Smart Ports in Industry 4.0: A Systematic Literature Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Methodological Approach
- ▪ First set: ti = (smart terminal* OR smart port*)
- ▪ Second set: ts = (effectiveness OR efficiency OR performance OR assessment OR evaluation OR measurement OR “kpi*” OR “key performance indicator*”)
- ▪ Combine sets 1 and 2 with an and operator→#2AND#1
2.2. Reporting
2.2.1. Search Strategy
2.2.2. Selection Criteria
2.2.3. Quality Assessment
2.2.4. Data Extraction
- Articles should be original papers, review papers and conference papers. Literature reviews, case studies, conference proceedings, newspaper articles, software articles, technical reports, dissertations, brochures, and PowerPoint presentations were excluded from our methodology.
- The paper must be written in the English language and categorized under the following subject areas: computer science, decision sciences, environmental science, engineering, and social sciences.
- Extracted articles were published between the years 2015 and 2023.
- The extracted articles were from a wide range of countries worldwide not focusing on particular country or countries.
- In the last phase, only 39 articles were finally chosen for meta-analysis review.
3. Findings of Systematic Literature Review
3.1. RQ1: How Is the Trend in Smart Port Framework from 2015 and Onwards?
3.2. RQ2: What Are the Current Researched Fundamental Themes in this Field?
3.3. RQ3: What Are the Current Literature Trends in Smart Port Performance Evaluation Framework and What Is the Manner in Which Can They Be Classified?
Thematic Category | Context |
---|---|
Analysis/selection of key performance indicators (KPIs) for port performance assessment | The researchers recommend or create appropriate KPIs for current port demands. The framework for KPIs is being developed. The importance of KPIs varies depending on the stakeholders. |
Identifying and measuring the effect of port performance determinants | The researchers identify or develop suitable key performance indicators (KPIs) for contemporary port demands. The KPI framework is being created. The significance of KPIs changes according to the stakeholders. Examining cause and effect factors and determining the most important factors. Environmental and energy efficiency studies affecting smart ports’ performance are included in this category |
Definition of the term of “smart port” and theoretical implications | The authors try to examine the theoretical concepts of smart port development, synthesizing core smart port concepts in order to motivate new research interest in this new academic area. |
Suggestion of digital technologies included in “smart ports” to improve their services | The authors try to determine which technologies to choose and how to implement them to establishing effective systems and technical means for port development in the port industry. |
Classification of Current Literature Trends
3.4. RQ4: What Research Implications Could Be Proposed in Order to Further Develop the Smart Port Field?
3.5. Thematic Analysis
3.5.1. Definition of Term “Smart Port” and Suggestion of Proper Framework of an Intelligent Port
3.5.2. Analysis/Selection of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Port Performance Measurement
3.5.3. Identifying and Quantifying the Impact of Determinants That Affect Port Performance
3.5.4. Suggestion of Digital Technologies Included in “Smart Ports” to Improve Their Services
4. Future Research Agenda
5. Conclusions
5.1. The Future of Smart Ports in the Port and Maritime Industry
5.2. Challenges to the Transition to the Smart Port Model
- Economic Impact—In order for modern ports to compete in today’s global trade and economy, investment in modern, accessible ports with non-congested intermodal cargo accessibility is essential.
- Security—safe and trustworthy port services are critical for both border protection and global trade.
- Environment—seaports are attempting to find solutions to improve our coastal assets while reducing environmental effects.
