647
1 INTRODUCTION
The shipping sector has been experiencing increasing
pressure to reduce emissions, both of nitrogen and
sulfur oxides and greenhouse gases (GHG). To
promote sustainability in the maritime industry,
Annex VI of the MARPOL convention has
progressively introduced several measures and
strategies in recent years, such as Emission Control
Areas (ECAs), ship energy efficiency management, and
requirements concerning the carbon intensity for
international shipping. Other factors aimed at boosting
the sector’s decarbonization are the revised IMO GHG
strategy, setting the ambitious target of carbon
neutrality for 2050 (IMO, 2023), and the introduction of
market-based measures affecting the maritime
industry, such as the Emissions Trading System (ETS).
Within this complex scenario, ship owners and
operators are called to enhance the vessels’
sustainability, considering the time constraints often
set by the regulations. According to DNV (2023), many
strategies may be considered in order to effectively
reduce the impact of the ships in terms of emissions.
Among these possibilities, those identified as having
the greatest potential to ensure the sustainability goals
include using alternative routes, reducing the vessels’
speed, using alternative fuels, and implementing
innovative technologies such as fuel cells or batteries.
Notably, the mentioned technologies and strategies
can be expected to significantly impact the ship’s
management, affecting navigation, port operations,
and fuel consumption. The latter, in addition to
Green Voyage Planning: A Literature Survey on the Role
of Sustainable Technologies and Strategies in Maritime
Operations
R. Fava & G. Satta
University of Genova, Genova, Italy
ABSTRACT: The rapid transition of the maritime sector toward emission-reduction goals set by international
regulators leads to increasing pressure on the industry. Within this context, the present study aims to explore the
potential impact of green technologies and strategies (GT&S) on voyage planning, a core process governed by
IMO provisions, central to ensuring safe and sustainable navigation. The analysis highlighted current research
gaps and proposed insights for future studies, with the aim of supporting the ongoing effort toward maritime
decarbonization. In order to explore how GT&S may influence voyage planning, a targeted literature survey has
been conducted. The selected contributions were grouped into six categories reflecting current technological and
operational trends. Then, their potential impact on the components of voyage planning was assessed from a
qualitative perspective. The survey suggests that all components are likely to be affected, introducing challenges
which have been explored. The fact that most scholarly efforts appear to be primarily directed toward GT&S
enabling short and medium-term sustainability reveals future research opportunities that cannot overlook the
specificities of the shipping segment examined. The human element, in particular the role of masters and relevant
stakeholders, also emerges as pivotal in managing this transition, supporting the need for further research
focused on onboard operators.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 19
Number 2
June 2025
DOI: 10.12716/1001.19.02.36
648
directly having an effect on emissions, significantly
influences the financial performance of the shipping
company, as fuel expenses account for approximately
47 % of voyage costs, according to Stopford (2008). In
other words, the voyages of manned vessels are
expected to be affected in various ways by the
aforementioned solutions. From the perspective of
onboard management, chapter V of SOLAS
Convention and section A-VIII/2 of STCW Code
establish requirements regarding voyage planning.
Among these, the following are deemed relevant to the
present work.
IMO regulations emphasize that the intended
voyage has to be planned in advance under the
Master’s responsibility, using adequate, appropriate,
and up-to-date information (such as nautical
publications and charts as well as the ship’s technical
data). During this process, the ships’ routing systems
have expressly been mentioned to be accounted for, as
well as the required compliance with the
environmental measures. Besides, all navigational
hazards consistent over time or foreseeable, as well as
weather conditions, have to be considered. The
planned track has to guarantee an adequate sea room
in order to ensure safe navigation; as a result, a set of
margins of safety is often adopted. Once the plan is
developed, it has to be continuously available to deck
officers in charge of the watch and clearly displayed on
the navigational charts. In addition to these provisions,
which are primarily related to navigation, IMO
regulations set out others that impact ship
management from a broader perspective. The required
needs for the voyage have to be carefully established
by the Chief Engineer in cooperation with the Master.
More precisely, an estimation of all consumables is
required, including fuel, water, and spare parts.
Additionally, the Master’s autonomy in decision-
making on matters related to safety and environmental
protection is safeguarded by the aforementioned
regulations. Specifically, it is required that neither
owners, operators, nor any other person shall constrain
the Master in exercising his professional judgment to
make and implement such decisions.
Given their importance, the mentioned
requirements are often integrated into onboard
procedures established by shipping companies,
becoming part of the Safety Management System
(SMS). To enhance the effectiveness of this process, the
shipowners’ association International Chamber of
Shipping has issued guidelines (ICS, 2022), which in
Chapter 3 outline the key points for developing the
SMS section related to the planning of the voyage. The
current state of navigation procedures, particularly in
the cruise ship industry, often exceeds the regulations’
minimum standards, as Di Lieto (2015) indicates.
However, this study only focuses on the IMO
requirements, allowing for a more comprehensive
assessment of the impact of green solutions on the
globalized shipping sector.
1.1 Voyage Planning Guidelines
The SOLAS Convention refers to the Guidelines for
Voyage Planning (IMO, 1999) to provide more detailed
information for officers and masters. It recommends
planning the voyage from departure to arrival berth,
including pilotage in harbours or restricted waters.
Furthermore, voyage planning is divided into four
components, which are briefly outlined below,
focusing more on what is considered relevant for the
present work.
1.1.1 Appraisal
This component involves gathering all available
information relevant to the intended voyage plan and
aimed at identifying all hazards, safely navigable areas,
and zones subjected to environmental restrictions. It
involves a large number of items that are difficult to
list, some of which are explicitly mentioned in the
guidelines. Among them are the vessel’s technical
conditions and the pertinent certificates, which may
lead to operational constraints, as well as manoeuvring
or navigation limitations. Besides, an appropriate set of
nautical publications has to be included in the
appraisal, in particular up-to-date nautical charts,
sailing directions, lists of radio aids to navigation, and
other relevant sources. Data related to climate and
weather conditions have to be gathered during this
first step, along with information concerning the
availability of weather routing services. Notably, the
guidelines recommend consulting sources that provide
information on the availability of emergency support
arrangements in the ports.
1.1.2 Planning
Based on the information gathered during the
appraisal, a detailed voyage plan has to be developed
and made available both in the relevant log and
notebook, as well as on navigational charts. This
document is intended to serve as a reliable tool for
ensuring safe, environmentally compliant, and
efficient navigation. Among the relevant elements that
should be included in the plan, the plot of the entire
route’s features, dangerous areas, environmental
protection measures, required speed alterations, and
the course alterations design are notable factors. A set
of proper safety indicators is recommended at this
stage, which includes the evaluation of the safe speed
and the estimation of minimal vessel clearances
required. Contingency measures for emergencies
requiring deviation from the planned route are also to
be included, outlining alternative actions, such as
moving the vessel to deep water, seeking a port of
refuge, or anchoring in a safe area. These measures
have to be planned considering the available
emergency response services, onboard and shore-
based resources, as well as the specificities of the
vessel.
