Next Article in Journal
A Data-Driven Bayesian Belief Network Influence Diagram Approach for Socio-Environmental Risk Assessment and Mitigation in Major Ecosystem- and Landscape-Modifier Projects
Previous Article in Journal
Barriers to Sustainable Building Project Performance in Developing Countries: A Case of Ghana and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 8
10.3390/su17083542
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploring Research Trends on Climate Change: Insights into Port Resilience and Sustainability

by
Taha Talip Türkistanlı
1,
Nergis Özispa
2,
Gökçe Tuğdemir Kök
2,
Ünal Özdemir
1,* and
Davut Pehlivan
1
1
Department of Maritime Transportation and Management Engineering, Mersin University, 33110 Mersin, Türkiye
2
Department of Maritime Business Administration, Mersin University, 33110 Mersin, Türkiye
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(8), 3542; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083542
Submission received: 14 March 2025 / Revised: 11 April 2025 / Accepted: 12 April 2025 / Published: 15 April 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Ports play a critical role in global trade, yet they are both contributors to and recipients of climate change. This study conducts a bibliometric analysis to examine the relationship between climate change and port operations, identifying key themes, methodological approaches, and research gaps within the literature, including the need for standardized vulnerability assessments, policy-driven adaptation strategies, and a more integrated, cross-regional approach to port resilience. A bibliometric analysis was performed using peer-reviewed journal articles indexed in the Web of Science. The study employed keyword-based searches, document screening, and bibliometric techniques such as publication trends, keyword co-occurrence analysis, citation impact evaluation, and research clustering. Studies were classified based on research focus, methods, data sources, and geographic scope. The analysis reveals three major research phases: theoretical contributions, empirical expansion, and an intensified focus on adaptation and resilience. Key trends include sea-level rise, port vulnerability, climate adaptation strategies, and emission reduction. Quantitative methods dominate, though qualitative studies contribute to governance and policy discussions. Research on port resilience is becoming increasingly interdisciplinary, integrating engineering, environmental science, policy, and maritime economics. The study identifies the United States, China, Europe, and the Mediterranean as the most focused regions in port-climate research. Understanding climate risks and adaptation strategies is essential for policymakers and stakeholders. The findings highlight the current push for resilience planning, emission mitigation, and policy interventions, with efforts by governmental and international organizations well documented in climate research. This study provides insights into emerging trends and research gaps, enhancing discussions on sustainable port management and climate resilience.

1. Introduction

Ports, which play an important role in the world economy due to their important positions in the global trade network [1], are essential infrastructures for economic growth and development [2]. More than 3700 ports around the world fulfill multiple roles that contribute to both the global and local economy, enabling international trade, as well as providing employment opportunities for local people in the regions where they are located, facilitating trade and enabling commercial globalization [3]. However, carbon dioxide emissions produced by activities in ports, which are the backbone of global trade, are among the environmental aspects of climate change [4]; this is among the most significant concerns in today’s society [5]. In addition, ports, which are in critical positions for international trade [1], are in areas that are inherently vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change [6,7]. They are in physical locations that are likely to be flooded or destroyed by rising sea levels or increased storms due to the effects of climate change [6]. As the nature of the work and the physical location they must be in, it is argued in the literature that climate change can endanger port operations, cause operational closures, and then cause global economic losses [3]. Ports are geographically vulnerable to the effects of climate change because they are located along coasts, rivers, or lakes that are exposed to sea level rise and storm surges, or along estuaries that are exposed to flooding and are long-lived and critical infrastructure that is sensitive to climate change. Examples of the hazards that ports are exposed to due to their location include wave formation or storm surges and flooding due to sea level rise or extreme changes in sea level, such as Superstorm Sandy in 2012, which closed the Ports of New York and New Jersey for more than 8 days, or Hurricane Maria in 2017, which caused infrastructure damage and caused the closure of the Port of Chennai [1,7]. Considering all these discussions, it would be correct to imply that ports, in addition to their structures, causing climate change, are one of the sectors most affected by the negative effects of climate change.
Transportation operations interact with the environment in many ways, either accidentally or intentionally. As a result of this interaction, in addition to the damage to natural habitats, interaction and damage along coastlines increase in areas where economic activities are intense, such as ports [8]. Ports have a significant impact on air quality, especially when it comes to diesel exhaust, nitrogen oxide emissions, and particulate matter. To find the causes of this air pollution, many pollutant sources and pollution rates of those sources, such as trucks, marine vehicles, off-road vehicles, and locomotives used to transport cargo, must be considered [9]. In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, the negative effects of ports on the environment include unnecessary material production, dredging, destruction and loss of world habitats, discharge to the soil, water, sediment, noise pollution, damage to the marine ecosystem, odor, resource consumption [10], destruction of endangered species, erosion, waste generation, soil and water contamination, light and noise pollution, traffic congestion, and loss of cultural resources [9,11]. Despite all these negative effects, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution is the primary solution due to their direct negative effects on climate change. It stands out as a negative impact that should be addressed [10].
On the other hand, in recent years, climate change has emerged as a crucial concern in port supply chains, integrating several disciplines and presenting significant challenges to ports because of their high susceptibility [12]. The main negative effects of climate change on port infrastructure and facilities are rising sea levels [13] and extreme weather conditions (extreme winds, storm waves) [14,15,16,17]. Together with these two adverse consequences, wave heights above breakwater design levels may increase the likelihood of major natural disasters and accidents, including rising ocean temperatures and declining port water quality, heavy precipitation that exceeds the capacity of dock well drainage, and an increase in tropical storms and typhoons [14].
Ports are the first structures to face the threat of SLR (sea-level rise) because of their physical positions, and unfortunately, SLR measurements of more than 20 cm were made in the 20th century and measurements of more than 100 cm have been made in the 21st century [18,19]. Today, ports are not yet directly affected by the threat of sea-level rise. However, it is possible to come across many ports that have been flooded or whose activities have been disrupted in the past as a result of natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, or tsunamis [18,20,21]. Therefore, although ports are designed to withstand various difficulties throughout their lifespan, they may be vulnerable to natural disasters such as sea-level rise or extreme weather events. The most critical damage that climate change can do to ports will be to increase the number of such natural disasters. If such extreme events become more frequent, changes will need to be made in the planning, construction, operation, and maintenance processes of the port infrastructure [15].
Extreme wind events also affect and even play an essential role in the aggravation of trade disruptions in the shipping sector. Coastlines, where ports are necessarily located, are geologically dynamic and complex systems that respond strongly to events such as storms, tsunamis, and earthquakes, as well as areas with high population density and socio-economic activities [22,23]. Due to all these characteristics, floods in coastal areas are ranked as the most dangerous natural disasters [22]. Over four decades, between 1970 and 2012, nearly 4000 natural climatological hazards (hurricanes and storm surges, floods, wildfires, extreme temperatures, droughts, and others) occurred worldwide, causing approximately USD 2.4 trillion in damage and the deaths of more than 1.9 million people [24]. Furthermore, the impact of future coastal hazards is expected to intensify as climate change increases the frequency and intensity of these extreme weather events [22]. Approximately 38% of all global container ports are located in areas at high risk of hurricanes. Examples of port areas with high port activity and the most potential disruptions include South Korea, coastal China, the US East Coast, and Japan [25]. These hurricanes are responsible for about 47% of all catastrophes that cost billions of dollars globally, and they account for 80% of the total damages caused by extreme weather and climate disasters in the United States [24,26]. In addition to the direct financial losses caused by hurricanes to ports, there are also indirect losses. These can be summarized as damage to port equipment and port superstructures, damage caused by overturned containers, and damage caused by interrupted operations in flooded areas (it is estimated that it takes 1–3 business days for an average port to resume operations after a category 1 hurricane), and damage to cargo and equipment [25].
Since ports are one of the important stakeholders both affected by and affecting the climate change known to be caused by anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide, studies have been carried out for a long time both by application professionals and in the existing literature to determine the resilience of ports, that enable world trade, against various challenges arising from climate change, to take preventive measures to optimize the working methods of ports that cause climate change, to discover new ways and to produce solutions to the existing problem [27,28,29]. Hence, through exploratory systematic content analysis of the studies published in the WOS (Web of Science) database between 1997 and 2024, we examined climate change and ports together. This paper investigates climate change and ports, with a special focus on the main subjects of studies, methods, and data used in the studies, as well as the geographical locations of ports investigated in the studies. Following this introductory section, the study will continue with relevant study examples in the existing literature in the literature review section. Then, the methodology section will provide information on the dataset and details of the data used in the study. Next, the research findings will be presented, and discussions and conclusions regarding the study findings will be included. Finally, the study will be completed by including its limitations and suggestions for future research.
This study addresses key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) related to port resilience and climate change. It contributes to SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) by examining sustainable industrialization of port structures and their innovation. It aligns with SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) by discussing the role of ports in urban planning and disaster preparedness. The study supports SDG 13 (Climate Action) through its focus on sustainable transportation and port adaptation strategies. Through a structured exploration of existing research, the study provides a clear view of challenges and solutions in the maritime sector. It links them with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

