Towards a sustainability management system for smaller ports

Andrei Kuznetsov a, John Dinwoodie a,n, David Gibbs b, Mark Sansom c, Harriet Knowles c

a Plymouth Graduate School of Management, Plymouth University, Plymouth PL4 8AA, Devon, United Kingdomb Department of Geography, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, United Kingdomc Falmouth Harbour Commissioners, Falmouth TR11 3JQ, Cornwall, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 11 September 2014Received in revised form22 December 2014Accepted 22 December 2014

Keywords:Sustainability managementMaritime operationsSmaller portsConstructivist grounded theorySystem implementation

a b s t r a c t

Larger ports routinely deploy environmental management tools but systematic sustainability manage-ment in smaller ports is rare. Accordingly, this paper assesses the sustainability needs of smaller ports inCornwall and Devon, a case-study, and proposes a systematic method for identifying and managingthem. The development and deployment of a Port Sustainability Management System for smaller portsin an environmentally sensitive but economically peripheral UK area is discussed. In-depth collaborationwith Harbour Masters to identify sustainability management practice revealed few applications of thetheoretical elements of triple bottom line accounting. Rather, semi-structured interviews unearthed theessential elements of port management and facilitated mapping of the forces which underpin portsustainability practices. A constructivist grounded theory approach identified emerging concepts,common patterns and sustainability themes, which were synthesised into a Sustainability ManagementSystem based on 11 indicators of knowledge criteria and a self-scoring mechanism. Adopters reported amore proactive stance towards sustainability and safeguarding of local communities, improved under-standing, and more effective discourse with stakeholders. Benefits spanned port improvements;awareness of progress, performance, strengths and weaknesses; enhanced communication and report-ing; and improved thought processes. Almost all reacted positively and identified multiple benefits,equating to two new jobs in each port.

& 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction

This paper aims to assess the sustainability needs of smaller portsin Cornwall and Devon (CAD) as a case-study and propose asystematic method for identifying and managing these. It discussesthe development and deployment of applied research which aimedto develop and deploy a systematic approach for identifying andmanaging sustainability issues within a UK case-study context ofsmaller ports. The mission statements of these smaller ports, aselsewhere, typically commit Harbour Masters (HMs) to safeguardlocal employment and commercially important but sustainable localoperations. The development and deployment of a Port SustainabilityManagement System (PSMS) would assist them and about 700operational smaller UK ports [1] which currently possess insufficientresources or technical expertise to engage specialists, to assess thepotential impact of their operations on port sustainability. In smallerports globally, complex legislation and evolving stakeholder expecta-tions make compliance increasingly challenging as environmental

legislation confronts HMs especially in environmentally sensitiveareas. Increasing legislative and regulatory pressures on smaller portsin CAD threaten their survival as managers struggle to maintaincommercially viable and sustainable entities, whilst stakeholdersdemand prioritisation of specialist interests. Compliance is essentialto preserve local employment, to attract tourists, and to maintain andgrow the local economy. Issues are complex because diversitycharacterises smaller ports which host fishing interests that createemployment, leisure functions which accommodate visiting yachtsand provide facilities for boat mooring, and strategic facilities forbunkering and importing and exporting goods. However, mereinvestigation of sustainability management issues in smaller portsmay assist systematic unlocking of resources in each port adopterthrough new-found knowledge, efficiency and awareness [2].

The paper is organised as follows. Literature reviews discussthe concept of sustainability and recent work which highlightedthe importance of ocean services and the nature and deploymentof existing port management systems in CAD. Section 3 presentsthe research problem case context, outlines the methodologyincluding the research design and context, and system develop-ment including examples of the theoretical framework and prac-tical system. Section 4 analyses benefits to smaller ports which

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Marine Policy

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.12.0160308-597X/& 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

n Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 1752585611.E-mail address: jdinwoodie@plymouth.ac.uk (J. Dinwoodie).

Marine Policy 54 (2015) 59–68

were identified during a pilot test. The final section discussesimpacts of the research and examples of accrued benefits severalmonths after the pilot test.

2. Literature review

2.1. Ports and sustainability

The need for sustainable development has been articulatedwidely, but in a recent exegesis by Visbeck et al. [3] “blue wealth”refers “collectively to the wealth created by the various servicesand assets” that oceans provide. Following a comprehensivereview of the challenges presented by attempts to sustain bluewealth, the authors advocated that a new sustainable develop-ment goal specific to oceans and coasts be appended to the UNRioþ20's (UNR20) current goals [3]. The “future of our society” ishighlighted, given that 90% of fishing occurs in coastal waters [4]and that the impacts of coral reef degradation on the shorelineand flooding [5] then impact regional and national economies,employment, welfare and the interconnectedness of coastal sus-tainability. The UNR20 [6] report highlighted the importance ofsustainable fisheries for future food security (§133), commitmentto protect the resilience of marine ecosystems to allow sustainableconservation (§158), and the importance of area-based conserva-tion using the best available scientific information as a tool forconserving diversity and sustainable use (§177).

Smaller ports situated in coastal communities in CAD areessential elements of local economies which are heavily reliant onfishing and tourism. Both can be severely affected by unsustainablecoastal management [3]. If European Sea Port Organisation (ESPO)classifications in which smaller ports mostly seek specific niches andfrequently provide cargo-handling and technical-nautical servicessuch as pilotage, towage and mooring [7] are applied to CAD ports,the latter is ubiquitous, but cargo handling is not. ESPO's thresholdwhereby smaller ports handle cargoes not exceeding 10Mt annually[7] is five times the throughput of the largest CAD port. Drawing onEuropean Commission criteria, each CAD port is a small enterprisewhich turns over under €10m annually, employs less than 50people, and has a balance sheet valuation under €10m. Indeed mostCAD ports are micro organisations turning over less than €2m [8].Fishing activities spawn many businesses and support local econo-mies, including supplies to prestigious restaurants. In turn, theseactivities enhance tourism and create holiday destinations whichbenefit the wider region [9]. Economically vital locally, smaller portshave defined an organisational mission of safeguarding their har-bour operations and “protecting the maritime area against theadverse effects of human activities so as to safeguard human healthand conserve marine ecosystems” and if possible, to restore “marineareas which have been adversely affected” [10]. In this study datacollection and the grounding of theoretical development focusnecessarily on the regional sector as required by the sponsor.However, despite the unique regional context which is of widerinterest in itself, issues of sustainability management will increas-ingly engage all sizes and types of ports and their stakeholders.

Within this context, what does the term “sustainability” imply?In an early definition, sustainable development must “meet theneeds of the present generation without compromising the abilityof future generations to meet their own needs” [11]. Recent debatehas identified this definition as useful but problematic [12].Following proposals of an agenda for global change, many govern-ments and institutions began to incorporate the sustainabilityagenda into their products, processes and policy planning [13].Despite successful local projects informing people about thenecessity for waste reduction and regeneration of urban spaces,

practical applications of sustainability require a change in habitsand attitudes of both people and institutions [13].

