015), “Port-city exhaust emission model: An
removal and community structure of wastewater-borne algal-bacterial
application to cruise and ferry operations in Las Palmas Port”,
consortia grown in raw wastewater with various wavelengths of light”,
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 78, pp. 347–
International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation, Vol. 126, pp. 10–20. Kawai, M., Nagao, N., Kawasaki, N., Imai, A., and Toda, T. (2016), “Improvement of COD removal by controlling the substrate degradability during the anaerobic digestion of recalcitrant wastewater”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 181, pp. 838–846. Pilouk, S. and Koottatep, T., (2017), “Environmental performance indicators as the key for eco-industrial parks in Thailand”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 156, pp.614–623. Puig, M., Michail, A., Wooldridge, C., and Darbra, R. M., (2017), “Benchmark dynamics in the environmental performance of ports”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 121, No. 1–2, pp.111–119. Puig, M., Pla, A., Seguí. X., and Darbra RT. M., (2017), “Tool for the identification and implementation of Environmental Indicators in Ports (TEIP)”, Ocean and Coastal Management, Vol. 140, pp. 34–45. Puig, M., Wooldridge, C., and Darbra, R. M. (2014), “Identification and
360. Tzannatos Ernestos, E. (2010), “Ship emissions and their externalities for Greece”, Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 44, No. 18, pp. 2194–2202. UNCTAD,
(2017).
Review
of
maritime
transport,
Available
http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx,
at:
[accessed
11th December 2017]. WAN, C., ZHANG, D., YAN, X., and YANG, Z. (2018), “A novel model for the quantitative evaluation of green port development – a case study of major ports in China”, Transportation Research Part D Transport and Environment, Vol. 61(B), pp. 431–443. Yang, Y. C. (2017), “Operating strategies of CO2 reduction for a container terminal based on carbon footprint perspective”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 141, pp. 472–480. Yang, Y. C., and Shen, K. Y. (2013), “Comparison of the operating performance
of
automated
and
traditional
container
terminals”,
selection of Environmental Performance Indicators for sustainable port
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Vol. 16, No.
development”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 81, No. 1, pp. 124–130.
2, pp. 158–173.
Contents lists available at Science Direct
The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ajsl
Environmental Performance Indicators for Green Port Policy Evaluation: Case Study of Laem Chabang Port Rattaporn TEERAWATTANAa, Yi-Chih YANGb a b
National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan (R.O.C.), E-mail: [email protected] (Corresponding Author) National Kaohsiung University of Science and Technology, Taiwan (R.O.C.), E-mail: [email protected]
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Going green is a trend of seaport for all over the world and environmental management becomes a critical role in a port operation. The advantages of environmental management are not only for customer satisfaction and corporate image but also for cost saving and environment protection. The paper reviewed the development of green port in Thailand and used case study of Laem Chabang port (LCP) to figure out the green port assessment criteria and to set up the Environmental Performance Indicators. The paper conducted entropy approach to analysis environmental performance indicators (EPIs) of LCP based on secondary data from 2011 to 2014. Main findings of this paper indicate the top 5 rank EPIs including TKN in wastewater, Chromium in soil and sediment, TSP in the air, Phytoplankton biodiversity, and Zooplankton biodiversity respectively.
Received 12 July 2018 Received in revised form 2 February 2019 Accepted 18 February 2019 Keywords: Green Port Entropy Port Performance Laem Chabang Port Environmental Performance Indicator (EPI)
Copyright © 2018 The Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. T h i s i s a n o p e n a c c e s s a r t i c l e u n d e r t h e C C B Y - N C - N D l i c e n s e (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1. Introduction Ports are connected ocean and land transportation which they are keynote of international logistic and supply chains. Port management becomes complicated system refer to the various purposes such as hub/ mega port, feeder port, transit port, domestic and international port. Several pollution sources are resulted from port operations such as waste water pollution, solid waste pollution, noise pollution and air pollution. In 2015, Port Authority of Thailand (PAT) published the latest Annual Report, which concludes all activity and operation have done through
year 2014 and project future strategic plan for port operation of all statedown port in Thailand. “Green Port Project” was specified as one part in PAT environmental operations under the PAT Enterprise Plan No. 11 for fiscal year 2015 – 2019. From the report, it can be concluded that there are 4 significant work plans and projects supporting Green Port Project including the decreasing of Carbon dioxide (CO2) emission, increasing of PAT environmental quality, comparing CO2 emission with Year 2013 as baseline and monitoring environmental quality related to Environmental
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2019.03.009 2092-5212/© 2018 The Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. Peer review under responsibility of the Korean Association of Shipping and Logistics, Inc.
