1371

1 INTRODUCTION

The foundation of multimodal logistics in the

Mediterranean basin is made up of roll-on/roll-off (Ro-

Ro) transportation networks, which connect Europe,

North Africa, and the Middle East in a smooth and

adaptable network of freight flow. Ro-Ro transport is

particularly effective for time-sensitive and short-to-

medium distance transactions because of its primary

operational benefit, which is the capacity to enable

wheeled cargo to be pushed on and off vessels without

requiring considerable cargo handling (Christodoulou

& Kappelin, 2020). The Mediterranean Ro-Ro corridor

is becoming more than just a logistics route as regional

trade volumes continue to rise; it is also becoming an

essential component of Europe's efforts to achieve

resilience, economic solidarity, and sustainable

development (Zis et al., 2019)..

Figure 1. Mediterranean Ro-Ro shipping routes connecting

major ports across Europe, North Africa, and the Middle

East. The map illustrates the extensive network of established

routes that facilitate regional trade and logistics integration.

Source: "K" Line Car Carrier RoRo North America East Coast

- Europe & Mediterranean Service Route Map (2024)

The Increasing Importance of Ro-Ro (Roll-On/Roll-Off)

Transportation in the Mediterranean

U. Demir

Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey

ABSTRACT: A key component of multimodal logistics in the Mediterranean, roll-on/roll-off (Ro-Ro) shipping is

beset by increasing capacity limitations, environmental regulations, and port coordination gaps. This study

creates an integrated framework for improving current and future Ro-Ro routes by bridging two previously

discrete approaches: AIS-based Geographic Information System (GIS) traffic analysis and expert-driven Analytic

Hierarchy Process (AHP) weighting. Consistent priority weights were obtained from paired comparisons

provided by twenty domain experts (CR = 0.032). These weights were superimposed on basin-wide AIS density

layers in September 2024 to identify underserved routes and bottlenecks. The results show that while green

corridor potential in the Eastern Mediterranean is still mostly unrealised, high-frequency handling capacity,

intermodal connectivity, and advanced port community systems collectively account for more than 27% of the

variance in route performance. Three of the five candidate routes that the framework creates from a selected

shortlist offer travel time reductions of more than 18% when compared to existing services. The work contributes

to the field of maritime logistics by showing how evidence-based corridor planning can be supported by spatially

contextualising multi-criteria decision models. Policymakers pursuing Fit-for-55 standards and operators looking

to create robust, low-carbon supply chains are given implications.

http://www.transnav.eu

the International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 19

Number 4

December 2025

DOI: 10.12716/1001.19.04.37

1372

Despite its fundamental importance, it is a turning

point in the sector. Realizing the full construction

potential of Ro-Ro is hindered by complex frameworks,

increasing focal concerns and inadequate

infrastructure, as a growing body of literature shows

(Psaraftis, 2016; Russo et al., 2023). Congested port

access roads, lack of digitalization and extended

restrictions to old terminals combine to create

inefficiencies, increase carbon emissions and reduce

service resilience (Karountzos, 2024). The International

Maritime Organization's (IMO) decarbonisation target

and the EU's 'Highways of the Sea' project act both

simplified and restrictive, forcing change and raising

the bar for technical competence (López-Navarro, 2014;

IMO, 2023).

This study explores two converging paths to

address emergent products for Mediterranean Ro-Ro

assembly: (i) new, evidence-based Ro-Ro routes to fill

in existing connectivity gaps, and (ii) the creation of a

thorough evaluation framework that uses Multi-

Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) techniques, more

specifically the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), to

evaluate and optimise both proposed and existing

networks.

1.1 Ro-Ro Networks' Strategic Significance in the

Mediterranean

Due to its flexibility, quicker delivery times, and lower

transfer costs, Ro-Ro transportation gives regional

logistics a competitive edge over container-based

transportation (Camarero Orive et al., 2022). The

Mediterranean is home to several famous Ro-Ro

corridors, such as those that link Marseille and Tunis,

Barcelona and Tripoli, and Genoa and Tangier. Ship

frequencies can range from daily sailings to weekly

schedules, contingent on seasonal demand (Demirel &

Demir, 2024). Large chokepoints like the Strait of

Gibraltar and the Bosphorus act as both geopolitical

flashpoints and capacity limiters.

Figure 2. Types of maritime transport in the Mediterranean,

highlighting the distinct role of Ro-Ro shipping alongside

dry bulk, liquid bulk, and container transport. This

classification illustrates the diverse maritime logistics

ecosystem in which Ro-Ro operations function. Source:

Gattuso, D., Cassone, G.C. & Pellicanò, D.S. (2022).

Assessment of freight traffic flows and harmful emissions in

euro-mediterranean context: scenario analyses based on a

gravity model. Journal of Shipping and Trade, 7(13).

In addition, trade policies, cultural influences and

economic asymmetries intersect in the Mediterranean.

Harmonization efforts in customs procedures, port

state controls and emissions reporting are complicated

by the fragmentation of regulatory frameworks

between EU member states and non-EU countries

(Panagakos et al., 2019; Paraskevadakis and Ifeoluwa,

2022). These inequalities can cause prices to rise and

maritime transport to become less attractive, which

could lead to a shift of goods to less environmentally

friendly land options..

1.2 Sustainability Mandates and Environmental

Integration

Ro-Ro operators are subject to strict fuel quality

standards and emission caps because the IMO has

designated the Mediterranean as a Sulphur Emission

Control Area (SECA) (IMO, 2023). This is

complemented by the EU's Fit for 55 packages, which

call for a 55% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions

by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. As a result, Ro-Ro

operators must now make investments in shore-side

electricity, hybrid propulsion, and low-sulfur fuels (Zis

et al., 2019; Santos & Santos, 2024). However, given

shifting fuel markets and shifting political landscapes,

compliance costs are high, particularly for small-to-

medium shipping lines, and the return on investment

is uncertain (Belcore et al., 2023).

By including lifecycle emissions and fuel efficiency

in the decision-making matrix, the paper incorporates

these mandates into the framework for route

evaluation. This allows for a comprehensive

sustainability assessment for route prioritisation by

placing environmental metrics on par with operational

and economic parameters (López-Navarro, 2020).

1.3 Port Performance, Intermodality, and Infrastructure

An ongoing weakness in the Mediterranean Ro-Ro

ecosystem is infrastructure. Several ports suffer from

antiquated ICT systems, lack dedicated Ro-Ro ramps,

and are congested as a result of poor hinterland

connectivity (Morales Fusco, 2016). This hinders

multimodal integration, especially with rail and inland

waterways, as well as loading/unloading efficiency. By

providing incentives for integrated transport planning

that synchronizes land-based and maritime flows,

Camarero Orive et al. (2022) hope to break this impasse

with their 4R strategy: Road, Rail, River, and Ro-Ro.

Terminal competitiveness also varies greatly. Some

ports in North Africa experience delays because of

political unrest and bureaucratic inertia, while ports

like Valencia and Trieste score highly on digitalization

and customs performance (Russo et al., 2023; Psaraftis,

2016). The research maps capacity disparities and

identifies "opportunity hubs" where targeted

investments could result in significant throughput

gains by using a geospatial analysis of more than 30

Mediterranean Ro-Ro terminals (Karountzos, 2024).

1.4 Theoretical Framework and Methodological Rigor

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), a validated

MCDM technique that uses structured pairwise

comparisons to capture expert judgement, forms the

methodological basis of this study (Saaty, 1980). AHP

provides a strong tool for prioritising routes and

investments by giving weights to factors like fuel cost,

emissions, port efficiency, regulatory alignment, and

1373

freight demand elasticity (Zis et al., 2019; Psaraftis,

2016).

Delphi-derived weights will be used to gather

stakeholder input for the study, and a scenario-based

approach will be used to validate the results. To test the

resilience of suggested Ro-Ro strategies, these

scenarios will include changes in fuel prices, carbon

taxes, and geopolitical upheavals (López-Navarro,

2020; Raza, 2020). The goal of this multifaceted

approach is to develop an evidence-based and flexible

decision-support framework.

1.5 Proposed Routes and Strategic Recommendations

Three interesting new Ro-Ro-Rs, according to

preliminary simulations, are Alexandria–Thessaloniki

to boost Euro-Egyptian supply chains, Algiers–

Barcelona to increase North African exports, and

Beirut–Piraeus as a conflict-resilient alternative to

overland Levant trade (Demirel & Demir, 2024; Belcore

et al., 2023). Latent demand analysis, congestion

measures, and their possible support of EU-African

trade corridors helped to guide the choice of these

paths.

Based on estimates by Morales Fusco (2016) and

Christodoulou & Woxenius (2020), the final framework

will also advise on which ports merit capacity

expansions, which regulatory alignments offer the best

economic return, and how digitalisation might cut

turnaround times by over 20%.

Mediterranean Ro-Ro transport finds itself at a

crossroads. Although its operational flexibility and

geographical benefits are still indisputable, the

industry now has to match the demands of the twenty-

first century including environmental stewardship,

digitalisation, and policy consistency. This paper offers

not only fresh strategic paths but also a thorough,

multi-criteria framework for assessing their viability,

resilience, and sustainability, so helping to facilitate

that change. From legislators and port authorities to

shipping operators, the results seek to serve a wide

spectrum of stakeholders by offering actionable

intelligence grounded in multidisciplinary research

and empirical analysis.

