Enabling an AUTOnomous and FLEXible hinterland transport ecosystem: Main modal shift issues and potential transport solutions

Journal of Physics: Conference Series PAPER • OPEN ACCESS Enabling an AUTOnomous and FLEXible hinterland transport ecosystem: Main modal shift issues and potential transport solutions To cite this article: Kristoffer Kloch et al 2025 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 3123 012045 View the article online for updates and enhancements. You may also like Safety Assessment and ExperienceBuilding Scheme Using Simulators for Automatic Collision Avoidance Algorithm Ryohei Sawada, Makiko Minami, Keiji Sato et al. - Automated Maneuvering of Networked Vessels in Confined Waters Nick Eisenblätter, Tim Rehbronn, Martin Kurowski et al. - From COLREG compliance to performance requirements for situational awareness systems in autonomous navigation systems Peter Morris, Pål Henrik Hannus, Tom Arne Pedersen et al. - This content was downloaded from IP address 129.233.224.227 on 07/11/2025 at 10:45 Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI. Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd ICMASS-ISSS-2025 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 3123 (2025) 012045 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/3123/1/012045 1 Enabling an AUTOnomous and FLEXible hinterland transport ecosystem: Main modal shift issues and potential transport solutions Kristoffer Kloch 1,2*, Cyril Alias 3,4, Håvard Nordahl 5, Stefan Krause 6, Thomas Kerkmann 3, Marvin Budde 3 1 Department of Innovation & Partnerships, DFDS, Copenhagen, Denmark 2 Department of Sustainability and Planning, University of Aalborg, Aalborg, Denmark 3 Development Centre for Ship Technology and Transport Systems, Duisburg, Germany 4 Centre for Logistics and Traffic, University of Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, Germany 5 Department of Energy and Transport, SINTEF Ocean, Trondheim, Norway 6 Institut fu r Strukturleichtbau und Energieeffizienz, Chemnitz, Germany *E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. While autonomous ships are said to be an enabler for modal shift in Europe, they require a broader transformation of the transport and business ecosystems to be effective. That is, current logistics paradigms and rapid advancements in zero-emission road transport may inadvertently incentivise a shift away from waterborne transport. This study explores this conundrum, by looking at the role of ports as integrated logistics and energy hubs, the revitalization of abandoned transhipment sites, and the reduction of transport waste as potential solutions. Conceptualizations of novel transport components are proposed, aimed at enhancing the flexibility, sustainability, and efficiency of intermodal transport ecosystems using IWT and thus potentially unlocking progress toward Europe’s modal shift goals. 1. Introduction Despite decades of European policies aiming at shifting freight transport from road to the more sustainable modes rail and waterborne transport [1], [2], no substantial progress has been observed [3]. Policy objectives provide high-level commitments but often fail to translate into enforceable modal shift mandates due to significant differences between EU ambitions and national strategies [4], [5]. Also, modal shift is inconsistently f ramed in policy strategies, which makes the metrics for m easuring modal shift misaligned and the accountability of the involved parties inadequate [6]. In addition, modal shift objectives have rarely translated into enforceable obligations [7], with pri cing -based incentivisation mechanisms such as carbon taxes [8] and road tolls [9] either insufficient to stimulating an actual modal shift. With societal costs from European road traffic estimated at € 820 billion annually [10], and a persistent growth in European transport demand [11], European policymakers are in dire need to turn the tides on modal shift outcomes. There is a significant potential for modal shift from road to inland waterway transport (IWT) [12], with value propositions centred around lower transport costs, CO 2 emissions and road congestion [13]. However, IWT also has challenges related to unreliable water levels [14], [15], [16] and fragmented hinterland terminal services [17], [18], [19]. While transport cost for IWT relative to road reduces with i ncreasing shipment size and distance, transport time increases, and ICMASS-ISSS-2025 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 3123 (2025) 012045 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/3123/1/012045 2 frequency reduces [20]. Furthermore, geographical location mi ght imply road transport for first and/or last mile, which negatively affect the competitiveness of IWT [21]. For shorter distances, the result is often that once a cont ainer is on a truck, it stays on the truck. A possible solution might be to extend the reach of IWT towards origins a nd destinations of cargo through small ships that can operate on larger parts of the waterways, thus reducing the need for last-mile truck haulage [22]. However, this could also result in higher transport cost, which may explain the rarity of small ships in the current IWT fleet [23]. The question is then if smaller ships could be designed in a way that reduces cost and increases revenue. A potential solution to this challen ge can be found in automation as it can enable uncrewed ships, which are currently under develop ment [2 2], [24], [25], [26] . Uncrewed ships are projected to significantly reduce costs [27], [28], [29], and enable increased space for cargo [23], [30]. However, small autonomous ships alone will not usher a renaissance of IWT. As smaller waterways in Europe are rarely used for cargo transport, the associated transport infrastructure and business ecosystem would need adaptations to allow for both modal shift in general and autonomous shipping in particular [31]. This includes the development of innovative energy, transhipment and cargo consolidation solutions that can revitalise some of the heterogeneously available infrastructure on the European inland waterways [32]. The contribution of this paper is thus to identify the main challenges and propose consequent innovative solutions that will accelerate the modal shift through an expansion o f IWT by using a bandoned, underutilised or entirely new transport locations on the inland waterways of Europe. 2. Methodology 2.1 Research Design The study applies a research design inspired by the Double-Diamond framework. Figure 1 illustrate this design, consisting both of diverging (i.e. “broadening”) and converging (i.e. “narrowing”) phases that aims to di scover and define the “issues”, as mentioned, in the Problem Space and subsequently provide conceptual solut ions to these “issues” in the Solution Space. The framework has been used to identify issues and propose conceptual solutions pertaining to a sustainable waterborne logistics ecosystem through the following phases: First, the Discover phase involved an expansive desk research, including review of academic literature, public data and industry reports, to Discover the systemic barriers facing both shipping and logistics in a Figure 1. Research Design of this study (inspired by the Double Diamond framework) ICMASS-ISSS-2025 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 3123 (2025) 012045 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/3123/1/012045 3 broader sense, and IWT in a narrower sense. Second, the Define phase involved synthesising these scattered insights into specific problem statements. The outcomes of the fi rst and second phases are documented in section 3. Third, the Develop phase dived into the problem statements to develop, or identify, qu ey requirements for potential solutions, drawing on best practices, stakeholder co-creation and scenario-based thinking in concurrent workshops. Fourth, the Deliver phased involved narrowing down possible solutions, based on the requirements, into conceptual ideas that could be implemented. The outcomes of the third and fourth phases are documented in section 4. 