|Table of Contents|

A study on shipowners' selection preferences in response to global sulfur restrictions based on revealed preference data(PDF)

《交通运输工程学报》[ISSN:1671-1637/CN:61-1369/U]

Issue:
2022年01期
Page:
240-249
Research Field:
交通运输规划与管理
Publishing date:

Info

Title:
A study on shipowners' selection preferences in response to global sulfur restrictions based on revealed preference data
Author(s):
BAI Xi-wen1;  HOU Yao1;  YANG Dong2
(1. Department of Industrial Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China; 2. Faculty of Business, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong 999077, China)
Keywords:
economics of waterway transportation;  IMO emission regulation;  discrete selection model;  energy choice;  AIS data;  ship behavior
PACS:
U6-9
DOI:
10.19818/j.cnki.1671-1637.2022.01.020
Abstract:
A decision-making modeling framework for the shipowners' emissions reduction plan based on the revealed preference(RP)data was established, and the selection mechanism for the shipowners' practically feasible plan for reducing the sulfur emissions was empirically investigated. Based on the AIS data and the data from other related databases, 11 factors from ship particulars, shipowner characteristics, and external market conditions were comprehensively considered. The limitations of existing literatures focusing on economic factors and ignoring non-economic factors were overcome, and the shipowners' selection of countermeasures under sulfur restrictions was systematically analyzed. Analysis results show that the 11 factors considered in this study, which exhibit varying degrees of effects, contribute to the interpretation of the shipowners' energy selection. In terms of the modified effect sizes, the factors are sequentially presented: the time period away from the implementation of the global sulfur restrictions(3.957), the deadweight tonnage(2.270), the ship age(1.711), the company size(1.579), the price difference per ton of the fuel(1.456), the freight rate index(1.442), the environmental awareness index(1.353), the speed of the ship(1.243), the voyage length(1.172), the proportion of sailing distance in the emission control area(1.127), and the trading route diversity(1.108). With regards to the shipowners' selection of an energy plan, the time period away from the implementation of the global sulfur restrictions and the deadweight tonnage significantly affect their decisions, and the modified effect sizes are more than 2.0. The five factors(i.e., the ship age, the company size, the price difference per ton of the fuel, the freight rate index, and the environmental awareness index)moderately affect their decisions, and the modified effect sizes are within 1.3-1.8. The other four factors related to the shipowners' operation patterns marginally affect their decisions, and the modified effect sizes are less than 1.3. 3 tabs, 30 refs.

References:

[1] YOST T. Container-shipping industry needs to offset $10 billion[R]. New York: AlixParners, 2019.
[2] LINDSTAD H, SANDAAS I, STRØMMAN A H. Assessment of cost as a function of abatement options in maritime emission control areas[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2015, 38: 41-48.
[3] ZIS T, ANGELOUDIS P, BELL M G H, et al. Payback period for emissions abatement alternatives: role of regulation and fuel prices[J]. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2016, 2549(1): 37-44.
[4] ZHU M, LI K X, LIN K C, et al. How can shipowners comply with the 2020 global sulphur limit economically?[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2020, 79: 102234.
[5] PATRICKSSON Ø, ERIKSTAD S O. A two-stage optimization approach for sulphur emission regulation compliance[J]. Maritime Policy and Management, 2017, 44(1): 94-111.
[6] BALLAND O, GIRARD C, ERIKSTAD S O, et al. Optimized selection of vessel air emission controls—moving beyond cost-efficiency[J]. Maritime Policy and Management, 2015, 42(4): 362-376.
[7] YANG Zai-li, ZHANG Di, CAGLAYAN O, et al. Selection of techniques for reducing shipping NOx and SOx emissions[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2012, 17(6): 478-486.
[8] SCHINAS O, STEFANAKOS C N. Selecting technologies towards compliance with MARPOL Annex VI: the perspective of operators[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2014, 28: 28-40.
[9] REN J Z, LÜTZEN M. Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method for technology selection for emissions reduction from shipping under uncertainties[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2015, 40: 43-60.
[10] YANG Dong, WU Ling-xiao, WANG Shuai-an, et al. How big data enriches maritime research—a critical review of automatic identification system(AIS)data applications[J]. Transport Reviews, 2019, 39(6): 755-773.
[11] HANSEN M G, JENSEN T K, LEHN-SCHIØLER T, et al. Empirical ship domain based on AIS data[J]. Journal of Navigation, 2013, 66(6): 931-940.
[12] 廖诗管,杨 冬,白茜文,等.基于船舶大数据的港口装卸效率值计算方法[J].交通运输系统工程与信息,2021,21(2):217-223.LIAO Shi-guan, YANG Dong, BAI Xi-wen, et al. Estimation method of port handling efficiency value based on ship big data[J]. Journal of Transportation Systems Engineering and Information Technology, 2021, 21(2): 217-223.(in Chinese)
[13] WINTHER M, CHRISTENSEN J H, PLEJDRUP M S, et al. Emission inventories for ships in the Arctic based on satellite sampled AIS data[J]. Atmospheric Environment, 2014, 91: 1-14.
[14] ADLAND R, JIA Hai-ying, STRANDENES S P. Are AIS-based trade volume estimates reliable? the case of crude oil exports[J]. Maritime Policy and Management, 2017, 44(5): 657-665.
[15] JIANG Li-ping, KRONBAK J, CHRISTENSEN L P. The costs and benefits of sulphur reduction measures: sulphur scrubbers versus marine gas oil[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2014, 28: 19-27.
[16] NORSTAD I, FAGERHOLT K, LAPORTE G. Tramp ship routing and scheduling with speed optimization[J]. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies,2011, 19(5): 853-865.
[17] 楼狄明,包松杰,胡志远,等.基于实船油耗与排放的拖轮航速优化[J].交通运输工程学报,2017,17(1):93-100.LOU Di-ming, BAO Song-jie, HU Zhi-yuan, et al. Cruise speed optimization of tugboat based on real fuel consumption and emission[J]. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, 2017, 17(1): 93-100.(in Chinese)
[18] GRIMMER R, MYERS M. IMO 2020, Part 2: shipowners' perspective[R]. London: IMO, 2019.
[19] LE FEVRE C. A review of demand prospects for LNG as a marine transport fuel[R]. Oxford: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, 2018.
[20] KHASAWNEH R. Tankers defer retrofits to cash in on record freight rates[R]. Singapore: Reuters, 2019.
[21] YANG Dong, WU Ling-xiao, WANG Shuai-an. Can we trust the AIS destination port information for bulkships?—Implications for shipping policy and practice[J]. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 2021, 149: 102308.
[22] 刘兴龙,初秀民,马 枫,等.AIS报文异常动态信息甄别方法[J].交通运输工程学报,2016,16(5):142-150.LIU Xing-long, CHU Xiu-min, MA Feng, et al. Discriminating method of abnormal dynamic information in AIS messages[J]. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, 2016, 16(5):142-150.(in Chinese)
[23] 魏照坤,周 康,魏 明,等.基于AIS数据的船舶运动模式识别与应用[J].上海海事大学学报,2016,37(2):17-22,71.WEI Zhao-kun, ZHOU Kang, WEI Ming, et al. Ship motion pattern recognition and application based on AIS data[J]. Journal of Shanghai Maritime University, 2016, 37(2): 17-22, 71.(in Chinese)
[24] JIA H Y, ADLAND R, PRAKASH V, et al. Energy efficiency with the application of Virtual Arrival policy[J]. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2017, 54: 50-60.
[25] IMO. Prevention of air pollution from ships[R]. London: IMO, 2011.
[26] WASIKOWSKI M, CHEN X W. Combating the small sample class imbalance problem using feature selection[J]. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering,2010, 22(10): 1388-1400.
[27] MENARDI G, TORELLI N. Training and assessing classification rules with imbalanced data[J]. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 2014, 28(1): 92-122.
[28] MARTINSEN C. Alternative fuels insight platform[R]. Oslo: DNV, 2019.
[29] KALYANARAMAN M. Cutting time and cost on a scrubber retrofit[R]. London: Riviera Maritime Media, 2019.
[30] HSU A, ZOMER A. Environmental performance index (EPI)[J]. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online, DOI: 10.1002/9781118445112.stat03789.pub2.

Memo

Memo:
-
Last Update: 2022-03-20