DETERMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT OF INLAND CONTAINER TERMINALS
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
terms and conditions.
Volume 17 article 589 pages: 144 - 156
The global warming is forcing us to assess the specific environmental impact of all our industrial activities without
which we could not imagine our existence anymore. Energy and heat production, industrial production of all kind,
agriculture, forestry and other land use, transportation, construction industry and other energy processing and refining
and transport of fuel. Among stated sources of global Greenhouse Gas Emissions, transportation alone brings
a share of 14%, studies show. Due to globalization of the international trade we are not able to avoid the massive
movements of raw materials on one side and finished products on the other. Thus the Transportation Industry
becomes a major factor in production cycle of the majority of products. Transportation modes available today have
all the same task, to bring the goods from shipper to consignee as fast and as cheap as possible. Transportation
mode selected, isn’t necessarily the environmental friendly mode, but only the “best value for money” for the stakeholders.
To stimulate the use of environmental friendlier transportation modes,a proper comparison between modes
is required.The standard EN16258 provides methodology for calculating Green-House-Gas Emissions during transportation
for all transport modes, but there are some grey areas in logistic chains. In Combined transport, where
Rail and Road Transportations are combined, there is a whole segment of activities,needed to shift from one mode
to another, where emissions take place and have to be accounted for.
- Bonilla, D., Keller, H., & Schmiele, J. (2014). Climate Policy and solutions for green supply chains: Europe's predicament. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal.
- EU. (2019, February 21). https://standards.cen.eu. Retrieved from Methodology for calculation and declaration of energy consumption and GHG emissions of transport services (freight and passengers):
- Fontaras, G., Grigoratos, T., Savvidis, D., Anagnostopoulos, K., Raphael, L., Rexeis, M., & Hausberger,S. (2016). An experimental evaluation of the methodology proposed for the monitoring and certification of CO2 emissions from heavy duty vehicles in
- Geerlings, H., & Van Duin, R. (2011, April 1). A new method for assessing CO2-emissions from container terminals: a promising approach applied in Rotterdam. Journal of cleaner Production, Vol.19 (6) (Apr1, 2011).
- Greene, S., & Lewis, A. (2016). GLEC Framework for Logistics Emissions Methodologies. Amsterdam: Smart Freight Centre 2016. GLEC Framework for Logistics Emissions Methodologies.
- Hjortnaes, T., Wiegmans, B., Negenborn, R., Zuidwijk, R., & Klijnhout, R. (2017). Minimizing cost of empty container repositioning in port hinterlands, while taking repair operations into account. Journal of Transport Geography, 209-219.
- Kellner, F. (2016). Allocating greenhouse gas emissions to shipments in road freight transportation: Suggestions for a global carbon accounting standard. Energy Policy, 565-575.
- Ketelaer, T., Kashub, T., Jochem, P., & Fichtner, W. (2014). The potential of carbon dioxide emission reductions in German commercial transport by electric vehicles. International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology (IJEST), 2169-2184.
- KombiConsult. (2018). AGORA. Retrieved from Agora Terminals: http://www.intermodal-terminals.eu/database/
- Koster, M. d., Balk, B., & Nus, W. v. (2009). On using DEA for benchmarking container terminals. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 1140-1155.
- Martinez, L., Kauppila, J., & Castaing, M. (2014, December 1). International Freight and Related CO2 Emissions by 2050: A New Modelling Tool. International Transport Forum. Paris.
- Palmer, A., Mortimer, P., Greening, P., Piecyk, M., & Dadhich, P. (2017). A cost and CO2 comparison of using trains and higher capacity trucks when UK FMCG companies collaborate. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and environment, 94-107.
- Pavlovic, J., Marotta, A., & Biagio, C. (2016). CO2 emissions and energy demands of vehicles tested under the NEDC and the new WLTP tzpe approval test procedure. Applied Energy.
- Roso, V., Woxenius, J., & Lumsden, K. (2009). The dry port concept: connecting container seaports with the hinterland. Journal of Transport Geography, 338- 345.
- Schmied, M., Knörr, W., Friedl, C., & Hepburn, L. (2012). Calculating GHG emissions for freight forwarding and logistics services. European Association for Forwarding, Transport, Logistics and Customs Services (CLECAT).
- Sim, J. (2018). A carbon emission evaluation model for a container terminal. Journal of cleaner production,
- Teye, C., Bell, M. G., & Bliemer, M. C. (2018). Locating urban and regional container terminals in a competitive environment: An entropy maximising approach. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 971-985.
- UIC-ETF. (2019, February 21). 2018 Report on combined transport in Europe. Retrieved from UIC.org:
- UIRR, International Union of Combined Road-Rail. (2003). CO2 REDUCTION THROUGH COMBINED TRANSPORT. Brussels: UIRR.
- Venkatasubbaiah, K., Narayanaa Rao, K., Malleswara Rao, K., & Challa, S. (2017). Performance evaluation and modelling of container terminals. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C, 87-96.
- Wen-Kai, K. (2013). Improving the service operations of container terminals. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 101-116.
- Winnes, H., Linda, S., & Erik, F. (2015). Reducing GHG emissions from ships in port areas. Research in Transportation Business / Management.