2.2 Research Methods A multi - method approach has been applied in this study, combining desk research and workshops while grounding the methods in a specific us e case investigation. These methods play different roles across the ph ases of the double diamond framework. Desk research is the systematic collecting and synthesizing of existing information, including but not limited to academic literature, industry reports, and market data, to generate insights without coll ecting new primary data. Thus, desk research has been used to understand existing issues pertaining to sustainable logistics, which has subsequently been used to frame the workshops: to ask the right questions, challenge assumptions and define meaningful design goals. Workshops From January 2025 - June 2 025, the study has employed a dual workshop format to explore challenges and potential solutions. An online weekly workshop series with a focused group of participants (the authors) facilitated agile and creative brainstorms that enable the generation, and iterative refinement of ideas cross the identified problematic themes. Complementing these sessions, three physical workshops where held, bringing together the entirety of t he AUTOFLEX project consortium [33], including logistics companies, research institutes, energy providers, technology developers and port authorities, to engage in str uctured discussion. These physical workshops followed a clearly defined agenda in which the identified themes in the problem and solution spaces from the online workshops were presented, scrutinised, debated and further developed. 3. The Problem Space The widely used “5-lever decarbonisation framework” outline five key levers for decarbonising shipping [34] and logistics [35]: freight demands; transport modes; asset utilisation; energy efficiency and zero-emission energy. This study focusses on promoting the choice of transport modes, i.e. modal shift, and try to incentivise that choice through the remaining levers. While energy efficiency is studied in parallel [39], [40], [41], this study specifically examines freight demands (or rather freight concentration), zero-emission energy and asset utilisation. 3.1 Economies of scale, cargo centralisation and modal shift towards road transport The pursuit of lower transport costs per unit has driven carriers to invest in increasing larger “mega ships” paired with redistribution via hub-and-spoke feeder networks [39]. While these mega ships are more cost-efficient per transported unit from both investment [40] and operational [41] perspectives, their viability is highly sensitive to utilisation rates as operations below full capacity quickly leads to diseconomies of scale and a consequent unfeasibility of the concept [42], [43]. Although economies of scale do exist, they tend to plateau or even reverse with too large ship sizes due to port inefficiencies and operational rigidity [44], [45]. Moreover, environmental and logistical challenges further undermine the long-term cost-effectiveness of mega-ships for global supply chains more broadly [42], [46]. The economic pressure to fill these mega ships has subsequently driven carriers to form ICMASS-ISSS-2025 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 3123 (2025) 012045 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/3123/1/012045 4 strategic alliances which roughly account for around 90% of global TEU [47], [48]. These alliances allow carriers to share ship space, coordinate schedules, and reduce duplication of routes, effectively turning rivals into collaborators to maximize ship utilisation and maintain service frequency [49]. That is, without these alliances, no single carrier could simultaneously fill their mega ships and meet customer demand for service frequency [42]. However, this tendency also reduces market diversity and competitiveness, as smaller carriers are increasingly pushed to the margins or into subordinate roles within global shipping networks [50]. The resulting oligopolistic market structures obscure actual competition, raise concerns over potential price manipulation and challenge regulatory frameworks aimed at preserving a level playing field [40]. The rise of mega-ships has also concentrated transport flows into a limited number of global mega-ports, as only ports with sufficient capital and space to invest in the required dredging, infrastructure, machinery etc., have been able to keep up [42], [51]. While modern ports continue to upgrade to meet the demands of containerisation and increasingly larger ships, these capitalintensive adaptations are not universally accessible and deepen inequality between ports and across the global shipping network, with only the wealthiest ports surviving [42]. Also, due to the high fixed operational costs of mega ships and the need to keep service schedules, mega ships limit their port calls and thus further marginalise secondary ports and regions that have been omitted although potentially having made the necessary upgrades to accommodate the ships [52]. All this leads to increasingly concentrated cargo volumes and shipping routes, creating systemic dependence of a few mega-sized strategic ports [53], [54]. Small-to-medium-sized ports (SMPs), particularly inland and regional terminals, often lack the financial muscle-power to remain viable in the hub-and-spoke networks mandated by megaships [55], [56], [57]. Consequently, shipping’s contribution to global trade and development, reflected in the UNCTAD connectivity index, continues to decline [42], [58]. This marginalisation also undermines modal shift towards waterborne modalities by sidelining regional or inland ports and increasing reliance on road freight to bridge the distance to distant mega-hubs [59], [60], [61]. That is, as the heterogenous pool of waterborne actors slowly disappears, fewer viable waterborne transport alternatives exist, which in turn leads to a modal shift away from waterborne transport [62], [63]. SMPs thus face a widening gap between core and peripheral infrastructure as the upgrades needed to stay competitive remain out of reach [64], [65]. In the context of IWT, infrastructure conditions is a key factor shaping both the opportunities and challenges of sustainable IWT [66], and hence, the poor infrastructure conditions currently available in most inland terminals hinder their development into thriving logistics hubs, thereby at least partly impeding progress on European modal shift ambitions [62], [67], [68]. In summary, the dominance of mega-ships, strategic alliances, and capital-intensive infrastructure requirements has led to a highly centralised waterborne transport ecosystem wherein SMPs, especially those on inland waterways, are becoming increasingly marginalised due to concentrated cargo flows, limited service diversity, and reinforced geographic and economic disparities. This in turn undermines European modal shift ambitions. As these trends harden into structural barriers, there is an urgent need for solutions that can reintegrate SMPs, especially those on the inland waterways, into the global transport ecosystem. Consequently, innovative terminal concepts must be explored that offer scalable and adaptable solutions capable of revitalising the role of SMPs, especially along underutilised inland corridors. 3.2 From Single to Dual Roles: Ports as transhipment and energy hubs enabling renewable modal shift As gateways to international trade, ports have the capacity to influence the adoption of renewable fuels and play a pivotal role in aligning regional actors and operations with broader climate targets [69]. For instance, initiatives like green shipping corridors require the active involvement of ports to provide the physical, operational and regulatory conditions necessary for sustainable shipping ICMASS-ISSS-2025 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 3123 (2025) 012045 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/3123/1/012045 5 practices [70]. Without proactive port involvement, shipowners face barriers in accessing new fuels, thereby slowing progress across the entire supply chain [71]. Therefore, ports are not passive observers but crucial enablers in shaping the future of sustainable logistics. Ports have slowly evolved from being viewed as primarily public entities that promote regional development via accessible infrastructure to quasi-private actors providing commercial services in a competitive environment [72]. This requires ports to strategically adapt their operations, services and activities to differentiate themselves and enhance how they create and capture value [72]. Ports are no longer not just enabler of trade, but active participants in the creation and management of logistics, including provision of renewable energy, transhipment with zero-emission machinery and integration into logistics corridors, and actively influencing how shipping networks are formed [73], [74], [75]. Thus, ports are transforming into