Ports represent a key element in the maritime transportation chain. Larger vessels and higher traffic volumes in ports might result in higher risks at the navigational level. Thus, the dire need for a comprehensive and efficient risk assessment method for ports is felt. Many methodologies have been proposed so far, but their application to aggregated vessel traffic risks for the overall assessment of ports is not developed yet. Hence, the development of an approach for the appraisal of the vessel traffic risks is still a challenging issue. This research aims to develop an assessment methodology to appraise the potential risk of accident occurrence in port areas at an aggregated level by creating a ‘Nautical Port Risk Index’ (NPRI). After identifying the main nautical risks in ports, the Analytic Network Process (ANP) is used to derive the risk perception (RP) weights for each criterion from data collected through surveys to expert navigators. The consequences related to each nautical risk are identified in consultation with risk experts. By combining the RP values and the consequence of each criterion for a time period, the NPRI is calculated. The risks in the Port of Rotterdam are presented in a case study, and the method has been validated by checking the results with experts in assessing nautical port risks from the Port of Rotterdam Authority. This method can be used to assess any new port design, the performance of different vessel traffic management measures, changes in the fleet composition, or existent ports using the Automatic Identification System (AIS) data.

Long-term sustainable port development requires accounting for the intrinsic values of ecosystems. However, in practice, ecosystem considerations often only enter the planning and design process of ports when required by an Environmental Impact Assessment. At this late stage, most of the design is already fixed and opportunities to minimize and restore ecosystem impacts are limited. In this paper, we adopt a large-scale, ecosystem perspective on port development with the aim to identify ecosystem-based design alternatives earlier and throughout the planning and design of a port’s marine infrastructure. We present a framework, termed the ‘ecosystem-based port design hierarchy’ (EPDH), to identify ecosystem-based alternatives at four hierarchical design levels: 1) alternatives to port developments, 2) port site selection, 3) port layout design, and 4) design of structures and materials. In applying the EPDH framework retrospectively to a case study of port expansion in Tema, Ghana, we establish that ecosystem considerations played only a limited role in identifying and evaluating alternatives at all four design levels in the case study, whereas more eco-friendly alternatives in terms of port layouts, structures, and materials are identified using the EPDH framework. This reveals that opportunities for ecosystem-friendly port designs may have been missed and demonstrates the need for and the potential added value of our framework. The framework can assist practitioners in earlier and wider identification of ecosystem-based alternatives for a port’s marine infrastructure in future seaport developments and, hence, represents an important step towards more sustainable port designs.

In Africa, several new seaport developments are being considered. In sedimentary environments, such port developments can have adverse impacts on the evolution of adjacent coastlines. To learn from past port engineering practice, we created a unique database containing the coastline evolution and characteristics of 130 existing African seaports. Whereas the systematic mapping of coastal impacts was previously hampered by data availability, innovative automated satellite image processing techniques have enabled us to intercompare ports at an unprecedented continental scale. We found large geographical differences with respect to the beach evolution. The total detected changes in the beach area between 1984 and 2018 totaled 44 km², of which ca. 23 km² is accretion and ca. 21 km² is erosion. The top 10% “hotspot” ports account for more than 65% of these changes. These hotspots exhibit common characteristics, namely: they are located on open coastlines, have large alongshore sediment transport potential, and have large cross-shore breakwaters. Although these driving characteristics are well established in coastal engineering theory, our results indicate that the beaches adjacent to the existing seaports have been and remain seriously affected by these drivers. Our results can be used to inform beach maintenance strategies for existing seaports and to support planners and engineers to minimize long-term coastal impacts of port expansions and new port developments in Africa in the future.

In June 2010 a seminar was organised at Delft University of Technology on recent developments in the field of Ports and Waterways. During the seminar 36 papers were presented and discussed, both academic and more practical oriented. It was intended from the outset to publish a selection of the more academic papers in a special issue of EJTIR, which has resulted in this issue, comprising four papers covering very different areas within the field of ports and waterways.

In 2011, the shipping company Maersk announced Triple-E class ships, expected to be the world's largest ships in service. Following this, 22,000 TEU container ships may become a future reality. This proposed evolution in vessel size will necessitate engineering evaluation of most modern ports to determine the capacity to receive these mega vessels. Basic infrastructure, such as the entrance channels, basins, turning circles, and the berthing and waiting areas in a port, must have adequate capacity. Quay walls, jetties, etc. must have sufficient strength to berth and moor these mega vessels safely while supporting heavier quay cranes with longer outreaches. Recently constructed infrastructure in the Port of Rotterdam, designed for Suezmax vessels, was examined to determine if there is sufficient reserve capacity to cope with the much larger 22,000 TEU vessels. The conclusion was that growth in vessel size had been anticipated during the design phase. Therefore, relatively small adaptations were required in the infrastructure. In some scenarios, operational limitations could be imposed to compensate for increased ship dimensions and associated capacity requirements.