2. Literature Review

“Port climate” refers to the weather and climate factors directly impacting port operations, logistics, and infrastructure. The need for ports to adapt and strengthen their resilience has received much attention lately due to growing worries about climate change, which includes rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and changing climate patterns. Academic research has significantly increased in recent years due to the growing awareness of the challenges ports face from environmental change, providing essential information to address the new problems posed by the accelerating effects of climate change on port operations. The number of academic publications on ports and climate change is increasing daily. Academics have conducted studies in the following areas related to ports and climate change: vulnerability assessments, port policy, and port management, climate change adaptation, green port, port planning, port infrastructure, port competition, strategy development, sustainability, emission reduction, and risk assessments.
One key area of growth in research has been vulnerability assessments of port cities to climate change. Numerous studies have been published that examine the potential effects of rising sea levels and increased storm surges on coastal port infrastructure [13,15,24,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46]. Port terminals are increasingly focused on sea level rise (SLR) and climate change adaptation planning. Both storm surges and gradual tidal flooding caused by rising sea levels could significantly affect port operations [42].
The academic community has also put greater emphasis on the integration of climate resilience into port policy and management [2,16,27,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63]. Another area of increased research is the development of climate change adaptation frameworks for ports [64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74]. To mitigate the impacts of climate change, ports should develop and implement adaptation strategies. These strategies involve redesigning port infrastructure to be more resilient to changing climate conditions.
In addition to infrastructure adaptation, there has been a significant increase in research into sustainable practices in port operations [75,76,77,78]. Ref. [79] review studies on the maritime and port sectors to identify which Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are most addressed. It finds that SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), SDG 13 (Action Against Climate Change), and SDG 14 (Life Below Water) are the most highlighted. The studies show the sector’s focus on sustainability, especially concerning the marine environment and climate change. However, practical applications for effectively contributing to these SDGs are not well described, making it hard to determine the priority actions needed. Research has explored the potential for renewable energy solutions, such as solar, wind, and even tidal power, to be integrated into port operations [80,81,82,83]. Studies have also examined the environmental impact of port activities, leading to the development of “green ports” [84,85,86,87]. Ref. [86] examines the application of sustainability principles and the “green port” concept in Croatian marinas. It analyzes regulations, certificates, and sustainable practices in areas like eco-design, energy transition, and waste management. It highlights positive practices and areas for improvement in Croatian marinas.
The academic community has also put greater emphasis on emission reduction in ports [62,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101]. The role of ports in reducing their carbon footprint and adopting green technologies has been widely studied. Many ports calculate and report their carbon footprint, but each uses different methods, making comparisons difficult. To address this, a standardized tool has been developed using Excel and Visual Basic. This tool, based on WPCI, IPCC guidelines, and the greenhouse gas (GHG) Protocol, helps port authorities accurately calculate and report their GHG emissions in a consistent manner [4]. Emission reduction in ports aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions from shipping, cargo handling, and operations, helping ports align with global climate goals like the Paris Agreement.
This literature review highlights the challenges and opportunities ports face in combating climate change and achieving environmental sustainability goals. Research shows an increasing effort by ports to adapt to climate change and reduce carbon emissions. Studies on port policies and management, sustainable practices, and emission reduction strategies have enriched the body of knowledge in this area. However, challenges such as the lack of standardization in carbon footprint calculations and varying methodologies persist. In this context, more effective, integrated, and sustainable solutions need to be developed to reduce the environmental impact of ports.

3. Materials and Methods

This paper examines the contribution of climate change to ports based on a bibliometric analysis. According to the review, peer-reviewed journal articles published in the Web of Science (WoS) databases such as SCI, SCIE, SSCI, and ESCI are screened. The research selection process focused on studies investigating the interaction between ports and climate change, which include issues related to maritime spatial planning, port emissions, pollution, environmental risk assessment, policy regulations, and the adaptation measures at the port. Only full-text articles published in English were included.
Studies were excluded if they focused solely on marine biology, underwater ecosystems, sediment transport, or fishing technologies without direct relevance to port operations. Research that primarily focused on these subjects was omitted. Non-English articles, duplicates, and articles without accessible full texts were excluded. Sectoral, governmental, and organizational reports were excluded to ensure a focus on scientific manuscripts.
Data collection was conducted from the Web of Science in August 2024, covering all available years. A structured keyword search was performed in the TOPIC field, scanning titles, abstracts, and keywords using the terms: (“port” OR “ports” OR “seaport”) AND (“climate change”). The search was restricted to journal articles, with conference papers, book chapters, and non-research documents excluded. No additional databases were used.
Four independent researchers screened 914 studies, assessing titles and abstracts for relevance. Eligible studies went through a full-text review, with cross-checking performed in pairs to ensure rigor. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. No automation tools were used in the screening process. A structured data extraction form was used to collect key study characteristics. Extracted data included the research focus, methodological approach, and key findings to identify thematic trends and research gaps. A formal risk of bias assessment was not conducted, but bias was minimized through independent multi-reviewer selection and structured bibliometric analysis. Figure 1 demonstrates the flow diagram of the study.
Research trends and impacts were analyzed using bibliometric indicators, including publication growth, keyword frequency analysis, citation impact, and research clustering. Visualization techniques such as concept co-occurrence analysis and citation network mapping were employed. This methodology provides a systematic and reproducible approach to examining the evolution, structure, and interdisciplinarity of port-climate change research, offering insights into thematic clusters, research gaps, and emerging trends to support future studies and policy development.

4. Results

The bibliometric analysis of Web of Science (WoS) articles on the intersection of ports and climate change reveals key trends, thematic structures, and research patterns within the literature. A total of 914 articles were initially identified through keyword-based searches across SCI, SCIE, SSCI, and ESCI databases. After a screening process, 318 articles were retained for analysis, with 588 excluded due to various conditions, with the most predominant reason being misalignment with the study focus.
The majority of the studies reviewed, approximately 59%, explore the effects of climate change on ports, whereas 36% investigate the influence of ports on climate change. Moreover, a literature review methodology was employed in 3% of the studies included in the analysis.