The application of sustainability is often operationalised usingthe concept of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) [14–16]. Elkingtonreported hundreds of companies signing up because “the basicchallenge was of “greening”, of making business more efficient andtrimming costs” [15]. According to TBL principles, true sustain-ability is achieved only where environmental, economic and socialdimensions intersect. Unless societies move towards the samegoal, little happens as “firms alone cannot become sustainable inan economic, environmental and social sense, as they merelycontribute to more sustainable patterns of production and con-sumption within society” [17]. The TBL may give the “illusion of amore specific tool for analysis – the bottom line” which is arespected business concept. This creates strong “marketing rea-sons to tag a slogan to a concept with an attractive no-nonsensemeaning” [16]. The original idea behind each of the dimensions ofTBL encompassed accountability, accounting, auditing, reporting,risk rating and benchmarking [15]. These concepts representmeasures of reporting and demonstrating a socially acceptablebehaviour as argued previously; however they do not contributetowards the knowledge and understanding of sustainabilityrelated issues. TBL represents a generalisation of principles ratherthan a definition of sustainability, and its application is oftenproblematic.

The British Ports Association (BPA) represents the interests ofport and council authority members and private company associ-ate members to UK, European and other policy makers, campaign-ing for example to minimise the effect of Marine ConservationZone programmes [18]. Its 91 port members get benefit fromstronger representation and professional networking [18], butapproximately 600 other UK ports remain unrepresented [1].Examples of best practice within CAD ports include a FalmouthBay Test Site in which wave energy device developers may testcomponents and prototypes [19]. A Phosphate Free campaign atSalcombe educates port users about the environmentally harmfuleffects of phosphates contained in washing up liquids [20].However, to avoid differentiation between BPA members andothers this paper adopts a holistic view of the ports sector inCAD, briefly considering some existing management systemswhich are available to all ports.

2.2. Management systems

The diversity of UK ports with regards to size, operations,infrastructure, ownership, geographic location, traffic volume andother factors creates a challenge in producing a “unified response tothe demands of sustainable development and environmental pro-tection” within this sector [21]. Disruption to operations can becaused by a number of technological, organisational, human andnatural factors [22], which resulted traditionally in managers adopt-ing a reactive approach to sustainability. Previous approaches toassist ports with sustainable management were focused predomi-nantly on mitigation of environmental impacts through the use ofenvironmental management systems (EMS(s)).

There are many excellent tools which are applied by largecommercial ports and give great benefits. The most widely usedEMSs in ports are either based on the principle of ISO14001 orhave been accredited with that certification, and those that arepart of the EcoPorts tools methodology. EcoPorts tools includea Self-Diagnosis Method (SDM), an EcoPorts tool to self-auditenvironmental issues [23]; a Port Environmental Review System(PERS) which consists of guidelines and example documents forimplementing EMS [24]; and a Strategic Overview of SignificantEnvironmental Aspects (SOSEA) tool for ports to identify andrank “significant” environmental aspects of ports [25]. Excluding

A. Kuznetsov et al. / Marine Policy 54 (2015) 59–6860

SOSEA, SDM and PERS are intended to steadily lead the port towardsmeeting the ISO or Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS)requirements and become certified. However these tools do notneed to be utilised in conjunction with each other and all of theEcoPorts tools can also be considered to be independent methods[23]. There are 10 UK members of EcoPorts, five of which areISO14001 certified, and a further three are PERS certified [26]. Thereported ISO14001 certified ports are Port of London Authority, Portof Felixstowe, Harbour of Rye, Dover Harbour Board and BelfastHarbour Commissioners [26]. The three PERS certified ports arePeterhead, Milford Haven and Shoreham port authorities. Out of theseven UK ports which are members of EcoPorts network, aside fromRye Harbour, all the remaining ports are major commercial portsthat are essential for the British economy, industry and trade. Ryeharbour is owned by the Environment Agency and is used as a “fullycommercial harbour with a large fishing and leisure fleet” [27].

Many European ports instance best practice in environmentalmanagement. Livorno in Italy adopted EMAS tools to improve andreduce the environmental impacts of economic activities toincrease environmental awareness by disseminating project infor-mation [28]. ISO14001 certification provided an opportunity formany port companies to gain environmental certification by safe-guarding the environment in the Cinque Terre National Park [28].In Greece, Piraeus focused on measuring and recording theconcentration of air pollutants, seawater quality, and noise levelsand managing landscape, energy and on-shore waste recyclingsystems [29]. ESPO has awarded PERS recognition to Corfu, Lagos,Kavala and Volos in Greece and Piombino in Italy [30]. In Cornwall,Truro sported an EMS in 1995 and updated in 2014, which ispublicly available to view [31].

2.3. Associated costs

The costs of ISO14001 certification, assessment and auditing,alongside running a port in accordance with ISO systems, arebeyond the means of most smaller ports, especially where profitsare very small and fluctuate. Many providers of ISO140001certification and audit services offer a quick-quote website facility,but research for this project found that only two posted feesonline. For an institution with an annual turnover under d500k,one quote comprised a d1495 service fee with a d550 audit cost,and another a d999 assessment fee with a d399 audit fee. Users ofother certification systems also incur costs. After applying theSDM, which is a “user-friendly environmental checklist” fromEcoPorts with a “validity of two years”, a port is invoiced €495for reviewing costs [32]. After joining the network, new membersgain access to PERS which is “an only port sector specific EMstandard” and for an additional €995 have their applicationreviewed by Lloyds Register [33]. Out of 57 members of EcoPorts,13 are PERS, and 25 are ISO 14001 certified [26], including 12 UK

members. Based on publicly available reports and financial state-ments a short comparison will illustrate the resource issue insmaller ports. Falmouth and Fowey are two larger ports in CAD.Both adopted proactive stances towards environmental issues andin 2012 their combined turnover of d4.95m generated a combinedprofit of d100k [34,35]. In the same year, the UK PERS certifiedports of Milford Haven and Peterhead recorded a combined turn-over of d34.1m and net profit of d5.1m [36,37]. However, the netprofit of the smallest ports may be much lower, with St Ives andTeignmouth combined turning over d500k, netting respectivelyd13.7k profit and d30k loss [38,39]. EcoPorts tools offer ports anexcellent set of environmental indicators and comprehensivemitigation of environmental impacts. These are popular amongstpredominantly larger commercial ports with significant levels ofoperations but the cost element for many small ports associatedwith subscription presents a prohibitive burden on their net profit.These figures highlight that numerous smaller UK ports requireaffordable processes for managing their environmental impacts andsustainability, and currently lack the financial resources required toinvest in costly EMS practices [40]. Smaller ports require a newdiscourse to find a non-resource intensive way to manage theirenvironmental impacts and adopt a proactive approach to portsustainability.

