Developing a Measurement Framework for Ethiopian Dry Port Sustainability: An Empirical Study

Abstract

In the context of a dry port, sustainable operations involve developing and implementing policies and procedures that reduce adverse effects on the environment, advance economic viability, and strengthen social responsibility. Several factors contribute to achieving environmental, economic, and social sustainability, making it critical to identify the factors influencing the sustainability of dry port operations. This research aims to identify decisive factors associated with economic, social, and environmental sustainability, and to develop a framework for measuring sustainability in dry port operations. The research utilises exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the analytical hierarchical process (AHP) to develop a measurement framework for assessing the sustainability of Ethiopian dry ports. EFA is an effective method with which to identify factors that contribute to sustainable dry port operations. To provide a frame for the critical sustainability performance metrics for dry ports, the AHP approach was used. Data were collected from 300 stakeholders using surveys to identify key factors, and 20 senior experts were involved in validating and rating the most influential factors determining dry port sustainability. This research asserts the most pertinent factors guiding dry port sustainability operations, resource allocation, and decision-making. From an environmental sustainability perspective, critical factors include minimising business-partner impacts, reducing waste, addressing climate change, providing environmental planning education to teams, and implementing measures to protect the national environment. From a social perspective, the factors identified include a resettlement policy, employment opportunities for the community, workplace safety, stakeholder consultation, and top-management guidance. From an economic standpoint, critical factors include value-added services, reduced transportation costs, decreased time, enhanced productivity in the trade supply chain, and profit orientation. The research provides valuable insights with which to guide the development of practices and policies aimed at ensuring sustainable dry port operations, a critical domain of the trade supply chain.

1. Introduction

Dry ports are typically thought of as logistics hubs with large capacities and regular transport services that connect to gateway seaports and centres of production. In the context of a trade supply chain, dry ports may function as inland hubs or as seaport expansions to ease the flow of cargo between seaports and the production and consumption base [1]. The trade supply chain has been under growing pressure to meet sustainability standard regulations and public demands. By combining dry port operations with a production base and the inland interface of a seaport, these pressures can be reduced [2]. Tadic et al. [3] argue that the primary benefits and driving forces behind building a dry port are to mitigate the adverse environmental consequences caused by transportation flows, enhance logistics operations’ efficiencies, and support regional economic growth. In urban and regional settings, dry ports could be modelled as logistical centres to study the environmental effects of trade supply chains and transportation-related sectors. Dry ports typically oversee the operations of logistics chains and transportation networks [4]. Hui et al. [5] highlighted that dry ports can contribute to the sustainability efforts of trade supply networks, even if their operations require considerable changes to the current trade logistics chain.

It is indispensable to have a framework that takes into account a variety of factors when measuring dry port sustainability in developing nations from the viewpoints of multiple stakeholders [1,6] Given the multitude of crucial considerations that need to be made, including stakeholder involvement, legal rules and compliance, and other aspects, it may be challenging to stress sustainability without these. The choice to ensure the dry port’s sustainability necessitates an examination of the entire trade logistics chain, intending to shift as much cargo as possible from the road to less environmentally damaging and more energy-efficient modes of transportation, such as rail [7]. There has been a lot of research conducted recently on the effects that transport has on the environment and how these effects can be mitigated using various logistics principles [8]. The dry port idea is among several that have attracted a lot of interest. The topic has garnered global attention from practitioners and researchers due to its environmental perspective [9]. Ports throughout the globe have been struggling to grow sustainably in recent years due to a variety of factors, including growing environmental consciousness, social responsibility pressure, and an on-going search for sustainable economic operations [10]. Delai and Takahashi argued that [11] there is no consensus on what to actually measure or how to measure sustainability performance. There are differences in the applications of criteria among the group of stakeholders; organisations should take into account these disparities to evaluate sustainability performance. Macneil, et al. [12] indicated that there are no port-specific indicator frameworks available. Spangenberg [13] argued that there are three components to sustainability: social, environmental, and economic. Nevertheless, no comprehensive framework exists that comprises a small number of carefully chosen indicators based on transparent, standardised, and methodologically sound foundations, allowing for the meaningful clustering of indicators with which to suggest policy priorities and precisely defined targets across each pillar of sustainability at the industry level.