heterogeneous business hubs that offer a diverse set of services at independent, bilateral and ecosystem levels to support the development of the port itself and the economic activity in its vicinity [76]. The conceptualisation of ports as energy hubs that increasingly import, produce, store and distribute renewable energy has gained traction [77]. Many ports are positioning themselves as renewable energy gateways that enable zero-emissions supply chains in an effort to get a competitive advantage [78]. This includes forging strategic alliances with actors across existing and future renewable energy value chains to ensure their own and their region’s competitiveness long-term [79]. Ports are also taking an active role as experimental hubs for new energy and logistics innovations, creating testbeds for companies to test sustainable technologies and operations [80]. As renewable fuels diversify (hydrogen, ammonia, methanol etc.), ports must choose between specialising in a single fuel type and thus limiting commercial relationships with some ship operators, or capitalising on several options and thus increasing capital expenditures and possible port inefficiencies (see e.g. [81], [82], [83], [84], [85]). The dilemma is exacerbated by mutual dependence between ports and shipowners as each relies on the other to realise the value of the new fuel(s) [81], [83]. Furthermore, ports must adapt to mitigate the instability in energy demands combined with the intermittent nature of renewable energies [86], ideally through multi-energy systems combining solar, wind, batteries and e.g. hydrogen to enable both immediate use, storage and overall energy elasticity [87]. Key infrastructure sectors, such as energy providers, are often viewed as natural monopolies due to their critical role and systemic significance for the economy and society, and are thus subject to economic regulation [88]. As ports take on greater energyfocused roles, new legal, financial and commercial frameworks are needed [89]. Emerging governance strategies highlight the importance of cross-sectoral integration of energy, logistics and digitalisation for enabling multimodal decarbonisation [90]. Yet, despite their growing importance in the energy market, most ports lack comprehensive energy management strategies, although such strategies help ports benefit from improved efficiency, new revenue streams and strengthen competitiveness in an increasingly sustainability-focused marketplace [91]. SMPs, however, face unique and compounding challenges in the transition to logistics and energy hubs. Due to their lower trade volumes and consequent range of operational, financial and environmental disadvantages compared to the mega ports [92], SMPs often lack the technical capacity, financial resources and institutional support to implement decarbonisation measures and invest in renewable energy for own terminal operations or for supply to ships, trucks or trains [93], [94], [95]. Consequently, SMPs adopt only limited sustainability measures or remain inactive entirely [56], [96]. Furthermore, SMPs typically share infrastructure such as power grids and bunkering stations with adjacent industrial facilities, making their transition highly dependent on shared assets, inter-sectoral linkages and location-specific factors such as local topography, resource availability etc. [97]. To overcome (some of) these barriers, SMPs increasingly collaborate with larger ports nearby and seek to leverage unique advantages such as surplus land, specialised infrastructure or strong regional industry links [55], [77], [98]. Regional industries ICMASS-ISSS-2025 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 3123 (2025) 012045 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/3123/1/012045 6 may simultaneously benefit from the spillover effects from waterborne transport development, especially on the inland waterways [99]. In summary, the transformation of ports into energy-integrated logistics hubs, a crucial component in decarbonising global supply chains and logistics ecosystems, is reshaping the sector. However, SMPs remain sidelined, which undermines not only regional economic equity, but also broader climate and modal shift goals such as the revitalisation of European IWT. To address this, there is a pressing need for innovative terminal concepts that combine energy production, storage and delivery with cargo handling in modular and scalable formats. Such terminal concepts should enable SMPs to re-integrate into sustainable transport chains and revitalise inland waterways as viable transport alternative within the Europe’s logistics ecosystem. 3.3 Systemic transport waste from suboptimal utilisation of cargo units In Europe, 21.8% of total road freight vehicle kilometres carry nothing, with a significant discrepancy between empty kilometres in national transport (25.9) compared to international transport (13.1%) [100]. When comparing non-empty trip average loads with the average capacity of truck weights classifications (extrapolated In Europe, 21.8% of total road freight vehicle kilometres carry nothing, with a significant discrepancy between empty kilometres in national transport (25.9) compared to international transport (13.1%) [100]. When comparing non-empty trip average loads with the average capacity of truck weights classifications (extrapolated from [100] & [101]), load utilisation per loaded trip is around 75.0%, meaning that 25% of trailer space remains unused. Thus, when factoring in both empty trips and unused spaced in non-empty trips, system-wide utilisation drops to around 59%, highlighting major inefficiencies in European freight transport. However, do note that the data in [100] & [101] is given in weights and not in volumes. Given that some commodities may use 100% of the volume capacity of a truck transport, but not its weight capacity, the above inferences on trailer utilisation should be used with caution. This underutilisation extends beyond road transport, as waterborne transport also suffers from empty or partially loaded containers, although precise utilisation percentages are difficult to measure due to limited data availability [34]. For empty shipping containers, repositioning is in itself an area of research with numerous methods, models, and applications [102]. The costs of repositioning empty containers in the global shipping network are estimated at 15-20 billion USD per year on average, representing 5-8% of total operating costs for most carriers [103]. These inefficiencies mainly stem from imbalances in traffic flows on most trade routes. For example, on Asia-Europe trade routes, 16.1 million TEU are moved westwards whereas “only” 6.9 million TEU moved eastwards (a 2.33 : 1.00 ratio) in 2024 [104]. Within Europe, similar imbalances are observed between flow ratios (import : export) and fill rates (loaded : empty) [105]. In addition to empty container repositioning, waterborne transport also experiences issues with partly-filled transport units. For instance, for US-imports in 2018, only 64.4% o f containers declared as “FullContainer-Load” (FCL) were actually full, meaning that 35.6% of the declared containers were in fact “Less-Than-a-Container-Load (LCL)” [106]. Improved cargo consolidation of both transport assets (ships) and transport units (trailers/containers) is key to improve the utilisation of logistics resources and thus the environmental impact of supply chains [107]. However, the competitiveness of waterborne transport depends heavily on high and balanced utilisation, as road transport can more easily outcompete and optimise on return routes with marginal costs [108]. Consequently, not all modes can consolidate with the same ease. While consolidation in IWT can reduce transport inefficiencies, it is dependent on a strategic hinterland placement on the convergence of large cargo flows [109]. Even then, the approach is only feasible if the majority of the eligible containers ICMASS-ISSS-2025 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 3123 (2025) 012045 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/3123/1/012045 7 are LCLs and if transhipment costs are kept to an absolute minimum (ibid.). The relocation of cross-docking operations to port areas can enhance efficiency, reduce emissions and improve hinterland container utilisation, but the performance of consolidation strategies must be tailored to the shipment distance, cargo type, load factor, urgency and the proportion of LCLs [110]. However, the poor operational and commercial