Skip to main content

How do sustainable port practices influence local communities’ perceptions of ports?

Abstract

The symbiotic relationship between ports and cities in spatial, social, and cultural terms is fundamental in tackling new transport, urban, and environmental challenges. A positive perception of port clusters within local communities is increasingly becoming a source of competitive advantage for the further development of port clusters and regions. This research examines how the economic, social, and environmental practices of port-managing bodies influence such perceptions and ensure the sustainable development of port clusters and regions. We define sustainable port practices and measure their impact on perceptions of ports. We apply structural equation modeling (SEM) to data from 256 survey responses. The results confirm the importance of sustainable port practices in influencing perceptions. Communication with local communities; the participation of the latter in port management; and investment by the port in local development are key sustainable port practices. The study also confirms the moderating influence of the characteristics of the port region and port cluster.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  • Adams, M., P. Quinonez, P. Pallis, A.A. and T.H. Wakeman. 2009. Environmental issues in port competitiveness. Working Paper 7, Centre for International Trade and Transportation. Halifax: Dalhousie University.

  • AIVP 2022. Agenda 2030. 10 goals for sustainable port cities: https://www.aivp.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/AIVP_Agenda_2030-Brochure-2020-EN.pdf.

  • Arbuckle, J. L. 2010. IBM SPSS AMOS 19 user’s guide. Crawfordville: Amos Development Corporation

  • Ashrafi, M., M. Acciaro, T. Walker, G. Magnan, and M. Adams. 2019. Corporate sustainability in Canadian and US maritime ports. Journal of Cleaner Production 220: 386–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashrafi, M., T.R. Walker, G.M. Magnan, M. Adams, and M. Acciaro. 2020. A review of corporate sustainability drivers in maritime ports: A multi-stakeholder perspective. Maritime Policy & Management 47 (8): 1027–1044. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2020.1736354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonciani, B. 2016. L’impatto economico del crocierismo, tra porto e città: Iconsumi degli equipaggi. Rivista Di Economia e Politica Dei Trasporti 3 (5): 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bossuyt, D.M., and F. Savini. 2018. Urban sustainability and political parties: Eco-development in Stockholm and Amsterdam. Environment and Planning C. Politics Space 36: 1006–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, A., and R. Lozano. (eds.). 2020. European port cities in transition. Strategies for Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9. Port-city redevelopment and sustainable development P Fenton—European port cities in transition.

  • Castellano, R., M. Ferretti, G. Musella, and M. Risitano. 2020. Evaluating the economic and environmental efficiency of ports: Evidence from Italy. Journal of Cleaner Production 271: 122560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerreta, M., E. Giovene di Girasole, G. Poli, and S. Regalbuto. 2020. Operationalizing the circular city model for Naples’ City-Port: A hybrid development strategy. Sustainability 12: 2927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheon, S.H., and E. Dwakin. 2010. Supply chain coordination for port sustainability. Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2166: 10–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’agostini, E., and S.-H. Jo. 2018. Port-city and local population relationship: The perception of busan citizens of the port. Journal of Navigation and Port Research 43 (2): 110–121. https://doi.org/10.5394/KINPR.2019.43.2.11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Langen, P., and H. Sornn-Friese. 2019. Chapter 5—Ports and the circular economy green ports inland and seaside sustainable transportation strategies, 85–108. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dooms, M. 2019. Stakeholder management for port sustainability: moving from Ad-Hoc to structural approaches. In 2019, Green ports: Inland and seaside sustainable transportation strategies, ed. R. Bergqvist and J. Monios, 63–84. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducruet, C., and S.-W. Lee. 2006. Frontline soldiers of globalisation: Port-City evolution and regional competition. GeoJournal 67: 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eabrasu, M., M. Brueckner, and R. Spencer. 2021. A social license to operate legitimacy test: Enhancing sustainability through contact quality. Journal of Cleaner Production 293: 126080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fobbe, L., R. Lozano, and A. Carpenter. 2020. Proposing a holistic framework to assess sustainability performance in seaports. In European port cities in transition: Moving towards more sustainable sea transport hubs. eds. A. Carpenter and R. Lozano. Pub. January 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9_3.