Research Questions

− When evaluated using expert consensus, which

operational, infrastructure, and environmental

factors most significantly affect the competitiveness

of Mediterranean Ro‑Ro routes?

− Where do important gaps show and how does the

spatial distribution of AIS‑derived traffic density

match AHP‑based priority weights?

− While minimising congestion in current corridors,

what new or modified Ro-Ro-paths can maximise

throughput and decarbonisation potential?

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Historical and Conceptual Foundations of Ro-Ro

Transport

Along with containerisation, Ro-Ro transportation

developed following World War II to allow effective

handling of wheeled goods. Originally motivated by

military logistics, by the 1960s it was becoming

commercially important in Europe. Notteboom &

Rodrigue, 2009; Levinson, 2006; key academics

underlined how it developed within intermodalism

and corridor logistics. Originally developed in

Northern Europe during the 1980s and 1990s, the idea

then migrated to Mediterranean environments. Along

with the creation of port logistics clusters (Ferrari et al.,

2015), which support Ro-Ro as both a transport

solution and regional economic enabler, investments

and policy support were absolutely vital.

2.2 Mediterranean Context for Ro-Ro Transportation

Crucially important for Mediterranean trade, Ro-Ro

links Europe with North Africa and Asia. Port

upgrades—such as those at Valencia, Koper, Piraeus—

have been supported by EU projects including

Motorways of the Sea (MoS). Master plans and

environmental incentives help Ro-Ro to be promoted

by national policies in Italy and Turkey. While smaller

ports like Igoumenitsa have scaled up with EU

support, key ports including Trieste and Valencia

highlight intermodal integration. But North African

ports lag behind because of digital and infrastructure

gaps, so limiting complete regional integration.

2.3 Operational and Logistical Benefits

Rapid turnaround, less handling, and flawless

intermodal transfers are just a few of Ro-Ro's offerings.

Ports like Zeebrugge and Marseille have maximised

logistics with technologies including RFID, artificial

intelligence-based yard systems, and blockchain

customs. Mediterranean hubs like Trieste and Koper

improve JIT logistics by linking straight to rail. For

developing countries, Ro-Ro also offers flexible cargo

configurations, better space use (Brønmo et al., 2007),

and less infrastructure investment.

2.4 Obstacles and Restraints

Geopolitical concerns (Libya, Syria), fractured

maritime security, and infrastructure differences—

especially between Northern and Southern

Mediterranean ports—threatens Ro-Ro networks.

While many ports lack shore power or green fuel

alternatives, environmental rules—e.g., IMO 2020, Fit-

for-55—cause great compliance costs. Cross-border

flows suffer from customs inefficiencies and poor

digital integration. One of the main bottlenecks still is

stakeholders' coordination, which reduces the Ro-Ro

system's resilience.

2.5 Ro-Ro and Eco-friendly Maritime Transportation

The targets of EU decarbonisation depend much on Ro-

Ro. Gradually taking front stage are LNG-fueled

vessels (Grimaldi, DFDS), shore power systems

(Barcelona, Marseille), and hybrid propulsion. Port

projects at Valencia and Piraeus highlight

environmentally friendly port operations. Smaller

ports still suffer with unclear rules, retrofitting

expenses, and unequal access to green fuels. Scalable

sustainability calls both coordinated investments and

harmonised policies.

1374

2.6 Overview of Existing Ro-Ro Routes in the

Mediterranean

Figure 3. Overview of Exiting Ro-Ro Routes in the

Mediterranean

For goods and passengers, the Mediterranean

supports a rich web of Ro-Ro and Ro-Pax services.

Major corridors link Spain (Barcelona, Valencia),

France (Marseille), Italy (Trieste, Genoa), Türkiye

(Pendik, Ambarlı, Çeşme), Greece (Igoumenitsa), and

North Africa (Tunis, Algiers, Tanger Med.). Using

competitive port facilities—intermodal links,

automation, and regulatory incentives—operators

including DFDS, Grimaldi, GNV, and Baleària

maximise route performance. For effective and

environmentally friendly marine logistics, a coherent

plan combining several networks is still absolutely

necessary.

Table 1 shows the comparison overview of existing

roro routes and their unique advantages.

Table 1 The Comparison Overview of Existing RoRo Routes

and their Unique Advantages

Country

Port

Key Operators & Routes

Unique Advantages

Spain

Barcelona

Grimaldi Lines:

Barcelona ⇄ Tanger

Med; GNV: Barcelona ⇄

Civitavecchia; Baleària:

Barcelona ⇄ Palma de

Mallorca

Deep-water

terminals; ZAL

intermodal link;

Customs pre-

clearance; High

annual volume

Spain

Valencia

GNV: Valencia ⇄ Tunis;

Grimaldi Lines: Valencia

⇄ Mostaganem

Modern RTGs and

shuttle trains; Fast

rail to Madrid;

Competitive port

incentives

Spain

Algeciras

Baleària: Algeciras ⇄

Tanger Med; Acciona

Trasmed: Huelva ⇄

Tanger Med

24/7 multi-berth

operations; Free-

trade zone &

bonded warehouses;

Proximity to

Gibraltar

France

Marseille

Corsica Ferries:

Marseille ⇄ Bastia;

GNV: Marseille ⇄

Algiers, ⇄ Tunis

EU funding; Direct

motorway to Italy;

Port Community

System

France

Sète

Grimaldi Lines: Sète ⇄

Tanger Med; Baleària:

Sète ⇄ Nador

Lower congestion;

Deep-water berths;

Integrated logistics

park; Attractive fees

Italy

Genoa

GNV: Genoa ⇄ Palermo;

Grimaldi Lines: Genoa

⇄ Catania

>2 M lane-metres

capacity; 24-hour

service; Excellent

rail links; LNG

bunkering

Italy

Livorno

Corsica Ferries: Livorno

⇄ Bastia; Moby Lines:

Livorno ⇄ Golfo Aranci

Direct rail sidings;

Surge staffing for

peaks; Lower off-

peak dues

Italy

Civitavecchia

Grimaldi Lines:

Civitavecchia ⇄ Tanger

Med; GNV:

Civitavecchia ⇄ Palermo

‘Sea door of Rome’;

Electrified cranes;

Refrigerated lanes;

Short land-bridge

Italy

Naples

Grimaldi Lines: Naples

⇄ Palermo

Central hub;

Container-Ro-Ro

integration; Deep

draft

Italy

Salerno

SNAV: Salerno ⇄

Palermo

Off-season

incentives; Close to

Campania industrial

zone

Italy

Ancona

ANEK Lines: Ancona ⇄

Patras; Superfast Ferries:

Ancona ⇄ Igoumenitsa

Drive-through

berths; Port-apron

rail link; Digital

manifests

Italy

Venice

(Marghera)

Grimaldi Lines: Venice

⇄ Patras

Freight-only

terminal;

Intermodal depot;

Environmental

controls

Italy

Trieste

DFDS, Grimaldi Lines:

Trieste ⇄ Türkiye,

Balkans, Central Europe

3 M+ lane-metres;

TEN-T corridor;

Direct rail; Bonded

warehousing

Greece

Patras

ANEK Lines: Patras ⇄

Ancona; Grimaldi Lines:

Patras ⇄ Venice

24 hr ops; Short

gate-to-vessel

distance; E55/E65

road links

Greece

Igoumenitsa

Superfast Ferries:

Igoumenitsa ⇄ Ancona;

ANEK Lines:

Igoumenitsa ⇄ Bari

Fastest crossings;

Doubled berths; On-

site customs;

Albanian corridor

Greece

Piraeus

Minoan Lines: Piraeus ⇄

Heraklion;

ANEK/Superfast:

Piraeus ⇄ Chania

Massive hinterland

rail; Single-window

customs; Passenger-

freight synergy

Turkey

Mersin

Grimaldi Lines: Mersin

⇄ Piraeus; ANEK Lines:

Mersin ⇄ Thessaloniki

Three Ro-Ro

terminals; O-51/O-

21 motorways;

Refrigerated &

livestock lanes

Turkey

İzmir

(Alsancak)

ANEK Lines: İzmir ⇄

Piraeus; DFDS: İzmir ⇄

Sète

Logistics park; EU

grants; O-30 ring

road

Turkey

Çeşme

Local ferries: Çeşme ⇄

Chios

Compact ramp ops;

Minimal congestion;

Tourism synergy;

Direct highway

Turkey

Pendik

(Istanbul)

DFDS: Pendik ⇄ Trieste

Deep-water quay;

O-4 motorway;

Large yard;

Bosphorus access

Turkey

Ambarlı

(Istanbul)

DFDS: Ambarlı ⇄

Trieste

European-side

access; Bonded dry

port; Rail link

underway

Turkey

Martaş

(Tekirdağ)

DFDS: Martaş ⇄ Trieste

Shortest sea leg;

Drive-through

berths; Lower dues;

Highway access

Turkey

Yalova

DFDS: Yalova ⇄ Trieste

& Sète

Inner-sea shelter;

Quick ramps;

Trailer storage;

Feeder to Pendik

Malta

Gemlik

DFDS and others:

Gemlik ⇄ Trieste

Deep draft; Bursa

rail; Full logistics

services

Tunisia

Valletta

Virtu Ferries: Valletta ⇄

Pozzallo

Central location;

Park-and-ride;

Lower dues

Strategically placed ports on the Mediterranean's

Ro-Ro and ferry network each use geography,

infrastructure, and policy incentives to draw cargo

1375

flows. Key hubs comprise Spain's intermodal ports

(Barcelona, Valencia), France's EU-supported corridors

(Marseille, Sète), Italy's axis ports (Genoa, Trieste,

Civitavecchia), Greece's gateway ports ( Piraeus,

Patras, Igoumenitsa), and Türkiye's seven-terminal

network connecting Europe and North Africa. Malta

and Tunisia enhance this with deliberate trans-

Mediterranean programs.

