NETWORK DESIGN AND REFUELING STATION LOCATIONING FOR GREEN MARITIME CORRIDORS AND EMISSION TRADING

IAME 2025 Conference – Full Paper 1 NETWORK DESIGN AND REFUELING STATION LOCATIONING FOR GREEN MARITIME CORRIDORS AND EMISSION TRADING X. Lyu and F. Schulte Department of Maritime and Transport Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands ([email protected]) Abstract The maritime shipping industry, responsible for 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, is facing increasing pressure to transition towards decarbonization due to the escalating threat of climate change. This has inspired the conceptualization of green maritime corridors—a designated network of shipping routes, ports, and associated infrastructure strategically designed to advocate for shipping practices with low or zero emissions. Despite initial empirical studies highlighting their potential, the design of these shipping networks and the establishment of necessary refueling stations for alternative fuel ships remain underdeveloped. Furthermore, the impact of the European Emission Trading System (EU ETS), implemented in 2024, on maritime stakeholders and its effectiveness in incentivizing investments in carbon-free or zero-carbon technologies is poorly understood. Therefore, in this work, we define the network design and refueling station location problem within green maritime corridors and propose an optimization model to minimize overall costs. We analyze emission fees under the EU ETS across different scenarios and assess the investment costs of building green maritime corridors, highlighting incentives for shipping operators to be involved. Thus we present a first optimization approach for designing green maritime corridors, offering critical guidance to policymakers and industry stakeholders for effective implementation of maritime green corridors. Keywords Network Design, Refueling Station Location, Green Maritime Corridor, Emission Trading Introduction To transition towards decarbonization and ultimate zero emission for the maritime sector, the International Maritime Organization (Hermeling et al.) has established an ambitious target of reducing 50% Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by 2050 compared with 2008. This urgent need to reduce IAME 2025 Conference – Full Paper 2 emissions requires actions of maritime shipping operators. Green maritime corridors can be applied to decarbonize the shipping industry (Song et al., 2023), and it is defined as a designated network of shipping routes, ports, and associated infrastructure strategically designed to advocate for maritime shipping practices with low or zero emissions. The primary contributor to emissions stems from the combustion of marine fuels. Thus, such green corridors aim to promote alternative fuels instead of fossil fuels at sea. In 2021, the Clydebank Declaration aims to establish at least six shorter green maritime corridors by the mid-2020s and increase long-distance routes by 2030 (Chen, 2024). This idea of creating green maritime corridors has recently attracted considerable attention, with governments, ports, and shipping lines announcing the establishment of green corridors jointly as the first step. In addition, the European Emission Trading System (EU ETS) has entered into practice in maritime transportation to accelerate the decarbonization transition. More knowledge is needed on the impact of EU ETS on shipping costs and how this can incentivize stakeholders to invest in carbon-free measures such as creating green maritime corridors. Several keys to the success of any green maritime corridor are pointed out in (Global Maritime Forum, 2023), and one significance is developing alternative fuel access and port infrastructure. Regarding the potential adoption of methane or LNG, ammonia, and hydrogen in maritime liner shipping, extensive studies in recent years have positioned them as promising alternative fuels for marine fuels to reduce emissions (Huang & Duan, 2023; Zhao et al., 2023). However, beyond technical feasibility, it is essential to align maritime operations and further plan with the ongoing or near-future energy transition ben2023 (Ben Ahmed et al., 2023). Specifically, implementing these alternative