1.1.3 Execution
The guidelines clearly state that the plan has to be
executed. The document in this section once again
highlights the significant reliance on the Master’s
professional judgment. In particular, the Master is
responsible for assessing situations where
unacceptable hazards to navigation may arise or where
enhanced manning for navigational and engine
watches may be required during the execution.
Notably, this is not considered a “static component”
but one that may evolve as circumstances change. By
listing key elements, guidelines help to identify the
main factors leading to departures from the plan. These
include time constraints for reaching critical points
649
(particularly those influenced by tides and tidal flows)
or the presence of hazardous areas. Meteorological
conditions and weather routing information are
included as elements that may contribute to such
deviations.
1.1.4 Monitoring
It is required that the vessel’s movement is
continuously monitored. This implies, on one hand,
that the voyage plan remains readily accessible and
easily consultable by the officers in charge. On the
other hand, effective monitoring relies on the proper
use of navigational systems designed for this purpose.
According to IMO (2007), these systems are associated
with route monitoring, collision avoidance, and track
control tasks, primarily including ECDIS, radar, and
track control systems. The guidelines then highlight
the strong interconnection between monitoring and
execution, as both take place simultaneously. For
instance, any modifications to the plan have to be
clearly recorded and made readily available to the
personnel in charge.
1.2 Further considerations
As previously mentioned, the four components
discussed are grounded in IMO regulations. From a
broader perspective, however, it is useful to include
two additional preliminary steps prior to the appraisal:
voyage instructions and the confirmation of the
intended destination. These elements are particularly
relevant in certain cargo ship operations, where early-
stage decisions can influence the overall voyage
planning.
2 METHODOLOGY
On the basis of the previous considerations, this study
aims to investigate the potential impact of GT&S on
voyage planning and suggest possible research gaps as
well as future research opportunities. To address this,
the two research objectives have been formulated:
RO1: To critically examine the pertinent academic
literature related to the impact of green technologies
and strategies on voyage planning, focusing on the
officers’ and onboard management perspective.
RO2: To provide insights into key challenges
associated with the adoption of green technologies and
strategies for each component of the voyage planning,
highlighting potential gaps in the literature and
suggesting future research directions to address these
challenges.
To achieve RO1, a literature survey has been carried
out. According to Klakeel et al. (2023), such an
approach, consisting of querying bibliographic
databases to detect relevant contributions from the past
five years, could be effective in order to do an
explorative analysis concerning green technologies in
the maritime sector. Given the growing research
interest in the decarbonization of the shipping industry
and the specific focus of this study, multiple selection
criteria have been established for the survey, as
outlined in Figure 1 and Table 1. This strategy has been
selected as a similar approach was adopted in previous
studies (Jovic et al., 2022; Fan et al., 2023), which,
despite being more complex than the present work,
have addressed a broad research domain concerning
the same industry.
Figure 1. Steps of survey (source: authors’ own elaboration).
Table 1. Description of the adopted selection criteria.
Preliminary selection criteria
Exclusion
Subject areas excluded: health
and nursery science,
pharmacology, neuroscience, art
and humanities, agricultural and
biologicals science, areas related
to genetics, biology and
biochemistry, chemical
engineering and material science.
Non-English languages.
Additionally selection criteria
Exclusion
Papers not mainly focused on
maritime industry;
Contributions addressed only to
decision-makers of shipping
companies to effectively deploy
ships, with a limited or negligible
impact on onboard operations.
Studies addressed only to
autonomous vessels.
Source: authors’ own elaboration
The Scopus database was queried in February 2025
using the string: (vpp OR “voyage passage planning”
OR “passage planning” OR “route”) AND (ship OR
vessel* OR maritime) AND (green OR emission*).
Upon completion of step 1, a total of 630 articles have
been retrieved from the database. Subsequently, such
papers have been screened by applying the additional
selection criteria, primarily focusing on their abstracts
and overall research outcomes. At the conclusion of
step 2, 63 articles were selected for the analysis.
According to Shukla (2017), step 3 involved the review
of such contributions, intended to summarize and
critically evaluate the papers’ content in accordance
with the aim of this work.
To achieve RO2, the survey findings were critically
examined to identify potential challenges that the
implementation of GT&S may pose to voyage
planning. In this phase, the main outcomes were
graphically summarized to provide a comprehensive
view. Afterward, potential gaps were suggested to
identify future research opportunities.
The main limitations of this study lie in its
exploratory nature. The topic addressed is extremely
broad, and some level of generalization was therefore
unavoidable. Moreover, the literature survey was
limited to a relatively short time frame, and adopted
highly selective criteria (excluding, for instance,
650
conference papers and book chapters). As such, the
present work should be regarded only as a preliminary
contribution that offers insights to be further validated
and deepened in future studies.
3 OUTCOMES OF THE SURVEY AND
DISCUSSION
3.1 Impacts of GT&S on voyage planning
To achieve RO1, a literature survey has been carried
out, and the main findings are summarized in the
Appendix. As outlined in Figure 2, the papers retrieved
were primarily categorized according to the research
field and nature of the study, and, where specified, the
type of vessels they address.
Figure 2. Description of the sample reviewed (source:
authors’ own elaboration).
Nearly half of the contributions fall under the
category of voyage optimization and weather routing
(47.6%), highlighting the central research interest in
this area, considered a key pathway to decarbonize the
sector by the scientific community. Notably, an
appreciable share of studies involving technologies
and strategies aimed at supporting long-term
sustainability have been reported, as well as a concrete
interest in evaluating Arctic routes as a valuable
measure to reduce the GHG emissions of merchant
vessels. Most studies (76.2%) propose the development
of frameworks, models, or decision support systems
(DSS), demonstrating the prevailing quantitative
approach often adopted, aimed at developing effective
tools for decision makers and seafarers. Regarding the
targeted vessel types, although 55.6% of studies do not
specify a particular focus, it can be inferred that they
target either all vessels, specific stakeholders, or public
administrations. Among the other research, a non-
negligible share focuses on liners (17.5 %). This
category includes both the studies explicitly focused on
liners and those addressing vessels operating on pre-
established and regular scheduling routes (Babicz,
2015), such as ferries. On the other hand, 7.9 % of
articles deal with GHG reduction of tramp shipping.
The remaining part of the papers is related to specific
crafts (wind-assisted ships, electric or hybrid vessels)
or to inland navigation.