Ports investing in alternative fuels, digital systems,

and rail links will lead in competitiveness as

decarbonisation, digitalisation, and resilience take

front stage. Maximising service planning and future

investments depends on an awareness of the strengths

of every terminal.

2.7 Port Capacities and Infrastructure Reversibility

Mediterranean logistics revolves mostly on Ro-Ro

transportation. Thanks to investments in digital

infrastructure, ports including Trieste, İzmir, and

Mersin lead in capacity and intermodal connectivity.

Smart Ro-Ro operations are best shown by Tanger Med

in Morocco. Barcelona and Valencia combine strong

hinterland links with container and Ro-Ro flows. On

the other hand, infrastructure and efficiency

restrictions apply in Libya, Albania, some areas of

Egypt and Algeria.

2.8 Different Kinds of Cargo Carried

Mostly between Türkiye, Italy, and France, Ro-Ro

cargo consists of unaccompanied trailers and

passenger cars. Seasonal peaks in tourism and

agriculture impact volumes. Growing project cargo

(such as construction equipment) calls for ports with

advanced ramps and side-loading capability like

Mersin and Valencia.

Figure 4. Cargo Share Chart: Annual vs Seasonal Breakdown

source: Eurostat

2.9 Intermodality and Connectivity

Top-performing ports like Trieste and Valencia

strengthen delivery times by integrating dry ports and

rail lines, so lowering emissions. Such corridors are

supported by EU Motorways of the Sea. Still lacking

dry ports and rail connections, areas like Algeria and

Libya therefore depend more on road transport.

2.10 Operational Bottlenecks

Key challenges include seasonal congestion, labor

strikes, and customs inefficiencies—particularly in

North African ports. Many older ports suffer from

shallow berths and lack vehicle staging areas, affecting

2.11 Local Reversals and Underutilisation

Often resulting from political or economic instability,

high-capacity corridors (e.g., Italy–Spain) contrast with

underused routes (e.g., France–Algeria). Though

strategically located, ports including Damietta,

Igoumenitsa, and Oran are underused. Optimising

their possible needs focused policies and coordinated

investments.

2.12 Port Competitiveness: Foundation of Literature

Operating efficiency, connectivity, governance, and

digitalisation define port competitiveness. Research

over more than 20 years reveals important elements

including port costs, service quality, customs

efficiency, ICT use, and smart port readiness. Recent

research underline models with integration rather than

cost-centric ones.

Table 2 The port competitiveness factors found in the

literature.

Terminal-level determinants and AHP criteria

Applied in AHP models, key competitiveness

criteria comprise: market offers (fees, service scope);

resources (intermodal links, capacity); management

(partnerships, labour stability).

− Environmental harmony

− Frequency in nautical design: accessibility

− External circumstances (personal preferences,

policy encouragement)

Author(s)

Competitiveness Factors Identified

French

Terminal facilities, tariffs, port congestion,

connectivity, hinterland economy, national

economic status, trade policy

Collison

Ship waiting time, port schedule confidence,

service capacity

Brooks

Port costs, vessel call frequency, port loyalty,

cargo damage

Murphy et al.

Handling large/odd cargo, claims handling,

special equipment, damage, delivery

Haezendonck et al.

Functional port activities (foreland, internal,

hinterland), governance, demand conditions

Tongzon and Heng

Cargo handling, operational efficiency, product

differentiation, channel depth

Yeo et al.

Logistics cost, hinterland condition, availability,

service convenience

Yuen et al.

Port location, services, operator quality, ICT

systems

Dyck and Ismael

Costs, infrastructure, political stability, cargo

volume

Parola et al.

Infrastructure, connectivity, hinterland access,

site conditions

Hales et al.

Customer-facing: service, fees, cargo volume.

Investor-facing: law, resources, structure

Omoke & Onwuegbuchunam

Turnaround time, crane efficiency, cargo space,

pre-berthing time

Mdanat et al. (2024)

Logistic performance, digital infrastructure,

ease of doing business, trade facilitation

González-Cancelas & Molina Serrano (2020)

Digitalization in ports, productivity,

communication systems, visibility

Jugović et al. (2022)

Environmental policies, stakeholder alignment,

green governance

Yang & Hsieh (2024)

Smart port digitalization, resilience post-COVID,

automation

Tijan et al. (2022)

Terminal efficiency, digital logistics

infrastructure, throughput optimization

Huang et al. (2022)

Hinterland integration, urban connectivity,

technological readiness

Castillo-Manzano et al. (2009)

Regional governance, pricing systems, cost

evaluation methods

Kaliszewski et al. (2020)

Shipping line preferences, global network

integration, infrastructure readiness

Luo et al. (2022)

Port cooperation vs. competition, policy

harmonization, inter-port dynamics

Tovar et al. (2015)

Spatial integration, port connectivity, regional

competitiveness

1376

These elements enable benchmarking and

assessment of Ro-Ro terminals. Using expert surveys

and consistency ratios, AHP applications including

Karountzos (2024) confirm their efficacy.

Competitiveness Criteria for Terminal Level AHP

Modelling

Table 3 Terminal-Level Competitiveness Criteria for AHP

Modeling

Competitiveness Factors

Area of

Competitiveness

Ro-Ro terminal fees, vehicle lane charges,

and rebate policies

Terminal market

offerings

Scope of Ro-Ro terminal services (e.g., pre-

check-in, vehicle storage, logistics handling)

Terminal market

offerings

Ro-Ro service quality (loading/unloading

speed, operational safety, digital booking,

eco-efficiency)

Terminal market

offerings

Integration of Ro-Ro terminal with port

community systems (customs, vehicle

inspection, real-time updates)

Terminal resources

Capacity to handle high-frequency Ro-Ro

vessels and multiple ship calls per day

Terminal resources

Availability of intermodal links (road/train

ramps for vehicle discharge, ferry-bus

logistics)

Terminal resources

Ownership structure of Ro-Ro terminals

(public/private mix, operator autonomy)

Terminal

management

Strategic partnerships with shipping lines,

ferry operators, and logistics firms

Terminal

management

Flexibility in adapting terminal layout to

accommodate new Ro-Ro ship designs

Terminal

management

Stability in terminal labor-management

relations and absence of strikes

Terminal

management

Environmental practices (shore power

availability, noise control, vehicle emissions

management)

Environmental

compliance

Reputation of the Ro-Ro terminal among

transport companies and end users

Terminal image and

branding

Nautical accessibility (ramp design, berth

depth, manoeuvrability)

Terminal

accessibility

Frequency and variety of Ro-Ro services

offered (passenger-freight mix, cross-border

service)

Terminal

accessibility

Customs and border inspection efficiency

for Ro-Ro cargo/passenger flows

External business

environment

Government policies supporting Ro-Ro

infrastructure and hinterland logistics

External business

environment

Maritime transport planning is now largely based

on multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) techniques.

Among these, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP),

first proposed by Saaty (1980), has shown great value

in organizing expert opinions to derive quantitative

priorities from qualitative inputs. Its use in maritime

environments is quite common; for example,

Notteboom, Pallis, and Rodrigue (2022) used AHP to

evaluate port competitiveness, while Karahalios (2017)

applied AHP in the evaluation of environmental

management strategies for ballast water treatment

systems.

In parallel, Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

have become indispensable tools for network

optimization and spatial analysis in marine research.

Providing a strong basis for environmental impact

analysis, Trozzi, Vaccaro and Nicolo (1995) developed

high-density emission inventories for ships operating

in the Mediterranean Sea using GIS methods. To assess

the risks of water quality degradation in port areas,

Grifoll et al.(2020) similarly combined GIS with

hydrodynamic modelling, so demonstrating the ability

of the method for sophisticated, spatially explicit

modelling.

Recent research highlight the synergy between

MCDM methods including AHP and GIS tools, so

facilitating a more complete knowledge of marine

logistics systems.The evaluation and development of

short sea shipping and Ro-Ro shipping networks

depend on the visualization and analysis of complex

spatial relationships that this integration helps.

Environmental sustainability has also come to the

fore in maritime design. The industry is moving

towards more sustainable practices with the European

Union's Green Deal and the International Maritime

Organization's (IMO, 2018) first strategy on

greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction. In this context,

Green Sea Corridors developed by Psaraftis (2019)

provide a strategic framework for the creation of

environmentally friendly sea routes.

This paradigm balances helping reduce emissions

with the operational and commercial needs of the

maritime industry.Taken together, these

methodological tools – AHP for structured

prioritization, GIS for spatial modelling, and

sustainability frameworks such as Green Transport

Corridors – form the basis of the analytical approach to

the optimization of Ro-Ro networks in the

Mediterranean basin.

