Local community
perception on the contribution of port companies to sustainable development

Percepção
da comunidade local sobre a contribuição das empresas portuárias para o
desenvolvimento sustentável

Luciane Silva Franco

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1913-9275

Mestre em Desenvolvimento Comunitário.
Universidade Estadual do Centro-Oeste (UNICENTRO) – Brasil. [email-masked]

Sergio Luis Dias Doliveira

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9957-225X

Doutor em
Administração. Universidade Estadual do Centro-Oeste (UNICENTRO) – Brasil. [email-masked].

Antonio
Carlos Franco

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1616-2648

Doutorando em Administração.
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Paraná (PUC-PR) – Brasil.
[email-masked]

Simone Soares

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0282-2599

Mestre em
Desenvolvimento Comunitário. Universidade Estadual do Centro-Oeste
(UNICENTRO) – Brasil. [email-masked]

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the study presented in this article was to analyze
the local community perception on the sustainable development of port companies
in a specific region. The research carried out a data collection, following quantitative
methods. The study sample was collected through a survey questionnaire applied
to the residents in the area around the Brazilian town of Paranaguá
in the state of Paraná, Brazil. The article reveals the factors of
environmental, social and economic impact of the companies as well as
emphasizes the problematic aspects of relationships between the activities of
the port companies and local communities. The correlation between the
variables in the questionnaire applied by the Ethos Institute (2007) was
tested. The perception of residents regarding the environmental, social and
economic impacts of the companies was measured according to the profile considering
gender, age, education level and years the residents live in the town. The
significant difference was tested using Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney while
correlation was tested using Spearman Correlation. The result showed that the
negative perception is statistically different in terms of gender, age and
years the residents live in the town. Concerning correlation, categories of
economic and social impacts are significantly and positively related.

Keywords:
sustainability;
indicators; port administration; community.

RESUMO

O objetivo do estudo apresentado neste artigo
foi analisar a percepção da comunidade local sobre o desenvolvimento
sustentável das empresas portuárias em uma determinada região. A pesquisa
realizou   coleta de dados, seguindo
métodos quantitativos. A amostra do estudo foi coletada por meio de
questionário de pesquisa com residentes localizados no entorno da cidade
brasileira de Paranaguá, no estado do Paraná, Brasil. O artigo revela os
fatores de impacto ambiental, social e econômico das empresas, bem como enfatiza
os aspectos problemáticos das relações entre as atividades das empresas
portuárias e as comunidades locais. Foi testada a correlação entre as variáveis do
questionário aplicado pelo Instituto Ethos (2007). A percepção dos moradores
sobre os impactos ambientais, sociais e econômicos das empresas foi mensurada
de acordo com o perfil considerando sexo, idade, escolaridade e anos de
residência na cidade. A diferença significativa foi testada usando Kruskal Wallis e Mann-Whitney, enquanto a correlação foi
testada usando Correlação de Spearman. O resultado
mostrou que a percepção negativa é estatisticamente diferente em relação ao
sexo, idade e anos de residência na cidade. Em correlação, as categorias de
impactos econômicos e sociais estão significativa e positivamente relacionados.

Palavras-chave: sustentabilidade;
indicadores; administração portuária; comunidade.

Recebido em 09/05/2021.  Aprovado em 20/09/2021. Avaliado pelo sistema
double blind peer review. Publicado conforme
normas da APA.

https://doi.org/10.22279/navus.2021.v11.p01-16.1607

1 INTRODUCTION

In
the process of globalization of the world market, maritime trade is extremely
important. The port system is part of the world maritime market, where
exchanges between land and sea transport operators take place. Countries with
developed maritime transport focus special attention on the sustainable
development of ports (Cheon, Maltz,
& Dooley, 2017). The fundamental issue involves the integration of land and
sea transport, storage and freight transport (Vejvar,
Lai, Lo, & Fürst, 2018).

The
development in technology, quantity and quality of maritime transport, in
recent years, has been developing very quickly. It is stated that the main
challenge regarding the growth of maritime transport is the transport of goods
from one place to another in an economically viable and as efficient way as
possible (Bjerkan & Seter, 2019). The transport
systems of the ports have become complex due to the variety of cargo they
operate and their location close to the regions of local communities. For this
reason, the correct management related to safety, occupational health,
environment and protection factors by the ports is fundamental (Vejvar et al., 2018; Kim & Chiang, 2017).

Therefore,
the environmental responsibilities of companies that perform port activities present
great challenges, such as, for example, the demand for changes in logistics
processes and reduction of pollution emissions (air, water and soil) from
current and future port activities (Beleya,
Veerappan, Ding, & Tan, 2020; Lozano, Fobbe,
Carpenter, & Sammalisto, 2019).  Environmental responsibilities are
essentially related to vessel and cargo handling operations, port planning and
extension and access to the interior. In addition, society and public
institutions present charges from companies in this sector for demands on the
performance of social responsibility (Hossain, Adams, & Walker, 2019).

As
a result of awareness about efficient sustainable activities, strict
environmental laws and obtaining a competitive advantage, port companies need
to carry out their operations in a sustainable and transparent manner. In this
way, the companies' systems need communication platforms with the community and
other stakeholders about their operating activities, selecting clear criteria
for obtaining the data (Bjerkan & Seter, 2019).

Due
to the representativeness of sustainable performance, logistics activities,
which operate in accordance with the principle of sustainable development, are
turning their attention to the green and sustainable management of the activities
of port companies. Green and sustainable management presents different
approaches to decision making and strategies based on competences and knowledge
because there is an environmental risk involved in the activities and
sustainable development of the port system (Hossain et al., 2019; Linder,
2018).