4.1. Temporal Trends, Phases in Research Focus, and Thematic Trends

The analysis of publication years reveals a clear evolution in the scholarly focus on ports and climate change, highlighting distinct growth phases in the literature.
Early Period (1997–2009): Limited and Theoretical Contributions: The earliest identified studies date back to 1997 and 1999, with only a handful of publications before 2010. These early works were largely theoretical or conceptual, discussing broad environmental concerns but lacking direct empirical investigation into ports’ climate adaptation strategies. Given the limited number of studies, port resilience and climate mitigation were not yet recognized as urgent academic concerns.
Growth Phase (2010–2019): Increasing Recognition and Empirical Research: A notable rise in publication activity was observed during this period, marking a shift from conceptual discussions to empirical research. This growth coincides with global climate policy advancements, such as the Paris Agreement and the IMO’s decarbonization initiatives, which may have driven academic interest in port sustainability and climate adaptation. Research in this period increasingly incorporated case studies, quantitative modeling, and climate risk assessments, reflecting a more data-driven approach.
Recent Surge (2020–Present): Intensified Focus on Adaptation and Resilience: The median publication year of the analyzed studies is 2020, indicating that the majority of research on ports and climate change has emerged in the last few years. This surge reflects the growing urgency of climate adaptation in port infrastructure, logistics, and governance. Recent studies show an increased focus on practical solutions, such as renewable energy integration, green port initiatives, and policy frameworks for climate resilience. The rapid increase in publications also suggests a growing interdisciplinary collaboration, with contributions spanning engineering, environmental science, maritime policy, and economics.
In the early years (1997–2010), research was primarily focused on sea-level rise, coastal erosion, and vulnerability, indicating an emphasis on physical environmental impacts on port infrastructure. Over time, terms related to climate change adaptation and GIS-based assessments gained prominence, reflecting an increasing focus on resilience planning and risk assessment methodologies. From 2015 onwards, emerging research trends began incorporating sustainability, energy efficiency, and emission reduction, aligning with global climate policies such as the Paris Agreement and IMO decarbonization efforts. In recent years, research has expanded to include critical infrastructures, estuarine ports, and compound climate risks, demonstrating a shift toward integrated risk management approaches and technological innovations in port resilience.
Early research was problem-focused, identifying climate risks. Mid-phase research started integrating solutions, modeling, and adaptation strategies. Recent studies have expanded into interdisciplinary areas like sustainability, resilience, and policy.

4.2. Keyword Analysis

A total of 1715 keyword terms and 1496 author keywords were identified, with 829 and 1081 unique terms, respectively. The most frequently occurring keyword appeared only twice, indicating a highly fragmented terminology. However, after categorization of different spellings, plural–singular forms, and different keyword combinations into appropriate sections, a more precise visual of the use of keywords presents itself. In total, 24 keyword terms were used 711 times. The frequency analysis shows that “Climate Change” is the most frequently mentioned keyword. “Impact” and “Port” are also prominent, highlighting concerns about the effects of climate change on port infrastructure and operations. The frequency of “Management” and “Model” suggests a focus on strategic planning and predictive approaches. “Adaptation” and “Sea Level/Sea-Level Rise” indicate growing concerns over rising sea levels and the necessity of adaptive strategies. The mentions of “Transport” and “Emission” emphasized environmental concerns. The presence of “Vulnerability”, “Sustainability”, and “Resilience” suggests a strong interest in long-term stability and environmental resilience. “Policy”, “Strategy”, and “Competition” highlight regulatory and economic aspects, while “Disaster” and “Risk” point to climate-related hazards. Table 1 demonstrates a keyword frequency analysis.

4.3. Methodological Approaches

The analysis of research methodologies in port and climate change studies highlights a diverse range of approaches. Among the 318 analyzed studies, quantitative methods dominate with 193 studies, followed by qualitative methods with 96 studies and mixed methods with 15 studies. This distribution suggests that empirical and data-driven approaches are prioritized in the field. However, qualitative research also plays a crucial role in shaping policy discussions and governance frameworks.
The analysis of research methods shows (Table 2) that reviews are the most frequently used approach, indicating a firm reliance on existing literature to analyze climate change-related topics. Statistical methods also appear prominently, highlighting the importance of quantitative analysis in this field. Case studies are commonly employed, suggesting a focus on real-world applications and localized impacts. Modeling and mapping methods, along with scenario-based approaches, reflect an interest in predictive analysis and future planning. Simulation techniques are used but less frequently, while multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) and content analysis show a more specialized application. Experimental methods and focus groups are the least utilized, indicating that empirical and participatory research approaches are less common in this area. A deeper examination of detailed methodological approaches reveals significant variation across research paradigms.
Case study-based methods are prominent across both qualitative and quantitative research, indicating that real-world port adaptation strategies and regional analyses are commonly explored through case study methodologies.
Review-based methods appear predominantly in qualitative studies, reflecting the extensive use of literature reviews and policy assessments to examine port resilience strategies. Quantitative studies also employ reviews, often in combination with empirical models or statistical evaluations.
Statistical and quantitative modeling methods are heavily concentrated in quantitative research, underscoring the field’s reliance on numerical modeling, econometric analysis, and statistical simulations to assess climate risks, emission impacts, and economic resilience.
Modeling and simulation-based methods are widely utilized in quantitative studies incorporating numerical simulations, game-theoretical models, and system dynamics approaches to analyze climate change adaptation in ports. This aligns with the growing trend of predictive analytics and decision-support tools in maritime research.
Experimental and scenario-based methods, such as simulation experiments, resilience models, and risk assessments, are observed primarily in quantitative research. Survey-based methods are predominantly used in both quantitative and qualitative studies to capture expert opinions and stakeholder perspectives on climate adaptation in ports.

4.4. Data Utilization

Reviewed studies were utilized that incorporate both primary and secondary data sources, with a strong preference for secondary data. Secondary sources, including external databases, literature reviews, and publicly available datasets, are the most widely used and appear in the majority of studies. This reflects a reliance on pre-existing information for both quantitative and qualitative research, emphasizing empirical modeling and database-driven analyses. In contrast, primary data collection, such as surveys, interviews, and field observations, is less frequently employed. Case studies and web-based sources are among the more commonly used primary data collection methods, indicating a preference for structured, real-world examples and online resources. Interviews, questionnaires, and observations are used to a lesser extent, suggesting a more selective approach to direct data collection. Focus groups are the least utilized, highlighting the limited role of participatory research methods in this field.
A small number of studies adopt a mixed-method approach, integrating both primary and secondary data to enhance their findings. Additionally, a minor proportion falls under unspecified or unconventional data sources. Overall, the findings emphasize the dominance of secondary data and literature-based sources, with a more selective and limited use of direct data collection methods. Figure 2 demonstrates a data collection diagram.

4.5. Geographic Focus and Scale

Studies covered 67 distinct regions, reflecting global interest in port-related climate challenges. Among those with a defined location, 42 studies adopt a general/global approach, analyzing climate impacts and port adaptation strategies at an international level. The USA (25 studies) and China (22 studies) remain the most frequently examined regions, reflecting their roles as major maritime economies with substantial port infrastructure. In Europe, 27 studies focus on specific countries, including Spain, Italy, Greece, Ireland, Germany, the United Kingdom, Cyprus, Croatia, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Bulgaria, with Spain and Italy leading the research. This highlights the decisive engagement of European maritime nations in port-climate research, likely driven by EU environmental policies, coastal vulnerability, and regional adaptation initiatives. Figure 3 demonstrates the geographic focus distribution of the research.
The scale of focus in research also reveals a significant finding. Studies broadly examine major seaports, reflecting their significance in economic resilience and vulnerability to climate change impacts. Beyond ports, research also extends to terminals, addressing localized cargo-handling facilities and docking infrastructure within broader port systems. Some studies shift their focus to coastal and harbor areas, including urbanized coastal regions, emphasizing climate risks beyond port operations. Smaller maritime zones such as marinas, fisheries, straits, and rivers receive limited attention. Specialized logistical hubs, such as dry ports, shipyards, and island-based facilities, appear scarcely in the literature, suggesting gaps in the research coverage.