Furthermore, there is a lack of clarity and empirical evidence about measurement frameworks for dry port sustainable operations from the social, economic, and environmental domains. The primary goal of this paper is to develop a measurement framework for assessing the sustainability of dry ports and integrate sustainability metrics that dry ports can use with the current performance measurement system, which will enable them to foster a sustainable culture. This will help port stakeholders and decision-makers to create sustainable policies and set targets to ensure uniformity in operations in dry ports. The study will also help port stakeholders and decision-makers to create sustainable policies and realistic sustainability targets, in addition to providing uniformity in operations at each dry port. In light of this, the present research attempts to build a framework for dry port sustainable operations to support practitioners and direct future scholarly investigations in this area. Therefore, the objective of this research is to use EFA and the AHP to build a measurement framework for Ethiopian dry port sustainability. Factor analysis is employed to identify dimensions directly related to sustainability, and the AHP is used to verify the framework by quantifying selected criteria.

This report is organised into five sections: Section 1 provides an introduction to the study; Section 2 presents a literature review on the dry port sustainability factors; Section 3 states the process of the EFA and AHP; Section 4 presents the results and discussions; and finally, Section 5 provides conclusions and future research directions.

2. Literature Review

This part explains the notion of sustainable supply-chain management and the metrics that make up the measurement framework.

2.1. Notions of Sustainable Supply Chain Management

The three main dimensions of sustainability—economic, social, and environmental—form the foundation of the triple bottom line idea. An organisation’s endeavours to give back to the community are its social element; its ability to turn a profit is its economic part. After all, the environmental component has to do with how a business operates concerning its environmental objectives. A business is deemed sustainable when it meets all three of these criteria simultaneously [14]. The triple bottom line is a theoretical framework that enables a company to fully comprehend its responsibilities not just to its shareholders but also to other stakeholders, including the community, the environment, and other facets of society [15].

Stakeholder theory helps managers to comprehend the interactions between businesses and their stakeholders and outline performance outcomes [16]. Many stakeholders’ interests have grown as a result of the absence of a holistic perspective on sustainability measurement. Stakeholders play a role in the creation, use, and evaluation of measurements; they may contribute to the development of sustainable performance measurements [17]. Stakeholder theory provides stakeholder constructs that demonstrate a theoretical foundation from which to examine influences on sustainability [18]. In order to promote sustainable supply-chain management, stakeholders need to suggest social, environmental, and economic factors [19]. Stakeholders have the power to influence company decisions in ways that ultimately impact sustainability. The authors advise organisations to make decisions with the sustainability of their supply chain in mind and to comprehend the choices made by their stakeholders [20]. Sustainable supply-chain management is still underexplored from the viewpoints of stakeholders and is becoming a growing concern for environmental, social, and economic performance [14]. Implementing sustainable supply-chain management methods in an organisation’s supply chain is greatly dependent on stakeholders’ exposure [21]. It is necessary to alter corporate culture, the organisational behaviour of all supply-chain participants, and their mutual interactions to include sustainability thinking in trade supply-chain activities [22].

The concept of sustainability is riddled with ambiguities and complexities. Different factors are introduced to reduce this complexity as a prerequisite for management and planning actions [23]. To ensure sustainable trade supply-chain management, ports should integrate sustainability into their operations [24]. The Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI) Standards provide a strong framework for reporting sustainability performance and making improvements to it. They are also related to the goals and targets of sustainable development [12]. Ports need to develop strategies and policies to reinforce procedures targeted at creating sustainability that accommodates social, economic, and environmental factors in an integrated approach [25]. For ports creating green ports, a lack of appropriate variables will always be a source of confusion because they will not know where to start. Moreover, utilising erroneous indicators will yield insignificant results. Some ports identified six topics, as follows: liquid-pollution management, air-pollution management, marine biology preservation, low carbon and energy saving, organisation and management, and noise control. Lucid environmental management factors help to ensure sustainable development at ports [26].

Seaport systems’ inland elements, such as dry ports, play a vital role in determining how well seaports perform and compete [27]. Although the context and setting of dry ports are receiving more attention, the role these nodes play within their different hinterlands differs greatly in terms of governance, stakeholders, and the commercial relationships they facilitate [12,13]. Similar to any major transportation hub, an inland port needs a suitable location with easy access to the rail terminal and space for expansion [28]. The amount of export and import transactions managed by the dry ports depend on access to a sizable population base [29]. Studies on the optimisation of dry port operations from various angles have been carried out. Certain authorities have identified the main elements that affect the performance of dry ports, such as information sharing, the availability of value-added services, customs clearance, facility capacity, location, and railway connectivity [30]. Rules, land use, infrastructure, and the environment are the main factors that prevent the deployment of dry ports. Consequently, these lower the effectiveness of goods movements on land access routes leading to and from seaports [31]. Sustainable climate adaptation is crucial, as is looking for maximum optimisation while keeping the balance between the social, environmental, and economic spheres in mind [7].

