Essays on vessel emissions and externality costs in Las Palmas Port
Abstract
Doctorado en la Insularidad : Turismo, interculturalidad y desarrollo sostenible
Full text
Tesis Doctoral Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. 2015 Essays on vessel emissions and externality cost in Las Palmas Port UNIVERSIDAD DE LAS PALMAS DE GRAN CANARIA Departamento de Geografía
Essaysonvesselemissionsand externalitycostsinLasPalmasPort MilušeTichavska DepartmentofGeography UniversidaddeLasPalmasdeGranCanaria Supervisor:Prof.BeatrizTovar Athesissubmittedforthedegreeof DoctorofPhilosophy
AmispadresSilviaNaranjoyRadkoTichavsky,amis hermanosVladislavyVojtech,amitíaCeciliaysobre todo,aPaulaSánchez‐Cabezudoconmuchocariño.
Agradecimientos Nopodríacomenzarestasecciónsinprimeroexpresarelmássinceroeinfinito agradecimientoamidirectoradetesislaProf.BeatrizTovaryaque,esteproceso deformaciónnohabríallegadoalosobjetivospropuestosdenoserporsu inestimableapoyopersonalyporlaexcelenciaprofesionalquelecaracteriza. Porotraparte,megustaríadargraciasalProf.FranciscoCabrera,alProf.Víctor Araña y a todos los miembros de Instituto para el Desarrollo Tecnológico y la InnovaciónenComunicaciones(IDeTIC)porhabermepermitidoconstruirenparte mitesisensusinstalacionesyencolaboraciónconsuequipodetrabajo.Tengola certezadequeelambientepositivo,emprendedorydecolaboraciónalosqueestuve expuesta durante nuestro periodo de colaboración inicial, han resultado ser también,unfactorclaveeneldesarrolloylaculminacióndeestetrabajo. También me gustaría agradecer el apoyo y la colaboración de investigadores internacionalesqueheconocidoalolargodelcamino.EnparticularalDr.Dimitris Lekkas,alDr.ArgyriosStasinakisyalSr.DemitrisMemosyelequipoMarineTraffic. TambiénalDr.Jukka‐PekkaJalkanenyalSr.LasseJohansson,miembrosdelGrupo deCalidaddelAireenelInstitutoMeteorológicodeFinlandia;alDr.TristanSmith alequipodeinvestigacióndetransportemarítimodelInstitutodeEnergíaenlaUCL; alDr.ErnestosTzannatosdelaUniversidaddelPireo,alaDra.SuSong,delInstituto deRecursosMundiales;alDr.SpirosPapaefthimiouylaSrita.Alexandra Maragkogiannide la Universidad Técnica de Creta. Por otra parte, me gustaría extenderelmásespecialdelosreconocimientosmisamigosyfamiliaresinmediatos, yaquehanrepresentadounadelasmotivacionesmásgrandeshaciaquemehan llevadoentreotrascosas,alarealizacióndeestegradoacadémico. Por último, doy las gracias por el apoyo financiero y los facilitados por la UniversidaddelasPalmasdeGranCanaria,laAutoridadPortuariadeLasPalmasy MarineTraffic.
Acknowledgements Icouldnotstartthissectionwithoutfirstlyexpressingmymostsincereandinfinite gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Beatriz Tovar. None of this would have been possiblewithoutherinestimablepersonalsupport,andprofessionalexcellence. Moreover, I would like to thank Prof. Francisco Cabrera, Prof. Victor Araña, membersoftheInstituteforTechnologicalDevelopmentandInnovation in Communications(IDeTIC)forallowingmetopartlybuildmythesiswithintheir premises. I am certain that the positive, entrepreneurial and collaborative environmenttowhichIwasexposedhasrepresentedamilestonewithin this process. Iwouldalsoliketoacknowledgethesupportandcollaborationof international researchersthatIhavemetalongtheway.ParticularlytoDr.DimitrisLekkas,Dr. ArgyriosStasinakis,Mr.DemitrisMemosandtheMarineTrafficteam.AlsotoDr. Jukka‐PekkaJalkanenandMr.LasseJohanssonfromtheAirQualityGroupatthe FinnishMeteorologicalInstitute;toDr.TristanSmithfromandtheShippingGroup attheUCL,EnergyInstitute;Dr.ErnestosTzannatosfromtheUniversityofPiraeus, Dr.SuSongfromtheWorldResourcesInstitute;Dr.SpirosPapaefthimiouandMs. AlexandraMaragkogiannifromtheTechnicalUniversityofCrete. Furthermore,Iwouldliketoextendthemostspecialofacknowledgements to immediate friends and family, as they have been one of the strongest drivers towardspersonalsuccessandthecompletionofthisacademicdegree. Finally,Iwouldliketoexpressmygratitudeforthefinancialanddatasupport providedbyUniversidaddelasPalmasdeGranCanaria,thePortAuthorityofLas PalmasandMarineTraffic.
14
15 Introducciónyresumengeneral Enlosúltimosaños,losefectosnegativosrelacionadosconlasemisiones atmosféricasderivadasdelcrecimientodeltransportemarítimohangeneradouna preocupacióncreciente.Sehareconocidoquelosbuquesnosólocontribuyenalos efectosnegativosaescalaglobalquesederivandelaelevacióndelatemperatura (cambioclimático),sinoquetambiénsonresponsablesdeefectos negativos experimentadas en las comunidades locales (Cullinane and Cullinane, 2013). Derivadodeesto,lospuertosestánadoptandodemaneracreciente,herramientas degestiónparahacercumplirofomentareldesarrollosostenible (Lam y Notteboom,2014)ylareduccióndelasemisiones. Ciertamente,ademásdelincrementoenlastemperaturasglobalescausadasporel CO2, la exposición a gases contaminantes derivados de la combustión de combustiblesfósiles,comoelNOx,SOx,CO,VOCypartículasvolátiles(PM1),se relacionademaneracontinuadaconconsecuenciasnegativassobrelasalud.Estos efectosindeseablessepresentantantoacortocomoalargoplazo.Algunosejemplos son:doloresdecabeza,mareos,náuseas,problemasrespiratorios,enfermedades crónicas,ingresosencentrosdesaludymortalidadprematura(Corbettetal.,2007). Lanecesidaddereducirlacontaminacióndelairehasidoampliamentereconocida comounacuestióndepolíticaenlospuertos.Elcontroldelasemisionesrequiere comounpasoprevioimprescindibledelacapacidaddecuantificarlasydesarrollar inventariosprecisosdelasmismas.Enefecto,disponerdeinformaciónsobrelas emisiones es necesario para poder evaluar adecuadamente los impactos de proyectosdemejorasportuariasodecrecimientodelaactividaddelaflotaenel puerto, así como para planificar las estrategias o programas voluntarios de mitigacióny,ayudaralosresponsablespolíticoseneldesarrollo de requisitos 1Las partículas volátiles o suspendidas son una mezcla de compuestos microscópicos o muy pequeñosenformadepequeñaspiezasdepartículaslíquidasysólidassuspendidasenelaire(por ejemplohollín,polvo,humoyneblinas).Sucomposiciónsedefineenlosestándaresinternacionales (ISO8178)deacuerdoconlamedidadesudiámetro(10micrasomenosy2.5micrasomenos).
16 normativoseficacesanivelnacionaleinternacionalparareducirlasemisiones. Efectivamente,elprocesodecombustiónvinculadoalaoperacióndelosbuquesen regionescercanasalacostayenlospuertos,contribuyealincrementoenlosniveles de exposición de residentes y visitantes de la ciudad portuariaasustancias peligrosas(Tzannatos,2010;Miola,2010;.Castellsetal,2014;TichavskayTovar, 2015).Estosedebeprincipalmentealasoperativasdeatraque,maniobra(llegada ysalida)ynavegacióndentrodelpuertoysucanaldeaproximación. Enestesentido,eltiempoquepermaneceelbuqueatracadopuederesultarenuna grancontribuciónalacontaminacióndelaire.Enparticular,cuandoestosutilizan suspropiosgeneradoresparacubrirsusnecesidadesdeelectricidadenatraque. Ademásdeesto,laszonasdeatraqueamenudoselocalizancercadezonaspobladas porloqueelimpactodelasemisionesliberadasdurantelasoperativasdemaniobra yatraquepuedenresultar,desdeunaperspectivalocal,enunamayorproporciónde externalidadesnegativasdelasqueresultaríansiesasemisionesfuesenliberadas enmarabierto(GoldsworthyyGoldsworthy,2015). Elretodeidentificarlosperfilesoperativosdelosbuquesatracados,enmaniobray en navegación de crucero (aproximación al puerto), en conjunción con la dependenciadelasemisionesqueresultadeesosperfiles(lacargarealdelmotor encadaunadeellas),sepuedeabordarsisedisponederegistrosdeposiciónde cada buque2ydebasesdedatoscomplementariasquecontienenlosdetalles técnicosdelanaveydesusmotores.Estogarantizaquelaubicación,lavelocidad, laruta,lasdimensiones,eltipodemotoryelconsumodecombustibledecadabuque seaconocidoentodomomento;loqueevitalaadopcióndesupuestosacercadelas 2EstospuedenobtenerseatravésdelsistemaAIS(AutomaticIdentificationSystem).Paraestatesis seutilizóinformaciónobtenidaatravésdeestesistema.UnaunidadAISconsisteenuntransceptor deradioVHFcapazdeenviaraotrosbuquesyaestacionesreceptorasidentificadas(terrestresy satelitales),laposición,rumbo,velocidad,eslora,tipodebuque,informacióndeidentificacióndel buque,entreotros.LaunidadAISdeabordotransmitelainformacióndemaneraautomáticaysin intervencióndelatripulacióndelbuque.Estesistemafueconcebido con el objetivo original de ayudaralanavegaciónenelseguimientodelosbuquesylaprevencióndecolisionesenelmar,que coneltiempo,haevolucionadohastaconvertirseenunsistemaconunamultituddeaplicaciones adicionales,incluyendolaobtencióndebasesdedatosrealistasparalaestimacióndeemisiones.Un transceptorAIStransmiteregularmente,informaciónestáticaytambiénrelacionadaconlatravesía (cada6minutos),ademásdeinformacióndinámicaconunafrecuenciarelacionadaconlavelocidad delbuque(2‐10segundos)yestadodenavegación(3mincuandoestáanclado).
17 variablesanterioresy,además,facilitaelbeneficioadicionalquesederivadela posibilidadderepresentarlosresultadosobtenidosenmapasdealtaresoluciónque reflejenlacaracterizacióngeográficadelasemisionesenlasáreasdepuerto‐ciudad. Las metodologías basadas en el sistema de comunicaciones AIS, ya han sido utilizadasparaestimaremisionesdebuques(Jalkanenetal.,2008)conanterioridad, sinembargo,nuncaantessehabíansugeridocomouninstrumentodeapoyoala formulacióndepolíticasymedidascorrectorasdirigidasaunsector específico (pasajeros)osussubsectores(crucerosytransbordadores)dentrodeuncontexto insular. Enloqueaestorespecta,elCapítulo1titulado"Port‐cityexhaustemissionmodel: an application to cruise and ferry operations in Las Palmas Port"presenta,por primeravezenlaliteratura,uninventariodedocemesesdeemisionesdebuques enpuerto.Esteinventariosehaconstruidoapartirdeunmodelofullbottom‐up3e informaciónrealdetráficodebuquesdurante2011enelpuertodeLasPalmas.Esta informaciónhasidoobtenidaatravésdemensajestransmitidosporelSistemade IdentificaciónAutomática(AIS).Elinventariodeemisionesseharealizadoconel objetivodeanalizar,tantolasemisionesdetráficomarítimoengeneralcomolas operacionesdecrucerosyferriesenparticular.Losresultadossedescribenportipo decontaminante(NOx,SOx,PM2.5,CO,CO2)ysedesagreganatendiendoaltamañode 3Losenfoquestop‐downybottom‐upsonampliamentereconocidosenlaliteraturadeunavariedad detemasdeinvestigación(Sabatier,1986).Estosincluyenlacuantificacióndelasemisionesalaire (paso necesario para obtener los costes externos) y los costes externos. Un enfoque capta la tecnologíadeltransporteenformaagregada(top‐down)yelotroenformadesagregada(bottom‐up) arrojandoresultadosdiferentesdebidoacomplejasinteraccionesentreefectos,estructuraydatos. Tantoenlaestimacióndeemisionescomo enladecostesexternos,elenfoquetop‐downutiliza variableseconómicasagregadasmientrasqueelenfoquebottom‐upconsiderainformaciónrefinada ydesglosada,ensumayoríabasadaenelrendimientotécnico. Laaplicacióndeunouotroenfoquevaríadeacuerdoconelobjetodeestudio.Paralaestimaciónde las emisiones, se utiliza un enfoque top‐down,quesebasaenlaventadecombustibles,cuando información refinada de tráfico no existe o no está disponible.Sinembargocuandoexistela informacióndetráfico(obtenidaatravésseguimientodebuques‐vesseltracks‐oescalasenpuerto) yestádisponible;seutilizaunenfoquebottom‐updebidoalaprecisióndelosparámetrosdeentrada delmodelocomo,porejemplo,eltipodebuque,laubicación,eltamañoylosdetallestécnicos.Por último,Miolaetal.,(2010),hablandeunenfoquefullbottom‐upcomoelusodeunenfoquebottom‐ uptantoenlacuantificacióndelasemisionescomoenlacaracterizacióngeográficadelosresultados. Encuantoalacaracterizacióngeográficadelasemisiones,elniveldedetallealcanzadotambién depende del enfoque seguido. Así, con un enfoque, bottom‐up se tiene en cuenta información individualdelosbuquesysuposiciónmientrasqueconunenfoquetop‐downlavaloraciónserealiza sin,oconinformaciónparcial,sobrelaposicióndelosbuques(esdecir,laactividadgeográficadel tráficomarítimoseestimaconbaseenunasolarutadenavegación o una célula de actividad geográficaparticular,conindependenciadequebuquellevaacabolaactividad).
18 losbarcos,altipodebuqueyalaoperativadenavegación(atraque,maniobrao navegacióndeaproximaciónapuerto).Enestecapítulosellegaalaconclusiónde que el tráfico marítimo en general, y el transporte marítimo de pasajeros en particular,representanunafuentedecontaminacióndelaireenelpuertodeLas Palmas.Losmapasdeemisioneselaboradosconbaseenlosresultadosconfirmanla ubicación de focos de liberación de emisiones en los muelles asignados a operacionesdecrucerosyferries. Lasrecomendacionesdepolíticaquesederivandelosresultadosobtenidosalientan allevaruncontrolregulardelasemisionesconelpropósitodeorientareldiseñode instrumentosdepolíticaambientaleincentivosbasadosenelmercadoquetengan encuentalosperfilesdecontaminaciónydeoperativaespecíficosdecadasubsector (ferris,cruceros,portacontenedores,graneleros,yotros).Porotrolado,sesugiere se lleven a cabo estudios de viabilidad de proyectos que permitan reducir las emisionescomo,porejemplo,lainstalacióndesistemasdeatraqueautomáticoyla provisión a los buques de combustibles alternativos (como el gas licuado, LNG) menos contaminantes. Por último,peronomenosimportante,queseanalicela viabilidad de instalaciones que permitan el suministro a buquesatracadosde energíaeléctricadesdetierra(evitandoasíqueutilicensuspropiosgeneradores), dandoprioridadasuinstalaciónenlosmuellesdeatraquehabitualdeaquellos sectores o sub‐sectores que, tras confirmarse por un estudio dedispersión atmosférica,exposicióneimpacto,presentenunperfilcontaminanteconmayores efectoslocales. Los resultados del Capítulo 1 no sólo describen perfiles de contaminantes y operativa en el puerto de Las Palmas si no que, también ponen en valor las metodologíasdemedicióndeemisionesbasadasendatosAIS.Enparticular,cuando seacompañan demodelosde calidaddel aire,estimaciones desuimpactoyde estudios económicos para abordar el diseño de medidas correctivas dirigidas a subsectoresespecíficoseneltransportemarítimo(comocrucerosyferries).Los resultados y recomendaciones de política de este estudio puedenayudarenla adecuaciónomejoradelapolíticaexistenteenelpuertodeLasPalmas,pudiendo
19 sertambiéndeutilidadaotrasciudadesportuarias,seancontinentalesoinsulares, bajocondicionesdeltráficomarítimosimilares. Lasemisionesdegasescontaminantesrelacionadasconlospuertos,comocualquier externalidadnegativa;reflejanuncosterealprocedentedeunaactividadeconómica ydanlugaraunresultadoquenoesóptimo.Dehecho,lapoblaciónquehabitalas ciudades portuarias experimenta consecuencias perniciosas derivadas de la degradaciónenlacalidaddelaireasociadoaltráficomarítimo(Corbettetal.,2007). Estasemisionesresultanenexternalidadesnegativasqueafectanazonasurbanasy ruralesyquepuedensermonetizadascomocostesexternos.Enestesentido,el Capítulo2titulado"Externalcostsofvesselemissionsatport: A review of the methodological and empirical state of the art" presenta una revisión de las metodologíasexistentesenlaactualidadparaestimarelcostedelasexternalidades (costeexterno4enadelante)derivadodelasemisionesdelosbuquesenpuerto comopasoprevioalavaloraciónqueserealizaenelCapítulo3.Además,seconstata quelaliteraturaempíricaqueestimaemisionesdegasescontaminantesderivadas debuquesenpuertoesreciente.Susorígenesseencuentranen2009, año de publicacióndelprimerartículo.Deentonceshastaahora,ysegúnelconocimiento delosautores,soloexistennueveartículossobreeltemaentrelosquesecuentael Capítulo3deestatesis. Segúnlarevisiónefectuadadelaliteraturarelativaalasmetodologíasexistentes paraestimarelcosteexternodelapolucióndelaire,enlaactualidad,esposible estimarecosteexternosibiensuestimaciónesfuentedeincertidumbreporquela mismaestácondicionada,principalmente,porlimitacionesmetodológicasylagunas enelconocimientodisponible.ElImpactPathwayApproach(IPA)5esidentificado 4Son aquellos costes impuestos a la sociedad que, sin actuación o intervención política, no son tenidosencuentaporlosdistintosusuarios,enestecaso,delospuertos.Enestatesiselinterésrecae enlacomponentemedioambientaldelcosteexterno,queincluyeloscostesrelativosalasalud, costesmateriales,dañosenlabiosferayriesgosalargoplazo. 5Esta metodología para evaluar las externalidades ambientales derivadas de los ciclos de combustiblesutilizalarutadeimpacto(deahísunombre)queabarcadiferentesetapas,desdela emisióndeloscontaminantes,dispersiónyconcentración,elcálculodelosimpactosenunidades físicasylavaloracióneconómica.
20 comolametodologíabottom‐up6máscompletaylamejorprácticasugeridaenel cálculo de costes externos derivados de las emisiones liberadas al aire. Ha sido ampliamenteadoptada,entreotros,porlosprincipalesestudiosEuropeossobre costesexternosdetransporte(CAFE,BeTa,HEATCOyNEEDS).Lacomplejidad metodológica y los recursos económicos, implícitos en el uso delametodología bottom‐up IPA ha resultado en una aceptación generalizada, en la literatura empíricadeestimaciónde costeexternoderivadodelosbarcosen puertos,del enfoquetop‐downyelusodefactoresdecosteporpaísoregión,obtenidosdelos principalesestudioseuropeos(BeTa,CAFEyNEEDS). ElCapítulo2concluyequelosinventariosdeemisionesyloscostesexternosdelos nueveestudiosdepuertosencontradosenlaliteratura,yrevisadosenestecapítulo, son significativamente diferentes y difíciles de comparar debido a variaciones metodológicas, supuestos asumidos en las estimaciones, categorías de coste y factoresdeemisiónutilizados,entreotros.Portanto,sedefiendequeesdesuma importanciarevisarestasdiferenciasparaidentificarelmejorenfoqueycuálesson losinconvenientesdeutilizarlasegundamejoralternativacuandonoexisteotra opción.Estofavorecequeelmejorenfoquetermineimponiéndoseloquenosólo haría más comparables los diferentes estudios sino que, lo que es aún más importante,redundaríaenunamayorprecisióndelasestimacionesalgo,porotra parte,devitalimportanciasiestasestimacionesvanaservir,asuvez,debasepara laestimacióndecostesexternos.Enestesentido,larevisióndeliteraturaefectuada señalaquelasdiferenciasdecalidadenlainformacióndetráficoqueseutilizapara realizar las estimaciones son notables y dignas de mencionar. Ciertamente, los trabajosrevisadosqueutilizanunenfoquebottom‐up 7en la estimación de 6Enlaestimacióndecostesexternostambiénespreferibleelenfoquebottom‐upsobreeltop‐down porquepermiteunaevaluaciónprecisa,basadaeninformacióndetallada, posibilidades de diferenciaciónyunamejorprecisiónenlosresultadosobtenidos(costesexternosmarginales).Sin embargo,estareconocidoqueelusodeesteenfoqueimponerequisitoscostososycomplejospara obtenerloscostesexternos.Porlotanto,sesugiere,yestáampliamente acepado, el uso de un enfoquetop‐downcuandonosepuedenrealizarestudiosbottom‐uponoestándisponibles.Dehecho, comosepresentaenelCapítulo2deestatesis,laliteraturasobreestimacióndecostesexternos debidoalasemisionesdelosbuquesdelpuertosebasa,exclusivamente,enelusodefactoresde costeyvariableseconómicasagregadas(enfoquetop‐down). 7Generalmentehablando,enlaestimacióndeemisionespuedenutilizarsedosenfoquesprincipales: top‐downybottomup.Elprimeroconsisteenestimarlasemisionesdemodoindirectoapartirdelas estadísticasdeventadefuelmientrasqueelsegundoutilizadatosdeactividaddelaflotadebarcos.
