See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/7664111

Development of a system of indicators for

sustainable port management
ARTICLE in MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN JANUARY 2006
Impact Factor: 2.99 DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.06.048 Source: PubMed

CITATIONS

READS

51

149

5 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Eduardo peris mora
Universitat Politcnica de Valncia
49 PUBLICATIONS 919 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on

ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Eduardo peris mora

Retrieved on: 02 March
2016

0025-326X/$ - see front matter _ 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Over recent decades maritime incidents have featured among

the environmental disasters that have caused most social alarm.
These disasters have included spills involving hydrocarbons, toxic
substances and ship-wrecks. Although sea transport may be
globally consid-ered as one of the most environmentally innocuous
forms of transport, the magnitude of its activity large ports, large
vessels makes port activity subject to spe-cial precautions to
ensure that it adheres to sustainable development conditions. Port
policy has a strategic nat-ure, and the construction of large ports is
either carried out by state initiative or is state-controlled in the
major-

ity of countries. However, the ports operation is usually subject

to the highest competitive market rules. Several initiatives have
been taken in the area of marine trans-port and in port activities
related with environmental protection. In 1987 the Foundation
European pour l Education Environmental (FEEE), supported
by the European Commission, developed the Blue Flag Pro-ject
within the European Environmental Year to implement an
environmental management, an eco-label system, and the
management of both beaches and mari-nas. This was an
interesting initiative which could be considered as a precedent
to both the eco-audit and eco-label systems (FEE, 2005). In
1994, the European Sea Ports Organization created an
Environmental Con-duct Code for Industrial Ports
(Goulielmos, 2000). In 1997, the Amsterdam Port Authority
started the Project

Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 62 96 675 68; fax: +34 96 387 75

ECOaddress:
INFORMATION
(Euromagazine, 2003), and in the same year, Rotterdam port began the GREEN
69.E-mail
eperis@cst.upv.es (E. Peris-Mora).

Marine Pollution Bulletin 50 (2005) 16491660

www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul

Development of a system
of
indicato
rs for
sustaina
ble port
manage
ment
a,*

E. Peris-Mora , J.M.
b
Diez Orejas , A.
b

Subirats , S. Ibanez ,
a
P. Alvarez
a

Valencia
Polytechnic
University,
Camino de
Vera, s/n,
46022,
Valencia,
Spain
b
FEPORTS (Instituto Portuario de
Estudios y Cooperacion de la
Comunidad Valenciana), C/Paz 2.
46003 Valencia, Spain

Abstract
The 1998 project ECOPORT, Towards
A Sustainable Transport Network,
developed by the Valencia Port Authority
(VPA),
established
the
bases
for
implementing
an
Environmental
Management System (EMS) in industrial
harbours. The use of data and information
shall always be required to develop an
ecient EMS. The objective of the present
research (INDAPORT) study is to propose a
system of sustainable environmental
management indicators to be used by any
port authorities. All activities performed
within a port area are analysed for any
potential environmental impacts and risks.
An environmental analysis of port
activities has been carried out with the
objective of designing the indicators system.
Twenty-one corresponding activities have
been identified for large industrial ports.
Subsequently, the same methodology
developed to date will be later applied to
other Spanish and European ports. The
study has been developed by using an
original system and a meth-odology, which
simultaneously use stage diagrams and
systemic models (material and energy flow
charts). Multi-criteria analysis techniques

were used to evaluate potential impacts

(identification of factors and evaluation of
impacts).
_ 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Environmental indicators;
Environmental management system; Port
management; ISO 14001; EMAS; Environmental
impact

1650

E. Peris-Mora et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 50 (2005) 16491660

AWARD System with the same objective

(Green Award, 2001). Since 1997, the
Valencia Port Authority (VPA) in Spain
has been developing the project ECOPORT (ECOPORT Valencia, 2000) with a
view to establishing procedures to
implement the Eco-Audit European
regulation 1836/1893 in European
harbours. The initiative was supported by
the European Commis-sion LIFE projects.
INDAPORT (IPEC, 2005) has since been
initiated (20022004) to establish systems
of indica-tors in order to implement a
sustainable
environmental
ports
management.
The
ECOPORTS
FOUNDATION
finally
started
its
activitties in 2003. In September 2003,
ESPO published the new Code of Practice
recom-mending specific environmental
practices to improve the environmental
ports performance (Darbra et al., 2004).
The European Union Regulation
1836/1893 was en-acted in 1993.
Industrial sector companies were invited to
implement an EMS based on eco-auditing
(Environ-mental Management Auditing
Scheme, EMAS) to be included in one
European registry. Port installations were
excluded from this invitation because they
were not industrial companies in the
strictest sense. Article 4 of this Regulation
only allowed for the possibility of
implementing an experimental system of
environmental management and of
accessing an informal B-list. ISO
Standard 14001 of 1996 opened the door
to EMS imple-mentation for all
organisations
which
heightened
expectations,
albeit
without
the
institutional support that the European
Regulation aorded. The complete review
and renewal of the Regulation, now known
as 671/2001 (EMAS II), has avoided this
limitation by allowing any organisation to
be included in the list, and it is implicitly
backed by ISO Standard 14001. In-deed
nowadays in Europe the ISO 14000
standard is considered to be a prerequisite
in the certification pro-cess enabling
organisations to obtain an EMAS.
The
1998
project
ECOPORT
(Towards A Sustain-able Transport
Network) was led by the Port of Valencia
through the cooperation between Valencia
Polytechnic University and the IPEC
Foundation (Insti-tuto Portuario de
Estudios de Investigacion); the project
was supported by the European
Commission LIFE pro-gramme. This
project established the bases for implementing one EMS based on the European
Regulation 1836/1893, which was then in
force. Its objective was to create the basic
conditions for sustainable European port
development
and
management
in
accordance with this Regulation. After the
EMS had been implemented in the port
environment itself, it was necessary to
estab-lish the environmental performance
control mechanisms which would in turn
determine the status and changes of the
port environment.
The objective
of the project
INDAPORT, which manages the research
described in the present document, was to
design
a
system
of
sustainable