fuel ships in maritime trade requires bunkering infrastructure and corresponding operational capabilities, which are necessary for navigating along designed shipping routes to satisfy the transport requirements between ports. Thus, the design of the shipping network to undertake transport tasks and the investment in bunkering infrastructure to support specific alternative fuel ships are significant for green maritime corridors to succeed from the operational level. In the literature, researchers primarily focus on governmental policy or technological advancements for conceptualizing green maritime corridors (Bouman et al., 2017). Certain empirical studies, in particular, actively underscore the pivotal role of developing green corridors in advancing decarbonization within the maritime transportation sector. For example, (Pra et al., 2020) and (Moura et al., 2017) have scrutinized the viability of green maritime corridors for soybean exportation in Brazil, reporting notable reductions in logistical costs and greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, (Hessevik, 2022) illustrates that creating corridor networks empowers individual stakeholders to IAME 2025 Conference – Full Paper 3 formulate customized low-carbon or zero-emission solutions, as substantiated through a case study within Norway's offshore shipping sector. However, little attention has been paid to the operational modifications required for the successful implementation of green maritime corridors in practical terms. Notably, the design of the shipping network within the corridor and the requisite bunkering stations to support alternative fuel ships within the network still need to be developed. Additionally, implementing green maritime corridors necessitates collaborative efforts from multiple stakeholders, wherein shipping lines, port operators, and governmental bodies are pivotal contributors, jointly working together to create the corridors. Thus, given the implementation of EU ETS, it is vital to estimate emissions fees that need to be paid within different scenarios and compare them with the investment costs for green maritime corridors, providing incentives for shipping operators to join the corridor establishment. In this work, we propose a general framework to assist the government and companies in designing effective green maritime corridors. Specifically, we first developed a network design and refueling station location problem with green maritime corridors to minimize the overall costs. Our model captures potential synergies across different routes and geographical regions by considering a network of green corridors. Then, we discuss the emissions fees with EU ETS to show the benefits of creating green maritime corridors and the incentives for maritime shipping operators to invest. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first optimization approach to designing green maritime corridors from the operational level and analyzing the impact of EU ETS on incentivizing these carbon-free measures. Our case study reports the green maritime corridor network with the optimized refueling station location. Incorporating EU ETS shows that even with low carbon emission fees, investment in creating corridors is more cost-saving for shipping operators. Overall, this work contributes to energy transition in the maritime domain. The reminder of this paper is organized as follows. Section Literature review presents a literature review of related works. Section Problem describes the optimization problem, while Section Modelling provides the mathematical model formulations. The experimental results are shown in Section Case study. Finally, Section Conclusions summarizes this work and recommends future research. Literature review Green maritime corridors are a relatively new and promising concept for decarbonizing maritime transportation. The overarching purpose is to develop a network of designated maritime shipping routes by running alternative fuel ships to minimize carbon emissions. The establishment of green IAME 2025 Conference – Full Paper 4 maritime corridors encompasses several key pre-requests. First, alternative fuels in maritime transportation should be applied from a technical perspective. For