coordination that exist between barge operators and deep-sea terminal operators today may keep hinterland consolidation efforts futile if structural changes are not made [111]. In urban logistics, consolidation centres are seen as vital for sustainable city distribution [112], [113], yet they remain poorly implemented in reality [114], [115]. Municipalities are increasingly deploying financial and regulatory measures such as subsidies and mandatory use of consolidation centres to incentivize greener urban logistics [116]. However, consolidated transport also has drawbacks. First, it requires time to gather cargo asynchronously, complicating consolidated just-in-time (JIT) deliveries [117]. Second, delivery speed and reliability often depend on service type (e.g. same day vs. deferred deliveries), with faster options normally not permitting consolidation delays (ibid.). Third, given that value and time-criticality differ between commodity classifications [118], consolidation may be more feasible for homogenous goods, making it difficult to consolidate heterogeneous flows of goods in general. In summary, low utilisation of transport assets and units across modalities reveals major inefficiencies in the European logistics ecosystem, increasing emissions and inflating costs. While cargo consolidation is crucial, especially for sustainable modes like waterborne transport with limited backhaul options, it often fails due to infrastructural, temporal, and commercial challenges. Consequently, there is a need to explore new forms of consolidation concepts that go beyond traditional cross-docking models, potentially enabling multiple transport customers to share segmented container space at the point of loading and unloading. 4. The Solution Space Section 3 discussed the barriers to sustainable logistics in the broad sense and modal shift in particular, and identified three main problem areas; the centralisation of cargo flows around large seaports that accommodates increasingly larger ocean-going ships and has led to modal shift towards road; the urgent need for sea and inland ports to adopt a pivotal role in enabling shipping sector decarbonisation and the risk for energy centralisation unless solutions supporting SMPs are found; and widespread inefficiencies due to underutilised transport capacity of IWT increasing emissions and cost. To overcome these problems, this section first derives requirements that solutions must meet, and then, proposes a set of innovative, modular conceptualizations to revitalise abandoned or underutilised SMPs, support the transition toward zero-emission IWT, and improve load factor performance of waterborne container transport. Together, these conceptualizations represent an intertwined solution space aimed at making the logistics ecosystems of the future an “even playing field”. 4.1 How to revitalise and reintegrate unused terminal infrastructure and SMPs into the transport ecosystem? The consequence of a highly centralised waterborne transport is that there is no to extremely limited use of old transhipment infrastructure. In many European cities, former transhipment locations in the city centre have been abandoned and replaced with new and larger terminals at the outskirts of the agglomeration, so that there is (nearly) no transhipment activity left in the city centres (see e.g. the cases of Gothenburg [119], Southampton [119], Rotterdam [119][120], Cagliari [121], Catania [121] and Trieste [121]). Consequently, waterborne transport is moving to the larger terminal locations outside of the cities, with the side effect that cargo is being delivered by truck into the city centres and other consignees close to water. This subsequently causes ICMASS-ISSS-2025 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 3123 (2025) 012045 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/3123/1/012045 8 congestion effects on the road network and significant external costs to cities and societies [10]. While numerous structurally sound but unused quays and infrastructures remains [32], cargo owners have increasingly limited waterborne services, as no routes are going to these abandoned terminals, leaving the cargo owner to utilise roadborne transport as the only existing option. While small autonomous ships offer a significant potential to revert these tendencies (see Section 1), they will only be able to capitalise on their potential if transhipment locations are also activated as well. This is of major significance as only then smaller waterways can be served, and a sufficiently large net work coverage with by new transport services can be offered. Reestablishing transhipment at such unused quays along the inland waterways can be achieved through diverse measures, either on the shoreside or aboard autonomous ships. One could imagine that a solution would be ships with their own onboard cargo handling equipment. However, there are several issues that prevent that as an option, especially for small ships. Firstly, onboard cranes would require space and thus reduce cargo capacity, secondly, stability would be difficult to achieve for small ships since the h andling of high weight cargo units, like a container, will cause huge moments that will lead to the capsize of the ship. Finally, even if stabilit y issues could be solved, some h andling equipment on the quay would be needed anyway as containers are typically destined to somewhere else then on the quay. In summary, carrying onboard cranes on small ships would hamper their competitiveness, and most likely some quay sid e equipment would still be needed. The other option is then to develop terminal infrastructure to enable the transhipment of cargo at these formerly used infrastructural sites. However, the challenge is that establishing a traditional terminal is expensive and typically implies investment in permanent infrastructure. Which implies a need for significant cargo volumes for a longer period. Otherw ise, the investment risk would be too high. To reduce the investment risk, what is needed is infrastructure that has minimal investment requirements and which, ideally, can be relocated at a relatively low cost. What is needed is a “terminal-as-a-service” concept where the terminal is mobile in the sense that it is semi-permanent but relocatable such that it can be established somewhere else. This need spawned the idea of the Temporary Port Terminals (TPTs) concept. The TPTs should be flexible and modular logistics nodes designed to enable cargo handling in underutilised, constrained, or non-perm anent locations. Unlike traditional terminals, TPTs needs to be able to rapidly deploy, tailored to specific operational contexts, and particularly suited to environments where building permanent terminals is not of interest. The TPTs would need to provide three core functions: ca rgo ha ndling, cargo storage, and terminal access and security. Each core function is discussed in the following with several possible realisations that can be combined in any shape of form to ensure that the constructed TPT conce pt is adapted specifically to the context and logistical needs of the use case. Cargo Handling Equipment (CHE). Refers to the transhipment of cargo for what four possible realisations have been identified: 1) Fixed ashore CHE includes cranes on quay-side infrastructure. These solutions provide high lifting capacity and stable operation but are only feasible when basic infrastructure is available. While offering high handling efficiency, fixed ashore CHE often i nvolves significant capital expenditure (CAPEX) and is less suited to temporal setups without prior investment . 2) Fixed afloat CHE includes cranes that are mo unted on either inland ships or barges. This combin ation allows repositioning of the CHE along the waterway without reliance on shoreside infrastructure, offering increased flexibility at abandoned or minimally equipp ed terminals. 3) Mobile ashore CHE includes reach stackers or tug masters (for LoLo or RoRo) temporarily stationed quayside, with potential relocation opportunities to other terminals or TPTs. Their free ICMASS-ISSS-2025 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 3123 (2025) 012045 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/3123/1/012045 15 regional decarbonisation and modal shift goals [77], [89], [99]. However, CETs are not a universal fix. Their success depends on regulatory support, financing, and regional coordination. Shared infrastructure and inter-sectoral dependencies remain vulnerabilities, especially where industrial and energy assets misalign with port goals [97]. While CETs reduce reliance on fuel-specific infrastructure, they do not eliminate the complexities of integrating diverse energy sources or managing fluctuating supply and demand. Their viability also hinges on generating sufficient throughput and surplus energy - conditions not guaranteed for all SMPs [89], [91]. 