environmental management indicators for

the port authorities to aid

the assessment and minimisation of

environmental risks. The study, proposal
and implementation were carried out by
using the Port of Valencia as a base in the
first place, with the intention to them
being subsequently ex-tended to other
Spanish and European ports.

2. Diagnosis, management and

operational control indicators
Standards and regulations are based on
the conve-nience (ISO) or obligation
(EMAS) of carrying out an initial
environmental diagnosis as a starting point
to
implement
an
Environmental
Management System (EMS). In general,
one
organisation
undertaking
an
environmental analysis in an attempt to
find and to con-sider all the variables that
determine
status,
environmen-tal
behaviour and temporal development,
would prove to be a dicult task as
seaports are complex and dy-namic
entities (Bichou and Gray, 2004). Any
entity to be studied would entail dealing
with a complex ecosys-tem (or simply a
system), which would involve such a
large number of variables that it would
surpass any one individual s ability to
completely interpret any indi-vidual or
collective study conducted on them. Such
an overwhelming task means it is
necessary to substitute the variables,
whose direct measurements are only sometimes obtainable, by the so-called

indicators. A lim-ited number of these

indicators simplify the analysis, control
and management tasks.
Indicators came into use years ago,
firstly in the field of economics where it
was also necessary to resort to
comprehensive interpretations (exactly the
same situa-tion occurred in the study of
the environment) using val-ues which
were especially relevant in characterising
systems (UNDP, 1998; World Bank, 1999;
Chemicals Stakeholder Forum, 2001;
CEROI, 2003). Pressure indi-cators or
state indicators are usually used to
describe the system (EU, 2001; OECD,
2001; EUROSTAT, 2001) while response
indicators describe the consequences of a
decision made by the management (EEA,
2002a,b).
Dierent initiatives (IHOBE, 2002)
have been devel-oped to facilitate the
diagnostic and evaluation tasks of
environmental behaviour (Guidelines
EMAS, 2003; Stanley, 2003; ISO 14031).
From the dierent definitions regarding
the concept of Indicator that scientific
literature provides, we have selected that
from OECD (1993):
Indicators: Instruments which evaluate the
positive or negative state of the environment
and the consequences of applied measures.
An environmental indicator is a parameter or
value resulting from a group of parameters
which provides information regarding a
phenomenon with a broader significance
than that directly associated with the
configuration of the parameter.

E. Peris-Mora et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 50 (2005) 16491660

Indicators are signals which allow

data to become available for decisionmaking. Since decision-making is an
intellectual process, the decision-maker
should have the opportunity to consider all
the available and necessary information.
What is the necessary informa-tion? How
much information is necessary? The
answer to these questions is the object of
the research line car-ried out by our team
in the present study. For instance, in an
activity as simple as driving a car, the
indicators helping us drive come from
inside the car (speed, fuel consumption,
lights), as well as from outside (number
plates, painted road lines, signals from
other cars, . . .), and they allow us to make
immediate decisions.
If we were to consider port activity
from a compre-hensive panoramic point of
view, we could identify sev-eral types of
management-decision levels where each
one would not only correspond to dierent
responsibilities, but would also need
dierent types of indicators. Several
responsibility levels exist inside a harbour:
The Port Authority (PA) is the highest
hierarchy of management inside the port
area. Then the licensed companies occu-py
the next level down within the port, and
they exert their activity under a temporary
concession. These com-panies provide
such services as loading/unloading,
catering or fuel services to ships,
industries, mainte-nance, etc. All the direct
tasks are carried out under the
responsibility of those licensed companies,
or on rare occasions, under the direct PA
control.
If we consider an activity taking place
at the task level (our third level), it would
be the closest to direct action. Therefore,
the signals made by whatever carries out
these tasks are the direct indicators (lights,
levels, sig-nals given by the equipment,
etc.). Examples of this are the unloading of
containers from ship decks with cranes or
trucks, and the supply of fuel from a
pontoon. Such tasks are part of the
licensed company s activity (or, in some
cases, part of the services provided by the
port itself). The direct information which
determines the immediate decisions (in
real time) made by the oper-ator may not
be readily available and there may be noone in the licensed company (or PA
service) who would have the overall
responsibility for general and environmental management.
At
the
second
licensed
company/process level, it is nec-essary to
have data which is obtained from other
infor-mation
sources
(registries,
consumption data, events or environmental
analytic data). This information provides
the criteria for company management
decision-making. The objectives behind
the decisions made at this level concern
environmental
sustainability
and
compliance with the regulations, which
allow the activity to be car-ried out inside
the harbour. Decisions are made by using
integrated indicators, and they result in
recorded an-swers (e.g. monthly data).
The PA is responsible for enforcing the law inside
the harbour since it is a part of the State representative s