5.3. Final Remarks
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Puig, M.; Wooldridge, C.; Darbra, R.M. Identification and selection of Environmental Performance Indicators for sustainable port development. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2014, 81, 124–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heilig, L.; Lalla-Ruiz, E.; Voß, S. Digital transformation in maritime ports: Analysis and a game theoretic framework. NETNOMICS Econ. Res. Electron. Netw. 2017, 18, 227–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, Y.; Jin, M.; Li, S.; Feng, D. Smart logistics based on the internet of things technology: An overview. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2021, 24, 323–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Philipp, R.; Prause, G.; Olaniyi, E.O.; Lemke, F. Towards green and smart seaports: Renewable energy and automation technologies for bulk cargo loading operations. Environ. Clim. Technol. 2021, 25, 650–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Triska, Y.; Frazzon, E.M.; Silva, V.M.D.; Heilig, L. Smart port terminals: Conceptual framework, maturity modeling and research agenda. Marit. Policy Manag. 2022, 51, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aoun, A.; Ilinca, A.; Ghandour, M.; Ibrahim, H. A review of Industry 4.0 characteristics and challenges, with potential improvements using blockchain technology. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2021, 162, 107746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dalaklis, D.; Christodoulou, A.; Ölcer, A.I.; Ballini, F.; Dalaklis, A.; Lagdami, K. The port of gothenburg under the influence of the fourth stage of the industrial revolution: Implementing a wide portfolio of digital tools to optimize the conduct of operations. Marit. Technol. Res. 2022, 4, 253844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cammin, P.; Yu, J.; Heilig, L.; Voß, S. Monitoring of air emissions in maritime ports. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 87, 102479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodič, B. Industry 4.0 and the New Simulation Modelling Paradigm. Organizacija 2017, 50, 193–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zarzuelo, I.d.l.P.; Soeane, M.J.F.; Bermúdez, B.L. Industry 4.0 in the port and maritime industry: A literature review. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 2020, 20, 100173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gunes, B.; Kayisoglu, G.; Bolat, P. Cyber security risk assessment for seaports: A case study of a container port. Comput. Secur. 2021, 103, 102196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marlow, P.B.; Paixao-Casaca, A.C. Measuring lean ports performance. Int. J. Transp. Manag. 2003, 1, 189–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bichou, K. The ISPS Code and The Cost of Port Compliance: An Initial Logistics and Supply Chain Framework for Port Security Assessment and Management. Marit. Econ. Logist. 2004, 6, 322–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molavi, A. Designing Smart Ports by Integrating Sustainable Infrastructure and Economic Incentives. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Zarzuelo, I.d.l.P. Cybersecurity in ports and maritime industry: Reasons for raising awareness on this issue. Transp. Policy 2021, 100, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadiq, M.; Ali, S.W.; Terriche, Y.; Mutarraf, M.U.; Hassan, M.A.; Hamid, K.; Ali, Z.; Sze, J.Y.; Su, C.-L.; Guerrero, J.M. Future Greener Seaports: A Review of New Infrastructure, Challenges, and Energy Efficiency Measures. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 75568–75587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sohaib, R.M.; Onireti, O.; Sambo, Y.; Imran, M.A. Network Slicing for Beyond 5G Systems: An Overview of the Smart Port Use Case. Electronics 2021, 10, 1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Yan, H.; Liu, J. DEA models for identifying sensitive performance measures in container port evaluation. Marit. Econ. Logist. 2010, 12, 215–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tongzon, J. Efficiency measurement of selected Australian and other international ports using data envelopment analysis. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2001, 35, 107–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cullinane, K.; Song, D.-W.; Ji, P.; Wang, T.-F. An Application of DEA Windows Analysis to Container Port Production Efficiency. Rev. Netw. Econ. 2004, 3, 184–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cullinane, K.; Wang, T.-F. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and Improving Container Port Efficiency. Res. Transp. Econ. 2006, 17, 517–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barros, C.P.; Athanassiou, M. Efficiency in European Seaports with DEA: Evidence from Greece and Portugal. Marit. Econ. Logist. 2004, 6, 122–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coto-Millan, P.; Banos-Pino, J.; Rodriguez-Alvarez, A. Economic efficiency in Spanish ports: Some empirical evidence. Marit. Policy Manag. 