3. Methodology

3.1. Problem description: the case context

Many CAD ports are situated in environmentally diverse areaswith special designations (Table 1). These designations may entailrestrictions to maritime operations in ports which may jeopardiseincome and engender requirements for reactive actions to preventpresumed environmental impacts. Smaller ports urgently require asystem to assist identification and management of sustainabilityissues arising from multifarious environmental designations andthreats of monetary penalties arising from noncompliance underthe 2008 Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act [41]. Formany CAD ports in sensitive ecological areas, environmental issuespredominate. However, given their limited resources in a weakeconomy such as CAD, many smaller ports urgently requireassistance with sustainability management to help safeguard theircurrent business, to protect employment and to embed sustain-ability principles. The diversity of operations carried out inparticipating CAD ports included handling of wet bulk such ascommercial and leisure bunkering; dry bulk such as coal, sand,cement, scrap metal, grain, fertiliser, etc.; fishing on small andlarge scale; leisure activities such as marina, moorings and ferrycruises; and land infrastructure lease [42]. A diverse portfolioof commercial operations was crucial to accurately establish

Table 1Some UK environmental designations present in CAD ports.

Designation Designating body Brief description of designation

MCZ (Marine Conservation Zone)[43,44]

Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs (DEFRA)

Zone to protect a range of nationally important marine wildlife, habitats, geology andgeomorphology

SAC (Special Area ofConservation) [45]

EU Commissions Habitats Directive Area to conserve 189 habitat types and 788 species

AONB (Area of OutstandingNatural Beauty) [46]

Natural England Area of high scenic quality protected by statute to conserve and enhance the naturalbeauty of the landscape

HC (Heritage Coast) [47] Natural England Zone to conserve, protect and enhance the natural beauty of the coasts, their marine floraand fauna, and their heritage features

SSSI (Site of Special ScientificInterest)[48]

Natural England Site of the very best national wildlife and geology.

SPA (Special Protected Area)[43,49]

DEFRA Area within which rare and vulnerable birds and regularly occurring migratory speciesare protected

A. Kuznetsov et al. / Marine Policy 54 (2015) 59–68 61

sustainability criteria for all regional ports in CAD, including thosethat did not participate in data collection, but were included in oneor several system testing phases [42]. During initial discussions forthe research on which this paper is based, Harbour Mastersidentified insufficient knowledge and understanding of sustain-ability in ports, largely because few existing sustainability man-agement systems are available. Consequently, miscommunicationand misunderstanding between ports and their communities werecommonplace, in turn diminishing the ability of port authorities tosafeguard their harbour and risking the future of their community.

3.2. Research design and sampling

To address these initial concerns a collaborative project wasapproved to extend early work between Falmouth Harbour Com-missioners and Plymouth University [2] to other ports in CAD.Accepted conceptions of applied research entail an “immediaterelevance” for industry and “addressing issues they see as impor-tant” which are presented in a way that practitioners understandand act upon [50]. These principles underpinned a project aimedto devise a PSMS immediately relevant to CAD practitioners as apractical system, rather than a hypothetical model. To realise thisaim, the project's objectives were to categorise the requirementsof CAD ports for environmental planning, to analyse their sustain-able development needs, to synthesise processes they used formanaging environmental sustainability and to assess their atti-tudes towards a PSMS.

To achieve these objectives and given that no two ports areidentical, semi-structured interviews were chosen to broach keythemes and questions with practitioners whilst allowing eachinterview to pursue particular concepts in more depth [5]. Aninitial stratified sample design aimed to engage ports that repre-sented all major governance, size and types of maritime operationin CAD with assistance from South West Regional Ports Authorityand Falmouth Harbour Commission regarding sample selectionand instrument design. A snowball sampling strategy assisted ingaining access to data and in building strong working relation-ships, starting with a small group of HMs (labelled HM1, HM2…for convenience and to preserve their anonymity) before usingtheir knowledge, expertise and suggestions of whom to approachnext [50]. Following initial discussions with HM1 snowball sam-pling generated a twentyfold increase in the number of contacts.“Theoretical sampling involves starting with data, constructingtentative ideas about the data, and then examining these ideasthrough further empirical study” [50]. This process entails furtherdevelopment of “emerging theory” by pursuing additional relevantdata, until no additional properties and dimensions to yourcategories can emerge [50]. As an essential element of groundedtheory, the consistent use of theoretical sampling allowed for datato become saturated, by exploring dimensions and properties ofthat data to the fullest until further data collection did not “sparkany new theoretical insights or reveal new properties of these coretheoretical categories” [51].

To clarify understanding of the problem, how small ports arerun and what their functions are, nine scoping interviews wereconducted in spring 2012 typically each lasting 70–80 min [50].Following the analysis of this initial data, a main data collectionphase from August 2012 to February 2013 spanned the full set ofobjectives comprising eight interviews, each lasting 2 h. Withgrounded theory, data analysis commences after the first inter-view so that the use of theoretical sampling can assist in pursuingadditional relevant data in subsequent interviews [51]. Finally, 15follow-up interviews in late 2013 and early 2014 tested industry'sresponse to the proposed PSMS.

To analyse the data, a constructivist grounded theory approachwas selected. Defined by Charmaz [51], constructivist grounded

theory is a set of flexible and systematic guidelines for collectingand analysing qualitative data in order to be able to constructtheories which are “grounded” in the data. A constructivist stancewas appropriate because in using it, researchers “construct reali-ties in which they participate” and this grounded theory approachsees the data and analysis as “created from shared experiences andrelationships with participants” [51]. Given an explicit intent thatany PSMS should be capable of dissemination to many small ports,the most appropriate way of looking at the data involved con-struction, to build new theory using that approach, as opposed toseeking the truth, establishing the nature of the truth, testing ahypothesis and so on. Grounded theory coding was used tointerrogate the data and is comprised of at least two main stages.A first “initial” stage involves “naming each word, line or segmentof data”. In a second “focused” stage a researcher is able to “sort,synthesise, integrate and organise” large volumes of data throughuse of the most important or significant initial codes which mayrequire a final selective stage [51]. The main idea behind groundedtheory is to help identify common themes and construct “explora-tory theories” through data collection and “hypothesis testing”[52] and to facilitate substantive theory development [53]. Codingprocedures are then used to identify thematic content using aninductive approach [54–59]. The essence of the initial stage ofcoding is to remain open to multiple theoretical possibilities anddirections discovered through “close reading of the data”, and asthe coding progresses those categories that stand out in the datashould be identified and developed further using focused coding[51]. After selecting focused level codes, the final coding stage is to“specify possible relationships between categories developed”during focused coding [51]. Analysis of interview transcriptsresulted in 996 different initial codes, 309 focused codes, and 35theoretical codes which were then combined into categories, sub-categories and knowledge based criteria to develop a PSMS. Whencombined, these codes allowed sustainability themes to emergedirectly from the data, rather than from a “preconceived codingscheme” [60].