64
Environmental Performance Indicators for Green Port Policy Evaluation: Case Study of Laem Chabang Port
impact assessment (EIA) report. The goal of Green port Project is CO2 emission reduction and energy saving from port activities by 10 % within fiscal year 2019 when compare with year 2013 as a baseline (Thailand, 2015). The aforementioned is clearly indicated that it is needed to set up the clearly EPIs for supporting Green Port Project of PAT. Since there is no research had done about seaport’s EPI in Thailand before, Apai and Thammapredee (2014) reported the improvement program in term of safety, health, and environment at LCP. They claimed that after LCP implemented the Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Sea of East Asia (PEMSEA) code, LCP’s safety and health parameters have been improved. While there were some shortcomings related to environmental aspect have been recognized such as are pollution emission, waste management, and energy management. This research aims are addressed in the following (1) to define green port and review green port policy of LCP port; (2) to figure out EPIs and set up EPIs for LCP; (3) to provide appropriate suggestions to LCP and PAT. In particular, this research discusses in development of green port and focuses in LCP. In this research, it is organized as Literature reviews of green port performance and EPIs effecting the green port management are presented. Next section, development of green port in Thailand is analyzed. Therefore, related environmental data of LCP was gathered. The descriptions of LCP and data collection are explained in the methodology part. Then, the empirical results and analysis are shown. Consequently, we proposed EPIs for Green port assessment. The last section is conclusions.
2. Literature Review According to the Third IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2014, in 2012 international shipping emitted 796 million tons of CO2, which account for more than 2.2 % of the total CO2 emission volume (Smith et al., 2014). Consequently, environmental management has become one of practical activities of port operation (Puig et al., 2015).
investments in the environmental area, environmental training, wastewater treatment, disposal of solid waste, and recycling. Second part is 5 advance indicators including opportunities and threats due to global climate change, energy consumption by type, market losses due to nonenvironmental compliance, environmental rates, and emission control. Staff from agencies of the national public port sector and some port authorities from the southern part of Brazil were interviewed. The results showed that environmental indicators used are appropriated for its objective while economic and financial factor can be considering in the future research. Normally, green port is verified by measurable indicators for example the reduction of CO2 emission reduction, energy consumption, waste generation by comparing before and after action taking in port area. In next section, EPIs were reviewed and grouped into two dimension including environmental and social dimension 2.2. Environmental performance and environmental indicator A recent review of the literature found that there is various EPIs used for assess the environmental performance related to port such as EPIs for seaport and its area (Saengsupavanich et al. 2009; Chin and Low 2010; Barnes-Dabban et al. 2017; Antão et al. 2016; Puig et al. 2016, Puig et al. 2014; Puig et al. 2015) and inland port (Seguí et al. 2016). While some research focused only port performance including EPIs as one part of port performance indicators (Ha, Yang, and Heo 2017). Most of them have been done their research in European ports, Chinese port, and Korean port. As shown in Table 1, various EPIs used to evaluate the environmental performance of port. In this study, EPIs are divided into two dimensions as environmental and social dimension. Environmental dimensions included water consumption, water quality, carbon footprint, energy consumption, energy management, air quality, soil and sediment quality, waste generation, waste recycling, waste management, noise control, health and safety, pollution emission, odor, ecosystem, safety and security officer and facilities, review and audit, and port development. In addition, social dimensions included Communication (open access information) and quality of life in the communities.
2.1. Green Port Table 1
Green port is well-known in European country more than decade. In 1994, European Sea Ports Organization (ESPO) published the First edition of The ESPO Environmental Code of Practice (1994), updated the Second edition in 2003 and the Latest edition in 2012 which is called “ESPO Green Guide; towards excellence in port environmental management and sustainability” (ESPO, 2012). In East Asia, there’re several port have been certified the green port such as port of Shanghai, Port of Hong Kong, Port of Singapore, Port of Tokyo, Port of Busan…etc. Previous researches have been completed on specific topic of green port management such as ship emission (Dragovic et al., 2015; Tzannatos and Ernestos, 2010), environmental policy (Galeotti et al., 2018), CO2 emission/ reduction (Bin et al., 2014; Ratanavaraha and Jomnonkwao, 2015; Yang, 2017), green port (Barnes-Dabban et al., 2017; Gonzalez et al., 2018), and port emission (Tichavska and Tovar, 2015). Roos and Kliemann (2017) compared different models for port environmental performance evaluation and suggested indicators for public port in Brazil. They found limitation of lack of data. Then, they developed the 12 indicators for environmental evolution. There are two main parts as simplify and advance indicators. First part is 7 simplified indicators including energy consumption, environmental fines, costs and