3.1.1 Voyage optimization & Weather routing
This research area encompasses measures aimed at
reducing various quantities (such as fuel consumption,
GHG emissions, costs, and voyage duration) to
enhance vessels’ environmental compliance and
energy efficiency through the selection of appropriate
navigation parameters. Most of the identified studies
propose single or multi-objective optimization models
addressed to decision-makers or onboard officers.
These frameworks typically include constraints related
to the voyage’s first and last waypoints, arrival time
window, and operational safety. When the forecasted
sea state and weather conditions are also included
among the input variables, the literature generally
refers to weather routing. The navigation parameters
most frequently affected in the reviewed models are
speed and legs design, which collectively account for
63.3 % of the cases. Concerning speed adjustment,
Zhao et al. (2025), Yang et al. (2024), and Wang et al.
(2021) proposed models aimed at providing directly
RPMs or engine powers to officers, reducing
operational complexity. However, as indicated by
Yang et al. (2020), it is not always clear whether voyage
optimization systems indicate SOG or STW
suggestions, requiring adequate interpretation skills
by the users. Interestingly, many studies (such as Li et
al., 2024 and Xie et al., 2023) include trim adjustment to
enhance energy efficiency. Regarding navigational
constraints, various papers expressly refer to areas to
be avoided, shallow waters in relation to bathymetry,
and obstacles. The frameworks developed in some
contributions also account for other factors useful to
ensure emissions compliance or effective nautical
operations. For instance, Grandcolas (2022), Ma et al.,
(2021), and Kuhlemann et al., (2020) consider ECAs in
their proposed frameworks, acknowledging the higher
costs associated with sailing through these zones. The
results presented by Grandcolas (2022) also indicate
that the developed algorithm is capable of avoiding
ECAs in some cases. Cheng et al. (2025) include
compliance with CII regulations and the selection of
cargo types and quantities in their voyage optimization
model addressed to the tramp shipping sector. Models
and frameworks have also been reviewed that take into
account other relevant factors concerning voyage
planning, such as pirate areas (Kuhlemann et al., 2020)
or under keel clearance (Mannarini et al., 2024). In the
same vein, Nzualo et al. (2021) outline a speed
optimization framework mainly based on tides to
improve the environmental performance of merchant
shipping.
Recent research addresses the current limitations of
voyage optimization and weather routing systems.
Among the most relevant efforts, the improvement of
fuel consumption prediction models is deemed
essential (Yang et al., 2024). Another critical aspect is
the refinement of the multi-objective approaches
651
(Grifoll et al., 2022), which are considered paramount
(Ma et al., 2024). Within this context, some studies
pointed out that assigning different weights to
objectives may produce different results (Ma et al.,
2021; Zhen et al., 2020), leading to a possible lack of
transparency for the onboard users. Cheng et al. (2025)
further point out the potential conflict between
multiple and complex objectives. Concerning weather
routing, the quality of the forecasts is deemed crucial
for the systems’ performance (Guo et al., 2024). To
address this, efforts have been made to enhance the
resilience of the models, for instance, by increasing the
spatial and temporal resolutions of input data.
Adaptive routing approaches are emerging as a
necessary feature for long voyages (Mannarini et al.,
2024, Xie et al., 2023), allowing dynamic adjustments of
the navigation parameters based on real-time weather
data.
The mentioned considerations, together with the
findings summarized in the Appendix, indicate that
voyage optimization and weather routing systems
have the potential to influence multiple components of
voyage planning. Given that the quality of input data
is considered critical, a proper appraisal seems crucial.
Moreover, as navigation parameters are often affected,
the other components are therefore impacted as well.
3.1.2 Wind-assisted navigation
This research area aims to convert the wind’s
kinematic energy into additional thrust, which
supports the vessel’s propulsion and reduces fuel
consumption and, therefore, GHG emissions.
According to Xing et al. (2020), this is possible by
implementing onboard technologies such as wing sails,
kites, or Flettner rotors. These structures have the
potential to impact, either temporarily or permanently,
the vessel’s structure and reduce the air draught. The
adoption of wind-assisted propulsion can also affect
navigation. For instance, the results of Mason et al.
(2023a) suggest combining voyage optimization with
this technology to drastically cut carbon emissions.
Similarly, Guzelbulut et al. (2024) indicate that speed
adjustment and transit in favourable wind zones can
reduce energy consumption. This study also proposes
to enable delays to obtain the optimal conditions.
Besides, Mason et al. (2023a) and Sun et al. (2022)
address weather routing models affecting both speed
and way points design to reduce the fuel consumption
of wind-assisted ships. These considerations offer
insights into how the adoption of wind-assisted
technologies may influence the elements of voyage
planning, such as speed and route design, ETA-related
aspects, and navigational constraints.
3.1.3 Ships’ electrification
This category includes vessels equipped with
electric propulsion and auxiliary systems, which may
also incorporate batteries and other energy generation
or storage technologies. Commonly referred to as all-
electric ships, these vessels represent a key focus of
current research, as ships’ electrification is considered
a promising pathway to achieve sustainability goals
(DNV, 2023). As summarized in the Appendix, the
reviewed studies suggest that such ships are expected
to become more widespread in inland navigation,
short-sea shipping, and vessels operating on fixed
routes. The surveyed literature indicates that the
configuration of onboard systems calls for appropriate
energy management and, eventually, charging
strategies. To address these challenges, optimization
models are proposed to decision-makers and officers,
often sharing the goal of reducing total or operational
transport service costs. Focusing on the impact on the
voyage planning, Havre et al. (2024) propose a system
for designing high-speed battery electric passenger
craft networks that incorporate dynamic scheduling
based on transport demand, with implications for both
route selection and speeds. Hein et al. (2021) present an
optimization model for electric vessels fitted with
hybrid energy storage systems, which, taking into
account the degradation of the energy stored, the sea-
state conditions, and obstacles, is capable of solving
problems related to routing and speed optimization.
Furthermore, Gao et al. (2024) advocate for a joint
evaluation of voyage optimization and power
generation in the context of electric ships. Their study
proposes a multi-objective optimization model
designed to minimize both operational costs and SO₂
emissions, influencing route and speed planning, while
also accounting for ECAs.
3.1.4 Alternative fuels
The adoption of alternative fuels such as natural
gas, methanol, hydrogen, and ammonia is considered
a promising decarbonization strategy for shipping. In
this perspective, maritime transport is facing
challenges that, among the most relevant, concern the
lack of adequate international regulations, the
establishment of reliable supply chains, and safety-
related issues, leading to the potential reshaping of
transport services, with possible implications on
voyage planning. The contributions examined pointed
out challenges concerning the availability and
adequacy of bunkering infrastructures for merchant
shipping, confirming the reviews of Xing et al. (2020).