2000, 27, 169–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cullinane, K.; Song, D.-W.; Gray, R. A stochastic frontier model of the efficiency of major container terminals in Asia: Assessing the influence of administrative and ownership structures. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2002, 36, 743–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lirn, T.C.; Thanopoulou, H.A.; Beresford, A.K. Transhipment port selection and decision-making behavior: Analyzing the Taiwanese case. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2003, 6, 229–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiu, R.-H.; Lin, L.-H.; Ting, S.-C. Evaluation of Green Port Factors and Performance: A Fuzzy AHP Analysis. Math. Probl. Eng. 2014, 2014, 802976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Denyer, D.; Tranfield, D. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods; Sage Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Page, M.J.; Moher, D.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; McKenzie, J.E. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lacey, F.M.; Matheson, L.; Jesson, J. Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. In Doing Your Literature Review; SAGE Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011; pp. 1–192. [Google Scholar]
- Hsu, C.-T.; Chou, M.-T.; Ding, J.-F. Key factors for the success of smart ports during the post-pandemic era. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2023, 233, 106455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makkawan, K.; Muangpan, T. Developing Smart Port with Crucial Domains and Indicators in the Thai Port Case: A Con-firmatory Factor Analysis. Trans. Marit. Sci. 2023, 12, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makkawan, K.; Muangpan, T. A Conceptual Model of Smart Port Performance and Smart Port Indicators in Thailand. J. Int. Logist. Trade 2021, 19, 133–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Zhan, S.; Heng, L. Evaluation of smart port development level based on entropy weight TOPSIS method. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Frontiers of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, Lanzhou, China, 17–19 June 2022; Volume 12340, pp. 368–375. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, D.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, Y.; Lia, C.; Liub, C. Operational Indicators of Smart Container Ports. In Hydraulic and Civil Engineering Technology VII; IOS Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Molavi, A.; Lim, G.J.; Race, B. A framework for building a smart port and smart port index. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2019, 14, 686–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, D.; Wang, T.; Han, H. Approach towards Sustainable and Smart Coal Port Development: The Case of Huanghua Port in China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González, A.R.; González-Cancelas, N.; Serrano, B.M.; Orive, A.C. Smart ports: Ranking of Spanish port system. World Sci. News 2020, 144, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Lakhmas, K.; Sedqui, P.A. Toward a smart port congestion optimizing model. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE 13th International Colloquium of Logistics and Supply Chain Management (LOGISTIQUA), Fez, Morocco, 2–4 December 2020; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- González, A.R.; González-Cancelas, N.; Serrano, B.M.; Orive, A.C. Preparation of a Smart Port Indicator and Calculation of a Ranking for the Spanish Port System. Logistics 2020, 4, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Xue, K.; Ye, J.; Huang, T.; Tian, Y.; Hua, C.; Zhu, Y. Simplified Neutrosophic Exponential Similarity Measures for Evaluation of Smart Port Development. Symmetry 2019, 11, 485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yen, B.T.; Huang, M.-J.; Lai, H.-J.; Cho, H.-H.; Huang, Y.-L. How smart port design influences port efficiency—A DEA-Tobit approach. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2023, 46, 100862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azisah, N.; Asdar, M.; Paotonan, C. Fulfillment of Smart Port Criteria for the Existing Terminal 2 of the New Makassar Container Port. Zona Laut J. Inov. Sains Dan Teknol. Kelaut. 2023, 4, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Othman, A.; El Gazzar, S.; Knez, M. Investigating the Influences of Smart Port Practices and Technology Employment on Port Sustainable Performance: The Egypt Case. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molavi, A.; Shi, J.; Wu, Y.; Lim, G.J. Enabling smart ports through the integration of microgrids: A two-stage stochastic programming approach. Appl. Energy 2019, 258, 114022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jun, W.K.; Lee, M.-K.; Choi, J.Y. Impact of the smart port industry on the Korean national economy using input-output analysis. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 118, 480–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buiza-Camacho-Camacho, G.; del Mar Cerbán-Jiménez, M.; González-Gaya, C. Assessment of the factors influencing on a smart port with an analytic hierarchy process. Rev. DYNA 2016, 91, 498–501. [Google Scholar]