Overview of Environmental Performance Indicators (EPIs) for Green Port EPIs Sources Environmental Dimensions Water consumption Roos and Kliemann Neto 2017; Antão et al., 2016; Puig et al., 2017; Puig et al,. 2014; Ha et al., 2017a; Seguí et al., 2016; Ha and Yang, 2017 Water quality Saengsupavanich et al. 2009; Antão et al. 2016; Puig et al. 2017; Puig et al. 2014; Bae 2017; Seguí et al. 2016; Pilouk and Koottatep 2017; Ha et al., 2017b Carbon footprint Antão et al., 2016; Puig et al., 2014; Ha et al., 2017a; Seguí et al., 2016; Ha et al., 2017b; Ha and Yang, 2017 Energy consumption Roos and Kliemann Neto, 2017; Antão et al., 2016; Puig et al., 2017; Puig et al. 2014; Ha et al., 2017b; Seguí et al., 2016; Ha and Yang, 2017 Energy management Pilouk and Koottatep, 2017 Air quality Chin and Low, 2010; Antão et al., 2016; Puig et al., 2017; Puig et al., 2014; Bae, 2017; Seguí et al., 2016; Pilouk and Koottatep, 2017 Soil and sediment quality Antão et al., 2016; Puig et al., 2017; Puig et al., 2014; Seguí et al., 2016 Waste generation Roos and Kliemann Neto, 2017; Puig et al., 2017 Waste recycling Ha et al., 2017a; Ha et al., 2017b; Ha and Yang, 2017 Waste management Antão et al., 2016; Puig et al., 2014; Bae, 2017; Seguí et al., 2016; Pilouk and Koottatep, 2017 Noise control Antão et al., 2016; Puig et al., 2014; Bae, 2017; Seguí et al., 2016; Pilouk and Koottatep, 2017 Health and safety Pilouk and Koottatep, 2017 Pollution emission Roos and Kliemann Neto, 2017; Chin and Low, 2010
65
Environmental Performance Indicators for Green Port Policy Evaluation: Case Study of Laem Chabang Port
Odor Ecosystem
Puig et al., 2014 Roos and Kliemann Neto, 2017; Antão et al., 2016; Puig et al., 2017; Puig et al., 2014; Seguí et al., 2016 Safety and security officer Ha et al., 2017b; Ha and Yang, 2017 and facilities Review and audit Saengsupavanich et al., 2009; Puig et al., 2014; Puig et al., 2017 Port development Puig et al., 2014; Puig et al., 2017; Judge and Douglas, 1998 Social Dimension Communication Antão et al., 2016; Puig et al., 2014; Puig et al., 2017; (open access information) Puig et al., 2015; Ha et al., 2017a; Ha et al., 2017b; Ha and Yang, 2017; Judge and Douglas, 1998 Quality of life in the Pilouk and Koottatep, 2017 communities
3. Development Status of Green Port in Thailand Thai ports under the governance and organize of PAT including of BKP, LCP, Chiang Saen Commercial Port, Chiang Kong Port, and Ranong Port. These ports are funding supported the infrastructure, utility, and facility by PAT. The customs clearance service had been provided only at BKP and LCP for custom facilitation by using custom X-ray machines (Rudjanakanoknad and Suksirivoraboot, 2012). 3.1. Green Port Project in Thailand PAT (Thailand, 2015) announced the first environmental policy of Thai port on 2011. LCP was set as a pioneer port for “Green Port Project”. The Key Performance Indicator for the initial “Green Port Project” is to reduce the CO2 emission at 10 % when compared with CO2 emission in 2013. As mentioned in section I Introduction, previous research confirmed that LCP has been needed to improve environmental management system. Then BKP is the second chosen port to apply “Green Port Project”. Table 2 indicates the total fleet development, container port throughput, and Liner shipping connectivity index (LSCI). Since 2014, the number of Thai flag vessels is increasing more than double. While the percentage of world flag of registration is quiet stable. The gross tonnage is fluctuated from 2011 to 2017 and number of ship has the same trend. Container throughput of Thai seaport is continual increasing almost every single year. There was a big jump of growth rate from 7,546,523 TEUs in 2013 to 8,119,271 TEUs in 2014. The LSCI supports the container throughput trend. LSCI is at 38.3 in 2013 and speeds up to 44.9 in 2014. Table 2 Overview statistics of Thai seaport Year
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Flag of registration Total fleet Vessel Gross % of Number share of in Number total of vessels world Tonnage of ship thousands world total (%) 3,212 769 0.361 2,811 746 0.289 2,936 747 0.285 339 0.3 3,160 767 0.298 749 0.84 3,324 776 0.305 782 0.86 3,328 786 0.296 781 0.84 3,320 781 0.298
Container port throughput (TEU)
LSCI
6,520,905 7,036,492 7,323,881 7,546,523 8,119,271 8,359,455 8,239,363 -
43.8 36.7 37.7 38.3 44.9 44.4 47.3 41.0
vessel size; (d) the number of services; and (e) the number of companies that deploy container ships on services from and to a country’s ports. The data are derived from Containerization International Online. 3.2 Comparison of green port policy between LCP and BKP LCP is the largest seaport in Thailand. LCP located on east side of the gulf of Thailand. It’s organized by PAT while sub-contractors manage the berth operation. Customs operation is under the customs office of LCP. LCP area is 10.1 km2 (including basin 1 and 2), 7.7 km berth length, and 14 – 16 m water depth. Type of goods operated at LCP is container, bulk carrier, and Ro/Ro. PAT reported that LCP is now developing the third basin with 450 m width and 1,600 m length. The LCP Third basin can be supported Panamax size vessel. LCP is also building the railroad connected to the Third basin (Thailand, 2015). While BKP as known as Klong Toey Port, is the second large seaport in Thailand. It located on the Chao Phraya River. Total area is 3.8 km2 but only 1.6 km2 is using, 2.5 km berth length, and 8.2 m water depth. Type of goods operated at BKP is container and general cargo. Access mode to BKP is as local road, Expressway, and River terminal while LCP consists of highway, railroad, and Coastal terminal. Although BKP is closer to Bangkok province than LCP. But BKP was hit its carrying capacity. On the other hand, LCP is still having more available area for developing in the future. Table 3 Container throughput volume of BKP and LCP (Unit: TEU) Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
BKP 1,460,713 1,309,891 1,452,829 1,454,893 1,154,581
LCP 5,240,077 4,621,632 5,068,076 5,658,030 5,830,431
2013 2014 2015 2016
1,495,988 1,518,613 1,558,763 1,505,835
5,974,715 6,458,616 6,779,705 7,060,698
Source: Thailand 2017
Table 3 shows the comparison of Container volume between BKP and LCP. There is a big gap in term of through capacity between them. In 2008, LCP was more than triple of BKP throughput. LCP was 5,240,077 TEU while BKP was only 1,460,713 TEU. Then, 8 years later, LCP is more than 4 times of BKP throughput. As shown in Fig. 1. LCP throughput trend is gradually increasing while BKP is stable.