More in detail, some authors recall the limited
availability of LNG and methanol bunkering in ports
(He et al., 2024; Gao et al., 2025) while the situation
appears even more critical with regard to fuels
enabling zero emissions, such as green hydrogen
(Atilhan et al., 2021). The low volumetric energy
density of alternative fuels, especially those allowing
net-zero goals (Law et al., 2021), may lead to carrying
onboard a limited quantity of energy, with the
subsequent necessity to increase the frequency of
bunkering. Within this context, He et al. (2024) and Gao
et al. (2025) suggest voyage optimization systems
addressed to tramps and liners, respectively. It is worth
noting that both frameworks are designed to minimize
costs, considering fuel prices and suggesting adequate
bunkering strategies. In doing so, the first model affects
the choice of port of calls and speed, while the second
provides the recommended speed for the voyage. The
complexity of handling alternative fuels, coupled with
their chemical properties, represents another critical
factor that often leads to hazards for nautical
operations (Gao et al., 2025; Atilhan et al., 2021).
The mentioned findings depict a complex scenario
in which onboard operators and managers are required
to collaborate. It has also been outlined that certain
navigation parameters may be affected in order to
ensure profitability, especially in a context where fuel
costs are expected to remain high in the medium term.
652
3.1.5 Green corridors & strategies
Green Shipping Corridors (GSCs) represent a
strategy considered highly promising for achieving
maritime industry decarbonization. According to DNV
(2023), these corridors encompass maritime routes
connecting some ports, specifically characterized by
zero-emissions maritime operations. This concept aims
at developing the necessary infrastructure and
frameworks to support the adoption of alternative
fuels, zero-emission technologies, and other relevant
measures. The active collaboration among shipowners,
stakeholders, and administrations is considered
essential, given the complexity involved in developing
GSCs. Several challenges, mainly related to appraisal
and planning, emerge from the literature analysed
concerning this strategy. For instance, Jesus et al. (2024)
highlight, in their introductory remarks, critical factors
such as fuel availability and the existing regulatory
gaps. On the other hand, Bengue et al. (2024) indicate
the necessity of infrastructure investments alongside
the implementation of suitable safety and security
measures concerning the realization of GSCs.
Other strategies and measures potentially affecting
voyage planning have emerged from the literature.
Among these, slow steaming, defined as operating
vessels at speeds lower than their design speed, has
been recognized as an effective approach (Gospić et al.,
2022). Notably, Xing et al. (2020) indicate the human
factor as an operational measure to cut emissions,
emphasizing the potential for emissions reduction
through improved education and training of ship
operators in energy-efficient practices. Furthermore,
both Xing et al. (2020) and Poulsen et al. (2020) address,
albeit differently, the environmental impact mitigation
achievable through the optimization of port
operations, such as by reducing ships’ turnaround
time. Finally, Hwang et al. (2023) propose the emission
control route concept, aimed at overcoming the
limitations of ECAs and speed reduction programs,
focusing their analysis on liner shipping operations.
3.1.6 Arctic routes
A non-negligible share of the papers reviewed focus
on Arctic routes (15.9 %), which are gaining increasing
attention due to the distance savings they offer along
several commercial routes. The scientific community is
called upon to assess the balance between the
reduction of GHG emissions achieved through shorter
sailing distances and the environmental impact on the
Arctic ecosystem, often taking into account fuel price
fluctuations, operational costs, and additional safety
concerns. The studies reviewed indicate a plausible
increase in traffic along Arctic routes expected in the
coming decades due to more favourable ice conditions
(Chen et al., 2022; Christensen et al., 2022). This
upward trend appears to be confirmed by Tsai et al.
(2023), who also consider compliance with CII
regulations. Ding et al. (2020) indicate that the
Northern Sea Route (NSR) would remain more
advantageous than the Suez Canal Route under
various carbon tax scenarios applied to the liner
shipping, further suggesting a potential increase in
traffic. Notwithstanding the possible economic and
environmental advantages of sailing on arctic routes,
some papers also consider operational risks.
Christensen et al. (2022) advocate for the adoption of
additional measures focused on the search and rescue
(SAR) capabilities and environmental protection.
Specifically, they recommend that authorities prioritize
the development of adequate infrastructure in
proximity to high-risk areas while encouraging
shipping companies to invest in reinforced vessels,
characterized by appropriate polar class certification.
Chen S. et al. (2022) also examine navigational hazards,
indicating sea ice as the primary impediment to
navigation along the NSR, which causes significant
risks even to structurally robust vessels during the
winter season. Researchers propose models to support
navigation as well. For instance, Chen A. et al. (2023)
present a multi-objective optimization algorithm for
path planning in Arctic waters to minimize
navigational risks connected to ice and operational
costs. Ryan et al. (2021) developed a ship performance
model, which the authors present as a tool to support
Arctic navigation, primarily aimed at predicting fuel
consumption while also accounting for ice conditions.
The reviewed literature highlights that Arctic routes
may affect voyage planning in several ways. First, the
region’s specificities increase navigational hazards in a
sea area lacking adequate infrastructure. Additionally,
optimization systems targeting officers and decision
makers are suggested, which are likely to influence
onboard operations related to navigation.
3.2 Challenges and research gaps concerning voyage
planning
The information obtained from the survey, discussed
in Section 3 and summarized in the Appendix, also
contributed to the achievement of RO2. In particular,
the survey suggested that the implementation of GT&S
may pose challenges affecting the four components of
voyage planning, as summarized in Figures 3 and 4.
Figure 3. Potential challenges related to the adoption of
GT&S impacting appraisal and planning (source: authors’
own elaboration).
653
Figure 4. Potential challenges related to the adoption of
GT&S impacting execution and monitoring (source: authors’
own elaboration).
One of the key challenges identified concerns
potential issues in retrieving information during the
appraisal phase. For instance, the reviewed literature
emphasizes the importance of reliable weather and sea-
state forecasts as valuable input data for weather
routing, along with other essential inputs for voyage
optimization models (such as fuel prices, ECAs, and
areas to be avoided). Furthermore, with respect to
alternative fuels and green corridors, the lack of
bunkering infrastructure, ongoing safety concerns, and
the lack of regulations suggest that, at present or in the
short to medium term, accessing adequate information
through official sources may be challenging. Another
potential criticality lies in the increased amount of
information that officers will be required to collect
during the appraisal phase. In addition to those already
mentioned, particular attention should be paid to data
related to the characteristics of green technologies and
their associated certifications.
The voyage, both in its planning and execution, may
also be influenced by bunkering or charging strategies
required to address the low volumetric energy density
associated with green storage systems, leading to other
potential concerns.