4.6. Research Topic, Disciplinary Scope, and Concept Co-Occurrence

The analysis of research areas, Web of Science (WoS) categories, and concept co-occurrence highlights the highly interdisciplinary nature of port-related climate change studies, incorporating perspectives from engineering, environmental sciences, economics, policy, and logistics. The dominant focus on transportation reflects the crucial role of ports in global trade, supply chain resilience, and economic stability, making climate adaptation a key concern for sustainable maritime operations. The strong presence of environmental sciences and sustainability research underscores the growing awareness of ecological impacts, carbon emissions, and the need for adaptation strategies to ensure long-term port functionality amid climate threats.
Additionally, studies categorized under marine engineering and ocean sciences indicate a technical approach to climate challenges, often addressing structural resilience, hydrodynamic modeling, and predictive simulations to assess risks such as storm surges, sea-level rise, and extreme weather events. Research incorporating international relations and policy studies further suggests an increasing focus on governance mechanisms, regulatory frameworks, and global cooperation in port adaptation strategies, highlighting the role of policymakers in mitigating climate risks across interconnected maritime networks. Figure 4 demonstrates the Concept Co-occurrence Map.
The concept co-occurrence analysis provides further insight into the clustering of research themes, reinforcing the multifaceted nature of the field. Three major research clusters emerge:
Engineering, Environmental Science, and Ecology (Green Cluster): This cluster emphasizes the technical and sustainability-driven aspects of port adaptation, including renewable energy integration, emission control technologies, and environmental engineering approaches to mitigating climate risks.
Geography, Climate Change, and Oceanography (Red Cluster): This grouping focuses on spatial, geophysical, and coastal vulnerability aspects, addressing topics such as sea-level rise, storm surges, coastal erosion, and geotechnical engineering challenges that influence port infrastructure resilience.
Economics, Business, and Political Science (Blue Cluster): The third cluster underlines the financial, regulatory, and policy-driven dimensions of climate adaptation in ports, including investment in green port technologies, economic incentives for low-carbon shipping, and legislative frameworks for port resilience planning.
The clustering settings suggest strong associations between key terms, with smaller clusters merging into larger thematic groups, ensuring a structured visualization of how different disciplines interact in port-climate research. These findings confirm that port-climate change research is evolving as a multidisciplinary field where scientific, technical, and socio-economic perspectives are increasingly integrated.
While adaptation and mitigation remain dominant themes, governance, policy, and operational aspects are also gaining traction, indicating a shift toward more holistic adaptation strategies. Future research could further enhance the integration of engineering solutions with policy measures, ensuring that effective regulatory and economic frameworks support technological advancements in port resilience. This cross-disciplinary approach is essential for developing sustainable, climate-resilient port systems that can withstand environmental uncertainties while maintaining their critical role in global trade and economic stability.

4.7. Publication Sources

The reviewed articles were published across 159 unique journals, highlighting the broad disciplinary reach of port-climate change research. The analysis of publication sources reveals that research on ports and climate change is primarily published in multidisciplinary journals covering sustainability, marine science, and transportation policy. Leading outlets include Sustainability and the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, reflecting a strong focus on environmental resilience and technical advancements in maritime infrastructure. Additionally, Maritime Policy Management and Marine Policy highlight the role of governance, regulatory frameworks, and strategic planning in climate adaptation. This emphasizes the integration of climate considerations into broader transport and logistics research. These findings indicate that port-climate research spans environmental science, engineering, policy, and transportation disciplines, reinforcing its highly interdisciplinary nature. Table 3 demonstrates the publication sources of the studies.

4.8. Bibliographic Coupling and Citations

The analysis of citation data indicates that research in this field has a mean citation count of 23.15, with citations ranging from 0 to over 35. While some studies are highly influential, 25% of papers have received three or fewer citations, reflecting a mix of well-established research and emerging contributions. The most cited studies exhibit clear trends in methodology, geographic focus, and subject matter. Ref. [82], the most frequently cited work, explores energy efficiency in ports through a qualitative review of operational improvements. Similarly, ref. [103] analyzes flood risk adaptation using a review-based approach to evaluate the impact of sea-level rises globally. Studies by [6,104] address natural environmental changes and port-climate adaptation strategies, respectively. The former focuses on mangrove expansion in Ireland, while the latter employs a survey-based quantitative approach to assess global port resilience planning. Ref. [105] contributes to the discussion by examining GHG emissions in Swedish ports and assessing mitigation strategies. Most of these highly cited studies fall within the growth phase of the research field, serving as foundational works for emerging investigations.
The bibliographic coupling analysis, based on publication years, further highlights the temporal evolution of research. Earlier influential studies, such as those by [6,103], laid the groundwork for subsequent research, particularly in climate adaptation and port vulnerabilities. More recent works by authors such as [106,107] reflect a shift toward applied research, with increased attention to real-world implementation, resilience strategies, and operational sustainability. Distinct research clusters remain visible, but newer studies demonstrate increased interconnectivity, suggesting a more assertive interdisciplinary approach. Authors such as [82,105] continue to act as pivotal links between different research streams, particularly in transport logistics efficiency and emissions reduction. Figure 5 demonstrates bibliographic coupling by publication year.
The citation analysis underscores the uneven distribution of the research impact, with some studies achieving significant recognition while others remain relatively obscure. The growing academic interest in sustainable port development is evident in the steady increase in research output over time. While early studies primarily addressed theoretical frameworks and vulnerability assessments, recent contributions are more focused on policy integration, operational efficiency, and the practical implementation of sustainability measures. Geographically, the research varies between global-scale analyses and region-specific studies, with an increasing emphasis on localized adaptation strategies.
Overall, the findings demonstrate a well-connected and evolving research landscape in port sustainability and climate change adaptation. While foundational studies continue to shape contemporary discussions, new research directions are emerging in response to evolving climate challenges and regulatory frameworks. The interdisciplinary nature of recent studies suggests a shift towards more integrated approaches, bridging traditional maritime research with broader environmental governance and policy considerations.