Source: UNCTAD 2017
LSCI is generated from five components: (a) the number of ships; (b) the total container-carrying capacity of those ships; (c) the maximum
Fig. 1. The comparison of container throughput between BKP and LCP Source: Thailand 2017
66
Environmental Performance Indicators for Green Port Policy Evaluation: Case Study of Laem Chabang Port
Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM), Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan set up the study project at BKP (City of Yokohama, 2016). This project aims to realize the sustainable port management focusing on environmental management in port. There are 2 action plans for BKP as follows: 1. Introducing renewable energy to apply to port devices and save the energy by install LED light in port area. 2. Merge the current power supply from the Electricity Generating Authority and existing electricity generator by using renewable energy to make sure that the electricity used in port are is stable, low cost, and less CO2 emission. The city of Yokohama (2016) set up the Yokohama Partnership of Resources and Technologies (Y-PORT) to enhance the international technical operation and collaboration. Thailand is one of countries that Yport had cooperated with. In 2016, Y-PORT reported the feasibility study of CO2 emission of “Green Port Project” in Thailand. The report divided “Green Port Project” in Thailand into 3 phases as Phase 1 (2015 – 2019), Phase 2 (2020 – 2024), and Phase 3 (2025 – 2029). Phase 1 has started to kick off at 2015 and will finish in 2019. This phase is at Bangkok Port and consists of 5 activities as 1) install Solar panels on cold-formed steel (CFS) roof; 2) install indoor LED light in CFS roof; 3) purchasing electrical forklifts and use under the CFS roof; 4) using Hybrid rubber-tired gantry (RTGs) crane; 5) using LED light for container yard. Phase 2 is between 2020 and 2024. These 5 activities will be applied both BKP and LCP as 1) install LCD light along the road at LCP; 2) using hybrid cargo handling equipment at Lat Krabang Inland Container Depot (organized by PAT); 3) develop high efficiency transformers to substations in BKP; 4) develop the shore connection system both BKP and LCP; 5) develop the hybrid tugboats. Phase 3 is a future study between 2025 and 2019. The example activities are Carbon reduction at local ports (organized by PAT), introduce hydrogen energy technology to apply at LCP. 3.3 Green port assessment criteria of LCP Section 46 of the Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act 1992, said that large scale projects which will cause significant impacts must be submitted Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Report to the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP). Then LCP needs to submit the EIA report to ONEP. As shown in Table 4, LCP has continued to monitor its environment but only selected parameters are used as concerned parameters. Thai Environmental Technic Limited co., Ltd. (2016), certified firm from ONEP, concluded the LCP environmental corrective and preventive action for EIA monitoring report of LCP in seven main points as follows: 1. There is no installation of oxidation pond for wastewater treatment, which ONEP had recommended before. While LCP installed Activated Sludge system instead. 2. The policy of land expropriation is not announced. Some local people was moved out of LCP are after they had got funding. While some of them did not move out. 3. Suggested expending the single-track railway to be the double tract railway and promoted the railway transportation. 4. Suggested separating the route between container car and empty
container car. 5. Suggested to increasing the potential of locomotive for expand the capacity of its own. 6. There is no wastewater system to support wastewater from vessel. Local people did not move out of LCP area. Therefore, LCP cannot construct the new wastewater treatment. 7. There is no leader of moved local people. The leader can support the developing project of LCP and can convince his people. Moreover, LCP has an annual systematically environmental monitoring as shown in Table 4 (Apai and Thammapredee, 2014; Thai Environmental Technic Limited Co., 2016). With regard to EPIs for Green port policy evaluation, it is important to note that some EPIs in Table 1 were removed due to the limitation of data assessing. The environmental dimension of EPIs in Table 4 including water quality (pH, suspended solid, BOD, COD, oil and grease, and TKN), air quality (Total suspended particles, Carbon monoxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur Dioxide, and Hydrocarbons), soil