4.0 Review

Assessing Dry Ports' Environmental Sustainability

期刊

ENVIRONMENTS
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/environments9090117

关键词

dry port; inland terminal; freight village; interporto; environmental sustainability; systematic literature review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article explores the environmental aspects of dry ports through a systematic literature review. The study finds that there is a lack of coordination and discussion on the environmental impacts of dry ports in current research, as well as a lack of standardized applicable tools and stakeholder involvement. Additionally, there is a lack of debate under the framework of the Sustainable Development Goals of the Agenda 2030.
Sustainable development and environmental issues related to ports and sea trade have highlighted the need to enhance transport and trade systems to include green practices, such as the realisation of dry ports. However, among the current studies investigating dry ports' implications, only few papers explore their environmental impacts. Moreover, these latter papers approach the argument in a general way, leaving the ecological concerns associated with dry ports under-researched or marginally explored. In light of these premises, with the present review, the authors aim to develop a new conceptual framework on the dry ports' environmental aspects in order to drive and support future academic research in this field. The methodology used by the authors is a systematic literature review on Scopus and Web of Science. They identified 107 relevant articles, of which 43 were included according to the authors' propositions. The main results show that (i) there is no coordination between the various studies and systemic debates on dry ports' environmental aspects; (ii) there are no standardised applicable tools; and (iii) there is no involvement among the various stakeholders. Additionally, a debate is also lacking under the lens of the Sustainable Development Goals of the Agenda 2030.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据