example, liquefied natural gas (LNG) (Schinas & Butler, 2016; Xu & Yang, 2020), ammonia (Kim et al., 2020; Seddiek & Ammar, 2023), hydrogen (Melnyk et al., 2023; Seddiek et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2023), electrical and fuel cell (Candelo-Beccera et al., 2023; van Biert et al., 2016) have been widely discussed as promising candidates in recent years. Second is the collaboration across the value chain, such as port authorities, shipping companies, cargo owners, and alternative fuel producers/providers. Since COP26, many stakeholders in the maritime shipping industry have been forced to support the development of green corridors, as shown in Figure 1. In detail, Table 1 concludes the name, announced time, vessel type, alternative fuel, status and target time of the planned green maritime corridors. Most of the announced green maritime corridors are in their initial partnerships stage, and the operational planning problem about how to run alternative ships along the corridor routes is still unsolved. Figure 1 Green maritime corridors planned in the world (Global Maritime Forum, 2023) IAME 2025 Conference – Full Paper 5 Table 1 Overview of the planned green maritime corridors Note: AN: Announcement; CF: Counducting feasibility assessment; PF: Pre-feasibility assessment; PI: Planning implementation; M: Methanol; H: Hydrogen; A: Ammonia; B: Biofuel; E: Electric; U: Unknown Corridor name Announced time Vessel type Alternative fuel Status Target time Oslo-Rotterdam 2023/10 Container H AN By 2030 Halifax-Hamburg 2022/09 - M, H, A AN TBD Rotterdam-Singapore 2022/08 Container M, H, A CF By 2027 FIN-EST 2023/10 Vehicle carrier/roro, ferry U AN TBD Antwerp-Montreal 2022/04 Container, bulk carrier U AN TBD European green corridors 2022/03 - U PF TBD US-UK 2022/11 - U AN TBD Canada-US Great Lakes-St Lawrence 2022/04 - M, B, E AN TBD Pacific Northwest to Alaska 2022/05 Cruise U CF TBD Republic of Korea-United States 2022/11 - M PF by 2050 LA-Nagoya 2023/06 Container U AN TBD LA-Long Beach-Singapore 2022/11 - U CF TBD LA-Long Beach-Shanghai 2022/01 Container U PI By 2030 US-Fiji-Pacific blue shipping 2023/03 - U AN TBD SILK Alliance corridor network 2022/05 Container U PI TBD Singapore-Australia 2023/06 - U PF TBD Australia-New Zealand - - U PF TBD Western Australia-North Asia iron ore 2022/04 Bulk carrier A PI TBD Chile cu-concentrate corridor - Bulk carrier A CF TBD Chile Piscicultura corridor - - H CF TBD South Africa-Europe iron ore 2023/03 Bulk carrier A PF TBD IAME 2025 Conference – Full Paper 6 Limited research in the literature focuses on the perspective of implementing green maritime corridors, that is, how to commercially operate those alternative ships within the planned corridors. From the optimization modelling standpoint, one closely related study in the literature is the liner shipping network design problem (LSNDP). It can informally be defined as follows: given a collection of ports, a fleet of container vessels and a group of origin-destination demands, construct a set of services for the container vessels such that the overall operational expenses are minimized while ensuring that all demands can be routed through the resulting network, respecting the capacity of vessels (Meng et al., 2014). Recently, with the implementation of multiple carbon policies in maritime shipping, many researchers have incorporated the reduction of total emissions in LSNDP by integrating various carbon policies (Cariou et al., 2018; Cariou et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2014; Yang et al., 2021). These studies have shown that these carbon policies can significantly influence the economic performance of LSNDP. From January 2024, EU ETS has been compulsory in maritime transportation. Since its launch in 2005, several studies have discussed the open questions on its potential impact and effectiveness (Hermeling et al., 2015; Psaraftis et al., 2021). The investigation by (Cariou et al., 2021) provides support for the positive impact of EU ETS on providing sufficient incentives for specific emission abatement measures. Considering the massive investment for establishing green maritime corridors, it is important to explore the effects of EU ETS on incentivizing