Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
The Emission Reduction Technology Decision of the Port Supply Chain
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
The Emission Reduction Technology Decision of the Port Supply Chain
Do you wish to request the book?
The Emission Reduction Technology Decision of the Port Supply Chain
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
The Emission Reduction Technology Decision of the Port Supply Chain
2024
Overview
The technology options for sustainable development are explored with customer low-carbon preference in a port supply chain consisting of one ship and one port. Port supply chains can opt for either shower power or low-sulfur fuel oil to cut down emissions. We set game models considering three power structures: the port dominant (port-led Stackelberg game), the ship dominant (ship-led Stackelberg game), and the port and ship on the same footing (Nash game). We compare the performances of different technologies. It is shown that, when customer low-carbon preference and carbon tax are both low, LSFO is the appropriate choice from the supply chain’s profit perspective, SP is preferred from the emission control perspective, and LSFO is preferred from the social welfare perspective. However, when customers’ low-carbon preferences, carbon tax, and environmental concerns are all low or all high, LSFO should be adopted from the view of social welfare. The profits and carbon emissions of the supply chain in the Nash game are higher than those in the Stackelberg game. While the environmental concern is low, the social welfare of the supply chain in the Nash game is greater than that in the Stackelberg game. Otherwise, it is less than that in the Stackelberg game. The obtained results can help governments formulate policies and ships make emission reduction technology decisions according to their own interests.
Publisher
MDPI AG
Subject