1651

oce for the (sustainable) management of

littoral port areas. This authority will
receive all the environmental information
which the Law demands of licensed
compa-nies in compliance with either
general or specific envi-ronmental
regulations (permissions, authorisations).
The PA will decide its own management
after obtaining this information from
companies and from other direct indicators
obtained through measurements or indirect
estimations.
An example of such would be the task
operator or subcontractor measuring
monthly consumption levels as well as the
destination of machine oil. The licensed
company s environmental manager should
know how many lorry hours have been
logged, and where appro-priate, whether
these vehicles had passed a Vehicle Technical Inspection or not. The environmental
manager also knows how much energy
was consumed by the elec-trical network
and the cost of waste removal through the
authorised managers. The PA knows the
overall trac of goods, and where
appropriate, it is informed about the
documentation the company used to obtain
subcon-tractors. Nevertheless, it is not
required to inform the PA of anything
more than the existence of the permissions required by distributors to carry out
their activi-ties. Therefore, given its
policy, the PA is required to have a
standardised EMS. It must have a system
of indi-cators obtained from other
internal/external, direct/ indirect sources of
information in order to establish an
environmental action plan. Decisions will
be made in accordance with how the
information provided by these indicators is
interpreted, and they will lead to dierent
responses over time.
The PA of each port falls under the state
port author-ity, which is known as the
State Ports institution in Spain, and
every country has an equivalent. These
organisations should have a series of
strategic indicators for planning their state
port management policy, environ-mental
performance (Segnestam, 1999), in on
even more general terms, for designing the
long-term transport pol-icy. In accordance
to the administrative hierarchy level, the
type of indicators used will necessarily
dier. Indica-tors may be considered as a
scale-dependent magnitude. Upper level
indicators should present the information
in the highest possible condensed form.
However,
condens-ing
information
through integrated indicators should not
lead to any loss of information. Coastal
zone man-agement (CZM) is also another
scale to focus on envi-ronmental planning
(Bowen and Riley, 2003; Ehler, 2003) that
needs special indicators (territorial, social)
where port management can be considered
as part of the coastal zone complex
system.
Shipping and ports (maritime industry)
is usually iso-lated from contemporary
integrated coastal and ocean discussion
and practice, despite their impact on
coastal and ocean activity (McConnell,
2002). The ecological footprint concept
(EFC) (Wackernagel and Yount,

1652

E. Peris-Mora et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 50 (2005) 16491660

2000; Wackernagel, 2001; Alba, 2003) has

also been pro-posed as a strategic
indicator. This evaluates ports by their
surface area size, providing resources for
sustain-able activity. This port indicator is
still not widely used. EFC can be useful to
compare environmental behaviour among
ports, or to evaluate the temporary
evolution of port behaviour. Apparently
we are dealing with a very useful system,
particularly when it is necessary to compare the global impact of dierent
transport systems in order to decide and
define a particular transport policy.
Fig. 1 depicts a diagram devised by our
team to estab-lish this as a starting-point
model in order to decide the scale of our
analysis. Ports and industrial parks share
similar, common characteristics; ports also
have similar-ities with specific populations
or particular urban dis-tricts. The system
of indicators for port environmental
management at a PA level strives to be
useful for large industrial ports; it should
bring together a series of char-acteristics
derived from dierent sources which are
com-mon to the majority of indicators
(OECD, 1993; EEA, 2001; ESSD, 1999).
These characteristics are compiled as a
summary in Table 1.

the second most important port in Spain in

commercial terms, and it has the leading
maritime container trac in the Western
Mediterranean (Puerto de Valencia,
www.Valenciaport.com). The volume of
containers has reached 1.992.903 TEU, of
which 71.1% has been han-dled in the
Public Container Terminal. The annual
vol-ume of trac in the Port of Valencia
has reached 34.96 million ton (2003).
More than 800 ports from the five
continents regularly connect through the
Port of Valen-cia, with more than 160
transport lines oering services to and
from the Port of Valencia. This port covers
2
an area of approximately 5.2 million m , it
has more than 11000 m of berthing line
with depths of between 7 and 17 m, and 15
RORO mooring units. (www.valenciaport.com). The city of Valencia and its
surrounding towns, constituted by the
capital city and its metropoli-tan area
which integrates the port, have an
approximate population of 1.2 million
inhabitants. In fact, once our research
work was completed, the Port of Valencia
was nominated as the host city for the
2007 America s Cup.

3. Case study and methodology

3.1. Port activity

Although our research is limited to the

Port of Valencia as a case study in a
first instance, it is to be extended and
corrected in a second stage by incorporating new information after having
analysed other Spanish and European
ports. The Port of Valencia is

The Valencia Port Authority (VPA) is

the governing body of all port activity. Part
of the harbour s activity is directly
managed by the VPA, while other parts are
handled by private sector organisations
which act as licensed companies. Like
most other ports in the major-ity of
countries, the Spanish government
transmits responsibilities to the VPA to
ensure that these licensed

Fig. 1. Port environment: management decision level.

E. Peris-Mora et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 50 (2005) 16491660

Table 1
General characteristics of port indicators

Representativeness

The indicators should represent environmental behaviour as accurately as possible

Conciseness

The indicator should allow for the simplification of the number of variables, which characterises a
phenomenon of condensing the information with the least possible loss of information
The indicator should allow an activity to be evaluated in such a way that goals are accomplished
The indicator should be a useful tool for the activity
Within the environmental awareness framework
Being adapted or easily adapted to other indicators, models and prediction systems (EEA, OCDE, EC, etc.)
Over time (the development of a phenomenon), and within regional, national and international frameworks
The indicator should be sensitive to environmental changes with fast, adaptable and appropriate responses
to them. Thus, they should have variable values according to the changes in the phenomenon
The system should be coherent and focus on essential data. The indicators should be concise, accurate,
simple and easy to interpret
In obtaining and developing the data
From the phenomenon being evaluated
The collecting data criteria should be constant over time in order to compare results
The indicators should be determined at appropriately short intervals for the purpose of having the
opportunity to actively pursue and influence the desired data
The indicator should be preferably quantitative. If this were not possible, it should be hierarchically
categorised
The indicator should provide information about its own limitations
The indicator should be administratively ecient in terms of the costs involved in obtaining the data
and use of the information

Purpose
Usefulness
Relevance
Adaptability
Comparability
Sensitivity
Clarity
Reliability and objectivity
Easy to obtain
Continuity
Regularity
Scientific verification
Well-defined limits
Cost-eectiveness

companies, ships and other suppliers and

clients comply with the law (Espana,
2003, Ley de Puertos). Although the
licensed companies are obliged to provide
the VPA with environmental information
in accordance with their activity, as
required by the legal regulations, this has
not become an excessively complicated
system of controls. First, the Port of
Valencia itself was studied in order to
outline the scope of the system of
indicators within the port area. The first
study stage consisted in considering
certain activities. Although these activities
are not normally carried out inside the Port
of Valencia, they are frequently undertaken
in other Spanish/ Euro-pean ports. Table 2
lists these activities. All the activities
carried out in the Port have been subjected
to environ-mental study.

groups of experts, the Delphi method,

(Aragones and Gomez-Senent, 1997;
Dalkey et al., 1972; Romero, 1993; BarbaRomero and Pomerol, 1997; Landeta,
2002), and the systemic analysis
techniques of material flow, energy flow
and information flow identification. The
general systematic stages followed in the
analysis were as follows:

evaluating their level of significance;

ranking of impact;
condensing data.

Each activity is described through a stepsdiagram pro-cess. To describe processes

the technical literature uses the called fluxdiagram. It seems more appropriate the
denomination of steps diagram. This
dierentiation was required here because
we had to distinguish between the stepsdiagram (as a succession of steps and
stages to complete each process) and the
true flux-diagram (the special tool in the
Dynamic Systemic Science). The aspects
defined in ISO 14001 and EMAS are
identified by cross-diagrams (flow charts
overlapping stage dia-grams). Thus, each
process composes a list of aspects which
may
potentially
involve
some
environmental impact.

3.2. Analysis of the activity

All 21 identified activities carried out in
the port area have been submitted to
environmental analysis. Occa-sionally,
when direct access to installations was not
easy, the analysis required the use of a
bibliography to not only describe the
environmental aspects aected by what
are considered to be normal operations,
but also any potentially abnormal
situations or emergencies. Never-theless,
the licensed companies provided all the
facilities for this project, as well as for the
preceding and afore-mentioned ECOPORT
project, in the majority of the cases. The
procedure followed for the identification
of those environmental aspects (ISO
14001, 2004; EMAS, 2001) aected by
the processes and their impact was
especially designed for this purpose. This
procedure combined the multi-criteria
analysis methodology by

identification of port activities and

processes;
identifying
environmental
aspects
aected by each activity-process;

Description of the activity using a

simplified diagram of the process
steps diagramas a succession of
stages (steps into the process; line 12
345 in the example Fig. 2).

1653

1654

E. Peris-Mora et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 50 (2005) 16491660

Sea area

Table 2
1.

Port activities

Sea trac

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

8.
9.
10.

11.
12.
13.
14.

Land trac
Storage, loading and unloading of oil products
Storage, loading and unloading of bulk liquids
Storage, loading and unloading of bulk solids
Storage, loading and unloading of general container
merchandise
Storage, loading and unloading of non-container
merchandise
Fishing activity
Handling and converting perishable bulk solids
Port services
Pilotage
Towing
Mooring
Lock conditioning
Waste disposal
Preservation of Installations and Infrastructure
Security
Provisioning of vessels
Administrative services
Construction and repair of vessels
Sanitation services
Emergency operations

Fir
e
pro
tec
tio
n
sys
te
m
Se
a
res
cue
Emergency energy generators
Maintenance and cleaning of
the port area

15. Maintenance operations

16.

Buildings, gardens, workshops, roads, docks,

reflecting pool
Dredging
17. M
A
R
P
O
L
w
a
s
t
e
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
M
A
R
P
O
L
I
:
o
i
l
MARPOL II: noxious liquid substances
MARPOL III: harmful substances in
packaged form MARPOL IV: sewage
from ships

18.
19.
20.
21.

MARPOL V: garbage from ships

Civil works
Abandoned or unused installations and merchandise
Recreational activities
Marinas and yacht clubs
Land area

Overlapping the diagram with a systemic (flow)

chart in which the input and output allow us to
identify the

environmental aspects which may

potentially have an impact in each stage
(each line (Ix)X(Ox) in the same Fig.
2).
Obtaining a list of the identified aspects.