3.3. System development

Several principles underpinned the PSMS grounded in thepractical experience of local HM and smaller port specific sustain-ability indicators. The use of best available knowledge as a scientifictool for conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity wasdemonstrated in UNR20 [6]. The lack of existing systems thataddressed port sustainability rather than individual elements ofport management was the other rationale for incorporating theknowledge element into PSMS. A set of sustainability indicators toscore against has emerged from data analysis in May 2013 andreceived a very positive industry response during an extensive pilottest. Most recently, Visbeck et al. [3] suggested a set of indicators fora better sustainability management of ocean and seas based on theprinciple of proactive action to enhance the element of sustain-ability in oceans, seas and marine environments within.

The PSMS seeks to address the lack of knowledge availablesurrounding port sustainability and to create a mechanism toempower HMs to proactively assess the state of sustainability intheir ports. The major benefits of PSMS for ports relate to enhancedknowledge of what constitutes sustainability in ports, and an abilityto identify strengths and weaknesses in order to apply relevantknowledge and to assess the impact of that knowledge.

A theoretical framework of subcategories emerged during dataanalysis (Fig. 1). Four pressures and influences, namely govern-ance, conservation, stakeholders and legislation, were identifiedwhich affect various elements of port management and requireports to strive towards sustainability. These pressures oftenexplain why some ports adopt a reactive approach to sustainability

A. Kuznetsov et al. / Marine Policy 54 (2015) 59–6862

by crisis-managing the most prominent current issue rather thanplanning ahead proactively. Fig. 2 presents the practical version ofPSMS which was tested with industry and received a positiveresponse from over four-fifths of participants. This version is basedon internal self-scoring mechanisms by managers to assess theactual state of port sustainability, free from any external pressureswhich may arise if actual achievements fail to match expectations.Acronyms in Fig. 2 correspond with the concepts in Fig. 1, andsome examples of scores in Fig. 2 are outlined (Table 2). Illustrative

scores in Fig. 2 have been assigned randomly and are not based onany actual scores assigned by ports.

Similarly to the examples in Table 2, each of the 11 indicators ofPSMS includes a set of criteria ranging from 1 to 5 offeringexamples of how to aim for and achieve a certain category forparticular sustainability criteria. Being predominantly aimed atHMs and Environmental Managers, PSMS was designed as aninternal strategic tool to help appraise sustainability practices inthe harbour for which respondents are responsible. PSMS aims toallow managers to define their current position within the para-meters of their current operations in order to set targets and makeplans for progress. PSMS combines eleven themes of harbouroperations which, if taken together, constitute harbour sustain-ability. This system is based on the practical issues identified in30 h of interviews and continuous collaboration over two years.Given the high-impossibility of finding targets appropriate toseveral ports, a process of self-appraisal involving the creationand incorporation of bespoke local targets into each individualport management plan was preferred. This tool was intended tosupport managers in their work and not to create additionalpressures arising from external judgements of performance basedon the scores assigned. After completing self-scoring, participantsassess whether one or more categories require immediate atten-tion and should be incorporated into short-term action plans. If anassigned score fails to meet expectations or a HM seeks to improvethe element of sustainability for a particular port area, the knowl-edge element of PSMS provides an overview of what a portauthority should aim for in order to improve the level of sustain-ability in their port. To promote study aims of assessing thesustainability needs of smaller ports by proposing a systematicmethod for identifying and managing these, the Appendix pre-sents fuller scoring criteria. Detailed action plans and examples toscore a particular port are available elsewhere [42].

4. Results: impacts on smaller ports

To test the applicability and relevance of PSMS, a comprehen-sive pilot test was conducted with 15 ports in CAD. All threegovernance models in the UK including trust, municipal andprivate ports outline specific operational parameters whichdefine how those ports should be run. These are all present inCAD ports and when combined with diverse income streams andlocal resources, offer an excellent sample of ports in which topilot PSMS. HMs scored their respective ports and answered 18questions related to usability, functionality and benefits of theapproach.

During testing four-fifths of participants responded positivelyto define four distinct groups of benefits. The verbatim quotationsoffered below demonstrate the benefits of PSMS, but for reasons ofcommercial confidence necessarily remain anonymous (Table 3).

Several HMs suggested that the benefits of adopting PSMSshould be estimated in monetary terms. As advised by HM1 withextensive management experience including the appointment ofexternal consultants, Maritime Sustainable Development Officer(MSDO) and agreed by two professors (Prof1, Prof2) the benefitvaluation methodology established in a prior award-winningcollaborative pilot research project acknowledged by UK govern-ment experts was applied [2,61,62]. Estimates were applied to the15 participating ports (Table 4).

Table 5 summarises the benefits to CAD ports and presentsmore details of estimates. Over 5 years for 15 ports using PSMSestimated benefits are d3,865,005 which includes the cost ofcreation. Per port, the estimated annual benefits of d50k (exclud-ing point 1 in Table 5) equate to two entry level jobs.

Fig. 1. Theoretical framework of PSMS.

Fig. 2. PSMS practical system. (a) Also a grey scale version included.

A. Kuznetsov et al. / Marine Policy 54 (2015) 59–68 63

5. Discussion

Quotations from two HMs during pilot tests evidence the practicalimportance of PSMS, the credibility of applied research output andthe benefits for port industry professionals. HM2 noted “…you have11 headings that are all relevant. I think that's captured the issuesabout running a sustainable harbour really well”. HM3 noted “I thinkyou've done a phenomenal job of getting it all together… [it's] verydifficult to try and find common criteria that people can mark on”.Whilst operating with limited resources smaller ports cannot justifyspending large proportions of their profit, savings or resources on

consultants employed to assist them in improving the overallsustainability of their port. Apart from not knowing which issues toprioritise, the costs of a comprehensive review are prohibitive. PSMSassists in demonstrating to HMs the particular areas of port manage-ment which need extra knowledge, additional effort, and offersexamples of processes relevant in tackling other issues. The 11indicators of sustainability which were identified (Fig. 1) empowerHMs to outsource work required to acquire specific knowledge froma wider range of academic and consultative institutions. In theprocess, greater awareness of interconnectedness of port operationshas been generated. Deployment of TBL principles in isolation would

Table 2Sample knowledge based criteria for PSMS self-scoring.