and sediment quality (Lead, Mercury, Chromium, Total organic carbon, and Petroleum Hydrocarbon), Noise (Leq24 and Lmax), and Ecosystem (Phytoplankton, Zooplankton, and Marine Benthos Biodiversity). Unfortunately, there was some unavailable index data in year 2013 including Carbon monoxide, Sulfur Dioxide, Leq24 and Lmax. Table 4 LCP related environment data EPIs 2011 2012 1. Water quality (after treated) 1.1 pH 7.88 7.28 1.2 Suspended solid (SS) (mg/ L) 5.01 10.55 1.3 BOD (mg/ L) 17.33 12.73 1.4 COD (mg/ L) 35.75 46.50 1.5 Oil and Grease (OG) (mg/ L) 0.80 0.60 1.6 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) (mg/ L) 66.23 39.09 2. Air Quality 2.1 Total suspended particles (TSP) (mg/ m3) 0.03 0.09 2.2 Carbon monoxide (CO) (ppm) 0.20 2.3 Particulate matter (PM10 (mg/ m3) 0.02 0.05 2.4 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) (mg/ m3) 0.001 2.5 Hydrocarbons (HC) (mg/ m3) 4.71 3.057 3. Soil and sediment quality 3.1 Lead (Pb) (mg/ kg wt) 14 10.20 3.2 Mercury (Hg) (mg/ kg wt) 0.21 0.002 3.3 Chromium (Cr) (mg/ kg wt) 6.80 6.65 3.4 Total organic carbon (TOC) (mg/ kg wt) 46.60 69.07 3.5 Petroleum Hydrocarbon (PH) (mg/ kg wt) 1.12 0.545 4. Noise Control 4.1 Leq24 (dB (A)) 57.86 4.2 Lmax (dB (A)) 92.79 5. Ecosystem 5.1 Phytoplankton Biodiversity (PP) 1.96 1.09 5.2 Zooplankton Biodiversity (ZP) 0.31 1.36 5.3 Marine Benthos Biodiversity (MB) 0.35 0.00 Source: Apai and Thammapredee (2014) and Thai Environmental Co. (2016)
2013
2014
7.31 11.85 14.50 54.25 0.93 51.29
6.80 14.40 7.50 62.00 1.25 4.54
0.03 0.16 0.07 0.001 4.43
0.17 0.53 0.05 0.0004 8.64
5.2 0.348 3.65 59.45 0.48
4.3 10.95 0.63 56.33 0.54
59.10 88.39
61.00 91.15
0.41 0.54 0.22 Technic
1.05 1.04 0.86 Limited
4. Methodology The EPIs used in this study were instituted by literature review from recent related research. Then, secondary data based on accessible data from year 2011 - 2014 to complete and develop appropriated EPIs for Thai container seaport by using Entropy.
67
Environmental Performance Indicators for Green Port Policy Evaluation: Case Study of Laem Chabang Port
Entropy concept is to evaluate the weight of factor. It is a measures of the amount of uncertainty represented by discrete probability distribution, where a broad distribution represents more uncertainty than a sharply peak one (Yang and Shen 2013). The theory of Entropy was founded by Clausius in 1865, and can be used for evaluating weights. Entropy has a useful meaning in information theory, where it measures the expected information content of a certain message. Entropy in information theory is a criterion for the amount of uncertainty represented by a discrete probability distribution, which agrees that a broad distribution represents more uncertainty than does a sharply peaked one. The calculation procedure is presented below:
environmental aspect of port management but Green port achievement is still a big challenge for LCP. Interestingly, TKN represented decreasing ratio of 93.15% from 66.230 in 2011 to 4.540 in 2014. This concurs well with Kang et al. (2018) that the removal of TKN in wastewater is affected by assimilation of TKN into algae and abiotic stripping of NH3. Moreover, Chromium showed decreasing ratio of 90.74% from 6.8 in 2011 to 0.63 in 2014. Shahid et al. (2017) explained that soil microbes play a big role in governing Chromium speciation and behaviour in soil. It can be said that the decreasing of Chromium in soil and sediment is affected by microbial community in soil.
4.1. Calculating entropy Deciding matrix D of m alternatives and n attributes (criteria) ݔ ݔଶ ݔ ڮ ܣଵ ۍଵ ݔଵଵ ݔଵଶ ݔ ڮଵ ې ێ ܣ ۑ D = ଶ ݔ ێଶଵ ݔଶଶ ݔ ڮଶ ۑ ڭ ڭ ڭ ڭ ڰ ێ ۑ ܣ ݔ ۏ ଵ ݔଵଶ ݔ ڮଵ௫ ے
(1)
Then, defined the attribute j, Pij
ܲ ൌ σࣾ ೕ
సˍ ೕ
(2)
ǡ
where ܺ represents data at alternative i and attribute j the entropy Ej of the set of attribute j is ܧ ൌȂ ݇ σ ୀˍ ܲ ݈݊ܲ ǡ where k represents a constant: k =
ଵ ୍୬ࣾ
, which guarantees that
0Ej1. 4.2 Calculating the weight of entropy The degree of diversification dj of the information provided by the attribute j can be defined as (4) dj = 1 - Ej , then the best weight set he can expect, instead of the equal weight is ௗೕ
ݓ ൌ σ
ೕసభ ௗೕ
ǡ
Fig. 2. LCP related environmental index
(3)
(5)
4.3 Port policy and EPI In general, entropy can be used as an approach for ranked the uncertainty index. EPIs are considered to provide the most needed to solve problem from environmental issue in the port. The first top five ranking is straightforward to verify environmental problem from port activities. Then, the recommended green port policy will be introduced to PAT and can be used as a tool to evaluate Green port policy in the future.