The adoption of GT&S is also expected to increase
the technological complexity of vessels and navigation
systems. In light of ongoing research trends, the use of
more advanced optimization models and decision
support systems appears necessary. While this
evolution offers potential benefits, it also introduces
challenges as seafarers will be required to have
adequate skills and awareness in operating such
systems, particularly in view of the potential lack of
transparency outlined in the literature. Furthermore,
this shift will demand closer collaboration between
masters and decision-makers within shipping
companies, as many of the proposed models are
explicitly designed to reduce costs and rely on
economic input data. This latter aspect may, in turn,
create issues or constraints on the exercise of the
master’s professional judgment, thereby limiting the
potential benefits of adopting GT&S. Similarly, the
arising of safety-related issues (such as those
associated with alternative fuels or the increased risks
in navigation) may generate tensions between the
company and the Master, as well as impact onboard
operations, thereby confirming that the human factor
should also be carefully considered in this transition.
It should also be noted that, according to Figure 2,
the majority of the reviewed studies address measures
which, in line to DNV (2023), are not sufficient on their
own to achieve the net-zero target, such as weather
routing, voyage optimization, and polar routes
(accounting for 63.5% of the sample). Moreover, these
areas are already regulated by mandatory IMO
instruments: weather routing is explicitly mentioned in
IMO (1999), while polar navigation falls under SOLAS
Chapter XIV requirements and the Polar Code. By
contrast, other topics with greater potential to enhance
sustainability appear to be underexplored in terms of
their implications for voyage planning.
On the basis of the previous considerations, several
opportunities for future research can be identified.
First, the reviewed sample reveals a scarcity of studies
directly addressing seafarers and adopting qualitative
research approaches, highlighting the need to further
investigate the impact of GT&S in voyage planning by
involving the perspective of masters and deck officers.
The findings also suggest the importance of engaging
other relevant stakeholders in future investigations,
such as harbour pilots regarding safety issues, and
hydrographic offices concerning the availability of
information in nautical publications. The impact of low
or zero-emission technologies, such as those related to
the adoption of alternative fuels, on voyage planning
emerges as a further potential area of investigation.
Finally, given that several studies are specifically
focused on liners or tramps and considering the
significant differences between these shipping
segments, it appears necessary to carry out future
studies for these vessel types separately.
4 CONCLUSIONS
The findings of the survey indicate that all components
of voyage planning are expected to be affected by the
adoption of GT&S. In order to meet the ambitious
sustainability goals set by international regulations, an
increased complexity of onboard systems is expected,
leading to the potential challenges outlined in the
present study. This scenario is further complicated by
the possible rise in risks associated with maritime
transport, for instance, regarding the utilization of
alternative fuels or during polar navigation. Given the
identified research gaps, future investigations should
involve the seafarers’ perspective more directly. In
particular, exploring the viewpoint of masters appears
essential, as they represent a critical link between
onboard operations and shore-based decision makers.
It seems further necessary to differentiate future
analyses between liner and tramp shipping segments,
due to their operational and structural differences.
654
APPENDIX
Table 2. Key features of the sub-sample focused on voyage optimization and weather routing. All studies address models,
frameworks, or DSS.
Reference of paper
Navigation
parameters affected
Meteo-oceanographic
elements considered
Quantity optimized
Notes
Zhao et al., (2025)
Engine RPM, legs
design
Wind, Waves
Voyage duration, CO2
emissions
Elements considered: Shallow waters
avoidance
Cheng et al., (2025)
Speed, legs design
Total costs
Addressed to Tramps. Elements
considered: Fuel price, cargo selection
and quantity, CII compliance
Song et al., (2025)
Engine power, legs
design, ROT
Wind, Waves, Currents
Fuel consumption, SO2
emissions
Guo et al., (2024)
Speed, legs design
Wind, Waves
Fuel consumption, voyage
duration
Yang et al., (2024)
Engine RPM
Wind, Waves
Fuel consumption
Li et al., (2024)
Speed, legs design,
trim
Wind, Waves
Fuel consumption
Mannarini et al.,
(2024)
Legs design
Wind, Waves, Currents
CO2 emissions
Elements considered: UKC
Ma et al., 2024
Speed, legs design
Wind, Waves
CO2 emissions, voyage
duration, operational costs
Elements considered: shallow waters,
obstacles
Zhao et al., (2024)
Speed, legs design
Wind, Waves
Fuel consumption, voyage
duration
Elements considered: shallow waters
Xie et al., (2023)
Speed
Fuel consumption
Wang H. et al., (2023)
Speed
Total costs
Addressed to inland vessels. Elements
considered: fuel price considered, Time
window and width of narrow channels
Wang Z. et al., (2023)
Speed
Wind, Waves, Drifting
ices
Fuel consumption
Addressed to Hybric-electric cruise
ships.
Du et al., (2023)
Speed, legs design
Wind, Waves
Fuel consumption
Elements considered: areas to be
avoided
Zhou et al., (2023)
Speed, legs design
Wind, Waves
One customizable quantity (i.e
Fuel consumption, voyage
duration, etc.)
Grifoll et al., (2022)
Speed, legs design
Waves
Voyage duration
Grandcolas (2022)
Speed, legs design
Wind, Waves
One customizable quantity (i.e
Fuel consumption, voyage
duration, etc.)
Elements considered: ECAs, area to be
avoided
Borén et al., (2022)
Speed, legs design
Waves
Voyage duration
Li et al., (2022)
Speed
Wind, Waves, Currents
Fuel consumption
Addressed to Liners
Gao et al., (2022)
Trim
Wind
Energy consumption
Addressed to Liners
Ma et al., (2021)
Speed, legs design
Wind, Waves
Fuel consumption, Total costs
Addressed to Tramps. Elements
considered: ECAs
Wang K. et al., (2021)
Speed, legs design
Wind, Waves
Energy consumption
Nzualo et al., (2021)
Speed
Tides
Operational costs
Addressed to Tramps. Elements
considered: shallow waters
Wang H. et al., (2021)
Engine power, legs
design
Wind, Waves
Fuel consumption, arrival
punctuality
Elements considered: shallow waters
Zhao et al., (2021)
Speed, legs design
Wind, Waves
Fuel consumption, voyage
duration, meteorological risk
Johannessen et al.,
(2021)
Detailed oceanographic
data
Kuhlemann et al.,
(2020)
Speed, legs design
Wind, Waves
Fuel consumption
Elements considered: ECAs, pirate
zones
Wang K. et al., (2020)
Speed, legs design
Wind, Waves
Fuel consumption
Yang et al., (2020)
Speed
Currents
Fuel consumption
Li et al., (2020)
Speed
Wind, Waves
Fuel consumption, Operational
costs
Addressed to Liners.