21 emisionesnosiemprereconocen,deformaclara,queestánutilizandolasescalasen puertocomofuentedeinformacióndetráficomarítimo,nidescribenelnivelde detalledelasposicionesdebuquesquecontienenlasbasesdedatosutilizadas.Por el contrario, normalmente hacen referencia exclusivamente a la elección de un enfoquemetodológicobottom‐upbasadoeninformacióndetráfico8. Por otra parte, la revisión efectuada muestra que el enfoque metodológico representativoparaestimarlasemisionesdebuquesenpuerto(pasopreviopara estimar los costes externos), es un enfoque bottom‐up basado en las escalas en puerto.Enestesentidoydebidoalmayorniveldeprecisiónquepodríaobtenersea travésdelusodeinformacióndeposicióndebuques(vesseltracks)sesugieresu uso;evitandodeestamaneralanecesidaddeutilizarvalorespromedio(distanciay velocidad)y,deserposible,quesehagasiguiendounenfoquefullbottom‐up9. Porúltimoyenrelaciónconlaestimacióndeloscostesexternos,todoslosartículos revisadossiguenunenfoquetop‐down.Estoseatribuyealosrequisitoscostososy complejosparaobtenercostesexternosdesdeunenfoquebottom‐up.Porotraparte, lafaltadeestudiosquemodelenladispersiónatmosféricadeemisionesdebuques, complicaelescenariometodológicoresultando,portanto,enunaampliaaceptación delusodefactoresdecosteporpaísoregión(top‐down). Conbaseenloanterior,elCapítulo2tambiénseñalalanecesidad de mejoras metodológicas y sugiere la realización de estimaciones más refinadas (tanto de emisionesdebuquescomodecostesexternosderivados)yaqueestobeneficiaríala calidaddelainformaciónnecesariaparaalimentaralasmedidasdepolíticaque podríandiseñarseparacontribuirainteriorizarloscostesexternosestimados.Por último,unavaloraciónbottom‐up(IPA)específicasobreemisionesdebuques(aún Elniveldeprecisióndelasestimacionesesmayorenelenfoquebottom‐upporloquesiempreque seaposibleeselquedeberíaserutilizado.Paramásdetalle,véasenotaalpie3. 8Losmodelosbottom‐upparaestimaremisionespuedenbasarseendatosrealesobtenidosatravés de AIS o en estadísticas de escalas en puerto. En este segundo casoelinvestigadornotiene informaciónrealdelaruta,velocidad,yotrosdatosdelbarcoporloquetienequehacerunbuen númerodesupuestosquereducenlacalidaddelaestimación.Paramásdetalle,véasenotaalpie3. 9El enfoque fullbottom‐uputilizaunenfoquebottom‐uptantoparalacuantificacióndelas estimacionescomoparalacaracterizacióngeográficadelosresultados.Paramásdetalle,véasenota alpie3.
22 nollevadaacabo),sesugierecomoinvestigaciónfuturaaunqueporelmomento;los resultadosobtenidosutilizandofactoresdecostedeBeTa(únicoinformedisponible, quepresentafactoresdecostededicadosalasemisionesdebuquesen puerto) proporcionenunaprimeraaproximacióncercanaalamagnitudreal de costes externosderivadosdelasemisionesdebuquesenpuerto. YaqueenelCapítulo1sesugiereque,conelfindepermitirlainternalizacióndel dañoderivadodelasemisionesylaconsiguientemejoradelbienestarpúblico;la investigaciónsobreemisionesdebuquestambiéndeberíaabordarlavaloraciónde costesexternosderivados,estatesiscompletaelprocesoconelCapítulo3titulado “Environmentalcostsandeco‐efficiencyfromvesselemissionsinLasPalmasPort” EnestecapítuloseextiendelainvestigaciónrealizadaenelCapítulo1(inventario deemisiones)alaestimacióndeloscostesexternoseindicadoresdeeco‐eficiencia enelpuertodeLasPalmas. En definitiva, en el Capítulo 3, se estiman los costes externos derivados de las emisionesdegasespresentadasenelCapítulo1deestatesisquefueronobtenidas apartirdevariablesdesagregadastantotécnicascomodetráfico.Portanto,este capítulo contiene el primer trabajo en la literatura que sugiere la estimación y estimaloscostesexternosapartirdeuninventariodegasesobtenidoatravésdeun enfoquefull‐bottomupbasadoendatosAIS10cerrandoungapenlaliteraturay contribuyendoaunamejorametodológica,necesariaparaobtenerresultadosmás precisos. Por otra parte, y ya en términos de costes externos, las estimaciones realizadassiguenunenfoquetop‐down,comotodoslostrabajosexistentesenla literaturaeidentificadosenelcapítuloanterior,sibienadiferenciadelostrabajos publicadoshastaahoralasestimacionesrecogidasenesteCapítuloreflejantodos losposiblesumbralesexistentes(altosybajos)defactoresdecostedisponiblesen BeTa,CAFEyNEEDS. 10Comoyasehacomentado,elenfoquebottom‐upbasadoendatosAISeselmejordeentrelos actualmentedisponiblesporqueeliminalaincertidumbreylimitacionesdescritasquesederivande losinventariosdeemisionesquesiguenunenfoquebottomupbasadoenlasescalasenpuerto.
23 Adicionalmente,enesteCapítulotambiénsecalculanindicadoresdeeco‐eficiencia. Estos indicadores son una herramienta valiosa para promover el desarrollo sostenible.Suusosebasaenelconceptodecrearmásbienesyserviciosmediante lareduccióndelimpactoambientalrelacionadoconlaproduccióndelosmismos.En términos generales, los indicadores de eco‐eficiencia se utilizan para medir y gestionar el crecimiento ecológico mediante la comparación del rendimiento medioambiental y económico entre los diferentes sectores económicos, la identificacióndepolíticassusceptiblesdemejorayelseguimientodelastendencias deeco‐eficienciaeneltiempo(UNESCAP2009). En la actualidad los puertos, y en relación con las emisiones, tienen el objetivo común de crear mecanismos institucionales para para reducir la contaminación atmosférica y el cambio climático, entre otros, mediante el inicio de estudios, estrategiasyaccionesparasupervisarymejorarlacalidaddelaire.Conelpropósito depromover lanecesidadprimariadel desarrollosostenible,lospuertos(como muchasempresas),comienzanaexplorarnuevasformasdegestiónquepermitanla integracióndelagestiónambientalenlaeconomíalocalylasociedad(Coto‐Millán etal.2010).Entreellasseencuentran,principalmente,elcontroldelosimpactos ambientales a través de estrategias de gestión ambiental; la medición del desempeño (eco‐eficiencia) a través de la valoración ambiental (emisiones) en relación con los factores económicos (producción)11y, finalmente; apoyando el diseñodeinstrumentosdepolíticaquetenganlosindicadoresdeeco‐eficienciaen cuenta. La eco‐eficiencia, como un indicador de rendimiento, proporciona información valiosaalsistemaportuarioparamejorarsuposicióncompetitiva(Coto‐Millánetal., 2010).Dehecho,elrendimientofinancierodelospuertosesclaveparaconvertirse en un importante centro de negocios, pero no es suficiente para garantizar su sostenibilidad.Paraasegurarestoúltimo,debeabordarsetambiéneldesempeño ambientalysocial,entreotros,mediantelarecopilacióndeinformaciónsobrelos impactosambientalesyeldesempeñoparareflejarsusituaciónglobal(Coto‐Millán 11Losindicadoresdeeco‐eficienciapodríandefinirse,comosehaceenestatesis,comolarelación entrelosimpactosdelservicio(costesexternos)yloquesehaproducido(toneladas,pasajeros,etc.).
30 Port‐related exhaust emissions, as any negative externality, reflect a real cost accruingfromaneconomicactivityandleadtoasuboptimaloutcome. Indeed, population located in port‐cities experience air quality detriments associated to vessel traffic and the atmospheric concentration of air pollution (Corbett et al., 2007). Theseresultinurbanandruralexternalities15thatcanbemonetisedasexternal costs.Inthisrespect,Chapter2titled“Externalcostsofvesselemissionsatport:A reviewofthemethodologicalandempiricalstateoftheart”presentsareviewof existentmethodologiescurrentlyusedtoestimateexternalitycosts16fromvessel emissions in shipping and in harbours. The empirical literature that estimates externalcostsfromvesselemissionsatportisrecentanddatesbackto2009,when thefirstrelatedpaperwaspublished.Fromtherevisedresearchandtothebestof ourknowledge,includingChapter3ofthisthesis,only9paperswerefound. Basedonthereview,theestimationofexternalitycostsissourceofuncertainty.It isconditionedamongothers,bymethodologicaluncertaintiesandinformationgaps onavailableknowledge.TheImpactPathwayApproach(IPA)isconsideredasthe mostcomprehensivebottom‐up17methodologyandthebestpracticeforcalculating externalcostsderivedfromairemissions.Ithasbeenwidelyadopted,amongothers, overmajorEuropeanstudies(CAFE,BeTa,HEATCOandNEEDS).Methodological complexityandcostlyresourcesareimpliedintheresearchpathwayofbottom‐up studiesthataddressshippingandports.Forthisreason,andasafirstapproximation 15Accountedurbanexternalitiesincludehealth issues, increased mortality rates and the degradation of built environment. Rural externalities relate to crop damages. 16Costsimposedtosocietythatwithoutpoliticalactionorinterventionarenottakenintoaccount bytherelatedusers,inthiscase,ofports.Inthisthesis,the related interest relies in the environmental component of externality costs, which includes the derived costs of mortality, morbidity,thedegradationofbuiltenvironmentandthelossofcrops. 17Inthecaseofexternalcostsabottom‐upapproachisalsopreferred as it enables a refined assessmentbasedondetailedinformation,differentiationpossibilitiesandanimprovedprecisionin derivedresults(marginalexternalcosts).Nevertheless,costlyandcomplexrequirementsarealso recognized to obtain external costs from a bottom‐up approach. Thus, the use of a top‐down approachissuggestedandwidelyacceptedwhenbottom‐upstudiescannotbeperformedorarenot available. Indeed,as wepresentin Section3,literatureon harbourexternal costsdueto vessel emissionsisexclusivelybasedontheuseofcostfactorsandaggregatedeconomicvariables(top‐ downapproach).
31 toestimates,ithasbeenwidelyacceptedtofollowatop‐downapproachanduse per‐unitcostfactorsobtainedmostlyfrommajorEuropeanstudies(BeTa,CAFE, NEEDS). Chapter2concludesthatemissioninventoriesandestimatedcosts from the availableharbourstudiesaresignificantlydifferentandcomplicatedtocompare duetomethodologicalvariations,assumptions,costcategories,selectedemission factorsandothers.Itisparamounttoreviewthesedifferencestohighlightthebest approachandthedrawbackwhenasecondbestalternativeisapplied.Inthissense, thereviewremarksthatprecisiondifferencesontrafficinformationusedforthe estimationsarenoteworthy.Availableliteraturedoesnotalwaysspecifyportcalls astheirsourceoftrafficinformationnordescribethelevelofdetailaccountedfrom shipmovementsbutprovideanoveralldescriptionofactivity‐based(bottom‐up) methodology to estimate emissions. Moreover, our review has shown that the representativeapproachusedtoestimateemissionsatport(asapreviousstepto estimateexternalcosts),isabottom‐upapproachbasedonportcalls.Duetothe refinedaccuracyofobtainedresults,weencouragetheuseofa full bottom‐up approachandfrequentlyupdatedvesseltracks,avoidinginthiswaytheneedof usingaveragevalues(i.e.distanceandspeed).Finallyandregardingtheestimation ofexternalcosts,everystudyfollowedatop‐downapproach.Thisisattributedto costlyandcomplexrequirementstoobtainexternalcostsfroma bottom‐up approach. Moreover, the lack of dispersion modelling practices not widely undertakeninshippingcomplicatesthismethodologicalscenario.Thus,enabling thewideacceptanceofatop‐downapproachinexternalcostestimationsbasedon countryorregioncostfactors. Basedontheabove,Chapter2alsosuggestsmethodologicalimprovementsandthe possible achievement of refined estimations (of vessel emissions and derived externalcosts)inportsandshippingasthesemaybenefitthequality of input informationneededto feedpolicymeasureswhich contributeto internalize the externalcostestimated.Finally,anintegratedassessment(IPA)specifictovessel emissionshasnotbeenyetaddressedintheavailablestudiesandissuggestedas futureresearchalthoughfornow,theobtainedresultsinBeTaprovideameaningful
32 insight to the magnitude of costs associated to vessel emission externalities, specificallybecauseitistheonlyavailablereportsofar,whichpresentscostfactors dedicatedtoseaports. Sinceitissuggestedthatinordertoenabletheinternalizationandimprovementof thepublicwelfare,researchonvesselemissionsshouldalsoaddressthevaluation of economic costs derived from vessel emissions shipping, Chapter3titled “Environmentalcostsandeco‐efficiencyfromvesselemissionsinLasPalmasPort” extendsthevesselemissionresearchinChapter1totheestimationofexternalcosts andtheeco‐efficiencyperformanceofLasPalmasPort.Firstly,itobtainsexternality costsofvesselemissionsfromdisaggregatedvariablesasindividualvesseltracks andtechnicaldetails.Thisapproacheliminatesthedominantuncertaintiesreported by previous vessel emission inventories (based on port calls) used to estimate externality costs and fills the gap of methodology improvement,necessaryto achieve more accurate results. Secondly, and in terms of externality costs, this harbourstudypresentstheavailablelowerandupperthresholdsoftop‐down estimatedcostsavailableinBeTa,CAFEandNEEDS. Additionally,inthisChapterderivedeco‐efficiencyparametersareobtained.Eco‐ efficiency indicators are considered as a valuable tool to promote sustainable development.Itsuseisbasedontheconceptofcreatingmoregoodsandservicesby reducingtherelatedenvironmentalimpact.Generallyspeaking,eco‐efficiency indicatorsareusedtomeasureandmanagegreengrowthbycomparing environmental/economic performance among different economic sectors, by identifying policy areas for improvement in achieving economicbenefit and, by trackingeco‐efficiencytrendsovertime(UNESCAP,2009). Atpresent,inportsandtowardsairemissions,itscommonaimis to create institutionalmechanismstoabateairpollutionandclimatechange,amongothers, byinitiatingstudies,strategiesandactionsthatmonitorandimproveairquality.To promotetheprimaryneedofsustainabledevelopment,ports(likemanycompanies), starttoexploremanagementphasesthatenabletheintegrationofenvironmental managementintolocaleconomyandsociety(Coto‐Millánetal.2010).Namely,the
33 controlenvironmentalimpactsthroughenvironmentalmanagementstrategies;the measurement of eco‐efficiency performance by valuating environmental (emissions)witheconomicfactors(production)18,andatlast;supportthedesignof policyinstrumentsthattakethelaterindicatorsintoaccount. Eco‐efficiency,asaperformanceindicator,providesportsystemswithinformation ofvaluetoimprovetheircompetitivepositionwhenundertakingtheiractivitywith business‐oriented criteria (Coto‐Millán et al. 2010). Indeed, the financial performanceofportsiskeytobecominganimportantcentreofbusinessbutnot enoughtoguaranteetheirsustainability.Toensurethis,environmentalandsocial performance must be addressed among others, by collecting information on environmentalimpactsandperformancetoreflectitsoverallstatus(Coto‐Millánet al. 2010). For the latter reason, in this chapter, eco‐efficiency parameters are obtained(environmental/productionperformanceofvesselemissions)ingeneral shippingandalso(asaliteraturenovelty)pershippingsub‐sector(container,cruise, tankers, among others). These eco‐efficiency parameters are suggested, as an indicatorofenvironmentalandeconomicperformancetobeconsideredforpolicy use in port‐cities. Summarizing, results respond to the research question of the economicimpactandenvironmental/productionperformanceofvesselemissions inLasPalmasPort,describingthroughthecasestudy,theutility of these measurements(externalcostandeco‐efficiencyindicators)assupporttoolstoPort Authoritiesandlocalgovernments. Toconclude,Chapter3suggeststhatfutureresearchalsoaddresstheseindicators byfollowinganintegratedapproachbasedamongothers,onrefinedinformation from pollutant concentration and local meteorological conditions. This is of particularinterestsince,indespiteofmethodologicaluncertainties(alsoexistentin IPA),theuseofthisapproachisacceptedinliteratureforestimatingexternalcosts anditremainssofar,asthemostaccurateapproachtobeusedinthedesignof environmentalpolicytoaddressatmosphericemissions.Also,andsinceadditional sources of emissions at port were not included in this study wesuggestfuture 18Thatis,eco‐efficiencyindicatorscouldbemeasured,aswedointhisthesis,astheratiobetween theimpactsoftheservice(externalcosts)andwhathasbeenproduced(ton,passengers,andsoon).
34 improvements of results by including land‐based sources of emissions and the derivedeffectsonsailorsandmaritimeprofessionals. In summary, this thesis comprises a systematic approach and analysis of air emissions and externality costs from vessel traffic in Las PalmasPort.Results attempttoindicateperformanceofLasPalmasporttowardssocial,economicand environmentalconcerns.Aimofthisapproachistosupportanenvironmental operationmodel,whichextendsvalue‐basedmanagementexploringrelationsof economic and ecological capital efficiency. Also, eco‐efficiency results aim to facilitatefuturecost‐benefitanalysisusedforevaluatingabatement policy instrumentsinLasPalmas,wherealargepopulationofresidents and visiting tourists are continuously hosted. Finally this study, also contributes to recent literature of vessel emissions, externality costs and eco‐efficiency by describing throughthecasestudy,theutilityofthesemeasurementsassupporttoolstoPort Authoritiesandlocalgovernments. Inshouldbenotedthatthetextfromthethreemainchaptersinthisthesisare adaptations of scientific papers that have either been already published in JCR journalsrankedinthefirstquartileofthecategoriesofEconomyandTransport (Chapter1,inTransportationResearchPartA:PolicyandPractice,Tichavska,M., Tovar,B.,2015)orthathavebeensubmittedandcurrentlyunderreview(Chapter 2and3). References Castells,S.M.,Santamarıa,J.J.U.,MartınezDeOses,F.X.(2014),Manoeuvringand hotellingexternalcosts:enoughforalternativeenergysources?Marit.Policy Manage.41(1),42–60. Corbett,J.J.,Winebrake,J.J.,Green,E.H.,Kasibhatla,P.,Eyring,V.,Lauer,A.(2007), Mortalityfromshipemissions:aglobalassessment.Environ.Sci.Technol.41 (24),8512–8518. Coto-Millán, P., Mateo-Mantecon, I., Domenech Quesada, J.L.,Carballo Panela, A. and Pesquera, M.A. (2010), Evaluation of Port externalities: The ecological Footprint. In Coto-Millán, P., Pesquera, M. A., and Castanedo, J. (Ed.), Essays on port economics. Springer Science & Business Media. Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht, London, New York.
