Application of a Sustainability Model for Assessing the Relocation of a Container Terminal: A Case Study of Kristiansand Port

Abstract

Sustainable development, a new interdisciplinary paradigm, is attracting increasing attention from the global research community. It is an enhancement of sustainability principles. This study documents the findings from applying a sustainability assessment model framework by Koo and Ariaratnam (2008) for decision support in connection with the projection of major infrastructure investment in a port. The objective of this study is to support the decision-making process in a port development project and to verify the applicability of sustainability assessment using a sustainability assessment model for a terminal development project in an urban area of Scandinavia. The sustainability assessment model is based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). A literature review of sustainability assessment models was conducted to find indicators for the AHP approach. Subsequently, a questionnaire was compiled and six decision-makers for projects in Scandinavian Ports in urban areas were selected for the case study. The hypothesis is that decision-makers of major infrastructure investment projects in publicly owned ports must adhere to sustainable development principles and support the United Nations sustainable development goals that are a call for action by all countries. When documenting a sustainable design of port projects, decision-makers use theoretical sustainability models to conceptualize features of a sustainable society. However, a major challenge for the decision-makers was that the sustainability assessment results did not show, as expected, the same results as those of three existing theoretical sustainability models. The results of the sustainability assessment model were scrutinised and benchmarked against existing theoretical sustainability models, namely: a sustainability stool, a 3-overlappingcircles model, and a 3-nesteddependencies model. The benchmark results indicate a disparity between the importance of what sustainability models describe and what is important in practice.

Characterization of SDGs towards Coastal Management: Sustainability Performance and Cross-Linking Consequences

“…To tackle these problems, the study emphasizes coastal sustainability to stimulate adaptations for pending climate change effects, to minimize negative ecological and social impacts. The aim of this study is to tailor the SDGs, as a universally recognized policy framework, to assess the sustainability performance for coastal flood protection management to enhance climate-resilient and adaptable coastal development [27,36,[63][64][65][66]. This legitimizes research within the SDG-SIS assessment framework, demonstrating a systematical selection of an inclusive set of SDG targets.…”

INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS’ ASSESSMENT THROUGH SDG TARGETS: TOWARDS a COMPREHENSIVE FRAMEWORK

“…What existing tools and processes (eg, LEED, Envision, CEEQUAL) could be utilised for the assessment of SDG-IP impact? Dushenko et al, 2018;Tranfield et al, 2003…”

Sustainable tourism and economic growth nexus in Kenya: policy implications for post-Covid-19

“…According to Dushenko, Bjorbaek, and Steger-Jensen (2019), the empirical testing of the model is proof that the economic benefits of sustainable tourism are founded on social and environmental factors. It may be difficult to obtain a method of turning strategic sustainable tourism objectives at project-specific levels into concrete action.…”

“…Besides, tourism could pose threats to the protection of cultural and environmental resources, which are important for attracting travelers. One lesson learned is, reducing the disparities between actual and expected sustainability in tourism will require the taxation of poor environmental impacts and designing proactive environmental policies (Dushenko et al, 2019). The Covid-19 crisis presents an opportunity to achieve a more sustainable and resilient future and rethinking the tourism system (OECD, 2020).…”