As
several stakeholders are involved in the activities of a port, the
responsibility of everyone is fundamental, as well as the integration of
communication, in order to ensure sustainable performance in the port service.
With the adoption of the ISO 14001 standard, sustainable performance can be
achieved by all stakeholders (Di Vaio, Varriale, & Alvino, 2018; Vejvar
et al., 2018).

There
is a tendency in Europe for companies that provide port services to cooperate
with sustainability, through interconnections in communication with the local
community (Jansen, van Tulder, & Afrianto, 2018). In Italy, a survey was conducted on the
factors that hinder or encourage port companies to plan sustainable solutions
(Di Vaio et al., 2018).

However,
despite the interest of port systems in sustainable development, it is
surprising that so little research has been carried out on this topic. Mainly with
regard to the harmony of the environmental and economic responsibilities of
port activities with the local community. Research by the local community in
port settings is sparse: little research has focused on how port authorities
and company managers use power to interact with the local community (Chen &
Lam, 2018; Linder, 2018).

Therefore,
in view of the considerations presented, the purpose of
the study in this article was to analyze the local community perception on the
sustainable development of port companies in a specific region. We focused on the specific municipality of Paranaguá
with 154,936 inhabitants and 44 port companies. The port sector represents 27%
of all registered job creation activities in the municipality. In addition,
activities linked to the port inject some R $ 1.2 billion into Brazil's annual
economy, with 25% responsible for paying workers’ wages (IBGE, 2019).

Despite
the positive aspects of this sector for the municipality, as a contribution at
an economic and social level, due to the movement of loads and the generation
of jobs, the municipality faces some challenges that end up generating negative
aspects for residents (AEN, 2020).

According
to AEN (2020), the bulk most exported through the port of Paranaguá
is soy, and the moving by road of this product is very intense. This type of
movement ends up affecting problems in the daily lives of residents, such as
paving infrastructure, traffic congestion, bad smell and impacts on the health
of the residents. In addition, it causes an environmental, social, and economic
threat to the local community.

This
study contributes to the literature by exploring in depth, through field
research with residents of the region, the environmental, social and economic
impacts of port companies on the local community. In addition, the research
analyzes the significant difference in the perception of the impact on the
sustainability of the local community, concerning profile of residents by
gender, age, education level and years live in the town.

The
study also presents practical contributions by bringing forward discussions
that generate learning for managers of family businesses, in particular, by
revealing the sustainable development of port companies and their impacts on
the local community. Thus, it is possible to identify and select the
organizational behavior that should be practiced to benefit the quality of life
of the local community.

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Sustainable
development (SD) as a social and political process in society has provided a
direction to find alternatives for sustainable practices in society (Newton
& Henley, 2002). There is a growing interest in research on sustainability
or sustainable development and with approaches that involve ecology, corporate
social responsibility, conscious consumption, strategic planning, clean
production, environmental management, among other topics. The approach varies
according to the research area (administration, economics, engineering,
biology, geography, among others), where each science studies with its
different form of analysis, but with common goals regarding sustainability (Lawer, Herbeck, & Flitner, 2019).

The
concepts of sustainable development and sustainability can be misinterpreted,
and sometimes even synonymous. However, in scientific research these concepts
are not seen in this way. For Kang and Kim (2017), sustainability involves
solutions for the depletion of nature's resources, seeking its continuous use.
In a broad view, according to Hossain et al., (2019), sustainability is not
seen as an environmental movement, but with a way of thinking and behaving in
society that has become increasingly mature in recent years. Sustainable
development, according to Linder (2018), is related to establishing strategies
to aggregate resources that provide environmental, social and economic growth.

Elkington
(1994) was the one who developed the term “Triple Bottom Line”, focused on the
perspective of companies, where sustainable development is related to
environmental, economic and social development. The Triple Bottom Line seeks a
harmony of concepts in a balanced way, which may cause changes in local
development (Manteaw, 2008). Local development is
understood as a process of improving the economic, social and environmental
aspects of a given area based on the use of endogenous resources to improve the
well-being and quality of life of its population (Marzi
& Logozar, 2019).

2.1
Environmental impact

One
of the main challenges of sustainable development is that companies start to
contribute to the protection of the environment, through environmental
management models and the rational use of economic resources within the
legislation. Therefore, companies need to act within ethics, which involves the
organizational image within the environmentally correct concepts (Hui, Aye,
& Duffield, 2019).

Environmental
management aims to collaborate in the improvement of practices and policies in
the operational and administrative sector, which gives way to companies'
commitment to the environment. In addition, it provides planning and strategies
achieving goals. Therefore, it reduces the environmental threats generated as a
result of its actions, seeking to achieve environmental responsibility (Md Sapry, Umar, Ahmad, & Baskaran, 2020; Severo, Guimarães, Dellarmelin, & Ribeiro, 2019).

The
environmental management system involves planning, organizing, directing and
controlling activities to improve, analyze and critically consider
environmental policies (Franco, Doliveira, &
Franco, 2020). These actions reduce damage to the environment and contribute to
the achievement of  the desired
environmental goals of the company. To identify the conditions to carry out
environmental policies and to adopt conducts for the fulfillment of the
determined goals, the  dissemination of
analysis and prevention activities, and verification is essential (Pugliano, Benassai, & Benassai, 2019).