2.2. Measurement Factors

Research on sustainability measurement has expanded rapidly and examined a wide range of topics, including the application of sustainability metrics, the diffusion of environmental standards, and sustainability disclosure and measurement in sustainable supply chains [17]. Fostering sustainability at ports is made possible by offering a framework for measuring sustainability using indicators. The framework, which organises the metrics based on the three pillars of sustainability, must contain the best-performing factors [32].

The factors in Appendix A are extracted from

Table 1. Sustainability dimensions.

Aspects	Indicators	References
Environmental	Minimises emissions	[33]
	Minimise waste	[34]
	Reduces corporate footprint	[35,36]
	Reduces the impact of business partners on the natural environment	[37]
	Contribute to curbing climate change	[36]
	Environmental efficiency efforts	[38]
	Reduce traffic accident	[39]
	Reduces industrial accidents	[40]
	Reduces lubricant pollution	[41]
	Improves air quality	[42]
	Reduces noise pollution	[43]
	Propose a plan to protect natural systems	[44,45]
	Helps to form Indigenous resource managers	[45]
	Educate the team in environmental planning	[45]
	Survey the landscape’s natural attributes	[45]
	Identify natural opportunities and constraints	[45]
	Apply eco-principles	[45]
	Adapt environmental laws from other countries	[45]
	Draft a nature-friendly development plan	[45]
	Recommend land development sustainability	[45]
	Recommend land conservation sustainability	[45]
	Establish nature reserves and protected areas	[45]
	Environmental protection council	[45]
	Community participation committee to protect the environment	[45]
	Local citizens affect dry port development	[45]
Social	Creates employment for the surrounding community	[46]
	Follows resettlement policy about local community	[45]
	Care about employment safety	[47]
	Ensures stakeholder consultation	[22]
	Practices need top management guidance	[48]
	Corporate leadership support	[49]
	Social practices take a long time to implement	[50]
	Social practice takes a lot of corporate efforts	[51]
	Social practices reflect the corporate culture of the company	[52]
	Cultivate the lushness of the settlement area	[45]
	Establish a deliberative decision process on social sustainability	[45]
	Value surrounding community	[45]
	Creates education opportunities for the surrounding community	[45]
	Addresses disparities in economic attainment in the surrounding community	[45]
	Make all citizens economic stakeholders	[45]
	Subsidise food, health care, and education	[45]
	Work deliberately to use resources efficiently	[45]
	Address the ‘wellness needs’ of the population	[45]
	Wellness needs’ on an all-for-one basis	[45]
Economic	Maximise value-added services	[53]
	Reduce transport costs in the trade supply	[54]
	Reduce time in the trade supply chain	[55]
	Ensures productivity in the trade supply chain	[56]
	Creates accessibility to railway	[2]
	Provides reliability service	[2]
	Dry ports are profit-oriented	[2]
	Make money for all stakeholders	[57]
	Improve the competitive position trade supply chain	[58]
	Create a competitive advantage for the trade supply chain	[58]
	Enhance the overall trade supply-chain performance	[59]
	Add to the financial performance of the company	[2]
	Dry port services quality has improved	[60]
	Economic development in the surrounding area	[61]
	Expand green zones to safeguard open space	[45]

and used for the survey to gather data on environmental, social, and economic dimensions to uncover and frame the factors of dry port sustainability.

3. Research Design

This research adopts an integrative research approach. This section provides an overview of the research methodology and data collection process adopted in this research. Following a review of the body of knowledge, a survey questionnaire was developed. We received assistance from senior experts on dry ports to further pre-test the questionnaire. Based on the experts’ recommendations, we further modified the statements in our questionnaire to improve their validity and reliability. We surveyed stakeholders in our study, including senior staff members, clearing agents, and dry port employees. Then, the questionnaire was distributed to 372 stakeholders who operate within or in conjunction with dry ports; 300 of the questionnaires were returned with no response bias in their entirety. In two months, we were able to collect 300 valid responses (80.6% of the total 372 responses). Thereafter, exploratory factor analysis and an analytical hierarchy process [62] were utilised to create a measurement framework for dry port operations.