shipping operators to contribute to the construction of alternative fuel ships and refueling infrastructures, thereby promoting the development of green maritime corridors. Green maritime corridors introduce another dimension to this complex network design problem by integrating clean fuel refueling facilities at ports. Our work aligns closely with existing literature on flow refueling location models (FRLM) that primarily focus on locating alternative fuel facilities for road transport. (Kuby & Lim, 2005) propose the model that relates fuel demand to specific routes defined by their origin and destination. They assume that a refueling station can satisfy the demand only if it is located along the route. Such route-based demand representation is realistic for practical refueling scenarios. Recent advancements have seen the adaptation of the FRLM model for maritime refueling network design, mainly considering LNG as an alternative marine fuel (Alvarez et al., 2020; Nerheim, 2023; Peng et al., 2021). (Kuby et al., 2017) apply the FRLM model to support decisionmakers in building an LNG bunkering network, addressing truck-to-ship and pipeline-to-ship refueling. Furthermore, (Doymus et al., 2022) design a multi-period planning framework to optimize the refueling barge fleet and routes for ship-to-ship bunkering operations. IAME 2025 Conference – Full Paper 7 However, very limited studies focus on shipping networks and refueling design simultaneously for establishing green maritime corridors from the operational perspective. Given the overview of the status of the current announced green maritime corridors, providing an implementation plan is necessary to promote achieving their target for decarbonization. Therefore, this paper presents the first optimization approach for designing green maritime corridors considering the integrated shipping and fuel network design problem. Based on this model, we compare the economic impacts of EU ETS and further analyze the potential incentives brought by EU ETS for shipping operators to invest in green corridors. Problem description Governments and companies have multiple open questions to address in order to establish successful green maritime corridors facing many different carbon policies, especially the effect of EU ETS. First, how can the shipping routes of alternative fuel ships be organized so that the cargo transport demands among the involved ports can be satisfied? Second, where (which port) and capacity can the bunkering infrastructure be built to support the running of those alternative fuel ships on the established routes? Third, how will EU ETS impact shipping costs and emissions, and can it generate efficient incentives for those ports and shipping lines to motivate them to invest in establishing green corridors? To answer the above questions, we propose a mathematical model for liner shipping network design with refueling station location problem, in which the shipping routes and bunkering infrastructure construction are planned simultaneously. Based on this model, we obtain answers to the most pressing questions about green maritime corridors in the form of: (1). a weekly plan for the liner shipping company to operate their alternative fuel ships within the green corridor, consisting of the port-call sequence and bunkering port for ships; (2). port investments (which capacity and where?) on the bunkering infrastructure that can support the running of ships on the established routes, including the location (which port) of the refueling stations and their capacities; (3). an estimation of shipping costs and emission reduction with and without EU ETS, comparing with the investment cost on green maritime corridors and analysing the incentives for shipping lines and ports. Based on the definition of green shipping corridor concept in (Song et al., 2023), this section is to design a shipping and fuel network for supporting the establishment of green maritime corridors from the operational level, which consists of zero-emission maritime routes between two or more ports and bunkering infrastructures to refuel alternative-fuel ships at ports. The proposed network design and IAME 2025 Conference – Full Paper 8 refueling station location problem