- El Imrani, O. Study to reduce the costs of international trade operations through container traffic in a smart port. In Innovations in Smart Cities Applications Volume 4: The Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Smart City Applications; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 477–488. [Google Scholar]
- Othman, A.; El-Gazzar, S.; Knez, M. A Framework for Adopting a Sustainable Smart Sea Port Index. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karli, H.; Karli, R.G.Ö.; Çelikyay, S. Fuzzy AHP Approach to the Determinatıon of Smart Port Dimensions: A Case Study on Filyos Port. Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim Ve Teknol. Derg. 2021, 9, 322–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paulauskas, V.; Filina-Dawidowicz, L.; Paulauskas, D. Ports Digitalization Level Evaluation. Sensors 2021, 21, 6134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nguyen, H.P.; Pham, N.D.K.; Bui, V.D. Technical-Environmental Assessment of Energy Management Systems in Smart Ports. Int. J. Renew. Energy Dev. 2022, 11, 889–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jahn, C.; Nellen, N. Smart Port Concept: Strategic Development, Best Practices, Perspectives of Development. In Arctic Maritime Logistics: The Potentials and Challenges of the Northern Sea Route; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 81–93. [Google Scholar]
- Mi, W.; Liu, Y. Ecology of Smart Port. In Smart Ports; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 13–25. [Google Scholar]
- Alamoush, A.S.; Ballini, F.; Ölçer, A.I. Ports’ technical and operational measures to reduce greenhouse gas emission and improve energy efficiency: A review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 160, 111508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Frazzon, E.M.; Constante, J.M.; Triska, Y.; Albuquerque, J.V.D.S.; Martinez-Moya, J.; Silva, L.D.S.; Valente, A.M. Smart port-hinterland integration: Conceptual proposal and simulation-based analysis in Brazilian ports. Int. J. Inte-Grated Supply Manag. 2019, 12, 334–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sari, Y.A.; Pamadi, M. The Smart Port Concept of Batu Ampar Port in Batam. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 343, 012095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shuo, C.; Jian, W.; Ruoxi, Z. The Analysis of the Necessity of Constructing the Huizhou “Smart Port” and Overall Framework. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Intelligent Transportation, Big Data & Smart City (ICITBS), Changsha, China, 17–18 December 2016; pp. 159–162. [Google Scholar]
- Tan, K.W.; Kan, M.; Tan, P.J.; Schablinski, S. A Framework for Evaluating Energy Sustainability Efforts for Maritime Smart Port Operations. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on ICT for Smart Society (ICISS), Semarang, Indonesia, 10–11 October 2018; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Durán, C.A.; Córdova, F.M.; Palominos, F. A conceptual model for a cyber-social-technological-cognitive smart medium-size port. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019, 162, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Fatlawi, H.A.; Motlak, H.J. Smart ports: Towards a high performance, increased productivity, and a better environment. Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2023, 13, 1472–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Moura, D.A. Analysis of industry 4.0 and their impact on port environmental management. Indep. J. Man-Agement Prod. 2022, 13, 1168–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhuang, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Teng, H.; Qin, W.; Fang, H. Optimization for integrated scheduling of intelligent handling equipment with bidirectional flows and limited buffers at automated container terminals. Comput. Oper. Res. 2022, 145, 105863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belfkih, A.; Duvallet, C.; Sadeg, B. The Internet of Things for smart ports: Application to the port of Le Havre. In Proceedings of the IPaSPort, Le Havre, France, 3–4 May 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Karas, A. The role of digitalization for smart port concept. In Economic and Social Development: Book of Proceedings 2020; Varazdin Development and Entrepreneurship Agency: Varazdin, Croatia, 2020; pp. 406–412. [Google Scholar]
- Hirata, E.; Watanabe, D.; Lambrou, M. Shipping Digitalization and Automation for the Smart Port. In Supply Chain-Recent Advances and New Perspectives in the Industry 4.0 Era; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Yao, H.; Xue, T.; Wang, D.; Qi, Y.; Su, M. Development Direction of Automated Terminal and Systematic Planning of Smart Port. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Big Data, Artificial Intelligence and Internet of Things Engineering (ICBAIE), Nanchang, China, 26–28 March 2021; pp. 708–712. [Google Scholar]