3.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

EFA is a technique that allows for the exploration of a set of observable variables’ potential underlying factor structure without imposing a predetermined framework on the results [63]. We selected ten crucial economic, social, and environmental elements using factor analysis to determine essential factors with high factor loadings. With the aid of EFA, the gathered data were methodically examined using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences—Version 29). Using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy Test, sample adequacy was determined. Cronbach’s Alpha test, an SPSS built-in tool, was used to assess the dataset’s reliability. The following steps (see Figure 1) in the factor analysis sustainability research were adapted as suggested by Knežević, and Stefańska [64].

3.2. Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Before applying the AHP, a group of observable variables (survey questions) were first subjected to EFA to identify the underlying components. An AHP was employed to rank the weights with the greatest potential to impact the sustainability of dry ports. The following steps (See Figure 2) were set to employ AHP [65] along with the template recommended by Goepel [66] to generate outputs of AHP.

4. Results and Discussions

The questionnaire was developed from the literature, and the study relied on the data gathered from a survey among dry port stakeholders. This study used both EFA and the AHP to evaluate the factors influential to sustainable dry port operations to identify and analyse which of the sustainability aspects fall under each triple bottom line, which is the economic, social, and environmental aspects. The goal is to develop a sustainability framework balancing economic, social, and environmental aspects for the sustainable operations of dry ports.

4.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test (KMO) makes it possible to choose variables and evaluate their applicability for factor analysis. This test assesses how well our data are prepared for factor analysis. For this test, 0.8 and above is the optimum scenario to accept the factors for further analysis [64].

Table 2. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin and Bartlett’s Tes.

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy		0.962
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	24,270.134
	df	1770
	Sig.	<0.001

below shows the KMO test statistics, which in our case is 0.962. This is a promising outcome that affirms our data’s reliability for conducting factor analysis and other statistical analyses. It will also be a useful resource for identifying the factor structure. Bartlett’s test further demonstrates the potential value of factor analysis as a research methodology in this particular case.

The first table in Appendix B is specifically connected to the goal of factor analysis—that is, locating the underlying structure. There are sixty components (i.e., the number of initial factors considered) on the left side of the table. We wish to lower this value since it is difficult to characterise dry port sustainability using so many variables, which makes the current situation unfavourable. Furthermore, we will acquire 70.14% of the explained variance when separating 3 components while assessing the cumulative percentage (percentage of the variation explained by separate factors; see Appendix B). This indicates that we can account for around 70.14% of the variations in dry port sustainability using three distinct dimensions (a 60-element factor structure would allow us to account for 100% of the data). Next, with a loading factor of 0.60 or higher, the researchers discovered crucial components that were trustworthy [67] for the AHP (see Appendix C).

Table 3. Environmental factors.

No.	Factors	Factor Loading
1.	Adapt environmental laws	0.89
2.	Contribute to curbing climate change	0.885
3.	Plan to protect the national environment	0.885
4.	Minimise waste	0.884
5.	Reduce business partner impact	0.883
6.	Educate team in environmental planning	0.883
7.	Minimise emissions	0.882
8.	Reduce corporate footprints	0.881
9.	Efficiency environment efforts	0.879
10.	Minimise waste	0.876

,

Table 4. Social factors.

No.	Factors	Factor Loading
1.	Employment opportunities for the community	0.889
2.	Follow resettlement policy	0.888
3.	Employment safety	0.884
4.	Stakeholder consultation	0.871
5.	Top management guidance	0.843
6.	Corporate leadership	0.838
7.	Social practice	0.837
8.	Corporate culture	0.836
9.	Lushness of settlement areas	0.824
10.	Value surrounding community	0.724

and

Table 5. Economic factors.

No	Factors	Factor Loading
1.	Value added services	0.783
2.	Reduce transportation cost	0.744
3.	Reduce time	0.731
4.	Productivity in trade supply chain	0.714
5.	Profit oriented	0.713
6.	Money for all stakeholders	0.69
7.	Competitive position in trade supply chain	0.672
8.	Enhance trade supply-chain performance	0.626
9.	Accessibility to railway	0.622
10.	Service quality	0.605

depict the factors with the highest loading under environmental, social, and economic sustainability.

The three variables with the largest factor loading are: adapting environmental laws; contributing to curbing climate change; and planning to protect the national environment. The link between each variable and the underlying factor is represented by the highest factor loadings, which identify variables that are most strongly associated with the environmental dimension in this context.