Environmental data in 2011 – 2014 were used for the entropy calculation. As shown in Table 5, the entropy weighting value method indicates that EPIs for LCP green port assessment are top 5 ranked as TKN in wastewater (0.148), Chromium in soil and sediment (0.130), TSP in the air (0.073), Phytoplankton biodiversity (0.067), and Zooplankton biodiversity (0.066). It is clearly to indicate that wastewater quality (TKN), soil and sediment (Chromium), air quality (TSP), and ecosystem (PP and ZP biodiversity) affected the environmental performance of port. Finding from this study match with Puig et al. (2015) that air quality, waste generated from port, and energy consumption are three major environmental priorities of European port in 2013. The last 5 rank EPIs in the entropy results include OG (0.044), COD (0.042), TOC (0.040), and pH (0.039) in wastewater, and Pb (0.039) in soil and sediments, respectively. Although they are the last 5 rank EPIs, the importance of COD cannot be overlooked. Refer to previous paragraph; COD is one of important parameters of wastewater treatment performance. Moreover, port environmental performance is needed to review and systematically monitor to ensure that green port performance is maintained. Table 5 Summary of green port criteria of LCP port ranked by entropy
5. Empirical Results and Analysis Fig. 2 shows the significant increasing of COD and SS in treated wastewater from 2011 to 2014. Normally, COD have been used as indicators of treatment performance (Kawai et al., 2016). Moreover, suspended solids are known to play an important role in biogeochemical processes between water, sediments and microorganisms (Aminot et al., 2018). This confirms previous study (Apai and Thammapredee, 2014; Thai Environmental Technic Limited Co., 2016) that LCP need to install more wastewater treatment system. Even LCP has been concerned in
EPIs
2011
2012
2013
2014
pH SS BOD COD OG TKN TSP PM10 HC Pb
7.88 5.01 17.33 35.75 0.80 66.23 0.03 0.02 4.71 3.52
7.28 10.55 12.73 46.50 0.60 39.09 0.09 0.05 3.06 3.32
7.31 11.85 14.50 54.25 0.93 51.29 0.03 0.07 4.43 3.16
6.80 14.40 7.50 62.00 1.25 4.54 0.17 0.05 8.64 3.42
0.86 0.80 0.83 0.85 0.84 0.47 0.74 0.78 0.82 0.86
0.14 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.16 0.53 0.26 0.22 0.18 0.14
0.04 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04
Rank order 15 8 10 13 12 1 3 6 9 16
Hg
14.00
10.20
5.20
4.30
0.80
0.20
0.06
7
ej Value 1-ejValue rk Value
68
Environmental Performance Indicators for Green Port Policy Evaluation: Case Study of Laem Chabang Port
Cr TOC PH PP
6.80 46.60 1.12 1.96
6.65 69.07 0.55 1.09
3.65 59.45 0.48 0.41
0.63 56.33 0.54 1.05
0.53 0.86 0.84 0.76
0.47 0.15 0.17 0.24
0.13 0.04 0.05 0.07
2 14 11 4
ZP
0.31
1.36
0.54
1.04
0.76
0.24
0.07
5
From the aforementioned paragraph, it is confirmed that wastewater quality, soil and sediment quality, air quality, and biodiversity in ecosystem are needed to pay more attention. LCP is recommended that to carefully design, update and adopt the environmental policy, define the measurable environmental objectives, and set up the practicable EPIs and environmental action plan. Such as “Recover and Maintain Port Environment” policy, the environmental objective is to improve the wastewater quality by using the decreasing of TKN level in wastewater and chromium in soil and sediment as EPIs. Then, the new wastewater treatment installation is set as action plan. After that TKN level in wastewater and chromium in soil and sediment are planned to monthly monitoring. In order to achieve the green port at LCP, the following port environmental policy implications were proposed. 1. Improvement of wastewater quality by install the oxidation pond for wastewater treatment due to the continual increasing of COD level from 2011 to 2014. 2. Even though TKN, TSP and chromium level complied with Thai environmental standard, it is necessary to continuous follow up the concerned environmental indicators. 3. Annual internal audit and review the environmental indicator to ensure that the action plan is on time and if there is a problem found, it will immediately solve. 4. Implementing the Environmental Management System (ISO 14001) is not only support LCP comply with legal requirement but also enable quicker improvement of port activities.
Finally, it is needed for LCP to adopt the clearly environmental policy and environmental action plan in order to get the effective environmental management in port area. Such as, 1. Set EPIs as CO2 reduction and install Alternative Maritime Power (AMP) for container vessel berthed to reduce the usage of diesel energy. 2. Annual review and audit are needed to define in the environmental action plan. 3. The implementation of ISO 14001 can be narrowed to the green port achievement as European ports have been succeeded before. 4. Open data access such as monthly email and provide the existing environmental data on the website 5. Include the green port issue as one of topics of orientation and annual training to ensure that all of port staff understands and ready to support Green port project. However, this study has a limitation. The data accessibility is limited. Further research is required to expand the related environmental data to not only the various parameters such as energy consumption, carbon footprint, waste generation, and review and audit but also social dimension such as communication and quality of life in the community.