3) Enabling part-load consolidation concepts to reduce logistical inefficiencies and transport waste by the implementation of Mobile Distribution Centre (MDCs). The MDC concept addresses the inefficiency challenges through a flexible, decentralised model that enhances asset utilisation. By enabling shared container space among shippers and supporting both consolidation and distribution, MDCs improve fill rates across transport modes [109], [110], [111]. Their adaptable deployment overcome spatial and temporal mismatches that hinder traditional consolidation [111], [114], [115], [117]. MDCs also support dual-cycling, allowing return logistics like reusable packaging and waste collection, thus promoting circular logistics and sustainability [108]. Their modular design integrates with existing port and intermodal infrastructure, reducing crossdocking needs and enabling rapid deployment [109], [110], [111]. However, MDC effectiveness depends on commercial cooperation, digital coordination, and harmonised schedules - areas that have historically limited consolidation [111]. Asynchronous cargo availability and time-sensitive deliveries may also restrict MDC use in high-speed or high-value supply chains [86][87]. Moreover, transitioning to decentralised logistics requires cultural and operational shifts, which may face resistance without clear incentives or regulatory support [116]. While the study maps out overarching problems and potential solutions, its findings has its limitations, which calls for further investigation. First, the proposed conceptualisations were not developed in detail, nor scrutinized in terms of what technical solutions would be optimal in different settings. Furthermore, their application in an actual transport system should be evaluated to better understand the impact, in more quantitative terms, of deploying them. These aspects, along with others, are expected to be addressed within the AUTOFLEX project [33]. Acknowledgements The research leading to the results presented in this research article has received funding from the European Union’s Research and Innovation Pro gramme, Horizon Europe, under Grant Agreement No. 101136257 (AUTOFLEX) and from the EFRE.NRW (2014-2020) Joint Research Funding Programme under grant agreement EFRE-0801222 (ML-2-1-010A, DeConTrans). References [1] European Commission, ‘The European Green Deal’, The European Green Deal. Accessed: Nov. 17, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en [2] European Commission, ‘Fit for 55’, Consilium. Accessed: Jun. 13, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/fit-for-55/ [3] Eurostat, ‘Freight transport statistics - modal split’. European Commission, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu./eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Freight_transport_statistics_-_modal_split [4] N. Calderón-Rivera, I. Bartusevičienė, and F. Ballini, ‘Sustainable development of inland waterways transport: a review’, J. shipp. trd., vol. 9, no. 1, 2024, doi: 10.1186/s41072-023-00162-9. [5] J. Takman and M. Gonzalez-Aregall, ‘Public policy instruments to promote freight modal shift in Europe: evidence from evaluations’, Transport Reviews, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 612–633, May 2024, doi: 10.1080/01441647.2023.2279219. [6] L. Björk, I. Vierth, and K. Cullinane, ‘Freight modal shift: A means or an objective in achieving lower emission targets? The case of Sweden’, Transport Policy, vol. 142, pp. 125–136, Oct. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.08.013. [7] H. Dyrhauge and T. Rayner, ‘Chapter 21: Transport: evolving EU policy towards a “hard-to-abate” sector’, ICMASS-ISSS-2025 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 3123 (2025) 012045 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/3123/1/012045 16 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2023, pp. 305–320. doi: 10.4337/9781789906981.00035. [8] T. P. V. Zis, H. N. Psaraftis, G. Panagakos, and J. Kronbak, ‘Policy measures to avert possible modal shifts caused by sulphur regulation in the European Ro-Ro sector’, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 70, pp. 1–17, May 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2019.03.001. [9] F. Simonelli et al., ‘New freight transport incentive to achieve modal shift targets: Methodology and application to Italy’, Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, vol. 26, p. 101166, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.trip.2024.101166. [10] H. van Essen et al., ‘Handbook on the Ext ernal Costs of Tran sport’. Publications Office for t he European Union, Brussels, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9781f65f-844811ea-bf12-01aa75ed71a1 [11] European Commission, Transport in the European Union – Current trends and issues. Publications Office of the European Union, 2024. doi: 10.2832/131741. [12] J. Küchle and R. Fiedler, ‘AUTOFLEX Deliverable D2.2: Market_Analysis’, Fraunhofer CML, D2.2, Jan. 2025. [13] F. Bu and H. Nachtmann, ‘Literature review and comparative analysis of inland waterways transport: “Container on Barge”’, Marit Econ Logist, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 140–173, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1057/s41278-021-00195-6. [14] C. Hendrickx and T. Breemersch, ‘The Effect of Climate Change on Inland Waterway Transport’, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 48, pp. 1837–1847, Jan. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1158. [15] O. Jonkeren, B. Jourquin, and P. Rietveld, ‘Modal-split effects of climate change: The effect of low water levels on the competitive position of inland waterway transport in the river Rhine area’, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 1007–1019, Dec. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.tra.2009.01.004. [16] F. Vinke, M. van Koningsveld, C. van Dorsser, F. Baart, P. van Gelder, and T. Vellinga, ‘Cascading effects of sustained low water on inland shipping’, Climate Risk Management, vol. 35, p. 100400, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.crm.2022.100400. [17] C. Alias, E. van Hassel, D. Gründer, J. zum Felde, and L. Samuel, ‘Investigating into the challenges of European inland ports: A multifaceted approach’, Transportation Research Procedia, vol. 72, pp. 704–711, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2023.11.458. [18] L. Heilig and S. Voß, ‘Inter-terminal transportation: an annotated bibliography and research agenda’, Flexible Services and Manufacturing Journal, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 35–63, Mar. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s10696-016-9237-7. [19] V. Pencheva, A. Asenov, A. Sladkowski, B. Ivanov, and I. Georgiev, ‘Current Issues of Multimodal and Intermo dal Cargo Transportation’, in Modern Trends and Research in Intermodal Transportation, A. Sładkowski, Ed., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 51–124. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-87120-8_2. [20] D. Meers, C. Macharis, T. Vermeiren, and T. van Lier, ‘Modal choice preferences in short-distance hinterland container transport’, Research in Transportation Business & Management, vol. 23, pp. 46–53, Jun. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2017.02.011. [21] B. Wiegmans and R. Konings, ‘Intermodal Inland Waterway Transport: Modelling Conditions Influencing Its Cost Competitiveness’, The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 273–294, Jun. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.ajsl.2015.06.006. [22] J. Weisheit, ‘AUTOFLEX Homepage’. 