- Shah, V. Internet of Things for Smart Ports: Technologies and Challenges. IEEE Instrum. Meas. Mag. 2018, 21, 34–43. [Google Scholar]
- Inkinen, T.; Helminen, R.; Saarikoski, J. Technological trajectories and scenarios in seaport digitalization. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2021, 41, 100633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Acciaro, M.; Ferrari, C.; Lam, J.S.; Macario, R.; Roumboutsos, A.; Sys, C.; Vanelslander, T. Are the innovation processes in seaport terminal operations successful? Marit. Policy Manag. 2018, 45, 787–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiang, C.H.; Hwang, C.C. Competitiveness of container ports in a region with cooperation and integration. J. Soc. Transp. Traffic Stud. 2009, 1, 77–91. [Google Scholar]
- Flynn, M.; Lee, T.; Notteboom, T. The next step on the port generations ladder: Customer-centric and community ports. In Current Issues in Shipping, Ports and Logistics; Academic and Scientific Publishers: Brussels, Belgium, 2011; Volume 27, pp. 497–510. [Google Scholar]
- Lee PT, W.; Lam, J.S. Developing the fifth generation ports model. Dynamic Shipping and Port Development in the Globalized Economy: Volume 2: Emerging Trends in Ports; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2016; pp. 186–210. [Google Scholar]
- Kaliszewski, A. Fifth and sixth generation ports (5GP, 6GP)–evolution of economic and social roles of ports. Retrieved 2018, 5, 31. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, S.-C.; Chang, H.-K.; Chung, Y.-F. Exploring the Impact of Different Port Governances on Smart Port Development Strategy in Taiwan and Spain. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Huang, T.; Xie, X.; Lee, P.T.-W.; Hua, C. Constructing Governance Framework of a Green and Smart Port. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boullauazan, Y.; Sys, C.; Vanelslander, T. Developing and demonstrating a maturity model for smart ports. Marit. Policy Manag. 2022, 50, 447–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heikkilä, M.; Saarni, J.; Saurama, A. Innovation in Smart Ports: Future Directions of Digitalization in Container Ports. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verhoeven, P. A review of port authority functions: Towards a renaissance? Marit. Policy Manag. 2010, 37, 247–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conti, M.; Zilvetti, M.; Kotter, R. Challenges and Opportunities for UK Seaports Toward Future Sustainability: The UK’s North East Smart Ports Testbed Case Study. In Handbook of Sustainability Science in the Future: Policies, Technologies and Education by 2050; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 805–844. [Google Scholar]
- Fabiano, B.; Currò, F.; Reverberi, A.P.; Pastorino, R. Port safety and the container revolution: A statistical study on human factor and occupational accidents over the long period. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48, 980–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altiok, T. Port security/safety, risk analysis, and modeling. Ann. Oper. Res. 2011, 187, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben Farah, M.A.; Ukwandu, E.; Hindy, H.; Brosset, D.; Bures, M.; Andonovic, I.; Bellekens, X. Cyber security in the maritime industry: A systematic survey of recent advances and future trends. Information 2022, 13, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yau KL, A.; Peng, S.; Qadir, J.; Low, Y.C.; Ling, M.H. Towards smart port infrastructures: Enhancing port activities using information and communications technology. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 83387–83404. [Google Scholar]
- Li, K.X.; Li, M.; Zhu, Y.; Yuen, K.F.; Tong, H.; Zhou, H. Smart port: A bibliometric review and future research directions. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2023, 174, 103098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duin, H.; Gorldt, C.; Thoben, K.D.; Pawar, K. Challenges for the port of the future: Findings from a scenario analysis. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation/International Technology Management Conference (ICE/ITMC), Belfast, UK, 22–24 June 2015; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Lalla-Ruiz, E.; Heilig, L.; Voß, S. Environmental sustainability in ports. In Sustainable Transportation and Smart Logistics; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 65–89. [Google Scholar]
- Petrova, M.; Popova, P.; Popov, V.; Shishmanov, K.; Marinova, K. Digital Ecosystem: Nature, Types and Opportunities for Value Creation. In International Scientific Conference on Innovations in Digital Economy; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 71–85. [Google Scholar]
- McKinsey Global Institute. A Future That Works: Automation, Employment και Productivity. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured%20insights/Digital%20Disruption/Harnessing%20automation%20for%20a%20future%20that%20works/MGI-A-future-that-works-Executive-summary.ashx (accessed on 25 October 2023).