supports the establishment of any green maritime corridor based on some alternative fuel energy. Even though the problem is relevant for most types of ocean shipping, we present it from the liner shipping perspective. Assumptions We consider a given set of candidate shipping routes visiting a set of ports in a specific sequence, where each pair of ports has a known demand for transportation. Moreover, each sailing leg between two ports has a known distance, enabling a calculation of sailing times on a given sailing speed. The given route will be served by several alternative fuel vessels chosen from a set of candidate vessel capacities given as input to the problem. We assume that each vessel of a given capacity has a known investment cost, sailing fuel cost, and idle fuel cost at the port. In the case of building refueling stations, the investment cost of each type of capacity is also known. Considering other relevant zero-emission technologies supporting the refueling process, we assume that this infrastructure investment cost in each port has already been incorporated with the investment cost with different refueling capacities. We assume that only one type of alternative fuel vessel capacity can be chosen for a given route to ensure a realistic route plan where each departure from a port is serviced by vessels with the same capacity. This assumption is also reasonable for the practice. Problem definition At the strategic planning level, the optimal refueling station location that can support alternativefueled ships on operation needs to be determined. Given that the refueling infrastructure of alternative fuels involves a considerable capital investment, this strategic-level decision is critical. At the tactical planning level, the shipping network that operates alternative-fueled ships (called green shipping network in the following) needs to be designed by creating ship routes, that is, the sequence of port visits by a given fleet and the assignment of ships to these routes. In the operational stage of transformation from traditional routes to green corridors, the quantity of cargo to accept or reject for servicing and which path to use to serve the selected cargo need to be decided by carriers, referred to as the cargo-routing problem in the literature. The decisions made at different levels are mutually affected by each other. Generally, the decisions at the strategic level set the general guidelines for decisions at the tactical and operational levels, and reversely, the information on cost and revenue generated during the system's operation provides grounded feedback for decisions made at a higher level. Thus, we propose an integrated green network design with the refueling station location model, which also considers the cargo-routing problem for each alternative-fueled ship. In detail, we address LSNDP (Liner Shipping Network Design Problem) IAME 2025 Conference – Full Paper 9 within the green corridor to provide implement-level decision support for planned green maritime corridors. Our formulation simultaneously decides the ship-scheduling and cargo-routing problem within the green corridor, in which the refueling station location problem is mainly considered to guarantee the running of the green shipping network. Mathematical formulation Notation All the notations used in the formulation are listed as follows: Sets: ⚫ 𝑉: Set of all vertex on graph 𝐺 = (𝑉,𝐸); ⚫ 𝐸𝑔: Set of ground edges on graph 𝐺 = (𝑉,𝐸); ⚫ 𝐸𝑣: Set of voyage edges on graph 𝐺 = (𝑉,𝐸); ⚫ 𝐸𝑓: Set of fictitious edges on graph 𝐺 = (𝑉,𝐸); ⚫ 𝐸: Set of all edges on graph 𝐺 = (𝑉,𝐸), 𝐸 = 𝐸𝑔∪ 𝐸𝑣∪ 𝐸𝑓; ⚫ 𝑅: Set of routes operated by the involved carriers; ⚫ 𝑃: Set of ports where refueling station can be built; ⚫ 𝑇: Set of vessel types (different capacity); ⚫ 𝐶: Set of refueling station capacity at ports; ⚫ 𝑊: Set of all index triplets (𝑜,𝑑,𝑖) with 𝑜,𝑑,𝑖 representing origin, destination, and day of the week, respectively; ⚫ 𝑅𝑒: Set of routes using arc 𝑒 ∈ 𝐸; ⚫ 𝑃𝑒𝑟: Set of ports that can refuel arc e on route 𝑟, 𝑒 ∈ 𝐸𝑣; ⚫ 𝐸𝑣 𝐼𝑁: Set of incoming edges into vertex 𝑣; ⚫ 𝐸𝑣 𝑂𝑈𝑇: Set of out-going edges from vertex 𝑣; Parameters: ⚫ 𝑅(𝑜,𝑑,𝑖): Unit revenues ($/TEU) by satisfying the demand of (𝑜,𝑑,𝑖)∈ 𝑊; ⚫ 𝑐𝑡 𝜄: Fixed cost of investing