35 Cullinane,K.,andCullinane,S.(2013),Atmosphericemissionsfromshipping:The needforregulationandapproachestocompliance.TransportReviews,33(4), 377‐401. Jalkanen,J.P.,Brink,A.,Kalli,J.,andStipa,T.(2008),StateoftheArt‐AISbased emission calculations for the Baltic Sea shipping. Hrvatski meteorološki časopis,43(43/1),177‐180. Lam, J.S.L., Notteboom, T., (2014), The greening of ports: a comparison of port managementtoolsusedbyleadingportsinAsiaandEurope.Transp.Rev.34 (2),169–189. Miola,A.,Ciuffo,B.,Giovine,E.,Marra,M.(2010),Regulatingairemissionsfromships. TheStateoftheArtonMethodologies,TechnologiesandPolicyOptions.Joint Research Centre Reference Report, Luxembourg, EUR24602EN, 978‐92, ISBN. Sabatier, P. A. (1986) Top‐down and bottom‐up approaches to implementation research:acriticalanalysisandsuggestedsynthesis.Journalofpublicpolicy 6(1),21‐48. Tzannatos,E.(2010),ShipemissionsandtheirexternalitiesfortheportofPiraeus‐ Greece.Atmos.Environ.44(3),400–407. UNESCAP(2011),Eco‐efficiencyindicators:MeasuringResource‐useEfficiencyand the impact of Economic Activities on the Environment. United Nations Publication,EnvironmentandDevelopmentDivision,Bangkok,Thailand. Tichavska,M.,Tovar,B.,(2015)Port‐cityExhaustEmissionModel:anapplicationto CruiseandFerryoperationsinLasPalmasPort.TransportationResearch PartA:PolicyandPractice,78,347‐360. Goldsworthy, L. and Goldsworthy, B. (2015), Modelling of ship engine exhaust emissions in ports and extensive coastal waters based on terrestrial AIS data–AnAustraliancasestudy.EnvironmentalModelling&Software,63,45‐ 60.
36
37 Chapter1 Port‐cityexhaustemissionmodel:An applicationtocruiseandferryoperationsin LasPalmasPort 1.1.Introduction Ferryandcruise,sharepositiveeffectsandeconomicbenefitsinportsandcities. Howevernegativeimpacts,including airpollution,also relatetoengineexhaust emissionswhileoperatingatport(Castellsetal.,2014;Changetal.,2014).Shipping activityandthepropagationofexhaustgasesresultingfromthecombustionoffuels haveasignificantimpactonairqualityinport‐cityareas.Mostimportantly,however, harmful ship emissions into the air have been addressed as a risk factor for cardiovascular,respiratoryconditionsorevenhumandeath(Corbettetal.,2007). Asaresultofthis,complianceandenhancementofemissionregulationinshipping hasbeenpursued. Policymakersneedthesupportofmethodologieswhichwillreliablyinformthem onhowmuch,where,howandwhoreleasesemissionsinordertodecideonan effective regulatory framework for the improvement of air qualityandthe reductionsofgreenhousegasesemissions.Datascarcityanduncertaintyhasledto awidespreaduseofmethodologiesforestimatingtheexhaustemissionsinshipping. Still,theutilizationofnewtechnologieswithreliabledataretrievingcapabilitieson vesseltrafficquestionusefulnessofthemethodologiesproposedsofar(Miolaetal., 2010). Morespecifically,AIS‐assistedemissioninventoriescanbeeffectivelyusedtoassess theimpactofshippinginportareas(Ngetal.,2012).Thechallengeofidentifying operativeprofilesofshipsatberth(hotelling),manoeuvringandnormalcruising navigation in conjunction with the emission dependency on engine load can be
38 addressedwithshippositionrecordsanddatabasescontainingshiptechnicaland enginedetails,respectively.Thisofferstheabilitytomodelthe geographical characterizationofemissionsthroughhigh‐resolutionmapsinport‐cityareas.AIS‐ basedmethodologieshavebeenalreadyintroducedtoestimateshippingemissions (Jalkanenetal.,2008),buttheyhaveneverbeenpresentedasaninstrumenttoassist policydesignandcorrectivemeasuresofaspecificshippingsector(passenger)and subsectors(cruiseandferry)withinanislandcontext.Thus,themaincontribution ofthispaperistopresentevidenceontheapplicationofAIS‐basedmethodologies to assess exhaust emissions of cruise and ferry services according to ship size classes,timeandshipactivityphases(i.e.hotelling,manoeuvringandcruising). Theresultsofthisstudyaimattheimprovementofthecurrent environmental policyinLasPalmasPort,aswellasinotherislandportsexperiencingasimilar shippingactivity.Thestructureofthispaperisasfollows:Section1.2providesan overviewonregulationandpracticesforthecontrolofshipexhaustemissionsin ports.Section1.3describesemissionestimationinshippingtothenpresentthefull bottom‐upShipTrafficAssessmentModel(STEAM)usedinthiscasestudy.Section 1.4presentsresultsforemissionestimationasabreakdownofshipactivityphase, typeandtimeandshipsizeclasses.Also,thegeographicalcharacterizationofresults is described through a selection of high‐resolution maps. Discussionandpolicy implications are presented in section 1.5, followed by conclusions and future researchrecommendationsinsection1.6. 1.2. Regulation and practices for the control of ship exhaustemissionsinports Currentregulationseekstoreduceemissionsfromshipsthroughtheintroduction of minimum fuel quality standards and the implementation of newabatement technologies.TheInternationalMaritimeOrganization(IMO)hasaddressedship pollutionundertheMARPOLconvention.Theregulationofairpollutionbyships was defined in MARPOL Annex VI, first adopted in 1997 and enforced in 2005 includingaprogressivereductionofSOxandNOxandindirectlyParticulateMatter
39 (PM)inEmissionControlAreas(ECA).MARPOLAnnexVIistheonlyglobalregime thatclearlyaddressesthecontrolofairemissionsfromships. The European Union (EU) has also expressed its concerns about the impact of transportonairqualitythroughtheStrategyforSustainableDevelopment publishedonitsWhitePaperonTransportPolicy(Gemeinschaften,2001),leading totheestablishmentofstringentsulphurregulationformarinefuelsthrough directives:2012/33/EU,2005/33and1999/32.Accordingtothese,allpassenger shipsoperatingonscheduledservicestoorfromanyEUportshouldnotexceed 1.5%sulphurlimitandallvesselscallingatanEUportshoulduselowsulphurfuel (lessthan0.1%)orashore‐sideelectricityfacilityduringportstayslongerthantwo hours.Inaddition,withtheframeworkofIMOregulations,MARPOLAnnexVIsetsa maximum0.1%sulphurforallshipoperationsinECAsfrom2015,whichwith regard to European waters are currently limited to the Baltic Sea, the English ChannelandtheNorthSea.ItshouldbealsonotedthattheexpressedEUwillingness tounilaterallywidentheenforcementofsulphurrestrictionstoallEuropeansea facescomplianceconstraintsinrelationtotheUnitedNationsConventiononthe LawoftheSea1982(UNCLOS)towhichtheEUissignatory.Thereiscurrentlyno legalbasisfortheEUtoexerciseextra‐territorialjurisdictionandthisislikelytogive non‐EUstatesandindustrialbodiesgroundsforchallengingemissionsreduction measuresadoptedbytheEUformaritimetransport(Miolaetal.,2010). As ports constitute the nodes of maritime transport where all shipping routes ultimatelyconverge,theyareparticularlyexposedtotheburdenofshipexhaust emissions.Therefore,inresponsetothisproblemandbesidestheprovisionsofthe IMO and EU framework, they have been collectively or individually active in adoptingvoluntarymeasures,whichaimatimprovingtheairqualityandachieving emission reductions of greenhouse gases (CO2). These measures eithertake the formofofferingeconomicincentives(i.e.environmentallydifferentiatedportdues) ortheundertakingofinfrastructuralinvestments,whichencourageshipoperators to make use of environment friendly services (i.e. shore‐side electricity, LNG bunkering,automatedmooringsystems,andothers).Forfurtherinformationon
46 accuratemodellingofenginepowerusageduringhotellingandmanoeuvring operationsinharbourareasrequiresafrequentupdateofdata(severaltimesper minute)asthespeedofvesselsmaychangeconstantly.Temporalgapsandalow frequency of messages may be the cause of significant inaccuracies. Also, uncertaintiesrelatedtotheauxiliaryenginepowerusageonboardvesselscouldbe significant. Commercial databases may offer an incomplete representation of installed auxiliary engine power, which must be augmented with data from classificationsocieties,fleetownersorenginemanufacturers.Thisinformationis often unavailable and must be estimated based on existing knowledge, like extensive vessel boarding programs (Starcrest, 2011). In contrast to the main engine power predictions, there is no accurate, generally availablemodelfor auxiliaryengineusageofshipsasitmayvaryinaccordancetotheircargohandling gear,needforheating,cooling,pumpingandadditionalusesofenergy.Anoverview oftheSTEAMhasbeenpresentedinthissection,forextensivedetails;thereaderis referredtoJalkanenetal.,(2009),Jalkanenetal.,(2012)andJalkanenetal.,(2013). 1.4.CaseStudy:LasPalmasPort. TheCanaryIslandsareoneofSpain'sseventeenAutonomousCommunitiesandan outermostregionoftheEuropeanUnion.LocatedintheAtlanticOcean,this collectionofsevenislandsisat115kilometresofdistancefromthenorthwest Africancoastat1,200kilometresfromthenearestmainlandportinsouthernSpain (Cadiz).TheAutonomousCommunityoftheCanaryIslandsisadministratedbytwo provinces,LasPalmasandSantaCruzdeTenerife.GranCanariaandTenerife,both capital islands, are the main transport nodes connecting the archipelago with mainlandSpainandothercountries.MainportsintheCanaryIslands,LasPalmas Port(locatedinGranCanaria)andS.C.TenerifePort(locatedin Tenerife) are managedbydifferentPortAuthorities23.In2011,cargotransportedintheseports, summeduptomorethan88%oftheCanaryIslandstotalfreight. 23AdetailedanalysisoftheportmanagementmodelinSpainisbeyondthescopeofthispaperbut itcouldbefoundinRodriguez‐ÁlvarezandTovar(2012).
47 TheadvantagesofhavinggoodportconnectivityhaveaccruedtotheCanaryIslands onceoneoftheirportsbecameaninternationalhub24(Tovar et al., 2015). Las PalmasPortisamajorlogisticplatformbetweenEurope,AfricaandAmericaandit offersmanyadvantagestoocean‐goingvesselssuchasarecognizedtechnicaland commercial maritime community and competitiveness in supplies and repair services.Itslocationbetweenmaincommercialtraderoutesmakesitacargohub (over 19 million tons from loading, unloading and transhipments). Moreover, passengertraffic,withover908,000passengersin2011isgrowingsteadilyover time. To meet the maritime transportation demand in the Canarian archipelago (passengers or passengers and goods), ferry routes are offered inadailybasis throughdirectorscaledservices.Huboperationsaresetinbothmaincanariesports. DirectconnectionsareregularlyofferedfromGranCanaria,and Tenerife in directiontootherCanaryIslands:Fuerteventura,Lanzarote,LaGomeraandSpanish mainland(Huelva).Inadditiontotheregularferryservices,passengernumbers accountedincruiseoperationsintheCanaryIslandshaveincreasedsteadilyupto 1,600,000withamajorparticipationofCarnival(49%)andRoyalCaribbeancruise lines(23%),(EDEI,2011).AccordingtoEPPE,passengershareofLasPalmasPort increased in over 20% with a total of 1,605,531 passengers in2013. Sustained marketgrowthincreasestheneedtoidentifyandmeasureenvironmentalimpacts generatedbypassengertraffic,particularlyinlocationswhereactionstomitigate thesearenotbeingpursuedasitisinmanyotherharboursintheworld. Aswestatedbefore,cruisepassengersnumbersandcruiseservicesdeployedin Canarianportsalsoincreaseovertime.Indeed,LasPalmasPortholdsoneofthe largestsharesincontinuousgrowth.Forinstance,in2011,197portvisits,418,184 cruisepassengers(22%fromthetotalshareofthearchipelago)andupto57cruise ships were accounted. In 2013, a growth in numbers can be noticed with the 425,267 cruise passengers reported, while a remarked increase can be noticed 24Drivenmainlybycontaineroperations,thetransshipmenttrafficinLasPalmasPorthasreached aratecloseto69%ofthetotalnumberofhandledcontainers,whereasTenerifeportfocusits containertrafficmerelyonthedomesticmarket.
48 duringthefirstquarterof2014withatotalof511,248.Thiscanbeattributedtothe concentration of ships with hub operations. In fact, further expansion of cruise operationscouldbeexpectedasrecruitmentofnewvesselsandthehostingofnew hubservicesovertheyearalsorelate‐inadditiontowhatwereferinpreviouslines‐ to socio‐political stability, currency, infrastructure improvement and recognized qualityonlandservices,attributesacquiredandalsorecognizedinthisport. Emissionsestimatedforpassengertrafficarepresentedinthefollowingsectionas a breakdown of hotelling, manoeuvring cruising operations and size classes. To follow,geographicalcharacterisationofresultswillbeaddressedbyasampleof high‐resolutionmaps. 1.4.1.Results AccordingtoterrestrialAISdatareceivedduring2011,3,183uniqueshipsentered, navigatedandanchoredinLasPalmasPortduring2011.Fromthese,1,228ofthem (39%)areclassifiedascargo,329(10%)ascontainer,612(19%)astankersand, seventy‐fourvessels(2%)aspassengervessels.Enginerequirementsandoperative needsamongshippingsectorsarediverse,particularlyinaport‐citycontextwhere the speed and load rates of engines will constantly change according to requirementsofportsandvessels.Indeed,theenergydemand,theengineloadsand resultingemissionsfromdifferenttypeofvesselsmayvary.Tosetanexamplewe mayremarkhowlargecruisevessels(withmorethanathousandair‐conditioned cabins), will most probably demand more energy and contribute with more emissionsthanacargocarrierwhenatport.Also,theregularandtightschedulesof ferryvesselsmayincreasetheloadlevelofenginesduringacceleration‐deceleration andhencealsoincreasetherelatedemissionshare(Jalkanenetal.,2009). Inordertobetterunderstandthesedifferences,emissionresultsforNOx,SOx,PM2.5, CO, CO2 and operative time spent at hotelling, manoeuvring and cruising are presentedinTable2forninedifferentshiptypes.Shiptypesanditsoperativetype
49 andtimeareanautomatedclassificationfrominformationtransmittedbytheAIS 25 . FromTable2,anoticeableshareofemissionsrelatedtolocal(NOx,SOx,CO,PM 2.5 ) andglobaleffects(CO 2 )areseenforpassenger,containerandtankervesselswhile categories as others and unknown (mostly small sized ships) contribute with a minimumamountofemissionsindespitetheconsiderablenumberofhoursthey spend at port. Shipping sectors identified in this research as the ones with the highestlevelofemissioncontribution(passenger,container,andtankervessels) have been also identified as shipping categories with representative emission sharesbyotherstudiesasStipaetal.,(2007);DeMeyeretal.,(2008);Howittetal., (2010);Eijgelaaretal.,(2010);BerechmanandTseng,(2012);Ngetal.,(20129;Kalli etal.,(2013);Jalkanenetal.,(2013);Johanssonetal.,(2013). Table2‐Emissionsandoperativetimerelatedtotrafficsectorsaspredicted bytheSTEAM Note:Fuelconsumptionandemissionsreleasedwhileatberthareincluded.ComplianceofIMOand EUregulatoryframeworksformarinefuelsisassumedandalsoincludedintheseestimations.Time spentinHotelling(H),Manoeuvring(M),Cruising(C)anditsTotal(T)isexpressedinhours Emissionresultsforallcategoriesarepresentedasarelativepercentagefromthe totalsatport,inFigure2.Thisfigurebetterreflectsshipemissionscontributionat thesourceandenablestheviewofremarkedshares.Particularly,thepassengersub sectorsareidentifiedasthemainsourceofemissionswiththeexceptionofCO.In addition to this, major figures of emissions are allocated in container vessels, followedcloselybytankers.Moreover,figure3showsthatovera35%ofSOxanda 25DetailsoncodesandcategoryofvesselstransmittedbytheAISarereferredintheITU‐R,(2010). Unknowncategoryreferstofailurecasesofidentification(nostaticmessagereceived,noconnection tonationalMMSIdatabasesavailable,smallvesselsnottransmittingavalidIMOregistrynumber).
50 30%ofPM 2.5 resultfromthepassengersectorwhilealmosta50%ofresultingNOx, COandCO 2 deriveboth,frompassengerandcontainerships. Figure2–EmissionpercentagebyshippingsectorinLasPalmasPort Ontheotherhand,Figure3reflectshoursofhotelling,manoeuvringandcruisingas arelativepercentageofoperativetimeatport.Inthisregard,andasitwasstated before, the activity levels of other and unknown categories arenoticeable. Specificallywhencomparedtotheirrelativelowemissionshare.Theexplanation forthismightrelyonsmallsizedenginesandalowdemandofenergyfromleisure navigation.Ontheotherhand,differencesamongoperativetime(5%)comparing passengervesselstotherest,shouldbenoted.Thisissignificantlylow,whilecargo, containerandtankercategoriestogetherrepresentalmosta45%fromthetotal activity of vessels at port, However, when the profile is observed by type of operativetheroleofcruisingisclearlyrepresentativeforthepassengersectorwhile cargo,containersandtankersreflectaratherbalancedoperativeprofile.
51 Figure3–OperativepercentagebyshippingsectorinLasPalmasPort AccordingtoterrestrialAISdatareceivedduring2011,seventy‐four unique passengershipsentered,navigatedandanchoredinLasPalmasPortduring2011. Fromthese,fifty‐sevenvessels(75%)areclassifiedascruiseshipsandtwelveof them(19,7%)asRoPaxvesselsoperatingferryservices.Consideringpollutingand operative differences among shipping sectors, it is also of interest to analyse differenceswhencategorizedasthesub‐groupsthatregardthiscasestudy(cruise and ferry). In order to address this, Figure 4 and 5 reflect results as a relative percentageofthetotalemissionsandoperativetimeatport.Itcanbenotedthat contributionofferriesissignificantlylargeinoverallemissions.ParticularlySOx,CO andPM 2.5 (relatedtoseverehealthconsequences)andCO 2 (relatedtogreenhouse gaseffectsandglobalwarming)whiledifferencesonsharesofoperativetimeare alsonoticeable.Ferryvesselsreflectanoticeablepercentageofcruising,similarto cargosectors(seeFigure2and3)whileinthecaseofcruisevessels,thisisnot representative.
52 Figure4–Emissionpercentageofcruiseandferryvesselsrelativetothe totalemissionsinLasPalmasPort Figure5–Operativepercentageofcruiseandferryvesselsrelativetothe totaloperativeinLasPalmasPort Shipsize(weight)isalsocrucialtofuelconsumptionandemissionestimation.Table 3presentsresultsforcruiseandferryasatotalofpassengercategories.According toresultsandintermsofemissionstheroleofthelargestsizeclasses(from60ktto 80kt)isrepresentativeforcruiseoperations,whileforferryservicesthisismainly allocatedbetween10and30kt.
