Advertisement

WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 165–195 | Cite as

A multi-aspect framework to support the decision-making process of low carbon emission solutions

  • Son NguyenEmail author
Article
  • 73 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of 2 °C global temperature gaining limitation had been included in the Copenhagen Accord emerging from the Conference of Parties (COP15) meeting. The Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) and Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) became mandatory and served as a guide for companies in low-carbon operation and management. However, the actual active application of low-carbon shipping (LCS) measures by stakeholders still undeniably plays a decisive role. Unfortunately, the way from SEEMP and EEDI adoption to LCS measures implementation of industrial stakeholders remain knowledge gaps. One of them is a manner by which LCS measure decisions can be made properly by considering multiple criteria. This paper, by analyzing primary internal and external factors affecting LCS decisions, introduced a decision-making framework for shipping companies in choosing the most appropriate LCS measures for individual ships to implement in diversified conditions. The framework has a generic structure thus researchers and policymakers, as well as each company can apply it flexibly and diversely.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

Ship energy efficiency management plan (SEEMP) Decision-making framework Low-carbon shipping (LCS) Energy efficiency design index (EEDI) 

References

  1. Azzara A, Minjares R, Rutherford D (2015) Needs and opportunities to reduce black carbon emissions from maritime shipping. International Council On Clean Transportation,Google Scholar
  2. Ballou P, Chen H, Horner JD (2008) Advanced methods of optimizing ship operations to reduce emissions detrimental to climate change. In: OCEANS 2008, 15–18 Sept. 2008, pp 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1109/OCEANS.2008.5151815
  3. Bertram V (2012) Chapter 3 - resistance and propulsion. In: Practical ship hydrodynamics, 2nd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp 73–141.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097150-6.10003-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouman EA, Lindstad E, Rialland AI, Strømman AH (2017) State-of-the-art technologies, measures, and potential for reducing GHG emissions from shipping – a review. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 52:408–421.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.03.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Branch AE, Robarts M (2014) Elements of shipping. Routledge,Taylor and Francis, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brans JP, Vincke P, Mareschal B (1986) How to select and how to rank projects: the Promethee method. Eur J Oper Res 24:228–238.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brouer BD, Dirksen J, Pisinger D, Plum CEM, Vaaben B (2013) The vessel schedule recovery problem (VSRP) - a MIP model for handling disruptions in liner shipping. Eur J Oper Res 224:362–374.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.08.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buhaug Ø, Corbett J, Endresen Ø, Eyring V, Faber J, Hanayama S, Lee D (2009) Second IMO GHG study. In: International Maritime Organization (IMO), LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. CCC (2011) Review of UK shipping emissions. Committee on Climate Change, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Celik M, Cebi S (2009) Analytical HFACS for investigating human errors in shipping accidents. Accid Anal Prev 41:66–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2008.09.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen Z, Yang W (2011) An MAGDM based on constrained FAHP and FTOPSIS and its application to supplier selection. Math Comput Model 54:2802–2815.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2011.06.068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Claver E, Lopez MD, Molina JF, Tari JJ (2007) Environmental management and firm performance: a case study. J Environ Manag 84:606–619.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.09.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corbett JJ, Wang HF, Winebrake JJ (2009) The effectiveness and costs of speed reductions on emissions from international shipping. Transport Res D-Tr E 14:593–598.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2009.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dalsøren S, Eide MS, Endresen Ø, Mjelde A, Graf MJ, Isaksen ISA (2009) Update on emissions and environmental impacts from the international fleet. The contribution from major ship types and ports. Atmos Chem Phys 9:2171–2194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dat LQ, Phuong TT, Kao HP, Chou SY, Nghia PV (2015) A new integrated fuzzy QFD approach for market segments evaluation and selection. Appl Math Model 39:3653–3665.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2014.11.051 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dewan MH, Yaakob O, Suzana A (2018) Barriers for adoption of energy efficiency operational measures in shipping industry. WMU J Marit Aff 17:169–193.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-018-0138-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dimopoulos G, Kakalis N (2014) Next generation energy management. DNV GL Strategic Research and InnovationGoogle Scholar
  18. Eide MS, Endresen Ø (2010) Assessment of measures to reduce future CO2 emissions from shipping. DNVGoogle Scholar
  19. Endresen Ø, Eide MS, Dalsøren S, Isaksen ISA, Sørgård E (2008) The environmental impacts of increased international maritime shipping, past trends and future perspectives. Paper presented at the OECD/ITF Global Forum on Transport and Environment in a Globalizing World, Guadalajara, Mexico,Google Scholar
  20. European Commission (2013) Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council on the monitoring, Reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport and amending regulation (EU) vol 525/2013Google Scholar
  21. European Parliament (2015) On the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport, and amending Directive 2009/16/EC vol 2015/757. EUGoogle Scholar
  22. Faber J et al (2009) Technical support European action to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from international maritime transport. CE Delft,Google Scholar