- Burns, M.G. Port Management and Operations; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015; ISBN 9781315275215. [Google Scholar]
- Douaioui, K.; Fri, M.; Mabrouki, C. Smart port: Design and perspectives. In Proceedings of the 2018 4th International Conference on Logistics Operations Management (GOL), Le Havre, France, 10–12 April 2018; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
Stage | Sub-Stage | Description | Number of Records |
---|---|---|---|
Step 1 | Question formulation | RQ1: How is the trend in smart port framework from 2015 and onwards? RQ2: What are the current researched fundamental themes in this field? RQ3: What are the current literature trends in the smart port performance evaluation framework and what is the mode in which can they be classified? RQ4: What research implications could be proposed in order to further develop the smart port field? | 362 |
Step 2 | Locating studies | The following inclusion/exclusion criteria will be used to filter the database in the next phase of this research: Libraries: Scopus/Elsevier, Web of science, IEEExplore, Science Direct, Google scholar. Chronologically: Articles published after 2015 were excluded to guarantee the inclusion of current research and to limit the findings. Language barrier: all articles sought must be written only in the English language. Access: articles accessible from the electronic services of the Library of University of Macedonia, Greece. Subject area: Some subject areas have to be eliminated from some libraries owing to a lack of relevance to the issue. Some libraries allow you to search exclusively in the topic area(s) of interest to narrow down the results to more relevant sources. Removal of duplicates. | 305 |
Step 3 | Study selection and evaluation | A comprehensive screening of the abstracts of the citations chosen in the second phase, followed by selection of the ones most relevant to the current study subject (snowball technique incorporated). | 82 |
Steps 4 and 5 | Analysis and Discussion | A descriptive and thematic overview of the information obtained from articles on research questions that are identified in the evaluation process. | 39 |
Title | smart port OR smart ports OR smart terminal OR smart terminals |
Title-Abstract-Keywords | effectiveness OR efficiency OR operations OR performance |
Title-Abstract-Keywords | assessment OR evaluation OR measurement OR kpi OR “key performance indicator*” OR “kpi*” |
No | Keywords | Occurrences |
---|---|---|
1 | smart port | 24 |
2 | sustainability | 7 |
3 | performance | 6 |
4 | logistics | 6 |
5 | internet | 5 |
6 | technologies | 5 |
7 | industry | 5 |
8 | internet of things | 5 |
9 | big data | 5 |
10 | supply chain management | 5 |
Category | Reference | Research Type | Research Objectives |
---|---|---|---|
KPI’s | Hsu et al. (2023) [30] | Conceptual | This study uses the service quality scale (SERVQUAL) to examine the major indicators and service quality of smart ports in the post-pandemic period using MCDM methods (AHP and DEMATEL). |
Makkawan and Muangpan (2023) [31] | Empirical | Confirmation of the efficacy of smart port indicators and definition of the primary strategies for optimizing the performance of smart ports in Thailand, in order to reduce pollution and ensure port safety and promote innovation. | |
Makkawan and Muangpan (2023) [32] | Conceptual | The goal of this study is to define the smart port indexes and develop a theoretical framework for smart port performance in the context of a case study on Thailand’s Eastern Economic Corridor (EEC). | |
Liu et al. (2022) [33] | Empirical | This paper defines an index system for evaluating smart port development level based on six indicators, utilizing the TOPSIS entropy weight method as a comprehensive assessment. | |
Zhou et al. (2022) [34] | Conceptual | This paper categorizes container ports’ business sectors as indicators, identifies the indicators that define a port’s operational condition, identifies the primary operational risks of a port, and analyzes the predictive indicators for a port’s operational advantages. | |
Molavi et al. (2020) [35] | Conceptual | This article’s purpose is to provide a framework for the smart port concept as well as a quantitative indicator, the smart port index (SPI), that ports may use to improve their resilience and sustainability. The proposed SPI is based on an evaluation of key performance indicators from the literature. | |
Zhao et al. (2020) [36] | Empirical | This study examines the effectiveness of the measures taken by the coalport in terms of its sustainability by analyzing modifications to key performance indicators and exploring the role of smart technologies in the integration and optimization process. | |
González et al. (2020) [37] | Empirical | The purpose of this article is to present the indicator developed for the purpose of ranking and prioritizing the ports in the smart port category and its implementation in the Spanish port scheme, enabling the ranking of Spanish smart ports. | |
Lakhmas and Sedqui (2020) [38] | Empirical | Developing a simulator model that includes all aspects of operations and the operational process by selecting relevant key performance indicators (KPIs) that are completely proportional with the quantity of traffic sent by port boats. | |
González et al. (2019) [39] | Empirical | This paper provides an analysis of the Spanish port system to assess its ports, taking into account the new concept of “SmartPort”. It defines certain indicators and measures variables to facilitate the quantification of technical items. | |
Chen, J. et al. (2017) [40] | Empirical | This work presents an introduction of the “smart port” idea, proposes a set of smart port evaluation indicators, and incorporates a single-valued, neutrosophic, exponential similarity measure into port evaluation to simplify quantitative evaluations of port integrity. | |
Determinants | Yen et al. (2020) [41] | Empirical | Using a three-stage DEA-TOBIT modelling technique, this study investigates the influence of smart port design on the operational efficiency of marine transit. The model findings show that not all design elements have a beneficial effect. |
Azisah et al. (2023) [42] | Empirical | This study was conducted to evaluate the capability of the current port to meet the requirements of a smart port. This analysis was conducted through direct observation of the port’s location, as well as interviews with port stakeholders in accordance with their respective fields and authorities. | |
Othman et al. (2022) [43] | Conceptual | This study aims to investigate the potential of Egyptian ports to use smart practices and harness technology to improve port performance. It highlights the enormous potential of utilizing technology to achieve sustainable performance in Egyptian ports by highlighting the key hurdles and problems that may obstruct the adaption process. | |
Molavi et al. (2020) [44] | Empirical | This paper examines the utilization of microgrids in ports and provides a comprehensive framework for assessing the advantages of integrating microgrids into the system in order to generate sustainable value through strategic planning. | |
Jun et al. (2018) [45] | Conceptual | This study analyzes the various concepts and regulations associated with the smart port sector and utilizes a modified hybrid approach that combines Delphi surveys with input-output analyses to construct an accurate estimation of the economic impact that the smart port sector has on the Korean national economy. | |
Buiza-Camacho-Camacho et al. (2016) [46] | Empirical | This paper focuses on identifying the most significant elements that would necessitate a container port to align itself with the SP concept. To this end, it takes into account factors related to operations, energy, and the environment, and is based on the opinion of a sector expert. The technological level is the primary factor that influences the SP configuration, with the automation level following. | |
El Imrani (2021) [47] | Empirical | One of the primary objectives of any port authority is to optimize logistics costs in order to render port operations more efficient. This research contributes to this objective by examining the situation of carriers in Tangier Med, a port in Morocco, and identifying the key challenges they face. | |
Othman et al. (2022) [48] | Conceptual | The goal of this research is to develop an integrated SPI that captures multiple smart port components and links them with port sustainability results. The study’s findings show that various smart port efforts throughout the world have differing degrees of integration. | |
Karli et al. (2021) [49] | Empirical | The purpose of this study was to determine the significance of Filyos Port’s smart port dimensions. Fuzzy AHP is used to rank each dimension and its sub-dimensions based on their relative relevance. According to the study’s findings, the most essential aspect is operation, followed by environmental, energy, finance, and safety and security. | |
Paulauskas et al. [50] | Empirical | The objective of this article is to create a methodology to assess the level of port digitization. Data was collected through the use of a marketing research tool. Additionally, a mathematical model to facilitate simulations has been proposed, as well as a case study covering 30 ports in the Baltic Sea, North Sea, and Mediterranean Sea. | |
Concepts | Nquyen et al. (2022) [51] | Conceptual | The aim of the review is to analyze and discuss the various approaches and applications that have been identified in the field of smart port energy systems, as well as to demonstrate that the various perspectives of smart port founding have a major influence on the development of a port energy system. |
Jahn and Nellen (2022) [52] | Conceptual | It presents scientific and practical approaches on how ports are attempting to incorporate the trend of digitization into their daily operations. The goal of the study is to suggest how to make constitute processes more accessible, reliable, and ethically sound. This allows for better management of complexity in terms of structural, data, product, and network and e-commerce complexity. | |
Mi and Liu (2022) [53] | Conceptual | This study explores the main categories that affect the ecology of smart ports and suggests how these factors could contribute to the process of port logistics operations as drivers of innovation and development. | |
Alamoush et al. (2020) [54] | Conceptual | This research investigates and categorizes the technological and operational initiatives implemented by ports to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and improve energy efficiency. The data show that there is a scarcity of study on ports in poor countries, while the majority of research focuses on ports in developed countries. | |
Frazzon et al. (2019) [55] | Conceptual | The objective of this paper is to suggest a concept of Smart Port–Hinterland Integration, which would enable visibility of vehicle flow and synchronization. The concept was evaluated in the light of real-time data collected from five major Brazilian ports, which was intended to alleviate infrastructure issues. | |
Sari and Pamadi (2019) [56] | Conceptual | This study employs a descriptive technique to assess the existing status of the Batu Ampar port and the feasibility of implementing the smart port concept. The study’s findings show that the smart port idea is suitable in the current circumstances. | |