53 Intermsofpollutantscommonlyrelatedtolocaleffects(NOx,SOxandPM2.5),the largestshareofresultsisattributedtoferryvesselsbetween10kt‐30kt,andcruise vesselswithaGTbetween30kt‐45ktandover80kt.Ontheotherhand,emissions relatedtoglobaleffectsallocate,mostly,underthelargestclassesofcruisevessels andferriesbetween10and30kt. Regardingoperativedetails,Table3alsoenablesadetailedanalysisofcruiseand ferries. In this respect, although the relative importance of operative types measuredinhours,isthesame(hotelling,withthelargestshareofhoursfollowed bycruisingandmanoeuvring)eachsubsectorhasparticularities.Thatis,thatcruise vesselsspendmoretimeinhotelling(89%)thanferries(81%)being results oppositewhenreferredtocruising(9%forcruiseand17%forferries).Operative profilesofvesselsareconsistentwiththeoverallnatureofthepassengersub‐ sectors.Thismeanscruisingandhotellingsharesderivedfromloading/unloading operationsandwaitinginharbourareaswhilepassengersgoashore,inthecaseof cruise.Inthecaseofferries,tightschedules,frequentservicesandalowturnaround timeatport. Table3‐Exhaustemissionsandoperativetimeofcruiseandferryvessels accordingtosizeclassesaspredictedbytheSTEAM Note:Fuelconsumptionandemissionsreleasedwhileatberthareincluded.ComplianceofIMOand EUregulatoryframeworksformarinefuelsisassumedandalsoincludedintheseestimations. LasPalmasPort (2011) NOx [Ton] SOx [Ton] PM2.5 [Ton] CO [Ton] CO 2 [Ton] H [Hours] M [Hours] C [Hours] T [Hours] GTBelow4kt 2 1 0 0 96 10 1 3 14 GTBetween4kt‐10kt 9 2 0 1 474 1575 4 17 1596 GTBetween10kt‐20kt 3 1 0 0 133 55 2 10 67 GTBetween20kt‐30kt 7 2 0 1 355 148 6 29 183 GTBetween30kt‐45kt 26 10 2 2 1261 371 13 50 433 GTBetween45kt‐60kt 22 9 2 2 1003 195 9 32 236 GTBetween60kt‐80kt 74 39 8 9 3529 1002 31 179 1212 GTover80kt 16 13 3 3 831 301 15 63 379 TotalCruise 158 75 16 18 7683 3657 79 384 4120 GTBelow4kt 0 0 0 0 21 199 1 1 202 GTBetween4kt‐10kt 57 13 3 6 2590 3046 45 593 3685 GTBetween10kt‐20kt 588 316 65 47 27446 10854 329 2433 13616 GTBetween20kt‐30kt 259 132 28 29 12686 4352 143 843 5338 TotalFerry 905 461 97 81 42744 18452 517 3871 22840 1063 536 113 99 50426 22109 597 4254 26960 EXHAUST EMISSIONS OPERATIVE TIME CruiseFerry TotalPax
54 Intermsofthetemporalityofresultsandfollowingidentifiedseasonsofpassenger transport(EDEI,2011)resultshavebeenlaterdividedintothreeperiodsovertime. Emissionandoperativesharesofcruiseandferryarethusaggregatedbyperiodsof fourmonths.ThatisP1(January,February,MarchandApril),P2(May,June,July, August)andP3(September,October,NovemberandDecember)inFigure6and7 comparing emissions and activitylevels(totaloperativehoursat port). When comparingonefiguretotheother,itisnoticeablehowthecontributionlevelsof cruisearehighestonP1andP3,consistentwiththereferredpeakseasonforcruise (EDEI,2011)whileresultsforferryvesselsanditsregularservicesremainstable overtime. Figure6–Seasonalpercentageofemissionsandoperativehoursofcruise vessels,relativetothetotalsaccountedinLasPalmasPort. Figure7–Seasonalpercentageofemissionsandoperativehoursofferry vessels,relativetothetotalsaccountedinLasPalmasPort.
55 Results‐whencombinedwithin‐situmeasurements,dispersionmodelling,impact valuation and external cost estimation‐ provide information of value to design market‐based instruments founded on emission profiles, which consider the distancesailedandthetechnicalperformanceofthevesselsoastoreflectactual emissions as proposed by Kågeson (2009)26 . Kågeson (2009) also states that determiningemissionsfromdifferentvesselsappearsnottobeatechnicalproblem sincetheAISmakespossibletoidentifyvesselsandtomeasurethedistanceand timethateachshiptravelswithinaspecificseaarea.Thus,itsuseasatoolforpolicy design remains open to consideration. Additionally, it is hereby suggested the supportoftheparticipationofIMOcompliantstatesisencouragedtomotivateall vesselsindomestictrafficandstatewaterstoalsobesubjecttoAISmeasures,being theneligibleforchargesanddiscountstobeappliedtoallvesselsregardlessofflags. 1.4.2.Geographicalcharacterizationofresults Thelocationofberthingareasatportisrelevantandthisisnotonlyduetotheir inference in maritime operations (arrival, departure, loading, unloading and berthing)butalsototheircontributiontoairqualityasasourceofairpollutionand globalwarming.Indeedoncetheyarereleasedfromtheemissionsource;pollutants disperseintotheatmosphereaffectingboth,theriseofglobaltemperaturesandthe localdetrimentofairquality,humanhealth,infrastructuresandcrops. Inthisrespect,itshouldbenotedthattheaimandscopeofthiscasestudydoesnot relatetotheatmosphericdispersionofpollutantsortheexposureeffectsderived fromthembuttotheexclusiveapplicationofanemissionmodeltocruiseandferry vesselsinLasPalmasPort.Therefore,theaimofthegeographicalcharacterization ofresultsexclusivelyattemptstoillustratethespatialcapabilitiesoftheemission modeling,astolocatethereleaseofemissionsatsource(ship´sfunnel)andtonote theaddedvalueofobservingchangesinresultsovertime. 26Kågeson(2009)inhisproposalstates:“theAuthoritywoulduse vessel‐specific data from its registerandinformationfromparticipatingportsandtheAISsystemtocalculatethechargestobe paidbyindividualships.Theresponsibilityofparticipatingportswouldbelimitedtocontrollingeach ship’sbunkerdeliverynoteandaskingtheshipownerortheoperatortosignastatementconfirming thathe/sheacceptsresponsibilitytopaytheen‐routechargeperpollutantbasedontheship’slatest journeyinthesewaters.Basedonthisinformation,theAuthoritywouldlaterbillthecompany.This couldbedoneonamonthly,quarterlyorannualbasis”
62 Thispaperencouragesthecollectionofemissioninformation,inordertodesign incentiveinstrumentsaccordingtodetailedoperativeandpollutingprofiles,which canbeusedtodeveloppolicies,forinstancethroughvesselspeedreductionand greenshippromotion,tomitigateharmfulimpacts.Moreover,emissioninformation isusefulboth,toidentifyhotspotsofemissionsatshippingsourcesneardensely populatedareasandalso,tosupportdispersionandimpactstudiesofairpollution that will allow further assessment on the port layout, relocation decisions (if needed)toquayssurroundedbyalowestrateofaffectedinhabitantsaswellas improvementsintheportrelatedstructures(i.e.on‐shorepower). Feasibility studies are also suggested for automated mooring, LNG port infrastructure development and also for on‐shore energy services, prioritizing berthingofshippingsectors(orsub‐sectors)withthehighestshareofresponsibility inexhaustemissions,oncethelevelofcontributionisaccordinglyconfirmedbya dispersion,exposureanimpactassessment.Costcanbeabarrierforthewidespread use of on‐shore electricity supply. Nevertheless, in the absence of international standards,theinstallationorretrofittingofelectricalpowersystemsonvesselsmay supporttheacceptanceofportstowardsanalternativesuchascoldironing. ThemaincontributionofthispapertoliteraturerelatestotheapplicationofanAIS‐ basedemissionmodeltoshippingsub‐sectors(cruiseandferry)atport,presenting resultsaccordingtosizeclasses,operativetypeandtime.Thisisalsothefirsttime anAIS‐basedmodelisusedtoaddressexhaustemissionsfromshippingsub‐sectors inanislandcontext.Resultshavenotonlyprovidedoperativeandpollutingprofiles inLasPalmasPortbutsuggestthepossiblevalueofAISbasedmethodologies. Particularly,whenaccompaniedwithairqualitymodelling,impactandeconomic studies to address the design of corrective measures for specific sub‐sectors in shipping,ascruiseandferry.Resultsandpolicyrecommendationsofthisstudymay alsosupportadequacyorimprovementofexistingpolicyinLasPalmasPort,being alsotransferabletoport‐cityareasandislandsundersimilartrafficconditions. Port‐related exhaust emissions, as any negative externality, reflect a real cost accruingfromaneconomicactivityandleadtoasuboptimaloutcome.Thus,future
63 researchshouldalsofocusinthevaluationofeconomiccostsderivedfromexhaust emissionsinshipping.Indeed,theinclusionofexternalcoststothedecision‐making processwillallowinternalizationandimprovementofthepublicwelfare. 1.7.References Berechman,J.andTseng,P.H.(2012),Estimatingtheenvironmentalcostsofport relatedemissions:ThecaseofKaohsiung.TransportationResearchPartD.17(1), 35‐38. Buhaug,Ø,Corbett,J.,Winebrake,J.,Mjelde,A.,Lee,D.,Hanayama,S.andWanquing, W.(2009),SecondIMOGHGstudy2009updateofthe2000GHGstudy:final reportcoveringphrase1andprase2.London,IMO. Castells,S.M.,Santamaría,J.J.U.,andMartínezDeOsés,F.X.(2014),Manoeuvring andhotellingexternalcosts:enoughforalternativeenergysources?Maritime Policy&Management,41(1),42‐60. Chang, Y.‐T., Roh, Y., and Park, H. (2014), Assessing noxious gases of vessel operationsinapotentialEmissionControlArea.Transportation.ResearchPartD, 28,91‐97. Chen,K.,Yang,Z.,andNotteboom,T.(2014),Thedesignofcoastalshippingservices subjecttocarbonemissionreductiontargetsandstatesubsidy levels.TransportationResearchPartE,61,192‐211. COM[2013]295.Communicationfromthecommission.Ports:anengineforgrowth. Corbett,J.J.,Winebrake,J.J.,Green,E.H.,Kasibhatla,P.,Eyring,V.,andLauer,A. (2007),Mortalityfromshipemissions:aglobalassessment.Environmental Science&Technology,41(24),8512‐8518. DeMeyerP,MaesF,andVolckaertA.(2008),EmissionsFromInternationalShipping intheBelgianPartoftheNorthSeaandtheBelgianSeaports,Atmospheric Environment,42,196‐206. Du,Y.,Chen,Q.,Quan,X.,Long,L.,andFung,R.Y.(2011),Berthallocationconsidering fuelconsumption andvesselemissions. TransportationResearchPart E,47(6), 1021‐1037. EDEI.(2011),Estudiodelmercadodelturismodecrucerosencanarias.Informe Final.Availableonlineat: http://www.palmasport.es/00000fic/ficheros/documentos/19825.pdf Eijgelaar, E., Thaper, C., and Peeters, P. (2010), Antarctic cruise tourism: the paradoxes of ambassadorship, “last chance tourism” and greenhouse gas emissions.JournalofSustainableTourism,18(3),337‐354. Endresen,Ø.,Sørgård,E., Behrens,H.L.,Brett, P.O.,and Isaksen,I.S.(2007),A historical reconstruction of ships'fuelconsumptionandemissions.Journal of GeophysicalResearch:Atmospheres(1984–2012),112(D12). Gemeinschaften,E.(2001),WhitePaper‐Europeantransportpolicyfor2010:time todecide.OfficeforofficialpublicationsoftheEuropeanCommunities. Gibbs,D.,Rigot‐Muller,P.,Mangan,J.,andLalwani,C.(2014),Theroleofseaportsin theend‐to‐endmaritimetransportchainemissions.EnergyPolicy,64,337‐348.
64 Howitt,O.J.,Revol,V.G.,Smith,I.J.,andRodger,C.J.(2010),Carbonemissionsfrom internationalcruiseshippassengers’traveltoandfromNewZealand.Energy Policy,38(5),2552‐2560. Hu,Q.M.,Hu,Z.H.,andDu,Y.(2014),Berthandquay‐craneallocationproblem considering fuel consumption and emissions from vessels. Computers & IndustrialEngineering,70,1‐10. ITU‐R.(2010),Technicalcharacteristicsforanautomaticidentificationsystemusing time‐divisionmultipleaccessintheVHFmaritimemobileband.ITU. Jalkanen,J.P.,Brink,A.,Kalli,J.,andStipa,T.(2008),StateoftheArt‐AISbased emission calculations for the Baltic Sea shipping. Hrvatskimeteorološkičasopis,43(43/1),177‐180. Jalkanen,J.‐P.,Brink,A.,Kalli,J.,Pettersson,H.,Kukkonen,J.,andStipa,T.(2009),A modellingsystemfortheexhaustemissionsofmarinetrafficanditsapplication intheBalticSeaarea,AtmosphericChemistryandPhysics,9,9209–9223. Jalkanen,J.‐P.,Johansson,L.,andKukkonen,J.(2013),Acomprehensiveinventoryof theshiptrafficexhaustemissionsintheBalticSeafrom2006to2009,Ambio, 43(3),311‐324. Jalkanen,J.‐P.,Johansson,L.,Kukkonen,J.,Brink,A.,Kalli,J.,andStipa,T.(2012), Extension of an assessment model of ship traffic exhaust emissions for particulatematterandcarbonmonoxide,AtmosphericChemisttyandPhysics,12, 2641–2659. Johansson, L., Jalkanen, J. P., Kalli, J., and Kukkonen, J. (2013), The evolution of shippingemissionsandthecostsofregulationchangesinthenorthernEUarea. AtmosphericChemistryandPhysics,13(22),11375‐11389. Kalli,J.,Jalkanen,J.P.,Johansson,L.,andRepka,S.(2013),Atmosphericemissionsof European SECA shipping: long‐term projections.WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs,12(2),129‐145. Kågeson,P.(2009),Market‐basedinstrumentsforNOxabatementintheBalticSea. PublishedbytheAirPollution&ClimateSecretariat(AirClim),theEuropean EnvironmentalBureau(EEB)andtheEuropeanFederationforTransportand Environment(T&E). Komen,G.J.,Cavaleri,L.,Donelan,M.,Hasselmann,K.,Hasselmann,S.,andJanssen, P.A.E.M.(1994),Dynamicsandmodellingofoceanwaves,CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge,UK. Lai,K.H.,Wong,C.W.,VeusLun,Y.H.,andCheng,T.C.E.(2013),Shippingdesignfor complianceandtheperformancecontingenciesforshipping firms.TransportationResearchPartE,55,74‐83. Lam,J.S.L.,andNotteboom,T.(2014),Thegreeningofports:Acomparisonofport management tools used by leading ports in Asia and Europe.Transport Reviews,34(2),169‐189. Lee,T.,Yeo,G.T.,andThai,V.V.(2014),Environmentalefficiencyanalysisofport cities: Slacks‐based measure data envelopment analysis approach. Transport Policy,33,82‐88. Marrero, G. and Ramos‐Real, F.J. (2010), Electricity generationcostinisolated system: The complementarities of natural gas and renewables in the Canary Islands.RenewableandSustainableEnergyReviews,14(9),2808‐2818. Merk,O.(2013),TheCompetitivenessofGlobalPort‐Cities:SynthesisReport(No. 2013/13).OECDPublishing.
65 Miola, A., Paccagnan, V., Mannino, I., Massarutto, A., Perujo, A., and Turvani, M. (2009),Externalcostsoftransportation.Casestudy:maritimetransport.Ispra: JRC. Miola,A.,Ciuffo,B.,Giovine,E.,andMarra,M.(2010),Regulatingairemissionsfrom ships.TheStateoftheArtonMethodologies,TechnologiesandPolicyOptions. JointResearchCentreReferenceReport,Luxembourg,EUR24602EN,ISBN,978‐ 92. Ng,S.K.,Loh,C.,Lin,C.,Booth,V.,Chan,J.W.,Yip,A.C.,andLau,A.K.(2012),Policy changedrivenbyanAIS‐assistedmarineemissioninventoryinHongKongand thePearlRiverDelta.AtmosphericEnvironment,76,102‐112. Paxian,A.,Eyring,V.,Beer,W.,Sausen,R.,andWright,C.(2010),Present‐dayand futureglobalbottom‐upshipemissioninventoriesincludingpolar routes.Environmentalscience&technology,44(4),1333‐1339. PECAN(2006),PlanEnergéticodeCanarias.ConsejeríadeIndustria,Comercioy Nuevas tecnologías. Dirección General de Industria y Energía. Gobierno de Canarias. Puertos del Estado (2011), Memoria de sostenibilidad del sistema portuario de interés general. Available online at:http://www.puertos.es/sites/default/files/memoria_sostenibilidad_2011.pd f Ramos‐RealF.J.,MorenoPiquero,J.C.andRamosHenríquez,J.M.(2007),Theeffects ofintroducingnaturalgasintheCanaryIslandsforelectricitygeneration,Energy Policy,35(7),3925‐3935. Rodriguez‐Álvarez, A., and Tovar, B. (2012), Have Spanish Port sector reforms duringthelasttwodecadesbeensuccessful?Acostfrontierapproach.Transport Policy24,723‐782 StarcrestConsultingGroupLLC.PortofLongBeach.(2011),TheGreenPortAir emissionsinventory–2011,editedbytheStarcrestConsultingGroupLLC,Long Beach,CA. Stipa,T.,Jalkanen,J.P.,Hongisto,M.,Kalli,J.,andBrink,A.(2007),EmissionsofNOx from Baltic shipping and first estimates of their effects on air quality and eutrophicationoftheBalticSea.ShipNODeffprogramme,www.shipnodeff.org. Tichavska,M.,Tovar,B.(2015),ExternalCostsofVesselEmissionsatPort:AReview oftheMethodologicalandEmpiricalStateoftheart.WorkingPaper. Department of Applied Economics. Universidad de las Palmas de Gran Canaria. Tovar, B., Hernández, H., and Rodríguez‐Déniz, H. (2015), Container port competitivenessandconnectivity:theCanaryIslandsmainportscase,Transport Policy,38,50‐41. Tuomi,L.(2008),TheaccuracyofFIMRwaveforecastsin2002‐2005.Meri:Report SeriesoftheFinnishInstituteofMarineResearch,63,7–16. Tzannatos,E.(2010),ShipemissionsandtheirexternalitiesfortheportofPiraeus– Greece.AtmosphericEnvironment,44(3),400‐407. Zis,T.,North,R.J.,Angeloudis,P.,Ochieng,W.Y.,andBell,M.G.H.(2014),Evaluation ofcoldironingandspeedreductionpoliciestoreduceshipemissionsnearandat ports.MaritimeEconomics&Logistics,doi:10.1057/mel.2014.6.
66
67 Chapter2 Externalcostsofvesselemissionatport:a reviewofthemethodologicalandempirical stateoftheart 2.1.Introduction Inrecentyears,negativeeffectsrelatedtoairemissionsderivedfromthegrowthof shippinghaveincreasinglyraisedconcern.Ithasbeenrecognizedthatoperative vessels do not only contribute to negative effects on a global scale ‐rising temperatures in the climate system‐ but also to hazardous consequences experienced in local communities ‐detriment of health, crops and built environment‐(CullinaneandCullinane,2013).Indeed,managementtoolsatport arebeenincreasinglyaddressedtoenforceorencouragegreendevelopment(Lam andNotteboom,2014)andtheabatementofemissions. Negativeimpactsderivedfromairpollution30canbequantifiedandmonetisedas externalcosts.Nevertheless,itsestimationisaninevitablesourceofuncertainty, mostlyconditionedbymethodologicaluncertaintiesandinformation gaps on availableknowledge.Indeed,thisismainlyduetothecomplexrelationbetween factorsinvolvedinairqualityvaluationandderivedcostssuchas,theoveralllevels of pollution, the geographical location and height of emission sources, local meteorological conditions, the chemical reaction and dispersionofatmospheric hazardoussubstances;andthephysicalharmthatthismightcausetohumanhealth, cropsandurbaninfrastructure. 30Primarypollutantsareproducedfromaprocess,suchasavehicleexhaust,orfactories. Secondarypollutantsarenotemitteddirectly.Rather,theyformintheairwhenprimarypollutants reactorinteract.
68 Indespiteoflimitations,itispossibletoestimatetheexternalcostsofmarket‐based (cropslossandmaterialdamages)ornon‐market‐based(humanhealth)negative impactsbyapplyingstatisticalvaluationtechniques(Miolaetal.,2009).Namely, marketpricesareusedtoestimatetheyieldlossofproductsinagricultureand materialdamageswhilehumanhealthisaddressedwithawillingness‐to‐pay(WTP), toaccept(WTA)ortobecompensated(WTC)fortheexternalityinquestion(i.e. TabianddelSaz,2014). Greenhousegasesremainasadifferentchallengesincetheserelatetoalongterm and risk patterns that are hard to anticipate. Therefore it is difficult to make a detailedassessmentontherelateddamagecostsofindividualcountries(Maibach etal.,2008).Alternatively,andalthoughtheserelyonanemissionreductiontarget orascopeofreduction(JiangandKronbak,2012),anapproachtoavoidancecosts isutilizedandconsideredadequate(Essenetal.,2007;Leeetal.,2010;Bickeletal., 2006). Detrimentsonhumanhealthareconsideredasthemostimportanteffectinterms ofquantifiablecosts(mortalityandmorbidity).Foritsassessment,eithertheValue ofStatisticalLife(VSL)ortheValueoftheLife‐Year(VOLY)canbetakeninto consideration.Nevertheless,itisdifficulttoaccounttheexposuretoairpollutionas amaincauseofdeath.Forthis,theuseoftheVOLYandthereduction of life expectancyintermsofYearsofLifeLost(YOLL)arewidelypreferredinliterature (i.e. ExternE and CAFE, see Section 2.1). Moreover, two main studies31address mortalityderivedfromairpollutionintheUKandinEuropealthough theyare criticizedduetodetrimentaleffectscovered32. Top‐downandbottom‐upapproachesarewidelyrecognizedinavarietyofresearch subjects over literature (Sabatier, 1986). These include the quantification of air 31DEFRA(Turneretal.,2004)carriedbytheDepartmentforEnvironmentalFood&RuralAffairs StudyreferstoestimationsintheUKand,NewExt,(Friedrichetal.,2004)regardsEurope(surveys fromGreatBritain,FranceandItaly).BothprovidefiguresintermsoftheVSLandVOLY. 32Itisarguedinliteraturethatwhilethevaluationofdetrimentaleffectsinadultsiscoveredby specializedliterature,thesamecannotbesaidforthevaluationofmortalityinchildren(Hoffmann andKrupnick,2004),ortouristsexposedtoconditionssimilartolocalpopulation(Miolaetal.,2009).