5. Discussion

The bibliometric analysis conducted in this study provides critical insights into the evolving research landscape on climate change and ports. A total of 914 studies were initially identified, with 318 selected for detailed analysis. The temporal distribution of these studies indicates a significant increase in scholarly attention to port-related climate issues, particularly since 2010 [1,25]. This trend aligns with global policy developments, such as the Paris Agreement and the IMO’s decarbonization initiatives, which have driven both academic and practical interest in port sustainability and climate adaptation [4].
The analysis revealed three distinct phases in the development of climate change and port-related research. The early period (1997–2009) was characterized by primarily conceptual studies that focused on broad environmental concerns with limited empirical investigations. During the growth phase (2010–2019), there was a notable increase in publications emphasizing empirical research and data-driven approaches, including climate risk assessments and case studies. The most recent phase, termed the surge period (2020–present), has seen a proliferation of studies focusing on resilience planning, sustainability, and interdisciplinary collaborations.
Quantitative methods have dominated the research landscape, accounting for 61% of the studies, followed by qualitative approaches (30%) and mixed methods (9%). The widespread use of statistical models, GIS-based assessments, and bibliometric analyses reflects a strong inclination toward empirical and data-driven research methodologies. Additionally, secondary data sources were employed in 73% of the reviewed studies, highlighting the need for more field-based research incorporating primary data collection [108].
The research exhibits a diverse geographical distribution, covering 67 distinct regions. The highest concentration of studies has been conducted in economically significant maritime regions, with the USA (18%), China (16%), and Europe (20%) contributing the largest share [25]. Leading institutions in this field include the University of Rhode Island, the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, and the Universidad de Cantabria, demonstrating strong academic engagement in port resilience studies [7].
Despite significant advancements, several research gaps remain. Standardized methodologies for emission assessments are still lacking, and interdisciplinary collaboration between engineering, environmental science, and policy studies requires further strengthening [2]. Additionally, there is a need for unified frameworks for carbon footprint calculations in ports and greater integration of empirical research through primary data collection. Future research should also focus on technological innovations in port sustainability, such as renewable energy integration and digitalization for climate adaptation.
The findings of this study suggest that policymakers should prioritize the following key areas: strengthening regulatory frameworks to enhance port sustainability and reduce emissions, encouraging public–private partnerships to finance green port initiatives, integrating climate adaptation measures into national and international maritime policies, and promoting cross-sectoral collaboration between port authorities, government agencies, and research institutions.
This study underscores the increasing scholarly and practical focus on the intersection of ports and climate change. While research in this area has expanded significantly, addressing gaps related to policy integration, data standardization, and interdisciplinary collaboration remains crucial. Moving forward, a holistic approach that combines scientific research, technological innovation, and policy implementation will be essential in building climate-resilient and sustainable port operations [46,109]. The significant recent increase in publications focusing on adaptation and resilience indicates that port authorities should utilize this growing body of recent work to enhance their strategic planning. Furthermore, the common use of modeling and scenario methodologies in the literature offers practical tools that port decision-makers can utilize for more sophisticated, data-driven risk assessments, and the evaluation of adaptation options tailored to their specific environmental and operational contexts. The interdisciplinary nature of the research, blending technical, economic, and policy aspects, suggests that effective climate action requires port stakeholders to integrate these viewpoints, aligning engineering solutions with financial considerations and policy support.

6. Conclusions

The findings of this study underscore the critical connection between ports and climate change, highlighting their susceptibility to climate-related risks and their role in environmental impacts. The bibliometric analysis shows an increasing interest in research focused on climate adaptation strategies, emission reduction, and sustainable port operations, particularly in light of global climate policies and heightened environmental awareness.
An examination of the key themes in the literature reveals that the most urgent issues include climate change, sea-level rise, emissions, vulnerability, waves, air pollution, disasters, and risks. To tackle these challenges, various studies suggest solutions such as models, adaptation strategies, systems, scenarios, performance improvements, and resilience-building measures. Furthermore, the findings emphasize the necessity for better management approaches, strategic planning, and policy development to address climate risks and promote port sustainability effectively.
Ports are facing escalating challenges from rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and regulatory pressures, which call for integrated and multidisciplinary solutions. The growing emphasis on sustainability, resilience, and green port initiatives indicates a shift towards more proactive climate adaptation measures. However, there are still gaps in standardized carbon footprint calculations, interdisciplinary collaboration, and policy implementation, which require additional research and coordinated global efforts. Our bibliometric analysis confirms that policy development is recognized as a crucial element in addressing climate risks and promoting sustainability in ports. Although a detailed comparative evaluation of specific policies across regions was beyond this study’s scope, such research is clearly needed to understand the effectiveness of different governance structures and inform practical implementation.
This study has several limitations. A key limitation is that our analysis relied solely on the Web of Science database, potentially omitting studies published in other sources. Also, our keyword search strategy might not capture all relevant papers due to variations in terminology used across different fields. To build on this work, future bibliometric reviews could provide a more comprehensive picture by including other databases like Scopus and consulting experts to validate keywords, which would also improve the accuracy and scope of such analyses.
Future research should investigate innovative mitigation strategies, technological advancements, and regulatory frameworks that support climate-resilient port operations. Enhancing international collaboration and promoting sustainable practices will be vital to ensuring that ports remain crucial nodes of global trade while reducing their environmental impact. Future research should concentrate on cutting-edge topics such as climate change adaptation and digital transformation, especially examining the relationships between cities and ports and sustainability initiatives. These subjects are essential for determining how ports will develop in the future. To acquire a more thorough understanding, future research could benefit from integrating bibliometric analyses with in-depth qualitative analyses of research methodologies, data sources, and findings.

Author Contributions

T.T.T.: Writing—review editing, Writing—original draft, Validation, Data curation, Conceptualization. N.Ö.: Writing—review editing, Writing—original draft, Validation, Data curation, Conceptualization. G.T.K.: Writing—review editing, Writing—original draft, Validation, Data curation, Conceptualization. Ü.Ö.: Writing—review editing, Validation, Data curation, Conceptualization. D.P.: Writing—review editing, Writing—original draft, Validation, Data curation, Conceptualization. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors did not receive any financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted as a literature review and did not involve any experimental research with human participants or animals. Therefore, ethical approval from an institutional review board was not required.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was not necessary for this study because it is based only on a literature review and does not use human subjects.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