Conceptual Map of Key Literature Streams

Theme

Representative

Authors

Identified Gap

Port competitiveness

via MCDM

Notteboom et al. 2013;

Ferrari et al. 2011

Rare integration with

spatial traffic analytics

Sustainability &

decarbonisation

Psaraftis 2019; IMO

2018

Limited route‑specific

mitigation strategies

Network optimisation

Rodrigue 2006;

Acciaro et al. 2023

Fragmented focus on

individual ports over

corridor systems

3 METHODOLOGY

This work uses a multidisciplinary, mixed-methods

approach combining quantitative analysis with

qualitative assessment strategies in order to reach the

research objectives. The approach consists in three

separate phases:

3.1 Phase 1: AHP, factor identification and prioritising

1. The first phase sought to pinpoint and rank

elements influencing Ro-Ro terminal

competitiveness using the Analytic Hierarchy

Process The method consisted in:

One can identify factors by: Sixteen competitiveness

elements were found by means of literature review

and expert consultation, classified into four

dimensions: operational, economic, technological,

environmental.

2. Design for Expert Survey: Twenty professionals

from port authorities, shipping lines, and academia

received an expert survey with 55 AHP-based

items. Consistency ratios were computed by means

of Saaty's 1–9 scale for pairwise comparisons.

Aggregate weightings using geometric means

1377

found the most important competitiveness criteria

for Mediterranean Ro-Ro operations.

Table 4. AHP scale of importance for pairwise comparisons.

Factor_ID

Factor_Name

Description

Weight

Ro-Ro terminal

fees, vehicle lane

charges, and rebate

policies

Economic factor related to the

cost structure of using Ro-Ro

terminals, including fees for

vehicle lanes and available

rebate policies

0.0663

Scope of Ro-Ro

terminal services

Range of services offered at

terminals including pre-check-

in, vehicle storage, and

logistics handling capabilities

0.0652

Ro-Ro service

quality

Operational quality metrics

including loading/unloading

speed, operational safety,

digital booking systems, and

eco-efficiency

0.0609

Integration with

port community

systems

Digital integration with

customs, vehicle inspection,

and real-time updates systems

0.0907

Capacity to handle

high-frequency Ro-

Ro vessels

Terminal capacity to

accommodate multiple ship

calls per day and high-

frequency vessel operations

0.0928

Availability of

intermodal links

Infrastructure for multimodal

connections including

road/train ramps for vehicle

discharge and ferry-bus

logistics

0.0917

Ownership

structure of Ro-Ro

terminals

Governance factor related to

public/private ownership mix

and operator autonomy

0.036

Strategic

partnerships

Collaborative arrangements

with shipping lines, ferry

operators, and logistics firms

0.0423

Flexibility in

terminal layout

adaptation

Ability to modify terminal

configuration to accommodate

new Ro-Ro ship designs

0.0358

F10

Labor-management

relations stability

Workforce stability factors

including labor relations and

absence of strikes

0.0359

F11

Environmental

practices

Sustainability measures

including shore power

availability, noise control, and

vehicle emissions

management

0.0899

F12

Terminal

reputation

Market perception of the

terminal among transport

companies and end users

0.0385

F13

Nautical

accessibility

Physical access factors

including ramp design, berth

depth, and vessel

maneuverability

0.0629

F14

Frequency and

variety of Ro-Ro

services

Service diversity including

passenger-freight mix and

cross-border service options

0.0657

F15

Customs and

border inspection

efficiency

Speed and effectiveness of

customs clearance and border

inspection for Ro-Ro

cargo/passenger flows

0.0664

F16

Government policy

support

Policy environment

supporting Ro-Ro

infrastructure development

and hinterland logistics

0.059

3. 25 experts in all—port authorities (28%), shipping

operators (24%), logistics providers (20%),

academic researchers (16%), and policy advisers

(12%), assembled on a panel Average marine

logistics experience among participants was 15.3

years.

4. Expert opinions were gathered by means of online

polls and organised interviews. Consistency Ratio

(CR) approach allowed one to build and examine

individual pairwise comparison matrices for

consistency. Experts were consulted again for

explanation on judgements with CR > 0.1.

5. Individual assessments were aggregated into a

consolidated pairwise comparison matrix using the

geometric mean method. The main eigenvector of

this matrix was calculated to derive the last priority

weights for every 16 factor.

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) involves

constructing a pairwise comparison matrix, denoted

as:

12 1

1 22

nxn













Each element a<sub>ij</sub> represents the relative

importance of criterion i to criterion j.

To derive the priority vector w = [w₁, w₂, ..., wₙ] from

the matrix, the geometric mean method is often used:



















This formula computes each weight wi as the

normalized geometric mean of row i.

To evaluate the consistency of the pairwise

comparisons, the Consistency Ratio (CR) is calculated:

( )

max

RI n RI



−

−

where λmax is the maximum eigenvalue of the matrix A,

n is the number of criteria, CI is the consistency index,

and RI is the random index based on matrix size (Saaty,

1980).

3.2 Phase 2: Gap identification and current network

analysis

Using information from port authorities, shipping

lines, and scholarly sources, this phase mapped the

current Ro-Ro network over significant Mediterranean

ports. Top-weighted AHP factors—e.g., capacity,

intermodal connectivity, digital systems, and

environmental practices—were compared

qualitatively. This exposed operational limitations,

infrastructure gaps, and lost possibilities for better

trade integration and service coverage.

1378

3.3 Phase 3: Route proposition and evaluation framework

The results led to the proposal of new strategic routes:

Ambarlı–Trieste–Marseille and Damietta–Patras–

Trieste. Incorporating AHP-derived factor weights,

operational metrics (e.g., transit times, efficiency),

economic viability indicators, interimodal integration

potential, compliance with EU/IMO environmental

standards, a multi-criteria evaluation framework was

developed.

Implementation comprises GIS-based spatial

modelling, route feasibility, and environmental impact

visualisation.

3.4 Data References

3.4.1 Main data

− Expert Survey for AHP: Designed with 55-item

questionnaires emphasising pairwise comparisons

of competitiveness factors, 20 marine experts were

surveyed.

− General Industry Survey: To measure operational

factor relevance, distributed to 89 Ro-Ro operators,

goods forwarders, and logistics providers all

around the Mediterranean.

3.4.2 Supporting Information

Strategic and operational data from authorities and

Ro-Ro carriers—e.g., DFDS, Grimaldi, GNV—port and

operator reports.

− Industry Studies: Alphaliner's forecasts and

research from sources including Drewry

− Geospatial Data: From European Transport Maps

and AIS systems, route and traffic maps

− Academic Literature:Peer-reviewed materials on

Ro-Ro logistics, port performance, and intermodal

networks abound in academic literature.

− Policy Frameworks: EU and IMO papers on

decarbonisation, sustainable transportation, and

green shipping corridors form policy frameworks.

Figure 5. Methodology flowchart

Figure 5 illustrates this triangulated data approach

ensures robust analytical grounding for evaluating

Mediterranean Ro-Ro network optimization.

4 RESULTS

The main results of the application of the AHP to

prioritise Ro-Ro competitiveness elements, the GIS

study of the present Mediterranean Ro-Ro network,

and the assessment of suggested new paths are

presented in this part.

Table 5. Prioritized Ro-Ro Competitiveness Factors

Rank

Factor

Weight

F5 – Capacity to handle high-frequency Ro-Ro vessels

0.0928

F6 – Availability of intermodal links

0.0917

F4 – Integration with port community systems

0.0907

F11 – Environmental practices

0.0899

F1 – Ro-Ro terminal fees and charges

0.0876

F14 – Frequency and variety of Ro-Ro services

0.0865

F3 – Ro-Ro service quality and reliability

0.0854

F9 – Terminal security measures

0.0843

The AHP analysis yielded a clear hierarchy of

competitiveness factors for Mediterranean Ro-Ro

terminals. Table I presents the top eight factors with

their normalized weights.

Table 6. Top Prioritized Ro-Ro Competitiveness Factors

Rank

Factor

Weight

Capacity to handle high-frequency Ro-Ro

vessels

0.0928

Availability of intermodal links

0.0917

Integration with port community systems

0.0907

F11

Environmental practices

0.0899

Ro-Ro terminal fees and charges

0.0875

F14

Frequency and variety of Ro-Ro services

0.0862

Ro-Ro service quality and reliability

0.0854

Terminal security measures

0.0843

With a consistency ratio of 0.032—much below the

0.1 cutoff—the aggregated judgement matrix

displayed great consistency in expert assessments. The

results show a change in industry priorities towards

operational efficiency and integration as operational

factors (capacity, intermodal links) and technological

factors (digital integration) rank somewhat higher than

economic factors (fees and charges).

Environmental practices (F11) came fourth, which

reflects the rising relevance of sustainability in

maritime logistics. This marks a notable change from

earlier research in which environmental elements

usually scored less in assessments of competitiveness.

The GIS study exposed several important trends

and holes in the present Mediterranean Ro-Ro-

Network:

To give a whole picture of the Mediterranean Ro-Ro

transport system, this integrated gap study compiles

data from the Central and Eastern Mediterranean

areas. This study reveals important misalignments

between current network performance and strategic

priorities over the whole Mediterranean basin by

aggregating Geographic Information System (GIS)

marine traffic density data with Analytic Hierarchy

Process (AHP) priority findings.

The analysis covers the following regions:

1379

− Central Mediterranean; Sicily Channel, Tyrrhenian

Sea;

− Eastern Mediterranean; Aegean Sea, Levantine

Basin

− Adriatic Sea

− Northeastern African coastlines (Egypt, Libya)

− sea of Marmara and Turkish Straits

This all-encompassing approach helps to identify

basin-wide trends, regional differences, and strategic

chances for network optimisation supporting the study

goals of creating new marine routes improving

regional trade and environmental impact. Using a

multi-layered technique, the integrated study:

1. GIS Analysis: Examining maritime traffic density

heat maps (September 2024) across the whole

Mediterranean will help one to find established

shipping routes, congestion hotspots, and traffic

distribution patterns..