69 emissions(requiredsteptoobtainexternalcosts)andexternalcosts.Eachapproach capturestransportationtechnologyinanaggregated(top‐down)ordisaggregated form (bottom‐up) reflecting differences in results due to complex interplays betweenpurpose,structureanddatainput.Inbothemissionand external cost estimation,top‐downapproachesuseaggregatedeconomicvariableswhilebottom‐ upapproachesconsiderrefinedanddisaggregatedinformation,mostlybasedon technicalperformance. Theapplicationofapproachesvariesaccordingtothesubjectofstudy.Foremission estimation,atop‐downapproachthatisbasedonfuelsalesisusedwhenrefined trafficinformationisnotavailable.Ontheotherhand,abottom‐upapproachbased on traffic information (obtained from vessel tracks or port calls) is used when available,duetotheaccuracyofinputparameterssuchasshiptype,location,size andtechnicalparticulars.Finally,afullbottom‐upcategoryisdescribedbyMiolaet al., (2010), as the use of a bottom‐up approach for both, the quantification of emissionsandthegeographicalcharacterizationofresults. Regarding the geographical characterization of emissions, the level of detail achievedisalsodependentontheapproachfollowed(bottom‐upandtop‐down). Thus,withabottom‐upapproach,individualinformationofvesselsanditsposition areconsideredwhilewithatop‐downapproachvaluationisbasedwithout,orwith partial information on the position of vessels (i.e. the geographical activity of shippingisestimatedbasedonasingleshippingrouteoraparticulargeographic activitycell,nomatterwhichvesselcarriesouttheactivity). InthecaseofexternalcostsandaccordingtoJiangandKronbak (2012), its estimationcanbeclassifiedinthreecategories.Thefirstonerelatestoanexternal costcomparisonbetweentransportmodes,thesecondtocost‐benefitanalysison emissionreductiontechnologiesandthethirdonetocasestudiesthatexcludethe latertwo.Forthethreetypesofcasestudies,abottom‐upapproachisalsopreferred asitenablesarefinedassessmentbasedondetailedinformation,differentiation possibilitiesandanimprovedprecisioninderivedresults(marginalexternalcosts). Nevertheless, costly and complex requirements are also recognized to obtain
70 externalcostsfromabottom‐upapproach.Thus,theuseofatop‐downapproachis suggestedandwidelyacceptedwhenbottom‐upstudiescannotbeperformedor arenotavailable33.Indeed,aswepresentinSection3,literatureonharbourexternal costsduetovesselemissionsisexclusivelybasedontheuseofcostfactorsand aggregatedeconomicvariables(top‐downapproach). Tosummarize,abottom‐upandatop‐downapproachmaybeusedfor the estimationofexternalcosts.Bothprovideadvantagesandlimitations(Miolaetal., 2009).Ononehand,abottom‐upapproachfollowsacausalchainofrelationsthat startwiththeemissionofpollutantstofinalizewithadetailedestimationofthe marginalexternalcostscausedbyeachunitofpollutant.Ontheother,atop‐down approach(i.e.Miolaetal.,2010;Tzannatos2010a;BerechmanandTseng,2012) estimates the external costs by using cost factors from bottom‐upstudies(per countryorregion).Thisresultsonaveragecostsderivedperpollutantbutitwillnot allowfurtherdifferentiation(i.e.Tzannatosetal.,2010b;Castellsetal.,2014). Asaninitialsteptomethodologicalimprovementspecifictovesselemissionsatport andwiththeaimofimprovingair‐qualityinportcities,thepresentstudyrendersa review on the methodological andempiricalstateoftheartonexternal cost estimation from harbour emissions released by vessels. The structure of this documentisdescribedinthefollowinglines.Afterbrieflyintroducingthesubjectof studyinSection2.1,Section2.2presentsamethodologicalreviewonthebottom‐up approachanditsapplicationtoexternalcostestimationinportsandshipping. Section2.3followswithanempiricalreviewonthetopdownapproachandthe existentharbourstudiesthatmeasureexternalcostsderivedfromvesselemissions. Tofinalize,Section2.4presentsconclusionsandfutureresearch. 33Thiscouldbeduetothelackofatmosphericdispersionmodellingpracticesnotwidelyundertaken inshipping.
71 2.2.Methodology:ImpactPathwayApproachtoair pollution(abottom‐upapproach) Regardlessofmethodological limitations,the internalizationofexternalcostsin transporthasbeenarelevantissueforresearchandpolicydevelopment.Indeed, researchsupportedbytheEuropeanCommissiontowardsacompetitive and resourceefficienttransportsystem (Commission of the European Communities, 2011),suggestthatinordertogenerateconsiderablebenefitsandaimforafairand efficientpricingintransport,commandandcontrolmeasuresandmarket‐based instrumentsshouldbedefinedfrommarginalcostpricing(Gibsonetal.,2014).The estimationofmarginalcostsisaccomplishedbyusingabottom‐upapproach.These aremorepreciseandwithpotentialfordifferentiationbutcostlyandofcomplicated implementation(JiangandKronbak,2012). Thefirstattempttodevelopabottom‐upapproachtoaddressairemissionswas integratedintheExternalCostsofEnergy(ExternE)projectseries(1990‐2005) undertheExternEDGResearchoftheEuropeanCommission(European Commission,1999).OvertheExternE,abottom‐upmethodologyreferredasImpact PathwayApproach(IPA)wasconceived,followingapathwayprocess, which requires:emissionestimation,dispersionmodelling,exposuremodelling,impact, anddamagevaluation Figure1.ImpactPathwayApproachtoairpollution Source:adaptedfromtheExternE(Bickeletal.,2005).
78 asthemoreappropriatesinceitaccountsairpollutantsreleasedfromhighstacksof ships. Also, it is case specific not only with respect to shipping but also to the operativeofshipsatport.Theexternalcostsassociatedwiththedamagesship emissionsimpose aroundthe passengerportofPiraeuswere foundto bequite significant. More specifically, the overall externalities were valuedatalmost51 millioneuros,whereastheindividualcontributionofthepollutantswasaround28, 14and9millioneurosforNOx,SO2andPM2.5emissions. InTzannatos(2010b),airemissions(NOx,SO2,PMandCO2)anditsexternalcosts areaddressedfordomesticandinternationalshippinginGreece(1984–2008).For domestic shipping, emission estimations are based on fuel sales(top‐down approach)whileestimationsforinternationalshippingarebasedonportcallsand estimated vessel operative at port (bottom‐up approach). In theabsenceof comprehensive information based on the AIS in the period of time referred, operativeandtrafficdetailswerealsosupportedbyon‐siteobservations.External costfactorsforNOx,SO2andPM2.5arealsobasedonBeTa.In2008,theCO2,NOx, SO2andPMemissionsreached12.9milliontons(ofwhich12.4milliontonsofCO2) andtheirexternalitieswerefoundtobearound3.1billioneuros.Theutilizationof thefuel‐based (fuelsales)analysisfordomesticshippingandthe activity‐based (ship traffic) analysis for internationalshippingshowsthatthe ship‐generated emissions reached 7.4 million tons (of which 7 million tons of CO2) and their externalities were estimated at 2.95 billion euros. Finally, the internalization of externalcostsfordomesticshippingwasfoundtoproduceanincreaseof12.96and 2.71eurosperpassengerandtransportedton,respectively. BerechmanandTseng(2012)ontheotherhand,estimateairemissions(NOx,CO, CO2,PM10,PM2.5,SO2,HCandVOC)andexternalcosts(NOx,CO2,PM10,PM2.5,SO2, VOC,HC)approachinganinter‐modalcasestudyforshipsandtrucksoperatingat theportofKaoshiumginTaiwan.Emissionquantificationisbasedonportcallsand estimated vessels operative (bottom‐up approach) and also basedontraffic intensity of trucks. This work is based on Tzannatos (2010a) and Villalva and Gemechu (2011). For cost estimation factors were used from Leeetal.(2010), Denisis(2009)andWitetal.(2003).Also,ExternalcostsarebasedonBeTa.By
79 calculatingannualshipandtruckemissionsitwasfoundthatthemajorcontributors aretankers,container,bulkshipsandtrucks.Thecombinedenvironmentalcostof ships and trucks were estimated to be over $123 million per year:theoverall environmentalcostsofshipsandtruckswererespectivelyvaluedatabout$119.2 and$4.2million.Intermsofexternalcostsfromvesselemissions$2,499,000were associatedtoNOx,$153toCO,$898,000toCO2,$45,911,000toPM10,$61,647,000to PM2.5,$8,218,000toSO2,$297toHCand$26,146,000toVOC.Inthecaseofintercity truckemissions,thesereflectedminorvalueswith$295,000derivedfromNOx,$20 fromCO,$11,730fromCO2,$1,643,000fromPM10,2,222,000fromPM2.5,$24,430 fromSO2,$10fromHCand$5,250fromVOC. Castellsetal.(2014),presentsanemissioninventoryandexternalcostsforhotelling andmanoeuvringRo‐Ro,PassengerandContainervesselsinSpainduring2009. Emissionsestimatedatport(NOx,SO2,VOCandPM2,5)arebasedonportcallsand anestimatedoperativeofvessels(bottom‐upapproach).Externalcostfactors(PM2.5, SO2,NOxandVOC)arethenusedfromBeTa(urbancostfactors)andCAFE(rural cost factors). Impact on target harbours per emitted pollutant and year was estimated in four sensitivity scenarios. The average total of costswasof 227,426,765 €. In terms of pollutants, 97,231,633 € were associated to PM2.5, 48,700,862€toSO2,80,962,011€toNOxand534,510€forVOC. McArthurandOsland(2013)quantifyshipemissionsatberth(NOx,NMVOC,SO2, PM10,PM2.5,andCO2)inthePortofBergeninNorwayduring2010followinga bottom‐upapproachbasedonportcallsandestimatedoperativeofvessels.For external cost estimation, a top‐down approach is based on transportation cost factorsinNorway(Magnussenetal.,2010),theCoastalAdministration(Kystverket, 2007),BeTaandCAFE.Authorstatesthatgiventhelackofknowledgeonhowmuch lowerthecostsrelatedtoshippingcouldbe,Magnussenetal.(2010)donotspecify separateestimatesformodesoftransport,andthustheirvaluesmaybeseento representanupperlimittotheunitcostsofemissionsfromships.Asperformedby Tzannatos(2010a)andTichavskaandTovar(2015)unitcostestimatesaretakento pricesfortheyearofinterest(usingtheconsumerpriceindex).Thelowestestimate isobtainedusingcostfactorsfromCAFEresultingin38.02millionNOxperyear.The
80 highestestimateisobtainedusingthevaluesfromMagnussenetal.(2010),which estimatescostsat172.20millionNOxperyear.Onaveragethecostperpersonliving inBergenisaround660NOxperyear.Additionalresultsindicatethecostpercruise passengerofbetween€6.79and€14.63,using(Kystverket,2007),and(Magnussen etal.,2010)values. Song(2014)ontheotherhand,estimatesairemissionsforvesseltrafficinthePort ofYangshaninChinaduring2009tolaterdeterminetheexternal costs of the environmentalimpacts.Emissioncalculation(CO2,CH4,N2O,PM10,PM2.5,NOx,SOx, CO and HC)is based on portcalls and estimatedvessel operativewhile atport (bottom‐upapproach).ExternalcostsofPM2.5,SO2,NOx,VOC,CO2,CH4,N2O,PM10, PM2.5,NOx,SOx,COandHCarecalculatedusingaweightedaverageofcostfactors, which were determined through a series of expert judgement/survey44(Delphi process). Higher weights (over 70%) were given to the studies which were conductedforChinaorChinesecities;whilelowerweightswereforthestudiesof othercountriesandworldwide.Resultsreflectacontributionof578,444tonsfrom vesselemissionsinYangshanportareawithatotalexternalcostof$287million. Fromthelatter,$16,485,649wereassociatedtoCO2,$8,432toCH4,242,748toN2O, $114,974,587toNOx,$69,324,202toSOx,$1,301,601toCO,$1,549,119toHCand $82,862,158toPM10fromwhich$73,656,489relatetoPM2.5. MaragkogiannaniandPapaefthimiou(2015)followabottom‐upapproachbasedon portcallsandestimatedoperativeofvesselscreatingaNOx,SO2andPM2.5emissions inventoryfromcruiseshipsapproachingportsofPiraeus,Santorini,Mykonos,Corfu andKatakolo,in2013.Thetotalin‐portinventoryofcruiseshippingaccountedto 2742.7tons:withNOxbeingdominant(1887.5tons),followedbySO2andPM2.5 (760.9and94.3tonsrespectively).Fortheestimationofexternalcostsatop‐down approachfromCAFEwasused,followedbyresultsfromNEEDS(Korzhenevychet al.2014).ThelowestestimatesresultfromtheapplicationofCAFE(12.4million€) whilebyusingtheEcoSensemodel,theanticipatedtotalexternalcostreaches€24.3 44Fromseveralinternationalstudies:FunkandRabi,(1999);USEPA,(2002);Gallagher,(2005); Sirikijpanichkul et al., (2006); IPCC, (2006); USEPA, (2010); World Bank, (2010); Marten and Newbold,(2012);MullerandMendelsohn,(2007);YuanandCheng,(2011);BerechmanandTseng, (2012);VTPI,(2012);Yangetal.,(2013).
81 million.Theaveragecostforallportspercruisepassengeris€5.3and€2.5forCAFE andtheEcoSense(NEEDS)respectively. TichavskaandTovar(2015)estimateexternalcostsandeco‐efficiencyparameters associatedtoexhaustemissionsinLasPalmasPort.Emissionassessmentisbased on a vessel emissions inventory obtained from the full bottom‐up Ship Traffic Emission Assessment Model and messages transmitted by the Automatic IdentificationSystemover2011.TheoveralleconomiccostsforNOx,SOx,VOCand PM2.5whenusingurbanandruralvaluesprovidedbyBeTaderivein174,288,076€ whileusingurbancostfactorsfromBeTaandruralcostfactorsfromCAFEresults inanaverage(includingfoursensitivityscenarios)of180,930,427€.Moreover, results derived using rural cost factors in CAFE results in a variation of 18.7% dependingonthesensitivityscenariochosen.Summarizing,theoverallcosttotals ofNOx,SOX,andPM2.5reflectthedominantshares,accountingrespectivelyfora 22%,29%and33%fromthetotalsumbeingGHG,(CO2High)responsibleforthe remaining15%fromthetotalsatport.InthecaseofNEEDSandwhencomparedto top‐downestimationswithBETAmethodology(onlyBeTaandBeTacombinedwith CAFE)figuresareconsiderablylowerwith21,750,913€fromforNOx;11,567,621 €fromSO2,87,901€fromandVOCand68,186,804€fromPM2.5.Therefore,from alltheobservedvariation,theimportanceofreachingaconsensustoassessexternal costsinshippingandportshasbeenconcluded.Intermsofexternality costs, TichavskaandTovar,(2015)presentstheavailablelowerandupperthresholdsof top‐downestimatedcosts(fromBeTa,CAFEandNEEDS).Additionally,derivedeco‐ efficiency parameters (in general) and per shipping sector (in particular) are definedandsuggested,asanindicatorofenvironmentalandeconomicperformance tobeconsideredforpolicyuseinport‐cities. Atlast,andtocompleteourliteraturereview,in2014theSchoolofProduction Engineering and Management of Technical University of Crete, in Greece, in collaboration with the Research Centre of Energy Management of ESCP Europe BusinessSchoolhavecompletedanassessmentofexternalcostduetoairemissions inEuropeanports.Specifically,thesurveyfocusedontheexternalcostscausedby maritimeairpollution(NO x, SOxandPM),duringhoteling,manoeuvringand
82 berthingoperativeofvessels.CostfactorswereobtainedfromBeTa, CAFE and HEATCO.Resultsreflectthat,asexpected,thebusiestcommercialportsexhibitthe highestrateofexternalcosts.TheportofAntwerp,forinstance,recordedatotal externalcostthatrangesfrom475to1850millioneurosdependingonthecost factorsconsideredfromliterature.InthecaseofthePortofRotterdam,costrange over80‐215millioneuros.AsregardsthelargestpassengerportintheEU,Piraeus estimatesrangedfrom3‐33millioneuros.ThecaseoftheportofPiraeusisofgreat interestasduetoahighpopulationdensity(16,000inhabitantsperkm2)andthe largeamountofairemissions,impactsonplannedhealthandthe total cost of compensationpercapitaisestimatedtobeextremelyhigh.Forlessactiveportsin termsofcargoandpassengertransport,casestudieshavealsobeenaddressed.For instance,CopenhagenandAberdeenrecorded2‐4millioneuros.Ofalltheportsin theEU,thelowestexternalcostswereestimatedattheportofKoge(Denmark)with lessthan300,000eurosperyear.Sofar,resultsandgeneraldetailsofthereferred studyhavebeenexclusivelypublishedinanoteofpress45.Forthisreasondetails havenotbeenaccordinglyincludedinTable1. Table1.‐Top‐downexternalcostestimationderivedfromairemissionsin shipping 45http://www.rcem.eu/posts/2014/april/22/assessment‐of‐external‐social‐cost‐due‐to‐air‐ emissions‐in‐european‐ports.aspx PaperStudyEmissionestimationExternalcostestimation Miola,etal. (2009) Area:PortofVenice, Italy. Timeframe:2006 Shippingsector: passengerandcargo Methodological approach: BOTTOM‐UP(basedon portcalls)and estimatedvessel operativeatport Emissionsestimated: NOx,SO2,CO2,CO,HC, PM. Methodologicalapproach:TOP‐ DOWNbasedonCAFEandMartuzzi etal.,(2006). Externalcostestimatedfor: PM10,PM2,5,SOxandPAH. Totalexternalcosts(CAFE)= 23million€ Totalexternalcosts(Martuzziet al.,2006)=10million€ Tzannatos (2010a) Area:Portof Piraeus,Greece. Timeframe:12 monthperiod(2008‐ 2009) Shippingsector: passengerandcruise ships Methodological approach: BOTTOM‐UP(basedon portcalls)and estimatedvessel operativeatport Emissionsestimated: NOX,SO2andPM2.5 Methodologicalapproach:TOP‐ DOWN,basedonBeTa Externalcostestimatedfor: NOx,SO2,andPM2.5 Totalexternalcosts= 51million€
83 PaperStudyEmissionestimationExternalcostestimation Tzannatos (2010b) Area:Greece Timeframe:1984‐ 2008 Shippingsector: domesticand international shipping Methodological approach: TOP‐DOWNfor domesticshipping, basedonfuel consumptionstatistics BOTTOM‐UP(basedon portcalls)and estimatedvessel operativeatport Emissionsestimated: NOx,SO2,PM.andCO2 Methodologicalapproach:TOP‐ DOWN,basedonBeTa Externalcostestimatedfor: NOx,SO2,andPM2.5. Totalexternalcosts= 31billion€ Berechmanand Tseng(2012) Area:Portof Kaoshiung,Taiwan. Timeframe:2010 Shippingsector: bulk,container, generalcargo, barges,tankers, fishingships,work boatsandtugboats. Methodological approach: BOTTOM‐UPbasedon portcallsandestimated vesseloperativeatport Emissionsestimated: NOx,CO,CO2,PM10, PM2.5,SO2,HCandVOC. Methodologicalapproach:TOP‐ DOWNmainlybasedonBeTa Externalcostestimatedfor: NOx,CO2,PM10,PM2.5,SO2,VOCand HC. Totalexternalcosts= 31billion€ Castellsetal (2014) Area:Spain Timeframe:2009 Shippingsector: Ro‐Ro,passenger, andcontainerships. Methodological approach: BOTTOM‐UP(basedon portcalls)and estimatedvessel operativeatport TOP‐DOWNforregional results Emissionsestimated: NOx,SO2,VOCand,PM2,5 Methodologicalapproach:TOP‐ DOWN,basedonBeTaandCAFE Externalcostestimatedfor:PM2.5, SO2,NOxandVOC. TotalexternalcostsSC1= 179million€ TotalexternalcostsSC2= 207million€ TotalexternalcostsSC3= 238million€ TotalexternalcostsSC3= 285million€ McArthurand Osland(2013) Area:Portof Bergen,Norway. Timeframe:2010 Shippingsector: entirefleetatberth Methodological approach: BOTTOM‐UP(basedon portcalls)and estimatedvessel operativeatport Emissions estimated:NOx, NMVOC,SO2,PM10, PM2.5andCO2 Methodologicalapproach:TOP‐ DOWNbasedonBeTa,CAFEand severalstudies Externalcostestimatedfor: NOx,SO2,PM,NMVOC,andCO2. Totaleternalcosts(CAFE)= 38.02millionNOK Totaleternalcosts(Magnussenet al.,2010)= 172.20millionNOK Song(2014) Area:Portof Yangshan,China. Timeframe:2009 Shipping sector:entirefleet Methodological approach: BOTTOM‐UPbasedon portcallsandestimated vesseloperativeatport Emissionsestimated: CO2,CH4,N2O,PM10, PM2.5,NOx,SOx,CO,and HC. Methodologicalapproach:TOP‐ DOWNbasedonseveralstudies Externalcostestimatedfor: PM2.5,SO2,NOxandVOC. Totalexternalcost =$287million
84 2.4.Conclusionandfutureresearch Asaninitialsteptomethodologicalimprovementandwiththeaimofimprovingair qualityinportcities,thepresentstudyrendersareviewonthemethodologicaland empiricalstateoftheartonexternalcostestimationfromharbour emissions estimatedfromvessels.Accordingtotheobservedinformation,theapplicationof approachesvariesaccordingtothesubjectofstudy. Foremissionestimation,atop‐downapproachthatisbasedonfuelsalesisused whenrefinedtrafficinformationisnotavailable.Ontheotherhand,abottom‐up approachbasedontrafficinformation(obtainedfromvesseltracksorportcalls)is usedwhenavailable,duetotheaccuracyofinputparameterssuchasshiptype, location,sizeandtechnicalparticulars.Althoughafullbottom‐upapproachitis rarelyuseditsapplicationshouldbeencouragedduetoititscapabilityofaccounting measurementswithgreaterdetail. PaperStudyEmissionestimationExternalcostestimation Maragkogianna niand Papaefthimiou (2015) Area:Portof Piraeus,Santorini, Mykonos,Corfuand Katakolo Timeframe:2013 Shippingsector: cruise Methodological approach: BOTTOM‐UPbasedon portcallsandestimated vesseloperativeatport Emissionsestimated: NOx,SO2andPM2.5 Methodologicalapproach:TOP‐ DOWNbasedonCAFEandNEEDS (Korzhenevychetal,2014). Externalcostestimatedfor: NOx,SO2,andPM2.5 TotalExternalcosts(CAFE): 12.4million€ TotalExternalcosts(EcoSense model): 24.3million€ Tichavskaand Tovar (2015) Area:PortofLas Palmas,Spain. Timeframe:2011 Shippingsector: entirefleet Methodological approach: FULLBOTTOM‐UP basedonvesseltracks andAIS‐transmitted operativeinport Emissionsestimated: NOx,SOx,VOC,EC,Ash, SO4,PM2.5,COandCO2. Methodologicalapproach:TOP‐ DOWN,basedonBeTa,CAFEand NEEDS. Externalcostestimatedfor: PM2.5NOx,SOx,VOC,COandCO2 TotalexternalcostsSC1= 104million€ TotalexternalcostsSC2= 112million€ TotalexternalcostsSC3= 121million€ TotalexternalcostsSC3= 136million€ TotalexternalcostsofCO2= rangebetween5and69million€.