  1. Izaguirre, C.; Losada, I.J.; Camus, P.; Vigh, J.L.; Stenek, V. Climate change risk to global port operations. Nat. Clim. Change 2021, 11, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Azarkamand, S.; Ferré, G.; Darbra, R.M. Calculating the Carbon Footprint in ports by using a standardized tool. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 734, 139407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Yingjun, Z.; Jahan, S.; Qamruzzaman, M. Technological Innovation, Trade Openness, Natural Resources, and Environmental Sustainability in Egypt and Turkey: Evidence from Load Capacity Factor and Inverted Load Capacity Factor with Fourier Functions. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Azarkamand, S.; Wooldridge, C.; Darbra, R.M. Review of initiatives and methodologies to reduce CO2 emissions and climate change effects in ports. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Portillo Juan, N.; Negro Valdecantos, V.; del Campo, J.M. Review of the impacts of climate change on ports and harbours and their adaptation in Spain. Sustainability 2020, 14, 7507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Becker, A.; Inoue, S.; Fischer, M.; Schwegler, B. Climate change impacts on international seaports: Knowledge, perceptions, and planning efforts among port administrators. Clim. Change 2012, 110, 5–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Becker, A.; Ng, A.K.; McEvoy, D.; Mullett, J. Implications of climate change for shipping: Ports and supply chains. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 2018, 9, e508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ng, A.K.; Song, S. The environmental impacts of pollutants generated by routine shipping operations on ports. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2010, 53, 301–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bailey, D.; Solomon, G. Pollution prevention at ports: Clearing the air. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2004, 24, 749–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pash, H.S.; Ebadi, T.; Pourahmadi, A.; Parhizkar, Y.R. Analysis of most important indices in environmental impacts assessment of ports. Civ. Eng. J. 2017, 3, 868–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. AAPA. American Association of Port Authorities. Environmental Management Handbook; American Association of Port Authorities: Washington, DC, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  12. Wang, T. Adapting to the risks and uncertainties posed by climate change on ports. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference of Research and Development in Mechanical Industry (RaDMI), London, UK, 2–4 July 2014; Volume VIII. [Google Scholar]
  13. Sierra, J.P.; Casanovas, I.; Mösso, C.; Mestres, M.; Sanchez-Arcilla, A. Vulnerability of Catalan (NW Mediterranean) ports to wave overtopping due to different scenarios of sea level rise. Reg. Environ. Change 2016, 16, 1457–1468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yang, Y.C.; Ge, Y.E. Adaptation strategies for port infrastructure and facilities under climate change at the Kaohsiung port. Transp. Policy 2020, 97, 232–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Christodoulou, A.; Christidis, P.; Demirel, H. Sea-level rise in ports: A wider focus on impacts. Marit. Econ. Logist. 2019, 21, 482–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gallivan, F.; Bailey, K.; O’Rourke, L. Planning for impacts of climate change at US ports. Transp. Res. Rec. 2009, 2100, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Devendran, L.; Menhat, M.; Hanafiah, R.; Yatim, N.I.; Ali, N.A.; Mohd Zaideen, I.M. Adapting to the impacts of climate change on port operation. Aust. J. Marit. Ocean Aff. 2023, 15, 107–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kurt, I. Planning Ports in Changing Climate-Sea Level Rise and Floating Ports. In Proceedings of the 11th Global Conference on Global Warming (GCGW 2023), Istanbul, Turkey, 14–16 June 2023. Available at SSRN 4663227. [Google Scholar]
  19. Church, J.A.; Clark, P.U.; Cazenave, A.; Gregory, J.M.; Jevrejeva, S.; Levermann, A.; Merrifield, M.A.; Milne, G.A.; Nerem, R.S.; Nunn, P.D. Chapter 13: Sea Level Change. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Humboldt State University Sea Level Rise Initiative: Arcata, CA, USA, 2013; pp. 1137–1216. [Google Scholar]
  20. Barbier, E.B. Policy: Hurricane Katrina’s lessons for the world. Nature 2015, 524, 285–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Binder, S.B.; Baker, C.K.; Barile, J.P. Rebuild or relocate? Resilience and postdisaster decision-making after Hurricane Sandy. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2015, 56, 180–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Arora, B.; Aditya, A. Weather impacts on seaborne trade: A new model to explain port activity in the era of climate change. Marit. Econ. Logist. 2024, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Balica, S.F.; Wright, N.G.; van der Meulen, F. A flood vulnerability index for coastal cities and Its use in assessing climate change impacts. Nat. Hazards 2012, 64, 73–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Abdelhafez, M.A.; Ellingwood, B.; Mahmoud, H. Vulnerability of seaports to hurricanes and sea level rise in a changing climate: A case study for mobile, AL. Coast. Eng. 2021, 167, 103884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Notteboom, T.; Pallis, A.; Rodrigue, J.P. Port Economics, Management and Policy; Routledge: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  26. Smith, A.B.; Katz, R.W. US billion-dollar weather and climate disasters: Data sources, trends, accuracy and biases. Nat. Hazards 2013, 67, 387–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. León-Mateos, F.; Sartal, A.; López-Manuel, L.; Quintas, M.A. Adapting our sea ports to the challenges of climate change: Development and validation of a Port Resilience Index. Mar. Policy 2021, 130, 104573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nursey-Bray, M.; Blackwell, B.; Brooks, B.; Campbell, M.L.; Goldsworthy, L.; Pateman, H.; Rodrigues, I.; Roome, M.; Wright, J.T.; Francis, J.; et al. Vulnerabilities and adaptation of ports to climate change. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2013, 56, 1021–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ng, A.K.; Chen, S.L.; Cahoon, S.; Brooks, B.; Yang, Z. Climate change and the adaptation strategies of ports: The Australian experiences. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2013, 8, 186–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Saizar, A. Assessment of impacts of a potential sea-level rise on the coast of Montevideo, Uruguay. Clim. Res. 1997, 9, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hunter, J.; Coleman, R.; Pugh, D. The sea level at Port Arthur, Tasmania, from 1841 to the present. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2003, 30, 1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gravelle, G.; Mimura, N. Vulnerability assessment of sea-level rise in Viti Levu, Fiji Islands. Sustain. Sci. 2008, 3, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Alsahli, M.M.; AlHasem, A.M. Vulnerability of Kuwait coast to sea level rise. Geogr. Tidsskr.-Dan. J. Geogr. 2016, 116, 56–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Becker, A.; Hippe, A.; Mclean, E.L. Cost and materials required to retrofit US seaports in response to sea level rise: A thought exercise for climate response. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2017, 5, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Roshni, T.; Sajid, K.; Samui, P. Potential of regression models in projecting sea level variability due to climate change at Haldia Port, India. Ocean Syst. Eng. 2017, 7, 319–328. [Google Scholar]
  36. Galiatsatou, P.; Makris, C.; Prinos, P. Optimized reliability based upgrading of rubble mound breakwaters in a changing climate. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2018, 6, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gracia, V.; Sierra, J.P.; Gómez, M.; Pedrol, M.; Sampé, S.; García-León, M.; Gironella, X. Assessing the impact of sea level rise on port operability using LiDAR-derived digital elevation models. Remote Sens. Environ. 2019, 232, 111318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sierra, J.P. Economic impact of overtopping and adaptation measures in Catalan ports due to sea level rise. Water 2019, 11, 1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Esteban, M.; Takagi, H.; Nicholls, R.J.; Fatma, D.; Pratama, M.B.; Kurobe, S.; Yi, X.; Ikeda, I.; Mikami, T.; Valenzuela, P.; et al. Adapting ports to sea-level rise: Empirical lessons based on land subsidence in Indonesia and Japan. Marit. Policy Manag. 2020, 47, 937–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Patil, R.G.; Deo, M.C. Sea level rise and shoreline change under changing climate along the Indian Coastline. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 2020, 146, 05020002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Maravelakis, N.; Kalligeris, N.; Lynett, P.J.; Skanavis, V.L.; Synolakis, C.E. Wave overtopping due to harbour resonance. Coast. Eng. 2021, 169, 103973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Allen, T.R.; McLeod, G.; Hutt, S. Sea level rise exposure assessment of US East Coast cargo container terminals. Marit. Policy Manag. 2022, 49, 577–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Čepienė, E.; Dailidytė, L.; Stonevičius, E.; Dailidienė, I. Sea level rise impact on compound coastal river flood risk in Klaipėda city (Baltic Coast, Lithuania). Water 2022, 14, 414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jebbad, R.; Sierra, J.P.; Mösso, C.; Mestres, M.; Sánchez-Arcilla, A. Assessment of harbour inoperability and adaptation cost due to sea level rise. Application to the port of Tangier-Med (Morocco). Appl. Geogr. 2022, 138, 102623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chang, T.H.; Wang, H.Y. Analysis and Exploration of the Impact of Average Sea Level Change on Navigational Safety in Ports. Water 2023, 15, 2570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Raj, N.; Brown, J. Prediction of Mean Sea Level with GNSS-VLM Correction Using a Hybrid Deep Learning Model in Australia. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 2881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chambers, D. Policing and climate change. Aust. J. Emerg. Manag. 2011, 26, 52–59. [Google Scholar]
