Nowadays, long-term planning of (waterborne) infrastructure is interwoven with the concept of sustainability. International port-related organizations such as AAPA, IAPH, ESPO, OECD, PIANC, EPA, UNEP, UNCSD, USACE and WWF[i] are developing and regularly updating guidelines and codes of practice for sustainable development of ports and waterways. Literature over sustainable ports advocates common sustainability guiding principles and suggests that a more sustainable port can be realized through embracing the four perspectives of engineering, ecosystem services and governance in an integrated approach to port development. However, given the current uncertain environment, infrastructure planning also requires anticipating the long-term future under which the infrastructure must function. This future may be characterized by uncertainties leading to changing demands and new constraints. In view of this, it is apt to state that sustainable infrastructure should not only achieve economic, environmental, and social objectives, but should be robust meaning that it performs satisfactorily under a wide variety of futures and able to be adapted over time to (unforeseen) future conditions (Haasnoot, 2013). Literature over waterborne transport infrastructure make a mention of sustainability, adaptability and flexibility. Though many guidelines for developing sustainable plans exist, not much literature can be found over how to account for uncertainty in port masterplanning.
The objective of this paper is to propose some guidelines for incorporating uncertainty considerations in the process of port Masterplanning using the strategy of “planned adaptation” by synthesizing learning from four Masterplanning case studies. The paper begins by presenting a detailed literature review of current guidelines for port development to examine their handling of uncertainties. Next, it presents a comprehensive approach for sustainable port masterplanning under conditions of uncertainty; similar approaches have been applied for Water Management, Climate Change Management and Transport policies related to energy transition with success. This approach, which has its roots in Assumption based planning, is based on “planned adaptation” which is the result of deliberate decisions, based on an awareness that future might change and that action is required to return to, maintain, or achieve a desired state (Walker, 2013). The guiding principles for the design of a sustainable and adaptive port master plan are:
- explicitly define short-term goals and long-term objectives and try to connect them during the planning process;
- explore a wide variety of relevant uncertainties, varying from a global to local scale, and analyse whether the uncertainties present an opportunity or vulnerability for the plan;
- commit to short-term actions fordealing with uncertainties while keeping options open and preparing appropriate actions to meet objectives in plausible future scenarios;
- continuously monitor the external environment and take actions if an uncertainty appears ora scenario materializes.
The above approach is applied to the following (theoretical) cases, in order to create sustainable masterplans:
- Europoort, Port of Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Port of Barranquilla, Colombia
- Port of Kuala Tanjung and Port of New Priok, Indonesia
Next, in a bottom-up approach, these case studies are analyzed to make a comparative study over the major uncertainties for port Masterplanning. On a global scale, ports are confronted with similar uncertainties related to: changing demographics, changes in global production patterns, consolidation of shipping lines, new technologies; energy transition to renewable energy sources; climate change and sea-level rise, increasing attention for sustainable growth, shift of economic influence to developing regions; USA protectionism policies, China’s decline, India’s surge and projects such as new panama canal, One Belt One Road (OBOR). These uncertainties can present vulnerabilities or opportunities for the port. Over short-term, local conditions, local and national regulations, port organization structure, and international standards play a role. Further, the paper present case studies illustrating how “planned” adaptation can help to deal with short- and long term vulnerabilities, and seize opportunities in order to meet the planning objectives. A monitoring system, that scans the external environment for new developments and alerts planners of the need to implement planned adaptation is essential to the proposed approach.
The paper concludes that adaptability and robustness belong under the overarching definition of sustainability. In the present uncertain environment, “monitoring and (planned) adaptation” is the preferred strategy for port planning .
References
Haasnoot, M.; Middelkoop, H.; van Beek, E.; van Deursen, W.P.A. (2011). A method to develop sustainable water management strategies for an uncertain future. Sust. Develop. 2011, 19, 369–381.
Walker, W.E , Haasnoot, M. and Jan H. Kwakkel, J.H (2013). Adapt or Perish: A Review of Planning Approaches for Adaptation under Deep Uncertainty, Sustainability 2013, 5, 955-979; doi:10.3390/su5030955
[i] AAPA: American Association of Port Authorities
EPA: US Environmental protection Agency
ESPO: European Sea Port Organization
IAPH: International Association of Ports and Harbors,
UNEP: United Nations Environment Program
UNCSD: United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development
PIANC: Member World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure
USCAE: US Army Corps of Engineers
"Why the presentation will be of interest and benefit to conference attendees"
In the current uncertain environment, “sustainable” infrastructure should not only achieve economic, environmental, and social objectives, but should be robust meaning that it performs satisfactorily under a wide variety of futures and able to be adapted over time to unforeseen future conditions. Though many guidelines for developing sustainable plans exist, uncertainty and adaptability are addressed in a sporadic manner. However, it is generally acknowledged that the most difficult challenge faced by many stakeholders in the infrastructure sectors is the incorporation of uncertainties into the decision making process.
This presentation will familiarize the attendees with major future uncertainties confronting port planners, incorporation of flexibility and adaptability considerations in port planning and key signposts that need to be monitored to detect changes in the external environment. Since case studies of masterplanning of three very different ports (Europoort in Rotterdam in the Netherlands, Caribbean Port of Barranquilla and Port of Kuala Tanjung and New Priok Port in Indonesia), are presented, it makes for a very interesting comparison.