Shuo et al. (2016) [57] | Conceptual | This article explores the necessity of constructing a “smart port” in Huizhou Port and provides an overview of the overall framework design. Constructing the “smart port” is claimed to be essential in order to progress with the current times and implement the strategy of developing “new-type” ports. | |
Tan et al. (2018) [58] | Conceptual | The suggested framework provides a process-oriented approach to energy management across a variety of company functions. It considers four key assessment criteria: transparency, technology, best practices, and policies. The framework’s goal is to offer sustainability and policy decision-makers a framework to guide the development of energy-efficient smart ports. | |
Durán et al. (2019) [59] | Conceptual | In order to identify the essential elements that demonstrate the current shortcomings of those working within Industry 4.0, a systemic conceptual model for a smart medium-size port is proposed, containing cyber-social-technological cognitions (CSTCs), where there are associated concepts, perceptions, data, and knowledge that would benefit from a highly automated port for the efficient management and optimization of logistics processes. | |
ICT | Al-Fatlawi and Motlak (2023) [60] | Empirical | This research aims to identify the most important tasks performed by smart ports, such as the smart ship industry, smart cranes and container cranes, transportation automation, smart containers, and energy efficiency. It presents the idea of smart ports and discusses key current technologies that support ports. |
de Moura (2022) [61] | Empirical | This study examines the implementation of technologies from the Industry 4.0 platform in container-handling operations of five ports in order to evaluate their environmental management impact. The purpose of the study is to conduct an analysis of certain container terminal operations in order to evaluate the applicability and potential impact of the technologies on sustainable environmental management. | |
Zhuang et al. (2022) [62] | Empirical | This study focuses on the integrated scheduling of intelligent handling equipment at automated container terminals in the context of resource allocation and scheduling at container terminals. | |
Hirata eta al. (2022) [63] | Empirical | This study proposes a description of the concept of shipping digitization and port automation, as well as a review of the associated technologies and business strategies, including international initiatives, for the automation of global ports. | |
Yao et al. (2021) [64] | Conceptual | The contents of this paper provide an overview of research currently underway on the design and construction of automated terminals and the planning of intelligent port systems, as well as the future course of construction of automated terminals, including equipment upgrades, the standardization of technical processes, and improvements in system integration. | |
Shah (2021) [65] | Conceptual | The contents of this paper provide an overview of current research on the design and construction of automated terminals, the planning of intelligent port systems, and the future course of automated terminal construction, including equipment upgrades, standardization of technical processes, and improvements in system integration. | |
Karas (2020) [66] | Conceptual | This article seeks to demonstrate that intelligent ports are a necessary next step in the evolution of port operations, and that the concept of intelligent ports is a binding trend that will shape the future of modern maritime ports. It covers the most up-to-date digital technologies being implemented in ports such as Hamburg and Rotterdam, and analyzes decision-making strategies to drive digital transformation in maritime ports. | |
Inkinen et al. (2020) [67] | Empirical | This paper examines the potential of digitalization for the future of international trade and transport operations in Finnish ports. It identifies the primary drivers and technologies relevant to port digitalization. Additionally, three alternative scenarios are discussed, including digital supremacy, business as usual, and digital failure, which are categorized according to SWOT and PESTEL frameworks. | |
Acciaro et al. (2018) [68] | Empirical | The objective of this paper is to bridge this gap by conducting a field analysis that aggregates case studies from various world regions and evaluates the adoption pathway of innovation using a combination of three different methods (H- and I- indexes; system innovation analysis, and qualitative comparison analysis). The research results demonstrate that success of an innovation can be affected by a variety of factors, including the ranking of objectives, coordination between actors and institutions, and the level of innovation adoption. | |
Belfkih et al. (2017) [69] | Empirical | This paper provides an overview of the concept of smart ports and proposes some Internet of Things (IoT)-based solutions that can be implemented in Le Havre port to enhance logistics and transportation services. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Paraskevas, A.; Madas, M.; Zeimpekis, V.; Fouskas, K. Smart Ports in Industry 4.0: A Systematic Literature Review. Logistics 2024, 8, 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics8010028
Paraskevas A, Madas M, Zeimpekis V, Fouskas K. Smart Ports in Industry 4.0: A Systematic Literature Review. Logistics. 2024; 8(1):28. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics8010028
Chicago/Turabian StyleParaskevas, Antonios, Michael Madas, Vasileios Zeimpekis, and Konstantinos Fouskas. 2024. "Smart Ports in Industry 4.0: A Systematic Literature Review" Logistics 8, no. 1: 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics8010028
APA StyleParaskevas, A., Madas, M., Zeimpekis, V., & Fouskas, K. (2024). Smart Ports in Industry 4.0: A Systematic Literature Review. Logistics, 8(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics8010028