Employment opportunities for the community, following resettlement policy and employment safety are factors in the social dimension of sustainability with the highest loading factor.

Value-added services, transportation costs and reduced time are the factors in the economic dimensions of sustainability with the highest loading factors.

4.2. Analytical Hierarchy Process

4.2.1. Environmental Factors

Table 6. Environmental factors.

No.	Factors	Weights	Ranking
Factor-1	Reduce business partner impact	20.5%	1
Factor-2	Minimise waste	6.5%	9
Factor-3	Contribute to curbing climate change	9.9%	3
Factor-4	Educate team in environmental planning	8.4%	6
Factor-5	Plan to protect the national environment	9.2%	5
Factor-6	Reduce corporate footprints	10.6%	2
Factor-7	Adapt environmental laws	9.7%	4
Factor-8	Minimise emissions	7.6%	8
Factor-9	Efficiency environment efforts	8.8%	7
Factor-10	Minimise wastes	8.8%	7
Lambda: 11.388
Consistency Ratio: 0.07
MRE: 8.9%

and Appendix D indicate that reducing business-partner impact, reducing the corporate footprint, and contributing to curbing climate change are the most important factors in the environmental dimension, as ranked by the senior experts in the area of dry port environmental sustainability. The consistency ratio shows excellent consistency when it is near 0; however, inconsistent judgments may be indicated by values much above 0.1. The reliability of each pair of items in the comparison is compared to determine the maximum relative error (MRE), which quantifies the maximum relative inconsistency in pairwise comparisons. In this regard, as it is depicted in the tables, there is no issue regarding the consistency of rating the factors among the experts.

4.2.2. Social Factors

Corporate leadership, social participation, and employment opportunities for the community are ranked as the criteria with the highest weight in

Table 7. Social factor.

No.	Factors	Weights	Ranking
Factor-1	Employment opportunities for the community	26.1%	1
Factor-2	Follow resettlement policy	5.7%	9
Factor-3	Employment safety	8.8%	4
Factor-4	Stakeholder consultation	7.5%	7
Factor-5	Top management guidance	8.9%	4
Factor-6	Corporate leadership	10.4%	2
Factor-7	Social practice	9.2%	3
Factor-8	Corporate culture	6.9%	8
Factor-9	Lushness of settlement areas	8.3%	6
Factor-10	Value surrounding community	8.3%	6
Lambda: 12.087
Consistency Ratio: 0.06
MRE: 7.3%

and Appendix E. High weights given to criteria or alternatives in the AHP denote their increased significance or priority in reaching the decision-making process’s overarching aim or purpose. These elements are seen to be crucial in the social dimensions of dry port sustainability.

4.2.3. Economic Factors

Value-added services, railway accessibility, and competitiveness in the trade supply chain are among the key aspects in the context of economic sustainability, as depicted in

Table 8. Economic factors.

No.	Factors	Weights	Ranking
Factor-1	Value added services	25.5%	1
Factor-2	Reduce transportation cost	5.8%	9
Factor-3	Reduce time	8.9%	4
Factor-4	Productivity in trade supply chain	7.6%	8
Factor-5	Profit oriented	8.9%	5
Factor-6	Accessibility to railway	10.4%	2
Factor-7	Competitive position in trade supply chain	9.3%	3
Factor-8	Enhance trade supply-chain performance	7.0%	7
Factor-9	Money for all stakeholders	8.3%	6
Factor-10	Service quality	8.3%	6
Lambda: 12.01
Consistency Ratio: 0.03
MRE: 6.1%MRE

and Appendix F. Their substantial significance in attaining dry port economic sustainability is evidenced by their high weights in the AHP analysis.

4.2.4. Measurement Framework

The meaning of sustainability varies among individuals based on the context in which they find themselves. The environmental and sustainable development literature frequently discusses two schools of thought on sustainability. First, by employing specific standards and indicators, sustainability can be defined and assessed as an “achievement”. The past few decades have seen significant advancements in this area in terms of defining and evaluating sustainability. Assuming that sustainability is aspirational rather than a state, the second school of thought defines sustainability as merely a route towards a goal, without the need for an absolute measurement. It is interesting to note that both philosophical traditions have an integrative conceptual definition of sustainability that takes social, economic, and environmental factors into account [68].