2.2
Social impact

Social
Responsibility (RS) is one of the processes to achieve sustainability. The
adoption of the principles of social responsibility, such as commitment and
transparency, can help guarantee the viability and long-term success of any
organization or system (Schrobback & Meath, 2020).

The
Social Responsibility Theory is formed by an ethics system, in which decisions
and behaviors need to be ethically validated before proceeding. If the action
or decision creates threats to society or the environment, it would be
considered socially irresponsible. The moral values inherent in society create
a distinction between right and wrong. Every individual has a responsibility to
act in a way that is beneficial to society and not just for the individual (Muafi, 2017).

2.3
Economic impact

The
concepts of economic development and economic growth are different. Economic
growth is related to the continuous growth of GDP (gross domestic product) at
per capita and global level (López-Bermúdez, Freire-Seoane, & Nieves-Martínez, 2019). The increase in the
production of goods and services can be caused by improvements in the quality
of education, technologies or other ways in which there is added value in goods
and services produced by sectors of the economy (Laerhoven
& Barnes, 2014).

Economic
development is the increase in productivity associated with organizational and
technical changes, that is, structural changes in the production and allocation
of resources. Thus, “growth” is a consequence of “development” (López-Bermúdez et al., 2019).

According
to Vejvar et al. (2018) as companies acquire
resources from society, they have an obligation to compensate not only in the form
of economic growth with trade in products and services, but, through social
behaviors related to solving problems that affect society. Therefore, in
economic responsibility, it is through society that the company presents its
viability, using human and technological resources as part of an economic and
social heritage.

2.4
Sustainable development of port companies and the impact on the local community

The
port sector can contribute in several dimensions to sustainability in community
development. The growth of the port sector and the community is complementary
and, therefore, it must take active actions for the development of the port,
companies, community and other local stakeholders (Marzi
& Logozar, 2019; Jansen et al., 2018).

Among
the consequences caused by the failure of communication between port, company
and community, there is the main challenge faced by port companies in terms of
social scope, the quality of life of the community that residents the region's
surroundings (Jansen et al., 2018).

There
is a difficulty in distinguishing the limits of the port areas, including the
port and companies in the surroundings, as they are intrinsically linked to the
commercial and residential areas of the municipality. There is an
infrastructure gap that impacts the local community, as it is increasingly
necessary to increase capacity to accommodate larger volumes of cargo.  Therefore, the expansion of companies in urban
and suburban areas is essential, due to the intense congestion (Newton &
Henley, 2002).

For
this reason, the potential impacts influence the quality of life of the
population, among which involve dust due to the movement of solid bulk, odor
from the fuel of transport vehicles and waste from spilling cargo on the
highways, noise emission when carrying out the operations,intense
vehicle traffic, especially in the harvest period for the case of food bulk
(Franco et al., 2020; Kang & Kim, 2017).

3 METHODOLOGY

This
section presents the methodology adopted in this research. Operational
framework, data collection and research instrument are presented.

3.1
Operational framework

This
paper, through the use of set of samples, will increase and further support the
current literature and eventually influence port companies to adopt sustainable
practices that reduce the environmental, social and economic impacts of the
local community. Based in the operational framework (see Figure 1), the
following hypotheses will be tested:

Figure 1. Operational framework

Source: own authorship (2021).

H01-
The distribution of environmental impact is the same across categories of
gender.

H02-
The distribution of social impact is the same across categories of gender.

H03
- The distribution of economic impact is the same across categories of gender.

H04
- The distribution of environmental impact is the same across categories of
age.

H05
- The distribution of social impact is the same across categories of age.

H06
- The distribution of economic impact is the same across categories of age.

H07
- The distribution of environmental impact is the same across categories of
education level.

H08
- The distribution of social impact is the same across categories of education
level.

H09
- The distribution of economic impact is the same across categories of
education level.

H10
- The distribution of environmental impact is the same across categories of
years live in the town.

H11
- The distribution of social impact is the same across categories of years live
in the town.

H12
- The distribution of economic impact is the same across categories of years
lived in the town.

3.2 Data
collection and research instrument

To
test the hypotheses proposed an empirical study was done based on an electronic
questionnaire given to residents in the town of Paranaguá.
The selection of the respondents was done with a convenience sample, using
emails and WhatsApp, obtaining a total of 339 valid questionnaires after
eliminated those which contained inconsistent answers or which did not fulfill
the criteria suggested by Taherdoost (2016). The
collection of information via the online questionnaire was carried out during
the months August and September 2020. The description of the sample is detailed
in the section Results and Discussion.

Regarding
the measurement instruments used, all the constructs were measured based on 5 point Likert scales (1-never; 2- rarely; 3- sometimes; 4-
often; and 5-always; where value five indicates the negative impact high (in
the environmental, social and economic impact); value one indicates the
positive impact high (in the economic, environmental, and social impact). All
the scales are made up of indicators extracted from the theoretical review and
specifically adapted of this study, centered on the resident’s perception. A
total of nine impact dimensions (divided into environmental, social, and
economic) were extracted from the proposal elaborated by Ethos Institute (2017),
as show in Table 1:

No.

A. Environmental

QA1

The emission of dust from the
operations of companies can have an impact on the region's environment.

QA2

Vehicle traffic occurs
intensely, causing traffic congestion in the region.

QA3

The noise emission in the
performance operations of companies occurs intensely in the region.

No.

B. Social

QB1

The services provided by the
companies may represent potential risks to the health and well-being of the
surrounding community.