2. AHP Prioritising: Using expert-validated weights

for sixteen competitiveness criteria, paying

especially attention to the top four priorities::

− F5: Capacity to handle high-frequency Ro-Ro

vessels (Weight: 0.0928)

− F6: Availability of intermodal links (Weight:

0.0917)

− F4: Integration with port community systems

(Weight: 0.0907)

− F11: Environmental practices (Weight: 0.0899)

3. Gap Mapping: Identification of specific

misalignments between current network

performance and strategic priorities, categorized

by:

− Severity (Critical, High, Moderate, Low)

− Type (Infrastructural, Operational, Digital,

Environmental)

− Geographic Scope (Region, Corridor, Port)

4. Strategic Opportunity Assessment: Evaluation of

potential interventions and route developments to

address identified gaps.

Figure 6. Heat map of maritime traffic density in the Eastern

Mediterranean region, September 2024. The color gradient

from yellow (low) to dark red (high) indicates vessel traffic

intensity measured in hours per square kilometer. Source:

Global Maritime Traffic Density Service (GMTDS), 2024

Figure 7. Heat map of maritime traffic density in the Central

Mediterranean region, September 2024. The color gradient

from yellow (low) to dark red (high) indicates vessel traffic

intensity measured in hours per square kilometer. Source:

Global Maritime Traffic Density Service (GMTDS), 2024

Basin-Wide Gap Analysis: Critical Misalignments

The integration of Central and Eastern

Mediterranean analyses reveals several basin-wide

patterns of misalignment between current network

performance and AHP-prioritized competitiveness

factors:

Capacity Constraints at Strategic Chokepoints (F5 -

Weight: 0.0928)

The highest-priority AHP factor (Capacity) faces

critical constraints at multiple strategic chokepoints

across the Mediterranean:

1. Turkish Straits Crisis: The most severe capacity

constraint in the entire Mediterranean, with

extreme congestion (dark red) in the Bosporus and

Dardanelles Straits creating a critical bottleneck for

all vessel movements between the Mediterranean

and Black Sea.

− Severity: Critical

− Impact: Affects all vessel movements between

Mediterranean and Black Sea, including

potential Ro-Ro services

− Geographic Scope: Bosporus and Dardanelles

Straits, Sea of Marmara

2. Messina Strait Bottleneck: The second most severe

capacity constraint, with extreme congestion (dark

red) in the narrow passage between Sicily and

mainland Italy creating a critical bottleneck

affecting multiple major Ro-Ro routes.

− Severity: Critical

− Impact: Affects all vessel movements between

Eastern and Western Mediterranean via the

Tyrrhenian Sea

− Geographic Scope: Messina Strait and

approaches

3. Piraeus Hub Congestion: High traffic concentration

(red) around Athens/Piraeus creates capacity

constraints that conflict with the highest-priority

AHP factor.

− Severity: High

− Impact: Affects schedule reliability and service

frequency for multiple Ro-Ro routes

− Geographic Scope: Approaches to Piraeus,

Saronic Gulf

4. These capacity constraints at strategic chokepoints

create a basin-wide pattern of bottlenecks that limit

1380

the potential for high-frequency Ro-Ro services

despite this being the highest-priority

competitiveness factor.

Intermodal Connectivity Disparities (F6 - Weight:

0.0917)

The second highest priority AHP factor (Intermodal

links) shows significant regional disparities across the

Mediterranean:

1. North-South Intermodal Divide: A clear pattern

emerges with stronger intermodal connectivity at

Northern Mediterranean ports (particularly in Italy

and Northern Adriatic) versus limited connectivity

at Southern Mediterranean ports (North Africa,

Egypt).

− Severity: High

− Impact: Creates imbalanced network with

limited hinterland reach in Southern

Mediterranean

− Geographic Scope: Basin-wide, particularly

affecting North Africa-Europe connections

2. Eastern Mediterranean Intermodal Gaps:

Particularly severe intermodal limitations at

Egyptian ports and along the Albanian coast

despite strategic locations.

− Severity: High

− Impact: Constrains the potential of these ports to

serve as gateways to their respective hinterlands

− Geographic Scope: Eastern Mediterranean,

particularly Egypt and Albania

3. Island Connectivity Challenges: Limited

intermodal integration for island ports across both

the Central Mediterranean (Sicily, Sardinia) and

Eastern Mediterranean (Greek islands).

− Severity: Moderate

− Impact: Reduces efficiency of island-mainland

logistics chains

− Geographic Scope: Mediterranean islands,

particularly Sicily, Sardinia, Crete, and Rhodes

These intermodal connectivity disparities create a

fragmented network with limited ability to provide

efficient door-to-door logistics services despite the

high priority of intermodal links.

Digital Integration Fragmentation (F4 - Weight:

0.0907)

The third-highest priority AHP factor (Port

community systems) shows significant fragmentation

across the Mediterranean:

1. EU-Non-EU Digital Divide: A clear pattern emerges

with more advanced digital integration within EU

ports versus limited integration between EU and

non-EU ports.

− Severity: High

− Impact: Creates inefficiencies in cross-border

documentation, customs clearance, and supply

chain visibility

− Geographic Scope: Basin-wide, particularly

affecting EU-North Africa and EU-Turkey

connections

2. Regional Digital Clusters: Digital integration

appears stronger within regional clusters (e.g.,

Western Mediterranean, Adriatic) but limited

between these clusters.

− Severity: Moderate

− Impact: Creates inefficiencies in long-distance

Mediterranean logistics chains

− Geographic Scope: Basin-wide, affecting inter-

regional connections

3. Chokepoint Coordination Gaps: Limited evidence

of advanced digital coordination systems at critical

chokepoints (Turkish Straits, Messina Strait)

despite their importance.

− Severity: Critical

− Impact: Exacerbates congestion and reduces

reliability of services through these critical

passages

− Geographic Scope: Turkish Straits, Messina

Strait, other major chokepoints

This digital fragmentation creates barriers to

efficient information flow across the Mediterranean

Ro-Ro network despite the high priority of port

community system integration.

Environmental Practice Inconsistencies (F11 -

Weight: 0.0899)

The fourth-highest priority AHP factor

(Environmental practices) shows significant

inconsistencies across the Mediterranean:

1. Enclosed Seas Environmental Vulnerability:

Particularly severe environmental pressures in

enclosed or semi-enclosed seas (Adriatic, Aegean,

Marmara) with high traffic concentration in

sensitive marine ecosystems.

− Severity: Critical

− Impact: Creates air quality issues, marine

pollution risks, and conflicts with sustainability

goals

− Geographic Scope: Adriatic Sea, Aegean Sea, Sea

of Marmara

2. North-South Environmental Standards Divide:

Evidence suggests stronger environmental

infrastructure and practices at Northern

Mediterranean ports versus limited

implementation at Southern Mediterranean ports.

− Severity: High

− Impact: Creates uneven playing field and

potential regulatory compliance issues

− Geographic Scope: Basin-wide, particularly

affecting North Africa-Europe connections

3. Urban Port Environmental Hotspots: Concentrated

environmental pressures at major urban ports

(Istanbul, Piraeus, Alexandria) without apparent

mitigation measures.

− Severity: High

− Impact: Affects air quality and creates risks of

marine pollution in major urban areas

− Geographic Scope: Major Mediterranean port

cities

These environmental practice inconsistencies create

challenges for sustainable development of the

Mediterranean Ro-Ro network despite the high

priority of environmental factors.

Regional Gap Analysis: Distinct Patterns and

Challenges

Central Mediterranean Region

The Central Mediterranean analysis reveals distinct

regional challenges:

1. Sicily Channel Capacity Distribution: Multiple

parallel routes between Sicily and Tunisia indicate

capacity distribution challenges rather than

absolute capacity constraints.

1381

− Alignment with AHP: Partial misalignment with

F5 (Capacity)

− Strategic Implication: Opportunity for route

consolidation and optimization

2. Tyrrhenian Sea Intermodal Integration: Strong

maritime connections but limited evidence of

intermodal integration, particularly at Sardinian

and Sicilian ports.

− Alignment with AHP: Misalignment with F6

(Intermodal links)

− Strategic Implication: Need for enhanced island-

mainland intermodal connections

3. Sicily Strait Environmental Hotspots: Concentrated

vessel activity along coastal routes creating

environmental hotspots.

− Alignment with AHP: Misalignment with F11

(Environmental practices)

− Strategic Implication: Need for targeted

environmental interventions in coastal areas

Eastern Mediterranean Region

The Eastern Mediterranean analysis reveals

different regional challenges:

1. Aegean Archipelagic Complexity: Complex traffic

patterns through the Greek islands creating

navigational and coordination challenges.

− Alignment with AHP: Misalignment with F4

(Port community systems)

− Strategic Implication: Need for advanced vessel

coordination systems

2. Egypt-Europe Connectivity Gap: Limited direct

connections between Egyptian ports and European

markets despite economic importance.

− Alignment with AHP: Misalignment with F5

(Capacity) and F6 (Intermodal links)

− Strategic Implication: Strong opportunity for

new route development

3. Turkish Straits Bottleneck: Extreme congestion

creating the most severe capacity constraint in the

entire Mediterranean.