ACRONYM(score)

Criteria

AMM (3) Our assets have good future life expectancy.SM (2) The safety record in the harbour gives cause for concern.EKA (4) We have reliable data on habitat composition and condition (obtained from a scientific enquiry/research).EM (3) We use research as a mechanism for environmental management –we apply measures to mitigate environmental impacts. (We use research to identify

environmental issues and measures to mitigate impacts.)SE (5) We engage proactively with stakeholders and are able to influence stakeholder's perceptions (e.g. governing bodies). We establish working

partnerships and take part in joint projects to benefit the harbour and local community.BPM (3) We balance supply and demand of assets and infrastructure to reduce maintenance costs, resulting in a consistent surplus.EMP (3) We are evolving our processes into a formal system for internal use.CSS (2) We have policies and procedures which we communicate to our customers in order to promote the concept of a safe customer experience. (We explain

why we do what we do. We expect customers to follow set rules.)PP (4) We have established good working relationships with governing bodies and have developed working partnerships which implement practical

measures, share best practice and help reduce operational impacts.CM (3) We have started to change our expertise, knowledge and raise awareness in relevant critical areas.SPF (3) We plan for the appropriate use and requirements of future resources. We are starting to engage in strategic thinking and forecasting future trends.

Table 3User-stated benefits of PSMS.

Benefit Comment Source

Improvement “… I can see where we can improve” HM3, 2014“…a reminder to strive for improvement” HM4, 2014

Progress/Performance/Strengths/Weaknesses “…simple way of identifying areas of weakness” HM5, 2013“…measure of progress in key areas” HM1, 2014“… calendar check on progress” HM6, 2013“…good measure of progress” HM7, 2014

Enhanced communication/ Reporting “… coordinated report to take to my Harbour Board” HM8, 2013“…Brevity of communication…” HM9, 2014“We would use it in the annual report…” HM2, 2014

Reminder/Prompt to stimulate thought process “It's a good prompt… it prompts you to think about something…” HM10, 2014“…it would stimulate my thought process…” HM11, 2014“…it helps you to achieve a high standard and best practice…” HM12, 2014

Table 4User-stated benefits of PSMS.

Benefit Item Valuation

(1) PSMS development. System creation by a medium level consultant. 230 working days.(2) Membership fees saved. Fees paid for current systems. Annual payments.(3) Savings of HM time arising from: Reduction in HM time required to: HM time inclusive of on-costs.3a) Internal assessment ofsustainability issues.

assess the sustainability of all port operations. PSMS offers increased knowledge andawareness.

5 days annually.

3b) Benchmarking of good portpractices.

travel and attend 3 meetings annually. Instead HM draws on indicators in PSMS andenhanced knowledge of port sustainability.

10 days annually.

(4) Reduced ad hoc public relationscosts.

PSMS as a communication tool may avoid crisis-management of issues andrequirements for ad hoc surveys or data gathering.

d5k per port per annum (pppa).

(5) Reduced need to engageconsultants to publicise the port.

Use of PSMS to demonstrate progress to stakeholders, showing progress on eachsustainability indicator saves on consultants fees.

5 days of consultants' time annually.

(6) Fewer complaints to process. PSMS enhances communication with stakeholders and improves knowledge andawareness of sustainability issues, saving on HM time.

5 days of HM time annually.

(7) Safeguarding of port business/maritime operations including:

The PSMS tool assists assessment of the sustainability of maritime operations byoffering:

Annual CAD port turnover of d1.6m (seepublicly available accounts).

7a) commercial revenue streams. proactive identification of measures to preserve port business. 1% of total annual CAD port turnover.7b) port and community employment. enhanced knowledge/awareness of sustainability issues. 1% of total annual CAD port turnover.

A. Kuznetsov et al. / Marine Policy 54 (2015) 59–6864

not have revealed the need for proactive partnerships as one of thecriteria for sustainability. In turn, the role of partnerships as a catalystfor targeted knowledge acquisition resulting in better sustainabilityperformance by the port would have been overlooked. During PSMSpilot testing Asset Management and Maintenance (AMM in Fig. 2)achieved the lowest average score among 15 participants. Consider-ing that ports provide a service that is dependent upon the safetyand reliability of their infrastructure and TBL was discovered to bethe industry view of sustainability, this example demonstrates thelimited correspondence of TBL with practical applications in thesmaller ports sector.

By unpacking port sustainability into its relevant componentsand highlighting the interconnectedness of management functionsand operations, PSMS empowers HMs to undertake knowledgeacquisition through various schemes which engage national orEuropean institutions. However, the knowledge relating to whichareas of sustainability to address and which criteria to aim forarises from using PSMS, assessing strengths and weaknesses andmaking action plans accordingly. The derivation of PSMS is firmlygrounded in the experiences of HM in CAD ports, which offered anexcellent case study which incorporates diversity. However, exten-sions to fit applications where complex governance models definehow ports in Europe and internationally are run and funded willinevitably require further fine-tuning. The pillars presented shouldoffer a comprehensive initial agenda to guide extra-regional andinternational applications.

Six months after engaging with the pilot test, HM1 used PSMSto conduct an organisational skills audit starting with the manage-ment board, which traditionally had recruited people whom theythought had a good fit with the team and had “headline skills”(HM1, 2014). Following this review the organisation challengedtheir consultative committee to review whether their boardmembers had the right skills to run a sustainable port. “That[PSMS] is the most comprehensive analysis of what skills you needto actually run ports” (HM1, 2014). Whereas traditionally HM1 andhis management board had recruited people with “headline skills”,after conducting a skills audit of all managers within the organisa-tion, that practice has seen a paradigm shift towards recognisingthe merits of a broader range of skills as a result of broadening theattractiveness of a particular post.

Empowering a smaller port to assess the state of its sustain-ability without the need to engage external consultants can resultin significant time and cost savings which are available to invest inother areas of port operations. PSMS empowers HMs to assess,strategise and create tailor-made plans to improve specific areas

of the port that require urgent attention. The knowledge andunderstanding received as a result of undergoing the process offera foundation for future improvements. As HMs become moreaware of sustainability issues through adopting PSMS, they aremore likely to cascade their new knowledge and understanding ofsustainability to other harbours which may be less affected byspecific requirements for legislative compliance or may undertakeless complex operations within their bailiwicks. The indicators ofsustainability are characterised as pillars, because pillars supportequally the weight of the roof and floors of a structure and if onepillar is removed or damaged, the structural integrity of the wholecould be compromised. The PSMS assists HMs to identify the“pillars” which ports stand on, and using simple visual representa-tions in the form of a “bull's-eye target” (Fig. 2) encourages themto measure and improve any “pillars” which require attention.Further the PSMS offers knowledge and examples of what needs tobe done in order to achieve improvement. By demonstratingknowledge, awareness and understanding of how to safeguardport communities, to protect jobs and to minimise the waste ofresources, HMs are empowered to facilitate stronger stakeholderpartnerships and much more effective discourses to raise thesustainability of their ports and communities.