QB2

The companies have actions in
the surrounding community to minimize the risks to human rights in their
operations, such as notifying when operations that emit intense noise are
carried out.

eseQB3

Companies contribute to
improvements in infrastructure or the local environment and these are enjoyed
by the community (such as housing and roads).

No.

C. Economic

QC1

Companies invest financial
resources for social projects in communities, such as health, education and
leisure.

QC2

The community benefits from social
projects that are carried out by companies.

QC3

The ground transportation
services of companies cause economic impacts in the municipality, such as
asphalt deterioration.

Table 1. Disclosure checklist

Source: adapted from Instituto Ethos (2017).

Before
testing the significant difference among the perception about the impact of
sustainable development of port companies, and profile of residents, the researcher
has tested the normality of distribution of the data using Kolmogorov-Smirnov
normality test. As a result, all variables showed
a non-normal distribution, p.value <0,05 (Table 2).

Kolmogorov-Smirnov¹

Variables

Statistic

P.value

Remarks

QA1

0,352

<0,001

Not normal

QA2

0,354

<0,001

Not normal

QA3

0,289

<0,001

Not normal

QB1

0,266

<0,001

Not normal

QB2

0,326

<0,001

Not normal

QB3

0,306

<0,001

Not normal

QC1

0,302

<0,001

Not normal

QC2

0,344

<0,001

Not normal

QC3

0,300

<0,001

Not normal

¹ Lilliefors Significance Correction

Table 2. Test of Normality

Source: own authorship (2021).

The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare
three or more independent samples and the Mann-Whitney test for two independent
samples. These are non-parametric tests used in the presence of k independent
samples, to determine whether the samples are from the same population or
whether at least one sample is from a different population than the others. The
p. value of the tests was inserted in the table caption with the respective
descriptive statistics.

In order to compare the categories two by
two to determine which differ, with a statistical significance of 5%, concerning
distribution of the mean, the pairwise comparison procedure was used to
estimate the one-dimensional fundamental scale in which the elements of each
level are measured. The Spearman test was used to evaluate
correlation, justified by the non-normal distribution. The following
interpretation was used (Table 3):

Correlation Coefficient p value (+ or -)

Strength
of Correlation

0,00 – 0,19

Very Strong

0,20 – 0,39

Strong

0,40 – 0,69

Moderate

0,70 – 0,89

Weak

0,90 – 1,00

Very weak

Table 3. Correlation
Coefficient

Source: Devore (2006)

In
addition, the correlation coefficient and the p. value (<0.05) are always
observed. The sign indicates positive or negative direction of the
relationship.

4 RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION

Table
4 presents as frequencies of profile variables, considering gender, age, education
level and lives in the town (per year).

Gender

Frequency

Percent

Female

205

52,7

Male

184

47,3

Age

Frequency

Percent

Less than 20 years

16

4,1

20 – 29 years

68

17,5

30 – 39 years

105

27,0

40 – 49 years

109

28,0

50 – 59 years

70

18,0

60 – 69 years

16

4,1

Over 69 years

5

1,3

Education
level

Frequency

Percent

None

6

1,5

Primary

15

3,9

High School

177

45,5

College/University

144

37,0

Graduate School

47

12,1

Lives in the town (per year)

Frequency

Percent

Less than 1 year

12

3,1

1 year

17

4,4

2 years

33

8,5

3 years

43

11,1

Up to 5 years

79

20,3

Up to 10 years

56

14,4

More than 10 years

149

38,3

Table 4. Frequencies of profile variables

Source: own authorship (2021).

Most
respondents are women (52,7%), at the age of 40-49 (28%), high school education
level (45,5%) and lives in the town more than 10 years (38,3%). Table 5 presents the gender relationship
by environmental, social and economic impacts.

Environmental (p. value 0,048)

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Median

Variance

Minimum

Maximum

Female

4,21

205

0,55

4,33

0,31

2,33

5,00

Male

3,54

184

0,66

3,00

0,44

1,00

5,00

Social (p. value 0,787)

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Median

Variance

Minimum

Maximum

Female

2,03

205

0,80

2,00

0,65

1,00

5,00

Male

2,09

184

0,87

2,00

0,76

1,00

5,00

Economic (p. value
0,035)

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Median

Variance

Minimum

Maximum

Female

3,01

205

0,98

3,00

0,97

1,00

5,00

Male

2,09

184

1,00

2,00

1,00

1,00

5,00

Table 5. Gender relationship by environmental, social and economic
impacts

Source: own authorship (2021).

In
the environmental impact, there is a significant difference by gender with p.value < 0,05, rejecting the null hypothesis H01 (the
distribution of environmental impact is the same across categories of gender).
Thus, it is concluded that women have a greater negative perception of the
environmental impact, when compared to men.

In
the social impact there is no significant difference by gender with p.value> 0.05, accepting the null hypothesis H02 (the
distribution of social impact is the same across categories of gender). In the
economic impact, there is a significant difference by gender with p.value <0.05, rejecting the null hypothesis H03 (the
distribution of economic impact is the same across categories of gender). Thus,
it is concluded that women have a greater negative perception of the economic
impact, when compared to men. Table 6 presents the age relationship by
environmental, social and economic impacts.