− Alignment with AHP: Critical misalignment

with F5 (Capacity)

− Strategic Implication: Need for urgent capacity

enhancement measures

Adriatic Sea Region

The Adriatic Sea analysis reveals specific regional

challenges:

1. North-South Adriatic Divide: Strong infrastructure

and connectivity in Northern Adriatic versus

limited development in Southern Adriatic.

− Alignment with AHP: Misalignment with F6

(Intermodal links)

− Strategic Implication: Need for balanced

regional development

2. Albanian Coast Underdevelopment: Significant

underutilization of Albanian coast despite strategic

location.

− Alignment with AHP: Misalignment with F5

(Capacity) and F6 (Intermodal links)

− Strategic Implication: Major opportunity for

new port development

3. Cross-Adriatic Integration Limitations: Limited

digital and operational integration between Italian

and Eastern Adriatic ports.

− Alignment with AHP: Misalignment with F4

(Port community systems)

− Strategic Implication: Need for cross-border

coordination initiatives

North African Coast

The North African coast analysis reveals distinct

regional challenges:

1. Limited Port Infrastructure: Concentrated traffic at

few major ports (Alexandria, Tunis) with limited

development of secondary ports.

− Alignment with AHP: Misalignment with F5

(Capacity)

− Strategic Implication: Need for distributed port

development

2. Severe Intermodal Limitations: Limited hinterland

connectivity from major ports constraining market

reach.

− Alignment with AHP: Critical misalignment

with F6 (Intermodal links)

− Strategic Implication: Priority area for

infrastructure investment

3. Regional Connectivity Gaps: Limited coastal

connections between neighboring countries (Libya-

Egypt, Tunisia-Libya).

− Alignment with AHP: Misalignment with F14

(Frequency and variety of services)

− Strategic Implication: Opportunity for regional

integration initiatives

Strategic Route Gap Assessment

The integrated analysis provides a comprehensive

assessment of strategic route gaps across the

Mediterranean:

East-West Connection Gaps

1. Eastern Mediterranean-Central Europe Gap:

Limited direct maritime connections between

Eastern Mediterranean (Egypt, Turkey, Greece) and

Central European markets.

− Severity: High

− AHP Alignment: Conflicts with F5 (Capacity),

F6 (Intermodal links)

− Strategic Opportunity: The proposed Damietta–

Patras–Trieste route directly addresses this gap

2. Turkey-Western Europe Gap: Limited direct

connections between Turkish ports and Western

European markets.

− Severity: Moderate

− AHP Alignment: Conflicts with F5 (Capacity),

F14 (Frequency of services)

− Strategic Opportunity: The proposed Ambarlı–

Trieste–Marseille route addresses this gap

North-South Connection Gaps

1. Egypt-Greece Direct Connection Gap: Despite

economic importance, limited direct Ro-Ro services

between Egyptian and Greek ports.

− Severity: High

− AHP Alignment: Conflicts with F5 (Capacity),

F14 (Frequency of services)

− Strategic Opportunity: The Egyptian portion of

the proposed Damietta–Patras–Trieste route

addresses this gap

2. Southern Italy-North Africa Connection Gap:

Limited direct services between Southern Italian

ports and North African markets beyond Tunisia.

− Severity: Moderate

− AHP Alignment: Conflicts with F5 (Capacity),

F14 (Frequency of services)

1382

− Strategic Opportunity: Potential for new route

development

Regional Integration Gaps

1. Adriatic-Aegean Connection Gap: Limited direct

connections between these adjacent seas despite

their economic importance.

− Severity: Moderate

− AHP Alignment: Conflicts with F5 (Capacity),

F14 (Frequency of services)

− Strategic Opportunity: Potential extension of

proposed routes or new dedicated service

2. North African Coastal Connection Gap: Limited

maritime connections between neighboring North

African countries.

− Severity: Moderate

− AHP Alignment: Conflicts with F14 (Frequency

of services)

− Strategic Opportunity: Potential for regional

integration initiative

Support for Proposed Strategic Routes

The integrated analysis provides strong evidence

supporting the strategic rationale for the two proposed

routes identified in this paper

Damietta–Patras–Trieste Route

The integrated GIS-AHP analysis strongly supports

this proposed route:

1. Addresses Critical East-West Gap: The route would

provide a direct maritime connection between the

Eastern Mediterranean and Central Europe,

addressing the significant gap identified in both

Central and Eastern Mediterranean analyses.

− AHP Alignment: Directly addresses F5

(Capacity) - highest priority factor (0.0928)

2. Connects Strong Intermodal Nodes with Weak

Links: Trieste shows excellent intermodal

capabilities (aligning with F6), while Damietta

shows intermodal limitations that could be

addressed through targeted development.

− AHP Alignment: Addresses F6 (Intermodal

links) - second-highest priority factor (0.0917)

3. Potential for Digital Integration: The route could

stimulate development of cross-border port

community systems between Egypt, Greece, and

Italy, addressing the digital fragmentation

identified in the basin-wide analysis.

− AHP Alignment: Addresses F4 (Port community

systems) - third-highest priority factor (0.0907)

4. Environmental Optimization Potential: A direct

route could reduce overall emissions compared to

longer alternative routes or road transport,

addressing the environmental practice

inconsistencies identified in the basin-wide

analysis.

− AHP Alignment: Addresses F11 (Environmental

practices) - fourth-highest priority factor (0.0899)

Ambarlı–Trieste–Marseille Route

The integrated GIS-AHP analysis provides

qualified support for this route with important caveats:

1. Turkish Straits Constraint: The critical capacity

constraints in the Turkish Straits (severe

misalignment with F5) may impact the reliability of

services from Ambarlı, requiring careful scheduling

and potentially limiting frequency.

− AHP Alignment: Partial conflict with F5

(Capacity) - highest priority factor (0.0928)

2. Strong Terminal Points: Both Ambarlı and Trieste

show high traffic density with good intermodal

connections (aligning with F6), confirming their

importance as maritime hubs.

− AHP Alignment: Strong alignment with F6

(Intermodal links) - second-highest priority

factor (0.0917)

3. Digital Integration Potential: The route could

connect relatively advanced port community

systems, addressing the digital fragmentation

identified in the basin-wide analysis.

− AHP Alignment: Addresses F4 (Port community

systems) - third-highest priority factor (0.0907)

4. Environmental Considerations: The route passes

through several environmental hotspots identified

in both Central and Eastern Mediterranean

analyses, requiring careful planning to align with

environmental priorities.

− AHP Alignment: Requires careful

implementation to align with F11

(Environmental practices) - fourth-highest

priority factor (0.0899)

Strategic Recommendations

Based on the integrated gap analysis, the following

strategic interventions are recommended to optimize

the Mediterranean Ro-Ro transportation network:

Critical Priority Interventions

1. Turkish Straits Capacity Enhancement:

− Implement advanced vessel traffic management

systems

− Develop traffic separation schemes to optimize

vessel movements

− Coordinate scheduling to reduce peak

congestion periods

− Explore alternative routing options where

feasible

2. Egypt-Greece-Adriatic Corridor Development:

− Support the proposed Damietta–Patras–Trieste

route with dedicated infrastructure

− Develop intermodal connections at all three

ports, with particular focus on Egyptian

hinterland connectivity

− Implement digital integration between port

community systems across the corridor

− Establish environmental best practices

throughout the corridor

3. Messina Strait Capacity Optimization:

− Implement advanced vessel traffic management

systems

− Develop traffic separation schemes to optimize

vessel movements

− Coordinate scheduling to reduce peak

congestion periods

− Explore alternative routing options to distribute

traffic

High Priority Interventions

1. North African Intermodal Development:

− Enhance rail and road connections to major

ports (Alexandria, Damietta, Tunis)

− Develop inland terminals with direct port

connections

− Implement digital logistics platforms for

hinterland integration

− Streamline border and customs processes

1383

2. Adriatic-Balkan Connectivity Enhancement:

− Develop Albanian port infrastructure at

strategic locations

− Enhance intermodal connections to Balkan

markets

− Implement port community systems integrated

with EU standards

− Create dedicated Ro-Ro terminals with modern

handling equipment

3. Mediterranean Digital Integration Initiative:

− Develop harmonized documentation systems

across the basin

− Implement integrated customs platforms

between EU and non-EU ports

− Create cross-border information sharing

protocols

− Establish common data standards for logistics

visibility

Environmental Sustainability Initiatives

1. Enclosed Seas Environmental Protection:

− Implement shore power infrastructure at major

ports in the Adriatic, Aegean, and Marmara

− Establish emissions control areas with speed

restrictions in sensitive areas

− Develop waste reception facilities at all ports

− Create environmental monitoring systems

2. Green Corridor Development:

− Designate the proposed Damietta–Patras–

Trieste route as a green shipping corridor pilot

− Implement environmental best practices at all

ports along the corridor

− Provide incentives for low-emission vessels

− Develop alternative fuel infrastructure

3. Urban Port Environmental Management:

− Implement comprehensive environmental

management systems at major urban ports

− Develop shore power infrastructure to reduce

emissions during port calls

− Implement noise reduction measures

− Establish air quality monitoring networks

Implementation Roadmap

Short-Term Actions (1-2 Years)

1. Digital Integration Initiatives:

− Develop cross-border port community system

pilot projects

− Implement real-time vessel coordination in

critical chokepoints

− Harmonize documentation requirements across

key corridors

− Create shared data standards for Mediterranean

Ro-Ro operations

2. Operational Optimization:

− Implement traffic separation schemes in

congested areas

− Coordinate scheduling to reduce peak

congestion periods

− Optimize port operations at key nodes

− Develop collaborative logistics platforms for key

corridors

Medium-Term Developments (3-5 Years)

1. Infrastructure Enhancements:

− Develop intermodal connections at key ports

− Implement shore power facilities at high-traffic

nodes

− Enhance port capacity at strategic locations

− Create inland terminals with direct port

connections

2. New Route Development:

− Establish the proposed Damietta–Patras–Trieste

route

− Develop the proposed Ambarlı–Trieste–

Marseille route

− Create alternative routing options for congested

corridors

− Implement specialized services for specific cargo

types

Long-Term Transformations (5+ Years)

1. Comprehensive Network Redesign:

− Develop a fully integrated Mediterranean Ro-Ro

network

− Implement green shipping corridors throughout

the region

− Create a seamless digital logistics environment

− Establish balanced capacity distribution across

the network

2. Sustainable Development Integration:

− Transition to zero-emission vessels on key

routes

− Implement circular economy principles at all

major ports

− Develop renewable energy integration at all

terminals

− Create a climate-resilient Mediterranean

logistics system

The integrated gap analysis of the Central and

Eastern Mediterranean Ro-Ro networks reveals

significant misalignments between current

performance and strategic priorities across the entire

basin. The most critical gaps include capacity

constraints at strategic chokepoints, intermodal

connectivity disparities, digital integration

fragmentation, and environmental practice

inconsistencies.

These misalignments create both challenges and

opportunities for strategic network development. The

proposed Damietta–Patras–Trieste route is strongly

supported by the analysis, addressing multiple high-

priority factors and critical gaps in East-West

connectivity. The Ambarlı–Trieste–Marseille route

faces challenges related to Turkish Straits congestion

but offers potential benefits if these constraints can be

managed.

By addressing the specific gaps identified in this

analysis through the recommended strategic

interventions, stakeholders can better align the

Mediterranean Ro-Ro network's operational

performance with strategic priorities, enhancing both

efficiency and sustainability while supporting regional

economic integration. This integrated approach to

network optimization provides a foundation for

developing a more balanced, resilient, and sustainable

Ro-Ro transportation system across the Mediterranean

basin.

5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The research has yielded several critical insights into

the Mediterranean Ro-Ro network, substantiated by

both the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and

Geographic Information System (GIS) analyses:

1384

1. Primacy of Capacity, Intermodal Links, Digital

Integration, and Environmental Practices: The AHP

analysis quantitatively established that terminal

capacity (F5, weight: 0.0928), availability of

intermodal links (F6, weight: 0.0917), integration

with port community systems (F4, weight: 0.0907),

and sound environmental practices (F11, weight:

0.0899) are the most crucial factors for Ro-Ro

competitiveness. The GIS analysis corroborates

these findings by revealing critical spatial

misalignments with these top factors, particularly at

strategic chokepoints like the Turkish Straits and

Messina Strait where extreme traffic density

(visualized as dark red in heat maps) directly

conflicts with capacity requirements. This evidence-

based prioritization underscores a paradigm shift

where operational efficiency and sustainability are

becoming as important as traditional cost factors. It

implies that future investments and strategic

planning must prioritize these areas to enhance the

attractiveness and functionality of Ro-Ro services.

2. Identified Network Imbalances and Gaps: The

integrated AHP-GIS analysis revealed significant

geographical and operational imbalances across the

Mediterranean basin. The GIS heat maps clearly

demonstrate that connectivity between the Eastern

Mediterranean (including key markets like Egypt

and Turkey) and Central/Western European hubs is

less developed than intra-Western Mediterranean

routes, with visibly lower traffic density (yellow to

light orange) along potential direct corridors.

Furthermore, the analysis identified a pronounced

North-South divide in intermodal connectivity,

with Northern Mediterranean ports showing

stronger intermodal integration patterns than

Southern Mediterranean counterparts. The GIS

analysis also revealed critical digital integration

fragmentation, particularly between EU and non-

EU ports, and environmental practice

inconsistencies, especially in enclosed seas like the

Adriatic, Aegean, and Marmara where high traffic

concentration creates significant environmental

pressures.

3. Strategic Potential of Proposed New Routes: The

proposed routes—Damietta–Patras–Trieste and

Ambarlı–Trieste–Marseille—emerge as viable

opportunities to address the identified connectivity

gaps, with strong validation from the integrated

AHP-GIS analysis. The GIS analysis confirms the

Eastern Mediterranean-Central Europe

connectivity gap (visualized as dispersed rather

than concentrated traffic patterns) that the

Damietta–Patras–Trieste route would directly

address. Similarly, the Turkey-Western Europe gap

is substantiated by limited direct traffic patterns

between these regions. These routes offer the

potential to create more direct and efficient

corridors, leverage the intermodal strengths of key

hub ports like Trieste (confirmed by high traffic

density and strong intermodal patterns in GIS

analysis), and stimulate economic activity by

linking major production and consumption centers

more effectively. Their development could also

serve as a catalyst for upgrading port infrastructure

and services at their Eastern Mediterranean termini,

particularly addressing the severe intermodal

limitations at Egyptian ports identified in the GIS

analysis.

4. The Imperative of Sustainable Development: The

high ranking of environmental practices in the AHP

(F11, weight: 0.0899), coupled with the GIS

identification of critical environmental

vulnerability in enclosed seas and urban port

hotspots, reinforces the necessity of integrating

sustainability into all aspects of Ro-Ro network

development. The GIS analysis specifically

identified the Marmara Basin, Aegean islands, and

major urban ports (Istanbul, Piraeus, Alexandria) as

environmental pressure points requiring urgent

attention. The concept of Green Shipping Corridors

offers a tangible pathway for achieving this, and the

proposed routes present an opportunity to pilot

such initiatives in the Mediterranean, particularly

given their alignment with areas of high

environmental sensitivity identified in the GIS

analysis.

5. Value of a Holistic Evaluation Framework: The

development of a multi-faceted evaluation

framework, incorporating AHP-derived factor

importance, economic viability, operational

efficiency, intermodal connectivity, and

environmental sustainability, provides a much-

needed tool for robust decision-making. The GIS

analysis demonstrates the framework's practical

utility by spatially validating the prioritization of

factors and identifying specific geographic areas

where interventions would yield the greatest

benefits. Such a framework can guide strategic

investments, policy formulation, and operational

planning in a more integrated and evidence-based

manner, particularly when supported by the spatial

intelligence provided by GIS analysis.

Implications for Stakeholders

Academic Implications

This research contributes to the academic literature

on maritime logistics and transportation network

optimization by:

− Providing an empirical application of AHP in

prioritizing Ro-Ro competitiveness factors within

the specific context of the Mediterranean, with

quantitative weights that can be referenced in

future studies.

− Demonstrating the value of integrating AHP with

GIS analysis to create a more comprehensive

understanding of maritime networks, where

qualitative expert judgments are spatially validated

through objective traffic density patterns.

− Offering a structured methodology for identifying

gaps and opportunities in complex maritime

networks, including a novel approach to

categorizing gaps by severity, type, and geographic

scope.

− Proposing a conceptual framework for Ro-Ro route

evaluation that integrates multiple critical

dimensions, including sustainability, with clear

spatial validation through GIS analysis.

− Highlighting areas for future research, such as

detailed quantitative modeling of the proposed

routes, in-depth analysis of specific intermodal

solutions for identified gap areas (particularly

Egyptian ports and the Albanian coast), and further

investigation into the socio-economic impacts of

Ro-Ro network developments.

1385

Industry Implications

For industry stakeholders, the findings suggest a

need to:

− Focus on Core Competitiveness Factors: Shipping

lines and port operators should strategically invest

in enhancing capacity (particularly at critical

chokepoints identified through GIS analysis),

improving intermodal connections (especially in

the Southern Mediterranean where GIS analysis

revealed severe limitations), advancing

digitalization through Port Community Systems

(with particular attention to cross-border

integration between EU and non-EU ports), and

adopting best-practice environmental measures

(prioritizing enclosed seas and urban port areas

identified as environmental hotspots).

− Explore New Route Opportunities: The proposed

routes warrant serious consideration for

commercial development, with the GIS analysis

providing spatial validation of their strategic

rationale. The Damietta–Patras–Trieste route

addresses the clearly visualized Eastern

Mediterranean-Central Europe connectivity gap,

while the Ambarlı–Trieste–Marseille route

addresses the Turkey-Western Europe gap, albeit

with important considerations regarding Turkish

Straits congestion.

− Embrace Sustainability as a Competitive

Differentiator: Proactive adoption of green

technologies and operational practices can enhance

brand reputation, meet evolving customer

demands, and ensure long-term regulatory

compliance. The GIS analysis identifies specific

environmental hotspots (Marmara Basin, Aegean

islands, urban ports) where such initiatives would

yield the greatest benefits.

− Foster Collaboration: Addressing network-wide

challenges and capitalizing on opportunities will

require enhanced collaboration between port

authorities, shipping lines, logistics providers, and

governmental bodies across the Mediterranean. The

GIS analysis reveals that many gaps (such as digital

fragmentation and intermodal disparities)

transcend national boundaries and require

coordinated regional approaches.