After initially assigning a low score on Asset Management andMaintenance a longer term impact of PSMS for HM1 was to reviewand segregate the operational divisions present in his organisa-tion. Four distinct divisions were created within that port, namelyLeisure Business, Commercial Business, Support Services and theStatutory Authority to oversee the entire operation. This strategyavoided the traditional mentality of some port governance modelswhich favour the pursuit of price minimisation through providingonly basic services. This attitude does not allow for proactivesustainable infrastructure maintenance due to insufficient avail-able funds at some ports, resulting in a crisis managementapproach. The thought process stimulated by PSMS and the initialindustry testing revealed this pillar as a weakness in many ports.HM1 has since implemented organisational restructuring to pro-vide higher quality services for customers and allow for proactiveinfrastructure management and maintenance. On the ChangeManagement sustainability pillar HM1 self-scored (4), namely“We are changing our mind-set attitudes and introducing sustainablepractices. We are recognising relevant changes in legislation”. Thisdescribes what has been accomplished by segregating the businessinto different components in order to increase the value of theservice provided, to be proactive with sustainability and to planahead to criteria (5), which relates to fully integrating thesustainable practices within an organisation.

Many tools are available to assist ports with, for example,environmental management, and many larger ports benefit fromusing them. However, few smaller ports are sufficiently resourcedto deploy tools which assist them to assess and to systematicallymanage even the environmental impacts of their maritime opera-tions. At all scales, existing tools do not systematically assess theoverall sustainability of a port and its operations. Whilst thediversity of ports and specificity of individual ports help to explainthis shortfall, it is no excuse for accepting strategies which focussolely on mitigating environmental impacts at potentially highcommercial cost which have become accepted by the smaller portsindustry.

This work indicates that regardless of procedural differencesamongst smaller ports, governance models and varying levels oflegislative compliance, sustainability management is a commonconcern for all ports in CAD. Although future studies will berequired to ascertain the extent and nature of such concerns, it islikely that sustainability concerns extend across most UK smalland medium ports and probably globally. Traditional applicationsof TBL principles to smaller ports fail to uncover the essence of

Table 5Estimated benefits of PSMS for CAD ports.

Benefit category(number)/Criteria ofbenefits

Cost perday (dk)

Dayssaved

Totalcost(dk)

Years Annualbenefit perport (d)

(1) PSMS development 0.5 230 115.0 1 7667(2) Membership fees 0.5 5 500(3) HM time saved on3a) Assessment 0.5 5 2.5 5 25003b) Benchmarking 0.5 10 5.0 5 5000(4) Reduced publicrelations costs

5.0 5 5000

(5) Reduced need forconsultants

0.5 5 2.5 5 2500

(6) Fewer complaints 0.5 5 2.5 5 2500(7) Safeguarding:7a) Commercial revenuestreams

5 16,000

7b) Employment 5 16,000Total 50,000

A. Kuznetsov et al. / Marine Policy 54 (2015) 59–68 65

sustainability management which are imperative for long termsurvival and prosperity. Applications of TBL to ports to date havegenerated a complex theoretical array of variables which can beattributed to economic, social and environmental criteria, butwhich offer limited practical applications of respective sustain-ability criteria.

6. Conclusions

Because many indirect aspects of sustainability can affect thelevel of business resilience of an organisation, managers need toidentify those relationships and ensure that each one is sustain-able to avoid domino effects. For example, asset management andmaintenance received the lowest overall average scores amongstthe pilot test participants, but infrastructure in good condition isan essential prerequisite that enables any port to trade andprovide services for customers. Maintaining and managing infra-structure as a commercial aspect of an organisation shouldemanate from the application of TBL principles but low scoresand lack of practitioner awareness of this pillar as a priorityuphold arguments that TBL does not correspond closely withpractical application. The problem is compounded in smaller portsmanaged by small teams responsible for overseeing all portactivities.

A thought from one HM captures the experience of smallerports industry with regards to existing management tools andsystems: “Initially it was that it is just something else to do whichwould not be used. Now I'm sure, it may be useful in reporting”(HM8, 2013). Further applications in the UK, Europe and globallyare required to develop professional awareness and attitudestowards sustainability in smaller ports, to ensure more sustainableport management and development. Panel studies would assistunderstanding of process development. Cross-sectional research isrequired to underpin comparative testing of implementationstrategies perhaps involving electronic and paper versions ofPSMS. Finally structured research designs accounting for port size,governance and type would assist fine-tuning of PSMS to meetlocal requirements.

Acknowledgement

This project is part funded by European Social Fund – Com-bined Universities of Cornwall Project number 11200NCO5.

Appendix

Table 6 about here.

References

[1] Ports Org.. Ports and Harbours of the UK. 2014. Available at: ⟨http://ports.org.uk/⟩.

[2] Dinwoodie J, Tuck S, Knowles H, Benhin J, Sansom M. Sustainable development ofmaritime operations in ports. Bus Strategy Environ 2012;21(2):111–26.

[3] Visbeck M, Kronfeld-Goharani U, Neumann B, Rickels W, Schmidt J, Van DoornE, Matz-Lück N, Ott K, Quaas M. Securing blue wealth: the need for a specialsustainable development goal for the ocean and coasts. Mar Policy2014;48:184–91.

[4] WOR (World Ocean Review). World ocean review 1. Hamburg: MaribusgGmbH; 2010. ⟨http://worldoceanreview.com/wp-content/downloads/wor1/WOR1_english.pdf⟩.

[5] Feely R, Sabine C, Fabry V. Carbon dioxide and our ocean legacy. Sci Brief April2006:1–3. ⟨http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/feel2899/feel2899.pdf⟩.

[6] UN. Rioþ20. The future we want. 2012. Available at: ⟨http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/733FutureWeWant.pdf⟩.

[7] ESPO. European Port Governance. 2010. Available at: ⟨http://www.espo.be/images/stories/Publications/studies_reports_surveys/espofactfindingreport2010.pdf⟩.

[8] EC. Enterprise and Industry: What is an SME? 2013. Available at: ⟨http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/facts-figures-analysis/sme-definition/⟩.