References Aminot, Y., Fuster, L., Pardon, P., LeMenach, K., and Budzinski, H. (2018), “Suspended solids moderate the degradation and sorption of waste waterderived pharmaceuticals in estuarine waters”, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 612, pp. 39–48. Antão, P., Calderón, M., Puig, M., Michail, A., Wooldridge, C., and Darbra, R. M. (2016), “Identification of Occupational Health, Safety, Security (OHSS) and Environmental Performance Indicators in port areas”, Safety Science, Vol. 85, pp. 266–275. Apai, B., and Thammapredee, T. (2014), “Safety, Health, and Environmental
6. Conclusion This paper proposes the EPIs to access the environmental aspect related to container seaport. Green port becomes trendy activity for seaport and EPIs are significant to evaluate the environmental criteria. In Thailand, green port is promoted by PAT. Since there is no research have been done on EPIs for Thai container seaport. This paper intends to define green port and review green port policy of LCP port, to figure out EPIs and set up EPIs for LCP and to provide appropriate suggestions to LCP and PAT. There are several conclusions could be summarised in the following: First of all, the results demonstrate that TKN in wastewater, Chromium in soil and sediment, TSP in the air, Phytoplankton biodiversity, and Zooplankton biodiversity ranked top 5. Secondly, PAT needs to pay more attention on environment protection in port area by focusing on wastewater treatment by installation the waste water treatment system, air pollution by monitoring air pollutant emission and ecosystem by set up the “Zero discharge” program from port activities. Thirdly, PAT could set up more EPIs on TKN reduction from wastewater, control Chromium level in soil and sediment by focusing in leachate from port activities which also affect ecosystem. Fourthly, the EPIs can be used as a tool for green port assessment which it could be applied not only for LCP but also for every container seaport that interested in Green port.
Improvement Programs in a Rapidly Growing Port: Laem Chabang”, Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA), Vol. 4, No.1, pp. 1–8. Bae, H.S., (2017), “The Effect of Environmental Capabilities on Environmental Strategy and Environmental Performance of Korean Exporters for Green Supply Chain Management”, The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, Vol. 33, pp. 167–176. Barnes-Dabban, H., vanTatenhove, J. P. M., vanKoppen, K. C. S. A., and Termeer, K. J. A. M. (2017), “Institutionalizing environmental reform with sense-making: West and Central Africa ports and the ‘green port’ phenomenon”, Marine Policy, Vol. 86, pp. 111–120. Bin, O. Y., Wang, L., Feng, Z. H., and Guo, J. (2014), “Study on Green and Low-Carbon Port Evaluation Index System: Case Study of Guangzhou Port”, Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 1010–1012, pp. 1918–1923. Chin, A. T. H., and Low, J. M. W. (2010), “Port performance in Asia: Does production efficiency imply environmental efficiency”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 15, No.8, pp. 483– 488. City of Yokohama. (2016), Feasibility study for assisting ports in Thailand to reduce
CO2
emission
to
become
smart
city,
Available
at:
https://www.iges.or.jp/files/research/sustainablecity/PDF/20170123/06_Y okohama.pdf, [accessed 11th December, 2017]. Clausius, R., (1965), “11 - On a Mechanical Theorem Applicable to Heat**Originally published under the title “Ueber einen auf die Wärme anwendbaren
mechanischen
Satz”,
Sitzungsberichte
der
69
Environmental Performance Indicators for Green Port Policy Evaluation: Case Study of Laem Chabang Port
Niedderrheinischen Gesellschaft”, Bonn, pp. 114-19 (1870); English
Puig, M., Wooldridge, C., Michail, A., and Darbra, R. M. (2015), “Current
translation in Philosophical Magazine, Vol. 40, pp. 122-7 (1870), pp. 172-
status and trends of the environmental performance in European ports”,
178.
Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 48, pp. 57–66.
Dragovic, B., Tzannatos, E., TSELENTIS, V., Mestrovic, R., and Skuric, M.
Ratanavaraha, V., and Jomnonkwao, S. (2015), “Trends in Thailand CO2
(2015), “Ship emissions and their externalities in cruise ports”,
emissions in the transportation sector and Policy Mitigation”, Transport
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. Vol. 61, pp. ESPO. (2012), “Green Guide - Towards Excellence in Port Environmental Management
Policy, Vol. 41, pp. 136–146. Roos E. C., and Kliemann Neto F. J. (2017), Tools for evaluating
289–300. and
Sustainability”,
Available
at:
https://www.espo.be/media/espopublications/espo_green%20guide_octob er%202012_final.pdf, [accessed 11th December, 2017]. Galeotti, M., Rubashkina, Y., Salini, S., and Verdolini, E. (2018), “Environmental policy performance and its determinants: Application of a
environmental performance at Brazilian public ports: Analysis and proposal. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 115, No. 1, pp. 211-216. Rudjanakanoknad, J., and Suksirivoraboot, W. (2012), “Comparison of Trade Facilitation at Four International Ports in Thailand”, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 48, No.0, pp. 215–221. Saengsupavanich,
C.,
Coowanitwong,
N.,
Gallardo,
W.