85 Inthecaseofexternalcostsabottom‐upapproachisalsopreferredasitenablesa refinedassessmentbasedondetailedinformation,differentiationpossibilitiesand animprovedprecisioninderivedresults(marginalexternalcosts).Nevertheless, costlyandcomplexrequirementsarealsorecognizedtoobtainexternalcostsfrom a bottom‐up approach. Thus, the use of a top‐down approach is suggested and widelyacceptedwhenbottom‐upstudiescannotbeperformedorarenotavailable. TheIPAisconsideredasthemostcomprehensivebottom‐upmethodologyandthe bestpracticeforcalculatingsite‐specificexternalcostsderivedfromairemissions. Ithasbeenwidelyadopted,amongothers,overmajorEuropeanstudies(CAFE,BeTa, NEEDS and HEATCO).Due to the complexity and costly resources required to generatebottom‐upstudiesonshippingandports,ithasbeenwidelyacceptedto estimatethesebasedonatop‐downapproachandper‐unitcostfactorsobtained frommajorEuropeanreports(BeTa,CAFE,NEEDS).TheExternEresourceshave beenalsotransferredintoweb‐basedtools,althoughnoneofthemyetseemstohave been designed for shipping.This could be due among others, to the lack of atmosphericdispersionmodellingpracticesnotwidelyundertakeninshipping. Nowadays,literatureregardingthevaluationofexternalcostsfrom vessel emissionsatportisinitsearlysteps,asiseasilydeductedbythefactthatthefirst paper appeared in 2009. However, there are enough papers to extract some interestingconclusions,whichcouldbeusefultoimprovefuturestudies.Fromthose identified,all followed a top‐down approach based on national or regional cost factorspresentedinbottom‐upstudieswithapredominantreferencetoBeTaand CAFE. Therepresentativeapproachusedtoestimateemissionsatport,isabottom‐up approacheitherbasedonportcallsandanapproximationtovesseloperativeatport oronvesseltracks.Inregionalstudies,bottom‐upandtop‐downapproacheshave beenused(Castellsetal.,2014;Tzannatos,2010b).Alladdressgasesandparticles relatedtonegativeeffectsincoastalcommunitiesbutonlyfourfromtheninestudies found,estimateCO2(Miola.,2009;Tzannatos,2010b;BerechmanandTseng.,2012 andTichavskaandTovar,2015).
86 Whenestimatingexternalcosts,everystudyfollowedatop‐downapproachbased oncostfactorsfromBeTa(BerechmanandTseng,2012);CAFE(Miola,2009);BeTa andCAFE(McArthurandOsland,2013;Castellsetal.,2014);BETAandHEATCO (Tzannatos,2010ab)NEEDSandCAFE(MaragkogiannaniandPapaefthimiou,2015) or,BeTaCAFEandNEEDS(TichavskaandTovar,2015).Inadditiontothis,Song (2014)obtainedcosttotalsfromweightedaveragecostfactorsthroughaseriesof expertjudgement/survey. Summarizing,weconcludethatresultsforemissioninventoriesandestimatedcosts are significantly different and complicated to compare due to methodological variations and assumptions. For this reason, it is paramount to review these differences in order to highlight the best approach to follow or identify the drawbackwhenasecondbestalternativeneedstobeapplied.Fromthereview,we concludethatprecisiondifferencesontrafficinformationarenoteworthy.Available literaturedoesnotalwaysspecifyportcallsastheirsourceoftrafficinformationnor describethelevelofdetailaccountedfromshipmovementsbutprovideanoverall description of activity‐based (bottom‐up) methodology to estimate emissions. Moreover,ourreviewhasshownthattherepresentativeapproachusedtoestimate emissionsatport(asaprevioussteptoestimateexternalcosts),isabottom‐up approach,butweonlyfoundonestudythatisbasedonafrequentupdateofvessel tracks,avoidinginthiswaytheneedofusingaveragevalues(i.e.distanceandspeed). Moreover,thelatterstudyisalsotheonlyonewhichfollowsabottom‐upapproach forthegeographicalcharacterizationofemissions(fullbottom‐upapproach),Due totherefinedaccuracyofobtainedresults,weencouragetheuse of this latter approach. Finally and regarding the estimation of external costs, the literature reviewhasalsoshownthateverystudyfollowedatop‐downapproach. This is probablyduetocostlyandcomplexrequirementstoobtainexternalcostsfroma bottom‐up approach. Moreover, the lack of dispersion modelling practices not widelyundertakeninshippingcomplicatesthismethodologicalscenario. Thus, enablingthewideacceptanceofatop‐downapproachinestimations.
87 Basedontheabove,methodologicalimprovementsandthepossibleachievementof refinedestimations(ofvesselemissionsandderivedexternalcosts)inportsand shipping are strongly suggested as these may benefit the quality of input informationneededto feedpolicymeasureswhich contributeto internalize the externalcostestimated.Finally,anintegratedassessment(IPA)specifictovessel emissionshasnotbeenyetaddressedintheavailablestudiesandthiscouldbe addressedinfutureresearchalthoughfornow,theobtainedresultsinBeTaprovide a meaningful insight to the magnitude of costs associated to vessel emission externalities, specifically because it is the only available report so far, which presentscostfactorsdedicatedtoseaports. 2.5.References Amann,M.,Bertok,I.,Cofala,J.,Gyarfas,F.,Heyes,C.,Klimont,Z.,Wolfgang,S.,and Winiwarter,W.(2005),BaselinescenariosforthecleanairforEurope(CAFE) programme. Final Report,International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis,Laxenburg,Austria. Berechman, J., and Tseng, P. H. (2012), Estimating the environmental costs of portrelatedemissions:ThecaseofKaohsiung,TransportationResearchPart D,17(1),35‐38. Bickel,P.,Friedrich,R.,Droste‐Franke,B.,Bachmann,T.M.,Gressmann,A.,Rabl,A., Haunt,A.,Markandya,A.,Tol,R.,Hurley,F.,Navrud,S.,Hirshberg,S.,Burgherr, P.,Heck,T.,Torfs,R.,deNocker,L.,Vermoote,S.,IntPanis,L.,andTidblad,J. (2005),ExternEExternalitiesofEnergyMethodology,2005Update. Bickel,P.,Friedrich,R.,Burgess,A.,Fagiani,P.,Hunt,A.,Jong,G.D.,Laird,J.,Lieb,Ch., Lindeberg, G., Mackie, P., Navrud, S., Odgaard, T., Ricci, A., Shires, J and Tavasszy,L.(2006),HEATCO–DevelopingharmonisedEuropeanapproaches fortransportcostingandprojectassessment,IERUniversityofStuttgart. Castells S.M., Usabiaga S.J. J. and Martínez D.O.F. X. (2014), Manoeuvring and hotellingexternalcosts:enoughforalternativeenergysources? Maritime Policy&Management,41(1),42‐60. CommissionoftheEuropean Communities(2011),WhitePaper—Roadmap toa SingleEuropeanTransportArea—TowardsaCompetitiveandResource EfficientTransportSystem. Cullinane,K.andCullinane,S.(2013),AtmosphericEmissionsfromShipping:The Need for Regulation and Approaches to Compliance, Transport Reviews, 33(4),377‐401. Delft,C.E.(2002),Externalcostsofaviation.ReporttoUmweltbundesamt,95. Delft, C.E. (2011), STREAM international freight 2011: Comparison of various transportmodesonanEUscalewiththeSTREAMdatabase.Commissioned by:DutchMinistryofInfrastructureandtheEnvironment. Denisis,A.(2009),AnEconomicFeasibilityStudyofShortSeaShippingIncluding theEstimationofExternalitieswithFuzzyLogic.Ph.D.Thesis,TheUniversity ofMichigan,USA. Essen,H.P.V.,Boon,B.H.,Maibach,M.andSchreyer,C.(2007),Methodologiesfor externalcostestimatesandinternalisationscenarios.Delft:CEDelft.
94 LasPalmasdeGranCanariaisthemostpopulatedmunicipalityandcapitalofGran CanariaIsland, andtheninthlargest cityinSpainwithapopulationof383,343 inhabitants in the period of study (2011). It is divided into five administrative districts and sub‐districts (see Figure 1). The most populated are namely: (D1) Vegueta,ConoSuryTafira,(D2)Center,(D3)LaIsleta‐Puerto‐Canterasand(D4) CiudadAlta;alllocatednearoperativequaysofLasPalmasPort,themaincity beaches,andcommercialareas.Thegreateconomicengineoftheislandistourism. Nevertheless,commercialactivityisalsonoteworthy,particularlyinthevicinitiesof theportarea,locatedinthecapital.Thereisasmallindustrialsector,primarily focusedonfoodproduction,lightmanufacturingandcement.Inadditiontothis, agricultureremainsasaneconomicactivityofrelevanceinruralcounties,butthis isexperiencedinaminorextentwhencomparedwithpastyears. Figure1–NeighbourdistrictsofLasPalmasPort ThepresentstudyextendsthevesselemissionresearchinTichavskaandTovar, (2015a);totheestimationofexternalcostsandtheeco‐efficiencyperformanceof LasPalmasPort.Thishasbeenfirstlymotivatedbytheidentifiedcontributionof vesselemissionsinharbourand,bytheneedtoaddressitseconomicimpactand derived eco‐efficiency performance of vessel emissions. Resultsattemptto indicateperformance of Las Palmas port towards social, economic and environmentalconcerns.Aimofthisapproachistosupportanenvironmental operationmodel,whichextendsvalue‐basedmanagementexploringrelationsof economic and ecological capital efficiency. Also, eco‐efficiency results aim to
95 facilitatefuturecost‐benefitanalysisusedforevaluatingabatement policy instrumentsinLasPalmas,wherealargepopulationofresidents and visiting tourists are continuously hosted. Finally this study, also contributes to recent literature of vessel emissions, externality costs and eco‐efficiency by describing throughthecasestudy,theutilityofthesemeasurementsassupporttoolstoPort Authorities and local governments. The structure of this document is described below. Afterpresentinganintroductiontothesubjectofresearchandthecasestudyin Section3.1;Section3.2presentsabriefreviewonthebottom‐upandtop‐down approachesappliedtoestimateexternalcostsfromvesselsatportsandinshipping. Section3.3,followswithabreakdownofemissionresultsandexternal cost valuationfortanker,bulk,generalcargo,container,service,fishing,vehiclecarriers, cruise,ferriesandothervesselsoperativeatport.Afterthis,externalcostsare combinedwithportoperationsprofilestoestimatetheeco‐efficiencyperformance ofLasPalmasPort.Tofinalize,Section3.4presentsconclusionsandfutureresearch. 3.2.ExternalCostEstimation:MethodologicalAspects andLiteratureReview Negativeimpactsderivedfromairpollutioncanbequantifiedandmonetisedas externalcosts.Nevertheless,itsestimationisaninevitablesourceofuncertainties, mostlyconditionedbymethodologicallimitationsandinformationgapsonavailable knowledge due to the complex relation between factors involved in air quality valuationandderivedcosts.Thesefactorscomprisetheoveralllevelsofpollution, the geographical location and height of emission sources, local meteorological conditions, the chemical reaction and dispersion of atmospheric hazardous substances;andthephysicalharmthatthismightcausetohumanhealth,cropsor urbaninfrastructure. Abottom‐upandatop‐downapproachmaybeusedfortheestimationofexternal costs.Bothprovideadvantagesandlimitations(Miolaetal.,2009).Ononehand,a bottom‐upapproachfollowsacausalchainofrelationsthatstartwiththeemission ofpollutantstofinalizewithadetailedestimationofthemarginalexternalcosts
96 causedbyeachunitofpollutant.Ontheother,atop‐downapproach(i.e.Miolaetal., 2010;Tzannatos2010a;BerechmanandTseng,2012)estimatestheexternalcosts byusingcostfactorsfrombottom‐upstudies(percountryorregion).Thisresults onaveragecostsderivedperpollutantbutitwillnotallowfurtherdifferentiation (i.e.Tzannatosetal.,2010b;Castellsetal.,2014). Thefirstcomprehensiveattempttodevelopabottom‐upapproachrelatedtoair emissionswasintegratedintheExternalCostsofEnergy(ExternE)projectseries (1990‐2005) under the ExternE DG Research of the European Commission (European Commission, 1999). Over the ExternE, a bottom‐up methodology referredasImpactPathwayApproach(IPA)wasconceived,followingapathway process, which requires: emission estimation, dispersion modelling, exposure modelling,impact,anddamagevaluation(seeFigure2). TheIPAisconsideredasthemostelaboratedandbestpracticemethodologyfor calculatingsite‐specificexternalcostsderivedfromairemissions.Ithasbeenwidely adopted,amongothers,overmajorEuropeanstudiesspecifically addressed for externalcostestimationintransportsuchastheBenefitsTabledatabase(BeTa) (HollandandWatkiss,2002;Netcen,2004);theHarmonisedEuropeanApproaches forTransportCostingandProjectAssessment(HEATCO)(Bickeletal.,2006);the CleanAirforEurope(CAFE)(Hollandetal.,2005;Amannetal.,2005)andtheNew EnergyExternalitiesDevelopmentforSustainability(NEEDS)(Preissetal.,2007). Figure2–ImpactPathwayApproachtoairpollution Source:adaptedfromtheExternE(Bickeletal.,2005). Externalcostsderivedfromshippingareexclusivelyaddressedinreportsfromthe BeTa,theCAFEandtheNEEDSprojects.InBeTa,costfactors(ton/euro)perseaarea
97 andperEUcountry(specifictoseaports)areprovided.InCAFE,shippingresultsare also included but as a sensitivity case and without presenting ton/euro figures. Finally,inNEEDS,costfactorsperseaareasandcountry(althoughnotspecificto seaports) are presented. Although it is widely known that the BeTa provides a straightforwardprocessforestimatingexternalcosts(byputtingtogetherurban and rural externalities); it has been also stated that its rural cost figures underestimaterealcosts.SpecificallyoncetheruralcostfactorsundertheCAFE programmehadbeenpublished(seeCastellsetal.2014).Forthisreason,harbour studiesthatmaintaintheestimationapproachofBeTa(addurbanandruralcosts) buttakingupdatedruralcostsfromCAFEcanbealsoseeninliterature(Castellset al. 2014 and the present study). Moreover, other studies (Tzannatos, 2010b) additionallyassensitivityrange,resultsfromcostfactorsnotspecifictoseaportsor shipping,suchastheonestheHEATCO51report(Bickel,2006). Anintegratedassessment(IPA)onshippingemissionsingeneraland,seaportsin particular,has not beendirectlyaddressed inthe referredstudies(BeTa,CAFE, HEATCOandNEEDS).Nevertheless,itiswidelyconsideredthattheobtainedresults inBeTaprovideaninsighttothemagnitudeofassociatedexternalitiesfromvessel emissionsinport(Miolaetal,2010;Tzannatos,2010ab).Inthisrespect,itshould benotedthatexternalitycostsfromhazardouseffectsinalocalcontext(NOx,SOx, PM,VOCandCO)areaddresseddifferentlythantheclimatechangecosts(CO2).The latter,areestimatedasavoidancecostfactorsaccordingtoreductiontargets,the applicationyear,thediscountrateandequityweights.Thus,acombinationofthe IPAandavoidancecostsissuggestedwhenaddressinggreenhouseeffects(Denisis, 2009). Atpresent,andduetothecomplexityandhighcostofgenerating bottom‐up external cost studies on shipping and ports, estimations based onatop‐down 51 The HEATCO provides harmonised guidelines for externality cost estimation (air and road transport). While HEATCO refers to road transport with the release of emissions in the street canyon, BeTa accounts for the release of air pollutants from the high stacks of ships. Thus, it is considered by some authors (Tzannatos, 2010ab) that cost factors from BeTa are more appropriate for the estimation of the examined externalities, since they are case specific to the activity of ships within the port. Others suggest that more recent and updated cost factors better represent reality and thus, should be addressed (Castells et al. 2014; Maragkogiannani and Papaefthimiou, 2015).