2024. Accessed: Jun. 12, 2024. [Online]. Available: www.autoflex-vessel.eu [23] I. Bačkalov et al., ‘Impact of automation and zero-emission propulsion on design of small in land cargo vessels’, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 2867, no. 1, p. 012018, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1088/17426596/2867/1/012018. [24] J. S. Håvardsholm, ‘Reach Subsea confirms delivery of Reach Remote 1’, Reach Subsea. Accessed: Feb. 28, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://reachsubsea.no/reach-subsea-confirms-delivery-of-reach-remote-1/ [25] R. O’Dwyer, ‘ASKO to build two autonomous vessels for Oslo fjord operations’, Smart Maritime Network. Accessed: Feb. 28, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://smartmaritimenetwork.com/2020/09/01/asko-to-buildtwo-autonomous-vessels-for-oslo-fjord-operations/ [26] Yara, ‘Yara Birkeland | Y ara International’, Yara None. Accessed: Jun. 19, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.yara.com/news-and-media/media-library/press-kits/yara-birkeland-press-kit/ [27] C. Alias and J. Z. Felde, ‘Evaluating the economic performance of a decentralized wa terborne container transportation service using autonomous inland vessels’, presented at the IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Proceedings, ITSC, 2022, pp. 3571–3576. doi: 10.1109/ITSC55140.2022.9922500. [28] L. Kretschmann, H.-C. Burmeister, and C. Jahn, ‘Analyzing the economic benefit of unmanned autonomous ships: An exploratory cost-comparison between an autonomous and a conventional bulk carrier’, Research in Transportation Business & Management, vol. 25, pp. 76–86, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2017.06.002. [29] E. Verberght and E. van Hassel, ‘The auto mated and un manned inland vessel’, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser., vol. 1357, no. 1, p. 012008, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1357/1/012008. [30] V. Gribkovskaia, H. Borgen, E. A. Holte, E. Lindstad, and H. Nordahl, ‘Autonomous ships for coastal and short-sea shipping’, presented at th e SNAME Maritime Conven tion, OnePetro, Oct. 2019. Accessed: Jun. 19, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/ [31] K. Kloch and J. N. Kristiansen, ‘The economic and environmental viability of green and autonomous ships in inland shipping ecosystems’, in J. Phys. Conf. Ser., Institute of Physics, 2024. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2867/1/012030. ICMASS-ISSS-2025 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 3123 (2025) 012045 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/3123/1/012045 17 [32] C. Alias et al., ‘Design parameters, boundary conditions, model for logistics analysis defined’, AUTOFLEX, Online, Deliverable D2.1, Dec. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://autoflex-vessel.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2025/01/AUTOFLEX_D2.1_Design-Basis.pdf [33] AUTOFLEX, ‘AUTOFLEX | Partner | Consortium Overview’. Accessed: Jun. 20, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://autoflex-vessel.eu/partner/ [34] A. McKinnon, ‘Broadening the Scope of Decarbonization in the Maritime Sector’, in Maritime Decarbonization : Practical Tools, Case Studies and Decarbonization Enablers, M. Lind, W. Lehmacher, and R. Ward, Eds., Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023, pp. 3–15. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-39936-7_1. [35] A. McKinnon, Decarbonizing Logistics: Distributing Goods in a Low Carbon World, 1st ed. London, New York, New Delhi: Kogan Page, 2018. [36] I. Bačkalov et al., ‘[D4.1] Design Impacts’, Funded by the European Union (grant agreement No. 101136257), D4.1, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://autoflex-vessel.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2024/12/AUTOFLEX_Deliverable_4.1_Design_impacts_rev1.0.pdf [37] I. Bačkalov et al., ‘Impact of automation and zero-emission propulsion on design of small in land cargo vessels’, presented at the Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 2024. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2867/1/012018. [38] D. Mateienko et al., ‘[D4.2] Uncrewed Vessel Concept’, Funded by the European Union (grant agreement No. 101136257), D4.2, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://autoflex-vessel.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2025/05/101136257_AUTOFLEX_D4.2_Uncrewed-vessel-concept.pdf [39] J. F . Campbell, ‘Freight consolidation and routing with transportation economies of scale’, Transp. Res. Part B Methodol., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 345–361, 1990, doi: 10.1016/0191-2615(90)90008-M. [40] L. Fan and J. Xie, ‘Identify determinants of container ship size i nvestment choice’, Marit. Policy Manage., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 219–234, 2023, doi: 10.1080/03088839.2021.1971784. [41] N. K. Tran and H.-D. Haasis, ‘An empirical study of fleet expansion and growth of ship size in container liner shipping’, International Journal of Production Economics, vol. 159, pp. 241–253, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.09.016. [42] H. E. Haralambides, ‘Gigantism in container shipping, ports and global logistics: a time-lapse into the future’, Maritime Economics and Logistics, vol. 21, no. 1, 2019, doi: 10.1057/s41278-018-00116-0. [43] F. Lian, Jin ,Jiaru, and Z. and Yang, ‘Optimal container ship size: a global cost minimization approach’, Maritime Policy & Management, vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 802–817, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.1080/03088839.2019.1630760. [44] H. Lindstad, B. E. Asbjørnslett, and A. H. Strømman, ‘The importance of economies of scale for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from shipping’, Energy Policy, vol. 46, pp. 386–398, 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.077. [45] U. Malchow, ‘Growth in containership sizes to be stopped?’, Maritime Business Review, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 199–210, 2017, doi: 10.1108/MABR-01-2017-0001. [46] J. Garrido, S. Sauri, Á. Marrero, U. Gül, and C. Rúa, ‘Predicting the future capacity and dimensions of container ships’, Transportation Research Record, vol. 2674, no. 9, pp. 177–190, 2020, doi: 10.1177/0361198120927395. [47] Alphaliner, ‘Alphaliner TOP 100 / 16 Jun 2025’. Accessed: Jun. 16, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://alphaliner.axsmarine.com/PublicTop100/ [48] H. Deiss, ‘The recomposition of the shipping alliances in 2025’, Upply Transportation & Logistics Analysis. Accessed: Jun. 16, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://market-insights.upply.com/en/the-recomposition-of-theshipping-alliances-in-2025 [49] M. Ghorbani, M. Acciaro, S. Transchel, and P. Cariou, ‘Strategic alliances in container shipping: A review of the literature and future research agenda’, Marit. Econ. Logist., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 439–465, 2022, doi: 10.1057/s41278-021-00205-7. [50] S. Caschili, F. Medda, F. Parola, and C. Ferrari, ‘An Analysis of Shipping Agreements: The Cooperative Container Network’, Netw. Spat. Econ., vol. 14, no. 3–4, pp. 357–377, 2014, doi: 10.1007/s11067-014-9230-1. [51] J.-P. Rodrigue, The Geography of Transport Systems, 5th ed. New York: Routledge, 2020. [52] ITF, ‘The Impact of Mega-Ships’, OECD Publishing, Paris, No. 10, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlwvzcm3j9v-en. [53] M. Acciaro and A. McKinnon, ‘Efficient Hinterland Transport Infrastructure and Services for Large Container Ports’, OECD Publishing, Paris, Working paper No. 2013/19, 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1787/5jz40sclnwf4-en [54] K. Cullinane and M. Khanna, ‘Economies of scale in large containerships: Optimal size and geographical implications’, J. Transp. Geogr., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 181–195, 2000, doi: 10.1016/S0966-6923(00)00010-7. [55] L. Feng and T. Notteboom, ‘Peripheral challenge by Small and Medium Sized Ports (SMPs) in Multi-Port Gateway Regions: the case study of northeast of China’, Polish Maritime Research, vol. 20, no. Special-Issue, pp. 55–66, 2013, doi: 10.2478/pomr-2013-0027. [56] L. Gerlitz and C. Meyer, ‘Small and medium-sized ports in the tent network and nexus of europe’s twin transition: The way towards sustainable and digital port service ecosystems’, Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 8, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13084386. [57] J.