  23. Figueira JR, Greco S, Roy B, Słowiński R (2013) An overview of ELECTRE methods and their recent extensions. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 20:61–85.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1482 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ge J, Wang X (2016) Techno-economic study of LNG diesel power (dual fuel) ship. WMU J Marit Aff 16:233–245.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-016-0120-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gibbs D, Rigot-Muller P, Mangan J, Lalwani C (2014) The role of sea ports in end-to-end maritime transport chain emissions. Energy Policy 64:337–348.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gilbert P, Bows A, Anderson K (2011) Emission apportionment and exploring alternative national based policy measure to reduce emission from the shipping sector. Paper presented at the European transport conference 2011, Glasgow, Scotland, UKGoogle Scholar
  27. Glykas A, Papaioannou G, Perissakis S (2010) Application and cost-benefit analysis of solar hybrid power installation on merchant marine vessels. Ocean Eng 37:592–602.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2010.01.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hansen HR, Dinham-Peren T, Nojiri T (2011) Model and full scale evaluation of a ‘propeller boss cap fins’ device fitted to an Aframax tanker. Paper presented at the Second International Symposium on Marine Propulsors, Hamburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  29. Heitmann N, Peterson S (2014) The potential contribution of the shipping sector to an efficient reduction of global carbon dioxide emissions. Environ Sci Pol 42:56–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.05.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hoffmann PN, Eide MS, Endresen O (2012) Effect of proposed CO2 emission reduction scenarios on capital expenditure. Marit Policy Manag 39:443–460.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2012.690081 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hu QM, Hu ZH, Du YQ (2014) Berth and quay-crane allocation problem considering fuel consumption and emissions from vessels Computers & Industrial Engineering 70:1-10  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2014.01.003
  32. Hwang C-L, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making. Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. ICAP (2017) Emissions Trading Worldwide: Status Report 2017. International Carbon Action Partnership (ICAP)Google Scholar
  34. ICS (2017) Annual review 2017. International Chamber of Shipping, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. IMarEST (2010) Reduction of GHG emissions from ships: marginal abatement costs and cost-effectiveness of energy-efficiency measures. International Maritime Organization, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. IMO (2011) Main events in IMO’s work on limitation and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping. International Maritime Organization, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. IMO (2012) Guidelines for the development of a ship energy efficiency management plan (SEEMP) IMOGoogle Scholar
  38. IMO (2013) Maritime knowledge centre: information resources on air pollution and greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions from international shipping (MARPOL Annex VI (SOx, NOx, ODS, VOC) / Greenhouse Gas (CO2) and Climate Change). http://www.imo.org/KnowledgeCentre/InformationResourcesOnCurrentTopics/AirPollutionandGreenhouseGasEmissionsfromInternationalShippping/Documents. Accessed 16th June 2016
  39. Jafarzadeh S, Utne IB (2014) A framework to bridge the energy efficiency gap in shipping. Energy 69:603–612.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.03.056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Johnson H, Andersson K (2014) Barriers to energy efficiency in shipping. WMU J Marit Aff 15:79–96.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-014-0071-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johnson H, Johansson M, Andersson K (2014) Barriers to improving energy efficiency in short sea shipping: an action research case study. J Clean Prod 66:317–327.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.046 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kandakoglu A, Celik M, Akgun I (2009) A multi-methodological approach for shipping registry selection in maritime transportation industry. Math Comput Model 49:586–597.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2008.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kesicki F, Ekins P (2012) Marginal abatement cost curves: a call for caution. Clim Pol 12:219–236.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2011.582347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kesicki F, Strachan N (2011) Marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves: confronting theory and practice. Environ Sci Pol 14:1195–1204.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Koesler S, Achtnicht M, Köhler J (2015) Course set for a cap? A case study among ship operators on a maritime ETS. Transp Policy 37:20–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lindstad H, Sandaas I, Steen S (2014) Assessment of profit, cost, and emissions for slender bulk vessel designs. Transport Res D-Tr E 29:32–39.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lloyd's List (2009) Crew training is key to better ship efficiency. Lloyd’s List. http://www.ship-efficiency.org/2009/PDF/LloydsList.pdf. Accessed 28 April 2015
  48. Lopez-Gamero MD, Molina-Azorin JF, Claver-Cortes E (2009) The whole relationship between environmental variables and firm performance: competitive advantage and firm resources as mediator variables. J Environ Manag 90:3110–3121.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.05.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mander S (2017) Slow steaming and a new dawn for wind propulsion: a multi-level analysis of two low carbon shipping transitions. Mar Policy 75:210–216.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.03.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mansouri SA, Lee H, Aluko O (2015) Multi-objective decision support to enhance environmental sustainability in maritime shipping: a review and future directions. Transport Res E Log 78:3–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2015.01.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nikolakaki G (2012) Economic incentives for maritime shipping relating to climate protection. WMU J Marit Aff 12:17–39.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-012-0036-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Palmer K, Smith T (2017) Zero emission vessels 2030: how do we get there? Lloyd’s Register & UMASGoogle Scholar