98 approach(andper‐unitcostfactors)derivedfrommajorEuropeanreports(BeTa, CAFE, NEEDS) and recent literature have been widely accepted. Indeed, most studiesexclusivelypresentemissionsinventorieswithassumptions on vessel operativeatportanddonotfurtherevaluatetheassociatedexternalcosts.Limited researchwasfoundonthevaluationofexternalcostsfromshipping emissions. Fromthoseidentified,allfollowedatop‐downapproachbasedon national or regionalcostfactorspresentedinbottom‐upstudiesasBeTa,CAFE,NEEDSand HEATCO. Table 1 presents a summary of available studies on external costs estimatedatport. Top‐downandbottom‐upapproachesarewidelyrecognizedinavarietyofresearch subjects over literature (Sabatier, 1986). As Table 1 reflects, these include air emissions and its quantification (required step to obtain external costs). Each approach captures transportation technology in anaggregated (top‐down)or disaggregatedform(bottom‐up)reflectingdifferencesinresultsduetocomplex interplays between purpose, structure and data input. In both, emission and externalcostestimation,top‐downapproachesareperformedbyusingaggregated economic variableswhereas bottom‐up approaches consider refined and disaggregatedinformationforvaluation,mostlyfromanengineeringperspective (technicalperformance). Suggestionsandacceptanceoftheapplicationofapproachesvaryaccordingtothe subjectofstudy.Foremissionestimation,atop‐downapproach(basedonfuelsales) is used when refined traffic information is not available. On theotherhand,a bottom‐upapproachbasedontrafficinformation(obtainedfromvesseltracksor portcalls)issuggestedbyrecentliteratureduetotheaccuracyofinputparameters suchasshiptype,location,sizeandtechnicalparticulars.Fortheestimationofair emissions, cost and complexity variables are not recognized in literature as a limitation when performing a bottom‐up approach; particularly when traffic informationisbuiltbasedonvesseltracks(AIS).Finally,afullbottom‐upcategory
99 isdescribedastheuseofabottom‐upapproachforboth,thequantification of emissionsandthegeographicalcharacterization52ofresults(Miolaetal.,2010). Inthecaseofexternalcostestimation,abottom‐upapproachisalsopreferredasit enables a refined assessment based on detailed information, differentiation possibilitiesandanimprovedprecisioninderivedresults(marginalexternalcosts). Nevertheless, costly and complex requirements are also recognized to obtain externalcostsfromabottom‐upapproach.Thus,theuseofatop‐downapproachis suggestedandwidelyacceptedwhenbottom‐upstudiescannotbeperformedor arenotavailable53.Indeed,asseeninTable1,literatureonderivedcostsfromair emissionsinshippingisexclusivelybasedontheuseofcostfactorsandaggregated economicvariables(top‐downapproach). Available research on external costs from air emissions in harbours is representativeinregional(US,GreeceandSpain)andharbourcasestudies(Venice, Piraeus,Bergen,Kaoshiung,YangshanandLasPalmas).Most,withtheexceptionof Tzannatos(2010b),basedonatwelve‐monthtimeframeofanalysis. For emission estimation, the representative approach in harbourstudieswasa bottom‐up approach either based onportcallsandapproximation to vessel operativeatport(all)oronvesseltracks(onlythepresentstudy). In regional studies,bottom‐upandtop‐downapproacheshavebeenused(Castellsetal.,2014; Tzannatos,2010b).Alladdressgasesandparticlesassociatedtonegativeeffectsin coastalcommunitiesbutonlysomeestimateCO2(Miola,2009;Tzannatos,2010b; BerechmanandTseng,2012andthepresentstudy). 52Regardingthegeographicalcharacterizationofemissionsandthelevelofdetailachieved,thisis also dependent on the approach followed (bottom‐up and top‐down).Hence,withabottom‐up approach,individualinformationofvesselsanditspositionaretakenintoconsiderationwhilewith atop‐downapproachvaluationisbasedwithout,orwithpartial information onthepositionof vessels(i.e.thegeographicalactivityofshippingisestimatedbasedonasingleshippingrouteora particulargeographicactivitycell,nomatterwhichvesselcarriesouttheactivity). 53 This may be due, among others, tothelackofdispersionmodellingpracticesnotwidely undertakeninshipping.
100 Table1–Summaryofpreviouspapersonmeasuringexternalcostderived fromvesselemissionsatport Note:Foremissionestimation,abottom‐upapproachreferstoemissionquantificationbasedonfleet activity(vesseltracksorportcalls).Ontheotherhand,atop‐downapproachreferstoestimations basedonfuelsalesstatistics.Additionally,afullbottom‐upapproachisreferredastheuseofthe suggestedbottom‐upboth,foremissionsquantificationandthegeographicalcharacterizationof results.Forexternalcostestimation,atop‐downapproachreferstotheuseofcostfactorsobtained fromIPAresultspublishedintechnicalreports. Whenestimatingexternalcosts,everystudyfollowedatop‐downapproachbased oncostfactorsfromBeTa(BerechmanandTseng,2012);CAFE(Miola,2009);BeTa andCAFE(McArthurandOsland,2013;Castellsetal.,2014);BeTaandHEATCO (Tzannatos,2010ab)NEEDSandCAFE(MaragkogiannaniandPapaefthimiou,2015) AuthorsArea/TimeframeShippingsector Methodologicalapproach EmissionestimationExternalcost estimation Miolaetal. (2009) PortofVenice, Italy. 2006 Passengerand cargo BOTTOM‐UP(basedon portcalls)and estimatedvessel o p erativeat p ort TOP‐DOWNbased onCAFEand Martuzzietal., ( 2006 ) . Tzannatos (2010a) PortofPiraeus, Greece. 12monthperiod ( 2008‐2009 ) Passengerand cruiseships BOTTOM‐UP(basedon portcalls)and estimatedvessel o p erativeat p ort TOP‐DOWN,based onBeTa Tzannatos (2010b) Greece 1984‐2008 Domesticand international shipping TOP‐DOWNfor domesticshipping, basedonfuel consumptionstatistics BOTTOM‐UP(basedon portcalls)and estimatedvessel o p erativeat p ort TOP‐DOWN,based onBeTa Berechman andTseng (2012) PortofKaoshiung, Taiwan. 2010 Bulk,container, generalcargo, barges,tankers, fishingships,work boatsand tu g boats. BOTTOM‐UPbasedon portcallsandestimated vesseloperativeatport TOP‐DOWNmainly basedonBeTa Castellset al.(2014) Spain 2009 Ro‐Ro,passenger, andcontainer ships. BOTTOM‐UP(basedon portcalls)and estimatedvessel operativeatport TOP‐DOWNforregional results TOP‐DOWN,based onBeTaandCAFE McArthur andOsland (2013) Portof Bergen,Norway. 2010 Entirefleetat berth BOTTOM‐UP(basedon portcalls)and estimatedvessel o p erativeat p ort TOP‐DOWNbased onBeTa,CAFEand severalstudies Song (2014) Portof Yangshan,China. 2009 Entirefleet BOTTOM‐UPbasedon portcallsandestimated vesseloperativeatport TOP‐DOWNbased onseveralstudies Maragkogi annaniand Papaefthi miou (2015) PortofPiraeus, Santorini, Mykonos,Corfu andKatakolo, Greece. 2013 Cruisevessels BOTTOM‐UPbasedon portcallsandestimated vesseloperativeatport TOP‐DOWNbased onCAFEand NEEDS Present study PortofLasPalmas, Spain. 2011 Entirefleet FULLBOTTOM‐UP basedonvesseltracks andAIS‐transmitted o p erativein p ort TOP‐DOWN,based onBeTa,CAFEand NEEDS.
101 or, BeTa CAFE and NEEDS (the present study). In addition to this Song (2014) weightedaveragecostfactors,whichweredeterminedfrominternationalstudies54 andthroughaseriesofexpertjudgement/survey(Delphiprocess). Resultsofemissioninventoriesandestimatedcostsaresignificantlydifferentand complicated to compare due, to methodological variations, assumptions, cost categories,emissionfactorsandunitvalues.Nevertheless,precisiondifferenceson trafficinformationarenoteworthy,andcommonlynotdescribedwithdetailover literature. Indeed, available literature on external costs derived from vessel emissionsinharbours,donotalwaysspecifyportcallsastheirsourceoftraffic informationnordescribethelevelofdetailaccountedfromshipmovementsbut provide an overall description of activity‐based (bottom‐up) methodology to estimateemissions. Thepresentcasestudyisbasedonrefinedtrafficinformationandvesseloperative transmittedinreal‐time.Moreover,andintermsofexternalitycosts,resultsare estimated through the use of cost factors from BeTa, CAFE, and NEEDS. This provides an overall comparative picture, coverage of an adequate time‐scale of research(fromearlytorecent)andtheuseofwidelyacceptedreportsthateither presentcostfactorspartlydedicatedtoseaports(BeTa,seepage14ofNETCEN, 2004),presentupdatedruralcostfactors(CAFE,seeCastellsetal.2014)orreflect themostrecentlyupdatedcostfactorswhicharespecifictomaritimeareasbutnot toseaports(NEEDS,Korzhenevychetal,2014). Indeed,althoughtotalcostshavebeenestimatedbyusingeuropertonfactorsfrom BeTa,CAFEandNEEDS;onlyBeTaandCAFEhavebeenfurtherusedtoreflectthe temporalvariationandeco‐efficiencyfromresults.ThisrelatestothefactthatBeTa is,sofar,theonlyreportthatmakesspecificreferencetodamagefromshipping‐ relatedairpollutioninseaportsand;thattheuseofitsurbancostfactorsandfurther additiontoupdatedruralcostfactorsfromCAFE(asabetterapproximation to 54Fromseveralinternationalstudies:FunkandRabi,(1999);USEPA,(2002);Gallagher,(2005); Sirikijpanichkul et al., (2006); IPCC, (2006); USEPA, (2010); World Bank, (2010); Marten and Newbold,(2012);MullerandMendelsohn,(2007);YuanandCheng,(2011);BerechmanandTseng, (2012);VTPI,(2012);Yangetal.,(2013).
102 seaportreality)isalsoconsideredwithinliterature(seeCastellsetal.2014). Moreover,themorerecentandupdatedcostfactorsfromNEEDS(Korzhenevychet al,2014)havealsobeencitedasappropriateforcorrectlycalculatingtheexternal costs of maritime transport (within sea regions) and harbour case studies (Maragkogiannani and Papaefthimiou, 2015). For this reason, andinorderto guarantee completeness of this work cost factors for Spain (Table 15 from Korzhenevych et al, 2014) have been usedto reflect and integrate results from NEEDS. 3.3.ResultsandDiscussion 3.3.1Externalcostestimation Theemissioninventorypresentedinthisresearchisbasedonthefullbottom‐up ShipTrafficEmissionAssessmentModel(STEAM)andmessagestransmittedbythe AIS (with at least a 2 min. update) over a twelve‐month period (2011). A ship databaseofover50,000vesselparticulars(overathirdpartoftheglobalfleet)and AISpositionrecordsdefineinputvaluesfortheSTEAM.Databaseholdsinformation onamongothers,thelatestemissionfactors,installedabatementtechniques,shaft generators,specificfueloilconsumption,fueltypeandsulphurcontentusedfor mainandauxiliaryengines.Informationwasobtained,mainlyfromIHSFairplay shipregister,enginemanufacturers,localauthoritiesandshipowners.Forthiscase study,AISvesseltrackswereprovidedbyMarineTrafficresultinginadataflowof thousandsofinputrecordspership,peryear.Forextensivedetailsonthemodel, performanceanduncertaintyconsiderations,thereaderisreferredtoJalkanenetal. (2009),Jalkanenetal.(2012)andJalkanenetal.(2014).Forextensivedetailsonthe applicationoftheSTEAMtovesseltrafficinLasPalmasPort,thereaderisreferred toTichavskaandTovar(2015a). Resultsreflecta totalof215,867tonsof exhaustemissionsderivedfromvessel trafficinLasPalmasPort(2011).Fromthese,4,246tonsareassociatedtoNOx,
103 1,422tonstoSOx,75tonstoVOC,29tonstoEC,21tonstoAsh,168tonstoSO4,338 tonstoPM2.5,498tonstoCOand209,070tonstoCO2..Althoughinlinewithprevious studies(Stipaetal.,2007;DeMeyeretal.,2008;Howittetal.,2010;Eijgelaaretal., 2010;BerechmanandTseng,2012;Ngetal.,2012;Kallietal.,2013;Jalkanenetal., 2014;Johanssonetal.,2013)thatalsosuggestferry,tankerandcontainervesselsas the largest contributors of air emissions affecting local (NOx, SOx, PM, CO) and global(CO2)environments;differencesmayarise.Castellsetal.(2014)forinstance, presentsemissionsderivedfromvesseltrafficfor14Spanishharboursin2009. ResultsincludeLasPalmas,forwhich,59tonsofPM,131tonsofSO2,1,501tonsof NOxand87.5tonsofVOChavebeenreported.Alargestshareofresultspergascan beidentifiedwhencomparing2011figures(presentstudy)withemissionresultsin Castellsetal.(2014).Basedonthenumberofvesselsandpopulationconsideredin both,wesuspectdifferencesaremainlydue,toestimationsbasedonLasPalmas PortAuthority,whichrunsthemainportsinthisprovince55althoughreferredas LasPalmas(Castellsetal,2014)whileestimationsinthepresentstudyexclusively relatetoLasPalmasPort. Ontheotherhand,thismayalsobeaconsequenceofvesseltrafficincreaseinthe harboursofstudyandmethodologicaldifferencesasassumingkeyinputsofspeed, distance,operativeandengineload(i.e.Castellsetal.,2014)insteadofusingreal operative as the present study. To facilitate a better understanding of emission results,Figure3presentstherelativepercentageofemissionsbyshippingsector basedonthetotalnumbersatport.Itisnoticeablethatapartfromtanker,container andferryvessels,therestofthefleetrepresentsanoverallthatdoesnotexceeda 7%fromthetotalshareatport. 55ThePortAuthorityofLasPalmasmanagesLasPalmasPortandthefourremainingportsofgeneral interestoftheStateintheprovinceofLasPalmas.
110 Eco‐efficiency,asaperformanceindicator,providesportsystemswithinformation ofvaluetoimprovetheircompetitivepositionwhenundertakingtheiractivitywith business‐oriented criteria (Coto‐Millán et al. 2010). Particularlywithinapublic managementmodelwhere,asithappenswithstate‐ownedLasPalmasPort63,the portauthorityactsasasupplieroflandandinfrastructure,regulatingtheuseofthe publicdomainwhileprivatesuppliersprovideportservices.Indeed,thefinancial performanceofportsiskeytobecominganimportantcentreofbusinessbutnot enoughtoguaranteetheirsustainability.Toensurethis,environmentalandsocial performance must be addressed among others, by collecting information on environmentalimpactsandperformancetoreflectitsoverallstatus(Coto‐Millánet al.2010). Thepresentstudyestimateseco‐efficiencyindicators(porttotalsandbyshipping sub‐sector)withtheaimtoprovideorganizations(ports,firmsandgovernments) withapracticaltooltomeasuretheirperformanceinthecontextofeco‐efficiency (Liuetal.,2015).ResultsarepresentedinTable4andTable5.Thesearebasedon externalitycosts64andtheportperformanceprofileduringtheyearunderstudy. ResultsonTable4describeexternalcostsperpassenger,pertonsofcargo,shipcalls andportrevenue.Obtainedtotalswithinresultsoflocalassociatedimpacts(NOx, SO2,VOC,PM2.5andCO)reflect48€perpassenger;4,960€per1,000tonsofcargo; 19,822€pershipcalland3,656,463€permillioneurosofportrevenue.Onthe otherhand,totalsincludinglocalandglobal(CO2high)associatedimpactsreflect 54.2€perpassenger;5,931€per1,000tonsofcargo;23,273€pershipcalland 4,293,063€permillioneurosofportrevenue. 63Seepreviousfootnote. 64TotalexternalcostsforNOx,SOX,VOC,PM2.5andCOhaveaccordinglybeenincludedinTable4.In terms of CO2 only the highest value has been taken into consideration in the total sum of eco‐ efficiencyparameters.ResultsfromthelowestvalueofCO2derivein247€perpassenger;4,224€ per1,000tonsofthetotaltrafficofcargo;600€pershipcalland;110,721€permillioneurosofport revenue.
111 Table4–Overallporteco‐efficiencyperformance ECO‐EFFICIENCYPERFORMANCE Exhaust Emissions TotalExternal Costs Emission externalcostper passenger (€/pax) Emission externalcostper tonsofcargo (€/1,000tons) Emission externalcost pershipcall (€/call) Emissionexternal costperport revenue (€/millioneuros) NOx 47,744,771 9.8 1,453 5,231 964,875 SO262,661,360 19.1 1,597 6,865 1,266,324 VOC 146,191 0.029 4. 16 2,954 PM2.570,378,105 19.2 1,905 7,710 1,422,272 CO1,877 0.0003 0.06 0.206 38 CO2High31,500,803 6.2 971 3,451 636,600 Total (localonly)212,433,107 48 4,960 19,822 3,656,463 Total (localand global*) 212,433,107 54.2 5,931 23,273 4,293,063 *Note:externalitycostfiguresusedinthistablehavebeenobtainedfromtheaverageresultsfrom theadditionofBeTaandthefoursensitivityscenariosinCAFE(seeTable3).IntermsofCO2,only thehighestboundhasbeentakenintoconsiderationinthetotalsumofeco‐efficiencyparameters. InTable5,resultspergas,pershippingsub‐sectoraredescribedaccordingtothe local (NOx, SO2, VOC, PM2.5 and CO) and the global (CO2) context of associated impacts.Parametersconsideredare,externalcostsperpassenger(forcruiseand ferry), per throughput (euros per TEUs handled in port) and per tons of cargo (tanker,bulk,generalcargo,container65,fishing,andtherestofcategories).Totals withinresultsoflocalassociatedimpactsreflect63€perferrypassenger,20€per cruisepassenger,31€perTEUhandledinport,8,025€per1,000tonsofliquid cargo,21,986€per1,000tonsofdrycargo,2,422€per1,000tonsofgeneralcargo, 2,876€per1,000tonsofcontainerizedcargoand17,656€per1,000tonsoffishing cargo.Similarpatternscanbeobservedamongsub‐sectorswhenlocalandglobal figuresareadded. 65 It should be noted that in Table 5 we have included two eco-efficiency indicators in the case of containers: one expressed in TEUs and other in tons, respectively.
112 Table5–Porteco‐efficiencyperformancepershippingsector ECO‐EFFICIENCYPORTPERFORMANCE Exhaust emissions Emission externalcost perpassenger (€/Pax) Emission external costper TEU (€/TEU) Emissionexternalcostpertonsofcargo (€/1,000tons) FerryCruiseContainer TankerBulkGeneral CargoContainerFishingRest NOx13 4 8.92 2,351 5,816 752 833 6,154 2,161 SO225 8 9.97 2,584 7,603 751 931 4,911 2,487 VOC0.04 0,01 0.03 7 17 2 2 18 7 PM2.525 8 11.88 3,083 8,549 916 1,110 6,573 2,912 CO0.0004 0.0002 0.0003 0.106 0.234 0.032 0.032 0.224 0.094 CO2low1 0 0.98 274 601 91 91 730 271 CO2High8 3 5.62 1,574 3,456 522 525 4,199 1,560 Total(only local)63 20 31 8,025 21,986 2,422 2,876 17,656 7,567 Total(local andglobal) low 65 20 32 8,299 22,587 2,513 2,967 18,386 7,839 Total(local andglobal) high 72 22 36 9,599 25,442 2,944 3,401 21,855 9,128 Note:externalitycostfiguresusedinthistablehavebeenobtainedfromtheaverageresultsfromthe additionofBeTaandthefoursensitivityscenariosinCAFE(seeTable3).IntermsofCO2andinorder toavoidbiasresults,onlythehighestboundhasbeentakenintoconsiderationinthetotalsumof eco‐efficiencyparameters. AlthoughresultsinTable4followtheeffortsofstudiesthatsimilarlyaimtosupport environmentalpolicyinportsbyexploringrelationsofeconomic,operationaland ecologicalcapitalefficiency66;aggregatedindicatorsmaynotbeaproperreflection ofwhathappensineachsubsectorandimportantdifferencesmaybeobscured.To setanexample,andtakingintoaccountonlylocaleffectpollutants(NOx,SO2,VOC, PM2.5 and CO), results reflect that with respect to local external costs from the passengersub‐sectors,a76%relatetoferriesandtheremaining23%tocruise. Withrespecttocargocategories,thelocalexternalcostper1000tonsofcargoisin decreasing order: bulk (36.2%), fishing (29.2%) tanker (13.3%), rest (12.5%), container(4.8%),generalcargo(4%). Sinceoureco‐efficiencyindicatorsaremeasuredastheratiobetweentheimpacts 66Song,(2014)estimatedparameterstoassesseco‐efficiencyintheYangshangportarea.Results reflectfor2009,atotalof$36,528per1,000TEUthroughput,$43,993pershipcall,and$44million perbillionUS$ofportrevenue.