one vessel of type 𝑡 ∈ 𝑇; ⚫ 𝑐𝑝𝑐 𝜔: Fixed cost of investing and operating one refueling station with capacity c at port 𝑝; ⚫ 𝑐𝑡𝑟 𝜃: Weekly running cost for one vessel of type 𝑡 ∈ 𝑇 on route 𝑟 ∈ 𝑅; ⚫ 𝑐𝑒 𝜅: Costs of shipping a TEU cargo on edge 𝑒 or costs of storing or holding a TEU of cargo at port; ⚫ ℎ𝑡: Fuel consumption (tons per day) for vessels of type 𝑡 ∈ 𝑇 when idle at the port; IAME 2025 Conference – Full Paper 16 Table 4 Northern European corridor design Figure 4 Northern European & Baltic green maritime corridor Next, in Figure 5, we compare the total reduction of 𝐶𝑂2 emissions and the cost of unit 𝐶𝑂2 reduction under the different sizes of the network (represented by 𝜙). It is shown that the total reduction of 𝐶𝑂2 emissions increases with investing more routes into the green corridors, and the unit cost for emission reduction decreases simultaneously. 𝜙 Selected Route Bunker Station Alternativefueled Ship Reduced 𝑪𝟎𝟐 Emissions (ton) Total Corridor Costs (𝟏𝟎𝟑$) Unit Cost of 𝑪𝑶𝟐 Reduction (𝟏𝟎𝟑$/ton) Location Capacity (ton) Type Number 1 R1 Hamburg 10000 A 1 912.96 27735.50 30.38 B 1 2 R1, R3 Rotterdam 12000 A 2 1210.94 32255.60 26.64 B 2 3 R1, R2, R3 Hamburg 12000 A 3 1965.40 30553.60 15.55 B 3 4 R1, R2, R3, R4 Hamburg 15000 A 4 2288.74 42203.60 14.07 B 4 (a) 𝜙 = 1 (𝑏) 𝜙 = 2 (3) 𝜙 = 3 (4) 𝜙 = 4 IAME 2025 Conference – Full Paper 17 Figure 5 Impact of network size on 𝑪𝑶𝟐 emissions Cost comparison with consideration of EU ETS Maritime transportation was announced to be included in the European Union Emission Trading System (EU ETS) that entered into force on January 1, 2024. The EU ETS comes from the increasing regulatory landscape imposed by the IMO, which will directly impact the EU maritime shipping market. The high carbon tax fee provides potential incentives for creating green maritime corridors. Therefore, we compare the payment of carbon emissions under the EU ETS regulation with the investment in alternative-fueled ships and bunkering stations, which implies the attraction of creating green maritime corridors. One emission allowance in EU ETS, referred to as EEA in our paper, represents one ton of 𝐶𝑂2 equivalent. For example, 𝐸𝐸𝐴 = 66 means one ton of 𝐶𝑂2 emissions need to pay for 66$ for operators. There is a planned stage to count all 𝐶𝑂2 emissions into EU ETS gradually, thus, in Figure 6, we compare the 𝐶𝑂2 emission costs under different EEA first and under different cases on 25%, 35%, 50%, 70%, 100% percentage of 𝐶𝑂2 emissions phrased-in EU ETS. From Figure 6 (c) and Figure 6 (d), we observed that the investment on establishing at least three routes is attractive for operators under EU ETS. Moreover, the continuously rising prices of the carbon allowances and the expected inclusion of shipping into the EU ETS has created a need to understand the financial exposure related to shipping for operators. Furthermore, as shown in Figure Figure 6 (a) and Figure 6 (c), even with the low EEA, the larger percentage of 𝐶𝑂2 phrased-in EU ETS, the carbon tax payment increased dramatically to exceed the investment on green corridors, which provides sufficient incentives for operators to take specific measures to join establishing green maritime corridors. IAME 2025 Conference – Full Paper 18 Figure 6 Comparison with consideration of EU ETS Conclusions and future work In this work, we propose a network design and refueling station location problem for establishing green maritime corridors from the implementation perspective. The decisions include the sequence of port calls, the optimal number of vessels to deploy in the service, and the optimal refueling station location and capacity. The proposed model minimizes the total costs of running alternative ships within the green corridors. We apply the model to the announced European Green Maritime Corridors. The results show the scale of economy on the cost of 𝐶𝑂2 emission reduction, that is, from 30.38 (103$/𝑡𝑜𝑛) with running on one route to 14.07 (103$/𝑡𝑜𝑛) with running on four routes in the corridor. Furthermore, we discuss the impact of EU ETS on shipping costs because of carbon emissions with different emission allowances. We find that even with a low emission allowance, the carbon emission payment caused (𝑑) 𝜙 = 4 (𝑐) 𝜙 = 3 (𝑎) 𝜙 = 