  • Geerts, M., and M. Dooms. 2020. Sustainability reporting for inland port managing bodies: A stakeholder-based view on materiality. Sustainability 12 (5): 1726. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12051726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gkargkavouzi, A., G. Halkos, and S. Matsiori. 2019. Assessing values, attitudes, and threats towards marine biodiversity in a Greek coastal port city and their interrelationships. Ocean and Coastal Management 167: 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.09.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, R. 1999. Meaning and form in community perception of town character. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19 (4): 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.1999.0143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haezendonck, E., M. Dooms, and A. Verbeke. 2014. A new governance perspective on port-hinterland relationships: The Port Hinterland Impact (PHI) matrix. Maritime Economics & Logistics 16 (3): 229–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haezendonck, E., G. Pison, P. Rousseeuw, A. Struyf, and A. Verbeke. 2000. The competitive advantage of seaports. International Journal of Maritime Economics 2 (2): 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1057/ijme.2000.8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P., and W. Jacobs. 2012. Why are maritime ports (still) urban, and why should policy-makers care? Maritime Policy & Management 39 (2): 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hein, C., S. Luning, and P. van der Laar. 2021. Innovative methods for studying and shaping cultures. In Port City Territories, Port city cultures, values, or maritime mindsets, Part 2: Studying and shaping cultures in port city territories. European Journal of Creative Practices in Cities and Landscapes 2 (4): 7–15. https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.2612-0496/v2-n2-2019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hein, C., and P. Schubert. 2020. Resilience and path dependence: A comparative study of the port cities of London, Hamburg, and Philadelphia. Journal of Urban History 47 (2): 389–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hörisch, J., R.E. Freeman, and S. Schaltegger. 2014. Applying stakeholder theory in sustainability management: Links, similarities, dissimilarities, and a conceptual framework. Organization & Environment 27 (4): 328–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hossain, T., M. Adams, and T.R. Walker. 2019. Sustainability initiatives in Canadian ports. Marine Policy 106: 103519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hossain, T., M. Adams, and T.R. Walker. 2021. Role of sustainability in global seaports. Ocean and Coastal Management 202 (1): 105435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyle, B. 1999. Scale and sustainability: The role of community groups in Canadian port-city waterfront change. Journal of Transport Geography 7: 65–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ignaccolo, M., G. Inturri, and M. Le Pira. 2018. Framing stakeholder involvement in sustainable port planning. Transport Maritime Science 7: 136–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ignaccolo, M., Inturri, G., Giuffrida, N., Torrisi, V., and Cocuzza, E. 2020. Sustainability of freight transport through an integrated approach: the case of the eastern sicily port system. Transportation Research Procedia, 45: 177–184

  • Jansen, M., A. Brandellero, and R. van Houwelingen. 2021. Port-City transition: Past and emerging socio-spatial imaginaries and uses in Rotterdam’s Makers District. Cogitatio 6 (3): 166–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jean Debrie, J., and N. Raimbault. 2016. The port–city relationships in two European inland ports: A geographical perspective on urban governance. Cities 50: 180–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, B., Y. Li, W. Lio, and J. Li. 2018. Sustainability efficiency evaluation of seaports in China: An uncertain data envelopment analysis approach. Soft Computing 24: 2503–2514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3559-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. and Sörbom, D. 1993. LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.

  • Joyce, S., and I. Thomson. 2000. Earning a social license to operate: Social acceptability and resource development in Latin America. The Canadian Mining and Metallurgical Bulletin 93 (1037): 49–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellya, R., G. Pecla, and A. Fleming. 2017. Social license in the marine sector: A review of understanding and application. Marine Policy 81: 21–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuznetsov, A., J. Dinwoodie, D. Gibbs, M. Sansom, and H. Knowles. 2015. Towards a sustainability management system for smaller ports. Marine Policy 54: 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.12.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, J., and W. Yap. 2019. A stakeholder perspective of port city sustainable development. Sustainability 11 (2): 447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16 (3): 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02310555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lim, S., S. Pettit, W. Abouarghou, and A. Beresford. 2019. Port sustainability and performance: A systematic literature review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 72: 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.04.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Navarro, M., V. Tortosa-Edo, and V. Castan-Broto. 2018. Firm-local community relationships in polluting industrial agglomerations: How firms’ commitment determines residents’ perceptions. Journal of Cleaner Production 186: 22–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moeremans, B., and M. Dooms. 2021. An Exploration of Social License to Operate (SLTO) measurement in the port industry: The case of North America. Sustainability 13 (5): 2543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moglia, F., and M. Sanguineri. 2003. Port planning: The need for a new approach? Maritime Economics & Logistics 5: 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musso, E., M. Benacchio, and C. Ferrari. 2000. Ports and employment in port cities. Maritime Economics & Logistics 2: 283–311. https://doi.org/10.1057/ijme.2000.23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narula, S., S. Narula, and S. Rai. 2018. Environmental awareness and the role of social media. Hershey: IGI Global, ISBN: 978-1-5225-5291-8.