[9] Interviews with HM10 and HM13 . Main data collection stage. 2013.[10] DEFRA. Safeguarding our Seas. 2002. Available at: ⟨http://archive.defra.gov.uk/

environment/marine/documents/marine_stewardship.pdf⟩.[11] UN. Our Common Future. 1987. Available at: ⟨http://www.un-documents.net/

our-common-future.pdf⟩.[12] Ditty JM, Rezende CE. Unjust and unsustainable: a case study of the ACU port

industrial complex. Mar Policy 2014;45:82–8.[13] OECD. The environmental impacts of increased international maritime ship-

ping. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2008.[14] Ginemez C, Sierra V, Rodon J. Sustainable operations: their impact on the

triple bottom line. Int J Prod Econ 2012;140:149–59.[15] Elkington J. Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line for the 21st century

business. Oxford: Capstone Publishing; 1997.[16] Tullbeg J. Triple bottom line – a vaulting ambition? Bus Ethics 2012;21

(3):310–24.[17] Roome N. Current issues in the greening of industry. Bus Strategy Environ

2006;15(137):138.[18] British Ports Association. Annual Report. 2014. Available at: ⟨http://www.

britishports.org.uk/sites/default/files/bpa_annual_report_2013-14.pdf⟩.[19] Wave Hub. Winner South West Green Energy Awards 2012. 2014. Available at:

⟨http://www.wavehub.co.uk/information-for-developers/falmouth-bay-test-site-fabtest/⟩.

[20] South Devon Coastal Action Group. Phosphate Free Estuaries. 2011. Availableat: ⟨http://auneconservation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Phosphate-Free-leaflet-mark-2-.pdf⟩.

[21] Wooldridge C, McMullen C, Howe V. Environmental management of ports andharbours – implementation of policy through scientific monitoring. Mar Policy1999;23:413–25.

[22] Mansouri M, Nilchiani R, Mostashari A. A policy making framework forresilient port infrastructure systems. Mar Policy 2010;34:1125–34.

[23] Darbra RM, Ronza A, Casal J, Stojanovic T, Wooldridge C. The self diagnosismethod. A new methodology to assess environmental management in seaports. Mar Pollut Bull 2004;48(5–6):420–8.

[24] ESPO. Port Environmental Review. 2009. Available at: ⟨http://www.espo.be/images/stories/Publications/studies_reports_surveys/ESPOEcoPortsPortEnvironmentalReview2009.pdf⟩.

[25] Darbra RM, Ronza A, Stojanovic T, Wooldridge C, Casal J. A procedure foridentifying significant environmental aspects in sea ports. Mar Pollut Bull2005;50(8):866–74.

[26] EcoPorts. EcoPorts Network Map. 2014. Available at: ⟨http://www.ecoports.com/map⟩.

[27] Rye Harbour. Gov.Uk directory. 2014. ⟨https://www.gov.uk/rye-harbour-passage-pilot-and-mooring-information-for-boaters⟩.

[28] EC. Experimental Testing and Diffusion of EMS in the Port of Livorno. 2013.Available at: ⟨http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=se arch.dspPage&n_proj_id=2238&docType=pdf⟩.

[29] Piraeus Port Authority S.A. Environmental Quality Monitoring Programmes.2014. Available at: ⟨http://www.olp.gr/en/nature-protection/nature-quality⟩.

Table 6List of sustainability themes and scoring criteria.

Sustainability theme

Asset Management and Maintenance (AMM)1 A lot of our assets are in poor condition. Immediate attention is required.2 Some assets will be needing renewal or extensive maintenance within the next 5 years.3 Our assets have good future life expectancy.4 Our assets have good life expectancy and have a financed plan for repairs and maintenance.5 As 4; an asset development plan is in place with funding identified.Safety Management (SM)1 We have an unacceptable safety record in the harbour; urgent action is required.

A. Kuznetsov et al. / Marine Policy 54 (2015) 59–6866

Table 6 (continued )

Sustainability theme

2 The safety record in the harbour gives cause for concern.3 We have a good safety record and a strategy for managing safety liability.4 We have a good safety record and an effective safety management system.5 We have a good safety record and a highly effective safety management system (accredited/continually improving).Environmental Knowledge and Awareness (EKA)1 No relevant data relates to the quality of seabed and marine habitats in the harbour.2 We rely on external stakeholders to provide environmental warnings to the Harbour Authority relating to the quality and sustainability of habitats.3 We rely on unreliable data without scientific evidence (past or present) regarding quality of seabed habitat as a vehicle for environmental management.4 We have reliable data on habitat composition and condition.5 We proactively seek new data and knowledge to find tangible evidence to support what we are trying to do, since good science is hard to challenge.Environmental Management (EM)1 No environmental management practices are in place; environmental legal issues are being raised.2 We implement management practices based on an instinctive professional view, rather than a formal environmental assessment process.3 We use research as a mechanism for environmental management; we apply measures to mitigate environmental impacts.4 We undertake appropriate environmental assessment on routine and non-routine operations in the harbour.5 We have an accredited environmental management system to establish the causes and mitigate the environmental impacts of significant operations.Stakeholder Engagement (SE)1 We use reactive measures based on community and stakeholder concerns and conflicts.2 Benefiting our stakeholders is a part of our strategy (e.g. supporting young people, maritime events, sailing at lower price)3 We proactively consult to listen and soften conflicting interests and bring more people to the negotiating table.4 We educate harbour users and are effectively engaging stakeholder groups about issues relating to harbour sustainability and putting a communication strategy in

place.5 We proactively engage with stakeholders and are able to influence stakeholder's perceptions (e.g. governing bodies). We establish working partnerships and take part

in joint projects to benefit the harbour and local community.Business Planning and Management (BPM)1 We have little or no annual surplus, no resources to undertake development, little or no increase in demand and unused infrastructure.2 Investment and development takes place only around the main source of revenue of the harbour.3 We balance supply and demand of assets and infrastructure to reduce maintenance costs, resulting in a consistent surplus.4 We apply business measures to increase efficiency to reduce overall operational costs and increase surplus.5 We have dedicated savings programmes for various long-term planning and improvement initiatives.

We significantly increase the harbour's resilience to the economic climate through contingency planning.We engage the Board's strategic thinking and continue to innovate around existing and new sources of revenue.