1 (𝑏) 𝜙 = 2 IAME 2025 Conference – Full Paper 19 by EU ETS can significantly exceed the investment cost of establishing green maritime corridors. Therefore, the EU ETS, when applied effectively, can provide attractive incentives for shipping operators and stakeholders to contribute to the design of green corridors. In future work, the proposed model can be tested on different cases of the announced green corridors, and more types of alternative fuels should also be considered in different corridors. References Agarwal, R., & Ergun, z. (2008). Ship scheduling and network design for cargo routing in liner shipping. Transportation Science, 42(2), 175-196. Alvarez, J. A. L., Buijs, P., Deluster, R., Coelho, L. C., & Ursavas, E. (2020). Strategic and operational decision-making in expanding supply chains for LNG as a fuel. Omega, 97, 102093. Ben Ahmed, M., Molland, E., & Tomasgard, T. (2023). Challenges and Opportunities for Adopting Green Technologies in Maritime Transportation Planning. In Springer, IFIP International Conference on Advances in Production Management Systems, Bouman, E. A., Lindstad, E., Rialland, A. I., & Strmman, A. H. (2017). State-of-the-art technologies, measures, and potential for reducing GHG emissions from shipping--A review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 52, 408-421. Brouer, B. D., Alvarez, J. F., Plum, C. E. M., Pisinger, D., & Sigurd, M. M. (2014). A base integer programming model and benchmark suite for liner-shipping network design. Transportation Science, 48(2), 281-312. Butler, T., Kopp, J., Moritz, M., Stoelingo, M., Dijk, K. v., & Pruyn, J. (2021). Gaps and developments Ammonia supply chain for future demand. https://www.magpie-ports.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2023/05/Deliverable-D3.6-Ammonia-Supply-Chain.pdf Candelo-Beccera, J. E., Maldonado, L. B., Sanabria, E. P., Pestana, H. V., & Garca, J. J. (2023). Technological Alternatives for Electric Propulsion Systems in the Waterway Sector. Energies, 16(23), 7700. Cariou, P., Cheaitou, A., Larbi, R., & Hamdan, S. (2018). Liner shipping network design with emission control areas: A genetic algorithm-based approach. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 63, 604-621. Cariou, P., Lindstad, E., & Jia, H. (2021). The impact of an EU maritime emissions trading system on oil trades. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 99, 102992. Cariou, P., Parola, F., & Notteboom, T. (2019). Towards low carbon global supply chains: A multitrade analysis of CO2 emission reductions in container shipping. International Journal of Production Economics, 208, 17-28. Chen, K., Yang, Z., & Notteboom, T. (2014). The design of coastal shipping services subject to carbon emission reduction targets and state subsidy levels. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 61, 192-211. Chen, Y.-S. (2024). In response to global climate change goals, exploring the development strategy for decarbonizing the shipping industry in Taiwan. Ocean \& Coastal Management, 252, 107108. IAME 2025 Conference – Full Paper 20 Corbett, J. J., Wang, H., & Winebrake, J. J. (2009). The effectiveness and costs of speed reductions on emissions from international shipping. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 14(8), 593-598. Doymus, M., Sakar, G. D., Yildiz, S. T., & Acik, A. (2022). Small-scale LNG supply chain optimization for LNG bunkering in Turkey. Computers \& Chemical Engineering, 162, 107789. Global Maritime Forum. (2021). The Next Wave: Green Corridors. https://www.globalmaritimeforum.org/publications/the-next-wave-green-corridors Global Maritime Forum. (2023). Annual progress report on green shipping corridors 2023. https://cms.globalmaritimeforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Global-MaritimeForum_Annual-Progress-Report-on-Green-Shipping-Corridors_2023.pdf Hermeling, C., Klement, J. H., Koesler, S., Khler, J., & Klement, D. (2015). Sailing into a dilemma: An economic and legal analysis of an EU trading scheme for maritime emissions. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 78, 34-53. Hessevik, A. (2022). Green shipping networks as drivers of decarbonization in offshore shipping companies. Maritime Transport Research, 3, 100053. Huang, J., & Duan, X. (2023). A comprehensive review of emission reduction technologies for marine transportation. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 15(3). Kim, K., Roh, G., Kim, W., & Chun, K. (2020). A preliminary study on an alternative ship propulsion system fueled by ammonia: Environmental and economic assessments. Journal of marine science and engineering, 8(3), 183. Kuby, M., Capar, I., & Kim, J.-G. (2017). Efficient and equitable transnational infrastructure planning for natural gas trucking in the European Union. European Journal of Operational Research, 257(3), 979-991. Kuby, M., & Lim, S. (2005). The flow-refueling location problem for alternative-fuel vehicles. SocioEconomic Planning Sciences, 39(2), 125-145. Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping (2022). Northern European & Baltic Green Corridor Prefeasibility Study. . https://www.zerocarbonshipping.com/publications/northern-european-baltic-green-corridorprefeasibility-study/ Melnyk, O., Onishchenko, O., Onyshchenko, S., Yaremenko, N., Maliuha, E., Honcharuk, I., & Shamov, O. (2023). Innovative Technologies for the Maritime Industry: Hydrogen Fuel as a Promising Direction. In Modern Technologies in Energy and Transport (pp. 23-34). Springer. Meng, Q., Wang, S., Andersson, H., & Thun, K. (2014). Containership routing and scheduling in liner shipping: overview and future research directions. Transportation Science, 48(2), 265-280. Moura, D. A. d., Botter, R. C., & Netto, J. F. (2017). Challenges for implementation of the green corridor in Brazil. Maritime Transportation and Harvesting of Sea Resources. International Congress of the International Maritime Association of the Mediterranean, Lisbon, Portugal, Nerheim, A. R. (2023). Maritime LNG fuel systems for small vessels—A survey of patents. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 119, 103766. IAME 2025 Conference – Full Paper 21 Peng, Y., Zhao, X., Zuo, T., Wang, W., & Song, X. (2021). A systematic literature review on port LNG bunkering station. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 91, 102704. Pra, T. G., Bartholomeu, D. B., Su, C. T., & Filho, J. V. C. (2020). Transporting Soybean from Brazil to China Through Green Corridors. In Springer, Operations Management for Social Good: 2018 POMS International Conference in Rio, Psaraftis, H. N., Zis, T., & Lagouvardou, S. (2021). A comparative evaluation of market based measures for shipping decarbonization. Maritime Transport Research, 2, 100019. Schinas, O., & Butler, M. (2016). Feasibility and commercial considerations of LNG-fueled ships. Ocean Engineering, 122, 84-96. Seddiek, I. S., & Ammar, N. R. (2023). Technical and eco-environmental analysis of blue/green ammonia-fueled RO/RO ships. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 114, 103547. Seddiek, I. S., Elgohary, M. M., & Ammar, N. R. (2015). The hydrogen-fuelled internal combustion engines for marine applications with a case study. Brodogradnja: Teorija i praksa brodogradnje i pomorske tehnike, 66(1), 23-38. Song, Z.-Y., Chhetri, P., Ye, G., & Lee, P. T.-W. (2023). Green maritime logistics coalition by green shipping corridors: a new paradigm for the decarbonisation of the maritime industry. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 1-17. van Biert, L., Godjevac, M., Visser, K., & Aravind, P. V. (2016). A review of fuel cell systems for maritime applications. Journal of Power Sources, 327, 345-364. Wang, Z., Zhao, F., Dong, B., Wang, D., Ji, Y., Cai, W., & Han, F. (2023). Life cycle framework construction and quantitative assessment for the hydrogen fuelled ships: A case study. Ocean Engineering, 281, 114740. Xu, H., & Yang, D. (2020). LNG-fuelled container ship sailing on the Arctic Sea: Economic and emission assessment. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 87, 102556. Yang, Z., Xin, X., Chen, K., & Yang, A. (2021). Coastal container multimodal transportation system shipping network design—toll policy joint optimization model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, 123340. Zhao, Y., Chen, Y., Fagerholt, K., Lindstad, E., & Zhou, J. (2023). Pathways towards carbon reduction through technology transition in liner shipping. Maritime Policy \& Management, 1-23.