  • Oh, H., S. Lee, and Y. Seo. 2018. The evaluation of seaport sustainability: The case of South Korea. Ocean and Coastal Management 161: 50–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ports Australia. 2020. Port sustainability strategy development guide: Approaches and future opportunities, 2020. https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/5b503e0a8411da3c0f173ea8/5f6a83dc05a0951f90a9bb86_Port%20Sustainability%20Strategy%20Development%20Guide.pdf, Accessed 21 April 2021.

  • Rodriguez, M. A., Ricart, J. E. and Sanchez, P. 2002. Sustainable development and the sustainability of competitive advantage: A Dynamic and sustainable view of the firm sustainable development and competitive advantage. Blackell Publishers Ltd, Oxford, 11 (3): 135–146

  • Roh, S., V.V. Thai, and Y.D. Wong. 2016. Towards sustainable ASEAN port development: Challenges and opportunities for vietnamese ports. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 32 (2): 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2016.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos Martín, A.E., N. González-Cancelas, B.M. Serrano, and F. Soler-Flores. 2020. Towards the sustainability of the Spanish Port System through the business observation tool. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers—Maritime Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1680/jmaen.2020.25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schippera, C., H. Vreugdenhila, and M. de Jonga. 2017. A sustainability assessment of ports and port-city plans: Comparing ambitions with achievements. Transportation Research Part D 57: 84–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiau, T.-A., and C.-C. Chuang. 2013. Social construction of port sustainability indicators: A case study of Keelung Port. Maritime Policy & Management 42 (1): 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2013.863436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M., and M. Acciaro. 2020. Value creation through corporate sustainability in the port sector: A structured literature analysis. Sustainability 12 (14): 5504. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12145504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, T.Y. 2007. Port cities and hinterlands: A comparative study of Singapore and Calcutta. Political Geography 26 (7): 851–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyson, Elic, Brian Kennedy, and Cary Funk. 2021. Gen Z, Millennials Stand out for Climate Change Activism, Social Media Engagement with Issue. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2021/05/26/gen-z-millennialsstand-out-for-climate-change-activism-social-media-engagement-with-issue.

  • Van den Berghe, K., and T.A. Daamen. 2020. From planning the port/city to planning the port-city: Exploring the economic interface in European port cities. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voyer, M., W. Gladstone, and H. Goodall. 2015. Obtaining a social license for MPAs—influences on social acceptability. Marine Policy 51: 260–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WPSP. 2020. World ports sustainability report, World Ports Sustainability Program, www.sustainableworldports.org. Accessed 21 April 2021.

  • Zheng, Y., J. Zhao, and G. Shao. 2020. Port city sustainability: A review of its research trends. Sustainability 12 (20): 8355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vítor Caldeirinha.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 2, 3,4, 5, 6 and7.

Table 2 List of local community groups
Table 3 Characteristics of the region and port cluster (moderator variable)
Table 4 Model variables
Table 5 Ranking of importance of sustainable port practices (from survey)
Table 6 Local communities’ perceptions (measured on a seven-point Likert scale)
Table 7 Measurement model coefficients

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Felício, J.A., Batista, M., Dooms, M. et al. How do sustainable port practices influence local communities’ perceptions of ports?. Marit Econ Logist (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-022-00237-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-022-00237-7

Keywords

  • Sustainable port practices
  • Local communities’ perceptions
  • Social license to operate (SLTO)
  • Stakeholder management
  • Port cluster