  53. Parviainen T, Lehikoinen A, Kuikka S, Haapasaari P (2017) How can stakeholders promote environmental and social responsibility in the shipping industry? WMU J Marit Aff 17:49–70.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-017-0134-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Psaraftis HN (2012) Market-based measures for greenhouse gas emissions from ships: a review. WMU J Marit Aff 11:211–232.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-012-0030-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Qi XT, Song DP (2012) Minimizing fuel emissions by optimizing vessel schedules in liner shipping with uncertain port times. Transport Res E-Log 48:863–880.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2012.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rehmatulla N, Smith T (2015a) Barriers to energy efficiency in shipping: a triangulated approach to investigate the principal agent problem. Energy Policy 84:44–57.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.04.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rehmatulla N, Smith T (2015b) Barriers to energy efficient and low carbon shipping. Ocean Eng 110:102–112.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.09.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rehmatulla N, Calleya J, Smith T (2017) The implementation of technical energy efficiency and CO 2 emission reduction measures in shipping. Ocean Eng 139:184–197.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.04.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rightship (2013) Calculating and comparing CO2 emissions from the global maritime fleet EEDI EVDI. Rightship, LondonGoogle Scholar
  60. Rojon I, Smith T (2014) On the attitudes and opportunities of fuel consumption monitoring and measurement within the shipping industry and the identification and validation of energy efficiency and performance interventions. UCL Energy Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
  61. Roszkowska E, Wachowicz T (2015) Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems. Eur J Oper Res 242:920–932.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.10.050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Roy B (1991) The outranking approach and the foundations of electre methods. Theor Decis 31:49–73.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00134132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Royal Academy of Engineering (2013) Future ship powering option: exploring alternative methods of ship propulsion. Royal Academy of Engineering, LondonGoogle Scholar
  64. Saaty TL (2009) Mathematical principles of decision making. RWS Publications, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  65. Schaltegger S, Synnestvedt T (2002) The link between 'green' and economic success: environmental management as the crucial trigger between environmental and economic performance. J Environ Manag 65:339–346.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2002.0555 Google Scholar
  66. Schinas O, Stefanakos CN (2014) Selecting technologies towards compliance with MARPOL annex VI: the perspective of operators. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 28:28–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shi W, Xiao Y, Chen Z, McLaughlin H, Li KX (2018) Evolution of green shipping research: themes and methods. Marit Policy Manag 45:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2018.1489150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Smith TWP et al (2014) Third IMO GHG study 2014. International Maritime Organization (IMO), LondonGoogle Scholar
  69. Smith T et al (2016) CO2 emissions from international shipping: possible reduction targets and their associated pathways. UMAS, LondonGoogle Scholar
  70. Sorrell S et al (2000) Reducing barriers to energy efficiency in public and private organizations. Science and Policy Technology Research (SPRU), SussexGoogle Scholar
  71. Stevens L, Sys C, Vanelslander T, van Hassel E (2015) Is new emission legislation stimulating the implementation of sustainable and energy-efficient maritime technologies? Research in Transportation Business & Management 17:14–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2015.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Stopford M (2009) Maritime economics: the third edition, 3rd edn. Routledge, Taylor and Francis, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Transparency Market Research (2014) Bunker fuel market - global industry analysis, size, share, growth, trends, and forecast 2014 – 2020. Transparency Market ResearchGoogle Scholar
  74. UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (2012) International aviation and shipping emissions and the UK’s carbon budgets and 2050 target. UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, LondonGoogle Scholar
  75. UNCTAD (2009) Maritime transport and the climate change challenge. Paper presented at the Multi-Year Expert Meeting on Transport and Trade Facilitation, Geneva,Google Scholar
  76. Wan C, Yan X, Zhang D, Shi J, Fu S, Ng AKY (2015) Emerging LNG-fueled ships in the Chinese shipping industry: a hybrid analysis on its prospects. WMU J Marit Aff 14:43–59.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-015-0080-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wang H, Nguyen S (2016) Prioritizing mechanism of low carbon shipping measures using a combination of FQFD and FTOPSIS. Marit Policy Manag 44:187–207.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2016.1245878 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wärtsilä (2009) Energy efficiency catalogue / ship power R&D. HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  79. Wärtsilä (2013) Wärtsilä solutions for marine and oil & gas markets. Wärtsilä CorporationGoogle Scholar
  80. Wärtsilä (2016) Improving energy efficiency in the merchant shipping industry. Wärtsilä Finland, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  81. Windeck V (2013) A liner shipping network design: routing and scheduling considering environmental influences. Springer Gabler, Hamburg.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-00699-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0019-9958(65)90241-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zheng J, Hu H, Dai L (2013) How would EEDI influence Chinese shipbuilding industry? Marit Policy Manag 40:495–510.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2013.797121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zhou PL, Wang HB (2014) Carbon capture and storage-solidification and storage of carbon dioxide captured on ships. Ocean Eng 91:172–180.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2014.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Maritime University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Maritime and Logistics Management, National Centre for Ports and Shipping, Australian Maritime CollegeUniversity of TasmaniaLauncestonAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Maritime Transportation Economics, Faculty of EconomicsVietnam Maritime UniversityHaiphongVietnam

Personalised recommendations