113 oftheservice(externalitycosts)andwhathasbeenproduced(ton,passengers,and soon)thegreatertheindicatorthelessenvironmentalefficientthesubsector analysed. From the above figures derive that within the passengersector,the subsectorthatgeneratesthemostexternalcostsistheferryoverthecruisesector. Indeed,theeco‐indicatorscalculatedforlocaleffectsreflectahigherexternalcostof 43€whenrelatedtoaferrypassenger.Intermsofcargocategories,eco‐indicators alsoallowustoidentifytheleastefficientenvironmentalsectorspermanipulated ton.Againandwhenconsideringonlylocalcosts,themostefficient category is generalcargowithacostof2,422€per1,000tons.Thecalculatedindicatorsreflect thattherestofthepresentedsub‐sectorspresent(withrespecttogeneralcargo)an externalextra‐costper1000tonsof:454,5,145,5,604,15,234and19,564euros fromthecontainer,rest,tanker,fishingandbulkcategories,respectively. 3.4.ConclusionsandFutureResearch OneofthechallengersthatEuropeanportswillhavetoconfronttoensuretheir futurecompetitivenesswillbesustainability.Onewayofachievingthisistomonitor (eco‐efficiency performance) and improve port actions to control air emissions. Amongtheseportactions,tobeginthequantificationandmanagementofemission inventories,creatingstructuresandreportingmechanismstointernaliseemission self‐assessmentandcontrolthroughreductiontargets. Thisresearchpresentsabriefreviewofexternalcostestimationappliedtoshipping andports.ThisisfollowedbytheemissionestimationofvesseltrafficinLasPalmas Port(2011),derivedcosts(basedonBeTa,CAFEandNEEDS)andport eco‐ efficiencyperformance(costperpassenger,pertonsofcargopershipcall,andper portrevenue).Moreover,eco‐efficiencyindicatorsarefurtherdescribed per shippingsector(pertypeofpassenger,TEUsand1000tonsofcargo)atport.Namely, eco‐efficiencyindicatorsfromferry,cruise,container,bulk,generalcargo,container, fishingandothershippingsub‐sectorsareaddressed. Emissionassessmentisbasedonavesselemissionsinventoryobtainedfromthefull bottom‐upShipTrafficEmissionAssessmentModelandmessagestransmittedby
114 theAutomaticIdentificationSystemoveratwelve‐monthperiod(2011).Results reflectatotalof215,867tonsofexhaustemissionsderivedfromvesseltrafficinLas PalmasPort (2011).It isnoticeable thatapartfrom tanker,container andferry vessels,therestofthefleetrepresentsanoverallthatdoesnotexceeda7%from thetotalshareatport.Althoughinlinewithpreviousstudiesthatalsosuggestferry, tankerandcontainervesselsasthelargestcontributorsofairemissionsaffecting local(NOx,SOx,PM,CO)andglobal(CO2)environments;differencesmayarisedue toassumptionsonkeyinputssuchasspeed,distance,operativeandengineload. Whencomparedtoliterature,theuseofvesseltracksfromtheAIS,andtheSTEAM supporttheaccuracyoftheemissioninventory.Tothebestofourknowledge,the presentpaperisthefirsttocombineportemissionsinventoryobtainedthrougha fullbottom‐upapproachwithexternalcostandeco‐efficiencyindicatorsderived fromthem.Thiseliminatesthedominantuncertaintiesreportedbyharbourstudies whoseresultsarebasedonvesselemissioninventoriesatport. Theestimatedexternalcostsassociatedwiththedamagesthatvesselemissions contributeuponhumanhealthandthebuiltenvironmentsurroundedtheportof LasPalmaswerefoundtobesignificant.Tobespecific,theoveralleconomiccosts forNOx,SO2,VOCandPM2.5whenusingurbanandruralvaluesprovidedbyBeTa (forSpain)derivein174,288,076€whileusingurbancostfactorsfromBeTaand ruralcostfactorsfromCAFEresultsinanaverage(includingfour sensitivity scenarios)of180,930,427€.Moreover,resultsderivedusingruralcostfactorsin CAFEresultsinavariationof18.7%dependingonthesensitivityscenariochosen, establishing a confidence interval for estimates made, and mostimportantly; highlightingtheimportanceofassumptionschosenwhenmakingsimilar calculationsandtheneedtoconductstudiesthatresultincostfactorsandscenarios increasinglymorerefined.InthecaseofNEEDSandwhencomparedtotop‐down estimationswithBeTamethodology(onlyBeTaandBeTacombinedwithCAFE) figuresareconsiderablylowerwith21,750,913€fromforNOx;11,567,621€from SO2,87,901€fromandVOCand68,186,804€fromPM2.5.Therefore,fromallthe observedvariation,theimportanceofreachingaconsensustoassessexternalcosts inshippingandportscanbeconcluded.
115 Summarizing,andfromthecoststotalsobtainedfromtheaverageofBeTa+CAFE (SC1,SC2,SC3andSC4);NOx,SOX,andPM2.5reflectthedominantshares,accounting respectivelyfora22%,29%and33%fromthetotalsumbeingGHG,(CO2High) responsiblefortheremaining15%fromthetotalsatport.Moreover,thetemporal evolutionofexternalcoststhroughoutatwelve‐monthperiod(2011)isrelatively stable,withamajorcostderivedfromNOxandPM2.5.Also,peaksarenoticeabledue totheincreaseofvesselcalls,mostlyonJanuary,MarchandNovember.Anaverage, theapproximatecostperpersonlivingintheport‐cityhasbeenestimatedat554€. Ontheotherhand,thepresentstudysuggestseco‐efficiencyindicatorsasapractical tooltomeasureperformancewithinthecontextofports.Thefinancialperformance ofportsiskeytobecominganimportantcentreofbusinessbutnotenoughto guaranteetheirsustainability.Toensurethis,environmental,socialandeconomic performance must be addressed by collecting environmental impacts and performance. InordertocreateorimproveportactionstocontrolairemissionsinLasPalmas Portthepresentstudyestimateseco‐efficiencyindicatorsfromexternalitycostsof vessel emissions. In this case study, overall results of port eco‐efficiency performancedescribeexternalcostsperpassenger,pertonsofcargo,shipcallsand portrevenue.Obtainedtotalswithinlocalassociatedimpactsreflect 48 € per passenger;4,960€per1,000tonsofcargo;19,822€pershipcalland3,656,463€ permillioneurosofportrevenue.Ontheotherhand,thelatterresultof48€per passenger represent higher or lower figures than when performing similar estimationsbysub‐sectorswhichreflect63€perpassengerofferriesand20€per passengerofcruise.Similarlythepreviousresultof4,960€per1,000tonsofcargo representahigherorlowervaluethanwhenestimatingtheeco‐efficiencyindicators bytanker(8,025€/1,000tons),bulk(21,986€/1,000tons),generalcargo(2,422 €/1,000tons),container(2,876€/1,000tons),fishing(17,656€/1,000tons)and therestofvessels(7,567€/1,000tons). Asithasbeenshown,aggregatedindicatorsmaynotbeasuitablereflectionofwhat happensineachsubsectorandimportantdifferencesmaybeobscured.Forinstance,
116 fromthepassengersub‐sectors,theferryreflectsthehighestfiguresovercruise.In termsofcargocategories,eco‐indicatorsalsoallowustoidentifytheleastefficient environmentalsectorspermanipulatedton.Againandwhenconsideringonlylocal costs,themostefficientcategoryisgeneralcargo,followedbycontainer,rest,tanker, fishingandbulkcategories,respectively. Forthelaterreason,eco‐efficiencyindicatorsbysubsectoraresuggestedtobethe onestobeconsideredbyauthoritiestoapplycorrectivemeasuressincethesebetter reflectwhattherealresponsibilityofeachsubsectoris,intheexternalcost generated. In this way, one of the core principles of sustainable development PolluterPaysPrinciple could be better applied whether port authorities decide dealingwiththepollutersbyimposingthem‘eco‐taxes’.Inthisway,itinternalizes the cost of pollutant into the cost of the service and the "polluters" receive an incentivetoensurethatbestenvironmentalpracticeisfollowed.Itshouldbenoted thatthepotentialofthismeasurestoimproveportenvironmentalsituationishigh becausecorrectiveeffectmaybegeneratedjustforthefactofbeingpublished, especiallyiftheevolutionandreductioneffortsofshippingsectors/companiesare monitored.Beneficialeffectsmayalsoarrivethroughpublicpressurefrominformed citizensandasaresultoffirmsattemptingtoavoidthepossiblethreatofbeing chargedbasedontheirpollutingprofileifdoingnothingforimprovement. Tosummarize,thecontributionofthispapertotheavailableliteraturerelatestothe following.Firstly,itobtainsexternalitycostsofvesselemissionsfromdisaggregated variablesasindividualvesseltracksandtechnicaldetails.Thisapproacheliminates thedominantuncertaintiesreportedbypreviousvesselemissioninventoriesatport (basedonportcalls)usedtoestimateexternalitycosts(seeTable1)andfillsthegap ofmethodologyimprovement,necessarytoachievemoreaccurateresults.Secondly, andintermsofexternalitycosts;thisharbourstudypresentstheavailablelower andupperthresholdsoftop‐downestimatedcosts(fromBeTa,CAFEandNEEDS). Additionally,derivedeco‐efficiencyparameters(ingeneral)andpershippingsector (in particular) are defined and suggested, as an indicator of environmental and economicperformancetobeconsideredforpolicyuseinport‐cities.Atlast,results respond to the research question of the economic impact and
117 environmental/economic performance of vessel emissions in Las Palmas Port, describingthroughthecasestudy,theutilityofthesemeasurementsassupport toolstoPortAuthoritiesandlocalgovernments. Costresultsassociatedtodamagesthatvesselemissionscontributeuponhuman healthandthebuiltenvironmentinLasPalmasdeGranCanaria(andinavailable literature)followatop‐downapproach.Thus,andalthoughassumptionsarevalid asafirstinsightintoderivedcostsandeco‐efficiencyfromvesselemissions;we suggestthatfutureresearchalsoaddresstheseindicatorsbyfollowinganintegrated approachbasedamongothers,onrefinedinformationfrompollutantconcentration andlocalmeteorologicalconditions.Thisisofparticularinterestconsideringthat policyvalueprovidedbytheuseoftheIPAmethodologyinregionalstudies(i.e. BeTa) may be source of inconsistencies, as these were not developed with the originalpurposeofexternalcostestimationforwiderpolicyuse.Also,andsince additionalsourcesofemissionsatportwerenotincludedinthisstudywesuggest futureimprovementsofresultsbyincludingland‐basedsourcesofemissionsand thederivedeffectsonsailorsandmaritimeprofessionals. 3.5.References Amann,M.,Bertok,I.,Cofala,J.,Gyarfas,F.,Heyes,C.,Klimont,Z.,Wolfgang,S.,and Winiwarter,W.(2005),BaselinescenariosforthecleanairforEurope(CAFE) programme.Final Report,International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis,Laxenburg,Austria. Berechman, J., and Tseng, P. H. (2012), Estimating the environmental costs of portrelatedemissions:ThecaseofKaohsiung,TransportationResearchPart D17(1):35‐38. Bickel,P.,Friedrich,R.,Droste‐Franke,B.,Bachmann,T.M.,Gressmann,A.,Rabl,A., Haunt,A.,Markandya,A.,Tol,R.,Hurley,F.,Navrud,S.,Hirshberg,S.,Burgherr, P.,Heck,T.,Torfs,R.,deNocker,L.,Vermoote,S.,IntPanis,L.,andTidblad,J. (2005),ExternEExternalitiesofEnergyMethodology,2005Update. Bickel,P.,Friedrich,R.,Burgess,A.,Fagiani,P.,Hunt,A.,Jong,G.D.,Laird,J.,Lieb,Ch., Lindeberg, G., Mackie, P., Navrud, S., Odgaard, T., Ricci, A., Shires, J and Tavasszy,L.(2006),HEATCO–DevelopingharmonisedEuropeanapproaches fortransportcostingandprojectassessment,IERUniversityofStuttgart. CE/INFRAS/ISI(2008),Internalisationmeasuresandpoliciesfortheexternalcost oftransportproducedwithinthestudyInternalisationMeasuresandPolicies forallexternalcostofTransport(IMPACT)–Deliverable3Delft:CEDelft, 2008.
118 Castells S.M., Usabiaga S.J. J. and Martínez D.O.F. X. (2014), Manoeuvring and hotellingexternalcosts:enoughforalternativeenergysources? Maritime Policy&Management41(1):42‐60. Coto‐Millán,P.,Mateo‐Mantecon,I.,DomenechQuesada,J.L.,CarballoPanela,A.and Pesquera, M.A. (2010), Evaluation of Port externalities: The ecological Footprint.InCoto‐Millán,P.,Pesquera,M.A.,andCastanedo,J.(Ed.),Essays onporteconomics.SpringerScience&BusinessMedia.SpringerHeidelberg Dordrecht,London,NewYork. Delft,C.E.,andInfras,F.I.(2011),ExternalcostsoftransportinEurope.Update Studyfor2008.Commissionedby:InternationalUnionofRailwaysUIC.Delft, CEDelft,September,2011. DeMeyerP,MaesF,andVolckaertA.(2008),EmissionsFromInternationalShipping intheBelgianPartoftheNorthSeaandtheBelgianSeaports,Atmospheric Environment42(1):196‐206. Denisis,A.(2009),AnEconomicFeasibilityStudyofShortSeaShippingIncluding theEstimationofExternalitieswithFuzzyLogic.Ph.D.Thesis,TheUniversity ofMichigan,USA. EDEI(2011),Estudiodelmercadodelturismodecrucerosencanarias,Informe Final,viewed16thofFebruary2015, http://www.palmasport.es/00000fic/ficheros/documentos/19825.pdf. Eijgelaar, E., Thaper, C., and Peeters, P. (2010), Antarctic cruise tourism: the paradoxes of ambassadorship, “last chance tourism” and greenhouse gas emissions,JournalofSustainableTourism18(3):337‐354. Funk,K.,andRabl,A.(1999),Electricversusconventionalvehicles:socialcostsand benefitsinFrance,TransportationResearchPartD4(6):397‐411. Gallagher, K. P. (2005), International trade and air pollution: estimating the economic costs of air emissions from waterborne commerce, Journal of EnvironmentalManagement77(2):99‐103. Heinbach, C. (2012),Dirty Containers: A Measurement and Cost Estimation ApproachofAtmosphericPollutioninHongKong,DiplomicaVerlag, Hamburg,Germany. Holland,M.,Watkiss,P.(2002),Benefitstabledatabase:estimatesofthemarginal externalcostsofairpollutioninEurope,viewed16thofFebruary2015, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/air/pdf/betaec02aforprinting.p df. HollandM,HuntA.,HurleyF.,NavrudS.,WatkissP.(2005),Methodologyforthe Cost‐Benefit Analysis for CAFE, volume 1: overview of the methodology, viewed 16th of February 2015, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/air/cafe/activities/cba.htm. Howitt,O.J.,Revol,V.G.,Smith,I.J.,andRodger,C.J.(2010),Carbonemissionsfrom internationalcruiseshippassengers’traveltoandfromNewZealand,Energy Policy38(5):2552‐2560. IPCC(2006),IPCCGuidelinesforNationalGreenhouseGasInventories.In:Energy; Chapter3:MobileCombustion,vol.2. Jalkanen,J.‐P.,Brink,A.,Kalli,J.,Pettersson,H.,Kukkonen,J.,andStipa,T.(2009),A modelling system for the exhaust emissions of marine traffic and its applicationintheBalticSeaarea,AtmosphericChemistryandPhysics9(23): 9209–9223. Jalkanen,J.‐P.,Johansson,L.,Kukkonen,J.,Brink,A.,Kalli,J.,andStipa,T.(2012), Extensionofanassessmentmodelofshiptrafficexhaustemissions for particulate matter and carbon monoxide, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics12(5):2641–2659. Jalkanen,J.‐P.,Johansson,L.,andKukkonen,J.(2014),Acomprehensiveinventoryof theshiptrafficexhaustemissionsintheBalticSeafrom2006to2009,Ambio 43(3):311‐324.
119 Johansson, L., Jalkanen, J. P., Kalli, J., and Kukkonen, J. (2013), The evolution of shippingemissionsandthecostsofregulationchangesinthenorthernEU area,AtmosphericChemistryandPhysics13(22):11375‐11389. Jiang, L., and Kronbak, J. (2012), The Model of Maritime External Costs,Clean ShippingCurrents1(6):1‐16. Kalli,J.,Jalkanen,J.P.,Johansson,L.,andRepka,S.(2013),Atmosphericemissionsof EuropeanSECAshipping:long‐termprojections,WMUJournalofMaritime Affairs12(2):129‐145. Korzhenevych,A.,Dehnen,N.,Bröcker,J.,Holtkamp,M.,Meier,H.,Gibson,G.,Varma, AandCox,V.(2014),UpdateoftheHandbookonExternalCostsofTransport, ReportfortheEuropeanCommission:DGMOVE(Ricardo‐AEA/R/ED57769), IssueNumber18thJanuary2014. Liu, T., Han, D. P., and Zhou, H. (2015), Capital Efficiency and Eco‐Efficiency of EnterpriseOperation,AdvancedMaterialsResearch1073:2709‐2713. Maragkogianni,A.,andPapaefthimiou,S.(2015),Evaluatingthesocialcostofcruise shipsairemissionsinmajorportsofGreece,TransportationResearchPart D:TransportandEnvironment,36,10‐17. Marten, A.L., Newbold, S.C. (2012), Estimating the social cost of non‐CO2GHG emissions:methaneandnitrousoxide,EnergyPolicy51:957‐972. MartuzziM.,Mitis,F.,Iavarone,I.,Serinelli,M.(2006),HealthImpactofPM10and Ozonein13ItalianCities,viewed16thofFebruary2015, http://www.euro.who.int/document/e88700.pdf. McArthur, D. P., and Osland, L. (2013), Ships in a city harbour: An economic valuationofatmosphericemissions,TransportationResearchPartD21:47‐ 52. Miola, A., Ciuffo, B., Marra, M. and Giovine, E. (2010), Analytical framework to regulateairemissionsfrommaritimetransport,IESJRCEuropean Commission,PublicationsOffice,2010. Miola, A., Paccagnan, V., Mannino, I., Massarutto, A., Perujo, A., and Turvani, M. (2009), External costs of transportation. Case study: maritime transport, Ispra:JRCEuropeanCommission. Muller,N.Z.,Mendelsohn,R.(2007),Measuringthedamagesofairpollutioninthe UnitedStates,JournalofEnvironmentalEconomicsand Management54(1):1‐14. Ng,S.K.,Loh,C.,Lin,C.,Booth,V.,Chan,J.W.,Yip,A.C.,andLau,A.K.(2012),Policy changedrivenbyanAIS‐assistedmarineemissioninventoryinHongKong andthePearlRiverDelta,AtmosphericEnvironment76:102‐112. NETCEN(2004),BenefitsTableDatabase:EstimatesoftheMarginalExternalCosts ofAirPollutioninEurope.BeTaVersionE1.02a.CreatedforEuropean CommissionDGEnvironmentbyNetcen. Preiss,P.andKlotz,V.(2007),Descriptionofupdatedandextendeddrafttoolsfor thedetailedsite‐dependentassessmentofexternalcosts.TechnicalPaper No.7.4‐RS1bofNEEDSProject. Rodriguez‐Álvarez, A., and Tovar, B. (2012), Have Spanish Port sector reforms during the last two decades been successful? A cost frontier approach, TransportPolicy24:723‐782. Sabatier, P. A. (1986), Top‐down and bottom‐up approaches to implementation research:acriticalanalysisandsuggestedsynthesis,Journalofpublicpolicy 6(01):21‐48. Sirikijpanichkul,A.,Iyengar,M.,Ferreira,L.(2006),ValuingAirQualityImpactsof Transportation: a Review of Literature. Queensland University of Technology,viewed 16th of February 2015, http://eprints.qut.edu.au/4643/1/4643.pdf. Song,S.(2014),Shipemissionsinventory,socialcostandeco‐efficiencyinShanghai Yangshanport,AtmosphericEnvironment82:288‐297.