Environmental (p. value 0,331)

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Median

Variance

Minimum

Maximum

Less than 20 years

4,10

16

0,58

4,00

0,33

3,00

5,00

20 – 29 years

4,34

68

0,35

4,33

0,12

2,33

5,00

30 – 39 years

4,20

105

0,57

4,33

0,33

2,33

5,00

40 – 49 years

4,16

109

0,59

4,33

0,35

2,00

5,00

50 – 59 years

4,19

70

0,68

4,33

0,47

1,00

5,00

60 – 69 years

4,18

16

0,54

4,33

0,29

3,00

5,00

Over 69 years

4,21

5

1,21

4,33

1,47

1,00

5,00

Social
(p. value 0,157)

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Median

Variance

Minimum

Maximum

Less than 20 years

2,06

16

0,92

2,00

0,86

1,00

5,00

20 – 29 years

1,83

68

0,61

2,00

0,37

1,00

3,00

30 – 39 years

2,03

105

0,85

2,00

0,72

1,00

5,00

40 – 49 years

2,13

109

0,93

2,00

0,87

1,00

5,00

50 – 59 years

2,14

70

0,78

2,00

0,61

1,00

4,00

60 – 69 years

2,37

16

0,95

2,00

0,91

1,00

4,00

Over 69 years

2,20

5

0,83

2,00

0,70

1,00

3,00

Economic
(p. value 0,000)

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Median

Variance

Minimum

Maximum

Less than 20 years

2,31

16

0,94

2,00

0,89

1,00

5,00

20 – 29 years

1,60

68

0,75

1,50

0,57

1,00

5,00

30 – 39 years

2,06

105

1,06

2,00

1,14

1,00

5,00

40 – 49 years

2,19

109

1,01

2,00

1,02

1,00

5,00

50 – 59 years

2,08

70

0,91

2,00

0,83

1,00

4,00

60 – 69 years

2,62

16

1,20

2,50

1,45

1,00

5,00

Over 69 years

2,00

5

0,00

2,00

0,00

2,00

2,00

Table 6. Age relationship by environmental, social and economic impacts

Source: own authorship (2021).

In
the environmental and social impact, no significant differences were observed
by age with p.value> 0.05, accepting the null
hypotheses H04 and H05. In the economic impact, there is a significant
difference by age with p. value <0.05, rejecting H06 that the distribution
of economic impact is the same across categories of age. The results presented
in Figure 2 refer to the pairwise comparison procedure, used to compare pairs
of age categories concerning economic impact.

Figure 2. Pairwise comparison
(age and economic impact)

Source: own authorship (2021).

Thus,
observing the averages (Table 6) and p. value of comparisons in pairs (Figure
2) it can be concluded that residents aged 20-29 years old have a lower
negative perception of economic impacts compared to the perception of residents
aged 30-39, 40-49, 50-59 and 60- 69 years old. Table 7 presents the education
level relationship by environmental, social and economic impacts.

Environmental (p.
value 0,657)

Education level

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Median

Variance

Minimum

Maximum

None

4,44

6

0,27

4,50

0,07

4,00

4,67

Primary

4,15

15

0,56

4,33

0,31

3,00

5,00

High School

4,21

177

0,56

4,33

0,31

2,00

5,00

College/University

4,20

144

0,62

4,33

0,38

1,00

5,00

Graduate School

4,05

47

0,79

4,33

0,62

1,00

5,00

Social (p. value 0,437)

Education
level

Mean

N

Std.
Deviation

Median

Variance

Minimum

Maximum

None

1,83

6

0,75

2,00

0,56

1,00

3,00

Primary

1,93

15

1,09

2,00

1,21

1,00

5,00

High
School

2,01

177

0,74

2,00

0,55

1,00

5,00

College/University

2,16

144

0,88

2,00

0,78

1,00

5,00

Graduate
School

2,04

47

0,95

2,00

0,91

1,00

5,00

Economic (p. value 0,710)

Education
level

Mean

N

Std.
Deviation

Median

Variance

Minimum

Maximum

None

1,66

6

0,51

2,00

0,26

1,00

2,00

Primary

2,20

15

1,01

2,00

1,02

1,00

5,00

High
School

2,03

177

1,03

2,00

1,07

1,00

5,00

College/University

2,04

144

0,93

2,00

0,87

1,00

5,00

Graduate
School

2,17

47

1,04

2,00

1,10

1,00

5,00

Table 7. Education level relationship by environmental, social and economic
impacts

Source: own authorship (2021).

In
the environmental, social and economic impact, no significant differences were
observed by level of education with p.value> 0.05,
accepting the null hypotheses of H07, H08 and H09. However, it is interesting
to highlight that the environmental impact presents the average of negative
perception within scale 4, while the average of the negative perception of
social and economic impacts appears within scales 1 and 2. However, the
environmental impact can be presented as a factor determinant that negatively impacts
the sustainable development of the town. Table 8 presents the years the
residents live in the town relationship by environmental, social and economic
impacts.

Environmental (p.
value 0,189)

Lives in the town (per year)

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Median

Variance

Minimum

Maximum

Less than 1 year

4,19

12

0,59

4,33

0,35

3,00

5,00

1 year

4,29

17

0,35

4,33

0,12

3,33

4,67

2 years

4,06

33

0,65

4,33

0,42

2,33

5,00

3 years

4,08

43

0,63

4,33

0,40

2,33

5,00

Up to 5 years

4,30

79

0,56

4,33

0,32

2,33

5,00

Up to 10 years

4,25

56

0,42

4,33

0,18

3,00

5,00

More than 10 years

4,15

149

0,69

4,33

0,48

1,00

5,00

Social (p. value 0,001)

Lives
in the town (per year)

Mean

N

Std.
Deviation

Median

Variance

Minimum

Maximum

Less
than 1 year

2,08

12

1,16

2,00

1,35

1,00

5,00

1
year

1,64

17

0,49

2,00

0,24

1,00

2,00

2
years

1,82

33

0,81

3,00

0,67

1,00

4,00

3
years

2,16

43

0,78

2,00

0,61

1,00

5,00

Up
to 5 years

2,13

79

0,99

2,00

0,99

1,00

5,00

Up
to 10 years

3,07

56

0,83

2,00

0,69

1,00

5,00

More
than 10 years

3,10

149

1,02

3,00

1,05

1,00

4,00

Economic (p. value 0,000)

Lives
in the town (per year)

Mean

N

Std.
Deviation

Median

Variance

Minimum

Maximum

Less
than 1 year

2,08

12

1,08

2,00

1,17

1,00

5,00

1
year

2,00

17

0,79

2,00

0,62

1,00

4,00

2
years

2,06

33

1,11

2,00

1,24

1,00

5,00

3
years

2,09

43

0,97

2,00

0,94

1,00

4,00

Up
to 5 years

1,98

79

1,04

2,00

1,09

1,00

5,00

Up
to 10 years

2,05

56

0,98

2,00

0,96

1,00

5,00

More
than 10 years

2,61

149

1,16

2,00

1,36

1,00

5,00

Table 8. Lives in the town (per year) relationship by environmental,
social and economic impacts

Source: own authorship (2021).

In
the environmental impact, no significant differences were observed by years the
residents live in the town, with p.value> 0.05,
accepting the null hypotheses H10. In the social and economic impact, there is
a significant difference by years the residents live in the town with p. value
<0.05, rejecting H11 e H12 that the distribution of social and economic
impact is the same across categories. The results presented in Figure 3 refer
to the pairwise comparison procedure, used to compare pairs of categories of
years the residents live in the town concerning social impact.

Figure 3. Pairwise comparison
(years the residents live in the town and social impact)

Source: own authorship (2021)

Thus,
observing the averages (Table 8) and p. value of comparisons in pairs (Figure
3) it can be concluded that residents who have lived for more than 10 years
have a greater negative perception of social impact when compared to the
perception of residents who live for 2 years and up to 5 years. Thus, it is
concluded that the longer the dwelling time in the town, the greater the
negative perception about the social impact caused by the companies.

The
same results can be seen in the research by Jansen et al., (2018), which
highlights that, over the years, the social impacts in port cities can increase
frequently. The main challenge faced by port companies is related to the social
sphere, concerning quality of life of the community that residents the region's
surroundings. According to Beleya et al., (2020),
these challenges that involve potential impacts, must interact with the
sustainable goals of port companies in what corresponds not only to the
environmental and economic impact, but also to the social impact.

Currently,
there is a constant concern in evaluating the company as a social organization
and not just an economic one. Society values companies with behaviors aimed at
social demands, in addition to preserving the quality of life of the community
in the city to which it is inserted (Bjerkan &
Seter, 2019). The results presented in Figure 4 refer to the pairwise
comparison procedure, used to compare pairs of categories of years the
residents live in the town concerning economic impact.

Figure 4. Pairwise comparison
(years the residents live in the town and economic impact)

Source: own authorship (2021)

Thus,
observing the averages (Table 8) and p. value of comparisons in pairs (Figure
4) it can be concluded that residents who have lived for more than 10 years
have a greater negative perception of economic impact when compared to the
perception of residents living up to 5 years. Thus, it is concluded that the
longer the dwelling time in the town, the greater the negative perception about
the economic impact caused by the companies.

Regarding
the economic impact, the indicators to be considered should include job
creation, local economic development, and investment of financial resources in
social projects. When acquiring resources from society, companies have an
obligation to compensate not only in the form of economic growth with trade in
products and services, but, through social behaviors related to solving
problems that affect society (Vejvar, et al, 2018).
In addition, negative actions due to the services of port companies must be
avoided, such as the deterioration of asphalt by land transport and the spillage
of cargo on the highways. However, the negative perception of residents about
the economic impact (Md Sapry et al., 2020).

Table
9 presents the estimates of Spearman's linear correlation coefficients between
environmental, social and economic impacts.

QA1

QA2

QA3

QB1

QB2

QB3

QC1

QC2

QC3

QA1

Correlation
Coefficient

1,000

Sig.
(2-tailed)

.

QA2

Correlation
Coefficient

0,071

1,000

Sig.
(2-tailed)

0,160

.

QA3

Correlation
Coefficient

0,257

0,324

1,000

Sig.
(2-tailed)

0,000

0,000

.

QB1

Correlation
Coefficient

0,189

-0,257

-0,152

1,000

Sig.
(2-tailed)

0,000

0,000

0,003

.

QB2

Correlation
Coefficient

-0,086

-0,275

0,252

0,700

1,000

Sig.
(2-tailed)

0,091

0,000

0,000

0,000

.

QB3

Correlation
Coefficient

0,152

0,202

0,235

-0,026

-0,099

1,000

Sig.
(2-tailed)

0,003

0,000

0,000

0,607

0,052

.

QC1

Correlation
Coefficient

-0,056

0,127

0,097

-0,113

0,035

0,097

1,000

Sig.
(2-tailed)

0,273

0,012

0,057

0,026

0,487

0,057

.

QC2

Correlation
Coefficient

0,022

-0,282

-0,249

0,536

0,518

-0,121

0,099

1,000

Sig.
(2-tailed)

0,669

0,000

0,000

0,000

0,000

0,017

0,051

.

QC3

Correlation
Coefficient

-0,085

-0,297

-0,363

0,496

0,507

-0,175

0,065

0,584

1,000

Sig.
(2-tailed)

0,093

0,000

0,000

0,000

0,000

0,001

0,200

0,000

.

(a) Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); Correlation is
significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); Strength of Correlation:     Moderate         Weak.

Table 9. Estimates of Spearman's linear correlation coefficients(a)
between environmental impacts (QA1, QA2, QA3), social impacts (QB1, QB2, QB3)
and economic impacts (QC1, QC2, QC3)

Source: own authorship (2021).

There
is a strong and positive correlation between QB1 and QB2; indicating that by
increasing the negative perception about potential risks to the health and
well-being of the community caused by the provision of services by the
companies (QB1), it also increases the negative perception about actions to
minimize the risks to the human rights of the community caused by the operations
of the companies (QB2). According to the residents'
perception, it is noticed that few actions are carried out by port companies in
the concern with health, well-being and human rights of the community. López-Bermúdez et al., (2019) describe that among the practices
of the Environmental Management System of companies, health and safety
protection for both workers and the community must be included.

There is a moderate and positive correlation
between QC2 with QB1 and QB2; indicating that increasing the negative
perception about social projects of companies in the community (QC2), also
increases the negative perception about risks to the health and well-being of
the community (QB1) and actions of companies to minimize risks to human rights
(QB2). According to Vejvar et al. (2018), concerning economic
aspect of port companies, the indicators to be considered should include job
creation, local economic development, and investment of financial resources in
social projects.

There is a moderate and positive correlation
between QC3 and QB1, QB2 and QC2; indicating that by increasing the negative
perception of land transport services by companies that cause economic impacts
in the municipality (QC3), it also increases the negative perception of: risks
to the health and well-being of the community (QB1); corporate actions to
minimize risks to human rights (QB2); and social projects of companies in the community
(QC2). The study by Jardas, Schiozzi
and Smojver (2020), portrays that
internal policies in port companies are necessary to avoid economic
impacts in inhabited regions. Among these practices, there is the installation
of sound barriers at the edges of the housing areas and the frequent cleaning
of asphalt due to the spillage of loads.

5 CONCLUSION

This study presented the results of a
bibliographic review and data collection on the perception of the local
community of a specific region regarding environmental, social and economic
impacts of port companies’ activities. The hypotheses were tested based on the
resident’s profile in terms of gender, age, education level and years the
residents live in the town. In addition, the tests determined whether there is
a significant correlation among the variables. The result showed that the
negative perception is statistically different in terms of gender, age and
years the residents live in the town. In correlation, categories of economic
and social impacts are significantly and positively related.

Gender of residents is one variable of
influence in the negative perception of the environmental impact generated by
port companies; the gender analysis implies that women have a more critical
view of dust emission, vehicle traffic and noise emission in the region due to
the operations of companies when compared to men. The older age of residents
influences the negative perception of the economic impact generated by port
companies, which implies that companies invest little financial resources in
projects that benefit the community for older people, such as employment and
education programs. The variable of years
residents live in the town influences the negative perception of the
social and economic impacts generated by port companies. This implies that the
more years the residents live in the town, the greater the negative impact concerning
quality of life of the community (social impact) and structural damage, such as
noise, damage to asphalt, pollution from cargo spillage (economic impact).

This result made the companies and local
community in the town aware why some residents are showing a negative
perception about the sustainability of port companies. By looking from
sustainable development point of view, port companies can correctly integrate
environmental, social and economic methods into their operations. All companies
can have the least negative impact on the local community. Therefore, the
contribution of all those involved in port activities (stakeholders) is
necessary to achieve indicators of environmental, social and economic control.
The indicators assessed include the environment, human rights, security and
protection. Notably, the assessment of sustainability performance must include
internal sustainability practices (companies) and external collaboration
(community). Among the consequences caused by the communication failure between
port, company and community is the main challenge faced in order to deal with
the social impact, the quality of life of the community that resides in a
specific region.

This study only covered only residents of a
single town in Brazil. The survey can be extended by capturing the data for
other port cities in Brazil to compare with the data from this survey. More so,
it  encourages extending the research to
residents of other countries with ports to enable the gathering of more
samples.

REFERENCES

AEN. Agência de Notícias do Paraná. (2020). Porto
de Paranaguá: Histórico.
Available in:
http://www.aen.pr.gov.br/modules/noticias/article.php?storyid=101470&tit=Porto-de-Paranagua-faz-84-anos-neste-domingo.
Accessed on March 10,
2021.

Beleya, P., Veerappan, G., Ding, W. J., & Tan,
J. (2020). Challenges in attaining sustainable development goals in port Klang:
Port management perspective. International
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 9(1), 349–355.

Bjerkan, K. Y., & Seter, H. (2019).
Reviewing tools and technologies for sustainable ports: Does research enable
decision making in ports? Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 72, 243–260.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.05.003

Chen, C., & Lam, J.
S. L. (2018). Sustainability
and interactivity between cities and ports: a two-stage data envelopment
analysis (DEA) approach. Maritime Policy
and Management, 45(7), 944–961.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2018.1450528

Cheon, S., Maltz, A., & Dooley, K. (2017).
The link between economic and environmental performance of the top 10 U.S.
ports. Maritime Policy and Management, 44(2),
227–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2016.1275860

Di Vaio, A., Varriale, L., & Alvino, F.
(2018). Key performance indicators for developing environmentally sustainable
and energy efficient ports: Evidence from Italy. Energy Policy, 122, 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.07.046

Ethos Institute. (2017). Indicadores Ethos para Negócios Sustentáveis
e Responsáveis. São Paulo. https://www.ethos.org.br/conteudo/indicadores/

Franco, L. S.; Doliveira,
S. L. D.; Franco, A. C. (2020). Desenvolvimento Sustentável e o Transporte
Urbano em países da América do Sul: uma revisão sistemática. Revista Metropolitana de Sustentabilidade, 10(3),
p.159-181.

Hossain, T., Adams, M.,
& Walker, T. R. (2019). Sustainability
initiatives in Canadian ports. Marine
Policy, 106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103519

Hui, F. K. P., Aye, L., & Duffield, C. F.
(2019). Engaging employees with good sustainability: Key performance indicators
for dry ports. Sustainability (Switzerland),
11(10).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102967

IBGE. Instituito
Brasileiro de Geografia de Estatística. (2019). Porto
de Paranaguá Catálogo. Available in:
https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/index.php/biblioteca-catalogo?
view=detalhes&id=449759. Accessed on March 12, 2021.

Jansen, M., van Tulder, R., & Afrianto, R.
(2018). Exploring the conditions for inclusive port development: the case of
Indonesia. Maritime Policy and
Management, 45(7), 924–943. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2018.1472824

Jardas, M., Schiozzi, D., & Smojver, Z.
(2020). Application of Multi-Criteria Analysis of Determining Sea Port
Development Models in the Spatial Concept of a Town, Based on the Example of
the Town of Rovinj. Tehnicki
Vjesnik-Technical Gazette, 27(1), 297–307.
https://doi.org/10.17559/TV-20181116194755

Kang, D., & Kim, S. (2017). Conceptual
model development of sustainability practices: The case of port operations for
collaboration and governance. Sustainability
(Switzerland), 9(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122333

Kim, S., & Chiang, B. G. (2017). The role
of sustainability practices in international port operations: an analysis of
moderation effect. Journal of Korea
Trade, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/JKT-03-2017-0025

Laerhoven, F. V., & Barnes, C. (2014).
Communities and commons: the role of community development support in
sustaining the commons. Community
Development Journal, 49(1), 118-132. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsu005

Lawer, E. T., Herbeck, J., & Flitner, M.
(2019). Selective adoption: How port authorities in Europe and West Africa
engage with the globalizing “green port” idea. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(18).
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11185119

Linder, A. (2018). Explaining shipping company
participation in voluntary vessel emission reduction programs. Transportation Research Part D: Transport
and Environment, 61, 234–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.07.004

López-Bermúdez, B.,
Freire-Seoane, M. J., & Nieves-Martínez, D. J. (2019). Port efficiency in Argentina from 2012 to 2017: An
ally for sustained economic growth. Utilities
Policy, 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2019.100976

Lozano, R., Fobbe, L., Carpenter, A., &
Sammalisto, K. (2019). Analysing sustainability changes in seaports:
Experiences from the Gävle Port Authority. Sustainable
Development, 27(3), 409–418. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1913

Manteaw, B. (2008). From tokenism to social
justice: rethinking the bottom line for sustainable community development. Community Development Journal, 43(4),
428-443. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsm015

Marzi, B., & Logozar, K. (2019).
Cooperation Between a Port and Local Community In Light of Sustainable
Development. European Journal of
Sustainable Development, 8(4, SI), 337–346.
https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2019.v8n4p337

Md Sapry, H. R., Umar, F. H., Ahmad, A. R.,
& Baskaran, S. (2020). Investigating implementation of green port
initiative at johor port berhad. International
Journal of Advanced Trends in Computer Science and Engineering, 9(1.1
Special Issue), 80–84. https://doi.org/10.30534/ijatcse/2020/1591.12020

Muafi. (2017). From company reputation to
environmental performance. The context of corporate social responsibility port
manager in Indonesia. Journal of
Environmental Management and Tourism, 8(7), 1386–1398. https://doi.org/10.14505/jemt.v8.7(23).08

Newton, S. T., Fast, H.,
& Henley, T. (2002). Sustainable
development for Canada’s Arctic and Subarctic communities: A backcasting
approach to Churchill, Manitoba. Arctic, 55(3), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic711

Pugliano, G., Benassai,
G., & Benassai, E. (2019). Integrating
urban and port planning policies in a sustainable perspective: the case study
of Naples historic harbour area. Planning
Perspectives, 34(5), 827–847. https://doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2018.1455068

Schrobback, P., & Meath, C. (2020).
Corporate sustainability governance: Insight from the Australian and New
Zealand port industry. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120280

Severo, E. A, Guimarães, J. C. F, Dellarmelin,
M. L, & Ribeiro, RP (2019). The Influence of Social Networks on
Environmental Awareness and the Social Responsibility of Generations. Brazilian Business Review, 16(5),
500-518. https://doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2019.16.5.5

Taherdoost, H. (2016). Validity and
Reliability of the Research Instrument; How to Test the Validation of a
Questionnaire/Survey in a Research. International
Journal of Academic Research in Management (IJARM), 5(1), 27-36.

Vejvar, M., Lai, K.-H., Lo, C. K. Y., &
Fürst, E. W. M. (2018). Strategic responses to institutional forces pressuring
sustainability practice adoption: Case-based evidence from inland port
operations. Transportation Research Part
D: Transport and Environment, 61, 274–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.08.014