Zhen et al., (2020)
Speed, legs design
Fuel consumption, SO2
emissions
Addressed to Liners. Fuel price
considered.
Source: authors’ own elaboration
Table 3. Key features of the sub-sample focused on Wind-assisted navigation.
Reference of
paper
Type of the study
If the study involves an optimization model
Notes
Navigation
parameters affected
Meteo-oceanographic
elements considered
Quantity
optimized
Ghorbani et al.,
(2024)
Simulation
Guzelbulut et
al., (2024)
Framework, Model or
DSS development
Speed, legs design
Wind
Energy
consumption
Mason et al.,
(2023a)
Empirical investigation
Speed, legs design
Wind, Waves
Fuel
consumption
The optimization model is used
to carry out a simulation
Mason et al.,
(2023b)
Framework, Model or
DSS development
Model presented for the
calculation of the fuel
consumption
Sun et al., (2022)
Framework, Model or
DSS development
Speed, legs design
Wind, waves
Fuel
consumption
Tilling et al.,
(2020)
Framework, Model or
DSS development
Speed
Addressed to wind-assisted liners
Source: authors’ own elaboration
655
Table 4. Key features of the sub-sample focused on the Ships’ electrification.
Reference of
paper
Type of the study
If the study involves an optimization model
Notes
Navigation
parameters
affected
Meteo-oceanographic
elements considered
Quantity optimized
Havre et al.,
(2024)
Framework, Model or
DSS development
Speed, legs
design
Total costs
The study is applied to inland
navigation
Gao et al.,
(2024)
Framework, Model or
DSS development
Speed, legs
design
Operational costs, SO2
emissions
The study is applied to a container
domestic shipping route. ECAs are
considered
Karountzos et
al., (2023)
Framework, Model or
DSS development
Addressed to a coastal shipping
network
Wang et al.,
(2022)
Framework, Model or
DSS development
Total costs
Addressed to specific inland areas.
Focused on the deployment of all
electric ships
Hein et al.,
(2021)
Framework, Model or
DSS development
Speed, legs
design
Waves
Operational costs,
Energy storage
degradation
Addressed to ships equipped with
hybrid energy storage system
Source: authors’ own elaboration
Table 5. Key features of the sub-sample focused on the Alternative fuels.
Reference of
paper
Type of the study
Fuel
If the study involves an optimization
model
Notes
Navigation
parameters affected
Quantity
optimized
Gao et al.,
(2025)
Framework, Model or DSS
development
Methanol
Speed
Operational
costs
Addressed to Liners.
Elements considered: fuel price,
ECAs, bunkering ports
He et al.,
(2024)
Framework, Model or DSS
development
LNG
Speed, legs design
Total costs
Addressed to Tramps.
Elements considered: fuel price,
bunkering ports
Perna et al.,
(2023)
Framework, Model or DSS
development
Green Hydrogen
The study addresses the green
hydrogen supply chain
Law et al.,
(2021)
Lifecycle analysis
Main alternative fuel
pathways
Comparison of alternative fuels
from LC perspective
Atilhan et al.,
(2021)
Review
Green Hydrogen
The study addresses the green
hydrogen supply chain
Pfeifer et al.,
(2021)
Framework, Model or DSS
development
Hydrogen
Engine power
Addressed to Liners
Source: authors’ own elaboration
Table 6. Key features of the sub-sample focused on the Green corridors and strategies.
Reference of
paper
Type of the study
Strategy
Navigation parameters
affected
Jesus et al.,
(2024)
Framework, Model or DSS
development
Green shipping corridors
Bengue et al.,
(2024)
Empirical investigation
Green shipping corridors
Hwang et al.,
(2023)
Framework, Model or DSS
development
Emission control routes
Speed, legs design
Gospić et al.,
(2022)
Empirical investigation
Slow steaming
Speed
Poulsen et al.,
(2020)
Mixed analysis
Port call optimization
Xing et al., (2020)
Review
CO2 emissions reduction in
shipping
Source: authors’ own elaboration
Table 7. Key features of the sub-sample focused on the Arctic routes.
Reference of paper
Type of the study
Notes
Kavirathna et al.,
(2023)
Framework, Model or DSS
development
An optimization model is proposed, aimed at minimizing CO2 emissions or total costs.
Speed is the only parameter affected
Chen A. et al.,
(2023)
Framework, Model or DSS
development
An optimization model is proposed, aimed at minimizing operational costs. The system
supports path planning considering meteorological risks
Tsai et al., (2023)
Empirical investigation
Investigate the effect of CII on Arctic routes
Li et al., (2023)
Empirical investigation
Feasibility of Arctic sea roads
Chen S. et al.,
(2022)
Empirical investigation
Study regarding the navigability of the Northern sea route
Christensen et al.,
(2022)
Empirical investigation
Risk-based analysis for the Arctic navigation
Ryan et al., (2021)
Framework, Model or DSS
development
A tool for calculate fuel consumption during Arctic navigation environmental conditions is
proposed
Dai et al., (2021)
Mixed analysis
Analysis concerning transportation of LNG via Arctic routes
Wang Z. et al.,
(2021)
Mixed analysis
Addressed to Liners networks
Ding et al., (2020)
Mixed analysis
Addressed to Liners networks
Source: authors’ own elaboration
656
REFERENCES
Atilhan S., Park S., El-Halwagi M.M., Atilhan M.; Moore M.,
Nielsen R.B. Green hydrogen as an alternative fuel for the
shipping industry. Current Opinion in Chemical
Engineering 2021, 31:100668.
Babicz J., (2015). Wartsila encyclopedia of ship technology,
second edition. Wartsila.
Bengue A.A., Alavi-Borazjani S.A., Chkoniya V., Cacho J.L.;
Fiore M. Prioritizing Criteria for Establishing a Green
Shipping Corridor Between the Ports of Sines and Luanda
Using Fuzzy AHP. Sustainability 2024, 16, 9563.
Borén C.; Castells-Sanabra M.; Grifoll M. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part M: Journal of
Engineering for the Maritime Environment. Proc IMechE
Part M: J Engineering for the Maritime Environment
236(4).
Chen A., Chen W., Zheng J. Arctic Route Planning and
Navigation Strategy: The Perspective of Ship Fuel Costs
and Carbon Emissions. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1308.
Chen S.-Y., Kern S., Li X.-Q., Hui F.-M., Ye Y.-F., Cheng X.
Navigability of the Northern Sea Route for Arc7 ice-class
vessels during winter and spring sea-ice conditions.
Advances in Climate Change Research 13 (2022) 676e687.