  48. Becker, A.; Caldwell, M.R. Stakeholder perceptions of seaport resilience strategies: A case study of Gulfport (Mississippi) and Providence (Rhode Island). Coast. Manag. 2015, 43, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Blok, A.; Tschötschel, R. World port cities as cosmopolitan risk community: Mapping urban climate policy experiments in Europe and East Asia. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2016, 34, 717–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fenton, P. The role of port cities and transnational municipal networks in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on land and at sea from shipping–An assessment of the World Ports Climate Initiative. Mar. Policy 2017, 75, 271–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ng, A.K.; Wang, T.; Yang, Z.; Li, K.X.; Jiang, C. How is business adapting to climate change impacts appropriately? Insight from the commercial port sector. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 150, 1029–1047. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ng, A.K.; Zhang, H.; Afenyo, M.; Becker, A.; Cahoon, S.; Chen, S.L.; Esteban, M.; Ferrari, C.; Lau, Y.; Lee, P.T.W.; et al. Port decision maker perceptions on the effectiveness of climate adaptation actions. Coast. Manag. 2018, 46, 148–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bond, P. Blue Economy threats, contradictions and resistances seen from South Africa. J. Political Ecol. 2019, 26, 341–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Brewer, T.L. Black Carbon and Other Air Pollutants in Italian Ports and Coastal Areas: Problems, Solutions and Implications for Policies. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lin, Y.; Ng, A.K.; Zhang, A.; Xu, Y.; He, Y. Climate change adaptation by ports: The attitude of Chinese port organizations. Marit. Policy Manag. 2020, 47, 873–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Alnafisah, N.; Alsmari, E.; Alshehri, A.; Binsuwadan, J. Assessing the Impacts of Technological Innovation on Carbon Emissions in MENA Countries: Application of the Innovation Curve Theory. Energies 2024, 17, 904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pian, F.; Xu, L.; Chen, Y.; Lee, S.H. Global emission taxes and port privatization policies under international competition. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Alamoush, A.S.; Ölçer, A.I.; Ballini, F. Port greenhouse gas emission reduction: Port and public authorities’ implementation schemes. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2022, 43, 100708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Liu, X. The supervision and multi-sectoral guarantee mechanism of the global marine sulphur limit—Assessment from Chinese shipping industry. Front. Mar. Sci. 2022, 9, 1028388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Botana, C.; Fernández, E.; Feijoo, G. Towards a green port strategy: The decarbonisation of the port of vigo (nw spain). Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 856, 159198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Chalastani, V.I.; Pantelidis, A.; Feloni, E.; Papadimitriou, A.; Tsaimou, C.N.; Nisiforou, O.; Tsoukala, V.K. Development of a Complex Vulnerability Index for Fishing Shelters—The Case of Cyprus. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Liu, J.; Xu, H.; Lyu, Y. Emission reduction technologies for shipping supply chains under carbon tax with knowledge sharing. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2023, 246, 106869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Parsmo, R.; Ytreberg, E.; Verdaasdonk, M.; Fridell, E. Environmental discounts for Swedish ports and fairways: A ship owner perspective. Mar. Policy 2024, 159, 105950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Osthorst, W.; Mänz, C. Types of cluster adaptation to climate change. Lessons from the port and logistics sector of Northwest Germany. Marit. Policy Manag. 2012, 39, 227–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Becker, A.H.; Acciaro, M.; Asariotis, R.; Cabrera, E.; Cretegny, L.; Crist, P.; Esteban, M.; Mather, A.; Messner, S.; Naruse, S.; et al. A note on climate change adaptation for seaports: A challenge for global ports, a challenge for global society. Clim. Change 2013, 120, 683–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sánchez-Arcilla, A.; Sierra, J.P.; Brown, S.; Casas-Prat, M.; Nicholls, R.J.; Lionello, P.; Conte, D. A review of potential physical impacts on harbours in the Mediterranean Sea under climate change. Reg. Environ. Change 2016, 16, 2471–2484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Mutombo, K.; Ölçer, A. Towards port infrastructure adaptation: A global port climate risk analysis. WMU J. Marit. Aff. 2017, 16, 161–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yang, Z.; Ng, A.K.; Lee, P.T.W.; Wang, T.; Qu, Z.; Rodrigues, V.S.; Pettit, S.; Harris, I.; Zhang, D.; Lau, Y.Y. Risk and cost evaluation of port adaptation measures to climate change impacts. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2018, 61, 444–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ng, A.K.; Monios, J.; Zhang, H. Climate adaptation management and institutional erosion: Insights from a major Canadian port. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2019, 62, 586–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Morris, L.L. Stakeholder collaboration as a pathway to climate adaptation at coastal ports. Marit. Policy Manag. 2020, 47, 953–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ribeiro, A.S.; Lopes, C.L.; Sousa, M.C.; Gomez-Gesteira, M.; Dias, J.M. Flooding conditions at Aveiro Port (Portugal) within the framework of projected climate change. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Itoh, R.; Zhang, A. How should ports share risk of natural and climate change disasters? Analytical modelling and implications for adaptation investments. Econ. Transp. 2023, 33, 100301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Chowdhooree, I.; Aziz, T.; Rashid, M.J.; Hossain, M. Climate change adaptation through nature-based solution: Examining the case of Thakurani Khal of Mongla Port Municipality, Bagerhat Bangladesh. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 2024, 15, 474–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Rashid, M.J.; Chowdhooree, I.; Aziz, T.; Hossain, M. Determining the climate adaptive capacity of urban actors: A case study of Mongla port-town in Bangladesh. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 2024, 15, 617–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Morel, G.; Lima, F.R.; Martell-Flores, H.; Hissel, F. Tools for an integrated systems approach to sustainable port city planning. urbe. Rev. Bras. De Gestão Urbana 2013, 5, 39–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bjerkan, K.Y.; Ryghaug, M. Diverging pathways to port sustainability: How social processes shape and direct transition work. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2021, 166, 120595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Argyriou, I.; Sifakis, N.; Tsoutsos, T. Ranking measures to improve the sustainability of Mediterranean ports based on multicriteria decision analysis: A case study of Souda port, Chania, Crete. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 6449–6466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Cunha, D.R.; Pereira, N.N.; Moneva, J.M. Port sustainability initiatives: A study of brazilian public ports. Rev. De Gestão E Secr. 2023, 14, 12674–12693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Diniz, N.V.; Cunha, D.R.; de Santana Porte, M.; Oliveira, C.B.M. Disclosure of the sustainable development goals in the maritime industry and port sector. Rev. De Gestão E Secr. 2023, 14, 8129–8149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Garg, A.; Naswa, P.; Shukla, P.R. Energy infrastructure in India: Profile and risks under climate change. Energy Policy 2015, 81, 226–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Nguyen, H.P.; Nguyen, P.Q.P.; Nguyen, T.P. Green Port Strategies in Developed Coastal Countries as Useful Lessons for the Path of Sustainable Development: A case study in Vietnam. Int. J. Renew. Energy Dev. 2022, 11, 950–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Iris, Ç.; Lam, J.S.L. A review of energy efficiency in ports: Operational strategies, technologies and energy management systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 112, 170–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Elkafas, A.G.; Seddiek, I.S. Application of renewable energy systems in seaports towards sustainability and decarbonization: Energy, environmental and economic assessment. Renew. Energy 2024, 228, 120690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sierra, J.P.; Genius, A.; Lionello, P.; Mestres, M.; Mösso, C.; Marzo, L. Modelling the impact of climate change on harbour operability: The Barcelona port case study. Ocean Eng. 2017, 141, 64–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lam, J.S.L.; Li, K.X. Green port marketing for sustainable growth and development. Transp. Policy 2019, 84, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Poletan Jugović, T.; Agatić, A.; Gračan, D.; Šekularac–Ivošević, S. Sustainable activities in Croatian marinas–towards the “green port” concept. Pomorstvo 2022, 36, 318–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Le, S.T.; Nguyen, T.H. The development of green ports in emerging nations: A case study of Vietnam. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Linder, A.J. CO2 restrictions and cargo throughput limitations at California ports: A closer look at AB 32 and port-to-port shipping. Public Work. Manag. Policy 2010, 14, 374–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Saraçoğlu, H.; Deniz, C.; Kılıç, A. An investigation on the effects of ship sourced emissions in Izmir Port, Turkey. Sci. World J. 2013, 1, 218324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Rodrigues, V.S.; Pettit, S.; Harris, I.; Beresford, A.; Piecyk, M.; Yang, Z.; Ng, A. UK supply chain carbon mitigation strategies using alternative ports and multimodal freight transport operations. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2015, 78, 40–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zhao, N.; Schofield, N.; Niu, W. Energy storage system for a port crane hybrid power-train. IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif. 2016, 2, 480–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Nunes, R.A.O.; Alvim-Ferraz, M.C.M.; Martins, F.G.; Sousa, S.I.V. The activity-based methodology to assess ship emissions-A review. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 231, 87–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Nunes, R.A.O.; Alvim-Ferraz, M.C.M.; Martins, F.G.; Sousa, S.I.V. Assessment of shipping emissions on four ports of Portugal. Environ. Pollut. 2017, 231, 1370–1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Li, X.; Kuang, H.; Hu, Y. Carbon mitigation strategies of port selection and multimodal transport operations—A case study of northeast China. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Alzahrani, A.; Petri, I.; Rezgui, Y. Analysis and simulation of smart energy clusters and energy value chain for fish processing industries. Energy Rep. 2020, 6, 534–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Roy, A.; Auger, F.; Olivier, J.C.; Schaeffer, E.; Auvity, B. Design, sizing, and energy management of microgrids in harbor areas: A review. Energies 2020, 13, 5314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Kim, K. Characteristics of economic and environmental benefits of shore power use by container-ship size. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Kanrak, M.; Lau, Y.Y.; Ling, X.; Traiyarach, S. Cruise shipping network of ports in and around the emission control areas: A network structure perspective. Marit. Bus. Rev. 2023, 8, 372–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Zhu, L.; Li, X.; Pan, W. Controlling marine greenhouse gas emissions in Hong Kong: Policy considerations. Marit. Policy Manag. 2023, 50, 1136–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Makram, M.; Bassam, A.M.; Tawfik, A.A.; Yehia, W. Assessment of Onshore Renewable Energy Power Supply for Ship’s Emissions Reduction in Port Said West Port. J. Mar. Sci. Appl. 2024, 23, 506–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Shu, Y.; Han, B.; Song, L.; Yan, T.; Gan, L.; Zhu, Y.; Zheng, C. Analyzing the spatio-temporal correlation between tide and shipping behavior at estuarine port for energy-saving purposes. Appl. Energy 2024, 367, 123382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Wilby, R.L.; Keenan, R. Adapting to flood risk under climate change. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2012, 36, 348–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Comeaux, R.S.; Allison, M.A.; Bianchi, T.S. Mangrove expansion in the Gulf of Mexico with climate change: Implications for wetland health and resistance to rising sea levels. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2012, 96, 81–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Winnes, H.; Styhre, L.; Fridell, E. Reducing GHG emissions from ships in port areas. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2015, 17, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Zeng, S.; Li, G.; Wu, S.; Dong, Z. The impact of green technology innovation on carbon emissions in the context of carbon neutrality in China: Evidence from spatial spillover and nonlinear effect analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Verschuur, J.; Koks, E.; Hall, J. The implications of large-scale containment policies on global maritime trade during the COVID-19 pandemic. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2010.15907. [Google Scholar]
  108. Jiang, C.; Zheng, S.; Ng, A.K.; Ge, Y.E.; Fu, X. The climate change strategies of seaports: Mitigation vs. adaptation. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2020, 89, 102603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Elgin, C.; Özgür, G.; Cantekin, K. Measuring green technology adoption across countries. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 31, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 17 03542 g001
Figure 1. Flow diagram of study selection process (adapted from PRISMA Framework [102]).
Figure 1. Flow diagram of study selection process (adapted from PRISMA Framework [102]).
Sustainability 17 03542 g001
Sustainability 17 03542 g002
Figure 2. Distribution of utilized data collection tools.
Figure 2. Distribution of utilized data collection tools.
Sustainability 17 03542 g002
Sustainability 17 03542 g003
Figure 3. Geographic focus distribution of the research.
Figure 3. Geographic focus distribution of the research.
Sustainability 17 03542 g003
Sustainability 17 03542 g004
Figure 4. Concept co-occurrence map.
Figure 4. Concept co-occurrence map.
Sustainability 17 03542 g004
Sustainability 17 03542 g005
Figure 5. Bibliographic coupling by publication year.
Figure 5. Bibliographic coupling by publication year.
Sustainability 17 03542 g005
Table 1. Keyword frequency table.
Table 1. Keyword frequency table.
KeywordFrequencyKeywordFrequency
Climate Change65Wave18
Impact50System17
Port45Scenario17
Management37Policy17
Model33Competition17
Adaptation29Performance16
Sea Level/Sea-Level Rise26Air Pollution15
Transport22Coast/Coastal15
Emission21Resilience15
Vulnerability21City14
Sustainability18Disaster13
Strategy18Risk13
Table 2. Methods used in the studies.
Table 2. Methods used in the studies.
MethodsFrequencyPercent (%)
Review14633.40
Various Statistical Methods13330.43
Case Study4911.21
Modeling/Mapping347.78
Scenario-Based Methods276.17
Simulation173.89
MCDM122.74
Content Analysis112.51
Experiment51.14
Focus Group20.457
Table 3. Publication sources of the studies.
Table 3. Publication sources of the studies.
Publication SourcesFrequencyPercent (%)
Sustainability123.773585
Journal of Marine Science And Engineering113.459119
Marine Policy72.201258
Maritime Policy Management41.257862
Water41.257862
Applied Sciences-Basel30.943396
Coastal Engineering30.943396
Frontiers In Marine Science30.943396
Journal of Coastal Research 30.943396
Transportation Research Part D-Transport And Environment 30.943396
Energies20.628931
Ocean Coastal Management20.628931
Maritime Economics Logistics20.628931
Environmental Science and Pollution Research20.628931
Computers Industrial Engineering20.628931
International Journal Of Disaster Resilience In The Built Environment 20.628931
Transportation Research Record 20.628931
Remote Sensing 20.628931
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Türkistanlı, T.T.; Özispa, N.; Tuğdemir Kök, G.; Özdemir, Ü.; Pehlivan, D. Exploring Research Trends on Climate Change: Insights into Port Resilience and Sustainability. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3542. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083542

AMA Style

Türkistanlı TT, Özispa N, Tuğdemir Kök G, Özdemir Ü, Pehlivan D. Exploring Research Trends on Climate Change: Insights into Port Resilience and Sustainability. Sustainability. 2025; 17(8):3542. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083542

Chicago/Turabian Style

Türkistanlı, Taha Talip, Nergis Özispa, Gökçe Tuğdemir Kök, Ünal Özdemir, and Davut Pehlivan. 2025. "Exploring Research Trends on Climate Change: Insights into Port Resilience and Sustainability" Sustainability 17, no. 8: 3542. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083542

APA Style

Türkistanlı, T. T., Özispa, N., Tuğdemir Kök, G., Özdemir, Ü., & Pehlivan, D. (2025). Exploring Research Trends on Climate Change: Insights into Port Resilience and Sustainability. Sustainability, 17(8), 3542. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083542

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop