<table><caption>**Table C6**
Pipeline-to-ship bunkering ATT regression, without covariates.</caption><thead><tr><th>A. parametric coefficients</th><th>Estimate</th><th>Std. Error</th><th>t-value</th><th>p-value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pipeline-to-ship LNG bunkering in port</td><td>-2.7306</td><td>1.2083</td><td>-2.2599</td><td>0.2469</td></tr><tr><td>B. smooth terms</td><td>edf</td><td>Ref.df</td><td>F-value</td><td>p-value</td></tr><tr><td>Port random effects (random intercept)</td><td>14.4501</td><td>16.0000</td><td>504907.2716</td><td>1.0000</td></tr><tr><td>Vessel random effects (random intercept)</td><td>9.4508</td><td>4.0000</td><td>7173777.2920</td><td>1.0000</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: The asterisks associated with the estimated coefficients represent the significance levels. Significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% levels are marked by one, two, or three asterisks, respectively (*p* < 0.1, **p* < 0.05, ***p* < 0.01). The contribution of the random effects follows the significance of the associated *effective degrees of freedom* (edf). Significant edf indicates a strong contribution of the random effects. The Ref.df term denotes the reference degrees of freedom.

## References

* AB Klaipėdos nafta website, n.d. Klaipėda LNG terminal - KN [WWW Document]. URL https://www.kn.lt/en/lng-terminals/klaipeda-lng-terminal/559 (accessed 8.25.23).

* Acciaro, M., 2014. Real option analysis for environmental compliance: LNG and emission control areas. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. Emiss. Control Areas Impact Marit. Transp. 28, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.12.007.

* Acocella, A., Caplice, C., Sheffi, Y., 2020. Elephants or goldfish?: An empirical analysis of carrier reciprocity in dynamic freight markets. Transp. Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev. 142, 102073 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.102073.

* Adams, M., Quinonez, P., Pallis, A.A., Wakeman, T., 2009. Environmental issues in port competitiveness. Atlantic Research Report, Gateway Research Initiative Working Paper 7.

* Aghion, P., Bénabou, R., Martin, R., Roulet, A., 2023. Environmental preferences and technological choices: is market competition clean or dirty? Am. Econ. Rev.: Insights 5, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20210014.

* Alamoush, A.S., Ölçer, A.I., Ballini, F., 2022. Ports’ role in shipping decarbonisation: A common port incentive scheme for shipping greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Clean. Logist. Supply Chain 3, 100021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clscn.2021.100021.

* Anderson, C.M., Opaluch, J.J., Grigalunas, T.A., 2009. The demand for import services at US container ports. Marit. Econ. Logist. 11, 156–185. https://doi.org/10.1057/mel.2009.4.

* Angrist, J.D., Pischke, J.-S., 2008. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton University Press.

* Aronietis, R., Sys, C., van Hassel, V., Eanelslander, T., 2016. Forecasting port-level demand for LNG as a ship fuel: the case of the port of Antwerp. J. Shipp. Trd. 1, 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-016-0007-1.

* Arpino, B., Mealli, F., 2011. The specification of the propensity score in multilevel observational studies. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 55, 1770–1780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2010.11.008.

* Ashbeck, E.L., Bell, M.L., 2016. Single time point comparisons in longitudinal randomized controlled trials: power and bias in the presence of missing data. BMC Med. Res. Method. 16, 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0144-0.

* Baron, D.P., 1995. Integrated strategy: Market and nonmarket components. Calif. Manage. Rev. 37, 47–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165788.

* Brookhart, M.A., Schneeweiss, S., Rothman, K.J., Glynn, R.J., Avorn, J., Stürmer, T., 2006. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am. J. Epidemiol. 163, 1149–1156. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwj149.

* Brozynski, M.T., Leibowicz, B.D., 2022. A multi-level optimization model of infrastructure-dependent technology adoption: Overcoming the chicken-and-egg problem. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 300, 755–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.10.026.

* Caliendo, M., Kopeinig, S., 2008. Some Practical Guidance for the Implementation of Propensity Score Matching. J. Econ. Surv. 22, 31–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x.

* Chen, K.K., Chiu, R.-H., Chang, C.-T., 2017. Using beta regression to explore the relationship between service attributes and likelihood of customer retention for the container shipping industry. Transp. Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev. 104, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2017.04.015.

* D’Este, G.M., Meyrick, S., 1992. Carrier selection in a RO/RO ferry trade Part 1. Decision factors and attitudes. Marit. Policy Manag. 19, 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/030888392000000019.

* De Leeuw, J., Meijer, E., Goldstein, H., 2008. Handbook of Multilevel Analysis. Springer.

* Delacrétaz, N., Lanz, B., Van Dijk, J., 2020. The chicken or the egg: Technology adoption and network infrastructure in the market for electric vehicles. IRENE working paper.

* Eide, M.S., Endresen, Ø., Skjong, R., Longva, T., Alvik, S., 2009. Cost-effectiveness assessment of CO2 reducing measures in shipping. Marit. Policy Manag. 36, 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/0308883903057031.

* Englert, D., Losos, A., Raucić, C., Smith, T., 2021. The Role of LNG in the Transition Toward Low- and Zero-Carbon Shipping. World Bank, Washington, DC.

* European Commission, 2014a. LNG Bunkering Infrastructure Solution and Pilot actions for Ships operating on the Motorway of the Baltic Sea (No. 2012-EU-21009-M). European Commission.

* European Commission, 2014b. HEKLA – Helsingborg & Klaipeda LNG Infrastructure Facility Deployment (No. 2014-EU-TM-0120-W). European Commission.

* Fan, L., Gu, B., Luo, M., 2020. A cost-benefit analysis of fuel-switching vs. hybrid scrubber installation: A container route through the Chinese SECA case. Transp. Policy 99, 336–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.09.008.

* Ferrari, S., Cribari-Neto, F., 2004. Beta regression for modelling rates and proportions. J. Appl. Stat. 31, 799–815.

* Gao, C., McDonald, R., 2022. Shaping nascent industries: Innovation strategy and regulatory uncertainty in personal genomics. Adm. Sci. Q. 67, 915–967. https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392221112641.

* Gasum LNG, 2021. Terminal Rules for the Pori LNG Terminal.

* Gelman, A., Hill, J., 2006. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge University Press.

* Goldstein, H., 2011. Multilevel Statistical Models. John Wiley & Sons.

* Haralambides, H.E. (Ed.), 2015. Port Management. Palgrave Macmillan UK, London. 10.1057/9781137475770.

* Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., 1987. Generalized additive models: some applications. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 82, 371–386. https://doi.org/10.2307/2289439.

* Heckman, J.J., LaLonde, R.J., Smith, J.A., 1999. The economics and econometrics of active labor market programs. In: Handbook of Labor Economics. Elsevier, pp. 1865–2097.

* Helcom, 2019. Alternative Fuels for Shipping in the Baltic Sea Region. HELCOM Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission.

* Ho, D., Imai, K., King, G., Stuart, E.A., 2011. MatchIt: Nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. J. Stat. Softw. 42, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v04i02.i08.
Huber, S., Klein, E., Moeller, K., Willmes, K., 2015. Comparing a single case to a control group – Applying linear mixed effects models to repeated measures data. *Cortex* 71, 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.06.020.

IMO, 2015. Third IMO GHG Study 2014. International Maritime Organization, London, UK.

ITF - OECD, 2018. Reducing Shipping Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Lessons from Port-Based Incentives. International Transport Forum and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.

Jiannan, C., Feng, L., Zhongzhen, Y., 2020. Impacts of the choice habits of port users on the effects and efficiencies of port investment. Transp. Policy 99, 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.07.021.

Kim, J., Seltzer, M., 2007. Causal Inference in Multilevel Settings In Which Selection Processes Vary across Schools. CSE Technical Report 708. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

Kim, S., Chiang, B., 2014. Sustainability practices to achieve sustainability in international port operations. J. Korea Port Econ. Assoc. 30, 15–37.

Kim, A.-R., Kwak, D.-W., Seo, Y.-J., 2021. Evaluation of liquefied natural gas bunkering port selection. Int. J. Log. Res. Appl. 24, 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2019.1642311.

King, G., Nielsen, R., 2019. Why propensity scores should not be used for matching. Polit. Anal. 27, 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.11.

Lam, J.S.L., Chen, D., Cheng, F., Wong, K., 2011. Assessment of the competitiveness of ports as bunkering hubs: empirical studies on Singapore and Shanghai. Transp. J. 50, 176–203. https://doi.org/10.5325/transportationj.50.2.0176.

Leibowicz, B.D., 2018. Policy recommendations for a transition to sustainable mobility based on historical diffusion dynamics of transport systems. Energy Policy 119, 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.066.

Li, X., Sun, Y., Wu, G.T., 2013. Cost of LNG-fueled container vessels. AMR 805–806, 1325–1329. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.805.806.1325.

Lirn, T.C., Thanopoulou, H.A., Beynon, M.J., Beresford, A.K.C., 2004. An application of AHP on transhipment port selection: A global perspective. Marit. Econ. Logist. 6, 70–91. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100093.

LNG in Baltic Sea Ports, 2014. LNG Handbook.

Magala, M., Sammons, A., 2008. A new approach to port choice modelling. Marit. Econ. Logist. 10, 9–34. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100189.

Mäkitie, T., Steen, M., Saether, E.A., Bjørgum, Ø., Poulsen, R.T., 2022. Norwegian ship-owners' adoption of alternative fuels. Energy Policy 163, 112869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112869.

Malchow, M.B., Kanafani, A., 2004. A disaggregate analysis of port selection. Transp. Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev., Shipp. Finan. Port Issues 40, 317–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2003.05.001.

Mampaey, 2023. Equipping the Cryogas Vysotsk Terminal. URL https://www.mampaey.com/equipping-the-cryogas-vysotsk-terminal/ (accessed 9.1.23).

Martínez-Pardo, A., Orro, A., García-Alonso, L., 2020. Analysis of port choice: A methodological proposal adjusted with public data. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 136, 178–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.03.031.

McKinlay, C.J., Turnock, S.R., Hudson, D.A., 2021. Route to zero emission shipping: Hydrogen, ammonia or methanol? Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46, 28282–28297.

Mersky, A.C., Sprei, F., Samaras, C., Qian, Z. (Sean), 2016. Effectiveness of incentives on electric vehicle adoption in Norway. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 46, 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.03.011.

Murphy, P.R., Hall, P.K., 1995. The relative importance of cost and service in freight transportation choice before and after deregulation: An update. Transp. J. 35, 30–38.

Nguyen, T.-L., Collins, G.S., Spence, J., Daurès, J.-P., Devereaux, P.J., Landais, P., Le Manach, Y., 2017. Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance. BMC Med. Res. Method. 17, 78. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0.

Nir, A.-S., Lin, K., Liang, G.-S., 2003. Port choice behaviour—from the perspective of the shipper. Marit. Policy Manag. 30, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830200069262.

Offshore Energy, 2015. Skangas opens Risavika LNG bunkering station. URL https://www.offshore-energy.biz/skangas-opens-risavika-lng-bunkering-station/ (accessed 9.1.23).

Parola, F., Risitano, M., Ferretti, M., Panetti, E., 2017. The drivers of port competitiveness: a critical review. Transp. Rev. 37, 116–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1231232.

Peng, Y., Zhao, X., Zuo, T., Wang, W., Song, X., 2021. A systematic literature review on port LNG bunkering station. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 91, 102704 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102704.

Port of Gothenburg website, n.d. Liquefied Natural Gas [WWW Document]. URL https://www.portofgothenburg.com/about-the-port/greener-transport/alternative-fuels/ (accessed 8.25.23).

Port of Helsinki, 2017. Safety Manual on LNG Bunkering Procedures for the Port of Helsinki (No. RE20167730-01-00-D). Port of Helsinki & SSPA.

Rasbash, J., Browne, W.J., 2008. Non-hierarchical multilevel models. Handbook of Multilevel Analysis 301–334.

Rosenbaum, P.R., Rubin, D.B., 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70, 41–55.

Rubin, D.B., 1974. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J. Educ. Psychol. 66, 688–701.

Salmenkaita, J.-P., Salo, A., 2002. Rationale for government intervention in the commercialization of new technologies. Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 14, 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320220133857.

Sánchez, R.J., Hoffmann, J., Micco, A., Pizzolitto, G.V., Sgut, M., Wilmsmeier, G., 2003. Port efficiency and international trade: port efficiency as a determinant of maritime transport costs. Marit. Econ. Logist. 5, 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100073.

Sánchez, R.J., Ng, A.K.Y., Garcia-Alonso, L., 2011. Port selection factors and attractiveness: the service providers' perspective. Transp. J. 50, 141–161. https://doi.org/10.5325/transportationj.50.2.0141.

Schielzeth, H., Nakagawa, S., 2013. Nested by design: model fitting and interpretation in a mixed model era. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00251.x.

Schulz, F., Rode, J., 2022. Public charging infrastructure and electric vehicles in Norway. Energy Policy 160, 112660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112660.

Serry, A., 2017. Development of liquefied natural gas facilities in the Baltic Sea ports: a geographical perspective. Reg. Form. Devel. Stud. 23 https://doi.org/10.15181/ruds.v23i3.1591.

Smålandshammar AB, 2019. LNG Bunkering Regulations, Port of Oskarshamn.

Smith, A.J., Todd, E.P., 2005. Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators? J. Econometr. Exper. Non-Exper. Eval. Econ. Policy Models 125, 305–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.04.011.

Stein, M., Acciaro, M., 2020. Value creation through corporate sustainability in the port sector: A structured literature analysis. Sustainability 12, 5504. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145504.

Struben, J., Sterman, J.D., 2008. Transition challenges for alternative fuel vehicle and transportation systems. Environ. Plann. B. Plann. Des. 35, 1070–1097.

Tongzon, J.L., 2009. Port choice and freight forwarders. Transp. Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev. 45, 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2008.02.004.

Ugboma, C., Ugboma, O., Ogwude, I.C., 2006. An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach to port selection decisions – empirical evidence from Nigerian ports. Marit Econ Logist 8, 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100160.

UNCTAD, 2020. Review of Maritime Transport 2020. United Nations, Geneva.

Valioniene, E., Strakauskaite, A., 2015. Evaluation of bunkering services attractiveness at Klaipeda seaport after establishment of LNG terminal. J. Marit. Transp. Eng. 32–39.

Veldman, S., Garcia-Alonso, L., Vallejo-Pinto, J.Á., 2011. Determinants of container port choice in Spain. Marit. Policy Manag. 38, 509–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2011.597450.

Wang, S., Notteboom, T., 2014. The adoption of liquefied natural gas as a ship fuel: A systematic review of perspectives and challenges. Transp. Rev. 34, 749–774. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2014.981884.

Wang, S., Notteboom, T., 2015. The role of port authorities in the development of LNG bunkering facilities in North European ports. WMU J. Marit. Affairs 14, 61–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-014-0074-9.
Huber, S., Klein, E., Moeller, K., Willmes, K., 2015. Comparing a single case to a control group – Applying linear mixed effects models to repeated measures data. *Cortex* 71, 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.06.020.

IMO, 2015. Third IMO GHG Study 2014. International Maritime Organization, London, UK.

ITF - OECD, 2018. Reducing Shipping Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Lessons from Port-Based Incentives. International Transport Forum and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.

Jiannan, C., Feng, L., Zhongzhen, Y., 2020. Impacts of the choice habits of port users on the effects and efficiencies of port investment. Transp. Policy 99, 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2020.07.021.

Kim, J., Seltzer, M., 2007. Causal Inference in Multilevel Settings In Which Selection Processes Vary across Schools. CSE Technical Report 708. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

Kim, S., Chiang, B., 2014. Sustainability practices to achieve sustainability in international port operations. J. Korea Port Econ. Assoc. 30, 15–37.

Kim, A.-R., Kwak, D.-W., Seo, Y.-J., 2021. Evaluation of liquefied natural gas bunkering port selection. Int. J. Log. Res. Appl. 24, 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2019.1642311.

King, G., Nielsen, R., 2019. Why propensity scores should not be used for matching. Polit. Anal. 27, 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.11.

Lam, J.S.L., Chen, D., Cheng, F., Wong, K., 2011. Assessment of the competitiveness of ports as bunkering hubs: empirical studies on Singapore and Shanghai. Transp. J. 50, 176–203. https://doi.org/10.5325/transportationj.50.2.0176.

Leibowicz, B.D., 2018. Policy recommendations for a transition to sustainable mobility based on historical diffusion dynamics of transport systems. Energy Policy 119, 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.066.

Li, X., Sun, Y., Wu, G.T., 2013. Cost of LNG-fueled container vessels. AMR 805–806, 1325–1329. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.805.806.1325.

Lirn, T.C., Thanopoulou, H.A., Beynon, M.J., Beresford, A.K.C., 2004. An application of AHP on transhipment port selection: A global perspective. Marit. Econ. Logist. 6, 70–91. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100093.

LNG in Baltic Sea Ports, 2014. LNG Handbook.

Magala, M., Sammons, A., 2008. A new approach to port choice modelling. Marit. Econ. Logist. 10, 9–34. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100189.

Mäkitie, T., Steen, M., Saether, E.A., Bjørgum, Ø., Poulsen, R.T., 2022. Norwegian ship-owners' adoption of alternative fuels. Energy Policy 163, 112869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112869.

Malchow, M.B., Kanafani, A., 2004. A disaggregate analysis of port selection. Transp. Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev., Shipp. Finan. Port Issues 40, 317–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2003.05.001.

Mampaey, 2023. Equipping the Cryogas Vysotsk Terminal. URL https://www.mampaey.com/equipping-the-cryogas-vysotsk-terminal/ (accessed 9.1.23).

Martínez-Pardo, A., Orro, A., García-Alonso, L., 2020. Analysis of port choice: A methodological proposal adjusted with public data. Transp. Res. A Policy Pract. 136, 178–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.03.031.

McKinlay, C.J., Turnock, S.R., Hudson, D.A., 2021. Route to zero emission shipping: Hydrogen, ammonia or methanol? Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 46, 28282–28297.

Mersky, A.C., Sprei, F., Samaras, C., Qian, Z. (Sean), 2016. Effectiveness of incentives on electric vehicle adoption in Norway. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 46, 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.03.011.

Murphy, P.R., Hall, P.K., 1995. The relative importance of cost and service in freight transportation choice before and after deregulation: An update. Transp. J. 35, 30–38.

Nguyen, T.-L., Collins, G.S., Spence, J., Daurès, J.-P., Devereaux, P.J., Landais, P., Le Manach, Y., 2017. Double-adjustment in propensity score matching analysis: choosing a threshold for considering residual imbalance. BMC Med. Res. Method. 17, 78. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0338-0.

Nir, A.-S., Lin, K., Liang, G.-S., 2003. Port choice behaviour—from the perspective of the shipper. Marit. Policy Manag. 30, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830200069262.

Offshore Energy, 2015. Skangas opens Risavika LNG bunkering station. URL https://www.offshore-energy.biz/skangas-opens-risavika-lng-bunkering-station/ (accessed 9.1.23).

Parola, F., Risitano, M., Ferretti, M., Panetti, E., 2017. The drivers of port competitiveness: a critical review. Transp. Rev. 37, 116–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1231232.

Peng, Y., Zhao, X., Zuo, T., Wang, W., Song, X., 2021. A systematic literature review on port LNG bunkering station. Transp. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 91, 102704 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102704.

Port of Gothenburg website, n.d. Liquefied Natural Gas [WWW Document]. URL https://www.portofgothenburg.com/about-the-port/greener-transport/alternative-fuels/ (accessed 8.25.23).

Port of Helsinki, 2017. Safety Manual on LNG Bunkering Procedures for the Port of Helsinki (No. RE20167730-01-00-D). Port of Helsinki & SSPA.

Rasbash, J., Browne, W.J., 2008. Non-hierarchical multilevel models. Handbook of Multilevel Analysis 301–334.

Rosenbaum, P.R., Rubin, D.B., 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70, 41–55.

Rubin, D.B., 1974. Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J. Educ. Psychol. 66, 688–701.

Salmenkaita, J.-P., Salo, A., 2002. Rationale for government intervention in the commercialization of new technologies. Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 14, 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320220133857.

Sánchez, R.J., Hoffmann, J., Micco, A., Pizzolitto, G.V., Sgut, M., Wilmsmeier, G., 2003. Port efficiency and international trade: port efficiency as a determinant of maritime transport costs. Marit. Econ. Logist. 5, 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100073.

Sánchez, R.J., Ng, A.K.Y., Garcia-Alonso, L., 2011. Port selection factors and attractiveness: the service providers' perspective. Transp. J. 50, 141–161. https://doi.org/10.5325/transportationj.50.2.0141.

Schielzeth, H., Nakagawa, S., 2013. Nested by design: model fitting and interpretation in a mixed model era. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00251.x.

Schulz, F., Rode, J., 2022. Public charging infrastructure and electric vehicles in Norway. Energy Policy 160, 112660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112660.

Serry, A., 2017. Development of liquefied natural gas facilities in the Baltic Sea ports: a geographical perspective. Reg. Form. Devel. Stud. 23 https://doi.org/10.15181/ruds.v23i3.1591.

Smålandshammar AB, 2019. LNG Bunkering Regulations, Port of Oskarshamn.

Smith, A.J., Todd, E.P., 2005. Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators? J. Econometr. Exper. Non-Exper. Eval. Econ. Policy Models 125, 305–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2004.04.011.

Stein, M., Acciaro, M., 2020. Value creation through corporate sustainability in the port sector: A structured literature analysis. Sustainability 12, 5504. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145504.

Struben, J., Sterman, J.D., 2008. Transition challenges for alternative fuel vehicle and transportation systems. Environ. Plann. B. Plann. Des. 35, 1070–1097.

Tongzon, J.L., 2009. Port choice and freight forwarders. Transp. Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev. 45, 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2008.02.004.

Ugboma, C., Ugboma, O., Ogwude, I.C., 2006. An analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach to port selection decisions – empirical evidence from Nigerian ports. Marit Econ Logist 8, 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.mel.9100160.

UNCTAD, 2020. Review of Maritime Transport 2020. United Nations, Geneva.

Valioniene, E., Strakauskaite, A., 2015. Evaluation of bunkering services attractiveness at Klaipeda seaport after establishment of LNG terminal. J. Marit. Transp. Eng. 32–39.

Veldman, S., Garcia-Alonso, L., Vallejo-Pinto, J.Á., 2011. Determinants of container port choice in Spain. Marit. Policy Manag. 38, 509–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2011.597450.

Wang, S., Notteboom, T., 2014. The adoption of liquefied natural gas as a ship fuel: A systematic review of perspectives and challenges. Transp. Rev. 34, 749–774. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2014.981884.

Wang, S., Notteboom, T., 2015. The role of port authorities in the development of LNG bunkering facilities in North European ports. WMU J. Marit. Affairs 14, 61–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-014-0074-9.
Wechsler, S., 2021. Maersk leapfrogs LNG to net zero marine fuels [WWW Document]. accessed 5.24.23 Argus Media. https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2190195-maersk-leapfrogs-lng-to-net-zero-marine-fuels.

Wood, S.N., 2017. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R, 2nd ed. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton. 10.1201/9781315370279.

Yeh, S., 2007. An empirical analysis on the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles: The case of natural gas vehicles. Energy Policy 35, 5865-5875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.06.012.

Yu, Z., Guindani, M., Grieco, S.F., Chen, L., Holmes, T.C., Xu, X., 2022. Beyond t test and ANOVA: applications of mixed-effects models for more rigorous statistical analysis in neuroscience research. Neuron 110, 21-35.

Yuen, K.F., Wang, X., Wong, Y.D., Zhou, Q., 2018. The effect of sustainable shipping practices on shippers' loyalty: The mediating role of perceived value, trust and transaction cost. Transp. Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev. 116, 123-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.06.002.

Zink, R., Valdes, J., Wuth, J., 2020. Prioritizing the chicken or egg? Electric vehicle purchase and charging infrastructure subsidies in Germany. Pol. Govern. 8, 185-198. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i3.3025.
Wechsler, S., 2021. Maersk leapfrogs LNG to net zero marine fuels [WWW Document]. accessed 5.24.23 Argus Media. https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2190195-maersk-leapfrogs-lng-to-net-zero-marine-fuels.

Wood, S.N., 2017. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R, 2nd ed. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton. 10.1201/9781315370279.

Yeh, S., 2007. An empirical analysis on the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles: The case of natural gas vehicles. Energy Policy 35, 5865-5875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.06.012.

Yu, Z., Guindani, M., Grieco, S.F., Chen, L., Holmes, T.C., Xu, X., 2022. Beyond t test and ANOVA: applications of mixed-effects models for more rigorous statistical analysis in neuroscience research. Neuron 110, 21-35.

Yuen, K.F., Wang, X., Wong, Y.D., Zhou, Q., 2018. The effect of sustainable shipping practices on shippers' loyalty: The mediating role of perceived value, trust and transaction cost. Transp. Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev. 116, 123-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2018.06.002.

Zink, R., Valdes, J., Wuth, J., 2020. Prioritizing the chicken or egg? Electric vehicle purchase and charging infrastructure subsidies in Germany. Pol. Govern. 8, 185-198. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v8i3.3025.