Cheng L., Xu L., Bai X. Cargo selection, route planning, and
speed optimization in tramp shipping under carbon
intensity indicator (CII) regulations. Transportation
Research Part E 194 (2025) 103948.
Christensen M., Georgati M., Arsanjani J.J. A risk-based
approach for determining the future potential of
commercial shipping in the Arctic. Journal of Marine
Engineering & Technology 2022, VOL. 21, NO. 2, 82–99.
Dai L., Jing D., Hu H., Wang Z. An environmental and
techno-economic analysis of transporting LNG via Arctic
route. Transportation Research Part A 146 (2021) 56–71.
Di Lieto A., (2015). Bridge Resource Management: From the
Costa Concordia to Navigation in the Digital Age. Part II
and III. Hydeas Pty Ltd. ISBN: 978-0994267207.
Ding W., Wang Y., Dai L., Hu H. Does a carbon tax affect the
feasibility of Arctic shipping? Transportation Research
Part D 80 (2020) 102257.
DNV (2023). Maritime Forecast to 2050. A deep dive into
shipping’s decarbonization journey. Energy transition
outlook 2023.
Du W., Li Y., Shi J., Sun B., Wang C., Zhu B. Applying an
improved particle swarm optimization algorithm to ship
energy saving. Energy 263 (2023) 126080.
Fan A., Li Y., Liu H., Yang L., Tian Z., Li Y., Vladimir N.
Development trend and hotspot analysis of ship energy
management. Journal of Cleaner Production 389 (2023)
135899.
Gao J., Chi M., Hu Z. Energy Consumption Optimization of
Inland Sea Ships Based on Operation Data and Ensemble
Learning. Mathematical Problems in Engineering
Volume 2022.
Gao J., Lan H., Zhang X., Iu H.H.C., Hong Y.-Y., Yin H. A
coordinated generation and voyage planning
optimization scheme for all-electric ships under emission
policy. Electrical Power and Energy Systems 156 (2024)
109698.
Gao T., Tian J., Liu C., Huang C., Wu H.; Yuan Z. A model for
speed and fuel refueling strategy of methanol dual-fuel
liners with emission control areas. Transport Policy 161
(2025) 1–16.
Ghorbani M., Slaets P., Lacey J. Sensor-based modelling of
suction sails to integrate into a numerical simulation tool
for a wind-assisted vessel and its application to green
shipping. Ocean Engineering 311 (2024) 118937.
Gospić I., Martić I., Degiuli N., Farkas A. Energetic and
Ecological Effects of the Slow Steaming Application and
Gasification of Container Ships. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10,
703.
Grandcolas S., (2022). A Metaheuristic Algorithm for Ship
Weather Routing. Operations Research Forum.
Grifoll M., Borén C., Castells-Sanabra M. A comprehensive
ship weather routing system using CMEMS products and
A* algorithm. Ocean Engineering 255 (2022) 111427.
Guo Y., Wang Y., Chen Y., Wu L., Mao W. Learning-based
Pareto-optimum routing of ships incorporating uncertain
meteorological and oceanographic forecasts.
Transportation Research Part E 192 (2024) 103786.
Guzelbulut C., Badalotti T., Fujita Y., Sugimoto T., Suzuki K.
Artificial Neural Network-Based Route Optimization of a
Wind-Assisted Ship. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 1645.
Havre H.F., Lien U., Ness M.M., Fagerholt K., Rødseth K.L.
Network design with route planning for battery electric
high-speed passenger vessel services. European Journal
of Operational Research 315 (2024) 102–119.
He P., Jin J.G., Pan W., Chen J. Route, speed, and bunkering
optimization for LNG-fueled tramp ship with alternative
bunkering ports. Ocean Engineering 305 (2024) 117957.
Hein K., Xu Y., Wilson G., Gupta A.K. Coordinated Optimal
Voyage Planning and Energy Management of All-Electric
Ship with Hybrid Energy Storage System. IEEE
TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS, VOL. 36, NO.
3, MAY 2021.
Hwang J.H., Kang D.W. Emission Control Routes in Liner
Shipping between Korea and Japan. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023,
11, 2250.
ICS (2022). Bridge Procedures Guide, sixth edition. Chapter
3. International Chamber of Shipping. ISBN: 978-1-
913997-07-6.
IMO (1999). Guidelines for voyage planning. Resolution
A.893(21).
IMO (2007). Adoption of the revised performance standards
for integrated navigation systems (INS). Resolution
MSC.252(83).
IMO (2023). 2023 IMO strategy on reduction of GHG
emissions from ships. Resolution MEPC.377(80).
Jesus B., Ferreira I.A., Carreira A., Ove Erikstad S., Godina R.
Economic framework for green shipping corridors:
Evaluating cost-effective transition from fossil fuels
towards hydrogen. International Journal of Hydrogen
Energy 83 (2024) 1429–1447.
Johannessen J.A., Perrin A., Gaultier L., Herlédan S., Pouplin
C., Collard F., Maze J.P., Dussauze M., Rapp J., Fanebust
R., Andersen S., Franks O., Meyer R. Tools for optimizing
performance of voyages at sea. TransNav, March 2021.
Jovic M., Tijan E., Brcic D., Pucihar A. Digitalization in
Maritime Transport and Seaports: Bibliometric, Content
and Thematic Analysis. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 486.
Karountzos O., Kagkelis G., Kepaptsoglou K. A Decision
Support GIS Framework for Establishing Zero-Emission
Maritime Networks: The Case of the Greek Coastal
Shipping Network. Journal of Geovisualization and
Spatial Analysis (2023) 7:16.
Kavirathna C.A., Shibasaki R., Ding W., Otsuka N. Feasibility
of the Northern Sea route with the effect of emission
control measures. Transportation Research Part D 123
(2023) 103896.
Klakeel T.M., Anantharaman M., Islma R., Garaniya V.,
(2023). Effectiveness of current technology in GHG
reduction – a literature survey. The International Journal
on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation,
volume 17 number 1.
Kuhlemann S., Tierney K. A genetic algorithm for finding
realistic sea routes considering the weather. Journal of
Heuristics (2020) 26:801–825.
Law, L.C., Foscoli, B., Mastorakos, E., Evans, S. A
Comparison of Alternative Fuels for Shipping in Terms of
Lifecycle Energy and Cost. Energies 2021, 14, 8502.
Li X., Sun B., Guo C., Du W., Li Y. Speed optimization of a
container ship on a given route considering voluntary
speed loss and emissions. Applied Ocean Research 94
(2020) 101995.
Li X., Sun B., Jin J., Ding J. Speed Optimization of Container
Ship Considering Route Segmentation and Weather Data
657
Loading: Turning Point-Time Segmentation Method. J.
Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1835.
Li X., Lynch A.H. New insights into projected Arctic sea road:
operational risks, economic values, and policy
implications. Climatic Change (2023) 176:30.
Li Z., Wang K., Hua Y., Liu X., Ma R., Wang Z., Huang L. GA-
LSTM and NSGA-III based collaborative optimization of
ship energy efficiency for low-carbon shipping. Ocean
Engineering 312 (2024) 119190.
Ma D., Zhou S., Han Y., Ma W., Huang H. Multi-objective
ship weather routing method based on the improved
NSGA-III algorithm. Journal of Industrial Information
Integration 38 (2024) 100570.
Ma W., Ma D., Ma Y., Zhang J., Wang D. Green maritime: a
routing and speed multi-objective optimization strategy.
Journal of Cleaner Production 305 (2021) 127179.
Mannarini G., Salinas M.L., Carelli L., Petacco N., Orović J.
VISIR-2: Ship weather routing in Python. Geosci. Model
Dev., 17, 4355–4382, 2024.
Mason J., Larkin A., Bullock S., van der Kolk N., Broderick
J.F., (2023a). Quantifying voyage optimisation with wind
propulsion for short-term CO2 mitigation in shipping.
Ocean Engineering 289 (2023) 116065
Mason J., Larkin A., Gallego-Schmid A., (2023b). Mitigating
stochastic uncertainty from weather routing for ships
with wind propulsion. Ocean Engineering 281 (2023)
114674
Nzualo T.D.N.M., de Oliveira C.E.F., Pérez T.O.A., González-
Gorbeña E., Rosman P.C.C., Qassim R.Y.. Ship speed
optimisation in green approach to tidal ports. Applied
Ocean Research 115 (2021) 102845.
Perna A., Jannelli E., Di Micco S., Romano F., Minutillo M.
Designing, sizing and economic feasibility of a green
hydrogen supply chain for maritime transportation.
Energy Conversion and Management 278 (2023) 116702.
Pfeifer A., Prebeg P., Duić N. Challenges and opportunities
of zero emission shipping in smart islands: A study of
zero emission ferry lines. eTransportation 3 (2020) 100048.
Poulsen R.T., Sampson H. A swift turnaround? Abating
shipping greenhouse gas emissions via port call
optimization. Transportation Research Part D 86 (2020)
102460.
Ryan C., Huang L., Li Z., Ringsberg J.W., Thomas G. An
Arctic ship performance model for sea routes in ice-
infested waters. Applied Ocean Research 117 (2021)
102950.
Shukla A., (2017). Literature review: an oblivious yet
grounding task of research. Management Insight 13(1) 7 –
15.
Song Z., Zhang J., Tian W., Guedes Soares C. A multi-
objective ship voyage optimisation method within sulfur
emission control zones. Ocean Engineering 319 (2025)
120192.
Stopford M., (2008). Maritime Economics, third edition.
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Sun W., Tang S., Liu X., Zhou S., Wei J. An Improved Ship
Weather Routing Framework for CII Reduction
Accounting for Wind-Assisted Rotors. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
2022, 10, 1979.
Tillig F., Ringsberg J.W., Psaraftis H.N., Zis T. Reduced
environmental impact of marine transport through speed
reduction and wind assisted propulsion. Transportation
Research Part D 83 (2020) 102380.
Tsai Y.-M., Lin C.-Y. Effects of the Carbon Intensity Index
Rating System on the Development of the Northeast
Passage. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 1341.
Wang H., Lang X., Mao W. Voyage optimization combining
genetic algorithm and dynamic programming for
fuel/emissions reduction. Transportation Research Part D
90 (2021) 102670.
Wang H., Liu Y., Jin Y., Wang S. Optimal Sailing Speeds and
Time Windows in Inland Water Transportation
Operations Management: Mathematical Models and
Applications. Mathematics 2023, 11, 4747.
Wang K., Li J., Huang L., Ma R., Jiang X., Yuan Y., Mwero
N.A., Negenborn R.R., Sun P., Yan X. A novel method for
joint optimization of the sailing route and speed
considering multiple environmental factors for more
energy efficient shipping. Ocean Engineering 216 (2020)
107591.
Wang K., Xu H., Li J., Huang L., Ma R., Jiang X., Yuan Y.,
Mwero N.A., Sun P., Negenborn R.R., Yan X. A novel
dynamical collaborative optimization method of ship
energy consumption based on a spatial and temporal
distribution analysis of voyage data. Applied Ocean
Research 112 (2021) 102657.
Wang W., Liu Y., Zhen L., Wang H. How to Deploy Electric
Ships for Green Shipping. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 1611.
Wang Z., Silberman J.A., Corbett J.J., (2021). Container
vessels diversion pattern to trans-Arctic shipping routes
and GHG emission abatement potential. Maritime Policy
& Management, 48:4, 543-562.
Wang Z., Chen L., Wang B.; Huang L., Wang K., Ma R.
Integrated optimization of speed schedule and energy
management for a hybrid electric cruise ship considering
environmental factors. Energy 282 (2023) 128795.
Xie X., Sun B., Li X., Zhao Y., Chen Y. Joint optimization of
ship speed and trim based on machine learning method
under consideration of load. Ocean Engineering 287
(2023) 11591
Xing H., Spence S., Chen H. A comprehensive review on
countermeasures for CO2 emissions from ships.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 134 (2020)
110222.
Yang L., Chen G., Zhao J., Rytter N.G.M. Ship speed
optimization considering ocean currents to enhance
environmental sustainability in maritime shipping.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3649.
Yang Z., Qu W., Zhuo J. Optimization of Energy
Consumption in Ship Propulsion Control under Severe
Sea Conditions. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 1461.
Zhao S., Zhao S. Ship Global Traveling Path Optimization via
a Novel Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm. J.
Mar. Sci. Eng. 2024, 12, 485.
Zhao W., Wang Y., Zhang Z., Wang H. Multicriteria ship
route planning method based on improved particle
swarm optimization–genetic algorithm. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.
2021, 9, 357.
Zhao X., Guo Y., Wang Y. Green maritime navigation: A
multi-objective voyage optimization approach based on
data-driven heuristics and emission awareness. Ocean
Engineering 318 (2025) 120138.
Zhen L., Hu Z., Yan R., Zhuge D., Wang S. Route and speed
optimization for liner ships under emission control
policies. Transportation Research Part C 110 (2020) 330–
345.
Zhou P., Zhou Z., Wang Y., Wang H. Ship Weather Routing
Based on Hybrid Genetic Algorithm Under Complicated
Sea Conditions. J. Ocean Univ. China (Oceanic and
Coastal Sea Research) 2023 22: 28-42.