An example of a Fuel Load may be

found in Fig. 2. In these diagrams, the
process is analysed by enumerating the
successive stages, and the systemic (flow)
chart anal-yses the inputs and outputs of
energy and material in each step of the
process.
The identified aspects are used to
characterise the environmental impact to
serve as a basis in a system of sustainable
management indicators. It is essential to:
(a) analyse the potential impact; (b)
discover its level of significance, and (c)
establish, where appropriate, a

correlation among dierent impacts; thus,

allowing the magnitude of the problem to
be reduced and the system to be
simplified. In general, even though the
factors have been identified, no
quantitative information exists in the
majority of cases to evaluate the
magnitude
of
the
im-pact,
nor
consequently, its level of significance.
When quantitative information is not
available, most authors and experts
(Recommendation by the Commission,
2003) advise using indirect measurements
through multi-criteria analyses: the Delphi
method, an experts panel, or similar.
The aspects identified as having a
significant impact have been classified in
the groups shown below. The recommendations made by the EC (Guidance
Document, EMAS Guideline. EC, 2000)
were a point of reference in the evaluation.
The above-mentioned techniques were
used, and groups of experts were
consulted. The EC rec-ommendations
were used in our study, but the number of
characterisation variables were expanded.
All the variables and evaluation criteria
used (11) are shown in Table 3, but only
some of them were used to evaluate the
impacts for each aspect/impact grouping;
for in-stance, two variables were used in
the case of odour or noise, and nine were
used for water pollution. Table 3 identifies
the variables and groups. A total of 63
aspects were considered to detail the 12
groups.
A cross matrix (63 aspects 21
activities), where the activities-process are
shown in the columns and the as-pects are
shown

in

the

rows,

permits

the

identification of the most relevant impacts

from activities with a sig-nificant impact.

This large matrix is not represented in this
paper. The measurement of significance is
carried out by quantifying the impacts
produced on each envi-ronmental aspect.
The evaluation was carried out by an
experts

panel

using

characterisation

variables

set

recorded

of
in

Table 4, and a scale of ranking to quantify

them. Each impact was evaluated by the
experts panel, and its significance level
was taken as a percentage scale. The
algorithm to combine the variables is:

"

I i Log

actual

=Log

maxim

!#_

100

where Ii is the value of impact in %, _actual

the product of case variables and _maxim is
the product of maximum values.
The objective of this procedure was to
assign percent-ages or their equivalents to
the potential impact. This means that
management needs to be given utmost
atten-tion. Therefore, values close to 100%
potentially have the greatest impact;
otherwise, management is obviously
deficient or can be clearly improved. This
significance percentage evaluation was
carried out using a category establishment
technique in which the dierent variables
were assigned relative weights against the
remaining ones, and a reduced number of
options. Each option

E. Peris-Mora et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 50 (2005) 16491660

Fuel consumption Energy

consumption
Raw materials (I ) consumption

Fuel consumption Water

consumption Energy
consumption Raw
materials (I2)

Fuel consumption
Water consumption
Energy consumption
Raw materials (I3)
consumption

1655

Emission of CO, NOx, SO2

Emission of VOCs
Noise (engine)
(O1)
Odours
Spills or leaks

FUEL UNLOADING
(1)

FUEL TANK STORAGE/

FUEL HANDLING
(2)

Emission of CO, NOx, SO2

Emission of VOCs
Noise (engine)
Odours
Spills or leaks in the docks
Run-off water
Processed water
Cleaning water
(O2)
Soil pollution
Dangerous waste
Emission of CO, NOx, SO2
Emission of VOCs
Noise (engine)
Odours
Run-off water
Cleaning water

LOADING STATION
(3)

Soil pollution
Dangerous waste

Fuel consumption
Energy consumption
Raw materials (I4)

HYDROCARBON
VAPOUR RECOVERY
UNIT
(4)

consumption

Fuel consumption
Energy consumption
Raw materials (I5)
consumption

TANK LOADING
(5)

(O3)
Emission of CO, NOx, SO2
Emission of VOCs
Noise (engine)
Odours
Cleaning water
Dangerous waste

(O4)

Emission of CO, NOx, SO2

Emission of VOCs
Noise (engine)
Odours
Soil pollution
Dangerous waste

(O5)

Stage diagram line

Flux diagram line
Fig. 2. Analysis of storage, loading and unloading of oil products activities.

was evaluated so that the highest numbers

correspond to the greatest impact, or to
more delicate management necessities.
4. Discussion of results
The
environmental
management
indicators proposal is a matter that has
recently been under repeated discus-sion
by many specialists (EEA, 1999; OECD,
1993, 2001; CEROI, EU, 2001). The
expression from experi-mental sciences
you can t know what you can t measure, is a comment that is repeatedly
quoted when attempting to justify the
necessity of measuring in order to achieve
a better control and management of
activities. The EMSs (ISO 14001 and
European Regulation 761/ 01) are based
on the need to develop systems which con-

trol all the processes. They anticipate

every given situa-tion and have prepared
solutions for any environmental problem
which might arise while conducting any
activity by any organisation. They require
the quantification of objectives and goals
as well as the eort and commit-ment for
continuous improvement. Quantification is
not only needed during an initial analysis;
it is an intrin-sic element for the EMSs,
based on the continuous improvement
philosophy since evidence must be produced when evaluating the eect of
improvements.
Thus,
the
EC
recommendation to adopt the systems of
indicators (Guidance Document, EMAS
Guideline, EC, 2000) is a proposal to use
the criteria supported by objective
variables, which by using these
techniques, allow for an evaluation of
qualitative and subjective descriptions in
the declarations or evaluations of
environmental behaviour.

management

Existence of

E. Peris-Mora et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 50 (2005) 16491660

1656

Overtaking

xx

xxx

xx

xx

xx
xx

xxxx

Fragility of

xx
xx

dynamicImpacton
landscapeSoiloccupation

x
x
habitatsAlteration of littoral

Odour pollutionWaterpollutionSoilpollution

Air pollutionNoisepollution

xx
creationResourceconsumptionAlterationofseafloorAlterationofcoastWaste xxx
al

xxxxxxx

xx

x
xx

xx

Frequency
Magnitude
Danger/
x

impacts

Variables
Aspects/impacts groups

Table 3
Evaluation variables for

Accepting the use of the magnitude of

the impact as an indicator;

Grouping dierent factors to produce a value

of an indicatorintegrator nature.