Effectiveness of Management Processes (EMP)1 We have documented our management process and policies.2 We have documented our management process and policies and they are inclusive all of our procedures and impacts and have been communicated to the relevant

personnel.3 We are evolving our processes into formal systems for internal use.4 We have formalised management systems covering a range of harbour processes, including statutory, voluntary and best practice.5 We have achieved management system accreditation, and our management systems are reflecting the needs of the people and the organisation.Customer Service and Satisfaction (CSS)1 We expect our customers to adhere to our policies on the use of the harbour and the estuary. We do not measure levels or customer satisfaction.2 We have policies and procedures which we communicate to our customers in order to promote the concept of a safe customer experience.3 We enquire about our customer needs, and deliver products and services that meet these needs, and ask our customers for helpful feedback.4 We establish individual customer needs, are flexible and accommodating, have good working relationships with our customers and deliver tailored products and

services that meet individual customer needs.5 We engage with our customers and gather customer feedback in an effort to improve the customer experience; tailor products and services, as well as having a

dedicated person as a first point of call for each customer.Proactive Partnerships (PP)1 We have experience of conflict with stakeholders and governing bodies (i.e. see action plan). We have not undertaken a stakeholder analysis to identify all possible

stakeholder groups.2 We have identified/have knowledge of our stakeholder groups, but have no programme in place to manage stakeholder relationships3 We have an informal programme in place to manage our stakeholder relationships. We are starting to form working partnerships to share best practice with

stakeholders.4 We have established good working relationships with governing bodies and have developed working partnerships which implement practical measures, share best

practice and help reduce operational impacts.5 We have influential relationships with governing bodies and stakeholders and share operational costs/responsibilities for factors affecting the harbour. We educate

harbour users, openly share best practice and jointly contribute towards improving the harbour credentials.Change Management (CM)1 We have accepted and recognised the need for change due to the unsuitability of the current harbour in the modern society.2 We have identified critical areas of the harbour operations which require change.3 We have started to change our expertise, knowledge and raise awareness in relevant critical areas.4 We are changing our mind-set attitudes and introducing sustainable practices. We are recognising relevant changes in legislation.5 We have fully integrated sustainable practices, are proactive with changing legislation and are continually improving and innovating in the organisation.Strategic Planning for the Future (SPF)1 We are reactive to improving current issues2 We are accepting the need to be proactive and address long-term sustainability of the harbour.3 We plan for the appropriate use and requirements of future resources. We are starting to engage in strategic thinking and forecasting future trends.4 We are starting to address unsustainable business practices through the implementation of a strategic business plan.5 We have addressed unsustainable business practices through the implementation of a strategic business plan outlining the short, medium and long-term

sustainability of the harbour which is reviewed and updated regularly.

A. Kuznetsov et al. / Marine Policy 54 (2015) 59–68 67

[30] ESPO. Greek and Italian ports recognition. 2014. Available at: ⟨http://www.ecoports.com/notice/12/greek-and-italian-ports-achieve-high-environmental-recognition⟩.

[31] Port of Truro. Environmental Management System. 2014. Available at: ⟨http://www.portoftruro.co.uk/download/environmental-management-system⟩.

[32] EcoPorts. Self-diagnosis method brochure. 2011. ⟨http://www.ecoports.com/templates/frontend/blue/images/pdf/SDMBrochure2011.pdf⟩.

[33] EcoPorts. Port environmental review system brochure. 2011a. ⟨http://www.ecoports.com/templates/frontend/blue/images/pdf/PERSBrochure2011.pdf⟩.

[34] Falmouth Harbour Commissioners. Annual Report. 2012. ⟨http://www.falmouthport.co.uk/commercial/html/documents/AnnualReport2012.pdf⟩.

[35] Fowey Harbour Commissioners. Report and Financial Statements. 2012.⟨http://www.foweyharbour.co.uk/assets/file/pdfs/Downloads/Accounts%2031.12.12.pdf⟩.

[36] Port of Milford Haven. Report and Consolidated Financial Statements. 2012.⟨http://www.mhpa.co.uk/uploads/Annual_Results_2012_with_cover.pdf⟩.

[37] Peterhead Port Authority. Report and Financial Statements. 2012. ⟨http://www.peterheadport.co.uk/documents/2012accounts.pdf⟩.

[38] St Ives Harbour. Cornwall Council Municipal Ports Annual Report – St IvesHarbour accounts on page 12. 2012. ⟨http://www.portoftruro.co.uk/files/downloads/2014/01/2013-Annual-Report-Account-2012-13.pdf⟩.

[39] Teignmouth Harbour Commissioners. Signed Accounts for 2012. 2012. ⟨http://www.teignmouthharbour.com/document-library/doc_download/50-thc-signed-accounts-for-2012⟩.

[40] Gadenne D, Kennedy J, McKeiver C. An empirical study of environmentalawareness and practices in SMEs. J Bus Ethics 2009;84(1):45–63.

[41] OECD. Ensuring environmental compliance: trends and good practices. Paris:OECD Publishing; 2009.

[42] Kuznetsov A. Port sustainability management system for smaller ports inCornwall and Devon. (Ph.D. thesis). Plymouth University; 2014. ⟨http://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/3136⟩.

[43] DEFRA. Marine Protected Areas in UK. 2013. Available at: ⟨http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5201⟩.

[44] JNCC. Joint Nature Conservation Committee—Marine Conservation Zones.2014. Available at: ⟨http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4525⟩.

[45] JNCC. Special Areas of Conservation. 2013. Available at: ⟨http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-23⟩.

[46] Natural England. AONB. 2013. Available at: ⟨http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designations/aonb/⟩.

[47] Natural England HC. Heritage Coast. 2013. Available at: ⟨http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designations/heritagecoasts/⟩.

[48] Natural England SSSI. Sites of Special Scientific Interest. 2013. Available at:⟨http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/designations/sssi/default.aspx⟩.

[49] JNCC. Joint Nature Conservation Committee—Special Protected Areas. 2014.Available at: ⟨http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-162⟩.

[50] Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A. Research methods for business students. 6thed. Harlow: Pearson Education; 2012.

[51] Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualita-tive analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.; 2006.

[52] Jenkins L, Garrison K. Fishing gear substitution to reduce bycatch and habitatimpacts: an example of social–ecological research to inform policy. Mar Policy2013;38:293–303.

[53] Parsons J, Dinwoodie J, Roe M. Northern opportunities: a strategic overview ofCanada's Arctic icebreaking services. Mar Policy 2011;35:549–56.

[54] Peterson M, Carothers C. Whale interactions with Alaskan sablefish and Pacifichalibut fisheries: surveying fishermen perceptions, changing fishing practicesand mitigation. Mar Policy 2013;42:315–24.

[55] Strauss A. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press; 1987.

[56] Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory proceduresand techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc.; 1990.

[57] Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory proceduresand techniques. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.; 1998.

[58] Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and proceduresfor developing grounded theory. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage PublicationsInc.; 2008.

[59] Bryant A, Charmaz K, editors. The Sage handbook of grounded theory. London:Sage Publications Ltd.; 2007.

[60] Hastings J, Gruby R, Sievanen L. Science-based coastal management in FIJI:two case studies from NGO sector. Mar Policy 2012;36:907–14.

[61] Knowledge Transfer Partnerships. 2012. The Best of 2012 Award. Available at:⟨http://www.ktponline.org.uk/assets/2012/pdf/6134_TSB_Best_of_the_Best_2012_award_brochure_FINAL.pdf⟩.

[62] FHC. KTP007098, Final Report: Results for the Company Partner. FalmouthHarbour Commissioners, Falmouth, UK. 2012.

A. Kuznetsov et al. / Marine Policy 54 (2015) 59–6868