A sustainable supply-chain framework comprises various factors, such as financial and non-financial, materials, energy, natural resources, health and safety, human capabilities, and ethics [69]. The most-studied environmental indicators are noise pollution, air pollution, water pollution, energy usage, and resource usage. Port activities may be considered significant environmental indicators when evaluating their impact on the sustainability of the environment. Experts agree that attaining sustainability goals requires improving air quality through port operations [33,34,35]. Researchers identified the following eight indicators of social sustainability: social image, public relations, quality of living environment, social involvement, job training, health and safety, job creation and security, and gender equality. Employee health and safety are identified as the most critical factors for researchers. The most commonly found economic indicator is foreign direct investment, which is regarded as one of the critical factors of economic performance. Sustainable port operations have a positive influence on the national economy and prosperity by driving job creation, encouraging exports, and increasing income and employment [70]. Wooldridge, and Darbra [71] stated that a comprehensive inventory of all environmental performance factors in use in the port sector has been identified and filtered based on predetermined criteria, reviewed, and appraised by stakeholders. This allows for the monitoring of the sustainable performance of operational conditions such as dust, noise, dredging, and waste; managerial conditions such as certification, compliance, and complaints; and environmental conditions such as air, water, sediments, and ecosystems.

According to Global Environmental Management, [72] many components are already in operation. These comprise environmental condition indicators, which gauge the immediate impact of an activity on the environment, leading indicators, which are in-process performance metrics, and lagging indicators, which gauge outputs such as pounds of pollutants emitted. Most organisations employ a combination of indicators because each has unique stakeholders, strengths, and drawbacks. To support policy and decision-making in a broad environmental, economic, and social context, sustainability assessments are carried out. By addressing important decision-making factors, domain specialists go beyond a simple technical or scientific review [73].

The sustainability framework helps managers and policymakers to decide which actions they should take in an attempt to make operations more sustainable [24,25]. This sustainability measurement framework (see Figure 3) provides a structured approach to assessing and tracking the environmental, social, and economic impacts of dry port operations. A sustainable dry port framework encompasses various policy and strategy inputs aimed at ensuring the efficient and environmentally responsible operation of dry ports.

5. Conclusions and Future Research Directions

This study suggested contributing factors for sustainable dry port operations based on stakeholder involvement in the trade supply chain. Critical factors that support the development of a sustainable framework for dry ports were identified by the research, which will contribute towards a theory and advance practices with respect to dry ports.

It is reaffirmed that the most important factors for policymakers and experts to consider when addressing environmental sustainability in dry port operations are reducing business partner impact, minimising waste, preventing climate change, educating the team about environmental planning, and creating a plan to protect the environment. In addition, the study indicated that to realise social sustainability in dry port operations, it is critical to increase employment opportunities for the community, adhere to resettlement policies, ensure workplace safety, have frequent interactions with stakeholders, and provide top-management guidance. Value-added services, time and cost savings, increased productivity in the trade supply chain, and a focus on profit are all regarded as foundational factors for the sustainability of dry ports in the economic dimension.

Through the integration of factors validated by experts into a comprehensive framework for sustainable dry ports, stakeholders can strive towards the development and operation of dry ports that not only support trade supply chains and economic growth but also, in the long run, contribute to environmental conservation and social well-being. We framed economic, social, and environmental protection-related factors, as these are the most crucial for attaining dry port sustainability; thus, maintaining the sustainability of dry ports necessitates a high degree of port sustainability and sustainability in the natural environment.

The study has limitations as it focused on dry port stakeholders (terminal operators, freight forwarders, and regulatory bodies) and omitted several links in the trade supply chain, especially those at the seaport, such as stevedoring, shippers, and inland waterways. The study did not examine seaports and seaport stakeholders in great detail. Future research may examine the dynamics of all port supply-chain stakeholders through port sustainability research, including seaports and dry ports, even though it appears that actions and measures beyond the implementation schemes are regarded as appropriate for additional supply-chain members. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals were not contextualised in the study’s extraction of factors to develop the measurement framework.

Future research endeavours may draw upon the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to construct a framework, examine, and assess the role of dry port sustainability, and explore the influence of environmental, social, and economic factors of the triple bottom line on the results of trade supply chains. Furthermore, to assess improvements in ensuring port sustainability through empirical findings, case studies need to be used to obtain detailed empirical findings from policymakers and port stakeholders. Researchers also need to conduct longitudinal studies to realise the improvements towards sustainability over time. In the end, the authors call for future researchers to investigate the factors that support African Agenda 2063 and Sustainable Development Goal Agenda 2030 to contribute to the achievement of equitable and sustainable socioeconomic development across a range of operations in trade supply-chain management.