Ruling out the factor because its relative

importance in relation to others of a
similar dimension justifies this.

xx

x
x

Abnormality
Emergencies
Aect on
Renewable

x
x

Reversibility of

The procedure leads us to discern

between the dier-ent aspects suering a
potential environmental impact, and may be
understood through the impact units and the
variables in the left-hand column (Table 4).
A total of 63 forms of potential
environmental impact are shown; they are
ranked according to their relative
importance, and grouped according to their
group of dierent aspects (atmosphere,
water, soil, energy con-sumption, etc.). The
63 forms of potential impact may be
compared with each other inside their own
group with the object of applying criteria,
which in turn may produce one of the
following three possibilities:

Thus, the right-hand column in this figure

(Table 4) pro-vides a list of selected port
system indicators. Each indi-cator has been
subsequently defined in accordance with its
applicability within the PA s system of
environmental management indicators. The
17 indicators selected make up the initial
proposal which should be sanctioned
through an implementation of the system
and its sug-gested modifications. These
indicators are occasionally made up of more
than one scalar value. In any case, they are
taken as vectors with two dimensions or
more in accordance with their data set.
The data needed to configure each
indicator came from dierent sources.
Some of the base indicator parameters
originated from the direct intervention
level, or from the licensed companies which
have their own system of indicators
according to the level of complex-ity.
Nevertheless, most data are stored in
registries de-rived from information
obtained in environmental controls from
either the PA itself, and/or from public
institutions which have the equipment to
provide such information (meteorological
data, emissions measure-ment systems,
etc.).
Several references by diverse authors
and Institutions proposing Environmental
Indicator Systems (EIS) exist. However,
very few propose a specific EIS which may
be applied as a decision-making instrument.
Thus for example, the European
Commission proposal of indica-tors (2001)
concludes by numbering those required by
diverse complex systems (urban and
maritime environ-mental problems, coastal
areas, etc.). However, no for-mal criteria
have been established for its standard
application to dierent organisations. Ehler
(2003) pro-posed a system of indicators for
measuring cost-inte-grated management,
which culminated in the selection of
information requirements in relation to
ensuring

E. Peris-Mora et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 50 (2005) 16491660

Table 4

1657

Potential environmental impactsenvironmental indicators

Potential environment impacts

Environmental indicators

Air pollution
Emission of particles from storage, loading and unloading of bulk
solids Emission of combustible gasses OC, NOx, SO2 and HC from
vehicular

1. Air quality (atmospheric contaminant

emissions: CO, NOx, SO, O, PM10)

trac on land
Emission of particles from the handling and transformation of bulk
solids Emission of VOCs in loading and unloading combustible
materials

in activities with oil products

Emission of VOCs in storage tanks from oil product activity

Emission of combustible gasses CO, NOx, SO2

2. Atmospheric contaminant emissions: VOCs and

and HC from maritime trac

particles

Emission of combustible gasses CO, NOx, SO2

and HC from loading and

unloading machines (cranes, water spouts, ramps, etc.) for containerised
merchandise Emission of other gasses which are harmful for human health
and/or the environment

(VOCs) in building and repairing vessels

Emission of particles from
civil works Emission of
particles from vehicular land
trac
Emission of particles from handling general containerised
merchandise Emission of particles from building and
repairing vessels

3.

Gas
emissions
with Greenhouse
eect (CO2, CH4,
N2O)

Noise pollution

Noise caused by land trac

Noise caused by container loading and unloading machinery
Noise caused by civil works machinery
Noise caused by vessel construction and repairing machinery

4.

Noise pollution

5.

Inner port water quality

Odour pollution
Odours from handling and transforming perishable bulk solids
Odours from MARPOL V waste treatment
Odours from fish handling
Odours from water purifiers

Water pollution
Spills or leaks from the transfer of oil products from
vessel to lorry Spills or leaks from the transfer of bulk
liquids from vessel to lorry

Accidental spills from small vessels in maritime trac

Change in normal dock water conditions in dredging operations

Rainwater in bulk storage areas

Processed waterwith organic waste from fish cleaning

Soil pollution
Spills or leaks of dangerous liquids (HC, paints, solvents, oils) from land
trac Spills or leaks of dangerous liquids (HC, paints, solvents, oils) from
construction

6.

and vessel repair

Spills or leaks of dangerous liquids (HC, paints, solvents,

oils) in the MARPOL waste treatment
Leached material from storage of waste from
fishing activities Leached material from storage
of stock

Amount and description

of accidental spills in
inner port waters

7.

Quality of spilled waste water

8.