G.,
and
three-level random intercept model”, Energy Policy, Vol. 114, pp. 134–
Lertsuchatavanich, C. (2009), “Environmental performance evaluation of
144.
an industrial port and estate: ISO14001, port state control-derived
Gonzalez Aregall, M., Bergqvist, R., and Monios, J. (2018), “A global review of the hinterland dimension of green port strategies”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 59, pp. 23–34. Ha, M. H., and Yang, Z., (2017), “Comparative analysis of port performance indicators: Independency and interdependency”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 103, pp. 264–278.
indicators”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 154–161. Seguí, X., Puig, M., Quintieri, E., Wooldridge, C., and Darbra, R. M. (2016), “New environmental performance baseline for inland ports: A benchmark for the European inland port sector”, Environmental Science and Policy, Vol. 58, pp. 29–40. SHAHID, M., SHAMSHAD, S., RAFIQ, M., KHALID, S., BIBI, I., NIAZI, N.
Ha, M. H., Yang, Z., and Heo, M. W. (2017), “A New Hybrid Decision
K., DUMAT, C., and RASHID, M. I. (2017), “Chromium speciation,
Making Framework for Prioritising Port Performance Improvement
bioavailability, uptake, toxicity and detoxification in soil-plant system: A
Strategies”, The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 105–116. Ha, M. H., Yang, Z., Notteboom, T., Adolf K.Y. Ng, and Heo, M. W. (2017), “Revisiting port performance measurement: A hybrid multi-stakeholder framework for the modelling of port performance indicators”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 103, pp.1–16. Judge, W.Q. and Douglas, T.J., (1998), “Performance Implications of
review”, Chemosphere, Vol. 178, pp. 513–533. Thai Environmental Technic Limited Co., L. (2016), Final report of EIA monitoring
report:
Transportation
part,
Available
at:
http://eia.onep.go.th/index.php?leftmenu=true&get_tid=6, [accessed 11th December, 2018]. Thailand, P. A. (2015), Annual Report 2014 Port Authority of Thailand., Available
at:
http://www1.port.co.th/AnnualReport/en/2014/Annual
Report 2014.pdf, [accessed 11th December, 2017].
Incorporating Natural Environmental Issues into the Strategic Planning
Thailand, P. A. (2017), “Vessels, Cargo and Container Passed Statistic”,
Process: An Empirical Assessment”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol.
Available at: http://www.port.co.th/sitenew/en/sathiti.php, [accessed 15th
35, No. 2, pp. 241–262.
March, 2018].
Kang, D., Kim, K., Jang, Y., Moon, H., Ju, D., and Jahng, D. (2018). “Nutrient
Tichavska, M., and Tovar, B. (2015), “Port-city exhaust emission model: An
removal and community structure of wastewater-borne algal-bacterial
application to cruise and ferry operations in Las Palmas Port”,
consortia grown in raw wastewater with various wavelengths of light”,
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 78, pp. 347–
International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation, Vol. 126, pp. 10–20. Kawai, M., Nagao, N., Kawasaki, N., Imai, A., and Toda, T. (2016), “Improvement of COD removal by controlling the substrate degradability during the anaerobic digestion of recalcitrant wastewater”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 181, pp. 838–846. Pilouk, S. and Koottatep, T., (2017), “Environmental performance indicators as the key for eco-industrial parks in Thailand”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 156, pp.614–623. Puig, M., Michail, A., Wooldridge, C., and Darbra, R. M., (2017), “Benchmark dynamics in the environmental performance of ports”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 121, No. 1–2, pp.111–119. Puig, M., Pla, A., Seguí. X., and Darbra RT. M., (2017), “Tool for the identification and implementation of Environmental Indicators in Ports (TEIP)”, Ocean and Coastal Management, Vol. 140, pp. 34–45. Puig, M., Wooldridge, C., and Darbra, R. M. (2014), “Identification and
360. Tzannatos Ernestos, E. (2010), “Ship emissions and their externalities for Greece”, Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 44, No. 18, pp. 2194–2202. UNCTAD,
(2017).
Review
of
maritime
transport,
Available
http://unctadstat.unctad.org/wds/TableViewer/tableView.aspx,
at:
[accessed
11th December 2017]. WAN, C., ZHANG, D., YAN, X., and YANG, Z. (2018), “A novel model for the quantitative evaluation of green port development – a case study of major ports in China”, Transportation Research Part D Transport and Environment, Vol. 61(B), pp. 431–443. Yang, Y. C. (2017), “Operating strategies of CO2 reduction for a container terminal based on carbon footprint perspective”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 141, pp. 472–480. Yang, Y. C., and Shen, K. Y. (2013), “Comparison of the operating performance
of
automated
and
traditional
container
terminals”,
selection of Environmental Performance Indicators for sustainable port
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Vol. 16, No.
development”, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 81, No. 1, pp. 124–130.
2, pp. 158–173.