-P. Rodrigue and T. Notteboom, ‘The terminalization of supply chains: reassessing the role of terminals in ICMASS-ISSS-2025 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 3123 (2025) 012045 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/3123/1/012045 18 port/hinterland logistical relationships’, Maritime Policy & Management, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 165–183, Apr. 2009, doi: 10.1080/03088830902861086. [58] M. Fugazza and J. Hoffmann, ‘Liner shipping connectivity as determinant of trade’, Journal of Shipping and Trade, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 1, Mar. 2017, doi: 10.1186/s41072-017-0019-5. [59] V. Santén, S. Rogerson, J. Williamsson, and J. Woxenius, ‘Modal shift to inland waterway transport: Five case studies in the North Sea Region’, EJTIR, vol. 21, no. 4, 2021, doi: 10.18757/ejtir.2021.21.4.5474. [60] C. Ducruet and D. Guerrero, ‘Inland cities, maritime gateways, and international trade’, Journal of Transport Geography, vol. 104, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103433. [61] T. Platz and G. Klatt, ‘The role of inland waterway transport in th e changing logistics environment’, in Inland Waterway Transport: Challenges and Prospects, Taylor and Francis, 2016, pp. 35–70. doi: 10.4324/9781315739083. [62] B. Wiśnicki, D. Dybkowska-Stefek, J. Relisko-Rybak, and Ł. Kolanda, ‘Methodolo gy for determining the location of river ports on a modernized waterway based on non-cost criteria: A case study of the odra river waterway’, Sustainability, vol. 13, no. 6, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su13063571. [63] O. Jonkeren, J. Francke, and J. Visser, ‘A shift-share based tool for assessing the contribution of a modal shift to the decarbonisation of inland freight transport’, Eur. Transp. Res. Rev., vol. 11, no. 1, 2019, doi: 10.1186/s12544019-0344-x. [64] S. Damman, M. Wardeberg, and C. Gabrielii, ‘Policies shaping energy transitions in ports and harbours: A “whole systems” perspective from Norway’, Energy Res. Soc. Sci., vol. 125, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2025.104101. [65] D. A. Nesheim, J. N. Kristiansen, J. Raakjaer, and O. E. Morkrid, ‘The Need for Collaborative Business Models in Autonomous Vessel Ecosystems’, in The 4th International Conference on Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (ICMASS), in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 2311. Singapore: IOP Press, Apr. 2022. [66] A. Vilarinho, L. B. Liboni, and J. Siegler, ‘Challenges and opportunities for the development of river logistics as a sustainable alternative: A systematic review’, in Transp. Res. Procedia, Thompson R.G., Iwan S., and Kijewska K., Eds., Elsevier B.V., 2019, pp. 576–586. doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2019.06.059. [67] A. Caris, S. Limbourg, C. Macharis, T. van Lier, and M. Cools, ‘Integration of inland waterway transport in the intermodal supply chain: A taxon omy of research challenges’, J. Transp. Geogr., vol. 41, pp. 126–136, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.08.022. [68] A. Grobarcikova and J. Sosedová, ‘Design of agent-based model for barge container transport’, Transport Problems, vol. 11, pp. 95–101, Dec. 2016, doi: 10.20858/tp.2016.11.4.9. [69] M. Akhavan, ‘Decarbonising Maritime Transport: The Role of Green Shipping Corridors in Making Sustainable Port-City Ecosystems’, OaS, vol. 2, p. 9411, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.17645/oas.9411. [70] A. M. Ismail, F. Ballini, A. I. Ölçer, and A. S. Alamoush, ‘Integrating ports into green shipping corridors: Drivers, challenges, and pathways to implementation’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 209, p. 117201, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2024.117201. [71] J. B. Svendsen, E. Petit, M. Selwyn, and A. K. Bjerregaard, ‘Establishing Green Shipping Corridors to Accelerate the Use of Alternative Fuels’, in Maritime Decarbonization, M. Lind, W. Lehmacher, and R. Ward, Eds., Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023, pp. 433–449. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-39936-7_31. [72] L. van der Lugt, ‘Port development company: Role and strategy’, in Ports and Networks: Strategies, Operations and Perspectives, 2017, pp. 54–66. doi: 10.4324/9781315601540. [73] J.-F. Ding, Kuo ,Jung-Fong, Shyu ,Wen-Hwa, and C.-C. and Chou, ‘Evaluating determinants of attractiveness and their cause-effect relationships for container ports in Taiwan: users’ perspectives’, Maritime Policy & Management, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 466–490, May 2019, doi: 10.1080/03088839.2018.1562245. [74] S. Lim, S. Pettit, W. Abouarghoub, and A. Beresford, ‘Port sustainability and performance: A systematic literature review’, Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ., vol. 72, pp. 47–64, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2019.04.009. [75] F. Parola, Risitano ,Marcello, Ferretti ,Marco, and E. and Panetti, ‘The drivers of port competitiveness: a critical review’, Transport Reviews, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 116–138, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1080/01441647.2016.1231232. [76] P. W. de Langen, ‘The strategy of the port development company; a framework based on the business ecosystems perspective and an application to the case of Port of Rotterdam’, Maritime Transport Research, vol. 4, p. 100089, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.martra.2023.100089. [77] S. Damman an d M. Steen, ‘A socio-technical perspective on the scope for p orts to enable energy transition’, Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ., vol. 91, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2020.102691. [78] T. Notteboom and H. Haralambides, ‘Seaports as green hydrogen hubs: advances, opportunities and challenges in Europe’, Marit. Econ. Logist., vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 1–27, 2023, doi: 10.1057/s41278-023-00253-1. [79] W. Monteith and V. B. Escobar, ‘Speculative connections: Port authorities, littoral territories and the assembling of the green hydrogen frontier’, Political Geography, vol. 118, p. 103271, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2025.103271. [80] M. Flikkema et al., ‘MAGPIE: Towards the European Green port o f the Fu ture’, Transportation Research Procedia, vol. 72, pp. 187–194, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2023.11.393. [81] M. Klopott, M. Popek, and I. Urbanyi-Popiołek, ‘Seaports’ Role in Ensuring the Availability of Alternative Marine Fuels—A Multi-Faceted Analysis’, Energies, vol. 16, no. 7, 2023, doi: 10.3390/en16073055. ICMASS-ISSS-2025 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 3123 (2025) 012045 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/3123/1/012045 19 [82] G. Barone et al., ‘Steering shipping towards energy sustainability: alternative fuels in decarbonization policies’, Energy, vol. 331, p. 136827, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2025.136827. [83] A. T. Hoang et al., ‘Energy-related approach for reduction of CO2 emissions: A critical strategy on the port-to-ship pathway’, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 355, p. 131772, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131772. [84] Ç. Iris and J. S. L. Lam, ‘A review of energy efficiency in ports: Operational strategies, technologies and energy management systems’, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev, vol. 112, pp. 170–182, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.069. [85] T. Andra Luciana, C. Gasparotti, and E. Rusu, ‘Green fuels — A new challenge for marine industry’, Energy Reports, vol. 7, pp. 127–132, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2021.06.020. [86] S. Yu, Z. Huang, D. Tang, W. Ma, and J. M. Guerrero, ‘The Role of Integrated Multi-Energy Systems Toward CarbonNeutral Ports: A Data-Driven Approach Using Empirical Data’, Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, vol. 13, no. 3, 2025, doi: 10.3390/jmse13030477. [87] S. A. Alavi-Borazjani, S. Adeel, and V. Chkoniya, ‘Hydrogen as a Sustainable Fuel: Transforming Maritime Logistics’, Energies, vol. 18, no. 5, 2025, doi: 10.3390/en18051231. [88] H. Sornn-Friese et al., Ports as Energy Transition Hubs: An Exploratory Study, 1st ed. Copenhagen: CBS Maritime, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://researchapi.cbs.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/110673309/ports_as_energy_transition_hubs._an_exploratorty_study.pdf [89] J. Monios, G. Wilmsmeier, G. A. M. Tello, and L. Pomaska, ‘A new conception of port governance under climate change’, J. Transp. Geogr., vol. 120, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2024.103988. [90] G. Attanasio, C. Battistella, and E. Chizzolini, ‘The future of energy management: Results of a Delphi panel applied in the case of ports’, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 417, p. 137947, Sep. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137947. [91] M. Acciaro, H. Ghiara, and M. I. Cusano, ‘Energy management in seaports: A new role for port authorities’, Energy Policy, vol. 71, pp. 4–12, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.013. [92] W. Lu, S. H. Park, J. G. Oh, and G. T. Yeo, ‘Network Connection Strategy for Small and Medium-sized Ports (SMPs)’, The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 19–26, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.ajsl.2018.03.003. [93] I. Argyriou and T. Tsoutsos, ‘Sustainable Solutions for Small/Medium Ports a Guide to Efficient and Effective Planning’, Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, vol. 11, no. 9, 2023, doi: 10.3390/jmse11091763. [94] C. Meyer, L. Gerlitz, and G. Prause, ‘Smart City and Smart Port Concepts: A Conceptualisation for Digital Small and Medium-Sized Port-City Innovation Ecosystems’, in Reliability and Statistics in Transportation and Communication, I. Kabashkin, I. Yatskiv, and O. Prentkovskis, Eds., Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024, pp. 41–53. [95] Peter Bjerg Olesen, Iskra Dukovska-Popovska, Hans-Henrik Hvolby, and Kenn Steger-Jensen, ‘Strategic port development: Identifying a development approach for small and medium-sized ports’, Danish Journal of Transportation Research - Dansk tidskrift for transportforskning, vol. 2012, p. 16, 2012. [96] M. Gonzalez Aregall, R. Bergqvist, and J. Moni os, ‘A global review of the hint erland dimension of green por t strategies’, Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ., vol. 59, pp. 23–34, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2017.12.013. [97] N. Safara Nosar, ‘Unraveling interactions: Mechanisms shaping the transition of small and medium-sized ports to energy hubs’, Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect., vol. 31, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.trip.2025.101417. [98] E. Vichos, N. Sifakis, and T. Tsoutsos, ‘Challenges of integrating hydrogen energy storage systems into nearly zeroenergy ports’, Energy, vol. 241, p. 122878, Feb. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2021.122878. [99] F. Bedoya-Maya, J. Beckers, and E. van Hassel, ‘Spillover effects from inland waterway transport development: Spatial assessment of the Rhine-Alpine Corridor’, J. Transp. Geogr., vol. 113, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103721. [100] Eurostat, ‘Road freight transport by journey characteristics’, European Union, Brussels, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php?title=Road_freight_transport_by_journey_characteristics#Empty_runnings_of_road_freigh t_vehicles [101] Eurostat, ‘Road freight transport by vehicle characteristics’, European Unio n, Brussels, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php?title=Road_freight_transport_by_vehicle_characteristics#Road_freight_transport_by_load_ capacity [102] A. Abdelshafie, M. Salah, T. Kramberger, and D. Dragan, ‘Repositioning and Optimal Re-Allocation of Empty Containers: A Review of Methods, Models, and Applicati ons’, Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 11, p. 6655, May 2022, doi: 10.3390/su14116655. [103] U. Sanders, J. Riedl, L. Kloppsteck, C. Roeloffs, and J. Schlingmeier, ‘Think Outside Your Box es: Solving the Global Container-Repositioning Puzzle’, BCG Operations. [Online]. Available: https://www.bcg.com/publications/2015/transportation-travel-logistics-think-outside-your-boxes-solvingglobal-container-repositioning-puzzle [104] United Nations, ‘Review of maritime transport 2024: Navigating maritime chokepoints’, United Nations, New York, NY (USA), 2024. [Online]. Available: https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/rmt2024_en.pdf ICMASS-ISSS-2025 Journal of Physics: Conference Series 3123 (2025) 012045 IOP Publishing doi:10.1088/1742-6596/3123/1/012045 20 [105] Eurostat, ‘Maritime transport statistics - short sea shipping of goods’, Statistics Explained. Accessed: Jun. 21, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php?title=Maritime_transport_statistics_-_short_sea_shipping_of_goods [106] Flexport, ‘Filling Underutilized Ocean Containers’, Forbes, 2019. Accessed: Jun. 20, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/flexport/2019/05/01/filling-underutilized-ocean-containers/ [107] S. Pan, E. Ballot, and F . Fontane, ‘The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from freight transport by pooling supply chains’, Int J Prod Econ, vol. 143, no. 1, pp. 86–94, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.10.023. [108] COWI, ‘Analysis of Recent Trends in EU Shipping and Analy sis and Policy SUpport to Improve the Competitiveness of Short Sea Shipping in th e EU’, European Commission, DG Mobility and Transport, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://transport.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-09/2015-june-study-sss-final.pdf [109] F. Bedoya-Maya et al., ‘Cargo consolidation in port-hinterland container transport: A spatial economic assessment for inland waterways’, Research in Transportation Business and Management, vol. 59, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.rtbm.2024.101254. [110] Y. Fan, B. Behdani, J. Bloemhof-Ruwaard, and R. Zuidwijk, ‘Flow consolidation in hinterland container transport: An analysis for perishable and dry cargo’, Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev., vol. 130, pp. 128–160, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.tre.2019.08.011. [111] M. van der Horst, M. Kort, B. Kuipers, and H. Geerlings, ‘Coordination problems in container barging in the port of Rotterdam: an institutional analysis’, Transportation Planning and Technology, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 187–199, 2019, doi: 10.1080/03081060.2019.1565164. [112] K. J. Galambos, A. B. Palomino-Hernández, V. C. Hemmelmayr, and B. Turan, ‘Sustainability initiatives in urban freight transportation in Europe’, Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect., vol. 23, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.trip.2023.101013. [113] T. Letnik, M. Marksel, G. Luppino, A. Bardi, and S. Božičnik, ‘Review of policies and measures for sustainable and energy efficient urban transport’, Energy, vol. 163, pp. 245–257, Nov. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2018.08.096. [114] M. Faccio and M. Gamberi, ‘New city logistics paradigm: From the “Last Mile” to the “Last 50 Miles” sustainable distribution’, Sustainability, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 14873–14894, 2015, doi: 10.3390/su71114873. [115] K. Katsela, Ş. Güneş, T. Fried, A. Goodchild, and M. Browne, ‘Defining Urba n Freight Microhubs: A Case Study Analysis’, Sustainability, vol. 14, no. 1, 2022, doi: 10.3390/su14010532. [116] P. Lebeau, S. Verli nde, C. Macharis, and J. Van Mierlo, ‘How can authorities support urban consolidation centres? A review of the accompanying measures’, J. Urban., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 468–486, 2017, doi: 10.1080/17549175.2017.1310747. [117] R. Dekker, J. Bloemhof, and I. Mallidis, ‘Operations Research for green logistics – An overview of aspects, issues, contributions and challenges’, European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 219, no. 3, pp. 671–679, Jun. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2011.11.010. [118] V. Bernhardsson, ‘Representation of the Swedish transport and logistics system in Samgods 1.2.2’, TMALL 0004 Rapport generell v 2.0, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://bransch.trafikverket.se/contentassets/ab220f9016154ef7a8478555560bb280/2024/representationof-the-swedish-transport-and-logistics-system-in-samgods-1.2.2.pdf [119] M. Browne, J. Woexenius, L. Dablanc, T. Cherrett, and E. Morganti, ‘Port cities and urban logistics’, LRN 2017 Papers. Accessed: Aug. 12, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://ciltuk.org.uk/About-Us/Professional-SectorsForums/Forums/LRN-Forum [120] C. Hein and P. Th. Van De Laar, ‘The Separation of Ports from Cities: The Case of Rotterdam’, in European Port Cities in Transition, A. Carpenter and R. Lozano, Eds., in Strategies for Sustainability. , Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 265–286. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-36464-9_15. [121] G. Balletto, G. Borruso, and T. Campisi, ‘Not Only Waterfront. The Port-City Relations Between Peripheries and Inner Harbors’, in Computational Science and Its Applications – ICCSA 2022 Workshops, O. Gervasi, B. Murgante, S. Misra, A. M. A. C. Rocha, and C. Garau, Eds., Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2022, pp. 196–208. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-10548-7_15.