High risk areas for soil pollution

Waste creation
Urban waste
Uncontaminated
sludge from dredging
Scrap from building
and repair of vessels

Non-organic waste: tyres in general

containerized merchandise Scrap from
civil works
General organic waste from the handling
of bulk solids Non-organic waste: tyres
in port services

9. Urban and dangerous waste creation

Excesse
s from bulk
solids stock
Dangerous
waste

Material impregnated with dangerous chemical substances

and preparations Batteries and fluorescent tubes

Toxic waste packaging from building and repairing vessels

(lubricants, solvents paint, anti-fouling, etc.)
Toxic waste packaging in marinas (lubricants, solvents, paint, antifouling, etc.) Chemical preparations and organic solvents used in bulk
solid activity

(continued on next page)

1658

E. Peris-Mora et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 50 (2005) 16491660

Table 4 (continued)
Potential environment impacts

Environmental indicators

Contaminated sludge from dredging

10. Creation of sludge from dredging

Sludge with hydrocarbons from MARPOL waste treatment

Resource consumption
Consumption of processed water in the manipulation and transformation
of perishable bulk solids
Water consumption in cleaning and maintaining green areas
Water consumption in watering carbon heaps when handling bulk solids
Water consumption in cleaning and maintaining crafts in marinas

11. Ecient water consumption

Fuel consumption in land trac

12. Ecient fuel consumption

Fuel consumption in machinery used for the storage, loading and unloading
of containerised merchandise
Fuel consumption in machinery used for building and repairing vessels

13. Ecient electric energy consumption

Electric energy consumption in the storage, loading and unloading

of containerised bulk solids
Electric energy consumption in the storage, loading and unloading
of non-containerised bulk solids
Electric energy consumption in the storage, loading and unloading of
non-containerised merchandise
Electric energy consumption the handling and pumping of oil-based
derived products
Electric energy consumption in the handling and pumping of bulk liquids

Other
Alteration of water currents due to the existence of the port, accretion
and erosion phenomena
Alteration of sea floor due to civil works
Alteration of sea floor due to dredging operations
Alteration of sea floor at the mooring areas for boats

14. Alteration of sea floor

Occupation of soil due to civil works

15. Soil occupation eciency

Impact on landscape and installations that are abandoned or out of use

16. Social image of the port

17. Number of incidents with environmental
repercussions

e
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r

the eectiveness of the legal structures,

management strategies. Unfortunately, it
did not include a proposal of the specific
measures and procedures to obtain these
values. In our case, however, if we consider
that large
Table 5
1.
2.
3.

Indicators sheet index

Introduction

State of the port

Environmental objective

4.

D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h

D
e
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
Un
its
of
me
as
ure
me
nt
Fr

eq
ue
nc
y
Scope

5.

M
et
h
o
d
ol
o
g
y
of
c
al
c
ul
at
io
n
P
ar
a
m
et
er
s
to
b
e
m
e
as
ur
e
d
A
p
pl
ic
a
bl
e
le
gi
sl
at
io
n
M
e
as
ur
in
g
to
ol
s

Body responsible for taking

measurements Place for
obtaining data

6.

Frequency of measurements

References

commercial ports have many elements in

common, and that the experience of a PA
may be used and revised through a
collaboration with port institutions, our research arrives at the detailed proposal of
the 17 system indicators, which are
pressure and/or state indicators. Each one
is described in the description sheet with
the items included in Table 5.
5. Conclusions
The objective of this study was to carry
out an envi-ronmental analysis of port
activities with a view to designing a
system of sustainable management indicators. Twenty-one corresponding activities
have been identified for large industrial
ports.
Subsequently,
the
same
methodology developed to date may be
applied to other Spanish and European
ports since the research involved remains
open-ended. The study has been developed by using an original system and a
methodology, which simultaneously use
stage diagrams and systemic models
(material and energy flow charts). Multicriteria

E. Peris-Mora et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 50 (2005) 16491660

analysis techniques were used to evaluate

potential impacts (identification of factors
and evaluation of impacts).
Port activity is susceptible to dierent
scale descrip-tions, from operation task
scales to strategic State port policy. This
study has focused on the need to devise
instruments to aid decision-making by the
PA at an environmental management level.
The task descriptions have allowed us
to identify the number of potential forms
of environmental impact which should be
given preferential treatment in port
management in order to establish action
plans.
A total of 63 forms of potential
environmental im-pact found in dierent
port activities have been identi-fied. It is
necessary to apply and improve the control
over these activities. Objective criteria
must be applied to them in order to reduce
the magnitude of the prob-lem. A total of
17 pressure/state indicators, some of
which are multi-dimensional, have been
chosen for port environmental policy.
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank the following
people for their collaboration in the
success of the INDAPORT Project: D.
Andres Guerra, Puertos del Estado, D.
Federico Tor-res and D. Jose Saez,
Autoridad Portuaria de Valencia, D. Juan
Luis Domenech, Autoridad Portuaria de
Gijon, D. Jose Alba, Universidad de
Oviedo.
References
Alba, J., 2003. La huella ecologioca del Puerto de GijonEstudio
financiado por Puertos del estado. Ministerio de Fomento,
Espana.

Aragones, P., Gomez-Senent, E., 1997. Tecnicas de

ayuda a la Decision Multicriterio: cuaderno de
apuntes. Universidad Politec-nica de Valencia,
Espana, 178p.
Barba-Romero, S., Pomerol, J.C., 1997. Decisiones
Multicriterio. Fundamentos teoricos y utilizacio
n practica. Universidad de Alcala, Espana,
420p.
Bichou, K., Gray, R., 2004. A critical review of
conventional terminology for classifying seaports.
Transportation Research Part A, in press.
Bowen, R.E., Riley, C., 2003. Socio-economic
indicators and inte-grated coastal Management.
Ocean Coastal Management 46, 299 312.
CE (Comision Europea), 2003. Recomendacion de la
Comision de 10 de Julio de 2003 (2003/532/CE).
CEROI, 2003. Cities environment reports on the Internet. State
of the Environment (SoE) Indicators (http://www.ceroi.net).