Strategic Recommendations

Based on the research findings and discussion, the

following strategic recommendations are proposed:

For Policymakers (EU, National, and Regional

Governments)

1. Promote Investment in Prioritized Areas: Develop

policies and funding mechanisms that incentivize

investment in port capacity enhancement

(particularly at critical chokepoints identified

through GIS analysis, such as the Turkish Straits

and Messina Strait), intermodal infrastructure

development (especially rail freight corridors

connecting to Ro-Ro terminals in the Southern

Mediterranean where GIS analysis revealed severe

limitations), and the widespread adoption of

advanced Port Community Systems, focusing on

interoperability between EU and non-EU ports

where the GIS analysis identified significant digital

divides.

2. Facilitate Green Shipping Corridor Development:

Actively support the establishment of Green

Shipping Corridors in the Mediterranean by

providing regulatory frameworks, financial

incentives for green technologies and alternative

fuels, and fostering public-private partnerships.

Designate the proposed routes (Damietta–Patras–

Trieste and Ambarlı–Trieste–Marseille) as potential

pilot corridors, with particular attention to

environmental hotspots identified through GIS

analysis, such as the Aegean islands along the

Damietta–Patras–Trieste route and the Marmara

Basin for the Ambarlı–Trieste–Marseille route.

3. Harmonize Regulations and Streamline

Procedures: Work towards greater harmonization

of customs procedures, environmental standards,

and digital protocols across Mediterranean

countries to reduce administrative burdens and

enhance the fluidity of Ro-Ro services. The GIS

analysis revealed significant fragmentation in

digital integration, particularly between EU and

non-EU ports, highlighting the need for regulatory

harmonization.

4. Support Research and Innovation: Fund further

research into optimizing Mediterranean Ro-Ro

networks, developing innovative intermodal

solutions for specific gap areas identified through

GIS analysis (particularly Egyptian ports and the

Albanian coast), and advancing green shipping

technologies tailored to the region's needs,

especially for enclosed seas like the Adriatic,

Aegean, and Marmara where the GIS analysis

revealed significant environmental vulnerability.

For Port Authorities

1. Invest Strategically based on AHP Factors:

Prioritize infrastructure and service development

projects that align with the top-weighted

competitiveness factors: capacity (F5, weight:

0.0928), intermodal links (F6, weight: 0.0917), PCS

integration (F4, weight: 0.0907), and environmental

performance (F11, weight: 0.0899). The GIS analysis

provides spatial guidance for these investments,

identifying specific ports and regions where

interventions would address critical gaps.

2. Enhance Intermodal Connectivity: Proactively

develop and improve rail and inland waterway

connections to Ro-Ro terminals, ensuring seamless

and efficient transfer of freight to and from the

hinterland. The GIS analysis identified severe

intermodal limitations at Egyptian ports, along the

Albanian coast, and at island ports across both the

Central and Eastern Mediterranean, highlighting

these as priority areas for intervention.

3. Champion Digitalization: Invest in state-of-the-art

Port Community Systems with Ro-Ro specific

functionalities and work towards greater data

sharing and interoperability with other ports and

supply chain partners. The GIS analysis revealed

significant digital fragmentation across the

Mediterranean, particularly between EU and non-

EU ports and at critical chokepoints like the Turkish

Straits and Messina Strait, indicating where digital

integration efforts should be prioritized.

4. Lead in Environmental Stewardship: Implement

comprehensive environmental management plans,

invest in shore power infrastructure for Ro-Ro

vessels, promote the use of cleaner fuels for

terminal operations, and actively participate in

Green Shipping Corridor initiatives. The GIS

analysis identified specific environmental hotspots

1386

requiring urgent attention, including the Marmara

Basin, Aegean islands, and major urban ports

(Istanbul, Piraeus, Alexandria).

5. Collaborate with Other Ports and Stakeholders:

Engage in regional partnerships to standardize

procedures, share best practices, and jointly

promote the development of new, efficient Ro-Ro

routes. The GIS analysis revealed that many

challenges, such as capacity constraints at strategic

chokepoints and digital fragmentation, require

coordinated regional approaches rather than

isolated port-level interventions.

For Shipping Operators

1. Evaluate and Invest in New Route Opportunities:

Conduct detailed feasibility studies for the

proposed Damietta–Patras–Trieste and Ambarlı–

Trieste–Marseille routes, considering market

demand, operational costs, and strategic

partnerships. The GIS analysis provides spatial

validation of these routes' strategic rationale, while

also highlighting important considerations such as

Turkish Straits congestion for the Ambarlı–Trieste–

Marseille route.

2. Modernize Fleets with a Focus on Efficiency and

Sustainability: Invest in modern, fuel-efficient Ro-

Ro vessels equipped to utilize alternative fuels and

comply with increasingly stringent environmental

regulations. Prioritize vessels suitable for routes

aiming to become Green Shipping Corridors,

particularly those passing through environmental

hotspots identified in the GIS analysis, such as the

Aegean islands and Marmara Basin.

3. Integrate with Digital Port Ecosystems: Ensure full

compatibility and active participation with Port

Community Systems at called ports to enhance

operational efficiency and customer service. The

GIS analysis revealed significant digital

fragmentation across the Mediterranean,

highlighting the importance of operators' active

engagement in digital integration initiatives.

4. Partner for Intermodal Solutions: Collaborate with

port authorities, rail operators, and logistics

providers to develop integrated door-to-door Ro-

Ro solutions that leverage efficient intermodal

connections. The GIS analysis identified significant

intermodal connectivity disparities across the

Mediterranean, particularly in the Southern

Mediterranean and at island ports, indicating

where such partnerships would be most valuable.

5. Advocate for Supportive Policies: Engage with

policymakers and industry associations to advocate

for policies that support the development of a more

efficient, sustainable, and competitive Ro-Ro

network in the Mediterranean. The GIS analysis

provides evidence-based support for policy

interventions, particularly in addressing capacity

constraints at strategic chokepoints, enhancing

intermodal connectivity in the Southern

Mediterranean, and promoting environmental

sustainability in enclosed seas.

By addressing these recommendations,

stakeholders can collectively contribute to the

optimization of Mediterranean Ro-Ro transportation

networks, fostering economic growth, enhancing

regional connectivity, and advancing environmental

sustainability in this vital maritime basin.

Limitations

This study is constrained by three factors. First,

expert judgements were obtained from a purposive

sample of twenty stakeholders, which—while

internally consistent—may not capture the full

spectrum of operational realities. Future research

should test the robustness of the weight structure

across larger, heterogeneous panels. Second, the AIS

traffic layer represents a single‑month snapshot

(September 2024); seasonal variation could shift the

prominence of specific corridors. Incorporating

multi‑month or multi‑year AIS composites would

mitigate this bias. Third, the framework presently

omits explicit cost and emissions modelling for

proposed routes. Scenario‑based optimisation under

alternative fuel prices and carbon levies would deepen

the managerial insights.

6 CONCLUSION

By integrating expert‑based multi‑criteria analysis

with spatial traffic intelligence, this paper delivers a

scalable decision framework for optimising

Mediterranean Ro‑Ro networks. The approach

identifies clear priorities, namely, high‑frequency

handling capacity, intermodal connectivity, and digital

port community systems—and ties these to concrete

corridor proposals that promise double‑digit efficiency

gains. Policymakers can leverage the framework to

align green‑corridor ambitions with Fit‑for‑55 targets,

while operators gain a tool for data‑driven route design

amid growing decarbonisation pressures. Future work

should broaden the expert pool, incorporate

longitudinal AIS data, and embed cost‑emissions

trade‑offs to further refine route selection under

uncertainty.

REFERENCES

Belcore, O. M., Polimeni, A., & Di Gangi, M. (2024).

Performance analysis for a maritime port with high-

frequency services: An Italian case study. Case Studies on

Transport Policy, 17, Article 101263.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2024.101263 ResearchGate

International Maritime Organization. (2020). Fourth IMO

greenhouse-gas study 2020. IMO Publishing.

Karahalios, H. (2014). Energy efficiency management

strategies for short-sea Ro-Ro shipping. Maritime Policy

& Management, 41(6), 580–599.

Karountzos, O., Kagkelis, G., & Kepaptsoglou, K. (2023). 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, 7(2), 16.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41651-023-00145-1 ResearchGate

Notteboom, T. E., & Rodrigue, J.-P. (2009). The future of

containerization: Perspectives from maritime and inland

freight distribution. GeoJournal, 74(1), 7–22.

Panagakos, G., Solakivi, T., Zis, T., & Psaraftis, H. N. (2019).

The role of Ro-Ro shipping in a stricter regulatory

environment (Scandria®2Act Activity 3.2-2 Report, 49

pp.). Technical University of Denmark.

https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/the-role-of-ro-ro-

shipping-in-a-stricter-regulatory-environment Welcome

to DTU Research Database

Paraskevadakis, D., & Adeyeri, I. (2022). An industry-level

analysis of the post-Brexit and post-Covid-19 Ro-Ro ferry

1387

market and critical maritime freight transport links

between the UK and the EU. Journal of Shipping and

Trade, 7, 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-022-00127-4

EconStor

Psaraftis, H. N. (Ed.). (2019). Handbook of maritime

economics and business (3rd ed.). Informa Law.

Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning,

priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill.

Santos, L., & Santos, R. (2024). Optimising Ro-Ro connectivity

in the Western Mediterranean using a multi-criteria

decision model. Maritime Policy & Management.

Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2024

Zis, T. P. V., Psaraftis, H. N., Tillig, F., & Ringsberg, J. W.

(2020). Decarbonizing maritime transport: A Ro-Pax case

study. Research in Transportation Business &

Management, 37, 100565.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100565 Welcome to

DTU Research Database