Chemicals Stakeholder Forum, 2001. CSF/01/03.

Third Meeting 8 March 2001.
Dalkey, N., Brown, B., Cochran, S., 1972. La prevision a
long terme par la methode Delphi. Dunod, Paris, p. 209.

Darbra, R.M., Ronza, A., Casal, J., Stojanovic, T.A.,

Woolridge, C., 2004. The self diagnosis method.
A new methodology to assess environmental
management in sea ports. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 48, 420428.

1659

EC (European Commission), 2000. Guidance document. EMAS

Guideline. Oce for Ocial Publications of the EC.

ECOPORT
Valencia,
2000.
Environmental
management systems in European ports. In:
Summary of Proceedings. Autoridad Portuaria de
Valencia, Espana, p. 326.
ECOPORTS FOUNDATION. Available from:
<www.ecoports.com/ foundation/index.asp>.
Espana. LEY de Puertos 48/2003, de 26 de noviembre,
de regimen economico y de prestacion de servicios
de los puertos de interes general. Boletn Oficial del
Estado, 284, 27 November 2003.

EEA (European Environment Agency), 1999.

Environmental indica-tors: Typology and
overview. Technical Report No. 25. Copenhagen.
EEA (European Environment Agency), 2001.
Environmental Signals 2001. Copenhagen, p. 112.
EEA (European Environment Agency), 2002a.
Testing of indicators for the marine and coastal
environment in Europe. Part 1: Eutrophication
and integrated coastal zone management. Technical Report No. 84, Copenhagen, p. 48.
EEA (European Environment Agency), 2002b.
Testing of indicators for the marine and coastal
environment in Europe. Part 2: Hazardous
substances.
Technical
Report
No.
85,
Copenhagen, p. 36.
EMAS, 2001. Regulation (EC) No. 761/2001 of the
European parliament and of the council of 19
March 2001 allowing voluntary participation by
organisations in a Community eco-management
and audit scheme.
EU. Reglamento (CE) No. 761/2001 del Parlamento
Europeo y del Consejo. 19 de marzo de 2001 por
el que se permite que las organizaciones se
adhieran con caracter voluntario a un sistema
comunitario
de
gestion
auditora
medioambientales (EMAS).
EU (European Union) Guidelines for implementation
EMAS (EU 761/2001). 2003/532/CE. 10/07/2003.

Ehler, C.N., 2003. Indicators to measure governance

performance in integrated coastal management.
Ocean and Coastal Management 46, 335345.
Euromagazine, 2003. Economische Zaken. Gemente
Amsterdam.
Available
from:
<http://www.ez.amsterdam.nl/page.php?menu=
576&page=670>.
EUROSTAT, 2001. Environmental pressure indicators
for the EU (data 198598). Oce for Ocial
Publications of the European Communities.
Luxembourg.
FEE (Foundation pour l Education Environmental), 2005.
Blue Flag Award. Available from: <www.blueflag.org>.
Goulielmos, Al.M., 2000. European policy on port environmental
protection. Global Nest: the Int. J. 2 (2), 189197.

Green Award, 2001. Available from:

<http://www.greenaward.org/>. IHOBE, 2002. Medio
ambiente en la comunidad autonoma del Pas
Vasco. Indicadores Ambientales. Departamento de
Ordenacion del Territorio y Medio Ambiente del
Gobierno Vasco, Espana, p. 124. IPEC, 2005.
Instituto Portuario de Estudios e Investigacion.
Proyecto INDAPORT. Available from:
<www.ipec.es/investigaciones/Gestion%20medioambiental/proyectos.htm#2>.

ISO 14001:2004 Environmental Management

Systems Requirements with Guidance for Use.
ISO 14031: Environmental Performance Evaluation.
Landeta, J., 2002. El Metodo Delphi. Una tecnica de prevision
para la incertidumbre. Barcelona, Espana, p. 223.

McConnell, M., 2002. Capacity building for a

sustainable shipping industry: A key ingredient in
improving coastal and ocean Management. Ocean
and Coastal Management 45, 617632.
OECD,
1993.
Organisation
for
Economic
Cooperation and Develop-ment. OECD. Core
set of indicators for environmental perfor-mance
reviews. Environmental monographs. No. 83.
OECD,
2001.
Organisation
for
Economic

Cooperation
and
Develop-ment.
Key
Environmental Indicators. OECD Environment

Direc-torade, p. 36.

1660

E. Peris-Mora et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 50 (2005) 16491660

Puerto de Valencia. Espana. Available from: <http://

www.valenciaport.com>.
Romero, C., 1993. Teora de la decision multicriterio: conceptos, te
cnicas y aplicaciones. Alianza Editorial, Madrid, p. 195.

Segnestam, L., 1999. Environmental Performance

Indicators. ESSD (Environmentally and Socially
Sustainable Development). The World Bank, p. 34.
Stanley, J., BMT. 2003. Added value network
concerning European shipping, The application of
Sustainability Indexes to promoting Quality
Shipping. Advances Consortium. European Union
Project. Key Number 200-TN, 10007.

UNDP, 1998. United Nations Development

Programme. Human Development Report 1998.
Oxford University Press, New York, p. 228.
World Bank, 1999. The World Development Indicators, p. 399.
Wackernagel, M., Yount, D., 2000. Footprints for sustainability: the

next steps. Environment, Development and

Sustainability 1 (2), 21 42.
Wackernagel, M., 2001. Advancing sustainable
resource management. Predefining Progress.
Prepared for DG Environment, European
Commission Project.